Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Or can I?

Expand Messages
  • Dick.
    Or can I? [ I think - in my opinion that is - we have reached a dead end on this issue with respect to the views held by both Dick and Ram. The
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 29, 2012
      Or can I?

      [ I think - in my opinion that is - we have reached a dead end on this
      issue with respect to the views held by both Dick and Ram. The
      incommensurability lies in the totally different conceptions of both of
      them. But only one of them can be correct: either Dick is correct and he
      saw the Reality (or an aspect of the greater reality) behind the form we
      call the universe or Ram is correct and which implies that Dick's
      experience was just subjective and possibly illusory.

      Dick's views to a large extent coincide with my views as expressed
      extensively about ultimate reality and solving the
      mind-body/consciousness problem in one of my books.

      So I am not going to go through a proof of my ideas etc. and they can be
      read or ignored by anyone, read and understood or read and not really
      understood (I will send anyone a pdf if required)! We are all free to
      strike our own path - to our detriment or benefit. However, there are
      some points that need to be mentioned or stressed in this discussion
      between Ram and Dick to sort out apples from oranges so that our
      thinking becomes clear on this issue.

      Firstly, in the most recent critique by Ram of questioning Dick's
      experience the critique at the outset or assumption assumes a
      materialist position. The assumption is that the mind cannot be
      independent of the brain and the Dick is criticised based on the
      assumption that the mind cannot be 'separated' from the body. Therefore
      it is concluded by Ram that any experience from that 'separated' mind
      must really only be an effect of the neuronal/chemical effects or what
      have you and has nothing to do or does not prove that there is the
      ultimate reality. Dick on the other hand gives a first hand account of
      his 'experience' that he claims transcends this universe of matter and
      energy. What I think Dick is saying, and which I have extensively
      covered myself in #1 is that when the 'mind' traverses beyond this
      universe there is no such thing as time and that one does not have to be
      dead i.e. die and not come back) to know this and experience it. His
      view, exactly like mine, is that the brain is just a switchgear whose
      activation lies elsewhere. Whereas I with him, identify it with the
      Ground of Being, and have called this using my co-author's term
      "objectless space", 'It' could be called other things. There has to be a
      plane from which everything starts and that which must be the basis
      plane, for else we end up with what I define as the 'Stop' problem or
      the impossibility of us being here because of the problem of infinite
      regress. This is not just a speculative point or theory but a logical
      one - I mean like 1+1=2. I would challenge anybody to refute it (after
      reading the source mentioned above (one of my books) and properly
      understand what is being said - I can help clarify it if required). So
      all of that establishes the basis plane. This is important because what
      it is saying is that the originated and originator cannot be the same
      thing, the creator and created cannot be the same thing. They – the
      creator and created - are not only different in degree but also in kind,
      and one 'issues forth' from the other. Again the issuing forth cannot be
      of B arising from A having the same properties or Essence as A, the
      reason being: if A is the basis plane from which all arises then it
      cannot be of the same property as B. So B must be some form of 'product'
      from the transcendent 'A'. And if B has subcomponents B1 (body/partcles
      etc.) and B2 (mind) then one has to explain how B, which `issues
      forth' from the basis plane A (the ground of being, or the ultimate
      ground of doing) precisely differs from A and by what mechanism B
      `arises from A. (I have covered/answered all this in details
      elsewhere). Once these things are realized then the universal
      understanding of how existence operates enables one to understand
      Dick's position, because there is a mechanism for it. Now whether
      Dick is delusional, lying or telling the truth there has to be the realm
      that he is talking about. I have no reason to believe he is either
      delusional or lying but what he is saying that is experientially based
      from a first person perspective and fits in with a proof that is
      actually based on logic and the nature of the universe. We should expect
      all these different strands of proof to coincide. Truth is convergent.
      In Ram's DAMv model in order to primarily resolve the
      `dualism' between matter and mind he posits an entity that has
      the property of both. He believes that it has to be because of
      `brute force' and has the least problems. However, as pointed
      above, the originator (the basis plane, ultimate ground of being)
      cannot be one and the same: The basis plane must be:

      One, unique and indivisible

      Everything of limited nature depends on it for existence

      It does not beget its own mini essences.

      It is totally incomparable.

      Therefore DAMv has a major problem and is not based on a foundational
      analysis (bottom to up) but from top to down. I mean if there is a crack
      in the walls the problem might lie in the foundation and that has to be
      examined. If we say that the problem is in the concrete material and use
      some other concrete to patch up the area we end with cracks again
      because that is not the root problem. But once the foundation is tackled
      and resolved then all else flows logically. So although DAMv does bring
      in consciousness and in that sense brings half the solution, half the
      solution does not resolve the problem but leads to inconsistencies. Once
      the body and mind are seen as Mind products of the ground of
      being/GroundOf Doing then `dualism' as such does not arise; the
      issue of `souls' floating around does not arise at point of
      death emanating from the body and once the `personality' is
      initiated/created as a thought product of the ground of being it
      resolves all the basic problems that separate science from religion,
      atheistic-valid rational points from theistic-valid-rational points etc.
      This is what Buddha, Muhammad, Jesus and other luminaries too were all
      talking about but humanity missed and is missing the boat. In usurping
      this rational and at the same time `mystic' position as defined
      by Dick (in terms of personal empirical proof) humanity has and is being
      manipulated by those who have more power and then, not only that but
      these powers have an internecine conflict too, thus exacerbating the
      problem. Because they (human beings for the large part) have missed the
      boat they cannot get to their destination. That does not mean all
      questions are answered but the basic framework is and we can now start
      to put in the bricks and windows etc. Its time we all started building
      from the foundation and become the brick layers!


      Nadeem Haque ]

      It is SAFE to say `in my opinion' is it not. I have been
      banned from groups and discussions for claiming to KNOW a few things. It
      is EVIL to KNOW something isn't it. Hey, what do you know, the sun
      has just come out here. That ISNT an opinion it is what is happening
      here and I am reporting it – not preaching it. It might be raining
      or night time where you are; but the sun is shining here. Ipso Facto.

      I like to say to folks `tell me what you know, not what you
      don't know'. But they don't seem to understand it :- ))))))

      Tell you another thing too. From Hindsight I know what I knew and
      understood when I was ten. I also know what I did not know and
      understand when I was ten. The wonder of hindsight eh. But I cannot go
      back and tell that ten year old what he did not know. Or can I??? They
      don't seem to know sod all about the subconscious machine shop do
      they. I wonder why that is? No, I don't really wonder why at all.
      Nor is it an opinion.


      Dick Richardson

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.