image description image description

LATEST CONVERSATIONS: Empiric vs. Noetic

The combination of Science and Nondualism is somewhat misleading, because it implies the meeting of two apparently opposite positions. It’s promise being that if polarities make contact, then there is creation of new knowledge. That is how I have read it, but I’m maybe missing a point there.
If so, take no note of the following.

If I’m reading it right-ish, I would like to tweak that Science – Nondualism relation a bit. The idea that polarities must contact to make progress is without exception spot on. I have made a previous post about why it is so and why there is no way out of that. But the opposite poles are, in this case, not Science and Nondualism.
The one opposite is Empirical Science, the other is Noetic Science.
The quality of ES being; body, observable, objective, hard, absolute, male, positive, linear, yang, form, induction and future (and more).
The quality of NS being; mind, invisible, subjective, soft, relative, female, negative, circular, yin, formless, deduction and history (and more).

So where does Nondualism show up? I have only been here for a little while, but I get the impression that a lot of energy is wasted on this very question – Is Nondualism about this or that? Is it in favour of ES or NS, physical or mental and which scientists are the most nondualistic, and what scientist is completely missing the point. Is it just me or do you recognize similar debates here in this community? I would like to make this visible in a picture, but words will have to do for now. My lunch break is soon over anyway, so here’s the quick and dirty Nondualism 101.

Nondualism (ND) has no position on the scales of polarity. As soon as you try to pin it down, it disappears. It is the oscillating between the poles that is ND. It is neither this, nor that. It has no preferences because it knows fully the consequences of solidifying a particular position. It knows the particle/particular will dissolve into wavelike nothingness and disappear. It knows that wavelike nothingness is always there when you are not looking for it. ND knows the absolute worth of the relative as well as the relative absence of worth in the absolute. Therefore, it has no place on either side. ND taking one side or the other is not possible because that position is already, per definition, occupied by a positive or a negative. ND is the moving between polarities and it is done by everything all the time.
This linear moving between poles create excitement (from Latin excitare “rouse, call out, summon forth, produce,” frequentative of exciere “call forth, instigate,” from ex- “out” (see ex-) + ciere “set in motion), and that which is called forth/produced is something non-linear. It becomes the next generation, the evolutionary stepping up from the previous position. The line between what was opposite polarities is no longer there, but a new point is appearing above and thus we’re up one level. In that way, existence expands in all directions and becomes spheric and unbreakable. For that we only need one dimension which is Space. Energy goes horizontally, vertically and from here to there, and that’s it. Every linearity has two poles, oscillation between them creates surplus energy for the creation of something new, and when that happens, the old polarized end positions are gone. The new creation starts as one point, as IT. Having the inherent property of its parents, it expands in a linear fashion and by doing so it develops new polarized end positions.
Oscillate, generate and dissolve ad infinitum.

ND is the wisdom in knowing the importance and irrelevance of not-knowing.
ND is the wisdom in knowing that empty ignorance and forms of knowledge are equally important.
ND is knowing that the knower of Nonduality knows nothing.
(and more)

I my self cannot be a “Nondualist” because I can only be my self, which of course is also no-self. But hopefully being wise, I can let my own opinions guide me to this or that position, and then let go of My subjective “truth” and be attracted by the opposite. In such a way, my holding on and letting go will be oscillation (non-dual motion) itself, and I can generate new knowledge.
I will argue, as subjective self, just to build up tension enough. You know the sense of contracting when sticking to a one-sided position, don’t you? When rigid and exhausted enough, I let go and gravity will do the rest. There is a closing that opens up, and a surge of surplus energy. It will create.
To me, ND is that event of oscillation, the linear becoming the circular point of progress, becoming a new linear and thus being part of spheric expansion/progress.

If we think of ND as a position, our ideas will in time become dead currency and there will be tension and conflict within the community. Every idea firmly held in place will produce this tension. It just happens that way because we are basically derivate of light, and that is the functional property of light. That is how it moves about, in linear fashion without particular location. It is nowhere and everywhere. Only a greater density can stop it, and if we’re dense enough we end up in a black hole. That is probably where our fear of black holes comes from. We fear our enlightenment, our light form, will be swallowed by dense stupidity.
If you have followed my short ToE as presented above, you will have a pretty good idea of concepts like singularity, Big Bang and Infinity, so fear not the Black Holes. Everything starts at a single point and time goes back and forth.

My mistake (this time) might be that Science should be understood as knowledge and Nonduality as ignorance/not-knowing. That is indeed an interesting polarity between “thinking one knows” and “knowing one thinks”. In either case, my ramblings above re-presents my absolute position of being relatively free.

With that said, none of this is absolute truth, none of it is relatively true. It is just what happened to this Me right here, and it will inevitably dissolve in all directions.
It is already gone.
It is everywhere.

May we allow ourselves to be attracted by what we fear.

Empiric vs. Noetic

Please select the social network you want to share this page with:

We like you too :)

Psychologist, ultrarunner, meditator, hyperactive, synthesizer, speculator, 4-timesfather, non-dual, academic, slacker,drummer, dreamer, jester, scientific, terrific, spaced-out, down to earth average guy.

close

14 Responses to “Empiric vs. Noetic”

  1. October 16, 2014 at 1:36 am, Mit Jones said:

    Thank you for taking the time to write down the condensed version of your Theory of everything, I have shared a number of your incites over the years in my quest to come to a complete understanding.

    I consider coming to the realization that I am not in a position to KNOW anything my greatest achievement, followed by realizing there is no truth in an illusion, for illusion is based on deception.

    Once one realizes it all an illusion everything else is just describing the trick.

    • October 16, 2014 at 9:57 am, Oscillate said:

      Thanks Mit, that resonates. My task seems to be the/my explaining of how this happens. It is a curse and a blessing and of course none of that. Most of all, it is what appears when I write about it.
      Before letting go completly, I prefered to take side with the opinion that it cannot be communicated because it is “unspeakable”. When I let go of that opinion about what is possible or not, I found out that it communicates itself. Reality it seems does not care for my subjective ideas about speakable/unspeakable. It just smiles and says: Not That, Not Not-That, stop trying to choose, stop stopping trying to choose, whatever You do is half, go all in and just do it.

      • October 18, 2014 at 11:46 am, Mit Jones said:

        I asked Spirit, what can I do, when I do not know, what’s really true

        It’s all illusion,not what it seems, There is no truth within a dream

        You search for truth that can not be, when you awake truth will find thee

      • October 18, 2014 at 11:50 am, Mit Jones said:

        There are many paths to enlightenment but they all start with self reflection.

        I
        suspect you feel compelled to write your thoughts down and analyze them
        (sometimes at 3:00 AM) the reason I say this is I have been doing that
        for many years.and much of your writing runs parallel to many things I
        have written.

        I felt as you do that there was a reason for it
        and it was my job to explain it. That idea is still with me but I
        realized unless I could come to a complete understanding I truly
        couldn’t explain it. And then I asked the question “explain it to who?
        When you find that answer to that, you will find yourself searching for
        answers — at that point stop and ask, who is asking the question–
        don’t give up until you find that one — it is more important the the
        answer.

        love always

        • October 19, 2014 at 9:38 pm, Oscillate said:

          So I’m trying to stop my Self again. I never seem to learn. I always seem to consider my Self as not bright enough. Oh well, it’s good the little leaves have some wind to them, arguing which is leafigest and green is who treeness in nondoobie doo-alism.

          It’s a bummer when the hand won’t scratch its mosquito bite. Our cats will sleep at our sun oh you green little spirit leaf. Can you feel the ground shake?

          • October 20, 2014 at 1:22 pm, Mit Jones said:

            IMHO, There are times when you speak from the heart and then there are times when you speak from the mind.

            It is the mind that tells you, you are not bright enough. Your mind wants to keep you in the game and as long as you identify with it you will be. If you understand the mind as we know it could not have existed before language you will see you are not that.

            There is a grand play being played out you have been blessed with this part you call your life, It comes with all the make up and wardrobe, we call that the body/mind, as long as you identify that, as who you are you will be the actor on the stage.

            I can only speak from my own experience and what I have observed and that is; there is a universe defined by an energy in motion, this motion is what creates existence. Within that existence a story is being told each of us has a part that will play out you are not the writer of the play or your part. But you can have a choice as to how you relate to the story.

          • October 20, 2014 at 8:59 pm, Oscillate said:

            So I’m having an opinion again, and a humble one too. They are the most deceptive ones, wouldn’t I agree?
            Even worse, I’m having “my own” experience. Jeez I’m becoming greedy.
            I better MU this or I’ll soon have to “choose” how to “relate” to experience as “Mine”.
            Indeed, dualistic reasoning is a part of me. My foot has fallen asleep it seems. I’d like to wake it up by putting it in a bucket of ice.
            Am I not freezing a bit?

          • October 21, 2014 at 3:26 am, Mit Jones said:

            If we are still involved in the same conversation then the opinion you seem to have is you are not “bright enough” I don’t know how that idea serves you but If that is truly the position you wish to take, I will concede.

            As to your foot, your body will sense the coldness, you are not the body. There are many who can disassociate themselves from cold and pain they simply don’t identify with it, so weather you freeze a bit is really up to you.

            I apologize, I didn’t mean to step on your theory,

            Your original writing displayed a depth of thought which I still appreciate.

          • October 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm, Oscillate said:

            So tell me, why did Bodhidharma go to the east?
            ANSWER ME NOW!

          • October 22, 2014 at 8:33 pm, Mit Jones said:

            So tell me, why did Bodhidharma go to the east?
            ANSWER ME NOW!

            I now understand your point and I believe perhaps our
            disconnect. I was not aware of the teachings of Bodhidharma until you pointed him out and asked the question, which I couldn’t answer without reference .

            I have found and briefly read a number passages accredited to Bodhidharama which I relate to on many levels. The writings I have read use the word “mind” in an all encompassing all inclusive manner as many eastern traditions tend to do. He does not differentiate between the conditioned mind and the intuitive mind even though he speaks of the sensual mind or emotional mind as not being the real mind.

            From what I feel I understood I would call the emotional or sensual mind the personal or body/mind. In the manner in which he uses the word “mind” and sometimes substitutes it for the aware mind I might substitute the word awareness or consciousness.

            We all have different experiences and in many cases
            different beliefs, NO ONE is really in a position to KNOW anything so from my point of view I have felt it necessary to develop and understanding as you have felt it necessary to develop your TOE.

            I mean no disrespect when I state an opinion based on my
            understanding and what I believe based on my experience, that is all I have.

            Here is a Question for you.
            What was Mind before language ???

          • October 22, 2014 at 8:50 pm, Oscillate said:

            Knowing without knowing knowing

          • October 22, 2014 at 9:13 pm, Oscillate said:

            and whatever you say, I say too. Whatever I say, you say too. You see, when we talk, it is existence talking to itself. Only our forms acting AS IF subjects believe that they’re doing that. We are being done and our so called awareness is just a reflection of what just happened. Every one of your thoughts is already made up when it gets to the surface. The thinking goes on 24/7, even when you sleep. Our thinking is flawed because the first think we learn is the paradox of diexis Me-You that creates the illusion of separation. On that we build all of out thought. W/o that we would be autistic, non-relational. Self is a move by evolution to render us a sense of agency that in reality is an illusion. It has been to a great benefit, as most evolutionary adaptions are, but it is beginning to backlash. That is why times are-a-gonna change. We will soon see separate self as it is, a lucky move by nature. But nature is functional enough to have us see that before it kills us. That is why we’re here, to make that change happen. We have no choise because you and me are governed by the whole thing.
            You see that? We are Bodhidharma, there is no reason, it happened to him as it happens to us. He didn’t think about anything,it was thought for him. The form Bodhi was just the form expressing that, but forms come and go. We’re coming and going as forms of existence, but exsistence itslef is always there, the scource produces new forms w/o the forms controling that.
            Do you know how you exist, as an object with awareness of what happens to your form within that forms environment?
            We are not here as us, but as variations of a theme listening to it’s own compositions.
            It’s a beautiful one and we just are played our parts.
            Listen…

          • October 23, 2014 at 12:23 pm, Mit Jones said:

            Your answer to my question could not have been better, it says it all, and that mind does not change.

  2. December 05, 2014 at 5:25 pm, Andrew Brodis said:

    ES – Limited to “interpretations of observations”

    NS – “Interpretations of interpretations”

    ND – “Interpretations of interpretations of observations”

Leave a Reply

image description image description

Thanks To Our Sponsors