The "master/slave" conditioning versus The Batman/ Bruce Wayne Duality

People tell us all the time that we can't do something. I am here to say that we can.



According to the configuration space intepretation of quantum mechanics, the world of our perception is just a projection of an incredibly high dimensional configuration space. Again, this interpretation of quantum mechanics is realist in that the space of all configurations has its existence and properties quite independent from our observations. But once again, this configuration space is perceptually inaccessible to us — we can only see the effects it has within our much smaller three-dimensional space. The upshot, as before, is that if you really believe quantum mechanics, then you believe that the physical world outruns our perceptions of it.

-What Does Quantum Mechanics Suggest About Our Perceptions Of Reality?



The fundamental starting point for this alternative paradigm has to be speculations about Universal Consciousness as laid out in the Vedanta of Indian Philosophy.

“The identity between the world and Brahman is explained. On this ground that all is known when the “one” is known is accounted for. Since all entities are real only as the effects of Brahman and as ensouled by Brahman, it has been said, “That is True”. In no other way are they real. Just as, in the illustration of clay and its products, the products are real only as of the nature of clay, even so the world is only as sustained by the indwelling Brahman. [10]

The universal, omniscient backdrop of Brahman as the primary stage for all further acts and scenes of the evolutionary drama, Maya, as described in Vedanta, explains the onset of the multiple layers of differentiated Consciousness, Mind, Brain, Matter, actually in the reverse, as manifestations, that are distinct and yet one and the same as the original consciousness. A logical fallacy it would seem but defended as follows. “The signfication of an identical entity by several terms which are applied to that entity on different grounds is coordinated predication. In the illustration of (say) a Purple Robe, the basic substance is one and the same, though purpleness and robeness are different from it as well as from each other. That is how the unity of a Purple Robe is established. The central principle is that whatever exists as an attribute of a substance, that being inseparable from the substance is one with that substance.” [11]

-Global Consciousness, Global Mind, Global Brain.

I interpret this title question to mean that reality is absence of separation. It is all inclusive, hence nothing (infinite possibility, or UBT) is outside of reality. So all the objects that I observe should not be seen as the reality, because they are separate. It is only through the "I am that" that oneself is viewed as reality, and all appearing abstract and concrete objects, including body, thoughts, space and time are not separate from each other. If they were, it would be the "unreal definition of reality" which is referred to in the ctmu.



"He is the source of light in all luminous objects. He is beyond the darkness of matter and is unmanifested. He is knowledge, He is the object of knowledge, and He is the goal of knowledge. He is situated in everyone's heart." (BG 13.18)

If we attain the pure awareness of reality and oneself then one can attain self-perception.

Question for discussion:

Should Batman really find it necessary to go through all of this to fight crime?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do we have to constantly go to the " quantum " world to have a sense of reality ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So this actually just another 'reality is' thread. Why the videos, they have nothing to do with the thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read it again.

 

No.

 

I would say on a regular basis, yes. It is mind influencing reality.

 

How though ? Since reality is macro-based .

Galaxies .....on down to planets.

 

We are local, God is global. Our minds cannot influence the world beyond our immediate perception. I am not speaking of telekinesis (moving objects with the mind) or affecting objects with thought. I am speaking of God relating to one through light (i.e. mind influencing reality). Recall that ultimately reality is not matter, but a vast unified field.

Here is a part of a paper that was published earlier this year in ISIS Summit Vienna 2015—The Information Society at the Crossroads

There is then the problem of Consciousness. If we allow for the possibility that Global Mind is a moving, provisional construction and not a thing in itself, what about the notion of Global Consciousness? Once again, reverting to the current findings on individual human consciousness can help. “Understanding consciousness requires the consideration of the “movie in the brain” that we create on an ongoing basis and the “self” that is participating, observing and owns the movie in the brain. Current research points to the fact that “ the idea of spectator is constructed within the movie, and no ghostly homunculus haunts the theater. Objective brain processes knit the subjectivity of the conscious mind out of the cloth of sensory mapping. And because the most fundamental sensory mapping pertains to body states and is imaged as feelings, the sense of self in the act of knowing emerges as a special kind of feeling-the feeling of what happens in an organism caught in the act of interacting with an object.” [6] In other words, there is no specific thing identifiable as “self”, the conscious observer, as such the act of being conscious is also a provisional construction. It should be obvious that this can be extended to incorporate and accept the notion of “Global Consciousness” operating with individual brains acting as collaborating creators of the movie. Otherwise, if we were to insist on “this notion of a homunculus – a little person inside each self-leads only to a paradox, then, that inner self requires yet another movie screen inside itself, on which to project what it has seen, and then to watch that play within a play – we would need another self inside a self..” [7]

(...)

As Prof. Erwin Laszlo puts it, “The Indian Vedic tradition regards consciousness not as an emergent property that comes into existence through material structures such as the brain and the nervous system, but as a vast field that constitutes the primary reality of the universe. In itself, this field is unbounded and undivided by objects and individual experiences. Underlying the diversified and localized gross layers of ordinary consciousness there is a unified, non-localized and subtle layer: Pure Consciousness.” [14]

- Global Consciousness, Global Mind, Global Brain.

 

Quantum mechanics is not a universal excuse for woo.

 

Don't you have some rakes to hit your face with while stepping on?

 

I can do that while correcting you at the same time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Don't you have an intelligent response to my post?

 

It is if you're a clueless idiot.

 

Good for you.

What does a cut-and-paste about a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics have to do with the subject line, which suggests somebody's rather Hegelian interpretation of the Batman stories?

"Has to be"? Why? What "alternative paradigm"?

What intellectual value is there in imagining that everything is one, mushing everything together and ignoring all distinctions? That sounds like a path that would make all thought impossible.

And a little theistic devotional bit from the Bhagavad Gita tossed in for effect, I guess.

I don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about. What do quantum mechanics, "ctmu" and your own speculations about Oneness have to do with Batman fighting crime or with Hegel's master/slave dialectic?

 

The many are clueless.

Not because of their intellect but because of lazyness of mind and body.

 

Quantum Mechanics is not only used in the context of the Batman stories, but Batman himself is a Quantum particle. His martial arts, his keen scientific knowledge, his cunning and his wit.

If you read the Vedas you'll come to the same conclusion I came to not too long ago; that two things are different because they are reductively the same, namely that they are both real. That, as you already know, is the concept of syndiffeonesis.

This is where you are wrong Yazata. All hearts and all minds are one. Even though separated by an emergent spacetime reality.

It is either that one is a slave (like spidergoat or [insert some ignorant and stupid sciforum member here]) to some misguided master, or one stands alone as a paragon of the human species knowing and inventing whatever contributes to the greater good (such as Batman or Superman).

 

The master slave is god. You know this spellbound; of course.

 

Yes. But most of the slaves (puppets) do not question who their master is.

 

True

And fatal in the end for Humanity.

 

Taken from Common CTMU Objections and Replies:

The universe is only material.

• Reality consists of more than material objects; it also possesses aspects that cannot be reduced to matter alone. For example, space and time are relations of material objects that cannot be localized to the individual objects themselves, at least as locality is generally understood; they are greater than the objects they relate, permitting those objects to interact in ways that cannot be expressed solely in terms of their individual identities. Equivalently, we cannot reduce the universe to a set of material objects without providing a medium (spacetime) in which to define and distribute the set. It follows that spacetime possesses a level of structure defying materialistic explanation. Indeed, insofar as they possess spatiotemporal extension, so do material objects!

 

WTF?? In what way are those things even quantum, let alone resulting in Batman being a quantum particle???

So you're saying that things are different because they are reductively the same??? Have you been smoking something??

I assure you that my heart and mind are my own, and will cease when I die (heart transplant not withstanding).

Then you class yourself as a slave, in your case sseemingly to Langan and his CTMU. Of the descriptions you put forward, for you one is certainly apt.