iratik's Xanga

Gestalt's Dharmachakra

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:59:39 GMT

God isn't dead, God is the universe. Explaining the universe and God doesn't help me a bit though. I was still sad. The Dharma helped me understand myself. Now, The Buddha, God's corpse, The universe and I are all quite happy.

Atheism

God is not dead as the phrase "God is dead" implies. Of course, Nietzsche was speaking of God within his sociocultural context. IMO, Atheism was an exit for me. An exit from the protestant-fundamentalist expectations I grew up with. It was my way of overcoming my past and evolving into what I perceived as Ubermensch.

At that time I saw belief in God as a source of internal-struggle. I went from being fairly well adjusted living at home and going to church at 15 to living away from home. To reconcile my need for self-actualization , it was important that I change my definition of a "Good Man" to something I could perceive as more progressed or evolved. If I hadn't then I would have had to hold myself personally responsible for some of the terrible choices I made. Rather than deal with the emotional conflicts that lead to me moving out, I chose to change my perception of reality by experimenting with substances.

Experimenting with substances allowed me to perceive the world in a new way which I could confidently say was more well thought out than my previous system of belief. My atheism was a denial of God explained through evolution. I said that God did not create man, Man created God because faith in the unknown and inconcrete was an evolutionary necessity. Faith was a sufficient adaptation, but not necessarily an adaptation that produced rational concepts. Faith is a product of natural selection. Just like all patterns that persist, they are to at least some degree results of selection on some dimension of complexity.

Gestalt Organicism

After years of this atheism, I began to change my mind. I considered the nature of living things and came up with a theory that closely resembled Organicism and Kurt Goldstein's work on Gestalt Theory. If the behavior of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Then the nature of the universe in terms of dimensional complexity must be greater than the sum of each part. Considering the nature of human cognition and consciousness, I then determined that aggregate behavioral structure of the universe is at least in part composed of our own human consciousness. Just like neurons in our brain exhibit their individual characteristics which together make up our consciousness. So to do our consciousnesses together up the higher consciousnesses.

Atheism lead to a degree of emotional detachment and an unrealistic expectation of self-initiated deterministic outcomes. Organicism allowed me to consider that emotions had a purpose that shouldn't be counted out simply because the were remnants of adaptations necessary for survival. Organicism allowed me to consider that there were higher "meta" emotions experienced by the higher consciousness. It was during this time I came up with the idea that our purpose in life was to reciprocate the compassion and consideration the higher consciousness has extended to us.

Dharmachakra

I discovered the Dharma in 2008. I found this video by the Dalai Llama explaining the basics and became very curious. If it were not for the Dharma, I would have not been likely to have as easily discovered the roots of my own inner emotional turmoil. Up until then, I was so busy explaining my reality that I could not consider myself critically. I was simply reacting my whole life to everything. I never considered that what I do not need to explain is the metaphysical context of my existence. Explaining the world around me allowed my to objectively consider my environment, but it didn't really help me to evolve my being. My being was not really evolving in practice, because I was only re-organizing my perception of the world outside of me. I wasn't fixing myself, I was changing how I saw the world.

I learned about attachment and anatta. The concepts of samsara and the upside-down views of reality people accept to feel better about themselves. In attachment, one of 2 things can happen: Either what you are attached to will disappear, or you will disappear. I realized that I was attached to people's reaction's to me. I was attached to positive reactions to my presence and suffered when I was not validated at the right time by the right people. I held myself personally responsible for the way people didn't react like I had hoped they would react to me. Its why throughout high school I was so hard on myself, because I took things personally when I couldn't get the response from my classmates that I had hoped for. When their perception of me went out of control, I suffered more and more.

My first girlfriend Katrina didn't like a few things about me, I changed them and she must have seen me as passive and too insecure to be with long term and she broke up with me. I did drugs for years as an entry into social circles and a way to initiate drug-dependent relationships to fuel my need for social validation. I took this so far it went out of control. I used drugs to gain acceptance in situations where no acceptance was possible by being perceived as a drug user. I guess I was hoping that only the un-enlightened would see me as cool and eventually everyone would see the light of drugs. I was pretty wrong about that one.

When I left Drury and started working, I was attached to my suggestions and initiatives. Those suggestions of others, were less valuable to me because they had less potential to feed my attachment to validating responses and encouragement. This hurt me for years in business.

In my relationships. I was attached to a need for me to be someone awesome for the other. I was attached to myself being needed to help the other person. Understandably of course, I was also attached to being loved. This savior complex proved to be a terrible premise for a relationship .

When I realized that I have no control over others, their behaviors, their responses, the way they feel about me, and then accepted it, I began to find freedom from my turmoil. I cannot save the world. I cannot get people to accept me or like me. I simply have very little influence in those chains of dependent origination. What I can do is act to benefit others altruisticly. Escape my attachment to self-concept and self-view. Escape the tomorrow and the yesterday and consider the instant. Exist without consideration or reactionary analysis to every concept that pops in my head. See what is seen, Hear what is heard and make our spirits like a clear mirror reflecting the universe harmoniously.

Friday, March 06, 2009

Fri, 06 Mar 2009 04:43:21 GMT

Remembering our TRUTH, releases our FEARS.
Releasing our fears, releases our LAUGHTER, frees us to BE Happy, JoyFULL, Appreciative, GreatFULL, Honoured, Humbled, Blessed.
Releasing our FEARS, empowers us to BE our TRUTH.

-(http://www.twitter.com/radiate)

Infinite Debt

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:31:23 GMT

I came to a point where I encountered a long forgotten pattern of emotional self destruction. I would ponder how there is no one around me, and therefore, no one cares and no one is concerned about me. I would conclude that I do not matter and ponder all my insecurities and perceived inadequacies till I would feel so bad that I would physically hurt inside and become sick.
Upon contemplating the nature of good and evil in my understanding of the world, I came to the conclusion that the greater consciousness (the aggregate of systems) in its divine mercy has given me so much .. abstract wealth. There is so much in the world that exists because of nature of our environment on this world. Its been so conducive to our flourishing as a global civilization. There is so much, aesthetic quality , even in the ugly , even in the sickening stimuli that crawl to and fro in the nether regions of my sub consciousness. There is so much expression , freely given to man. It seems to me, that even in one who is suffering to an indescribable degree, the fundamental gift of the greater consciousness to man is our individual consciousness, our position as an element of the greatest element. Our place in the grand design , regardless of how small it seems ... is still a place given , our lives are each an opportunity to change the world forever. No matter how little man has , no matter how much suffering one goes through, there is still ample providence and fortune for our potential so much that to not reciprocate this generosity, I feel is inherently the definition of spiritual death. The greater consciousness has given so much at the risk of its own destruction by the elements that together and as an aggregate, determine its nature (us). There is a loving higher consciousness out there, that regardless of what we do , or how little we acknowledge its existence, still affords to us the opportunity to be immortal through our words and actions in our time in this world.
How can I sit idly by in complacent squalor composed of those emotionally stagnant patterns of thought that in the end, hinder me and do no good to others in this world. How can I do nothing for others, when the higher consciousness has set such a grand example of relentless compassion and altruistic affection for our individuality. Its true, I feel infinitely obligated to return the favor and reciprocate all that I have been given. I should relentless express the nature of my love for the consciousness and all it has provided for me.

Computer Science and Self-Determination

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 08:35:46 GMT

I have a teacher that believes the idea that computers could be programmed to act as humans implies a threat to the idea of self-determination and more precisely, believes that a programmable consciousness would be counterintuitive.

When he speaks of AI he says that if a computer could replicate a human consciousness that such would imply that our actions are deterministic in nature, and therefore he has no decision making power.

I disagree, and I state that being programmed need not necessarily imply that there exists within us a predetermined autonomous consciousness that is void of the characteristic of true self-determination or traditional free will.

To be programmed need not indicate that one's actions are predetermined.

To be programmed is a rather flexible state of result wherein the configuration may either be fixed, or dynamic.

To say the state of configuration is fixed is to say that our decisions are pre-programmed, and our actions are determined from a "script" that defines how we are to act in many situations.

To say the state of configurations is dynamic is to say that our decisions are determined from a framework of self-determination learned from the process of survival and development.

When our configuration of cognition is dynamic, we learn to learn, and our cognitive facilities are developed according to necessity and environment. Our own cognitive facilities are unique to our experience, and each of our experiences is unique to each of us. In such a manner, each of us is unique in our decision making process and our method of conceptualizing our reality. Suffice to say, that our cognitive framework with respect to our individual lives - is unique to our experience ... and thus our decisions are unique to our own unique framework. In summary, our decisions are each our own and our will is self determined, yet may be categorized as deterministic according to our individual experiences and innate (genetically inherited) cognitive pathways and tendencies as made apparent by the sequence of events that form our historical experience of existence in each of us.

So it is possible to program a machine to be self-aware. Because self-awareness is simply the feedback of previous states analyzing the homeostatic configuration of possible conclusions with respect to the sensory and cognitive state of the previous self. This pattern of deliberation or "selection of the most suitable path to satiety" is the ultimate goal of a cognitive entity. Our way of existence, mirrors the aggregate logos of the universal affinity to order from chaotic constituency.

THe conciousness objection

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 06:31:43 GMT

It is a response to Hobbes, the consciousness objection states that consciousness is not a corporial motion, in other words, the act of self-determination and autonomous behavior cannot be explained in an entirely deterministic world. In yet more other words, mentality is fundamentally immaterial.

I believe that the idea that any act of coming to a realization implies communication between two persons in separate moments in time (unknowing previous self that determines the conclusion (the speaker of the monologue), and the knowing self that interprets and reanalyzes the conclusions of the former) - this is the idea described earlier in asynchronous duality.

based on that, we can determine that being aware of one's own consciousness is simply a byproduct of this feedback mechanism. An important byproduct that allows us to think along circular lines towards a goal that the mind sees as necessary to fulfill the deficits in satiation caused by misalignment of the environment with the higher and lower needs of the self.

Asynchronus Duality

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:19:09 GMT

I think therefore I am

If this statement is true, it implies an act of realization that one is thinking. The act of realization can be split apart into the act of internalizing an interpretation. If there exists an act of internalizing an interpretation, then there is implied two conclusions.

There is one who had not yet had the realization
The one who had not yet had the realization had an experience that caused that one to interpret a stimuli to the end that the interpretation of such stimuli became internalized within the one who had not yet had the realization, so that one could become the one after having had realization, now knowing that which has been realized

That is to say, that with the act of coming to know a given assertion, there is a source which may be from internal reason or from external experience. At any given point in a realization, there are two individuals (or more precisely, two states of existence that have in common the identity as an autonomously acting entity, yet where one exists then and one exist having understood the realizations from then and has had them integrated into a state where new knowledge has been obtained).

I propose that to come to the realization that there is thinking, there must be two beings within the one coming to such realization. The one stating the perception, and then the one evaluating the interpretation of the perception and deciding whether or not to internalize it into an assertion for itself.

ce que je crois

Fri, 11 May 2007 16:00:14 GMT

ma croyance est un croix entre le jainisme , existentialisme, humanisme , le transcendentalisme du kant et mon comprehension des apologetiques entre le monde mathematique et le monde d'esprit

tangible actions are behaviors inspired from principles grounded in one's ideological framework
without a strong ideological foundation - there is nothing to build a threshold upon and thus nothing in which to organize what we have learned from and no dwelling in which to accept to organize in a logical fashion our framework for understanding and helping others

to provide for others and further the greater good,
one must be disciplined first to provide for his/her self and learn to make measurable progress towards one's aspirations

to be disciplined, one must understand the relationship between desire and necessity
and provide first and foremost for necessity before desire and never conspire within to make desire into necessity

necessities are such things that without having or doing, become a threat to first one's before other's personal freedom to pursue enlightenment, to freely create , to provide for food, water or shelter

desires are pursuits outside of the definition of necessity

when necessities are adequately fulfiled , the needs of the many are considered as the first desire

humility is found in silent facilitation and fellowship to provide a conducive framework for the common pursuit of the betterment of the greater welfare

where violence, dishonesty, theft, lust, possessiveness, anger, arrogance, greed, hate, agitation, accusation, gossip,
criticism, and compromising one's principles in favor of abstract rationalizations to make exceptions that promote or enable the performance of any of these behaviors are sinful in the fact that the presence of these behaviors in one individual ripples throughout cause-effect relationships between people and is detrimental to the common good

because the behaviors of one have a rippling effect on the behaviors of others, to promote common enlightenment
all should aspire to desire only to enlighten one's self and others through creation, teaching, and through leading by example in one's life, and then by traveling together along a similar path - we may more effectively and efficiently conquer the mountains and valleys of the future path that affect all of us

sakes

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:23:41 GMT

like everything we hate
is embodied within everything that we praise

mistakes, stakes refuse to relate
as we look for the connection intending to co-relate

how amazing the sun shines and glows like pacified rage
amber and iron ablaze the sky cinder and smolder in flame

the night fade slowly away the day comes quickly to take it away
the same stories unfold, same chronicles untold
as they are trapped in prisons as lonely cold freezers go and stash it away

xxx

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:15:04 GMT

i stop under the sky as it rains and it
kiss,
kiss so it kiss like the rhythm of my soul shines

and i relax and i spy the sun's rise through the mist as the dawns arrows are hitting my eyes
in existence i persist and i'm fucking terrific as shit

here i happily am as i in ecstacy walk, and laughter emits
from this traveller lost, my destination evolves a spirit to be continuously remixed

here falls the beat of the rhythm of rain as it
kiss,
kiss and it kiss like the sky is full of echoes of sex

Mathematical faith, quantifiable rationalization of hope?

Tue, 21 Nov 2006 02:08:19 GMT

3 parts to this:
(If the idea of a mathematical god seems odd to you at this point, you haven't read any other posts but this, you would literally have to become atheist completely and totally, then smoke a shit load of weed, take a lot of acid, cubes and blow , and then suddenly realize there is a way to rationalize the existence of 'god').

1. How can one define good and evil within the context of the 'mathematical god'.
2. Can love possibly be quantified in the framework of the sentient chaos 'god'?
3. The bible sucks, can we write a new one promoting positive ideals with a more rational framework behind it?

1. What is good and evil, and what is obedience?
(Obedience is explained a couple articles ago, when I first ran into that 'God' thing)
What is good and evil, and what is obedience?
Good is the promotion of more complex organized systems .
Evil is the destruction of existing systems.
Obedience is the way a leaf provides for its plant, and the way the plant provides for its forest.
The forest can live without a single plant, the leaf can live missing a cell - but the cell can't live without
the leaf, the leaf can't live without the whole plant (at least not like the plant can), the plant may or may not live
without the forest.
2. What is love?
After all, we can 'love' - can't we? So following the theory, however we can feel, so the universe is also capable of the same right? So thats it, it just depends if love exists for us, the its possible that 'God' 'loves' 'us'.

Love is the construction created through physical and natural selection to promote the good of the many, irregardless of the condition of the one. It manifested itself because the universe could simply organize itself quicker that way (A way of optimizing the random interdependent self-replicating persisting pattern formation) When speaking in an individual to individual context, love is the desire for another entity to optimally maximize his/her condition with respect to needs, desires , protection from fears, and perhaps most importantly, identification with the other partner's construct or (developing construct) of self-realization. Perhaps this is why some relationships simply do not work out. Two people meet each other at optimal points on the aforementioned dimensions - however since the last dimensions rate of change is dependent on so many factors - Two people may cease to sense the same benefit for the whole 'existence' in the relationship, as they saw in the beginning.

3. The bible sucks, it condemns gays - scares people into believing it, and its all around bad news for these days. (don't forget Dubya Bush reads that thing).
A few starting points for a more contemporary model of philosophical understanding.

At the time the bible was published
The message was as radical as the most open-minded of the population could except, it was designed to promote survival , promote faith in creation , defeat regression towards evil.

2000 years later, the same message causes hatred , guilt, divides nations, causes war, and confuses the 'righteous'.
I hope a new message comes from the sum of all systems through its hand an idea that will implant into the the masses that
will promote faith, defeat misunderstanding, unite the people in understanding.

I don't mean to butcher my ideal inner persona by offering up a possible rewording of John 3:16.

For the sum of all systems, so loved the creation - the spawn of its process - that it manifested into existence through
that which makes him up (the environment and the people on earth) a message , a deliberate manifestation (his only begotten son) so that we may not perish, but we may have everlasting life.

And those commandments? C'mon, with what I said about the dynamic nature of 'love' - how can anyone not be free to bang anyone that want?

Don't steal.
Don't lie (if you think its 'wrong')
Don't love to be unhappy, don't indulge in illness.
Don't sit on your ass and do nothing about creating something tangible to leave behind for the world, as you were created.
Don't try to get other people to believe what you believe, unless they expressly want to find something else to believe in.
Don't go invade Iraq and try to stop the 'axis' of evil from falling over and crushing your latest 'lego' replica of an oil rig.