Mmothra
06-16-2004, 10:25 AM
The work of physicist David Bohm in examining the nature of physical reality and the extension of this work by Karl Pribram into perceived reality is of enormous interest to me. The idea that, in a very real sense, the Platonic idea of a realm of forms has merit is fascinating and spectacularly so when the idea that the brain functions as a microcosm in relation to that implicate macrocosm is introduced. Below is a section from a rather good website describing these ideas; I would encourage you to go there and read more...and then on to Google for even more info.
While you read this material (or if you are already familiar with it, while you reflect on Bohm's work) ask yourself what this means for the concepts of "spirit", "magick", "immortality", and "duality". What questions arise for you? What answers?
Enjoy!
One of Bohm's most startling assertions is that the tangible reality of our everyday lives is really a kind of illusion, like a holographic image. Underlying it is a deeper order of existence, a vast and more primary level of reality that gives birth to all the objects and appearances of our physical world in much the same way that a piece of holographic film gives birth to a hologram. Bohm calls this deeper level of reality the implicate (which means enfolded or hidden) order, and he refers to our own level or existence as the explicate, or unfolded order. Put another way, electrons and all other particles are no more substantive or permanent then the form a geyser of water takes as it gushes out of a fountain. They are sustained by a constant influx from the implicate order, and when a particle appears to be destroyed, it is not lost. It has merely enfolded back into the deeper order from which it sprang. A piece of holographic film and the image it generates are also an example of an implicate and explicate order. The film is an implicate order because the image encoded it its interference patterns is a hidden totality enfolded throughout the whole. The hologram projected from the film is an explicate order because it represents the unfolded and perceptible version of the image. Bohm is not the only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram. Working independently in the field of brain research, Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded by the holographic nature of reality. He says that the human brain can be modeled as a hologram. Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain. In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920's, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious whole in every part nature of memory storage. Then in the 1960's Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. Capitalizing on Pribram's findings, Bohm states that our brains are smaller pieces of the larger hologram. That our brains contain the whole knowledge of the universe. So, you can see how each mind has a limited perspective of the universal hologram. Our brains are our windows of perception. Each mind always contains the whole picture, but with a limited and unclear perspective. We each have different experience in our lives, but each perspective is valid. Our brains mathematically construct objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultimately projections form another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time. The brain is a hologram enfolded in a holographic universe. We can view ourselves as physical bodies moving through space. Or we can view ourselves as a blur of interference patterns enfolded throughout the cosmic hologram. (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-D ... iverse.htm)
Albino Crow
06-16-2004, 10:43 AM
Indeed, quite a mind-phuck of a read I must say. I'm quickly becoming a fan of your threads; it induces a warm and toasty meltdown of my previously mapped cranial matter
. This guy wouldn't happen to be the author of 'The Holographic Universe', would he? I wasn't aware there was scientific evidence behind such a claim. I've had a theory for a few years that goes along the same lines as their stating all information regarding the Universe is contained within the brain, so I find this to be profoundly interesting.As far as a new concept of 'spirit' goes in conformity with those theories, I think the idea of a soul, to use their terms, is an implicate order, and the human being an explicate order, or vice-versa. It really depends on your own views. It reverts back to the age-old question, 'Is man a being having a spiritual experience, or a spirit having a human experience?' I think using the holographic term is interesting, but in truth, nothing really philosophically new on it's own. The scientific evidence and research going into it is earth-shattering, but the idea of their being multiple dimensions or realities we aren't exactly consciously in tune with is old hat. Ultimately, I plan to read further into this when I have time. Great, great topic.
Mmothra
06-16-2004, 12:26 PM
Thanks for the nice comments...I just try to share questions and ideas that confound and amaze me.
The book The Holographic Universe is by Michael Talbot and is a nice summary of Bohm's work and ideas. Bohm's own classic work on this subject is Wholeness and the Implicate Order which, despite being a hefty title and topic, is a surprisingly engaging read--very much recommended.
You might also be interested in the fact that David Bohm had a close intellectual and personal friendship with Krishnamurti. I don't know why, but the idea of these two incredible thinkers sitting together and enthusiastically discussing the nature of reality and perception literally warms my heart...
feranaja
06-16-2004, 12:44 PM
Thank you for this Mmothra. I'll get these books right away.
feranaja
Dunhill
06-16-2004, 03:19 PM
(After shaking my head vigorously a la Chester the Cheeta)
Interesting. Will need to follow up on this - being a recovering physics major.
So in effect our brains interpret the implicate into explicate - we perceive the imperfect representations of the perfect to borrow some Platonic thought. The brain acts as a filter between the two realms. If this is the case, than what is the brain really? To which realm does it belong or could the brain the explicate bodily representation of the implicate soul? In other words could the soul have created the brain in order to perceive itself?
If I am reading this correctly, the brain could also be seen as a lense through which the implicacte is observed. Who/what is the observer? Where did this 'need' to observe come from? Take a flower for example. Would it still smell if it didn't need bees to polinate them? What fundamental purpose do the two realms serve? To put it another way, what caused the explicate to arise in the first place. Could this be seen as similar to the gnostic cosmology?
Mmothra
06-16-2004, 03:26 PM
Who/what is the observer? Where did this 'need' to observe come from? Take a flower for example. Would it still smell if it didn't need bees to polinate them? What fundamental purpose do the two realms serve? To put it another way, what caused the explicate to arise in the first place. Could this be seen as similar to the gnostic cosmology?
I can't answer your last question (pmcv, comments?) but I can tell you that "Who is the observer?" is the fundamental question asked in Advaita Vedanta with the answer being Self or the non-dual fount of Being.
Glad you find this stuff interesting! I find myself coming back to it again and again and finding something new each time.
Dunhill
06-16-2004, 03:40 PM
I can't answer your last question (pmcv, comments?) but I can tell you that "Who is the observer?" is the fundamental question asked in Advaita Vedanta with the answer being Self or the non-dual fount of Being.
The 2 cent analogy would be taking Platonic thought and applying it to the God. The God of the Old Testament (evil Demiurge) could be seen as an imperfect representation of the real God. Matter is imperfect therefore cannot be part of the Perfect God.
Just to ask a silly question about your second answer regarding Advaita Vedanta (name is unfamiliar) - does not the act observation itself create duality - the Observer and the Observed? Or like an eye, can the Self not see Itself at all? Or is it possible to be self aware without observation? Heisenberg applied to Ultimate Reality, very interesting thread going on here.
Mmothra
06-16-2004, 04:03 PM
I don't want to derail the overall discussion of Bohm, but the idea is that if you follow observation back to its source ("Who is the observer?") you find...nothing...and thus the end of duality as represented by self and other. The names I would recommend in this area of thought are Ramana Maharshi, Nisarghadatta Maharaj, and HWL Poonja (aka Papaji). Krishnamurti also wrote extensively on the subject--there, I managed to weave it back in to the topic thread!
Dunhill
06-16-2004, 05:02 PM
I don't want to derail the overall discussion of Bohm, but the idea is that if you follow observation back to its source ("Who is the observer?") you find...nothing...and thus the end of duality as represented by self and other.
While re-re-re-reading these posts and your sig, 'There is no spoon' jumped immediately into my head.
Anyway...If I am reading the Bohm snippet above it would appear that the concept of 'observer' and 'observed' is quite important. In effect he seems to be saying what is perceived really isn't. It would seem that consciousness is an attempt to make the implicate more managable (?) if I am reading 'Our brains mathematically construct objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultimately projections form another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time.' correctly. A spehre from a two dimensional perspective is a circle. The circle is real enough but it really isn't the original object.
To me it would seem that Bohm contradicts the above statement as using the holographic film example, he appears to be saying the observer and observed are the same thing the observer just doesn't know it.
Shen Amoun
06-17-2004, 08:34 PM
OMG. I can't believe I found someone actually talking about that amazing book. And you guys are right, it is a mindfuck, a big mindfuck. I think that book saved me. I used to be a Christian and then I read that book. Well the story goes....I grew up surrounded by the supernatural and spiritual. I raised myself so I know alot about myself (know thyself). From the age of 3 til about the age of 14 I was totally a left-path magician, studying every dark arts information I could get my hands on, very much into invocation and evocation, necromancy and some psionics. Then at about 14 I became a "born-again" Christian and my world turned upside down. I was performing miracles, healing, banishing demons, and prophesying a good bit with a little bit of holy fire going on. But during that time the whole doctrine and dogma of what was called "Christianity" never seemed to make total sense. I studied the Hebrew, the Greek, the Aramaic, everything. Eventually I read a book called "The Holographic Universe", by Michael Talbot and basically I entered the spiritual death that precedes the spiritual ascension. I went into a 3 month mindfuck and never left my room. No not to eat or drink or...yes even go to the bathroom. My mother was freaked the hell out. She did bring me water though. I was in sort of a coma, but not really. I had trances almost all day every day and started hearing voices and shit. And then I finally snapped out of it. After that I no longer considered myself Christian, but a mystic. I Studied all I can get my hands on about mysticism and the occult after that. That book is holy to me.
pmcv
07-11-2004, 12:57 AM
Oh, heck... were my ears buzzing? I just now found this thread but it seems a bit late.
Mmothra, I think the similarities between Advaita Vedanta and some Platonic thought is very interesting, compelling even. Somehow though, I have always felt that there is a far more pantheistic idea underlying Advaita Vedanta that is absolutely not the intent of the Gnostic system. HOWEVER, I will be the first to admit that Advaita Vedanta is way out of my field.... so don't slam me overly hard if I have it all wrong.
It is the one qualm I have with comparative mythology. Sometimes in the midst of the things that seem most similar you really hit something that just doesn't want to be reconciled. SOmetimes it may be ignorace of the other system, but sometimes it is really there.
Anyways something Dunhill said really stuck a chord with me..... "does not the act observation itself create duality"
I would say, absolutely no/yes. In a true apophatic theology, observation itself is a seperation from perfection. How, after all, can you observe without a field of opposites? While I would not say that observation CREATES duality, I would certainly say that observation is a function of duality.
Let me try to put that another way. If there is no dark or light, or gradation of colors from the light, how could one "see"? If there is no silence, where could sound spring from? How does one "hear"? How could sound be defined without it's negation? It cannot. This is a fundemental logical flaw in the notion that perception IS reality, because, perception could not exist without the differentiation needed to CAUSE perception.
By the same token, I would argue that there is also no "self" without duality. If you cannot make differentiation, observation, how can you consider "self" as opposed to something that is not "self"? I mean, if there is nothing... there is also no "you".
Observation is wallowing in the flaw.
I am a pig in the pen and so are you all.
Hehe
PMCV
Nalyd23
07-11-2004, 03:02 AM
I agree with your thinking here pmcv (very logical) but I tend to look at opposites as differing degrees. If you look at the BIG picture, yes duality seems to exist but where is the zero point where hot becomes cold? It is uncertain and the measurement we make is relative to the our final decision, lest we end up with that catastrophe again. Duality is just made for convenience and doesn't "really" exist. We observe something and make a decision, until we do this we can't prove a damned thing about anything.
Mmothra
07-11-2004, 02:17 PM
Oh, heck... were my ears buzzing? I just now found this thread but it seems a bit late.
Mmothra, I think the similarities between Advaita Vedanta and some Platonic thought is very interesting, compelling even. Somehow though, I have always felt that there is a far more pantheistic idea underlying Advaita Vedanta that is absolutely not the intent of the Gnostic system. HOWEVER, I will be the first to admit that Advaita Vedanta is way out of my field.... so don't slam me overly hard if I have it all wrong.
Actually Hinduism is tricky in this way, for although there are many gods worshipped, they are all emanations from a single, ultimate deity. In that regard, I think it probably aligns nicely with gnosticism.
Dunhill
07-12-2004, 02:17 PM
Let me try to put that another way. If there is no dark or light, or gradation of colors from the light, how could one "see"? If there is no silence, where could sound spring from? How does one "hear"? How could sound be defined without it's negation? It cannot. This is a fundemental logical flaw in the notion that perception IS reality, because, perception could not exist without the differentiation needed to CAUSE perception.
Since perception can only be based upon opposites, therefore what we perceive cannot be Real since Ultimate Reality cannot be dependant on Something Else. Can it? Is it possibile to define anything without referencing it to something else? Enter Heisenberg - the act of observing changes what is being observed.
By the same token, I would argue that there is also no "self" without duality. If you cannot make differentiation, observation, how can you consider "self" as opposed to something that is not "self"? I mean, if there is nothing... there is also no "you".
There is the $64 dollar question. My limited experiences with Buddhism would lead me to believe that your (I believe sarcastic) comment 'there is no you' is absolutely correct.