- - -
The thing about the concept of life is... that there is no life in it! But You that is Life can give it all the life you Are.
"Concept carpets and blinds" is a shop in Aylsham. It is also an apt phrase for the apparent division and splitting off of consciousness through a lens darkly. Looking for answers inside the mechanism of such reflection is perhaps an effective device for not letting down the D fences in conscious awareness to that there is no thing 'in and of itself' - and there is no one 'in and of themselves'.
The mind has an 'as if' capacity by which it can experience 'as if' it were a thing in an of itself, but cannot make that true. Yet the fragmented Universe of an amnesiac orphaned consciousness appears to be a problem or a riddle to solve.
What is Life and what am I? When no concept or definition is imaged and worshipped (identified with and defended) as if it were ITSELF reality, then is our personal NOT knowing becomes the condition in which ITS Inherent knowing 'comes back online' to our awareness.
Meanwhile a life lived in concept works to deny the Living unless it can exploit or use it to reinforce or validate the concept. But our self and reality image or concept can expand and transform if we are willing to suspend our belief and allegiance to anything that we discern as fundamentally dishonest - IF we are willing to pause long enough from blind assumptions and reactions, to test it in the heart.
That there is a desire to 'account for' or 'explain' organic and material existence without a Creator is to some degree an understandable reaction to historical experience - but it still fundamentally offers a 'Luciferian' script of cutting off consciousness from Creation - albeit the consciousness in the scientific model is so limited and well hidden that it almost seems as if reality could actually be a wholly material fact (with no awareness of it actually existing!) Oh - apart from this 'special intelligence' that just 'happens' to be so specially defining and discovering all things unto its own 'reason'.
Self revelation IS the Nature of reality - but when reality is substituted by concept the law operates to reflect the nature of the concept - hence 'divide and rule' as a paradigm of apparently conflicting polarities has reflected us back to ourselves.
Now a self-concept of modernity adapts to fit a mechanism-universe and just look and see how it is operating in every walk and arena of our living to replace relationships with contractual transactions.
IDEA is creative - in that it focuses and limits awareness of what is Universally Presencing Itself in and along specific lines. But it doesn't actually 'create' in ultimate terms because that Always and already Is.
As a direct expression of that Life we are creative of a unique 'experience' or perspective of reality. But as a concept, we sleep in a 'template' of programmed reaction amidst 'accepted definition-meanings' - while Infinite Life is 'reduced' to such tiny and almost lifeless experiment of mind-control. But it is not affected. We but limit our awareness and appreciation of All That Is.
Perhaps the Idea that Life is Already Everywhere might make the expressions of its qualities less of a riddle - even in amino soup.
The building blocks of life's manifestation are implicit in all that is. Existence is God's 'fingerprint' - but of an implicit Consciousness from which no one or thing has ever actually separated from for even an instant. (Though one can play within that Idea).
- - -
Comment #2 (in response to
Mathematically, any chance, no matter how astronomically insignificant, may account for the instance of such astronomical insignificance. For its Fact comes as the fruit that proves the seed. But if appreciation of the Fact is reduced to a minimal mechanical rendering - then expect a 'random blind, mechanical dice-God!
Looking in the past and 'out there' for the seed or source of life has absolutely zero chance of success - and that is its appeal. 'Seek and do NOT find' is the job-description of a sense of self-separateneness. Oh I know we find all sorts of things that goad as with a carrot on a stick to feel vindicated... for a while. And the human condition (ing) beats us like a stick to seek some mitigation for the pain of such existence as knows no abiding peace or fulfilment - but in distraction of unconsciousness, substitutes a pale replica that fails under any honest scrutiny. And so honesty cannot be trusted, and 'righteousness' substitutes its judgements and mutual definitions in place of reality discerned- and shared.
Computer software can emulate hardware such that 'alien' software can run within that emulated environment. I suggest our apparently physical body-mind is itself a construct within an order of Creation of which its own little virtual mind in its virtual operating system will never know.
But beneath it is the Only Thing Really going on. The thing is that the emulated or virtual self regards its existence as exclusive, self-existing and endangered and we have come to identify THAT as our protection/connection and therefore our life. Not unlike those who now become addictively identified with an online persona.
"The only thing to fear is fear itself" but this means fear is a deception that blocks, distorts and manipulates vision and divides us from our selves and from each other - and is a caution to be vigilant. Or it would be an absurd statement
There is no 'chance' involved in that you are existence itself; that one existence is in all, as all are in existence. And that what you give out, you get back. No 'chance' involved, because these are already true. Apart from these, everything changes. Even change changes, which 'births' the unchanging in an eternal seamless circle.
Nothing personal in this ramble - simply sparked off by pondering probabilities.
- - -
Comment #3 in response to:
Yes, science is a discipline of a 'mind' that is inferred and presumed to exist but not actually verifiable to scientific proofs. Is there ANY mind at all - whether God or self or other - in the Universe it purports to reveal? Is that the same as saying there is ONLY mind? - albeit operating at different vibrational frequencies of its own 'Thought'.
The fact that there is a reality beyond which the physical organs of sense perceive is surely why we have science in the first place?"
The desire or curiosity to know - and in specific to know what life is, what the world that it seems to occur within is and what its purpose or function is... WAS once within the scientific exploration and energetically is still in some seed-sense a motivator. But Science split off from anything that could not be empirically measured and verified by simply disregarding it, while focussing on the high-yield crop of discovery and society-changing utility of focussing exclusively on what can be currently validated empirically.
And so they know an awful lot about an awful little. e.g: A little 'knowledge' about germs brought reactions that have set up the raft for a whole new web of immuno-related breakdowns.
I'm not anti curiosity or anti freedom to think and feel and discover - but when implicit polarities of a wholeness are denied by a pattern of stuck-ness, it's time for a breakthrough from a fresh perspective. Though one may seek to express perspective in thoughts - it is not just more thinking to weave into the old mode. It is a vehicle of shared realisation.
The key to the discovery and integration with non-physical aspects of reality is in the shift from thinking to discernment. The former is associated with manipulative intent of a self-separateness, the latter with an honesty or congruency of being.
All of us engage in non-physical reality in all kinds of ways as a matter of course - but generally unconsciously or tacitly - while the play of an egocentric identification is acted out that uses the props available to 'strut its stuff!'
'Pure Science' was held to be ego-less, but the true-centred is of a wholeness of being, rather than an exclusive and rejecting, reactive 'self-seeking'.
I think I am a little more on the 'nuts and bolts' side of things, although I did once study philosophy, which was entertaining and recreational by turns, but perhaps ultimately mostly just words.
On the subject of the actual article I found it interesting to have a look at the Wikipedia entry on abiogenesis and use that as a starting point for exploring the current thoughts and theories. I am not religious, nor do I have a spiritual take on the universe - call this a limitation, it just happens to be what I am - so I do look to evidence-based science rather than religious/metaphysical explanations for the origin of biological life etc.
I get this feeling that ever since humans have been around we have tended to assume an external consciousness in the universe, because that's how it feels, because we are conscious and don't - or didn't - reallly have any rational explanation for it. Neuroscience tells us that it's a product of our brains, but not everybody will be happy with that idea.
What is the point of human imagination if we can't have our fictions, after all?
Well thank you for an honourable reply!
I suppose words serve either an opening to the noticing of the processes of cognition/perception or are the play of fictions within a virtual mind. I sometimes coin the term justifictions for the mind's employment as the justifying fiction for the identifications of an otherwise naked intent - one which clearly involves some sense of dissonance or conflict - or else there would be no call to make stories to justify and account for the identity asserted.
Religion spirituality whatever - if used as an identification are just variations on the theme of using external associations and social definitions. This is what I mean by identifying in or with concept. Doesn't matter what is used to mask the idol - it aint alive - even if it uses the symbols and forms of our highest concepts of life. However, it matters in that what we identify and energise in belief and by reaction will define and colour our experience such as to either limit or open to the qualities of life - such as are innate rather than manufactured.
Your willingness to extend honour to me regardless of your dissent is tangible. I don't care what people think they think or think they believe - for it is by our fruits that we are known - and these always reveal something of the character of what a man or woman holds in their heart - even if they've never much thought about it.
I also feel for an evidence or fruits based way - but unlike material science - requires the willingness to disengage thinking habits and observe. That is, one is the questioner and one's life is the experiment and the outcomes are transformational rather than add-ons.
The 'birth' into a limited consciousness is a kind of forgetting. It is as if all the inner lights go out and this personal sense thinking becomes a focussing that covers over the pristine feeling-awareness of vibration! colour! sound! I think you get the picture - our consciousness grows the world-concept along with the self-concept.
Concept carpets and blinds - as I keep saying on this page - but it also carves out experience.
Don't underestimate the proclivity of the apparently external environs to provide frameworks of experience. At the physical density, one sees habitats inherently inviting calling or inviting life explorations as well as life fitting its environment.
The reason we cannot hardly begin to communicate with our reality is because we have this arrogant little mind that thinks it can lord it over all else. Though there is a hierarchical series of relations in Creation nothing 'lords it' over anything else.
Out of sync, out of step and out of our (true) minds - but what a ride it's been!
I-magi-nation is perhaps our most fundamental asset - not in a role of escapism - but as the portal to fresh ways of seeing anything and everything. If you cannot imagine it then you cannot yet perceive it. This is why believing IS seeing and what we see is our belief - no matter how mutually reinforced it may be as true it is belief. But do we notice that? Not generally. Too full of a belief in our own 'independent life'. Now there's an oxymoron.
Darwin shows there is but one life, but the anti-God brigade interpret it to suit their agenda.
Dawkins and the like are useful to eat away the rotten flesh of merely magical beliefs of no foundation. For if one cannot communicate and embody the process of realisation, even truths become personal fictions. But who can truly bear the stark powerlessness of conscious existence without ANY thought to make some sense of personal reality, excepting they who yield its reactivity to an abiding at rest that needs take no thought to be.
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits" (~Grandad)
I feel more for participance than entertainment - but that is a seed within it - so if I have offered anything of any enjoyment then life has occurred on planet Earth as an instant of conscious participance. And why not!
- - -
Comment #4 (simply into the polarization mentality of design v evolution)