‘Mystic paper’

[Attila]

‘Mystic paper’

Some of you may remember my description of omniscience and omnipresence etc as so; consider that reality is a piece of paper but without any edges, anything you draw upon it is intimately connected to the paper. Then imagine the paper has a quality similar to magnetic tape and it records everything put to it. There would be a communicative layer between the paper and everything drawn upon it, no matter how slight the impression of the pen upon that paper, nor even if you had two pens drawing simultaneously [to duplicate quantum mirroring], everything would be ‘known to the paper‘ in an intimate tactile manner. To explain further…

Now imagine you had a sheet of paper something like an ‘intelligent material’, similar to programmable plastic ~ has the processor etc built into the material so acts like a monitor and the pc as one thing. Now let us imagine that instead of a pen you have some electrodes attached to your head to effect means of communication between you and it. Now your thoughts may be turned into images and text upon the paper.

Ok, now imagine some futuristic technology whereby in effect, that the paper has within its composition all your neurons, so now effectively the thinker and its object are one. Your thoughts would become the images and text upon the paper, and given the addition of a speaker one may hear what you have to say also.

Now for a massive jump;

Lets go back before the universe [or all universes] existed; how can anything come after the primal state which is not formerly within that state?

Ultimately reality and all ‘existences’ are in that pre-existent oneness.

So if we imagine that oneness to be the ‘mystic paper’ [as I attempted to define in the above analogies], does this help define how the whole thing works, that its all the same thing acting upon or within itself. We can easily visualise this as the computer as thin as a sheet of plastic and with all its attributes built into that, so what can this idea tell us about prime reality?

-------------

On a related note, perhaps we can see gods in the context where if we imagine the universal mind being something like an internet, then the internet forms into a self created socialism ~ google, facebook etc. so its mind would naturally distribute into interrelating epicentres. After all people all see the archetypes representing such entities as there own cultures versions of particular kinds of gods.

[wolf560]

I like this concept wherein everything is known because it is all interconnected and we're all looking at similar things just in a different light (the "Archetyes").

I believe the Deities however don't have to concern their day-to-day existence upon ours.

I believe that any being that is omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient would not be forced to do anything and therefore does not have to concern itself with our foibles and needs. If it does so, hopefully that will be a good thing, but this could just as easily be a bad thing as well.

I hail and welcome Deities into my circle---I thank and honor them as I close the circle.
My rituals are set upon the concept that I hope they are there to begin with and that they come and go as they please throughout the gathering.
I do not believe that they come and go at my word or anyone else's.

I have been in rituals where the Deities are seemingly called and commanded to enter the ritual as if they are being summoned like mere animals... disturbing....

[DJ Droood]

I believe that any being that is omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient would not be forced to do anything and therefore does not have to concern itself with our foibles and needs. If it does so, hopefully that will be a good thing, but this could just as easily be a bad thing as well.

I agree with what you are saying here, and it was part of the process that moved me away from theist thinking...I decided that if there *were* gods, they were either A)malevolent B)insane C)not omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient D)they don't give a crap and are about as concerned with us as we are with the "issues" of microbes living on our toothbrush D)only as "powerful" as the energy I feed into them, like blowing up a balloon.

The idea of thanking them for everything good that happens, cursing them for everything bad, trying to "guess" what they might want, wondering why they would be pleased with a bunch of people in robes jumping around and chanting and reading from a printed script (rather than just sitting in a lawn chair sipping a beer) stopped making sense to me. Then when i stopped caring, I found that..nothing bad happened...cool stuff still happens every day, bad stuff happens sometimes...the sun goes up and down...pretty much the same as it was before, when I thought about "the gods" a lot more.

When I do attend ritual, and they are invoked, I am just' happy to be amongst friends and enjoying the robes and jumping around and chanting and torches...that seems more magical and significant than anything I've ever sussed out about "gods".(or at Thanksgiving dinner, for that matter, when "the god who hates turkeys" is invoked by mother-in-law)...

[wolf560]

Yup, exactly....

For me, I feel a sense of "something greater" but I just don't see it as an ever-present reality watching over me and interceding left and right.

I too enjoy the gatherings and I LOVE talking with people regardless of what their beliefs are.
I think we can all stand to learn a great deal from one another despite (and maybe BECAUSE OF) our differences. For my group, I usually am seen as the one providing the historical insights into things, a "grounding in the past" of sorts. I am by no means an expert, and I continue to learn every chance I get.

[Attila]

wolf560

I believe that any being that is omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient would not be forced to do anything and therefore does not have to concern itself with our foibles and needs. If it does so, hopefully that will be a good thing, but this could just as easily be a bad thing as well.

Well mystic paper attempts to describe reality entire as an intimately connected thing, hence there is nothing outside of it. See also may philosophical anti Spinoza formula below*

I do not believe that they come and go at my word or anyone else's.

If someone calls your name do you not come? Names to the ancient Egyptians were an integral part of the souls composition. ...still, you are probably right.

For me, I feel a sense of "something greater" but I just don't see it as an ever-present reality watching over me and interceding left and right.

I agree, I think that ‘mind’ as infinite and universal [ceugant] is part of what we are, as if we are raindrops falling to its sea. One may attribute godliness to that because it is whilst a part of us also beyond us, its vastness and incomprehensibility brings us to the idea of god/ess or similar things, though that would be absurd if it be nothing more than the extended mind and that which all things are at their base. See also* [below]


DJ Droood

I agree with what you are saying here, and it was part of the process that moved me away from theist thinking...I decided that if there *were* gods, they were either A)malevolent B)insane C)not omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient D)they don't give a crap and are about as concerned with us as we are with the "issues" of microbes living on our toothbrush D)only as "powerful" as the energy I feed into them, like blowing up a balloon.

I am inclined to agree with you completely here, even though many of us have seen such deities in our visions, it would seam they at best have limited effect in the world [probably only in the realm of mind], so frankly I couldn’t give a damn about any manner of gods ~ in the context of worship at least. I do think they can be teachers but here again we must be careful how much we trust their wisdom and its source. All in all a tentative approach or even non-alignment is the wiser approach these days.

Perhaps in the past, the gods claiming more powers than they actually have was done to facilitate some manner of respect. …still they had plenty of opportunity to teach us different [perhaps they did and such is our journey?]. What one has to remember are times when peoples gods completely let them down e.g. when north American climates changed and land turned to desert, the tribes often went to extreme measures to bring a better future, but to no avail. I would think in such a case one could believe in any manner of deity and be brought the same conclusion!

I truly believe that man has moved [or is moving] beyond its childhood and no longer needs gods.


*Proof that a monotheistic god does not exist…

Quote from another forum to start us off, philosophers cannot prove the formula wrong so I recon I have it in the bag!…

This is a question for everybody, and especially agnostics. We know that their are two possibilities, god exists or he doesn't.

There are not two possibilities, god cannot exist... [a monotheistic one that is]

Let us take omnipresence, in the diagram below you see a simple formula I made, it shows how omnipresence is the collection of presences, and it is impossible to have anything at all outside of the circle [such as god], which ‘has‘ omnipresence. The same thing applies for omniscience or anything ‘omni’. equally you can only have universals on this scale, you cannot have the absolute because it would have to mix with the universals and be within the circle, when ever anything is part of the circle it is either universal or particular, you canot have a whole which excludes the omni/universals.

Edit note; of course we can think of omnipresence as like a space or some manner of presence which is everywhere and yet nowhere, this though is then not definitively ‘omnipresence’ as that term would have to include all [‘omni’] presences too.

All ‘p’s are ‘p’, where ‘p’ = ‘p’ [if god is a 'p' [anything whatsoever] then he is part of existence not to one side of it, if so he would be universal and not mono].



The monotheistic god does not exist; end of!



Further notes;

All quotes from ilp philosophy forums, I selected the ones I felt were most relevant. its all the circle of knowledge y'know.

It could be that the ’spirit’ of our direction, level, and dimension of thought and existence is limited, whereas God’s ‘spirit’ is supreme and His capacity almighty. This contradistinction would place us in an infinitesimal domain with God’s expanse in a dwelling place of eternity.
Also, it could be that God’s nature is an ‘Omni‘ spirit with no material form. With man and his physical nature, any correlation of spirit with God’s would have to take place in his thought. But thought, with its experiences and actions, is limited to its own purposes and endurance.

I don’t see how it matters as to size comparatives, we are much bigger than particles, and yet the same rules apply to us. Define infinitesimal? It is just a mathematical metaphor, if existent you couldn’t place anything into it [but it is not existent].
It doesn’t matter if gods form is material or not the principle is applicable to anything. Secondly his omnipresence is deemed as the collection of all presences e.g. ours the world etc, so we are talking about at least the collection of material presences, even if there is more. Either way the formula applies.

Existence - the state or fact of existing; being.

Truly ‘existence’ should include everything ‘that is’ and that must include the non material, really the terms ‘material’ and ‘non-material’ present a false dichotomy, if something is, be it within either of those categories, then it should be classified as equally real. I can see how we need to use the term ‘existent’ for the manifest and not the un-manifest or pre-universe state, but that is a comparative aspect of its meaning, really everything exists or it simply is not anything. Either that or we need a new term for anything which 'is'.

I think ‘reality’ is one thing that cannot be transcended, existence maybe such as in the above context, but reality cannot be. Initially this is a matter of semantics, but we must ascribe terms to there proper use in context, or use other terms. Here reality describes a place where anything which is, ‘is‘ weather existent or not, material or not.

So we may return to my formula in such context and re-read it as true. God cannot be outside the circle, and especially if the notion [‘god’] is expected to include ‘all’.

[wolf560]

Nicely wrapped up....
I agree, with many reservations, with a great deal of it....

I think ‘reality’ is one thing that cannot be transcended, existence maybe such as in the above context, but reality cannot be... Here reality describes a place where anything which is, ‘is‘ whether existent or not, material or not.

One question though....


What if there are multiple "Mystic papers" (sub. multiple "Realities"); with at least one suspended above and one suspended below that which we call "existence"?

Let me expand this "Multiple Mystic Papers" to even include the possibility of "Transcendent personalities" that manage to "go beyond" their own "Reality" into our own. Be this from technology or transmutation..... science or spirituality.....

Remember, the steam locomotive only first starting moving things in 1804. If you had described that event even 25 years earlier you would have been a laughing stock. Airplanes in less than 100 years and space travel 60 years after that. At this rate, imagine what will be upon us in less than a century (if we can manage to survive that long without blowing ourselves up that is.)

[Attila]

wolf560

What if there are multiple "Mystic papers" (sub. multiple "Realities"); with at least one suspended above and one suspended below that which we call "existence"?

Oh like tirnanog etc ~ the three celtic planes of existence. We may indeed have such planes and multiple universes, yet they must all be in ‘reality’. the soul can transmigrate the planes right? So they are moving between regions/realms of one reality.

Principle; ‘If there were two or more realities they would always be within a greater whole, this we should then call reality‘!

I agree about change and invention, I presume you infer that ones experience of reality presents a different reality. This is true in the sense it is meant, but here we are using the term ‘reality’ for our ‘experience of the ‘world’’, and perhaps ‘world’ [not in the context of the earth] should be the term used here for philosophical purposes. We should I feel get past any issues of semantics and consider it in terms of meaning. We may use those same words in many ways and perhaps should do in order to allow for freedom of linguistic expression, but somewhere along the line we have to simply ascribe the meaning ‘reality’ to the whole and entire, even though it can have many other meanings in other contexts such as our perceived world.

there is only one paper and one medium that is reality, no matter what lies inside of that.

[wolf560]

Perhaps....

I do like the metaphor of the "Mystic Paper" but I still feel that 'Reality' is more like a book of mystic papers that my sometimes have the ink on one page "run onto" the next page a little bit. Because we don't realize what is happening we believe the event is spiritual but it is just part of the reality we do not understand yet. In simpler terms; it is not 'Deity' shining through but another inhabitant from a different 'reality' that has simply figured out how to get from one page to the next...

One of my discussions a long time ago with a Sci-Fi fan and a Christian ran something like this... we were discussing something irrelevant and someone brought up "God".

I answered (hoping to get us back on track) that "everyone of us has a different yet equal thought about a supreme deity and either its existence or not".

The 'scientist' began with scientific rhetoric, the 'christian' answered with biblical rhetoric.
I tried a middle ground by attempting to connect the dots so-to-speak.

Religiously we can track things back to several 'creation mythos' beginnings.
But we lack any concrete evidence other than 'who begat who' and other translated words.
Scientifically we can track things back to the supposed 'Big Bang'.
We still lack any empirical evidence other than conjecture and some nifty equations.

Bottom line;
We cannot say with any certainty who or what put all of this into existence to begin with.
Deity may have pulled things out of the Cosmos and formed everything everywhere.
Gravity may have pulled it all inwards until it burst apart from pent up energies.
Deity may have set Gravity in motion with everything and sat back to watch the fireworks.

So for me the question actually centers on the Big Bang, and if a Deity was working with something that was already there or put it all into being itself.

...and who's to say that the Deity in question put it all into motion and is now sitting back enjoying a Strawberry Margharita watching it all unfold? Why does anything have to be "watched over by a Deity" every moment of the day?

[Attila]

...and who's to say that the Deity in question put it all into motion and is now sitting back enjoying a Strawberry Margharita watching it all unfold? Why does anything have to be "watched over by a Deity" every moment of the day?

For sure if the deity ties the knots and reality unfolds from that predetermined creation, then evolution would be that unfolding, it would need not do anything else knowing that things will unfold in the given manner. Perhaps when you get the chance have a look at my multifaceted [rubics cube] variant on this theme, it is more 3D and attempts to explain things in an alternative manner to creation deities.

I still think your book of papers would all exist in a single reality, otherwise what do they exist in?

[wolf560]

I still think your book of papers would all exist in a single reality, otherwise what do they exist in?

Agreed, I suppose I am just leaving room for 'expanded theory' and the possibility of even some 'blank pages' that perhaps have not yet been written upon.

This actually goes back to my earlier discussion on "The One Truth" and the fact that someones perception to that Truth is actually limited by the 'reality they exist in'.

Sounds like we're essentially saying the same thing but coming at it from perhaps different angles or thoughts.

[Attila]

Agreed. I think there are 'blank pages', certainly before and after the universe. I’d rather think of it as one page without edges and hence a continual infinite amount of free space.

Hmm perhaps it is even better to think of the paper as continually refreshing itself, something is drawn or written upon it, this then instantly vanishes and the paper is ready to be written upon again? This way nothing is entirely predetermined.

If reality is one then although our perception is limited it is only a matter of where and how one directs the perception as to what ‘reality’ or more realm we exist in, this for me is something of the basis of transmigration.