Unity

[SteveA]

My goal is World Peace. I would ask Myself – that is, the Reader of this line (please see the post titled Gedankenexperiments, metaphysics, and Weltanschuungen to know what I’m on about regarding the use of “Myself”) – how much longer I must fight Myself only to watch My Children die (Figure 1)

I recognize the sentiment. Here's something to consider. Right "Here and Now", what pain exists and what's the solution to it?

What if others have empathy for you and similarly desired to help you and you had empathy for them and desired to help them? Do you know how to help others? (I'm certain you have the drive, but do you have the capability to know if anyone other than yourself is satisfied?)

I believe this is where much of the suffering arises. If oneself is satisfied, and everyone took it upon themself to first make sure they were satisfied themself, then there you go ... the world is a happy place.

If the focus is instead upon a worry about how someone else may or may not feel, then the world will remain filled with uncertainty and conflict over what actions to be taken, because there are no "other" emotions or feelings.

Find that spot for oneself, and trust that the rest is taken care of. There's no fighting or conflict over anything "else" in that case and that appears to be how a peaceful and prosperous world is possible.

It's ironic that what can appear as good intentions, in terms of self-sacrifice, is actually where most the problems arise. Nothing should be sacrificed - it's all connected, important, related etc.

It's easy for my comments here to become hypocritical if I were to expect you to act upon them as then I would be placing my well being as something conditional upon yours - which is unknown to me, hence my well being would become conditional upon an unknown ... there's a source of problems right there, but instead I'm making this comment simply in the hopes that it might ease some of your pain. What you do with the suggestion is up to you - I'm simply interested in easing my own pain at perceiving what appears to be yours.

Hopefully that makes sense. In any case, I've got to give a couple thumbs up on this though. Nice work

[melanie]

A man of peace is not a pacifist.
A man of peace is simply a pool of silence.

He pulsates a new kind of energy into the world,
He sings a new kind of song.

He lives in a totally new way,
His very way of life is that of grace,
That of prayer, that of compassion.

Whomever he touches,
He creates more love-energy.
The man of peace is creative.

He is not against war, because
To be against any thing is to be at war.

He is not against war,
He simply understands why war exists.
Out of that understanding, he becomes peaceful.

Only when there are many people
Who are pools of peace, silence,
And understanding, will war disappear.

[MJA]

Peace out

=

[Eirríkr]

@SteveA: That was a very astute observation, and I mean that most sincerely and honestly. I am especially impressed with

If oneself is satisfied, and everyone took it upon themself to first make sure they were satisfied themself, then there you go ... the world is a happy place.

If the focus is instead upon a worry about how someone else may or may not feel, then the world will remain filled with uncertainty and conflict over what actions to be taken....

Indeed. Until I have balance and self-acceptance, I will not be satisfied with myself. I will always be looking for ways to change myself without - in the world - when not realizing all along that the changes I need to come to terms with lie within.

My inability to focus the bright light of reflectivity on My Own Self is the problem here. Written another way, I am the Only Cause of this problem. By deduction, then, knowing this responsibility will help Me resolve this crisis of conscience and consciousness.

@ Melanie: I like that piece. While it is certainly true that I understand that the Being that calls Itself 'I' is the Cause of All conflict and war on this planet, it is very difficult to convince that Being that calls itself 'I' of Its relationship to the troubles of the World. Still, I will not give up on Myself because I love Myself too much to stand by and be silent while I watch Me kill, rape, destroy, and condemn Myself.

@ MJA: Peace in.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[SteveA]

@SteveA: That was a very astute observation, and I mean that most sincerely and honestly. I am especially impressed with

If oneself is satisfied, and everyone took it upon themself to first make sure they were satisfied themself, then there you go ... the world is a happy place.

If the focus is instead upon a worry about how someone else may or may not feel, then the world will remain filled with uncertainty and conflict over what actions to be taken....

Indeed. Until I have balance and self-acceptance, I will not be satisfied with myself. I will always be looking for ways to change myself without - in the world - when not realizing all along that the changes I need to come to terms with lie within.

My inability to focus the bright light of reflectivity on My Own Self is the problem here. Written another way, I am the Only Cause of this problem. By deduction, then, knowing this responsibility will help Me resolve this crisis of conscience and consciousness.

It's good to see we struck a chord, though again, even if we hadn't I could ache over it and worry or I could recognize I did what I could and the rest is up to something else, even if it's still oneself, but at another place and time, though I don't think that's precisely how it works. Growth seems to require an "otherness", but it also seems that this is non-specific and simply how time/change is possible. The good and bad in the mix arise from possibilities/capabilities inherent in oneself and these are fundamentally defined by emotions.

I believe everything here fundamentally prefers something to nothing and that's why we're all "here", but if one began with nothing, then there's really no selectivity involved ("beggars can't be choosers" as the expression goes). On the other hand, with growth comes a greater ability to be discerning, selective and bias things.

So over time as one acquires knowledge and capabilities or tools to help understand and 'navigate' through life, what's the most important direction to head? I think that no matter what it's called it's the same thing - it's a satisfaction of ones own desires. Suggestions to sacrifice those for the sake of some unknown "else" appear to be misleading. There's no original sin and though it could be outwardly misinterpreted, I think every saint who lived was still motivated by personal desires and satisfaction. If Mother Teresa had been in agony trying to help others, then others were doing her a disservice encouraging such a sacrifice, though fundamentally that would be her own weakness and challenge in avoiding being manipulated in such a manner (yes, there doesn't appear much of anywhere "else" to place the blame).

To be non-hypocritical and place things firmly in 'first person' reality, then similarly any service or disservice, good or bad components etc. of my musings here would be my doing and if I were to imagine Mother Teresa helping others to an agonizing extent, that's a problem I would have to deal with ... I'd have to trust that she's also doing what she sees is best and is taking care of her own well being and similarly that others utilizing her assistance are also pursing their best, and then, at least for that moment - I'm ok, you're ok, Mother Teresa is doing fine and so are the people she's helping ... and there we go, World Peace, realized for a moment in (space)time

Notice that World Peace itself is just a concept without emotional needs. There is no reason to worry about the concept of World Peace. It would instead be the emotions themselves that might need the care. Consider for example, how the concept of Unity in the U.S. was used as an excuse for war when Abraham Lincoln decided that a conceptual unity of a nation was of greater importance that the peace and prosperity of individuals within it (I'm using the word 'individuals' somewhat hypocritically because it's also a concept and I'm not point to someone specifically - these forms of mental abstract cause many political problems where mental icons and symbolisms are used in place of the physical reality they're intended to influence) and there are many other examples where such conceptual social distortions occur and cause grief.

The reality of humanity is simply the people one interacts with. So at this moment, "humanity" is just you and me and the "you" I'm speaking with is comprised of various memories, expectations and social preconditioning etc. so "humanity" is, at this moment (and the same has been true in the past and likely will remain true in the future) simply my own conceptions. To whatever extent "humanity" causes grief or happiness is rather self determined. Should the concept of humanity be a source of grief? I don't think so. If that's the case for someone, then maybe those concepts of what humanity is should be altered into something more realistic (once again though, I can truly only determine what those concepts mean and relate to for myself ... it's up to others to control those for themself and there appears to be little of any way, other than my own capabilities of perception and comprehension to determine what level of "success" someone else might experience)

A more realistic example of what "humanity" is, IMO, would be to take an individual example. So I'll say I'm on the street and come across Joe and strike up a conversation with him. The fact that this is possible and manners in which it occur are all limited to my own capabilities to do this - I can't converse in any coherent manner in a language I don't understand, nor, in general, can communication occur with properties that I (and Joe) don't possess. The possibility for such a conversation to go well or poorly already exist as potentials I'm capable of experiencing. The "real" Joe is not specifically any of these but instead, similar to time or (life) energy a source of (it can be assumed mutual) growth.

An interesting extrapolation here is that the context within which an unknown arises is determined by oneself and, in a sense, it's ones personal contexts and expectations that create the "boxes" within which unknowns are revealed, or another way of putting it is that you present the possibilities from which something "else" makes the selections and that's very similar to quantum mechanics - you could correlate your "self" with the wavefunction and the specific point at which a photon is detected is then an interaction between "self" and "other". I don't believe there's a precisely rational manner to describe how this interaction is possible, though I assume that it's effectively an innate/inherent capability of oneself. In the context I've used been using these words, the "self" would be similar to ones own universe as a static "thing" (of which not all of it is necessarily known - known things are a subset of what exists) and "other" in this context is simply the capability for time/change and possibilities to be realized - the pair is a sentence with a noun and a verb - a becoming.

"Self" can be a mix of good of bad. "Other" is not specifically either and doesn't have an inherent value except as future potential. With a bit of intelligence, coordination, communication etc. I think the pair is better off together (Personal preference of course ... once again, rather unavoidable though as I can't prefer anything "else", except tomorrow those preferences may be "different" ... once again though, the capability that those can be altered arises from self, so there's really no rationalizable way to "leave home" nor ability to control "other", and all the things of value are already "here", so it's simply a matter of finding value for oneself in the present, and if a desire for time/change exists, then working with the details as they unfold. What something "else" does is beyond my ability to determine and hence there's no value in concerning myself over it ... I can't even point to what "it" is, but I can figuratively point to the value of it and that appears to be a good focal point to work with ).

Hopefully you don't mind the rambling (I enjoyed it, so it's all good in my book ... hopefully you can figure out a way that my ramblings fit decently into your version of "how things should be" as well).

In any event,

@ MJA: Peace in.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

It appears we're speaking the same language here I also did a cursory scan and, in case you had a concern, I can personally verify that at this moment (in spacetime) there's Peace on Earth .

Here's the "Best" in return (which I'm certain includes peace).

[Eirríkr]

Thanks SteveA. I've been real busy in IRL, working on a manuscript (just submitted it to a journal). I'm catching up on responses, so bear with me.

A new blog post about the theoretical positioning of My Mind and discussion of its Unity.

Here is the link:

The darkness, that is My Mind; dark matter, that is

No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize, that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead. Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think.
~John Stuart Mill

As many of my readers know, I started my theoretical work in the field of RNA molecular biology. After demonstrating to myself the power of the gyromodel to explain fundamental unanswered questions (origin of genetic code and translation apparatus, for example), I moved into other realms. Although I had sojourned in these intellectual domains many times throughout my career, I had not tarried long enough to be called a specialist. One of those domains was quantum theory. When I understood the quantum through theory (discussed here, here, and here), then I set out to model visible energy, dark energy and dark matter. And here is where I return to my storyline that I left at the end of last year.

Figure 1

What I kept stumbling upon was the core problem on how consciousness and physical reality related to one another. That is: What is the exact relationship of the conscious mind to matter? Now, many, many philosophers, psychologists, and cognitive scientists (I could spend at least twenty posts discussing each of them and their ideas) have tried to tackle this problem through thought and experimentation, but no agreed-upon solution has been forthcoming. Indeed, what is this thing called My Mind (Figure 1)? Can theory resolve this long-standing problem? The answer is yes. In this post I share with you how Unity models the relationship of My Mind to visible energy.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Eirríkr]

This was a short but fun blog piece on QM and GR:

Resolving quantum gravity: Theoretical unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity with the photogyre

Excerpt:

The information paradox is an interesting problem in cosmology and astrophysics regarding black holes (Figure 1). Bekenstein and Hawking went at it over this matter, but that’s another story that has made its way into many nonfiction books. Basically, the paradox, as stated in wiki:

The black hole information paradox results from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It suggests that physical information could disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to evolve into the same state. This is a contentious subject since it violates a commonly assumed tenet of science—that in principle complete information about a physical system at one point in time should determine its state at any other time. A postulate of quantum mechanics is that complete information about a system is encoded in its wave function, an abstract concept not present in classical physics.

Figure 1




For the unindoctrinated in scientific terminology and concepts, this is a lot to take in. Thus, it is useful to shed light on several aspects of this matter. Quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR) are the two major mathematical models of the physical realm. Quite simply, QM models things small and GR models things big. There’s more to it than that, honestly; go to the links or do a web search if interested.

What’s important to know is this: there is no single theory that has been able to unify these two physical models - the goal being a theory of quantum gravity. More on this below.

Peace on Earth,

Ik