Quantum Phenomena

Rational discussions on metaphysical and abstract topics.
Gangleri

Re: Quantum Phenomena

Post by Gangleri »

The higher cannot "emerge" from the lower. Actuality always preseedes substantial formation. My two cents.
User avatar
Smaragd
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:27 am

Re: Quantum Phenomena

Post by Smaragd »

Thank you for the quotes and sources, really interesting points of views. I was making interpretative bridges to Azazelian and Theosophical vocabulary while reading and thought I'd share some to see if people agree, and to try placing thoughts and ideas in their "right" places.
Zeraim wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:03 pm "For example, coherent patterns of pure EC (Emergent Consciousness Thought) information can allow the emergence of higher-order collective consciousnesses that is not at the level of the panconsciousness but that is, in some sense, a higher level than human animal-level consciousness."
First thought was that could this higher level be what we call the higher self as it isn't particularly the absolute, rather a divine droplet the powers of which guides the lower self.
Zeraim wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:03 pm"Emergentism typically subscribes to the philosophy of materialism. While our panpsychic view is opposite from materialism, our model nevertheless has the notion of emergent consciousness (EC) from emergent physicality (EP), both of which are forms of thought in the strange loop of the self-simulation. In this sense, our view is philosophically different than emergentism, yet effectively accomplishes the same goals, as a type of consciousness emerges from physical information, which emerges from the panconsciousness, and so forth."
The last sentence sharpened the idea that the possible "higher self" interpretation might be valid drawing the outline of the mythological fallen star or angel by acknowledging the fall in the role of physical reality in very similar manner as the Theosophist masters did:
Mahatma Letters wrote: (Letter 10 discussed here.)
Therefore, we deny God both as philosophers and as Buddhists. We know there are planetary and other spiritual lives, and we know there is in our system no such thing as God, either personal or impersonal. Parabrahm is not a God, but absolute immutable law, and Iswar is the effect of Avidya and Maya, ignorance based upon the great delusion. The word God was invented to designate the unknown cause of those effects which man has either admired or dreaded without understanding them, and since we claim and that we are able to prove what we claim — i.e. the knowledge of that cause and causes we are in a position to maintain there is no God or Gods behind them.--

When we speak of our One Life we also say that it penetrates, nay is the essence of every atom of matter; and that therefore it not only has correspondence with matter but has all its properties likewise, etc. — hence is material, is matter itself.

This is very much and specificly Azazelian idea to me as I stuggle to see Lucifer as the fallen in its actual height, rather it is the "higher self" I referred earlier and I look up to. Lucifer, for me, is near the highest stage of the fall, representing the initial moment of the fall, while Azazel on the other hand is to me a sort of emergent from the already fallen state of material powers represented by Satan. Azazel - the Master of the "Black Witches" - is within my recognition of the powers of matter. Thus under the guidance of the latter aspect of the higher self we near the line of transcendence people tend to place their hopes on when observing quantum phenomena breaking the chains of limited understanding.

Zeraim wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:03 pm"The ideas laid out in this document as a whole cannot be defined as spiritualism because, as the above definition states, spiritualism says nothing about matter, the nature of the supreme being or a universal force, or the precise nature of spiritual reality itself."
Occultism seems to differ from "spiritualism" pointed by the reasearchers, as it indeed makes the brideful step of having the nerve to study these things and build the heuristic ladders of thought to understand these things in order to reach them.
Zeraim wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:03 pm "We have not used the term “God” in place of panconsciousness in this document because that is an ambiguous and confusing term. It has many meanings. Two of the most general meanings associated with that word are ideas anathema to this thesis. The first is that God is infinite. This is not the case in the SSH model. Our panpsychic substrate evolves. The second is the popular idea in many religions that God creates everything. Our panpsychic self-simulation is everything and is collectively created by everything within it. It is unitary and interdependent, where the panconsciousness cannot exist without evolving through us and everything else that can make decisions."
So the researchers definition of the panpsychic substrate is close to that of Manu - the manvantaric "god" -, or the world soul emphasis on the current Manu through which the panconsciousness emerges in to phenomenal existence? Panconsciousness does not equal with the absolute as consciousness-unconsciousness polarity belongs to the time bound phenomenal world, as we see Koot Hoomi stating in the letter referenced in the link above.
"Would to God that all the Lord's people were Prophets”, Numbers 11:29 as echoed by William Blake
Locked