SOUL

@Elisabeth My apologies for swapping the singular and plural but that doesn't constitute the basis of the confusion you claim I am bringing, in fact you don't attribute it to that so I will move on from it. Quantum physics, quantum theory and quantum mechanics all come from the phenomena that violate the laws of classic physics and those effects obviously happen in the physical world otherwise they wouldn't be observed. Those physics, theory and mechanics fields of study come from the effects observed in physical world but the source of these effects are not the same classic physics those effects violate and the fields of study on those effects aren't a study of the source of those effects, just the study of those effects as observed in the physical world. Until we can account for the mechanisms that cause the phenomenal effects we cannot include them in the "observable" category of the known universe. The source of these effects are still quite mysterious and unknown, we just know of the effects in the observable universe from it. This is why I said it isn't physical and what I am referring to is the source of the effects, just to clarify, maybe sub physical could be a phrase used instead. Either way, the fields of study that have sprung up around the discovery of these phenomena explain the effects of them in the physical world and is not the same as explaining the source of the effects itself. I googled "physical" out of curiosity and in the initial return listed from wikipedia it says, "Physical property, any aspect of an object or substance that can be measured or perceived without changing its identity." What's interesting is that according to this definition the double slit experiment shows something non physical since a photon changes it's identity from a wave to a particle depending on whether it is measured or perceived, aka observed. I'm not saying this is proof of anything but it's kinda funny nonetheless. Also, can we observe dark matter or dark energy? Do we have math in theoretical physics that accounts for them? I don't know what Leo says about it, I didn't bring him up so if you want to discuss what he says or thinks about it find someone who knows about that... like possibly Leo himself. I think you are creating the "confusion" by your responses to my initial comment all stemming from a single phrase, "isn't physical", which I defined right away as not adhering to classic physics. No matter how you attempt to spin my comment into what it appears you want to argue, it wasn't anything more than just that. I will repeat the point of my initial reply which was on the thread topic, the tenuous relationship between academia and "high consciousness" is the result of an ideological war over the "right answers". This seems to be inhibiting discovery about consciousness since the scientific community only wants the answer to be reduced to materialistic terms. Yet, there's more and more evidence to support that consciousness has effects associated with quantum phenomena and we are well aware the source of those effects are still as mysterious as the day we discovered them so this is problematic for them. It becomes increasingly noticeable when advancement in understanding our world and ourselves is hindered because people want their answer to be right, not the right answer to be known because of an ideological dispute.

Upon reading the thread title my mind went off on a tangent about some ideas I pondered the other day and it wasn't the internet trolls way but since my ideas don't apply to the actual thread topic I will just leave this here.... and leave.

@Elisabeth So let me get this straight, you are calling me out on your own impression of what I said and on the words you used to characterize my point? That is an interesting call out I must say. Firstly they call individual photons quanta, so I guess more than one photon would be called quantum. Although quantum mechanics is a completely different set of phenomena and quantum physics is the physics built upon the effects from quantum mechanics which break the rules of classic physics. if I were to address the words you chose to characterize my point starting with mysterious I would have to agree because quantum mechanics are mysterious and from what they work are still a mystery. Then the word underlying I would have agree with as well since quantum mechanics lies under classic physics. Finally we come to me saying quantum mechanics are not physical meaning not of classic physics. The reason I say that is because what we call quantum mechanics are really just the effects that we see in the observable universe of classic physics of it's influence since we cannot actually observe what it is that causes the effects of quantum mechanics. We don't even have a math that can explain what causes the effects, only a math that explains the effects in the observable universe of classic physics. Does that clear up my point at all?

Some very interesting consciousness and quantum related research has been coming from Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. They have actually been discovering and putting together hypotheses that would contribute to the connection between consciousness and the quantum. There is an dogmatic ideological war going on so many if not most scientists refuse to acknowledge the evidence of the connection between consciousness and quantum. They want to continually reduce consciousness so they can control that "right answers" war and it's limiting scientific discovery because of being ostracized if one doesn't capitulate to the accepted paradigm of reductionist ideology. This same ideological war seemingly creates a rift between academia and "high consciousness" as the op put it but this is a false dichotomy. The war is exacerbated by people clinging to ideological extreme positions and ignoring any of the common ground that exists between them since both are similarly exercises in illumination. A connection between consciousness and quantum doesn't mean that every fantastical idea someone has about consciousness and quantum has merit or is true because there ultimately may be connection between them. Too often spiritualists will seize upon the phenomena from quantum mechanics and consciousness then extrapolate it into some mystical idea claiming it as a universal truth. Also, quantum isn't physical, meaning it doesn't adhere to the laws of classic physics and all that is observed of the quantum is the effects of it in classic physics and the physical world. Just like we don't see the wind, we just see what the wind blows so learn about the wind from what it blows.

"I am" riding the mind-body being on the present moment wave of existence as it manifests like someone rides a surfboard on the waves. I don't own anything, I just 'borrow' for a moment in each moment with every moment I have the moment to be .... now ... here.

Because one doesn't have to do anything for it to happen....it's just a state of being.

Are we our ass? Are we the poop in our ass before we poop it out? What about after it's pooped out? Are we the billions and billions of individual biologically distinct microorganisms that are alive inside us?

It's not really a death in the way it's typically understood, the ego just doesn't want to lose it's dominance over awareness so it creates the perception of a "death" to influence us into not restoring it to the natural and less prominent role in our consciousness. This lesser role in our consciousness is an unsatisfactory state for the ego compared to what it craves so this may be where the dissatisfaction you are experiencing could be coming from.

It's amazing the types of mystical stories that people convince themselves of to explain away the stories they face every day in life. Accepting things as they are and not judging or labeling them in concepts that create the theories which fill the paradigms of the mind is too simple, they are still addicted to the stories, they just change them.

You can tell it's bullshit because the lips are moving.... or since it's a forum the fingers are moving.

Just another person who mistakes personal perception for the universal truth, the world is filled with those who project their personal belief paradigms onto others and deem that they know the truth for all.

Thoughts are tools of the mind but don't become a tool of the mind's thoughts.

You agree with my question? That stripping all of the experience from experience then question how anyone can learn from experience is a flawed theory.... ironically. Theory is just the product of ideas and concepts which contributes to a mind's paradigm but enlightenment is transcending all of those so it's useless in the exercising of our awareness to be it. It's an addiction of the mind it can't give up and does everything in it's power to convince us to identify with it but the mind can be free of that vice if we seek to be free from it.

@Truth Eventually the specific articulation of perception becomes so individualized in it's particular coherence there is no peer in any other variation of the infinite potential so it's accuracy is only valuable to each instance. The only way it becomes toxic is if it is allowed to become that way and we unknowingly or in awareness intend it to be.

So you try to sterilize everything that comes with experience in life then wonder how can anyone learn from the experience of life? Interesting....

@Truth Yes, the need to know impulse is an effect in our mind from the finite experience, it is a hunger or a yearning. Being present in awareness is an infinite experience that brings fulfillment and satiates that craving of the mind.

Well, it seems like you are allowing the finite portion of consciousness to create the narrative of the circumstances from it's finite perspective. As you grow more aware of what you don't know the ego is telling the story of "like I'm always taking 5 steps backwards the more I dive" to exert control and you are believing it. Time to flip the script, create the narrative from the infinite, tell the story from that limitless potential and believe that instead. It's at least a more optimistic tale of existence. The word I use for the that curious agnostic disposition of consciousness I recognize in my life experience if I were to call it anything would be seeking.

Does it need a word?

In what way? You don't explain in what way is it an obstacle, what kind if obstacle or what it is hindering you from.

You nailed it, don't allow others to distract you from this simple perspective you have. It's us just being in awareness accepting as it is without judging it as real or illusion or truth or false or any of that, just being in the moment. So many spiritualists will tell us we need to drop our concepts and story but are quick to then supplant it with their concept and story in it's place calling it the "truth" and want us to agree with it. The conflict could be that you are just being and accepting things as they are but others are telling you that it's not enough, that you need to agree with them in their conceptual belief on what's real or illusion and truth or false. So this input you are getting may be causing the conflict, if you are at peace with just being in acceptance then why allow others dissatisfaction with your contentment of just being create any conflict in you. We let it just pass on through while we are just aware in being, passively observe it float away since there is no use for it in us, it's not our dissatisfaction, it's theirs they are attempting to give to us by planting the seed of their own discontent in us. It is what it is so just let it be.

When someone adheres to an idea or concept so it is a dogmatic belief the scope of it's influence is on the individual in limiting their ability to transcend the self's attachment to it and free the awareness to evolve to a selfless perspective. Yet when someone in this same circumstance is telling others that their dogmatic attachment is the "truth" or the "right way" or even the "only way" for others they are projecting a personal experience as a universal one. So if someone is going around telling others what is truth, right or the only way on spiritual matters the scope of it's influence goes from being just the individual to potentially many more others. Spirituality is a very personal experience and teaching universal interpretations of experience does more to confuse than it does to clarify. If we were exploring physics then there are universal truths but this is spirituality so any "truth" we may discover are personal ones from our interpretation of experience. How to call attention to this dynamic so sincere seekers will not allow themselves to fall into the mind trap of it without the awareness of it becoming another dogmatic concept the mind clings to can be a paradoxical situation. It's similar to the quandary of scaffolding and our ever evolving conscious being, our work is ongoing since we are always changing so the tools are useful but part of our work is to not look to the tools that help us work as being more than they are. The work we are doing is in our conscious being through awareness.... if there is any spiritual truth that is universal, this would be it.

It just illustrates how easy it is for the mind to cling to a concept as truth so attracts the attention of our awareness and distract us from being present. It's not wrong or bad, it's just the natural behavior of the mind, that's what it evolved to do. Although, we are seeking to transcend the need or desire to engage in it at the core of our consciousness, the awareness, even if the mind seeks to capture our attention with it's monkey mind dance...lol

I do try to stop with the dogma and I appreciate you reminding me to. Although, the concept that "the only way this infinite cycle can be broken is through silence" is dogma, too, even if it's not said and just held in the mind as a truth....jussayin....

The concept itself isn't really the problem, because we can use a concept in the moment to navigate through a current circumstance we are in. If we cling to that concept and it becomes a part of a paradigm we call it truth and even go around telling others it's the truth. This is when the concept passes from something we used in the moment to manage a situation to becoming something personally dogmatic. Finding a way to use a concept in the moment, as scaffolding, and not become attached to it as "truth" is tricky as you mentioned, our mind wants to be "right", to have the knowledge. We can train the monkey mind to become not clingy to the things that pass through it, to cease giving it importance or imparting a truthiness to it and make it part of it's monkey process to let go of it. So as we approach what we call enlightenment, which is another concept in itself that we should let go of, our mind doesn't become a hindrance by clinging to the scaffolding that may guide us to free our awareness. A concept doesn't defile, it isn't a sin, it's a tool, it's scaffolding used for the moment we use it then we let go of it.

Thinking dogma is dogma is dogma and calling that dogma is dogma.....now that we cleared this up we can free ourselves from it.