German classical philosophy. AND

Andrey Andreev:

Do you want proof that the world as a set of spatial objects can be found somewhere else other than in the human mind? That only in consciousness there exists round and red, cold and warm? That only in your mind you hear the sound of the wind and the laughter of a child? Do you think that anyone else in the world, besides those endowed with perception, sees the quantum-energy “dregs” as a world of various forms, hears and feels? I don't even know how one can doubt this...
Can you say that the mountain sees the sky and the clouds are surprised at their reflection in the river? Then at least I’ll have something to refute. And so, why do I need to prove that I am me, that I am alive, that I am thinking and speaking?

You can know what you can check. How can you check, bypassing consciousness, what you receive through consciousness? For example, you see a chair. If you doubt it, check it by touch - it’s really a chair. So this is your tactile sensitivity, given to you in consciousness. Okay, call someone else, like me. Is this a chair, you ask? - I say, yes, a chair. So, did you check? Where did you get the proof? Conscious. Through what? through consciousness. And wherever you look, everywhere - you either know, but through your consciousness, or you don’t know and cannot be sure. “Objectively” everything exists only in your consciousness. And what is outside of it is from the evil one. Well, or a consequence of your trust in your “habits”, “life experience”. The consequence of trust is, in other words, the consequence of FAITH. That's all knowledge. Read our Hume's David.

My answer to Andrey Andreev:

So, so, then you managed to prove that there is no objective world???
Look, what a great guy Andreev is, he proved that the world exists only in the mind, and there is no such thing as an objective world. Ay, well done.

Naive, however, is childish. : the fact that we understand this world with the help of our sensations is clear to everyone.
Well? And what basis do you have to say that everything exists only in your mind?

Even as a child, I laughed when I imagined God thinking in surprise: “How can I do this?”

What kind of other miracle organs can they create to understand the world, so that they believe that the world is real?
None - they won’t believe it anyway. Leave them like that."
So you cannot prove that the world is not real and exists only in your mind.
And there is no reason to ask anyone else.
Because this other person also exists only in your consciousness.
This means your consciousness will speak for him, and by the way, my Vospetka will always speak for me too
your consciousness composes. Well, how could it be otherwise?
Let’s say they haven’t read it, but it doesn’t exist at all, and I never worked on it..
You didn’t feel it, didn’t touch it, didn’t see it. you haven’t read it, that is, it doesn’t exist.
Or there is, if you have read it, but it exists only in your precious consciousness.
That is, if a world like this, together with my Vospetka in it, does NOT exist in reality, then only you, that is, your consciousness, wrote all this crap of mine.
Why, Vospetka, you (your consciousness) and “War and Peace” yourself composed the whole thing, and your loved ones too
You also came up with idealistic geniuses yourself, Andrey.
Why be shy, dear, admit it, if there is no world, but only in consciousness, then the consciousnesses of others
no, you also invented them with your consciousness, but the fact that you see arms, legs, eyes, hear voices, see a text on a computer or a book by Hume - these are again your organs lying to you, there is no one. How can you prove that this Hume wrote, can you trust the eyes that read, see, can you trust the hands that hold this book? No, you can’t, Andrey.
Because everything is only given by your deceiving organs... Well, this text of mine, which you see with your eyes, is not there, you are now inventing it yourself, your eyes are deceiving you...
Well, you famously came up with Hume, Kohn, Dewey, Plato...
After all, everything you read is that your eyes deceived you. It was all born in your mind.
Listen, what should we all do when you’re gone? It's so scary...
What if we all evaporate overnight. Live longer, Andreev, maybe we all need to chip in and pay you for our existence, at least in your mind? We are also part of this non-existent world, living only in your mind!
After all, it’s much better for all of us to exist only in your mind than not to exist at all, after all, I was able to look at a large piece of walnut cake at night, so it’s not so bad for all of us to live in your mind. So live and support us, all the undead further.

Marina Slavyanka

Marina Slavyanka, January 31, 2019 - 21:53

Comments

Let's start with what it means to exist, Marina Slavyanka.
Because I will be absolutely indignant.
I'm not a thing. This is my principle.
In this sense I do not exist. Don't even expect to play with me like a dog.
I will resist vigorously.

If someone exists and you can make a stool out of it, write to me, otherwise I don’t have enough good material.

There is something for me that I can use. Something I can grab onto with my claw.

Preferably someone in the ass.

I can also cling to a good idea.

Actually, on the topic of existence, Hegel was my teacher. He explained that there is no more stupid word than this. How right he was.

Let the world wait for our answer.

Well, where would you idealists be without Hegel? It’s true that all of you here are singing to the doo-doo of Western philosophers, but our domestic followers of bourgeois idealism have not yet realized that Hegel is not in their honor there. They don’t like, don’t read and don’t remember, except to ridicule. Well, this is all because our Marxists built their reinforced concrete diaphragm on it and their entire “state philosophy.” Only Lenin said that with Hegel everything is upside down, and our Marxist-Leninists supposedly put everything that they took from Hegel firmly on its feet.

So Westerners, after our Leninist philosophers, now disdain Hegel...

Well, since all of you here, with the departure of the stronghold of materialism - the Soviet Union, are all running with your pants up for the philosophy of the West, there is no need for you to boast that you have read Hegel. I can boast that I read Hegel’s books, because, unlike you, I am neither an idealist nor a materialist.

Both of these currents of thought are vicious, they have a fragmenting principle, that is, in both cases there is war in thinking, not peace..

So live and support us, all the undead further.

I don’t understand in Ukrainian. What do you mean by “appropriate” and what kind of “Svidomo” does Andrei have? Maybe your Svidomo is knowledge, awareness? Or some kind of piece of paper, like a diploma? What about the table? I don’t understand. It’s better. Is it better? If you still speak Ukrainian, then I will answer you in English Am I clear?

I don’t have a Chinese keyboard, it can be done, but it’s not useful. It is possible, of course, in Phinyin, that is, in Latin, but no one will understand, but many people now already know English, even in fluent. In any case they speak it more often than not

Look at this Yank’s words! It’s not right that Andriy is at his Svidomosti’s place! So what? It’s better to visit Boldachov at Svidomosti’s, like the table? :)

What is more beautiful - to be with Boldachov in Svidomosti like that table, or with Vadim Sakovich? :)

“How can you check, bypassing consciousness, what you receive through consciousness?”
The location of the chair can, in theory, be calculated. Distant invisible stars are calculating.

What about red? But what about colorblind people, and cats or bulls - they see colors differently. This is in the human sensory system of vision, red is red, and in the sensory system of someone else, the color of an object with such a wavelength (which we see as “red”) can be interpreted as a different color, depending on the number of rods and cones, and everything , what else is there. Of course, color is a subjective feeling of a person. Like pain, like heat, cold, taste, etc.

Does this world exist outside of our consciousness?

And why not, if this world has its own consciousness (such as cosmic consciousness) independent of ours (subjective).
After all, it is not the same thing to ask whether the world exists outside consciousness or whether the world exists outside our consciousness.

And to know, you need to get this access zone. This is why there is knowledge of the world and oneself in the world. Otherwise, you won’t be able to avoid meeting the “wolves,” no matter how much you deny that you personally are somewhere outside their reach.

A cat just scratched me, I’m in the zone, Allah is my witness, everything is his will, dear Gennady Makeev.
You can reach and scratch a person, I don’t even argue.
Except one. You can't grab hold of just one of us.

Marina, good afternoon! I looked through your posts. All the philosophical questions that you are tormented over (literally), on which you do not sleep, have long been resolved.

Stop wasting your precious unique time on fruitless thoughts. Discover Kant and Hegel, and if they are too complex for you, then " Dictionary of Hegel's philosophy" A.D. Vlasova (available on Rutreker). In this dictionary you will find answers to many of your questions.

I appreciate your curiosity and therefore I ask you to take my advice kindly.

Regards, Mikhail

Yes, I’ve read it quite a bit.

Hegel’s “Philosophy of Nature” was his favorite book more than any other, but even there there is a lot of, excuse me, nonsense, made up out of thin air.

And then, why are you pushing me towards idealists if you have read my statements? You are a naive philosopher...

It’s not you, dear idealists of this forum, that I would like to convince

You are all like ostriches - your head in the sand and no reality.

Imagine a picture that is quite possible.

For example, you are so rich that, damn, you sit at the very top and think...

Together with all the same crazy rich kings of the Earth.

So you sit and think, what to do with the rapidly multiplying billions of earthlings?

Earthlings have thieves, swindlers, maniacs, and... oh, who among us is there, even terrorists, also diverse with their formidable beliefs...

Shouldn't we reduce them by 90 percent, huh? As they say, less people means more oxygen.

After all, all you have to do is snap your fingers, and they will immediately... wipe each other out, clearing the Earth of themselves.

Well, just think, if you were so filthy rich, of course, you wouldn’t build such primitive bunkers as the rich people built for themselves 40 years ago. You would have harnessed powerful scientists and built entire cities for yourself, luxurious and protected by the latest miracles of technology, somewhere underground.

Well, of course, there is money for it. Why not? suddenly some kind of meteorite, what if

some terrible volcano, what if there’s a nuclear war...

Do you have children, a beloved mother, etc.

And besides, you don’t lose anything, your descendants will never know that it was you who snapped your fingers so that the extra billions of people were removed from the Earth

Oh, how well all problems will be solved when all the extra riffraff disappears, you will, of course, select very smart scientists, specialists, and even the most beautiful girls...

And your descendants will be so proud of you that you managed to save them all when they all died in agony

And the history of the lost billions will be clear to them.

Well, why, one might ask, did they start that fatal war?

Take Russia, for example. Didn’t they understand that Crimea would not be forgiven?

And the Ukrainians?

Didn’t they understand that Russia has so many weapons and not just nuclear ones?

What about other countries?

Did they not understand that they were all sitting on a powder keg, that is, there were so many terrible weapons prepared on the planet that no one could survive? And descendants will look at your portrait with love, that you are a peaceful person, who thinks about your loved ones and managed to protect them so comfortably and deliciously, and forever... And no one will ever know that it was you and your friends who snapped your finger due to their enormous wealth and it began....

So this is what I want to shout to the heights of the sky, that we are the crew of one ship, and that we, earthlings, are not all of humanity, but all of humanity will see and know how they treacherously destroyed, destroyed their crew. This must be shouted to them, where are their miscalculations before it’s too late. And you, idealists, of course, don’t care about all this, for you it’s all in your thoughts and there’s no peace... Ostriches, damn it. And who should think about this if not lovers of wisdom? Thinkers, they call it. Oh, Hegel, oh, Husserl... Oh, oh, what smart philosophers we are, oh, we have Plato, oh, we have Aristotle, oh, our steak is getting cold on the plate... And while you go read Hegel, we live in the world of thoughts, but we eat a real steak, with blood.

I fully support you, Marina Slavyanka, we need to get rid of the riffraff. And all the riffraff you mentioned need to be re-educated. Here is a pedagogical poem for the whole world!
I would like to propose your candidacy for the post of President of the entire Earth, Marina Slavyanka. It’s true that no one yet understands all the systemic global problems like you. If only there were ten of us like you, the Earth would be saved.
Of all those known to me, you are the strongest woman philosopher. You really know how to think systematically. And clearly build all the logic. And most importantly, you are kind

If closer to the topic. That's what I think. For me, the word exist means that a thing can be used. Therefore, the topic can be reformulated as follows: “Is it possible to use something else besides our consciousness?” The answer is of course!
This is the same as existing beyond the limits of consciousness. Well, according to you.
Not all things are reflected in the mirror now. But all things can be used.

Or rephrase it like this: “Can all things be used, or only those that are currently reflected in the mirror?”
The answer is, if they are things, then all of them can be used. This means that they are available, or in principle they can be acquired.

I read it. Ward number seven. There’s nothing you can do, just watch an old movie about wasted time. It’s true that it’s for children, but apart from baby talk, I haven’t seen anything in this dispute yet.

If you all have nothing to say about the essence of the problem, then remain silent.

People need the opportunity to say something, otherwise how will they say anything, Vitaly Andriyash.
Now, if you spoke a modern language, you too could be listened to carefully. And so, try to interpret correctly from the language of the three gunas, thousands of options come out.

A strong argument in favor of the fact that any compact and complexly organized objects exist only in our consciousness (intersubjective perception and memory) can be found in quantum theory. According to quantum mechanics, all elementary particles are waves described by a wave function. These waves can only spread out irreversibly over time (according to the Schrödinger evolution of the wave function). For example, if you release a free electron at a certain point, then within a second its wave function will be delocalized in a volume approximately equal to the volume of the Moon. For macro objects, the delocalization rate is of course very low. For example, a 0.1 mm speck of dust would take approximately 3 billion years to double the volume of the region in which it was originally localized. However, by studying the cosmic microwave background, physicists found that approximately 300 thousand years after the Big Bang, matter was in a state of almost homogeneous (with density gradations of no more than 1 hundred thousandth of the average density) hot atomic gas and it is clear that already in this state everything the atoms then available (hydrogen and helium) had to be significantly delocalized on a macroscopic scale. In quantum theory there is no other process that could “compress” wave functions, etc. localize quantum objects except for acts of wave function reduction that occur as a result of the measurement procedure, which in turn presupposes the existence of an observer who records the result of this measurement. Acts of reduction do not follow in any way from Schrödinger’s description of the interaction of a micro-object with a measuring device and with a human observer (as a physical object) - as von Neumann showed in the measurement theory he developed back in the early 30s. Moreover, any objective theory of reduction comes into inevitable conflict with the principles of the theory of relativity, because requires instant transmission of information over any distance and absolute simultaneity of the fact of reduction at all points in space. That. It is natural to believe that these acts of reduction do not occur objectively (as is stated, for example, in Everett’s interpretation of quantum mechanics). Since we always see a particle somewhere specifically localized as a result of measuring its coordinates, then, obviously, for us this reduction takes place. This contradiction is resolved by explaining the act of reduction as a process that occurs only in our perception. Our perception is designed in such a way that it perceives only one of the elements of the original quantum superposition and ignores all other elements. That’s why we see an objectively delocalized particle somewhere specifically localized. But this localization takes place only in our perception and does not in any way affect the objective delocalized state of the particle. Subsequent measurements will also find this particle approximately localized where we previously discovered it, due to the fact that consciousness, having perceived a specific location of the particle, closes itself and other consciousnesses (from some community of consciousnesses to which we belong) access to all alternative its provisions (i.e. intersubjectively - significant for all consciousnesses - closes access to all other unperceived components of the original superposition). Consciousnesses also intersubjectively (consistently with each other) remember previously made choices. That. in this interpretation of quantum mechanics, any results of reduction of the wave function, and therefore any localized, compact, complexly organized objects (including our body and brain), exist only in the perception and collective memory of a certain community of consciousnesses and do not have any objective existence. Objectively, only delocalized (apparently during the Big Bang) quantum waves exist - spread, perhaps, throughout the entire visible Universe.

See my article for more details. "Quantum Ontology" (available in the FS library).

Thank you, Evgeniy. Please explain just one more thing.

If everything—there’s a lot you’ve listed here—including our bodies and brains—is only in our thoughts, then what about the community of thinkers?

How can you prove that this entire community is not the fruit of your thoughts?

Well, since the drinking has started, cut the last cucumber.

All the devices are in my thoughts, all the books, and this computer of yours are only in my thoughts,

Why then not admit that the community is all just your thoughts?

Well, how can you prove that it wasn’t your idea that all this worked???

Since you can do without books, without a table, without an apartment, without a car, and you are completely content and use them in your thoughts, well, excuse me, it is logical to assume that you ALSO use the community of thinkers in your thoughts,

and you push all this science for everyone for yourself..

It only seems to you, as it only seems to me, that I am sitting at the table and writing to you,

So it just seems to you that you are delving into someone else’s work, the results obtained by someone, that there is a community of consciousnesses - and all this is produced ONLY by your THOUGHT and no one else’s

and you take the apparent existence of a community of consciousnesses as really existing in the form of thoughts that are not yours.

Let's say I'm writing, right? But I’m not here, and it’s your thought that’s creating everything. And me bye bye, eh?

Now you will prove the existence of these other consciousnesses.

Prove that it is not your thought that is taking the rap... that all our consciousnesses are not a figment of your imagination.

And I will take it and learn from you in order to prove the objective existence of the world in the same way.

Well, please show me how to prove the real existence of something other than you, say, this community, these other consciousnesses.

With great respect to you and your philosophical regalia and works

Nothing can be proven, except perhaps through pure mathematics. We can only talk about developing more or less plausible and justified explanatory schemes. Solipsism is a completely plausible theory that cannot be completely falsified. We can only talk about clarifying the conditions under which solipsism can be logically overcome. These conditions presuppose, at a minimum, the meaningful conceivability of the consciousness of another subject. But a thought must mean what it thinks, and this presupposes a certain experimental reality of the other, his presence “in the original” in my consciousness. In other words, the other is thought by me, and I am thought by another only if the other is in some way in me (in my consciousness), and I am in him. This state of affairs is possible within the framework of the philosophy of all-unity, based on the principle of “all in all”: not only a part is part of the whole, but the whole remains integrally in each of its parts (which means a part is only a certain form of existence of this whole). Then not only am I in the Universe, but the Universe as a whole is in me along with any possible “others”. Examples of the implementation of the philosophy of unity: Neoplatonism, the philosophy of the Upanishads, as well as Russian religious philosophy (S. and E. Trubetskoy, Lossky, Frank, etc.).

Evgeniy Ivanov. And yet, admit that the entire material world is much more difficult to create in thoughts than the thoughts of your community of consciousnesses. You only perceive them in the form of thoughts. If your thought is so powerful that it holds the entire Universe within itself, then the community is still its work. And you allow the existence of independently thinking consciousnesses, simply because you are the only one bored.. here You came up with others. The thought is at least possible. Whatever theory you want, invent one. But your plausible solipsism just doesn’t work for me. It turns out that I was not there then. At all. You exist, but I don’t. Sorry, maybe I'm wrong, but for some reason I don't believe that I'm gone. and although you call solipsism plausible, not a single solipsist has yet proven to me that I do not exist. True, there have been cases when a solipsist then undertakes to prove to me that I exist, but here he is, and all that he gives me writes - the fruit of my thoughts But I know that the solepsist does not think so, but is hanging noodles on my ears. and then, and after all these words, he goes into the kitchen to drink tea or smoke a cigarette on the balcony, and he lies to me...

Solipsism is irrefutable in the sense that any facts known to me and even possible facts cannot refute it for me. It is compatible with any possible experience I have. The only thing that can be asserted is that there is no logical necessity to accept solipsism as the only possible system. It is not true that “any theory can be invented.” The theory, at a minimum, must be consistent and meaningful. There are consistent and meaningful philosophical theories that allow us to overcome solipsism - not to refute it, but to show how it is possible to think of another Self, provided that the only thing that is given to me is my own consciousness (which is meaningful and is all the experience given to me). This is possible if consciousness is not closed in on itself, but is “rooted” in some supra-individual reality (such as Plato’s “world of ideas”), i.e. there are certain supra-individual elements of experience.

Evgeniy Ivanov Well, let solipsism be irrefutable for you. Well, you might think that I don’t exist, but I can’t agree with that. It turns out that you wrote my “praise” for me and wrote all my poems... But I won’t give you my authorship. SOLIPSISM MAY BE SUITABLE FOR YOU, SINCE IT IS IN SOME FORM, BUT IT RECOGNIZES YOUR EXISTENCE, BUT MINE IS NOT.. YOU WILL NOT LYE TO ME, LIKE THAT GUY THAT YOU ARE NOT, BUT I AM AND YOU THE FRUIT OF MY CONSCIOUSNESS ONLY. YOU WON'T ALLOW YOURSELF TO LIE TO ME. and I KNOW THAT I AM, NOW I’LL GO TO BED, I HAVE LESSONS TOMORROW. That’s what I think 6 times your solipsism doesn’t respect me and my life, why is it crap, your solipsism. and I think that everyone present on that forum, if they use their brains, will understand that they, too, do not exist in your opinion, but only one exists that considers solepsism irrefutable.. And whoever here is imbued with solipsism and would declare this , then you also won’t believe him that you don’t exist, you’ll understand that he’s lying to you, that you don’t exist, but only he exists. You see, solipsism is such a big stupidity that there is no need to prove it. This is a theory created exclusively by fools. Well, think about it, why am I going to prove to the solepsists that I exist? They are assholes and don't exist for each other.

Evgeniy Mikhailovich,

I'm sorry that I'm being so rude to you here, I'm sorry.

I'm glad that a philosophy pro came to my topic.

I read the discussions here on the website, and it’s clear that for everyone it’s all a game.

I think it's just mental gymnastics, like playing chess.

No one here actually believes that nothing exists in reality, but everyone has only thoughts. After all, it is already clear to everyone that very, very many people died like this, thinking that the real, objectively existing world was only the creation of their thoughts, and with this they died,

but the world remained, and you and I also remained to live in this world,

We haven’t gone anywhere yet, we haven’t disappeared with the thoughts of these departed people..

So Fichte died a long time ago, he was so sure that the world was created by his thoughts and without his thoughts there is no one and nothing.

He left, but we are there and reading their books, essentially baby talk.

And no matter how you argue with me, we exist absolutely independently of each other and it is stupid to deny each other’s existence.

We both know, in fact, that when one of us leaves, the other will remain and will not go anywhere until the time comes.

Yes, here I generally hear continuous baby talk. For example, everyone talks about the imperfection of our sensory organs. The main thing is that they themselves deny their existence, these organs, and then everyone talks about their imperfection. Well, how can they be imperfect if they don’t exist at all from their own point of view.

And this is how everyone here thinks like a child. everyone is like robots, damn it, that’s how they were taught.

What kind of philosopher is he if he doesn’t want or doesn’t know how to think for himself? parrot? who needs parrots in philosophy? They also hinder the development of thought on Earth.

Now I understand that earlier idealists fought with materialists who did not recognize or underestimated the great ability of thought.

But after the departure of the Union, materialism simply burns out.

So this opponent practically does not exist.

Why then should idealists develop complexes and try so hard to defend idealism?

Yes, you screw him to the same place where you shoved Marxist-Leninist materialism.

This couple deserves this treatment.

After all, everyone who created the teachings of subjective idealism, with their own death - each of them - proved that they were wrong in thinking that everything exists only in their thoughts and will go away with their thoughts. But nothing went away, nothing disappeared with their thoughts. And after these thinkers, only parrots of idealism remained.

All these isms are a muzzle on thought, they are prisons for the development of thought..

Both are wrong! And all these “improved” forms of idealism ALWAYS come down to solipsism, and you most likely know this yourself.

This is all a bad idea, and the time has come to sound the all-clear to all these pseudo-parrot thinkers... There is no one left for the parrots to scare after the collapse of the USSR. But we need to think anew if they are not parrots, but REAL thinkers.

But your plausible solipsism just doesn’t work for me. It turns out that I was not there then. At all. You exist, but I don’t. Sorry, maybe I'm wrong, but for some reason I don't believe that I'm gone.

What does it mean to eat and not? Are you absent before birth? And after death you are not there? And as the wise song says, “There is only a moment between the past (before birth) and the future (after death). This is what is called life." You understand that, in perceiving myself as a separate existence, all of me fits into a single moment between birth and death. All life is a moment between birth and death. And indeed it is. Remember all the years you have lived since birth. Don't they all fit together in an instant until today? How do you exist if you consider yourself to be separate from other people living, living in the past and living in the future? Is your existence ephemeral and fleeting and reduced to a single moment? It’s another matter if we accept that you and all others are only conditionally separate, that all people are united in the Divine Self and in this case are eternal just as God, the Absolute, is eternal? You, Marina Slavyanka, are only a moment in this life, but are eternal in a series of lives-sparks from the One Self. There is no death, but there is a transformation of your self from today’s Marina Slavyanka to the next incarnation into another woman or man with your self. Your self is not limited to a single life (with the logic “after us there may be a flood”). You, your self, comes into this world again and again, incarnating again as a woman, then as a man. And what you leave behind in the world today you will have to reap in your next incarnation.

The essence of man, his self, is doomed to eternity.

and not die as soon as you are born.

Even if the transition to the next life is possible,

It is unlikely that you will have the next organism.

Imagine that you gave someone a gift, and having accepted it, the person would begin to say that it was fake, deceptive, or that you only gave it in your imagination, but in reality, not.

So what.? Will you give your precious gift to this person next time? - NO.

Therefore, idealists are unlikely to be gifted with a second life.

You just need to appreciate every minute of life, so as not to fly through life on autopilot,

and live and accept the world in all its diversity with great gratitude, and be sure to love and be happy.

But these lies about the next life, about transformation into another - all this is unproven.

No, no, no, we need to appreciate what we have and act on the segment where we can see.

and now it’s still spring soon. How is it with Blok:

"Oh spring without end and without edge!

An endless and endless dream,

I recognize you, life, I ACCEPT!!!

And I greet you with the ringing of the shield!!"

Permsky. About your moment, everything is logically proven

Well, everything happens outside of time, and you won’t attach me to your moment.

On Fabula I have five articles about time.

Life is not time, nor a moment from birth to death, but a series of events.

Of course, it is short for us earthlings, but we must learn to live,

and not die as soon as you are born.

Unlike yours, or rather not yours, but the one that you adhere to,

my belief system really works for life and not death

But these stories about the next life...

Well, if you think the way you do, neglecting real life and not trusting the reality of the world created by God, you shouldn’t hope that you will come to live again...

Thank you, Marina, for your interesting thoughts. In life, what is much more important is not the position of materialism or idealism a person adheres to, but how a person relates to life. With love for everything that exists or with the merciless motto “do not expect favors from nature, but take from it everything that a person considers necessary for yourself,” and “after us there may be a flood.” You stand up for love in this life, as short as a match flame. It doesn’t matter how long you live, but what matters is how you live. This is true for both materialistic and idealistic views. Another materialist communist, trying to follow the moral code of the communist builder, is a hundred times more spiritual than those “church fathers” who were mired in lack of spirituality and child molestation. Now you adhere to a materialistic view of the world. And there is nothing unnatural about this. You follow your own path of knowledge and explore this step of understanding the world. God help you! God is so merciful to materialists who do not believe in the existence of the subtle world that such souls spend the period after death and before the next incarnation in life in oblivion, not perceiving anything in the subtle “afterlife” world. Everything is fine with you and everything is ahead of you.

Alexander Leonidovich

Don’t you understand that I am NOT a materialist, because I recognize the idea,

it underlies matter, although this is not our idea, but the Cosmos (the ideal essence)

But we ourselves are particles of the Cosmos! And he's perfect. What kind of materialism is this if I understand that the ideal Cosmos (God) was structured in such a way that it was able to create the most real and objectively existing MATTER.

the idealists want to take away God’s merit and not recognize the matter he created.

D, matter is created on the basis of an idea.. Yes, the idea always goes ahead, no factory is built without a project, that is, its birth in thought

You can’t even put together a chair without an idea, that is, a work of thought)

cIt is not true that “you can invent any theory.” The theory, at a minimum, must be consistent and meaningful.

Having a brain of cosmic power, like ours, a person can work on it directly opposite, but both are fair, logical theories, and in general, whatever.

Another thing is that we still don’t know how to fully use our brains. But we must be prepared for such brain capabilities.

therefore, when you go on a mental excursion in search of truths, you must have a lighthouse in front of you and not lose sight, that is, remember that you and your thought should work not for death, but for the life of earthlings.

And many people work hard towards death, even religions; they describe the sweets of paradise, luring a person to death, and have completely forgotten that paradise for earthlings is only on Earth! So the idealists carefully take you away from the Earth so that you don’t value it, get detached quickly, and there they say there are many more lives to come, it’s good there, there are apples and eternal life.

This state of affairs is possible within the framework of the philosophy of all-unity, based on the principle of “all in all”: not only a part is part of the whole, but the whole remains integrally in each of its parts (which means a part is only a certain form of existence of this whole).

Or in the language of Hindu Mahavakya (“great saying”) - tat tvam asi from the Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7. There are no separate consciousnesses, separate subjects, separate selves, but there is Brahman, the Absolute, whose conditionally separate “parts” are individuals (consciousnesses, subjects, small selves).

If there are no separate consciousnesses, then this is again the same solipsism.

Was it worth going there for such Mahavakyas?

Actually it’s spring, March. Let me refresh the topic with poems by the scientist physicist A. Guskov (his nickname is CASTRO).

The horizon floated somewhere,
The hat, cloak and umbrella were missing.
Ridiculous dream! Yes, you know, it's season...
In furry ears
Spring is rustling and I feel at ease.
And there is foam of clouds in the sky
Swirls like milk
In a pot-bellied mug.
And I'm already rushing there,
Where is the last ice, like mica,
Where the melt water rushes
Under the red sun.
Where everyone is ready for a feat,
Where, having climbed out of the bushes,
Troops of March cats
They storm the roofs.
I don't envy them. I myself
Ready to scratch the skies
For emerald eyes
Neighbor's Murka.
And if there was peace in my heart,
Life would not flow like a river.
It wouldn't stand dry
Sausage skin

Alexander Leonidovich! Don’t you understand that I am NOT a materialist, because I recognize the idea, it underlies matter, although this is not our idea, but the Cosmos (ideal essence).

I even understand that you and I ourselves are IDEAS, although we have a material organism and a material brain for our use!

The idealists want to take away God’s merit and not recognize the matter he created.

Therefore, matter is not one of the ideas, but something created by God? Where do ideas come from? If they were created by God, then they appear along with the created world, including the idea of matter. Then God creates the Cosmos ideal (as a grandiose system of ideas, including such an idea as matter), and embodied ideas in the created world of material phenomena, objects (stellar worlds of galaxies, planets, planetary natural worlds geological, geographical, chemical, biological and social) according to According to the religious ideas of Christianity, God entrusted the control of the heavenly army in its lower angelic triad (Principles, Archangels and Angels), or God not only creates every little detail of the grandiose universe personally, but also controls every smallest event of the created world. If ideas are not created by God, but are eternal, and God only creates the world, embodying eternal uncreated ideas into matter, then why is matter, its idea, not as eternal as the eternal ideas of all created things (including the ideas of Marina Slavyanka and Permsky)? After all, the galactic, stellar, planetary worlds are not matter (idea), but the use of the idea of matter in the created world as a substrate in which ideas are embodied. Things, worlds are material, but matter is the idea of a material substrate, and not the substrate itself. In esotericism, matter before the creation-incarnation of the world of ideas into the material world is an idea-primary matter; matter in the created world is the idea of the substrate (carrier of properties) of any phenomenon, object of the created world.

Yes, matter is created on the basis of an idea.. Yes, the idea always goes ahead, no factory is built without a project, that is, its birth in thought

That's right. The idea precedes the object embodied in the substrate. First an idea, then a project/plan (technology + materials/substrate) and the output is a created object.

What kind of materialist am I if I recognize the priority of THOUGHT?!

The point is not about the priority of thought, but about understanding the meaning, the significance of matter in the created world. Thing = idea (conscious, meaningful) + matter/substrate. A thing is the fruit of the embodiment of an idea into a substrate/material. And also, speaking about the idea, the meaning of matter, you need to understand that the idea of matter is the “wrong side” of the idea of energy. There is neither pure idealism nor pure materialism.

If I recognize as primary for all that exists - space, which exists in the form of an idea, just not ours, but the primary one, from which everything came?!

No, Alexander Leonidovich, materialists don’t think like that.

And unfortunately, they don’t think at all, and for the most part they stole everything from the idealists.

And at the same time, I am not an idealist.

In general, I consider all these ISMS to be muzzles on our thought.

The world does not fit into these two boxes!!! I always repeat, both materialists and idealists sew a dress for a naked king. Only for materialists, as a result, the king goes naked, and for idealists, the dress comes without a king ((and this is crazy)

Idea and matter are just two sides of a single created/manifested world. The separation of matter from the idea or the separation of the idea from matter - this is the great misconception. And there are no pure-blooded materialists or idealists, just as there are no solipsists in their pure form.

Perm

1) NO. I didn’t say that all ideas were created by God.. If we agree that God is space and it represents an idea, then this IDEA is the most powerful in strength, the primary idea, and this primary powerful thought cannot be compared with our thoughts .

Here we need to distinguish between our thoughts, children’s ideas, and that which is space, that is, Space.

It was this idea - the Cosmos itself - that was structured in such a way that it was able to obtain REAL MATTER, existing in all its independence from our thoughts, MATTER. A holy work, an unprecedented work - from an idea to create not your mental snotty non-existent, but an objective one, so that a chair is a chair, and not our thoughts about a chair! No, my dear, I’d rather make a mistake, if anything, than to underestimate this work, like you. Seriously think about how much more difficult it is for their thoughts to create not the mental, but the real, not dependent on anyone’s thoughts, even on oneself, such a powerful God!

This whole colossus created by him lives, develops, moves, even thinks independently of God! But would you like Perisky, would you like your child to always depend on you, so that he doesn’t have a real independent life? Would you just invent him and he would live only in your thoughts? Take a break from philosophy and tell yourself the truth. If YOU were God, so powerful, and knew that it is incredibly difficult to create an objectively existing world, with such real and not mental matter, this is the greatest maximum of your intellectual powers, and to create a mental world in which your mental children will live , much easier. WHAT WOULD YOU CHOOSE? Which way is easier? God chose the second path, okay? And personally, if it is impossible to prove 100% one way or the other. In this case, for simple but important reasons, I will say that he chose the difficult one. And it’s better that I make a mistake, it’s not so scary than not underestimating his colossal work. I’d rather make a mistake and think incorrectly that I live in the real world given to us by God. It seems to me that earthlings don’t live long because...they have to give and give... Do you like to give gifts to someone who considers them fake? Who doesn’t appreciate and recognize your colossal work put into this gift? No, Perm, it’s better to overestimate than.... There are other reasons to accept my theory and not yours. Your position does not explain WHY this was all created. MEANING GOAL? Hegel's idea of self-knowledge as the goal of this creation is nonsense.

Permsky.

I decided to continue what I started explaining to you yesterday. Although... I know that you still won’t understand me, because you don’t want to understand.

Are you afraid (on a subconscious level) to take the apple of knowledge from Evochka’s hands, comrade Adam

Yes... none of this is easy.

Is it really that bad to explore the world? But it is also true that Adam invented hell, and not only invented it, but with the help of knowledge he turns heaven into hell. Even Adam’s name itself says by its sound that he will give hell.

And the name Eve, as written in the Bible, is translated by the word “life” and she gives life, not death. Oh, she ate the apple of knowledge. so without God there was nothing there, if she was supposed to receive the apple of knowledge, then she received it, but the fact that she provided Adam with the apple was her willfulness, without the will of God for that.

Well, the punishment followed - to give birth in agony, it was her own fault that Adam sensed a male in himself ahead of time - he knew it. And it was too early for Eve to give birth.

God expelled Adam, but he did not expel Eve from Paradise; in the Bible he expelled only Adam. But it is impossible to expel Eve from Paradise. A more perfect example (both externally and in terms of the power of thought) Well, of course, then a mutation occurred, because the seed came from Adam, Eve did not always mutate in the sense of mind. Yes, it was impossible to just take her and expel her from paradise. I once looked at the first snowfall from the window, and it dawned on me that it was HEAVEN on Earth. Here he is! And that there are two cherubs with double-edged swords guarding the entrance to heaven, the sword is the WORD, and it can be turned this way or that way.

That is, how do you put it into words?

And there can be no other paradise better than this for a person than the planet itself on which he lives! To expel Adam - to make him not realize that he is still in Paradise - is a simple matter. God for him is an authority, and he always follows the authorities like a heifer on a leash, and rarely thinks independently, and even then he plans against his own life. Why was he expelled from Paradise in this way? Yes, because there is a tree of immortality, this is what the Bible calls this reason. You can live in paradise, but outside, no, not for long. So death went to mow down both Adam and his children. And Eva? Eve herself followed Adam, no one drove her to death. She attached herself to him with all her soul and love and followed him. And it’s not so easy for her to free herself from her attachment to him, from her love for him. But Adam, he cannot love. He has no love for Eve. Of course, he is already somewhat similar to Eve, because he is already her child. because someone can, it happens. And so it’s all about the tree of immortality. Actually, my whole theory is aimed at this, so that we, earthlings, can live, and not die as soon as we are born. (to be continued)

Permsky. I will continue my answer to you, although you are unlikely to want to understand..

So. To understand that God created REAL matter, you need to understand WHY it existed. The fact that Hegel’s goal was self-knowledge for the creator is nonsense, baby talk. It’s just this maxim: “know yourself” that confused him. This is a wish for us, earthlings, children. Everything depends on us knowing ourselves and our capabilities. We can even live forty forty and maybe even more, but for this we need to know ourselves along with our capabilities, the mechanisms of the body... We, children, do not know ourselves as followers, and this is still our main task, and Hegel took and sewed it on to our creator. Like, I hear from this, you don’t know a damn thing about yourself and you are in complete disarray, so learn, otherwise your knowledge is not enough for our Creator.

Funny? But this is Hegel’s thought

Yes, Hegel is a child like us, but we are already a little older than Hegel was. So, the purpose of creation. I could also be wrong, but I try to think logically. According to creation, it is CLEAR that God, although this is an ideal essence, is ALIVE. That is, this form of life. All living things tend to reproduce. There is a need to have your own brainchild. So we don’t have children for the purpose of self-knowledge, and the artist does not paint a picture for the purpose of self-knowledge. He wants his painting to live independently and its fate to be happy. And we want the children to be able to live independently and be happy. And everything is born through division. And the man separates his seed from himself, providing as much of his own as possible, and the woman separates the fruit from herself, providing as much of her own as possible. Even fish, trees, everything gels with fruit or seed. How can space separate a piece of itself, its brainchild? EUDA? If there is only space, then there is SPACE? . So you think, that is, you also give birth to thoughts, but where do you separate them? - on paper, a thought can be embodied in a sculpture, and it will survive centuries, yes, you can transfer a thought to another, and simply into its space... But to yourself - then WHERE to separate the space? WHERE to place your brainchild so that it can live happily and independently???? WHERE? And in general, how can you separate it within yourself and still allow it to live independently, make choices, be aware of your separate personal “I”? Here! This is why such a formation, matter, different from space itself, was required. So that this blah is objective, even independent of God himself! So that you think about it, don’t think about it, but it is and will be. Yes, in space, since there is nowhere else, that is, in the ideal essence. Moreover, it is necessary to go further to the creation of such a material object that its capabilities are commensurate with the Cosmos. You will in no way give less to your child than you have yourself, but to the fullest of your ability you will give to your most precious child…. And firmly attach your child to this material brain, let him use it, learn to use it, get to know himself, baby, grow up to the extent of his ability to use it, his ability to use it. And God created the human organism to serve this brain, and God created the entire Universe for his child; he will need no less as he grows up. You want to simply imagine God, so that he created something similar to himself, and we are similar to him, because we are ideal entities, like God, but we have a material organism at our disposal. And as for matter, that it was created on the basis of thought, it is not our still weak childish thought, but on the basis of space, which is the primary idea for us. There was nothing to create matter from, so he created it somehow, structuring himself, and made MATTER out of himself. He had no other material. But at the same time, he was able to create not mental, but real, objective matter, and only in this form could it help him separate from himself his ideal brainchild - a particle of himself in himself. I am neither a materialist nor an idealist. And I have already said that I would rather make a mistake a hundred times than take on such a sin and take away his authorship from God or belittle his work, thinking that he chose the easier path and what we received from him was not the real one. matter, but only mental... That is, he is deceiving us. We say that we see and understand everything as real, but it is a deception, all the organs created by God deceive us... No, no, no... Well, if it’s not mine, it’s not yours, it’s impossible to prove one hundred percent, God gave us an apparent us the world or the real one., I’d rather be wrong, but I choose the REAL UNIVERSE, created by SPACE! I will not take upon myself the sin of underestimating the significance of his work. I consider the approach of idealists to the world to be vile, and the approach of materialists to be stupid. Both are a dead end for us, so to speak, a death zone....

However, let's not get distracted.

The undoubted truth is the finitude of existence and death is a curtain for consciousness.

If there is death, then there is my body.

My body is real = all bodies are real.

Other consciousnesses really cannot be proven, because there are no laws to which they obey.

But not bodies, all bodies are subject to entropy.

Therefore, death is possible, this is the main reason.

Well, time, as the most important attribute of entropy processes, is also proven from within consciousness, so that all the tools for refuting solipsism are in it itself.

In general, how someone wrote it correctly is only proven by mathematics.

Philosophy argues.

Andrey Andreev:

My answer to Andrey Andreev:

Even as a child, I laughed when I imagined God thinking in surprise: “How can I do this?”

What other miracle organs can they create to understand the world, so that they believe that the world is real?
None - they won’t believe it anyway. Leave them like that."
So you cannot prove that the world is not real and exists only in your mind.
And there is no reason to ask anyone else.
Because this other person also exists only in your consciousness.
This means your consciousness will speak for him, and by the way, my Vospetka will always speak for me too
your consciousness composes. Well, how could it be otherwise?
Let’s say they haven’t read it, but it doesn’t exist at all, and I never worked on it..
You didn’t feel it, didn’t touch it, didn’t see it. you haven’t read it, that is, it doesn’t exist.
Or there is, if you have read it, but it exists only in your precious consciousness.
That is, if a world like this, together with my Vospetka in it, does NOT exist in reality, then only you, that is, your consciousness, wrote all this crap of mine.
Why, Vospetka, you (your consciousness) and “War and Peace” yourself composed the whole thing, and your loved ones too
You also came up with idealistic geniuses yourself, Andrey.
Why be shy, dear, admit it, if there is no world, but only in consciousness, then the consciousnesses of others
no, you also invented them with your consciousness, but the fact that you see arms, legs, eyes, hear voices, see a text on a computer or a book by Hume - these are again your organs lying to you, there is no one. How can you prove that this Hume wrote, can you trust the eyes that read, see, can you trust the hands that hold this book? No, you can’t, Andrey.
Because everything is only given by your deceiving organs... Well, this text of mine, which you see with your eyes, is not there, you are now inventing it yourself, your eyes are deceiving you...
Well, you famously came up with Hume, Kohn, Dewey, Plato...
After all, everything you read is that your eyes deceived you. It was all born in your mind.
Listen, what should we all do when you’re gone? It's so scary...
What if we all evaporate overnight. Live longer, Andreev, maybe we all need to chip in and pay you for our existence, at least in your mind? We are also part of this non-existent world, living only in your mind!
After all, it’s much better for all of us to exist only in your mind than not to exist at all, after all, I was able to look at a large piece of walnut cake at night, so it’s not so bad for all of us to live in your mind. So live and support us, all the undead further.

Everything that we call real consists of things that cannot be considered as real. If quantum mechanics hasn't completely shocked you yet, you don't understand it well.

Double slit experiment

Could reality be an illusion created by our consciousness? Does consciousness create the material world?

Before answering these questions, it is important to note that “reality” is not just made up of tiny physical pieces. Molecules are made of atoms, atoms are made of subatomic particles like protons and electrons, which are 99.99999% empty space. These, in turn, are made up of quarks, which appear to be part of a field of superstrings, which are made up of vibrating strings of energy.

We interact with the world of physical objects, but in reality these are just electrical signals that our brain interprets. At the smallest limits and fundamental scales of nature, the idea of “physical reality” does not exist.

As Nobel laureate, father of quantum mechanics Niels Bohr said, “everything that we call real consists of things that cannot be considered as real. If quantum mechanics hasn’t completely shocked you yet, you don’t understand it well.”.

When you clap your hands, empty space is actually just touching even more empty space with a hint of the energetic spin of tiny particles. The particles that make up matter have absolutely no physical structure.

This is important to understand because if we think of the world of quantum physics as a world of bowling balls and planets, the idea that consciousness creates reality doesn't make any sense. But if we understand that reality is a cosmic soup of non-localized energy and simple space, it becomes obvious that our thoughts and the signals that the brain registers have the same properties on their scales.

Consciousness represents one of the most difficult problems of science. There is no way to explain how something like material, chemical and physical processes lead to something as intangible as experience. There is no explanation as to why subjective experience exists at all or why sensitivity evolved. Nature will do just as well without subjectivity, and when we begin to scientifically explore the origins and physics of consciousness, we come to the conclusion that perhaps consciousness and reality are not as separate as the science of matter believes.

Here are some principles of quantum mechanics from the book “The Self-Aware Universe”, written by former theoretical physics professor who taught at the University of Oregon for 30 years, Dr. Amit Gozwami:

A quantum object (like an electron) can be in more than one place at one time. It can be measured as a wave spread out in space and can be located at several different points throughout the wave. This is called the wave property.
A quantum object ceases to exist here and spontaneously appears there without moving in space. This is known as a quantum transition. It's basically a teleport.
The manifestation of one quantum object caused by our observations spontaneously affects its associated twin object, no matter how far away it is. Knock an electron and a proton out of an atom. Whatever happens to the electron, the same will happen to the proton. This is called "quantum action at a distance."
A quantum object cannot manifest itself in ordinary spacetime unless we observe it as a particle. Consciousness destroys the wave function of a particle.

The last point is interesting because without a conscious observer who causes the wave to collapse, it will remain without physical manifestation.

Observation not only disturbs the object being measured, it causes an effect. This was tested by the so-called double-slit experiment, where the presence of a conscious observer changes the behavior of the electron, turning it from a wave to a particle. The so-called observer effect completely shakes up what we know about the real world.

The results of this experiment were published in the journal Nature. Essentially, what it comes down to is that the measurement system that is used to detect the activity of a particle determines the behavior of that particle.

As scientist Dean Radin noted, “We force the electron to occupy a certain position. We produce the measurement results ourselves.” Now they believe that “it is not we who measure the electron, but the machine that is behind the observation.” But the machine simply complements our consciousness. It’s like saying “it’s not me who’s looking at someone swimming across the lake, it’s the binoculars.” The machine itself sees no more than a computer, which can "listen" to songs by interpreting the audio signal.

Some scientists suggest that without consciousness, the universe would exist indefinitely, like a sea of quantum potential. In other words, physical reality cannot exist without subjectivity. Without consciousness there is no physical matter. This observation is known as the “anthropic principle,” and was first introduced by physicist John Wheeler. Essentially, any possible universe we can imagine without a conscious observer will already have one. Consciousness is the basis of existence in this case and existed, perhaps, before the emergence of the physical universe. Consciousness literally creates the physical world.

These findings guarantee huge implications for how we understand our relationship with the outside world, and what kind of relationship we can have with the Universe.

As living beings, we have direct access to all that exists and the foundation of everything that physically exists. Consciousness allows us to do this.

“We create reality” means in this context that our thoughts create the perspective of what we are in our world, but if you look at it, it is important for us to accurately understand this process.

We give birth to the physical universe through our subjectivity. The fabric of the universe is consciousness, and we are just ripples on the sea of the universe.

It turns out, we are lucky to experience the miracle of such a life, and the Universe continues to pour part of its self-awareness into us.

The Divine Matrix: Time, Space and the Power of Consciousness Braden Greg

Chapter 3. Who are we - passive observers or powerful creators?

We are crumbled fragments of the Universe, looking at ourselves and creating ourselves.

John Wheeler, physicist (b. 1911)

Imagination creates reality.

We humans are made of imagination.

Neville, clairvoyant and mystic (1905–1972)

In 1854, an Indian chief named Seattle warned the White House legislators that the destruction of North America's wilderness would have consequences far into the future and threaten the lives of new generations. With the deepest wisdom, no less relevant today than in the 19th century, the leader said: “People did not weave the Web of life, they are only threads in it. And everything they do to this Web, they do to themselves.”1 This image of the great Web of life is exactly what I mean when I talk about our connection with Divine matrix. Being part of the world around us, we carry on a continuous conversation - a quantum dialogue with ourselves, the world around us and the entire Universe.

At every moment of this cosmic dialogue, our feelings, prayers and beliefs speak on our behalf with the universe. And every second we receive his answers, manifested in everything - from the vitality of our body to peace on the planet.

What does it mean to be a co-participant of the universe?

In the previous chapter, I already mentioned the words of physicist John Wheeler that we humans are not just participants in a process that he called the “Universe of Participation,” but its main participants. The most important thing in this Wheeler thought is the word complicity. In such a Universe, both you and I are parts of one whole, which is in a constant process of becoming. We create, catalyze the events of our lives and at the same time participate in them! We - tiny fragments of the Universe, looking at themselves and creating themselves2.

And here great opportunities open up before us. If consciousness is capable of creating, then perhaps it is precisely it that creates the universe? Wheeler's words, spoken at the end of the 20th century, bring to mind Max Planck's thesis, voiced in 1944: everything exists thanks to the conscious Mind, which is the matrix of matter. All that remains is to ask: “What kind of Intelligence is this?”

Man is a being who observes and studies the world around him. Whatever we look at, our consciousness immediately creates an object observations. This means that the Mind that Planck spoke about is us (or at least we are part of it).

Key 5: Consciousness creates! Focusing consciousness is an act of creation.

It follows that our search for the smallest particles of matter and the boundaries of the Universe will probably never succeed. It doesn’t matter whether we are looking through a microscope, penetrating deep into the quantum world, or peering into the most distant corners of space, the very act of our observation and the expectation of seeing something will give rise to more and more new objects.

Universe co-participation- what does it mean? If consciousness is truly capable of creation, then what are our real possibilities to change the world? My answer will surprise you.

Perhaps the human ability to make dreams come true was best described by a soothsayer known as Neville, who lived in Barbados in the 20th century. In his numerous books and lectures, he spoke simply and precisely about the secrets of managing limitless possibilities. Divine matrix. From Neville's point of view, everything that a person experiences in his life - literally everything that happens to him - is a product of his consciousness, and nothing more. Neville was convinced that if we truly realized this fact, then there would be no barriers between us and the miracle. In his opinion, if Divine Matrix serves as a container for the entire universe, then consciousness organizes the entire space of events.

It’s not at all difficult to start thinking differently than before. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, the same question was heard everywhere in New York and Washington: “Why They Is this what they did to us? What we them done?" We live in an era in history where it is easy to think of the world in terms of “us” and “them,” wondering why bad things happen to good people. But if everything is connected by a single energy Field Divine matrix, there are no We And they are ONLY WE.

All people - from foreign rulers, whom we are accustomed to fear and hate, to our beloved and dear compatriots - are connected with each other in the most intimate way through conscious B divine matrix, which serves as an incubator for reality. Together we create health or illness, peace or war. It is not easy to accept these truths discovered by modern science. From this simple truth we can draw strength to heal and survive.

Neville's work draws our attention to one important point: the biggest mistake is to look for the reasons for our successes and failures in life somewhere outside of ourselves. Neville shares with us a big secret: “The great delusion of man is that he seeks the causes of anything outside of consciousness”3. What conclusion can we draw from this? The answer is simple.

Key 6: We have enough power to make any changes in the world. This power lies in our consciousness!

The world is subject to us to the extent that we are able to focus the power of our awareness at the right moment in the right place. In his book The Power of Awareness, Neville confirms this thesis with many real-life examples.

One of the stories in Neville’s book stuck with me for many years. A twenty-year-old young man was diagnosed with a rare heart disease.

Doctors said he would die soon. The young man was married and had two small children, those around him treated him with respect and love - in short, he had every reason to live a long and happy life. By the time Neville was asked to talk to him, he was completely thin and looked like a skeleton. The young man was so weak that he could not speak. He just nodded his head when Neville told him about the power of conviction.

From the point of view of our participation in the dynamic process of the universe, each problem can be solved only in one way - through changes in consciousness. With this in mind, Neville asked the young man to imagine that healing has already happened. As the poet William Blake said, the line between imagination and reality is very thin: “Man is imagination.” Like the physicist David Bohm, who believed that the world is a projection of events from deeper levels of reality, Blake wrote: “Everything that belongs to you, although it seems external, is inside, in your imagination, of which this mortal world appears before us as a faint shadow "4.

By focusing our consciousness on the objects generated by our imagination, we thereby give these objects life, allowing them to break through from the imaginary world into reality. Neville writes: “I suggested to him: imagine the surprised face of the doctor who discovered that you were recovering, contrary to all forecasts and common sense, getting out of a serious illness. Imagine how he examines you again and again and mutters: “A miracle, this is a real miracle.”5 I think you've already guessed where I'm going with this. The young man was indeed on the mend. A month later, Neville received a letter saying that he had recovered, and was subsequently greeted in good health, enjoying life and caring for his beloved family. The secret was simple: by listening to Neville, the young man, instead of want healing, began to live as if he already recovered. Here is a way to transfer what we want from imagination into everyday reality - we just need to feel that our dreams already came true, wishes were fulfilled and prayers were answered. This is how we find ourselves in the Universe, which Wheeler calls the “Universe of Participation.”

Live based on the results

There is a subtle but very significant difference between make efforts to achieve results And feel the result. To strive for a result means to move along the road to it.

We see milestones on this road, we consistently solve problems that seem to bring us closer to the goal, but in our minds it is always somewhere ahead, and not Here And already. That’s why Neville’s advice is so important: “Get into the image of what you want; think based on the fulfilled desire.”

A good example of how the action of consciousness is realized in the physical world can be found in the ancient schools of martial arts. I think you have seen how the masters of these schools break concrete blocks or stacks of boards. At the moment of impact they concentrate on implemented the result - just like the young man who was healed with Neville's help.

Of course, some perform tricks that are staged and do not require spiritual practice for the amusement of the public, but if everything is done seriously, the key to success lies in the point of application of attention. When a martial artist is about to break a concrete block, the last thing he thinks about is the contact of his own hand with its indestructible surface and is completely focused on the moment perfect actions - block already broken, or, as in the story described by Neville, healing already happened.

The master concentrates his attention on the point behind concrete block, and as a result the hardness of the concrete becomes a secondary factor. The master's consciousness unfolds from the moment of completed action, and not along the complexity achievements result. This simple example reveals to us the principle of effective work of consciousness.

I encountered something similar in my youth. At the age of twenty, my life interests were limited to working at a winery and playing in a rock band. But as soon as I celebrated my twenty-first birthday, I unexpectedly started doing yoga, meditation, martial arts and running. And in the future, these new hobbies helped me out more than once - when my life took a fair turn. I grabbed them and they helped me find my balance. One day in the dojo (martial arts gym) before starting training, I witnessed such a POWER of concentration that I had never seen in my entire life in Northern Missouri.

That day, the mentor entered the hall and suggested that we try something unusual - to try together, to move him from his place after he plunged into deep meditation. There were twice as many boys as girls in our group. We surrounded the mentor and stood in silence. He sat cross-legged on the tatami, closed his eyes, extended his arms to the sides and changed the rhythm of his breathing. I remember watching carefully as his chest rose and fell more and more slowly until it finally froze, as if he had stopped breathing altogether. We approached the mentor and tried to move him - at first rather lazily, because the task seemed quite simple to us. Having failed, we moved and began to push and pull him as hard as we could - without success. Then we changed tactics, crowded to one side and leaned on him with all our weight. But we couldn't even move his fingers!

After a few moments, he took a deep breath, opened his eyes and smiled at us: “How? Am I still sitting in this place? A loud burst of laughter broke the tension.

Closing my eyes, the mentor told us, I plunged into a dream-like vision, and it became reality. I vividly imagined that I was sitting sandwiched between two mountains. My hands were chained to the tops of these mountains with strong chains. And you, my students, found this vision too tough,” he added ironically.

Listening to the mentor, I realized that at that moment he somehow extended his vision to us. This remarkable man gave us the key to the power to change the world. And in order to master this power, we must not just react to what happens to us, but consciously choose everything that we consider necessary to experience.

The secret is that our mentor was chained to the mountain peaks in his mind. And until he himself removed the imaginary chains, nothing could move him from his place. Well, we are convinced of this.

According to Neville, this is only possible if you make “the dream a fact of the present”6 and “feel that the desire is fulfilled”7.

So, it's simple. But then why do we have difficulty when we try to create in Universe of complicity?

There are many possibilities, but only one reality

Why on earth should our thoughts and feelings have any influence on what happens to us? And how, by imagining a “dream as a fact of the present,” can one change the order of events if, for example, a world war is brewing? And is it possible to rewrite the predictable scenario when it seems to us that our family is on the verge of collapse?

To live based on the reality of your dreams, you must clearly understand under what conditions opportunities begin to materialize. To do this, we must recall the key discoveries of quantum physics. She managed to describe the behavior of subatomic particles, and so successfully that she obtained a set of rules by which we can predict what is happening in the racing invisible world. The rules that explain the behavior of elementary particles are quite simple, but they sound quite strange. For example:

the laws of classical physics are not universal, since at the micro level matter behaves differently than in the visible world;

energy can exist both in the form of waves or particles, or simultaneously in both forms;

the consciousness of the observer influences the behavior of matter.

No matter how good these rules are, it is important to remember that the equations of quantum physics do not describe the actual existence of particles, but only the probabilities of their existence - where they can be as they will be, presumably act and with what properties, more likely, possess. Man consists of the same particles that obey quantum rules. Therefore, knowledge of these rules will help them to comprehend the true capabilities of the human body.

So the discoveries of quantum physics tell us what we are really capable of. Our world, our lives and our bodies are what they are because that is how they are displayed in the space of quantum possibilities. If we want to change something, we have to see and feel it something differently than before, and thereby extract a new version of it from a suspension of countless potential possibilities. Only then will this option be realized in the world as our reality. So my karate mentor, sitting on the tatami, felt in his vision chained to the tops of the mountains and no one could move him from his place.

The same can be said this way: which of the possibilities is actualized and becomes reality is determined by consciousness and the act of observation. It was this aspect of quantum physics that Einstein refused to accept: “I think a particle must have its own reality, independent of our measurements.”8 Here “measurement” means the presence of an observer, that is, a person.

Key 7: What our senses focus on becomes reality in the visible world.

Undoubtedly, the question of the role of man in the universe is closely related to the question of the structure of the quantum microcosm as we imagine it. And here we cannot fail to mention a series of experiments, the first of which was carried out in 1909 by the English physicist Geoffrey Ingram Tayler. Although this experiment is more than a hundred years old, it still remains the subject of scientific debate. Since then, it has been repeated many times, and each time with the same result, leaving scientists perplexed. The essence of Theiler's experiment, called the “double slit,” was as follows. A quantum particle, a photon, was passed through a barrier through one or two small holes. With one hole open, the photon behaved quite predictably - in other words, it ended its journey in the same way as it began, and precisely in the form of a particle. But what will happen if there are two holes in the barrier standing in his way? Common sense dictates that he will fly through one of them. Nothing like this! In this case, something unthinkable happens to the photon. It passes through both holes at once, which only an energy wave can do.

This is one example of particle behavior that scientists call “quantum uncertainty.” The only reasonable explanation for this phenomenon is that the second hole somehow causes the photon to become a wave. But to do this, he must somehow determine that there is a second hole. The photon itself cannot “know” something in the literal sense of the word. The only source of knowledge in this situation is the observer-experimenter. The conclusion suggests itself: the consciousness of the observer determined the wave behavior of the electron.

The result of Theiler's experiment can be summarized as follows. In some situations, the actions of a particle are predictable and obey the laws of the visible world, where things appear to be separate from each other. In other situations, the particle, to the amazement of scientists, begins to behave like a wave. Here the principles of quantum theory come into play and we have the opportunity to see the world in a new light, to feel that we are part of the universe, in which our consciousness plays a key role.

There are several scientific interpretations of the double slit experiment, each of which has its own strengths and successfully explains the problem in its own way. u. Let's look at these interpretations in more detail.

Copenhagen interpretation

In 1927, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, employees of the Copenhagen Institute for Theoretical Physics, tried to comprehend quantum uncertainty. As a result, the so-called Copenhagen interpretation. This is currently the most common interpretation of the behavior of quantum particles. If Believe Bohr and Heisenberg, the world exists as an infinite number of overlapping possibilities. It is a kind of quantum fog - until something happens that pins one of the possibilities to a certain point in space.

Rice. 6. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, reality becomes that of the possibilities (A, B, C, D, etc.) on which the observer’s attention is focused.

This “something” is the observer and his act of attention. According to Theiler's experiment shows that when a person looks at something, such as a photon flying through a barrier, the process of observation turns one of the quantum possibilities into reality. That is, the version of the event on which the observer’s attention is focused is updated.

Arguments behind And against:

Behind: This theory most successfully explains the behavior of quantum particles.

Against: This theory (if it can be called a theory) is criticized for that (if it can be called criticism) that, according to its provisions. The universe can only manifest itself in the presence of an observer. In addition, the Copenhagen interpretation does not take into account the gravity factor.

Interpretation of "Many Worlds"

In 1957, Princeton University physicist Hugh Everett proposed the so-called “Many Worlds” interpretation, based on the idea of parallel universes, to explain the strange behavior of quantum particles.

Everett's interpretation quickly gained popularity. Like Copenhagen interpretation, it assumes that at any given time an infinite number of possibilities simultaneously exist and are being realized. The difference is that here each probability has its own gravitational field, which requires energy to maintain. And the more energy-intensive a particular probability is, the less stable it is. Moreover, it is impossible to maintain all of them in a stable state at the same time - therefore, only one of them takes the form of visible “reality”.

Set of probabilities Collapse of set

Rice. 8. According to Penrose's interpretation, there are many probabilities (A, B, C, D, etc.), only one of which can take the form of reality, since it takes too much energy to maintain them all in a stable state. At every moment of time there are many probabilities, but the least energy-intensive one turns out to be the most stable - we perceive it as “reality”.

Arguments behind And against:

Behind: The most valuable thing in this interpretation is that for the first time it takes into account (and, moreover, calls the key moment of the existence of reality) gravity - the most important factor that became a stumbling block in Einstein’s discussions with the developers of quantum theory.

Against: Many critics of Penrose's interpretation simply do not see any need for it. Even without it, quantum theory predicts the outcome of all quantum experiments 100%. So we already have a completely viable theory of reality. The Penrose interpretation accomplishes the same task, taking gravity into account, that other theories have so far failed to achieve.

Which interpretation is the most correct?

One of the developers expressed himself very precisely about the difficulties of quantum physics universal superstring theory theoretical physicist Michio Kaku: “There is an opinion that of all the theories of the 20th century, quantum theory is the weakest. But some say - in fact, the only thing that makes quantum theory worth assessing in this way is that it is undeniably true."9

Does at least one of the three interpretations explain both all “anomalous” phenomena at the subatomic level and the structure of the visible world? No matter how good all these interpretations are and no matter how well they correlate with what we observe in the laboratory, they miss one factor - the role Divine matrix, containers of all observable phenomena.

What if the “anomalies” in the behavior of quantum particles are not anomalies at all, but a normal state of matter? Maybe all the phenomena described above, such as the movement of information at superluminal speeds and the ability of a particle to simultaneously be in two points in space, actually point to our own capabilities?

Whatever these interpretations say about the observer, they lose sight of the person, or rather, his ability to purposefully shape the state of his consciousness (thoughts, feelings and beliefs) and thereby connect the chosen probability with reality. Here science can learn a lot from ancient spiritual traditions. After all, both science and mysticism talk about the force that connects all things and gives us the opportunity to influence the behavior of matter - reality itself. How? The very fact that we perceive the world around us.

There is a huge difference between how representatives of the scientific community and teachers of spiritual traditions perceive the discoveries of quantum physics. For the reasons I described above, physicists are usually confident that the behavior of elementary particles has nothing to do with our everyday life. In contrast, spiritual guides are convinced that through processes occurring at the subatomic level, we can change our body and the world around us. If this is true, then everything that happens in quantum space directly affects our lives.

As my Indian friend Joseph said, man does not need machines to create the wonderful effects we see in quantum space. With the help of the ancient one we have forgotten internal technology we can heal and heal, be in different places at the same time, see at a distance, read minds and live in peace and harmony with each other. And all this is thanks to our inherent ability to focus consciousness, which was developed and preserved by ancient spiritual traditions.

Creation of reality

In Mahayana Buddhist teachings, it is believed that the world exists only where our attention is focused. Both the world of forms and the formless world arise as a result of a special state of consciousness called “subjective imagination”10. What we perceive as something very real becomes so only when we focus our attention on it and feel it. Aside from some terminological differences, these ancient ideas are very reminiscent of 20th-century quantum theory.

But since feelings play a key role in choosing reality, the question arises: are we capable of convincing ourselves at the bedside of a seriously ill loved one that everything will be fine with her, thereby changing the situation? To answer this question, it is necessary to reformulate it.

An infinite number of realities implies an infinite number of possibilities. And somewhere among all the alternative possibilities, there is a scenario in which our loved one will recover. Among them there is also a reality in which she was never sick at all. However, for reasons that will forever remain a mystery to us, it was precisely this scenario that was rooted in reality - chaining her to a hospital bed.

The answer to the above question can only be based on our beliefs and ability to choose. Therefore, the question should be: “Which reality do we choose, which is our beloved and which is the doctor?” And here we should make sure that we have the opportunity to choose.

As Neville's story of a hopelessly ill young man being healed shows, reality is not set in stone. It is malleable and plastic - we can change it, even when it seems impossible. In Neville's case, the young man's doctor made a diagnosis (chose reality) with a sad outcome. The young man, not knowing that he had a choice, believed the doctor and fell into his reality. It was only when Neville offered him another opportunity and he accepted it that his body responded to the new belief, and quite quickly. (Another impressive example of this kind will be given in Chapter 4.)

Einstein famously said: we cannot solve a problem as long as we remain at the same level of thinking that created it. In the same way, we cannot change reality while we remain in the same state of consciousness that created it.

To realize one of the possibilities suggested by the Copenhagen, Penrose, and Many Worlds interpretations, we must seize on it. To do this, we should focus on it and feel it properly, detaching ourselves from the initial perception of the situation

Well, okay, we did it - we imagined a new reality, for example one where the patient we see turns out to be healthy. But how can you bring your imagined reality to life?

Here lies a dangerous trap for those who want to change their view of the world. Afraid of losing a loved one, things dear to us, or our own life, when faced with a threatening situation, we usually passively deny it - we refuse to believe in it. Such passive rejection only leads to frustration and despair.

I have lost friends who fell into this trap. They are no longer in our world. Of course, only they know what was really going on in their souls when they passed away, but I witnessed the struggle that they waged with themselves: “If I really am a powerful being, then why am I still in such a state? pathetic state?”, “I changed my beliefs. Why am I not getting better?

Here you can discuss a lot about what “existence” is, how the world works and how God’s will is manifested. But the only way to avoid the above pitfall is to realize that there is a very fine line between simply choosing a new opportunity and actually following it with your thoughts, feelings and beliefs that will ultimately awaken a new reality.

Key 8:It is not enough to simply say that we are choosing a new reality

To realize one of the quantum probabilities, we must live it! As Neville says, we must lose ourselves in the new possibility, love the state... live in it and completely leave the old one. The ancient spiritual traditions call us to do the same. They call the technique of such communication between a person and the divine principle prayer.

Conversation with the Quantum Field: It's All About Feelings

Earlier in this chapter we looked at various interpretations of situations in which quantum uncertainty manifested itself. And although these interpretations differ in explanations of the causes of such effects, they all have one common denominator, namely, humans.

By observing something - that is, consciously focusing our attention on one point in space at a specific moment in time - we attach one of the quantum possibilities to this place and time. It doesn't matter whether a new version of reality arises from a parallel Universe or from a quantum fog of possibilities. The main thing (and here all interpretations converge) is that the Reality surrounding us (that’s right, with a capital R) owes its appearance to our presence.

For modern science, such a statement is truly revolutionary, but from the point of view of ancient spiritual traditions it is a completely obvious fact. Mystics, scientists and healers of the past tried their best to preserve and convey to us this great secret of the interaction between man and the universe. We find the messages they left in the most unexpected places.

The language that gives power to our dreams, prayers and fantasies is preserved everywhere - from wall inscriptions in temples and tombs lost in the deserts of Egypt, and Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi library, to the practices of the healers of the American Southwest. And perhaps the essence of this language was best expressed by a man living in a monastery on the high Tibetan plain at an altitude of 4.5 km above sea level.

In the spring of 1998, I worked for almost a month as a consultant on a mixed research and pilgrimage expedition in the mountains of Central Tibet. We visited twenty-two monasteries and two monasteries and met many wonderful people - monks and pilgrims. It was then that I was lucky enough to talk with the abbot of one of the monasteries.

On a frosty morning we entered a cramped chapel. In it, surrounded by Buddhist statues and ancient tank(tapestry with words of great teachings of the past woven on them) sat a man of indeterminate age in the lotus position. I looked into his eyes and, with the help of the guide, asked the question that I asked all the monks we met along the way:

What do you do when we see you praying and hear you chanting sutras for sixteen hours a day, when mantras, bells and gongs sound?

“You don’t see our prayers, because prayer cannot be seen,” the guide translated his answer.

You only see what we do when we create a feeling in our body. Prayer is a feeling.

How wonderful this is, I thought. And how simple! During prayer, monks and nuns speak in a quantum language of feelings that has no words for external expression. But experiments of the 20th century also showed that it is human feelings that influence the substance of which the universe consists. Feelings are what communicate with the quantum forces of the Universe and change the behavior of atoms, electrons and photons of the external world. Divine Matrix understands the language of feelings.

Key 9: Feelings are a language in which you can speak with the Divine Matrix. Feel like your goal has been achieved and you will feel like your prayers have been answered!

The abbot of a Buddhist monastery said what the research of 20th century scientists shows and, in addition, shared a secret - how we can speak the language of quantum possibilities. He himself did this using a technique we know as prayer. No wonder prayer works wonders! After all, it takes us to a place where our dreams become the reality of the visible world.

Compassion is a creative natural force and feeling

The abbot's answer hit me like a blow. In his Slovak I heard an echo of ancient Gnostic and Christian ideas from two thousand years ago. For prayer to work, it is necessary to overcome the doubts that often accompany our good desires. The saying of Jesus, preserved in the library from Nag Hammadi, assures us that once doubts are cast aside, our power will be immeasurable. Then, if we say to the mountain: move, it will move12.

In 2005, I had the opportunity to come to Tibet again and spend thirty-seven days in the monasteries there. During the trip, it turned out that the abbot who shared the secret of sensory prayer with me in 1998 had already died. The circumstances of his death remained a mystery to me, but, be that as it may, he left this world. We did not know his successor, but he, having learned about our arrival, invited us to continue the conversation begun by his predecessor.

On a frosty Tibetan morning, we met in another chapel with the new abbot of the monastery. Just a minute ago, in almost complete darkness, we were carefully making our way along the corridor, sliding along the stone floor, on which yak oil had been spilled for centuries. And now I look around the cold, cramped and poorly lit chapel located in the very heart of the ancient monastery. I drop the words into the rarefied, chilly air: “What connects people with each other, with the world around them and with the entire Universe? What transfers prayers from our body to the outside and maintains the world of integrity?” The abbot looks at me intently as the guide translates my questions into Tibetan. When the guide falls silent, he says only one word.

Compassion, the guide translates. - The great teacher says that people are united by compassion.

What does it mean? - I ask the guide, thinking hard about the answer I received. - Does he mean compassion as a kind of creative natural force or as an emotional experience?

The abbot and the guide exchange remarks that I do not understand.

All things are connected by compassion, says the guide in English. - This is the final answer.

And then I realized that I really heard the true and final answer. Just four words - all things are connected by compassion. But how much sense do they make!

A few days later I had a conversation on the same topic with a high-ranking monk from another monastery. Without any formalities that had to be observed when communicating with the abbot, we sat in his cell - a small room where he ate, slept, prayed and studied sutras. The cell was illuminated by the dim light of lamps filled with yak oil, which had burned here for hundreds of years, providing light and warmth.

By this point, my guide already understood what exactly I wanted to find out. Looking up at the low, soot-covered ceiling, I asked my interlocutor:

What is compassion? Creative natural force His gaze rested on the same place on the ceiling that I had been looking at a few seconds ago.

The monk sighed and thought, looking for an answer in the treasure troves of wisdom he had accumulated in the monastery since the day he arrived there as an eight-year-old boy. Then he looked straight at me and said two words

Both,” the translator repeated in English. - Compassion is both the creative force of the Universe and a human experience.

A stunningly simple answer. On that day, at an altitude of five thousand kilometers above sea level and many hours away from the nearest city, I heard words filled with such wisdom that Western civilization has not been able to perceive to this day. The monk revealed to me a secret - what connects us with the Universe and gives real strength to our feelings is nothing other than a feeling of compassion.

Not every feeling works

The Buddhist monk's answer, full of profound wisdom, is confirmed by recent, more complete translations of ancient Christian texts from the Aramaic language spoken Essenes(authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls).

It is enough to compare the canonical version of the Gospel passage “Ask and you will receive” with the original restored text to understand how freely the words of Christ were treated over the centuries and how many valuable details from a practical point of view were lost. experience?

The modern text of the Gospel of John says:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give it to you. Until now, you have not asked for anything in My name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete" (John 16:23, 24) 3.

Let's compare this quote with the original text:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask

The Father directly, from within my Name, will give

to you. Until now you have not asked anything from my Name;

ask without hidden thoughts and let it be yours

intention is clothed in My name, remain in the Answer.

so that your joy may be complete" 4.

It is obvious that in a language understandable Divine matrix, are feelings. It's more of a state of being V something than doing something. At the same time, we must understand that not every feeling can have an effect. Otherwise the world would be a strange place, consisting of a bizarre mixture of embodied ideas and feelings of different people.

A Buddhist monk said that compassion is both a creative natural force and an experience that gives access to it. The deepest meaning of Buddhist teaching is this: in order to awaken true compassion, a person must stop assessing the current situation and predicting its outcome. In other words, he needs to step beyond the ever-doubting ego. It is this quality of feeling that allows you to speak meaningfully and effectively with Divine matrix. As physicist Amit Goswami says, it takes more than the ordinary mind to turn quantum probability into the reality of this world. A person must be in a “non-standard state of consciousness”15.

The passage quoted above from the Gospel of John, translated from Aramaic, explains this idea - we should ask without hidden agendas. The same thing can be expressed differently, in more modern language: our choice should be dictated by the desires that come from not from the ego. The art of focusing your consciousness so that what you want becomes reality implies a lack of attachment to the results of the choice you make. That is, one must pray without speculating about what should or should not happen.

Key 10: Not every feeling has true power. Only feeling, free from the ego and its value judgments, is capable of creation.

One of the best descriptions such sentiments can be found in the great Sufi poet Rumi. His words are simple and powerful: “Beyond the ideas of right and wrong action there is a field. Meet me there."16. How often can we boast that we are in a field of non-judgment, especially when the lives of our loved ones hang in the balance? However, it is precisely such life experiences that teach us the greatest lessons of strength, demonstrating our true relationship with the Universe co-participation.

The sad irony is that the more we want to change the world, the weaker our ability to do so. Why? Because most human desires come from the ego. If not for this, our desires would not be so important to us. As one grows spiritually, a person realizes that he can change reality, and at the same time this becomes less and less necessary for him. In much the same way, our desire to drive weakens after we learn to drive a car. By gaining the ability to create miracles, we begin to accept the world as it is.

May He answer the prayers of those who meditate, sing, dance and pray for the healing of their loved ones!

Our prayers become effective when we wield our power freely without giving it special meaning. A good desire for the healing of a loved one to happen, often contains attachment to the result. There is a strong need for healing, which implies that it hasn't happened yet. Such a distance between the current situation and the miracle of healing only strengthens the reality in which the disease is present! And here is the time to turn to the second part of the guide, which we found in the new translation of the Gospel text.

The Aramaic fragment quoted goes on to say: may your intention be clothed in My name, remain in the Answer, so that your joy may be complete. In fact, modern scientific experiments indicate the same thing. We must fill our hearts with the experience of health and well-being, as if we already got the result even before it became a reality.

In this passage, Jesus reports that those he is speaking to did not do this. The same can be said about my friends who died prematurely, whom neither prayers nor good intentions helped. They probably sincerely believed that they were waiting for an answer to their prayers, but they themselves limited the possible outcome: “Please let will happen recovery".

According to Jesus, this is not a language that is understood Divine matrix. He invites students to speak to the universe differently. To open the door to our true healing potential, we must feel ourselves literally enveloped in our loved one's recovery.

In this feeling we take a leap from assumptions that healing is possible, to the reality of such healing, This is a kind of energetic shift, similar to the classic “quantum leap”. In the same way, an electron in an atomic orbit passes from one state of energy to another without any intermediate stages.

By changing the state of our consciousness, we will know for sure that we are speaking the language of quantum choice, and not just thinking about our desires. Such consciousness becomes a pure space where prayers are initially heard, where dreams come true and miracles happen.

We are connected to the creative force

In 1930, in a dialogue with the Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore, Albert Einstein outlined two points of view on the place of man in the universe that existed at the beginning of the 20th century: “There are two concepts of the Universe. The first one represents the world dependent from a person... the second one considers him completely independent from the human factor"17. Judging by the experiments described in Chapter 2, conscious observation of the smallest particles of the universe, such as atoms and electrons, directly affects the behavior of matter. And perhaps we will be able to find a third point of view, between the poles designated by Einstein.

This third point of view must take into account that although man did not participate in the creation of the Universe, we are now present in it and it continues to grow and develop. Change is an integral part of the visible and invisible world; it is an ongoing process that we can count on participating in that spans the entire Universe, from stars whose light reaches us after they have already faded, to mysterious swirls of matter called “black holes.”

Now it is obvious that we are not just present in the world. As conscious observers, we are part of everything we see. And although scientists have yet to explain exactly how we change reality, it is clear that in our presence it changes. We can say that to have consciousness means to create. As physicist John Wheeler said, we live in a universe co-participation.

However, this does not mean at all that we can impose our will on the universe and manipulate what is happening at our own discretion. Yes, we are inextricably linked with quantum reality and connected to its creative power, even small changes in our lives can have a huge impact on the world around us and even on the entire universe. But, realizing my right co-participate in the processes occurring in the Universe, we understand that it was given to us primarily so that we create ourselves.

Our quantum connection to the cosmos runs so deep that scientists have had to create a new vocabulary to describe it. One of the “words” in this dictionary is the so-called “butterfly effect,” which shows what large-scale consequences even the smallest events can sometimes lead to. Most often, the following example is given to illustrate this effect: “The flapping of a butterfly’s wings in Tokyo in a month can turn into a hurricane in Brazil”18. Or let's remember the story: in 1914, Archduke Ferdinand's driver turned down the wrong street - as a result of his mistake, the head of the Austrian Empire found himself face to face with his killer, which led to the outbreak of the First World War.

Just imagine, the wrong decision of some driver had global consequences for all of humanity! But we all make such random mistakes from time to time.

In Chapter 2, we were introduced to three experiments that clarify our relationship with the world around us. They show that DNA changes the matter that makes up the universe, and feelings change DNA itself. According to military research by Cleve Baxter, these effects are independent of time and distance. The overall result of the experiments can be formulated as follows: you and I have a certain internal force that operates beyond the boundaries of physical laws known to man. Maybe this is exactly the same power that St. Francis wrote six hundred years ago: “Beautiful and unbridled powers are hidden within us.” If we truly have the ability to change the underlying substance of the Universe to heal or restore peace to the planet, there must be a language that allows us to do such things consciously. And it is - this is the language of feeling, imagination and prayer, lost in the West due to an incorrect edition of the Bible published by the Christian Church in the 4th century.

When a miracle loses its power

There are many examples in the literature of how the mind-body connection works through certain types of prayer. Scientific experiments conducted at leading universities and field studies in military conflict zones indicate that a person’s bodily sensations not only influence his behavior, but also affect the world around him19. The power we receive from prayer lies in the interconnection of our internal and external experiences. And although the mechanism for obtaining this power is not yet entirely clear, the main thing is that it exists. But there is another mystery here. Research shows that the positive effects of prayer last only as long as it is said and cease when the prayer stops.

For example, when worshipers asked for peace during experiments, researchers noted a significant decrease in the number of traffic accidents, emergency calls, and even crimes. Peaceful thoughts gave rise only to peaceful events

Chapter 24. Passive types of human contacts with the spiritual-immaterial world. Clairvoyance, telepathy, psychodiagnostics, meditation. “Many thoughts grow better when they are transplanted from the head where they sprouted into another head.” O. Holmes Let us now consider, perhaps, the most

From the book UFO and the FBI. US Government Secret Files by Maccabi Bruce

11. Creators of the Universes (or how spirituality can influence the distant future of civilization in the light of some, not very complex, physical analogies) Pictures of the distant future of humanity created in our time by science fiction writers on the pages of books, in films and on

From the book Lessons from the Future author Klyuev Alexander Vasilievich

22. Destroyers of time or creators of universes? In the early 60s of the last century, the famous English scientist and science fiction writer Arthur Clarke compiled a chronological table of the future of humanity. The year 2060 in the table corresponds to an amazing forecast: “Destruction

From the book Nibiru is already on the horizon author Karabanov Vladislav

Chapter 10: Trustworthy Observers The list of “minor” but still inexplicable phenomena observed in the southwestern United States continued to grow. According to a summary of observations compiled by Lt. Col. Doyle Reese in May 1950, by the end of April 1949

From the book Letters of the Living Deceased by Barker Elsa

Part II. CREATORS OF EVOLUTION In this part of the book we will talk about the pioneers of Conscious Evolution, who made such grandiose discoveries in the field of research of human consciousness in the twentieth century that cannot be compared with scientific achievements and

From the book Letters from a Living Deceased by Barker Elsa

The most powerful keepers of secrets The term “world conspiracy” for most people is strongly associated with the concept of “world conspiracy of the Jewish Masons”, who insidiously captured the world financial markets. This is far from a random association, because investments were made in its creation

From the book The Beauty of Your Subconscious. Program yourself for success and positivity by Angelite

From the book Teachings of Abraham. Volume 1 by Esther Hicks

Letter 27 Observers February 3, 1918 One day I stood before the Great Soul who had refused to rest in Heaven, and I asked Him what work was most important to us now. And what do you think He answered me? - Working with those who are afraid of the future. - Really

From the book Winged Masters of the Universe [Insects are psychics] author Belov Alexander Ivanovich

Passive programs Unlike active programs, passive ones are not included in the daily process of our lives; they lie dormant in the depths of our subconscious for the time being. This does not mean that they do not have an influence on our thinking and behavior, but this influence is not

From the book Money Trap Codes. Magic and attraction author Fad Roman Alekseevich

Chapter 3 You are the creator of your own reality Not long ago, in the books of Seth, written by Jane Roberts, our friends Esther and Jerry found the following statement: “You are the creator of your own reality.” For them it was an equally exciting and frightening prospect,

From the book Dreams Come True. Law of Attraction in action by Esther Hicks

WE HAVE DIFFERENT CREATORS In our opinion, contact with insects is also difficult because we have different Ancestors. Our Ancestor thought differently than them. That's why we turned out the way we did: with a big round head and two arms and legs. Creator

From the book Internal Paths to the Universe. Traveling to other worlds with the help of psychedelic drugs and perfumes. by Strassman Rick

Chapter 5 Money Magnets: Active and Passive There are many rituals and auxiliary magnets to attract money into your life. Let's think: why are rituals needed? Everything is very simple. Consistent, regularly repeated actions strengthen your intention,

From the book Influence [System of Skills for Further Energy and Information Development. III stage] author Verishchagin Dmitry Sergeevich

From the author's book

SONS OF GOD - OBSERVERS In addition to the unclear origin of the giants, the question of who the sons of God are is also the mystery of the 6th chapter of the Book of Genesis. And these two mysteries are interconnected. Modern commentators suggest that the words "sons of God" refer to a very

From the author's book

Step 1 Identification of signs of preparation for a coordinated action and passive management techniques Step 1a. The very first sign you need to pay attention to is a change in the aura. It is especially important for the reason that it manifests itself at a very early stage in the development of events,

Formatted: Verified:

We will follow how philosophers step by step came to the idea that the world exists in our minds. We started with the Eliades and went to Berkeley, who took the idea to the extreme. Then the process went backwards - Hume admitted that the world exists not only in consciousness, and the next one, Kant, already admitted the existence of another world, but the other world is no longer at all like the world for us. There has come a need for a term for things that exist in our minds. It was necessary to take only the content of consciousness, abstracting from the subjective form. The decisive step was taken by Kant, who introduced the term “thing in itself.” Then Hegel, who introduced the term “thing for us.” Well, then Engels and Lenin followed, who actively used these terms. The need arose to name the totality of all things in themselves. The first to use these terms was Feuerbach, who called it “the world in itself.” Not just a thing in itself, but a world in itself - in general, all objectively existing things. Then the need arose for the term “world for us” - the world as it exists in our minds. These terms went beyond Kantian philosophy. These are important terms of any modern theory of knowledge. When it became clear that the world exists in our minds, it became clear what is knowledge - to have knowledge of a thing means to have it in consciousness. Cognition is the presence of a thing in consciousness. This position is held by all philosophers, regardless of orientation, materialists, idealists, dualists...

But we don’t just have ready-made knowledge, we receive it. This begs the question: where do they come from? This is the question of what knowledge is as a process. In order to understand this problem, we need to understand another issue. The fact that the world exists in consciousness is indisputable. But does it exist outside of consciousness? And until we answer this question, we cannot answer the question of knowledge.

Basic solutions to the question of the existence of the world and outside consciousness

The first answer is that there is no world, the world exists only in consciousness. This is Berkeley's answer, subjective idealism. To be is to be perceived.
The second answer is that agnostics and phenomenalists, whether the world exists outside consciousness or not is absolutely indecisive.

The third answer is that the world exists not only in consciousness, but also outside consciousness. But this third answer breaks down into two different answers, Kantianism and materialism. But behind this similarity lies a huge difference.

Two basic solutions to the question of the relationship between the thing in itself and the thing for us

Let's draw different points of view:

Berkeley. Draws a circle on the board - peace for us. Apart from him, there is nothing else and cannot be.
Hume. Draws a circle - peace for us. It is not clear what is outside, whether there is anything there or not; we cannot look beyond the boundary of the circle. So the outside draws a lot of question marks - there may be things in themselves there, but they may not be there.
Kant. For Kant, things undoubtedly exist in consciousness. Draws a circle - peace for us. But also, in addition to the world in consciousness, there is also a world outside consciousness. “The world in itself” and “the world for us” are separated by an impenetrable wall. Things in themselves cannot enter the world for us and vice versa. A thing is for us, it is only for us. On the other side the world is transcendental. What is the difference from materialists? Let's try to depict the point of view of materialists.

Materialists. Although materialists recognize the world in consciousness, they must begin with the world in itself. This world is infinite - infinite in time and space, the objective world of the Universe (draws a semicircle). To understand the relationship between the world in ourselves and the world for us and to depict the world for us, let’s conduct an experiment. >You see a piece of chalk. Let me put it behind my back. You don't perceive it. He is a thing in itself. Now I got it, and you see it, it has become the content of your consciousness, it has become a thing for us. Now the question is, has it remained a thing in itself? He became at the same time a thing for us and a thing in itself; it ceased to be a thing in itself and did not cease. The concept of “being” outside consciousness has two meanings - simply to be, to exist, and the second - to be unknown. From this it is clear that the concept of “thing in itself” has two meanings - simply an objective thing, the second is an unknown objective thing. But a thing in consciousness also has two meanings. The first is to exist only in consciousness, and the second is to be an objectively known thing, i.e. exist both in consciousness and outside consciousness. Kant has only one thing for us - only in consciousness, but for the materialist both. There are things only in the mind - angels, devils, goblin. However, some things for us can turn into things in themselves; this is human activity - the “drawing” turns into a product. Thus, not only things in themselves turn into things for us, but things for us turn into things in themselves. Draws something on the board that cannot be explained. We take a step forward, we learn, and the world grows for us, closer and closer to the world within ourselves. There are things that exist only in the mind and have nothing to do with the outside world.

The problem of understanding the process of cognition

From the point of view of materialists, cognition is the process of transforming things in themselves into things for us, in which things in themselves cease to be things in themselves and remain things in themselves. The world in itself turns into a world for us. But what about idealists who do not recognize things in themselves? From Kant’s point of view, we ourselves create the world from the chaos of sensations, with the help of categories we put it all in place. By the way, this makes a lot of sense; we don’t just look at the world - we think. Another thing is that he wants to create a world for us, but he doesn’t want to accept that we create the world within ourselves. What about subjective idealists? After all, to know is to have in consciousness, but since all things are already in our consciousness, then everything is already known and there is no and cannot be a process of knowledge. But he's coming! Berkeley has to turn around. Where do things come from and where do they go? And his point of view, they do not disappear anywhere, things continue to exist, but in the consciousness of other thinking spirits. And then there is God, who puts in and puts out information about things. It’s easier for agnostics - we don’t know and we can and don’t want to know. They not only deny the possibility of recognizing the essence of the world, not only deny the possibility of penetrating the circle of consciousness, but also deny the possibility of revealing the nature of knowledge itself.

The following question arises. From Hume's point of view, we cannot know whether things exist in themselves. What does it mean to know about a thing? Have it in your mind. What does it mean to know about a thing outside of consciousness? To know about something about which we obviously know nothing. From the point of view of formal logic, this is irrefutable. So it’s impossible to prove that the world exists at all? Let's look at this issue in the next section.

Is it possible to prove the existence of a world outside consciousness?

From Hume's point of view it is impossible. And from the point of view of formal logic, Hume is irrefutable. But the formal-logical type of evidence is not the only type of evidence; there are also other types of thinking, where there are other methods of evidence. For example, no theory is ever logically deduced from facts. But this does not mean that this theory is incorrect; it can be confirmed in other ways. There are many types of evidence, one of them is practical activity. We transform the world as we need based on knowledge about it. This means that the world exists independently of our consciousness. > Let's turn to the history of mankind. When did people appear? There are two points of view here - some say that 2.5 million years ago, others - that 1.8 million. Then consciousness began to arise. Everything began to emerge. Consciousness finally emerged 40,000 years ago. The question is, was there a world before this? What about the Universe? The Big Bang happened 12 billion years ago. It was, and where it was was outside of consciousness. Or simpler. The electron was discovered in 1897. Did Aristotle have electrons? There were, and then they entered consciousness, that is, they became things for us. Uranus was calculated theoretically because discrepancies were found with the EVT for other planets. Having calculated, they calculated the mass and indicated the coordinates where it should be looked for. And then they discovered Pluto. So the question is, did these planets exist or not before man discovered them? Science thereby confirms that there is a world outside consciousness and is entering more and more into consciousness. Means the world is things in themselves that step by step enter the world for us. The evolution of analytical philosophy is connected with this. There is such a variety of it - neopositivism, which has always declared itself a philosophy of science, which should cognize the picture of scientific knowledge. But they themselves were agnostics—phenomenalists—and did not allow the idea that it was possible to know whether there was an objective world or not. At first they declared themselves defenders of science, but as development progressed they moved away from this more and more. They understood that their philosophy contradicted elementary discoveries. And the result is the collapse of neopositivism, the advent of postpositivism, and everything comes to the conclusion that there is no difference between science and fairy tales. And who is right? Yes, everyone is right and everyone is wrong, since there is no objective truth independent of man. The world is invented by scientists, not discovered. What science, what legends, what the Bible is all the same. And analytical philosophy, from an attempt to explain scientific knowledge, came to this, since science is in blatant contradiction with all the provisions of neo- and post-positivism.

The problem of the relationship between the world in ourselves and the world for us arises. One thing is clear that the world in itself and the world for us do not coincide in content, because the world in itself will never enter the world for us, since the world is infinite. The process of cognition in this sense is endless. While there are no barriers to knowledge, we learn that even more remains unknown. In this sense, the world in itself is always wider than the world for us. And we return to the problem of perception and the object of perception. Those who are nearsighted see differently whether they wear glasses or not. ...Next comes a joke about grandma... Peace in ourselves and peace for us are one and the same Necessarily not the same thing. As soon as we pull out one moment, we find ourselves either in the power of Berkeley or Kant.

A photograph of this lecture is available in the attached files.

German classical philosophy

Fire salamander in myths and in life What does a salamander mean in various divinations