Where is the Homounculus

[mague]

So where is the objective world actually experienced? When? In our brains, in our bodies, or out there and back then? Even if we answer these questions, we have an obvious problem: Where is the observer? Indeed, where the experience takes place and where the observer exist are the most difficult things to talk about.
Where is the homounculus? Where is the person who experiences the outside world? In the brain? In the body? In the whole universe? In all of my research I have yet to find the location of the observer of reality in the brain or the
nervous system. I havent found him in the body either.

Probably the analytical approach isnt a good idea here. While its a doable way i think its a long and painful journey through "hell".

How about a more ZEN like approach ?

It doesnt matter who or what is I.
The question is: What am i targeting ?
The path to the target is part of the target allready
And once i target a target i become part of the target.
My target defines me. Many targets , many me's
I can know this, because without target i am shapeless

[biknewb]

The way I see it is that the Electric Universe theory is diametrically opposite to the former theory because it is proving tangible, physical existence,

Divinity you are making the exact same mistake that Mo is making i.e you are engaged in fallacious philosophical argument that just does not stand up to scrutiny. I would love to watch you two argue with a Solopist you would both get nowhere fast because you do not have a basic grounding in Philosophy.
David Bohm was nowhere near the first person to claim the world is an illusion that conclusion goes back thousands of years even beyond Lord Buddha. Appealing to the senses to claim the world is real is not going to get you anywhere; except you resemble a dog that chases its own tail. Neither of you can prove that there is an objective reality out there independent of the mind. If you think you do have the evidence then I am more than interested in ascertaining exactly what that evidence is.

The evidence of us being in a real world comes from other people reacting to the subjects of our own experience.
When I throw a ball towards my son and he throws it back, the experience is still happening inside the sensory part of my brain, but someone is sharing my experience.
Unless of course, AlaGod is creating everything just for me. Including this forum and all its participants.

Another thought came in: when I/we are just a sim-game on the AlaGodComputer, and He has been playing this for an eternity, any minute now His Wife can come in and tell Him to stop playing stupid games and help clean up the garden.
Hate to think we are about to get unplugged......

regards

[Grey Cloud]

biknewb wrote:

Another thought came in: when I/we are just a sim-game on the AlaGodComputer, and He has been playing this for an eternity, any minute now His Wife can come in and tell Him to stop playing stupid games and help clean up the garden.
Hate to think we are about to get unplugged......

As it is above, so it is below?

...and help clean up the garden.

Has He still not found a gardener to replace the one He sacked?

[Grey Cloud]

It seems to me that you are misinterpreting what 'maya' is. Firstly Bohm got this from his conversations with Jiddu Krishnamurti. Maya doesn't mean nothing is real, the word itself means illusion, light, magic (if memory serves). Even illusions are real (though one would have to define the meaning of 'real').

Lizzie wrote:

Through self-awareness we begin to understand our behavior patterns; also we learn to recognize destructive behavior patterns in the past. We can start to make conscious choices to act differently.

This is one of the central tenets of Sufi and Toltec teachings two name but two. Gurdjieff also taught this. It is part of what the Greeks called 'right thinking'.

Divinity wrote:

Everyone, without exception, has got it wrong so far, IMO, and in this respect, I include all religion, science, philosophy and history. It's about time mankind wiped the slate clean and started to look forward for answers rather than keep searching endlessly for generic truth in the past.

That, IMO, is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. Have you read 'all religion, science, philosophy and history'? Could you explain why the Vedas, the I Ching, the Torah, the NT, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Plato or Aristotle are wrong? What about Qabalists, Hermeticists, Alchemists, Shamans etc. Are they all wrong too?
You mentioned searching endlessly for generic truth in the past. There is no need to search endlessly, the generic Truth is there for anyone who has the eyes to see and is prepared to actually read the texts and think for themself, rather than rely on the opinion of others and their own prejudices. It is the reliance upon the opinions of others and personal prejudice which are the causes of most of today's problems not the writings of the world's great teachers.

[soulsurvivor]

I can only speak for I. I have I within. Only at the point of near death do the two seperate. Even then, inner I will keep one foot within until the last possible second.

Inner I has a distinct personality. I know it's me, deeply know it's me, but inner I exists without the lies. Inner I makes decisions on what's best for I. The physical body is at stake. . . some pun intended.

Putting aside all value judgement, physical transformation takes place in one of two directions - positive or negative. The direction has everything to do with intent. Negative focus is power over self and others. Positive focus is shared power of self only, allowing the two to become one.

I'm not in existence to become perfect. I exist within perfection.

For some reason my sunlight is being filtered. My food and water supply is tainted with mold and other unknown badly tasting and smelly toxins. The air I breathe is sometimes toxic with bad smells and tastes. I can hear the frequency changes in the vibration around me. I can block some of this, but not all.

I is within. Not out in the cosmos somewhere, but within. That said, inner I is the time traveler, the dreamer and the schemer, the entire eternity of all the physical I that's ever been and ever will be.

[GaryN]

JL posted:

Consciousness is distributed throughout the body..

Seems like he might be correct, as some people with next to NO brain can do quite well!

http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id1202.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ctors.html

[junglelord]

I just mentioned this to my soft tissue therapist, she had seen something like that. I told her you could have a perfect system with no brain....its really the red pill and Alice in Wonderland after that, or maybe that was purple microdot LSD

[Grey Cloud]

Soulsurvivor wrote:

I'm not in existence to become perfect. I exist within perfection.

Spoken like a Greek, ma'am. Perhaps you should consider moving to Athens, Georgia?

Junglelord wrote:

Consciousness is distributed throughout the body

.
I'll have to disagree with you on this one JL. Partly because I'm not convinced that there is an 'in' and an 'out' . I'm more or less convinced that we look at things back-to-front, inside-out or upside down. I had a conversation a while back with, I think, Antone, who said that he thought of it in terms of a negative image (negative as in photography).
Partly also because IMO there is only consciousness and, in fact, only one consciousness. This one consciousness expresses itself or manifests itelf in an infinite (or near as damn it) number of ways. This is the paradox of the 'one and the many' as discussed by Parmenides (c. C4th BCE) and others. It is related to U.G. Krishnamurti's comment that 'you are just the thought of a thought'.
The response to Substance and Altonhare you posted here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 4&start=30
to me at least, was describing the juncture between the world of consciousness (the metaphysical) and the world of matter (the physical). All the processes (for want of a better word) which you described there are driven or initiated by consciousness. I think of it as similar to the concept of 'just-in-time' production/manufacturing.
[As an aside: You have posted some great stuff JL and that post was right up there with the best of 'em]
See the great post here by StephanR:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 34&start=0 (23rd July 11:02) which I feel is closer to the way things work. Look at the images from what the author calls the 'metaphysical literature' and think of the aura radiating in and forming the body rather than in terms of the body radiating out and creating the aura. Now think of the circle of the fixed stars (or Ouranus?) radiating inwards and creating our solar system. Now think of the shell or sphere of the Universe radiating inwards and creating creation. Now think of Kevin's descriptions as per his Dowsing and the Lattice posts.
Just a thought: If you take my witterings about the Ancient Wisdom add JL's description as in the link above and add Kevin's description of his lattice and what's going on there, then I think that we wont be a million miles away from what is actually happening. There again, I could be wrong.

[webolife]

I usually stay off the "Human Question" forum... it's kind of a weird place...

Junglelord wrote:

Consciousness is distributed throughout the body.

I'll have to disagree with you on this one JL. Partly because I'm not convinced that there is an 'in' and an 'out' . I'm more or less convinced that we look at things back-to-front, inside-out or upside down.

Is there a significant difference between the statements:
Consciousness is distributed throughout the body, and
Consciousness is connected to all parts of the body

From here, is it not reasonable to assert that consciousness is hereby connected to everything in the universe, at least to everything of which we are aware? But is consciousness more than mere awareness? And how does this connectedness affect the way we do science, or any other human activity? Rhetorical questions, but essential ones, I believe.

Jesus is reported to have spoken to a withered limb, and it was restored to wholeness. That suggests to me a consciousness in a part of the body other than the brain only.

[junglelord]

Hey Greycloud and Webolife.
Your taking my words to literal and thereby limiting the whole model of consciouness that I see.
Of course consciousness is from outside the body.

The function of consciouness is found throughout the body is a better way of saying it.
The function is a result of fascial properties and geometries and quantum wave relationships.
However the first geometry of consciouness is a sphere.
That is my revelation.
Since the aether unit is two charged spheres, then I guess we could say that it is conscious.
When I had that revelation, I was not really thinking about its relationship to life, but the most elemental bacteria are spheres. Then it all kinda hit home and I had a huge synesthesia.

[soulsurvivor]

Soulsurvivor wrote:

I'm not in existence to become perfect. I exist within perfection.

Spoken like a Greek, ma'am. Perhaps you should consider moving to Athens, Georgia?

I stand by myself with myself. At what point in eternity do you accept personal responsibility for yourself?

I don't like the humidity in Athens, Georgia.

There is a ball of light that is blue white. The extreme feeling of love/bliss comes into the top of my head and the soles of my feet at the same instant. The sensation moves from each direction toward my heart. When both meet at my heart, I physically change also into a ball of blue white bliss light. I return to a human physical body only when an example is needed.

[mague]

Does it radiate in- or outwards ?

Isnt it both ? Watch a person inhale and then exhale. Its the same air. It is displaying the circuit we can observe everywhere.

To be human isnt a weird dream. Personal consciousness and universal consciousness are the same. The consciousness is splitting into fragments to create a circuit, to gain self-awareness. If you had no mirror and noone to tell you how you look you have to palpate your face with your fingers. It is like you split you hand from your body and your hands are telling you about your face. Still the hand is part of the body as whole.

It is about the balance of being an individual and part of the whole. Both extremes are wrong and counterproductive. A lonely spark is as useless to the whole as a spark that doesnt have individuality at all.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi webolife,
You wrote:

I usually stay off the "Human Question" forum... it's kind of a weird place...

But you are okay in the NIAMI section? Hmmn. Welcome aboard anyway.

You asked is consciousness more than awareness. (I'm assuming you are implying 'or are they the same thing'). I would answer yes, consciousness is more than awareness, if only because the consciousness much precede any awareness of it. This is addressed in the Vedas though I'm not familiar enough with them to say much more or even provide a reference. As I understand it, this consciousness becomes aware of 'itself' and after some 'thought' decides to exercise its Will and create the Universe. The Egyptian view is similar, there again they all are.

I don't see any difference between the restoration of the withered arm and 'matrix repatterning'. Isn't this essentially what lizards do when they regrow a body part?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Junglelord,
Yep, I did take you too literally. A moments reflection on my part would have realised this.
Your earlier comment about a person with little or no physical brain reminded me of the work of neurologist V.S. Ramachandran. Also related, I feel, is the fact that every cell in the human body has died and been replaced in less than a year. This has implications for who, what and where 'you' are. (It doesn't address my final metaphysical question of: to whom do I complain?).

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Soulsurvivor,
You wrote:

At what point in eternity do you accept personal responsibility for yourself?

That is an absolutely fantastic question and (possibly) THE central question regarding the 'meaning of life'. Attempting to answer it would take us way off-topic but suffice to say that is something which keeps cropping up in virtually everything I read or think about these last few months. All I've got so far is that it is something to do with choice and the exercise of free-will, in the context of 'To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man'. (From Hamlet by Sir Francis Bacon ). It is one of the central themes in the Iliad as another example. I could also throw in 'Do what thy will shall be the whole of the Law' by Aleister Crowley.