DTR MHCARTA CRSS

 A

Polarities, dualisms, and seeming opposites are not opposites at all but part of a hidden and rejected wholeness. The task of true religion is to rebind (in Latin, re-ligio) that which is torn apart by temperament, ignorance, and institutionalized evil.
—Richard Rohr

A

Cucumbers are loaded with the mineral silica, which is an essential component for healthy connective tissue (muscles, ligaments, cartilage, bone, and skin)

a

"With everything that has happened to you, you can either feel sorry for yourself or treat what has happened as a gift. Everything is either an opportunity to grow or an obstacle to keep you from growing. You get to choose."

-- Wayne W. Dyer

a

a

a

TA QRA

What if everything you hold dear, everything you passionately believe to be of significance, ultimately proves to be inconsequential in the grand scheme of existence?

That already happened, didn’t it? About 250,000 years ago when the first human dream-characters dropped their body-minds (‘died.’) And every generation since then.

Every one of those ancestors, and every one of your great-great-great-x-1000 grandparents held so many things dear, so many passionate beliefs and things they were sure were significant.

Where are they now? Both their corporeal identities and the concepts & beliefs they held dear? Gone. All gone.

And when you try to place these beliefs & concepts in the ‘grand scheme of existence,’ do you mean ‘human’ existence? In the grand scheme of “time,’ ‘humans’ just got here half-a-second ago, at 23:59:59 on a 24-hour clock. Seems “we” are pretty insignificant. What was significant and ‘held dear’ for all the countless eons prior to “our” arrival? “Who” held it? Why do you think “we” are so important that the dissolving of all “we” held dear should have any significance at all?

Ask a million-year-old amoeba, or dinosaur, or tree that grew after eons of Earth’s cooling, what it held dear and what was its significance in the grand scheme of things. They just were. Just Life life-ing. For ‘its own’ sake, not “ours.” And that is enough.

There is only Being, enjoying it’s dream-creation and dream-characters. It’s not serious. It’s not ‘significant.’ And it’s perfect!

A

QRA

How do the arrangements of atoms create consciousness?

No one knows for sure.

In fact not everyone even agrees that atoms do create consciousness in the first place.

There are various ‘genres’ of speculative answer though. Here’s a partial list:

1. Consciousness relates to a substance — often called soul or spirit — which is distinct from matter, but somehow has an intimate relationship with it. This is known as dualism. (People who believe that consciousness can be ‘uploaded’ subscribe to a modern version of dualism, in which soul/spirit is replaced by information*.)
2. Consciousness arises as some level of scale or complexity. This is known as emergentism.
3. Consciousness was there all along as an intrinsic feature of matter. This is call panpsychism.
4. Consciousness is too complex for humans to ever understand, possibly because of some limitation in our minds/brains. This is known as mysterianism.
5. Consciousness is the fundamental ground of being, and therefore matter derives from consciousness, rather than the other way round. This is known in the western world as idealism. It is a common feature of many forms of monist mysticism, such as Advaita Vedanta.
6. Both matter and consciousness are ‘aspects’ of some deeper fundamental substance. This is known as neutral monism **.

A

bk 

Why are we here? What's the point of existence? On the 'big questions' of meaning and purpose, Western thought has been dominated by the dichotomy of traditional religion and secular atheism. In this pioneering work, Philip Goff argues that it is time to move on from both God and atheism. Through an exploration of contemporary cosmology and cutting-edge philosophical research on consciousness, Goff argues for cosmic purpose: the idea that the
universe is directed towards certain goals, such as the emergence of life.

In contrast to religious thinkers, Goff argues that the traditional God is a bad explanation of cosmic purpose. Instead, he explores a range of alternative possibilities for accounting for cosmic purpose, from the speculation that we live in a computer simulation to the hypothesis that the universe itself is a conscious mind. Goff scrutinizes these options with analytical rigour, laying the foundations for a new paradigm of philosophical enquiry into the middle ground between God and atheism.
Ultimately, Goff outlines a way of living in hope that cosmic purpose is still unfolding, involving political engagement and a non-literalist interpretation of traditional religion.

a