March 13 sunrise 1287


Advertisements

15 thoughts on “March 13 sunrise 1287

  1. Beautiful! Wish I was there with a cup of coffee in my hand and dreams still floating through my mind. I love the beach at sunrise. I woke up to a dream this morning about wanting to see fireworks on the beach. Maybe all your beach videos are making me feel all oceany (not a word, i know, hehe). It’s the second time i’ve had a dream that involved wanting fireworks on the beach although this one was a little different than the last one. A friend of mine that I haven’t seen for a couple years was in it and we were sitting at a white table with a white umbrella. I had ordered some sort of pie with ice cream, but then i told him that the fireworks were going to start soon and i’d never seen fireworks on the beach – he said we should go now so we abandoned our table (before the pie came) and went running down to the beach. I woke up before the fireworks (both times i’ve had the dream).

    1. Oh here we are with the “oceany”. I knew it was somewhere. Yes, there is the “oceanic feeling” or experience in some psychology texts. So all of those guys I suppose fell asleep on the beach and had to write a report or something. Hmm, a white table and white umbrella. Seems it would be a good canvas to paint on.

      1. Alright, this whole comment might be kind of silly or sound kind of stupid or maybe I’m just not “getting it” but I looked up the oceanic feeling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_feeling …very interesting, especially Freud’s psychoanalytical explanation. I liked where it said “the “oceanic” feeling of limitlessness” That’s the best way I’d think it could be described. But then he goes on about the ego and infants breastfeeding: “The ego, in contrast, comes into existence when the breast is taken away, and involves the infant’s recognition that it is separate from the mother’s breast, and therefore, that other persons exist.” While Freud is a brilliant man, I’m not really positive that a baby didn’t know that others existed until a mother ceased breastfeeding. I mean, my son recognized my voice as different than the nurses at the hospital when he was a newborn (and he was premature). There has to be a sense of something other than self if you can already recognize and know your own mother’s voice straight from the womb and that it is separate from yourself and different from others. Right? I would walk into the neonatal intensive care unit and he would start squirming and turning his head from side to side as if he were looking for me when he’d hear me talking and that would happen every time if he wasn’t sleeping. And when I would pick him up he would calm down if he were crying and just snuggle right up against me (most of the time i would be softly singing to him or talking sweetly to calm him too). I kind of understand what he means though, perhaps as the baby is breastfeeding it has a sense of ‘oneness’ as if the breast and it were one since whenever it cried the breast was presented but what about bottle fed babies? Does it work the same way then? What do you think?
        Oh, I wanted to mention that It’s neat that you incorporated the skirt into your poem because I thought i had originally mentioned that I was wearing a skirt but looking back at my original dream comment, i forgot to mention it…maybe there is an underlying sense of oceanic limitlessness somewhere here?

    2. OK, I just looked at your comment quickly and I want to say quickly that it’s not at all “stupid or silly”. It’s very logical and intelligent. In recent times Freud has been said to be discredited, and in some circles they want to abandon him altogether, but I don’t think we need to go that far. Carl Jung had some ideas about a “collective unconscious” and other spiritual things that people at the time thought was poppycock. But as usual, I think, there is a grain of truth in each, and with each a blind spot and a prejudice for their own all encompassing theories. Each is wrong and each is right in some way. And your questions and wisdom from experience are valid questions that belie pure theory. I’ll get back to this later. But I’d say off hand: gungho early ego and early incarnation of the “soul” whatever that is… OK, I’m a little vague right now, but I wanted to rush ahead with some praise and encouragement (an ego thing — ego to ego… hurray)

      1. I love all your replies…thank you, I’m glad you thought it was logical and intelligent instead of stupid and silly. It makes me feel so much better. Hurray! : )
        I have so much to catch up on and reply back to now, but I am tired and ready to dive into my bed for the night. I’ll be back tomorrow…

    3. OK, I’ve looked at the references a little. These guys are nuts: they twist themselves into knots to deny that religious feelings or spiritual things exist. When the ego is calmed and stops chattering, other things exist, whatever they are, and even if mainstream religion says a lot of silly stuff that is not true, that does not invalidate the reality of something connected to “religious-type experiences” that are non ego based. They almost seem to be saying that if you feel good in a non-ego way that must be irrational, superstitious, unreal and invalid and not veridical. Many modern studies have shown that the newborn recognizes the mother’s voice and prefers music that the mother listened to. I think such preferences require an ego. Freud was just guessing about a lot of things and it wasn’t based on any evidence. If persons have a “religious” experience that gives them some information that is consequently proven to be true and they did it without their ego, is that not evidence of a non-ego existence that is not primitive and mechanistic and of a lower animal nature. There might be non-ego things that are noble and true and with a logic of their own that is as legitimate as Freud with the feathers of his fanciful theories based on his torturous dreams and nightmares and needs to impress academia. Well, self-awareness must develop at some point. The fertilized egg seems to be a bio-mechanical thing that develops by a complicated set of rules for making specialized cells, and without a brain there is no ego. (Or maybe the soul hovers around waiting for its opportunity to enter a well developed brain. Such a soul would seem to be self-aware and would it not be ego-like?). Those guys seem to think we’re biochemical machines and in which case everything not logical is an illusion. With their way there would be no free will and our biochemical machines would react in ultimately predictable ways once all the rules were determined…. OK, never mind, … now I’m lost….but anyway, something about what they say doesn’t seem right…

      1. This is such an interesting topic that i think could prompt hours and hours worth of contemplating, i mean i feel like I’m barely on the tip of the iceberg with it and i’ve been thinking about it very deeply since I first looked up the wikipedia page. They do sound kind of nuts, twisting themselves into knots to deny spiritual things exist. I liked what you were talking about with the soul waiting for it’s oppurtunity to enter a well developed brain. I’ve always believed that a heart beat proves life has begun but i think the main unanswered question is when does a soul develop within a body. Is it at conception and the soul is just sort of sleeping or in an unconscious resting state waiting for the brain to finish developing so that it might flourish and express itself? Or is it more like you said with a soul hovering around waiting for a successful healthy brain before it somehow merges in? I agree that it would be self aware and ego like. I’m positive though, that it is at some point while the baby is still in utero. Another thing i thought of: during ultrasound videos a lot of babies have been recorded sucking their thumbs. This is a self comforting habit babies develop to soothe themselves and because of ultrasound videos we now know that they do it while they are still in their mother’s bellies. That seems pretty soulful to me. I refuse to believe that we’re just biochemical machines…I mean as a machine i would just accept anything that i was told i should do and perform that task. Machines do not have opinions, machines do not love…

    4. Maybe more to the point: the “limitless feeling” is more a oneness with a “God”, however defined,( either anthropomorphic or an essence that underlies all existence and makes it possible and holds it all together,), — by letting go of self or ego, one becomes part of the whole or rather joins the whole again not defining its boundary, not drawing and guarding a territory apart from the whole, in the mix, and as such amorphous thing enjoys being and would not make the separation to identify a specific thing to speak in a sound apart, because the “all” would have already known what would be said. Geez, that’s a big ocean and if we need swimming lessons, I wonder who would do it.

      1. (giggling) I think I definitely need some swimming lessons for that ocean. But what you said makes sense in a beautifully confusing way…

    5. I found some things that are really dense and difficult to read but which have some interesting parts. It appears that many philosophers don’t at all agree with Freud or with any of the other traditional big-shot characters. Some of the vocabulary gives me a headache but has something to do with how do you know something is true, what is the nature of reality, and how is knowledge acquired and validated…. and they have gigantic words for all these concepts. But anyway,
      I found this from JON MILLS, PSY. D., PH. D. :
      THE ONTOLOGY OF RELIGIOSITY: THE OCEANIC FEELING AND THE VALUE OF THE LIVED EXPERIENCE
      RELIGIOUS HUMANISM, 33(3/4), 20-41.
      [page 8]
      “…This unbounded experience may be tied to natural phenomena such as an awe inspiring sunset, music so moving that it makes you weep, or the beauty and mutual recognition of falling in love–all leading to an elevation of consciousness that transcends the parameters of self-interest. The oceanic feeling may be said to be spiritual based on the elevation of consciousness alone, a feeling that evokes the deepest sense of personal satisfaction. When understood for its total worth, the oceanic feeling becomes an aesthetic expression of the soul potentially associated with the nature of the moral–the ultimate goodness that underlies the structure of the universe. I simply prefer to call this the beauty of wonder…”
      “…While the oceanic feeling may be experienced by the non-theist, … it is not as easily facilitated as it is in organized rituals or structured religious ceremonies. Furthermore, non-theist religiosity is divorced from a personal sense of connection to a personal being. While Freud…disregard[s] this notion as childish and irrational, many theists see this as an indispensable aspect to their faith. The oceanic feeling…true source of a personal connection with a personal being….[but] an atheist does not belief in God and believes that no such God exists or could exist. Therefore, any personal relation to an absolute personal being is exempt from experience. Although an atheist may have oceanic feelings tied to love, nature, mysticism, peek experiences, music, etc., s/he will not feel a bond with an entity nor develop a personal relationship… …, our atheistic friend may point out that s/he doesn’t need or want to have such a relationship, or will claim that all religious experience is ultimately personal…Yet the value of personal relatedness underscores the significance of human attachment, a value we may rightly call love. …”

      1. There is a lot of really wise, interesting parts in there. I like when he said “I simply prefer to call this the beauty of wonder…” and then in the next part when he talks about atheists, I liked it because it didn’t exclude atheists from being able to relate to the oceanic feeling. It really seemed to make a lot of sense, or perhaps it made something click in my mind about atheists. This may sound silly or I may have understood this wrong but what I got from it is that Atheists do actually believe in something grand and much bigger than themselves alone. They believe in love and love is so powerful that it can transcend most any obstacle…

    6. Yeah, an oceanic feeling for an Atheist can seduce him into considering how Love fits into the scheme of things. But, or also, I think there’s an interesting third way or is it the fifth way. Someone can, including Atheists, think there must be something that operates outside of the biochemical machine of our cells and organs, the machine which can be observed as all chemical processes including the building up of charged ions that allow for the electrical pulses of the nerve and brain cells(like the charges in a billion batteries). Everything that can be observed is a chemical or physical reaction. There is no decision maker that can be seen that is free to make an arbitrary decision. Each chemical or electric charge in a particular place at a particular time must do a particular thing according to the laws of chemistry and physics. If an unpredictable thing is to occur it must be outside any of these processes. So anyway, the decision maker entity that exists outside of the material world could continue to exist before and after any physical body. Such thing (*soul* minus religious connotations) could exist without the existence of God. So an Atheist could have an afterlife with other *souls* who could interact in another non-material dimension with Love even without a God. More wise and highly developed *souls* could be analogous to Angels but without there having to be a super-supervisor. The chaos of the world would seem to indicate that there is no “Supervisor” but there is Love. And Loving *souls* might yet be god-like.

    7. P.S. What I meant to say about his point of the Atheist having the oceanic feeling but missing a personal relationship with God, is that the “personal relationship”-aspect of the feeling could be unity with other souls in the universe like himself. The Atheist can have a supernatural relationship with other *souls* defined only as non-material and having no set anthropomorphic characteristics. That is, a spiritual thing has no material body or material grounded characteristics — it’s not like a person who feels in their body, but more like a disembodied thought-feeling.Hmm, ut oh, what’s a feeling without a body — um, uh, um… a beingness of joy without identity? Um, uh, um… a “yikeness”. Uh um, so the oceanic feeling for the Atheist is a shared Yikeness in the Sillyverse.

      1. I think you could too. A lot of what you say is so wise and extremely deep…then the cherry on top is the Yikeness in the Sillyverse. It had me giggling but at the same time it is wise and makes a lot of sense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s