|
Post by laughter on Apr 12, 2014 0:57:12 GMT -5
Not a speculation as to what comes first, but an assertion that the idea of consciousness itself is only inference. Would you say it's clear that you are conscious? The question embeds a polysemy. Yes I am conscious, and that is an absolute and unconditional certainty. It's also true that I'm not conscious of what I might not be conscious of. I didn't mean to put forward a theory. As such, I don't expect to publish in the science journals any time soon. I meant to talk about something I'm 'seeing', for which I have no evidence and no credibility. Well Mr. Charles Einstein, if you start talking about the "evolution of consciousness" yer gonna attract as many coke-bottle-bifocaled pocket-protected certifieds as you are unicorn-mounted sky gazers waiting for the 2nd ascension to Bashar's 6th dimension hot tub. Call it the Law of Unintended Attraction, if you will. Okay forget about life. I'm saying experience is movement, and the movement from order to disorder and back to order is basically like any other movement and doesn't require any explanation or special terminology. Weeeelll, it's not really a movement " back to" order -- the two movements are appearing in tandem, and further, the appearance is that one is happening as encapsulated-within and powered-by the other. Here again, yes the terminology isn't necessary to describe the appearance but it is useful as applied to it if one purposes to factor-out the principal of consciousness or purpose or ordering intelligence from the description of the process of evolution. I'd say no information ever caused a realization. As with all experiences, the finding of information is part of the creative expression of a story about someone realizing. How the story actually plays out is irrelevant to the realization, which in a sense has already happened. There are a million stories in the big city. This is one of them. yes I have no disagreement with that. Information appears to be arranged over time and furthermore there is a movement toward the ordering of it in such a way that there is the further appearance of an effect on individuals to pull them toward realization, but when it comes to cause and effect, appearances can be deceptive.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 12, 2014 1:10:15 GMT -5
Am I in too deep now? (** reaches for bottle of Kogenate **) ... oh believe me! Yes you do! ... there's a different way to read that last sentence -- I found our first debate on the question of free will to have been quite the powerful experience. But interestingly, it had nothing at all to do with what I said, and everything to do with what you were ready to hear. .. yeah I couldn't make you wrong about that if I chased you 'round the interwebs for 3 years tryin'! As far as the implication of that idea to the power and the words, how it got there, when and etc. .. .. it's a parambigudox I tells ya'!
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Apr 12, 2014 1:31:35 GMT -5
If non-duality is the case, then what is the purpose of duality? Even if duality is merely apparent (and I don't buy that, this computer I'm typing on is pretty apparent), why the appearance of duality? .........Now, I know the usual explanation, the layla of God, God is hiding from himself and all this is some sort of cosmic/comic game, so if that's all you've got, don't bother (unless you can elaborate). If in the beginning there is God, the Absolute, Supreme Ordering Intelligence, and if all is One, how do we end up with a lot stuff that doesn't seem to be God-stuff? sdp It is pretty much about fun in the end - romance, beauty, art... Duality and non-duality arise mutually, neither can exist without the other, as exemplified by the a priori adage that a unity is only truly a unity with a healthy variety to unify in the first place. True, there was an original source aka Emptiness, but it's as impersonal as it gets, that is, a form of consciousness the least personalized as possible. Its manifestations occur organically, flowing along the channels of necessity. By itself it doesn't really exist, only through us does it exist, exactly in the same way that your ego only exists through you.. and you'll always need your ego, your conventional aspect, at least for various logistical purposes in terms of the structural integrity/functionality of your being. It's funny people are afraid of death, but if they truly considered the notion of immortality they would be at least just as afraid, unless you serve them some platitude that it will be a 'pleasant' eternity. To say that the whole damn game is just about fun, it's not to short-change it, not if you know how to REALLY have fun, but at the same time it's important to take a sober step back and realize that it's not so easy for existence to offer unlimited abundance.. if you live forever, would you ever get bored and want to die, and thus choose to reincarnate?.. the line between living and dying, after millions of years old, is so faint and subtle it's difficult to imagine.. taking life seriously and taking life not seriously truly converge.. the artist.. you don't know where you're going but you know where you came from recently, thousands of year old memories fade to black, you find new love sometimes, maybe have a hundred year orgasm if you meet the right gal.. the point is, necessity is the mother of invention, so before asking what is the point, consider what you could possibly ask for instead, what else could even possibly be feasible at all? Sufficiency by definition is either sufficient or it's not... free from suffering.... it's alright, damn majestic at times even.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Apr 12, 2014 5:26:26 GMT -5
... oh believe me! Yes you do! ... there's a different way to read that last sentence -- I found our first debate on the question of free will to have been quite the powerful experience. But interestingly, it had nothing at all to do with what I said, and everything to do with what you were ready to hear. Am I in too deep now? Seems to me, it's both.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 12, 2014 10:02:25 GMT -5
But interestingly, it had nothing at all to do with what I said, and everything to do with what you were ready to hear. Am I in too deep now? Seems to me, it's both. Yeah, it seems that way, but nothing in the physical expression is a cause of anything. Anyhoo, it's too early in the morning for this thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2014 10:25:37 GMT -5
It means, as far as you can see, implying that perception and creation are the same. Yeah, like, 'in the beginning was the word'. I don't give words, as such, quite that much power. Hmm, I don't see much diff with the telescope analogy?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 12, 2014 11:44:11 GMT -5
It means, as far as you can see, implying that perception and creation are the same. Yeah, like, 'in the beginning was the word'. I don't give words, as such, quite that much power. Hmm, I don't see much diff with the telescope analogy? Okay, no matter.
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on May 5, 2014 15:06:03 GMT -5
Hahaha. Now you sound totally different in this description from previous entries on the topic. It was subtle for you!!??!!? Hahaha. I couldn't have sold that to anyone. My shift was the same as far as subtle. In fact my wife was explaining a conversation she had with her dad about the no-self thing and that's when this mind/body became informed as to there being no-self. Hahaha. It was like "oh, I know what he is talking about. I thought it was something way more cosmic and huge based off previous conversations with him. Cool." And back it went to whatever it was doing at that moment. LMAO!! Actually you've read Concrete, right? When I read the specific passage that I think corresponds with what he's referring to I literally laughed out loud at how understated and low-key the presentation of it was. No, it's too hard of a read for me. I made it through the first chapter, then had to put the book down cause my head hurt. hahaha. I'm tryin to convince him to write a dummies version where it's not such a complex writing style but I don't think he has yet. "ATA for dummies". I'm telling you, number one seller. hahaha.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 19:34:23 GMT -5
If non-duality is the case, then what is the purpose of duality? Even if duality is merely apparent (and I don't buy that, this computer I'm typing on is pretty apparent), why the appearance of duality? .........Now, I know the usual explanation, the layla of God, God is hiding from himself and all this is some sort of cosmic/comic game, so if that's all you've got, don't bother (unless you can elaborate). If in the beginning there is God, the Absolute, Supreme Ordering Intelligence, and if all is One, how do we end up with a lot stuff that doesn't seem to be God-stuff? sdp It is pretty much about fun in the end - romance, beauty, art... Duality and non-duality arise mutually, neither can exist without the other, as exemplified by the a priori adage that a unity is only truly a unity with a healthy variety to unify in the first place. True, there was an original source aka Emptiness, but it's as impersonal as it gets, that is, a form of consciousness the least personalized as possible. Its manifestations occur organically, flowing along the channels of necessity. By itself it doesn't really exist, only through us does it exist, exactly in the same way that your ego only exists through you.. and you'll always need your ego, your conventional aspect, at least for various logistical purposes in terms of the structural integrity/functionality of your being. It's funny people are afraid of death, but if they truly considered the notion of immortality they would be at least just as afraid, unless you serve them some platitude that it will be a 'pleasant' eternity. To say that the whole darn game is just about fun, it's not to short-change it, not if you know how to REALLY have fun, but at the same time it's important to take a sober step back and realize that it's not so easy for existence to offer unlimited abundance.. if you live forever, would you ever get bored and want to die, and thus choose to reincarnate?.. the line between living and dying, after millions of years old, is so faint and subtle it's difficult to imagine.. taking life seriously and taking life not seriously truly converge.. the artist.. you don't know where you're going but you know where you came from recently, thousands of year old memories fade to black, you find new love sometimes, maybe have a hundred year orgasm if you meet the right gal.. the point is, necessity is the mother of invention, so before asking what is the point, consider what you could possibly ask for instead, what else could even possibly be feasible at all? Sufficiency by definition is either sufficient or it's not... free from suffering.... it's alright, darn majestic at times even. Man....you really like hearing yourself talk lol But jeez, ya do it so eloquently that I do too, even though we seem to be casting our attention in largely different paradigms that are largely indifferent to each other's.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 2, 2014 11:44:23 GMT -5
Saw amit online today. It's been quite awhile. Last time I read his stuff he came across as quite interesting. Clicked his recent posts to see what may be there and this exchange with you was at the top. Read it and got a question for you. I'm always down with trying to understand each other. It probly sounds ironic to you, but that ends up being mostly what I do here. For example, I know you have a particular aversion to folks intruding into your personal psychological space, as you've raised this issue before with myself and others. It's not a problem, though rather than submitting to peeps personal quirks, I'm actually drawn into engaging them. When you get to know me betterer, you may understand why that is. On one level, my practical experience as a counselor has led to a great deal of understanding of psychological patterns, but I don't rely on that understanding alone, since everyone is unique, and folks are right to object to being subjected to unwanted psychoanalysis. I do not perform psychoanalysis on peeps on this forum. You indeed intrude into folks "personal psychological space" with the stated goal of exploring/bringing what is unconscious into consciousness. How is that not psychoanalysis?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 2, 2014 12:43:46 GMT -5
If non-duality is the case, then what is the purpose of duality? Even if duality is merely apparent (and I don't buy that, this computer I'm typing on is pretty apparent), why the appearance of duality? .........Now, I know the usual explanation, the layla of God, God is hiding from himself and all this is some sort of cosmic/comic game, so if that's all you've got, don't bother (unless you can elaborate). If in the beginning there is God, the Absolute, Supreme Ordering Intelligence, and if all is One, how do we end up with a lot stuff that doesn't seem to be God-stuff? sdp It is pretty much about fun in the end - romance, beauty, art... Duality and non-duality arise mutually, neither can exist without the other, as exemplified by the a priori adage that a unity is only truly a unity with a healthy variety to unify in the first place. True, there was an original source aka Emptiness, but it's as impersonal as it gets, that is, a form of consciousness the least personalized as possible. Its manifestations occur organically, flowing along the channels of necessity. By itself it doesn't really exist, only through us does it exist, exactly in the same way that your ego only exists through you.. and you'll always need your ego, your conventional aspect, at least for various logistical purposes in terms of the structural integrity/functionality of your being. It's funny people are afraid of death, but if they truly considered the notion of immortality they would be at least just as afraid, unless you serve them some platitude that it will be a 'pleasant' eternity. To say that the whole darn game is just about fun, it's not to short-change it, not if you know how to REALLY have fun, but at the same time it's important to take a sober step back and realize that it's not so easy for existence to offer unlimited abundance.. if you live forever, would you ever get bored and want to die, and thus choose to reincarnate?.. the line between living and dying, after millions of years old, is so faint and subtle it's difficult to imagine.. taking life seriously and taking life not seriously truly converge.. the artist.. you don't know where you're going but you know where you came from recently, thousands of year old memories fade to black, you find new love sometimes, maybe have a hundred year orgasm if you meet the right gal.. the point is, necessity is the mother of invention, so before asking what is the point, consider what you could possibly ask for instead, what else could even possibly be feasible at all? Sufficiency by definition is either sufficient or it's not... free from suffering.... it's alright, darn majestic at times even. Good post.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 2, 2014 21:18:51 GMT -5
Saw amit online today. It's been quite awhile. Last time I read his stuff he came across as quite interesting. Clicked his recent posts to see what may be there and this exchange with you was at the top. Read it and got a question for you. I'm always down with trying to understand each other. It probly sounds ironic to you, but that ends up being mostly what I do here. For example, I know you have a particular aversion to folks intruding into your personal psychological space, as you've raised this issue before with myself and others. It's not a problem, though rather than submitting to peeps personal quirks, I'm actually drawn into engaging them. When you get to know me betterer, you may understand why that is. On one level, my practical experience as a counselor has led to a great deal of understanding of psychological patterns, but I don't rely on that understanding alone, since everyone is unique, and folks are right to object to being subjected to unwanted psychoanalysis. I do not perform psychoanalysis on peeps on this forum. You indeed intrude into folks "personal psychological space" with the stated goal of exploring/bringing what is unconscious into consciousness. How is that not psychoanalysis? Psychoanalysis is much more involved than pointing out misperceptions and apparent motives for those misperceptions.
|
|
|
Post by psychoslice on Dec 2, 2014 21:34:12 GMT -5
Non-duality through the great orgasm called the big bang, created and gave birth to matter, and time and space. This great love was for it Self, through matter it could see itself and experience itself, we are here to experience our creation, to enjoy it through our mind. But when we forget this and take this life too serious and forget about our true Self, we then suffer, also because we have forgotten we subconsciously know there is something bigger than our life here, and so we find all sorts of ways to find this, as with religions and thousands of other ways, and so we have forums such as this one.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 4, 2014 10:13:35 GMT -5
Saw amit online today. It's been quite awhile. Last time I read his stuff he came across as quite interesting. Clicked his recent posts to see what may be there and this exchange with you was at the top. Read it and got a question for you. You indeed intrude into folks "personal psychological space" with the stated goal of exploring/bringing what is unconscious into consciousness. How is that not psychoanalysis? Psychoanalysis is much more involved than pointing out misperceptions and apparent motives for those misperceptions. Yes, but both are equally disturbing to those who have not invited or welcomed the probing, or invasion of personal psychological space, however involved or un-involved. The main issue with human consciousness, as I see it, is that like any other seed, it is meant to have it's being and unfoldment from within, with only the minimum of external influences like teaching basic hygiene and manners, but as it is, almost from the start of existence in form, human consciousness has been pressured to conform to maximum outside pressure from the get go. The profession and marriage partner of some are decided at birth being one example. What to think, how to think, when to think it being another. One proof that this goes against the grain, so to speak, is that nobody likes being told what to do, and the instinct is to rebel against external pressures to conform. It is a source of deep resentment, and an innate sense of injustice, and the cause of much of the madness and rebellion in the world. And as a result peeps aren't themselves, but are instead are either the product of how others think they should be, or are the product of rebellion against the conditioning, but either way are still the product of conditioning, positively or negatively. What's needed here is less, not more pressure. Peeps need to be allowed freedom and space to be alone with themselves. To see what right for themselves. To decide for themselves. Pascal pointed to this when he said " “All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” Now, folk need to hear/see the Truth, that is undeniable, but what they mainly need is a good example, and secondarily someone who loves them enough to tell/show them the truth, but also gives them the space and freedom to let that truth germinate and grow up within them, of its own accord, in its own way, in its own time. But none of this is to say that folk do not have a right to submit themselves freely to the disciplines/teachings of a guru/guide/way/path. They do. But it is to say that that choice is only real if it is freely made, and made without external pressure or coercion of any kind.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 4, 2014 16:47:38 GMT -5
Psychoanalysis is much more involved than pointing out misperceptions and apparent motives for those misperceptions. Yes, but both are equally disturbing to those who have not invited or welcomed the probing, or invasion of personal psychological space, however involved or un-involved. The main issue with human consciousness, as I see it, is that like any other seed, it is meant to have it's being and unfoldment from within, with only the minimum of external influences like teaching basic hygiene and manners, but as it is, almost from the start of existence in form, human consciousness has been pressured to conform to maximum outside pressure from the get go. The profession and marriage partner of some are decided at birth being one example. What to think, how to think, when to think it being another. One proof that this goes against the grain, so to speak, is that nobody likes being told what to do, and the instinct is to rebel against external pressures to conform. It is a source of deep resentment, and an innate sense of injustice, and the cause of much of the madness and rebellion in the world. And as a result peeps aren't themselves, but are instead are either the product of how others think they should be, or are the product of rebellion against the conditioning, but either way are still the product of conditioning, positively or negatively. What's needed here is less, not more pressure. Peeps need to be allowed freedom and space to be alone with themselves. To see what right for themselves. To decide for themselves. Pascal pointed to this when he said " “All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” Now, folk need to hear/see the Truth, that is undeniable, but what they mainly need is a good example, and secondarily someone who loves them enough to tell/show them the truth, but also gives them the space and freedom to let that truth germinate and grow up within them, of its own accord, in its own way, in its own time. But none of this is to say that folk do not have a right to submit themselves freely to the disciplines/teachings of a guru/guide/way/path. They do. But it is to say that that choice is only real if it is freely made, and made without external pressure or coercion of any kind. That's actually pretty beautiful jly.
|
|