Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 7:08:39 GMT -5
the collective whole symphony of Life happening.. As you are wont to say, we have similar experiences described differently. When I hear 'whole symphony' it actually sounds more perfect (usage #1 -- the general sense, as extremely excellent) than how I understand 'perfectly so' (#2 this. is. it. -- complete with beheadings, boredom, and babies).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2014 8:43:32 GMT -5
You said whatever mind/body is made of. I'd say that easily translates to whatever we're made of. I think that Tzu's point is that whatever mind/body is made of does not constitute self, consciousness. For example, say you have a living person. They accidentally step out in from of a truck and are instantly killed. Whatever mind/body is made of is still all there, all the constituent elements, but one pile of stuff is living and one isn't. For me what Tzu is saying is that the stuff we are made of does not equal self ("its existence"). That's pretty straightforward and clear. sdp Yeah, I must be slow on the uptake tonight. No worries, I'm sure it's me and the day in my head. So, Tzu's idea is that we ARE mind/bodies, yes? Furthermore, that mind/body does not constitute self, which is consciousness, and the stuff we are made of does not equal self. Is that right? When hit by a car, what are the two piles? And don't mean to speak for Tzu, but I'd say yes. The two piles, There used to be this concept of vital force which was the difference between a living body and a dead body, which leaves the body when it dies. Science today (and probably for about a hundred years) can't find any evidence for it and so doesn't believe in a vital force. For me, information is what constitutes life and consciousness and identity. Information exists in the neural structure, brain (cortex, limbic system/mammalian brain, reptilian brain), sensory neurons and motor neurons. If a particular body gets degraded by accident or disease, it dies. We know that the genetic information that constitutes our body began with just 46 chromosomes, 23 from the mother 23 from the father, a lot of information in a tiny space. We know there are numerous ways to store and transfer information. You have Mozart or Bach floating through your house right now, just turn on a radio and you can tune in to the information. Scientists are even talking about some day being able to collect all the information of someone's neural structure, encode it in a laser beam, shoot it across the galaxy to an inhabited planet and reconstitute a physical body, restore the beginning consciousness. That's easier and less expensive than space travel. So all you need to do is "save" and transfer the information that constitutes self and/or "soul". So......I see no reason why the evolution of consciousness can't proceed from one life to another, that the information that constitutes self doesn't necessarily die when the physical body dies. So one's actions might have consequences past the life of the body, that's how I try to live anyway........... sdp
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2014 9:14:34 GMT -5
I was raised in the church (Southern Baptist) and started sorting through all this as a teenager. If you look at what Jesus said it has little to do with the state of today's church. It's like a giant game of Chinese whispers. First there was the truth of whatever Jesus said and did and meant. And then you get an abstraction of that, and then an abstraction of the abstraction, and then an abstraction of the abstraction of the abstraction, and then multiplied again and again. I think Jesus taught a spiritual path, what one has to do to transform self. Over the years it got changed into Jesus did everything for us, all we have to do is believe. So now we have thousands of churches who teach something different from what Jesus taught. They are very sincere, but deluded. Paul, through what he taught, either fixed everything or screwed up everything Jesus taught. If you look up Paul in the dictionary you'll see monkey-wrench. That's why I think you have to only-look at the words of Jesus. The Gnostic writings are probably abstractions of abstractions also (multiplied). The truth is probably somewhere in-between. sdp Would you say there's value in the words, trying to understand them, and/or trying to decipher what he was pointing to? Or would you be more the "find your own path" kinda dude? Transforming 'self' seems more related to change, rather than transcendence of it; wouldn't you say? To me, jc was talking about the latter, to be sure. Hey sN.......I think there is value in the words alone, but we probably don't know what all the actual words were. The most important words might not have been recorded, and all languages have idioms, uses of words that can't be translated, you just have to know what they mean from cultural context. We use idioms every day, It's raining cats and dogs, I'm between a rock and a hard place, you can't get there from here, drinks are on the house. And different occupations have their own lingo. Jesus and the disciples didn't speak Greek, so there is a translation problem from the very beginning. I personally believe the first written scripture was in Aramaic. So the value of the words is in their pointing to something else, yes, what Jesus was pointing to. I'm not a "find your own path kinda dude". I'm a why try to reinvent the wheel? kinda dude. I think jc was talking about transforming self and then transcending self, there is an order and sequence, you can't transcend without transforming. .........So you might come across a path, the problem is recognizing a path. A distorted ego/personality almost by definition can't recognize a path that leads to transformation and transcendence. So you have to have something in yourself that can recognize a path if you come across it. sdp
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2014 9:20:03 GMT -5
So there is the question, do we exist in consciousness or does consciousness exist in us? sdp questions from our ‘individual minds’ are always fun to toy~with stardust. First, your ‘we’ is exclusive is it NOT?No, saying we as in mankind. sdp
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 9:24:33 GMT -5
So there is the question, do we exist in consciousness or does consciousness exist in us? sdp Both options presume there is something other than consciousness, right?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2014 9:31:26 GMT -5
So there is the question, do we exist in consciousness or does consciousness exist in us? sdp Both options presume there is something other than consciousness, right? I would say yes, definitely (but maybe on a sliding scale of relativity......the question being what's more real, what's less real, and how to move from one to the other. Maya is always around). sdp
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2014 9:47:09 GMT -5
Both options presume there is something other than consciousness, right? I would say yes, definitely (but maybe on a sliding scale of relativity......the question being what's more real, what's less real, and how to move from one to the other. Maya is always around). sdp Just contemplating this has me drifting sideways into solipsism. It seems an answer either way is just a matter of preference. The distinction between inside and outside doesn't really mean much more than a passing preference.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2014 15:18:28 GMT -5
I would say yes, definitely (but maybe on a sliding scale of relativity......the question being what's more real, what's less real, and how to move from one to the other. Maya is always around). sdp Just contemplating this has me drifting sideways into solipsism. It seems an answer either way is just a matter of preference. The distinction between inside and outside doesn't really mean much more than a passing preference. The only tweak that solipsism needs -- which negates it at the core -- is to just admit the existence of minds other than one's own. fortune-cookie-box-alert. This bears a similarity in structure to physicists discovering the negation of their core assumption of an objective reality. The mind has a habit of attaching meaning, even when the concepts involved in a structure directly contradict each other, for example in the statement: form is emptiness emptiness is form. The absence of meaning sounds to the mind like meaninglessness, but that's the natural movement of mind making a meaning of meaninglessness out of an absence. Of meaning.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 24, 2014 20:44:09 GMT -5
You said whatever mind/body is made of. I'd say that easily translates to whatever we're made of. I think that Tzu's point is that whatever mind/body is made of does not constitute self, consciousness. For example, say you have a living person. They accidentally step out in from of a truck and are instantly killed. Whatever mind/body is made of is still all there, all the constituent elements, but one pile of stuff is living and one isn't. For me what Tzu is saying is that the stuff we are made of does not equal self ("its existence"). That's pretty straightforward and clear. sdp Yeah, I must be slow on the uptake tonight. No worries, I'm sure it's me and the day in my head. So, Tzu's idea is that we ARE mind/bodies, yes? Furthermore, that mind/body does not constitute self, which is consciousness, and the stuff we are made of does not equal self. Is that right? When hit by a car, what are the two piles? As i understand the existence i experience, the two piles are the same stuff: different functionalities, different effects upon the happening.. 'i' am both piles, 'i' am functioning differently as manifested through each of the two 'piles', and as the experience in which they participate.. 'i' am a mind/body, but not confined/defined by that situation, it's a function of what is actually happening and of experiencing the physical existence of that happening..
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2014 22:33:42 GMT -5
Yeah, I must be slow on the uptake tonight. No worries, I'm sure it's me and the day in my head. So, Tzu's idea is that we ARE mind/bodies, yes? Furthermore, that mind/body does not constitute self, which is consciousness, and the stuff we are made of does not equal self. Is that right? When hit by a car, what are the two piles? As i understand the existence i experience, the two piles are the same stuff: different functionalities, different effects upon the happening.. 'i' am both piles, 'i' am functioning differently as manifested through each of the two 'piles', and as the experience in which they participate.. 'i' am a mind/body, but not confined/defined by that situation, it's a function of what is actually happening and of experiencing the physical existence of that happening.. OK, I guess I was wrong. I didn't take Tzu to be a materialist. sdp
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 25, 2014 5:19:33 GMT -5
As i understand the existence i experience, the two piles are the same stuff: different functionalities, different effects upon the happening.. 'i' am both piles, 'i' am functioning differently as manifested through each of the two 'piles', and as the experience in which they participate.. 'i' am a mind/body, but not confined/defined by that situation, it's a function of what is actually happening and of experiencing the physical existence of that happening.. OK, I guess I was wrong. I didn't take Tzu to be a materialist. sdp The 'materialist' you take Tzu to be Is only the materialist 'you think' you see I don't need to be this or that Wearing the team's colors and hat 'I' am energy, conscious and free I'm This AND That, when i let go neither and both, If that's what i choose to be
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2014 7:16:34 GMT -5
As i understand the existence i experience, the two piles are the same stuff: different functionalities, different effects upon the happening.. 'i' am both piles, 'i' am functioning differently as manifested through each of the two 'piles', and as the experience in which they participate.. 'i' am a mind/body, but not confined/defined by that situation, it's a function of what is actually happening and of experiencing the physical existence of that happening.. OK, I guess I was wrong. I didn't take Tzu to be a materialist. sdp A more accurate designation might be 'a contrarian.' Materialist doesn't work because he's a proponent of a concept like Cosmic Memory and such, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2014 7:18:16 GMT -5
OK, I guess I was wrong. I didn't take Tzu to be a materialist. sdp The 'materialist' you take Tzu to be Is only the materialist 'you think' you see I don't need to be this or that Wearing the team's colors and hat 'I' am energy, conscious and free I'm This AND That, when i let go neither and both, If that's what i choose to be Nice summation.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 25, 2014 7:59:11 GMT -5
The 'materialist' you take Tzu to be Is only the materialist 'you think' you see I don't need to be this or that Wearing the team's colors and hat 'I' am energy, conscious and free I'm This AND That, when i let go neither and both, If that's what i choose to be Nice summation. yes indeedy. I think tzu has earned one of these - he's definitely right up there with dr seuss
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 25, 2014 8:10:05 GMT -5
OK, I guess I was wrong. I didn't take Tzu to be a materialist. sdp The 'materialist' you take Tzu to be Is only the materialist 'you think' you see I don't need to be this or that Wearing the team's colors and hat 'I' am energy, conscious and free I'm This AND That, when i let go neither and both, If that's what i choose to be I was just going by what you wrote in your post. sdp
|
|