|
Post by enigma on Feb 19, 2015 19:24:38 GMT -5
Roight, the world is vibrantly alive because it is consciousness itself, not to be confused with being conscious. Once we make dead metal conscious, then we're obliged to sit down and have a chat with it. You really don't see past your own beliefs, do you? IF it's all consciousness, it's all conscious. My understanding is that it's all energy, which is conscious, behaving in a cosmos of manifested versions of itself.. each version interconnected with the whole, and functioning in accord with its level of awareness.. People judge the rest of creation through the lens of their own understanding, sometimes unwilling to afford the possibility that "dead metal" may be vibrantly alive and conscious from a perspective beyond the limited range of human perception.. You really can't see past your own beliefs, can you? Energy is conscious?? To say something is consciousness is not to say it is conscious. 'Dead metal' can appear in consciousness, but that appearance is not, itself, conscious. Rather, you are conscious of the dead metal.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 19, 2015 19:39:12 GMT -5
Sure, we define what it means to be conscious, and then notice that rocks aren't. "Everything is conscious" is a way to punt on "what is conscious?". It's a similar strategy as embracing delusion and being clear about one's confusion .. unless they're not .. Ya' gotta love the Japanese man, just, like no nonsense. Conceptual is conceptual ... I suspect a lot of peeps think the way Tzu does, assuming that if something is inseparable from consciousness, that it must, itself, be a conscious point of perception. Some folks explain away the fact that most objects don't show any hint of being conscious by saying it's just a different form of consciousness from how humans define it, but there isn't something else defining what the word means. Then there are some who just figure their car is conscious and try to spend quality time with it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 19, 2015 19:56:40 GMT -5
"Everything is conscious" is a way to punt on "what is conscious?". It's a similar strategy as embracing delusion and being clear about one's confusion .. unless they're not .. Ya' gotta love the Japanese man, just, like no nonsense. Conceptual is conceptual ... I suspect a lot of peeps think the way Tzu does, assuming that if something is inseparable from consciousness, that it must, itself, be a conscious point of perception. Some folks explain away the fact that most objects don't show any hint of being conscious by saying it's just a different form of consciousness from how humans define it, but there isn't something else defining what the word means. Then there are some who just figure their car is conscious and try to spend quality time with it. It's a cautionary tale as to the limits of Oneness, in that it demonstrates exactly the point in the movement of mind where the pointer is morphed into a monism. If it weren't for the rest of the dialog to provide context, then the difference between these two ideas could be taken as just a simple matter of the same meaning expressed different ways: (1) the reality of the metal is a reflection of the consciousness of it (2) everything perceived is alive Now the body/mind identified peep personalizes the word "consciousness" in (1), and that's where you get this foolish hyperminded question "is the Moon there when you don't look at it?". Self-inquiry has no conceptual answer, and just as you had to start disclaiming the existence of God a few weeks back, if someone is convinced that the answer to self-inquiry is that "it's all One", or "we/Life/Everything", then it's time to disclaim that version of oneness.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 19, 2015 19:59:28 GMT -5
"Everything is conscious" is a way to punt on "what is conscious?". It's a similar strategy as embracing delusion and being clear about one's confusion .. unless they're not .. Ya' gotta love the Japanese man, just, like no nonsense. Conceptual is conceptual ... I suspect a lot of peeps think the way Tzu does, assuming that if something is inseparable from consciousness, that it must, itself, be a conscious point of perception. Some folks explain away the fact that most objects don't show any hint of being conscious by saying it's just a different form of consciousness from how humans define it, but there isn't something else defining what the word means. Then there are some who just figure their car is conscious and try to spend quality time with it. What I said is 'everything has a consciousness', not 'everything is conscious'. The former means that everything is alive and responsive. The latter isn't something I said but to me it implies sentience. I would say a human is conscious, a dog is conscious, probably also a tree is conscious. The reason everything has a consciousness, is because every 'thing' is an expression OF consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 19, 2015 22:09:14 GMT -5
"Everything is conscious" is a way to punt on "what is conscious?". It's a similar strategy as embracing delusion and being clear about one's confusion .. unless they're not .. Ya' gotta love the Japanese man, just, like no nonsense. Conceptual is conceptual ... I suspect a lot of peeps think the way Tzu does, assuming that if something is inseparable from consciousness, that it must, itself, be a conscious point of perception. Some folks explain away the fact that most objects don't show any hint of being conscious by saying it's just a different form of consciousness from how humans define it, but there isn't something else defining what the word means. Then there are some who just figure their car is conscious and try to spend quality time with it. So, you think that consciousness and conscious are only valid if they conform to 'your' understanding, is that a fair understanding of your ideas? or, if you're attached to the definition rather than the experience, is it easier to claim authority/authorship of the menu.. kinda like it's all water, but it's not all wet..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 19, 2015 22:16:35 GMT -5
I suspect a lot of peeps think the way Tzu does, assuming that if something is inseparable from consciousness, that it must, itself, be a conscious point of perception. Some folks explain away the fact that most objects don't show any hint of being conscious by saying it's just a different form of consciousness from how humans define it, but there isn't something else defining what the word means. Then there are some who just figure their car is conscious and try to spend quality time with it. What I said is 'everything has a consciousness', not 'everything is conscious'. The former means that everything is alive and responsive. The latter isn't something I said but to me it implies sentience. I would say a human is conscious, a dog is conscious, probably also a tree is conscious. The reason everything has a consciousness, is because every 'thing' is an expression OF consciousness. I don't know what "everything has a consciousness" means if it doesn't mean everything is conscious. Everything is not responsive. What you said is that you talk to your car, and presumably your car hears you and responds. An expression of consciousness doesn't imply that the expression is endowed with consciousness any more than the bark of a dog is.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 19, 2015 22:36:57 GMT -5
I suspect a lot of peeps think the way Tzu does, assuming that if something is inseparable from consciousness, that it must, itself, be a conscious point of perception. Some folks explain away the fact that most objects don't show any hint of being conscious by saying it's just a different form of consciousness from how humans define it, but there isn't something else defining what the word means. Then there are some who just figure their car is conscious and try to spend quality time with it. So, you think that consciousness and conscious are only valid if they conform to 'your' understanding, is that a fair understanding of your ideas? or, if you're attached to the definition rather than the experience, is it easier to claim authority/authorship of the menu.. kinda like it's all water, but it's not all wet.. It's not a good analogy, as water is wet by definition. An expression of consciousness is not conscious by definition. An analogy would be, the artist is conscious but the bronze cast he creates as his expression is not conscious. It's 'dead metal'. As opposed to everything in physicality being conscious, actually nothing is. Physicality is merely an expression of consciousness, and we could say consciousness is it's content, which is what it means to say everything IS consciousness. If that's understood, the idea doesn't arise that things are conscious, and there's no question about what is and isn't conscious, and consciousness doesn't get confused with 'being conscious'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2015 0:48:43 GMT -5
What I said is 'everything has a consciousness', not 'everything is conscious'. The former means that everything is alive and responsive. The latter isn't something I said but to me it implies sentience. I would say a human is conscious, a dog is conscious, probably also a tree is conscious. The reason everything has a consciousness, is because every 'thing' is an expression OF consciousness. I don't know what "everything has a consciousness" means if it doesn't mean everything is conscious. Everything is not responsive. What you said is that you talk to your car, and presumably your car hears you and responds. An expression of consciousness doesn't imply that the expression is endowed with consciousness any more than the bark of a dog is. Does a car start to shimey if it hears a dwad at highway speed??
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 20, 2015 2:54:07 GMT -5
There is no on, off switch if consciousness equates to life in mind, everything is alive . Everything is conscious . The degrees of being conscious are minimal to complete realization had .. Being conscious in mind as a human construct we only compare our own conscious levels to something else . The rock or piece of gold has each their own signature of life . Nothing as such is completely dead in the water . Sure, we define what it means to be conscious, and then notice that rocks aren't. One can only notice what they notice .. Some notice love in everything .. Some don't . Is love in everything just because one notices it ..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 20, 2015 4:46:07 GMT -5
What I said is 'everything has a consciousness', not 'everything is conscious'. The former means that everything is alive and responsive. The latter isn't something I said but to me it implies sentience. I would say a human is conscious, a dog is conscious, probably also a tree is conscious. The reason everything has a consciousness, is because every 'thing' is an expression OF consciousness. I don't know what "everything has a consciousness" means if it doesn't mean everything is conscious. Everything is not responsive. What you said is that you talk to your car, and presumably your car hears you and responds. An expression of consciousness doesn't imply that the expression is endowed with consciousness any more than the bark of a dog is. To give you a popular example. Dr. Emoto set up two bags of rice, one which was spoken to lovingly, the other spoken to negatively. Apparently, the former thrived and the latter went foul. The rice is 'responsive'. In the same way, no thing is just 'neutral dead matter'. Most peeps (including yourself I guess) treat their cars as if they are neutral dead matter, so the consciousness is largely 'dormant', but the more we treat all things as alive and responsive, the more they respond to us, the more 'connections' we form, and the more the world opens up to us in new ways.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 20, 2015 10:55:13 GMT -5
Sure, we define what it means to be conscious, and then notice that rocks aren't. One can only notice what they notice .. Some notice love in everything .. Some don't . Is love in everything just because one notices it .. I don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 20, 2015 11:00:07 GMT -5
I don't know what "everything has a consciousness" means if it doesn't mean everything is conscious. Everything is not responsive. What you said is that you talk to your car, and presumably your car hears you and responds. An expression of consciousness doesn't imply that the expression is endowed with consciousness any more than the bark of a dog is. To give you a popular example. Dr. Emoto set up two bags of rice, one which was spoken to lovingly, the other spoken to negatively. Apparently, the former thrived and the latter went foul. The rice is 'responsive'. In the same way, no thing is just 'neutral dead matter'. Most peeps (including yourself I guess) treat their cars as if they are neutral dead matter, so the consciousness is largely 'dormant', but the more we treat all things as alive and responsive, the more they respond to us, the more 'connections' we form, and the more the world opens up to us in new ways. Dr Emoto is the conscious one. The effect on rice (or water) is happening through that point of consciousness as the cause.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 20, 2015 11:23:02 GMT -5
To give you a popular example. Dr. Emoto set up two bags of rice, one which was spoken to lovingly, the other spoken to negatively. Apparently, the former thrived and the latter went foul. The rice is 'responsive'. In the same way, no thing is just 'neutral dead matter'. Most peeps (including yourself I guess) treat their cars as if they are neutral dead matter, so the consciousness is largely 'dormant', but the more we treat all things as alive and responsive, the more they respond to us, the more 'connections' we form, and the more the world opens up to us in new ways. Dr Emoto is the conscious one. The effect on rice (or water) is happening through that point of consciousness as the cause. He is the one directing intention, yes, but the rice is still responding to the intention.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2015 13:05:49 GMT -5
So, you think that consciousness and conscious are only valid if they conform to 'your' understanding, is that a fair understanding of your ideas? or, if you're attached to the definition rather than the experience, is it easier to claim authority/authorship of the menu.. kinda like it's all water, but it's not all wet.. It's not a good analogy, as water is wet by definition. An expression of consciousness is not conscious by definition. An analogy would be, the artist is conscious but the bronze cast he creates as his expression is not conscious. It's 'dead metal'. As opposed to everything in physicality being conscious, actually nothing is. Physicality is merely an expression of consciousness, and we could say consciousness is it's content, which is what it means to say everything IS consciousness. If that's understood, the idea doesn't arise that things are conscious, and there's no question about what is and isn't conscious, and consciousness doesn't get confused with 'being conscious'. Yet another example of describing the self in other again as well.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2015 13:08:28 GMT -5
One can only notice what they notice .. Some notice love in everything .. Some don't . Is love in everything just because one notices it .. I don't understand. It's the misconceived version of LOA. He seems to be suggesting that you can create your own loving reality by characterizing what appears to you, regardless of the appearance, as "love".
|
|