|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2017 4:04:47 GMT -5
You don't seem to me to chasing an answer to the existential question. But do you see how this distinction between a live object and an inanimate object is the basis for a particular form of the existential question? The distinction references what we mean when we say a given form experiences. There are many forms that don't seem to have a way of interacting with the world to create an experience. Aren't you offering a material answer to "what does it mean to be alive?"
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2017 5:24:42 GMT -5
The distinction references what we mean when we say a given form experiences. There are many forms that don't seem to have a way of interacting with the world to create an experience. Jung once wrote about the spirits in the cooking pots, and while this may be slightly off topic, if we look at how (or more pointedly where and when) dualistic experience is compartmentalized by the mind, there is a mechanism to imbue seemingly lifeless objects with spiritual power. Lesson of the week, don't tip over gravestones of the dead. Halloween has always been my favorite Holiday.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2017 5:35:18 GMT -5
To take the statement 'everything is alive and conscious' and then to ask about a shoelace is mixing contexts because the 'everything' doesnt refer to the seemingly objective things, it refers to the intuitively known essence of the seemingly objective things. And when it is seen that these seemingly objective things are not actually objective things, then there is no 'shoelace' to question whether it is conscious/alive or not. The question becomes misconceived. Also, if you are saying that you know that a shoelace is not conscious, then equally, you know a person is. So why are you asking? So, 'everything is alive and conscious' means 'the essence of appearances is alive and conscious'? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. I wouldnt express it like that. When we say a shoelace is not alive, but a human is, the context is of seemingly objective things. Then we can say the essence of things is aliveness. Tzu usex to talk in this context often. Appearances have no essence, but then again, we shouldnt discuss whether an appearance is alive or dead, because those are appearances too. So the whole idea about whether other 'appearances' perceive is starting from a misconceived place. We can talk about whether a thing that is a shoe lace is perceiving, but we already know the answer, just as we know that a thing that is a 'human' is perceiving.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2017 5:39:00 GMT -5
Amazingly, given this has been a discussion for at least two years, you have somehow introduced a new angle on it hehe....I didnt find myself disagreeing with anything you said. Always happy to shine a new way of looking at things, and appreciate when others do the same for me. Hope things are well across the pond. Actually working with a couple Brits that keep things fresh with that bloody English sarcasm. Hehe that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit doesnt stop it from being both necessary and funny! Did you ever see Rowan Atkinson in the Blackadder series?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2017 7:43:14 GMT -5
Yes, in my view, that's a different way of pointing to the same place as removing doubt about the nature of others. And just as it's not true that every thing is conscious, the void nature of otherness quite obviously doesn't mean that you and I are the same peeps. I don't have any doubts about what you've realized. As far as I'm concerned, your experiences are different from mine and lead us to prefer different expressions in terms describing the informing of mind, and on this particular point, especially what we'd suggest to others. And if you opinion of me is other than that I don't have a problem with it, at all. I've written many times over the past year+ that I certainly respect if someone is engaged in not-knowing on the topic of otherness. I'm not too eager to try to convince you that there's some whizbang spiritual experience that you should chase, but on the other hand, what I've found for myself is that things keep getting interestinger and interestinger as time goes on. The aliveness that Reefs is referring to is Life, the totality. It's anywhere and everywhere, anytime. I'm not comfortable relating that to ideas that try to tie in Physics, but like I told Reefs already, Heisenberg makes an interesting point on the topic in his philosophy book. What he wrote, essentially, is that It's not a person that takes a measurement, but the entire Universe. So it doesn't really matter if a person is there to read the Geiger counter when it clicks: from his perspective the falling tree in the empty forest does make a sound. I yike that. ok. But .. .. it is a blatant context mix.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 11, 2017 14:12:57 GMT -5
Yes, in my view, that's a different way of pointing to the same place as removing doubt about the nature of others. And just as it's not true that every thing is conscious, the void nature of otherness quite obviously doesn't mean that you and I are the same peeps. I don't have any doubts about what you've realized. As far as I'm concerned, your experiences are different from mine and lead us to prefer different expressions in terms describing the informing of mind, and on this particular point, especially what we'd suggest to others. And if you opinion of me is other than that I don't have a problem with it, at all. I've written many times over the past year+ that I certainly respect if someone is engaged in not-knowing on the topic of otherness. I'm not too eager to try to convince you that there's some whizbang spiritual experience that you should chase, but on the other hand, what I've found for myself is that things keep getting interestinger and interestinger as time goes on. The aliveness that Reefs is referring to is Life, the totality. It's anywhere and everywhere, anytime. I'm not comfortable relating that to ideas that try to tie in Physics, but like I told Reefs already, Heisenberg makes an interesting point on the topic in his philosophy book. What he wrote, essentially, is that It's not a person that takes a measurement, but the entire Universe. So it doesn't really matter if a person is there to read the Geiger counter when it clicks: from his perspective the falling tree in the empty forest does make a sound. I yike that. "One of the many quantum interpretations put forward by physicists seeking an escape from the measurement problem is that human consciousness explains how a quantum state can be finally "collapsed" (Chapters 9 and 10). But there is no evidence that human consciousness plays the slightest role in this process. ...Although rational thought should dismiss this notion on its face, in Chapter 10 I'll describe a published experiment that takes the trouble to directly and convincingly disprove the consciousness interpretation". pgs 12, 13, Tales of the Quantum by Art Hobson, 2017
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 11, 2017 19:55:23 GMT -5
Jung once wrote about the spirits in the cooking pots, and while this may be slightly off topic, if we look at how (or more pointedly where and when) dualistic experience is compartmentalized by the mind, there is a mechanism to imbue seemingly lifeless objects with spiritual power. Lesson of the week, don't tip over gravestones of the dead. Halloween has always been my favorite Holiday. Oh look, your son is the devil for Halloween, how cute. Oh wow, is your kid dressed up as a pirate this year? How great kids dressing up like murderers and rapists from the Caribbean. Oh, wait, is your child dressed up like Hitler? No parent wants to explain the Hitler costume. "What can I say, he likes the 3rd Reich". --Jim Gaffigan
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 11, 2017 19:57:35 GMT -5
Always happy to shine a new way of looking at things, and appreciate when others do the same for me. Hope things are well across the pond. Actually working with a couple Brits that keep things fresh with that bloody English sarcasm. Hehe that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit doesnt stop it from being both necessary and funny! Did you ever see Rowan Atkinson in the Blackadder series? Yea I was a Bean fan from back in the day. Never really by choice, I just remember on Sunday nights or late nights PBS would have this zany mute guy on doing crazy stuff that would sometimes make me chuckle. It was the only thing on, and it was the best thing on. I don't know about the Blackadder series, but there's a Mr. Bean cartoon that does well with the kids in Latin America.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 12, 2017 3:15:45 GMT -5
Hehe that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit doesnt stop it from being both necessary and funny! Did you ever see Rowan Atkinson in the Blackadder series? Yea I was a Bean fan from back in the day. Never really by choice, I just remember on Sunday nights or late nights PBS would have this zany mute guy on doing crazy stuff that would sometimes make me chuckle. It was the only thing on, and it was the best thing on. I don't know about the Blackadder series, but there's a Mr. Bean cartoon that does well with the kids in Latin America. Oh yeah, Bean is chuckle worthy too, but his role in Blackadder is almost...polar opposite to Bean. Check him out sometime. And apologies for the interlude, back to deep spiritual matters now.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 12, 2017 3:16:12 GMT -5
Halloween has always been my favorite Holiday. Oh look, your son is the devil for Halloween, how cute. Oh wow, is your kid dressed up as a pirate this year? How great kids dressing up like murderers and rapists from the Caribbean. Oh, wait, is your child dressed up like Hitler? No parent wants to explain the Hitler costume. "What can I say, he likes the 3rd Reich". --Jim Gaffigan
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 12, 2017 3:29:40 GMT -5
What individual are you talking about? The shoelace? Or my dog? Or Jenn? The question you are asking is from within the context of seemingly objective things, and within that context I do know that dogs and people perceive, and shoelaces and chairs do not. By definition this is true...I see the dog and dont confuse it with a toy, a robot, or a corpse. If you know a chair isnt perceiving, then you know a dog, or cat or human is perceiving. It isnt complicated. Theres an outside chance of some weird conspiracy theory, and to that extent, i agree that maybe what i know about appearances is wrong, and the people i perceive are holograms or something. One reason it is important to bring aliveness of Being into it, and also the idea that perception is creation, is to show that the question has no spiritual significance, and from within this context, it is misconceived. I agree that the question seems to have no real significance, and as I've already said, it is likely misconceived. As such, I don't feel a need to pursue it further. It's only when I hear answers stating that it can be known that appearances are conscious that I get interested in how this is known. From what you're saying, those answers are in a different context and are irrelevant to the question, and I agree with that also.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2017 7:33:35 GMT -5
What does it mean to say a shoe lace is conscious and alive? You don't seem to me to chasing an answer to the existential question. But do you see how this distinction between a live object and an inanimate object is the basis for a particular form of the existential question? Certainly.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2017 7:42:10 GMT -5
No, a conscious 'shoelace' cannot be recognized, because a 'shoelace' is defined and known by its inertness. But again, the experience of 'thingness' doesn't constitute our whole experience. A shoelace is defined by it's utility in tying shoes. The inertness implied is what's being questioned. If peeps will stop saying everything is conscious, I can stop asking about Mr Shoelace. Not sure if you are doing this on purpose in order to discredit what has been said, or if you really are unaware of your own context mix. But on this topic, anthropomorphism is a clear sign of contextual confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2017 7:52:41 GMT -5
In the context of philosophy, solipsism has its place. In the context of spirituality, it's just a rigid mental position (to borrow one of your terms, hehe). Yeah, it never goes beyond 'I perceive you', the distinction between I and you is never challenged, so we are left with that fixed position. Well, you can't have realized oneness and then argue for solipsism. So either Realization 1 or Realization 2 would work. But it seems to me that Enigma is challenging Realization 2 from a mental position (the camouflage view). Which would explain the notorious context mix. I noticed that he did something similar in the Seth thread when we were talking about science vs metaphysics and certain root assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2017 8:08:57 GMT -5
There's more than one way of realizing oneness, CC is one of them. If you don't like to call CC a realization, that's fine. The fact remains though, CC will leave you with a realization. I already gave you my definition of consciousness, and I'll give it again: consciousness refers to the state of being conscious (and Webster for one agrees with that definition). Now, it would be mighty cool if you could return that favor and finally tell us your own definition so that we can make sense of what you are saying. For the most part, Consciousness, Awareness, Being, Self all refer to same non-thing. Not just me, but all of us, have talked about them that way for a decade. Okay, I see you don't actually have a clear definition. You see, this thesaurus approach doesn't work here. It only works if at least one of the words you use has a clear meaning. Which doesn't seem to be the case here. And so after getting consciousless consciousness we now add awareless awareness etc. Which means the list of words with meaningless meanings keeps growing instead of shrinking. And I'm also not one of those who talk endlessly about awareness or being. It's rare that I even talk about consciousness. So this may be a thing of a decade between you and Andrew only.
|
|