|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 12, 2017 15:04:35 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. I think for the most part, here, when we talk about being conscious, this does not refer to our ordinary state, which would be in relation to unconscious, as-in-being-asleep~night-time-bed-time, or unconscious as in fainted or being knocked out/knocked-unconscious. Being conscious would refer to knowing what-one-is, that is, self-knowledge, fundamentally. So, being conscious would also be in relation to the psychological unconscious, that is, the more conscious one is the less unconscious (psychologically). A great deal of the journey has to do with making the unconscious, conscious [IMB, (In My Book)].
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2017 21:32:28 GMT -5
I yike that. ok. But .. .. it is a blatant context mix. I think the context mixing generally happens when you start with a noun, an abstraction. The natural process is to get from a verb or an adjective to a noun, e.g. from 'conscious' you get to 'consciousness' and from 'to be' you get to 'being/beingness'. In this case those nouns actually mean something, they objectify something concrete and tangible and are pointing to something everyone has a reference for. It's a mental position but one that is derived from direct experience. If you start right away with nouns, however, then you are speaking right away from a mental position and then it's unclear if those nouns are actually referring to something concrete and tangible or just another mental position as long as the conversation stays on that kind of abstract level. Usually conversations stay on that level forever. Because it's relatively safe and also sounds impressive. Words like consciousness, awareness, beingness, existence, isness, amness etc. have been used far too often as convenient get out of jail free cards. When the conversation turns back to the details, the direct experience, the practical implications so to speak only then it will be seen if those nouns are actually pointing to a truth or mere opinions and educated guesses. In the case of our solipsists, we've seen that there have been zero practical implications. Which means solipsism is a mental position that is referring to another mental position. And so with only a mental position to go back, it's unavoidable that contexts are being mixed and words are assassinated in the process.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 13, 2017 2:19:04 GMT -5
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. I thought it was a snake on my shoe, then I realised it was a rope to tie my shoe on.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 13, 2017 7:19:31 GMT -5
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. I thought it was a snake on my shoe, then I realised it was a rope to tie my shoe on. :-)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 13, 2017 10:12:45 GMT -5
ok. But .. .. it is a blatant context mix. I think the context mixing generally happens when you start with a noun, an abstraction. The natural process is to get from a verb or an adjective to a noun, e.g. from 'conscious' you get to 'consciousness' and from 'to be' you get to 'being/beingness'. In this case those nouns actually mean something, they objectify something concrete and tangible and are pointing to something everyone has a reference for. It's a mental position but one that is derived from direct experience. If you start right away with nouns, however, then you are speaking right away from a mental position and then it's unclear if those nouns are actually referring to something concrete and tangible or just another mental position as long as the conversation stays on that kind of abstract level. Usually conversations stay on that level forever. Because it's relatively safe and also sounds impressive. Words like consciousness, awareness, beingness, existence, isness, amness etc. have been used far too often as convenient get out of jail free cards. When the conversation turns back to the details, the direct experience, the practical implications so to speak only then it will be seen if those nouns are actually pointing to a truth or mere opinions and educated guesses. In the case of our solipsists, we've seen that there have been zero practical implications. Which means solipsism is a mental position that is referring to another mental position. And so with only a mental position to go back, it's unavoidable that contexts are being mixed and words are assassinated in the process. Another duck/bunny: there are a few times when a context mix isn't uttered from a place of existential confusion. This is what I meant about when people describe a "both/and" identity. One litmus test is if they're using "both/and" to point to something intellectually inexplicable and indefensible or if they engage in philosophical debate about it. But no single litmus test can ever tell the truth. Ultimately, even ineffability can be just another learned mental position and conversely, sometimes engaging in an existential debate is done to help another's autolytic process, consciously or otherwise. As far as the noun/verb issue goes, what became clear to me years ago is that "the taste of honey" -- the distinction between the thing and the idea of the thing -- is much deeper water than most folks give it credit for. There is a mental positioning possible with respect to thingness that is distinct from the embodied understanding of emptiness, and a skilled writer drawn to genuine expressions and good at mimicry can make that mental position appear similar to the gnosis, especially using an appeal to emotion. This guy Low that 'pilgrim brought up had a poetic refrain in the one book of his I read: "in seeing/saying One there are two". These forum tests of apperception have happened dynamically over time (many years in some instances) and across a very wide variety of topics, and that will tend, in the long run, to factor out cultural and even subjective experiential differences that can obscure what it is, exactly, that someone has realized. There is a point of disagreement between us on this idea that I wrote about in more detail before here. "Not-knowing" is seeker mind, and a seeker's mind is different from a mind not similarly effected. This is true whether the seeking is going on consciously or not. It's the difference between having seen the bulls tail or not. My opinion of the conclusion that one can never answer the solipsists' question is that it's not a genuine not-knowing, it's a place of stuckness, but it's stuckness along an interesting path. What I can remember was that in the decades after I had the talk with my friend about the Quantum Observer, every now and then, completely out of the blue, I'd look at my right hand and think "mostly empty space and that not empty space not independent of the observation of it ... huh .. ..". So even just the fact of the unconscious questioning going on will have some sort of effect on day-to-day experience. All the moreso in moments when the seeker opens their minds and their hearts to their uncertainty. I guess Zen has a saying: "small doubt, small kensho, big doubt, big kensho", or something along those lines. There's a reason the author of the McKenna books describes solipsism as an auspicious mental position, and I get his point, I really do. For some peeps, otherness is their last frontier.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 13, 2017 10:23:11 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. The distinction between "Awareness" and "Consciousness" most often crops up to explain the pointers of "nothing has ever happened" or "what you are, is timeless, eternal and changeless, and can't be reduced to form". Consciousness suggests activity, movement, change and time, while awareness suggests the passive space for that change to happen. Yes, of course they ultimately point in the same direction. Notice that this brings the dialog pretty much full circle from the holidaze '15/'16 on the topic.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2017 21:38:25 GMT -5
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. Well, as you imply in the next sentence, we're talking about whether there is a point of perception, not whether an appearance is dead or alive. I don't see 'points of perception' being appearances. That's the reason we say we don't know: those points don't appear.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2017 21:46:17 GMT -5
I yike that. ok. But .. .. it is a blatant context mix. He seems to be saying that the perception of the person is inseparable from the movement of the universe as a whole. Hencely, it is the universe collapsing it's own probabilities or observing it's own falling. ( I could easily be misunderstanding what he's saying) To me, it doesn't sound like a context minx, just the relaying of a larger truth in a larger context.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2017 22:11:39 GMT -5
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 His opinion is of no consequence. As for his alleged 'convincing experiment', I don't know how one objectively disproves a subjective universe. The measurement problem is nothing compared to the objectivity problem.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2017 22:17:53 GMT -5
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. <-- Selfie taken during the video.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2017 22:24:50 GMT -5
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 enigma on Sept 13, 2017 22:33:38 GMT -5
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. 'Everything is conscious' is in the context of things, like shoe laces. I'm not the one anthropomorphizing by calling inert objects conscious. I'm the one questioning why that's being done. Andy has since explained that 'everything is conscious' doesn't apply to any thing, which apart from the apparent contradiction, means that it doesn't even apply to the question of conscious peeps, so I don't know why it's being used as an argument for them.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2017 22:40:08 GMT -5
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. Of course I don't have a definition of Consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2017 22:42:15 GMT -5
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. I think for the most part, here, when we talk about being conscious, this does not refer to our ordinary state, which would be in relation to unconscious, as-in-being-asleep~night-time-bed-time, or unconscious as in fainted or being knocked out/knocked-unconscious. Being conscious would refer to knowing what-one-is, that is, self-knowledge, fundamentally. So, being conscious would also be in relation to the psychological unconscious, that is, the more conscious one is the less unconscious (psychologically). A great deal of the journey has to do with making the unconscious, conscious [IMB, (In My Book)]. Okay, but I was talking about Consciousness, not 'being conscious'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2017 22:48:09 GMT -5
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. I thought it was a snake on my shoe, then I realised it was a rope to tie my shoe on. I'm glad you got that whole situation straightened out.
|
|