|
Post by enigma on Sept 13, 2017 22:59:38 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. 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. I'll buy that. Though I don't even remember the 15/16 holidaze, much less what was talked about here during them.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2017 5:40:39 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. 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. If an point of perception doesn't appear, is it fundamental and unchanging (which is also Gopal's belief)? I've mentioned this several times, but talking about 'points of perception' doesnt really work in the context of Consciousness and appearances, or Awareness and objects. These are impersonal statements about the nature of 'reality'. If we are talking about 'points of perception' we are talking about persons and physicality, but from what you said on the other forum, you don't think points of perceptions require some kind of physical or even non-physical 'vehicle'. Quite honestly, I struggle to make sense of your thoughts on the subject of 'points of perception'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2017 5:48:54 GMT -5
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. It's an explanation that shows the question of whether 'some thing in particular' is alive/conscious, is only pertinent in a context in which we discuss the distinctions between seemingly objective things. So to say that 'everything is alive/conscious' doesn't tell us a 'shoelace' is alive/conscious, no. But as I said, you already know it isn't. Just as you know that the person/human you speak to in the shop is alive/conscious. It's not impossible that your knowing is wrong, but then we are in the realms of huge conspiracy theory territory, which still doesn't change the fact that 'everything is alive/conscious'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2017 5:53:22 GMT -5
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. That's right, you can't realize oneness and argue for solipsism. It really is that simple. I think Enigma said that no-one is arguing for solipsism, I don't know if he is arguing for solipsism or not (i can't follow his train of thought), but to argue that 'I am prior to appearances, and you might be, or are, an appearance' definitely has been stated here and on the other forum, and this is the crux of solipsism.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2017 8:14:41 GMT -5
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. If an point of perception doesn't appear, is it fundamental and unchanging (which is also Gopal's belief)?I've mentioned this several times, but talking about 'points of perception' doesnt really work in the context of Consciousness and appearances, or Awareness and objects. These are impersonal statements about the nature of 'reality'. If we are talking about 'points of perception' we are talking about persons and physicality, but from what you said on the other forum, you don't think points of perceptions require some kind of physical or even non-physical 'vehicle'. Quite honestly, I struggle to make sense of your thoughts on the subject of 'points of perception'. I don't know. Pretty sure the whole idea is misconceived.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2017 8:28:47 GMT -5
If an point of perception doesn't appear, is it fundamental and unchanging (which is also Gopal's belief)?I've mentioned this several times, but talking about 'points of perception' doesnt really work in the context of Consciousness and appearances, or Awareness and objects. These are impersonal statements about the nature of 'reality'. If we are talking about 'points of perception' we are talking about persons and physicality, but from what you said on the other forum, you don't think points of perceptions require some kind of physical or even non-physical 'vehicle'. Quite honestly, I struggle to make sense of your thoughts on the subject of 'points of perception'. I don't know. Pretty sure the whole idea is misconceived. Yes, thats what i said...i dont think the idea of points of perception was ever meant to be squeezed into the Consciousness/appearance idea.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2017 9:02:53 GMT -5
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. That's right, you can't realize oneness and argue for solipsism. It really is that simple. I think Enigma said that no-one is arguing for solipsism, I don't know if he is arguing for solipsism or not (i can't follow his train of thought), but to argue that 'I am prior to appearances, and you might be, or are, an appearance' definitely has been stated here and on the other forum, and this is the crux of solipsism. I haven't studied solipsism, but it seems it's the belief that my mind is all that exists. The perennial issue is that it can't be known. This is based on the realization that experience doesn't reveal how the experience is formed, and this remains a mystery even after oneness is realized. That realization collapses the illusion of separateness. It doesn't reveal the mystery of the unfolding of creation. There's too much knowing going on here. We don't really know anything.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 14, 2017 9:14:51 GMT -5
That's right, you can't realize oneness and argue for solipsism. It really is that simple. I think Enigma said that no-one is arguing for solipsism, I don't know if he is arguing for solipsism or not (i can't follow his train of thought), but to argue that 'I am prior to appearances, and you might be, or are, an appearance' definitely has been stated here and on the other forum, and this is the crux of solipsism. I haven't studied solipsism, but it seems it's the belief that my mind is all that exists. The perennial issue is that it can't be known. This is based on the realization that experience doesn't reveal how the experience is formed, and this remains a mystery even after oneness is realized. That realization collapses the illusion of separateness. It doesn't reveal the mystery of the unfolding of creation. There's too much knowing going on here. We don't really know anything. What i have read is that the self is the only thing than can be known to exist. Everything else may or may not exist, it is not known. So I, as the self, am fundamental, and you appear to me. Realizing oneness destroys this. You understand how or do you want me to clarify?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2017 10:14:20 GMT -5
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. I'll buy that. Though I don't even remember the 15/16 holidaze, much less what was talked about here during them. There was a time when a good memory was actually a liability around here, and now it just doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2017 10:17:39 GMT -5
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. Yes, that's what he's saying and yes, you're right. I guess a mix in this case would entail an assumption that it takes an animate being (human or otherwise) to have been conscious of be the Big Bang in order to make the Universe happen.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2017 10:47:26 GMT -5
I mentioned it because you implied the 'solipsist' position is mentally derived and doesn't include direct seeing. But moving on, the issue seems to be that this realization tells you that there are other conscious perceivers while it just tells me that appearances are empty. I've not had that realization. The realization I've had is that everything is actually empty, and nothing is conscious. I've said, myself, that everything is alive, but what I mean is that everything is Consciousness itself, not that every appearance in Consciousness is imbued with it's own life and conscious awareness. I'm, inclined to believe that it IS misconceived, but I'm not buying any of the arguments I've heard so far and I've not had the direct seeing that reveals that misconception. When you realize your own nature, you know there are no others. You don't learn something about the nature of others. The question of others doesn't arise, but this doesn't reveal the relationship between appearances and experiential perspective any more than it reveals how the dream itself will unfold. Before I can respond to this in detail you have to tell me your definitions of those terms that you regularly use because your vocabulary is a little confusing. Except for the term 'empty' I go with the dictionary definitions. And so to me, if consciousness doesn't imply conscious and alive doesn't imply conscious then that's unintelligible. I am also wondering, how does this realization work out in practical terms? What's the difference between Marie and a rock and a character in your nightly dreams if nothing is conscious? How about so-called heartfelt deep emotional bonds between a parent and a child or two lovers? Right, when you realize your own nature, you know there are no others. But there are two ways of realizing this. One in a negative way by seeing directly what is not the case (Realization 1), one in a positive way by seeing directly what is the case (Realization 2). So in this sense, Realization 1 is half circle and Realization 2 is full circle. Remember what Ramana said, he said that both the ordinary man and the sage say "I am the body". And they each mean something entirely different by it. The ordinary man thinks he can explain it, justify it and defend it intellectually, while the sage knows that instead she has to point.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2017 10:54:14 GMT -5
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. I appreciate the reverse-doooofusness of Mr. Shoelace, I really do. But there was a specific point about the basis of the underlying existential question presented by solipsism. It was to illuminate the perspective of the confusion of existential questioning. From outside of that perspective. I'm sure that once you finally get around to explaining existential context then this confusion will just clear right up. For everyone. And for all time. Reefs made it pretty clear here ("it's not a shoelace anymore"), and it's just another way of saying what Heisenberg said here. When it seems that the sky is staring back at you in an altered and heightened state of perception the clouds or the Sun or whatever aren't the clouds the Sun or the Moon anymore. That's just the way it's described after the fact. As it's happening it's like looking in a mirror. I have very specific reasons for suspecting that this type of perception is likely not common after SR if it hasn't happened before. But this pointer of "the Universe is alive" is as much 2nd mountain as not-knowing whether the appearance of other people are the appearance of other points of perception. On 1st and 3rd mountain a rock is a rock. The difference between 1st and 2nd mountain is that the illusion of the existence of the rock as it is commonly understood has cracked and is starting to crumble. The toll at the entrance to the paths of the foothills on the approach to 2nd mountain is the comforting surety of an objective material reality. On the peak of 2nd mountain, a rock isn't a rock. It's an empty appearance with no inherent existence separate from us. The rock has no being in and of it's own right, only the being reflected from ours. Heisenberg reasoned his way to this based on generations of experiment, while Reefs, myself an others describe a heightened direct perception of it. But on 2nd mountain, we can still explain how the rock comes to be: the existence of the rock flows from our creative perception of the rock as an object. The difference between 1st and 3rd mountain is that the fallacy of inertness was left back on the path up to the peak of Mt. 2nd. The top of 2nd mountain is where death is left to die, and on 3rd mountain reality has no explanation. At the end of the existential road is a fire sale. Everything must go, and that includes any notion of subjectivity, as reality is neither objective, nor subjective.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2017 16:36:22 GMT -5
I don't know. Pretty sure the whole idea is misconceived. Yes, thats what i said...i dont think the idea of points of perception was ever meant to be squeezed into the Consciousness/appearance idea. Probly.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2017 16:38:06 GMT -5
I haven't studied solipsism, but it seems it's the belief that my mind is all that exists. The perennial issue is that it can't be known. This is based on the realization that experience doesn't reveal how the experience is formed, and this remains a mystery even after oneness is realized. That realization collapses the illusion of separateness. It doesn't reveal the mystery of the unfolding of creation. There's too much knowing going on here. We don't really know anything. What i have read is that the self is the only thing than can be known to exist. Everything else may or may not exist, it is not known. So I, as the self, am fundamental, and you appear to me. Realizing oneness destroys this. You understand how or do you want me to clarify?
I want you to clarify.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2017 16:44:07 GMT -5
I'll buy that. Though I don't even remember the 15/16 holidaze, much less what was talked about here during them. There was a time when a good memory was actually a liability around here, and now it just doesn't matter. I find that I remember what I care to remember quite well, but there's less and less that I care to remember.
|
|