Living In The Mater...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Living In The Material World  

Page 5 / 7
  RSS

Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
07/03/2012 7:36 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Stop acting like the universe cares about what people think. It doesn't. You are just an animal, like every other animal. Your brain has developed a method by which to communicate to other animals, and you perceive through that lens. I suppose next you are going to tell me that stars and planets understand English. [...] The nature of the universe is change. It doesn't say to itself, "Oh look, I am changing". It just fucking changes. The label change, and the concept of change, have no bearing on whether or not it does so. Recognition of change only occurs through the perception of the passage of time, when one set of circumstances is compared to the next and proven to be different in some way. Humans do this, and perhaps some other animals, if they have consciousness. That's it. We use the word "time" to express that. But it doesn't "start changing" and "stop changing" just because we quit perceiving the passage of time, or somehow fail to see the changes.

[...]

Stop talking like your mind and the universe are one in the same. The universe does not stop for everyone else when "you" die. It continues to go on, not giving a shit one way or the other. The two are not connected. Your body doesn't even give a shit. It's atoms simply go somewhere else. Big whoop. The only thing that "dies" is "you".

[...]

The universe is not an illusion. The universe your mind creates is an illusion.

Wow. I am in complete, whole-hearted agreement with what Azidonis says here and how he expresses it.

Is this a sign of the end times?

You have reminded me of the Futurama show in which the robot Bender met God, and God was essentially a "galaxy" of blinking stars. It's good cartoon humor, but complete rubbish.

If I'm not mistaken, that's the episode where Bender tries at playing "god" to a race a tiny creatures living on the surface of his body (as he floats through space). The great lesson he learns at the end of the episode is that "If you're doing things right [i.e. as a god], it's almost like you're not there at all."

What a ridiculous, half-assed, semi-Deist cop-out for the episode. It's cleverly done, sure, and it's not going to alienate anyone watching, which is exactly what they were going for, but it always kind of annoys me.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/03/2012 7:56 pm  

If you follow Penrose's OR model, then you'll know that it applies to stars as well as microtubules that allow you to be conscious in your bodies.  So as far as the Orch OR model is concerned a star is consciousness.  Infact, Hammeroff says they are in one of his interviews on youtube.  This is about what consciousness 'is' not what human beings do with it when added to the faculty of self awareness.  If you don't like the theory then take it up with one of the worlds most prominent physicists guys, but remember before you do that after 20 years of challenges in the academic world that Orch OR remains a viable proposition.  🙂       


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
07/03/2012 8:37 pm  
"Dar" wrote:
Az,

We're not understanding each other lately, it seems to me.  And you've went and posted a tome from a teacup too! 

I believe the process of consciousness in the human brain continues to function even when you are not self aware - i.e. asleep.  The term 'unconscious' is a bit of an inaccurate term therefore as it's not the opposite of consciousness but rather a period of consciousness without self-awareness.  I believe there's some scientific proof's behind that view... 

"Astral Projection 101". After the subtle body is projected, consciousness is projected, and awareness of that consciousness develops afterward. But you know everything already, especially what the skandhas are and how they work.

I suppose next you will tell me that the eyes see, the ears hear, the nose smells, the mouth tastes, and the mind is completely unconnected to any of it.

Or, you will continue you on your microtubule rant, as usual. I'm surprised you haven't called them God yet.

"Los" wrote:
Wow. I am in complete, whole-hearted agreement with what Azidonis says here and how he expresses it.

Is this a sign of the end times?

Possibly. I don't know how that happened.

Someone be quick! Call the suicide cults and tell them to prepare their Kool-Aid.

"Los" wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, that's the episode where Bender tries at playing "god" to a race a tiny creatures living on the surface of his body (as he floats through space). The great lesson he learns at the end of the episode is that "If you're doing things right [i.e. as a god], it's almost like you're not there at all."

What a ridiculous, half-assed, semi-Deist cop-out for the episode. It's cleverly done, sure, and it's not going to alienate anyone watching, which is exactly what they were going for, but it always kind of annoys me.

Ya, it kind of sputtered at the end. What I initially thought would be a nice, jarring episode ended up rather placating, in a way.  The one where they destroyed the universe was pretty cool too though.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
07/03/2012 11:53 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, that's the episode where Bender tries at playing "god" to a race a tiny creatures living on the surface of his body (as he floats through space). The great lesson he learns at the end of the episode is that "If you're doing things right [i.e. as a god], it's almost like you're not there at all."
What a ridiculous, half-assed, semi-Deist cop-out for the episode. It's cleverly done, sure, and it's not going to alienate anyone watching, which is exactly what they were going for, but it always kind of annoys me.

Come on, if you two are gonna slam one of my favorite episodes, get your references right!  Bender didn't meet God, he met what was possibly the collision of space junk and God.  Important distinction!  It's just a cluster of stars with consciousness that speaks in binary, the viewers can make up our own minds.  Here's the dialogue:
"Bender: What are you, some kind of galactic computer?
Galaxy God: Possible. I am user-friendly, my good chum.
Bender: Who built you?
Galaxy God: I have always been.
Bender: Oh, my God. Are you God?
Galaxy God: Possible. I do feel compassion for all living
things, my good chum.
Bender: But why would God think in binary, unless, you're
not God, but the remains of a computerized space probe
that collided with God?
Galaxy God: That seems probable."

And the quote is:  "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." 
Is that not the Way of the Tao?  Following your Will, the frictionless path?  Effortless action? Makes perfect sense to me.  "Doing things right" isn't equivalent to not existing, it's equivalent to causing change without others being aware of your actions/interference.  Sounds like powerful magick, doesn't it?

Regarding the rest of these last few pages, Azidonis' posts above (#196, #198) cover most of my responses.  #198 in particular is an excellent reminder for people who get too far detached from Malkuth.  For example, consider the ridiculous irony in proposing a model of consciousness (like the Penrose OR model) as an alternative to the actual experiential understanding of consciousness (which you (Az and Los) have been discussing), in a thread about Malkuth and the Material World.  It's baffling.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/03/2012 12:04 am  

Funny you should say that Az... because your sense of smell relies on quantum entanglement.  😀

I'm sorry if you don't like it that I base some of my modelling about the universe on actual current scientific models that have evidence behind them, instead of just pulling them from behind the ear of my favour Guru and assuming I or they know it all.  Dogma parroting itself is boring, and arrogance is a poor substitute for proof and it makes for a lacklustre debate. 

"It's all an illusion" he says.... as if delivering the latest news.

*rolls eyes*

finis.       


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
08/03/2012 12:24 am  

Reposting because no edit button and I seriously messed up my quote attributions.  Feel free to delete the previous post, Mod. Thanks.

"Los" wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, that's the episode where Bender tries at playing "god" to a race a tiny creatures living on the surface of his body (as he floats through space). The great lesson he learns at the end of the episode is that "If you're doing things right [i.e. as a god], it's almost like you're not there at all."
What a ridiculous, half-assed, semi-Deist cop-out for the episode. It's cleverly done, sure, and it's not going to alienate anyone watching, which is exactly what they were going for, but it always kind of annoys me.

Come on, if you and Az are gonna slam one of my favorite episodes, get your references right!  Bender didn't meet God, he met what was possibly the collision of space junk and God.  Important distinction!  It's just a cluster of stars with consciousness that speaks in binary, the viewers can make up our own minds.  Here's the dialogue:
"Bender: What are you, some kind of galactic computer?
Galaxy God: Possible. I am user-friendly, my good chum.
Bender: Who built you?
Galaxy God: I have always been.
Bender: Oh, my God. Are you God?
Galaxy God: Possible. I do feel compassion for all living
things, my good chum.
Bender: But why would God think in binary, unless, you're
not God, but the remains of a computerized space probe
that collided with God?
Galaxy God: That seems probable."

And the quote is:  "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." 
Is that not the Way of the Tao?  Following your Will, the frictionless path?  Effortless action? Makes perfect sense to me.  "Doing things right" isn't equivalent to not existing, it's equivalent to causing change without others being aware of your actions/interference.  Sounds like powerful magick, doesn't it?

Regarding the rest of these last few pages, Azidonis' posts above (#196, #198) cover most of my responses.  #198 in particular is an excellent reminder for people who get too far detached from Malkuth.  For example, consider the ridiculous irony in proposing a model of consciousness (like the Penrose OR model) as an alternative to the actual experiential understanding of consciousness (which you (Az and Los) have been discussing), in a thread about Malkuth and the Material World.  It's baffling.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/03/2012 12:38 am  
"mika" wrote:
Reposting because no edit button and I seriously messed up my quote attributions.  Feel free to delete the previous post, Mod. Thanks.

"Los" wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, that's the episode where Bender tries at playing "god" to a race a tiny creatures living on the surface of his body (as he floats through space). The great lesson he learns at the end of the episode is that "If you're doing things right [i.e. as a god], it's almost like you're not there at all."
What a ridiculous, half-assed, semi-Deist cop-out for the episode. It's cleverly done, sure, and it's not going to alienate anyone watching, which is exactly what they were going for, but it always kind of annoys me.

Come on, if you and Az are gonna slam one of my favorite episodes, get your references right!  Bender didn't meet God, he met what was possibly the collision of space junk and God.  Important distinction!  It's just a cluster of stars with consciousness that speaks in binary, the viewers can make up our own minds.  Here's the dialogue:
"Bender: What are you, some kind of galactic computer?
Galaxy God: Possible. I am user-friendly, my good chum.
Bender: Who built you?
Galaxy God: I have always been.
Bender: Oh, my God. Are you God?
Galaxy God: Possible. I do feel compassion for all living
things, my good chum.
Bender: But why would God think in binary, unless, you're
not God, but the remains of a computerized space probe
that collided with God?
Galaxy God: That seems probable."

And the quote is:  "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." 
Is that not the Way of the Tao?  Following your Will, the frictionless path?  Effortless action? Makes perfect sense to me.  "Doing things right" isn't equivalent to not existing, it's equivalent to causing change without others being aware of your actions/interference.  Sounds like powerful magick, doesn't it?

Regarding the rest of these last few pages, Azidonis' posts above (#196, #198) cover most of my responses.  #198 in particular is an excellent reminder for people who get too far detached from Malkuth.  For example, consider the ridiculous irony in proposing a model of consciousness (like the Penrose OR model) as an alternative to the actual experiential understanding of consciousness (which you (Az and Los) have been discussing), in a thread about Malkuth and the Material World.  It's baffling.

Omg, I read the whole thing in the quote, and was sitting there thinking about how I would have to do the code in order to respond.

I like the Tao reference. It just seemed anti-climactic, I suppose.

God 2.0, by Michael Bay. Now with more EXPLOSIONS! 😀


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/03/2012 12:40 am  
"Dar" wrote:
Funny you should say that Az... because your sense of smell relies on quantum entanglement.  😀

Oh, hey Dar.

What do you suppose quantum entanglement is? Using your own words, and no catch-phrases, of course. Okay, you can use the terms skandhas or indriyas, if you like.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/03/2012 10:55 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Dar" wrote:
So we're at the ol' 'mind is a mirror' stage are we?  🙂  Very good...

To review...

The body is the tree of perfect wisdom
The mind is the stand of a bright mirror
At all time diligently wipe it
Do not allow it to become dusty.  - Shenxiu.

Fundamentally perfect wisdom has no tree
Nor has the bright mirror any stand
Buddha-nature is forever clear and pure
Where is there any dust? - Huineng, in reply.

I see you went from thinking of floating babies to digging up quotes.

Don't you recognise where these two poems originated Az? 

"Dar" wrote:
The individual is energy.  HAD.  I AM.

Whatever you say, Dar. "There is no God where I am." Not even Had...

I wasn't talking about God.  I was talking about energy.  Your reply is nonsense therefore. 

Energy is the potential to do work. Any work.

 

You are in error.  Probably because you weren't thinking it through (for whatever personal reason of your own last night).  To give an example - the Sun's energy is not 'potential to do work'.  Your reply is nonsense therefore.

There is no individual energy.

 
And where did I say there was?  I said the individual is energy.  Individuality is the unique patten of energy in spacetime.  If a metaphor would help:  each snowflake has a unique pattern, they are all made up of water-ice.  Your reply is nonsense.

Your body is a part of the world, and survives within the framework of it (eating, sleeping, fucking). Your mind does not exist.

 

When did I deny that your body is a part of the world?  Why should this mean your mind does not exist?  Your reply is nonsense therefore.

"Dar" wrote:
The mind is 'just' energy, arranged in patterns woven into space-time and matter in the universe.

"The mind is a myth."

Even myths are made of energy.  Your reply is nonsense therefore.

"Dar" wrote:
LOL.  Consciousness does not imply self awareness.

When you are not conscious, are you aware of yourself?

True non-consciousness would be death.  We don't loose consciousness in sleep of under anaesthetic, we loose self-awareness.  Your reply is nonsense therefore. 

"Dar" wrote:
Individuality does not imply self awareness either.

The illusion of self awareness creates the illusion of individuality.

Tell that to the entirely un-self-aware snow flake.  Another nonsense reply.

"Dar" wrote:
To say 'every man and woman is a star' does not imply they are self-aware.

The star is just a star. It does what it does. It needs no self-awareness to do what it does.

As I just said that I wasn't implying the stars were self-aware, your reply is parroting my own. 

You have reminded me of the Futurama show in which the robot Bender met God, and God was essentially a "galaxy" of blinking stars. It's good cartoon humor, but complete rubbish.

Try remember something more pertinent to the conversation next time, and you'll not confuse yourself so badly.  Your reply is nonsense. 

"Dar" wrote:
And a good job too because at any one time on the planet half of those stars will be asleep and not particularly self aware, yet their consciousness will still be operating in that different un-self-aware state.  Dreams will be had.  Memories will be shuffled and stored.  Consciousness continues on without self-awareness.

Self-awareness does not continue on without consciousness.

Wonderful!  You managed to say something that wasn't nonsense!  Well done!  😀 

"Dar" wrote:
Consciousness is everywhere because of the big bang.

Stop acting like the universe cares about what people think.

First of all - where do you get off telling me what to do or think?  You've just wrote a whole page of nonsense, referencing what you think I mean (but didn't say), answering those 'illusions' of your own creation with pure nonsense and now you presume to give me advice?  *amused*     

Where did I say that the universe 'cares' about what people think?  Your reply is nonsense.

It doesn't. You are just an animal, like every other animal. Your brain has developed a method by which to communicate to other animals, and you perceive through that lens. I suppose next you are going to tell me that stars and planets understand English.

You repeat the obvious as if I were contradicting it while apparently talking to a straw woman.   

"Dar" wrote:
Just like Energy and Matter and Gravity and Spacetime.  It's made up out of it all.  Consciousness as current localised in my head in this point of spacetime had very little to do with it, as well as everything to do with it from more metaphysical perspectives, if you take my point.

Time is a human concept. I tried explaining that to my dog once. Every time I left the house in the morning, he whined like he would never see me again. Then he sat around moping all day as if he had lost me for good, only to jump onto me and lick my face in joy every time I came back home. Some "spacetime" concept he had.

Cute story.  Time is not exclusively a human concept however, no matter how bad your dog was at predicting events.  Where you have consciousness, you also have a conscious experience of time.  Consciousness after the Orch OR process resembles a movie running at 40 frames a second.  This is how we experience a continuity of consciousness when we are self-aware. 

"Dar" wrote:
Humans differentiate because we are self aware.

Again, if you are not conscious, are you self aware?

Again - your consciousness can be operating while you are not self-aware.  In the early days or Orch OR they wondered if the microtubules would stop the OR process for 8 hours during sleep, but apparently they found out that they don't.  The brain is still consciousness when you're not self-aware (asleep).

You can't be self aware without consciousness, because without consciousness you'd be dead.  However - you can have consciousness without self-awareness.

"Dar" wrote:
It's not a curse - it's a choice, an orientation, and a balance.  It's 'what you do' just like the sun does it what it does.  That's just how you both are.

I suppose next you are going to say the skandhas are necessary for survival.

I suggest your expectations are based on faulty modelling.  Your reply is nonsense. 

"Dar" wrote:
How should I know what will be or will not be clear to you?

I was saying it for your benefit.

I seriously doubt that.

You seem to have this notion, obviously without doing any research, that U.G. did what he did of his own accord, that he gave up his self out of selfishness, or whatever. If you were as "scholarly" as you claim, you would have noted the many places where he says it did not happen that way.

Fine.  *shrug*  I don't find U.G. claims to be particularly new, interesting or informative to me, so I gave him a brief look in the past and then I forgot out the man.  I don't give a toss if that offends you.

I'll say it again. When you give everything up, there's nothing left to give up. The "blowing out" cannot occur unless everything goes.

Oh wise and holy one - tell me more!  *throws golden dust everywhere and scatters scarlet rose petals at Az's feet* Scatter thy fulsome pearls towards this deluded specimen of earthbound womanhood and tell me about none attachment and the abyss!!!  Say it again Master Az!  😀 😀 😀 

You can parrot that guru until the cows come home, with his fancy snake oil concept of 'blowing out'.  I hear the Zen running through his lines but I've seen it done better, and by example too.

You can sit where you are nice and tidy. That's fine. It won't make two shits one way or another. But you began the path, now are bitching about finishing it,

Where did you get that idea?  Where have I ever 'bitched' about finishing the path?  🙂

so you can hold on to this notion you have of the "self" and how great it is.

Lol.  Haven't you been listening? 

"Dar" wrote:
Yes - the ego and indeed the Self does not exist.  Once you know that for sure, and have accepted it then... So what?

I've been saying this all along.  An illusion 'is' something.  It may not be what you thought it was but it 'is' something.  You insist on perception as being illusions simply because... in telling the time, you've seen through to the clockwork and now you run around like a mad man saying - 'Look!  I can see Cog!! Cogs  by Gods!!!'. 

As they say - it's old. 

"Dar" wrote:
The BIG BANG 'creates' spacetime!  lol.

All the talk of quantum theory that you have done, and you still do not realize this error, somehow. The nature of the universe is change.

I said that earlier.

It doesn't say to itself, "Oh look, I am changing". It just fucking changes.

I said above that 'the BIG BANG creates Spacetime', and this is your reply?  Who are you talking to?  Your reply makes no sense whatsoever. 

The label change, and the concept of change, have no bearing on whether or not it does so. Recognition of change only occurs through the perception of the passage of time, when one set of circumstances is compared to the next and proven to be different in some way. Humans do this, and perhaps some other animals, if they have consciousness. That's it. We use the word "time" to express that. But it doesn't "start changing" and "stop changing" just because we quit perceiving the passage of time, or somehow fail to see the changes.

Again - who are you arguing with?  I agree with your statement actually.  That's obvious.  Do you enjoy extrapolating fantasies and arguing with them?  Lol.  Just a guess here... I bet when you day dream you have a fantasy classroom where you play at being professor Az. 

Look, you are NOT the universe.

"Exactly right on, oh my holy one!  Praise your shiny pointed slippers forever!" - the Universe.

You are just a blank canvas, with absolutely no qualities.

"Are you talking to me?" - Al Pacino.

The body that you are using does not even know that "you" are there!

Considering all the things I've done to it .... gods I hope so!   

On top of that, "you" have created this infrastructure called consciousness that does its weaving, plays connect the dots, and creates the illusion of continued consciousness.

Ah - Now this is some we can properly and genuinely disagree on.  Listen... I really am going to disagree with you now...

**'I'**  don't create consciousness.  The scribe is not the message.  The antenna is not the radio signal.  The pattern embedded in the fabric of timespace is not pattern maker.  The universe creates consciousness... the BIG BANG created consciousness!  My little 'pattern' doesn't take up that much room in the universe.  Hardly anything at all.  And if you took all the space away that is between all my quantum particles then you wouldn't be able to see the specks of dusty matter left to me - probably not even under an electron microscope.  'I' am not the universe.  However - the energy that makes my pattern is part of the universe.  I can reorientate my consciousness around energy perception instead of refining the pattern when I choose to.  Think about the single individual snowflake in Antarctica for perspective. 

None of that illusion is the real you.

I don't incorporate a 'real' v 'illusion' concept in my modelling.  I don't see the point. 

Stop talking like your mind and the universe are one in the same.

*alrah breaks wind and listens... this being of more interest*

*snips Az's rambling - as he's talking to the voices in his head again*

"Dar" wrote:
Btw - did you know that if you took out all the space between the matter of everyone on the planet and put that matter together, then you'd end up with something about the size of a sugar cube?

This is hypothetical nonsense.

If they ever work out how to remove the space between quantum particles you won't be saying that... 

And it's not nonsense.  99.999999999999999 % of you is made up of space, not matter.

🙂

"Dar" wrote:
The universe is not an illusion.  Those that say it is resent there is no stability in the universe, except that of change.  They have not accepted yet that there is nothing to pin down and make static - so they make the illusion into their static Goddess - yet all thought is of energy in dynamic (and quantum) flux.

*cuts padding*

The universe is not an illusion. The universe your mind creates is an illusion. And you continually feed that illusion by your insistence that somehow you are the universe. Stop it.

Where did I 'continually insist that 'I' am the universe'?  Stop it yourself!  It's your straw (wo)man.

My mind doesn't create a universe.  I get sensory and other feedback and I have models of my universe.  My models are not illusions.  They are patterns of energy that correspond to sensory and other feedback.  That's the clockwork, not the time.  Some models are better than others.  You model of me is apparent quite a poor one for reasons I don't care to speculate about.  It's none of my business what you do with your consciousness...

Oh, hey Dar.

What do you suppose quantum entanglement is? Using your own words, and no catch-phrases, of course. Okay, you can use the terms skandhas or indriyas, if you like.

I'm not playing with you again until you learn how to play nice.  Go play with that chap with the legomancy instead.  😛


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
08/03/2012 5:18 pm  
"Dar" wrote:
My models are not illusions.  They are patterns of energy that correspond to sensory and other feedback. 

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the words "models" and "illusions".  These models exist in your head.  That is the extent of their manifestation in the physical world - as "patterns of energy" in your brain.  It doesn't matter how accurately they seem to reflect the actual physical reality that exists outside your brain, they are still models, patterns of energy.  They are not the physical reality which they represent.  Assuming these models and physical reality are one and the same is a very basic Magick 101 error.  You are confusing the map with the territory.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/03/2012 5:27 pm  
"Dar" wrote:
Don't you recognise where these two poems originated Az?

I didn't read them, either time. I really don't care what the poems say. The discussion is not with the poems. 

"Dar" wrote:
I wasn't talking about God.  I was talking about energy.  Your reply is nonsense therefore.

You might want to double check your Qabalah before writing it off as nonsense.

"Dar" wrote:
You are in error.  Probably because you weren't thinking it through (for whatever personal reason of your own last night).  To give an example - the Sun's energy is not 'potential to do work'.  Your reply is nonsense therefore.

energy: "3 : a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work"

Your dismissive attitude has made you 0-2.

"Dar" wrote:
And where did I say there was?  I said the individual is energy.  Individuality is the unique patten of energy in spacetime.  If a metaphor would help:  each snowflake has a unique pattern, they are all made up of water-ice.  Your reply is nonsense.

The sense of individuality creates spacetime. You are 0-3.

"Dar" wrote:
When did I deny that your body is a part of the world?  Why should this mean your mind does not exist?  Your reply is nonsense therefore.

Your mind exists for you because you think it exists. If you would stop holding onto the damn thing for once, you might see this. You are now 0-4.

"Dar" wrote:
Even myths are made of energy.  Your reply is nonsense therefore.

Do tell what type of energy the mind is made up of. 0-5.

"Dar" wrote:
True non-consciousness would be death.  We don't loose consciousness in sleep of under anaesthetic, we loose self-awareness.  Your reply is nonsense therefore.

First of all, the word is "lose", not "loose". You continually misuse that word.

Second, I've said many times that I'm talking about death. You are seeing what you want to see. 0-6. 

"Dar" wrote:
Tell that to the entirely un-self-aware snow flake.  Another nonsense reply.

The snowflake does not know its a snowflake. 0-7.

"Dar" wrote:
As I just said that I wasn't implying the stars were self-aware, your reply is parroting my own.

Tell that to your snowflake. 0-8. 

"Dar" wrote:
Try remember something more pertinent to the conversation next time, and you'll not confuse yourself so badly.  Your reply is nonsense.

0-9. What's funny is that two people outside of this conversation (one known far and wide for his skepticism) immediately saw the connection with the reference I made.

Confuse myself? How about you stop with the ad hominems. You do know what that is, right? It's a logical fallacy, in which you cannot find a way to debate the subject, so you resort to trying to debate the person debating the subject. 0-9.
 

"Dar" wrote:
Wonderful!  You managed to say something that wasn't nonsense!  Well done!  😀

Funny how you say it, because that one sentence directly contradicts many of your other postulates. 0-10. 

"Dar" wrote:
First of all - where do you get off telling me what to do or think?  You've just wrote a whole page of nonsense, referencing what you think I mean (but didn't say), answering those 'illusions' of your own creation with pure nonsense and now you presume to give me advice?  *amused*

I'm telling you to stop it because you have resorted to logical fallacies in an effort to prove the points you have made that have been disproven, yet you still persist.     

"Dar" wrote:
Where did I say that the universe 'cares' about what people think?  Your reply is nonsense.

Again, tell that to the snowflake. 0-11.

"Dar" wrote:
You repeat the obvious as if I were contradicting it while apparently talking to a straw woman.

Another contradiction. Your snowflake told me so. 0-12.

"Dar" wrote:
Cute story.  Time is not exclusively a human concept however, no matter how bad your dog was at predicting events.  Where you have consciousness, you also have a conscious experience of time.  Consciousness after the Orch OR process resembles a movie running at 40 frames a second.  This is how we experience a continuity of consciousness when we are self-aware.

The illusion continuity is called consciousness. You just don't want to admit its an illusion. Keep clinging to it. It makes no difference to me one way or the other.   

"Dar" wrote:
Again - your consciousness can be operating while you are not self-aware.  In the early days or Orch OR they wondered if the microtubules would stop the OR process for 8 hours during sleep, but apparently they found out that they don't.  The brain is still consciousness when you're not self-aware (asleep).

Still another contradiction. As in, you are contradicting your original claims.

"Dar" wrote:
I suggest your expectations are based on faulty modelling.  Your reply is nonsense.

This is getting boring. 0-13. 

"Dar" wrote:
I seriously doubt that.

You can doubt it all you want. You don't have to accept it.

"Dar" wrote:
Fine.  *shrug*  I don't find U.G. claims to be particularly new, interesting or informative to me, so I gave him a brief look in the past and then I forgot out the man.  I don't give a toss if that offends you.

It doesn't offend me one bit. I could care less about it. But, you can hardly sit here and make claims to being a "scholar" when you use ignorance and logical fallacies to explain your arguments.

"Dar" wrote:
Oh wise and holy one - tell me more!  *throws golden dust everywhere and scatters scarlet rose petals at Az's feet* Scatter thy fulsome pearls towards this deluded specimen of earthbound womanhood and tell me about none attachment and the abyss!!!  Say it again Master Az!  😀 😀 😀

How about you tell me. Tell me how you think you can keep anything to yourself and still accomplish the Great Work. And don't say that you don't think so, because that would be another contradiction of your earlier claims.

"Dar" wrote:
You can parrot that guru until the cows come home, with his fancy snake oil concept of 'blowing out'.  I hear the Zen running through his lines but I've seen it done better, and by example too.

I wasn't parroting anyone. The word Nirvana/Nibbana literally means "blowing out". It doesn't take a guru to read a dictionary.

"Dar" wrote:
Where did you get that idea?  Where have I ever 'bitched' about finishing the path?

Re-read your posts.

"Dar" wrote:
Lol.  Haven't you been listening?

Again, re-read your posts. 

"Dar" wrote:
I've been saying this all along.  An illusion 'is' something.  It may not be what you thought it was but it 'is' something.  You insist on perception as being illusions simply because... in telling the time, you've seen through to the clockwork and now you run around like a mad man saying - 'Look!  I can see Cog!! Cogs  by Gods!!!'. 

As they say - it's old. 

illusion: "1 a obsolete : the action of deceiving b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
2 a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that deceives or misleads intellectually b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) : a pattern capable of reversible perspective"

This is what you wanted to not give up, and what you criticized U.G. of destroying, saying he made an error.

"Dar" wrote:
I said that earlier.

You are mixing the words again. The particular response you quoted here was in reference to your 'microtubule' crap. You have not addressed that the Big Bang does not create 'spacetime'.

"Dar" wrote:
I said above that 'the BIG BANG creates Spacetime', and this is your reply?  Who are you talking to?  Your reply makes no sense whatsoever.

Again, you still have not addressed the issue. 0-[insert number here]. 

"Dar" wrote:
Again - who are you arguing with?  I agree with your statement actually.  That's obvious.  Do you enjoy extrapolating fantasies and arguing with them?  Lol.  Just a guess here... I bet when you day dream you have a fantasy classroom where you play at being professor Az.

You don't agree with the statement if you think the Big Bang creates 'spacetime' and snowflakes think they are individuals.

And if insist on using ad hominems to dream up little theories about my class time. 

"Dar" wrote:
"Exactly right on, oh my holy one!  Praise your shiny pointed slippers forever!" - the Universe.

More silliness. When I saw the wall of text I originally thought, "Oh, it looks like she made a decent effort to reply to some of the things we've been discussing". Instead, you just wanted to be catty. Suit yourself.

"Dar" wrote:
"Are you talking to me?" - Al Pacino.

I've never had a conversation with Al Pacino. Great actor, though.

"Dar" wrote:
Ah - Now this is some we can properly and genuinely disagree on.  Listen... I really am going to disagree with you now...

**'I'**  don't create consciousness.

Consciousness creates "I".

"Dar" wrote:
The scribe is not the message. The antenna is not the radio signal.

I agree, but your metaphors point to something that gives the message, and something that sends the signal. There is no herald, and no signal. 

"Dar" wrote:
The pattern embedded in the fabric of timespace is not pattern maker.

There is no pattern maker.

"Dar" wrote:
The universe creates consciousness... the BIG BANG created consciousness!

No it fucking didn't. The Big Bang was a release of energy. That's it. ": the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe according to the big bang theory"

Consciousness is nothing more than your brain playing connect the dots.

"Dar" wrote:
My little 'pattern' doesn't take up that much room in the universe.

Why you are trying to say that your mind, or your consciousness, takes up any "room" at all is beyond me.

"Dar" wrote:
Hardly anything at all.

It takes up no room.

"Dar" wrote:
And if you took all the space away that is between all my quantum particles then you wouldn't be able to see the specks of dusty matter left to me - probably not even under an electron microscope.

You don't have any quantum particles. You are confusing body for self.

"Dar" wrote:
'I' am not the universe.  However - the energy that makes my pattern is part of the universe.

Keep going on with this body-mind confusion, where you talk about two different things as though they are the same thing.

"Dar" wrote:
I can reorientate my consciousness around energy perception instead of refining the pattern when I choose to.  Think about the single individual snowflake in Antarctica for perspective.

Clearer words, please.

"Dar" wrote:
 
I don't incorporate a 'real' v 'illusion' concept in my modelling.  I don't see the point.

You would rather think your mind takes up space, then criticize others for not follow suits, as you have done with U.G. And when you are called out on it, you have failed to demonstrate that you can make a decent argument for your claims. 

"Dar" wrote:
*alrah breaks wind and listens... this being of more interest*

*snips Az's rambling - as he's talking to the voices in his head again*

More ad hominems. Why not just admit you couldn't form a decent response to the assertion that would not contradict what you have already said (as if you haven't contradicted yourself enough already)?

"Dar" wrote:
If they ever work out how to remove the space between quantum particles you won't be saying that... 

And it's not nonsense.  99.999999999999999 % of you is made up of space, not matter.

It's nonsense. Who's the one coming up with random theories? Floating babies, anyone?

"Dar" wrote:
Where did I 'continually insist that 'I' am the universe'?  Stop it yourself!  It's your straw (wo)man.

You want it to be a straw woman. Fact is, you haven't been able to talk about much of this at all without resorting to the Big Bang, microtubules, and other random shit you read on a science website.

"Dar" wrote:
My mind doesn't create a universe.  I get sensory and other feedback and I have models of my universe.  My models are not illusions.  They are patterns of energy that correspond to sensory and other feedback.  That's the clockwork, not the time.  Some models are better than others.  You model of me is apparent quite a poor one for reasons I don't care to speculate about.  It's none of my business what you do with your consciousness...

Hang onto your mind as long as you like, Dar. But it's interesting to note that when you first arrived on this website from alt.magick, Paul had to put out a fire between you and Mika over claims to "Mastery". And now, a couple years later, you were quick to criticize someone (U.G.), by saying that he should have never given everything up. And you have still failed to explain yourself, given multiple chances.

"Dar" wrote:
I'm not playing with you again until you learn how to play nice.  Go play with that chap with the legomancy instead.  😛

Just admit you can't do it, or that you need more time. No need to try and back out of every challenge you can't contradict your way out of.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/03/2012 5:28 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"Dar" wrote:
My models are not illusions.  They are patterns of energy that correspond to sensory and other feedback. 

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the words "models" and "illusions".  These models exist in your head.  That is the extent of their manifestation in the physical world - as "patterns of energy" in your brain.  It doesn't matter how accurately they seem to reflect the actual physical reality that exists outside your brain, they are still models, patterns of energy.  They are not the physical reality which they represent.  Assuming these models and physical reality are one and the same is a very basic Magick 101 error.  You are confusing the map with the territory.

Exactly.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/03/2012 5:32 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"Dar" wrote:
My models are not illusions.  They are patterns of energy that correspond to sensory and other feedback. 

These models exist in your head.  That is the extent of their manifestation in the physical world - as "patterns of energy" in your brain. 

Yes.  I know.  I see no reason to call them illusions however.

It doesn't matter how accurately they seem to reflect the actual physical reality that exists outside your brain, they are still models, patterns of energy.

Yes.  Obviously.

  They are not the physical reality which they represent.  Assuming these models and physical reality are one and the same is a very basic Magick 101 error.  You are confusing the map with the territory.

This is all obvious.

I'm not confusing anything simply because I don't see any value in calling these patterns of energy 'illusions', whether they are accurate maps of the territory or not.  'Illusion' is such a vague and miasmic catch word - and I feel it's often used by religious people as an opt out for a proper rounded investigation. 

 


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/03/2012 5:36 pm  

Az - I have nothing to say to a guy that believes his sense of individuality creates space-time.  That's just wacko, man.  🙂


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 3110
08/03/2012 7:51 pm  

This thread certainly appears to have a Will, or at least a Want, towards tedious tendentiousness, assuming threads to be capable of such things.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/03/2012 8:28 pm  
"Dar" wrote:
Az - I have nothing to say to a guy that believes his sense of individuality creates space-time.  That's just wacko, man.  🙂

Name one other type of being, besides a human being, that has a concept of spacetime... just one.

Start with the animal kingdom:

"In his studies on how animals perceive time, animal cognition researcher William Roberts made some remarkable conclusions regarding animal memories, anticipation and more. He says that animals are "stuck in time" [source: Roberts]. By this he means that, without the sophisticated abilities it takes to perceive time -- like truly forming memories -- animals only live in the present. Roberts thinks animals are "stuck in time" because they can't mentally "time travel" backward and forward. Humans can consciously and willfully think back to specific memories and anticipate events. Animals cannot." Source.

Well, so much for anything else with a brain. What's next for you, trees? More ad hominems?

Here you go, about your microtubules:

"Activities within cells ranging from single-celled organisms to the brain's neurons are organized by a dynamic scaffolding called the cytoskeleton, whose major components are microtubules. Hollow, crystalline cylinders 25 nanometers in diameter, microtubules are comprised of hexagonal lattices of proteins, known as tubulin. Microtubules are essential to cell shape, function, movement, and division. In neurons microtubules self-assemble to extend axons and dendrites and form synaptic connections, then help to maintain and regulate synaptic activity responsible for learning and cognitive functions. Microtubules interact with membrane structures mechanically by linking proteins, chemically by ions and "second-messenger" signals, and electrically by voltage fields." Source

It might do you well to examine the term Synapse...

...that is, whenever you are not busy with floating babies, the Big Bang, "scholarly interpretations" (which apparently consist of making snap judgements according to your presuppositions of reality) and other garbage.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
08/03/2012 9:59 pm  
"Dar" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
They are not the physical reality which they represent.  Assuming these models and physical reality are one and the same is a very basic Magick 101 error.  You are confusing the map with the territory.

This is all obvious.

I'm not confusing anything simply because I don't see any value in calling these patterns of energy 'illusions', whether they are accurate maps of the territory or not. 

But you are confusing things, precisely because you don't see the value in calling these patterns of energy "illusions".  The value in calling them illusions is because that's what they are.  Internal models will never be accurate maps of the territory.  They will only approximate reality; whether closely or poorly, they are still approximations, and they are still not reality.  They are illusions, so that is what they are called, in order to avoide the very confusion you are denying to yourself yet revealing plain as day in your posts.

"ignant666" wrote:
This thread certainly appears to have a Will, or at least a Want, towards tedious tendentiousness, assuming threads to be capable of such things.

Many people are drawn to magick because its practice involves creating elaborate mental models of the universe, which is done for a variety of purposes.  However, practicing magick also requires destroying those models, at which point a good portion of people get stuck.  They then flail around seeking justifications for holding on to these mental images of the universe (which at this point have become straight-up beliefs).  Any thread that deals with the material world forces people to distinguish between mental models and actual reality, which as you can see, can be painfully difficult for those people who do not want to face the difference between what they imagine (the map) and actual reality (the territory). 


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/03/2012 2:13 am  
"mika" wrote:
"Dar" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
They are not the physical reality which they represent.  Assuming these models and physical reality are one and the same is a very basic Magick 101 error.  You are confusing the map with the territory.

This is all obvious.

I'm not confusing anything simply because I don't see any value in calling these patterns of energy 'illusions', whether they are accurate maps of the territory or not. 

But you are confusing things, precisely because you don't see the value in calling these patterns of energy "illusions".  The value in calling them illusions is because that's what they are.  Internal models will never be accurate maps of the territory.  They will only approximate reality; whether closely or poorly, they are still approximations, and they are still not reality.  They are illusions, so that is what they are called, in order to avoide the very confusion you are denying to yourself yet revealing plain as day in your posts.

Some internal models are highly accurate, but even these are not what they represent and also limited by the human sensory spectrum (i.e. - a bat can make sonar models - humans cannot etc.)  I just accept this as an essential quality of a model - it's written into the definition of what a model 'is'.  Although not being reality, they are not illusions as long as you understand precisely what it is they are.  You can only have an illusion if you are allowing yourself to be deceived in some fashion.  If you see through the illusion; if you are not deceived and do not misunderstand, then there is no illusion.  That still does not mean these models are what they represent, but that's taken as a given even while modelling. 

I am not confusing myself, even if others are accidently confused by me.  I'm using different models and paradigms to others and sometimes confusion steps in when they haven't done enough of their own objective research and modelling to be able to understand what I'm saying to them yet. 

 


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/03/2012 2:26 am  
"ignant666" wrote:
This thread certainly appears to have a Will, or at least a Want, towards tedious tendentiousness, assuming threads to be capable of such things.

😀  Who will try to save my poor deluded soul from the quantum consciousness menace next?  Tune in next week... when we'll be having a special on for added toppings of enlightenment for all fans of 'Living in the Material World'... (pssst... and there'll be books to buy and sell too).   


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/03/2012 2:35 am  
"Dar" wrote:
(i.e. - a bat can make sonar models - humans cannot etc.) 

Not true, Dar.  One example is Juan Ruiz from L.A. California.  If you don't believe me, google him.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/03/2012 2:46 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
"Dar" wrote:
(i.e. - a bat can make sonar models - humans cannot etc.) 

Not true, Dar.  One example is Juan Ruiz from L.A. California.  If you don't believe me, google him.

I did!  That's cool, Nox. The real 'batmen'.  🙂


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
09/03/2012 3:30 am  
"Dar" wrote:
Who will try to save my poor deluded soul from the quantum consciousness menace next?

Someone told you that you have a soul, and that it is poor and deluded? What page was that on?

"Dar" wrote:
Tune in next week... when we'll be having a special on for added toppings of enlightenment for all fans of 'Living in the Material World'... (pssst... and there'll be books to buy and sell too).   

And websites... don't forget websites. What was yours again?

"Dar" wrote:
I am not confusing myself, even if others are accidently confused by me.

Yes, you have definitely never contradicted yourself in the past two days.

But, you're right. That must be it. You are speaking a different language using English symbols... and haven't yet translated those symbols into a commonly understandable iteration of what you have been trying to say.

And when you don't get your point across, you start throwing a tantrum.

Now what was it again that you think U.G. messed up so badly on? Oh, right. That he was wrong to lose everything in the pursuit of enlightenment. He should have held on to dear old ego.

Let's see, where was that... oh, here it is.

"Dar" wrote:
I put it to you Az, that there is no point in achieving enlightenment, only to sacrifice your individuality in the constant practise of negation so that you can selfishly seek to thwart the will of the universe.  I believe this was a mistake that Krishnamurti made.
"Dar" wrote:
"no point in achieving enlightenment, only to sacrifice your individuality"

...really.

From One Star in Sight: "To attain the Grade of Magister Templi, he must perform two tasks; the emancipation from thought by putting each idea against its opposite, and refusing to prefer either; and the consecration of himself as a pure vehicle for the influence of the order to which he aspires.

He must then decide upon the critical adventure of our Order; the absolute abandonment of himself and his attainments. He cannot remain indefinitely an Exempt Adept; he is pushed onward by the irresistible momentum that he has generated."

"Dar" wrote:
"the constant practise of negation"

"The Ipsissimus is pre-eminently the Master of all modes of existence; that is, his being is entirely free from internal or external necessity. His work is to destroy all tendencies to construct or to cancel such necessities. He is the Master of the Law of Unsubstantiality (Anatta)."

"Dar" wrote:
"selfishly seek to thwart the will of the universe"

"The Ipsissimus has no relation as such with any Being: He has no will in any direction, and no Consciousness of any kind involving duality, for in Him all is accomplished; as it is written "beyond the Word and the Fool, yea, beyond the Word and the Fool"."

Yes, other people are so "confused" by you...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/03/2012 6:11 am  

Az - you've confused the terms ego and individuality again. 

I'm still waiting for my programmer to finish the Babalon website for me. 

ego -

1) the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.
2.) Psychoanalysis . the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment.
3.) egotism; conceit; self-importance: Her ego becomes more unbearable each day.
4.)  self-esteem or self-image; feelings: Your criticism wounded his ego.
5.)  ( often initial capital letter ) Philosophy .
  a.the enduring and conscious element that knows experience.
  b.Scholasticism . the complete person comprising both body and soul.
6.) Ethnology . a person who serves as the central reference point in the study of organizational and kinship relationships

individual -

1)  a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
2.) a person: a strange individual.
3.)  a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item.
4.)  a group considered as a unit.
5.)  Biology .
a.  a single organism capable of independent existence.
b.  a member of a compound organism or colony.

individuality -

1)  the particular character, or aggregate of qualities, that distinguishes one person or thing from others; sole and personal nature: a person of marked individuality.
2.)  individualities, individual  characteristics.
3.)  a person or thing of individual  or distinctive character.
4.)  state or quality of being individual;  existence as a distinct individual.
5.)  the interests of the individual  as distinguished from the interests of the community.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
09/03/2012 2:10 pm  
"Dar" wrote:
Az - you've confused the terms ego and individuality again. 

Or so you want to think.

You say there's "no point in achieving enlightenment, only to sacrifice your individuality".

I say enlightenment cannot be achieved without doing so.

If you weren't willing to completely die for it, then why bother with it in the first place?

By the way, you are contradicting yourself again: "Az - I have nothing to say to a guy that believes his sense of individuality creates space-time."

So which is it... did you change your mind on something, or did you just lack the control necessary to ignore me?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/03/2012 2:52 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Dar" wrote:
Az - you've confused the terms ego and individuality again. 

Or so you want to think.

You say there's "no point in achieving enlightenment, only to sacrifice your individuality".

And you said "Now what was it again that you think U.G. messed up so badly on? Oh, right. That he was wrong to lose everything in the pursuit of enlightenment. He should have held on to dear old ego."

Are you capable at the moment of admitting you've confused the two terms?


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1088

ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
09/03/2012 3:59 pm  
"Dar" wrote:
Are you capable at the moment of admitting you've confused the two terms?

I recognize both terms as products of thought.

Without the mind, you do not exist. The body exists. The brain exists. Everything functions biologically. But "you" do not exist without the mind. The sense of individuality is dependent upon the mind, upon thoughts and ideas. When those are dissolved, "you" do not exist. The observer and the observed do not exist without each other.

The mind cannot look at itself. It can only create projections, ideas, of what it must look like if it looked at itself. In any case, there is an observer and an observed, and the seer is not the seen.

Individuality is the totality of the mind's perceptions. You are what you perceive yourself to be, and that changes as perceptions change. This is how we know change in any way at all - by measuring what we perceived ourselves to be a minute ago, a year ago, etc. with what we perceive ourselves to be now, and how we perceive other things in relation to ourselves.

All of that nonsense is a product of the mind, of thought. It creates the sense of "I". That sense of "I" is the ego.

The perception of ego is formed from the perception of individuality.

You seem to think that you can somehow dissolve the sense of "I", and still keep an individuality. With no "I", to whom does the individual belong? No one. No-[wo]man, Nemo/Nema.

The individual, as a product of mind, and with no identifier (ego), dissolves into everything else conceivable by the mind. There is no individual, and never was. You just want to think there is, so that your life means something. No one knows anything. We only know the perceptions left by past events - afterthoughts. Our ability to recall these, and link them together, is memory.

The perception of an individual is created by electrical signals. That's it.

There is a white candle on a table in the center of a room. For the purpose of the example (before you run off saying that I am trying to tell people candles have consciousness), this white candle signifies individuality. It has no way of knowing it is composed of a different molecular structure than anything else. Shaped ball of wax that it is, it just is. Then, when it exposed to enough heat, (or neural impulses), a flame (ego) is lit. The wax that the candle is made of begins to melt, due to the flame. The candle, or individual, recognizes change in itself in relation to the flickers in light and heat given off by the flame (ego). That is the only way it even knows anything is happening, because it sees itself changing. The perception of that change does not mean it is no longer a candle. Now, blow out the flame. The room is dark. Both the flame and the candle disappear.

Neither ego nor individuality exist in Nirvana. Nirvana means "blowing out". It doesn't mean blowing out, but with the candle still sitting there. There is no candle.

You want to say that when the flame is blown out, the candle is still there, in the middle of the dark room, and all by its lonesome, as an individual. The candle's sole purpose is to provide the proper atmosphere for a flame. Without a flame, the candle is useless. When it is useless, it is discarded. When it is discarded, that is death. When this death of the individuality occurs, that is freedom, moksha, nirvana.

Wonderful.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
09/03/2012 4:12 pm  

Ask your prophet: Liber 333

"15

{Kappa-Epsilon-Phi-Alpha-Lambda-Eta Iota-Epsilon}

                            THE GUN-BARREL

    Mighty and erect is this Will of mine, this Pyramid
      of fire whose summit is lost in Heaven.  Upon it
      have I burned the corpse of my desires.
    Mighty and erect is this {Phi-alpha-lambda-lambda-omicron-sigma}
                                      of my Will.  The
      seed thereof is That which I have borne within me
      from Eternity; and it is lost within the Body of
      Our Lady of the Stars.
    I am not I; I am but an hollow tube to bring down
      Fire from Heaven.
    Mighty and marvellous is this Weakness, this
      Heaven which draweth me into Her Womb, this
      Dome which hideth, which absorbeth, Me.
    This is The Night wherein I am lost, the Love
      through which I am no longer I.

16

            {Kappa-Epsilon-Alpha-Lambda-Eta Iota-Sigma}

                          THE STAG-BEETLE

    Death implies change and individuality if thou be
      THAT which hath no person, which is beyond the
      changing, even beyond changelessness, what hast
      thou to do with death?
    The bird of individuality is ecstasy; so also is its
      death.
    In love the individuality is slain; who loves not love?
    Love death therefore, and long eagerly for it.
    Die Daily."

From Liber VII 1:40:

"When Thou shall know me, O empty God, my flame shall utterly expire in Thy great N.O.X."


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
09/03/2012 4:39 pm  

93

We are that divine spark which falls upon the fertile plain and clothes itself in flesh to be for a short time.
When the flesh falls away, that which inhabits it briefly continues on.
This is the only way I can understand it.

93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/03/2012 5:58 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Dar" wrote:
Are you capable at the moment of admitting you've confused the two terms?

I recognize both terms as products of thought.

Without the mind, you do not exist. The body exists. The brain exists. Everything functions biologically. But "you" do not exist without the mind. The sense of individuality is dependent upon the mind, upon thoughts and ideas. When those are dissolved, "you" do not exist. The observer and the observed do not exist without each other.

The mind cannot look at itself. It can only create projections, ideas, of what it must look like if it looked at itself. In any case, there is an observer and an observed, and the seer is not the seen.

Individuality is the totality of the mind's perceptions. You are what you perceive yourself to be, and that changes as perceptions change. This is how we know change in any way at all - by measuring what we perceived ourselves to be a minute ago, a year ago, etc. with what we perceive ourselves to be now, and how we perceive other things in relation to ourselves.

All of that nonsense is a product of the mind, of thought. It creates the sense of "I". That sense of "I" is the ego.

The perception of ego is formed from the perception of individuality.

You seem to think that you can somehow dissolve the sense of "I", and still keep an individuality. With no "I", to whom does the individual belong? No one. No-[wo]man, Nemo/Nema.

The individual, as a product of mind, and with no identifier (ego), dissolves into everything else conceivable by the mind. There is no individual, and never was. You just want to think there is, so that your life means something. No one knows anything. We only know the perceptions left by past events - afterthoughts. Our ability to recall these, and link them together, is memory.

The perception of an individual is created by electrical signals. That's it.

There is a white candle on a table in the center of a room. For the purpose of the example (before you run off saying that I am trying to tell people candles have consciousness), this white candle signifies individuality. It has no way of knowing it is composed of a different molecular structure than anything else. Shaped ball of wax that it is, it just is. Then, when it exposed to enough heat, (or neural impulses), a flame (ego) is lit. The wax that the candle is made of begins to melt, due to the flame. The candle, or individual, recognizes change in itself in relation to the flickers in light and heat given off by the flame (ego). That is the only way it even knows anything is happening, because it sees itself changing. The perception of that change does not mean it is no longer a candle. Now, blow out the flame. The room is dark. Both the flame and the candle disappear.

Neither ego nor individuality exist in Nirvana. Nirvana means "blowing out". It doesn't mean blowing out, but with the candle still sitting there. There is no candle.

You want to say that when the flame is blown out, the candle is still there, in the middle of the dark room, and all by its lonesome, as an individual. The candle's sole purpose is to provide the proper atmosphere for a flame. Without a flame, the candle is useless. When it is useless, it is discarded. When it is discarded, that is death. When this death of the individuality occurs, that is freedom, moksha, nirvana.

You say that individuality is a product of the mind, but the Bhagavad Gita teaches that Individuality is one of the 8 qualities that is a part of everything manifest in the universe (mind being a distinctly different quality).  And to take the snow flake example again- it does not matter whether there's any sort of consciousness around to witness it, but every snowflake in the tundra has an individual shape.  An almost infinite amount of individuality clothes the North and South poles of our planet in uniform white snow. 

Even if you could somehow enter into a coma, your body would remain completely individual and unique even when you were not aware of it.  And as for brain or your consciousness... even in a coma and dreaming, your consciousness would always be individual.  Even if you could do a hatchet job on your ego - the individuality of your mind, body and will would remain to you and find it's expression quite naturally in your life.  You cannot help this.  The path of your life is an experience that is completely individual to you.  There is no such thing as a generic human being.  There never has been and there never will be.

As to your other points - the body cannot exist without consciousness.  This idea that U.G. had - that he was just a body without a mind, walking around like a happy zombie until it got 'affected' - is really just a fairytale.  Subjectively it may have felt like that was happening to him after all of that practise of negation and 'being ready to die'.   

...but it is impossible for the body and brain to exist and be cut off from the quantum level of reality that consciousness bridges.  If an individual learns not to believe that the model they've made of themselves represents a good reflection of reality, then s/he clears the way for their will to manifest without interference along the uniquely individual characteristics of the mind and body of that individual. 

Your perception and your models do not create your individuality, although such models try to represent it.  Your individuality is not created by your ego, or by your thoughts.  Your individuality 'just is'.  Everyone's body and brain and mind is different and individual.  No two are identical.  Not even twins.

If you deny your individuality because your self image model is wonky at times then you would deny your will.  The proper response is to remain curious, not to run around calling everything an illusion of your ego's making.

Lovely metaphor/story with the candle.., but it doesn't carry what you've said home.

 

         

 


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
09/03/2012 8:25 pm  
"Dar" wrote:
You say that individuality is a product of the mind, but the Bhagavad Gita teaches that Individuality is one of the 8 qualities that is a part of everything manifest in the universe (mind being a distinctly different quality).

Source please. A chapter or verse number would work fine.

"Dar" wrote:
And to take the snow flake example again- it does not matter whether there's any sort of consciousness around to witness it, but every snowflake in the tundra has an individual shape.  An almost infinite amount of individuality clothes the North and South poles of our planet in uniform white snow. 

Even if you could somehow enter into a coma, your body would remain completely individual and unique even when you were not aware of it.

Body is not the mind.

"Dar" wrote:
And as for brain or your consciousness... even in a coma and dreaming, your consciousness would always be individual.  Even if you could do a hatchet job on your ego - the individuality of your mind, body and will would remain to you and find it's expression quite naturally in your life.  You cannot help this.  The path of your life is an experience that is completely individual to you.  There is no such thing as a generic human being.  There never has been and there never will be.

Liber AL 2:9 "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."

"Dar" wrote:
As to your other points - the body cannot exist without consciousness.

Say that the next time you go to a cemetery.

"Dar" wrote:
This idea that U.G. had - that he was just a body without a mind, walking around like a happy zombie until it got 'affected' - is really just a fairytale.  Subjectively it may have felt like that was happening to him after all of that practise of negation and 'being ready to die'.

The idea of U.G. that you have is a fairy tale.

I don't see how you can even claim to be a scholar when you have read or saw one or two things and taken them at face value. I'm not going to search for U.G.'s word on the subject to prove you wrong here. You'll have to find out for yourself.   

"Dar" wrote:
...but it is impossible for the body and brain to exist and be cut off from the quantum level of reality that consciousness bridges.

Are you trying to say it's impossible to shut the brain off? It appears you are trying to say that.

"Dar" wrote:
If an individual learns not to believe that the model they've made of themselves represents a good reflection of reality, then s/he clears the way for their will to manifest without interference along the uniquely individual characteristics of the mind and body of that individual.

Any model is a false model, including the model of "uniquely individual characteristics". 

"Dar" wrote:
Your perception and your models do not create your individuality, although such models try to represent it.  Your individuality is not created by your ego, or by your thoughts.  Your individuality 'just is'.  Everyone's body and brain and mind is different and individual.  No two are identical.  Not even twins.

You say minds are different and individual. Tell me, when was the last time you had a completely original thought, devoid of all form and substance, noncommunicable by any language whatsoever? Also, tell me where your proof is that no one else has ever, or will ever, experience that same thought.

The body is unique. The mind is not.

"Dar" wrote:
If you deny your individuality because your self image model is wonky at times then you would deny your will.  The proper response is to remain curious, not to run around calling everything an illusion of your ego's making.

I would think you to be capable of more than this. But, continue to hang onto whatever you want to hang on to. It makes no difference to me.

"Dar" wrote:
Lovely metaphor/story with the candle.., but it doesn't carry what you've said home.

Maybe I should have used "microtubules" in the paragraph somewhere... or "floating babies".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/03/2012 9:34 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Source please. A chapter or verse number would work fine.

Source?  A read it over a decade ago.  I didn’t happen to memorize the page number but I believe the topic of individuality comes up at least twice in the Book.

I don't see how you can even claim to be a scholar when you have read or saw one or two things and taken them at face value. I'm not going to search for U.G.'s word on the subject to prove you wrong here. You'll have to find out for yourself.

I don’t see that U.G. has anything useful to say to me and so I feel no need to research him beyond what you’d already said.  And you don’t feel like learning what science has to say about how your consciousness actually works – you find all this quantum consciousness stuff boring and irrelevant to you.  This just says to me that we should call it a day.       

Are you trying to say it's impossible to shut the brain off? It appears you are trying to say that.

I don’t know.  I’m not sure what anesthetics do to microtubules.  In sleep they just keep on going – the gravity keeps bringing the waveform to the threshold of Objective Reduction and causing that ‘bing’ moment of consciousness, except as we’re asleep we don’t notice.  It might be impossible to actually shut off the brain until you die.  Even if you take your consciousness out of the body there’s always the cord connecting you to it.  I’m not sure about that one yet.

Any model is a false model, including the model of "uniquely individual characteristics".

I see...  So things we commonly take as being objective reality or evident propositions you call a false model?  The notion of gravity must be completely useless to you.  All those time when you fell down due to not modeling gravity… and the triumphs when you first learned to walk – wow – what a waste of time that was eh?  Just a false model to you!         
That’s one way to stick your head in the sand.

You say minds are different and individual. Tell me, when was the last time you had a completely original thought, devoid of all form and substance, noncommunicable by any language whatsoever?
Also, tell me where your proof is that no one else has ever, or will ever, experience that same thought.

The body is unique. The mind is not.

The body is an aggregate of arms, legs, a head and torso etc.  We do not expect each body to have individual and unique numbers of arms and legs.  In the same fashion, we expect the mind to have some qualities that are universal to mind, while still being as possessed as the body is in qualities of individuality.   

 


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
09/03/2012 11:21 pm  
"Dar" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Source please. A chapter or verse number would work fine.

Source?  A read it over a decade ago.  I didn’t happen to memorize the page number but I believe the topic of individuality comes up at least twice in the Book.

Nice way to not support your claims.

"Dar" wrote:

I don't see how you can even claim to be a scholar when you have read or saw one or two things and taken them at face value. I'm not going to search for U.G.'s word on the subject to prove you wrong here. You'll have to find out for yourself.

I don’t see that U.G. has anything useful to say to me and so I feel no need to research him beyond what you’d already said.

Okay, then don't run off at the mouth with uneducated claims, then.

"Dar" wrote:
And you don’t feel like learning what science has to say about how your consciousness actually works – you find all this quantum consciousness stuff boring and irrelevant to you.

Because we haven't spent days discussing it...

I've given numerous sources both "mystical" and "scientific" to back up my claims, but you have given, "I read X over a decade ago". Couple that with your hodge-podge remarks about U.G., your lack of, and refusal to address the topic in a common language, your contradictions, and when all else has failed - ad hominems, and it's no wonder that I disagree with you.

I think you are half-assing the entire thing. So no, we won't end up agreeing on it.

"Dar" wrote:
This just says to me that we should call it a day.

It says to me that if you would have approached the support of your claims with as much ferocity as you resorted to ad hominems, it may have turned out differently.   

"Dar" wrote:
   

Are you trying to say it's impossible to shut the brain off? It appears you are trying to say that.

I don’t know.  I’m not sure what anesthetics do to microtubules.  In sleep they just keep on going – the gravity keeps bringing the waveform to the threshold of Objective Reduction and causing that ‘bing’ moment of consciousness, except as we’re asleep we don’t notice.  It might be impossible to actually shut off the brain until you die.  Even if you take your consciousness out of the body there’s always the cord connecting you to it.  I’m not sure about that one yet.

I've went over this already, of course, and with sources to back up the claims.

"Dar" wrote:

Any model is a false model, including the model of "uniquely individual characteristics".

I see...  So things we commonly take as being objective reality or evident propositions you call a false model?  The notion of gravity must be completely useless to you.  All those time when you fell down due to not modeling gravity… and the triumphs when you first learned to walk – wow – what a waste of time that was eh?  Just a false model to you!

This comment is just a show of ignorance, Dar.

"Dar" wrote:
         
That’s one way to stick your head in the sand.

You don't understand, and so you go back to nit-picking images.

"Dar" wrote:

You say minds are different and individual. Tell me, when was the last time you had a completely original thought, devoid of all form and substance, noncommunicable by any language whatsoever?
Also, tell me where your proof is that no one else has ever, or will ever, experience that same thought.

The body is unique. The mind is not.

The body is an aggregate of arms, legs, a head and torso etc.  We do not expect each body to have individual and unique numbers of arms and legs.  In the same fashion, we expect the mind to have some qualities that are universal to mind, while still being as possessed as the body is in qualities of individuality.   

Who is the "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Show me this "mind" you expect to have such qualities, even just a picture. Prove it, and cite your source (ie. show some real "scholarly" work).


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
10/03/2012 12:09 am  

Wow, Wow[sup:1owgc4oz]2[/sup:1owgc4oz] even.  No scratch that; Wow[sup:1owgc4oz]3[/sup:1owgc4oz].

Go away for a few days with no internet to seduce/pollute and come back to the shrill scraping sound of conflicting paradigms trying to occupy the same idea space for no real apparent reason.  (No I have not read all of it, I was starting to lose the will to live).  Is there a prize for winning this contest?  Will there be cake?  Photo ops?  Is there any possibility of adopting that venerable tradition of now switching places and each participant arguing the counter to their previously held position (trying on the other suit to see how it rides) equally fervently?

You do 'know' don't you (pl.) that not one of these arguments, not a single one, is liable to being 'proven' or demonstrated absolutely? Same goes for Orch-OR 'theory' (far from accepted by a majority of phycisists), some guy called Roberts' 'theory' on how animals perceive time (which goes against other theories of 'animal' consciousness ((NB we are animals)) as well as others that relate to the use of rhythm and periodicity to give greater efficiency to movement in all animals), the Cartesian 'theory' of a mind-body split which is far from a done deal no matter what the popular concensus is (in many ways 'popular' science is the last place to look for information, everything there has been pre-digested for ease of consumption in order to shift 'product'), and on and on and on and on and on and on...

This thread is allegedly about The Material World, well I might not know much but this I do know; I am the only person who will ever experience my Material World and the same goes for all of you.  No matter how hard you strain you can't pull someone else completely into yours - and most wont thank you for trying (QED - this thread).

As for the hoary old saw "confusing the map for the territory" when it gets down to the real nub all any of us will ever have is a variety of such maps (some with more maps than others) with which we attempt to jump the gap between individual perception and 'What Is' (which we all strangely agree must be there even when disagreeing over an infinity of its details) in order to better define what may be the territory.
To quote Sax Rohmer, "But over this gulf floats a mist, beyond the mist hangs a Veil.  Has any man braving the mist, ever thrown a bridge, however frail, across to the shadow bank?  Honest weighing of the evidence would certainly make it appear that so much has been accomplished.  With what result?  With the result that the intrepid explorer has obtained a closer view of the Veil."
More bluntly, to quote 'The Oracle' from the film Gas-s-s-s (AKA Gas!or It Became Necessary to Destroy the World in Order to Save It) "There is no Answer, but Keep Looking."
Or even, to quote an as yet still mostly private piece of my own verbiage, "One problem with trying to build a satisfactory overview of what ever system you find yourself within is that of removing yourself far enough to be able to differentiate between the pieces and the players and further between the players and the game itself.  But why let it stop there?"

Nothing is more Real than Nothing - Malone (Beckett), also Democritus.

You're nothing but a pack of cards - Alice (Carroll).

Too much talk stinks up the place - Duke Ellington.

Right, I'm away to 'boil ma heed', please ignore the above it is all an apparently meaningful but random jumble of letters none of which are really there anyway, toodles!  I love you all.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/03/2012 1:24 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Dar" wrote:
And you don’t feel like learning what science has to say about how your consciousness actually works – you find all this quantum consciousness stuff boring and irrelevant to you.

I think you are half-assing the entire thing. So no, we won't end up agreeing on it.

I don't intent to spoon feed you a new paradigm you have no interest in understanding, while putting up with your bad attitude, tantrums and egoistical demands.  It's boring.  I don't come on Lashtal to be bored by your attitude.

[Added] - *thumbs up* at Amandan De.  🙂

 


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/03/2012 2:04 am  
"Dar" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Dar" wrote:
And you don’t feel like learning what science has to say about how your consciousness actually works – you find all this quantum consciousness stuff boring and irrelevant to you.

I think you are half-assing the entire thing. So no, we won't end up agreeing on it.

I don't intent to spoon feed you a new paradigm you have no interest in understanding, while putting up with your bad attitude, tantrums and egoistical demands.  It's boring.  I don't come on Lashtal to be bored by your attitude.

[Added] - *thumbs up* at Amandan De.  🙂

Looks like you learned some new words. Your attempts at demonization are flattering.

The whole point, of the entire argument, is that your initial "scholarly" assertion about U.G. was (and is) wrong, and certainly not "scholarly".

And no, you can't use the "different paradigm" excuse, or any other clever crap you may come up with, as a justification. You were wrong. That's all there is to it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/03/2012 2:16 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
And no, you can't use the "different paradigm" excuse, or any other clever crap you may come up with, as a justification. You were wrong. That's all there is to it.

It's boring when you have your fingers in your ears, while you're chanting "I'm right. I win!!" to yourself.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/03/2012 3:16 am  
"Dar" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
And no, you can't use the "different paradigm" excuse, or any other clever crap you may come up with, as a justification. You were wrong. That's all there is to it.

It's boring when you have your fingers in your ears, while you're chanting "I'm right. I win!!" to yourself.

You haven't proved anything, Dar. You made a couple of half-assed statements, refused to back them up, contradicted the hell out of yourself, have resorted to being catty when you have not gotten your way, and are now trying to put it off on me, just so you don't have to admit you were wrong and made a half-assed claim which you didn't back up.

I don't care that you work with a different paradigm than I do. In fact, I welcome it. I welcome that we speak about some things differently.

But, you have failed to substantiate your claims with any decent evidence. And instead of doing so, you have continued to take little shots at me. But I don't accept them. You can have them back. They are no use to me, and don't stick to me.

"Enough is always enough".


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 3110
10/03/2012 3:46 am  
"Dar" wrote:
It's boring when you have your fingers in your ears, while you're chanting "I'm right. I win!!" to yourself.

Amen!
Azidonis: I think everyone is clear, after the last couple of pages of your posts, that you are sure you have won the argument you have been having with Dar. Maybe consider giving it a rest now?


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
10/03/2012 7:48 am  
"amadan-De" wrote:
This thread is allegedly about The Material World, well I might not know much but this I do know; I am the only person who will ever experience my Material World and the same goes for all of you.  No matter how hard you strain you can't pull someone else completely into yours - and most wont thank you for trying (QED - this thread).

I think you have confused two things.

In the first case, let's say I say: "Wagner's Parsifal is the best opera ever written."
But then another person would say: "I tried to listen to it, but I was bored to tears. I think it's crap."

Now, in this case, both of our views are equally correct and equally valid, as individual viewpoints.  There's no point in us arguing over this.

But in the second case, let's say I say: "The Earth has two suns and three natural moons."
And another person says: "No, the Earth has one sun and one natural moon."

This case is completely different.  I am wrong and the other person is right - my personal viewpoint is not as valid and correct as his.  He has a valid point in arguing with me and trying to get me to see the error of my ways.  (Or just pointing the faults in my theory to bystanders, if I'm too stubborn to admit I'm wrong.)

To summarize, I think it's perfecly OK for someone to say: "Your theory implies dead people do not exist."  Even though they cannot experience the universe just like that other person does.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/03/2012 2:14 pm  

Related Information:

V. S. Ramachandran on the Uniqueness of Human Consciousness

Interview of Ramachandran where he talks about how the brain handles qualia and self.  Note:  In his argument he separates the processing of the qualia and the self out from what he calls 'the power line'.  (See Az's comments about 'the Observer and the Observed').

Quantum Consciousness (Stuart Hameroff)

Extensive Interview with Stuart Hameroff that gives a thorough overview of the 'Orch OR model'.  He talks about how qualia are embedded into the fabric of spacetime, and how anything that is in super-position is in a state of pre or proto consciousness.

My favourite quote from the interview: "*You* are the process." - Hameroff.

Quantum Consciousness, Quantum Mind STUART HAMEROFF (P.1)

Topics include:  a)  Quantum subconscious driven action faster than perception.  b)  The symmetry of classical time flow and how time goes funky at the quantum level.  c)  What is 'Objective Reduction'?  d)  Quantum Entanglement.  e) Consciousness and The Big Bang and Wow theories. etc.   

Stuart Hameroff, MD talks with Deepak Chopra on " Where Is Consciousness?" NYC Mon 7/26/2010 #1

Another extensive interview.  Various topics. 

Quotes from Hameroff:
"The Observed and the Observer are the same."
"The Universe is at least dreaming, if not awake."

Extract from Part III:

"The essence of the rose that you're looking at, the redness, the smell, whatever - the essential features are built into the spacetime geometry that comprises the rose and when you look at it the quantum information is extracted and reproduced in the brain, so that you have the same patterns of spacetime geometry in your brain as is out there so you can experience the redness of the rose in your brain - not through electrochemical processes but by quantum processes that go along with the electrochemical processes, so that the spacetime geometry capturing the essence of the rose is reproduced in your brain." - Hameroff.

 


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
10/03/2012 9:05 pm  
"HG" wrote:
"amadan-De" wrote:
This thread is allegedly about The Material World, well I might not know much but this I do know; I am the only person who will ever experience my Material World and the same goes for all of you.  No matter how hard you strain you can't pull someone else completely into yours - and most wont thank you for trying (QED - this thread).

I think you have confused two things.

In the first case, let's say I say: "Wagner's Parsifal is the best opera ever written."
But then another person would say: "I tried to listen to it, but I was bored to tears. I think it's crap."

Now, in this case, both of our views are equally correct and equally valid, as individual viewpoints.  There's no point in us arguing over this.

But in the second case, let's say I say: "The Earth has two suns and three natural moons."
And another person says: "No, the Earth has one sun and one natural moon."

This case is completely different.  I am wrong and the other person is right - my personal viewpoint is not as valid and correct as his.  He has a valid point in arguing with me and trying to get me to see the error of my ways.  (Or just pointing the faults in my theory to bystanders, if I'm too stubborn to admit I'm wrong.)

To summarize, I think it's perfecly OK for someone to say: "Your theory implies dead people do not exist."  Even though they cannot experience the universe just like that other person does.

Not enough information.  In your second example how is the 'wrong' you defining "sun" and "moon"?  What personal perceptual evidence does this you have to support the claim? Is this a belief based entirely on 'faith' and therefore, on a personal level at least, not held to require any evidence ("It's elephants all the way down")?  Does this belief have a positive outcome for the 'wrong' you that holds it?  Does this belief have a negative or positive outcome for others?  And so on.

The proposed second individual may consider that "he has a valid point in arguing [against you]...or just pointing the faults in [the theory] to bystanders" but I would ask many of the same questions of his actions. In legalise Qui bono, more prosaically "Is this journey necessary"?

You also are confused as to whether I think that all possible viewpoints are equally valid and correct, I absolutely do not.  However I am also aware that my scale of values used to judge the veracity of others' statements may be 'incorrect' in an absolute (and hence unknowable) sense.  I will happily present a disagreement with anothers opinion, and being human (or at least prepared to accept this as a definition) I will tend to believe that my opinions are 'closer to truth' than those I disagree with while simultaneously admitting privately (in the heat of argument) or publicly (when more measured in response) that both opinions may be 'false' or 'wrong'.  No one is in full possession of all the facts.

I think (at the moment) that a more useful scheme of judging between such opinions is to consider the affects and affordances they have for the individual or individuals holding them and the subsequent 'fall-out' on the wider community/environment.  Is a 'shamanic' practitioner who could be described by one set of values as a "culturally supported schizophrenic" but whose 'delusions' serve a demonstrably useful function for the society they are embedded in to be dismissed as only a nutter?  Consider the venue for this discussion and reflect on the 'fact' that a majority of the world's population would probably see a great deal of the 'Life and Work of Aleister Crowley' as somewhat suspect at best and completely delusional at worst (Hard to believe eh? What can they be thinking?  But we 'know' the truth, don't we?).

Readers are reminded that the perceived value of opinions may fall as well as rise.  There may be advantages to 'hedging ones bets' by working out the total risk of a portfolio of risky opinions, since the total risk of error may be less than the risk of individual components.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1842
10/03/2012 10:50 pm  

"Whether a proposition can turn out true or false after all depends on what I make count as determinants for that proposition." -Ludwig Wittgenstein from On Certainty

This about says it all. Although I've not been participating, I DID start this thread-and I've been following it day to day. What I can make out are propositions and denial of those propositions based on alternative determinants. Funny, communication breakdown is as much a main characteristic of this thread as is the topic itself. Of course, it may also be a main characteristic of the "material world" (which is to say an interpreted aspect of our experience of Being).

Walterfive's initial remark re: people wanting to jump into more transcendental realms ere they've understood and mastered the "material" seems like a apt point to return to. We're not doing too well with the "material world," are we? Survey the planet and we see the human race fucking everything up. Get onto this website with the common interest of "Thelemic Thought" and it becomes "You're WRONG." "You're CONFUSED." Conversely: "I'm RIGHT!" "I'm CLEAR ON THIS!"

Bollocks.

For me, the question is "WHAT are the DETERMINANTS" and WHY? We all graduate from Kindergarten with a whole bundle of determinants and we continue to develop these as we grow-until we stop. The whole A.A. scheme of Initiation seems to be targeting landmarks along the way of pushing our determinants. Hence, things are regarded as "above" one's Grade (but the language here is snotty and unhelpful).

I think this whole dialogue evokes a few simple questions: Do we think it is possible to significantly move beyond our present perspective and are we driven to do this?

This, by the way, doesn't imply "blasting off" from the "material world." It may mean going more deeply into what we consider to be the "material world."

I think one of the most profound things Crowley wrote regarding this is in his intro to the Book of the Law, where he addressed "the extension of consciousness to include all other consciousness."

Our "determinants" have to grow if we are to get towards this Gnosis. We begin with what we have and push their limits until the bubble breaks.  Those who resist this process-for whatever reason-will produce plenty of objection. They'll "score" against us. But if we've REALLY entered into a new zone, with new determinants, we won't care. Our only concern is conveying our perspective as effectively as possible. This may necessitate modes of communication which sidestep what is demanded by those outside of this awareness. Hence, Rationality is met with Zen Koans. 

Without naming names, there seems to be some poor philosophizing going on here. It seems to me like "professional soldiers who dare not fight, but play."

Let's see some fighting then, some blood, some death! I've grown weary with the yammer of "occultists" (and corresponding "sceptics") who talk their talk but have no scars to show. I want the "for example" that ISN'T hypothetical but PERSONAL! I don't want to see Straw Men set up for a beating-I want to see people putting themselves on the line!

It's a proposition and a conjecture but we're all in this "human thing" together. I would love to see some progress made instead of dogs snapping over the meal.   

What IS the "Material World?" If such a thing exists, is it in relation to "other worlds?" And WHAT, exactly, is that relationship?

And where is the END of your KNOWING? Does that "End" signify your next breakthrough-or is it the closure of a book and the basis of criticism and defense of views that fall outside its realm?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/03/2012 1:28 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
"Whether a proposition can turn out true or false after all depends on what I make count as determinants for that proposition." -Ludwig Wittgenstein from On Certainty

The initial event was 188 and 191 of this thread.

You can see the reaction in post 188, the initial vantage point the approach came from.

In post 191, we essentially have this:

"Dar" wrote:
"Our Individuality reflects our experience of life as vessels of quantum consciousness that are always in different parts of time and space.  It's my belief, and I believe it was Crowleys also, that the Universe itself is conscious (see his comments on Pan).  I look at our sun and I see a star that is conscious 93 million miles away.  I look at yeast and I see consciousness there.  Consciousness is everywhere, and I believe that consciousness made life out of the essence of the universe in order to achieve a different level of self-awareness.  Of necessity this implies the pain of division through the experience of individuality, but also the joy of union.  I put it to you Az, that there is no point in achieving enlightenment, only to sacrifice your individuality in the constant practise of negation so that you can selfishly seek to thwart the will of the universe.  I believe this was a mistake that Krishnamurti made."

The credentials she used to determine the above:

"Dar" wrote:
As scholars we have different models of the universe, as indeed we all do, and even when we use the same terminology and we appear to be on the same page, and appear to understand each other, our understanding is actually always going to different because our experiences of life are individual and unique.  And that's fine.  That's exactly how things should be.

Obviously, I do not think U.G. made this mistake, or else I would not be giving so much energy to it in the first place.

So essentially, I was asking her to prove her assertion using the criteria she set herself. I understand that I was putting my understanding of U.G.'s work up against those same credentials. So, I did the best I could to provide various sources, even if the animal planet one is questionable (amadan-De).

Here's the gist of it - I do not think U.G. made a mistake. I think that his life and work can be described as that of an Ipsissimus. As such, whatever his viewpoint, I think that his work has some value for each of us, even though he has said it has none, "There is no teaching here" (and also because of it; cause & effect).

If there are no mistakes to be made, how could he have made a mistake? It's not like we are talking about average Joe here. Anyway, I've done my best to present it as best as I can understand it up to this point. I think that ultimately, whether or not anyone agrees is completely up to them. But, in examining the claim set against it, and by the criteria set by that claim, I do not think that claim holds up. I do not think it proves that U.G. made a mistake. As for my understanding of it, someone can judge that for me, I don't care. I can only present it how I understand it. To do otherwise would be a lie.

The claim that U.G. made a mistake brought the response, "back it up". And, if they are going to class themselves with "scholars", then the proof should be in the pudding.

I do not think that the model of "quantum consciousness", which suffers its own criticism, proves U.G.'s work to be a mistake.

I think that scientists want badly to reach into the aethyr and pull themselves out some enlightenment, so they can reproduce it in the human brain with a pill. I do not think this is possible.

Anyway, I think that the model, as presented, breaks down. It breaks down where everything else breaks down - the Point where nothing is there to break down. This begs the question, "where's that Point", or "what", some think "who" (God?)?

I do not think this question can be answered. I also think that U.G.'s work proves it. I think that Buddha's proved it as well.

So, can U.G.'s work be challenged by science? I have no friggen idea, but I'm open to suggestions. And, if those are to be "scholarly" suggestions, then they should at least include verifiable evidence, especially to use a branch of science that faces the criticism it already does.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
This about says it all. Although I've not been participating, I DID start this thread-and I've been following it day to day. What I can make out are propositions and denial of those propositions based on alternative determinants. Funny, communication breakdown is as much a main characteristic of this thread as is the topic itself. Of course, it may also be a main characteristic of the "material world" (which is to say an interpreted aspect of our experience of Being).

Yes. I think it would have went much smoother without the comment in post [url=http://

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
199[/url].

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Walterfive's initial remark re: people wanting to jump into more transcendental realms ere they've understood and mastered the "material" seems like a apt point to return to. We're not doing too well with the "material world," are we? Survey the planet and we see the human race fucking everything up. Get onto this website with the common interest of "Thelemic Thought" and it becomes "You're WRONG." "You're CONFUSED." Conversely: "I'm RIGHT!" "I'm CLEAR ON THIS!"

Bollocks.

It became that I don't think she provided solid proof of her claims. She has not proven that U.G. "made a mistake".

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
For me, the question is "WHAT are the DETERMINANTS" and WHY? We all graduate from Kindergarten with a whole bundle of determinants and we continue to develop these as we grow-until we stop. The whole A.A. scheme of Initiation seems to be targeting landmarks along the way of pushing our determinants. Hence, things are regarded as "above" one's Grade (but the language here is snotty and unhelpful).

I always hated that "above your grade" crap. "Mystery is the enemy of truth."

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I think this whole dialogue evokes a few simple questions: Do we think it is possible to significantly move beyond our present perspective and are we driven to do this?

I think it is possible to move to different points (on either the map or the territory), but eventually, all points are destroyed.

AL 1:53: "This shall regenerate the world, the little world my sister, my heart & my tongue, unto whom I send this kiss. Also, o scribe and prophet, though thou be of the princes, it shall not assuage thee nor absolve thee. But ecstasy be thine and joy of earth: ever To me! To me!"

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
This, by the way, doesn't imply "blasting off" from the "material world." It may mean going more deeply into what we consider to be the "material world."

I agree. I see life as a chance to be "you". Everything is a tool for accomplishing that. But I also think that when the "you" is no longer there, things change a bit. This has been documented. Eventually though, each must go "Their Own Way".

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
 
I think one of the most profound things Crowley wrote regarding this is in his intro to the Book of the Law, where he addressed "the extension of consciousness to include all other consciousness."

I invite anyone interested to watch this: Selfish to the Core.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Our "determinants" have to grow if we are to get towards this Gnosis. We begin with what we have and push their limits until the bubble breaks.  Those who resist this process-for whatever reason-will produce plenty of objection. They'll "score" against us. But if we've REALLY entered into a new zone, with new determinants, we won't care. Our only concern is conveying our perspective as effectively as possible. This may necessitate modes of communication which sidestep what is demanded by those outside of this awareness. Hence, Rationality is met with Zen Koans.

Without naming names, there seems to be some poor philosophizing going on here. It seems to me like "professional soldiers who dare not fight, but play."

Let's see some fighting then, some blood, some death! I've grown weary with the yammer of "occultists" (and corresponding "sceptics") who talk their talk but have no scars to show. I want the "for example" that ISN'T hypothetical but PERSONAL! I don't want to see Straw Men set up for a beating-I want to see people putting themselves on the line!

I don't make it a habit of being personal. I think that people are going to want to judge three things: my words, Dar's words, and U.G.'s words. And then they will find out on their own, there is no need to judge.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
It's a proposition and a conjecture but we're all in this "human thing" together. I would love to see some progress made instead of dogs snapping over the meal.   

What IS the "Material World?" If such a thing exists, is it in relation to "other worlds?" And WHAT, exactly, is that relationship?

And where is the END of your KNOWING? Does that "End" signify your next breakthrough-or is it the closure of a book and the basis of criticism and defense of views that fall outside its realm?

I offer this tidbit: [url= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51dzv9scipQ&feature=share[/url]UG Krishnamurti - UGC Part 2[/url].

Also, Function of the Natural State.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4942
11/03/2012 1:37 am  

KH said: "Funny, communication breakdown is as much a main characteristic of this thread as is the topic itself."

There is ALWAYS one hot thread running on lashtal. The same usual suspects, including myself [an innocent bystander], board the train (of thought) and then proceed to argue about Will, reality and illusion, and the time of day in Zululand. Then they dispute each others' logic, and eventually get snide or insulting.

Theres nothing new under the sun here, horace.

Except maybe for the long lengths of the posts.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/03/2012 6:38 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Get onto this website with the common interest of "Thelemic Thought" and it becomes "You're WRONG." "You're CONFUSED." Conversely: "I'm RIGHT!" "I'm CLEAR ON THIS!"

And this differs from what you’re doing in your post how, exactly?

Your post suggests that you think you’re “right” for thinking that truth depends on “determinants” and thinking that “the human race [is] fucking everything up” and thinking that “poor philosophizing [is] going on here,” etc.

In other words, you’re presenting yourself as “right” and everyone else – particularly those who are arguing on here – as “wrong” or at least “confused” (in that they aren’t able to see clearly how their truth judgments [supposedly] depend on their “determinants” and thus they aren’t seeing as clearly as you are, Kyle).

So what’s your point? Either you’re claiming that you’re right and others are wrong – in which case you commit the same supposed “fault” you find in others – or you’re not trying to claim you’re right – in which case, why should anyone care what you have to say?

I want the "for example" that ISN'T hypothetical but PERSONAL! I don't want to see Straw Men set up for a beating-I want to see people putting themselves on the line!

Well, we’ve already had someone sharing the very personal story of having a child taken away from her. That example seemed to generate precious little productive discussion, so I’m not sure what it is that you think these “personal examples” will accomplish, other than entertaining you.

I would love to see some progress made instead of dogs snapping over the meal.

And what does “progress” mean in this context?

If you haven’t noticed, we’re on a messageboard here: people use messageboards to – hold onto your hat – post messages, and these messages usually consist of people responding to messages of other people and indicating where they agree and disagree. If you’re looking for more “progress” than that, you’re looking in the wrong place. If you don’t like it, log off and go do something else.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/03/2012 7:13 am  

My fellow travelers! I see endless squabblings on this thread and others, perspectives pitted against each other, only to be locked in the “same dull round” of the five senses, which Blake compared to those dark, Satanic Mills (linking pointless philosophy and “reasoning” about existence with the instruments of economic enslavement that forced women and children and the under classes into work houses).

All of these squabbles are of the nature of half arguments, perspectives talking past each other because each is half-veiled from itself (since all prophets and their words are true, save they understand little) – but we…we should strive ever to more, and to have all in the clear light – that is, light as in LVX, the clear light in which these opposite perspectives can be combined into one another, and in their union (for is not union Love and Love the law, as long as it be under will?) join together into dissolution.

Indeed, it is only by breaking past our perspectives (“break on through to the other side,” we might say) that we can take the dance of contraries to higher and higher “planes” if you will (“Can we pretend that airplanes in the night sky are like shooting stars?” writes the bard). There, we recognize what Giordano Bruno called the “coincidence of contraries” (which Joyce appropriately puns in Finnegans Wake as “the coincidance of contraries) and dance our way, jazzing it with a two-step (or a two-equals-zero step) to the heights of the tree which is none.

Of course, Kether is attributed to Pluto, the farthest reaches of our solar system: to go beyond Kether…oh, beyond, we soar to trans-plutonic realms, and we must travel there, as Grant points out, in our metaphoric, metaphysical space capsules (for even a rational materialist like Carl Sagan acknowledges the “spaceship of the imagination,” for it is in the imagination that we behold all things, in which all things “live and move and have their being,” as it were, joining together, perspective after perspective, until our one consciousness, expansive and one with all other consciousnesses and – far past Pluto now, into the “Mauve Zone” – truly “Goes where no man has gone before” (for it is Nemo – the true “no man” – who has extinguished self sufficiently to truly GO, the ankh being a sandal strap).

There, beyond our petty solar system, we open ourselves up to trans-Plutonian, Sirian influences, and abide in a realm beyond our normal mental processes, where avenues for activity are opened up, and our consciousness is continually refreshed and nourished by the energy field out of which we each arise (where each “each” is a “not”). And there is the paradox: for the nourishing of each is a nourishing of not, the building up of our individual universes (and growth and “progress” toward joining with all other forms of consciousness) is a step toward the dissolution, the transpersonal consciousness – out of which the individual emerges – that comes to knock us down.

Once that happens, the floodgates are open (we’ll be…”rocked like a hurricane”…”and the walls came tumbling down”) and the walls between individual consciousness, subconsciousness, and transpersonal consciousness will tumble: there, in that state, is the wordless wonder. There, we are outside the circles of time (eternity cannot be counted on a clock, as Blake tells us, and – “Eternity is in love with the productions of time”).

That, that my friends, is the wordless aeon, the non-verbal wonder of escaping clock-time and burning through the limited perspectives, the perspectives that hold us squabbling with our faulty and half-formed perceptions of “truth.”


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/03/2012 7:14 am  

Ahem.

"In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic." -- Homer Simpson


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/03/2012 7:57 am  

I would like to withdraw my comment that U.G. made the mistake of sacrificing his individuality.  I see now that it was impossible for him to do so, no matter what he believed was happening to him or how that belief affected him.

Az claims U.G. to be an  Ipsissimus.  He must know what an Ipsissimus is.  I confess that although I used to think I knew what the higher grades were all about when I was younger (don't we all? 😉 ), these days I am not so hasty in making assumptions about those grades based solely on the cosmological universe of eastern mystercism or western qabalah, Thelema, Magick, or even the conclusions I have previously drawn from my own personal experiences. 

When I was 24, I was satisfied that when the Kundalini rose and I left my body to unite with the universe, that this was indeed what had happened and that I had achieved the first enlightenment.  It was a powerful experience and it changed me fundamentally.  Everything that had gone before was reassessed and all of my life experience as rewritten to include the extra perspective of *this* experience.  My brain engaged in some extreme remodelling with that at the center of everything else.  I have described it as being like a singularity and all else was written around it, like an onion.  But it would be more accurate to say that my consciousness underwent a paradigm shift.  My personality was altered as the system rebooted but my personality still remained.  Shortly after, I appeared to be quite mad to others.  I didn't care - and I doubt I could have been otherwise.  I looked around at people that were miserable, stressed and angry, and thought to myself - I wish everyone else could have this experience.  There would be no war and no sorrow in the world if only I could just... 'wake them up!'  But as the afterglow was fading I had an argument with my lover about something I don't now recall, and I realised that my personality had not been erased by the experience.  Clearly I was not the Buddha, or even a good Zen Buddhist.  I could not maintain that inner glow all the time and sometimes I forgot the universe was pure joy and thus lost my connection to - what I thought at the time was Nirvana - although later I called it Tiphareth.  That gave me the motivation to continue on with the work - and the goal was to get rid of my personality as it was apparently to blame for my lack of serenity, as well engage in practises that were designed to bring me back to the conscious awareness of Tiphareth echoing into my daily life.  16 years later, and it all seems funny to me now.

In subsequent years, if I were challenged on the validity of my assertion that I'd 'united with the universe' then I'd assume that if the person making the challenge had also underwent the experience then they wouldn't doubt it, and so I'd real out a Zen Koan or two and offer a bit of motivation.  Adepti can be pompous assholes and I was certainly no exception.  Crowley's star sponge vision tends to tease out the hubris though.  It affords an alternative social model:  In this model - I had united with my microcosm, my 'star', and there were lots of people out there doing the same thing.  Its a great escape value for delusions of grandeur to realign your ego towards co-operation with your star spangled species, whether they as individuals realised they were star spangled or not.  Going back to enlightenment again - Buddhists schools in the past adopted complementary views to enlightenment:  that enlightenment was something that you had to work towards attaining, and that everyone was enlightened, only not everyone knew it (yet).   

Just from this small extract of my personal experience, you can see that my cosmological models have been constantly changing.  However notice that - in questioning whether I had really 'united with the universe' I hadn't altered the original model - I'd just added something additional to it.  A refinement.  In actual fact however, this is dodging the issue.  Perhaps we all 'unite with the universe' during that experience?  And even if that were true, don't we all 'unite with the universe' in everything we do in any case?  None of the models I've ever come across that are built only on that experience and the philosophical Q and A. that arises from that it is any good at addressing some peculiarities of the experience.  For instance (and in the interests of truth):

The sensation of one's thoughts having 'stopped'.
The initial overwhelming ecstasy that resolves into perfect contentment.
The feeling of being golden and expanding energy.
The visual sensation of pure and energetic light. 
The sensation that time has stopped even while movement continues.

My current interest in physics is because some of the predictions it makes of quantum states going down to the planck scale and the role of consciousness, can offer a model that accounts for the features people experience in advanced meditative states.  I doubt it will ever be a perfect model, and I question whether such a thing exists, but I do expect that it will have it's uses towards getting on with the work. 

I also suggest that such models may be a balancing factor and capable of assisting the individual away from egoistic attachments to models that present an immature self image.  Such as the (no doubt fleeting) belief that "one's sense of individuality creates spacetime".  😉 

   

 

 


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1842
11/03/2012 10:04 am  

And this differs from what you’re doing in your post how, exactly?

Your post suggests that you think you’re “right” for thinking that truth depends on “determinants” and thinking that “the human race [is] fucking everything up” and thinking that “poor philosophizing [is] going on here,” etc.

I don’t think I’m “right” at all. I’m giving expression to my perspective. My perspective is that Wittgenstein’s observation is poignant and relevant. Do you disagree? 

In other words, you’re presenting yourself as “right” and everyone else – particularly those who are arguing on here – as “wrong” or at least “confused” (in that they aren’t able to see clearly how their truth judgments [supposedly] depend on their “determinants” and thus they aren’t seeing as clearly as you are, Kyle).

Kidneyhawk was simply commenting on how the sundry statements beings made in this laborious thread were relative to their determinants-and these determinants are not necessarily shared. 

So what’s your point? Either you’re claiming that you’re right and others are wrong – in which case you commit the same supposed “fault” you find in others – or you’re not trying to claim you’re right – in which case, why should anyone care what you have to say?

You seem addicted to the word “claim,” Los. I would suggest removing it from your vocabulary-and slicing your arm every time you use it. Expressing a perspective is not a “claim.”

Also, consider WHY we “express perspectives.” It’s not always about making a “claim.” And for the record, I have yet to see YOU making ANY claim that is substantiated. Your questioning is always a welcome challenge but I seriously have found nothing in your words that has demonstrated insight. I don’t write this to be disrespectful. Clearly you are an intelligent and educated human being. Despite this, I don’t see any breakthrough beyond Kindergarten. Your comments here are wobbly, wavering between addressing the subject and attacking straw men you set up as a comfortable parody. In the end, you seem to say that we’re some cosmic burp with “brains doing what brains do.” This notion of “True Will” doesn’t really matter. Do it. Don’t do it. You die anyway and that’s all she wrote.

By your logic, Los, there is no value to Doing One’s Will or not. A life immersed in “fancy pictures” (and Unicorns) is no more significant than that of a “Master of the Temple.” Both end in the same rot-hole. Please tell me if you think this is not the case.

As for myself, I found Dar’s comments on the hexagonal nature of microtubules to be of great interest. It has little to do with this thread but relates to my own occult explorations. As for yourself, I see nothing in your words but an attempt to be “right” by disproving what is “wrong.” 

Have fun with your life, “Los.” Keep doing what “brains do.” Shortly the waves will cease and you’ll be in the same soup as Kidneyhawk and all the others you found beneath your superior logic.

My comment?

What a shitty philosophy.

93, just the same.

Kidneyhawk-Kyle 


ReplyQuote
Page 5 / 7
Share: