The nature of consciousness

[Pam Seeback]

Russell, jupiviv, Beingof1, in trying to define consciousness you are breaking the cardinal rule of wisdom of the infinite which is that there is no objective or absolute reality. The moment you cherry-pick a concept such as consciousness, turn it into an object for your subjective interpretation, the truth of emptiness and impermanence is forgotten and worlds of subjective attachment arise, ergo the 'battle' for right view of consciousness.

The one way to keep oneself in check (and its not an easy task!) is to be mindful of when one is focusing on a word (an object) exclusive of all words (objects)

more BS.

Obviously you believe you know why what I said is BS. Telling me it's BS without sharing the why is useless to me and to anyone else. In the future, if you cannot share the why, do not bother responding to my posts.

[Russell Parr]

Do you still believe that things exist regardless if consciousness is aware of it?

Yes, since consciousness is by definition unaware of countless things at any given moment. You have said as much in this thread itself, so what's the problem?

Let me rephrase that, does the existence of things require consciousness? As in some awareness of any sort.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

why what I said is BS.

Because you write things like this: "is useless to me".

less you're joking around?

[jupiviv]

Do you still believe that things exist regardless if consciousness is aware of it?

Yes, since consciousness is by definition unaware of countless things at any given moment. You have said as much in this thread itself, so what's the problem?

Let me rephrase that, does the existence of things require consciousness? As in some awareness of any sort.

This questions means either a) is awareness qua awareness a specific cause that necessarily causes the existence of a finite thing? b) is an awareness of any sort, at any point of time, the cause of other finite things *regardless* of whether it is aware of them?

To a) I would answer in the negative, and to b) in the positive.

P.S. @ Seeker: since you think things are constantly impermanent appearances that appear, it might be time for you to appear to be the appearance of a functional adult instead of - apparently - an 8 year old girl throwing a passive-aggressive tantrum.

[Russell Parr]

Russell, jupiviv, Beingof1, in trying to define consciousness you are breaking the cardinal rule of wisdom of the infinite which is that there is no objective or absolute reality. The moment you cherry-pick a concept such as consciousness, turn it into an object for your subjective interpretation, the truth of emptiness and impermanence is forgotten and worlds of subjective attachment arise, ergo the 'battle' for right view of consciousness.

The one way to keep oneself in check (and its not an easy task!) is to be mindful of when one is focusing on a word (an object) exclusive of all words (objects).

This appears to be an offering of your subjective interpretation to the object of our discussion. Are you keeping yourself in check within this response? If so, how certain are you that none of us are?

[Russell Parr]

b) is an awareness of any sort, at any point of time, the cause of other finite things *regardless* of whether it is aware of them?

I see you trying to wiggle out of this. You're basically saying you can be aware of something without being aware of it.

Can you admit when you're wrong? Don't let pride, or your disdain for others, get the best of you.

[Pam Seeback]

why what I said is BS.

Because you write things like this: "is useless to me".

less you're joking around?

This is not telling me why.

[Russell Parr]

Being, I think I'll just reiterate a point I made before.

What you call consciousness, I see as simply the Totality, or the All. What the "infinite membrane" is to you, is infinite causality to me.

The error that I see in your labelings is that you are giving Ultimate Reality a definitive form. This violates the first rule of the knowledge of the Tao, that being, the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. If you were to say that your labelings are merely metaphors or illustrations of what reality is, I could go for that. But this just isn't so, is it?

What it comes down to is a desire to project your physical likeness unto the whole of Reality. It really isn't much different than the Christian concept of God. They say God created man in his image, but we all know that far more often than not, it's the other way around. You may have a better understanding of reality than the average fundamentalist, but your adherence to these labels keep you from relinquishing your ego.

God has no image. He cannot be fathomed or labeled, and all such attempts are done so in vain.

[Beingof1]

OK - I am done being 'nice'. I am dealing with slowpokes and I feel like I am doing sign language to monkeys.

I have two points - and only two points, can you handle that?

Its only two now do try to focus.

1) You cannot overturn or argue logically unless you understand what it is you are arguing against. It is not you that is proposing this theory -it is I.

You do not completely redefine the theory - that is my job - you argue against it.

I certainly hope that penetrated.

2) Looking for consciousness in the brain is like looking for the radio announcer in the radio. Consciousness is an electromagnetic wave function ie. the photon in conversion to particles.

Now - do try to understand what it is you are arguing against.

Thank you - this has been a public service announcement

[Beingof1]

Russell, jupiviv, Beingof1, in trying to define consciousness you are breaking the cardinal rule of wisdom of the infinite which is that there is no objective or absolute reality. The moment you cherry-pick a concept such as consciousness, turn it into an object for your subjective interpretation, the truth of emptiness and impermanence is forgotten and worlds of subjective attachment arise, ergo the 'battle' for right view of consciousness.

The one way to keep oneself in check (and its not an easy task!) is to be mindful of when one is focusing on a word (an object) exclusive of all words (objects).

I already do this -I always do this - I have been trying to show this in my entire discussion in this thread - I have made this point several times - as in over and over.

I taught you this - but you will never admit that.

[Beingof1]

Being, I think I'll just reiterate a point I made before.

What you call consciousness, I see as simply the Totality, or the All. What the "infinite membrane" is to you, is infinite causality to me.

Maybe we can work something out.

The error that I see in your labelings is that you are giving Ultimate Reality a definitive form. This violates the first rule of the knowledge of the Tao, that being, the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.

Then why did you say Tao?

We should stone you for breaking the first rule of knowledge.

If you were to say that your labelings are merely metaphors or illustrations of what reality is, I could go for that. But this just isn't so, is it?

Consciousness is really real.

What it comes down to is a desire to project your physical likeness unto the whole of Reality. It really isn't much different than the Christian concept of God. They say God created man in his image, but we all know that far more often than not, it's the other way around. You may have a better understanding of reality than the average fundamentalist, but your adherence to these labels keep you from relinquishing your ego.

All I see is other than one time - you avoiding, changing the dialogue and attributing logic to fantasy rather than addressing the points.

The summation of your argument on most points - "Cause and effect did it." - sincerely Russell

God has no image. He cannot be fathomed or labeled, and all such attempts are done so in vain.

I know that - you honestly - really and truly - do not think I get that?

I am really dealing with wanna be types.

[Pam Seeback]

Russell, jupiviv, Beingof1, in trying to define consciousness you are breaking the cardinal rule of wisdom of the infinite which is that there is no objective or absolute reality. The moment you cherry-pick a concept such as consciousness, turn it into an object for your subjective interpretation, the truth of emptiness and impermanence is forgotten and worlds of subjective attachment arise, ergo the 'battle' for right view of consciousness.

The one way to keep oneself in check (and its not an easy task!) is to be mindful of when one is focusing on a word (an object) exclusive of all words (objects).

I already do this -I always do this - I have been trying to show this in my entire discussion in this thread - I have made this point several times - as in over and over.

I taught you this - but you will never admit that.

From this thread:

Beingof1: Let me think here; consciousness designed your brain, body and central nervous system of which is at the bare minimum 10,000 more times complex than a space shuttle - which you could not hope to design - but you are absolutely positive - I am the one not getting it?

You do not know consciousness designs the brain, you do not know what designs the brain, no one knows what designs the brain. You believe you know. This is a perfect example of objectifying a concept (object) and building a subjective world around this object, leading one to mistakenly identify their self-knowledge as truth.

Given that my previous subjective-objective view of consciousness is in no way related to your current subjective-objective view of consciousness, it is not logical to assume that you taught me anything about consciousness. Look at how you worded your ego/self-declaration about being my teacher - as an absolute truth - to the point where you set me up to be viewed as a liar - "I taught you this - but you will never admit that."

Beingof1: Consciousness is really real.

The only definitions that have any value on the road to wisdom of the infinite are those that point out that metaphysical concepts such as consciousness have no objective or absolute status whatsoever. Trying then, to define their nature (what they do or don't do) is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

[Beingof1]

Movingalways:

You do not know consciousness designs the brain, you do not know what designs the brain, no one knows what designs the brain.

I really and truly do know - without a doubt with not a bit of wriggle room but you do not know so you believe no one else can.

So - in order for you to be in the know - you will have to drop the belief that you can never know, don`t ya know.

In fact - I can prove - with no wiggle room for doubt one iota that consciousness designed reality itself and I can do that by only what is self evident.

I only add science for clarity, assistance and analogies.

You believe you know. This is a perfect example of objectifying a concept (object) and building a subjective world around this object, leading one to mistakenly identify their self-knowledge as truth.

Nope - this is a perfect example of you not knowing who and what you are.

That is called illumination.

Given that my previous subjective-objective view of consciousness is in no way related to your current subjective-objective view of consciousness, it is not logical to assume that you taught me anything about consciousness. Look at how you worded your ego/self-declaration about being my teacher - as an absolute truth - to the point where you set me up to be viewed as a liar - "I taught you this - but you will never admit that."

Uh huh - you should look at how you countered - everything you accused me of - you are doing.

Like I said - you wont admit it until you see clearly who and what you are.

The only definitions that have any value on the road to wisdom of the infinite are those that point out that metaphysical concepts such as consciousness have no objective or absolute status whatsoever. Trying then, to define their nature (what they do or don't do) is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

I have only done this through the entire thread but you are all hung up on terminology.

Consciousness is not a concept - call it life force - call it Spirit - call it universal awareness - call it the Tao - call it God or call it what and who you are.

You - like everyone else are again accusing me of what you are doing.

All hung up on the 'words' and who taught who.

[Russell Parr]

To me it seems that the order goes something like this: gustav/rod/being>jupiviv> Russell >diebert>moving.

My turn.

Looking in at the GF neighborhood swimming pool, we see an variety of different characters.

Outside the fence looking in is Beingof1, trying to persuade everyone to go with him to the pool down the street.
Gustav is the emo kid, who sticks his toes in the waters and immediately withdraws, complaining about the water temperature or the chlorine levels.
Seeker is the youngling wading around in the shallow area, pretending he's in the deep end because he toes barely brushes the bottom.
Jupiviv is the teenager trying to get into the deep end but can't quite figure out how to get around the child barrier.
Moving is resting calmly at the bottom of the deep end, seeing how long she can hold her breath.
Diebert is also at the deep end, ascending and descending, splashing water at others.

[jupiviv]

b) is an awareness of any sort, at any point of time, the cause of other finite things *regardless* of whether it is aware of them?

I see you trying to wiggle out of this. You're basically saying you can be aware of something without being aware of it.

We can be aware of the things of which we are unaware as a *category*. This category is a mental construction which is by definition not identical to the things it refers to.

Can you admit when you're wrong? Don't let pride, or your disdain for others, get the best of you.

And yet you're the one pulling the age card.

[Russell Parr]

We can be aware of the things of which we are unaware as a *category*. This category is a mental construction which is by definition not identical to the things it refers to.

What is a thing but a categorization?

And yet you're the one pulling the age card.

Oh, just having a little fun. You know, working on that sense of humor :)

[jupiviv]

We can be aware of the things of which we are unaware as a *category*. This category is a mental construction which is by definition not identical to the things it refers to.

What is a thing but a categorization?

What is a categorisation but a thing?

And yet you're the one pulling the age card.

Oh, just having a little fun. You know, working on that sense of humor :)

Sure gramps!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What is a thing but a categorization?

What is a categorisation but a thing?

But things means also way more things like: "object or entity that is not or cannot be named specifically".

Although there are more definitions, it most of all means that "thing" is almost by definition uncategorised and unspecific. But a category is nearly the opposite of that in terms of the function of the word. Your first need things before you can organize those into composite things.

While it is trivially true that a category is a "thing" and it's also true that to have a thing, there's already a category of not having "nothing", I do think I object to both of you, Russel and Jup, when it comes to these categories. A thing is a finite referent to the infinite of causality. But how to refer to something which isn't a thing? Where does the arrow point to?

[jupiviv]

What is a thing but a categorization?

What is a categorisation but a thing?

But things means also way more things like: "object or entity that is not or cannot be named specifically".

Hence the general category of those things.

Although there are more definitions, it most of all means that "thing" is almost by definition uncategorised and unspecific. But a category is nearly the opposite of that in terms of the function of the word. Your first need things before you can organize those into composite things.

The category is distinct from the category of known things. Nor is it a "composite" thing formed of unknown things, if that's your implication.

But how to refer to something which isn't a thing? Where does the arrow point to?

Er...are you asking me how that's done or why I have tried to do that? Well, it can't be done nor have I tried to do it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Although there are more definitions, it most of all means that "thing" is almost by definition uncategorised and unspecific. But a category is nearly the opposite of that in terms of the function of the word. Your first need things before you can organize those into composite things.

The category is distinct from the category of known things. Nor is it a "composite" thing formed of unknown things, if that's your implication.

What I mean is that "thing" is not a category simply because there's no other category of non-things. Because then this new category would still be a thing, falling under the other category again: regression! A category is simple a thing-as-container. Which all identifications are. The object as container for assigned properties. Assigning properties to anything implies creating a container for it. In that sense a thing is nothing but a categorization.

Is a categorization not another thing? No, since such a thing does not exist without just being the categorization. And that would be a meaningless tautology. You still seem to believe "things" exist and are busy justifying "physical things" as some absolute reality, as if the finite would in any way represent the infinite or equal it. But only in some extremely illusionary way it does. It needs to be addressed considering the purpose of the forum.

But how to refer to something which isn't a thing? Where does the arrow point to?

Well, it can't be done nor have I tried to do it.

Obviously you do nothing but. It cannot be any other way.

[Pam Seeback]

Russell: Moving is resting calmly at the bottom of the deep end, seeing how long she can hold her breath.

Heheheh. I can see why you see me in this way, but of course, as we know, no one can hold their breath. Been there, done that. Turning blue and gasping a lot - don't recommend it to anyone, but I suspect it is a common symptom of the death knell of ignorance. Thank god for the coming of wisdom. Wisdom is the breath within the breath. Perhaps you don't find my words to be of wisdom, fair enough; each of us must answer that question for ourselves.

[Pam Seeback]

Beingof1: Consciousness is not a concept - call it life force - call it Spirit - call it universal awareness - call it the Tao - call it God or call it what and who you are.

You're just proved that consciousness is a concept by interchanging it with six other concepts. Alfred Korzybski: "The map is not the territory."

All hung up on the 'words' and who taught who.

It was you who said you taught me. Clear as a bell.

[Russell Parr]

You still seem to believe "things" exist and are busy justifying "physical things" as some absolute reality, as if the finite would in any way represent the infinite or equal it.

This is all I'm really concerned with. Is the relative being mistaken for the absolute? A part of me thinks that Jup already gets this, deep down, but that we're still stuck in "battle mode." Part of his argument seems to be that of "we cannot escape the relative," and this is true, and some of my language might have seemed to imply otherwise. This I admit. But is the latter argument (we cannot escape the relative) being used to defend the former (relative=absolute)? This would be an error.

[Russell Parr]

Heheheh. I can see why you see me in this way, but of course, as we know, no one can hold their breath. Been there, done that. Turning blue and gasping a lot - don't recommend it to anyone, but I suspect it is a common symptom of the death knell of ignorance. Thank god for the coming of wisdom. Wisdom is the breath within the breath. Perhaps you don't find my words to be of wisdom, fair enough; each of us must answer that question for ourselves.

:) The whole thing was loosely done, not to be taken too seriously. Being in the deep end at all signifies wisdom, btw. Glad you found humor in it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Part of his argument seems to be that of "we cannot escape the relative," and this is true, and some of my language might have seemed to imply otherwise. This I admit. But is the latter argument (we cannot escape the relative) being used to defend the former (relative=absolute)? This would be an error.

In as far one identifies with a relative, imaginary being, the relative can of course not be escaped. It's the most obvious thing there is! It remains truth as long as we see us as part or thing in some ocean full of interrelated parts and things: everything remains absolute and everywhere. For a creature of the ocean, the ocean is everything. As long as the creature forbids itself to conceive of land and sky.

It reminds me of a fraction of a post from member called DEL, which he posted in 2003 at this forum. I actually just came across it as I was not at the forum at the time. It's something I wrote about as well a few times in those very same terms. Posters like him were the reason I signed up at the time, it had nothing to do with the administration although I came to appreciate their work a bit more over the years. However, Del remains raw.

• Truely centered and powerful women just smile at mans attempt to fully comprehend reality. She is reality.
  Truely centered and powerful men just smile at womens attempt to understand spirituality. He is spirituality.