The following text is is copied from the old servers
-------------------------------------------------------
Message by Sapius
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 22 Mar 2008 03:13 pm
Leyla Shen wrote:
Sapius wrote:
However; how about all that you did yesterday, or will do today and tomorrow, is not dependent on my consciousness. In that sense, your consciousness itself is independent of my consciousness.
But you (and others) are necessarily positing consciousness as a product of ego, rather than the other way around; ego is a product of consciousness.
Selam, Leyla.
I don't know what you exactly mean. At least I don't see any difference between 'consciousness' and 'ego'. For me, 'ego' = the ‘I’ = 'consciousness' (or ‘awareness’ for that matter), which does not require absolutely any reasoned awareness to be what it is, and is not the same as what I discussed with you quite a long time ago - the ‘false-ego’, which involves reasoning (the conclusions do not really matter either way since the “I” (ego) itself does remain in any case), and all that stuff of 'inherently existing', and the likes, including attachments to any thing including ones own thoughts and values, is what I call a ‘false-ego’. It is the attachments one has to let go, the ‘ego’ ( I ) however remains, effectively changing just the perspective of the ‘I’, hence accommodating absolutely all perspectives without any real prejudice; no real anger or anxiety would remain, replacing that with compassion towards All and the Self included, and so on.
BTW, it does not really matter to me how others define the 'ego', but I don't really have to define it any ways, to be exactly what I am.
_________________
---------
-------------------------------------
Message by Nick Treklis
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 22 Mar 2008 03:47 pm
Carl G wrote:
There is a tree, in a box canyon, in Oregon. I do not know this tree, this canyon, I have not been to Oregon, but I know it exists. It is not in my consciousness, but I know Oregon is full of canyons and trees. It exists independent of my consciousness.
No it doesn't exist independent of your consciousness. Even if it is just a vague product of your imagination, it is a vague product of your imagination you are conscious of, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to imagine it in the first place. Ultimately nothing exists independently of anything. The simple fact that we can make a distinction between your consciousness and a tree means they are causually dependent upon eachother for their existence. Your consciousness has limits which don't include the tree, and the tree has limits which don't include your consciousness.
-------------------------------------
Message by Leyla Shen
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 22 Mar 2008 07:53 pm
Aleyküm selam, Sapius:
OK. So, as you define them, self, ego and consciousness are one and the same. Returning, then, to the question that sparked my participation on this thread, anyone who knows Dan and is affected by whatever he did yesterday, might do today and tomorrow, is necessarily dependent on Dan (and vice versa) for the existence of those things that result/ed from his doings yesterday, today and tomorrow. Otherwise, they’d be just like you---nothing he did yesterday, today or tomorrow would exist as things (that is, as particular limitations and boundedness-es, whether temporal or physical or mental); they would only be an idea of possibilities in your mind---and for that, yes, you are dependent on Dan's existence.
10 years from now, thanks to the spacetime continuum, you might yet find yourself subject to something Dan caused 5 years ago (a lot less it its travelling at the speed of light). So, you see, interdependence isn’t necessarily a question of direct sensory effects of a particular, bounded (i.e., limited) consciousness in the top far left corner of spacetime on another particular, bounded consciousness in the bottom right corner of spacetime...
_________________
"Sleepy time, when I lie..."
-------------------------------------
Message by Dan Rowden
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 22 Mar 2008 08:30 pm
You are all but a pigment of my colorful imagination.
-------------------------------------
Message by Carl G
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 12:53 am
Nick Treklis wrote:
Carl G wrote:
There is a tree, in a box canyon, in Oregon. I do not know this tree, this canyon, I have not been to Oregon, but I know it exists. It is not in my consciousness, but I know Oregon is full of canyons and trees. It exists independent of my consciousness.
No it doesn't exist independent of your consciousness. Even if it is just a vague product of your imagination, it is a vague product of your imagination you are conscious of, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to imagine it in the first place.
This has nothing to do with my imagination. There are "products" which exist of which I am completely unaware and do not imagine.
Ultimately nothing exists independently of anything.
Ultimately, yes. Duh. In that sense the word 'independent' has no meaning. Neither does the word 'my', as in 'my consciousness.' But as long as we are speaking of things, there are obviously some of which I am unaware, thus exist independent of my consciousness, meaning, they are not included in my awareness.
The simple fact that we can make a distinction between your consciousness and a tree means they are causually dependent upon eachother for their existence.
I wasn't speaking of causal connection. Obviously everything is connected. Apparently we aren't defining 'consciousness' the same way.
Your consciousness has limits which don't include the tree, and the tree has limits which don't include your consciousness.
Right. Exactly my point. Thus it is fair to say one exists independent of the other, in terms of awareness (though not in terms of ultimate connection, obviously).
_________________
Carl
-------------------------------------
Message by Nick Treklis
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 02:05 am
Carl G wrote:
Nick Treklis wrote:
Carl G wrote:
There is a tree, in a box canyon, in Oregon. I do not know this tree, this canyon, I have not been to Oregon, but I know it exists. It is not in my consciousness, but I know Oregon is full of canyons and trees. It exists independent of my consciousness.
No it doesn't exist independent of your consciousness. Even if it is just a vague product of your imagination, it is a vague product of your imagination you are conscious of, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to imagine it in the first place.
This has nothing to do with my imagination. There are "products" which exist of which I am completely unaware and do not imagine.
Ultimately this is just a guess on our part, but even if we assume it to be true, and reasonably so, you are still conscious of the idea that there is a group of things that you have not yet perceived or imagined. So these things, although not imagined or perceived directly, are still in the realm of your consciousness. We can call this group of things the unimaginable or imperceivable.
------------------------
Message by Carl G
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 03:22 am
Yup, all things are connected. Ultimately all 'things' are one.
I'm still thinking we have a difference in definition of 'consciousness,' and, ultimately, I don't think that's worth arguing.
_________________
Carl
-------------------------------------
Message by Beingof1
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 04:10 am
David Quinn:
Being:
Where did the totality come from? Another totality? If all universes are contained by the totality of all things where did this ultimate reality come from?
Saying there is no God - explains nothing.
David:
Saying there is a God also explains nothing.
In truth, there is nothing to explain. The Totality, by its very nature, cannot come from anywhere. If you think it can, then you misunderstand the Totality.
I could say the same thing:
In truth, there is nothing to explain. God, by its very nature, cannot come from anywhere. If you think it can, then you misunderstand God.
This is the very point I was making. If we begin with what is a concept that we imagine is outside of our consciousness, we will end up in contradiction.
Being:
Each thing possesses a power to become what its form has set as its end. There is, in all things, a dynamic striving for its end result including the universe. Such is the nature and essence of the universe.The difference layed between potential and actual. The difference between seed and plant, man and boy, and girl and woman.
David:
On the contrary, nothing possesses the power to determine its future form. Take a seed, place it on a dish inside a vacuum, and then observe for eternity its inability to turn into a plant.
You just made my point with a very good example. The seed has the 'potential' to become a plant. You just merely robbed it of its necessary causes. If you toss the seed back into the earth, we will quickly see the potential remained.
The seed is not stripped of its potential by isolation, it is still an actual seed. The plant however, is not actual.
You must have an actual seed to have an actual plant. You cannot have a potential plant without an actual seed.
Being:
If the universe is actual that has emerged from potential, there could be no movement forming actual if there was not a neccessary actual from whence it came. A string of dominoes, that only has the potential to move if there is another domino moving.
Nothing can be transformed from a state of potential by something that is also potential. It must be actual. You cannot have an effect greater than the cause. The cause must be equal to or greater than the effect.
David:
None of this is relevant. Even if a potential state for what we call the "universe" had once existed, it would still have been part of the Totality.
This mysterious "Totality" that you speak of seems to retreat into mysticism when examined.
I can directly point to my Totality - examine it, describe it, experience it, and answer all questions by what is self evident by it. I can also direct you to what is your self evident experience, so you can see it for yourself.
That is truth.
Being:
If you go back into infinity with only potential, you have infinite regress which is not logical, it must be actual. If there is only a potential universe that is in a state of infinite effect, it does not imply with accuracy at all an actual universe.
David:
Since boundaries between things are illusory, the beginninglessness of the Totality doesn't form an infinite regression. Instead, it is an expression of its actual timelessness.
Didn't you say above: " Take a seed, place it on a dish inside a vacuum, and then observe for eternity its inability to turn into a plant"?
You used a set of boundaries to try and make your point - now they evaporate into a mystical omni "Totality". Which is it?
I can answer - its so easy, a child can do it. Once you understand there is nothing outside of consciousness, there is no question that cannot be answered with what is obvious.. Ask me the question, I dare ya. It is the beauty (of which many here will role their eyes) of truly understanding the message of Christ. Not orthodox jibberish, but the actual meaning and paradigm.
Being:
What is actual? My perception and state of consciousness. This is fundamental and the starting point as only perception can and will experience the material. You cannot start with the whole and hope to have any chance of success. You must start with what is true in all possible worlds.
My experience of consciousness.
David:
I can't see that it means anything to say that your experience of consciousness is true in all possible worlds. It would be like saying that the tree outside your window is true in all possible worlds.
Who is it that is observing the tree? Who is it that is examining all possible worlds? What tree in all possible worlds?
If you prefer; what is it that is examining all possible worlds?
No matter where you go - there you are. You cannot make youself go away, no matter how hard you try. You keep trying to take yourself out of the equation and it leads to contradiction on top of unresolved angst.
Being:
Therefore; consciousness is the actual -> potential -> actual universe. Perfect balance of equal actuality and therefore consistent. Reality maintains its consistence when we begin with what we know is conscious. If we begin with what we know is not conscious, we skew our perception. It is our perception that we begin with at all times, why not start there instead?
David:
Perception and consciousness are certainly very important, but there are other things to consider as well, such as reflections on the nature of the Whole. If you don't take these other things into consideration, if you only focus on your own consciousness, then you run the risk of falling into the insane view that the entire universe exists inside your own consciousness.
What is this universe that exists outside? Could you point to the clear line of demarkation between your consciousness and the universe? This way, we can all see the obvious insanity of attempting to experience reality.
What is insane is attempting to look at the 'whole and universe' from a third person perspective.
You can do this if you pretend you are not yourself. If you cannot be what you are, you can imagine yourself being someone else. You can even imagine yourself being in another universe. You can imagine the whole, being someone else, and pretend the whole exists as something apart from your consciousness.
Only in this way, can you claim to be somewhere you are not, be someone or something you are not, and a universe that is not here.
This is rational?
What do you get when you crossbreed an elephant with a kangaroo?
Big holes, all over Australia.
David:
At best, it could only ever be a portion of the Totality, which is what makes it a "thing" - i.e. it has boundaries, a beginning/end, and can be distinguished from other things.
Again, the Totality includes everything, by definition. Nothing is excluded from it, not even Consciousness.
Being:
So you ignore the very thing you are examining the totality with to come to this conclusion?
Please tell us, what is the boundry and the beginning and end of your consciousness? Do you recall a time you were not?
David:
Yes, everything before 1964.
The beginning and end of my consciousness occurs at the limits of my perception at any given moment. In this case, the limit stretches back to 1964 and extends no further.
I asked if you could recall a time you were not. You can recall your birth then? You can recall a date in time that limits your perception?
Please describe the moment you first became aware. This will be a breakthrough for all of mankind that has never before been realized.
The student and the teacher:
"Master, how many lives have you lived"?
"As many times as I have been born."
"How many times have you been born"?
"I cannot remember."
Being:
Do you remember beginning? Has anyone, ever, in the history of mankind witnessed the beginning of consciousness?
David:
No one really knows when World War 2 started, but that doesn't mean it didn't arise. It is very difficult to track down the beginning of anything that arises, let alone consciousness.
It is not difficult, it is impossible.
Any process has no beginning and no end, do the math.
Being:
Distinguish your consciousness from something else for us so we all have a clear example.
David:
My consciousness isn't your consciousness. Nor is it a rock's consciousness.
Where do I exist then? How do you know I am here? Where is this rock?
If I am outside of your consciousness, are you aware of my existence? Can you tell us how my consciousness is not in your field of awareness?
Being:
If you are experiencing only "one" universe and "one" reality, that by definition, logic, observation, and experience is the singularity of the universe of itself and excludes your "one" from being a subset of the universe.
In other words; your reality is not a subset of the universe - it is the experience of the universe itself.
David:
It is certainly my experience of the universe, but I don't presume to think that when I die and my consciousness becomes extinguished that the entire universe will cease to be.
Can you tell us what happens when you die? This way, we can all know of certitude, what the experience was like for you.
For your own sake, you better pray that I stay in good health!
I have and will continue to do so. I have spent some time in meditation for every single person I have spoke with at this forum. As I have told you before, regardless our discussions, I believe you are a blessing to this world and consider you a kindred spirit.
It is why I take the time to talk with you - I do think you push away truth to preserve the image of a sage. I believe you are wise and pure in your intent as you are willing to push yourself beyond mediocrity and have my respect for this journey.
I mean this in no way as a dis as most in this world have not touched or come close to your understanding. I would say; let all go, including the image you have of yourself as a sage.
The understanding comes into full realization that you can only transcend and expand, not be wrong or right. Clarity brings greater understanding than all past sages. Including Gautama, Jesus, and Lao Tzu. If we cannot transcend these past wise sages, we are stuck in mediocrity and a system of beliefs.
Come up hither.
Being:
What is contradictory is the idea that your consciousness is somehow a subset of the universe. Why are you having such a difficult time with something so simple a child understands?
All things are contained within consciousness - this is absolute and cannot be overturned.
David:
While consciousness is a necessary condition for existence, it doesn't mean that all of existence is dependent upon my own individual consciousness. To think it does would be a case of egotism gone mad.
Look at your statement here, think about what you just said.
What is maddening is to be trapped in a physical body. If you lose 5 pounds, are you less of a whole human? Do you experience less of reality by losing weight? Is your consciousness diminished in experience exausting itself with starts and stops by less weight in the body?
Leyla Shen:
But you (and others) are necessarily positing consciousness as a product of ego, rather than the other way around; ego is a product of consciousness.
BINGO - bing friggin oh.
We have a winner folks.
Thank you Leyla
-------------------------------------
Message by Sapius
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 04:21 am
Leyla;
anyone who knows Dan and is affected by whatever he did yesterday, might do today and tomorrow, is necessarily dependent on Dan (and vice versa) for the existence of those things that result/ed from his doings yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Sure… those particular things that are interactively present at any given causal moment of “Dan’s” particular consciousness, but what has that got to do with the times when you go shopping and Dan is taking a bath?
Otherwise, they’d be just like you---nothing he did yesterday, today or tomorrow would exist as things (that is, as particular limitations and boundedness-es, whether temporal or physical or mental); they would only be an idea of possibilities in your mind---and for that, yes, you are dependent on Dan's existence.
It doesn’t matter to me what exists for Dan when I am not around, and vice versa. All I know for sure is that Dan has no idea of WHAT I ate for breakfast, eggs or pizza, or did I eat breakfast at all. Either eggs or pizza that I eat depend on MY consciousness, not Dan’s. As far as his particular daily activities go, whatever particular thing he does is not dependant on my consciousness alone because it never enters MY consciousness unless I am aware of it, and vice versa.
How logical is it to say that the egg that Dan ate yesterday was dependant on my consciousness when I am not even aware if he did eat at all? For all I know, he MIGHT (which is a calculated guess) eat a single mean a day, for I’m told (again I’m not too sure about it) that he does not have much regular income, and yet, I’m not aware of what exactly he eats or drinks, so the kind of burger (may be a Barramundi fillet burger) or the beer he enjoys is not dependant on MY consciousness, and that is the point.
10 years from now, thanks to the spacetime continuum, you might yet find yourself subject to something Dan caused 5 years ago (a lot less it its travelling at the speed of light). So, you see, interdependence isn’t necessarily a question of direct sensory effects of a particular, bounded (i.e., limited) consciousness in the top far left corner of spacetime on another particular, bounded consciousness in the bottom right corner of spacetime...
You mean billiard ball type causality? I think you are mixing two different views, philosophical and scientific, which could be related but not one and the same thing.
Why do you stop at Dan then? You see, what I do may be subject to what Dan caused 10 years ago, and that further depends on what David caused 12 years ago, what Kevin caused 15 years ago, what Carl… what Gandhi… what Hitler… what Bozo… result, infinite regress of a billiard ball causality. When talking of the All, as in causal connections, then in that sense absolutely all things are interdependent, but then too, not in a linear sense, but in an abstractly instantaneous sense which is not actually bound by linear time, so whatever any particular consciousness is aware of, totally depends on what that particular consciousness is aware of in and off any particular causal moment; so since I am not aware of what Dan had for breakfast yesterday, nor am I aware of his daily activities, they are not dependant on my particular consciousness, but that does not mean his eggs did not exist at all, FOR HIM, and I KNOW that if he did indeed eat eggs, then they must have interdependently existed for him, irrelevant of my consciousness not being aware of his eggs at that instant.
For a further example... I was not aware that Dan was myopic...
Dan: You are all but a pigment of my colorful imagination.
Now I know, so is his condition now dependant on my consciousness? ;-D
-------------------------------------
Message by Sapius
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 04:39 am
BO1 to David;
Can you tell us what happens when you die? This way, we can all know of certitude, what the experience was like for you.
My memory of individual consciousnesses is not that great, but was it you who had an out of body, near death experience? Or was it someone else? I know Michael (Mikiel sp?) is one.
_________________
---------
-------------------------------------
Message by brokenhead
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 04:55 am
Sapius wrote:
You mean billiard ball type causality? I think you are mixing two different views, philosophical and scientific, which could be related but not one and the same thing.
This is precisely the problem with philosophy, IMO. It's a little too slick on this point. Can we agree that the scientific causality is a special case of the philosophical notion? That the latter includes the former? I'm saying this because it is fruitful to be more rigorous with this idea. It is not at all clear that any two events or things are causally connected, despite WOTI. I think this idea is a severe philosophical flaw. It would mean the scientific method is never logically valid. I think that researchers - the good ones - take into account the limits of precision in any given scientific experiment via the error matrix. which is a mathematical device for keeping track of all the unknown things that necessarily creep into a physical experiment in which things are measured. Scientists therefore make statements such as "A is observed to be true to one part in ten thousand."
What I am getting at here is trying to define things better.
Why do you stop at Dan then?
Exactly. Let's not. Let's not assume anyone's consciousness must be causally related to anyone else's. Shorn of this assumption, my question stands: is it possible for a thing to exist that is not dependent on anyone's consciousness?
-------------------------------------
Message by Sapius
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 05:39 am
BH;
Going back to one of your posts… in my experience…
is there anything independent of any (particular) consciousness?
Yes. Otherwise, we can through out logic and reasoning, along with any and all abstract rational conclusions we arrive at.
Can or does there exist a thing that is independent of any consciousness whatsoever?
No, but I would rather say ‘awareness’ since I can logically deduce a cow awareness, (unless you call that ‘cow consciousness’), and it works just as well for a cow that is “rationally” conscious of its environment and hence is able to coherently react accordingly, although it may have limitations as far as abstract rationality is concerned.
_________________
---------
-------------------------------------
Message by Leyla Shen
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 09:33 am
Sapius:
Well, if you want it expressed succinctly in lateral terms: “your consciousness” is dependent on the limitations that separate it from “other consciousness-es.” Otherwise, you’d be omniscient.
I’m not fixed on thinking in linear or lateral terms, personally. Not knowing what Dan had for breakfast, if anything, is merely one such limitation, in an abstractly instantaneous way.
And, by the way, I don’t stop at Dan. He is but a mere rhetorical device to me as I am a shade of pink to him (nice pun, by the way, Dan).
Also, thanks to the genius who invented cordless phones, Dan telephoned me from his bathtub and asked for a rubber duck, which is why I went shopping.
brokenhead wrote:
Exactly. Let's not. Let's not assume anyone's consciousness must be causally related to anyone else's. Shorn of this assumption, my question stands: is it possible for a thing to exist that is not dependent on anyone's consciousness?
Is it possible for a thing to exist without form?
A blind man and a not blind man walking in a field. Not blind man sees tree (form) and walks around it--the tree exists. Blind man doesn’t see tree and so walks into it, hurting himself (form)--the tree exists. Do their respective descriptions of the form of this thing determine its existence, or does its appearance in their consciousness?
Earthquake happens in US; people hurt, buildings damaged. I hear about it on the news in Australia. If an earthquake happened and there were no people hurt and buildings damaged and other effects in and across the world, what is an earthquake? What meaning does it have?
_________________
"Sleepy time, when I lie..."
-------------------------------------
Message by Shahrazad
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 11:41 am
Also, thanks to the genius who invented cordless phones, Dan telephoned me from his bathtub and asked for a rubber duck, which is why I went shopping.
What happened to Dan's old rubber ducky?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
-------------------------------------
Message by brokenhead
Post subject: Re: Toward an AntidotePosted: 23 Mar 2008 05:43 pm
Sapius wrote:
Can or does there exist a thing that is independent of any consciousness whatsoever
No, but I would rather say ‘awareness’ since I can logically deduce a cow awareness, (unless you call that ‘cow consciousness’), and it works just as well for a cow that is “rationally” conscious of its environment and hence is able to coherently react accordingly, although it may have limitations as far as abstract rationality is concerned.?
Why muddy the waters, Sapius? Let's forget the cow for a minute and concentrate on the term "consciousness." Same question: Is it possible for a thing to exist independent of consciousness?
-------------------------------------