Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Might as well say "The road to hell is paved with candy."

Right, as straight lines are like candy for the uninspired mind.

Iolaus

Diebert:All straight roads lead to hell because once you're upon one, you don't have to think anymore.

Not true. You've got to stay on your toes always.

Uhmm, wasn't I just saying that as well in a roundabout way? Never mind...

[Carl G]

Might as well say "The road to hell is paved with candy."

Right, as straight lines are like candy for the uninspired mind.

No, I was making a point about straight-line paths being no more necessarily bad than is candy. In fact, the most difficult spiritual path is straight, as it demands the most consciousness to keep it that way, in the midst of life's distractions and tangent-inspiring temptations.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In fact, the most difficult spiritual path is straight, as it demands the most consciousness to keep it that way, in the midst of life's distractions and tangent-inspiring temptations.

Sounds more like neurosis to me, the way you put it here. Oh my God, Alex was right all along! :)

Did you ever drive a car? We have roads here that have 'distractions' built in, like useless corners, for no other purpose to keep the driver alert and to avoid sleeping behind the wheel. There's nothing easier than to drive straight! While I get your point about goal orientation and focus, real life doesn't come in straight lines and every time it does, it seems to kill off quite a lot.

[Carl G]

I guess we are speaking of two different situations. In your described situation, one has hit an easy stretch of life, like a straight run of highway in a car, and yes, then there is some propensity to lull to sleep. In mine I describe a spiritual path where like navigating a ship at sea, it is truly work to maintain the efficient straight course amidst the crosswinds and myriad ocean currents.

[elderwoodxxx]

I see many different perceptions surfacing..

The 'straight' path.. is a way of perceiving in order to navigate through those winds or confusion.. One must seek clarity always.. one may reach the destination via many different paths derived with the same way of perceiving awareness. One may then understand the paths are a sea..or rivers that flow to the sea.. once the infinite ocean is the path.. then consciousness may ride above the waves.. free as the wind.. and One with All..

Amandaxxx

[David Quinn]

I agree with you that there is fundamentally nothing to do, that delusion and truth ultimately have no meaning, but it is a matter of whether one of conscious of this or not. If one isn't conscious of it, then one immediately begins to project imaginary qualities onto each experience.

For example, one might project the impression that the sitution before one isn't quite right, that it is lacking, that it needs changing. No doubt, you would respond here by saying that such projection is part of the experience and thus, all told, it is still a perfectly valid appearance.

Yes I would. One little caveat though: I would eventually dispense with the idea that viewing a situation as lacking, is a "projection." Rather, I'd say that such a view was simply reality as it is. "Projection", to me, tends to give the impression that such a view is somehow a false overlay on "real" reality.

What about projection in a more mundane sense?

For example, I once knew a Christian couple who believed there were demons everywhere and could never walk through a doorway without crossing themselves and muttering prayers and incantations. Do you acknowledge the existence of this kind of projection, and the undesirability of engaging in it?

While that is true, if such an appearance causes one to embark on a series of actions which results in a lengthy loss of consciousness of the fundamental truth of "nothing to do", then there is clearly a problem. It is a sign that one has been taken in by that appearance.

When you talk about the fundamental truth of "nothing to do", in what way is there nothing to do? I may in fact agree that there is "nothing to do", but only in a very specific sense. Only in a deeply philosophical sense, in that there is nothing ultimately to search for; because every thing, every moment, is pure undistorted reality as it is.

Yes, that is what I meant.

Like my favourite Zen proverb:
"If you understand: things are just as they are. If you do not understand: things are just as they are."

This is an understanding of the fundamental nature of reality, and I agree that consciousness of this can potentially be lost for various reasons. And because I value this understanding I also agree that it is a problem if consciousness of it is lost.

Good.

However, emotions and desires and ego are not impediments to consciousness of this understanding. I am angry - therefore I understand and know that reality now displays(the appearance) of anger, and so on. This is still pure undistorted reality.

I don't know why you believe egotism and emotion obstruct this understanding. Do you think that every thought a person has should be this one understanding? For me it is only necessary for the understanding to arise when relevant questions or situations arise, such as philosophical questions about reality. If questions like "What is reality?" arise then the understanding should appear to meet them, then eventually such questions will no longer occur.

It is akin to how a physicist will not be thinking about physics whilst he's playing with his dog, but as soon as the right situation occurs, such as his son suddenly asking him a physics homework question, the understandings emerge.

For me, it is a much greater existential issue than this, as it involves a permanent change in perception involving every aspect of one's life. It isn't a compartmentalized, theoretical form of knowledge to be dragged out whenever arcane philosophical questions are raised. It is a life-changing understanding.

Since I know you love analogies, I will talk about dreams. There is a big difference between a person who is lucid dreaming and in full control of his dream environment, and one who is unaware that he is dreaming and thus vulnerable to "night terrors". It would never occur to a lucid dreamer to get angry over anything that occurs in his dreams as he knows that it is all an illusion of his own making. If something does occur to make him angry, it would immediately indicate that he has lost the plot, that he has lost control over his dreaming, that he has lost consciousness of the true situation and suddenly believes his experiences to be more than they really are.

-

[elderwoodxxx]

For me, it is a much greater existential issue than this, as it involves a permanent change in perception involving every aspect of one's life. It isn't a compartmentalized, theoretical form of knowledge to be dragged out whenever arcane philosophical questions are raised. It is a life-changing understanding.

Agreed.. Ones perceptions are changed with new understanding forming a new way of life.

amandaxxx

[Carl G]

When we find ourselves blown hither and thither by the winds of life we have only to remember the path, the path that is we ourselves, flowing like a river to the Ocean of Oneness, the Oneness of All Things, the Oneness which is God. It is our destiny to be this river, it remains only for us to recognize this and to consciously accept it and not resist being it. In this way we align our wills with the will of God, and all will be well.

Carlxxx

[Shahrazad]

Carl, I didn't even know thither was a word. Thanks for increasing my limited vocabulary.

[David Quinn]

<swoon>

[David Quinn]

It makes you wonder how much of the guru industry runs on pure mimicry.

-

[elderwoodxxx]

When we find ourselves blown hither and thither by the winds of life we have only to remember the path, the path that is we ourselves, flowing like a river to the Ocean of Oneness, the Oneness of All Things, the Oneness which is God. It is our destiny to be this river, it remains only for us to recognize this and to consciously accept it and not resist being it. In this way we align our wills with the will of God, and all will be well.

Carlxxx

Hey whats with the xxx.. thats two of you at it now.. you and David ;-).. and whats he 'swooning' at?? lol

Ok.. At first I thought my eyes were deceiving me.. I read the word Oneness.. and God and seeing our will as his will... all in the same paragraph.... Am I finally finding understanding.. here.. All that is in Oneness and unity.. really does mean.. that consciousness is recognising itself in awareness.. of many expressions of the one for we are all one in expression of the may... now does that still sound like a new age.' plabum' or whatever that word was that i have been accused of so many times through a misunderstanding of my words.. remember I am you.. for the same Self dwells in all.. the spirit of truth.. God.. Brahmin..etc etc..

amandaxxx

It makes you wonder how much of the guru industry runs on pure mimicry.

.. who is mimicing who?.. The Self is One so how can it not be itSelf?

[David Quinn]

David,

The "body of God" is just a metaphor, to indicate that all things are a part of God. It doesn't really have a body.

Of course it's a metaphor. Nonetheless, it is still possible that there is a mind or consciousness that pervades the universe, just as there is a mind involved in your own physical and mental person, which is a mini universe of trillions upon trillions of parts and actions. You think there can't be a mind because the universe is too big.

For what reason would there be such a consciousness?

I subscribe to the view that banana is primary, so what do I know?

People of great thought might come up with a few candidates for universal primacy, but a banana wouldn't be considered. We are talking about consciousness, and its necessity or not to bring forth the universe.

To my mind, it is as absurd to posit consciousness as universal and primary as it is to posit a banana as such. It is a case of wanting to stretch a finite phenomenon beyond its own natural limits.

In the end, only one thing is primary and that is Nature itself, which is neither conscious nor unconscious.

There is nothing incomplete or unsatisfying about the discerning of truth. If you think there is, then it means that you have other issues, emotional issues, coming into play.

Of course there is not. I said that your understanding of the truth does not satisfy me, because it does not answer the questions that are important to me, and apparently will not be able ever to do so. While I recognize the limitations of the human mind, I do not see why I must be satisfied to find myself in a situation where existential puzzles cannot be answered. The answers, after all, do exist.

When the problems are artificially manufactured to begin with, and therefore illusory, what satisfaction can there be in finding answers to them? Or worse, despairing when such answers can't be found?

Life is too short to be chasing phantoms all the time. One of the great joys of becoming wise is freedom from non-existent problems.

The cosmologists who claim such things are being disingenuous. There is no logical necessity for there to be nothing before the Big Bang, even within their own models. For example, there is nothing within their models to dismiss the possibility of other universes, and other big bangs, occurring both before and after ours.

Yes, that is quite true, so true I don't know why anyone takes it seriously.
Unfortunately, the following struck me as quite similar, albeit arrived at with more rigor. Nonetheless, I find it inconsistent, logically, to say that consciousness and forms must appear together, that forms are an appearance to consciousness, and to limit consciousness to human brain type consciousness. It has boxed you into the below corner:

"Asking what existed before consciousness arose is ultimately meaningless because we have no way of resolving the matter. Even the term "before consciousness" is problematical because words such as "before" only apply meaningfully to events within consciousness. To even begin to construct some sort of picture of what lies beyond consciousness immediately plunges us into serious distortion and error. The tools of consciousness simply aren't up to the task."

I don't experience any sense of being boxed in. Truth is truth, no matter what its form, and it is always a liberating experience to uncover it. Apart from anything else, it liberates one from being boxed in by illusory needs.

You're psyching yourself out of accepting that consciousness is a product of brain-processes by dismissing the brain as a piece of meat. There is a little bit more to the brain than just being a piece of steak.

I'm pointing in the direction of understanding that our upper reality here, the one we humans perceive through our senses, is built up upon layers much more subtle. This is the direction of new discovery, both mainstream and nonmainstream. We could say that we entered a new layer of reality with the microscope and such. And, I think, we are soon or are already on the cusp of getting at the next smaller layer. It's really interesting down there.
Consciousness need not be confined to the outer heaviest, layer.

Nor bananas. Don't forget them!

As for the complexity of the brain, I'm aware of it. I've got a whole book about it. It is truly amazing.
If we are to have a creature as stupendous as the human being, it will of course require a worthy apparatus through which to bring out what consciousness is capable of. Consciousness in a dog or an insect, is not as developed because the apparatus cannot give as much expression.

However, it's not that consciousness requires a brain, it's that a brain requires consciousness.

They both require each other. Consciousness requires a brain to sustain its existence, and a brain requires consciousness to make coherent decisions in a complex world. It is a symbiotic relationship.

-

[David Quinn]

What a fine sense of humour Carl has. That was just too funny!

-

[Kevin Solway]

Did random cause and effect make a 'conscious' choice to become conscious?

You then asked why he put the conscious in quotes and then went on to make the assumption above. Why don't we assume he meant what he asked?

I honestly don't know what he is asking, since I don't know what "conscious" in quotation marks is supposed to mean.

If we assume it actually means conscious then I can answer that question as well

And the answer is, possibly, because it is possible for consciousness to consciously create further consciousness.

All life on our planet may have been created by an alien being, and everything we experience may be inside a computer simulation.

In that case cause and effect will be consciously creating consciousness — since it is cause and effect which does everything.

But cause and effect can also unconsciously create consciousness, through natural selection, etc.

If the answer is, in fact, "yes, " the you are saying that unpredictable cause and effect made a conscious choice to become conscious.

You can see, can't you, why this is not a satisfactory reply?

If the consciousness on this planet were created by a conscious alien, why is that not satisfactory?

If the answer to is no, that means consciousness is a random by-product of causation.

Ultimately, consciousness is a product of unpredictable cause and effect, yes.

Keep in mind that "random" only means unpredictable. It doesn't mean that things are happening spontaneously out of nowhere.

then consciousness must have first occurred an infinite time ago

Yes.

. . . no matter how improbable spontaneous consciousness may be.

There's nothing "spontaneous" about consciousness. It's the result of millions of years of cause and effect.

Since consciousness must have first occurred an infinite time ago and the formation of the earth a finite time ago, consciousness predates the age of the earth.

Yes, I have no problem with the idea that there have been conscious aliens somewhere in the Universe prior to the existence of the earth.

P.S. The whole of cause and effect can't be conscious, since only finite things can be conscious. Consciousness requires something other than itself to be conscious of. "Self" requires "other".

[elderwoodxxx]

Ok.. stick with your bananas then :-p

amandaxxx

[Kevin Solway]

I've split the posts about the "the will of God" to Religious language

[brokenhead]

P.S. The whole of cause and effect can't be conscious, since only finite things can be conscious. Consciousness requires something other than itself to be conscious of. "Self" requires "other".

You are at the doorway and you refuse to walk through it, or at the water and refuse to drink.

The concept of Trinity or Triunity follows from your last sentence. In the beginning was Consciousness. Only Consciousness. To further speculate on its infinitude is therefore not logical. It required Other and brought the Eternal Son into Being, thus relinquishing and delegating of itself. Before this, the logic to which you relentlessly appeal simply did not exist and therefore could not apply. The Spirit between them, between the Father and the Son, came into being as the third part of the Triunity as it, the resulting Godhead, brought Creation into being, filling it with its mighty Creator Sons as an enormous first tier of created corps of spirit beings through which, in turn, the rest of the Universe as we know it was made manifest. The number of these divine Creator Sons is countless as the Universe they created is unknowably vast. Each of these Creator Sons has brought into being a local Universe over which it rules and which it has filled with teeming life in spirit form as it itself is spirit in nature. These spirit children manipulate matter into life matrices, which are implanted on physically receptive and suitable planets throughout the local Universe. The matrix unfolds over millennia like a seed of a tree. The shape of a tree is largely influenced by its environmental influence, yet that it will produce branches and leaves is determined by what is within the seed. Likewise, evolution, producing branches of ever more evolved life, is conditioned by environment, but not determined by it, as the eventual appearance of sentient life is already determined by the nature of the originally implanted life matrix. Life as we know it is thus both created and a product of slowly enfolding evolution. Evolution occurs slowly to give the unfolding life matrix time to successfully acclimate itself to the complex and varied environments which it finds after implantation.

The creator son is not yet Sovereign over his creation until he bestows himself as each one of the sentient creatures he has willed into being. His final bestowal is as the lowest of these will creatures, which in our local universe is man. The creator son thus must choose one of the planets under his dominion for his final sojourn. Our creator son chose earth for reasons we cannot know, being known only to him. His life was spent here as Jesus of Nazareth. This - all this - was what Christ instructed his closest disciples. But before them, mankind was made aware of this sojourn through Abraham's instruction by Machieventa Melchizedek, who was not born of human parents but was an incarnated spirit sent here as an adult, an ambassador to make this covenant. And before this, some 35,000 years ago when man was already established on this planet, Adam and Eve were dispatched to arrive here as physically perfect adults to produce offspring which would later mate with the evolved races. In the meantime, they were to oversee the construction of Eden, which was to become a teaching center for the most advanced peoples of earth and from which expeditions of teachers were sent out into the world.

Pearls before swine once more, Kevin? Our real history is much more sublime and wondrous than is dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Beingof1]

Diebert van Rhijn:

Being:
Therefore; the concept Totality beyond consciousness, is nondescript and is a nonconductor of any information whatsoever. Nothing goes in and therefore, no information is extracted because it is not participating in reality itself as it resides beyond our experience.

Dieebert:
Well phrased! Actually this could be said of all the finger-pointing to the Absolute: causality, A=A, God and so on. It's an important point as most people come in expecting this type of truth to reveal some new 'occult' information or use it to prosper or restore "wholesomeness". Another feather to stick in their hat.

Every sage in history talked about "wholesomeness".

In contrast to the situation David Quinn described as: "One no longer projects ultimate reality onto any particular appearance and thus one no longer has a personal stake in any one of them being real. ".

It is not any particular experience, it is the sum total of all experience.

Ultimate reality doesn't "participate" in reality by definition and is therefore "dead" or meaningless to anyone still absorbed in the participation. One is already projecting the ultimate on appearances, making them more 'real' this way and so nothing new is uncovered by noticing this projection. This is the reason it was once said that "everyone is already enlightened" - we are all fiddling with the absolutes, no matter how conscious we are of doing it.

This boils down to the question of what is gained after all and the answer is nothing.

True, it just brings clarity.



Iolaus:

"Thus," replied the Buddha,
"the Tathagata knows the straight path that leads to a union with Brahman.
He knows it as one who has entered the world of Brahman and has been born in it.
There can be no doubt in the Tathagata."

This is very interesting. In different words, he is speaking of being born again, which is the quickening by the Holy Spirit, after which one no longer doubts one's connection to God and enters the bridal chamber of the Lord.
Truth is a pathless land.

You made me smile, thank you Bird of Hermes.

[Beingof1]

Kevin Solway:

Kevin:
Since I define the word "Totality" to mean "everything".

Being:
How can you define something that is, by your own words, beyond your ken?

Kevin:
It's not beyond my ken. Consciousness can understand things that are not consciousness, as well as the Totality.

"Since consciousness is only a part of the Totality, the Totality is bigger than consciousness."
-- Kevin

"Since I define the word "Totality" to mean "everything".
-- Kevin

You hold in your consciousness "everything"?

Being:
If 'every thing' or "everything" is beyond your consciousness

Kevin:
I don't think I've ever said that the Totality is beyond my consciousness. I've only said that my consciousness is only a part of the Totality.

How is a part the whole?

Being:
how can you logically deduce what the Totality is? It then resides beyond the realm of comprehension itself

Kevin:
Consciousness can comprehend unconsciousness.

This makes no sense. What does comprehending unconsciousness have to do with comprehending "everything"?

Being:
it is not participating in reality itself as it resides beyond our experience. It then resides beyond the realm of comprehension itself, according to you and therefore, this concept is tenuous and ethereal. To totalize all things as if having cognizance of something beyond informed knowledge is like claiming awareness of what is not discernable nor perceptible in the mind itself.

It is like saying "I remember the time I was not here."

Therefore; the concept Totality beyond consciousness, is nondescript and is a nonconductor of any information whatsoever. Nothing goes in and therefore, no information is extracted because it is not participating in reality itself as it resides beyond our experience.

Kevin:
Unconsciousness (or the Totality) doesn't reside beyond our experience. We can experience both unconsciousness and the Totality.

How can a part be the whole? You experience "all things" then?

Kevin:
The Totality is "all things", and cause and effect is the relationship between all things. Therefore cause and effect is an inherent part of the Totality. Cause and effect is not caused by the Totality, but is an expression of it.

Being:
Then how is it not caused by the Totality?

Kevin:
One reason is that cause and effect cannot be "caused", otherwise cause and effect would already be in existence before cause and effect came into existence — which is nonsensical.

Being:
Then we are speaking of 'causation' itself, yes?

Kevin:
Causation is really just a name for cause and effect.

You can experience all cause and effect then?

According to what you are stating, you experience "all things" and all "cause and effect" from time immemorial, from eternity past to future, in all of its dynamics from atoms to galaxies while remaining a small "part"?

How?

Being:
Then, using simple logic, causation and the concept Totality are one and the same in your view. Therefore, cause and effect is an effect of the Totality.

Kevin:
So long as you don't confuse your second "effect" with anything to do with cause and effect.

I am not the one confused.

What is effected by the concept Totality which is, in essence, causation?

Can you step back from your mind and thus understand all things?

-- Lao Tzu

Cause and effect can't be caused, for the reason I've already mentioned.

Because of logic?

Logic states that all things appear because of their causes. The fact is that no one thing, event, or being of this universe is separable from the whole. It is a continuum of essential energy with no gaps. Leibniz's famous apothegm "natura non facit saltus" - nature makes no jump.

One cannot limit this universe of ours to a mere 18th century continuity of a function or Zeno`s paradox in reverse. This continuum was taken to mean that infinitesimal changes in the value of the argument induced infinitesimal changes in the value of the function. It remains inductive logic where the realm of post modernism is champion. Nothing can be known because the only thing we know for sure is that we know nothing.

If mechanical cause and effect is true then the concept Totality is continuum of infinitesimal quantity and magnitude. It becomes indiscernable, beyond experience, and beyond comprehension.

This begs the question - what is observing and experiencing cause and effect? A part or the whole?

Being:
Therefore, it is the same conceptual framework, yes?

Kevin:
The Totality is not a conceptual framework. I don't have a "conceptual framework" of the Totality.

1) The Totality is defined as absolutely everything that exists.
2) Things only appear by the inference of their causes.
3) Cause and effect is a linear effect between things.
4) Cause and effect is eternal as is the Totality.
5) Cause and effect is deduced by logic.
6) Consciousness is required for logic.
7) Consciousness is an effect of cause and effect.
8) Consciousness is a part of the Totality.

Can you coax your mind from its wandering and keep to the original oneness?

-- Lao Tzu

Being:
Cause and effect, at some point, must go into operation, can you tell me when that happens? When does this concept Totality become efficacious?

Kevin:
The Totality is timeless, since it doesn't exist in time.

The concept Totality exists in only one place; in your mind and is held together by inductive jumps of imagery. It has been imbibed by looking out on an objective world and creating insulation from unsatisfactory answers. It is just another foozle at attempting to gain footing in reality.

The concept Totality, at its best, is an idiom with fancy footwork.

Likewise, cause and effect doesn't exist in time.

It is a marionette, that exists beyond time, while being completely understood and experienced by you while you remain in a bubble?

How is this so?

Being:
The rational substance you are seeking does not exist in some 'single' location but in all of nature and in all 'things'.

Kevin:
I haven't mentioned any kind of rational substance. I am not seeking any such thing.

What is logic Kevin?

How do you understand the concept Totality?

Being:
Are all things caused by the Totality?

Kevin:
It's possible to say that all things are caused by the Totality, the All, or God (all of which I consider to be synonyms), but this is only a poetic expression, and only to understood in a transcendent way. It's not a scientific statement.

Being:
On the contrary Kevin, your postulate of the concept Totality exists only in the object realm, you said so yourself.
"Since consciousness is only a part of the Totality, the Totality is bigger than consciousness."
-- Kevin

This postulate Totality lies only in the view of the objective lens and it needs to be scorched to a plasma state so that we may actually experience the transcendant in hyper. The universe is not about a meta matrix of causation, it is about you.

You are the transcendant, not some idea or model.

Kevin:
The Totality doesn't exist in any "realm", since, by definition, it is absolutely everything. It is all realms.

You said you could define the concept Totality and I have heard you claim to have perfect understanding of it as well as experience it. It must be in the realm of your mind or you would not be posting about it.

You believe it is the cause of all things. You keep saying this over and over in many different ways and all at the same time - deny you are saying it.

Being:
Saying it is an expression of the Totality means what?

Kevin:
It is one of the ways in which the Totality appears to us.

Being:
If causation is eternal, it becomes an appearance outside perception.

Kevin:
Whatever appears is perceived.

I don't know what you mean by "outside perception". Every thing we perceive is outside perception, since what we perceive is not perception (for the reason that a fingertip cannot touch itself).

I do not know what you mean by; " Every thing we perceive is outside perception, since what we perceive is not perception (for the reason that a fingertip cannot touch itself)." Since you also say "Whatever appears is perceived."

I perceive I am responding to your post. This perception is contained within the field of awareness and awareness is contained within consciousness.

Being:
There is a constant in the universe beyond the relative appearances. It is what is and never changes, it just expands.

Kevin:
You contradict yourself. If it gets bigger ("expands") then it is definitely changing. What you are talking about is then infinitely less than the Totality.

What I am talking about is that which is a comprehensive realization of what is. It does not expand in a physical sense. It means, it expands in greater detail, what was already there in the extant expansive.

Math example:
a2 + 2ab + b2 is an expansion of ( a + b)2 - the equation did not change.

Kevin:
Cause and effect can't be caused for the same reason that the Totality can't be.

Being:
So cause and effect is the Totality?

Kevin:
Cause and effect is an aspect of it. You can think of cause and effect as the will of God.

Being:
If all things are caused, and the concept Totality is defined as absolutely everything that exists, could you tell me the difference?

Again, causation and the concept Totality are identical unless you can distinguish them in some meaningful way. Either way, both seem to evaporate into the nether regions of what is beyond experiential knowledge or information theory of any kind.

This would not be a big deal if we could somehow manage to bring value to experience and where the rubber meets the road.

Kevin:
You could view cause and effect (and the things being caused) as being the same thing as the Totality. But cause and effect is only an aspect, or one particular way of looking at the Totality.

You already said that. You are attempting to wrap the infinite in a package called the concept Totality, it doesn't stay wrapped however.

If both causality and Totality are infinite, which one?

Being:
As it is, the concept Totality inhabits a part of the mind as an inferior idol that cannot be approached and becomes an infernal machine that explodes into defeatism as a form of jumping induction.

Kevin:
The Totality could only be "inferior" if there were something other than the Totality. And there can't be — by definition.

By your definition, it exists beyond your mind, as your consciousness is only a part and not the whole. It therefore, can only be a concept and as such, is not reality but a small part, you said so yourself.

Being:
It is always just out of reach, like a mirage, because we can never experience the concept Totality; one may only wax eloquent about its stately nature.

I see, throughout all of nature the operation of reason and law(principles). A pervading substantial form of reason that controls and orders the whole structure. It is very simple really: All things are contained within consciousness.

I can also tell you where all thought comes from, identify it, become in union with it, and experience it. This is transcendance right where you are - in front of your computer.

Kevin:
It is everywhere, and therefore can never be out of reach.

How do you know it is everwhere when your consciousness is just a 'part' of the concept Totality?

Kevin:
Without consciousness there is no logic. Logic is an inherent part of consciousness.

Being:
Does that mean without consciousness there is no cause and effect?

Kevin:
We can conceive of consciousness evolving from non-consciousness, which means that there is cause and effect before consciousness.

Being:
This is a gratuitous assumption, how kind you are to logic. You seem to lend it a helping hand when it falters.

A conception does not mean reality Kevin or in that case, fall on your face before Nan Tan Taka, the true God.

Can you recall an experience you had before you existed?

Kevin:
Yes. That is the very purpose of memory.

With each moment we have a new existence, and are a new person. Memory is precisely for recalling experiences of what happened before our existence.

Okay - go ahead then, we are waiting.

Can you remember when you began to be aware?

Yes.

What was your first moment of consciousness?

Kevin:
Consciousness is caused (since all things are caused).

Being:
Since you refer to consciousness as being a "thing", could you demonstrate this?

Kevin:
There are things which are not consciousness, for example, unconsciousness. Therefore consciousness is contrasted with unconsciousness, and both are "things".

Being:
An object of thought is a "thing". In this way, there are things that think and things that do not think. Certainly you can call something to the conscious mind and it would be a 'thing'.

What is it before the thought of 'things' ever transpires?

Kevin:
It is a thing before the thought of things transpires.

Things existed before there was consciousness.

I thought you said logic or A=A must have consciousness? How can you use the law of identity outside of your consciousness?

This does not connect the dots at all, not even close.

You just used an awareness of a mind ordering the universe into categories and were not mindful of the source.

I am always mindful of the source. The source is God, or the Totality.

Good, then where do 'things' appear?

What was there, in the space between the thought and the question? Where did the thought come from and who made the decision to divide the universe into these categories?

Cause and effect.

Who is deducing cause and effect and dividing up the universe into 'things'?

Being:
Where does the category of 'things' exist? You were thinking about consciousness, that is not consciousness, that is called thinking.

Kevin:
It doesn't. It is the Totality.

I thought you said the concept Totality is all things? Who made that definition?

Can you not see the merri-go-round you are on?

It is like the argument to prove God exists:
"God exists."
"How do you know"?
"Because the Bible says so."
"How do you know the Bible is true"?
"Because the Bible says so."

"The Totality is all there is."
"How do you know"?
"Because the Totality is everything."
"How do you know the Totality is everything"?
"Because that is how it is defined."
"How do you know your definition is true"?
"Because the Totality Is defined as everything."

Being:
When is a "thing" able to logically deduce cause and effect? Could you give an example.

Kevin:
A consciousness is able to deduce cause and effect when it realizes that no thing is inherently existent, or existing without any cause.

Being:
And therefore, all 'things' exist within consciousness.

Kevin:
That doesn't follow. Since consciousness itself is a thing, it too must be caused by something other than itself.

Then how in the world did you reach that conclusion other than within your very own consciousness?

You deduced, within your own consciousness mind you, that consciousness is a thing? At what point did you pull the rabbit out of the hat and stuff it back?

K: Since consciousness is only a part of the Totality, the Totality is bigger than consciousness.
B: How did you logically deduce this?
K: If there is consciousness then there is something that is not consciousness (eg, unconsciousness), therefore the Totality is more than just consciousness.
B: This is begging the question. You cannot have the conclusion in the premise Kevin, that is a logical fallacy.

Kevin:
Your question was "how did you logically deduce this?", and I explained how I did so. There's no begging the question there.

If the concept Totality is bigger than your consciousness, and you can observe that which is not conscious, where does the observation of the concept Totality take place?

It is begging the question; since you assume in the premise, that which is outside of your consciousness, while using the tool of consciousness to draw the comparison.

That is like saying; " there is an outside of the universe, because there is an inside, therefore there is an outside to the universe."
Or saying;" there is more than the Totality, because there are things and this means there must be not things, therefore there is more than the Totality."
Or saying; " because I can identify things within my awareness, there must be an outside to my awareness."

You doubt that there is anything that is not consciousness. Yet an object of perception is not consciousness, and all the other causes of consciousness are not consciousness, therefore there are countless things that are not consciousness. This is a given.

No Kevin; I doubt that I am not conscious, because I know, without doubt, I am consciousness.

Being:
You are presuming to see something inside of your very own consciousness as something apart and beyond from it.

Kevin:
Consciousness is not a container. It doesn't contain anything whatsoever.

Nothing at all exists "in consciousness".

I would say, nothing exists apart from consciousness because it is not bounded. In this way, all things appear because of consciousness. In that case, how is consciousness a part of the bigger concept Totality?

When I say "contained", I mean caused to by the infinite field known as consciousness.

Does the concept Totality contain all things?

Being:
You see things that are not conscious, contained in your own field of perception, and then make the assumption it is 'outside' somewhere?

Outside of what?

Kevin:
Nothing is "contained" in my field of perception.

Then how is it a part of the bigger concept Totality?

If your perception contains nothing, it therefore has no parts and ergo, is beyond boundedness.

Being:
If A=A is a subset of consciousness, where is the outside that is the Totality?

Kevin:
To me, "A=A" means "logic". Logic is not a subset of consciousness, but is what makes consciousness what it is.

Being:
Logic is the source of consciousness?

Kevin:
Logic is what makes consciousness what it is, just as a car body and wheels makes a car what it is.

Consciousness does not require an object although awareness does. You can be conscious beyond or without thought. This is self evident and demonstratable.

When thought is absent, the infinite field manifests.

Where does logic reside?

If you find consciousness, then you've found logic.

Eureka. This is correct.

To say; " If you find logic, then you have found consciousness" is not correct. You have merely found awareness and perception and both are subsets of consciousness.

Kevin:
The Totality is not "outside" consciousness, since, as we have already said, the Totality is all things — so it can never be said that the Totality is "outside" anything.

Being:
Yes, the concept Totality exists within your very own consciousness. Your entire posting on this subject is proving and affirming this over and over.

Kevin:
Consciousness is not a container, so it can't contain anything within it.

Then how do you write and post about the appearance of the concept Totality? If it does not reside within your consciousness, how can you recall your concepts?

Being:
You are proving the universe is not a product of chance but as the product of an ordering mind, reason, or Logos. The very fact you can conceive of that which is not conscious is evidence prima jumping up and down.

The realization then transpires that is highly optomistic levels of transcendant wisdom is loaded with possibilities. The alternative is scepticism and to behave without a criterion of truth. We will keep looking for smaller particles molecules, atoms, quarks, ad infinitum. The universe is not about matter - it is about mind.

Kevin:
The distinction you draw between the two is a false one.

And where did you think this thought?

Kevin, there is more than just inert matter

I don't know why you think I believe in "inert matter". My consciousness is caused by such matter, so I wouldn't call it "inert". It is highly active.

Is matter conscious?

there is a force and power that shapes events and elements. The fact that you use logic, math, and thought is proof.

The force and power that shapes all things is cause and effect.

Who deduced cause and effect?

Did you use logic, math, and thought to come to this conclusion? If that is the case, there is the proof, and it is right between your eyes.

Kevin:
Things existed before consciousness evolved, so things don't require there to first be consciousness. A conscious mind establishes the existence of things for all time, including the time before consciousness evolved.

Being:
Again the appeal to that which is beyond your experience to prove your experience?

Kevin:
It is a logical necessity that a thing is caused by that which is other than itself. This logical necessity is within my experience, and is absolute.

Is your experience a container? If so, what does it contain?

Being:
Did random cause and effect make a 'conscious' choice to become conscious? When has this ever been observed, duplicated, or experienced in the history of humankind?

Kevin:
This question is very mixed up for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the word "random" means unpredictable.

So you are asking whether unpredictable cause and effect made a 'conscious' choice to create consciousness.

Secondly, I don't know why you put the word 'conscious' in inverted commas. Either you mean conscious, or you don't.

I'll assume you don't mean conscious. So your question becomes:

"Did unpredictable cause and effect result in consciousness?

And the answer is, yes.

Brokenhead already addressed your theomorphic gymnastic dance and nailed it to the wall.

I honestly don't know what he is asking, since I don't know what "conscious" in quotation marks is supposed to mean.

Is it really so difficult what with Brokenhead 'getting it' and you missing the 'point'?

Kevin tap dances into the background.

If we assume it actually means conscious then I can answer that question as well

And the answer is, possibly, because it is possible for consciousness to consciously create further consciousness.

"Possibly"? Will you please use logic.

The only time we observe consciousness is because - hello - its source was consciousness itself.

All life on our planet may have been created by an alien being, and everything we experience may be inside a computer simulation.

In that case cause and effect will be consciously creating consciousness — since it is cause and effect which does everything.

How does this even come close to answering the question?

This is diversion. What are you doing Kevin?

But cause and effect can also unconsciously create consciousness, through natural selection, etc.

How, when, where, and by whom?

Here you are promoting dogma and throwing your very own observation out the window.
We know for a fact, including yourself, life comes from life and it has never been observed to come from anywhere else, ever, not once, no such thing, has never occured, does not happen, and is not observed.

Brokenhead:
If the answer is, in fact, "yes, " the you are saying that unpredictable cause and effect made a conscious choice to become conscious.

You can see, can't you, why this is not a satisfactory reply?

Kevin:
If the consciousness on this planet were created by a conscious alien, why is that not satisfactory?

Because its a flippen rabbit trail - I mean, how dumb do you think we are?

Brokenhead:
If the answer to is no, that means consciousness is a random by-product of causation.

Kevin:
Ultimately, consciousness is a product of unpredictable cause and effect, yes.

Keep in mind that "random" only means unpredictable. It doesn't mean that things are happening spontaneously out of nowhere.

There is no cause and effect without consciousness, you said so, when you said logic is found in consciousness.

Brokenhead:
then consciousness must have first occurred an infinite time ago

Kevin:
Yes.

The answer is - consciousness is infinite - it is without question, a cold hard logical fact. It is an inescapable conclusion and you agree.

The question then becomes; "what are all the aspects of consciousness"? We can then begin to make real progress once we have jumped this hurdle that 95% or better of the human race has not yet realized.

I am not talking about the talking heads of guru types who are incapable of using fundamental logic, but guys like you Kevin, who are superb at logic. Once you *POP* your bubble, there will be nothing that could restrain what you set your mind to do.

Brokenhead:
Since consciousness must have first occurred an infinite time ago and the formation of the earth a finite time ago, consciousness predates the age of the earth.

Kevin:
Yes, I have no problem with the idea that there have been conscious aliens somewhere in the Universe prior to the existence of the earth.

If consciousness is infinite, and you seem to be agreeable to this point, it therefore, has no limits.

P.S. The whole of cause and effect can't be conscious, since only finite things can be conscious. Consciousness requires something other than itself to be conscious of. "Self" requires "other".

No - awareness requires an object, conciousness does not. This is self evident and demonstratable.

Can you clear your mind of all images and words? Even for a second or two, that is consciousness.

Can you cleanse your inner vision until you see nothing but the light?

-- Lao Tzu

[DHodges]

Damn that's a long post.

[elderwoodxxx]

I was just thinking the same!

Amandaxxx

[Beingof1]

Well over 50% of the post is quotes because the conversations seem to get dissolved and blurry unless we stay on target.

If I do not post quotes, it seems that positions can morph all across the board.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In the beginning was Consciousness. Only Consciousness. To further speculate on its infinitude is therefore not logical. It required Other and brought the Eternal Son into Being, thus relinquishing and delegating of itself. Before this, the logic to which you relentlessly appeal simply did not exist and therefore could not apply. The Spirit between them, between the Father and the Son, came into being as the third part of the Triunity as it, the resulting Godhead, brought Creation into being, filling it with its mighty Creator Sons as an enormous first tier of created corps of spirit beings through which, in turn, the rest of the Universe as we know it was made manifest

Any reason you have to introduce some ancient 'beginning' for this to happen? Why not bring it all in the now? Use all those capital letters to describe each humble ordinary moment you are living in. Only this way the full immediate potential of what you're saying would open up.

[Kevin Solway]

You hold in your consciousness "everything"?

Consciousness cannot hold anything at all.

I don't think I've ever said that the Totality is beyond my consciousness. I've only said that my consciousness is only a part of the Totality.

How is a part the whole?

A part of the whole is not the whole. Consciousness is not the Totality.

What does comprehending unconsciousness have to do with comprehending "everything"?

When you understand what consciousness is, and what is not consciousness, then you understand everything, since those two things make up everything.

You experience "all things" then?

Yes.

You can experience all cause and effect then?

Yes.

According to what you are stating, you experience "all things" and all "cause and effect" from time immemorial, from eternity past to future, in all of its dynamics from atoms to galaxies while remaining a small "part"?

I experience that the infinite past is the cause of the present, and the present is the cause of the infinite future.

How?

Through simple logic, which I've outlined previously.

What is effected by the concept Totality which is, in essence, causation?

I have no interest in any "concept" Totality, so your question is not relevant to me.

Cause and effect can't be caused, for the reason I've already mentioned.

Because of logic?

Logic tells you that cause and effect can't be caused, yes.

Nothing can be known because the only thing we know for sure is that we know nothing.

If that's the only thing you know for sure, then you're not using your brain properly.

If mechanical cause and effect is true then the concept Totality is continuum of infinitesimal quantity and magnitude. It becomes indiscernable, beyond experience, and beyond comprehension.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mechanical cause and effect", since there is only cause and effect.

You can't say something is beyond comprehension if you can't comprehend it. This is a logical fact.

This begs the question - what is observing and experiencing cause and effect? A part or the whole?

A part. The "I".

3) Cause and effect is a linear effect between things.

Cause and effect is not an effect.

Also, it doesn't mean much to call it "linear".

7) Consciousness is an effect of cause and effect.

It's just an effect of causes.

The concept Totality exists in only one place; in your mind and is held together by inductive jumps of imagery.

As I say, I'm not interested in any "concept" Totality.

Likewise, cause and effect doesn't exist in time.

It is a marionette, that exists beyond time, while being completely understood and experienced by you while you remain in a bubble?

Reason is not contained. Its vision reaches everywhere.

What is logic Kevin?

The awareness that a thing is itself, and not other than itself.

How do you understand the concept Totality?

By accepting the truth of its nature, as revealed by my reasoning.

The Totality doesn't exist in any "realm", since, by definition, it is absolutely everything. It is all realms.

You said you could define the concept Totality and I have heard you claim to have perfect understanding of it as well as experience it. It must be in the realm of your mind or you would not be posting about it.

Consciousness cannot contain anything. Consciousness is only an awareness, not a container.

You believe it is the cause of all things. You keep saying this over and over in many different ways and all at the same time - deny you are saying it.

The Totality is the source of all things, since there is no other place things can come from.

B: There is a constant in the universe beyond the relative appearances. It is what is and never changes, it just expands.

K: You contradict yourself. If it gets bigger ("expands") then it is definitely changing. What you are talking about is then infinitely less than the Totality.

B: What I am talking about is that which is a comprehensive realization of what is. It does not expand in a physical sense. It means, it expands in greater detail, what was already there in the extant expansive.

If there's more detail, that wasn't there before, then something has changed.

Since what you are talking about is changing, it is infinitely removed from the Totality.

If both causality and Totality are infinite, which one?

There's only one Infinite. The Totality is a name for the Infinite, and cause and effect is how it appears.

K: The Totality could only be "inferior" if there were something other than the Totality. And there can't be — by definition.

B: By your definition, it exists beyond your mind

Nothing at all exists in the mind, or in consciousness, but that doesn't mean we can't be aware of things.

How do you know it is everwhere when your consciousness is just a 'part' of the concept Totality?

Consciousness reaches everywhere.

What was your first moment of consciousness?

Awareness that I exist.

I thought you said logic or A=A must have consciousness? How can you use the law of identity outside of your consciousness?

Nothing exists in consciousness, not even logic.

where do 'things' appear?

Wherever they are caused to.

Who is deducing cause and effect and dividing up the universe into 'things'?

The conscious being.

B: Where does the category of 'things' exist?

K: It doesn't. It is the Totality.

B: I thought you said the concept Totality is all things?

No, I've never said that.

I said that the word "Totality" is defined to mean "all things", and the definition hasn't changed.

Who made that definition?

I did.

Can you not see the merri-go-round you are on?

It's you who are on a merri-go-round.

"The Totality is all there is."
"How do you know"?
"Because the Totality is everything."
"How do you know the Totality is everything"?
"Because that is how it is defined."
"How do you know your definition is true"?

Right here is the fault of your argument.

A definition is just a definition, it's not something that can be "true" or "false".

Since consciousness itself is a thing, it too must be caused by something other than itself.

Then how in the world did you reach that conclusion other than within your very own consciousness?

Nothing is within consciousness. Consciousness is only awareness.

If the concept Totality is bigger than your consciousness, and you can observe that which is not conscious, where does the observation of the concept Totality take place?

I have no interest in your "concept Totality".

The observation of the Totality occurs outside of space and time.

That is like saying; " there is an outside of the universe, because there is an inside, therefore there is an outside to the universe."

No. I've given you solid reasons why there are things that are not consciousness. For example, I've explained that objects of perception are not consciousness, therefore there is something that is not consciousness.

how is consciousness a part of the bigger concept Totality?

In the same way as any other part.

Does the concept Totality contain all things?

It's possible to have a "concept" of the Totality, but this is not the Totality by any manner or means.

Only the Totality contains all things. The "concept" of the Totality is only a concept.

If your perception contains nothing, it therefore has no parts and ergo, is beyond boundedness.

Through the use of logic, we can escape boundedness.

Consciousness does not require an object although awareness does. You can be conscious beyond or without thought. This is self evident and demonstratable.

You must have a completely different meaning for "consciousness" than I do.

Consciousness always comes with an awareness of duality.

When thought is absent, the infinite field manifests.

There's nothing wrong with thought. It's only deluded thought that we should seek to stem.

how do you write and post about the appearance of the concept Totality?

Nothing I write is about this "concept Totality". I have no interest in it.

If it does not reside within your consciousness, how can you recall your concepts?

Memory.

The only time we observe consciousness is because - hello - its source was consciousness itself.

Your consciousness is responsible only for the concept of consciousness, but not consciousness itself.

How does this even come close to answering the question?

Your question was very unclear, since it introduced elements such as "randomness". As I said, your question was very unclear.

life comes from life and it has never been observed to come from anywhere else, ever, not once, no such thing, has never occured, does not happen, and is not observed.

Just as consciousness comes from non-consciousness, life comes from non-life.

We have, every one of us, observed consciousness arise from non-consciousness, every time we see someone arise from unconscious sleep.

consciousness is infinite

Consciousness dies every time we enter unconscious sleep.

Can you clear your mind of all images and words? Even for a second or two, that is consciousness.

If that's what you call consciousness, then you're welcome to it. I'm not the slightest bit interested in it.