Weininger on Memory

[Leyla Shen]

Excerpt from Sex & Character; chapter: Talent and Memory.

The more deeply impressed, the more detailed a complex perception may be the more easily does it reproduce itself. Clearness of the consciousness is the preliminary condition for remembering, and the memory of the mental stimulation is proportional to the intensity of the consciousness. “I shall not forget that”; “I shall remember that all my life”; “That will never escape my memory again.” Such phrases men use when things have made a deep impression on them, of moments in which they have gained wisdom or have become richer by an important experience. As the power of being reproduced is directly proportionate to the organisation of a mental impression, it is clear that there can be no recollection of an absolute henid...

The great extent and acuteness of the memory of men of genius, which I propose to lay down dogmatically as a necessary inference from my theory, without attempting to prove it further, is not incompatible with their rapid loss of the facts impressed on them in school, the tables of Greek verbs, and so forth. Their memory is of what they have experienced, not of what they have learned. Of all that was acquired for examination purposes only so much will be retained as was in harmony with the natural talent of the pupil. Thus a house-painter may have a better memory for colours than a great philosopher; the most narrow philologist may remember Greek aorists that he has learned by heart better than his teacher, who may none the less be a great poet. The uselessness of the experimental school of psychology (notwithstanding their marvellous arsenal of instruments of experimental precision) is shown by their expectation of getting results as to memory from tests with letters, unconnected words, long rows of figures. These experiments have so little bearing on the true memory of man, on the memory by which he recalls the experiences of his life, that one wonders if such psychologists have realised that such a thing as the mind exists.

[Sapius]

Leyla, I take it this is in reference to the discussion on ‘an excellent memory coupled with the keen ability to reason.’ But why haven’t you said anything along with the quotes?

I don’t see any thing in the quotes other than that one particularly remembers what one gives most importance to, which is pretty obvious. Is there something else you would like to point out?

[Leyla Shen]

Hi, Sapius:

Leyla, I take it this is in reference to the discussion on ‘an excellent memory coupled with the keen ability to reason.’ But why haven’t you said anything along with the quotes?

Well, yes and no. Certainly, my return to Weininger was prompted by our discussion in the “ABCs for QRS” thread. However, last night I was more focussed on reading than writing. Hence, I posted a couple of quotes that I perceived to be fine expression of fine thought: one from Weininger and another from Kevin posted in a separate thread called "Wisdom." My comments are not needed for an appreciation of those quotes.

I don’t see any thing in the quotes other than that one particularly remembers what one gives most importance to, which is pretty obvious. Is there something else you would like to point out?

I guess this particular quote could be related to our discussion in this way:

Leyla: I'm thinking that the regular human being's life is a series of short, disjointed nows, whilst the genius's is an ever-expanding proposition. I reckon this is one way to explain the idea of an excellent memory coupled with the keen ability to reason.

Weininger: These experiments have so little bearing on the true memory of man, on the memory by which he recalls the experiences of his life, that one wonders if such psychologists have realised that such a thing as the mind exists.

Sapius: However, I’m not saying that you should not think the way you do, because eventually, it is what one is being exposed to which actually shapes the thinking. In my opinion, reasoning in itself is simply a process, what one thinks on or about, is a matter of cause and effect. Honestly speaking, who has that excellent a memory, at least not I.

I refer you to the first Weininger quote in this thread.

I agree with him. Reasoning and memory are an excellent yardstick for genius. An excellent representation of consciousness. They breathe life into the words and works of such individuals such that they leave one gasping for breath from cardiac arrest. To brush it off with the idea that what one thinks on or about is a matter of cause and effect is a grave kind of blasphemy! It is a useless and infinitely moot point in this context. Weininger’s ideas here may be the very “last” cause required to crack open a wider consciousness in a given individual. So, I’m not really sure what the significance of your point about reasoning "simply" (simply? Is that like "just"?) being a process actually is.

Edit: see italics, last paragraph.

[outofthebox]

I was gonna say something but I forgot what it was.
I hate when that happens!
I used to carry a pen and write down things I thought of that were just so good, I didn't want chance forgetting them. After I had a few thousand pages, I looked at them and threw them away. It hit me that they would never be appreciated by anyone but me. I pondered writing a book and using them there. I figured the market would be so slim, I'd never get published.
Does anybody else keep a pen handy for moments of clarity?

[Beingof1]

A crystal clear memory is the result of ruthless honesty. An enlightened mind experiences life without a frame of reference.
It is unfiltered experience and results in clarity of perception and allows reasoning to take its course.

Their memory is of what they have experienced, not of what they have learned.

This statement by Kevin is superb in its simplicity.

I remember :) riding down the street with a certain young lady. She said "look at that green car". I looked and said "that car is brown". She said "thats what I said".
Her memory will tell her she actually said she saw a brown car.

BTW - I have never forgotten anything, that I can remember.
;)

[Leyla Shen]

Hello, outofthebox:

After I had a few thousand pages, I looked at them and threw them away. It hit me that they would never be appreciated by anyone but me. I pondered writing a book and using them there. I figured the market would be so slim, I'd never get published.

How egotistical of you!

Tell me, what -- to you -- is philosophy?

[Leyla Shen]

Beingof1 wrote:

This statement by Kevin is superb in its simplicity.

Whilst I'm certain that Kevin is indeed part-Weininger, I must clarify that both quotes at the start of this thread are Weininger's.

Her memory will tell her she actually said she saw a brown car.

Hm. No, by definition, her delusion is what tells her this.

Now, one can experience delusion, but its not memory until one recognises the whole event; that is, that it in fact was delusion and in what way.

[Sapius]

My comments are not needed for an appreciation of those quotes.

Well, Leyla, I was not looking for your inspirational or flowery words in appreciation of those quotes, but what similarities or differences you saw against what we were discussing, and I don't see any connection in that regard. As far as appreciation goes, it now seems quite clear that these words move you tremendously, and I can understand that too, since you are only now absorbing the meanings of those quotes although you had read them a long time ago. As for me, I do not disagree to almost any thing those quotes say, but it does not move me as much since I already know what he is talking about, and I knew that a long time ago, and I did not need a Weininger to point it out to me.

I guess this particular quote could be related to our discussion in this way:

Now that you have pointed out your perspective, which I was looking for in the first place, then let me look at it more closely and comment.

I refer you to the first Weininger quote in this thread.

I agree with him.

Essentially I agree too. No problems there.

Reasoning and memory are an excellent yardstick for genius.

And even so for a Scientist, Physicist, etc.

An excellent representation of consciousness.

In your opinion, yes. In my opinion, A=A. Which is more fundamental than reasoning or memory, since recognition comes first. However, Human consciousness requires all three, how could you leave out recognition? plus the capability of language that provides mental verbal thoughts to reason about something. BTW, if you observe closely, even mammals posses recognition, memory, and instinctual reasoning.

They breathe life into the words and works of such individuals such that they leave one gasping for breath from cardiac arrest.

Sure, I can understand that.

To brush it off with the idea that what one thinks on or about is a matter of cause and effect is a grave kind of blasphemy! It is a useless and infinitely moot point in this context.

You will see it differently once you are past the ‘gasping for breath’ stage. I am not “brushing off” any thing at all, it fact, cause and effect is the essence of all that he is saying. I don’t thing you have yet grasped the truth of C&E. That too should prove to be a ‘grasping for breath’ event, although quite simple as a matter of fact. You must have read David’s book, and about cause and effect, revisit and take a look at it again in another few years, may be then it might be breathe taking.

Weininger’s ideas here may be the very “last” cause required to crack open a wider consciousness in a given individual.

Well, has it done that for you?

So, I’m not really sure what the significance of your point about reasoning "simply" (simply? Is that like "just"?) being a process actually is.

You should have asked me this in the first place, that is, if ‘simply’ meant ‘insignificant’. No, not at all, reasoning is the epitome of understanding, but REASONING, IN IT-SELF, is no more than a process. What makes you to reason to take up philosophy or a path to discover truth for your self is the mental environment presented to you, which does not satisfy the quest of truth you are looking for. You don’t find it in what you have learned from teachers and books, but your own personal thinking and reasoning, i.e. your own life experiences, and that is what these quotes are basically saying, among other things.

Similarly, why isn’t it possible for one to find truth through his own experiences, like Weininger, rather than pick up his book to find the truth? Which book or teacher did he follow to experience that which he has? If you really understand and appreciate what he is saying, then you should put his book aside and experience life for your self, that is, think for yourself. I am not saying that, he is.

From the first quote;

Clearness of the consciousness is the preliminary condition for remembering, and the memory of the mental stimulation is proportional to the intensity of the consciousness.

How would you interpret this?

[Leyla Shen]

Oh, you want another bitch fight, do you? Well, OK.

You seem to make my having quoted Weininger so much more about you than they were about the man’s work itself. Why is that?

As far as your first comment to me goes, I used a whole paragraph to explain the posting of this thread. You read the last line as if the rest of the paragraph was not attached to it.

Perhaps, no matter how, or what, one writes, they will offend somebody.

Sapius wrote (in quotes):

As far as appreciation goes, it now seems quite clear that these words move you tremendously, and I can understand that too, since you are only now absorbing the meanings of those quotes although you had read them a long time ago.

I did say in the “ABCs” thread that I thought his words on the subject were impressive. It is not true that the way his words “move” me here and my understanding of their meaning is reserved for now. I saw them the same way the first time. So, your understanding of the situation is not quite on the ball.

As for me, I do not disagree to almost any thing those quotes say, but it does not move me as much since I already know what he is talking about, and I knew that a long time ago, and I did not need a Weininger to point it out to me.

Again, I think your ego gets in the way, here. Not everything I do on this forum is to point something out to you, including any specific conversations I may be having with you. You appear to be on the intellectual defensive. Why, when you could have simply stated that you agree with Weininger on this subject? Where do you think the conversation with me might have gone then?

Now that you have pointed out your perspective, which I was looking for in the first place, then let me look at it more closely and comment.

Then why did you bother with the preceding bullshit? Do you think you would not have got “my perspective” had you not?

In your opinion, yes. In my opinion, A=A.

A=A is not the representation of genius, it is what is manifest through reasoning, consciousness, memory and expressed through words and in action. -- or not. It is the genus in genius. Now, unlike with a mammal (or a scientist or physicist), add an “I” -- specificity, individuality -- to “genus” and you get a special kind of “genius”: which some would argue as being a very worthwhile distinction to make, including myself.

(If you have been paying attention, and I have no reason to doubt that you have, you will already know my position on A=A. But you will also have noticed that it is not enough to run around proclaiming “A=A! A=A!” in order to propagate wisdom.)

More later. I have to go and experience life in the form of work. :)

[propellerbeanie]

I was gonna say something but I forgot what it was.
I hate when that happens!
I used to carry a pen and write down things I thought of that were just so good, I didn't want chance forgetting them. After I had a few thousand pages, I looked at them and threw them away. It hit me that they would never be appreciated by anyone but me. I pondered writing a book and using them there. I figured the market would be so slim, I'd never get published.
Does anybody else keep a pen handy for moments of clarity?

I wanted t be a doctor so I went to whatsamattaU, then I lost all my patients; so then I tried to become a tree surgeon and I kept falling out of my patients. Shit. I was going to write that down so I would remember it and I forgot my pen; then I got a Weininger on my memory dear leyla dear leyla, a Weininger on my memory dear leyla a Weininger.

[outofthebox]

Hello Leyla,

I'm confused. How was my comment egotistical?

As far as philosophy goes. To me, it's merely thought under a microscope. Any fool can do it.

[Leyla Shen]

Sapius:

You will see it differently once you are past the ‘gasping for breath’ stage. I am not “brushing off” any thing at all, it fact, cause and effect is the essence of all that he is saying. I don’t thing you have yet grasped the truth of C&E. That too should prove to be a ‘grasping for breath’ event, although quite simple as a matter of fact. You must have read David’s book, and about cause and effect, revisit and take a look at it again in another few years, may be then it might be breathe taking.

I would imagine, with a little thought, that you may tie together my answer from what I’ve already written to most of your paragraph above. I will address the last sentence here, however, since I find it pertinent: it is the very fact that David and Weininger both have written meaningful works, and the worth of such things, and you and I haven’t, that I am looking at here. Or have you?

What is the value of communication? Why do you do it?

Were you born with your condition of enlightenment/wisdom that you seem to be defending here?

Have you never been inspired in some way by anything anyone else has ever written?

Well, has it done that for you?

In the sense that I certainly appreciate the sheer clarity of thought and expression of ideas (and, to that degree, the ideas themselves, yes. Same with David’s Wisdom of the Infinite. Now, some might hold that I can’t have grasped anything from Weininger that I didn’t already know. You might say that I won’t have grasped anything that I haven’t been caused to already. To you I ask, then, if people only grasp what they are already caused to, then every person is equally caused to act and communicate in the way they do, on the subjects they do. You are asking me why I am caused to do what I am caused to do. Why, for the same fundamental reason you are, of course. And, what have we learned with this?

No, not at all, reasoning is the epitome of understanding, but REASONING, IN IT-SELF, is no more than a process.

Yes, it is a process, but apparently there must be quite a bit more to it than that: I mean, it's a process that is the epitome of understanding. It's a bit different to the process of, say, making cheddar cheese. Then, of course, one can reason on the subject of making cheddar cheese, and one can reason on the subject of life, religion, politics...

When my son comes up to me and says, “Mum, I need some help. I can’t figure out this physics problem” I should just say, “Well, son. Your reasoning is faulty. Reasoning in itself is just a process”? Of course, that’s not what I do. But, am I making my point?

Or, when there’s a fight and people all round are seething at the mouth, ready to kill each other, do I just stand there and proclaim, “Well, you people, reasoning is just a process. A=A!”?

Generally, I draw on experience, analysis and thought.

What is the profound nature of this, “REASONING, IN ITS-SELF, is no more than a process”?

What makes you to reason to take up philosophy or a path to discover truth for your self is the mental environment presented to you, which does not satisfy the quest of truth you are looking for. You don’t find it in what you have learned from teachers and books, but your own personal thinking and reasoning, i.e. your own life experiences, and that is what these quotes are basically saying, among other things.

It’s the “among other thing”ness (especially when you take into account the rest of the book) that I am particularly interested in. Like, the distinction between talent and genius and what’s back of that. You know, reasoning. I am not testing you, Sapius. Especially since you apparently already know everything! That would be a complete waste of time, wouldn’t it.

Similarly, why isn’t it possible for one to find truth through his own experiences, like Weininger, rather than pick up his book to find the truth? Which book or teacher did he follow to experience that which he has? If you really understand and appreciate what he is saying, then you should put his book aside and experience life for your self, that is, think for yourself. I am not saying that, he is.

I don't think you know what he is saying, at all. You're just putting your own spin on it.

Weininger: Clearness of the consciousness is the preliminary condition for remembering, and the memory of the mental stimulation is proportional to the intensity of the consciousness.

Sapius: How would you interpret this?

Well, it follows this line:

Weininger: The more deeply impressed, the more detailed a complex perception may be the more easily does it reproduce itself.

With this line he is simply saying that if every experience in a man’s life could be absorbed in minute yet comprehensive detail, the less inclined he will be to “forget” it -- ever.

In relation to the sentence upon which you enquired: first, remembering requires clarity of consciousness -- consciousness unhindered by incomplete, semi-realised and simplistic perceptions of experiences in one’s past. Second, the magnitude of clarity and depth of consciousness itself can be measured by the degree to which mental stimulation -- that which inspires thought as opposed to the reproduction of rote learning, instinctual behaviour or heredity talent -- itself can be recalled.

He speaks the subject very well, don’t you think?

[Sapius]

Leyla wrote:

Oh, you want another bitch fight, do you? Well, OK.

Oh! Please, no, you perceive it so, not me. It was not an attack, neither was my response out of feeling offended or being egoistical in any way. I apologize for any inconvenience caused; I did not mean it to sound so.

…
You said earlier…

Reasoning and memory are an excellent yardstick for genius. An excellent representation of consciousness.

I understand this as eventually memory and reasoning being an excellent representation of consciousness. Or is it that genius is an excellent representation of consciousness?

It is the genus in genius.

It is the ‘genus’ in genius, which is excellent memory and reasoning, and that represents consciousness. Is that right?

A=A is not the representation of genius,

Sure.

(A=A) it is what is manifest through reasoning, consciousness, memory and expressed through words and in action. -- or not.

Not exactly. It is necessarily a fundamental necessity of existence that is realized through all that you mention, and is symbolized as A=A (as in a conceptual representation) as being the basis of human consciousness, but it is ultimately not reliant or dependant on all that you mention, that is words, memory, reason, etc. It is rather the other way around. A=A is as true for me as it is to an animal, say instinctual A=A, without any conceptual realization so to speak, or to an amoeba, or to the minutest speck that may exist. They “experience” it according to their own level of existence. This is a far more fundamental thing than reason, memory, words, and even human consciousness, although realized through all those things. And this understanding is knowledge in my opinion, that is, Knowing the truth that is independent even of our consciousness.

I know, some might argue that if no consciousness, then nothing exists, but our kind of consciousness is not the only consciousness around, and when nothing exists, I will think about it then. BTW, since I mentioned this, and since existence cannot possibly start or end, so the question of possible non-existence of consciousness does not negate the fact that existence could never turn into non-existence, it IS, and is here to stay, and it did not arrive from somewhere else.

it is not enough to run around proclaiming “A=A! A=A!” in order to propagate wisdom.

I do not propagate anything. I don’t expect others to see as I do, I simply say what I see, and question others on their thoughts to see what am I missing, logically speaking.

I will address the last sentence here, however, since I find it pertinent: it is the very fact that David and Weininger both have written meaningful works, and the worth of such things, and you and I haven’t, that I am looking at here. Or have you?

All that I have ever said is on this forum only, and three others that were lost due to various reasons until this was finally set up. I hope this will last longer than the last one did. As for meaningful words… If you notice…

S: revisit and take a look at it again

I am actually asking you to read here. You have taken ‘put down your book and take a look at life’ too literally.

You might say that I won’t have grasped anything that I haven’t been caused to already. To you I ask, then, if people only grasp what they are already caused to, then every person is equally caused to act and communicate in the way they do, on the subjects they do. You are asking me why I am caused to do what I am caused to do. Why, for the same fundamental reason you are, of course. And, what have we learned with this?

You are assuming much on my part. Firstly, has it …

Weininger’s ideas here may be the very “last” cause required to crack open a wider consciousness in a given individual.

...cracked open a wider consciousness for you? I would be glad if so.

And secondly.. regarding your understanding of “caused”, let me quote Diebert here…

Determinism is the idea that what you do depends. What happens depends on what you do, what you do depends on what you know, what you know depends on what you’re caused to know, and so forth -- but still, what you do matters. There’s a big difference between that and fatalism. Fatalism is determinism with you left out.

There's still a moment perceived as 'choice' and the making of decisions. A fatalist would believe it doesn't matter and retreat from the process thereby still making a choice by avoiding initiation of change.

The point is that determinism only increases responsibility when understood correctly. Because after having understood some of the causes and effects of ones behavior, one might respond better to the rational, wise course of action that now unfolds.

L: Yes, (reasoning) it is a process, but apparently there must be quite a bit more to it than that: I mean, it's a process that is the epitome of understanding. It's a bit different to the process of, say, making cheddar cheese. Then, of course, one can reason on the subject of making cheddar cheese, and one can reason on the subject of life, religion, politics...

Sure, one can reason on anything at all, and still, reason in itself, remains a process. Be it reasoning how to make the best cheddar cheese, or reasoning how to get enlightened. You may appreciate and value the reasoning behind getting enlightened, where as the cheese maker appreciates and values the reasoning behind the making of best cheddar cheese.

When my son comes up to me and says, “Mum, I need some help. I can’t figure out this physics problem” I should just say, “Well, son. Your reasoning is faulty. Reasoning in itself is just a process”? Of course, that’s not what I do. But, am I making my point?

Or, when there’s a fight and people all round are seething at the mouth, ready to kill each other, do I just stand there and proclaim, “Well, you people, reasoning is just a process. A=A!”?

Please stop assuming. Stop misinterpreting what you don’t understand, and please actually do what you say here….

Generally, I draw on experience, analysis and thought.

L: What is the profound nature of this, “REASONING, IN ITS-SELF, is no more than a process”?

Death of the illusory Self, and then using reasoning for what it is. Like solving the problem for your son, if you can, and at the same time, not give inherent value to reasoning or memory, that you now seem to value so much. It is quite clear to me, no human consciousness, no words, no excellent memory, no reasoning, no genius. Further more, no A=A, no consciousness, no existence. Now I’m not saying that there can be no existence; that is not possible.

Weininger: The more deeply impressed, the more detailed a complex perception may be the more easily does it reproduce itself.

With this line he is simply saying that if every experience in a man’s life could be absorbed in minute yet comprehensive detail, the less inclined he will be to “forget” it -- ever.

No, not ‘EVERY’ experience, you simply assume it so, hence your faith in excellent memory itself. He is talking about ‘The more detailed a complex perception may be’, and those complex perceptions are things like ‘non-inherency of things’, ‘all things are caused’, and the like, which are so deeply impressed due to deciphering it through reasoning, that there is no need to recall, they are easily reproduced, in other words, ever present.

Well, that is my spin on it, and you can reject it, caused by your own reasoning.

I don’t think I need to respond to the second part, since it emerges from the same basic reasoning. In my opinion of course.

He speaks the subject very well, don’t you think?

May be, my English is not that good so I cannot judge, but I think I understand it. Of course you can say I don't, but I think you should agree, leaving me aside, that there are numerous people that may interpret it differently, or not understand it at all, so I doubt its clarity so to speak. How many do you think consider him a genius on the subject he speaks so very well? David writes quite simplistically, but I have yet to see someone actually comprehend it, as in deeply impressed complex perception.

So long… I may have missed some points that you would like me to respond, if so, please say so. On my part I think that what I have said covers the gist of the posts.

[Leyla Shen]

Sapius wrote:

I understand this as eventually memory and reasoning being an excellent representation of consciousness. Or is it that genius is an excellent representation of consciousness?

The first statement is correct. The second statement could do with a minor rephrase: genius is the representation of excellent consciousness.

It is the ‘genus’ in genius, which is excellent memory and reasoning, and that represents consciousness. Is that right?

Well, no. What I was saying is that A=A is the genus of genius rather than your argument for it as being the representation of genius, here defined to be the highest state/condition of consciousness. I guess if one excludes the idea of recognition as an inseparable aspect of consciousness, you might put forward such an argument as you have. To consider the question in terms of memory and reasoning is to take it a few steps further in terms of what is (supposedly meant to be) human consciousness.

This (the universality of the Law of Identity according to human consciousness) is a far more fundamental thing than reason, memory, words, and even human consciousness, although realized through all those things. And this understanding is knowledge in my opinion, that is, Knowing the truth that is independent even of our consciousness.

Independent of our consciousness? How does that work? Can you escape from your consciousness to discover this truth? You’re right. I do not understand this.

More later.

[Leyla Shen]

Sapius wrote:

I do not propagate anything.

You mean, you have no idea of the causes and effects behind the things you say and do? If so, fair enough. I can accept that.

I don’t expect others to see as I do, I simply say what I see, and question others on their thoughts to see what am I missing, logically speaking.

Again, you miss the point and quote out of the context of the whole, Sapius.

As for meaningful words… If you notice …

"revisit and take a look at it again."

I am actually asking you to read here. You have taken ‘put down your book and take a look at life’ too literally.

Really? So, you don’t think waiting another “few years” before revisiting David’s book is asking me not to read, in effect? I’d hardly call those words meaningful in any profound sort of way, Sapius.

Man, you even quote yourself out of context! What am I supposed to do with anything you say, then?

You are assuming much on my part. Firstly, has it …

Fair dinkum. You’re not giving me much else to go by but my assumptions since you are all over the place.

...cracked open a wider consciousness for you? I would be glad if so.

Luckily, I don’t judge my own progress by your gladness.

Regarding Diebert’s quote: I’m not sure how that substantiates whatever point you feel you are making about me. I would be happy for you to clearly elaborate, however.

I think I’ll wrap this up with this:

Leyla: He speaks the subject very well, don’t you think?

Sapius: May be, my English is not that good so I cannot judge, but I think I understand it.

So, which is it? Do you understand the Weininger quotes, and therefore the intended substance of this thread that you have thus far insisted I have misinterpreted and accordingly made false assumptions about you, or not?

[Sapius]

Leyla wrote:

What I was saying is that A=A is the genus of genius rather than your argument for it as being the representation of genius, here defined to be the highest state/condition of consciousness.

Ah! I see the confusion. I’m focused on consciousness and you no the highest state/conditions of consciousness. No, I am not saying that A=A represents genius, rather that it is the basis of any and all types of consciousness, not particularly that of a genius alone. All things operate through this recognition criterion, and recognizing this very fact, which is one of the complex perceptions itself, when deeply impressed becomes the basic awareness, not to be recalled as such, or remembered from time to time. Including such complex perceptions as non- inherency of things (impermanency), and that that is due to the flow of cause and effect, which gives a logical comprehension of how all that there is, is.

(Truth) Independent of our consciousness? How does that work?

In the same way that an apple would exist irrelevant of either your or my consciousness particularly being around, or any consciousness for that matter, because the ultimate truth does not lie in the things of any kind that are impermanent, but in the permanency of the flow of all that there is. Truth doesn’t need words to exist, words exist because of the truth.

Can you escape from your consciousness to discover this truth?

No, I cannot escape from my consciousness to discover this truth, because it is the consciousness that helps discover this truth, not create it.

You’re right. I do not understand this.

Sure you don’t. I can understand that.

I don’t think your other post requires any response since it is just sarcasm, except the Diebert’s quote, to which only he could do any justice in explaining.

[Leyla Shen]

Ah! I see the confusion. I’m focused on consciousness and you no the highest state/conditions of consciousness. No, I am not saying that A=A represents genius, rather that it is the basis of any and all types of consciousness, not particularly that of a genius alone. All things operate through this recognition criterion, and recognizing this very fact, which is one of the complex perceptions itself, when deeply impressed becomes the basic awareness, not to be recalled as such, or remembered from time to time. Including such complex perceptions as non- inherency of things (impermanency), and that that is due to the flow of cause and effect, which gives a logical comprehension of how all that there is, is.

No, you don’t see. When Weininger refers to complex perceptions he explicitly refers to the state wherein the individual has the greatest number of things to contrast and compare. He draws a parallel between creative/specialised genius (on this forum, “talent”) and the man who “has all men in him”: the man who understands more men than any other, even moreso than those men themselves by virtue of the fact of his “complex perception” -- that is, by this forum’s definition, the true Genius. Weininger is talking specifically about those characteristics of mind that are called here “masculinity.” This parallel is based on the sharpness of mental rather than sensual perception. So, the Genius musician is similar to the Man of Genius insofar as his quality of mental perception, rather than the quality of the specialised sensory unit usually associated with a specific field of creative activity. The difference is that the creative genius has his genius limited to that specific field, as opposed to the much wider sphere of understanding: that of having within him all men. You, for instance, could be said to be specialising in the art of logical expression, as opposed to someone who not only understands you and your likes and dislikes, but the criminal and his, the woman and -- well, the woman, the politician, the plumber, the butcher, baker, astronaut and physicist. Why? Because of complex perception: the ability to distinguish, contrast and compare multitudes of things. It is not that there is A=A, but what one is doing with it. That is where reasoning and memory matter, and where what could be called true Genius is seen.

Sapius quoted me: (Truth) Independent of our consciousness? How does that work?

His reply in part: In the same way that an apple would exist irrelevant of either your or my consciousness particularly being around,…

Irrelevant of “your or my consciousness,” yes -- but if there was no human consciousness -- let’s say we nuked ourselves off the face of the earth for a few millennia -- and there was only monocell consciousness, what is an “apple” then?

The remainder of his reply above: …or any consciousness for that matter, because the ultimate truth does not lie in the things of any kind that are impermanent, but in the permanency of the flow of all that there is. Truth doesn’t need words to exist, words exist because of the truth.

Of course, Ultimate Truth is different to an apple. A monocell would likely have no need for an “apple,” though it could hardly exist without Ultimate Truth.

Leyla: Can you escape from your consciousness to discover this truth?

Sapius: No, I cannot escape from my consciousness to discover this truth, because it is the consciousness that helps discover this truth, not create it.

Who said anything about creating Truth?

I quoted Sapius: This (the universality of the Law of Identity according to human consciousness) is a far more fundamental thing than reason, memory, words, and even human consciousness, although realized through all those things. And this understanding is knowledge in my opinion, that is, Knowing the truth that is independent even of our consciousness.

Then asked:

Independent of our consciousness? How does that work? Can you escape from your consciousness to discover this truth? You’re right. I do not understand this.

Sapius replied: Sure you don’t. I can understand that.

You, dear Sapius, are far from understanding me despite your ridiculous attempts to make it appear so. There is nothing that exists independently of consciousness, by definition. Now, things appearing to exist independently of the ego (as if the idea of apples existing beyond the death of a physical body has any profound meaning and relevance, or is some great revelation) is another matter: but, we all know that the problem there is with the ego, not existence and consciousness, right?

Sapius: I don’t think your other post requires any response since it is just sarcasm, except the Diebert’s quote, to which only he could do any justice in explaining.

I think you’re being silly. The issues raised in my “sarcasm” were legitimate instances of the consequences of your sarcasm -- or, worse, your own idiocy. If I need Diebert to further explain his thoughts, I will ask him myself without recommendation as I have always done, thanks. Seldom does his thought require much clarification from my perspective, however. This does raise the same problem you and I are experiencing with Weininger, though. That is, the problem of you insisting your comprehension of an idea/s and then passing the buck when it gets to tough for you to substantiate that understanding. If you would just admit that you cannot, instead of resorting to such egotistical machinations as you have demonstrated in this thread, I'd show a great deal more respect for you. But I think that is only part of the problem.

[Sapius]

(It seems my post has disappeared. Well…)

Code: Select all

L: There is nothing that exists independently of consciousness, by definition. Now, things appearing to exist independently of the ego (as if the idea of apples existing beyond the death of a physical body has any profound meaning and relevance, or is some great revelation) is another matter: but, we all know that the problem there is with the ego, not existence and consciousness, right?

What is the difference between ego and consciousness?

[Leyla Shen]

In considering the apple, consciousness considers the apple in relation to all other things. In considering the apple, ego considers the apple in relation to self. Sometimes, the latter follows the former with such close proximity that the distinction between the two disappears. More often, there is only the latter.

[Sapius]

Leyla wrote:

In considering the apple, consciousness considers the apple in relation to all other things. In considering the apple, ego considers the apple in relation to self. Sometimes, the latter follows the former with such close proximity that the distinction between the two disappears.

You mean that sometimes the distinction between consciousness and the self disappears. Right? But you do see a distinction between consciousness and self, right? So what is the self doing while the consciousness is considering an apple? And where does consciousness go while the self in engaged in considering an apple?

More often, there is only the latter.

In my opinion, the former and the latter is one and the same thing, which is logically aware that it is aware, that it is conscious of other things, as well as its own self; a gift of nature within human consciousness. Human consciousness, awareness, is not a thing separate from the self, and is a much higher degree of “consciousness” because it can recognize its own existence, meaningfully, than a mono-cell consciousness, and if an apple exists with only a mono-cell consciousness around, it still remains an apple irrelevant of our capability of naming it as such. It would be what it is, and that is a truth existing irrelevant of our consciousness.

Of course, Ultimate Truth is different to an apple.

I might confuse you here or you might jump at the opportunity of shouting - ‘contradiction! Ultimate Truth is actually no different then the fact that you can actually perceive and name a thing, for instance an apple. The Ultimate Truth is that Reality is not a separate thing hiding somewhere or underlying anything, but all that there is, is Reality itself, hence things are what they are in themselves irrelevant of how we might comparatively name them through our nature given capability, be it a self, illusion, Tao, consciousness, emptiness, Ultimate Truth, or an apple.

Things necessarily exist, however temporal they may be, I don’t deny their inherency. And things, AND their coming and going, and whatever that there is put together is Reality, hence the word Reality itself has no meaning in the face of all that there is, since it encompasses that too, and all that you and me can talk about or comprehend.

Irrelevant of “your or my consciousness,” yes -- but if there was no human consciousness -- let’s say we nuked ourselves off the face of the earth for a few millennia -- and there was only mono-cell consciousness, what is an “apple” then?

If it exists, it is what it is, if not, then not. How does our capability of defining a thing actually make it what it is?

You did say above, (an apple would exist) ‘Irrelevant of “your or my consciousness,” yes’, and at the same time you say… “There is nothing that exists independently of consciousness, by definition.” Do you mean just Your consciousness, or consciousness in general, including that of a mono-cell even if that were the only consciousness around?

I quoted Sapius: This (the universality of the Law of Identity according to human consciousness) is a far more fundamental thing than reason, memory, words, and even human consciousness, although realized through all those things. And this understanding is knowledge in my opinion, that is, Knowing the truth that is independent even of our consciousness.

Now consider this again. Yes, although A=A is a concept defined according to human consciousness, it does exist for a mono-cell irrelevant of our consciousness naming it or symbolizing it or existing as such, hence this truth exists irrelevant of our consciousness being around. But if, our consciousness is not around, lets say we nuked ourselves, then words, meaning, logic, reasoning, the excellent memory, and the great clarity of consciousness, will hardly survive, including any profoundness of any thing at all. They are simply tools that help us realize the truth of existence as a whole.

[Leyla Shen]

Sapius wrote:

You mean that sometimes the distinction between consciousness and the self disappears. Right? But you do see a distinction between consciousness and self, right? So what is the self doing while the consciousness is considering an apple? And where does consciousness go while the self in engaged in considering an apple?

The ego-self (as a thought-construct) is deconstructed always and only by consciousness. Even in those with the postulated least amount of consciousness (generally referred to as women) still have some consciousness -- as we have contemplated previously in this thread, it is on the order of instinctual (stimulus-response/sensual) consciousness rather than analytical. Therefore, the “self” isn’t -- in fact, it is impossible for it to be doing anything while consciousness considers an apple.

Consciousness, as a thought-object, disappears into the annals of time together with the apple one might have eaten 20 years ago whilst the ego-self is engaged in considering an apple it‘s about to eat. As an active element of existence, it (consciousness) is then ever-present, obviously.

More later.

[Sapius]

Leyla,

The ego-self (as a thought-construct) is deconstructed always and only by consciousness.

As far as humans are concerned, what isn’t a thought-construct? Consciousness? Constructing thoughts IS consciousness.

Even in those with the postulated least amount of consciousness (generally referred to as women) still have some consciousness

Please let me make this clear on my part. I do not, irrelevant of obvious natural differences that are necessary for things and consciousness to exist inter-dependently, some how place the quality of consciousness on a pedestal. Femininity is as essential as masculinity, and so is an apple. If a self, (human consciousness), thinks that it is devoid of any particular quality that exists in Totality, or considers is not necessary in achieving some higher perspective of existence, has still not realized the reality of existence as in Now.

as we have contemplated previously in this thread, it is on the order of instinctual (stimulus-response/sensual) consciousness rather than analytical. Therefore, the “self” isn’t -- in fact, it is impossible for it to be doing anything while consciousness considers an apple.

Isn’t it consciousness that analyzes? Are you saying that an instinctual consciousness is more natural than a human one? Is a conscious thought or meaningful realization of consciousness itself un-natural? Human consciousness has made us realize the oneness of existence in the Now, meaningfully understand and go beyond stars, and because this consciousness is capable of CALLING itself a Self, it isn’t? Saying that a self isn’t, is saying consciousness isn’t, as far as I can see.

Yes, it is impossible for the self to be doing anything (else) while the consciousness considers an apple because they are one and the same thing. Consciousness imposes the word ‘self’ simply because it can experience things, including our physical body hence call this thing a self. It is consciousness calling it self a self because it experiences it so. It is not an illusion in the sense that it does not exist, but has no inherency in the sense of having any permanency. It does not mean that there is no self at all.

If people talk from the perspective of an independently existing thing, I would call that a false-ego, not ego, which simply realizes the differences for what they are.

Consciousness, as a thought-object, disappears into the annals of time together with the apple one might have eaten 20 years ago whilst the ego-self is engaged in considering an apple it‘s about to eat. As an active element of existence, it (consciousness) is then ever-present, obviously.

So it would be the ego-self that would be engaged in considering posting a reply that it would be about to? That is, by an ego-self that isn't? While "consciousness" is ever-present. Where? Doing what?

This whole thread is an act of consciousness, including the reaction seen in a mono-cell due to any environmental conditions.

[Leyla Shen]

Sapius,

L: The ego-self (as a thought-construct) is deconstructed always and only by consciousness.

S: As far as humans are concerned, what isn’t a thought-construct? Consciousness? Constructing thoughts IS consciousness.

You’re kidding, right? You spoken to any materialists, lately?

There are whole schools of philosophy built on the premise that thought is (ideas are) the result of and cannot exist without matter. That is, the material world exists independently and outside of consciousness. My question remains: how the fuck does a conscious individual conclude such a thing to be true and keep a straight face, since even his logic (and reason) is underpinned by consciousness itself?

Take communism, for example. Any real communist will tell you that there is no such thing as an ego, and the extent of your self is your physical body. Therefore, consciousness becomes like the ego that you speak of -- nothing but a product of matter ie, a matter-construct.

But what I had actually intended to speak with the above statement was not the idea that the ego-self is conclusively, exclusively and finally a thought-construct; rather that as a thought-construct, it can only be deconstructed by consciousness. In other words, looking at it like a tradesman of sorts, you cannot deconstruct something constructed with thought by using a (objective) hammer. Sure, one could crack their skull open and, in a way, solve any ego-self issues -- but, I’d hardly consider that a wise, enlightened approach.

To me, constructing thoughts is thinking not consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental to both thinking and reacting -- even if on different levels. One’s response to a situation would often be very different if instead of reacting, they gave a situation some thought. Thought requires hindsight, foresight and the ability to compare, differentiate and contrast -- analyse -- rather than instinctual identification. But only the thinking individual can be aware of this.

With your above question, do you mean to imply that we think ourselves into existence right up to consciousness itself? That is, consciousness exists only because we think it does?

[Sapius]

Leyla, I think I better wait for...

More later.

Since certain points are relevant to your last post and may resolve certain difference of opinions or misunderstandings.

[Leyla Shen]

Yes, thank you. I'll get back to this ASAP; there's a VD outbreak in The Brothel I'd like to examine.