Re: Space & Consciousness
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am
Only Bert can understand Bert; it's part of the nature of Bertness.
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/
Let the thread take its natural course; it’s all about creating space (viewpoint of dimension), after all, no? All you need to do is extend your anchor points, marcothay …marcothay wrote:Oh...shit (pardon my language),
I think we are derailing from the main subject of this thread.
Anyway let me answer to your latest comments.
I think you should do it here, but—OK.I will pm you as soon as I can about the 9 dynamic,
Fair enough. Pan-determinism, Scn Tech Dictionary—the willingness to start, change and stop on any and all dynamics, i.e., it follows from responsibility, which is the willingness to assume the status of full cause.but you brought up the concept of "pan-determinism" without defining it.
No, it’s not at all about getting “excitement”! Not by Scn definitions, at least.I will do it for you: Pan-determinism is an ability to see and experience two or more self-determinations. As an example, lets take two chess players who are self-determinate
to win the game, ok?
Well, a pan-determinate individual can play the same game with himself and get the same exciting that two determinations (players) have.
Well, given the above definitions, I think that’s a strange interpretation, no? It’s about the willingness to BE both the winner and the loser in order to effect right action across the dynamics.The trick is in the ability of a pan-determinate individual to choose and interchange between cause and effect, or know and not know, between right move and wrong move*...
A pan determinate "consciousness", in few words, is able to create and be,in the same time, a dichotomy (two opposites)!
There are at least logical absolutes. For example, like this:There are not Absolutes in this universe, can you see it?
Is that or is that not absolutely true, or is it only gradiently true?4) INFINITY-VALUED LOGIC: Absolute right (true) or absolute wrong (false) unobtainable.
I’m not sure I understand your point. By definition, the centre (zero) of this gradient scale of right/wrong is necessarily the point where anything above is more and more right and anything below is more and more wrong, with zero as the point of neither right nor wrong. That’s a very definite, even if “arbitrary,” position.For example right and wrong on a vertical scale, everything above the center would be more and more right, approaching an infinite rightness, and everything below the center would be more and more wrong approaching an infinite wrongness.
It is important to realize that the "center" on this "virtual vertical" scale is just an arbitrary factor; in fact it could be positioned anywhere on the scale without changing the concept of this logic!
One is still required to assess from the point of zero (neither right nor wrong), then, at what point on this scale the “condition of the universes” exist before one can act in the direction of rightness.The gradient scale is a way of thinking about the universe which approximates the actual conditions of the universes more closely than any other existing logical method.
ahah... that is a good one.Dan Rowden wrote:Only Bert can understand Bert; it's part of the nature of Bertness.
Not so sure here what you mean.Let the thread take its natural course; it’s all about creating space (viewpoint of dimension), after all, no? All you need to do is extend your anchor points, marcothay …
9th and 10th dynamics are defined in DNC & SCN Tech dictionaryI think you should do it here, but—OK.
I didn't said that, please read it again.No, it’s not at all about getting “excitement”! Not by Scn definitions, at least.
It is still gradiently true.There are at least logical absolutes. For example, like this:
Is that or is that not absolutely true, or is it only gradiently true?4) INFINITY-VALUED LOGIC: Absolute right (true) or absolute wrong (false) unobtainable.
In an infinite values scale there is not 'zero' or 'center' at all.I’m not sure I understand your point. By definition, the centre (zero) of this gradient scale of right/wrong is necessarily the point where anything above is more and more right and anything below is more and more wrong, with zero as the point of neither right nor wrong. That’s a very definite, even if “arbitrary,” position.
Again, there is no point of zero and the condition of your universe is dictated only by you.One is still required to assess from the point of zero (neither right nor wrong), then, at what point on this scale the “condition of the universes” exist before one can act in the direction of rightness.
Ok, if you can experience and feel what is right and what is wrong that means that you can be both, and the so called "center' what is, if not just be what you have decided to be or to stay on a scaleHow is this to be done, exactly, without the two-valued logic of right and wrong, as you have used it above at *—the right move is that move which...?
OK. I’ll get back to it.marcothay wrote:Not so sure here what you mean.
So they are, but the 9th isn’t at all about responsibility—if anything, the 10th is:9th and 10th dynamics are defined in DNC & SCN Tech dictionary
Nevertheless, the defn. for the 10th goes like this, the 10th dynamic “would probably be ethics” – “dynamics” being defined as life drives/impulses. Frankly, I see this as a subdivision of the 7th, myself.9th aesthetics
10th ethics
(from the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures (PDCs))
Well, this is what you wrote:I didn't said that, please read it again.
Can you rephrase, as I cannot seem to glean anything else from it that what I already have.I will do it for you: Pan-determinism is an ability to see and experience two or more self-determinations. As an example, lets take two chess players who are self-determinate
to win the game, ok?
Well, a pan-determinate individual can play the same game with himself and get the same exciting that two determinations (players) have.
So, to be really clear, it’s both absolutely and gradiently true that absolutes are unobtainable?It is still gradiently true.
Isn’t (3) contrary to (1) and (2)? In relation to (2), what about when your universe comes into conflict with the other two universes despite its rightness; the MEST universe and the universe of others (Fundamentals of Thought [FOT])? This would certainly raise problems regarding (3)’s “just be what you have decided to be, or to ‘stay on scale’ (what do you mean by that?)” and this is exactly the point where you would fail to be both—fail to be pan-determined, by definition. It is also the point, therefore, where your space, movement and capacity to effect change contracts into self-determinism.1) In an infinite values scale there is not 'zero' or 'center' at all.
2) Again, there is no point of zero and the condition of your universe is dictated only by you.
And the "rightness" in your universe is just what you decide it be,
3) Ok, if you can experience and feel what is right and what is wrong that means that you can be both, and the so called "center' what is, if not just be what you have decided to be or to stay on a scale
our will continues from and is formed by preceding efforts, and so our further deliberations will again predetermine our future will, 'free' or not to control our instincts by transference.but you brought up the concept of "pan-determinism" without defining it.
Fair enough. Pan-determinism, Scn Tech Dictionary—the willingness to start, change and stop on any and all dynamics, i.e., it follows from responsibility, which is the willingness to assume the status of full cause.
I will do it for you: Pan-determinism is an ability to see and experience two or more self-determinations. As an example, lets take two chess players who are self-determinate
to win the game, ok?
the precept of Ethics could be Pan-inbuilt(integral), for any essentially 'logical proposition' is Ethical( equitable to everything else)The trick is in the ability of a pan-determinate individual to choose and interchange between cause and effect, or know and not know, between right move and wrong move*...
A pan determinate "consciousness", in few words, is able to create and be,in the same time, a dichotomy (two opposites)!
Well, given the above definitions, I think that’s a strange interpretation, no? It’s about the willingness to BE both the winner and the loser in order to effect right action across the dynamics.
no exception, everywhere the playlist wails "I got music, I got rhythm" and everyone asserts that he is as good as everyone else. YES! - rhythm with what? the blind-worm cycle? and as good as who? no man is equal to the gods, neither his soul nor his better self. if superior to another, the virtuous man does not state it, concerned that he is with his inferiority.dejavu wrote:I'm enjoying observing this thread! Spin it... Infinity over nothing. All self-seekers! All pre-occupied with belief! All human!How does one approach eternity?! (:D) Nothing is static!
I know that if intelligent people will bridge the distances between themselves they can will the world. Give birth to their best and begin! I know there is also a danger of this not happening! Such levity, such gravity, such talk!
I can conceive God in You ,and You in me - a new Anthropolatory: God in us and in all potencies: I am a Pantheist 'as if'. we cannot adopt the 'as if' and love all things as ourselves, but we can love ourselves 'as if' all things.But I stay with my own understanding on the definition of pan-determinism:
"the ability to synchronize (thus being above) two or more entity's considerations, be them
opposite or not. ( The Creation of Human Ability).
Or to experience two o more self-determinations (FOT)
I believe (not written anywhere) that an able "consciousness" (Thetan) could actually BE and controls two or more human bodies at the same time.
the gibelike ape, the smiling God, both beckon and will endow.I believe (not written anywhere) that an able "consciousness" (Thetan) could actually BE and controls two or more human bodies at the same time
the stoic does not teach by incitement or dogma but by exemplary acts: neither does he indurate himself by seperation from the world and emotional self-frenzy. his abstractions are spaciously amoral, vista'd acceptances, and if desired, anodyne. he is never lost when realising himself in othernesses. he is a solipsist, self-dependent, demanding only from himself, seeking no privileges; which does not preclude his giving and accepting gifts.Dan Rowden wrote:Only Bert can understand Bert; it's part of the nature of Bertness.
Dear Bertbert wrote: I can conceive God in You ,and You in me - a new Anthropolatory: God in us and in all potencies: I am a Pantheist 'as if'. we cannot adopt the 'as if' and love all things as ourselves, but we can love ourselves 'as if' all things.
by bert on Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:01 pmdejavu wrote:dejavu:I'm enjoying observing this thread! Spin it... Infinity over nothing. All self-seekers! All pre-occupied with belief! All human!How does one approach eternity?! (:D) Nothing is static!
I know that if intelligent people will bridge the distances between themselves they can will the world. Give birth to their best and begin! I know there is also a danger of this not happening! Such levity, such gravity, such talk!
bert:Space and consciousness.no exception, everywhere the playlist wails "I got music, I got rhythm" and everyone asserts that he is as good as everyone else. YES! - rhythm with what? the blind-worm cycle? and as good as who? no man is equal to the gods, neither his soul nor his better self. if superior to another, the virtuous man does not state it, concerned that he is with his inferiority.
from the phenomenal-alogical world we infer our unintentionally invalid argument, hence our fictions are provable, or not by such argumentation by moral philosophy. our fiction of geometry must therefore be our method of proving fictional evaluations.
the purest and most concentrated essence of monotony: all things alike and equal.
The virtuous man daren't become a creator lest it kills him. In servitude he expects to be spared. Societal acceptance forms the greater part of his satisfaction.
A bridging of distances between noble natures is never a weakening or loss of the differences that distinguish them from oneanother. The common resistance to it, due to its diminishing the general feeling of 'equality', is nothing compared to the difficulty that exists in its realization owing to the tendency of these natures to be swallowed up by the demand for their greatest talents: love, and education.
starting as child and until death we seek and enjoy a fill-in reality, unwittingly making a parallel. we instinctively imitate the fact that we are the substitute of a greater reality - ever seeking compensation by substitution, for being substitute; a double paradox.marcothay wrote:Dear Bertbert wrote: I can conceive God in You ,and You in me - a new Anthropolatory: God in us and in all potencies: I am a Pantheist 'as if'. we cannot adopt the 'as if' and love all things as ourselves, but we can love ourselves 'as if' all things.
I appreciate what you are expressing about your own universe, I believe that you are a very creative Being and sometime poetic too ( aesthetic band ).
But the fact that remains, is that you too, are still entrapped in a material body and even if you are able to get out from it, you are still not able to get out from this universe, isn'it?
Again, The appearance of EXISTENCE if is being looked from the level where Man is found, is however the opposite of the above statements. That because Man is operating on a secondary opinion that says that physical mechanics are real and his personal
considerations are less important.
That is an inversion and thus he is operating in a way to not alter his basic considerations. He is continuing to invalidate himself and of course he ends up to ponder, ponder, ponder and hypothesize the existence of a different or others' determination of matter-energy-space-time-life form ( like a God or gods or a Big Bang or a Tao or something else).
Although He is participating in the continuous creation of those finite things, he is giving credit and power to them.
Thus, he fall in a fallacy of considerations that he is just a small or even null and void part of the "reality" been observed.
In few words, we are on the same boat!
what is conceivable when we can not conceive even what we are conceiving?marcothay wrote:???????
when you are a recidivist to all pretences...when one sees one's own reflection everywhere and sees everything as in oneself, then you become Stoical.dejavu wrote:I don't know bert. Nor do I know how Marcothay could possibly demonstrate that the existence of space is dependent on its observation. I think it 'stoical' not to dwell on what we don't know (as though we could), but to move upon our knowledge. I think that we should begin by looking at how our observation of space affects it. Does it after all? To what sphere are we bound? To what degree do we desire that space be our own?
Is it a question of possession?
when you are a recidivist to all pretences...when one sees one's own reflection everywhere and sees everything in oneself, then you become as the Stoic.dejavu wrote:
I don't know bert. Nor do I know how Marcothay could possibly demonstrate that the existence of space is dependent on its observation. I think it 'stoical' not to dwell on what we don't know (as though we could), but to move upon our knowledge. I think that we should begin by looking at how our observation of space affects it. Does it after all? To what sphere are we bound? To what degree do we desire that space be our own?
Is it a question of possession?
the inbetweenness of cause and effect is a sensuality(I'm rather a sensualist than a spiritist): we are always experiencing more, or less. experience is inter-between to all purpose and desire and only partly disclosed to Ego. Real and Vivid experience goes deeper, often-times within lightning reactions, as when the mind releases an compulsory entity, a 'thought-symbol' reconciling or destroying fallacies, for the upstep of values.I think that we should begin by looking at how our observation of space affects it. Does it after all? To what sphere are we bound?To what degree do we desire that space be our own?