The question of death

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

The question of death

Post by TheImmanent »

There are several popular arguments for the human mind’s mortality. Some that I can mention off the top of my head are: (i) the observation that we may be put in an unconscious state, (ii) the way substances and harm to the brain compromises the mind, combined with the fact that the brain is destructible, (iii) there is no recollection of the vast stretches of time prior to consciousness.

These are all fairly intelligent and reasonable points, which I also once shared. Since I no longer do share them I would like to write down a fairly succinct post of the nonesoteric reasons to my contrary conviction. But first it may be in its place to say that my convictions come from purely intellectual conclusions rather than from any wish to control things. All faults should therefore be blamed on my intellect rather than my courage. Certainly, the notion that death is the ultimate end of consciousness is beautiful in its own way.

Now, when it comes to argument (i), it is easily countered since this situation is in fact necessary and fully deducible through the limited mind’s sheer existence and the way finite definitions interact with each other, and since time, which is here the index used to measure “unconciousness” is in fact nothing but a limited mind’s ability to register more or fewer things concurrently. In short, we are unconscious of things that we are too slow to register, and the states of “unconsciousness” as we have observed, are nothing but this same mechanism taken to a more apparent extent, i.e., longer intervals between perceptions. It is in other words a non-argument regarding mortality, or an argument made due to a lapse in attention.

Argument (ii) is similar in nature but less abstract. Since the mind and the brain are indeed synchronized, or the same thing understood under different aspects, it is true that what affects the one also affects the other. Therefore, the necessity which we noted against the previous argument, that the mind can become more limited in its ability to register perceptions, equally pertains to the necessity that the brain can become more limited in it’s structural integrity. But regarding this argument, the counter-argument does not abolish it.

For argument (ii) not only notes that the brain can be impacted, or limited, but also destroyed, and since we understand that the brain and the mind are the same thing we are thus led to the conclusion that the mind is equally destroyed. This is a logical and respectable conclusion.

However, it is not the final conclusion of logic. For much more is deducible when we examine the nature of the mind. The proper counter-argument to argument (ii) lies not in investigating the similarities (the synchronicity) of the brain and the mind, but rather the differences. For there are differences, or we would have no reason of having two different words. This is of course because “mind” refers to the consciousness itself, while “brain” refers to the physical organ associated with it.

This is a very significant difference. For the key here is to demonstrate how the mind cannot be understood solely through the brain and vice versa. That is, the definition (what they are) of the brain and the definition of consciousness do not overlap, but they are essentially different even though we observe that they are interconnected in the world.

When we have established this separate essence of the mind (thought), the next logical step lies in knowing what makes a thing a thing. Now, what we normally experience as “things” are simply what we discern to be something concrete, i.e., what we perceive as a unit. However, we are also able to distinguish parts of the things we see in our everyday lives, and so anything we see can be reduced to further separate things — but what we are doing now is merely to shift our attention, that we experience something other as a unit than we did before. For this is exactly what a thing is; it is a concrete unit that is something in itself (which our perceptions often appear to be).

Now, since the things we commonly discern are in fact not things in the full sense (since they consist of parts, or relations) what is a thing is that which stands by itself when perspective is widened to encompass the all (this is beyond our scope in ways of perception of course, but the logic is available to us). That is, the all is a concrete thing, and also timeless since time is simply constituted by the interaction of relative things.

Two things may be mentioned. One is this; for there to be relative things at all to interact with each other, there must be something they are discerned in, i.e., their existence makes it apparent to us that this Thing exists, or else there would be no relative things to constitute time and our world. (Buddhist teachings make the case that all that exists are relations, but this is simply an incomplete thought since the relations are nothing but discernments, or discriminations, of something). The second thing to mention is this; that which the one Thing consists in is that which has essence, i.e., is known through itself rather than through comparisons.

And of course, there is only one such thing, namely consciousness. Or, perhaps more precisely, understanding; which is the only thing that is known through itself and in itself, and can be described in no other way than through understanding. This means that we have demonstrated that the one concrete Thing is an infinite and timeless consciousness, or understanding.

Since this is the Thing in which other, relative things (us) are discerned, we also know that the discernment of these things (us) is conceptual rather than concrete — by which we also understand that the quality of consciousness which we possess is not concretely divisible from the Thing, meaning that we do not lose our quality (essence, understanding) upon death but rather the limitations that consitute the discernment of us in the Thing (brain, body, flesh). This implies that the “I” which we all experience, is the same “I”, only separated by our current states and that it is in reality an all-encompassing “I”, i.e., that beyond our limitations, which are finite, we exist as infinite, including the very conception of ourselves (ourself) as limited (which counters argument (iii)).

If someone has objections towards my reasoning, however, I would be glad to hear them.
Last edited by TheImmanent on Wed Jan 01, 2014 2:28 am, edited 3 times in total.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The question of death

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Understanding is mood.
The moods at 'the party'.
What is encountered are moods, the rest is information.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The question of death

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Understanding is mood.
The moods at 'the party'.
What is encountered are moods, the rest is information.
Check your spelling: understanding is moot.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The question of death

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Immanent, I could not find much to object against although I was not always sure what you meant exactly. In those cases I assumed the best. There's this one thing at the end:
TheImmanent wrote:meaning that we do not lose our quality (essence, understanding) upon death but rather the limitations that consitute the discernment of us in the Thing (brain, body, flesh).
The question still stands of how meaningful that would be to anyone attached to those particular "limitations". That essence and understanding live on might not be of interest unless it already had been acknowledged to be the one redeeming quality and being meaningful that way. And what would be our as quality? Because the possessive would be another quality bestowed upon it, a relation to something or someone, one of ownership or inherent belonging. This looks a bit too flexible as a formula since it might bring you back to the first paragraph again.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The question of death

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Moods are encountered.
the understanding is information, commentary.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The question of death

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Understanding is mood.
The moods at 'the party'.
What is encountered are moods, the rest is information.
Understanding is the conception of a true idea, whether that is the conception of understanding itself or the conception of other ideas that are true. Understanding is not a finite thing; even if the truth pertains to a finite thing in time, i.e., the truth of your current existence is true also after the fact, like the first step of an equation is true also at its solution.

Nor is it subjective, or dependent on the limits of a consciousness. A false conception is a mood, while understanding is inseparable from information — when it is held by the finite mind, the mind does not own it, but taps into what is timeless. Understanding and information is thus the same, whether or not a finite mind contains it, while moods are misinformation in the mind, and information about the mind.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The question of death

Post by Dennis Mahar »

nothing exists absolutely.
dependent arising.

Quinn's declaration goes:

there are absolute truths which exist in all possible worlds.

which begs the question.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The question of death

Post by TheImmanent »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Immanent, I could not find much to object against although I was not always sure what you meant exactly. In those cases I assumed the best. There's this one thing at the end:
TheImmanent wrote:meaning that we do not lose our quality (essence, understanding) upon death but rather the limitations that consitute the discernment of us in the Thing (brain, body, flesh).
The question still stands of how meaningful that would be to anyone attached to those particular "limitations". That essence and understanding live on might not be of interest unless it already had been acknowledged to be the one redeeming quality and being meaningful that way. And what would be our as quality? Because the possessive would be another quality bestowed upon it, a relation to something or someone, one of ownership or inherent belonging. This looks a bit too flexible as a formula since it might bring you back to the first paragraph again.
You make a valid point that I have not demonstrated a reason for understanding to be a redeeming or meaningful quality. I will do my best to do so.

For there to be any preferences at all, there must be a will — this is, after all, what constitutes a will. This will is also the mind's sole impetus to action, i.e., for if the mind did not prefer anything, there would be no reason to act in any particular way and thus it would remain apathetic. But then this will cannot be external to the mind, or it would have no impetus to embrace it in the first place.

Thus we conclude:
(i) The mind (thought) has a will which is part of the nature of the mind (innate will).

(ii) But the innate will of thought cannot be to prefer something external to thought, for then the mind would first exist without a will, and then it could not begin to will, as by the previous statement.

(iii) Since the will of thought must be intrinsic to thought, and thought can only be conceived in itself and through itself, it must be a way of thought and not a way of physical action.

(iv) This will of thought which is a way of thinking, must be a way of thinking about things that thought perceives. For if this will would consist in thinking about things that thought does not perceive, then thinking things would want to perceive as little as possible, and ignore their impressions as much as possible.

(v) The innate will of thought, which is a way of thinking about things it perceives, cannot be to speculate or calculate. For if the innate will of thought were a certain process of thought, then thought would always conform to this process, since it cannot will anything outside its will, or, nothing outside it would have any bearing upon it. For example, if its preferences were merely a certain process of thought, there would be no specific reaction to physical pain since this would not interfer with a process that is wholly intrinsic to thought.

Indeed, thought would not even be able to form the conception of why it should suffer by something exterior to it. Moreover, a process of thought is merely the observation of many instances of thought over time, and to say that the process itself is the thing desirable would be to say that nothing is, i.e., in each instance of thought, nothing would be desired, and a mind could not form a process of thought, since nothing would incite it.

(vi) The innate will of thought, which is not a process of thinking about things it perceives, but only a way of thinking about things it perceives, must be to conform to something it perceives. For a will is a desire to conform to some preferences. But the innate will of thought cannot be to conform to any particular process of thinking about what it perceives, as by the previous statement, and thus it must be to conform to something (an idea) it perceives.

(vii) The innate will of thought must be to conform to its own nature, in so far as it perceives it. For the innate will of thought cannot be to conform to another nature outside it, since it cannot perceive another nature than its own, nor can it wish to conform to something it perceives, which it perceives as being different from its own nature, for then thought, in so far as it perceives itself, would suffer and strive not to perceive itself, i.e., it would strive to stop being thought, i.e., it would stop thinking and be apathetic. Indeed, if the innate will of thought was to conform to something that it perceives as a different nature than its own, then it would make mutiny upon itself, since the will belongs to its nature, and this is a contradiction, i.e., it would act according to the very will that it wishes to undermine.

(viii) Thus the innate will of thought must be to conform to the nature which it perceives as its own nature. In other words, the innate preferences of thought is to conform to its own nature, and this remains true regardless of how advanced or primitive a mind is. In this way we understand that the wills of primitive minds, who scarcely perceive anything as their nature other than their bodies, will necessarily conform to the dispositions of their bodies, or, act according to sensation-based preferences.

(ix) So, for example, the infant will conform fully to its hunger, its tiredness, its physical pain and comfort, while a grown man, who is capable of conceiving his nature in many different ways, or to form many different ideas about himself, does not only include the dispositions of his body — but he can also be happy or saddened by, for example, the triumph of a sports team or the acquisition or loss of money.

For the grown man is capable of forming identities for himself that includes not just the physical body, but also such ideas as; social class, caste, profession, religion, nationality, sports team, race, political color, culture, hobbies, masculinity/feminity and countless other ideas. (it follows that the human mind, in being able to change its conception of itself, will be able to feel pleasure at something at one time, and then, after assuming another identity, find it repulsive instead, or vice versa)

This is the ego-identity. However, as we have seen, it is merely an extrapolation of the innate will of thought, which is to conform to its nature. Since none of these things actually constitute the nature of the mind, we understand that people commonly chase things not out of a true desire, but out of a misguided desire to conform to what they perceive as their natures.

(x) The key to finding our true desire, is thus to find our true nature. And the true nature of thought is understanding; for to understand is to conceive something, or think, fully. That is, it is to fully embrace and conform to the nature of thought. Thus the wise man, who understands things, is affected by true joy through his sheer understanding. For understanding is at once, and by necessity, our true will and our true nature.

(xi) This also leads us to the conclusion that the infinite consciousness is infinitely affected by joy — not because of anything external, of course, but because it fulfills its own infinite nature.

At least these are the conclusions that my own limited mind arrives at, and I welcome any criticism.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The question of death

Post by Dennis Mahar »

This also leads us to the conclusion that the infinite consciousness is infinitely affected by joy — not because of anything external, of course, but because it fulfills its own infinite nature.
mooded.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The question of death

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

The immanent, good work. With the first post (haven't read the other comment). You won't find much argument here.

The notion that the brain is the cause of the mind and hence the dissolution of the brain is the end of existence is, as we know, incredibly flawed.

It's effectively pointing to a formation of consciousness, saying it exists externally to consciousness, and creates consciousness.

I'm sure you've had a grand time trying to explain that to others haha.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:meaning that we do not lose our quality (essence, understanding) upon death
Above is the only part you might have to elaborate on.
"essence" is fine.
Yet I can't see which "understanding" it is we retain? That seems to imply some kind of lasting and personal knowledge after 'death'.
TheImmanent wrote:Thus the wise man, who understands things, is affected by true joy through his sheer understanding. For understanding is at once, and by necessity, our true will and our true nature.
Had the same notions once, but now: Life is suffering. The only thing that changes is how often/how much you suffer, there being joy doesn't discount this. On that point you'll find widely varying views.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The question of death

Post by Dennis Mahar »

For there to be any preferences at all, there must be a will — this is, after all, what constitutes a will. This will is also the mind's sole impetus to action, i.e., for if the mind did not prefer anything, there would be no reason to act in any particular way and thus it would remain apathetic. But then this will cannot be external to the mind, or it would have no impetus to embrace it in the first place.
The enlightenment experience or direct experience of emptiness is referred to as 'timeless' because it is a Cognition.

Ordinarily Dasein measures his time out in activities that have reasons.
Dasein is living his/her facticity.
He/she gets up at the same time day in day out and goes to bed at the same time day in day out for the most part because of reasons.
He/she lives a track of reasons like a robot.
Familiarity.
He/she lives a set routine in order to settle in comfort.
Familiar surroundings run by the clock.
In order to, in order to, in order to, in order to for the sake of.
A bunch of rules.
A script.
Dasein is Time.

Dasein can think about metaphysics, have opinions, meditate everyday, do yoga, pray to god, give to the poor for merit,
Dasein can haul up all the related concepts and run a tape measure over them for clues or reasons.
Looking for reasons or Reasoning.
Calculating.
Conceptualising.
Not that. Not Will.

There is no reason or reasoning or definite calculated track set out for Dasein Time for the direct experience of emptiness.
It is an event.
Out of the blue.
Cognition.
Timeless on the Dasein Time Track.
Dasein runs his ordinary track of reasons, suddenly Pop! exploded out of being-there in facticity. Out of Time, Timeless.

First there are trees
Then there are no trees
Then there are trees

A nonconceptual understanding.
A radical mood transformation.

A ripening or swelling up of causes/conditions fortuitous.

Don't believe anything.
Investigate phenomena to the point you can be certain schematically phenomena lacks inherent existence.
immerse yourself in that picture.

At the moment you probably get up off a chair, turn the handle of a door and walk thru' the opening without a sense of wonderful.
So familiarised is Dasein it's not noticed. Being is forgotten.
automatised.
Astonishing.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The question of death

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:nothing exists absolutely.
dependent arising.

Quinn's declaration goes:

there are absolute truths which exist in all possible worlds.

which begs the question.
Dependent arising applies to limited things, since they are no things in the true sense to begin with. To apply dependent arising to existence itself is circular reasoning, by which one first says that a tree is not a thing because it depends on other things – and then saying that existence is not a thing because a thing (tree) depends on other things.

But the reason that we disqualified (thing) in the first place was simply because we, as limited minds, have a limited perception. Thus it is a logical and respectable conclusion, since it is what we see. Yet logic still lets us detect the absolute, for it is in us – that is, the quality by which we discern. Existence and understanding is thus the same thing – and it is an absolute. That is, existence is an infinite understanding, only known through itself and in itself – which is the true definition of (thing), and why we discredited the thingness of the tree.

Dennis Mahar wrote:
This also leads us to the conclusion that the infinite consciousness is infinitely affected by joy — not because of anything external, of course, but because it fulfills its own infinite nature.
mooded.
Absolute, definite, joyous, but not impinged, affected or impacted. The disqualification of emotional substance follows the same demonstrations as those used for dependent arising, but also here it is to understand things backwards. The truth is that a contrast is posited by there being a positive, and thus the observation that we may feel joy and sadness reveals not that there is nothing, but that there is emotional substance.

Which type of emotion have substance, or are positive, can be discovered by observing how they arise; we rejoice when we fulfill our nature (positive conception), and suffer when we conceive that we lack something (negative conception, i.e., we conceive of something absent). Thus, in the same way that the innate will is part of the nature of thought, the positive emotions are likewise part of its true nature.

Thus the infinite consciousness, which is the absolute expression of substance, is intrinsically infinitely joyous – not because it is put under affect, but because this potency is its very nature. The negative emotions do not apply to it, for all it understands is, and all that is, it understands – thus it conceives of no lack.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The question of death

Post by TheImmanent »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:meaning that we do not lose our quality (essence, understanding) upon death
Above is the only part you might have to elaborate on.
"essence" is fine.
Yet I can't see which "understanding" it is we retain? That seems to imply some kind of lasting and personal knowledge after 'death'.

Understanding is the conception of truth, or thinking fully. When the mind rests in itself, and conceives only truth, these truths are impersonal and timeless (i.e., they are not the ego-identity). This, that which is true in you, is immortal.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
TheImmanent wrote:Thus the wise man, who understands things, is affected by true joy through his sheer understanding. For understanding is at once, and by necessity, our true will and our true nature.
Had the same notions once, but now: Life is suffering. The only thing that changes is how often/how much you suffer, there being joy doesn't discount this. On that point you'll find widely varying views.
But you do not suffer because you rest in yourself, but because you chase and cling to things. This situation is not unusual, in fact most of humanity suffers greatly — since they do not know what they must find, but that they must find it, and that others around them are chasing it too. Yet one should not interpret the prevalence of suffering as evidence that life is suffering.

Suffering does not arise from the conception of our nature, but from a misconception of our nature. For it is only by misconceiving our nature that we can actually lack something. Because we are always what we are, not more, not less. When we conceive of our nature as it is, we realize that we are already fulfilled. For strictly speaking we can possess nothing but ourselves, but we can fool ourselves in many ways to believe it.

Moreover, since people are generally deluded and suffers, they will seek to control each other, and ridicule each other, and fight each other. Suffering brings about these behaviors, and these behaviors easily bring about suffering. So it is not at all strange that almost none finds the true source of happiness and discovers that he is blessed by nature.
Last edited by TheImmanent on Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The question of death

Post by Dennis Mahar »

To break the chain of custody.

Dependent arising/emptiness explains form.
form is emptiness.

The emptiness of form too is empty.

You appear to be saying consciousness is absolute, uncaused.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The question of death

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:To break the chain of custody.

Dependent arising/emptiness explains form.
form is emptiness.

The emptiness of form too is empty.

You appear to be saying consciousness is absolute, uncaused.
The Thing has no form other than understanding, which does not exist in relation. For you cannot put anything in relation to understanding; it does not relate since it is unique, understood through itself and in itself. It is likewise uncaused, for it exists by its own definition, and all things are defined in it.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The question of death

Post by Dennis Mahar »

unenthralled,
not held in custody by causality, the turn of events.
formless yet knowing.
Buddha Mind.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The question of death

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:unenthralled,
not held in custody by causality, the turn of events.
formless yet knowing.
Buddha Mind.
It is, what is.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The question of death

Post by Dennis Mahar »

The evidence for 'what' is:
Imputing mind.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The question of death

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:The evidence for 'what' is:
Imputing mind.
Evidence is, what is.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The question of death

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Imputing mind.
every move you make
in order to.
iamforhereithink
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:14 am

Re: The question of death

Post by iamforhereithink »

The innate will of thought must be to conform to its own nature, in so far as it perceives it. For the innate will of thought cannot be to conform to another nature outside it, since it cannot perceive another nature than its own, nor can it wish to conform to something it perceives, which it perceives as being different from its own nature, for then thought, in so far as it perceives itself, would suffer and strive not to perceive itself, i.e., it would strive to stop being thought, i.e., it would stop thinking and be apathetic. Indeed, if the innate will of thought was to conform to something that it perceives as a different nature than its own, then it would make mutiny upon itself, since the will belongs to its nature, and this is a contradiction, i.e., it would act according to the very will that it wishes to undermine.

(viii) Thus the innate will of thought must be to conform to the nature which it perceives as its own nature. In other words, the innate preferences of thought is to conform to its own nature, and this remains true regardless of how advanced or primitive a mind is. In this way we understand that the wills of primitive minds, who scarcely perceive anything as their nature other than their bodies, will necessarily conform to the dispositions of their bodies, or, act according to sensation-based preferences.

(ix) So, for example, the infant will conform fully to its hunger, its tiredness, its physical pain and comfort, while a grown man, who is capable of conceiving his nature in many different ways, or to form many different ideas about himself, does not only include the dispositions of his body — but he can also be happy or saddened by, for example, the triumph of a sports team or the acquisition or loss of money.

For the grown man is capable of forming identities for himself that includes not just the physical body, but also such ideas as; social class, caste, profession, religion, nationality, sports team, race, political color, culture, hobbies, masculinity/feminity and countless other ideas. (it follows that the human mind, in being able to change its conception of itself, will be able to feel pleasure at something at one time, and then, after assuming another identity, find it repulsive instead, or vice versa)

This is the ego-identity. However, as we have seen, it is merely an extrapolation of the innate will of thought, which is to conform to its nature. Since none of these things actually constitute the nature of the mind, we understand that people commonly chase things not out of a true desire, but out of a misguided desire to conform to what they perceive as their natures.

(x) The key to finding our true desire, is thus to find our true nature. And the true nature of thought is understanding; for to understand is to conceive something, or think, fully. That is, it is to fully embrace and conform to the nature of thought. Thus the wise man, who understands things, is affected by true joy through his sheer understanding. For understanding is at once, and by necessity, our true will and our true nature.

(xi) This also leads us to the conclusion that the infinite consciousness is infinitely affected by joy — not because of anything external, of course, but because it fulfills its own infinite nature.

At least these are the conclusions that my own limited mind arrives at, and I welcome any criticism.
Good theory , however there are a couple questions that came to mind so to speak …..
the innate will of mind must conform to its own nature and you give example of a primitive minds own nature being the bodys initial needs sensationalist, then you elaborate on the adults additional ego based adventures conformings =extrapolation

then you relate this true authentic inner nature of thought as being able to understand , fully embrace and conform to the nature of thought

but you have 2 separate processes of an innate will in the mind 2. conforming to its own inner natures needs 1. which have examples of its individual bodys needs imposing themselves on the thoughts and being given preference of the momentary thinking to satisfy their daily desires

But what other example is there of innate nature beyond bodily needs making an innate will of thought conform ? unless it be a pre-determined and present state of preferential conditions fed into your mind that may optimise your individual limits of thinking set out by some cosmic intelligence that is still connected to you through this mind interface
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The question of death

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Imputing mind.
every move you make
in order to.
I did not mean to imply instrumentality to what is. Merely that what is, can only be known through itself. Thus it is inevitably self-evident. Imputing mind may point in its direction, but imputing mind does not exist concretely; ripples in a pond, a mirage. When imputing mind is calm, it falls off. Then what is, is self-evident.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The question of death

Post by TheImmanent »

iamforhereithink wrote: Good theory , however there are a couple questions that came to mind so to speak …..
the innate will of mind must conform to its own nature and you give example of a primitive minds own nature being the bodys initial needs sensationalist, then you elaborate on the adults additional ego based adventures conformings =extrapolation

then you relate this true authentic inner nature of thought as being able to understand , fully embrace and conform to the nature of thought

but you have 2 separate processes of an innate will in the mind 2. conforming to its own inner natures needs 1. which have examples of its individual bodys needs imposing themselves on the thoughts and being given preference of the momentary thinking to satisfy their daily desires

But what other example is there of innate nature beyond bodily needs making an innate will of thought conform ? unless it be a pre-determined and present state of preferential conditions fed into your mind that may optimise your individual limits of thinking set out by some cosmic intelligence that is still connected to you through this mind interface
The innate will of thought is to conform to its nature. That does not mean that thought necessarily knows its nature. Since a limited mind is necessarily smaller than its context, this means that it can form fragmented conceptions, i.e., in lacking information, it can misconceive things.

Thus while the true nature of thought is just what thought is, i.e., understanding (understanding being the conception of truth; the full expression of thought, or thinking something fully) a limited mind can conceive that its nature is Peter, a man who is not a real man unless he earns so-and-so much and has a house, a car and the respect of his peers.

Peter was first an infant who knew none of these things, and would not care for any of it, but he was conditioned towards these ideas through sensation-rewards which, as the mind grew more advanced, could require more advanced behavior, and patience. Peter was conditioned to being a good boy who obeyed his parents, of being a good student who did well in school, of being attractive to girls, of being good at sports and manly, of getting a good job, a house and a nice car.

The infinite mind, on the other hand, contains all information and is necessarily infinitely blissful — for it is in perfect affirmation of its infinite nature. It contains Peter as an idea, and an enlightened mind as its own conscious thoughts understood in a limited mind.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The question of death

Post by Dennis Mahar »

'Peter' is generated.
In order to,
for the sake of?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The question of death

Post by Pam Seeback »

The Immanent: Peter was conditioned to being a good boy who obeyed his parents, of being a good student who did well in school, of being attractive to girls, of being good at sports and manly, of getting a good job, a house and a nice car.

The infinite mind, on the other hand, contains all information and is necessarily infinitely blissful — for it is in perfect affirmation of its infinite nature. It contains Peter as an idea, and an enlightened mind as its own conscious thoughts understood in a limited mind.
Both scenarios of Peter arise because of the necessity of contrast, in this case, the necessity of the contrast of ignorance (conditioning to personhood) to the contrast of wisdom (realization of personhood as a deluded idea). This is the big picture of consciousness as being an eternal unfolding 'machine' of "I" revelation, the light of the new (what is) being commanded to shine out of the darkness of the old (what was).
Locked