The fundamental question

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

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Cahoot wrote:
TheImmanent wrote:
Cahoot wrote:The hierarchy indicates you lack the capacity, but since there is no hierarchy, there is probably no capacity, or no lack, or no meaning, or no conceptual, then no worries, no mind ... as if that's some philosophical point. Next step ... drool.
You demonstrate intellectual vanity and derision. I think you have successfully established what hierarchy there is, only its not what you had in mind.
Suddenly you do find meaning in the human "dramaturgy, in order to and for the sake of," where there was none.

You demonstrate intellectual deceit.
Consciousness is ultimately ...
Hierarchy on display, only when convenient.

Either deceitful or just plain oblivious.
There is ultimately no separation in consciousness, only conceptual distinctions. That means that your hierarchy is ultimately empty, as is intellectual vanity, deceit and derision.

There is no contradiction in this.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:The sticking point appears to be the phrase 'infinite consciousness'.

could it be that 'the infinite' ranges into the view of consciousness by way of investigation?

thus transforming consciousness.

immersion in such now constitutes 'infinite consciousness'.

the thing is infinite is showing up as an adjective in the phrase.

The adjective "infinite" is used in regard to the infinite consciousness since the discussion is had by consciousness under conceptual limitations. Had consciousness not been infinite, we would not have been here, since limited minds are not posited by themselves or their own concepts.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Russell Parr »

TheImmanent wrote:There is ultimately no separation in consciousness, only conceptual distinctions.
Where there is ultimately no separation, there cannot be said to be anything at all. The illusion of separation is part and parcel to the existence of consciousness.

Your statement is like saying that if you blend all of the squares on a chess board together, you still have a chess board.

Another thing about causation: if causation is only a concept, then by what means does consciousness conceive things?
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Cahoot »

There is ultimately no separation in consciousness, only conceptual distinctions. That means that your hierarchy is ultimately empty, as is intellectual vanity, deceit and derision.

There is no contradiction in this.
Get an English dictionary. Read it … make that an ultimate dictionary. If you must, call it mine, or call it yours.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Russell wrote:
TheImmanent wrote:There is ultimately no separation in consciousness, only conceptual distinctions.
Where there is ultimately no separation, there cannot be said to be anything at all. The illusion of separation is part and parcel to the existence of consciousness.
Conceptual separation is a fact. There is no actual separation, i.e., no concept is a separate nature.
Your statement is like saying that if you blend all of the squares on a chess board together, you still have a chess board.
My statement is saying that a chess board and its squares are conceptual, i.e., what they are.
Another thing about causation: if causation is only a concept, then by what means does consciousness conceive things?
Concepts are arranged (defined) in relation to each other. Causation describes in what order a particular concept is arranged in relation to another. Cause and effect is perceived by a limited perspective, even though the concepts are timeless in their assignments, since it is itself a concept defined in this way.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Cahoot wrote:
There is ultimately no separation in consciousness, only conceptual distinctions. That means that your hierarchy is ultimately empty, as is intellectual vanity, deceit and derision.

There is no contradiction in this.
Get an English dictionary. Read it … make that an ultimate dictionary. If you must, call it mine, or call it yours.
Spite is suffering. You can let it go.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Cahoot »

The Immanent Front wrote:In what form do you exist?
Whatever you perceive will only be for the benefit of your blindness if you can but transcend that blindness, if only for a moment, because you, as you exist in your form as language, and have existed in language so far, are merely a cliché. This is the realm in which you dwell, realm dweller. Read the ultimate dictionary.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Cahoot wrote:
The Immanent Front wrote:In what form do you exist?
Whatever you perceive will only be for the benefit of your blindness if you can but transcend that blindness, if only for a moment, because you, as you exist in your form as language, and have existed in language so far, are merely a cliché. This is the realm in which you dwell, realm dweller. Read the ultimate dictionary.
The question was not asked for my sake.

Nor in order to find a form.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Russell Parr »

TheImmanent wrote:Conceptual separation is a fact. There is no actual separation, i.e., no concept is a separate nature.
If there is no separation, then consciousness isn't present. What is consciousness without something to be conscious of?
Russell wrote:Another thing about causation: if causation is only a concept, then by what means does consciousness conceive things?
Concepts are arranged (defined) in relation to each other. Causation describes in what order a particular concept is arranged in relation to another. Cause and effect is perceived by a limited perspective, even though the concepts are timeless in their assignments, since it is itself a concept defined in this way.
You misunderstand my question. You speak of two things, consciousness and concepts, with consciousness being the ultimate, concepts being the results. How exactly does consciousness arrive at concepts if causation is nothing but its concept? By what mechanism is the act of conception possible?

In other words, how can consciousness conceive without the underlying, fundamental principle of causation?

You speak of "infinite consciousness" as if it is a sort of uncaused God, who can magically produce concepts without the necessity of causation to do so.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Russell wrote:
TheImmanent wrote:Conceptual separation is a fact. There is no actual separation, i.e., no concept is a separate nature.
If there is no separation, then consciousness isn't present. What is consciousness without something to be conscious of?
There is nothing to be conscious of except consciousness. How do you mean that consciousness can be conscious of something other than consciousness? Concepts are already inseparable from consciousness.
Russell wrote:Another thing about causation: if causation is only a concept, then by what means does consciousness conceive things?
Concepts are arranged (defined) in relation to each other. Causation describes in what order a particular concept is arranged in relation to another. Cause and effect is perceived by a limited perspective, even though the concepts are timeless in their assignments, since it is itself a concept defined in this way.
You misunderstand my question. You speak of two things, consciousness and concepts, with consciousness being the ultimate, concepts being the results. How exactly does consciousness arrive at concepts if causation is nothing but its concept? By what mechanism is the act of conception possible?

In other words, how can consciousness conceive without the underlying, fundamental principle of causation?

You speak of "infinite consciousness" as if it is a sort of uncaused God, who can magically produce concepts without the necessity of causation to do so.
Concepts are not brought into being at all since they are not separate from consciousness.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

A set of concepts can be enrolled in for environmental generation.
the environment is set up conceptually and brought in to being that way and lived in.

a conceptualising consciousness free to contract formulaically for the time being.
ultimately unrestricted.

whether this mind is caused or not is unresolved.

Time is Being.
what time is it?
Time for being.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
whether this mind is caused or not is unresolved.
It being unresolved is part of the conceptualised environment, but in the enlightened expression it is resolved in the knowledge of what the conceptualised environment is.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

And if being resolved is part of the conceptualised environment?

Don't forget the power of the inferential cogniser to alter-is.

conceptualisers Inc.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:And if being resolved is part of the conceptualised environment?

Don't forget the power of the inferential cogniser to alter-is.

conceptualisers Inc.
To say that the being of conceptualised environment is resolved only from its own side is to say that it creates itself through conception, i.e., that the limited mind has the power to wish things into being.

Its existence is resolved in the infinite consciousness and in the enlightened expression through the correct idea of the conceptual self — which is what the expression is. The ego disagrees, claiming to be an actual, concrete self.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Let's say 'conceptualised environment' as theme park constantly constructed.

consciousness as a possibility of savvy.

that domain.

the notion of 'infinite consciousness' as a stroll in the park domain-wise.

in the game, in the know, that domain.

along for the ride.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

a line of reasoning is,

consciousness...pay heed to the suffix 'ness' which indicates:
conscious and in the grip of.
a garment that is worn, which is at the centre of Quinn's advocacy.
well, he says causality is the garment of God which amounts to the same thing ultimately.

conscious and universe arise together.
depend on each other.
caused.

logically,
that which depends lacks inherent existence.

to assign consciousness 'selfhood' is an impossible way to exist for consciousness.
User avatar
Fox
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:02 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Fox »

TheImmanent wrote:In what form do you exist?
Non-Form
User avatar
Fox
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:02 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Fox »

Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.

Soren Kierkegaard
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

Dennis Mahar wrote:a line of reasoning is,

consciousness...pay heed to the suffix 'ness' which indicates:
conscious and in the grip of.
a garment that is worn, which is at the centre of Quinn's advocacy.
well, he says causality is the garment of God which amounts to the same thing ultimately.

conscious and universe arise together.
depend on each other.
caused.

logically,
that which depends lacks inherent existence.

to assign consciousness 'selfhood' is an impossible way to exist for consciousness.
Consciousness is the very selfhood that is assigned conceptually. People look for which idea (self-conception) is conscious. The ego, say some, the brain say others, each believing to have found consciousness. The enlightened have not assigned it to any particular idea. The actual self; limitless, unconstrained bliss. Eternal and pristine. Nothing sticks.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The fundamental question

Post by Dennis Mahar »

The actual self; limitless, unconstrained bliss. Eternal and pristine. Nothing sticks.


The possibility for a self, a kind of self.
direct experience.
jufa
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: The fundamental question

Post by jufa »

TheImmanent wrote:
jufa wrote:
TheImmanent wrote:
jufa wrote:The fundamental question, who determines form. The 1st question demand a 2nd second fundamental question: and by what means?
By that second question you reveal a bias. Without answering the first question, you assume the second question is inferred by whatever the answer is. If the answer is the same to both, you have already overlooked it.
The requirement for my having to answer myself before I placed another question before the forum, is void from your assumption that the answer cannot be of and within the continuum of its life. You bear witness to this truth. With you interjected life of assumption, you found kinship, 'of kind', and plumlined the questions my words balanced within you unknowingly. Your entrance into the questions is more than a proposition you gave your life of formed thinking to....afore answer.....by what means?......your moving spirit of thought, and ego you displayed knowingly, of your own projected images, and your thought interpretation projected upon the screen of life for all to see the form your earthen words took shape to be you.

Tell me, do you see who I am and what images I present to be of jufa? Can You See Me Now?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
I merely pointed out that the use of the word "demand" implies a preconception. Other than that nothing was postulated.
By you stating -"the use of the word "demand" implies a preconception,"- this itself void your further statement: "Other than that nothing was postulated," because reasoning made you draw such a conclusion.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: The fundamental question

Post by TheImmanent »

TheImmanent wrote:
jufa wrote:
TheImmanent wrote:
I merely pointed out that the use of the word "demand" implies a preconception. Other than that nothing was postulated.
By you stating -"the use of the word "demand" implies a preconception,"- this itself void your further statement: "Other than that nothing was postulated," because reasoning made you draw such a conclusion.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
Logic doesn't need to be pointed out.
Locked