The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:Seduction is a ritual or ceremonious exploitation of the imaginary; it’s strategic and, as such, belongs properly to the symbolic order. This is your idea of “approach”, I think; the closest one can get to the object of desire in a jouissance-prone psyche without tipping over into oblivion. It’s a deliberate intensification of passion and exhilaration that’s almost deadly—and that’s where and how it finds itself in the imaginary, too.
To have it work, as full, complete seduction, I don't think it could belong just to the symbolic order. Does it not essentially break the rule? Or overrule? It generally works by thwarting power or at least divert it, senselessly, irrationally but still effectively. That the outward mode can appear as heavily stylistic and codified doesn't tell us much yet about the inner workings. It might have to remain out of sight to be effective at all.
I would liken the Nietzschean abyss to the idea in Lacan that, try as you might to fill that lack, the Real can never be completely symbolised; it defies human order in that sense.
The way Baudrillard uses the term seduction is more like a defeat of human order, like an anti-(thesis/anti-thesis). The rituals , the symbolic order even, would only arise as containment, as protection against it. This includes any "classical" sense of the game of seduction between lovers, buyers, sellers and so on. Productivity might ultimately even derive its steam from that very dynamic, more as by-product than product. Although it, or he, will always believe, can only conceive of it, as a production, as a continuation of natural law and forces. That is the way of historical thought and its necessary conclusions.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
movingalways wrote:The depth, the Abyss is Mystery, the formless. The clueless man has no idea of this truth, looking for mystery in all the wrong places, aka seducing and being seduced (by form). The contrast to the clueless man is the man who understands that Mystery is what/who he is. How the awakened man responds to the ultimate truth of His Mystery is the domain of poetry and philosophy. Which makes the most awakened man the one who never forgets that whatever he says or does is ultimately Mysterious.
Hark, the sound of seductive discourse. Poets and philosophers have been mostly seducers, too. There's no meaning in the mystery.
Say what?? There's no meaning in the mystery?? That's all there is in the mystery! Those who know this are not seducers, at least not in the sense of being deceivers/tricksters. If there is any seduction happening between two mystery-conscious souls, it is an open and expansive mutual experience.

Why is what we say and do ultimately mysterious? Because ultimately we do not know the cause or effects of anything. Of my experience, those who assert causal absolutes eventually become caught in a closed loop of frustration and anger.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
movingalways wrote:The depth, the Abyss is Mystery, the formless. The clueless man has no idea of this truth, looking for mystery in all the wrong places, aka seducing and being seduced (by form). The contrast to the clueless man is the man who understands that Mystery is what/who he is. How the awakened man responds to the ultimate truth of His Mystery is the domain of poetry and philosophy. Which makes the most awakened man the one who never forgets that whatever he says or does is ultimately Mysterious.
Hark, the sound of seductive discourse. Poets and philosophers have been mostly seducers, too. There's no meaning in the mystery.
Say what?? There's no meaning in the mystery?? That's all there is in the mystery! Those who know this are not seducers, at least not in the sense of being deceivers/tricksters. If there is any seduction happening between two mystery-conscious souls, it is an open and expansive mutual experience.

Why is what we say and do ultimately mysterious? Because ultimately we do not know the cause or effects of anything. Of my experience, those who assert causal absolutes eventually become caught in a closed loop of frustration and anger.
Here you are mystifying in words everything for your own consumption, your own desire to undo. If mystery contained meaning (explanation, plot, history, conclusion) how could it remain a mystery? Seduction here is certainly not meant as deception like with the trick where there's at least some clever "productive" but secret move intended to deceive, like presenting "B" while it's actually "C". While seduction knows nothing of that, it doesn't play true or false ...
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

To have it work, as full, complete seduction, I don't think it could belong just to the symbolic order. Does it not essentially break the rule? Or overrule? It generally works by thwarting power or at least divert it, senselessly, irrationally but still effectively. That the outward mode can appear as heavily stylistic and codified doesn't tell us much yet about the inner workings. It might have to remain out of sight to be effective at all.
That’s exactly right, it doesn’t “belong just” to the symbolic order. The orders of the Lacanian triad (Real, Imaginary, Symbolic) sit side-by-side no more than those of the Freudian triad (id, ego, superego). They are fluid, and sometimes one or more transposed, on the other/s at the same time; three-dimensional mutual dependence. How could it be any other way?

Lacan intimates the end of psychoanalysis as: coming to the place where the id was; discovering the truth of one’s desire. But it should be clear by this that he does not mean one eliminates desire (or seduction) itself.
The way Baudrillard uses the term seduction is more like a defeat of human order, like an anti-(thesis/anti-thesis). The rituals , the symbolic order even, would only arise as containment, as protection against it. This includes any "classical" sense of the game of seduction between lovers, buyers, sellers and so on. Productivity might ultimately even derive its steam from that very dynamic, more as by-product than product. Although it, or he, will always believe, can only conceive of it, as a production, as a continuation of natural law and forces. That is the way of historical thought and its necessary conclusions.
So, he sees seduction as some sort of expression of the death drive, as jouissance? Something like I wrote in a previous post:
  • Jouissance (deadly enjoyment) is probably the fullest expression of the drives in Lacan; the thing the pleasure principle (“enjoy as little as possible”) (symbolic order) strives to limit.
What would you say is the difference between Baudrillard’s “seduction” and Lacan’s “jouissance”?
Between Suicides
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
movingalways wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
movingalways wrote:The depth, the Abyss is Mystery, the formless. The clueless man has no idea of this truth, looking for mystery in all the wrong places, aka seducing and being seduced (by form). The contrast to the clueless man is the man who understands that Mystery is what/who he is. How the awakened man responds to the ultimate truth of His Mystery is the domain of poetry and philosophy. Which makes the most awakened man the one who never forgets that whatever he says or does is ultimately Mysterious.
Hark, the sound of seductive discourse. Poets and philosophers have been mostly seducers, too. There's no meaning in the mystery.
Say what?? There's no meaning in the mystery?? That's all there is in the mystery! Those who know this are not seducers, at least not in the sense of being deceivers/tricksters. If there is any seduction happening between two mystery-conscious souls, it is an open and expansive mutual experience.

Why is what we say and do ultimately mysterious? Because ultimately we do not know the cause or effects of anything. Of my experience, those who assert causal absolutes eventually become caught in a closed loop of frustration and anger.
Here you are mystifying in words everything for your own consumption, your own desire to undo. If mystery contained meaning (explanation, plot, history, conclusion) how could it remain a mystery? Seduction here is certainly not meant as deception like with the trick where there's at least some clever "productive" but secret move intended to deceive, like presenting "B" while it's actually "C". While seduction knows nothing of that, it doesn't play true or false ...
I get your point vis a vis mystery being void of meaning when taken to mean "unreasoned." Which, of course is a reasonable conclusion. My definition of mystery is obviously not the same as yours, clarification is needed. When I refer to mystery, I am referring to mystical consciousness and in relation to meaning, I am referring to the forming that comes forth from this mode of pure sensory awareness that is not one of the logical play of true and false, instead is one of open-endedness and fluidity of soul or spirit, love of the All for the All. I realize I am not offering anything new here in content, but perhaps I am in context, time will tell.

In trying to "undo" the logical it is possible to see that as long as sense consciousness is our reality, no such thing can be accomplished. However, in trying to "undo" the seeking logical what comes if one is open to it and doesn't dismiss it as being "post-modern feminine BS" is the way to find thinking rest in the nonseeking flow of the mystical illogical.

If you are reasoning as I believe you are that the nonseeking flow of the mystical illogical is the seductive that doesn't play true or false, then while I accept that it doesn't play true or false, I reject that this play of the unity of the opposites is the seductive, or at least, not the only seductive. Let's leave the concept of the seductive on the table for a moment, turn about is fair play: since no objective, absolute cause can be found by the logical, that instead it relies on the subjective duality play of an imagined causal relationship between true and false, why isn't its play of asserting "two" the seductive?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
jupiviv wrote:for variations to be identified there needs to be at least some continuation; even the variations need to have some continuation. E.g., the sight of a wall requires a wall that retains certain properties of a wall, not to mention a faculty of sight that retains its nature and function.
the entirety of the experience is still constantly changing.
In order to assert that experiences are constantly changing, you have to experience that fact about experiences, and even that experience would be constantly changing. How exactly does one have a constantly changing experience of the constant change in experiences?
"Properties", like qualities, are not actually things, but are abstracts.
*Some* qualities are abstract in *some* cases, and *all* abstracts are things (since they can be conceived and distinguished from other things).
Even thinking and speaking of truth, even if it were an eternal truth, is a completely transient occurrence.
If it were *completely* transient, or constantly changing, there would be no point in being truthful since truthful thoughts would change into other thoughts before we could even judge whether they're true. The standard of truth and credibility and the application of it would also be ever-changing. All science and philosophy would be useless.

The truth about a thing is eternally true, just as the thing itself is eternally itself and a thought about the thing is such a thought eternally. The ideas of change and permanence have nothing to do with eternity, but with finite things. They can have multiple meanings and be used in multiple contexts, some of them mutually exclusive. All you can think of is "constant change" because it acts as a buttress for your feeble world view.
Why must a thought only occur once if they're constantly changing? Can a similar thought not arise? I can have a thought which appears for a brief moment and then a very similar one over again
Firstly, to the degree there is similarity and repetition there is *no* change by definition, since the same properties are appearing again thus ruling out constant change. Secondly, thoughts contain meaning and truth - what exactly does it mean for a meaning or truth to be "very similar" to another in the present context? Two meanings might be similar, but never identical. If they are identical then they are the same meaning. So a thought cannot recur even as a 99.99% similar thought.

Your own thoughts are all over the place. I suggest you practice what you preach and do some actual contemplation.
But It's not actually the same thing, the thought isn't some permanent entity hiding out on the sidelines waiting to pop in again.
I never said or implied that it was.
jupiviv wrote:The fact that thoughts or concepts occur within consciousness doesn't refute them.
No but if you investigate them, much is revealed. Try not to work with generalities and blanket statements. You straw manned what I said, which was that thoughts in regard to the metaphysical or ultimate nature of reality are rarely indicative of any actual truth of reality. And also that you can't transcend or contradict the nature of consciousness- even in concept- with an aspect consciousness.
WTF is this shit?! You *started* your response with two blanket statements, you idiot! It appears to any conscious mind that there must be something other than consciousness - this is an incontrovertible, purely logical fact. Continue to deny it if you want but I'll tell you this: your "independently contemplated wisdom" is nothing more than standard issue westernised buddhism, a.k.a. pig's bladder.
You shouldn't read and think of what you see as something which you need to write a rebuttal too based on your previously stated 'position', you should spend time in contemplation of it. Also know that if anything I only ever have good intentions, mutually beneficial intentions. I only say so in case your reasoning in regard to absolute truth is still subtly fused with your emotion or personhood. Most people are so strongly swayed by the appearance of the speaker, and appearances in general, that logic plays almost no role. There's no listening in these cases. This sort of thinking can remain very subtle and is very powerful, blinding even. Perhaps if I bribe that 'part' of you things will go more smoothly. Maybe I can show reason to your worldly self before I can get through. You said you worked at Cisco right? Do you enjoy doing so, or what would be an ideal life in your eyes? Try to be honest.
Take your consciousness out of your ass for a moment and listen - the only reason I'm bothering with you is that I see some of my own past follies in you. I remember having this same conversation with you some time ago (can't remember exactly when), and it concluded much the same as this one foreseeably will. You're still the stubborn self-styled buddhist incapable of handling blunt criticism you were back then. Maybe it's time to "change"?
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote:
In order to assert that experiences are constantly changing, you have to experience that fact about experiences, and even that experience would be constantly changing. How exactly does one have a constantly changing experience of the constant change in experiences?
Here you subtly presume a distinction between the experience/appearances and the "one" (subject/object split in regards to form).
jupiviv wrote: If it were *completely* transient, or constantly changing, there would be no point in being truthful since truthful thoughts would change into other thoughts before we could even judge whether they're true. The standard of truth and credibility and the application of it would also be ever-changing. All science and philosophy would be useless.
Truthful thoughts do indeed 'change into other thoughts', this is not a 'would' situation, but the reality, and still there is judgement, truth, credibility, application, science and philosophy, much of which is useful. Your claim that it can't be so seems to be based on the unjustified conclusion that if it is transient then there can be no 'consistency'( for lack of a better word) within that transience. That consistency does not mean there is any permanent or enduring appearance, but at best there may be permanent or enduring qualities of appearances, such as the quality of impermanence. Nevertheless, any thinking about such qualities or conclusions made are still fleeting manifestations of what we refer to as consciousness, and this is highly relevant.
jupiviv wrote: just as the thing itself is eternally itself and a thought about the thing is such a thought eternally.
What the heck does that mean? How did you come to this conclusion?
jupiviv wrote: The ideas of change and permanence have nothing to do with eternity, but with finite things.
Depending on what your definition of 'finite things' is, and what you mean when you say 'eternity', I might agree.
It appears to any conscious mind that there must be something other than consciousness - this is an incontrovertible, purely logical fact.
That is not a purely logical fact, you cannot even describe what this "something other than consciousness" is, you dolt. You cannot say that it exists and then not even be able to tell me what it is, you're speaking gibberish. Otherwise, please inform me of what this "something other than consciousness" actually is? Really, I'd love to see you try.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
In order to assert that experiences are constantly changing, you have to experience that fact about experiences, and even that experience would be constantly changing. How exactly does one have a constantly changing experience of the constant change in experiences?
Here you subtly presume a distinction between the experience/appearances and the "one" (subject/object split in regards to form).
That distinction is not relevant to my question, even though it does exist. But let's pretend it doesn't exist; you still haven't answered my question. Let me repeat it in a more logically stringent form: how can a constantly changing experience of constant change be meaningful?
Truthful thoughts do indeed 'change into other thoughts'
Yes and those other thoughts are just *other* thoughts, not *similar* thoughts, in terms of their meaning and truth.

To get back to my earlier point: if truthful thoughts recur or endure then they must do so as themselves, not "similar" versions of themselves. And if they recur/endure as themselves then they aren't constantly changing. And if they aren't constantly changing, there must be such a thing as permanence.

To get back to my still earlier point: you are, in fact, contradicting your own premise whenever you assume or believe that something hasn't changed into something else.
Your claim that it can't be so seems to be based on the unjustified conclusion that if it is transient then there can be no 'consistency'( for lack of a better word) within that transience. That consistency does not mean there is any permanent or enduring appearance, but at best there may be permanent or enduring qualities of appearances, such as the quality of impermanence.
So now you have dropped "complete transience" and moved on to "transience with consistency", "consistency" being presumptuously clad in the robes of your tripe premise.

Look, you probably said a few things you didn't mean to say in the "heat of the moment", and your original point was probably sounder than it came across as. There's no shame in admitting you're wrong; a basic lesson, but you will find that spirituality is a lot more basic than most people imagine it to be. The hard part is digesting the thought that you wasted so much time looking for something so simple and *common*.
jupiviv wrote: just as the thing itself is eternally itself and a thought about the thing is such a thought eternally.
What the heck does that mean? How did you come to this conclusion?
It just means that the existence of a thing, even though changing or permanent within time, is eternal in the context of the All. Render undo Caesar and all that.
jupiviv wrote: The ideas of change and permanence have nothing to do with eternity, but with finite things.
Depending on what your definition of 'finite things' is, and what you mean when you say 'eternity', I might agree.
Finite things can be distinguished from other finite things, and eternity is the relationship of finite things to the Infinite.
It appears to any conscious mind that there must be something other than consciousness - this is an incontrovertible, purely logical fact.
That is not a purely logical fact, you cannot even describe what this "something other than consciousness" is, you dolt. You cannot say that it exists and then not even be able to tell me what it is, you're speaking gibberish. Otherwise, please inform me of what this "something other than consciousness" actually is? Really, I'd love to see you try.
You'd "love to see me try"? This isn't a competition. If it is, then I have already beaten you. Rather, I'm trying to bore into your skull, but apparently tungsten carbide drills aren't quite up to this task. Maybe I'm coming off a bit avuncular and patronising, but that isn't my intent and we're probably coeval anyway. There are only so many ways one can explain that 2 and 2 do not, in fact, equal 5.

But to answer your question, the "something other than consciousness" is whatever appears as such. If there was only consciousness, then consciousness would be the same as the All. If that's how you define it then that's fine, but in that case nothing can appear to, sensed or be felt by this "consciousness", because it is nothing more or less than Reality. Also, the things within it (i.e. everything) would not just be thoughts, experiences and sensations.

However, that's not what people usually mean by consciousness, and not what you mean either, given that you've said that things are merely appearances, thoughts and sensations within consciousness and that there is nothing beyond what is thought or felt. Yes, *if* "consciousness" were defined as "Reality", then those things would be within it or manifestations of it. But then this consciousness-as-Reality would not be limited by them, nor would they be or occur "within it" in the same way a thought, feeling or memory is/occurs within a conventionally defined consciousness. The consciousness-as-Reality would be the sum total of these things and everything else, and that's it. It could not think thoughts or feel feelings, or survive or perish with bodily death. But you want consciousness to simultaneously think, feel, perceive, etc. *and* be the Allfather. Like I've said, you're a vermillion-clad Creationist.

But let's return to consciousness in the conventionally defined sense. Whatever appears to consciousness, either as thoughts or feelings, is not the same as the consciousness it appears to. Consciousness cannot be conscious of itself for the same reason a fingertip cannot feel itself and a mirror cannot reflect itself.

If you object that only other consciousnesses appear to a consciousness, then I would respond thus: other consciousnesses cannot appear as anything other than consciousness, i.e, the activity of thinking and reasoning about things. They cannot appear as any of the other countless things in the world.

If you object that only the numerous *parts* of a consciousness appears to itself, rather than the consciousness as a whole, then I would respond thus: a consciousness requires even its smallest component to function. If a consciousness is conscious of one of its parts then that part is the result or object of the same function that it is perpetuating, so we are back to the fallacy of the fingertip touching itself. A fingertip cannot touch even a part of itself.

What else can I add, apart from pointing out more of the obvious? We are surrounded by unconscious things, like the earth itself and 99.99% of things in it including the screen you're reading this on. Our consciousness is affected by our bodies (which are unconscious), e.g. death, head injury, heart attack, blood loss, starvation, etc. The brain itself - the seat of consciousness - is mostly unconscious. Human beings - the only animals that demonstrate consciousness - are unconscious in their infancy as well as the majority of their adult lives. We sleep for a third of our lives on average, and for the remainder we seek food, sex, shelter, succour and little else. Moreover women, who form half of our species, are even more unconscious than men.

I think that your real motivation is to redefine "wisdom" in such a way that it - simultaneously - nullifies the need to adhere to a standard of honesty and integrity (thoughts, values and purposes are transient), doesn't deny the value or reality of the things you enjoy or desire (transient appearances are still real) and prevents you from feeling depressed, scared or worried (everything is just an appearance within consciousness). As an added bonus, it makes you feel superior and unique to other people. But you are behaving exactly like them! Reason is abandoned whenever suffering is encountered, and the abandonment itself is christened Reason. The only difference is that you have the leisure to refine and sophisticate the vanilla delusions and most people don't. I don't know what the provenance of this mentality is, but it's no way to think *or* live. Ignorance is better than such "wisdom".
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote: Let me repeat it in a more logically stringent form: how can a constantly changing experience of constant change be meaningful?
Meaning is part of the 'experience', not some external effort of any being observing that 'experience'.
if truthful thoughts recur or endure then they must do so as themselves, not "similar" versions of themselves. And if they recur/endure as themselves then they aren't constantly changing. And if they aren't constantly changing, there must be such a thing as permanence.
Your reasoning here seems to be based on two conclusions, firstly that a truthful thought is actually recurring or enduring, (and I assume you simply mean that if there is a truthful thought, and then one thinks the same truth, that it is actually the same truthful thought which has recurred) and that when such a truth 're-appears' as a thought, it 'must do so as itself'. No clue what that means! Like I said, it's not an enduring entity, there is simply a 'new experience' every moment, and if there is 'consistency' within that experience, or even if there is the exact same experience every day, (such as of thinking about a truth), that doesn't negate the fact that each time the experience itself, including the thoughts, are entirely transient/ephemeral/fleeting.
jupiviv wrote: you are, in fact, contradicting your own premise whenever you assume or believe that something hasn't changed into something else.
The wording you used "changed into something else" implies some subtle things, too much implication for me to agree.
So now you have dropped "complete transience" and moved on to "transience with consistency", "consistency" being presumptuously clad in the robes of your tripe premise.
Now you're just making false claims, it is still complete transience because the entirety of the thoughts/feelings/sensations to which I am referring are in a state of complete transience. Whatever qualities of this transience are consistent do not alter the fact. For example, lets say you were experiencing a wavering screen of the color 'blue', the entire time the experience is changing and is transient, yet the quality "blue" is consistent. This is sound reasoning, and doesn't negate the fact of the transience.

There's no shame in admitting you're wrong; a basic lesson,
It is one of the greatest of the basic lessons, but more importantly, one must be able to distinguish when one is wrong before he can admit it, and for that one requires sound and strong logic. In this case, it is a matter of truth.
It just means that the existence of a thing, even though changing or permanent within time, is eternal in the context of the All.
Is this an abstract "eternal"? Like saying that the arising of a thing always occurred, and it will always be, that it occurred?
Finite things can be distinguished from other finite things, and eternity is the relationship of finite things to the Infinite.
One must keep in mind that at the same time, there is ultimately no difference except in perspective of specific or totality, you're essentially referring to the same reality.
If there was only consciousness, then consciousness would be the same as the All.
See the above sentence.
If that's how you define it then that's fine, but in that case nothing can appear to, sensed or be felt by this "consciousness", because it is nothing more or less than Reality.
In that sense, nothing is appearing to it, or sensed by it, but instead appearances and senses are aspects of it. Which is something you have to keep in mind when you asked the first question about meaning.
given that you've said that things are merely appearances, thoughts and sensations within consciousness and that there is nothing beyond what is thought or felt. Yes, *if* "consciousness" were defined as "Reality", then those things would be within it or manifestations of it.
"Within" is of course a tricky word, since consciousness is an abstract reference to these things, rather than some location or plane within which they arise.
But then this consciousness-as-Reality would not be limited by them, nor would they be or occur "within it" in the same way a thought, feeling or memory is/occurs within a conventionally defined consciousness. The consciousness-as-Reality would be the sum total of these things and everything else, and that's it. It could not think thoughts or feel feelings, or survive or perish with bodily death. But you want consciousness to simultaneously think, feel, perceive, etc. *and* be the Allfather.
Your explanations are implying too much, though the implications are subtle. "Consciousness" is not thinking, feeling, perceiving, these words are instead references to aspects of consciousness, not activities of some separate entity.
Whatever appears to consciousness, either as thoughts or feelings, is not the same as the consciousness it appears to. Consciousness cannot be conscious of itself for the same reason a fingertip cannot feel itself and a mirror cannot reflect itself.
You did it again. See above. It is not "conscious of itself", and 'whatever appears' is indeed the same as the consciousness itself, it is not appearing to consciousness. You continuously imply that consciousness is an observer of appearances rather than a reference to thoughts/sensations/feelings/emotions and so on.

If you object that only other consciousnesses appear to a consciousness,
I never said that, and again, you're implying much.


If you object that only the numerous *parts* of a consciousness appears to itself,
See the above, again.
What else can I add, apart from pointing out more of the obvious? We are surrounded by unconscious things, like the earth itself and 99.99% of things in it including the screen you're reading this on. Our consciousness is affected by our bodies (which are unconscious), e.g. death, head injury, heart attack, blood loss, starvation, etc. The brain itself - the seat of consciousness - is mostly unconscious.
Your reasoning here is out of place and seemingly nonsensical. The things to which you refer- earth, the screen, the body- are all references to appearances. I never said that appearances are 'conscious', whatever that means.

I agree that our consciousness is affected by our bodies, though may disagree with what you think happens at death. I also disagree that the brain is the seat of consciousness. You don't seem to get it, when you say the words "the brain", you're literally referring to an appearance of consciousness, you're referring to sensations, imaginations, etc. You aren't referring to some mind-independent physical object which exists despite consciousness. The whole materialist viewpoint is fundamentally flawed.
I think that your real motivation is to redefine "wisdom" in such a way that it - simultaneously - nullifies the need to adhere to a standard of honesty and integrity (thoughts, values and purposes are transient),
You're assuming too much, I never said that they are nullified, just that they must be used in the correct context. The way I see it, there is a kind of 'order' of knowledge, absolute truths are at the foundation, (such as that of impermanence), and when they are overlooked, dismissed, ignored, and people make truth-claims out of context, that is delusional. In fact, I've spent almost the entirety of my time focused on this 'absolute' aspect of wisdom, whereas I would say that the larger 'portion' of wisdom is actually in regard to the worldly, the transient. Values, purposes, and so on.
doesn't deny the value or reality of the things you enjoy or desire (transient appearances are still real)
Yes, transient appearances are real.
and prevents you from feeling depressed, scared or worried (everything is just an appearance within consciousness).
Worldly wisdom would do that for me on its own, though "prevents" implies that I'd be holding them back or something. Whereas they are simply not present.
As an added bonus, it makes you feel superior and unique to other people.
I would say that the philosopher is in one sense superior to other people. But one could say the same about a rich person, really. (In the sense that a rich person is placed 'above' other people. For example, if he offered someone who is not rich plenty of money to bow and scrape before him, they'd probably do it.)

But you are behaving exactly like them! Reason is abandoned whenever suffering is encountered, and the abandonment itself is christened Reason.
Now you're just being dramatic, focus on the reasoning and not ad hominem based on the claim that I'm wrong, the question isn't how you think I'm behaving, the question is about what is true. If what I'm saying is true, then it is wise.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:When I refer to mystery, I am referring to mystical consciousness and in relation to meaning, I am referring to the forming that comes forth from this mode of pure sensory awareness that is not one of the logical play of true and false, instead is one of open-endedness and fluidity of soul or spirit, love of the All for the All. I realize I am not offering anything new here in content, but perhaps I am in context, time will tell.
There is no "pure sensory awareness", Pam. Not as mode, concept or pure experience. Of course that won't you make stop believing in the state you are experiencing being that. It's not like I don't know or am not experiencing what you are trying to describe (how couldn't I) -- it's just that I'm saying different things about it and are trying to put it in another context, offering perhaps an apparently, different perspective on it.
in the nonseeking flow of the mystical illogical.
Yes, that "mystery", the black hole all our suns of meaning are orbiting around and slowly gravitate towards. It's that metaphorical tension I've been calling seduction but not with some moral hat on, without saying about how wrong this is. Just trying to describe. While I do wonder if you are allowing yourself a more complete view on the "mystical illogical", considering how you are loading it with some relative nice sounding terms. IT seems to me you are still falling for the seductive aspect, that is, this "mystery" is using certain imagery to cause attraction. It's "illogical" because the only reason the image exists is to get you going for it. There's no deeper meaning and connection needed, just ones conviction that there's one! Somewhere. somehow. It propels you... it moves you, right?

All I do here is describing it, not advertising, not discouraging any of it.
why isn't its play of asserting "two" the seductive?
Well, it is, too.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Pam Seeback »

As I understand them now, the mystical and reasonable are healing agents of release of the conditioned, seductive in the sense that they are "needed" until clarity of the logic of existence A = A can be realized. It's all about the "direction" the I seeks...is it heading for truth (to become unseduced) or away from truth (to become more seduced)?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
jupiviv wrote: Let me repeat it in a more logically stringent form: how can a constantly changing experience of constant change be meaningful?
Meaning is part of the 'experience', not some external effort of any being observing that 'experience'.
You still haven't answered the question, so I will. The aforesaid experience cannot have any meaning for a number of obvious reasons, one of which is that if an experience itself is constantly changing then any meaning it contains or is assigned is also constantly changing. So it *can* mean anything, and *means* nothing.
if truthful thoughts recur or endure then they must do so as themselves, not "similar" versions of themselves. And if they recur/endure as themselves then they aren't constantly changing. And if they aren't constantly changing, there must be such a thing as permanence.
Your reasoning here seems to be based on two conclusions, firstly that a truthful thought is actually recurring or enduring, (and I assume you simply mean that if there is a truthful thought, and then one thinks the same truth, that it is actually the same truthful thought which has recurred) and that when such a truth 're-appears' as a thought, it 'must do so as itself'. No clue what that means! Like I said, it's not an enduring entity, there is simply a 'new experience' every moment, and if there is 'consistency' within that experience, or even if there is the exact same experience every day, (such as of thinking about a truth), that doesn't negate the fact that each time the experience itself, including the thoughts, are entirely transient/ephemeral/fleeting.
OK, a bit of clarification. Recurrence and endurance are different types of permanence. In the case of recurrence you simply have a different event of the same type of thing. Two organisms of the same species can be said to be recurrences of their genetic legacy. The decrease in solubility experienced by fluids and gases when heated or presurrised is a recurrence of the stress described in Le Chatelier's principle. These are empirical recurrences, which aren't perfect or exact. There will always be slight differences between recurring events/entities. In the case of abstract things like thoughts, meaning and logical entities, the recurrence is exact. The thought "ax^2 + bx + c = 0" (quadratic formula) always occurs in exactly the same way, even though the *event* of its occurrence may be different. All people will think this thought in exactly the same way; any real world values denoted by the variables would demonstrate the truth of it in exactly the same way, regardless of their individual natures or the amount of time intervening between two such events.

In the case of endurance, you have one thing remaining itself for as long as it is caused to be. In the case of empirical things, again, this endurance is not perfect. A machine, for example, may continue to work in the expected way despite suffering various forms of dilapidation, until a major component malfunctions or it is dropped, etc. The human brain is also a machine - a computer - that runs the software of consciousness for a short while before malfunctioning or being destroyed. And again, products of the mind have a perfect endurance, like the thought of the quadratic formula. One may have to continuously think about this formula whilst solving an equation or writing an ASP.NET program for an online calculator.

You are flatly contradicting yourself when you say that there is consistency in entirely transient things.
jupiviv wrote: you are, in fact, contradicting your own premise whenever you assume or believe that something hasn't changed into something else.
The wording you used "changed into something else" implies some subtle things, too much implication for me to agree.
It is straightforward enough - if anything is not changing at any point of time then it is false to say there is constant change. Similarly, if anything changes at any point of time, it is false to say there is constant permanence.
So now you have dropped "complete transience" and moved on to "transience with consistency", "consistency" being presumptuously clad in the robes of your tripe premise.
Now you're just making false claims, it is still complete transience because the entirety of the thoughts/feelings/sensations to which I am referring are in a state of complete transience. Whatever qualities of this transience are consistent do not alter the fact. For example, lets say you were experiencing a wavering screen of the color 'blue', the entire time the experience is changing and is transient, yet the quality "blue" is consistent. This is sound reasoning, and doesn't negate the fact of the transience.
See above - to the degree there is consistency/permanence, there is no transience/change.

Properties/qualities are both physically and abstractly real. The property "blue" in an LED screen or a dyed shirt isn't just an abstract concept.
It just means that the existence of a thing, even though changing or permanent within time, is eternal in the context of the All.
Is this an abstract "eternal"? Like saying that the arising of a thing always occurred, and it will always be, that it occurred?
It isn't abstract.

To the second question: yes, finite things are eternal from the perspective of the All.
Finite things can be distinguished from other finite things, and eternity is the relationship of finite things to the Infinite.
One must keep in mind that at the same time, there is ultimately no difference except in perspective of specific or totality, you're essentially referring to the same reality.
Duality is present even in an ultimate context. The mundane is spiritual not despite its mundaneness but *because* of it.
given that you've said that things are merely appearances, thoughts and sensations within consciousness and that there is nothing beyond what is thought or felt. Yes, *if* "consciousness" were defined as "Reality", then those things would be within it or manifestations of it.
"Within" is of course a tricky word, since consciousness is an abstract reference to these things, rather than some location or plane within which they arise.
Consciousness can be defined either as the awareness of things, as a category of all/some acts/events of awareness, as something other than the first two or as Reality itself. You have used all of those definitions at various points in your posts (including this one), but it can only mean *one* of them at a time.
It is not "conscious of itself", and 'whatever appears' is indeed the same as the consciousness itself, it is not appearing to consciousness. You continuously imply that consciousness is an observer of appearances rather than a reference to thoughts/sensations/feelings/emotions and so on.
Whatever appears does, in fact, appear *to* a conventionally defined consciousness, and is distinct from it. If appearances are the same as consciousness then how can they be identified and distinguished from each other? You say that consciousness is an "abstract reference" to thoughts, feelings and emotions, in which case it is a category of those things. Even in that definition, the things that are the objects and stimuli of thoughts (acts or events of conventionally defined consciousness) are not within or the same as them, and therefore not within or the same as the arbitrary category you are calling "consciousness". The thought of an owl is not an owl, and owls can exist even if no one thinks about them.

Also, although up till now I have accepted your inclusion of feelings and emotions under the label of consciousness, I think I should clarify my position regarding them. I define consciousness to be logical thoughts, so feelings and sensations are not examples of consciousness to me. However, the consciousness of certain things may be accompanied by or trigger certain sensations or feelings in our minds.
What else can I add, apart from pointing out more of the obvious? We are surrounded by unconscious things, like the earth itself and 99.99% of things in it including the screen you're reading this on. Our consciousness is affected by our bodies (which are unconscious), e.g. death, head injury, heart attack, blood loss, starvation, etc. The brain itself - the seat of consciousness - is mostly unconscious.
Your reasoning here is out of place and seemingly nonsensical. The things to which you refer- earth, the screen, the body- are all references to appearances. I never said that appearances are 'conscious', whatever that means.
You're acting like a Buddhist John Wright (see "Christians and me"). So much intellectual effort expended defending a unicorn fart!
I agree that our consciousness is affected by our bodies, though may disagree with what you think happens at death.
The death of consciousness means precisely that. The questions of when and how do not change this fact.
I also disagree that the brain is the seat of consciousness. You don't seem to get it, when you say the words "the brain", you're literally referring to an appearance of consciousness, you're referring to sensations, imaginations, etc. You aren't referring to some mind-independent physical object which exists despite consciousness. The whole materialist viewpoint is fundamentally flawed.
Quelle surprise that you think materialism is fundamentally flawed - you can't have things existing outside consciousness because it ruins your Buddhist-Creationist premise. The brain is a mostly unconscious organ in the body that can be observed and sensed. Consciousness is not independent of the physical/material world and vice versa.

And I still haven't noticed an argument debunking the idea that things exist outside consciousness (conventionally defined). It is a logical fact that consciousness has causes, and this fact appears to a conscious mind, but how does it follow that those causes are within consciousness? That's just sloppy reasoning.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

a constantly changing experience of constant change
This is so far away from an absolute truth, it’s not even funny. I'll tell you very plainly what it is: a total and utter confabulation of language that can’t even be called a relative truth, which implies, or "contains", the condition of change as part of its truth value.

On the other hand, A=A (the core of “pure” logic and fundamental of all other logics) is absolute since it does not depend on anything outside of itself for its truth value and is itself fundamental to truth as well as all (relative) conditions.
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

It is self-evidently absolutely true that there is what we refer to as consciousness/impermanent appearances. Everything else lies therein. Everything else is a reference to these. Everything else is a manifestation/aspect of these.
As for you, try harder.

You are wrong, and absolutely are contradicting yourself since in your world, a "self-evident absolute truth" is not possible since it would necessarily have to be impermanent -- and yet, here you are declaring one.
Between Suicides
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

jupiviv wrote: you think materialism is fundamentally flawed - you can't have things existing outside consciousness because it ruins your Buddhist-Creationist premise. The brain is a mostly unconscious organ in the body that can be observed and sensed. Consciousness is not independent of the physical/material world and vice versa.

And I still haven't noticed an argument debunking the idea that things exist outside consciousness (conventionally defined). It is a logical fact that consciousness has causes, and this fact appears to a conscious mind, but how does it follow that those causes are within consciousness?
You're working from the context of the materialist worldview, as is most of your above reasoning, and you wrongly assume I need to "debunk the idea that things exist outside consciousness". Don't you understand how claims work? The "burden of proof" falls to you. We all agree that there is what we refer to as consciousness, everyone knows this, it's undeniable. The materialist goes on to claim the existence of "things that exist outside consciousness", you have provided absolutely no reason to show this, except to say that logically some unknown causes of consciousness must exist and they must exist externally or independently of consciousness. We agree that there is consciousness, yet you assert there is this external unknown "more". The "burden of proof" falls to you, geddit?

From the "idealist" worldview, most of your reasoning is absolutely nonsensical, since what we refer to as "consciousness" is the nature of reality, and logic does not define or determine reality, but reality determines what is logical. Most of your reasoning is a twisted negative "questioning" reasoning, which seems to imply that your reasoning determines what is possible or real, rather than the truth that reality determines what is "good" reasoning. You repeatedly say things like "But if appearances are the same as consciousness how can they be identified and distinguished from each other?" Your question of "how" and your use of "but if" are not sound forms of reasoning. In this case, appearances are the same as consciousness, there is no "how". Identification occurs, differentiation occurs, these are nothing more than descriptions of "functions" of what we refer to as consciousness (which is not some entity observing itself- or observing the outside world as you seem to describe it).
jupiviv wrote: Consciousness is not independent of the physical/material world and vice versa.
You're doing the exact same thing that you tried to fault me for doing. You're working from the context or off of the assumption that this "physical/material" world - which is different from what we refer to as consciousness or the mind(all that we have access to) - actually exists, and that it remains to exist independently of observation. The difference is that we both agree that consciousness exists, that it is the seat of all 'knowing'- you are the one who takes it a step further and says that a physical/material plane exists "outside" of consciousness and that it causes consciousness, this is a claim which I am saying is entirely based on delusion, you've done nothing to show otherwise. Except of course to constantly assert that it is so. The "burden of proof" falls on you, and when you realize that you believe in an unknown"physical" realm which you cannot even describe to me, you'll hopefully understand that it is nothing more than an imagination, one which is not necessary for causality, science and worldly consistency to remain logically valid.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Sun Jan 24, 2016 3:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Leyla Shen wrote:
It is self-evidently absolutely true that there is what we refer to as consciousness/impermanent appearances. Everything else lies therein. Everything else is a reference to these. Everything else is a manifestation/aspect of these.
As for you, try harder.

You are wrong, and absolutely are contradicting yourself since in your world, a "self-evident absolute truth" is not possible since it would necessarily have to be impermanent -- and yet, here you are declaring one.
Absolute truth can be permanent, even the truth of impermanence, since truth itself as we define it is not an appearance, it is essentially not a finite "thing", truth exists whether it is known or unknown, spoken or unspoken. One does not point to absolute truth and say "there it is, it's always right there in that corner, it's permanent". We are referencing "qualities", for lack of a better word, though "truths" really covers it finely.

Though the thinking about truth, the experience of knowing truth, or of realizing truth- all of these are impermanent.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by jupiviv »

Leyla Shen wrote:
a constantly changing experience of constant change
This is so far away from an absolute truth, it’s not even funny. I'll tell you very plainly what it is: a total and utter confabulation of language that can’t even be called a relative truth, which implies, or "contains", the condition of change as part of its truth value.
Uh...who are you addressing here?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

Let's just say that I am fully aware it's not a truth statement that you would make, jupiviv.
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

Absolute truth can be permanent, [snip]
What is the meaning of this?
Between Suicides
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Leyla Shen wrote:Let's just say that I am fully aware it's not a truth statement that you would make, jupiviv.
I didn't say it, the sentence seems to just repeat itself, jup said it no doubt in some attempt to 'straw man' something as simple as transience.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Leyla Shen wrote:
Absolute truth can be permanent, [snip]
What is the meaning of this?
That truth may be permanent in the sense that it is everlasting.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Leyla Shen »

"May" be permanent in the sense that it's everlasting, or is permanent in the sense that it's everlasting?

Can you see how difficult it is to have any certainty (and therefore any real discussion) about what you are saying when what you are saying is with every utterance fraught with so much doubt -- where will you find your proof for the possible permanence of truth?

Again, what makes an absolute truth absolutely true is that it is true in itself; if you deny it, you fall immediately into contradiction. Contrast that with an empirical truth (more commonly known as scientific fact), and you have quite a bit of certainty, no?
Between Suicides
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Leyla Shen wrote:"May" be permanent in the sense that it's everlasting, or is permanent in the sense that it's everlasting?
It depends on the truth you are speaking of, unless we're talking about "truth" in general.
Leyla Shen wrote: Can you see how difficult it is to have any certainty (and therefore any real discussion) about what you are saying when what you are saying is with every utterance fraught with so much doubt -- where will you find your proof for the possible permanence of truth?
I disagree, the "may" as I used it depended on the truth being spoken of, the same goes for the above question, I would say that most truth and most wisdom is entirely situational or based on temporary conditions. I'm not writing with doubt, but with caution and simplicity, which has been called 'barbarism', as many do not realize the huge impact of one word. For example, Jup wrote:
you are, in fact, contradicting your own premise whenever you assume or believe that something hasn't changed into something else.
The word "into" here implies so much, it is subtle but it changes everything.
Leyla Shen wrote: Again, what makes an absolute truth absolutely true is that it is true in itself; if you deny it, you fall immediately into contradiction
That's the case for the impermanence of all appearances, to deny it is to immediately fall into contradiction, as is clear in reality rather than in definition. Though Jup seems mostly to be arguing for permanence via "recurrence", and of course also in regard to the 'material world'. Also, when I use the word "absolute" I think mostly of a definition close to this one: "not qualified or diminished in any way; total."
Leyla Shen wrote: Contrast that with an empirical truth (more commonly known as scientific fact), and you have quite a bit of certainty, no?
Indeed. I've always been a little off-put by the term "scientific fact", since it essentially means that it has been 'proven to be true', which actually means that it has been agreed upon, whereas many would attempt to speak of such facts as though they were absolute or while feigning some absolute standpoint. Usually this kind of thinker attempts to apply empirical truths out of context much too often. Such as when one references some scientific knowledge to try and argue for a philosophical position, a metaphysical claim, as Jup did here:
jupiviv wrote:The decrease in solubility experienced by fluids and gases when heated or presurrised is a recurrence of the stress described in Le Chatelier's principle.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by jupiviv »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
jupiviv wrote: you think materialism is fundamentally flawed - you can't have things existing outside consciousness because it ruins your Buddhist-Creationist premise. The brain is a mostly unconscious organ in the body that can be observed and sensed. Consciousness is not independent of the physical/material world and vice versa.

And I still haven't noticed an argument debunking the idea that things exist outside consciousness (conventionally defined). It is a logical fact that consciousness has causes, and this fact appears to a conscious mind, but how does it follow that those causes are within consciousness?
You're working from the context of the materialist worldview, as is most of your above reasoning, and you wrongly assume I need to "debunk the idea that things exist outside consciousness". Don't you understand how claims work? The "burden of proof" falls to you.
The burden of proof falls upon whoever makes proofless or unreasonable claims. I am not working from a materialist context, which I have already stated. The idea that there are things outside of consciousness isn't exclusive to materialism. Simple logic tells us that without causes nothing (including consciousness) can exist, and that causes are distinct from their effects. It also tells us that consciousness is not a container.
The materialist goes on to claim the existence of "things that exist outside consciousness", you have provided absolutely no reason to show this, except to say that logically some unknown causes of consciousness must exist and they must exist externally or independently of consciousness. We agree that there is consciousness, yet you assert there is this external unknown "more". The "burden of proof" falls to you, geddit?
I didn't say the causes of consciousness exist independently of it. Also, that's not the only reason I gave as proof of my assertion, because there are plenty of very obvious ways in which one can prove it. In any case, you haven't even refuted *this* reason yet. Instead, your "arguments" have been a combination of blunt denial and semantic gyration.
this "physical/material" world - which is different from what we refer to as consciousness or the mind(all that we have access to) - actually exists, and that it remains to exist independently of observation.
Seeker, what puffest thou?
The "burden of proof" falls on you, and when you realize that you believe in an unknown"physical" realm which you cannot even describe to me, you'll hopefully understand that it is nothing more than an imagination, one which is not necessary for causality, science and worldly consistency to remain logically valid.
I'm not sure what any of your words actually mean anymore, because you evidently feel no qualms about changing both your own and others' words to win an argument. If you possessed even a fraction of the wisdom you seek, Seeker, you would realise that you're only fooling yourself. This sham Buddhist reality where you get to decide what is real and unreal will never liberate you from suffering.

In fact as I've said before it is just your way of avoiding suffering, and it won't work forever so before long you'll switch to a different method. You inhabit the same quarters of the Trailokya that Alex's folks probably did - the realm of beings that shed their skins, change their forms and fly. But the Wheel of fire that binds you shall turn yet, and gone will be the days of fluttering about like a butterfly chasing impermanent Barbarinas around the castle (to reintroduce the Figaro motif). Your own tears shall scald your skin like moulten lead, and out of the charred pupa that used to be SeekerOfWisdom shall emerge....Alex, the guardian witch-librarian of the Western Canon!
Because of the turning wheel of change in (objective) samsara as a result of inversion caused by (subjective) deceitful minds, both subject and object stimulate each other and combine to produce favourable conditions for 84,000 changing confused thoughts taking the shape of solid lumps (ghana) for incarnation as beings which shed their skins, change their forms and fly; they are found in plenty all over the world. (This is birth by transformation.)

Because of the turning wheel of stiff dispositions in (objective) samsara as a result of inversion caused by (subjective) hindering minds, both subject and object adhere and combine to produce favourable conditions for 84,000 mystical, translucent and confused thoughts which take solid form to incarnate as people whose luminous quality forebodes good and evil; they are found in plenty all over the world. (These are heretics and mystics having forms.)

Because of the turning wheel of dissipating dispositions in (objective) samsara as a result of inversion caused by (subjective) deluded minds, both subject and object unite with dullness and combine to produce favourable conditions for 84,000 confusing mysterious thoughts for formless rebirth as beings (whose bodies and minds) are dissolved in the great emptiness; they are found in plenty all over the world. (These are formless beings.)

Because of the turning wheel of seductive dispositions in (objective) samsara as a result of inversion caused by (subjective) artful minds, both subject and object rely on (magic and) spells and combine to produce favourable conditions for 84,000 entreating confused thoughts for rebirth as beings with form, yet formless, who grow weary of witchcraft; they are found in plenty all over the world. (These are beings with form, yet beyond form.)

Because of the turning wheel of deceitful dispositions in (objective) samsara as a result of inversion caused by (subjective) tricky minds, both subject and object combine to produce favourable conditions for 84,000 interchanging confused thoughts to be reborn as thoughtful yet thoughtless beings, such as wasps which mistake larvae of other insects for their own; they are found in plenty all over the world. (These are thoughtful, yet thoughtless beings.)

Because of the turning wheel of revengeful dispositions in (objective) samsara as a result of inversion caused by (subjective) murderous minds, both subject and object unite in whimsy and combine to produce favourable conditions for 84,000 fantastic thoughts of parricide and matricide to be reborn as beings who are thoughtless, yet thoughtful, such as certain owls and tigers which respectively devour their mothers and fathers; they are found in plenty all over the world. (These are thoughtless, yet thoughtful, beings.)

-- From the Surangam sutra.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:So, he [Baudrillard] sees seduction as some sort of expression of the death drive, as jouissance? Something like I wrote in a previous post:
  • Jouissance (deadly enjoyment) is probably the fullest expression of the drives in Lacan; the thing the pleasure principle (“enjoy as little as possible”) (symbolic order) strives to limit.
What would you say is the difference between Baudrillard’s “seduction” and Lacan’s “jouissance”?
Good question and I'm not sure I can answer fully in this space. It would be perhaps more like cause or origination of jouissance. The why or how of it. Not as drive of course, it doesn't have a place in the psychoanalytical universe. It would just reverse the analysis! And Baudrillard would link the strongest responses never to drives but to the artifice anyway.

It's like with rituals, which are essentially meaningless although they do manipulate signs and are therefore seen as highly symbolic, with its full meaning always just out of reach. Like a movie or book (or even a dream) loaded with symbolism it might invoke something. But it ends up being some esoteric thing, happening outside analysis, leaving us without words but with reactions. A symbolic exchange with seduction being the reversal or twist in those exchanges. It's possible to see this for example in humour but it's important, I think, not to link jouissance, as some do, with extreme pleasure or fun, unless one can find something funny in dying. And one might of course, as it's a great signifier in how it reverses life-as-symbol. Hence the most central ritual around it.
Locked