Value-based love for what was

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Post Reply
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Value-based love for what was

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:06 am

Those who do not think philosophically, i.e., about the nature of ultimate reality and instead, think self-consciously cannot do so unless the contrast of self-consciousness is present in awareness. Thinking does not happen in a vacuum, contrast is required to 'fire-it-up' and bring its fruit into manifestation.

If it is true that thinking a certain way requires contrast to what is perceived as being less evolved, then those who are self-consciousness also contrast themselves with what they believe to be a less-evolved way of thinking, i.e. animal consciousness.

Since the focus of this forum is philosophical, self-consciousness then is the primary 'fire for will.' The purpose of this post is to suggest that since self-consciousness is required before ultimate-consciousness can appear, that self-consciousness has intrinsic value, and that loving it for having this intrinsic (contrasting) value is beneficial for both 'levels' of consciousness. And by love in this context I am not referring to the self-conscious variety of relationship love, rather, the love of consciousness for necessity, in this case, the necessity of the lower so the higher can be made manifest.

How would love for the lower self-conscious realm translate into action by the higher ultimate-conscious realm is the question being asked here. I place forward that the most obvious action would be that of being acutely aware of one's speech and actions, that when addressing self-consciousness that one does not fall into self-conscious patterns and instead, be dedicated to lifting self-consciousness 'up-and-out' of its less expansive way of thinking, according, of course, to its current desire/will to be lifted up. And that when self-consciousness is not actively present as 'other' that value love for what-was both ensures 'what was' stays as 'what was' and that it satisfies the feeling aspect of value-cognition.

Post Reply