I see myself as an individual, not a collection of "parts". Can anyone explain why I only experience neural impulses? Was it programmed before I was born? Do we contain within us the possibility to create our own reality, if not, who or what creates ours? And for a really tough question, I know a sphere can exist, I argued about this on another forum and they could only come up with "hyper-forms" to simply reflect my thinking. Why can't a sphere have infinite dimensions? Maybe to dim down the thinking process try to imagine an infinite dimensional sphere on one plane. The fact is it's possible even in a "3D" universe which our universe is not. A dimension is the measure like time(universally), or a "time-line". Just because you haven't seen, or experienced it doesn't make it not real. Can we experience the self? Edited by: XXX STATIC X at: 2/15/04 3:52 am
What is the self?
...
I am what I am thinking at any given moment. No, I'm not saying that I am a tree if I think "tree". Instead, I am the thought that says "tree".
Those thoughts are always articulated as a dialogue. While I am the actual thought, the content of this thought is what discriminates one thing from another. So consciousness of things is only there because of thought.
Thought can't be aware of itself, but it can be aware of a past thought. You can name the last thought you had as "I" for practical purposes, but the actual "I" is the thought that is naming the last thought.
You could say that everything that is not thought creates thought, and I think you'd be right. But I also think we could make a distinction there and assume there is an unconscious mind, simply because the way thoughts arise don't seem to be random. I call that which causes thought to arise "self" or "will". It's like a primary value, and thoughts develop themselves as tools to put that value into action when it's faced with an external situation.
If there is wrong reasoning when those thoughts are being developed, you will end up doing something that goes against the primary value. I don't mean wrong reasoning like QRS do. As much as thinking that the christian god exists is untrue, it does not consist wrong reasoning to worship it, if your primary value points you to that direction. It'd be wrong reasoning if you let people convince you that you shouldn't do it, even though you want it.
So the enlightened person is the one who is free from the influence of any external values in their reasoning. Of course their primary value itself is influenced by their surroundings, but their reasoning to put it in practice is not.
That's just something I've made up. Take it with a grain of salt.
Those thoughts are always articulated as a dialogue. While I am the actual thought, the content of this thought is what discriminates one thing from another. So consciousness of things is only there because of thought.
Thought can't be aware of itself, but it can be aware of a past thought. You can name the last thought you had as "I" for practical purposes, but the actual "I" is the thought that is naming the last thought.
You could say that everything that is not thought creates thought, and I think you'd be right. But I also think we could make a distinction there and assume there is an unconscious mind, simply because the way thoughts arise don't seem to be random. I call that which causes thought to arise "self" or "will". It's like a primary value, and thoughts develop themselves as tools to put that value into action when it's faced with an external situation.
If there is wrong reasoning when those thoughts are being developed, you will end up doing something that goes against the primary value. I don't mean wrong reasoning like QRS do. As much as thinking that the christian god exists is untrue, it does not consist wrong reasoning to worship it, if your primary value points you to that direction. It'd be wrong reasoning if you let people convince you that you shouldn't do it, even though you want it.
So the enlightened person is the one who is free from the influence of any external values in their reasoning. Of course their primary value itself is influenced by their surroundings, but their reasoning to put it in practice is not.
That's just something I've made up. Take it with a grain of salt.
-
XXX STATIC X
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:51 pm
No personal choice!?
That's enough to make a man go insane! I don't believe in the Christian God, you mean govil. They do not think that I know from experience in christian churches don't believe all you hear. What if God has all personalities, maybe he is more than what everyone thinks of him. I can see where a govil would be coming from though, seeing as how it never actually had anything to experience, only memories of infinite possibilities, that would be too much for one mind to bare, poor "guy". I can see God as having meaning though... maybe it is us.
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose FREE WILL.. -RUSH
Freedom isn't free, except to God.
All we see or seem is but a dream within a dream. -Edgar Allen Poe
The eye sees a thing more clearly in dreams than the imagination awake. -Leonardo da Vinci
He who knows others is wise; he who knows himself is enlightened. -Lao-Tzu
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose FREE WILL.. -RUSH
Freedom isn't free, except to God.
All we see or seem is but a dream within a dream. -Edgar Allen Poe
The eye sees a thing more clearly in dreams than the imagination awake. -Leonardo da Vinci
He who knows others is wise; he who knows himself is enlightened. -Lao-Tzu
-
XXX STATIC X
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:51 pm
Re: ...
The truth is I nor you knows what or who God may be like. Let alone the possibility of more than one God. Faith is truth. Faith is the ultimate truth right now, summon bonum.
-
XXX STATIC X
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:51 pm
Re: ...
Aren't we all just animals to begin with? If God exists, explain your feelings to him. Does conformity suggest faith in God? Can't we see through our selfish desires to stray from God? Is this a possibility?
-
XXX STATIC X
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:51 pm
Re: ...
Why does a possibility that God strives for attention scare people? As has been shown by many years of suffering. Is there a reason the world is the way it is? Or do people choose not to conform(much like I have chosen to do with society as an individual) Where is possibility when God is seen as an original creator of sin?
-
XXX STATIC X
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:51 pm
Re: ...
I have chosen faith as a way of putting my complete trust in God, I have never experienced nature as it truly may be. But until I conform into society maybe I will never grow up. Everything is eternal is all the faith I need. Until these facts are proven against me. :P
-
XXX STATIC X
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:51 pm
Re: self.
Who is seen as geniuses in our world? Pride or fate. Power or word. Trust all you may see. trust us and we will find a common ground. Trust fate, is that a sin? Now who is trusted amongst the world today? "Where" is your God? What is seen as bad "Form"? Doubt in a perfect vision or doubt in self? Flow like a river, flow with time. What is visioned(seen)? Does the world accept choice? Does the universe live God's way or does this planet not choose trust? Memories flow with time. I choose to accept a better world, but society chooses to cast aside each other. Last question before I hit the hay. What is real? I choose to love being. Where is love now? Or, is fear of love a choice? Can evil in all its Form choose love? Hera help us! Maybe choice can rest in the hands of the ONE, GOD! Does God love me? Ask yourself. Flow with the eternal one, accept his choices. Or accept hate towards it. I have chosen to live with it. Live amongst possibility or live with death.
-
Canadian Zoetrope
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:54 am
Real.
You ask:
Quote:Quote:<hr>What is real?<hr>
To which I reply, point to that which is un real, and I shall point to that which is. Edited by: Canadian Zoetrope <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.boomspeed.com/soran27/hand3.gif" BORDER=0> at: 2/18/04 1:23 pm
Quote:Quote:<hr>What is real?<hr>
To which I reply, point to that which is un real, and I shall point to that which is. Edited by: Canadian Zoetrope <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.boomspeed.com/soran27/hand3.gif" BORDER=0> at: 2/18/04 1:23 pm
self
Maybe the 'self' arises in a mind that sees itself as separated from others. That more or less includes everyone!
I don't mean that we are not separate in a physical sense, we are of course. What I mean is, the more a person lives for his/her own 'self interest' the stronger that self will be. Extreme competitiveness, inability to empathise with others, alienation, seem connected with the strong self.
The self seems a conditioned notion rather than a real entity. That of course doesn't mean that it doesn't have an effect on the mind and person. All conditioning does.
I wonder if we can we physically aware, alert to our identity, etc, yet not forever separating ourselves as superior, better, winner, more this more that than others? I really think the more self-centred we are the more we suffer from inner conflicts.
Anyway,just a contribution to your post, not a heavy conclusive view.
I don't mean that we are not separate in a physical sense, we are of course. What I mean is, the more a person lives for his/her own 'self interest' the stronger that self will be. Extreme competitiveness, inability to empathise with others, alienation, seem connected with the strong self.
The self seems a conditioned notion rather than a real entity. That of course doesn't mean that it doesn't have an effect on the mind and person. All conditioning does.
I wonder if we can we physically aware, alert to our identity, etc, yet not forever separating ourselves as superior, better, winner, more this more that than others? I really think the more self-centred we are the more we suffer from inner conflicts.
Anyway,just a contribution to your post, not a heavy conclusive view.
Re: self
Quote:Quote:<hr>peter: I really think the more self-centred we are the more we suffer from inner conflicts.<hr>
I agree with the qualification that until we suffer through these inner conflicts and resolve them, non-self-centeredness is not really possible. Most "unselfish" behavior is just diversionary self-centeredness, self-centered behavior that only looks like it's not self-centered.
(Welcome to the forum)
I agree with the qualification that until we suffer through these inner conflicts and resolve them, non-self-centeredness is not really possible. Most "unselfish" behavior is just diversionary self-centeredness, self-centered behavior that only looks like it's not self-centered.
(Welcome to the forum)
self
Quote
______________________________________________________
MGregory: Most "unselfish" behavior is just diversionary self-centeredness, self-centered behavior that only looks like it's not self-centered.
_______________________________________________________
Yes, I agree. Like the person in the bible who loudly clanked his large silver donation into the collection bowl, we like to be noticed as being generous and "unselfish". And indeed we like to think of ourselves as "unselfish".When we do this we are acting selfishly! Real unselfishness is not aware of itself, but is offered out of love or concern for others, don't you think?
Thanks for your welcome to the forum.
-
Weluvducsoha
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 4:27 am
Biological explanation
Let's be annoying and define self as thus:
that which acts, thinks, moves, and in any other way influences the external world.
The definition, of course, by defining self in terms of interaction with that which is not self implys a few things. First, self cannot be alone for if it is alone, it is incapable of action and is therefore meaningless. Second, self appeares to have a body, although this need not be so, nor need we define body as the corporal sort. Third, it allows for more then one self to be observed in a given universe or field of thought. We may observe 'self' by its actions.
This definition, of course, is also very much in tune with the newtonian description of the universe wherein any human or thinking machine, or anything else, is defined as a set of particles acting under certain rules. Self, then, is one's physical body. It seems quite reasonable, after all, given that our observation is limited to such. I may imagine the mind, but that imagining may be perfectly described as a set of nerual impulses traveling across a physical brain.
that which acts, thinks, moves, and in any other way influences the external world.
The definition, of course, by defining self in terms of interaction with that which is not self implys a few things. First, self cannot be alone for if it is alone, it is incapable of action and is therefore meaningless. Second, self appeares to have a body, although this need not be so, nor need we define body as the corporal sort. Third, it allows for more then one self to be observed in a given universe or field of thought. We may observe 'self' by its actions.
This definition, of course, is also very much in tune with the newtonian description of the universe wherein any human or thinking machine, or anything else, is defined as a set of particles acting under certain rules. Self, then, is one's physical body. It seems quite reasonable, after all, given that our observation is limited to such. I may imagine the mind, but that imagining may be perfectly described as a set of nerual impulses traveling across a physical brain.
Re: self
Quote:Quote:<hr>peter: Real unselfishness is not aware of itself, but is offered out of love or concern for others, don't you think?<hr>
I don't know, it sounds kinda fishy to me. Let me try to break this down. What would it take for unselfishness to become unaware of itself? We would either have to be unaware of others, unaware of what we are doing, or unaware of the effects of what we are doing.
If something, an action or whatever, is offered out of love or concern for others, then obviously we need to be aware of the others in the first place, otherwise there would be no love or concern for them. So it seems we need to be aware of others.
If we are unaware of what we are doing, then we can't possibly be aware of the effects of what we are doing, so those last two amount to the same thing: the effects of what we are doing. Every action we take is done for the effects of the action anyway, so I guess it was silly to even bring it up.
That leaves us with being unaware of the effects of what we are doing. But if we are unaware of the effects of what we are doing, then we won't know if what we are doing is beneficial to others, which is a necessity, I would think.
So, I don't think a lack of awareness is a good idea. Or am I forgetting something?
I don't know, it sounds kinda fishy to me. Let me try to break this down. What would it take for unselfishness to become unaware of itself? We would either have to be unaware of others, unaware of what we are doing, or unaware of the effects of what we are doing.
If something, an action or whatever, is offered out of love or concern for others, then obviously we need to be aware of the others in the first place, otherwise there would be no love or concern for them. So it seems we need to be aware of others.
If we are unaware of what we are doing, then we can't possibly be aware of the effects of what we are doing, so those last two amount to the same thing: the effects of what we are doing. Every action we take is done for the effects of the action anyway, so I guess it was silly to even bring it up.
That leaves us with being unaware of the effects of what we are doing. But if we are unaware of the effects of what we are doing, then we won't know if what we are doing is beneficial to others, which is a necessity, I would think.
So, I don't think a lack of awareness is a good idea. Or am I forgetting something?
Re: Biological explanation
Quote:Quote:<hr>Weluvducsoha: Let's be annoying and define self as thus: . . .<hr>
Welcome to the forum, Weluvducsoha. I feel compelled to reply to this, but I don't think I can handle another conversation, so I'm going to have to leave it.
Welcome to the forum, Weluvducsoha. I feel compelled to reply to this, but I don't think I can handle another conversation, so I'm going to have to leave it.
-
Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: Biological explanation
There are two kinds of selfishness, the right kind and the wrong kind.