GENIUS FORUMS

Sapius wrote:

Do you see a beginning and an end to Consciousness? Whereas you have been saying that you have no beginning or an end becasue of causality, and Consciousness does? How logical is that?

As far as this issue is concerned, consciousness is essentially no different to any other "thing".

I don't view consciousness as some kind of overarching metaphical entity. Rather, I view it as a specific phenomenon which arises in particular localized instances - e.g. in beings with sufficiently-developed brains.

Does a cloud begin or end? It seems to exist for a limited duration, and yet in another sense, when viewed from the perspecive of causality, it has no beginning or end. The same is true for consciousness.

What you have been suggesting as “emptiness”, and all those that have expressed it before you, do not actually comprehend save a rare few, because if you can see what you define as “emptiness”, as = Consciousness itself! It will solve all confusions that involve in comprehending "emptiness" as not a “thing”, for consciousness is not a “thing” either. It lies in each and every thing that there is, as A=A, which IS Consciousness.

Look at it again in that light, and tell me what you see? There is nothing that “underlies” consciousness; All that there is, IS A=A. Nothing else, absolutely, and that is consciousness, and nothing lies beyond or hidden away as such.

Are you trying to say that a thing has to be conscious before it can conform to the principle of A=A?

What about an unconscious stone? Are you saying it has to be conscious before it can assume the identity of an uncosncious stone?

I realize you are having difficulties understanding the nature of emptiness and that draping it with consciousness helps you get a handle on it. That's fair enough, most people have this difficulty. But sooner or later, you are going to have to pull that drape away and face emptiness squarely in all its naked glory.

-

Scott:
When you're enlightened, then nothing can touch you...but don't fake it. Things can affect you, and being honest about it will help you progress. Covering it up with supposed "truths" will only take you further from enlightenment.

You may be gone now, but I will answer just in case. I am not enlightened and I do not profess to be. I was wrong in making such a broad statement, however, when it comes to certain issues, sometimes there is no black and white, just lots of gray.

Scott:
Saying that Jesus is the truth doesn't make sense to me. I wish Jesus himself had made an indepth commentary on what he meant by saying that he was "the way, the truth and the life".

If you are enlightened, then you have found the truth, you live the truth, you are the truth, no? Jesus was the example to emulate, the way. You live the truth and you have life, otherwise you are dead. He was the perfect human.

bert:

in order to make a reality - fill the void;
reality is your only thruth - be-live your truth,and you can-make a reality.

That's it Bert. Simple isn't it?

who doth deny the flesh ,and thus Self,is diseased.
believe in Self,for you have failed to realise yourself; who can conceive what he is conceiving?

People running about compartmentalising themselves...splitting themselves up into pieces...hiding themselves from themselves...rules, conventions, denial, suppression, lying...building Personas to 'present' to the World...how does so fragmented a Self stay in Control?...Who is in Control?...

Realising the Self would mean realisation of all that Happening...
All this 'fitting in'...

'In Order to'.....???What????

It's Hilarious and Massive Fun.

And then you die...hahahaha.

all of life is desire,for ever desirous.we always embrace obvious stuff;our conceptions cast forth a feeling for a particular not a whole,that's the defect.hence,it makes us an Identity in time-space.
man is a conjunction,a multiple-layer syndrome,and when he's self-forgetful lives on borrowed cliches.
what we know are our impressions of reality,and we find it illusive : our shadowness .equation:Reality is illusion;Illusion is reality.
let me drink with Dionysus and Satyros,cause like them...I like to sleep on the bellie of the Nymph.

Ah Good Bert you arrived at the Nietsche conclusion.
The Dionysian Formula!
Get out of your Head and into your Senses.

frank

David wrote;

Are you trying to say that a thing has to be conscious before it can conform to the principle of A=A?

No, you are.

A=A is consciousness, and what is it that does not adhere to it? YOUR awareness is not the only Awareness around. Awareness itself is Reality, although one can be fooled because of his own arrogance and ego-centric thinking, and assume that that is Awareness. But that is also a necessary thing, because what would one realize as Truth, if “false-ness” were not around?

I don't view consciousness as some kind of overarching metaphical entity.

Nor do I.

Rather, I view it as a specific phenomenon which arises in particular localized instances - e.g. in beings with sufficiently-developed brains.

…and that is the problem. YOUR definition of ‘consciousness” it too limited. You have not yet Realized what A=A Really and Actually means, and to what depths is it ingrained in any and all “things” that exist in and of any given causal condition, in and of the NOW.

Does a cloud begin or end? It seems to exist for a limited duration, and yet in another sense, when viewed from the perspective of causality, it has no beginning or end.

That is True.

The same is true for consciousness.

No, you think it so because your definition of “consciousness’ is miserly, and self-centered, egoistic.

What about an unconscious stone?

What makes you thing it is “unconscious”? it’s appearance? What is it made up of other than what a cloud or a mind is made up of? You talk about “emptiness”, without actually Realizing that actually nothing is Empty, or Dead.

Are you saying it has to be conscious before it can assume the identity of an uncosncious stone?

Identityy is superficial. I’m saying that there is no such thing as Un-consciousness. Only that it seems to be so, because you are actually taking a stone for a REAL thing, forgetting that it is also a dynamic “thing”, because of its non-inherent nature, therefore, how static or Dead, or “un-conscious”, it is?

If not in those terms, then think about the active atomic ingredients that make up its FORM that you can visualize or "conceptualize", and we take that form to be a Solid, static, Dead, or an-unconscious one. How logical it that? Even from an empirical point of view.

One cannot escape Reality, also know to me as Existence, once it is Realized.

I realize you are having difficulties understanding the nature of emptiness and that draping it with consciousness helps you get a handle on it. That's fair enough, most people have this difficulty. But sooner or later, you are going to have to pull that drape away and face emptiness squarely in all its naked glory.

Sure, please wait for something that does not exist by your own definition and “explanations”; hope is wonderful in all of its naked glory, and wishful thinking really does exist, no doubt about that.

quinn:

A good thinker knows how to go beyond all presumptions, assumptions, articles of faith, etc.

this answer tends to generate from a leap of faith.

tell me how you accomplish it.don't be lazy.

Your post is confusing, Sapius. I have no idea what you mean by consciousness, for example. You also seem to be itching for a fight, for reasons unknown to me.

Perhaps, to proceed futher, you could give me a short, clear explanation of what you mean by "consciousness". You're obviously not using it in the normal, conventional sense.

-

bert wrote:

DQ: A good thinker knows how to go beyond all presumptions, assumptions, articles of faith, etc.

B: this answer tends to generate from a leap of faith.

tell me how you accomplish it.don't be lazy.

How long have you been on this forum? I've been explaining these things for years. If you haven't worked it out by now, you never will.

A good thinker goes beyond all assumptions, etc, by thinking, challenging everything, accepting nothing on faith, and skillfully knowing how to cut to the heart of things. He throws away everything exept logic itself. He doesn't depend on any dogmas, tenets, views, beliefs, axioms, perceptions, experiences, books, etc, for his knowledge. Whatever knowledge he has is generated purely by the logic of his own thought.

-

quinn:

How long have you been on this forum? I've been explaining these things for years. If you haven't worked it out by now, you never will.

there are more people then you on this forum,I don't read everything that is posted.I also have a bad memory , constantly forget things that are outside my interest.

and you think that I can never understand you from now on...man..why do you think I have been in search for you?
what is delusion?flesh taken where their ought not be flesh.
but hey,you're the one who is enlightened,right.one who is enlightened acts as enlightened,not.

A good thinker goes beyond all assumptions, etc, by thinking, challenging everything, accepting nothing on faith, and skillfully knowing how to cut to the heart of things. He throws away everything exept logic itself. He doesn't depend on any dogmas, tenets, views, beliefs, axioms, perceptions, experiences, books, etc, for his knowledge. Whatever knowledge he has is generated purely by the logic of his own thought.

as I said,there is only reasoning and learning because of presumptions.
and logic refutes its own syllogisms;so what does that imply?flying from experience to religion.what is its alternative?another form of mania.

who sanctifies any cause???think about that.

Bert wrote:

what is delusion?

Essentially, it is believing in things which don't really exist.

Believing in the mirage of the Christian God is a classic example. Believing in the mirage that thinkers can never go beyond presumptions is another.

DQ: A good thinker goes beyond all assumptions, etc, by thinking, challenging everything, accepting nothing on faith, and skillfully knowing how to cut to the heart of things. He throws away everything exept logic itself. He doesn't depend on any dogmas, tenets, views, beliefs, axioms, perceptions, experiences, books, etc, for his knowledge. Whatever knowledge he has is generated purely by the logic of his own thought.

B: as I said,there is only reasoning and learning because of presumptions.

Maybe that's the case for you. I personally have no problem reasoning and learning without making presumptions.

and logic refutes its own syllogisms;so what does that imply?

Logic cannot refute flawlessly executed pieces of logic, nor can it refute its own self.

who sanctifies any cause???think about that.

The thinker himself sanctifies his own cause the moment he decides it is important enough to pursue.

-

Quote:
DQ: A good thinker goes beyond all assumptions, etc, by thinking, challenging everything, accepting nothing on faith, and skillfully knowing how to cut to the heart of things. He throws away everything exept logic itself. He doesn't depend on any dogmas, tenets, views, beliefs, axioms, perceptions, experiences, books, etc, for his knowledge. Whatever knowledge he has is generated purely by the logic of his own thought.

B: as I said,there is only reasoning and learning because of presumptions.

Maybe that's the case for you. I personally have no problem reasoning and learning without making presumptions.

no,you don't understand what I'm telling.
in other words:our reasoning and learning are put forth(or, are forged) by presumptions.
if(as usually stated) experience gives authority towards testimony,than this also is with recognition by the idea.

Quote:
and logic refutes its own syllogisms;so what does that imply?

Logic cannot refute flawlessly executed pieces of logic, nor can it refute its own self.

yeah,I know you think that.but,logic does not give a damn where his presumptions(or premises) come from.

Quote:
who sanctifies any cause???think about that.

The thinker himself sanctifies his own cause the moment he decides it is important enough to pursue.

not the thinker,humanity!

bert wrote:


not the thinker,humanity!

Wow. an a priori destruction of rationality with an ad populum logical fallacy. How perfectly nihilistc.

millipodium wrote:

bert wrote:


not the thinker,humanity!

Wow. an a priori destruction of rationality with an ad populum logical fallacy. How perfectly nihilistc.

can you transcribe this?I don't understand it.

bert wrote:

millipodium wrote:

bert wrote:


not the thinker,humanity!

Wow. an a priori destruction of rationality with an ad populum logical fallacy. How perfectly nihilistc.

can you transcribe this?I don't understand it.

You question an individuals right to even have thoughts based on the fact that the world might not value them.

bert wrote:

DQ: A good thinker goes beyond all assumptions, etc, by thinking, challenging everything, accepting nothing on faith, and skillfully knowing how to cut to the heart of things. He throws away everything exept logic itself. He doesn't depend on any dogmas, tenets, views, beliefs, axioms, perceptions, experiences, books, etc, for his knowledge. Whatever knowledge he has is generated purely by the logic of his own thought.

B: as I said,there is only reasoning and learning because of presumptions.

DQ: Maybe that's the case for you. I personally have no problem reasoning and learning without making presumptions.

B: no,you don't understand what I'm telling.
in other words:our reasoning and learning are put forth(or, are forged) by presumptions.
if(as usually stated) experience gives authority towards testimony,than this also is with recognition by the idea.

That might be so for the initial stages of a thinker's career. His experiences might prompt him to see the world in a particular way and to have a particular set of values. But all of that begins to fall away as he develops his rationality and wisdom. And if he goes all the way with it, he will eventually reach the stage where he longer relies on any assumptions or experiences at all.

You make it plain that your insight into philosophy is very limited. Your remarks only apply to average, mediocre types who haven't developed their thought in any way. You don't have any conception of philosophic genius.

B: and logic refutes its own syllogisms;so what does that imply?

DQ: Logic cannot refute flawlessly executed pieces of logic, nor can it refute its own self.

yeah,I know you think that.but,logic does not give a damn where his presumptions(or premises) come from.

No, but the wise, skillful thinker certainly does. He makes it his business to ensure that whatever knowledge he arrives at is entirely free of all assumptions.

B: who sanctifies any cause???think about that.

DQ: The thinker himself sanctifies his own cause the moment he decides it is important enough to pursue.

B: not the thinker,humanity!

If you want to let others choose what you should value, that is your affair. But I prefer to make my own choices in this regard.

-

millipodium wrote:

bert wrote:

millipodium wrote:

bert wrote:


not the thinker,humanity!

Wow. an a priori destruction of rationality with an ad populum logical fallacy. How perfectly nihilistc.

can you transcribe this?I don't understand it.

You question an individuals right to even have thoughts based on the fact that the world might not value them.

no no no.you misunderstand.
humanity is in another context.

bert wrote: humanity is in another context.

Oh, well why didn't you say so. I didn't know you had xeno-contextualized humanity. You need to tell others when you do that.

That might be so for the initial stages of a thinker's career. His experiences might prompt him to see the world in a particular way and to have a particular set of values. But all of that begins to fall away as he develops his rationality and wisdom. And if he goes all the way with it, he will eventually reach the stage where he longer relies on any assumptions or experiences at all.

you can say what you want ,still,your learning and your reasoning,and that's what you use now,are both forged by presumptions.it is inescapable.

You make it plain that your insight into philosophy is very limited. Your remarks only apply to average, mediocre types who haven't developed their thought in any way. You don't have any conception of philosophic genius.

the truth is simple,you don't have to be a philosophical genius.

No, but the wise, skillful thinker certainly does. He makes it his business to ensure that whatever knowledge he arrives at is entirely free of all assumptions.

how can you conceive what you are conceiving?

bert wrote:you can say what you want ,still,your learning and your reasoning,and that's what you use now,are both forged by presumptions.it is inescapable.

Are there particular presumptions you take to be inescapable?

Do you see such presumptions as being something different than (self-evident) axioms?

bert wrote:
you can say what you want ,still,your learning and your reasoning,and that's what you use now,are both forged by presumptions.it is inescapable.

Are there particular presumptions you take to be inescapable?

the resultant illusion of falsified delusions.

Do you see such presumptions as being something different than (self-evident) axioms?

mostly it's broader than axioms alone.but yeah,axioms are the common.

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Your post is confusing, Sapius. I have no idea what you mean by consciousness, for example. You also seem to be itching for a fight, for reasons unknown to me.

Perhaps, to proceed futher, you could give me a short, clear explanation of what you mean by "consciousness". You're obviously not using it in the normal, conventional sense.

-

Your post is confusing, Sapius.

It shouldn’t be, at least for you. However…

I have no idea what you mean by consciousness, for example.

Finally, Consciousness equals A=A.

You also seem to be itching for a fight, for reasons unknown to me.

Not at all, it’s pure assumption on your part. What makes you thing so?

Perhaps, to proceed further, you could give me a short, clear explanation of what you mean by "consciousness".

Sure, fair enough, step by step then, if it is not clear enough as yet.

What are your views on animals? Do you consider them to be conscious to any degree? Do they need to know what A=A is or means, philosophically, to actually be aware of their environment and thence react?

You're obviously not using it in the normal, conventional sense.

Could you please give me the normal, conventional definition?

David,

bert,

A=A (Identity) is determined by an infinite array of previous causes, so it is logically appropriate to claim that all previous mental activity (presumptions, assumptions) still influence and underlie our thinking.

Steven Coyle wrote:David,

bert,

A=A (Identity) is determined by an infinite array of previous causes, so it is logically appropriate to claim that all previous mental activity (presumptions, assumptions) still influence and underlie our thinking.

Steven, tell me what you see wrong here...

Saying A=A (Identity), points to a static thing, and existence is dynamic; even all the while the “identification” is taking place. So what is actually happening? In my opinion…

(A=A) = (Recognition - Differentiation - Reaction) = Consciousness.

A=A is entrenched far more deeper than what we can verbally define.

Sapius wrote:

Steven Coyle wrote:David,

bert,

A=A (Identity) is determined by an infinite array of previous causes, so it is logically appropriate to claim that all previous mental activity (presumptions, assumptions) still influence and underlie our thinking.

Steven, tell me what you see wrong here...

Saying A=A (Identity), points to a static thing, and existence is dynamic; even all the while the “identification” is taking place. So what is actually happening? In my opinion…

(A=A) = (Recognition - Differentiation - Reaction) = Consciousness.

A=A is entrenched far more deeper than what we can verbally define.

maybe the three of us should have a drink some time

Steven, tell me what you see wrong here...

Saying A=A (Identity), points to a static thing, and existence is dynamic; even all the while the “identification” is taking place. So what is actually happening? In my opinion…

(A=A) = (Recognition - Differentiation - Reaction) = Consciousness.

A=A is entrenched far more deeper than what we can verbally define.

Sapius,

I agree.

The question remains...

Why does the mind localize certain phenomenon?

Sapius wrote:

DQ: You're obviously not using consciousness in the normal, conventional sense.

S: Could you please give me the normal, conventional definition?

Subjective awareness. The observer (subject), as opposed to the things which the observer observes.

Your equation of consciousness with A=A is at odds with the normal definition of consciousness because it mangles together the subjective awareness and the objects this subjectiveness awareness observes. This then leads you to seemingly absurd conclusions, such as that stones are conscious.

Stones are nothing more than objects in our field of consciousness. They adhere to the principle of A=A in the very act of our observing them, not in their level of consciousness. Their level of consciousness is irrelevant. A stone doesn't have to be conscious in order to adhere to A=A. You're making a linkage which doesn't have a logical basis.

-