GENIUS FORUMS

divine focus wrote:

Sapius wrote:Now as long as consciousness is, divided-ness is, because without the discriminatory divided-ness, consciousness can’t be.

How's this? You can be conscious of yourself without discriminating between different aspects of yourself. Even when you discriminate, are your aspects divided? Is your hand separate from your foot? The discrimination is only for functional understanding.

No, discrimination is not only for functional understandings but is also the fundamental basis of consciousness itself. If sensed discrimination is not, then consciousness isn’t, hence absolutely nothing could possibly exist. That is what the undivided points to, NOTHING. Tell me that that is the case. That consciousness is possible without any discrimination. At the least, something other than consciousness is necessary for consciousness itself to be. At the most fundamental level, discrimination arises far much earlier than a human mind ever develops.

Abstract (mindful) discrimination seems “only” for functional understandings because of our capability of abstract reasoning; but that is only possible after some-thing is already sensed, and then reasoned about; abstraction can further subdivide or total up, abstractly ONLY; starting from the point of Self, AND All that is NOT IT; and that which senses cannot be the sensed, necessarily. If a mind (may be God to some) is said to create all such divisions, which then become arbitrary because of the "fundamental" undivided-ness, then IT (mind) is also creating an arbitrary division between logical and illogical; no? If it only seems that we are sensing, then it only seems that we are reasoning, hence it only seems that wisdom is wisdom, logical is logical, illogical is illogical, knowledge is knowledge, truth is truth, and so on; In which case I can safely ignore the claim of the undivided whole for it ends is absolute meaninglessness, and meaning making is not un-natural by any means, unless we exclude nature while meaning-making. Essentially, they can't hold discriminatory meanings and no discriminatory meanings at the same time.

So, is it always the mind that creates the sensing, or is mind a resultant effect that depends on senses? Or are they interdependent? I believe they are inter-dependent, and for that, a division is absolutely necessary, that they may depend on each other. What I’m talking about is basic lesson number one, (fundamental nature of consciousness), that some keep forgetting and jump to unreasonable conclusions.

Tell me, how can one know that one is conscious? Does consciousness mean being conscious of something other than at least what it itself is not? Unless there already is a division between consciousness and what it is NOT, nothing exists. And this division could at no point be an undivided whole because that would mean no existence, which is impossible.

Hence, undivided whole can only be a result of wishful thinking, or false reasoning, such as, it is the mind that creates all division, otherwise there aren’t any at all, which means existence isn't. Abstract division can only further subdivide, but not unless there already is a fundamental division between abstraction and what it is not to begin with.

I can point to hundreds of necessary divisions, philosophically speaking of course, but that would seem pale against the most fundamental necessity of existence itself, that is discrimination itself; divided-ness; in other words, recognition through differentiation; fundamental principle of logic; A=A.


---------

Take this for example…

Cory: There is no such thing as nothing, or nothingness. But when there is no mind present, a thing is impossible.

Yes, but only when one assumes this in terms of only one particular mind, whereas one can’t be absolutely certain that that is the only mind around, in and of Totality. That statement assumes that no other mind could possibly exist, whereas one is not even actually certain of what lies beyond his personal/subjective consciousness, except that it is, as against all that it is not. I find what that quote implies as personal/subjective arrogance, although one has reasons to believe otherwise. For example…

Cory: You aren't really doing a good job of disproving my point, because in that case, there are obviously minds present, and thus there are boundaries experienced.

You see… for the sake of convenience, it becomes boundaries experienced, rather than created in this instance, which makes me laugh. This itself shows that not all boundaries are necessarily created, the first quote does not include the possibility of other MINDS, nor does it say anything about MIND itself.

Just as no-thing is possible without mind, mind cannot be possible without things; can it? Mind itsefl is but a thing as against all what that is not, to begin with.

You have a very complicated take on all this, and it's hard to follow your logic. I can answer this, though:

Sapius wrote:Tell me, how can one know that one is conscious? Does consciousness mean being conscious of something other than at least what it itself is not?

Consciousness is simply awareness. It is a knowing. Every conceivable and (presently) inconceivable thing is conscious, because it has that knowing simply by existing. Now, being aware and being self-aware are two different things. You can be aware of yourself as part of a larger whole without being aware of your individuality and independence within that whole. Self-awareness follows the primary discrimination of a self, but the self never leaves the whole. Nothing changes but the awareness, so everything changes. The newfound awareness always was, but it was unknown "back then." That leads to the ultimate question right now: is awareness first, or self-awareness? Self-awareness may not be possible without awareness, but simple awareness may not be possible without the self-aware choice to enter the evolutionary process.

divine focus wrote:You have a very complicated take on all this, and it's hard to follow your logic. I can answer this, though:

Sapius wrote:Tell me, how can one know that one is conscious? Does consciousness mean being conscious of something other than at least what it itself is not?

Consciousness is simply awareness. It is a knowing. Every conceivable and (presently) inconceivable thing is conscious, because it has that knowing simply by existing. Now, being aware and being self-aware are two different things. You can be aware of yourself as part of a larger whole without being aware of your individuality and independence within that whole. Self-awareness follows the primary discrimination of a self, but the self never leaves the whole. Nothing changes but the awareness, so everything changes. The newfound awareness always was, but it was unknown "back then." That leads to the ultimate question right now: is awareness first, or self-awareness? Self-awareness may not be possible without awareness, but simple awareness may not be possible without the self-aware choice to enter the evolutionary process.

I've just added a bit more to my earlier post while you were posting, may be that too might help explain what I mean. I will address your post soon. I'm sorry, got to go.

DF;

You have a very complicated take on all this, and it's hard to follow your logic.

May be, but it is actually quite simple, but then one has to work upward from the basic fundamentals, and not forget them once they are discovered. First of all, let me make one thing clear, and I thing that is what makes it look complicated, and that essentially is, how one defines, or rather understands what somebody else means in an overall sense.

What I take you to mean by consciousness in your post is, what I would call logi-consciousness, meaning, that WE are (logically) self-aware through the capability of abstract self-reflection, reasoning, and so on, whereas for example, a cow has to necessarily be self-aware but not necessarily logi-conscious, otherwise, it could not handle its environment coherently. So what is the real difference between self-awareness and consciousness as we generally define it, is a question that I ask myself.

“Awareness” all by its self would mean nothing really; Lets say, there has to be some-thing to be aware of, AND some-thing that is aware of it, whereas both things could be aware of each other. For self-awareness, there has to necessarily be a self, and an awareness of its self at least. The self and awareness connot be one and the same thing.

Well, let me address your post... it might clarify my position.

S: Tell me, how can one know that one is conscious? Does consciousness mean being conscious of something other than at least what it itself is not?

DF: Consciousness is simply awareness. It is a knowing.

Okay, but Knowing what? Say purely “I AM”; would you agree that that is the most fundamental aspect of ‘knowing’? Further, according to pure “awareness”, it should simply read – “I”, but then what about the KNOWING part? “I” by its self is utterly meaningless. There wouldn’t be even a feeling of “I” on its own. It is not possible to even feel “I” unless there is something other than the “I” to begin with; to say the least, the Feeling/Knowing of it, and that can happen only if the ‘knowing’ and the ‘I’ are not one and the same thing.

A cow actually "knows" “I am” without even thinking about it. Is that what pure and simple awareness means?

Every conceivable and (presently) inconceivable thing is conscious, because it has that knowing simply by existing.

Sure, but its not that simple. That particular thing is not ‘consciousness’ itself, it (a thing) has to necessarily be conscious OF existing to say the least. There has to necessarily be an I, and the knowing of it, if existence is to mean anything at all.

Now, being aware and being self-aware are two different things.

I understand, and know the difference you are talking about.

You can be aware of yourself as part of a larger whole without being aware of your individuality and independence within that whole.

So one must at least be aware that one is a PART, in our case that is. But surely a cow doesn’t need to actually realize that, nor conceptualize a “whole”, yet it is.

Self-awareness follows the primary discrimination of a self, but the self never leaves the whole.

Leave what “whole”? And of course it can’t, not because it cannot leave, but that there isn’t any place it could possibly go; THAT is the extent of this assumed “whole”, which conceptually draws a mental limitation to that which has none.

Nothing changes but the awareness, so everything changes.

If you mean that personal perspective itself changes, and hence all else, then I agree.

The newfound awareness always was, but it was unknown "back then."

I don’t think so. One could say awareness always was, just that the realization is newly found, through a more complex kind of awareness - logi-consciousness.

That leads to the ultimate question right now: is awareness first, or self-awareness? Self-awareness may not be possible without awareness, but simple awareness may not be possible without the self-aware choice to enter the evolutionary process.

Given how I have tried to explain above, I think it should not be too difficult to understand that all things are necessarily interdependent in that Yin Yang fashion, so at the core of it all, what ultimately came first is a superfluous question, philosophically speaking of course.

On the other hand, in my opinion, there isn’t any real difference between the two; pure and simple awareness necessarily already requires at least two things to be around, where a thing is self-aware through detecting its environment, which it itself is not, and does not necessarily need abstract reasoning to “know” it.

I guess that’s what means, to just be, in which one already has the “knowing” of being, without conceptualizing. But that necessarily involves more than one thing, otherwise being isn’t; and that’s what my point is.

Unfortunately, I cannot express it any better, but I can still try if need be.

Cory,

Also, remember, the aim of my initial opening post was to say something meaningful about logic.

Logic is simply the act of identifying, or concluding what the causes are of a particular phenomena.

The particular phenomenon in question might be the 'mortality of Socrates'

There are innumerable factors causing Socrates mortality, but just to name one, Socrates mortality is caused by being a man.

Sound about right?

Fine, Socrate's mortality IS caused by being a man (that's a given). And I totally agree with your statement and the simple definition of logic. However, you are also proving that it's the use of logic which determines whether or not logic is useful. Meaning, we can make as many circular statements as we'd like, but a large majority of them don't get us anywhere. So, logic can be seen as a framework of sorts and whatever information goes into that framework, determines the usefulness of the logic.

Accurate information within the framework of logic = knowledge and that knowledge must be applied or explored in a meaningful way to be proven useful.

I guess my point is, that logic could not exist if there wasn't anything to use with it. Logic, arises within information that's been analyzed and a pattern identified (process of knowledge formation from the identification and comprehension of information (understanding)). The analysis and pattern identification are all because of the use of logic. In other words, it's a tool...

...like a hammer. A hammer is used to build things and it's only useful with material, such as: wood and nails (information). If metal and wood didn't exist, then the tool itself wouldn't exist. And if that didn't exist, then we wouldn't be able to build houses (knowledge). A hammer is used with wood and nails (info) to build houses (knowledge).

A computer can use logic and one of the main differences between a computer and a human is understanding. (wait...hmmmm) Knowledge, is "understood information" and the only way information can begin to be identified and analyzed is through the use of logic, which itself proves that this is so, because of its existence.

Me: In order to understand, we can't say that a cause of death is mortality. Mortality allows the real cause to take effect and kill. If something wasn't mortal, then it wouldn't die.


You: If something wasn't mortal then it wouldn't be caused to die.

That's right, there needs to be a change in between: life - death and change is always caused.

There's two ways of viewing that appear to be contradictory, but both are correct:

On the one hand each form is caused by every other contrasting form.

On the other hand, everything is and has always been without cause.

What? So, because everything is a cause of everything else (meaning it's also a cause of itself)...Then, we cancel out the cause and everything becomes as it is, changeless? that cannot be.

Me: why don't we all just die?


You: Because there are multiple causes contributing to death that, hitherto, haven't been fulfilled.

Ahh... That means that mortality is not "a" cause, it's only "part" of thee cause that leads up to the fulfillment of the cause of death (as a whole). So that's why we say: the Big Bang is the cause of our whole universe and therefore everything in it. It's all a whole and every thing in it is dependent on the next (ex. stack of cards - each card supports the next which inturn supports its self - Each card supports itself, because it supports the cards which support it. That's why we say a stack of cards supports itself!). Time must exist because change exists. We see this change and we try to understand it, by using logic. Boundaries, exist because that's the way we perceive it and by way of perception, it must be so.

You're right that multiple causes are necessary for death to occur. And I'm correct to say that life is the cause of death, and death is the cause of life.

It's the same thing!:)

If there are no minds, then 'appearance' is impossible. The mind filters out some and detects others creating things. Without a mind, this process of filtering out and creating is impossible.

That's why time exists, is it not? Also, without those appearances existing, minds wouldn't exist.

There is no such thing as nothing, or nothingness. But when there is no mind present, a thing is impossible.

Therefore nothingness is possible because the mind is present and if the mind wasn't present, ...then there's no point...Heh.

Sagerage,

sagerage wrote:However, you are also proving that it's the use of logic which determines whether or not logic is useful.

Usefulness is dictated by what you value. I'll concede that what you value dictates how you use logic.

Meaning, we can make as many circular statements as we'd like, but a large majority of them don't get us anywhere.

Well, if I go from finding 'logic' mysterious, to finding it so understandable that I can forget about it and move on to other things, then I would say I've gotten somewhere.

logic can be seen as a framework of sorts and whatever information goes into that framework, determines the usefulness of the logic.

Usefulness, rather than being dictated by certain information, is dictated by what you value.

Accurate information within the framework of logic = knowledge and that knowledge must be applied or explored in a meaningful way to be proven useful.

I guess my point is, that logic could not exist if there wasn't anything to use with it.

That's right.

CD: On the one hand each form is caused by every other contrasting form. On the other hand, everything is and has always been without cause.

What? So, because everything is a cause of everything else (meaning it's also a cause of itself)...Then, we cancel out the cause and everything becomes as it is, changeless? that cannot be.

Why can't it?

SR: why don't we all just die?

CD: Because there are multiple causes contributing to death that, hitherto, haven't been fulfilled.

SR: Ahh... That means that mortality is not "a" cause, it's only "part" of the cause that leads up to the fulfillment of the cause of death (as a whole).

Mortality is one of many causes contributing to death.

So that's why we say: the Big Bang is the cause of our whole universe and therefore everything in it.

The singularity before the big bang may have been caused to explode by something other than itself. Therefore it would be that something which caused the big bang.

CD: If there are no minds, then 'appearance' is impossible. The mind filters out some and detects others creating things. Without a mind, this process of filtering out and creating is impossible.

SR: That's why time exists, is it not?

Honestly, I don't know why time exists anymore than I know why my mind exists. It just does. <shrug>

Mortality is one of many causes contributing to death.

Isn't this called: creating boundaries? You're using mortality as a cause all by itself, by saying:
"one of many". In other words, you're breaking it away from the flow of causation and using it as if it was separate and by itself. It wouldn't exist by itself, therefore, the above quote seems to be illogical.

Btw, can logic be used to prove two contrary views, correct?

sagerage wrote:

Mortality is one of many causes contributing to death.

Isn't this called: creating boundaries? You're using mortality as a cause all by itself, by saying:
"one of many".

I'm using mortality as a cause among many by saying:

"one of many"

It wouldn't exist by itself, therefore, the above quote seems to be illogical.

It's not illogical because I'm saying that it exists in relation to many.

Btw, can logic be used to prove two contrary views, correct?

Give me an example.

Cory Duchesne,

I'm using mortality as a cause among many by saying:

"one of many"

Is this OK then: "one (complete) of many" = part (incomplete) of a whole ...?

Me: Btw, can logic be used to prove two contrary views, correct?

You: Give me an example.

Well, when I think of "one", I think of "whole". So, when you say "one of many", that to myself implies that there is more then a whole (it implies several), which cannot be (keep in mind that I'm thinking of the whole as ALL of causation)~(I think I finally understand what is meant by no time - too cool!). So, does it make logical sense? Now, what if we exchange "one" with "part", does it make more sense?


If we go back to your intro, I can now understand why your example wasn't sitting too well with me:

Socrates mortality is caused by being a man.

Then you wrote...

Mortality is one of many causes contributing to death.

Since there is one whole - causation - There are no causes. Instead, we create causes, by breaking up (So to speak, Sapius:)) causation into parts (so we dissect one, into parts) in order to gain a higher understanding of nature. Now, explain this, how do your quotes contribute to a higher understanding of nature when death, by definition, means mortality. In other words, you're stating (whether intentionally or not) that death is a cause of itself (WTF? - that's starting to make sense to me in some odd way, heh), which doesn't tell us anything. It must be illogical. No?

I'm pretty sure that I made sense. Even though, my mind does like to play tricks on me!:p

sagerage wrote:Cory Duchesne,

I'm using mortality as a cause among many by saying:

"one of many"

Is this OK then: "one (complete) of many" = part (incomplete) of a whole ...?

Yes.

SR: Btw, can logic be used to prove two contrary views, correct?

CD: Give me an example.

SR: Well, when I think of "one", I think of "whole".

You need not think in such a way. When I think of "one", I think of "a part".

True wholeness is "un-appearable" True wholeness is not a thing, but is a totality beyond form.

So, when you say "one of many", that to myself implies that there is more than a whole (it implies several), which cannot be

I see no reason why you cannot regard a table of 7 pies as 7 respective wholes.

(keep in mind that I'm thinking of the whole as ALL of causation)

That's fine, but I think you need to learn how to be a bit more flexible. The word 'whole' has a meaning that is relative to the greater context. The word whole can be applied to describe parts, or you can use the word to point to the totality of causation.

SR: If we go back to your intro, I can now understand why your example wasn't sitting too well with me:

CD: Socrates mortality is caused by being a man.

SR: Then you wrote...

CD: Mortality is one of many causes contributing to death.

SR: Since there is one whole - causation - There are no causes.
Instead, we create causes, by breaking up causation into parts (so we dissect one, into parts) in order to gain a higher understanding of nature. Now, explain this, how do your quotes contribute to a higher understanding of nature when death, by definition, means mortality.

Mortality, as I define it, means susceptibility to death.

In other words, you're stating (whether intentionally or not) that death is a cause of itself

The conditions that create mortality, are mortality. A life form, being delicate as it is, is mortality. Mortality is life.

Life is a necessary cause for death to occur.

Sapius wrote:I guess that’s what means, to just be, in which one already has the “knowing” of being, without conceptualizing. But that necessarily involves more than one thing, otherwise being isn’t; and that’s what my point is.

I don't see why you can't be without something else to be aware of, but that could just be a difference in our perceptions.

There are differences in perception that have to do with sexuality, not physically but with the ideas of masculine, feminine, and a third, combined sex. The masculine perception is the most common, as physical reality is a masculine expression of manifestation. The feminine perception is not necessarily rare but very uncommon. Much of it is involved in the unmanifest side of life, the interconnectedness that is not obvious at the visible, physical level. You can see how someone with this perception might just be aware without having anything outside of the awareness to be aware of, since they are physically aware at a different level.

The third perception has to do with interaction, having a sort of pre-awareness of interconnectedness and the physical focus on the manifest realm. It's slightly more common than the feminine perception.

S: I guess that’s what means, to just be, in which one already has the “knowing” of being, without conceptualizing. But that necessarily involves more than one thing, otherwise being isn’t; and that’s what my point is.

DF: I don't see why you can't be without something else to be aware of, but that could just be a difference in our perceptions.

I guess it could, however, that does not really matter, as long as one can be as close to truth as possible, on his own efforts. Truth is not really hidden, just not realized.

For example, I am just being when I eat a meal, I am just being when posting here, I am just being when I think I AM. I am exactly what I am in any given moment, and awareness is a dynamic interaction of things, an absolute single thing cannot have such interactivity, hence that would actually be nothing.

On the other hand, if that were the case. How exactly do you know that you ARE?

How do you define awareness?

If something is illogical, is that considered "non-logic"? Does illogic = no logic present?

There's only one truth. The Truth. To understand thee truth we need to logically get to it. Does that mean there is only one way to use logic and everything else is non-logic?

Sapius wrote:For example, I am just being when I eat a meal, I am just being when posting here, I am just being when I think I AM. I am exactly what I am in any given moment, and awareness is a dynamic interaction of things, an absolute single thing cannot have such interactivity, hence that would actually be nothing.

Or you are interacting with yourself from a certain perspective, through a particular perception. Your perception in your now experience is not the only perception you have. There are past you's and future you's of your life that exist now within their own perception, nevermind other lives and focuses and awarenesses.

For me, existence is awareness, and everything must exist. Beyond what we know, we can only conceptualize God or Totality or Quantum "science," which is a real jab in the ribs for the scientific establishment and the widespread religions. Scientists are irritated when things don't make sense in their models of the world, and religious worshippers are the same way; in public they show their strength and resolve to overcome their setbacks, but in private they have doubts about the meaning of everything they know. Many people can avoid the threat of the unknown by ignoring the God questions or the quantum questions, but that's the realm where wisdom and growth happen. To know and be aware of more, you have to venture into the unknown, even if the unknown is so vast that you're only exploring the very outskirts of it.

The big shift in the exploration happens when you realize that the unknown is actually you. You are God. The unknown ceases to be a threat that needs to be conquered or a power that needs to be worshipped, since it's recognized as an integral part of your own nature. It has to be, otherwise the known you couldn't be. The known then becomes open to transformation and radical change, in terms of a constant, never-ending process we call growth. Another word for it is life. And another word, though confusion surrounds it, is love.

Me,

If something is illogical, is that considered "non-logic"? Does illogic = no logic present?

There's only one truth. The Truth. To understand thee truth we need to logically get to it. Does that mean there is only one way to use logic and everything else is non-logic?

The reason I ask is because if illogic = non-logic. Then it's odd that non-logic defers to ill-logic. To me, "non" means nonexistent, or dead. While ill means sick, but not dead. You see? There's no such thing as bad logic. It's either logical or it isn't. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Furthermore, to me, most people on this board are logical and make sense. However, there seem to be a bending of reason and there shouldn't be.

Cory Duchesne, I still don't understand how mortality is a cause for death. You've read my posts, so tell me, where have I gone wrong? If you look more closely into my posts, I'll sure you'll understand what I mean. please reread my posts and offer me some much needed insight into where I may have strayed away from reason. If I haven't, then:

Me: can logic be used to prove two contrary views, correct?

You: Give me an example.

If we both turn out to be right then this would be a good example. So, can you see the difference in what I'm saying in relation to your posts?

Sagerage,

Do you agree with me when I say that if there is only a oneness, then perception of distinction, even of oneness, is impossible?

Duality is necessary for existence(appearance).

In other words, the color black can't exist unless it is contrasted with a lighter shade. If there was only black, then it wouldn't even be recognizable as a thing.

Picture a white circle. Such a circle cannot exist unless it is in contrast to a darker shade forming a background, and yes, it is correct to consider that background an effect of the circle, and likewise, the circle is the effect of the background.

It is the same with life and death. Life(mortality) is a cause as well as an effect of death.

Cory,

Do you agree with me when I say that if there is only a oneness, then perception of distinction, even of oneness, is impossible?

There's never a oneness and if there was, we wouldn't know it.

If there was only black, then it wouldn't even be recognizable as a thing.

Black is a thing?

Picture a white circle. Such a circle cannot exist unless it is in contrast to a darker shade forming a background, and yes, it is correct to consider that background an effect of the circle, and likewise, the circle is the effect of the background.

It is the same with life and death. Life(mortality) is a cause as well as an effect of death.

They don't cause each others state. For example, when referring to your white circle/black example. Tell me, how does that example tie into Life and death.

That's not much of an explanation.

sagerage wrote:Cory,

Do you agree with me when I say that if there is only a oneness, then perception of distinction, even of oneness, is impossible?

There's never a oneness and if there was, we wouldn't know it.

Are not the waves of an ocean connected as a oneness?

If there was only black, then it wouldn't even be recognizable as a thing.

Black is a thing?

In a sense, each color is it's own distinct thing, and like all things, they are rooted in a sameness.

Picture a white circle. Such a circle cannot exist unless it is in contrast to a darker shade forming a background, and yes, it is correct to consider that background an effect of the circle, and likewise, the circle is the effect of the background.

It is the same with life and death. Life(mortality) is a cause as well as an effect of death.

They don't cause each others state. For example, when referring to your white circle/black example.

Again, Picture a white circle against a black background. Now imagine wiping away the black replacing it with white. The Circle disappears. It's the same way with life. Life causes death. Death causes life.

That's not much of an explanation.

There are no explanations, only descriptions.

DF;

S: For example, I am just being when I eat a meal, I am just being when posting here, I am just being when I think I AM. I am exactly what I am in any given moment, and awareness is a dynamic interaction of things, an absolute single thing cannot have such interactivity, hence that would actually be nothing.

DF: Or you are interacting with yourself from a certain perspective, through a particular perception.

I can only interact from a certain perspective only, and that is from the “I am” perspective, otherwise “I” am not. There isn’t any other perspective actually open to me at all. Any other “perspective” would necessarily be a point of view that would arise from the “I am” perspective only.

Your perception in your now experience is not the only perception you have.

Which other one can I have other than that as of now in any case?

There are past you's and future you's of your life that exist now within their own perception, nevermind other lives and focuses and awarenesses.

Keeping others perceptions or awareness’s aside, what do you mean ‘within their own perceptions”? My past me’s and future me’s are within the active memory of my “I am” perspective, as of NOW.

For me, existence is awareness, and everything must exist.

Sure, but what exactly is awareness, one should be clear about that. I could well call it purely ‘experiencing’, but both require something other than itself for such a thing to occur. For example, some-thing that is expereicnig or is aware. "Purely" expereincing or awareness = existence, dosen't mean much, except a personal poetic expression. It does feel good, but that's all there is to it. Same goes for God, or the unknown, that I read below.

The big shift in the exploration happens when you realize that the unknown (God) is actually you. You are God (Unknown).

Firstly, you begin with "the" unknown, why? And how does the knowing (realizing) of the “unknown” make me the unknown itself? You are equating God to the unknown, or say the other way around, aren’t you? Then they should be interchangeable. And how or why does a word like "God" enter the picture? Unless you pre-assumed that what I don't know should be THE unknown (or God).

The unknown ceases to be a threat that needs to be conquered or a power that needs to be worshipped, since it's recognized as an integral part of your own nature.

How is it an itegral “part”, when you just realized above that you ARE theeee unknown?

It has to be, otherwise the known you couldn't be. The known then becomes open to transformation and radical change, in terms of a constant, never-ending process we call growth. Another word for it is life. And another word, though confusion surrounds it, is love.

Unless I don’t perceive “the unknown” as you do, your “it has to be” will not make sense to me. So my understanding of THE unknown should come first, and before that, the definition of IT. So could you please define that, and also what you missed earlier...

How exactly do you know that you ARE?

How do you define awareness?

...and that might help me understand your position much better.

Sapius wrote:

There are past you's and future you's of your life that exist now within their own perception, nevermind other lives and focuses and awarenesses.

Keeping others perceptions or awareness’s aside, what do you mean ‘within their own perceptions”? My past me’s and future me’s are within the active memory of my “I am” perspective, as of NOW.

I can only say that there is a greater now that encompasses this now we experience within our linear perception and all the nows we've experienced and may experience. Change or movement is a factor in the linear and nonlinear, which is why now exists for both.

The big shift in the exploration happens when you realize that the unknown (God) is actually you. You are God (Unknown).

Firstly, you begin with "the" unknown, why? And how does the knowing (realizing) of the “unknown” make me the unknown itself? You are equating God to the unknown, or say the other way around, aren’t you? Then they should be interchangeable. And how or why does a word like "God" enter the picture? Unless you pre-assumed that what I don't know should be THE unknown (or God).

THE unknown is what is unknown to you. It's your unknown, not the unknown that is not known by anyone or anything anywhere. It's not THEEEE unknown (lol, funny). There's a limit to your perception, but the unknown beyond that is accessible through your awareness. As you engage the periphery of your awareness, you move beyond perception to...inner knowledge. Your attention can encompass both, though, so you are the known and unknown through perception and inner knowing.

DF;

I can only say that there is a greater now that encompasses this now we experience within our linear perception and all the nows we've experienced and may experience. Change or movement is a factor in the linear and nonlinear, which is why now exists for both.

I did say NOW, and I was not actually shouting but emphasizing what you consider a “greater” now, which according to me is neither linear nor non-linear, a NOW that has no referential past or future, and always IS. So, my referential past and future is also in and of the NOW, and simply IS. They are not essentially two different “now’s”. Hoever, I think it's but a matter of perspective.

THE unknown is what is unknown to you. It's your unknown, not the unknown that is not known by anyone or anything anywhere. It's not THEEEE unknown (lol, funny). There's a limit to your perception, but the unknown beyond that is accessible through your awareness. As you engage the periphery of your awareness, you move beyond perception to...inner knowledge. Your attention can encompass both, though, so you are the known and unknown through perception and inner knowing.

Sorry, this is beyond me, and especially since you did not define ‘awareness’. I suppose you have attained what you are trying to express here, so I earnestly say, good for you :)

Sapius wrote:I did say NOW, and I was not actually shouting but emphasizing what you consider a “greater” now, which according to me is neither linear nor non-linear, a NOW that has no referential past or future, and always IS. So, my referential past and future is also in and of the NOW, and simply IS. They are not essentially two different “now’s”. Hoever, I think it's but a matter of perspective.

Yes, I agree.

THE unknown is what is unknown to you. It's your unknown, not the unknown that is not known by anyone or anything anywhere. It's not THEEEE unknown (lol, funny). There's a limit to your perception, but the unknown beyond that is accessible through your awareness. As you engage the periphery of your awareness, you move beyond perception to...inner knowledge. Your attention can encompass both, though, so you are the known and unknown through perception and inner knowing.

Sorry, this is beyond me, and especially since you did not define ‘awareness’. I suppose you have attained what you are trying to express here, so I earnestly say, good for you :)

It's not easy to be clear on this subject. This is one way of looking at it that I feel is accurate. I'm not of the perception that allows me to analyze it through precise definitions, and I honestly can't picture how that would help anyone come to an understanding of it. You seem to have a grasp of the matter, so I suppose that process has worked for you. It goes to show just how different people's perceptions can be. It's very interesting.

divine focus wrote:It's not easy to be clear on this subject. This is one way of looking at it that I feel is accurate. I'm not of the perception that allows me to analyze it through precise definitions, and I honestly can't picture how that would help anyone come to an understanding of it. You seem to have a grasp of the matter, so I suppose that process has worked for you. It goes to show just how different people's perceptions can be. It's very interesting.

Well, yes it is interesting, and that is one of the things that got me thinking at a very early age.

Why is everything so different? Why am I so different than another? Why can’t he see what I see?

Do differences make the difference? Do non-differences make the difference? I realized, that either way, both make a difference however, so in a manner of speaking, differentiation is the only thing alive, rest is dead, but it does need "dead" things around.

Now for that differentiation to be happening, there has to necessarily be things that are not it, otherwise it could not be happening, and happening requires a dynamic state, not static one, so a flow in and of interactivity is necessary for information to flow, otherwise the difference would not be known, and without knowing, nothing could be said to exist at all.

Awareness necessarily means awareness of something, without that “something”, it cannot be called “awareness”. So I am pretty sure that unless one remains pretty consistent with the agreed definitions, proper information, or communication, or understanding thereof, at least amongst us humans, cannot really flow. Now, understanding what someone else is trying to communicate, is a totally different matter than actually accepting what is being communicated, since the thought process are not only affected by external stimuli, but can internally self-reflect too, and that is what I would call an active free will. Without the external and the internal, knowing cannot be, hence there necessarily has to be a boundary between them, and the interactivity is what is being known, or is knowing itself.

I think it is necessary that one gives much time to reflect on such issues, they are actually quite numerous and vastly scattered, and need the connectivity of understanding, but then again, the time factor depends on the strength of an individual’s focus and interest, and an understanding could be reached with relative ease.

However, one should necessarily think for ones self, and not take anybody’s word for it.

Sapius wrote:Do differences make the difference? Do non-differences make the difference? I realized, that either way, both make a difference however, so in a manner of speaking, differentiation is the only thing alive, rest is dead, but it does need "dead" things around.

Now for that differentiation to be happening, there has to necessarily be things that are not it, otherwise it could not be happening, and happening requires a dynamic state, not static one, so a flow in and of interactivity is necessary for information to flow, otherwise the difference would not be known, and without knowing, nothing could be said to exist at all.

Awareness necessarily means awareness of something, without that “something”, it cannot be called “awareness”. So I am pretty sure that unless one remains pretty consistent with the agreed definitions, proper information, or communication, or understanding thereof, at least amongst us humans, cannot really flow. Now, understanding what someone else is trying to communicate, is a totally different matter than actually accepting what is being communicated, since the thought process are not only affected by external stimuli, but can internally self-reflect too, and that is what I would call an active free will. Without the external and the internal, knowing cannot be, hence there necessarily has to be a boundary between them, and the interactivity is what is being known, or is knowing itself.

Hmm! Now, is awareness actually that interchange between differentiated and non-differentiated? If so, then what is aware? Is awareness differentiated or non-differentiated? And is the differentiated aware of the non-differentiated and vice versa? It seems that would have to be true if there is interaction. It can't be a one-way flow, otherwise what changes? Now, if both are aware of each other, does each contain a similar interaction within itself?

Hmm! Now, is awareness actually that interchange between differentiated and non-differentiated?

That doesn’t even make sense to me, DF. What is “non-differentiated”? Where in and all of existence do you find a possibility that it may actually exist? As far as I can see, it could only be an abstraction of the human mind, which lliterally itself depends on differentiations. A=A. Otherwise, consciousness is not.

However, I will attempt to address the issue.

Awareness is simply the process of sensing that there is something other than I, (differentiation), through an internal processes of A particular thing, that has to have some capacity of at least a minimal memory system, and thence react accordingly, and necessarily in accordance to its own nature of being THAT particular thing, in and off of its own inter-dimensionally felt “self”. A quark has to feel that, otherwise no reaction is possible; a reaction according to its own causally created inter-dimensionally felt nature, which we might assume as a mechanically caused action through external forces only, failing to recognize that that quark may have infinite number of internal levels to it, hence there are internal interactions happening, as well as external to it. Same thing applies to every damn thing according to its own dimensionally felt reality.

What I’m saying is, awareness IS the phenomena of differentiation ITSELF; aka, highly intellectual “consciousness” in our case. “Non-differentiation” would mean - NO-awareness - NO-consciousness. Now unless and until there is this dynamic phenomenon of differentiation itself already there, one cannot even THINK of non-differentiation! Can one? Non-differentiation can only occur in and of a human consciousness that necessarily differentiates to begin with; the fact remains; one is necessarily differentiating at least between ‘differentiation and non-differentiation’, so essentially, differentiation is the fundamental nature of any awareness, and “non-differentiation” a product of our basic inherent nature of differentiating itself, aka, awareness, or consciousness. Without differentiation at the core of it all, literally nothing is possible; not even existence or so called non-duality! (Which I will try to address in ‘the nature of non-duality thread too)

If so, then what is aware?

What do you mean what is aware? YOU are aware, I am aware; every-thing, to the depths of every tiniest sub-atomic particle, at its own inter-dimensionally felt differentiation.

Is awareness differentiated or non-differentiated?

Awareness IS Dif-fe-ren-tia-tion! So your sentence does not make much sense to me.

And is the differentiated aware of the non-differentiated and vice versa?

I really don’t know what to say… differentiation IS awareness itself, so who or what is THE ‘differentiated’? or THE non-differentiated? To speak in your language, let me say, the differentiated can be aware of the non-differentiated, but the non-differentiated cannot be aware of the differentiated, for it itself cannot differentiate. I don’t know… does that even make sense?

It seems that would have to be true if there is interaction. It can't be a one-way flow, otherwise what changes?

It has to necessarily be two-way, but the question is, interaction between what, what kind, and what level?

Now, if both are aware of each other, does each contain a similar interaction within itself?

Leaving the 'differentiated' and the 'non-differentiated' aside.

Every THING has internal AND external interaction, but without the external, the internal cannot be, and without the internal the external cannot be, and neither “one” of them came before or after the other. It has always been yin and yang, (duality), whichever way one looks at it; superimposing a “oneness” onto “IT” is merely looking at it from an ultimately external view point, a point that cannot and does not ultimately exist, simply because of the infinite nature of the yin AND yang itself.

What I say might sound confusing too, but I have a different big picture of what existence is, and according to that, it seems most logical to me.