GENIUS FORUMS

Dan Rowden wrote:Where do you think we get the idea of female unconsciousness other than our experience of the feminine world? Look around. I assure you it's everywhere. It's in men; it's in women; it's in the almost entirely unconscious and memetic nature of social dynamics. Open your mind. Close your heart.

Believe me I am looking around me and it appears that most other people would see me in the exact same way that I see them. I'm starting to worry about you guys down there in Australia.

I am not so arrogant to see everyone as on an inferior level. Perhaps they don't have a grounding in philosophy and don't understand reality, perhaps they have some dumb conception of reality -- either way they are still aware of their surroundings, possess knowledge in their fields of interest, and look out from behind their eyes in the manner I do. The only difference I see is what we are conscious of. A highly feminine woman may be conscious of the situation of her life and her friends' lives and all the drama going on. She may have some understanding of her world. An introverted man may view the world through some bigger picture philosophical eyes, missing out on all the smaller details. Both are, in the end, fulfilling their own needs or desires.

Both have their views on the other. The introverted man is often tempted (I can say from first hand experience here) to view others as inferior due to their 'smallness'. However others probably see the introverted man as a weakness himself, as someone who isn't capable of fitting in as they are, as someone who isn't living in every day reality. And I can relate to these people too, and I think they are as right as the introverts are.

So what is consciousness? Unless you want to invoke some mind-body duality, consciousness is a tool of the human being. Higher consciousness (as in humans) is closely related to concepts/language and rationality. Consciousness was probably around long before language, all lower animals appear to have some rudimentary form of consciousness, even if they don't communicate with each other.

If you don't want to evoke a mind-body duality then what is the limit of consciousness? You must admit it has a limit because consciousness is part of the body. It does not extend even into the whole of the body or beyond it (without it). It cannot extend before the body, or transcend the body. Thus it cannot understand anything beyond the body, only the world of appearances we see.

And finally, what is the value of consciousness? Is it valuable in itself? Is it the ultimate goal to improve consciousness? I see no reason why. Consciousness evolved because the human being has a use for it as a tool. Is it inherently "bad" to be less conscious than someone else?

So what is consciousness? Unless you want to invoke some mind-body duality, consciousness is a tool of the human being. Higher consciousness (as in humans) is closely related to concepts/language and rationality. Consciousness was probably around long before language, all lower animals appear to have some rudimentary form of consciousness, even if they don't communicate with each other.

If you don't want to evoke a mind-body duality then what is the limit of consciousness? You must admit it has a limit because consciousness is part of the body. It does not extend even into the whole of the body or beyond it (without it). It cannot extend before the body, or transcend the body. Thus it cannot understand anything beyond the body, only the world of appearances we see.

I am just working on conciousness right now.. or sentience, as the two seem to be getting mixed together here. Don't think that sentience is in our dimension, in fact I have it in its own universe. It needs to be, to cause the twin particle effect.

Neil Melnyk wrote:I am not so arrogant to see everyone as on an inferior level. Perhaps they don't have a grounding in philosophy and don't understand reality, perhaps they have some dumb conception of reality -- either way they are still aware of their surroundings, possess knowledge in their fields of interest, and look out from behind their eyes in the manner I do.

It's a matter of the perspective that a person has on all these things which indicates how conscious they are. A fundamentalist Christian preacher may appear to be really conscious of depositing his weekly takings in the bank. But since he is not aware of the big picture he has very little consciousness.

Both have their views on the other. The introverted man is often tempted (I can say from first hand experience here) to view others as inferior due to their 'smallness'. However others probably see the introverted man as a weakness himself, as someone who isn't capable of fitting in as they are, as someone who isn't living in every day reality. And I can relate to these people too, and I think they are as right as the introverts are.

The perspective is more important than the details are. Without the perspective, the details are effectively worthless. At least, they are worthless so far as living a wise life is concerned.

So what is consciousness?

Awareness of reality.

Thus it cannot understand anything beyond the body, only the world of appearances we see.

Consciousness can understand anything in the conceptual world.

Even by saying "it cannot understand anything beyond the body" you are claiming to know something about that which is beyond the body.

And finally, what is the value of consciousness? Is it valuable in itself? Is it the ultimate goal to improve consciousness? I see no reason why.

It's a personal matter as to whether you choose to value it or not.

You would only value consciousness, initially at least, if it satisfied you to do so.

Consciousness evolved because the human being has a use for it as a tool. Is it inherently "bad" to be less conscious than someone else?

Things are not "inherently" bad. Things are only bad because of the values we choose to uphold.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Consciousness was probably around long before language, all lower animals appear to have some rudimentary form of consciousness, even if they don't communicate with each other.

They do communicate with each other! What are barking dogs doing, or ants when they touch antennae? Also, a lot of communication, as in body language, is actually telepathic. For example, if my dog is paying attention, I can tell him to sit without saying a word.

Consciousness is not your thought process. It isn't "part" of the body; it is the body, and much more.

Dan Rowden wrote:Where do you think we get the idea of female unconsciousness other than our experience of the feminine world? Look around. I assure you it's everywhere. It's in men; it's in women; it's in the almost entirely unconscious and memetic nature of social dynamics. Open your mind. Close your heart.

I can't stress enough the importance of objectivity, the feminine self-sync, for the growth of a person. Open mind and heart are not mutually exclusive.

Neil,

I am not so arrogant to see everyone as on an inferior level. Perhaps they don't have a grounding in philosophy and don't understand reality, perhaps they have some dumb conception of reality -- either way they are still aware of their surroundings, possess knowledge in their fields of interest, and look out from behind their eyes in the manner I do. The only difference I see is what we are conscious of.

There is a point in his development where a sage realizes that others actually are inferior to him. They are less conscious, and as far as he values consciousness more than any other human trait, they are as valuable as housepets to him.

At this point, it is not arrogance, but brutal honesty, that allows him to view others as his spiritual inferiors. As much as he would like to avoid it, truth hits him again and again, until he is humbled to the fact that due to what he values, he cannot help but consider himself a step (or several steps) above the crowd.

If you cannot consider yourself better than others without arrogance, then perhaps you are not a step above the crowd yet. Or perhaps you do not value that which makes you better enough. But your incapacity to consider yourself superior does not mean, however, that everyone who says "I am better than this other man" is being arrogant. The fact that he cannot avoid saying a truth that he dislikes is evidence that he has been humbled to the truth.

You can say that being humbled to the truth isn't as good as being humbled to other people -- but so what?

Something about getting over yourself...

Or knowing yourself even further...

(Which being humbled by others could facilitate)

Steven: I'm talking about a point, not the end point. Neil has not yet reached the point that I am talking about, even though the belief is more sturdy than his.

Being able to consider claims to superior wisdom -- or claims to enlightenment -- as truthful, and not automatically arrogant, requires that he reaches the point that I refer to.

Yeah, good point.

:)

Neil wrote:

I am not so arrogant to see everyone as on an inferior level. Perhaps they don't have a grounding in philosophy and don't understand reality, perhaps they have some dumb conception of reality -- either way they are still aware of their surroundings, possess knowledge in their fields of interest, and look out from behind their eyes in the manner I do. The only difference I see is what we are conscious of. A highly feminine woman may be conscious of the situation of her life and her friends' lives and all the drama going on. She may have some understanding of her world. An introverted man may view the world through some bigger picture philosophical eyes, missing out on all the smaller details. Both are, in the end, fulfilling their own needs or desires.

The same argument could be made for slugs. Slugs too are aware of their surroundings and simply fulfilling their needs and desires. But this doesn't mean that humans and slugs possess the same level of consciousness.

One of the problems with postmodernist thought is that by "equalizing" all things one becomes too objective, too detached and too academic - which, in turn, causes one to become disconnected from what life has to offer. In effect, one becomes a surface dweller who never dives into the depths.

The postmodernist is like the music critic who equates Mozart's symphonies with the aimless tinkerings of a tone-deaf beginner on the basis that they are both seeking to fulfill their own needs and desires through music. While that is true as far as it goes, it doesn't begin to describe the immense differences between the two musical expressions. The music critic here is closing himself off from the rich wonders of Mozart's symphonies because of his postmodernist need to be detached and objective.

In a similar way, the postmodernist closes himself off from the music of truth.

-

Our consciouness seems to ebb and flow throughout the day. Sometimes we are not fully conscious as we walk along, and our legs are in automatic mode, and other times we are conscious of everything. Jugglers often cannot juggle if they become conscious of the juggling process. They can do it automatically just fine.

Pincho Paxton wrote:and other times we are conscious of everything.

We can only be conscious of "everything" in the sense of being aware of the way Nature works - with all things being interconnected. In this way we can be conscious of "the All". But since there are an infinite number of things in the Universe (we can divide Nature up in endless ways), it would not be possible to be conscious of all of them individually.

However, when our mind is clear we can process things a lot more quickly than when our mind is cloudy and dull.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:and other times we are conscious of everything.

We can only be conscious of "everything" in the sense of being aware of the way Nature works - with all things being interconnected. In this way we can be conscious of "the All". But since there are an infinite number of things in the Universe (we can divide Nature up in endless ways), it would not be possible to be conscious of all of them individually.

However, when our mind is clear we can process things a lot more quickly than when our mind is cloudy and dull.

Speculation that nature, and things are infinate. My theory...You can't divide nature in endless ways. Nature goes down in size to the point where you reach the null state. which is not a number, but is two overlapping dimensions. Which is what we call nothing. the reason that you think we can keep going down in size is because mathematics errenously have a reference called zero. But zero is not a reference, it is a no-reference. True numbers are -1 +1... and 2 - 3 is impossible. You can't have 1.1, or 0.1, everything has to be whole, because the smallest objects cannot be divided. 2-3 should include all of the particles in the two objects. It's like birth, the smallest part of nature is something that hasn't been born yet. A particle of none existence, waiting to be born.

David,

The same argument could be made for slugs. Slugs too are aware of their surroundings and simply fulfilling their needs and desires. But this doesn't mean that humans and slugs possess the same level of consciousness.

Well I am a little confused when people talk about consciousness because I never know if they are talking about amount or content. A slug has a low level (amount) of consciousness. Humans have a much larger level (amount). Philosophers have a much wider range of understanding (content) whereas most humans have a limited, specialized range of understanding (content).

One of the problems with postmodernist thought is that by "equalizing" all things one becomes too objective, too detached and too academic - which, in turn, causes one to become disconnected from what life has to offer. In effect, one becomes a surface dweller who never dives into the depths.

I don't see it. Perhaps in arguing philosophy this is the case. However postmodernists are free to live however they want. They are free to dive into the depths more than others who are restricting themselves with morality, 'truth', religion, or whatever.

...The music critic here is closing himself off from the rich wonders of Mozart's symphonies because of his postmodernist need to be detached and objective.

Hmm. Postmodernists deny objectivity. Thus when they say all music is the same they are doing so from a pseudo-objective viewpoint where others might say X music is objectively better than Y music. They are free to have their own subjective viewpoints.

Granted that the consciousness of the Sage, the Fundy, and the Slug are different, but is that *better*? So what? Who getsta define what better is? Or higher?

Buddha felt compassion not because they were inferior, but because of kinship.

Neil,

DQ: The same argument could be made for slugs. Slugs too are aware of their surroundings and simply fulfilling their needs and desires. But this doesn't mean that humans and slugs possess the same level of consciousness.

Neil: Well I am a little confused when people talk about consciousness because I never know if they are talking about amount or content. A slug has a low level (amount) of consciousness. Humans have a much larger level (amount). Philosophers have a much wider range of understanding (content) whereas most humans have a limited, specialized range of understanding (content).

This is a critical issue. It is only when you understand fully what is meant by being conscious of reality that your confusion will clear and you will begin to understand what this forum is all about.

DQ: One of the problems with postmodernist thought is that by "equalizing" all things one becomes too objective, too detached and too academic - which, in turn, causes one to become disconnected from what life has to offer. In effect, one becomes a surface dweller who never dives into the depths.

Neil: I don't see it. Perhaps in arguing philosophy this is the case. However postmodernists are free to live however they want. They are free to dive into the depths more than others who are restricting themselves with morality, 'truth', religion, or whatever.

They are only free to explore animal life. That is what postmodernism essentially boils down to. The whole idea is to rid the mind of its conscience and its philosophic ideals so that the postmodernist can dive headlong into a mindless, animal-type existence and splash around in it to his heart's content. It has no other aim than this.

But in doing so, everything else becomes closed off to him. For example, he will never have the opportunity to explore the narrative of the truthful life and enjoy the fruits of wisdom. When everything in life becomes nothing more than a narrative, the motivation to explore one particular narrative to the very end, to the exclusion of all other narratives, disappears. He is left to dip his toes in the shallows.

DQ: ...The music critic here is closing himself off from the rich wonders of Mozart's symphonies because of his postmodernist need to be detached and objective.

Neil: Hmm. Postmodernists deny objectivity.

Well, they deny it in others and overlook it in themselves.

Thus when they say all music is the same they are doing so from a pseudo-objective viewpoint where others might say X music is objectively better than Y music. They are free to have their own subjective viewpoints.

They are free to be a jack-of-all-trades and a master of none.

-

Daybrown wrote:

Granted that the consciousness of the Sage, the Fundy, and the Slug are different, but is that *better*? So what? Who getsta define what better is? Or higher?

We all do.

Buddha felt compassion not because they were inferior, but because of kinship.

A part of being conscious is seeing all beings as part of oneself.

-

There doesnt seem to be much consensus on what counsciousness is, as with many other terms in the postings. i therefore look at the effects of different interpretations.

David Hume noted, that if what you claim to have is the "veritable word of god", how then can you compromise it to arrive at a consensus? He saw the partisans resort to the use of force, the survivors being assumed to have the 'right' definition. He advised trying to stay out of the crossfire, which was worked better in the day of single shot muskets.

With assault weapons and WMD, more problematic. But if you look into the history of 'mystery' religions that relied on "entheogenic potions" rather than sacred text, people experienced altered states of consciousness running from conscious to unconscious and the trance states inbetween. And the thing about that method is, people didnt go to war over it. No heresy trials, inquisitions, witch burnings, book burnings, or repression of any kind.

You either got it, or not.

Daybrown wrote:Who getsta define what better is?

Even though we personally might decide that consciousness is better than unconsciousness, for ourselves, it would not be practical to decide that consciousness is better for all things.

In fact, consciousness depends on there being things that are unconscious. For example, consciousness depends on memory, and a memory, on its own, is not conscious - not any more than the 1's and 0's stored on the memory chip in your computer.

And physically, our consciousness depends on lots of brain cells, and oxygen, etc. And the brain cells on their own are not conscious, and nor is the oxygen.

So it's not practical to try and make all things conscious. Some things are fated to be the servants of consciousness. And that doesn't make them "worse" - in that context.

Consciousness is emotions [brain chemicals] causing positive and negative affects on one's instinctual and learnt ego programs.

Jamesh wrote:Consciousness is emotions [brain chemicals] causing positive and negative affects on one's instinctual and learnt ego programs.

This is the scientific view I usually come back to - that its really all about pragmatic truths and not ultimate truths - what ego programs work best. After 25 years, this is the only community that seems to challenge that with any legitimacy. The jury is still out in my book, but I'm starting to get pretty curious if they actually do speak ultimate truth. But the day I give up my skepticism without first finding the glory is the day I've lost my mind.

Jamesh wrote:Consciousness is emotions [brain chemicals] causing positive and negative affects on one's instinctual and learnt ego programs.

That just sounds like emotions to me. I want an answer to Sentience. That is much harder.

Pincho:
Good Luck

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Pincho:
Good Luck

It is a hard problem. Very hard. One day I will figure it out.