Getting back to the topic at hand…
Victor,
I am much more interested in the idea of becoming pure meaning.
We already are, just that we don’t realize it.
If a thought can move the muscles accordingly, what makes one think that it is all only due to a material involvement? How do facial expressions of a smile or a frown come about? Isn’t it a thought that controls the muscles? And isn't it that a thought is
but a process; a result of interactiveness of things itself?
On the other hand, a though is not words, but yet the meaning remains. (I have heard many say that words are pointers; that finger pointing to the moon thing; but I wonder how many really know or understand what it really means). Even animals work through "meanings", not words, but it is quite difficult for us to comprehend that since we cannot let go of the material side of existence, since we have scientific proofs for it, whereas animals are not even aware what science is, and yet can operate coherently.
Laird,
Addition: the perceptions and conceptions that I described above could account for the experience of deja vu.
Sure, but do you really know why or how could that even be possible?
Nat,
Interesting. I tend to think of it more in terms of a a universal consciousness being achieved in the future
In a sense yes, but it still remains as an individual consciousness that is aware of the rest of totality, but is not totality itself. It’s logical deduction remains intact, but the perspective turns entirely different due to certain experiences, hence operates through a different perspective, and a different "personality" that depends on how his particular values have been carved up according to his logical deductions, which he most uniquely interprets himself, for himself alone.
However, there is no such thing as a SINGLE UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS in CONTROL of all; each consciousness by itself is unique, and remains such until it dissipates, dissolves, looses its particular identity temporary held in memory as and how causality can temporarily hold, and then change into a different level of identity, consciousness; which one can consider to be of a higher or a lower form. But, “consciousness†as it is, does not and cannot come to an end, for there is neither a beginning nor an end to it, nor to what it depends on (what we know as empirical) interactively - or say - causality.
Laird,
On the one hand we can speak of "leading to its creation" (a temporal process) yet on the other we can describe this as a timeless entity (a temporal-less beingness). Does this ring the discordance bell in your mind too? I don't think that at this point my mind contains the conceptual structure to properly envisage the nature of this being.
Yes, it is quite difficult to envisage such a scenario unless experienced, but it is quite possible to comprehend IF one can keep an open mind and be open to certain probabilities. I can try explaining if you are interested.
Laird, I will get back to your other post in the other thread later; for now, I feel that you have somehow already judged me from a single post of mine. Are you that good a psychologist? Well… time will tell…
Nat,
Agreed. I don't think that such an entity would be fully comprehensible to more limited beings such as ourselves.
You nitwit! :D What the hell tells you that you are limited? Empiricism?
And finally, David,
It's certainly an interesting topic if you are looking to be distracted in science-fiction la-la land.
It is not polite to point fingers at others in a demeaning way, for the simple reason that you may not have (more correctly – you cannot) experienced what others have, so your judgment of others will always fall short because it depends on your experiences, and necessarily YOUR interpretations of them. Have you forgotten your own Ultimate Truth? Causality my friend… causality. And the same applies to all, including me. So don’t get all upset at Victor; it is quite clear how any thing said to be Ultimately Ultimate, necessarily needs at least consciousness to be around, and that necessarily depends on what you call an “illusory†world. So what is so logically Ultimately Ultimate about absolutely any particular thing at all? Including Causality.
Given this, you can't separate meaning from an information stream in the same way that you can separate an information stream from its material substratum. Meaning is always specific and firmly tied to specific pieces of information.
Yes, agreed; meaning cannot be separated from information, but information is not necessarily tied down to words or definitions. Is it?
You see, existence operates irrelevant of definitions, so I could essentially place, not definitions them selves, but the profound VALUE I place ON them, in a place that Victor suggested… something about a sunshine-less place… and I wouldn’t feel any discomfort at all…
