GENIUS FORUMS

Logic is... when my butt hole starts to itch....yes, that means....

sagerage - are you online right now and hidden?

Sapius, two things:

Sapius wrote:

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?

The differentiated, or the process and memory of differentiation, is abstracted from the non-differentiated, or the mentally unknown. The non-differentiated is aware of the differentiated, but only that which benefits the whole (or everything, if you don't like that word ;). What the non-differentiated is unaware of is the possibility of separation, of there being a differentiated sense of self that is not integrated with everything else. It's not (yet) aware of suffering or evil which can come from differentiation.

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.

In my view, there is no external. There is only that which the self knows and that which it "doesn't know." Looking at it from the outside is the process of differentiation, and if the self is differentiated as one, what is unknown about itself is also one. If it can be seen from that external viewpoint, that point must exist, even if the point is not really external in the grander scheme.

If you can somewhat understand me now, I think I can describe the differences in our perceptions. My perception is oriented towards the non-differentiated, while most people's perceptions are oriented towards the differentiated. You, though, have the third perception I described earlier which is oriented both ways. You are "unconsciously" oriented toward the non-differentiated, while consciously oriented towards the differentiated. I think that's why it's so easy for you to say that awareness is you and awareness is me, and why you are so keen on shared definitions for maximized interaction.

The "masculine" and "feminine" perceptions are unconsciously and consciously oriented in the same direction, differentiated for the masculine and non-differentiated for the feminine. The unknown for me and, I think, for you is internal, while for most people it may be more physical and "out here." The known self for me is also internal, meaning I define myself as an "in here" within an "in here," but for you and for most people, you are consciously "out here" from my point of view. You are "out here" within an "in here," I imagine, while most people see themselves as "out here" within an "out here."

Would you say what I said about you is accurate? I hope it makes some sense. It could easily be seen as jibberish lol. You have to imagine the differences to be able to appreciate other perceptual orientations relative to yours. One way to do that is to recognize the orientations in people you know and notice your interaction.

DF;

You, though, have the third perception I described earlier which is oriented both ways. You are "unconsciously" oriented toward the non-differentiated, while consciously oriented towards the differentiated. I think that's why it's so easy for you to say that awareness is you and awareness is me, and why you are so keen on shared definitions for maximized interaction.

As I think I mentioned earlier, it doesn’t matter you call is undifferentiated, or someone else calls it non-duality, the point is, they are both misleading words. Non-differentiated, according to me, itself cannot exist except within some awareness, and awareness requires differentiation. Same goes for non-duality. You get the point?

The "masculine" and "feminine" perceptions are unconsciously and consciously oriented in the same direction, differentiated for the masculine and non-differentiated for the feminine.

This is the trouble I have with the "QRS" too for many years now. If at all, I would say, “masculinity” = logicality, and “femininity” = emotionality, and both are driven in the same direction, one through reason, and the other through intuition, but are both aspects of the one and the same consciousness nonetheless. What do you think supports or justifies the belief in logic for it cannot be justified by logic itself? Can it by any chance be an intuition based on personal feelings, emotion? And I find that a valid reason, for intuitions are perfectly natural too. Are they not?

The unknown for me and, I think, for you is internal, while for most people it may be more physical and "out here."

May be, but I know the internal as well as the external, and there is no third unknown party involved. And when talking philosophically, I don’t take any “physical” factors into account. What I say has nothing to do with that.

The known self for me is also internal, meaning I define myself as an "in here" within an "in here," but for you and for most people, you are consciously "out here" from my point of view.

May be you define your self into an I, so your definitions are the creators of whatever you define, whereas I see no reason that you should claim such powers if you are aware what causality means? As far as I am concerned, I don’t need to define to be what I am, nor does a cow. (and I am not talking in an empirical sense)

You are "out here" within an "in here," while most people are "out here" within an "out here."

I know what you mean, but first let me know what you think about how I see ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’.

I hope that makes some sense. It could easily be seen as jibberish lol. Would you say what I said about you is accurate?

I really don’t know, because I can’t be your perspective really, but so far, I think certain basic clarity is needed on certain basic issues, for understanding or proper communication to hold some meaning.

Oops, double post.

Sapius wrote:Non-differentiated, according to me, itself cannot exist except within some awareness, and awareness requires differentiation. Same goes for non-duality. You get the point?

Well, as you say, to exist is to appear within some awareness; and awareness can, quite clearly, differentiate between the differentiated and the non-differentiated, duality and non-duality. The nature of duality dictates that the differentiated cannot exist in the absence of the non-differentiated and duality cannot exist in the absence of non-duality.

So was your point that the non-differentiated and non-duality cannot possibly not exist?

Sapius wrote:DF;

You, though, have the third perception I described earlier which is oriented both ways. You are "unconsciously" oriented toward the non-differentiated, while consciously oriented towards the differentiated. I think that's why it's so easy for you to say that awareness is you and awareness is me, and why you are so keen on shared definitions for maximized interaction.

As I think I mentioned earlier, it doesn’t matter you call is undifferentiated, or someone else calls it non-duality, the point is, they are both misleading words. Non-differentiated, according to me, itself cannot exist except within some awareness, and awareness requires differentiation. Same goes for non-duality. You get the point?

Sure, but awareness required non-duality as well. My point before was that awareness wasn't differentiation alone. And you agreed by calling it an interaction between the two, which I greatly appreciate.

The "masculine" and "feminine" perceptions are unconsciously and consciously oriented in the same direction, differentiated for the masculine and non-differentiated for the feminine.

This is the trouble I have with the "QRS" too for many years now. If at all, I would say, “masculinity” = logicality, and “femininity” = emotionality, and both are driven in the same direction, one through reason, and the other through intuition, but are both aspects of the one and the same consciousness nonetheless. What do you think supports or justifies the belief in logic for it cannot be justified by logic itself? Can it by any chance be an intuition based on personal feelings, emotion? And I find that a valid reason, for intuitions are perfectly natural too. Are they not?

I have only been familiar with QRS for a few months, and I disagree with them in much the same way you do. We agree on a lot, me and you, but the differences in our language and perceptions make it hard to communicate. I'm not going to be able to communicate the same way you do, which is why I offered information on the differences in perception hoping you could understand me further. But the same differences in language prevent me from offering that completely clearly, so the disconnect continues :).

Dave Toast wrote:

Sapius wrote:Non-differentiated, according to me, itself cannot exist except within some awareness, and awareness requires differentiation. Same goes for non-duality. You get the point?

Well, as you say, to exist is to appear within some awareness; and awareness can, quite clearly, differentiate between the differentiated and the non-differentiated, duality and non-duality. The nature of duality dictates that the differentiated cannot exist in the absence of the non-differentiated and duality cannot exist in the absence of non-duality.

So was your point that the non-differentiated and non-duality cannot possibly not exist?

No, but rather that the idea of ‘non-differentiated” or “non-duality” surely require their opposites, but awareness itself, is fundamentally dualistic in nature, and does not require any fundamental non-duality to be what it is.

Awareness itself does not fundamentally require the “non-differentiated” because its fundamental nature is differentiation to begin with.

---------

(DF; does this make sense?)

Yeah, I get you. I see what you're saying, but I feel awareness is fundamentally both. It requires differentiation between the I and not-I, but at the same time it's both the I and the not-I. It's fundamentally dualistic, but it still requires a fundamental one-ness and wholeness which is non-duality. I really don't see why you'd deny this since you agree everything is interconnected. Maybe you don't see how the fundamental awareness of everything is the same awareness. That's really what I mean by "non-differentiated," even if the differentiated part of any awareness can't have direct, objective access to all awareness everywhere. The non-differentiated is accessed subjectively, "unconsciously." Psychology calls it unconscious, but you can be aware of it; and it's not "unconscious."

divine focus wrote:Yeah, I get you. I see what you're saying, but I feel awareness is fundamentally both. It requires differentiation between the I and not-I, but at the same time it's both the I and the not-I.

I don’t think that at any point it actually is I AND the not-I. You see, it cannot be I AND not-I because then that implies there is no (real, essential, or whatever) difference between the I and the not-I, which supports the idea that differentiation is illusory, which means that the earlier conclusion that differentiation is necessary for awareness to be, are illusory, or awareness itself is illusory... ??? It can't be illusory and not at the same time, so 'illusory' cannot be but merely a poetic expression, and not a logical fact.

It's fundamentally dualistic, but it still requires a fundamental one-ness and wholeness which is non-duality.

I question myself, why? I believe that the “wholeness” part, or say the “oneness” part is but our poetic expression or say emotional need to feel complete, whereas we are already complete in and of a fundamentally dualistic existence. Nothing needs be added merely through abstraction which necessarily requires differentiaton. That's exactly what I mean to say, but I'm afraid I can't express it better.

I really don't see why you'd deny this since you agree everything is interconnected.

How does interconnectedness of any two different things make them one and the same in and of different causal conditions that each one is uniquely subject to?

Maybe you don't see how the fundamental awareness of everything is the same awareness.

Things having awareness as there fundamental operating system (or nature) does not and cannot make any two different things that still differentiate from there own subjective point of causally created unique individuality one and the same subjectivity. It still exists by and through differentiations.

That's really what I mean by "non-differentiated," even if the differentiated part of any awareness can't have direct, objective access to all awareness everywhere. The non-differentiated is accessed subjectively, "unconsciously." Psychology calls it unconscious, but you can be aware of it; and it's not "unconscious."

Well... I'm sorry to say that that does not make much sense to me; namely, an “unconscious” consciousness that one can be aware of. I could agree to a subconscious that may not necessarily be within an immediate consciousness, but that too requires to be held by an individual thing, and not a “universal thing”; even if you call it a no-thing, which yet agian ignores definition and logic so to speak. You can be aware of ‘unconscious’ as in what it means, but you cannot actually experience it.

Sapius wrote:

divine focus wrote:Yeah, I get you. I see what you're saying, but I feel awareness is fundamentally both. It requires differentiation between the I and not-I, but at the same time it's both the I and the not-I.

I don’t think that at any point it actually is I AND the not-I. You see, it cannot be I AND not-I because then that implies there is no (real, essential, or whatever) difference between the I and the not-I, which supports the idea that differentiation is illusory, which means that the earlier conclusion that differentiation is necessary for awareness to be, are illusory, or awareness itself is illusory... ??? It can't be illusory and not at the same time, so 'illusory' cannot be but merely a poetic expression, and not a logical fact.

It's fundamentally dualistic, but it still requires a fundamental one-ness and wholeness which is non-duality.

I question myself, why? I believe that the “wholeness” part, or say the “oneness” part is but our poetic expression or say emotional need to feel complete, whereas we are already complete in and of a fundamentally dualistic existence. Nothing needs be added merely through abstraction which necessarily requires differentiaton. That's exactly what I mean to say, but I'm afraid I can't express it better.

This has to be a disagreement based on the differences in our perception. I'd have to say you are correct in what you mean, though I wouldn't say it the way you are. I see what you're saying, and I agree, but i don't like how you say it! :D It's not quite accurate from my point of view, but I can see it maybe being accurate from yours as far as I can imagine your perception orientation.

Maybe you don't see how the fundamental awareness of everything is the same awareness.

Things having awareness as there fundamental operating system (or nature) does not and cannot make any two different things that still differentiate from there own subjective point of causally created unique individuality one and the same subjectivity. It still exists by and through differentiations.

That's really what I mean by "non-differentiated," even if the differentiated part of any awareness can't have direct, objective access to all awareness everywhere. The non-differentiated is accessed subjectively, "unconsciously." Psychology calls it unconscious, but you can be aware of it; and it's not "unconscious."

Well... I'm sorry to say that that does not make much sense to me; namely, an “unconscious” consciousness that one can be aware of. I could agree to a subconscious that may not necessarily be within an immediate consciousness, but that too requires to be held by an individual thing, and not a “universal thing”; even if you call it a no-thing, which yet agian ignores definition and logic so to speak. You can be aware of ‘unconscious’ as in what it means, but you cannot actually experience it.

An unconscious consciousness doesn't make sense, which is why I said it's not unconscious. You can experience it. When they used the term "the unconscious," psychologists were trying to define the part of themselves they were not aware of but seemed to have some influence on them. Not realizing that consciousness was everything, and that they fundamentally were that everything, they would obviously create a separation between consciousness and an "unconscious" which is consciousness' unwitting master.

The conscious or objective mind is that which sees through perception, meaning differentiation. These words are a construction of the objective mind, which for us is in a linear state that makes verbal and written language most suitable for thought and communication. The subjective or "unconscious" mind doesn't operate in the same manner. There is a non-differentiation, meaning the subjective for you is the subjective for me, though with a different configuration. The difference in configuration could be slight or great, depending on your point of view (I see it as slight, from a "high" or expansive vantage point). Those differences would be the "subjective point[s] of causually-created unique individuality," as you put it.

DF;

This has to be a disagreement based on the differences in our perception. I'd have to say you are correct in what you mean, though I wouldn't say it the way you are. I see what you're saying, and I agree, but i don't like how you say it! :D

Agreement or disagreement does not really matter, as long as the meaning or general idea is conveyed, but you are absolutely right though: I too don’t like how I say things, because of my incapability of saying it any better. :D

It's not quite accurate from my point of view, but I can see it maybe being accurate from yours as far as I can imagine your perception orientation.

In my opinion, that’s a very rare gift: I mean, being able to see someone else’s “big picture” in it’s entirety, and then judge the bits and pieces of immediate discussions from THAT perspective. You seem to be divinely focused, since you can look at things without prejudice or personal bias, and yet make up your own mind; which is a good thing in my opinion. :D

Generally, people attempt to understand those bits and pieces through there own “big picture”; in other words, interpret them through their own preconceived and pre-concluded ideas, in other words, prejudice, which is but their own “big picture”. Result, “it is not possible what the other guy is saying, because I KNOW better”, which is but false-ego (pride) at its best. I might say that something is impossible, but I never claim that to be an “Absolute Truth”, for such Truth will always remain personal, and but a subjective point of view when expressed.

An unconscious consciousness doesn't make sense, which is why I said it's not unconscious. You can experience it. When they used the term "the unconscious," psychologists were trying to define the part of themselves they were not aware of but seemed to have some influence on them. Not realizing that consciousness was everything, and that they fundamentally were that everything, they would obviously create a separation between consciousness and an "unconscious" which is consciousness' unwitting master.

Well then, let’s keep psychologists out of it.

The conscious or objective mind is that which sees through perception, meaning differentiation.

I think you will have to clarify quite a bit for me to get your big picture. I consider the "conscious" to be a subjective mind, so let's see.

Do you mean a ‘conscious' or 'objective’ “mind” is that which differentiates? Say like that of a cow?

These words are a construction of the objective mind, which for us is in a linear state that makes verbal and written language most suitable for thought and communication.

Which “words”? There are millions of species that do communicate without “words”, but yes, our capability of abstract thought (which incidentally arose due to our capability of ‘wonder’ before “words” or language ever arrived, and development of a higher capacity of memory, and the capability to reflect on such memories) is of course a much complex way of communicating than say grunts or roar or squeaks.

And why do you keep mentioning ‘linear’?

The subjective or "unconscious" mind doesn't operate in the same manner. There is a non-differentiation, meaning the subjective for you is the subjective for me, though with a different configuration. The difference in configuration could be slight or great, depending on your point of view (I see it as slight, from a "high" or expansive vantage point). Those differences would be the "subjective point[s] of causually-created unique individuality," as you put it.

These subjective points have to necessarily be relatively objective to each other; otherwise, subjectivity cannot be aware or even feel itself, or another subjectivity at all. That is the reason when a hammer lands on my head, it does encounter a barrier. Saying that that happens in and of “MY” subjectivity, as in ‘everything is a “projection” of the “mind”’, is illogical according to me. So I don’t understand what you mean by ‘”the subjective for you is the subjective for me, though with a different configuration.” By the mere fact that they are necessarily two different configurations, means differentiation is already a precondition.

Two subjective points make them objective to each other, and any subjective points are uniquely what they are, and causality makes it sure that they are temporarily held as and what they are at any given point of causal condition; they remain differentiated by the mere fact that they belong to different points of subjectivity. Once the conditions change, the complexity of subjectivity may change, or even such points may arise and fall away, but ultimately, there has to necessarily be “AN subjective” and a “AN objective” (which is not the same as the subject), for existence to remain, If they merge, Existence itself will come to an end, and that is extremely unlikely.

Sapius wrote:

It's not quite accurate from my point of view, but I can see it maybe being accurate from yours as far as I can imagine your perception orientation.

In my opinion, that’s a very rare gift: I mean, being able to see someone else’s “big picture” in it’s entirety, and then judge the bits and pieces of immediate discussions from THAT perspective. You seem to be divinely focused, since you can look at things without prejudice or personal bias, and yet make up your own mind; which is a good thing in my opinion. :D

Generally, people attempt to understand those bits and pieces through there own “big picture”; in other words, interpret them through their own preconceived and pre-concluded ideas, in other words, prejudice, which is but their own “big picture”. Result, “it is not possible what the other guy is saying, because I KNOW better”, which is but false-ego (pride) at its best. I might say that something is impossible, but I never claim that to be an “Absolute Truth”, for such Truth will always remain personal, and but a subjective point of view when expressed.

Thanks for noticing! It's good to get a reflection of yourself from someone else's point of view. It's hard to see your self clearly objectively. I would assume everyone could do what I do. Of course, they can, but it might not be their main focus.

And why do you keep mentioning ‘linear’?

This is to make a distinction between this here now and the greater now, which is also here now, as we talked about earlier. The greater now is non-linear relative to this objective now, but there is an even greater now beyond that that is more non-linear. "Linear" and "non-linear" aren't the most accurate representations, but for practical purposes they are efficient.

These subjective points have to necessarily be relatively objective to each other; otherwise, subjectivity cannot be aware or even feel itself, or another subjectivity at all. That is the reason when a hammer lands on my head, it does encounter a barrier. Saying that that happens in and of “MY” subjectivity, as in ‘everything is a “projection” of the “mind”’, is illogical according to me. So I don’t understand what you mean by ‘”the subjective for you is the subjective for me, though with a different configuration.” By the mere fact that they are necessarily two different configurations, means differentiation is already a precondition.

Two subjective points make them objective to each other, and any subjective points are uniquely what they are, and causality makes it sure that they are temporarily held as and what they are at any given point of causal condition; they remain differentiated by the mere fact that they belong to different points of subjectivity. Once the conditions change, the complexity of subjectivity may change, or even such points may arise and fall away, but ultimately, there has to necessarily be “AN subjective” and a “AN objective” (which is not the same as the subject), for existence to remain, If they merge, Existence itself will come to an end, and that is extremely unlikely.

There are distinctions within the non-differentiated, for sure. The distinctions or "points of subjectivity" are really different viewpoints of the same thing. In three-dimensional terms, different points in space can view the same scene but the things in the scene will make different angles relative to each other and the point of view. But from a "higher" dimensional point of view, the subjective point is as much a part of the scene as everything it's viewing. The distinct views are merged, but the points are still distinct even within that integrated view. Thankfully, existence continues.

You are correct in there being a fundamental duality. That is the objective point of view, and it is true. Subjectively, though, there is only one. The subjective is aware of the objective point of view, even if we don't fully understand the subjective within our objective awareness. The objective is a mirror for the subjective, and to the subjective there is no difference. The perception of there being a difference is an objective creation. That is the essence of free will, a mirror image of the subjective not seeing itself in its perfection. It is allowed to create perfection anew, and it will never be fininshed! This is eternal joy.

divine focus wrote:This is eternal joy.

Well, then enjoy it while you can.