GENIUS FORUMS

It would really be better if people would stop responding to trolls and other troublemakers. No anger, just ignore.

...and a mark of fortitude and wisdom to celebrate them.

You need to read the Don Juan link.

Newer Invention

With X-variable (poly-creative) debug in place, I venture to scope lens "Through the Looking Glass..." Within a labyrinth, I sport with Carrol's chess board analogy. Finding out, with the helped of both psionic and sub-conscious aid, that my own mythology is akin to his story - a archetype over-dub translator. By attacking the Red Queen too early (her name, Faizi) while pawning with Alice, I fell into a rabbit hole, with the sheepish White Queen (mother figure). Father being the Red King - a slumbering menace - I was forced unknowingly into a belated Oedipus Complex. Possible to be both the White Knight and the White King? Oedipus lingers through the latter. At once traveling with the Tweedledee and Tweedledumb affect of a father and son complex, I also spy an upcoming venture - learning the art of carpentry - as the walrus.

Keeping Paul around for subtraction.

Ramblin' Steven Coyle is back from his travels into the hinterlands of his own mind.

Ahoy, Steven! How goes it? Clubs times spades. Shovels rule except when chocolatiers make waves and then it's every gnoof for it's elf, heh wot, 'ow's the missis. How's the missle? Treacle the mainsail and full snort 'a head. Reference to Golly Gee and Gee Whiz, the sun and holy bow sprit. Walk the plankton, catch my drift?

Carl G wrote:Ramblin' Steven Coyle is back from his travels into the hinterlands of his own mind.

Ahoy, Steven! How goes it? Clubs times spades. Shovels rule except when chocolatiers make waves and then it's every gnoof for it's elf, heh wot, 'ow's the missis. How's the missle? Treacle the mainsail and full snort 'a head. Reference to Golly Gee and Gee Whiz, the sun and holy bow sprit. Walk the plankton, catch my drift?

Steve hits parrot, chops peg leg, and flips eye patch - to swash buckle a bit. (Aesop Rock mp3 flash)

Carl opens Steven's mind to the notion of Chaos magick (non-linear, collective unconscious, subconscious alignment tracking).

"Clubs times spades" - Alice in Wonderland reference.

"Shovels rule except when chocolatiers make waves and then it's every gnoof for it's elf" - Personal reference to real life episode. Spotting of 'phallic shovel' ('work) in order to overcome the lazy masculinity of Father figure (who happened to bring home some chocolates the same day). And when he makes waves, since about 8% masculine, it really is every family member into gnoof, then into Kebbler elf . . .

"heh, wot. ow's the missis." - reference to Leyla and her sarcastic bitter manhood chop.

"how's the missile?" - the phallic is good.

"Treacle the mainsail, and full snort a' head." - another dig at father 'complex.

"Reference to Golly Gee (Ali G = Carl G) and Gee Whiz" - loose interpretation is masculine support of both you and Tomas. (Though lacking from you at this random time, my friend.)

ROM to RAM processing Twenty ?'s. |-)

Yeah, yeah---fucking nanu-nanu...

"H-ya!"

Think tanked with Google to find solution to Id complex, via Robin Williams. Saw some other things for sure...

"H" like Hydrogen.

Iolaus wrote:It would really be better if people would stop responding to trolls and other troublemakers. No anger, just ignore.

I think I beleive you!
(that you know nothing, Im saying)
haha
But more serious tone, now YOU open yourself to my probe, see what I find in your words worth comment on.
Oh, and aslo you have NO balls.
(because you shoot arrows in vague fashon, hiding)

Jehu, I was read this thread and read you say things like- All things are not real, just apparent, only absolute is real.
Ok my question:
"How am I, or you not real?"
Wait.
I mean, if man sleep with a beautiful love-to-please girl and enjoy blissful hours, ecstacy, how makes difference if you call things "not real"? I mean, who cares if real or not, experience still wonderful. Even if you say "wonderful experience is not real too" then I say "So what Mr Jehu, does not even genius prefer not real wonderful experience instead of not real horible experience?"

thats all.
M

You're not reading very carefully.

At no point has Jehu said that you are not real. What he has said is that your conception of you is not real.

Likewise, your conception of a perceived battle with him is not real. Please don't clutter the thread any further with it.

Iolaus wrote:

The realm of the relative entity may be likened to a shadow theatre, which when perceived by a cognizant agent, takes on the appearance of a multitude of independent entities which seemingly move about and interact with one another. However, in truth, they are nothing more than the play of a light source and an opaque object; two extrinsic causes. In the shadow analogy, the light source is the ‘constitutive cause’, for it is the variations in the intensity of the light that renders the shadow perceptible to the mind; and the opaque object is its ‘operative cause’, for it is the opaque object that gives the shadow its recognizable appearance or identity.

yes, but here I have the difficulty. We could have a universe of stars and galaxies, with no living beings. Things would have form, i.e., they would be round and surrounded by far less dense space, give off light and heat, without a cognizant being to see it.

I see where the difficulty may lie, you think that I am saying the existence of the objective world is somehow dependent upon there being some sentient observer - such as ourselves; but this would constitute a ‘subject idealism’, and that is not what I am propounding here. Remember, all things, including ‘sentient beings’, partake of only a relative existence, and so have no intrinsic characteristics of there own; and this includes cognizance. Whatever characteristics such beings may appear to exhibit are not their own, but have their true origin and cause in the one absolute entity, the nature of which is akin to mind. For this reason, the existence of the objective universe is not dependent upon whether or not there are any living beings.
Let us return to the dream analogy for a moment, and ask ourselves if it is the dream persona itself which is cognizant, or does its apparent cognizance originate elsewhere – within the dreaming mind. Further, we must ask ourselves if it is the apparent cognizance of the dream persona that gives rise to and sustains the dream world, or is the true cause elsewhere – in the cognizance of dreaming mind.

But don't the two below phrases contradict? :

Consequently, in order that a relative entity come to be, not only must its extrinsic causes already exist, they must also be brought into the appropriate relationship; and what’s more, they must maintain their relationship, if such an entity is to persist.

We are accustomed to thinking (erroneously) that at some time a thing does not exist, and that at some later time the thing comes to exist, and then that after some time, it ceases to exist; but this is not logically tenable. In truth, such things are no more than the amalgamation of there extrinsic causes, and have no existence apart from those causes. Consequently, they neither come from anywhere, nor do they go anywhere, and there is no persisting either; except in the mind of a cognizant observer.

The first statement relates to how the relative entity ‘appears’ to be constituted, however, given that the relative entity is not real, it follows that its ‘apparent causes’ must also be not real. In truth, there is no-thing that is real, and so no-thing can be the true cause of any other thing, but may only appear to be so. Again, in the dream analogy, when the dream persona sits on a dream chair, is it the dream chair itself that is the cause of the dream persona not falling to the floor?

Also

You are absolute correct! It reflects the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’. And it is the first principle of Being as well as Thinking.

But which one am I correct about? I was referring to all 3, altough they are logically related.

The ‘Principle of Identity’ and the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’ are one and the same law; while the ‘Principle of Contradiction’ and the ‘Principle of Excluded Middle’ are merely corollaries, and so are not different laws, but two aspects of the same law.

Dave Toast wrote:You're not reading very carefully.

At no point has Jehu said that you are not real. What he has said is that your conception of you is not real.

Likewise, your conception of a perceived battle with him is not real. Please don't clutter the thread any further with it.

No offence intended by me but goddam it, Dont you have some nerve!
Also, I say it is YOU who must pay better attention. Numskull.
From this thread:
Iolaus wrote:
OK, so if there are not two separate balloons, then are you saying that everything is real?

JEHU wrote:On the contrary, I am saying that there is nothing that is real.
However, given that a thing cannot arise without that it has a cause, nor can it arise from a cause that is itself not real (relative); it follows that, associated with the appearance of a thing, there must be that which is real (absolute) – which is the true origin and cause of the thing.

mansman wrote:

Dave Toast wrote:You're not reading very carefully.

At no point has Jehu said that you are not real. What he has said is that your conception of you is not real.

Likewise, your conception of a perceived battle with him is not real. Please don't clutter the thread any further with it.

No offence intended by me but goddam it, Dont you have some nerve!
Also, I say it is YOU who must pay better attention. Numskull.
From this thread:
Iolaus wrote:
OK, so if there are not two separate balloons, then are you saying that everything is real?

JEHU wrote:On the contrary, I am saying that there is nothing that is real.
However, given that a thing cannot arise without that it has a cause, nor can it arise from a cause that is itself not real (relative); it follows that, associated with the appearance of a thing, there must be that which is real (absolute) – which is the true origin and cause of the thing.

With all due respect, it is you who have misunderstood what I have said. I have said that there is no ‘thing’ that is real, I have not said that you are not real. I have said only that which has a relative existence is not real, but underlying that relative existence, there is that which is real; but this reality is not a ‘thing’; for all things are put together by time, and time will eventually take all things apart.

No, you both are mistaken if you are believing I am mistaken. Because when i mention "you or I" not real, I meant as example of things which you say are not real.
I acually expected shallower minds to make this mistake, and almost I re-write it to avoid, but then I said myself "ah what the hell, who cares".
But never I expect Jehu to be misled! to.
This the truth.
Sorry.
haha

Anyway Jehu, can you please answer the original question. Ok to replace "me" or "you" with any words you like. So many questions you avoid, I was hope you prove me wrong (that you lacking balls) but I wory its true.
I want you suceed dont you understand!
Now I say it.
M

Jehu,

I see where the difficulty may lie, you think that I am saying the existence of the objective world is somehow dependent upon there being some sentient observer - such as ourselves;

Well yes but I understand that it would be the cognizant mind of the absolute that is required and not beings like us, who obviously could not precede the development of suitable biomes.
What I meant is that I can imagine an universe consisting of matter, unrecognized by anyone.
But I have to qualify that by saying that I am completely unable to imagine simple matter existing as a causeless entity. That anything exists at all is complete proof of God in my way of seeing things.

But I am having trouble agreeing that just because entities have little meaning without that a mind sees their construction, that we therefore must posit a mind as a fundament.

but this would constitute a ‘subject idealism’

There ya go again! Whaddaya, teach a philosophy class or sumthin?

Remember, all things, including ‘sentient beings’, partake of only a relative existence,

But isn't it our very sentience that is real in us?

and so have no intrinsic characteristics of there own; and this includes cognizance.

But I thought you said the essential characteristic of the absolute was cognizance?

For this reason, the existence of the objective universe is not dependent upon whether or not there are any living beings.

But God is a living being.

Let us return to the dream analogy for a moment, and ask ourselves if it is the dream persona itself which is cognizant, or does its apparent cognizance originate elsewhere – within the dreaming mind. Further, we must ask ourselves if it is the apparent cognizance of the dream persona that gives rise to and sustains the dream world, or is the true cause elsewhere – in the cognizance of dreaming mind.

Yes, I see what you're saying, but I don't think of my dream persona as being other than me, having a fantasy, no different than if you right now drifted off in your chair and had a little fantasy. Of course the origin of it all is your mind.

Again, in the dream analogy, when the dream persona sits on a dream chair, is it the dream chair itself that is the cause of the dream persona not falling to the floor?

Ah. Good one.

mansman wrote:No, you both are mistaken if you are believing I am mistaken. Because when i mention "you or I" not real, I meant as example of things which you say are not real.
I acually expected shallower minds to make this mistake, and almost I re-write it to avoid, but then I said myself "ah what the hell, who cares".
But never I expect Jehu to be misled! to.
This the truth.
Sorry.
haha

Anyway Jehu, can you please answer the original question. Ok to replace "me" or "you" with any words you like. So many questions you avoid, I was hope you prove me wrong (that you lacking balls) but I wory its true.
I want you suceed dont you understand!
Now I say it.
M

I do not mean you any disrespect by it, but I simply cannot continue to participate in such an irrational and pointless exchange. I have done my very best to try and address your concerns, in so far as they pertained to the logical progression of the enquiry, but I will not be goaded into allowing you to control the future course of the enquiry. Therefore, I shall respond no further you comments, if they are not relevant to the question at hand, and I would ask that the other participants do the same – else we will not be able to continue.

Jehu;

Let us return to the dream analogy for a moment, and ask ourselves if it is the dream persona itself which is cognizant, or does its apparent cognizance originate elsewhere – within the dreaming mind. Further, we must ask ourselves if it is the apparent cognizance of the dream persona that gives rise to and sustains the dream world, or is the true cause elsewhere – in the cognizance of dreaming mind.

It seems to me you are giving cognizance the status of a thing-itself; yet saying is not of the mind but 'akin to the mind'.As if you want to have 'the cake and eat it',so to speak.

Anyway,just a thought to this stage,carry on,perhaps all will be revealed.

Iolaus wrote:Well yes but I understand that it would be the cognizant mind of the absolute that is required and not beings like us, who obviously could not precede the development of suitable biomes.
What I meant is that I can imagine an universe consisting of matter, unrecognized by anyone.
But I have to qualify that by saying that I am completely unable to imagine simple matter existing as a causeless entity.

Yes, but don’t you see, that in imagining this ‘unrecognized matter’, you (a cognizant agent) have in fact re-cognized it. Perhaps you should ask yourself this, what exactly can you imagine to exist if you do not differentiate in some way; that is to say, ‘what’ is it that you can imagine? In the total absence of any cognizant agent, there would be no to differentiation whatsoever, for one thing would be indistinguishable from another. In fact, it would make little sense to argue that such a world even existed, for what could the term ‘exist’ possibly mean, without that there was a mind to give it meaning.

That anything exists at all is complete proof of God in my way of seeing things.

I am not terribly fond of the term ‘God’, for I do not know precisely what it means. Nevertheless, I think that reason tells us that there must be that which is real, and this ‘reality’ must be absolute, independent and immutable; and if this is all that you mean by ‘God”, I suppose then I would agree.

But isn't it our very sentience that is real in us?

No, it is not our sentience that is real, but that which makes our sentience possible. Sentience, like all things, arises, persists for a time, and then is lost; and so it partakes of only a relative existence.

But I thought you said the essential characteristic of the absolute was cognizance?

Indeed, I did say that; but I also said that that which is real (the absolute) is not intrinsic to any thing, and this includes we sentient beings. Therefore, it follows that whatever cognizant we might appear to exhibit cannot be our own (i.e., the individual sentient being’s), but is forever one with the absolute

But God is a living being.

I suppose this would depend upon how we define the term ‘living’.

Yes, I see what you're saying, but I don't think of my dream persona as being other than me, having a fantasy, no different than if you right now drifted off in your chair and had a little fantasy. Of course the origin of it all is your mind.

Yes, but the point is that you (i.e., your dream persona) do not know this, at least not until you have awakened from the dream state; and your dream persona has again become one with your mind.

Ah. Good one.

Excellent! Now we are beginning to see!

More Aesop Rock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPLChfx8kVo&NR=1

Ataraxia wrote:Jehu;

Let us return to the dream analogy for a moment, and ask ourselves if it is the dream persona itself which is cognizant, or does its apparent cognizance originate elsewhere – within the dreaming mind. Further, we must ask ourselves if it is the apparent cognizance of the dream persona that gives rise to and sustains the dream world, or is the true cause elsewhere – in the cognizance of dreaming mind.

It seems to me you are giving cognizance the status of a thing-itself; yet saying is not of the mind but 'akin to the mind'.As if you want to have 'the cake and eat it',so to speak.

Anyway,just a thought to this stage,carry on,perhaps all will be revealed.

The mind system is associated with the body (brain), and so is dependent for its existence upon a wide range of extrinsic causes. Cognizance, on the other hand, is not dependent upon anything extrinsic for its existence, but upon its own intrinsic causes – knowledge. It is for this reason that I say that cognizance is “akin” to mind, and not that it ‘is’ mind itself; for mind is a thing (construct), and cognizance is not a thing; though it is cognizance that make mind possible.

Jehu,

Yes, but don’t you see, that in imagining this ‘unrecognized matter’, you (a cognizant agent) have in fact re-cognized it. Perhaps you should ask yourself this, what exactly can you imagine to exist if you do not differentiate in some way; that is to say, ‘what’ is it that you can imagine? In the total absence of any cognizant agent, there would be no to differentiation whatsoever, for one thing would be indistinguishable from another. In fact, it would make little sense to argue that such a world even existed, for what could the term ‘exist’ possibly mean, without that there was a mind to give it meaning.

I cannot help, of course, that I am a cognizant being...I agree there would be no meaning at all in such a universe.

That anything exists at all is complete proof of God in my way of seeing things.

I am not terribly fond of the term ‘God’, for I do not know precisely what it means. Nevertheless, I think that reason tells us that there must be that which is real, and this ‘reality’ must be absolute, independent and immutable; and if this is all that you mean by ‘God”, I suppose then I would agree.

What I meant was that matter as understood by 'materialists' i.e., dead matter, cannot cause itself or pop into being from a prior state of no-existence. Therefore, there must be something utterly different going on here.
But I am not clear what you mean by independent and immutable.

No, it is not our sentience that is real, but that which makes our sentience possible. Sentience, like all things, arises, persists for a time, and then is lost; and so it partakes of only a relative existence.

I say sentience, you say cognizance. I mean them the same, you seem to not.

Indeed, I did say that; but I also said that that which is real (the absolute) is not intrinsic to any thing, and this includes we sentient beings. Therefore, it follows that whatever cognizant we might appear to exhibit cannot be our own (i.e., the individual sentient being’s), but is forever one with the absolute

What??
If that which is real is not intrinsic to me then reality doesn't exist. Nor do I. But if my cognizance is one with the absolute - then how am I not possessing intrinsic cognizance?

Why do you say we 'appear' to exhibit cognizance?

I suppose this would depend upon how we define the term ‘living’.

Possessing cognizance and energy.

Iolaus wrote:

I am not terribly fond of the term ‘God’, for I do not know precisely what it means. Nevertheless, I think that reason tells us that there must be that which is real, and this ‘reality’ must be absolute, independent and immutable; and if this is all that you mean by ‘God”, I suppose then I would agree.

What I meant was that matter as understood by 'materialists' i.e., dead matter, cannot cause itself or pop into being from a prior state of no-existence. Therefore, there must be something utterly different going on here.
But I am not clear what you mean by independent and immutable.

That entity which is possessed of its own intrinsic causes partakes of a ‘necessary’ (absolute) existence, for if its causes exist, then too must the entity itself exist. Such an entity may then be said to exist ‘in-and-of-itself’, and so is not related to any other (i.e., extrinsic) thing. Consequently, such an entity is incapable of undergoing any alteration, for in order to undergo an alteration, its intrinsic causes (i.e., that which is necessary and sufficient to its being what it is) must be altered, and this would entail an interaction with something extrinsic.

No, it is not our sentience that is real, but that which makes our sentience possible. Sentience, like all things, arises, persists for a time, and then is lost; and so it partakes of only a relative existence.

I say sentience, you say cognizance. I mean them the same, you seem to not.

In an essentially cognizant reality, all thing partake of cognizance; while sentience arises only in such things as possess sufficient complexity.

Indeed, I did say that; but I also said that that which is real (the absolute) is not intrinsic to any thing, and this includes we sentient beings. Therefore, it follows that whatever cognizant we might appear to exhibit cannot be our own (i.e., the individual sentient being’s), but is forever one with the absolute

What??
If that which is real is not intrinsic to me then reality doesn't exist. Nor do I. But if my cognizance is one with the absolute - then how am I not possessing intrinsic cognizance?

We, like all other ‘things’, have only a relative existence, and so have no intrinsic causes (properties). Whatever properties we appear to possess are not our own, but belong to that which is real (absolute), and which is our true cause and origin. It is exactly the same as with our dream persona, it has the appearance of being cognizant and sentient, but this is an illusion, for its appearance is nothing more than the play of mind.

Why do you say we 'appear' to exhibit cognizance?

I suppose this would depend upon how we define the term ‘living’.

Possessing cognizance and energy.

It is cognizant, but ‘energy’ is simply another illusory concept.

Jehu,

That entity which is possessed of its own intrinsic causes partakes of a ‘necessary’ (absolute) existence, for if its causes exist, then too must the entity itself exist. Such an entity may then be said to exist ‘in-and-of-itself’, and so is not related to any other (i.e., extrinsic) thing. Consequently, such an entity is incapable of undergoing any alteration, for in order to undergo an alteration, its intrinsic causes (i.e., that which is necessary and sufficient to its being what it is) must be altered, and this would entail an interaction with something extrinsic.

This seems to make sense. Certainly, it cannot undergo a fundamental alteration, such that its properties have changed. I guess the only alteration it could undergo would be one of experiences. But is that a true alteration?

In an essentially cognizant reality, all thing partake of cognizance; while sentience arises only in such things as possess sufficient complexity.

OK, in what way does a rock partake of cognizance, and how do you differentiate sentience and cognizance? Are you referring to a brain or the mind?

What??
If that which is real is not intrinsic to me then reality doesn't exist. Nor do I. But if my cognizance is one with the absolute - then how am I not possessing intrinsic cognizance?

We, like all other ‘things’, have only a relative existence, and so have no intrinsic causes (properties). Whatever properties we appear to possess are not our own, but belong to that which is real (absolute), and which is our true cause and origin. It is exactly the same as with our dream persona, it has the appearance of being cognizant and sentient, but this is an illusion, for its appearance is nothing more than the play of mind.

But it would seem that all things must have an intrinsic cause, as they all reside within the absolute, which is the cause of everything.
But not an intrinsic cause such as the absolute has...that is, the arrangements that produce a chair are all ephemeral, yes, but at bottom it is all the one universal substance, which is the substance of the absolute, no?
And anyway, I am not a chair. I do see a difference between biological being and nonbiological being.

It is cognizant, but ‘energy’ is simply another illusory concept.

But energy is the substance of existence and its source is the absolute. In what way is it an illusory concept?

Iolaus wrote:This seems to make sense. Certainly, it cannot undergo a fundamental alteration, such that its properties have changed. I guess the only alteration it could undergo would be one of experiences. But is that a true alteration?

If by ‘true’ you mean ‘real’, then no, it is not a true alteration, it is only an apparent alteration – an illusion.

OK, in what way does a rock partake of cognizance, and how do you differentiate sentience and cognizance? Are you referring to a brain or the mind?

In the same way that we partake of cognizance – for as we have already agree: all things are fundamental one in their existential being – their true self. Rocks, like all other things are void of any intrinsic properties, and so whatever properties they might appear to possess are not their own, but are posited to them by that which is real. Even a sub-atomic particle exhibits some measure of cognizance, for it is seemingly aware when there are another particles in its vicinity, and it acts appropriately – within the scope of its functional capacity. Sentience, on the other hand, implies a measure of self-awareness; that is to say, a sentient being is aware of its own existence, and possesses some sort of memory faculty – however rudimentary.

But it would seem that all things must have an intrinsic cause, as they all reside within the absolute, which is the cause of everything.
But not an intrinsic cause such as the absolute has...that is, the arrangements that produce a chair are all ephemeral, yes, but at bottom it is all the one universal substance, which is the substance of the absolute, no?
And anyway, I am not a chair. I do see a difference between biological being and nonbiological being.

While the absolute is the origin and cause of all things, the absolute does not inhere within the things themselves, for all things are illusory. Just as we understand that the dreaming mind does not inhere within the objects that it creates, but they within it. Neither do we assert that the dream object is fabricated out of any sort of substance, or that they are assembled from the bottom up; for we understand that dreams are merely the play of cognizant awareness and knowledge.

But energy is the substance of existence and its source is the absolute. In what way is it an illusory concept?

Energy is a concept that was created in order to explain how it is possible that one thing should be capable of influencing another thing; however, in an essentially cognizant reality, there is no need to posit the existence of such a thing, for we know that things do not really influence one another, given that things are not real. For example, if you were not aware that it was a computer that was generating the images on your browser screen, you might be tempted to think that your cursor was actually interacting with the menu bar from which you wish to select a function. Then, having made this one error, you erroneously infer that the cursor must be possessed of some latent capacity to influence the other entities on the screen, and then you label this latent capacity ‘energy’; and you think that this energy is a property which inheres within the cursor itself.