GENIUS FORUMS

passthrough wrote:

If we are just like robots that are preprogrammed, what fun would that be for God?

between that and talking about children as you did, I'll assume you mean the Christian depiction of God rather than Ultimate Reality (for which enjoyment is likely not a factor, for all things would be experienced at all times, as all times and all experiences would be experienced simultaneously). Even in the Christian paradigm, if God is so much greater than humans, how would you know what He enjoys? Dogs are quite different from us, and they enjoy sniffing poo. How would you know if what we enjoy would not appear to Him like poo-sniffing?
**************
edited to identify author of quote

Elizabeth wrote:

between that and talking about children as you did, I'll assume you mean the Christian depiction of God rather than Ultimate Reality (for which enjoyment is likely not a factor, for all things would be experienced at all times, as all times and all experiences would be experienced simultaneously).

Does the Ultimate Reality exclude Christian ideology? A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square.

Further, I did place a caveat in the statement I made, to the effect: Although it is entirely wrong of me to personalize God. It was more of a tongue-in-cheek response, but the point was what would be the purpose of existence if we were, indeed, robots? The answer is clear…none. I do not believe life is purposeless.

My definition of God is Ultimate Reality. I do not belong to Christian organized religious groups, but I am a follower of Christ.

Sue said:

Are you saying that the universe throws things in front of us, and then it is up to us to try and choose from that array what will be best for us?

There exists the Ultimate Truth, however that is defined. I, personally, do not understand it and feel that I will never understand the breadth of it, at least while in physical form. The Ultimate Truth is where we should be heading and our choices in life either lead us there or to eternal death. Because everyone is given choices, some select those options that lead to eternal death, which by cause and effect create good choices and bad choices for those surrounding them. So, there are choices in the array that will lead one to the Ultimate Truth, it is up to us to determine which to choose.

I might add, that some choices are not always best for “us”. It would depend on how you define “us”…as physical beings or spiritual beings? What might lead us spiritually to Ultimate Truth may physically cause us great suffering.

What do we base our ‘choices’ on?

By effect. You touch the stove while it is lit, you get burned. You learn not to touch the stove.

Diebert:

But would you say Pye, that awareness causes increase of some 'freedom of choice'? Personally I doubt it. For example, awareness is also a cause of reason and this reason will leave not much choice than to submit to its own process to maintain its integrity. So in some clear-cut case where there are 99 options available only one option becomes the way, and as such even the wise is not 'free' either, but finds freedom in knowing his way through and through. Of course in situations where all things considered are equal, one submits to chance. Still no free will.

This is very interesting in that it seems to lend itself to the fact that “free will” does not exist for the enlightened man because the enlightened man bends his will to God, therefore his will becomes God’s will. Good Observation.

I do not belong to Christian organized religious groups, but I am a follower of Christ.

A follower of Jesus the semi-enlightened man, or a follower of the ideals of what is reported to have been said by him, by those with vested interests?

passthrough wrote:Does the Ultimate Reality exclude Christian ideology?

Yes, includes it, but is not composed entirely of it.

I did place a caveat in the statement I made, to the effect: Although it is entirely wrong of me to personalize God. It was more of a tongue-in-cheek response,

I went back and looked through this thread again and the only thing I could find was

I think that I have chosen to question what I have been living without losing sight of my firm belief in a Supreme Being, who I call God. In that questioning, I have allowed myself to become open to alternative answers.

Perhaps you stated that in another thread? I can't find it in this one. I did find:

Ok, now I know my former response was way out there because someone questioned its value, so I am going to respond again hoping that this time it will make more sense…

Well, if it was irrelevant, I'll let it go and take another round at he main point.

What if the pupose of it all is simply that we have to be here, in some form, and don't have any choice to simply not exist at all? Now, since we're all stuck here together anyhow, what are we going to do about it?

passthrough wrote:
Does the Ultimate Reality exclude Christian ideology?

Yes, includes it, but is not composed entirely of it.

Fair enough.

I did place a caveat in the statement I made, to the effect: Although it is entirely wrong of me to personalize God. It was more of a tongue-in-cheek response,

Sorry to be so confusing, the statement: "Although it is entirely wrong of me to personalize God" was the caveat. I will try in the future not to use such flippant comments as they tend to confuse rather than assist.

Jamesh wrote: A follower of Jesus the semi-enlightened man, or a follower of the ideals of what is reported to have been said by him, by those with vested interests?

I believe Jesus to have been completely enlightened as to the nature of God. I follow his example...but you are right on target when you say: "a follower of the ideals of what is reported to have been said by him, by those with vested interests"

I tend to think you may be on to what is my understanding at this point. Jesus' message was very simple. I have found through study that even Heaven and Hell may have been concocted by someone's incorrect interpretation or intentional misinterpretation of the original texts. It is only intuition at this point that leads me to believe that something was lost in the translation of Aramaic/Hebrew to English in the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth translations later...men with agendas.

For instance, Gehenna. I used to see this word rather than Hell used in the Bible. In researching Gehenna, it was found that some Jews interpret it to be a type of Purgatory, but then after cleansing, they would be free. But even in the notion of Judaic afterlife, there is scant evidence that they concentrated on it much but rather on their deeds and obeying the Judaic laws.

So, yes...I think it is much more simple than what is taught as Christian theology now.

passthrough wrote: Sorry to be so confusing, the statement: "Although it is entirely wrong of me to personalize God" was the caveat. I will try in the future not to use such flippant comments as they tend to confuse rather than assist.

Where is the exact original quote, identified by date and timestamp on the original post?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Where is the exact original quote, identified by date and timestamp on the original post?

It is in this thread.
Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:18 am

Right after the sentence you commented about:

If we are just like robots that are preprogrammed, what fun would that be for God?

For context:

If we are just like robots that are preprogrammed, what fun would that be for God? Although it is entirely wrong of me to personalize God so, but what would be the point of having automatons? Do you have children? I look at it this way…you have a child and you do your best to raise them in the manner that you think they should live to become independent beings capable of making their own decisions. There are times during their late teens and early twenties where they venture off into decisions that are not well thought out and they suffer the consequences. Then, they become a little wiser and ask for advice, which they ignore and suffer the consequences again. Then, perhaps, they become a little more wise, ask for advice and then finally take it, recognizing the benefit of a good choice.

Is there a point you are trying to make? If so, why not discuss the issue you have with the comment, itself, for it must have some value or meaning to you if you wish to find it.

What if the pupose of it all is simply that we have to be here, in some form, and don't have any choice to simply not exist at all?

At this point in life, I cannot accept the premise that we live without purpose.

If you don’t exist, you don’t get choices. If you do exist, then you get choices, choices lead to decisions, decisions lead to action, action leads to consequences, and consequences lead to more choices. If there is no purpose to all of this, why continue on? What would be the point? You could live a hedonistic lifestyle, but there are consequences, aren’t there? Why? Are consequences random? Experience shows otherwise. Therefore, there must be a purpose.

Now, since we're all stuck here together anyhow, what are we going to do about it?

Exist.

passthrough wrote:

It is in this thread.
Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:18 am

Thank you, I did overlook that. I never claimed to be perfect.

Is there a point you are trying to make?

I was trying to get it clear. Clear communication means the transmission of information from one to another and ensuring that it was received as sent. Some people find this process annoying, but it is a good tool for imperfect humans to get closer to the truth. I asked you to assist me in finding the original quote, and it appears that you got offended by that. My point is and was just getting it clear. Tone does not always transmit well through the written word, so that may be a factor in why you seem to have gotten offended or something.

At this point in life, I cannot accept the premise that we live without purpose.

That is fine, then don't accept it. If you can not accept the premise that we live without purpose, then that is something that you can not do (and I guess you have no choice in the matter).

I was trying to get it clear. Clear communication means the transmission of information from one to another and ensuring that it was received as sent. Some people find this process annoying, but it is a good tool for imperfect humans to get closer to the truth. I asked you to assist me in finding the original quote, and it appears that you got offended by that. My point is and was just getting it clear. Tone does not always transmit well through the written word, so that may be a factor in why you seem to have gotten offended or something.

I agree with you completely. BTW, no offense taken. I seriously was wondering if what I said had some other implications that you were trying to sort out.

That is fine, then don't accept it. If you can not accept the premise that we live without purpose, then that is something that you can not do (and I guess you have no choice in the matter).

There was a time in my life when I felt like life had no purpose. Many crazy things were going on, and I could not handle any one of them. There was no order, all complete chaos. It seemed everything I touched was a disaster from the beginning, a fast spiral downhill without brakes. I wanted to die for there was no reason to live. I had a breakdown. Through it all, I prayed. I prayed that God would take me, every day I prayed this prayer. I prayed to a darkness I could not understand. This action led to a ripple effect. In all the areas of chaos came order. It took a year to regain my full sense of being, and another year to begin to unravel what happened. I think this dark period happened for a purpose. It was after this dark time that I began to question my life and why I blindly accepted what I was told without asking why. Since I made it through, I know one purpose is to find out what got me through it all…and it is buried in that darkness that I don’t understand. You call it Ultimate Reality…I call it God.

passthrough wrote:There was a time in my life when I felt like life had no purpose. Many crazy things were going on, and I could not handle any one of them. There was no order, all complete chaos. It seemed everything I touched was a disaster from the beginning, a fast spiral downhill without brakes. I wanted to die for there was no reason to live. I had a breakdown. Through it all, I prayed. I prayed that God would take me, every day I prayed this prayer. I prayed to a darkness I could not understand. This action led to a ripple effect. In all the areas of chaos came order. It took a year to regain my full sense of being, and another year to begin to unravel what happened. I think this dark period happened for a purpose. It was after this dark time that I began to question my life and why I blindly accepted what I was told without asking why. Since I made it through, I know one purpose is to find out what got me through it all…and it is buried in that darkness that I don’t understand. You call it Ultimate Reality…I call it God.

I've had those too. When I was a little kid I was taught the same prayer as most children starting "Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep. and if I die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take." I was very, very young when I started adding a tag line on that "Lord, take my soul tonight." and later "Let me die tonight" (just in case I wasn't being clear enough for Him). I was always very disappointed to wake up, and I thought the reason I didn't die was because I hadn't prayed hard enough. I think that's how I first figured out that the Christian God wasn't real, because the God they talked about would not be so mean to make me live or make my parents have me.

Passthrough, I trust that we will each understand what we need to understand when we are supposed to understand it. BTW - I don't think God cares what we call Him, as long as we understand Him to the best of our ability.

.

Diebert writes:

But would you say Pye, that awareness causes increase of some 'freedom of choice'? Personally I doubt it. For example, awareness is also a cause of reason and this reason will leave not much choice than to submit to its own process to maintain its integrity. So in some clear-cut case where there are 99 options available only one option becomes the way, and as such even the wise is not 'free' either, but finds freedom in knowing his way through and through.

I'm fine with all of that, Diebert. I'm not troubled by the word "free," or rather, the singular value placed upon the word "free" such that things that are not described by it are not worth anything.

As in the previous post, I mention that any idea of "freedom" attached to the process of choice has to do with the greater conscious capacity of the individual. It is a subjective move, in my estimation, to fully and most consciously occupy the living capacity that one is; to have a more conscious effect on cause and effect and cause; be a more conscious identifier. One only senses *freedom* in this sense, coming greater and greater into the capacity of their living being. The freedom to make our choices more and more the individual affair and not the polly-see kind - mimetic beings that we are.

Those more-conscious choices are still and always conditioned by everything and all. As I say, I'm not bothered by the interrelationship of all causes and effects or any lack of "pure" freedom. As a member of that set as well, I needn't cede my opportunity or potential, as a cause-sui, and not just the product of causes myself; not just an effect. It's in this I estimate there can be anything remotely referred to as "freedom," or the sensation of it, anyway; perhaps the goal of all living things to see themselves to their fullest extent, that would be freedom.


.

I was always very disappointed to wake up, and I thought the reason I didn't die was because I hadn't prayed hard enough. I think that's how I first figured out that the Christian God wasn't real, because the God they talked about would not be so mean to make me live or make my parents have me.

After reading a post you made in another thread, I can understand why you may have thought this. It is a testament to your courage and will to live that you are here even questioning and debating the topic. My mother sent me a type of poem that, although a bit cheesy and personifying God…again, it does seem to put things in a different perspective:

God Said No

I asked God to take away my habit.
God said, No.
It is not for me to take away, but for you to give it up.

I asked God to make my handicapped child whole.
God said, No.
His spirit is whole, his body is only temporary

I asked God to grant me patience.
God said, No.
Patience is a byproduct of tribulations;
it isn't granted, it is learned.

I asked God to give me happiness.
God said, No.
I give you blessings; Happiness is up to you.

I asked God to spare me pain.
God said, No.
Suffering draws you apart from worldly cares
and brings you closer to me.

I asked God to make my spirit grow.
God said, No.
You must grow on your own! ,
but I will prune you to make you fruitful.

I asked God for all things that I might enjoy life.
God said, No.
I will give you life, so that you may enjoy all things.

We are made free, but we are given choices…we have to choose, God will not choose for us. It is not even rational to think this way...we would be those robots discussed earlier. However, as we become more aware, we have less and less freedom to choose because we yield to God, our Nature. I think that through your experience you didn’t lose God, just a false view of him. You may wrestle with the notion of purpose, but you have lived thus far without ending things yourself as if you may believe there is something worth pursuing out there.

I never considered suicide, although people thought I was suicidal…funny, isn’t it? My faith is such that I know God exists. Suicide is the one choice I could have made, but it was never a choice nor even considered. What is important in life is that which is unyielding.

In this book I’m reading, there is a guy who lost everything in life, but he continues on, as he says: “I don’t think I’d mind it much now, the dying. I know it would be a lot easier. Only I think that it’s a sin to sit down and let your life go, without making a try for it.” It seems you made that choice yourself. There is purpose, our choices lead us there.

The thread is about these choices being coherent, I think some are and some are not. The choices that matter to the direction you are headed most likely are not coherent but arise out of spiritual prodding that is so deep within, you cannot recognize nor understand it, but it is there if you look backwards from how you got from Point A to Point B.

passthrought said I do not believe life is purposeless.

Well bad luck, it is. What you are actually saying is that your emotions make your brain not accept reality.

Such is the nature of being a pattern of existence. Only the two infinities are permanent, and they are patternless - they each consist of only one thing, so there is no possibility of a pattern.

Without physical/material purposelessness you would not exist, so really you can't complain. Things have no objectivity, so the objective purpose you seek cannot exist. You are part of everythings flow regardless of what you may think or desire.

Jamesh wrote:Without physical/material purposelessness you would not exist, so really you can't complain. Things have no objectivity, so the objective purpose you seek cannot exist. You are part of everythings flow regardless of what you may think or desire.

"Two infinities"? I'm afraid you have gone over my head there. Let me ask you this, if I agree with you that I am part of Everything's flow regardless of what I may think or desire, what of conscious awareness of this Everything as opposed to not ever being aware at all? And what if the purpose of life was to become consciously aware of this Everything? Not thinking or desiring this awareness would leave you where?

In other posts, I see you are a physicist, which most likely means we need to end this discussion because, firstly, I do not study physics and my knowledge is that of highschool over 30 years ago, and secondly, if you are a scientist, you want to believe a concrete and mathematical creation of the Universe with no room for the soul.

I would ask you to think of this one thing...it is obvious that you have not figured out how the Universe came to be, but something has to have figured it out to have created it. When logic makes sense, random creation does not...at least in my limited estimation. Once you can recreate the Universe, then I might believe you...but until then, it's just a theory.

passthrough wrote:

Sue you have some very interesting statements to ponder. One in particular is that the causes are timeless and purposeless. Why purposeless? What is the point of existence then? It sounds almost nihilistic. You value Man, so that cannot be.

We do not know what the future holds - if we did, we wouldn’t need to make choices. It is our not knowing what will happen in the future that gives us the sense that we have choices to make – which in turn gives us the sense that we have ‘free-will’.

The fact is though, we have neither – well, not in the way we like to think we do. The sense of being able to choose and the sense of free-will are both 100% predetermined: that is, those things (like all other things) already exist in their causes. And causes have neither a beginning nor an end – which makes them “timeless and purposeless”.

So, there is nothing “nihilistic” about any of this, for we do have choices to make and therefore a ‘free-will’– it’s just that neither originate in an inherent existing ‘I’ – instead, they exist causally.

–
Sue

We do not know what the future holds - if we did, we wouldn’t need to make choices. It is our not knowing what will happen in the future that gives us the sense that we have choices to make – which in turn gives us the sense that we have ‘free-will’.

So, if you knew what the future held, you would become completely passive? What if you found out that you had an incurable case of cancer and you were going to die in one year? Would you make the same choices you were going to make before you learned of your future?

Experience tells us that we do know one salient fact about the future, we will die, sooner or later. If you take this fact into your equation, how does that affect your statement? So, do we stop making choices? Does the acceptance of death as a reality define our choices? Does the avoidance of thinking of death change those choices?

Hypothetical: There exists a being, such that no one person can grasp the whole of it. The being has established a path of cause and effect that equates with the being’s will and all other cause and effect to infinity. The being, himself, is not caused as it is the beginning and the end. As part of cause and effect, we are caused to exist. We are given free will to choose among all infinite possibilities. Some choose that which coincides with the being’s will, thus finding the truth in Truth, while others never see it and die in Truth.

We don’t stop making choices because with each choice we learn by the effect of the cause, we become more aware of the Will of Nature and yield to it so that we learn to live truth in Truth. We look back in our experiences from Point A to Point B to see how we got where we are. Assimilation of revelation.

The fact is though, we have neither – well, not in the way we like to think we do. The sense of being able to choose and the sense of free-will are both 100% predetermined: that is, those things (like all other things) already exist in their causes.

Are you saying that there exist all infinite cause and effect, and we are predestined to select one of them? For example, the universe is full of all cause and effect scenarios that are, have been and/or will happen. Each one of these cause and effect scenarios is represented by a distinct number encapsulated in a circle. I am born. I walk through this universe noting the encapsulated numbers and choose them. Do I know what this particular number means and why I choose it, or am I predetermined to select only particular numbers without giving any thought? While I will surely die, is it I who makes the choice of how? The answer to that is no. It is easy to answer the question of death, but is it then that all choices are thus? Who do you believe to be the predeterminer?


Is there ever a method of selection? For instance, predetermination says that I am to be a Catholic, but I am born into a Hindu family. Will all the cause and effect scenarios line up in the universe in order for me to “choose” them to become my destiny? If so, this suggests that the Universe is not random but organized and planned – ordered. Who orders it so?

And causes have neither a beginning nor an end – which makes them “timeless and purposeless”.

If I understand what you are saying correctly, I also understand how you can assess that there is no purpose, it could be observed as a bleak way to look at life…and the alternative is that perhaps if you live this way, you learn to enjoy the moment and not hang on to notions and draw them out into something they are not. In short, you grow into what you are predetermined to be, whatever that is. But then, would that not, in and of itself, be a purpose? To meet your end.

So, there is nothing “nihilistic” about any of this, for we do have choices to make and therefore a ‘free-will’– it’s just that neither originate in an inherent existing ‘I’ – instead, they exist causally.

Which means there is no “I” but an infinitesimal us who are subjects to some sort of universal continuum? How do you explain the origin? Who was the first cause?


There is another thread ongoing, wherein you and Kevin Solway made comments, but I would like to interject them here in this discussion for continuity’s sake:

Kierkegaard was all for Truth, not mere belief. Understanding of Truth can only be done personally. That is, someone else can't do it for you. It can't be known second-hand, through normal religious faith.

Kevin Solway has touched on something that I asked David Quinn to answer, but I have found from another member that David is indisposed at this time. So, perhaps, Kevin and/or Sue, you might like to answer instead.

Is there no connection between Truth and Faith? David Quinn wrote this in another thread and I wanted him to explain his position on it to me.

A=A is a logical principle which goes to the heart of existence, perception and logic, but you shouldn't confuse it with the spiritual knowledge of Ultimate Truth which is enjoyed by enlightened people. To reach that kind of knowledge you have to, among other things, refine your thinking until it reflects the principle of A=A perfectly - that is, refine it until it becomes perfectly consistent and rational from top to bottom. At root, people are ignorant of the nature of Reality because of contradictions in their thinking.

With all due respect, Kevin, I am not trying to have someone figure out the Truth for me. I came here and began a thread called “Here and Not Here”, with the intention of trying to reconcile several things. One, I left a Church that I had been attending off and on for most of my life because I could not agree with their position any longer. I left what was learned because I had established a different way of thinking…of understanding. Two, I came here to see if there was anyone who understood what happened and if they had been through it as well [One person seems to have understood]. Third, my daughter is an atheist. I cannot understand why. I try to discuss with her but find that I lack the prerequisite educational background to counter arguments. Finally, I came here to understand that if I had beliefs and understandings of what I thought was truth, why did others believe differently? In other words, is there no universal truth that can satisfy, if not all, the majority of people searching for it?

This explains why women have no potential for spirituality – for the only way they can relate to the world is through other people and things: i.e. “second-hand”.

Quit dismissing me in that fashion…it gets old, it is very shallow and assumes a whole hell of lot you shouldn’t be assuming.

This whole statement is unfair, not only to me, but to women who truly strive for a greater awareness in life. Does this mean that one should just sit down and meditate the rest of their life? Never read? Never talk to others? Why are YOU here? Come on, Sue…cause and effect. What if my spiritual growth was predestined and depended on you choosing to respond here? What if you chose an encapsulated number that directly affected the number I chose, and the two combined created an effect of moving me more towards my own truth. In that I might reflect upon what you say, question my own notion of truth and belief, and come to a greater awareness of something personally – either in the fact that I disagree with you and establish more firm belief in what I know is true or find a fallacy in my own truth that I never had come to think about, except for the fact that you responded.

I have decided to take some classes beginning next Spring. My daughter warned me that in taking these classes, I will find my world turned upside down and my core values challenged. If what I know to be true and believe cannot be challenged "second-hand" then what is the good of it?

I found this quote today…Kierkegaard wrote: It is quite true what Philosophy says: that Life must be understood backwards. But that makes one forget the other saying: that it must be lived – forwards. The more one ponders this, the more it comes to mean that life in the temporal existence never becomes quite intelligible, precisely because at no moment can I find complete quiet to take the backward-looking position.

I think I may find this fellow a very interesting study.

Sue, I hope you are around to respond because I have been thinking about what you said and would like to explore it a little more with you (and others):

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: There can be no separation between thinker and thought, for the ‘thinker’ is also only ‘thought”. The thinker has no existence other than as ‘thought’.

Being thought, the thinker cannot stop thoughts from arising and then dropping away.

So is a person then only a continuous succession of thoughts with no gap of thought-less-ness? Can one not be aware of this random thinking and choose not to allow it to ramble on, to be clear of all thought and be present in the moment as being part and parcel of the Universe?

How do you come to your conclusion that we are but "thought"? I realize you answered this somewhat later on by stating the word "causally", but I would like you to explain it as if writing a paragraph or chapter in a book on how you come to this conclusion...call it a meeting of the minds.

passthrough wrote:So is a person then only a continuous succession of thoughts with no gap of thought-less-ness? Can one not be aware of this random thinking and choose not to allow it to ramble on, to be clear of all thought and be present in the moment as being part and parcel of the Universe?

Reverse the process. Time is retroactive. You are in the past now, Ultimate Reality is in the future.

passthrough wrote:

Sue wrote: There can be no separation between thinker and thought, for the ‘thinker’ is also only ‘thought”. The thinker has no existence other than as ‘thought’.

Being thought, the thinker cannot stop thoughts from arising and then dropping away.

So is a person then only a continuous succession of thoughts with no gap of thought-less-ness? Can one not be aware of this random thinking and choose not to allow it to ramble on, to be clear of all thought and be present in the moment as being part and parcel of the Universe?

The only existence we have is through thought. One way you can stop thought is to be dead. But if you aren’t dead, escape from either “being present in the moment”, or “being part and parcel of the Universe” is impossible.

How do you come to your conclusion that we are but "thought"?

Here’s an interesting exercise to do: try with all your might to get outside of your own mind. What happens?

-
Sue

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: Here’s an interesting exercise to do: try with all your might to get outside of your own mind. What happens?

We are animals first, then creatures aware of our consciousness. Animals live. Plants have no consciousness at all, and yet they live. However, I suppose without awareness of consciousness, one is technically dead.

So, then awareness of consciousness is pure thought.

Let me push this envelope just a bit further:

In the moments when you are out walking all alone and you have a moment of something that cannot be fully described except to say that everything is pure and wonderful, in the next millisecond you recognize it, and then it's gone almost because you did recognize it.

Because the preceding is kind of vague, a real life notion of this idea can be described, but not exactly to the first, to walking with your head down unaware of anything but your thoughts, suddenly looking up, and a person is right in your face. You stop thinking even for the briefest of time, receive the image, process it and then it's gone again. It's this period of stopping the thought process I am referring to.

Being a receiver...that's the word, so you don't think we can ever receive anything that does not come from our own being, excluding the ordinary channels like talking to people, visual cues, etc....You think that all thought is self-perpetuated?

(I haven't read any posts in this thread other then the OP, so forgive me if I repeat anything that's already been said.)

Matt Gregory,

I think that perhaps what you're referring to as a "realization" is what I would call a "Eureka moment": that second when you find a solution to whatever question has been bothering you, and it feels as if it's changed your entire perspective of the world. Something of an intellectual orgasm perhaps. Nevertheless, I've had instances where such feelings accompanied a thought I later found to be false, or at least partially incorrect or incomplete. I've become weary of such things due to this, and due to the fact that the positive associations this experience places on an idea can give it an undue priority in one's mind.

Insofar as whether an individual is able to choose to have such an experience, I'd suggest not. I guess you could actively attempt to thwart it, but that would detract from a fella's meditations, I should imagine.

As for choice: If a fella were to say "I made a choice not to wear pants today," would you accuse him of lying? I'd suggest not. It would be understood that he was referring to the idea that he felt compelled to not wear pants, and thus acted upon this compulsion. The idea meant to be conveyed by the phrase would be that he didn't feel forced to not wear pants. Had he of possessed a different compulsion at the time he could have worn pants. I realize that the decisions we make are dependent upon circumstances, but that hardly invalidates the idea of "choice" as the term seems to be commonly used. The notion of a magical sort of "choice" strikes me as a phantom that philosophers love to slay, as if they hadn't created it themselves for that very purpose.

passthrough,

I know your post was directed at Sue. I hope you don't mind me commenting, as well.

We are animals first, then creatures aware of our consciousness.

Actually, most of us are unaware of our conciousness. We not self-aware. We are effectively unconscious, most of the time.

Animals live. Plants have no consciousness at all, and yet they live.

How do we know "plants have no consciousness at all"?

However, I suppose without awareness of consciousness, one is technically dead. So, then awareness of consciousness is pure thought.

Awareness is not thought. Awareness is pure experience. Thought may or may not follow.

Let me push this envelope just a bit further: In the moments when you are out walking all alone and you have a moment of something that cannot be fully described except to say that everything is pure and wonderful, in the next millisecond you recognize it, and then it's gone almost because you did recognize it.

Does it really go without saying that recognition of a pure state necessarily destroys it? From personal experience I would say not.

What you describe can also be called "being in the zone," as in a basketball player, when no one can touch him and the hoop is three feet wide. He can see, "I'm in the zone, I'm putting up the big numbers, wow," but this seeing does not ruin the state, unless ego also enters; barring this, what usually will ruin it? Tiredness and the shift of cause and effect -- natural changes.

Keeping ego out of it would fall under professionalism, and this would relate to any field, including philosophy. One can't get anywhere with higher states until one can curb the effect of ego.

Lastly, if higher states were always destroyed by self-awareness, how could there be a Buddha? Or, do you imply Buddha was not self-aware?

Because the preceding is kind of vague, a real life notion of this idea can be described, but not exactly to the first, to walking with your head down unaware of anything but your thoughts,

Most often unaware, period. Not actually thinking. Just walking while free-associating or in the throes of one emotion or another.

suddenly looking up, and a person is right in your face. You stop thinking even for the briefest of time,

More like, you wake up for the briefest of time...

receive the image, process it and then it's gone again. It's this period of stopping the thought process I am referring to.

Again, I hesitate to call it "the thought process," which for me requires consciousness. Most often what would momentarily stop is the flow of automatic process, the unconscious procession of associations and feelings. And this is a good thing.

Being a receiver...that's the word,

We are always recievers. The only distinction would be conscious or unconscious. This would influence the quality of reception, and possibly even what is recieved, such as greater or lesser insight, and what follows, such as a negative or positive result of the experience.

so you don't think we can ever receive anything that does not come from our own being, excluding the ordinary channels like talking to people, visual cues, etc....

I happen to think we do recieve input from outside of our own being. And no need to exclude "ordinary channels". All channels of reception are valid, from great to small, obvious to obscure.

You think that all thought is self-perpetuated?

Mental, moving, and feeling processes are indeed self-perpetuated, unless and until conscious effort is made to address one's patterns and re-program the machine.

We attract (draw) from outside ourselves, and project (emanate) to outside ourselves that which we realize (believe, therefore are) within. There is a co-creation at work here, one with the larger system.

I know your post was directed at Sue. I hope you don't mind me commenting, as well.

I always appreciate others insight.

Actually, most of us are unaware of our conciousness. We not self-aware. We are effectively unconscious, most of the time.

But we can be self-aware which makes us different than other living things. It is agreed that we can be unconscious a lot of the time.

How do we know "plants have no consciousness at all"?

Assumption on my part, a plant does not react as an animal would. There is no association or perceived association. I am not a botanist, therefore, I have no background to answer this question…so, perhaps it was dramatic to state such a thing when it really was not relevant to the point I was making.

So, then awareness of consciousness is pure thought.

Awareness is not thought. Awareness is pure experience. Thought may or may not follow.

This statement made was trying to determine if this is what Sue thinks, it is not what I think, but I must understand her first before I can discuss further.

Does it really go without saying that recognition of a pure state necessarily destroys it? From personal experience I would say not… Lastly, if higher states were always destroyed by self-awareness, how could there be a Buddha? Or, do you imply Buddha was not self-aware?

Ok, again drama, but you understand what it is that I am talking about. Destroy was a bad word, but if you do act, or think or move it may go as quickly as it came. As for Buddha, I am not Buddhist nor have I studied Buddhism, so I could not answer this question, however, the substance of which you speak is what I have been wanting someone to acknowledge but it seems I always end the thread with no reply forthcoming from those I had addressed. I'm not sure if it was me not making sense, disinterest, or no answer that could be given.

If you have time, read over the last recent posts in the other thread Consciousness vs Unconsciousness and let me know what you think.

Most often unaware, period. Not actually thinking. Just walking while free-associating or in the throes of one emotion or another. More like, you wake up for the briefest of time... Again, I hesitate to call it "the thought process," which for me requires consciousness. Most often what would momentarily stop is the flow of automatic process, the unconscious procession of associations and feelings. And this is a good thing. We are always recievers. The only distinction would be conscious or unconscious. This would influence the quality of reception, and possibly even what is recieved, such as greater or lesser insight, and what follows, such as a negative or positive result of the experience. I happen to think we do recieve input from outside of our own being. And no need to exclude "ordinary channels". All channels of reception are valid, from great to small, obvious to obscure.

I believe we are on the same page here. However, I am going to think about this a little more.

Mental, moving, and feeling processes are indeed self-perpetuated, unless and until conscious effort is made to address one's patterns and re-program the machine.

Objective observation of one's conscious behavior? Would this then be akin to self-awareness?

We attract (draw) from outside ourselves, and project (emanate) to outside ourselves that which we realize (believe, therefore are) within. There is a co-creation at work here, one with the larger system.

Co-creation? Could you explain further.

Thank you for your insight.

passthrough wrote:

CG: Mental, moving, and feeling processes are indeed self-perpetuated, unless and until conscious effort is made to address one's patterns and re-program the machine.

p: Objective observation of one's conscious behavior? Would this then be akin to self-awareness?

Well, here I am speaking of observing one's unconscious behavior. But earlier, in reference to higher states, I also mentioned observing one's conscious experience. Yes, these are both cases of self-awareness.

CG: We attract (draw) from outside ourselves, and project (emanate) to outside ourselves that which we realize (believe, therefore are) within. There is a co-creation at work here, one with the larger system.

p: Co-creation? Could you explain further.

In each situation or experience there is input from within you or I, and from without (from others, world, cosmos).

Realization is an input, or rather it is the completion of the process of perception.
Choice is an output, the completion of the process of decision.

I don't see how you can compare the two.

Anyway, your life is perched on the fine edge of choice at virtually every moment. The one I like is where a guy was driving home from Central City, the local gambling mecca, to Denver. While driving down the canyon, a rock had become dislodged far up on the canyon wall, and it struck his car perfectly, killiing him instantly. I kept thinking, wow, what if he had dropped a nickle on the floor, or stopped to look at a passing girl, or NOT looked at the girl, anything at all that would have put him at the same place either a second before or after the fateful moment. God bowling. You almost have to laugh and say, well bud it's your time to go.