Why is Consciousness

Everyone is subject to circumstances - and vice versa. Later aspect entails responsibility.
Since collectives have low and slow response-abilities - the individual (Lat: Undivided) might be the best guide through troubled waters (times)

P.S. I am sure Buddha, Socrates and Copernicus were called nuts and freaks too.

empirical evidence (Confucius, Lao Tzu, Abraham) suggests the truly individuated individual (Lat:undivided) has been born into the human family at the appropriate time … always.

I am certain they would have been as I know I have been.

:smiley:

I love your avatar - Salvador Dali if I am not mistaken.

Dali named it

“Geopoliticus son watching the birth of the new man”

empirical evidence (Confucius, Lao Tzu, Abraham) suggests the truly individuated individual (Lat:undivided) has been born into the human family at the appropriate time … always.
[/quote]
…their regular appearance suggests that consciousness has particular dynamics

“Another view of Consciousness” presents some respective ideas.

Most people do not like to admit I am a genius because it means that I am right 90% of the time…me being right 90% of the time challenges their delusions of how they view their lives and the world.

Sometimes to be a genius is all that is needed is to simply…pay attention. Mozart simply paid attention to music theory and nature, and created music that captured the beauty of nature. Newton simply payed attention to nature, and captured the physics of nature. All I do is simply pay attention to things.
A lot of people are too invested in their own dasein to agree with my theories. What I notice is obvious…that females are not generally inherently sexually attracted to males, which causes sexual stratification and a lot of problems in the world. But if I state the obvious, that females are generally not inherently sexually attracted to males…Noone wants to believe me.

But let’s look at this from a logical perspective.
If females were inherently attracted to most males, males would not need to learn tactics and tricks of how to get women. They would have an adequate quantity of women at the ready to choose from. The amount of rich men would be very few, men seek power as a means to create families.

Thankyou, I am.

Once you start seeing things from my eyes you see the world as a bunch of carboard cutouts, almost stationary in time. Like you are a being 5000 years ahead of your time and not from this world.

pilgrim-seeker_tom

Are some born already as being “truly individuated individuals” at the appropriate time? Is this what you are saying?
I would think that this is actually a process which happens over time, wouldn’t you say?
We are not born with the individual consciousness which we eventually attain to.
I would also say that it takes the meeting and relating with a great many others in order to form a human being in this way. We are not islands unto ourselves.

I may be wrong here but your statement suggests to me that you believe in fate ~~ that we all have our own human destiny. Is this your belief?

Some individuals appear in the appropriate time while some take time to become a individual.

As the word indicates, an individual does not come about through “others”. (except fashion “individuals”)

Buddhists claim that there is an individual consciousness which can experience various births.

encode_decode

I kind of think that most scientists and philosophers of mind would look on consciousness as still a theory or a hypothesis ~~ not the actual concept itself so much ~~ as what it really is.
Don’t you think that science is still debating/investigating/discovering what it is?

It’s as deep as the ocean with many many kinds of “fish” within it and as vast as deep space.
Let’s not forget that the “science fiction” of yesterday eventually became the real science of today.

Well, for one thing, hasn’t it brought us to distant, distant stars? Hasn’t it taught us about the human psyche, about what makes us tick, what makes us more or less fully human? Hasn’t it warned us of global warming? Hasn’t it shown us what we are doing to the different species’ habitats and endangering these same species? Hasn’t it admonished over and over about the dangers of smoking ~~ and yes, do we listen? There are different branches of science and they are all trying to fulfill their purpose. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

You do not need to look with rose-colored glasses but you can at least put one lens in which is rose-colored while at the same time seeing the one which has no lens as of yet. The coin has two sides to it, within a 24 hour period is the both the light and the dark, there is both hot and cold, there is both the star which has been born and the star which is slowly dying out.

You may just have a point there in a sense. But you can still hold on to your consciousness and dive into it, seek it when and where you can. It may at times hide from us but do you remember when you were a child and played hide and seek? Were you one who was great at finding those others?
There are the Borg but then let’s not forget that there are also those walking the corridors of the Star Ship Enterprise who daily seek out consciousness wherever in the galaxies they may explore. lol

So please go where no “non-conscious” man dares to go. Have no fear.

You could come up with a multitude of ways in which science has worked and has “been there” so to speak.

Why is sleep not an option?
You could also do this ~~ :-k

Yup :slight_smile:

Over time the individuals born as ‘truly individuated individuals’ come to know and understand their birth conditions.

Your above comment reflects the traditional posture … doesn’t make it true though. We obviously can’t ‘know’ yet sincere discussion of an alternative view may have merit.

  1. Our senses exist … their sole purpose … to support our preference for survival in this world. Of course, as survival became less and less of a challenge our senses took on an expanded role … attempt to grow/expand consciousness. The senses are not designed or equipped for this purpose … causing them to often take us down dead end streets.

  2. A priori information … hard wired in our brain … the subconscious … like software burned into a chip … can’t be altered … though application software can run on top of it … our consciousness runs on top of our a priori information … often creating conflict/interference.

  3. Access to additional information … the kind of information sought by serious practitioners of meditation, contemplation, qi gong etc. All these disciplines tell us the serious practitioner must first learn to suspend all faculties … senses … memory … reason and so on. Why? Seems logical that our senses, memory, reason and so on are obstacles/hurdles.

  4. I have always thought … until today … that higher consciousness was desirable … higher consciousness would somehow resolve the many issues plaguing humanity. What changed? Today, I’m thinking higher consciousness has a relatively low ceiling … that we keep coming up against. Perhaps lower consciousness is the key … we should attempt to regress … escape from our lifetime reservoir of consciousness.

Enough babble on this issue …

Naming conventions cause confusion, conflict and hostility. Fate is one of those words. All individuals are pregnant with enormous potential … fate is an instance where an individual gives birth to some of his/her enormous potential … a single birth from an infinite number of possibilities.

Those who deny fate give birth to an unfulling life … dying … still pregnant with enormous potential.

Ok then. I thought that you were using the word “fate” to mean something which we had no power over, no means to control, that the life which we were given was/is the only one which would come to us. In other words, pre-destination or a unique or peculiar destiny already written in the stars. I don’t see that.

We are nevertheless entitled to our own perspectives.

Really. I deny “fate” as per a personal destiny that was “meant to be” BUT I do not see my life as being “unfulfilled”. Considering what the more or less usual lifespan is, we can honestly say that when we die there is still some or much potential that has not come to fruition ~~ depending on who we are and how we think.

Why? because the world is our oyster and there are many possibilities. Who can possibly fulfill all of them?They come and they go as we live the life we “choose”. If we live lives of consciousness, or try to, hopefully we see them coming and we fulfill them ~~ we “carpe diem”.

But that, for me, has nothing to do with not following our “given” fate. Many sense a raison de etre but this is grounded and comes to be as a result of our life’s journey, which is unique to all of us. That raison de etre may also change with more consciousness and more of a diversified life.

I have also questioned whether or not there could be a personal destiny written in the stars but I don’t grab hold of something and automatically believe it simply because it might make me feel good about myself or because I feel like some helpless leaf blowing in the wind. We create our own destinies, if we choose to be creative. We use the energy which we have within us or which we are to create and transform continually our own lives and that is a beautiful thing.

If, at the end of our lives, we have regrets about not having accomplished this or that, it is because they are far too short – but then again, not everyone feels that way either.

If not, it is because we are nothing but couch potatoes who refuse to be planted somewhere to grow.

That is my perspective. You needn’t concur with it. :mrgreen:

Dear Arcturus
I greatly admire your arguments!

(except: "Rome wasnt build in one day" - as it doesnt exist anymore either…)

We like to believe and to believe in our beliefs - particularly the one, that our beliefs will become a reality, ignoring that latter is a belief too.

waechter418

I have also found that to be my experience. But what is it based upon?
Simply a realization of what is needed (necessary) at one’s particular time or is it actually the awareness and consciousness of a Universe at work for you, me, us?
Sometimes I am capable of seeing both but I push away from the latter. lol Why?
I’m not sure. Perhaps just to keep myself honest. :evilfun:

At the same time, your quote above IS and also becomes part of an ongoing process ~~ an ad continuum of sorts.

The way I look at it, we all need time to become an “individual” though for some it never happens. Perhaps some have more of a propensity for it all. I wonder if Buddha himself felt that he was a process?

This may be partly true but don’t you think that individuals do come about in their own unique timeALSO as a result of their inter-relationships with others ~~ depending on what others have to offer through personal growth? We are all inter-dependent, are we not?

Do you mean to say that these Buddhists have knowledge of previous births?
One would have to “believe” in reincarnation in the first place for that, no?
It can’t be proven but I do think and feel that it is important to realize that in THIS life we can live in harmony with the consciousness which we have and which is growing within us ~~ let it work for us, be aware of it.

By the way, you are from Costa Rica, I figure, right? I spent a few weeks there. It is a beautiful country. My favorite experience was visiting Irazu. What an awesome and amazing place that is ~~ what a profound emotional experience it was for me. I was giddy like a child at an amusement park walking above all of that petrified lava. But that’s just me. lol I was in Seventh Heaven and I still have not forgotten it. I was actually kind of sad when I had to leave there. I could have stayed there all day. I left a piece of my heart there.

Beautiful!!

Too much rationalism leads pairs of opposite, yet coexisting together strands stretched and swapped overboard makes the voyage out of bounds, from secure cross-hairs in video games that angle and position your head in line of sight offer ruling spots to dictate and necessitate what causes the mind to unlock grails of treasure stocked up about landing illustrious chess positive colors ranging around a codex, an arcanum of secret knowledge and stolen flashes of silver threaded pillows bring us dreaming over the line and axis of arrows to point or space fissures of the chasm opening storage in memory cause awareness surrounded by outer controlled processes switching presentation for skins and scattered dots that illuminate plastic see-through windows gathering the dawn greeting fast stops to casts of clairvoyant dream balls shattered and brought to bear upon an imaginary sanctuary of where we stoop down, or how high and superior our ladder is creates enveloping madness and histrionic travel flying and wandering afar.

Where the mind travels, how it got its origination, where we are destined to soar or slip through by the fence to the gateway of tomorrow remain showering inspirations to spur and yucky muddy lighting tumble us through the curtain and out to the mountainside!

In the conventional Western paradigm, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter in the form of a human/animal brain. In the Eastern metaphysical schools based upon the Upanishads (most saliently within the Hinduism school of Advaita Vedānta and within schools of Mahayana Buddhism (such as Zen and Yogacara), Consciousness (“Brahman” in Hindu terminology) is the fundamental ground of existence which cannot be further sublated. All is a manifestation of Consciousness just as dream characters and ambience are manifestations of brains as mental processes. Thus, matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness as opposed to the visa versa view of Western materialism.

This is a fundamental form of idealism, variants of which can be found in minority viewpoints of Western philosophies. It is also basically a form of solipsism which I personally term “corporate solipsism” as opposed to that which I term “radical solipsism,” the belief held by an individual that he or she is the only one and thing that actually exists with all others and all other things being manifestations of one’s imagination. If I believed the latter, then I wouldn’t be wasting my time here.

For those who dismiss idealism out of hand, ask yourselves this: What is the fundamental (metaphorical) arena of existence where everything occurs and without which nothing could be attested to exist?

Also, since the idea that matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness is opposed to the seemingly common sense visa versa viewpoint, how could the ancient sages who wrote the Upanishads have ever come up with such a seemingly counterintuitive paradigm in the absence of some empirical proof now lost to us or unrealized by the great bulk of us? Why would it ever have even occurred to them?

The seemingly insurmountable obstacle to discovering ultimate truth is that the human intellect is incapable of fathoming the concept of “no beginning.” How can anything fundamental and foundational exist without an antecedent cause unless one appeals to an infinite regress? With idealism, an answer is at least proffered. An understanding of the absolute cannot be had through the intellect; rather, it can only be obtained on an empirical basis. How does one learn to ride a bike? By studying the aerodynamic principles of the proposition beforehand or rather by mounting, falling, trying again until ultimately one…understands? The ultimate goal is unification with the absolute; the route is called mysticism, “Yoga” in Eastern metaphysical terminology, “to yoke.” Presumably, then the question of how something can exist timelessly and eternally (“I am who am”) can be fathomed from the experience; a logic alien to the intellect’s understanding.

I also appreciate that idealism solves all paradoxes inherent within materialism such as Zeno’s renowned offerings. (We can discuss that further if anyone is interested.)

To the Western, scientific, rationalist scientific mind, this is all, of course, nonsense. But I believe they are like video game characters who have somehow gained sentience and intelligence. They strive to understand all the metaphorical algorithms of the program that they are—unbeknownst to them—trapped within without having access to the universe of the programmer without. Therefore, they live in ignorance. Even if one adheres to a materialistic paradigm, I belief that scientific theory can be used to deduce the existence of something without our realm of existence as exhibited within my philosophical proof of a creator (at least of some kind) posted here.

An appropriate diversion here, to tie down the role of the various isms, inherent in consciousness, as in the previous post, the idealism, creating through and for the logical base of materialism; the question of infinity comes to mind, as relational to the paradoxical issues of Zeno, Canter, and many others. Canter went insane, for reasons over and above his predisposition to depression, and the main one pointed to by analysts have to do with the uncertainty surrounding the nominal versus the approximate nature of the infinite, and consequently the very idea of limits, of boundaries.

Nominally, how can there be a limitless infinity, if there were no limits? As it is , it is only the idea of a limit, which makes the limitless conceivable , and not the other way around.

The idea of the limitless cannot be conceived without it. Therefore the ideal is the congruence of further and further reductions of more specific limited spatio-temporal limits. Idealism passed the nominal picture of reality, passed into the phase, the Machianelli phase of uncertainty, whereupon, a transcendence had to be created, to verify and assure the nominal picture.

More and more uncertainty broke this picture of the ideal of a limited, nominal representation, and had to figure a way to understand boundaries in a different way.

The Einsteinian way of curving space time, is simply represented by a Moebius effect of convolutions surfaces, where the surfaces do not limit each other, and they merely fold in upon themselves. In this way limits, infinities and space-time can be understood as unnecessary concepts. In fact space-time itself is only a mode of conflating movement through time and creating space.

That is not to say that nothing exists, because the idea of no thing is contingent upon some thing, therefore, no duality there, as well.

The only conclusion which can be made is that there is always an absence that is both it’s very copresence, not that they exist or not.

It takes consciousness to create this chimera, the ideal of of which is the idea of the ground, the point-reason for IT, without which IT would, could not be.

This consciousness is not no thing either, nor is IT a thing, but without IT at the very least, awareness would stymie at the very minimal level of pre reflexive automatically instinctual level where even an inorganic/organic conflation would ,could not manifest.

Don … welcome to ILP :slight_smile:

Thanks to Mags I just read a quote from George Santayana that seems relevant:

[b]

[/b]

Are the terms Consciousness, Brahman and Spirit pointing to the same ineffable reality?

Meno wrote:

"It takes consciousness to create this chimera, the ideal of of which is the idea of the ground, the point-reason for IT, without which IT would, could not be.

“This consciousness is not no thing either, nor is IT a thing, but without IT at the very least, awareness would stymie at the very minimal level of pre reflexive automatically instinctual level where even an inorganic/organic conflation would, could not manifest.”

This is in perfect accordance with Eastern metaphysics. Zen, in particular, positions ultimate reality (sometimes referred to as “Mind” or “the Void”) as nothing, i.e., "No thing.” From my understanding of their philosophy, it is both nothing yet everything as infinite potential. The root of the word “Brahman” means “to grow.” That is its nature and why the universe we perceive exists as “Lila,” the play of God.

There is a Zen anecdote in which a Zen abbot encounters two students debating about a flag blowing in the wind. One student argues that the flag is in reality moving while the other maintains it is the wind. The master ends the discussion by stating definitively: “Mind moves.”

If one contemplates this, one will discover that the answer nicely resolves Zeno’s paradoxes. Purported mathematical answers to them employing calculus merely manipulates the unit and ignore the underlying existential issue.

questia.com/library/journal … doxes-miss

Pilgrim, thank you so much for your kind welcome.

My mental image of ultimate reality: Consciousness; Spirit; Brahman, is like a Rubik’s cube, constantly rotating its faces, exhibiting changing patterns, while all the while maintaining its structural integrity as one. So my answer to your question is yes.

It changes in accordance with the metaphorical algorithm termed “karma” (work): “So as you sow so will you reap.”

Human manifestations of Consciousnes came to believe that the material existence was real and forgot their true nature as eternal spirit after “eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Thus dualism (“Maya”, the illusion of separateness) was born and with it the existential anxiety that virtually defines our very existences. "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked.” (They came to fear death.)

I appreciate your quotation from Santayana, “the philosopher who denies there is a God and believes that Mary is His mother.” :smiley:

Dan … your comment concerning Santayana is even more interesting … it strikes a personal chord.

Apparently Santayana was a respectable intellectual … I certainly respect his decision to abandon the academic community … turning down a job offer at Harvard speaks volumes. Apparently he felt life in the academic community required the adornment of a '“straight jacket.”

Seems logical that Santayana was trying to tell us something … reflected in your comment.

While speculation is most often futile … sharing how he struck a chord with me may help.

My “watershed” moment involved Jesus … yet about two-three years after my Jesus experience I believe He sent me to His mother Mary for guidance … protection and so on.

Perhaps Santayana’s attitude towards “God” was a commentary on the “God” of the Western psyche??