Science for the awakened

[Nikolai1]

I understand precisely what your saying, but it makes no difference to me. You have admitted to volitionally surrendering your mind and that's all there is to it.

What I am talking about is the same surrender the materialist makes to the givens of objective reality.  When we view someting as a 'given', our attitude is one of surrender.

 

I talk about surrender to the heart.  I talk about seeing that who and what we love is not of our choosing.  It makes objective that which is most subjective.  I love one woman and one woman only...and I must surrender to that fact as if it were an Alp on the lanscape that was there aeons before we were born and which we all must accept .

 

The heart specifies.  It makes real, but it is real for us only,  When we adjust ourselves to our heart's reality we become very directed.  We become very powerful.  We achieve mastery over the only reality that is truly ours to master because our energies are not scattered by those shared objectives that are only partially true for us.

[Karl]

What I am talking about is the same surrender the materialist makes to the givens of objective reality.  When we view someting as a 'given', our attitude is one of surrender.

 

I talk about surrender to the heart.  I talk about seeing that who and what we love is not of our choosing.  It makes objective that which is most subjective.  I love one woman and one woman only...and I must surrender to that fact as if it were an Alp on the lanscape that was there aeons before we were born and which we all must accept .

 

The heart specifies.  It makes real, but it is real for us only,  When we adjust ourselves to our heart's reality we become very directed.  We become very powerful.  We achieve mastery over the only reality that is truly ours to master because our energies are not scattered by those shared objectives that are only partially true for us.

 

That may well be true for the materialist/rationalist/empiricist who also share your underlying view on the primacy of consciousness.

[ilumairen]

That may well be true for the materialist/rationalist/empiricist who also share your underlying view on the primacy of consciousness.

Ok Karl, so since you are so keen on categorizing others, what neat little box do you tuck yourself away in?

 

*****

 

PS I've never red (haha - you picking a 'color' for me) an Anne Rand (sp?) novel in my life, so your assumption was off, and just more of that thing you do again.

Edited December 18, 2015 by ilumairen

[Nikolai1]

That may well be true for the materialist/rationalist/empiricist who also share your underlying view on the primacy of consciousness.

Could you explain how a person can be a materialist, and view consciousness to be primary?

[Karl]

Could you explain how a person can be a materialist, and view consciousness to be primary?

 

That's a task. It's not explicit but implied as an extrapolation of the materialist viewpoint. Naturally they reject consciousness completely and by doing so are relegated to supporting a version of mysticism without deity. In effect they follow the intrincisist path but without the religious bent. In effect they wipe out self determination and spiritual consciousness, then substitute a material consciousness in place of the divine nature of religion. Hence they advocate the primacy of material [ consciousness].

 

That's as short as I can make it. In fact there is a current thread on this forum about humans as 'process'. Which is in effect materialism on approach. In that case man is simply a process of the planet like a white blood cell and the consciousness is in the planet. In other words it is the planet that provides the primacy of consciousness.

 

I'm an broadly an objectivist (in answer to Des), it's a philosophy that rejects both materialism and idealism explicitly. I don't say I'm completely objectivist because I continue to use reason in order to explore the ideas contained within it. In fact I have one or two additions/deletions. It certainly isn't fixed in stone but is a broad base from which to spring.

 

[Karl]

Ok Karl, so since you are so keen on categorizing others, what neat little box do you tuck yourself away in?

*****

PS I've never red (haha - you picking a 'color' for me) an Anne Rand (sp?) novel in my life, so your assumption was off, and just more of that thing you do again.

 

Well at least I'm keeping up the charm offensive Des and I'm consistent :-)

 

Broadly objectivist with the caveats in the post preceding this one.

 

I suggest Atlas Shrugged, or We the Living then ;-)

 

Funnily enough I was just thinking about Rands answer when asked if she was a philosopher or a novelist. Her reply was 'both'. It reminded me of the editor of my book who said that Dickens would always be more popular than Kant. Dickens allegedly incorporated a lot of political/social propaganda into his work to support a Fabian agenda. Rand does the same, but she is nowhere close to being as slick, or as beautifully written as Dickens. It can therefore be a touch wordy, turgid and lumpy as a novel and not as precise as a philosophical treaty. My wife enjoyed Atlas Shrugged and got a lot from it. Considering its roundly condemned and criticised negatively, it remains one of the best selling books of the 20ty century. Quite a feat for an average novelist.

[ilumairen]

Well at least I'm keeping up the charm offensive Des and I'm consistent :-)

 

Yes, you are.

 

Broadly objectivist with the caveats in the post preceding this one.

 

Thank you.

 

I suggest Atlas Shrugged, or We the Living then ;-)

 

While it is kind of you to suggest, in all honesty the odds of me picking up one of these novels is quite slim.

 

Funnily enough I was just thinking about Rands answer when asked if she was a philosopher or a novelist. Her reply was 'both'. It reminded me of the editor of my book who said that Dickens would always be more popular than Kant. Dickens allegedly incorporated a lot of political/social propaganda into his work to support a Fabian agenda. Rand does the same, but she is nowhere close to being as slick, or as beautifully written as Dickens. It can therefore be a touch wordy, turgid and lumpy as a novel and not as precise as a philosophical treaty. My wife enjoyed Atlas Shrugged and got a lot from it. Considering its roundly condemned and criticised negatively, it remains one of the best selling books of the 20ty century. Quite a feat for an average novelist.

 

Yes, clearly a 'no thanks' on the Rand. But since I have not delved much into philosophy in my life, that this seems to be your primary language, and that any continued dialogue will only be pertinent if we are speaking the same language you may point me towards this book of yours.

 

If you have read, or seen, Waiting for Godot, where would you place what you get out of it, and why?

[Karl]

Yes, you are.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

While it is kind of you to suggest, in all honesty the odds of me picking up one of these novels is quite slim.

 

 

 

Yes, clearly a 'no thanks' on the Rand. But since I have not delved much into philosophy in my life, that this seems to be your primary language, and that any continued dialogue will only be pertinent if we are speaking the same language you may point me towards this book of yours.

 

If you have read, or seen, Waiting for Godot, where would you place what you get out of it, and why?

Hence the wink ; I didn't think it would be something you would wish to read.

 

My book wouldn't help. It doesn't really represent my current thinking. Likely I will re-read it on day and have a good laugh, but everyone has to begin somewhere. I'm proud of the effort even though I now see it as severely flawed philosophically.

 

I saw WFG years ago, but nothing clicked at the time.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Karl

[ilumairen]

My book wouldn't help. It doesn't really represent my current thinking. Likely I will re-read it on day and have a good laugh, but everyone has to begin somewhere. I'm proud of the effort even though I now see it as severely flawed philosophically.

I saw WFG years ago, but nothing clicked at the time.

 

Ok, so in my language your book is representative of constructs you aquired which you now see as a distorted view. A 'filter' that you had which is no longer useful.

 

As for WFG, to me it is representative of how much of life is spent waiting for that 'something' that has been set up in the mind as the big meaningful something that will make sense of the very life that is slipping through our fingers as we wait.

 

I find it to be sad, funny, and poignant.

[Karl]

Ok, so in my language your book is representative of constructs you aquired which you now see as a distorted view. A 'filter' that you had which is no longer useful.

 

As for WFG, to me it is representative of how much of life is spent waiting for that 'something' that has been set up in the mind as the big meaningful something that will make sense of the very life that is slipping through our fingers as we wait.

 

I find it to be sad, funny, and poignant.

 

Ignorance more than anything else.

 

I certainly remember that feeling of waiting for something. My book contains elements big chunks of that struggle. I thought I had solved it by 'living in the moment' and all that it entails.

[ilumairen]

Ignorance more than anything else.

 

I certainly remember that feeling of waiting for something. My book contains elements big chunks of that struggle. I thought I had solved it by 'living in the moment' and all that it entails.

Yeah, me too. Now I'm back to adding words, but be more careful in the selection of said words. Now is still where the moment is, but it seems to be important to not get lost here either.

 

To be clear I encountered WFG almost two decades ago. I still like it though.

Edited December 18, 2015 by ilumairen

[Michael Sternbach]

It sometimes strikes me that NOW is all that I experience, I ever have and ever will. Everything else only happens in my mind.

 

Maybe we don't travel away from the past and forwards into the future, rather, the past leaves us and the future comes to us in our eternal NOW.

[ilumairen]

It sometimes strikes me that NOW is all that I experience, I ever have and ever will. Everything else only happens in my mind.

 

Maybe we don't travel away from the past and forwards into the future, rather, the past leaves us and the future comes to us in our eternal NOW.

 

Yeah.. but I threw too much out, for so long that I had a hard time putting 'my past' together in any meaningful way. And without that all I was able to do in the present was play out cycles of action and behavior over and over again.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Yeah.. but I threw too much out, for so long that I had a hard time putting 'my past' together in any meaningful way. And without that all I was able to do in the present was play out cycles of action and behavior over and over again.

 

Yes, it is crucial to our psychological wellbeing that we understand and integrate where we came from. Also having some future perspective is important - especially hopes.

[ilumairen]

Yes, it is crucial to our psychological wellbeing that we understand and integrate where we came from. Also having some future perspective is important - especially hopes.

 

Once upon a time I didn't like hope. I thought it was denial of this moment as 'enough'. I'm coming to like it a bit more these days.

[Michael Sternbach]

Once upon a time I didn't like hope. I thought it was denial of this moment as 'enough'. I'm coming to like it a bit more these days.

 

That's fine, as long as you can still hear the thunder. It's part of what makes us human.

[ilumairen]

That's fine, as long as you can still hear the thunder. It's part of what makes us human.

 

Yes, it is still only a bit after all.

[ilumairen]

Hey Karl?

 

The heart is still the center and focus for me - it's just tempered by reason.

[Karl]

Hey Karl?

 

The heart is still the center and focus for me - it's just tempered by reason.

 

I find feelings can be useful even if the cause isn't entirely clear at the time.

[Grim]

These terms "awake" and "awakened", I do not know what they are, I have run across people that have stated they are awake, that being such, I should give them more respect than i do for others, To treat them better than others, that they are above others that are not awake.  At that very moment they are without something, they are selfish, self centered and self rightous, they before others, the center of others and above others.  If this means to be "awake", I could not be that.  I find that people are not afraid to ask questions, but are afraid of the answers. One should not live in fear. but should be careful of the questions. Some questions can change your very existence. But with life and death, there are no absolutes only possibilities.

[Karl]

These terms "awake" and "awakened", I do not know what they are, I have run across people that have stated they are awake, that being such, I should give them more respect than i do for others, To treat them better than others, that they are above others that are not awake.  At that very moment they are without something, they are selfish, self centered and self rightous, they before others, the center of others and above others.  If this means to be "awake", I could not be that.  I find that people are not afraid to ask questions, but are afraid of the answers. One should not live in fear. but should be careful of the questions. Some questions can change your very existence. But with life and death, there are no absolutes only possibilities.

 

Life and death are absolutes and anything that is not a product of mans mind is an absolute. You must abide by absolutes or perish. You want to be awakened ? -awake to absolutes, to reality, by attaining the highest level of rationality than you are capable of attaining. Hold to your virtues and cling to reason like a man lashed to the mast in a titanic storm. Know what is and what isn't. Only then will you know the same in others and accord them your respect and attain theirs.

[Grim]

Life and death are absolutes and anything that is not a product of mans mind is an absolute. You must abide by absolutes or perish. You want to be awakened ? -awake to absolutes, to reality, by attaining the highest level of rationality than you are capable of attaining. Hold to your virtues and cling to reason like a man lashed to the mast in a titanic storm. Know what is and what isn't. Only then will you know the same in others and accord them your respect and attain theirs.

If life and death are absolutes to you then you would be full of attachments,regrets and fears. So if they really are absolutes then you should be able to define Life as it pertains to all life, this question is a without self question. And remember by defining life you will be defining everything, everyone and even that which is within nothing. If you do this, I will give you mine and tell you from where it came

[Karl]

If life and death are absolutes to you then you would be full of attachments,regrets and fears. So if they really are absolutes then you should be able to define Life as it pertains to all life, this question is a without self question. And remember by defining life you will be defining everything, everyone and even that which is within nothing. If you do this, I will give you mine and tell you from where it came

Excellent question.

 

My definition would be: Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action.

The flip side of life is death. Only living things can become non-existent leaving behind a compositional residue of material.

 

 

Indeed I enjoy attachments to values that I have earned fairly and respect the emotion fear for its use in promoting my continuing survival to enjoy life. Regrets ? Not so much. To an extent irrelevant as any regret I have is that I didn't do something sooner, not that I didn't do it, or that I did. As I couldn't possibly have done something sooner than I did it, there is no sadness/guilt/remorse.

 

I enjoyed that question by the way, so thank you for it. It made me dig and create a definition which hadn't existed previously for me, except as a vague fog. It seems amazing that I didn't have one.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Karl

[Grim]

Your answer is with self, you defined it per your perception. The question was the definition of life (generalized), without self means to go beyond ones self. If I asked you What is the meaning of life? your answer would have to be the same (absolute). As I promised I will give you my definition and from where (even though I know you may not understand, but that's fine):

 

 

To define life:       Life is that which gives Life

 

Not all things within existence is Life, If you open your eye's and look around, you can see Life, only when you become without self can you feel life, you can feel what others do to each other. When it deals with death, I came soul to soul with it, even after 21 yrs, 1 month and 17 days, I still retain the silence. One would say, what I believed in (in life) would influence my experience within death, yet before I was a Methodist so therefore now if what you said about Life and Death being absolutes, I would still be a Methodist, but I am not, I have yet to have anyone say what I am. 

[Karl]

Your answer is with self, you defined it per your perception. The question was the definition of life (generalized), without self means to go beyond ones self. If I asked you What is the meaning of life? your answer would have to be the same (absolute). As I promised I will give you my definition and from where (even though I know you may not understand, but that's fine):

 

 

To define life:       Life is that which gives Life

 

Not all things within existence is Life, If you open your eye's and look around, you can see Life, only when you become without self can you feel life, you can feel what others do to each other. When it deals with death, I came soul to soul with it, even after 21 yrs, 1 month and 17 days, I still retain the silence. One would say, what I believed in (in life) would influence my experience within death, yet before I was a Methodist so therefore now if what you said about Life and Death being absolutes, I would still be a Methodist, but I am not, I have yet to have anyone say what I am. 

 

There are lots of people here who will agree with you, I'm not one of them. You are using a stolen concept self/consciousness/identity obliquely as a false premise. Therefore your conclusion is invalid. I've seen this over and over again, it's pointless trying to explain it further, I have long since discovered the frustration of attempting to do so.