Why are we afraid to die if it's inevitable?

[Marblehead]

Maybe this explains why the same people who laugh at gypsy fortune tellers continue to put their trust and hopes in economists. 

 

Hehehe.  I don't put much trust in economics either.  I am very, very reserved at offering trust.

[Marblehead]

Precisely. Existence holds primacy over consciousness.

 

Descartes didn't quite mean it to mean the opposite, but his philosophy created the idea that a demon was present which led to our view and thence only God-of abiding purity could .... yada yada.

 

I've said before that you are a switcher, or rather you have mentally cobbled together both philosophic statements like a person who wants his cake and eat it. :-) you want the Dao and your materialist stance, both, but not integrated. It's the equivalent of being an agnostic atheist. You are like one of those Yoghurts that have the flavouring in a seperate carton. Instead of mixing them in the pot, you keep them seperate as you eat. ;-)

 

There is nothing you said there I would care to argue with.  And I have already told you I love my ego.

 

 

Edit to add:  Well, how about "Spiritual Atheist"?

Edited July 4, 2016 by Marblehead

[C T]

Precisely. Existence holds primacy over consciousness.

 

 

Existence is the seen, the phenomenological world as we know it. 

Consciousness lies within the domain of potential, and that which brings existence into being. 

Potential is the seat of creativity, therefore it is more fundamental than existence. 

 

Existence antecedent to consciousness is a claim only the brave would dare consider. 

[Marblehead]

Why was I not surprised by the content of your last post C T? 

[Karl]

There is nothing you said there I would care to argue with.  And I have already told you I love my ego.

 

 

Edit to add:  Well, how about "Spiritual Atheist"?

No, not that. That's probably a good description for me, but you are a mystic of both schools. You are a spiritual/muscle mystic that doesn't fully accept either. It's a very strange kind of thing because you aren't doing what others sometimes do, which is to go full spiritual mystic then kind of veer into muscle mysticism in order to try and head of logical rebuttal. You are happy in both camps simultaneously, but you integrate neither. I think one day you will figure out that you are just a reluctant objectivist and your reluctance is just part of you liking to be different. :-) you seem to thrive on it anyway, so good on you.

[Karl]

Existence is the seen, the phenomenological world as we know it. 

Consciousness lies within the domain of potential, and that which brings existence into being. 

Potential is the seat of creativity, therefore it is more fundamental than existence. 

 

Existence antecedent to consciousness is a claim only the brave would dare consider.

 

I assure you I'm not brave :-) it's simple for me to see that consciousness must be conscious of some-thing. You haven't had all these perceptions poured into your head and then somehow discover them like hidden memories. Therefore it's clear that existence exists prior to consciousness in order for consciousness to be conscious of it. As consciousness has an identity, it is also existent and there you are ;-)

[C T]

I assure you I'm not brave :-) it's simple for me to see that consciousness must be conscious of some-thing. You haven't had all these perceptions poured into your head and then somehow discover them like hidden memories. Therefore it's clear that existence exists prior to consciousness in order for consciousness to be conscious of it. As consciousness has an identity, it is also existent and there you are ;-)

How about the consideration that existence exists in tandem with consciousness, or is that out of the question? 

 

It would be interesting to hear further how you came to posit that consciousness possess identity because Peter Russell seems to logically present the argument that identity evolves from consciousness and not otherwise,   and i concur with his position. 

 

Thank you for the input!  Its great to be able to exchange views without any knicker-knotting  

[Karl]

How about the consideration that existence exists in tandem with consciousness, or is that out of the question? 

 

It would be interesting to hear further how you came to posit that consciousness possess identity because Peter Russell seems to logically present the argument that identity evolves from consciousness and not otherwise,   and i concur with his position. 

 

Thank you for the input!  Its great to be able to exchange views without any knicker-knotting  

Yes, civilised discourse :-)

 

Its out of the question as far as objectivism is concerned. I used to think that way and wrote my book on that premise so I'm intimate with that ideology.

 

Consciousness has identity ONLY if existence has primacy. Consciousness IS something, so it has identity in that sense. If consciousness has primacy, then clearly it has no identity. I'm not suggesting that whatever consciousness is, that it has a specific local identity CT / Karl / MH / Dog. Only that it is some-thing, not no-thing.

[Marblehead]

Yes, we have a very nice discussion going on here even though it is off topic from the thread opening post.

 

It is always fun talking about consciousness because it is so hard to define.

 

Consciousness is a form of energy.  Is all energy conscious?  I doubt it.  It is conscious in our brain though.

[Karl]

Yes, we have a very nice discussion going on here even though it is off topic from the thread opening post.

 

It is always fun talking about consciousness because it is so hard to define.

 

Consciousness is a form of energy.  Is all energy conscious?  I doubt it.  It is conscious in our brain though.

Yes consciousness is axiomatic. One of the things that I probably didn't say, as consciousness is the faculty to perceive existence, but is not defined beyond that, so existence does not imply a physical world exists.

[Marblehead]

... does not imply a physical world exists.

I will just assume one does.

[Karl]

I will just assume one does.

The materialist strikes again ;-)

[Tatsumaru]

Right, as you are versed in philosophy that makes it much easier.

 

'I think therefore I am' is bull shit. Let's change it around 'I am therefore I think'.

 

Descartes was looking to do the same thing as all modern philosophers. What sticks in their craw is that consciousness has identity. Descartes, Kant and Hegel are responsible for the greatest lie mankind has been saddled with.

 

So, now we change it all around. We dump the mind body dichotomy because it never existed. We move existence into primacy in the same way we move the sun to the centre of the solar system and the earth into orbit around it. Existence has primacy over consciousness.

 

Consciousness is permanent as long as the entity is alive and conscious. Consciousness does not exist in a vaccum, it does not create existence. Consciousness must be conscious of some-thing.

 

Existence is identity; consciousness is identification.

 

Now with objectivism we have integrated man. Body and soul if you like. Objectivism neither denies spirit nor matter. Instead it denies the separation within a living entity and mysticism which surrounds it.

 

On one side there are the spiritual Mystics that believe knowledge is only possible by some form of divine revelation, or transference. Then the muscle Mystics that do not believe knowledge is possible at all. Mystics flip flop from one to the other in order to keep the game going on. They are in both camps at one time or another.

 

The spirit exists in the total as semblance of the parts. You can't go looking for it in the atom or a toe nail. Existence is axiomatic as is consciousness and identity.

 

Test it out. I know you won't take my word for it and you definitely should not. It's easy to see this is true by simple intro and extrospection. Cast 'feeling' out and look at what you can objectively prove. Once you start down the path of being unable to prove anything its pointless to continue any kind of conversation. You disqualify yourself from any argument because every argument requires proof. All proof must ultimately rest of something metaphysical and perceived.

 

The senses are not deceivers, they are infallible perceivers. We do the perception automatically, but the conceptual we must do consciously. The wool is a given, but the garment we knit is not. We need rules, a pattern to knit the garment correctly or we end up with a big ball of knotted, nothingness.

 

No one knew what Buddah actually stated because he never wrote anything down.

Correct - I am, therefore I think. At least you realize you are not the thoughts. The opposite would suggest that one can rise from nothing and set into nothing, even though nothing doesn't exist. Modern western philosophy is certainly a problem, as Descartes never realized that thought was just another sense.

 

True consciousness is conscious of true things, false consciousness if conscious of false things. True consciousness it truly existent, false consciousness is falsely existent. This is why you are not the 6th consciousness of thought, because it's not true. It's only an abstraction designed to glue thoughts together and create a sense for continuity that is required for survival in the physical world. But you are not that as you yourself asserted. Identification is not a problem, but identification with illusions is were suffering arises from. I have stated multiple times that absolute truth is inaccessible for the 6 senses, but that doesn't mean it's inexpressible. Please remember - we are not saying what is true here, we are saying what isn't true, so we can surrender the illusion bit by bit. The lower 6 senses are in the past, because everything you register as input is after the fact, thus the lower 6 senses never perceive the present, if you understand this you will understand why they are deceivers.

 

 

 

 

Are you saying that you are the body or the mind? 

 

Both and so much more.

 

The body is just accumulation of data. You see a banana on the table - if you say this is me, you are crazy, but if you eat the banana, 2 hours later it adds to the body. Now do you think it's you? Weren't you there before? 

 

Yes, the banana has become a part of me.  Note:  a part of me, not me.  I was prior to eating the banana and I still am after eating the banana.  But I changed a little bit because the banana is now a part of me.

What about the mind? You go to school, you study, you get a diploma. Now you say I am x the biologist with a perfect diploma. Are you the words in the text book  or the diploma, weren't you there before the diploma?

 

That's about labels.  The labels are not the person.

 

So, do you believe that you are what you accumulate? Then who accumulates it?

 

Trick question.  Not fair.  "I" was born.  What I was at birth is an accumulation of what my mother's body provided for me.  I have been gaining and losing every since that first day.  Constant change.  No permanence.  But it is still "me" in all my various and wonderful forms.

Say you are the body, but the body is a dissipative system without a single absolute particle. Where is 'you' in that process?

 

As I said, not just the body but so much more.  Difficult to define because it is constantly changing. 

If you cut one finger off , will you be lost? If you cut off all your limbs, will you be lost? Plenty of people without limbs - same personality. So are you the brain then? People tend to insist that they are the brain even though there is no trace of self there either. Why would one prefer to believe that they are the brain is beyond me. Just another organ in the body, just a piece of meat that gets too much attention.

 

Again, constantly changing.  One day a man with ten fingers and the next day a man with nine fingers.  But complete both before and after.

 

The rest is a bourgeois low-level zen joke: That things somehow only temporary exist, so don't get attached to them and that's the greatest liberation...

 

But if you buy a vacuum cleaner with no attachments you have bought something useless.

 

PS  I don't need to be liberated.  I'm not imprisoned.

 

If you are true to that tradition just kill yourself for complete liberation. Why wait?

 

Ha!  We Taoists are not allowed to kill our self.  We leave that in the hands of Tao.

 

It's not difficult to define, you just don't know what it is. Consider this - if you are your mother's information, and your mother is her mother's information and so on, where do "You" start in all this? It's not a trick question. To say that the banana is part of you, but isn't you is to say that the elements that constitute you are not you. Thus you believe that you are a combination of elements, but you are not in any of those elements which means that somehow you arise from not you which is conceptually wrong.

Maybe you, like scientists, believe that you are a system that is the sum of it's components, but cannot be reduced to its components, because the components outside of the system would behave differently. This is why I gave you the example about removing fingers and hands and limbs, because that dissipative system that the body appears to be, isn't you.

 

Ha!  We Taoists are not allowed to kill our self.  We leave that in the hands of Tao.

 

Sounds like a Christian who believes he/she is a Taoist.

 

I think, therefore I am suggests that there are consequences to choices we make in life, and in that realisation some would become more open and responsible, or at least, be vulnerable to the possibility of seeking to adapt to changes.

 

I am, therefore i think seems but a mental stance subsumed within a belief of total independence, in control, and therefore all will be well. Its often a tricky assumption that could breed arrogance and denial. Such a view and its offshoots are based off Stoicism and related ideologies which are no better or worse than other ideologies. From a contemporary perspective, it has been noted that this is an archaic view which is often clung to determinedly by those who seek to negate the role of emotional responses, or even to ignore emotions as anything but sissified obstacles, and that only weaklings demonstrate them uncontrollably. 

 

Imo, its useless to argue that one is more appropriate than the other since individuals are conditioned from a young age to which direction they will likely bend. There is nothing challenging in keeping to either view. It seems the cause for spiritual quests to arise, therefore, is the longing in a person to go beyond philosophies and views that are merely operating within the bounds of intellect and logic. If one so choose adamantly that life should remain solely within these bounds, then the debates for transcendence and conversion of mundane attitudes to their spiritual equivalent becomes moot. 

I am, therefore I think is the core of Buddhism and Taoism. It's simply the realization that awareness doesn't arise from matter. You are completely independent of thought and feelings. This is nothing but a product of thought.

 

 

It boils down to the primacy of existence or consciousness and that's all. I am therefore I think is not a stoic view, it's not infact an objectivist claim either, but how I look at it. I stand to be corrected by other objectivists.

 

There is no claim to emotions being a weakness or anything else you claim except for independence of thought. Man has the nature which might be thought of as a kind of prime mover within the envelope of 'first obey nature, then adapt nature'. Man is a creative force in the universe unlike, for instance, a comet that obeys only the nature of physics and cannot change its course by will. We cannot create out of nothing, but we can change arrangements of things into new arrangements and that is creativity in action.

 

There is nothing beyond these bounds. Neither is it true that one is permanently conditioned. I was very much in the primacy of consciousness camp before I grasped the logical problem with that view. Spirituality is within us and our actions are without. This leads to a tremendous expansion of consciousness-we can evolve by our own efforts to evolve and our only tool for doing so is our minds.

It's hard to believe that a person who is so full of beliefs, actually realized "I am, therefore I think".

 

 

There is nothing you said there I would care to argue with.  And I have already told you I love my ego.

 

 

Edit to add:  Well, how about "Spiritual Atheist"?

Finally! I love my ego = I don't want to wake up. To enjoy separation is to enjoy the dream.

There is no such thing as spiritual atheist - an atheist is a belief in no god, spirituality is belief free.

Plus you seem to believe that Tao is God which contradicts your other belief. Lol!

 

Hehehe.  I don't put much trust in economics either.  I am very, very reserved at offering trust.

You certainly trust your senses.

 

Existence is the seen, the phenomenological world as we know it. 

Consciousness lies within the domain of potential, and that which brings existence into being. 

Potential is the seat of creativity, therefore it is more fundamental than existence. 

 

Existence antecedent to consciousness is a claim only the brave would dare consider. 

Nagarjuna is disappointed.

 

 

I assure you I'm not brave :-) it's simple for me to see that consciousness must be conscious of some-thing. You haven't had all these perceptions poured into your head and then somehow discover them like hidden memories. Therefore it's clear that existence exists prior to consciousness in order for consciousness to be conscious of it. As consciousness has an identity, it is also existent and there you are ;-)

Yes! Yes! The only part you are missing is that true consciousness is conscious of true existence and false consciousness is conscious of false existence (illusions).

 

 

How about the consideration that existence exists in tandem with consciousness, or is that out of the question? 

 

It would be interesting to hear further how you came to posit that consciousness possess identity because Peter Russell seems to logically present the argument that identity evolves from consciousness and not otherwise,   and i concur with his position. 

 

Thank you for the input!  Its great to be able to exchange views without any knicker-knotting  

 

 

Yes, we have a very nice discussion going on here even though it is off topic from the thread opening post.

 

It is always fun talking about consciousness because it is so hard to define.

 

Consciousness is a form of energy.  Is all energy conscious?  I doubt it.  It is conscious in our brain though.

Is all consciousness energy? What about the still consciousness? Energy is movement, so what about stillness? Think about it

[Tatsumaru]

I will just assume one does.

That's how religion perpetuates itself.

[Marblehead]

That's how religion perpetuates itself.

 

Please don't make that association with me.

 

As I mentioned about my chair.  I can rationalize all by myself.  I don't need any religion to tell me how to think.

 

And no, I am not someone else's dream.  I mean, really, who could imagine me?  Too complex. 

[Marblehead]

 

It's not difficult to define, you just don't know what it is. Consider this - if you are your mother's information, and your mother is her mother's information and so on, where do "You" start in all this? It's not a trick question. To say that the banana is part of you, but isn't you is to say that the elements that constitute you are not you. Thus you believe that you are a combination of elements, but you are not in any of those elements which means that somehow you arise from not you which is conceptually wrong.

 

You have misrepresented what I said.  The banana becomes a part of me.  I do not become a banana.  And for sure I did not become my mother's daughter.  I am a product of, not a replica of.

Maybe you, like scientists, believe that you are a system that is the sum of it's components, but cannot be reduced to its components, because the components outside of the system would behave differently. This is why I gave you the example about removing fingers and hands and limbs, because that dissipative system that the body appears to be, isn't you.

 

Maybe, but I doubt it.  Perhaps I accept stimulate the way my body is designed to perceive the universe.  I don't take anything away and I don't add anything to it.  What you see is what you get.  If I have only nine fingers that all it means, that I have only nine fingers.  Now, if I didn't have a head there wouldn't be any me.

Edited July 4, 2016 by Marblehead

[Karl]

 

It's not difficult to define, you just don't know what it is. Consider this - if you are your mother's information, and your mother is her mother's information and so on, where do "You" start in all this? It's not a trick question. To say that the banana is part of you, but isn't you is to say that the elements that constitute you are not you. Thus you believe that you are a combination of elements, but you are not in any of those elements which means that somehow you arise from not you which is conceptually wrong.

 

You have misrepresented what I said.  The banana becomes a part of me.  I do not become a banana.  And for sure I did not become my mother's daughter.  I am a product of, not a replica of.

Maybe you, like scientists, believe that you are a system that is the sum of it's components, but cannot be reduced to its components, because the components outside of the system would behave differently. This is why I gave you the example about removing fingers and hands and limbs, because that dissipative system that the body appears to be, isn't you.

 

Maybe, but I doubt it.  Perhaps I accept stimulate the way my body is designed to perceive the universe.  I don't take anything away and I don't add anything to it.  What you see is what you get.  If I have only nine fingers that all it means, that I have only nine fingers.  Now, if I didn't have a head there wouldn't be any me.

 

Only 9 fingers :-/ how many are we supposed to have ?

[Marblehead]

Finally! I love my ego = I don't want to wake up.

 

Well, you love yours too.  That is very obvious.

 

To enjoy separation is to enjoy the dream.

 

You lost me with that one.

There is no such thing as spiritual atheist - an atheist is a belief in no god, spirituality is belief free.

 

Of course there is.  I just told you that I am one.  And you just associated spirituality with religion and that is the biggest mistake of all.

Plus you seem to believe that Tao is God which contradicts your other belief. Lol!

 

You have no idea how I view Tao.  And just to set your understanding straight, I use Tao as a verb, not a noun.  The is no thing "Tao".  Therefore there is no contradiction.

 

You have reached the point where you are trying to attack me instead of what I am saying.  That's not a good manner of discussion.

[Marblehead]

You certainly trust your senses.

 

 

At least I have some.

[Marblehead]

Is all consciousness energy?

 

Yes.

 

What about the still consciousness?

 

Still yes.

 

Energy is movement, so what about stillness?

 

Energy without a load on it.  There is perfect balance and no energy flow is detected.  But the energy is still there.

 

Think about it

 

I did.

[Marblehead]

Only 9 fingers :-/ how many are we supposed to have ?

 

The last time I checked Wikipedia the average was thirteen.

 

Did you know that centipedes have two penises?

[Karl]

The last time I checked Wikipedia the average was thirteen.

 

Did you know that centipedes have two penises?

I've always had two penises, the trouble I now have is digit envy.

[Marblehead]

My problem is that mine has become monodirectional.  It only hangs down.

[Karl]

My problem is that mine has become monodirectional.  It only hangs down.

At least it's still got all its own teeth.

[Marblehead]

At least it's still got all its own teeth.

 

And I don't have to wear a diaper yet.