Guest guest Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 Pete wrote: In a message dated 3/2/05 6:43:21 AM, ombhurbhuva@e... writes: > Hi Pete, > Yajnavalkaya is asked when all the > aids to navigation that exist for a man > viz. sun, moon, light, fire, speech are > all gone out or are in abeyance; what is > it that exists for a light for a man or > what is it that allows him to be conscious > inwardly in dreams. > > " We see also that the purpose of a light > is served in dreams, as, for instance, > meeting and parting from friends, and > going to other places etc; and we awake > from deep sleep with the remembrance that > we slept happily and knew nothing. > Therefore there exists some extraneous > light. " (from Shankara's Commentary on > Brh.Up.: IV.iii.6) > > My C.O.D. has a defn. of 'oxymoron' as > (rhet) Figure of sppech with pointed > conjunction of seeming contradictories > (e.g. faith unfaithful kept his falsely > true) > > The point is that by themselves, in their > root meaning, the words that are brought > into conjunction are opposed in meaning. > However once united they have a new > meaning and intelligibility and do not fly > from each other. eg. Wordsworth's truant > schoolboys - and as they run they look > behind and snatch a fearful joy. > > The opposition in their root meaning that > must exist in the elements of the oxymoron > unfortunately disqualifies some of > Sarloji's top 50. > > airline food, government organisation, > sanitary landfill, legally drunk, British > fashion, business ethics, military > intelligence, New York culture, software > documentation, child proof, Christian > Scientist, Temporary Tax increase, > political science, religious tolerance, > microsoft works. > > Pete you yourself stand in doubtful > certainty on the matter of consciousness. > I would urge you to look in on the variety > of opinion amongst the White Coats on a > list called jcs-online. It's > associated with the Journal of > Consciousness Studies which I don't take > but you will be aware of what they are at. > Does a bacterium represents its world? > What's the difference between its > representation of its world and that of a > thermostat. Is consciousness an > epiphenomenon and so on, the binding > problem, hard boiled eggs and chicory > salad. > > Michael > > > Michael. I think your posts shows you are a believer out to proselytize. what are you trying to sell, Michael, your borrowed ideas, or your apperception? Is the existence of unconscious consciousness your apperception? Everyone is offering all this sites, as if they encapsulated the truth. Sites are only the opinions of others. Why would I accept the opinion of another, even a jnani, about my own consciousness, of which no one can have a better view than me. And even if you tell yours is the seven wonder of the world, and much superior to mine, and able to know itself even when unconscious (which is the summit of absurdity) what good will that do for me. I'm stock with mine. And not get me wrong, I'm quite happy with mine, but I also know is perishable. And that the ground of being if given a name, should not be called consciousness. Pete *************************** Hi Pete, My espousal of unconscious consciousness according to you is no more that a piece of rhetoric on your part. You pass that section. What I am talking about which is generally perfectly clear to people with a nodding acquaintance with vedanta is the existence of consciousness where you would least expect to find it. The existence of such consciousness as the knowledge that we were asleep and did not dream is arrived at not through inference but through a direct intuition. It is a philosophical argument. Give up the idea that people adopt views soley for reasons of proslytism or comfort. Look at the lives of the saints, it's simply fatuous to suppose that they persued comfort. That's a classic sneer of the unbeliever and a cliche. In this list you should leave it out, it strikes a jarring note. The materialist monist argument which you seem to hold is a profoundly flawed one. To simply say that it must be so because really all there is is matter is not a self-evident axiom if you think it is. Hand waving won't do, let's have arguments. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 2/26/05 11:50:17 PM, kipalmazy writes: > > > > What a stink! > > > > > > K: >Then we could equally state (and it would sound absurd) heat > > >is " immortal " , > > > P: Using the word immortal regarding heat would be absurd, unless > we use it poetically. Heat as a possibility is, nevertheless, > indistructible, > and so is consciousness whether you like it or not. Dear Pete, Maybe, it is much Simpler than that. In explaining matter and matter world, ...scientists have found two core ingredients – Space and Energy. Both immortal and indestructible. Both eternal ... You can transform the energy but can NOT really destroy it. Not just from one type of energy into ...another but also from the Matter to Energy and vice Versa. Only the form changes, ...Not its Core reality. ....and, to even to say, when the core, base, energy started is absurd and its real end inconceivable based on the Current Theory. As far as, ...the Space is concerned. To even think of its destruction is difficult. ....because, what is it – Nothing ! How can you create or destroy ...Nothing ? Yet, it is supposed to be about hundred percent of all matter as well as the entire Universe. Energy combining with this Nothing is said to create it all. Now, we might say that the Consciousness is the third basic ingredient. As eternal, immortal and indestructible like the other too ... Yet, can combine with the other two in many configurations, as well as can change the form and transform from one form ...into Another. Or, maybe, what many people believed as Consciousness being the base and source of energy and ... " NOTHING " being the source of Consciousness is True. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 Pedsie2 wrote: > > In a message dated 3/2/05 6:43:21 AM, ombhurbhuva writes: > > > >>Hi Pete, >> Yajnavalkaya is asked when all the >>aids to navigation that exist for a man >>viz. sun, moon, light, fire, speech are >>all gone out or are in abeyance; what is >>it that exists for a light for a man or >>what is it that allows him to be conscious >>inwardly in dreams. >> >> " We see also that the purpose of a light >>is served in dreams, as, for instance, >>meeting and parting from friends, and >>going to other places etc; and we awake >>from deep sleep with the remembrance that >>we slept happily and knew nothing. >>Therefore there exists some extraneous >>light. " (from Shankara's Commentary on >>Brh.Up.: IV.iii.6) >> >>My C.O.D. has a defn. of 'oxymoron' as >>(rhet) Figure of sppech with pointed >>conjunction of seeming contradictories >>(e.g. faith unfaithful kept his falsely >>true) >> >>The point is that by themselves, in their >>root meaning, the words that are brought >>into conjunction are opposed in meaning. >>However once united they have a new >>meaning and intelligibility and do not fly >>from each other. eg. Wordsworth's truant >>schoolboys - and as they run they look >>behind and snatch a fearful joy. >> >>The opposition in their root meaning that >>must exist in the elements of the oxymoron >>unfortunately disqualifies some of >>Sarloji's top 50. >> >>airline food, government organisation, >>sanitary landfill, legally drunk, British >>fashion, business ethics, military >>intelligence, New York culture, software >>documentation, child proof, Christian >>Scientist, Temporary Tax increase, >>political science, religious tolerance, >>microsoft works. >> >>Pete you yourself stand in doubtful >>certainty on the matter of consciousness. >>I would urge you to look in on the variety >>of opinion amongst the White Coats on a >> list called jcs-online. It's >>associated with the Journal of >>Consciousness Studies which I don't take >>but you will be aware of what they are at. >>Does a bacterium represents its world? >>What's the difference between its >>representation of its world and that of a >>thermostat. Is consciousness an >>epiphenomenon and so on, the binding >>problem, hard boiled eggs and chicory >>salad. >> >>Michael >> >> >> > > > Michael. > I think your posts shows you are > a believer out to proselytize. > what are you trying to sell, Michael, > your borrowed ideas, or your apperception? > > Is the existence of unconscious consciousness > your apperception? Everyone is offering all this > sites, as if they encapsulated the truth. Sites > are only the opinions of others. Why would > I accept the opinion of another, even > a jnani, about my own consciousness, of > which no one can have a better view than me. > And even if you tell yours is the seven wonder > of the world, and much superior to mine, and able > to know itself even when unconscious (which > is the summit of absurdity) what good will that > do for me. I'm stock with mine. And not get me wrong, > I'm quite happy with mine, but I also know is > perishable. And that the ground of being if given > a name, should not be called consciousness. > > Pete Is belief necessary for living? Is it necessary to have or maintain a " state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some some person or thing, " some who or what, in order to live daily? Is it necessary to to have a " conviction of the truth of some statement of the reality of some being or phenomenon " to be active in the world? As defined, belief requires a conceptual object, a who or a what; a separate fragment, dependent, abstraction, component, etc. As is well known, conceptual objects are " real " in themselves as created appearances in written words or speech or some other medium of expression and appearing as a fragment ( " a torn piece of paper " ), a dependent ( " seat " [of a chair]), abstraction (a " mammalian werewolf fish spider " ), component ( " awareness " ), etc. These created objects(s) can be used and experienced in imagination so one can speak, write, communicate, use, believe etc., in a " mammalian werewolf fish spider " as a conceptual object without having the experience of such an imagined " being " or " what " or finding some visible appearance or instance to such an imagined creature. Such creatures as the American " Bigfoot, " (vs Yeti) continue in the imagination of people even though the hoax was exposed. When such conceptual objects are made as representations or stand ins they point to " something inexpressible " and is unlike the conceptual composite a " mammalian werewolf fish spider, " which points to itself. Even so, whatever is pointed to is not equivalent in any way to the conceptual object. It is an error to confuse a " picture of ice cream " or the word " ice cream " with what that may point to which is indescribable. Is ice cream indescribable? Yes it it is. If one is willing to attempt to describe it fully and completely in all that it is as it is using all available knowledge and language, eternity would not be enough time to do so. So we simple say ice cream and that is enough to communicate the " indescribable what. " So when we discuss brain and consciousness, we are discussing conceptual objects. They are conceptual components of other concepts, whatever they may be. Also, consciousness, however defined, cannot exist without brain and brain cannot exist without consciousness. They arise together and if one is not present the other cannot be. Pete is making this point by positing the brain as the source of consciousness. In a conceptual universe of matter alone and containing both brain and consciousness, waking life, sleep, and death, it is clearly demonstrated in neuroscience and experienced in many different ways by Pete and others that consciousness of various kinds is altered and/or absent when there is a dysfunction or absence of brain function as found in all sorts of brain trauma, neuroanatomic centered diseases, neurochemical brain imbalances and dysfunctions, drug and medication effects, unconsciousness due to trauma, anesthesia, brain death while the body is in a vegetative state kept alive through machinery, etc. Under such conditions, consciousness is altered and cannot be controlled, the person is becomes unaware and dislocated and disoriented and consciousness fades in to out to seemingly non-existent as brain function is altered in various ways or means with a complete disappearance on death. In this case brain determines and trumps consciousness, which is a very sophisticated by product of brain function that accomplishes amazing feats. Therefore all notions of conscious, awareness, self, Self, God and so on are eliminated as independent entities or existences separated from brain and brain function. These are beliefs, nothing more. Michael makes his point, based on the Upanishads and Sankara's commentary and in a conceptual universe that is neither matter nor spirit (taking Spinoza's view). He states that consciousness exists at all times, waking, sleeping, and dreaming. He also posits that consciousness is not an isolatable entity, that one cannot take a modality of consciousness as concept and use such a modality as the means to demonstrate in brain dysfunction that consciousness in total is removed or severely reduced. Also, consciousness is subject and not a conceptual object for treatment in such discussions. Furthermore, how can brain exist without consciousness? How could brain as concept or as insentient matter give rise to consciousness, which notices, creates, and manipulates brain and its functions in concept? Not receiving definitive answers to these questions, consciousness trumps brain. Brain and brain function and dysfunction as the source and determinant of consciousness are illusory beliefs and nothing more. The finer details of these positions have not been reached due to........ It can be said that there is nothing more to these positions than conceptual objects formed and created and posited. Pete may be using the brain>consciousness for dismantling beliefs in consciousness, Self, Absolute consciousness, Absolute intelligence and the whole shebang tied to Advaita Vedanta's Absolute Monism as found in its scriptures and adherents. He may believe what he says. I do not know. He can speak on it. Michael has posited his position perhaps based on the explanatory gap in Pete's brain>consciousness position. There are no answers to his questions. Mike may believe in Sankara, the teachings found in the Upanishads and other Advaita Vedantic teachings and wishes to demonstrate to Pete the illogic and unsubstantiated views he holds. I do not know. He can speak on it. One can posit a conceptual universe that unites these positions in a view words. ac. is attempting to do this. It does not matter ultimately and such communicating and sharing and debating these universes can serve to show that conceptual universes and beliefs in them are unnecessary for living and to unseat hidden beliefs or attachments to them, since beliefs ultimately serve no useful purpose in life. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 Nisargadatta , Insight <insight@s...> wrote: > > > >>What method or practice of inquiry do you use to come to your conclusions? You speak with certainty. Is it dogma or realization? Do share the method so that others can verify. G: That's a good question. What method or practice of inquiry does everyone use to come to their conclusions? How does it 'happen' for everyone on the board. How does everyone arrive at their ideas and conclusions. I'm just curious too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.