The conversion of the Roman spirit (cont.)

Guest

Saint Paul the Apostle

Previously:

Quote:

Where truth is sufficient, there is no need for "holy lies". In relation to this one would do well to consider Paul's monster lie. Paul, with style and cunning befitting a Saint, carved in stone the words 'TRUTH IS NEVER SUFFICIENT'. Subsequently, all kinds of "holy lies" came to be seen by the spirit as necessary- one was in need of them at all times. Everything veracious was henceforth known as poison, evil- and it's avatar, the man of knowledge, was condemned. There is little else as infernal for us thinkers.

EDIT: [Something about "unsleep"... geek

]

Subject: Re: The conversion of the Roman spirit (cont.) Thu May 28, 2009 7:33 pm

This text is familiar... It has been a long time but I have read it before somewhere... Will you remind me???

Suffice to say St Paul was the nemesis of my youth.

Essentially, still is.

Last edited by Наdji on Thu May 28, 2009 8:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

"Nietzsche" writes in Thus Spoke Z, Blessed are the sleepy, for they shall soon drop off. I took this for sarcastic. Wouldn't wakefulness, ... In Fanny och Alexander, the line, "I am horribly awake", though said in distress, it meant: clear seeing. This is a virtue for philosophers? This reminds me of Rip Van Winkle for some reason. Sleep deprivation is a very important mystic's tool too. What do you mean here by sleep and body and wakefulness?

Subject: Re: The conversion of the Roman spirit (cont.) Thu May 28, 2009 7:56 pm

thanks Hadji

yes, I 'knew' this was Nietzsche. I should read old N again Smile

Been a while.

Nietzsche's main concern was the health of the body - he was quite obsessed with medical health. Partially due to his own illness, and also his perception of decaying and existentially unpleasant forms of being as physically [and in turn mentally] unhealthy.

Consider the lab experiments on sleep deprived rats who stop grooming themselves, become physically ill and die. Also experiments on humans where the participant quite literally becomes ill, delirious and physically weak.

It is from this perspective that Nietzsche speaks against St Paul. Essentially berating Paul for promoting bad habits that are detrimental to physical, mental and social health - to create a herd of ill health and despair, 'nay sayers' who despise the earthly and sensuous.

We have to consider, what was Nietzsches personal and social experience - and using this material in contrast to the 'joyful' Classical history he studied, what was he trying to say? Often Nietzsche is trying to warn us - if you look at his style, it is a mix of the semi-biblical and Classical [understandably].

Subject: Re: The conversion of the Roman spirit (cont.) Thu May 28, 2009 8:57 pm

Mind if I join this enlightening debate?…

Quote:

"I am horribly awake", though said in distress, it meant: clear seeing. This is a virtue for philosophers?

Clear seeing of the material world is probably not, old age and illness, ignorance and stupidity abound. Perhaps seeing within the material shell is enlightening, this reminds me of the Japanese concept of wabu-sabi, in one way we are getting older and changing, yet in another way we remain the same inside. On the outside is change on the inside is union, sameness and stability, the outer world offers perhaps only ultimate despair, the inside hope.

This is a very interesting and valid perspective you added Quetzel. What we are having here has turned out to be a nice brainstorming session rather than a debate. Which works well in this context.

Bear in mind Nietzsche was focusing specifically on 'medical conditions', and very much saw the mind and body as so intricately intertwined that one affected the other in very obvious was - and of course 'bad habits' or 'bad cultures/narratives/discourses' could be very detrimental to wellbeing/Existence/the soul. [Slightly different takes on the same issues].

If you discussed this with Nietzsche, he may have suggested that any inner sense of peace would be impossible in a state of affairs suggested by St Paul. [In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, if I recall, Nietzsche spoke fairly more favourably than usual towards Buddhism [he literally said 'peace with Islam', verbatim, in Beyond Good and Evil - for the very reasons he perceived these systems as more 'affirmative' outside and inside...]

Not only is anatomy destiny but neuroscience is exploring how body schema produces consciousness and results in body image (self-consciousness).

The body's construction and its movements, its activity, both conscious and unconscious, as well as the varying levels of organ health affects perspective.

Jung's idea concerning the collective unconscious ties into this as a form of cellular memory, akin to the missing limb syndrome, and to recent insights as to how environmental conditions affecting the parent are immediately and directly transferred to the offspring.

Heraclitus' dynamic reality is proving to be more right than wrong, and absolutists, including monists, are struggling to maintain their faith in the unseen thing-in-itself or Deus or God or the idea of an immutable spirit/soul or even Buddhism's emptiness.

_________________
LIVE LIGHTLY

Quote:

Bear in mind Nietzsche was focusing specifically on 'medical conditions', and very much saw the mind and body as so intricately intertwined that one affected the other

Hmm, I would agree with him that they do, but it’s the way they do that counts. For example; pain is subjective, this highlights the fact that there is equally a mind-body dichotomy. An unhealthy or aged body does not necessarily mean the same for the mind, in fact some things that are detrimental can also be beneficial ~ you cant have genius without asbergers right.

Quote:

If you discussed this with Nietzsche, he may have suggested that any inner sense of peace would be impossible in a state of affairs suggested by St Paul.

Sorry I jumped in without reading the rest of the thread, Embarassed

please enlighten me to paul’s state of affairs?

Quote:

Not only is anatomy destiny but neuroscience is exploring how body schema produces consciousness and results in body image

All the while we are ‘aware‘ and that is not a body image, it is that which experiences it and all other inputs. The body and brain are the vehicle, we the driver, 'ultimately' we have the ability to make decisions upon the given information the body gives us.

Quote:

Jung's idea concerning the collective unconscious ties into this as a form of cellular memory, akin to the missing limb syndrome

Interesting, please enlighten me! Smile

Quote:

Heraclitus' dynamic reality is proving to be more right than wrong, and absolutists, including monists, are struggling to maintain their faith in the unseen thing-in-itself or Deus or God or the idea of an immutable spirit/soul or even Buddhism's emptiness.

As for the latter, how would we explain singularity prior to manifestation of particles? Indeed mass is essentially empty! I agree about absolutes though and as you inferred Buddhist emptiness as such then I agree in that context. I would go with infinity and its universal expression = reality, there are no absolutes in that, nor is it confined to any given models ~ it is open ended with no beginnings or creation points, though it is feasible that creation could be continual.

I think of us as being composites, it seams obvious to me that anything we describe the soul/spirit/self as, would be a {universal} shared resource! [e.g. life, mind, awareness {if we can qualify such things, but you get the point, that whatever we or anything else are composed of, is a universal thing ~ like energy for example}]

quetzalcoatl wrote:

Hmm, I would agree with him that they do, but it’s the way they do that counts. For example; pain is subjective, this highlights the fact that there is equally a mind-body dichotomy.

No mind/body dichotomy required.

The observed, the phenomenon is perceived, felt, senses interpreted in relation to the observer.

Pain is a relationship between the organism's available energies, in maintaining itself, and the flow of existence - its attrition pulling the emerging unity back towards a state of disordering flow (linear) - entropy.

_________________
LIVE LIGHTLY

quetzalcoatl wrote:

All the while we are ‘aware‘ and that is not a body image, it is that which experiences it and all other inputs. The body and brain are the vehicle, we the driver, 'ultimately' we have the ability to make decisions upon the given information the body gives us.

Neuroscience is now considering how innate activities determine consciousness. They call these organic activities pronoetic .

The "driver" is really directing the vehicle, to use that metaphor, by looking in a rear view mirror and is adjusting course after it has traversed a distance -or after the fact.

This is where intelligence comes in as an adaptive advantage.
The functions we include in the general term consciuosness and its qualitative evaluation using the term intelligence, is a method of preempting an ongoing reality, in relation to which consciousness lags behind, as a way of directing an organism's activities. We call this a Will.

The activity is a tautology with existence and it is the very essence of what it means to exist.

Quote:

Interesting, please enlighten me! Smile

Well, it seems to me that Jung's explanation as to why certain mythological themes are repeated cross culturally, them being rooted in primal instinctive behavior estalbished through natural selection, implies that many of our instinctive drives are really visceral and not only produced in the mind.

There is a code, for instance, a schema, which directs healing on a cellular level and so the mind may possess a map of the body, it being a product of it, which evolves along with how the environment forces the organism to adapt to particular stimulation.

Quote:

As for the latter, how would we explain singularity prior to manifestation of particles? Indeed mass is essentially empty! I agree about absolutes though and as you inferred Buddhist emptiness as such then I agree in that context. I would go with infinity and its universal expression = reality, there are no absolutes in that, nor is it confined to any given models ~ it is open ended with no beginnings or creation points, though it is feasible that creation could be continual.

The very idea of a singularity is a human concept and it has no existence outside the human mind.
I would say that all human concepts are simplifications of a fluid reality into models, such as the #1 or the idea of a 'here' and a 'now'.

These concepts are really signposts offering orientation to a Will - a towards.
They represent the mind's perceptual event horizon and so all these artificial absolutes, these abstractions, are useful but not actual. They offer a destination, a towards, for an emerging unity that is action, fluidity, manifest.

Quote:

I think of us as being composites, it seams obvious to me that anything we describe the soul/spirit/self as, would be a {universal} shared resource! [e.g. life, mind, awareness {if we can qualify such things, but you get the point, that whatever we or anything else are composed of, is a universal thing ~ like energy for example}]

For me the idea of being composed of "things" is a human prejudice, based on the methods the mind uses to make sense of the world.

I think of existence as a process manifesting in phenomena, the apparent, flowing towards completion, the ideal the end, but never attaining it.

A particle is simply the mind freezing the fluidity of existence into a hypothetical, generalized/simplified, point so as to make it comprehensible.

Language symbolizing these abstractions, are based on absolutes and so language when used literally fails to describe reality and inevitably it results in paradoxes.
Paradoxes are caused when there is a disharmony between a fluid reality and the static models used to describe it.

The only way around this human limitation, caused by the way by the simple mechanism of on/off which is what consciousness is, by using metaphor or more artistic methods.

_________________
LIVE LIGHTLY

Quote:

The observed, the phenomenon is perceived, felt, senses interpreted in relation to the observer.

True. it’s a difficult one to pin down, the interpretation to begin with, then more importantly that the mind [at the very least, in terms of awareness] is beyond the body [as it cannot be defined within it].

Quote:

Pain is a relationship between the organism's available energies, in maintaining itself,

That part I get and is obvious.

Quote:

and the flow of existence - its attrition pulling the emerging unity back towards a state of disordering flow (linear) - entropy.

This part I don’t. do you mean that a balance is found [harmonic state] after a period of fluctuations in the elecro-magnetic forces?

quetzalcoatl wrote:

True. it’s a difficult one to pin down, the interpretation to begin with, then more importantly that the mind [at the very least, in terms of awareness] is beyond the body [as it cannot be defined within it].

"Within it" is the only place it can be defined.

For me the mind, reflecting the body, is a process, not a thing. It is action manifest and so mind/body are one and the same.

Quote:

This part I don’t. do you mean that a balance is found [harmonic state] after a period of fluctuations in the elecro-magnetic forces?

[/quote]Let me use a metaphor.
If existence is flow then an organism is a particular current within this flow exhibiting a separation an autpoiesis (membrane - skin) as it moves towards order - ordering, Becoming, and so it is a reaction against the flow which is increasing entropy.

I call this emerging unity a congruence of energies which has reached a certain level of sophistication, ordering, trying to maintain itself against eh flow of time.
It is a rejection of temporality. The amount of energies available to this congruence of flow determines it strength, its power, and this slowly declines due to the attrition of temporal decay - the effects of flow upon this resistant, cutting away emerging unity.

The sensation of need is the interpetation of the absence of a static state, a perfection, an absolute.
Suffering, pain is the interpretation of this resistance to entropy and so suffering and life are tautologies.
Suffering can only be endured, not escaped.

The method of inebriation (meditation, drugs religion delusion etc) helps but it does not avoid. It simply numbs the mind to its own essence.

Quote:

Neuroscience is now considering how innate activities determine consciousness. They call these organic activities pronoetic .

Sure, I can see consciousness or at least its physical expression, as being mainly of the brain, but not awareness, and that leaves a substantial part unexplained e.g. can awareness make a decision or have any effect, or is it just present.

Quote:

The "driver" is really directing the vehicle, to use that metaphor, by looking in a rear view mirror and is adjusting course after it has traversed a distance -or after the fact.

It guides and acts yes. I see your ‘after the fact’ point ~ kinda like jumping into a moving vehicle and trying to steer it. Maybe that is so, its certainly a big part of the answer, though once we have control then perhaps we can instigate ‘before the fact’ aspects, especially in the realm of ideas and even in terms of will ‘ultimately‘ [like driving much is done for us].

Existence is quite another subject, before we can make up tautologies about it we must describe the philosophical space, and we are nowhere near to achieving that. In fact our focus on the material is somewhat limiting almost to the point of absurdity.

Quote:

Well, it seems to me that Jung's explanation as to why certain mythological themes are repeated cross culturally, them being rooted in primal instinctive behavior estalbished through natural selection, implies that many of our instinctive drives are really visceral and not only produced in the mind.

Some would be of the mind, for example we see things getting born all the time, so it is natural to think of creation and that which creates. Sure these things may derive from instinctual drives and general physical processes, but the mind plays a big part too ~ esp, in the detail.

I would add universal archetypes too, as everything we describe would need a primary source all the way down the line. In short something don’t arise unless its environment is conducive to its arising/existence. The universe, atoms, singularity are defined by what, they need the idea [within potential] and environment prior to their existence.

Quote:

There is a code, for instance, a schema, which directs healing on a cellular level and so the mind may possess a map of the body, it being a product of it

Interesting! Indeed one would think it must.

Quote:

I would say that all human concepts are simplifications of a fluid reality into models, such as the #1 or the idea of a 'here' and a 'now'.

I am pleasantly surprised! I was beginning to think I was going to get the usual science lecture. This is why I go on about infinity so much as it breaks the moulds.

Quote:

These concepts are really signposts offering orientation to a Will - a towards.
They represent the mind's perceptual event horizon and so all these artificial absolutes, these abstractions, are useful but not actual. They offer a destination, a towards, for an emerging unity that is action, fluidity, manifest.

Indeed, so how can we talk about the actual? Everything seams to be between our notions, reality is infinite and not so, it always ends in a paradox leaving us only with ‘something’ ?

Quote:

I think of existence as a process manifesting in phenomena, the apparent, flowing towards completion, the ideal the end, but never attaining it.

Brilliantly put! A flow between the unmanifest and the manifest, never being either [this I call the Awen, maybe a Taoist would say the Tao]. No absolutes either side of the equation.

Quote:

A particle is simply the mind freezing the fluidity of existence into a hypothetical, generalized/simplified, point so as to make it comprehensible.

Partly, though wouldn’t you say the particles do exist even if they are just spinning energy ~ at least in terms of what is almost manifest. Whatever the shape of things, we have to make shapes to make shapes right?

Quote:

Paradoxes are caused when there is a disharmony between a fluid reality and the static models used to describe it.

Once it is written it is lost.

Quote:

The only way around this human limitation, caused by the way by the simple mechanism of on/off which is what consciousness is, by using metaphor or more artistic methods.

Personally I direct all my efforts towards arriving at what I call ‘contemporary thought’ it’s a meditative state in a sense but equally a contemplative state, somewhere near statelessness. I feel you have arrived there too in your own way.

Well its nearly 2 am here so see ya all laters, and thanks for a great discussion.

quetzalcoatl wrote:

Sure, I can see consciousness or at least its physical expression, as being mainly of the brain, but not awareness, and that leaves a substantial part unexplained e.g. can awareness make a decision or have any effect, or is it just present.

Awareness IS consciousness.

Quote:

It guides and acts yes. I see your ‘after the fact’ point ~ kinda like jumping into a moving vehicle and trying to steer it. Maybe that is so, its certainly a big part of the answer, though once we have control then perhaps we can instigate ‘before the fact’ aspects, especially in the realm of ideas and even in terms of will ‘ultimately‘ [like driving much is done for us].

Not 'for us" for this, again, implies a mind/body division.

The body works on preexisting, pre-programmed instinctive reactions that do not require consciousness. Consciousness can only understand them in the hopes of preempting their effect, if it chooses to do so. But some of them are automatic on such a primal level, such as breathing or the heart beating or digestion, that any direct conscious intervention is impossible.

Quote:

Existence is quite another subject, before we can make up tautologies about it we must describe the philosophical space, and we are nowhere near to achieving that. In fact our focus on the material is somewhat limiting almost to the point of absurdity.

Matter, for me, is but a manifestation of flow. The characteristics of matter, or energy, or any phenomenon, are interpretations of its expressed essence - the sum of its past (becoming).

For instance matter's hardness or mass or texture is an interpretation of its temporal signature, its rate of flow, in relation to us, the observer or the interpreter. The harness of a substance, for example, indicates a far slower rate of flow in relation to us.

Quote:

Some would be of the mind, for example we see things getting born all the time, so it is natural to think of creation and that which creates. Sure these things may derive from instinctual drives and general physical processes, but the mind plays a big part too ~ esp, in the detail.

Therefore many of our mythologies and beliefs are determined by our perceptual and intellectual limitations.

Quote:

I would add universal archetypes too, as everything we describe would need a primary source all the way down the line. In short something don’t arise unless its environment is conducive to its arising/existence. The universe, atoms, singularity are defined by what, they need the idea [within potential] and environment prior to their existence.

something arises as a sum of its past, its essence, interacts with an environment - the sum of all phenomena within the flow and the flow itself.

Archetypes are necessary types, patterns, tested and proven to be beneficial toward an end.

Quote:

I am pleasantly surprised! I was beginning to think I was going to get the usual science lecture. This is why I go on about infinity so much as it breaks the moulds.

For me infinity is related to space. Space is a projection of possibilities; possibilities flow opens up.

Possibilities are only restricted by the mind's ability to project, and so are considered infinite given a hypothetical mind with no limitations.

Quote:

Indeed, so how can we talk about the actual? Everything seams to be between our notions, reality is infinite and not so, it always ends in a paradox leaving us only with ‘something’ ?

This position is a normal one to come to. This mental triangulation the construction of absolutes (abstractions) make possible, is how we determine our place within reality.

We place ourselves "between' two non-existent absolutes such as: Good/Evil, Here/There, Something/Nothing etc.

In fact all absolutes define what is absent and so what is non-existent, and so they both stand in opposition to the existent. Therefore we are neither nothing or somehting, because we are no thing at all. We are a process, a movement towards both.
Whether we characterize our goal positively or negatively defines how we cope with our essence.

Nevertheless the attainment of either nothing or something, as they both refer to the same absence, would mean our end and so they are both nihilistic tendencies.

Quote:

Partly, though wouldn’t you say the particles do exist even if they are just spinning energy ~ at least in terms of what is almost manifest. Whatever the shape of things, we have to make shapes to make shapes right?

No, particles are a freezing of the flow, the wave, into a point, a moment and thing. the characteristics of the particle, as we interpret it, reveals aspects of the flow but in a very simple and general way.

Quote:

Personally I direct all my efforts towards arriving at what I call ‘contemporary thought’ it’s a meditative state in a sense but equally a contemplative state, somewhere near statelessness. I feel you have arrived there too in your own way.

I seek clarity, for very specific self-serving reasons.

_________________
LIVE LIGHTLY

Guest

Baldassare Cossa wrote:

thanks Hadji

yes, I 'knew' this was Nietzsche. I should read old N again Smile

Been a while.

Dude, I wrote that. If it was Nietzsche I would havwe attributed it.

Subject: Re: The conversion of the Roman spirit (cont.) Sat May 30, 2009 6:18 am

Impious wrote:

Baldassare Cossa wrote:

thanks Hadji

yes, I 'knew' this was Nietzsche. I should read old N again Smile

Been a while.

Dude, I wrote that. If it was Nietzsche I would havwe attributed it.

Good work on the style. Sorry. No crime in using Nietzsche as one's own words though.

Subject: Re: The conversion of the Roman spirit (cont.) Sun May 31, 2009 3:38 pm

Quote:

some of them are automatic on such a primal level, such as breathing or the heart beating or digestion, that any direct conscious intervention is impossible.

Sure, the vehicle works itself ~ in service to us/consciousness.

Quote:

The characteristics of matter, or energy, or any phenomenon, are interpretations of its expressed essence - the sum of its past (becoming).

Indeed, how then would you define the contemporary space prior to manifestation [or at its beginnings]? I would say infinity, then everything manifest are expression of that?

Quote:

The harness of a substance, for example, indicates a far slower rate of flow in relation to us.

Please elucidate? Do you mean that the observed energies are faster than when they are not observed?

Quote:

Therefore many of our mythologies and beliefs are determined by our perceptual and intellectual limitations.

I agree, but I think we only limit ourselves.

Quote:

Therefore we are neither nothing or somehting, because we are no thing at all. We are a process, a movement towards both.

Indeed. Cut an orange in half and what do we have, half an orange or a whole object! We actually have neither a fraction nor a whole, so as you say it is all transient/in flux.
Thought of course marries this.

Quote:

Nevertheless the attainment of either nothing or something, as they both refer to the same absence, would mean our end and so they are both nihilistic tendencies.

Interesting and good point! ~ nicely put again.

Quote:

No, particles are a freezing of the flow, the wave, into a point, a moment and thing.

So when we observe it we ‘freeze’ it. I see the point, but I struggle with what that means on an everyday level? A rock is not frozen energy because we observe it, and while it may not be solid in essence or in time, it is solid in form in the present.

________________________________

Just a quick general note to the original topic [approximately]; the roman spirit was a continued pagan theme of people becoming gods, Jesus was a Caesar in a different form, nevertheless whatever form we give them, they are men made into gods!

Here I am against even Druidry which I am quite into as most of you know, If a man can become a god, then all men are gods, if not then all are not.

Subject: Re: The conversion of the Roman spirit (cont.) Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:20 pm

quetzalcoatl wrote:

Sure, the vehicle works itself ~ in service to us/consciousness.

This is a metaphor that may lead to dualism.
The unconscious activities are "self", whether they become conscious or not is a matter of the evolution of self-consciousness.

Here, too, the awareness is never complete, since a part of the brain looking upon the rest, always remains unseen. The eye cannot see itself, but only indirectly - reflection.

Quote:

Indeed, how then would you define the contemporary space prior to manifestation [or at its beginnings]? I would say infinity, then everything manifest are expression of that?

There is no contemporary space.
Space is possibilities.
Now you may be asking, what are possibilities?
Possibilities are projections of flow, using the imagination (intelligence is what they entire process is called) of the abstractions into the unknown.

Interactions, is implied, as what flux/flow is.

Quote:

Please elucidate? Do you mean that the observed energies are faster than when they are not observed?

No, I mean that the characteristics we ascribe to them, the manner in which we interpret these interacting phenomena, determines their form, mass, color, density.

In other words its essence is interpreted aesthetically.
Hardness, for instance, may indicate a congruence of flow, a phenomenon, flowing, changing, at a slower rate than we are.

Quote:

I agree, but I think we only limit ourselves.

To overcome limits one must first acknowledge them, and then one must be honest enough to admit when their are insurmountable or to what degree one can overcome them.

Then comes the crucial decision, of free-will....towards what will one overcome - what ideal will guide us when we are free, top whatever degree we can be, of the determined?

Quote:

So when we observe it we ‘freeze’ it. I see the point, but I struggle with what that means on an everyday level? A rock is not frozen energy because we observe it, and while it may not be solid in essence or in time, it is solid in form in the present.

an interpretation is only as useful as its quality.

The simplification of flow is not referring to an illusion, as Buddhists would prefer us to beleive, but to an actual phenomenon.

The stone is useful, within particular temporal contexts.
We are short lived and so we can live as if the world were more solid than it actually is.

Quote:

Just a quick general note to the original topic [approximately]; the roman spirit was a continued pagan theme of people becoming gods, Jesus was a Caesar in a different form, nevertheless whatever form we give them, they are men made into gods!

Exactly. The Hellenes and then the Romans had no issues with transgressing agaisnt the gods, for their gods were not absolute. They could be bribed and coerced and tricked and united with so that demigods appeared as ideals of humanity - beings that were above the mediocre.

Quote:

Here I am against even Druidry which I am quite into as most of you know, If a man can become a god, then all men are gods, if not then all are not.

If one accepts the idea of no absolutes, then the term 'god' becomes a more malleable one.

It is turned into what it has always been: a metaphor for an ideal man - a goal.

All men are potential gods, with varying degrees of possibility - a value judgment based on principles and ideals.

_________________
LIVE LIGHTLY

Subject: Re: The conversion of the Roman spirit (cont.) Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:37 pm

Quote:

Here, too, the awareness is never complete, since a part of the brain looking upon the rest, always remains unseen. The eye cannot see itself, but only indirectly - reflection.

Maybe the way I write things suggests mind body duality though it is not how i see it, I see things as shared resources, so awareness would be utilised by the brain in differing ways. When for example we hold something in the minds eye, we are aware of it, this doesn’t mean the subconscious is unaware hence awareness is limited, it means that awareness is only being utilised by the conscious mind.

‘Something is always aware of ‘it’, yet that doesn’t mean ‘it’ is always aware of something’

Quote:

There is no contemporary space.

Are we sure? If you have a thing, then you must have its predecessor, equally to arrive at a thing there must exist that which it moves into. Hence there is a contemporary space an existent space and a historical space, all = all-time.
Such is flux and flow?

Quote:

Hardness, for instance, may indicate a congruence of flow, a phenomenon, flowing, changing, at a slower rate than we are.

Interesting. As if each and every thing is its own video playing at different rates [there own]. I presume this is what relativity means, and perhaps that if something travelling at a faster speed hits something slower, the slower one takes more time to interact and hence forces the faster to slow to its rate. I.e. if I run into a wall I will rebound off it and hurt myself.

Quote:

Then comes the crucial decision, of free-will....towards what will one overcome - what ideal will guide us when we are free, to whatever degree we can be, of the determined?

Is free will the ability to think without restraint? Determinism restrains us only in that it is giving us information ~ interacting. The freedom is universal [?], where we may make decisions and then ’it’ gives the same ability to all other things where possible. Hence sometimes decisions are made for us, it’s a kind of mental relativity. In essence nothing has either the absolute freedom of itself nor dominance over another thing ~ as the latter would detract from the freedom it has given itself. The freedom is a balance, one that is impossible to be free of unless no action whatsoever is taken.

Quote:

The simplification of flow is not referring to an illusion, as Buddhists would prefer us to beleive, but to an actual phenomenon.

Absolutely.

Quote:

If one accepts the idea of no absolutes, then the term 'god' becomes a more malleable one. It is turned into what it has always been: a metaphor for an ideal man - a goal. All men are potential gods, with varying degrees of possibility - a value judgment based on principles and ideals.

Sure god can be more malleable, what happens if we don’t try to become gods, don’t try to reach goals? If we just let go and stop trying to make everyone and everything like so. Throughout history man has been trying to make things go like this or that, if they had not there would be no wars [or not as many perhaps] and more harmony. Even that is perhaps trying to achieve something.

Smile

Subject: Re: The conversion of the Roman spirit (cont.) Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:15 pm

quetzalcoatl wrote:

Maybe the way I write things suggests mind body duality though it is not how i see it, I see things as shared resources, so awareness would be utilised by the brain in differing ways. When for example we hold something in the minds eye, we are aware of it, this doesn’t mean the subconscious is unaware hence awareness is limited, it means that awareness is only being utilised by the conscious mind.

‘Something is always aware of ‘it’, yet that doesn’t mean ‘it’ is always aware of something’

I am saying that awarenes IS physical and that anatomy shapes consciousness.

quetzalcoatl wrote:

Interesting. As if each and every thing is its own video playing at different rates [there own]. I presume this is what relativity means, and perhaps that if something travelling at a faster speed hits something slower, the slower one takes more time to interact and hence forces the faster to slow to its rate. I.e. if I run into a wall I will rebound off it and hurt myself.

Yes, the relative speeds of flow, change, between observed and observing determines how the observed will be interpreted.

The illusion of a static, solidity, is based on a great discrepancy of change making it appear , or being interpreted, as mass or stability or hardness.

Quote:

Is free will the ability to think without restraint?

Yes, and so when taken absolutely it contradicts itself, since a will is never without restraint, it being a product of lack and a reaction to reality.

Quote:

Determinism restrains us only in that it is giving us information ~ interacting. The freedom is universal [?], where we may make decisions and then ’it’ gives the same ability to all other things where possible. Hence sometimes decisions are made for us, it’s a kind of mental relativity.

Another way to think of absolute freedom is unrestricted choices. Infinite possibilities.
But since choices are always limited and given, by the interactivity of existence, the flux, therefore the will is never absolutely free.

Quote:

In essence nothing has either the absolute freedom of itself nor dominance over another thing ~ as the latter would detract from the freedom it has given itself. The freedom is a balance, one that is impossible to be free of unless no action whatsoever is taken.

'Freedom' like many human concepts is a comparison, a value judgment.
I am free or not free in relation to another or the other or in comparison to it.

Quote:

Absolutely.

Ha!

Quote:

Sure god can be more malleable, what happens if we don’t try to become gods, don’t try to reach goals?

This contradicts the very notion of consciousness, since consciuosness is a focus upon an object/objective, a discrimiantion between phenomena, directions and so it is always focused towards and/or away from a projected abstraction, a thing.

Even the denial of an ideal is an ideal in itself.

Quote:

If we just let go and stop trying to make everyone and everything like so.

this is not a Hellenic, or masculine attitude, this is an eastern and more feminine one.
Surrender to inevitability is a female trait.
Progress is based no challenging what IS; it is a continuous rejection of it. This is what autopoiesis (self-creation) implies...a constant rejection of the flow.

Quote:

Throughout history man has been trying to make things go like this or that, if they had not there would be no wars [or not as many perhaps] and more harmony. Even that is perhaps trying to achieve something.

Smile

Neither would there be civilization or philosophy or science.
We would still be animals living in caves or on trees.

_________________
LIVE LIGHTLY

Quote:

I am saying that awarenes IS physical and that anatomy shapes consciousness.

Have to agree to disagree here, I cannot qualify awareness as electromagnetic but I can for processes of the intellect, hence consciousness is partly physical [as it is a blend of the two].

Quote:

Yes, and so when taken absolutely it contradicts itself, since a will is never without restraint, it being a product of lack and a reaction to reality.

If we see will in a universal context and us as epicentres of that then there is no absolute, its simply that all wills are equal and hence the is a balance between them. Freedom is relative. It has infinite potential or it would be absolute and nothing is that.

So freedom in potential with is ‘then’ limited in action.

Quote:

This contradicts the very notion of consciousness, since consciuosness is a focus upon an object/objective, a discrimiantion between phenomena, directions and so it is always focused towards and/or away from a projected abstraction, a thing.

Quite right, I should have said that we shouldn’t clasp onto things like gods, rather than “don’t try to reach goals”. I was speaking in a more Buddhist context of unattachment.

Quote:

this is not a Hellenic, or masculine attitude, this is an eastern and more feminine one.
Surrender to inevitability is a female trait.
Progress is based no challenging what IS; it is a continuous rejection of it. This is what autopoiesis (self-creation) implies...a constant rejection of the flow.

Interesting. I was not suggesting surrender to inevitability but not to absolutes esp as dictated bu others e.g. religious groups. I like the rejection of flow notion and would like to know more about your masculine ideal/s?

Quote:

Neither would there be civilization or philosophy or science.

Such things can be attained via cooperation for mutual benefit, the ancient Britons done ok with a commune based society. Perhaps this is still a kind of manipulation as single wills are bent towards other ends than their own. This is how free will is though, when it is bent towards a specific and inflexible aim it is not free on the universal scale.

quetzalcoatl wrote:

Have to agree to disagree here, I cannot qualify awareness as electromagnetic but I can for processes of the intellect, hence consciousness is partly physical [as it is a blend of the two].

There is no two, no duality. Consciousness is a stream of thought produced by neurons firing in succession.
The mystique is you trying to make it more than it is.

Here, too, flow is obvious.

Quote:

If we see will in a universal context and us as epicentres of that then there is no absolute, its simply that all wills are equal and hence the is a balance between them. Freedom is relative. It has infinite potential or it would be absolute and nothing is that.

So freedom in potential with is ‘then’ limited in action.

No, wills are not equal and that is why there is flux. If they were equal there would be equilibrium and a static state.

A will is the focus of a congruence of energies upon an object/objective and so it is as powerful as the synergy of these energies.

Quote:

Quite right, I should have said that we shouldn’t clasp onto things like gods, rather than “don’t try to reach goals”. I was speaking in a more Buddhist context of unattachment.

Indifference is one of those conundrums that makes life interesting. It seems that the more indifferent you are the more worthy you are of that which you are indifferent towards. Its a product of power.
Poweris characterized by indifference and that is why the idea of a compassionate caring benevolent God is one of those childish absurdities.

Quote:

Interesting. I was not suggesting surrender to inevitability but not to absolutes esp as dictated bu others e.g. religious groups. I like the rejection of flow notion and would like to know more about your masculine ideal/s?

The masculine traits, are p[resent in both females and males...but more so in males because of their sexual role and the necessity of these traits in facilitating this role.

They lie behind such disciplines as philosophy and science, which is a rejection of the unknown, towards knowing....the metaphor of the forbidden fruit comes to mind.

The very process of living is one of rejecting otherness or the flux, and constructing a barrier between self and the other...a cellular membrane. Similarly the process of consciousness is one of discrimination and rejection.
I become self-conscious by realizing what I am by seeing what I am not. I am self because I am not you, or the other.
This functions on the simple mechanism of on/off.

Masculinity is discrimination, consciuosness, a rejection of what is, towards an ideal, and an acceptance that this ideal can never be or should ever be attained.

My thread on The Feminization of Mankind goes into it somewhat, from a sociological perspective.

Quote:

Such things can be attained via cooperation for mutual benefit, the ancient Britons done ok with a commune based society. Perhaps this is still a kind of manipulation as single wills are bent towards other ends than their own. This is how free will is though, when it is bent towards a specific and inflexible aim it is not free on the universal scale.

The benefits of synergy are obviuos, but so are the repercussions.

Cooperation is necessitated by an inability to survive on your own. This results in specialization or the focus of the mind on more specific tasks, such as thinking. So there is no uniform distribution of traits within the group as each finds its place within the group according to his/her predispositions and talents.

Just as with the cells in the human body, a common purpose results in fragmentation and harmony relies on the elimination of independence.
Therefore the unity produces specialized individuals with no free-thinking and no ability to survive outside its premises.

The system becoems a super-organism made up of docile, unthinking, compliant, dependent organisms.
All challenge is eradicated as all sense of identity is slowly produced by the system itself, self-referential, making the organisms find identity in service or loyalty to the whole, or production/consumption.

Specialization means that a mind can know a lot about one specific aspect of the universe, as it pertains to the system's utility, and nothing else besides. all other opininos are accepted, by it, as self-evident from other specialized minds, which produce ideas that enhance cooperation and communal harmony.

Reality becomes encompassed within a self-referential whole...what Baudrillard calls a simulation.

Anything that disturbs the pristine disinfected from anything real, simulation is discredited or ignored.
produce comes perfectly packaged and shining, with no worm holes or bruises, as it would be in a natural environment.
Meat comes packaged and cleansed from any sign of blood or the viciousness of the slaughter.
Humans begin living in a self-referencing, quarantined reality that excludes the real world - art begins sampling itself and it no longer reflects reality but reality begins reflecting art.

The charade is complete. Now you can teach humans anything and they will buy into it, since nothing will challenge an idea that is sanctioned by the system or that threatens the stability of the system.

Equality, sexual roles being cultural fabrications, consciousness being mystical, humans being too complicated to be categorized and understood, the sanctity of life...etc.
Nothing is beyond belief when the mind has no experience of reality but exists within human constructs that cleans this artificial reality from anything real....such as worms in apples or seeds in watermelons or shit and blood in meat.

_________________
LIVE LIGHTLY

Quote:

There is no two, no duality. Consciousness is a stream of thought produced by neurons firing in succession.
The mystique is you trying to make it more than it is.

Consciousness is yes, but it is in the ocean of awareness. that’s the point I am not trying to make it more than it is, I am well aware of what em is, neurons etc [did you not see my thread on how the mind works?] and I don’t see how it can be aware. There is no duality as the one responds completely to the other and both are expressions of the one [infinity][flow]. When I say ‘of the two’ its purely semantic.

Quote:

No, wills are not equal and that is why there is flux. If they were equal there would be equilibrium and a static state.

Wills are equal their expression is not, e.g. if I get other wills to agree with me then I can conquer the world maharaja.

Quote:

Power is characterized by indifference and that is why the idea of a compassionate caring benevolent God is one of those childish absurdities

Indeed, dictators do tend to have that air of indifference about them. If you clasp it, you loose it.

Nicely put btw.

Quote:

I become self-conscious by realizing what I am by seeing what I am not.

I see your points, I would say we are aware of being but yes, not self aware until we compare that or see ourselves in a mirror. Infinity is incomparative [stateless not comparable] so we begin as all things do, in this state.

I’ll check your thread out.

Quote:

So there is no uniform distribution of traits within the group as each finds its place within the group according to his/her predispositions and talents.

Sure. Life’s a tapestry.

Quote:

Just as with the cells in the human body, a common purpose results in fragmentation and harmony relies on the elimination of independence.

The human body [or any other] is a common purpose.

Quote:

The charade is complete. Now you can teach humans anything and they will buy into it, since nothing will challenge an idea that is sanctioned by the system or that threatens the stability of the system.

Hmm got me thinking that one.

Quote:

Nothing is beyond belief when the mind has no experience of reality but exists within human constructs that cleans this artificial reality from anything real....such as worms in apples or seeds in watermelons or shit and blood in meat.

Ha, we try to make things clean but we cant get away from our own shit.

quetzalcoatl wrote:

Consciousness is yes, but it is in the ocean of awareness. that’s the point I am not trying to make it more than it is, I am well aware of what em is, neurons etc [did you not see my thread on how the mind works?] and I don’t see how it can be aware. There is no duality as the one responds completely to the other and both are expressions of the one [infinity][flow]. When I say ‘of the two’ its purely semantic.

Awareness is produced as an abstraction of reality incorporating its possibilities, as spatial dimensions, within one coherent whole we call universe or world.

When I percive I incorporate (interpret) sensual data, stimulation, using preexisting naturally selected methods into continuously updated mental models which take into account all perceived phenomena and their possible interactions.

Quote:

Wills are equal their expression is not, e.g. if I get other wills to agree with me then I can conquer the world maharaja.

Wills are not equal as nothing is ever equal in a fluid universe.
Wills are the direction of a synergy of energies and energies are not equal.

Quote:

The human body [or any other] is a common purpose.

Yes, and it is a perfect example of what a society is, since nothing is based on nothing, but it is a reflection of preexisting patters...and so society reflects the organisms own physical organization.

Quote:

Hmm got me thinking that one.

Think about this: The system becoems like an organism - interested in its own survival. Its parts, its members are but means towards that end and so they are expendable. To incorporate various free-willed organism within a harmonious unity the system must stifle any will that confronts its own stability.

This is easy when the organism has not developed much of an independent will, such as ants, but with humans this becoems problematic.
This is why individuals with less of a will, a free-spirit, a character, are more willing to surrender to conformity. They have less to lose.

Children are indoctrinated within the system from an early age before they begin forming an independent character and will.
This is why Christians baptize their children soon after birth and schooling begins before the child forms too much of a resistance to social norms.

_________________
LIVE LIGHTLY