In the Beginning...

[Nikolai]

Hi nameless,

I hope you don't mind me butting in but I've experienced a lot of the frustratíon that you might be feeling and have had to give it a lot of thought.

Sorry, you really don't understand what I offer, it is very clear to me by your feedback!
You are, of course, premature in your dismissal and pedantic demeanor! No problem.

It's certainly true that Arising has failed to understand what you were saying. All his objections come from the very approach that you have seen through and left behind. While you are trying to point out new horizons, he still has his head turned in the opposite direction.

He is simply bound to misunderstand you. To see, as you do, that the false is as true as the true is simply unfathomable to someone who thinks that there is truth and falsehood and that the two stand in distinction from each other. Your vision is illogical to him, and because it is illogical it must be rejected.

Even though there is a logic to what you say, in my opinion the highest possible logic, it is in direct opposition to the old laws of non-contradiction.

Arising is both the best and worst possible conversation partner. he is the best because he is at least a thinker and willing to engage with you. Most people aren't thinkers and so will simply ignore you. He is the worst because he thinks he understands you and is in a position to offer feedback. Not only is this hubris on his behalf, but it proves a considerable barrier to him ever stopping and questioning his own complacency.

Philosophical argument can't communicate what you have seen - the laws you describe yourself as stumbling upon. I don't think it is in your power, or anyone's power to pass on what you know.

I find that we are simply two equal and opposite Perspectives.

You are right about this. But yet you argue vociferously for just one - your perspectivalism. It's a shame that Arising can't see what you are arguing. But in the meantime you can sit serene and know that you even transcend and see through your own argument. That your perspectivalism is just the equal and opposite to Arising's absolutism.

The difference is that your vision is so restricted that you can only see your Perspective as 'right' and any 'others' as 'wrong'.
The only real difference is that i accept all Perspectives as Reality, you only accept your's.

Arising is, as thinkers go, a pretty good thinker. His world view is as grand and as securely rooted as world views go. He isn't some petty chauvinist but learned and reflective.

And yet you can see how restricted he is!

Even the so-called greatest minds can seem paltry and cramped to those who have seen true wisdom. I understand how you might wish to lend a hand, show them the error of their ways. It's a kind of mortification when you realise that you aren't even able to do even that. But the answer is to see the butterfly rather than the death of the caterpillar.

Ignorance has a rightness to it, ultimately. The deluded can be accepted and endorsed. The blackbird dare not eat a perfectly tasty, harmless hoverfly because it is striped like a hornet. Delusion! But what is bad for the blackbird is good for the hoverfly.

People are shaped by their delusions, their blindness. It is delusion and blindness that allows a baker to bake bread all his life. It is his passion, his consolation, but also his delusion - he does not see what else life has to offer and isn't interested.

The wisdom you have isn't for everyone. And don't go getting prideful or even embarrassed by your achievements. There are times when wisdom such as yours can feel pretty unattractive. There's a verse in the Tao Te Ching, no 20:

Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles.

Is there a difference between yes and no?
Is there a difference between good and evil?
Must I fear what others fear? What nonsence!
Other people are contented, enjoying the sacrificial feast of the ox.
In spring some go to the park, and climb the terrace,
But I alone am drifting not knowing where I am.
Like a new-born babe before it learns to smile,
I am alone, without a place to go.

Other have more than they need, but I alone have nothing.
I am a fool. Oh, yes! I am confused.
Other men are clear and bright,
But I alone am dim and weak.
Other men are sharp and clever,
But I alone am dull and stupid.
Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea.
Without direction, like the restless wind.

Everyone else is busy,
But I alone am aimless and depressed.
I am different.
I am nourished by the great mother.

To enjoy the sacrificial ox fully you have to believe in what the ox was sacrificed for. The meaning and symbolism of the moment has to full you with grandeur and glory. When you gain wisdom what pleases others, and perhaps yourself once, no longer does it for you. You see through such petty superstitions and there is a part of you that might lament that.

That error has a long list of subscribers, and has treated the world to the horror that it is for most people today.

You are unlikely to contribute to the horror of the world, but be careful not to see the horror of the world as horror. When you do you will have lost your vision and are liable to start adding to the horror.

There's a danger to thinking that the world is due for some kind of future bliss once we leave behind our current ways. The wise have been in the minority in the past as they are in the present. Why think the future will be any different? Once you accept and endorse ignorance in others there will be no need to hope for its abolition in the future.

The intelligent ones make sure that they understand before arguing. After understanding something, there is rarely a need to 'argue' in the first place.
Understanding works like that.

Yes, very true. The irony here is that there are huge swathes of western philosophy that Arising is unable to understand. But it is because he doesn't understand some bits that he is able to believe that he he does. For example, it is because he doesn't understand idealism that he is able to confidently assert that:

Given that because we are a body with senses in a reality we do not perceive reality at all and if Kant is right we never can.

This isn't a given, not by any means, and there are many great philosophers: Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer who have pointed this out. But for some reason Arising hasn't heard them. He may have read them and understood them to a point. But has never actually seen with his wisdom that they are making a point as valid as what he says in his quote above. And so he continues to be stuck in opposition to them. And only those who are stuck in opposition are convinced that they know the truth and presume to educate others.

If only you'd learned anything from the last few millennia, you would be able to understand that which you refuse (ego?) to even attempt to understand, or are incapable (is there a difference?) of understanding.

To be willing to understand and to be able to understand are, as you suggest, the same thing. Arising is not willing because he is not able. It takes something very remarkable, miraculous even to be able to take your deepest beliefs and see that they are, in a sense, just opinions. Where or why this ability comes who knows? It is not from logical argument even though the recipients are often expert logicians. And then following on there is the really world changing insight that actually anything we think is, of necessity, just an opinion - just one side of an intellectual coin. Everything that seem most certain is actually just an opinion, a point of view. Reality, as intellectually conceived melts before our eyes. Leaving only what...Reality.

It takes intelligence, dilligence, and what feels like immense personal courage to actually take this vision seriously. If Arising has his limits then that must be accepted, what else can you do? If he has the ears to hear he would have had heard you early on, just as I did.

With my best wishes, Nikolai

[..nameless..]

While you are trying to point out new horizons, he still has his head turned in the opposite direction.

Meeting an "equal and opposite Perspective" can be a bit.. unnerving...
In 'Reality' (other than the Reality of 'thoughts') when two opposite Perspectives arise in Consciousness, they spontaneously annihilate!

Your vision is illogical to him, and because it is illogical it must be rejected.

Philosophical examination uses logic, among other tools.

Even though there is a logic to what you say, in my opinion the highest possible logic, it is in direct opposition to the old laws of non-contradiction.

Which I see as obsolete, and 'point' toward the new thinking, the new language, the New Man that I see before me!

he is the best because he is at least a thinker and willing to engage with you.

For which I am grateful.

Philosophical argument can't communicate what you have seen - the laws you describe yourself as stumbling upon. I don't think it is in your power, or anyone's power to pass on what you know.

Who knows, we'll see...
I trust the Source! *__-

I find that we are simply two equal and opposite Perspectives.

You are right about this. But yet you argue vociferously for just one - your perspectivalism. It's a shame that Arising can't see what you are arguing.

I do go through the whole song and dance, don't I...
I often repeat myself from slightly different perspectives in hopes of finding some sort of common wavelength, some 'occupied band', that someone might be able to translate my offering and use as some food for thought.

But in the meantime you can sit serene and know that you even transcend and see through your own argument.
That your perspectivalism is just the equal and opposite to Arising's absolutism.

True.
Such a fine example of the 'First Law of Soul Dynamics', he and I!
It's a terrible thing to waste a Perspective! *__-

Arising is, as thinkers go, a pretty good thinker. His world view is as grand and as securely rooted as world views go. He isn't some petty chauvinist but learned and reflective.

You are right. I meant no disrespect. I worked so hard and had my precious pearls tossed in my face!
Ego had to open our mouth! Hahaha... That's fine too, the mouth opens and words come out; I don't write the script.

But the answer is to see the butterfly rather than the death of the caterpillar.

Oh I am! You know how you love to grab someone and tell them to turn and check out that beautiful tripple rainbow? And they refuse, saying that they don't believe in a tripple rainbow? And you really want to, for love and compassion, want to share the unutterable beauty, and they just refuse to turn around...
Just a little heartbreaking, but what use is an unbroken heart, eh?
Catterpillar and butterfly...
One!

Ignorance has a rightness to it, ultimately. The deluded can be accepted and endorsed. The blackbird dare not eat a perfectly tasty, harmless hoverfly because it is striped like a hornet. Delusion! But what is bad for the blackbird is good for the hoverfly.

People are shaped by their delusions, their blindness. It is delusion and blindness that allows a baker to bake bread all his life. It is his passion, his consolation, but also his delusion - he does not see what else life has to offer and isn't interested.

I understand what you are saying, but I cannot even rest on that!
I know no 'delusion/illusion'... it's ALL True! No more finger pointing! I cannot even dismiss anyone as 'delusional', as they perceive a unique feature of the same Reality that I perceive as this unique Perspective.

The wisdom you have isn't for everyone. And don't go getting prideful or even embarrassed by your achievements.

Nah, it's ok. The 'ego' is also worthy of Love, it, too, is a feature of 'Self!'!
Besides, I have no say in this! I open my mouth and words come out. They stop and I close the mouth. Half the time the only way I know what I'm saying is to listen. Sometimes I (the ego) feels embarrassed. That, too, a feature of Reality, of 'Self!'!

There are times when wisdom such as yours can feel pretty unattractive. There's a verse in the Tao Te Ching, no 20:

Thank you for the quote.

You are unlikely to contribute to the horror of the world, but be careful not to see the horror of the world as horror. When you do you will have lost your vision and are liable to start adding to the horror.

We are the Horror!
We are the Blessed and We are the Blessing!
We are Buddha and we are Hitler!
Is there a difference?
We Are
One Omni- 'Self!'!
Who is unworthy of Love?

There's a danger to thinking that the world is due for some kind of future bliss once we leave behind our current ways. The wise have been in the minority in the past as they are in the present. Why think the future will be any different?

I do not 'think' it, I see it before me! Now! There is a difference!
I have never, ever, been accused of being an optimist! Hahahaha!!!
I simply report what I see/perceive.

Once you accept and endorse ignorance in others there will be no need to hope for its abolition in the future.

But, but, but... such a beeeeauuuutiful rainbow! *__-
'Ignorance' is simply something that we are not perceiving at the moment.
'Knowledge' is that which is perceived.
All together, all inclusive, we perceive the Totality.
Every moment of existence, a moment of 'Self Knowledge'!

The irony here is that there are huge swathes of western philosophy that Arising is unable to understand.

I'm feeling uncomfortable discussing him like this in public. I don't care for it when people do that to me.
I feel bad that I responded in kind. Egoically. I have no choice but to write as I must, and to 'feel' as I must, also.

Your defending him due to something that I said finds me feeling ashamed.
Sorry Arising.
Another time, perhaps...

Everything that seem most certain is actually just an opinion, a point of view.

Though every 'thought' that might be considered an opinion, is a true and real feature of Reality, Perspective!
A Perspective is not an 'opinion'. 'Opinions' are certain perceived real thoughts.

If he has the ears to hear he would have had heard you early on, just as I did.

I understand, but he is not the only reason that I have these conversations. There are many eyes on these words, and it is not up to me where the seeds that I plant sprout, or when. The 'little light' can blink on over someone's head 80 years later on the other side of the world! When the soil is fertile enough.
That is why it's a blessing that I really am not in charge of this show! I just toss the seeds given me the best that I can, and
"Say what you know to be true, do what you know to be right and leave, with faith and patience, the consequesnces to God!" - F.W. Robertson.

With my best wishes, Nikolai

With my gratitude...
nameless

[Nikolai]

Hi Nameless,

I understand what you are saying, but I cannot even rest on that!
I know no 'delusion/illusion'... it's ALL True!

Yes, but in order to get people to see this you must act as if they are under a delusion. i think that's what you are doing. You descend to their level, argue with them while knowing that that their are right to be wrong, and that is it is right to point out their wrongs even though they are right.

When their delusion is loved, accepted and endorsed it is no longer delusion. And yet it still is...

I'm feeling uncomfortable discussing him like this in public. I don't care for it when people do that to me.

I wouldn't worry. It's a public discussion forum, how could we discuss his ideas other wise? This isn't behind his back - he can read it as well as you can.

The 'little light' can blink on over someone's head 80 years later on the other side of the world! When the soil is fertile enough.

I've read a shit load of philosophy, studied religions around the world, read the words of many wise men and women. And I really don't know if it has helped me one bit. Wisdom seems to come in spite of all that.

When the light comes on, you realise that all your life you never understood what the wise ones were saying. Now that you finally understand them, you have nothing at all to learn.

Meanwhile, the ignorant are reading the wise ones and thinking they understand it all perfectly...

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




Excellent post.


Dead nuts on.

I appreciate the way you expressed, what for some, is a difficult realization to admit.


Thank you.



.

[Arising_uk]

Sorry, you really don't understand what I offer, it is very clear to me by your feedback!

Great! As I like the thoughts, "The meaning of ones words are the response they produce.", "Feedback not failure" and "If what you are doing does not produce the results you want, do something else.". So can you tell me what you offer in a different way?

You are, of course, premature in your dismissal and pedantic demeanor! No problem.

Obviously is. But pedantry in a philosophy forum, who'd 'ave thunk!

Did I dismiss you? I thought I was engaging with you and you decided to dismiss me.

I find that we are simply two equal and opposite Perspectives.
The difference is that your vision is so restricted that you can only see your Perspective as 'right' and any 'others' as 'wrong'.

And this, as I've tried to point out to you, is where your castle in the air does not hang together. As if everything is true then from your perspective what I say is as well, and since I say what you say is false I have every right to think I'm right and you are wrong, when it comes to your thoughts about logic, truth and falsity that is.

The only real difference is that i accept all Perspectives as Reality, you only accept your's. Old ego blather!

And out comes the 'buddhist/fraudianism'. If you accept what you say then you have no grounds to judge me.

Not uncommon. That error has a long list of subscribers, and has treated the world to the horror that it is for most people today.
How's that little box in which you live working for you? Learning much? Still singing the same old song?
Whatever...

What point in asking such question if followed by a dismissal? Still, its working fine thank you, still learning loads after all these years, nope, its a New Code NLP song and dance nowadays but it still rests upon logic and a strong epistemology.

Something in which I see myself and you (in that order);

" Again and again some people in the crowd wake up,
They have no ground in the crowd,
And they emerge according to much broader laws.
They carry strange customs with them
And demand room for bold gestures.
The future speaks ruthlessly through them."
Rainer Maria Rilke

"Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past."
-Maurice Maeterlinck

You won't find me quoting poetry as a philosophical argument.

But LMAO at your choice, as who has the 'ego' now!

Where you have surprised me is in you not trotting-out the usual Schopenhauer quote about such things.

The 'past' is certainly one feature of Reality (but only your's is true, I know!), moving on.

Glad you know something then.

Our conversations are over, though, if that asinine pedantic tone continues; gee, 'if only I were more educated/intelligent in the ways of the last couple millennia I'd agree with you.'
Hardly!

Nope, what I pointed-out to you is that if you'd actually bothered to read philosophy and logic you'd understand how asinine your comments about it are.

If only you'd learned anything from the last few millennia, you would be able to understand that which you refuse (ego?) to even attempt to understand, or are incapable (is there a difference?) of understanding.

Care to say what your understanding is in a way that does not produce complete nonsense?

"Where you are, I was, where I Am.... you should be so lucky!!"

I was where you are when I was fifteen, then I kept on going and joy of joys accidentally fell into Philosophy.

See? I don't think that egoic pedantic sh!t is philosophy. Nor is simply arguing every little point for no good reason. Teens do that. Unintelligent teens...
The intelligent ones make sure that they understand before arguing. After understanding something, there is rarely a need to 'argue' in the first place.
Understanding works like that.

It does, are you telling me that you've read and logic and philosophy? As so far you show little evidence of such actions with respect to your words about it.

So far, all I see is the usual interweeb metaphysical gnu, probably a closet nihilist searching for some kind of absolute to salve the usual pessimistic existential angst about man and the world.

Thats why my 'ignore list' is full of cement-headed blissful idiots!
Their juvenile 'abilities' are a waste of valuable time.

Mind that 'ego'! But why oh why do your ilk have to keep proudly proclaiming about their use of the ignore function. Whats-up? No control of your 'ego'.

Maybe we can try it again sometime, and end the discussion before it degrades as this one has (which is why I discontinued response, you were just arguing for argument's sake and wasting my time).
Now I know the signs.

As do I, Gnu I name thee!

[Arising_uk]

I appreciate the way you expressed, what for some, is a difficult realization to admit.

Care to say in your own words what this 'realization' is?

[Arising_uk]

Hi nameless,

I hope you don't mind me butting in but I've experienced a lot of the frustratíon that you might be feeling and have had to give it a lot of thought.

Which is why I have time for you despite our differences.

It's certainly true that Arising has failed to understand what you were saying. All his objections come from the very approach that you have seen through and left behind. While you are trying to point out new horizons, he still has his head turned in the opposite direction.

But his words show that he's not studied nor understood the thing he is trying to see-through?

Personally, I think I'm looking the same way. I'm just tired of those who keep speaking nonsense about something that cannot be said! Especially when they use the concepts of that which they decry. I've said it before, tell us how and what techniques you used to get your insight and then allow others to follow the same path.

He is simply bound to misunderstand you. To see, as you do, that the false is as true as the true is simply unfathomable to someone who thinks that there is truth and falsehood and that the two stand in distinction from each other. Your vision is illogical to him, and because it is illogical it must be rejected.

Nope, what I reject is the obvious nonsense he states about physics, logic and philosophy.

Even though there is a logic to what you say, in my opinion the highest possible logic, it is in direct opposition to the old laws of non-contradiction.

Show me something that confounds it? This law is found world-wide, at least where reason is found, and not least in the Indian tradition.

Arising is both the best and worst possible conversation partner. he is the best because he is at least a thinker and willing to engage with you. Most people aren't thinkers and so will simply ignore you. He is the worst because he thinks he understands you and is in a position to offer feedback. Not only is this hubris on his behalf, but it proves a considerable barrier to him ever stopping and questioning his own complacency.

I'm not complacent, understanding is what I seek, I'm just waiting to hear something that makes sense and is not contradicted by the very words that are uttered. The only feedback I offer is upon that which I know about, not upon what the other is claiming but upon what they claim it means for the subjects that I've studied and they obviously haven't.

Philosophical argument can't communicate what you have seen - the laws you describe yourself as stumbling upon. I don't think it is in your power, or anyone's power to pass on what you know.

Then stop trying to pass on what you 'know' and say and show how you got there! I think in this respect much can be learnt from the approach of the other much more popular, but ignored by the 'intelligentsia', tradition from the 'east', the martial arts.

You are right about this. But yet you argue vociferously for just one - your perspectivalism. It's a shame that Arising can't see what you are arguing. But in the meantime you can sit serene and know that you even transcend and see through your own argument. That your perspectivalism is just the equal and opposite to Arising's absolutism.

He shows no evidence of this?

Arising is, as thinkers go, a pretty good thinker. His world view is as grand and as securely rooted as world views go. He isn't some petty chauvinist but learned and reflective.

And yet you can see how restricted he is!

Thats just your perspective!

Even the so-called greatest minds can seem paltry and cramped to those who have seen true wisdom. I understand how you might wish to lend a hand, show them the error of their ways. It's a kind of mortification when you realise that you aren't even able to do even that. But the answer is to see the butterfly rather than the death of the caterpillar.

Ignorance has a rightness to it, ultimately. The deluded can be accepted and endorsed. The blackbird dare not eat a perfectly tasty, harmless hoverfly because it is striped like a hornet. Delusion! But what is bad for the blackbird is good for the hoverfly.

People are shaped by their delusions, their blindness. It is delusion and blindness that allows a baker to bake bread all his life. It is his passion, his consolation, but also his delusion - he does not see what else life has to offer and isn't interested.

The wisdom you have isn't for everyone. And don't go getting prideful or even embarrassed by your achievements. There are times when wisdom such as yours can feel pretty unattractive. There's a verse in the Tao Te Ching, no 20:

Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles.

Is there a difference between yes and no?
Is there a difference between good and evil?
Must I fear what others fear? What nonsence!
Other people are contented, enjoying the sacrificial feast of the ox.
In spring some go to the park, and climb the terrace,
But I alone am drifting not knowing where I am.
Like a new-born babe before it learns to smile,
I am alone, without a place to go.

Other have more than they need, but I alone have nothing.
I am a fool. Oh, yes! I am confused.
Other men are clear and bright,
But I alone am dim and weak.
Other men are sharp and clever,
But I alone am dull and stupid.
Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea.
Without direction, like the restless wind.

Everyone else is busy,
But I alone am aimless and depressed.
I am different.
I am nourished by the great mother.

To enjoy the sacrificial ox fully you have to believe in what the ox was sacrificed for. The meaning and symbolism of the moment has to full you with grandeur and glory. When you gain wisdom what pleases others, and perhaps yourself once, no longer does it for you. You see through such petty superstitions and there is a part of you that might lament that.

You are unlikely to contribute to the horror of the world, but be careful not to see the horror of the world as horror. When you do you will have lost your vision and are liable to start adding to the horror.

There's a danger to thinking that the world is due for some kind of future bliss once we leave behind our current ways. The wise have been in the minority in the past as they are in the present. Why think the future will be any different? Once you accept and endorse ignorance in others there will be no need to hope for its abolition in the future.

Personally I think most of this exactly the kind of egotistical arrogance that you and he wish to decry. "True wisdom" no less!

Yes, very true. The irony here is that there are huge swathes of western philosophy that Arising is unable to understand. But it is because he doesn't understand some bits that he is able to believe that he he does. For example, it is because he doesn't understand idealism that he is able to confidently assert that:

Given that because we are a body with senses in a reality we do not perceive reality at all and if Kant is right we never can.

This isn't a given, not by any means, and there are many great philosophers: Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer who have pointed this out. But for some reason Arising hasn't heard them. He may have read them and understood them to a point. But has never actually seen with his wisdom that they are making a point as valid as what he says in his quote above. And so he continues to be stuck in opposition to them. And only those who are stuck in opposition are convinced that they know the truth and presume to educate others.

Where am I in opposition to them? That what I like of Idealism and Transcendental Idealism is not coloured by the 'eastern mysticism' nor the 'religiosity' of two of those of whom you speak is because I'm with Nietzsche and Merleau-Ponty upon where the grounds of such things lie. That its always the same old authors when there is Gudijeff and Ouspensky in the wings is a common thing in my experience. The irony is that most appear happy to ignore Locke, Hume, Russell, Ayer, Wittgenstein, Strawson, Moore, Frege, et al, and just goes to show how little ones own traditions are valued in a culture that pretty much rests upon them.

To be willing to understand and to be able to understand are, as you suggest, the same thing. Arising is not willing because he is not able. It takes something very remarkable, miraculous even to be able to take your deepest beliefs and see that they are, in a sense, just opinions. Where or why this ability comes who knows? It is not from logical argument even though the recipients are often expert logicians. And then following on there is the really world changing insight that actually anything we think is, of necessity, just an opinion - just one side of an intellectual coin. Everything that seem most certain is actually just an opinion, a point of view. Reality, as intellectually conceived melts before our eyes. Leaving only what...Reality.

That most appear unable to commit to and stand the rigours of an academic philosophical education is no surprise to me, as its where one actually experiences where the bulk of ones beliefs and opinions come from and is a true eye-opener as to what having a point-of-view actually entails.

It takes intelligence, dilligence, and what feels like immense personal courage to actually take this vision seriously. If Arising has his limits then that must be accepted, what else can you do? If he has the ears to hear he would have had heard you early on, just as I did.

Oh I've heard what he said, its just that its nonsense given what he said, especially when concerned with the things that he's not studied. But no surprise there as it appears a common trait amongst those who claim the 'ego-less' stance that their 'ego' is the biggest thing about them.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.









....................................................................






I've read a shit load of philosophy, studied religions around the world, read the words of many wise men and women. And I really don't know if it has helped me one bit. Wisdom seems to come in spite of all that.

When the light comes on, you realize that all your life you never understood what the wise ones were saying. Now that you finally understand them, you have nothing at all to learn.

Meanwhile, the ignorant are reading the wise ones and thinking they understand it all perfectly...
~~~ Nikolai ~~~




.

[Arising_uk]

At least he's read them so is speaking from experience. Can you say the same?

Or are you just once again quoting from anothers authority.

Although I'd doubt he really understands what the meaning of a 'shit load' is in respect to this subject.

But it is fun to see how your images expose your prejudices, keep it up!

[John]

Or are you just once again quoting from anothers authority.

Well he's directly quoting Nikolai so maybe this is Bill's way of admitting that he has nothing original to say?

[Metazoan]

Hi ..nameless..,

Having fun baiting the realists, eh?

Watch out when they reach for their ice-picks.

... Could I have avoided not reading it (yet?)? *__-

From my perspective, it isn't possible to avoid anything. Anything that is possible, is. Anything that is not possible, isn't.

There simply isn't any room left for free will.

An " underlying mechanism from which your model is derived"??? Do you mean like 'thought'? I guess that all mental models exist as ('derived from') 'thought'.

My question was aimed at working out how you thought it all got off the ground. If I take what you say as given, it does hold together but it does seem to presuppose thought/consciousness rather than predict thought/consciousness.

Where does the thought/consciousness come from?

My 'model' is original work! There has never been another all inclusive ToE!

I once thought I had come up with a ToE, mainly due to it starting from absolutely nothing and ending up with me.

On closer examination I realised that that was only the tiniest part of what may be possible and was staggered to see just how monumentally huge 'everything' is.

I reduced my ambitions and now think of it as a ToMFI (Theory of Metazoan's Fevered Imaginings.) Which, if my theory is correct, spells a very rude word.

Nevertheless I am now content that I have some idea how I got here.

I 'derived' it from my own perceptions, experiences, practices, disciplines from many "disparate areas of experience";

The thing that would worry me here is that sounds very much like the definition of empirical. That would suggest the absence of a theory and then the difficulty of getting around the problem of correlation not proving causation.

That was another reason why I was looking for a mechanism.

Does your model give you any way to get a handle on the nature of consciousness?

Consciousness has no 'nature' For something to have 'definition' (nature?) it must have (be perceived in) context!
Each and every one of us Perspectives are the 'context' by which the Uncontextual/Reality/Consciousness might be Known (perceived).
Quantum physics has shown that the 'possibility' (undifferentiated poential, Bindu) only becomes our 'Reality' ('differentiated'; collapsed (quanton) 'probability wave') , when it is perceived/observed. The observer and the observed are integrally One!
Your keyboard does not exist if not perceived by a Conscious Perspective!
Any Conscious Perspective!

Without a reason for there to be consciousness why does consciousness exist?

How does consciousness exist without being perceived?

If I take consciousness for granted then all's well and I don't need anything else to explain my existence. But unless consciousness has some intrinsic reason for existing, then I start with nothing and nothing ever exists.

That is the bit I have failed to grasp from what you have said.

In my view consciousness needs an explanation or your theory cannot be complete.

An initial look at your reasoning would appear to force you to deny the possibility of examining consciousness but I am missing why that reasoning is required.

Personally, I have consciousness pinned out on a dissecting table like a dead frog. Unfortunately again I disastrously underestimated how big it was and now I kinda wish I hadn't started. My point is that you may wish to review your ideas on the effability of consciousness.

[Metazoan]

Hi Nikolai,

Do you realise how condescending you sound in these posts?

Just thought I'd mention it in case it was unintentional.

[chaz wyman]

Hi Without a reason for there to be consciousness why does consciousness exist?

Why, why, why. Why is the sky blue? What's the point of Pluto?

How does consciousness exist without being perceived?

Consciousness is perception

If I take consciousness for granted then all's well and I don't need anything else to explain my existence. But unless consciousness has some intrinsic reason for existing, then I start with nothing and nothing ever exists.

Nothing explains your existence. You can have a crack at how you came to exist, but unless you can begin to answer why anything exists then how do you think you have a reason?

[..nameless..]

So can you tell me what you offer in a different way?

No, I cannot. (rise to the bait)
Now the ball is in your court. If you are really interested in understanding what I offer (which you are obviously not), find and read my posts.

So far, all I see is the usual interweeb metaphysical gnu, probably a closet nihilist searching for some kind of absolute to salve the usual pessimistic existential angst about man and the world.

Then I won't waste any more time of your time.

Oh I've heard what he said, its just that its nonsense given what he said, especially when concerned with the things that he's not studied.

'Nonsense' is in (the eye/thoughts) of the beholder, you!
All 'meaning' and 'value' is.

But no surprise there as it appears a common trait amongst those who claim the 'ego-less' stance that their 'ego' is the biggest thing about them.

First, I never claimed egolessness, I've got the largest one on the block! Perhaps the difference is that I can recognise it for what it is and accept it. Integration vs schizophrenia. I can also recognise the times it's not around. Big deal.
Second, it seems our conversation is over.
Well, for me, anyway.

[Arising_uk]

No, I cannot. (rise to the bait)
Now the ball is in your court. If you are really interested in understanding what I offer (which you are obviously not), find and read my posts.

Why do your ilk always say this? What 'bait'? Its a philosophy forum, we appeared to have been discussing your thoughts and now you wish to play coy? But I have read your posts, you pretty much say the same thing in every one and as I obviously do not understand what you say and have pointed-out why and where I find it nonsensical I was hoping that you did understand what you say and as such could say it in another way, obviously not.

Then I won't waste any more time of your time.

Did I say I thought it a waste of time? I'd not be replying if I thought such a thing.

All 'meaning' and 'value' is.

But here you are replying after what you just said? "Is" what? I can find no meaning in this statement other than its a truism. What do you think this means?

First, I never claimed egolessness, I've got the largest one on the block! Perhaps the difference is that I can recognise it for what it is and accept it. Integration vs schizophrenia. I can also recognise the times it's not around. Big deal.

But apparently you're happy to use it as some kind of ad-hominem insult towards others? No idea what the "Integration vs schizophrenia" is supposed to mean? That you are schizophrenic?

Second, it seems our conversation is over.
Well, for me, anyway.

You seem to have much trouble making a choice but as I've said before, this is your prerogative.