Religion is Man- Made

[Belinda]

Nothing is ever good if bad can happen to it.

Well, in the ideal, I agree. Good things should last.

But even the things that fade, get hurt, get stained or decay, or even die can be good.

You know that if you've ever owned a dog.

Oh well, life is just amazing then isn't it, it's all so good because I have a dog.

No, mannie, just no, this is a weak argument for good. Your barking up the wrong tree again.

To love a dog is , in its own small way, to experience inclusiveness which is the only way to approach the absolute.

[Dontaskme]

Well, in the ideal, I agree. Good things should last.

But even the things that fade, get hurt, get stained or decay, or even die can be good.

You know that if you've ever owned a dog.

Oh well, life is just amazing then isn't it, it's all so good because I have a dog.

No, mannie, just no, this is a weak argument for good. Your barking up the wrong tree again.

To love a dog is , in its own small way, to experience inclusiveness which is the only way to approach the absolute.

There is no way to approach yourself....go figure!

Love is another man-made concept. The addiction to it has the same effects as crack cocaine, heroin, and hallucinogens. Humanity is a whore to it's addictions. It's all very gross.

[Dontaskme]

Again I agree with Immanuel Can "...experience, not language, is primary."

You cannot know you are experiencing experience, until you are able to tell yourself you are, this requires the knowledge that is language...go figure!


Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality, there is no knower, nor is there an experiencer, except in this conception, aka language, aka knowledge, aka an illusion.

[Dontaskme]

If you say so.

But, is there ANY actual thing, which 'you' appear SO DESPERATELY wanting to share with 'us', that actually has ANY importance at all here?

Not important no, but obviously of interest to you, since you are rather partial to reading my posts and responding to them. Are they important to you, that you have to poke your beak in and leave a response, why do you read, are you hoping to find something?

[Dontaskme]

Again I agree with Immanuel Can "...experience, not language, is primary."
Dontaskme replied to IC: "Well if you want to be really finicky over this, then it's consciousness that is primary, not experience. Experience is an appearance within consciousness, experience is not consciousness itself."

I disagree with Dontaskme. There is no such thing as consciousness itself, except in a clinical sense. Experience is consciousness.In other words, there is no DAM upon whom experiences are engraved. On the contrary, DAM is experience: without experience DAM would be a robot.

No, there is no Dam, there is only consciousness, subject and object are one.

When the concept of separation dissolves, it is seen clearly that consciousness is and ‘has always’ only ever been experiencing itself. It experiences itself through itself alone and not through a body or a mind.

" Objectivity is a subject's delusion that observing can be done without him/her. Invoking objectivity is abrogating responsibility hence its popularity."
Heinz Foerster


What we need now is the description of the “describer” or, in other words, we need a theory of the observer.

[Belinda]

Again I agree with Immanuel Can "...experience, not language, is primary."
Dontaskme replied to IC: "Well if you want to be really finicky over this, then it's consciousness that is primary, not experience. Experience is an appearance within consciousness, experience is not consciousness itself."

I disagree with Dontaskme. There is no such thing as consciousness itself, except in a clinical sense. Experience is consciousness.In other words, there is no DAM upon whom experiences are engraved. On the contrary, DAM is experience: without experience DAM would be a robot.

No, there is no Dam, there is only consciousness, subject and object are one.

When the concept of separation dissolves, it is seen clearly that consciousness is and ‘has always’ only ever been experiencing itself. It experiences itself through itself alone and not through a body or a mind.

" Objectivity is a subject's delusion that observing can be done without him/her. Invoking objectivity is abrogating responsibility hence its popularity."
Heinz Foerster


What we need now is the description of the “describer” or, in other words, we need a theory of the observer.

We are at cross purposes. Consciousness i.e. experiences is the subject. Objects are what are experienced by subjects.

[henry quirk]

there is no Dam, there is only consciousness

"there is no dana, only zuul"

-----

"I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science." Antony Flew

[Skepdick]

“Since no one really knows anything about God, those who think they do are just troublemakers” Rabia Al-Basri

There's a position in the mud-slinging fest known as igtheism.

An ignostic (or igtheist) concludes that the question of God's existence or nonexistence is not worth discussing because the concept of God is not sufficiently clearly defined.

Of course, that's a stupid world-view.

The concept of sufficnency" is not sufficiently clearly defined.
The concept of "clarity" is not sufficiently clearly defined.
The concept of "definition" is not sufficiently clearly defined.

But most of all... the concepts of "Philosophy" is not sufficiently clearly defined and if that's grounds for rejecting it. I am all in.

[RCSaunders]

there is no Dam, there is only consciousness

"there is no dana, only zuul"

-----

"I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science." Antony Flew

... and his mind did too!

[Dontaskme]

We are at cross purposes. Consciousness i.e. experiences is the subject. Objects are what are experienced by subjects.

Objects are not experienced. There is a conscious awareness of an object, but consciousness can never experience itself as an object. As both consciousness and the contents of consciousness, aka appearances, aka conceptual objects known, are one and the same experience.
That which is known cannot know or experience anything...as the known implies a concept.

[henry quirk]

consciousness can never experience itself as an object

In other words a person can never experience himself?

So: when I sit with a problem, mullin' it over, interrogatin' my own experiences, comparin' and contrastin', I'm not experiencin' myself?

When I'm havin' fun, and I pause to appreciate that I'm havin' fun, there's no experience of myself, by me?

Consciousness cannot self-reflect?

Mind cannot contemplate on itself?

One cannot look inward?

[henry quirk]

there is no Dam, there is only consciousness

"there is no dana, only zuul"

-----

"I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science." Antony Flew

... and his mind did too!

Did what?

[Dontaskme]

consciousness can never experience itself as an object

In other words a person can never experience himself?

So: when I sit with a problem, mullin' it over, interrogatin' my own experiences, comparin' and contrastin', I'm not experiencin' myself?

When I'm havin' fun, and I pause to appreciate that I'm havin' fun, there's no experience of myself, by me?

Consciousness cannot self-reflect?

Mind cannot contemplate on itself?

One cannot look inward?

Henry, you are Consciousness, and consciousness is not an object. It can never be an object. Objects are not conscious, objects are concepts known by consciousness.
There is awareness or consciousness. This is our primal and essential experience.
Awareness is the non-conceptual (and non-perceptual) presence or being that we intimately and directly know ourself to be.

It is this awareness that takes the shape of thinking and imagining and seems, as a result, to become a mind.

It is this awareness that takes the shape of sensing and seems, as a result, to become a body.

It is this awareness that takes the shape of perceiving and seems, as a result, to become an object, other or world.

When this awareness is not taking the shape of thinking, sensing and perceiving, it simply remains as it always is, as the non-objective experience of knowing its own being.

In other words, there is the experience of ‘awareness by itself’ and there is the experience of ‘awareness taking the shape of the body-mind-world’, that is, taking the shape of an object.

We could simplify this by saying that there is ‘awareness on its own’ and there is ‘awareness plus an apparent object’.




.

[henry quirk]

Henry, you are Consciousness

No, I'm a person, a composite of flesh and spirit (or matter and information). I'm conscious and self-aware. I am not a personification of a some pre-existing consciousness (cuz there is no such thing).


When this awareness is not taking the shape of thinking, sensing and perceiving, it simply remains as it always is, as the non-objective experience of knowing its own being.

No, there is no free-floating consciousness contemplatin' its navel.


In other words, there is the experience of ‘awareness by itself’

No.


We could simplify this by saying that there is ‘awareness on its own’ and there is ‘awareness plus an apparent object’.

Simplify it as you like: it's not true.

Persons exist: they are self-conscious.

Life exists: in one way or another all living things are conscious, individually.

There is no Consciousness.

[Dontaskme]

Henry, you are Consciousness

No, I'm a person, a composite of flesh and spirit (or matter and information). I'm conscious and self-aware. I am not a personification of a some pre-existing consciousness (cuz there is no such thing).


When this awareness is not taking the shape of thinking, sensing and perceiving, it simply remains as it always is, as the non-objective experience of knowing its own being.

No, there is no free-floating consciousness contemplatin' its navel.


In other words, there is the experience of ‘awareness by itself’

No.


We could simplify this by saying that there is ‘awareness on its own’ and there is ‘awareness plus an apparent object’.

Simplify it as you like: it's not true.

Persons exist: they are self-conscious.

Life exists: in one way or another all living things are conscious, individually.

There is no Consciousness.

Ok, if that's what is happening there for you, then so be it.

But it's not what is happening for this one here.