The Metaphysical Consciousness

[doronshadmi]

You imply, at least, that there is an awareness without thought, and a spiritual experience that occurs when the brain is not functioning. I dispute that.

Since you are not going to practice TM and actually directly be aware of yourself without thoughts, all is left is to talk about it at the level of thoughts by using analogies, which are never the real thing.

It is clearly shown that you are unable to do the needed abstraction (which is unfortunately relative_subjective_only state of mind) in order to comprehend the equation analogy (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10174604&postcount=566) the radio analogy (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10189145&postcount=753) or the ocean analogy (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10189174&postcount=755) which are all involved at least with invariant AND variant as simultaneous aspects of the same reality.

the brain is not functioning

The brain is functioning AND you are aware of yourself without thoughts.

This is exactly restful alertness (for example http://www.dejanrakovicfund.org/radovi/1999-INFORMATICA.pdf paragraph 4.1).

 

[bruto]

Since you are not going to practice TM and actually directly be aware of yourself without thoughts, all is left is to talk about it at the level of thoughts by using analogies, which are never the real thing.

It is clearly shown that you are unable to do the needed abstraction (which is unfortunately relative_subjective_only state of mind) in order to comprehend the equation analogy (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10174604&postcount=566) the radio analogy (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10189145&postcount=753) or the ocean analogy (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10189174&postcount=755) which are all involved at least with invariant AND variant as simultaneous aspects of the same reality.


The brain is functioning AND you are aware of yourself without thoughts.

This is exactly restful alertness (for example http://www.dejanrakovicfund.org/radovi/1999-INFORMATICA.pdf paragraph 4.1).

You don't know what I have and have not done.

An unwillingness to accept analogies I do not agree with is not the same thing as being unable to understand them. I am afraid that entirely expressing my opinion of that attitude would contravene the members' agreement here, but I will say that your view from that high horse is distorted.

To be a lover of the abstract does not condemn us all to accepting every stupid notion that comes along with the label stuck on it.

Awareness is thought. I don't care what the meditation gurus say about it, if you are aware of something, you are thinking about it. If you are not thinking about it, you're a camera without film. What arrives will not only be useless, it will not be remembered.

You can take a hammer and smash away at language all you want, but calling one thing something else does not make it so.

 

[doronshadmi]

Awareness is thought.

Awareness at its own simplest state is calmness without thoughts, where any thought is some partial subjective expression of it.

I don't care what the meditation gurus say about it,

I also don't care what anyone (guru or whatever) says about it, exactly because about it is always partial subjective-only view of directly know it.

if you are aware of something, you are thinking about it.

If you are directly aware of the simplest form of awareness, you are also enable to think about it, where thinking about it is always partial subjective-only view of directly know it.

If you are not thinking about it, you're a camera without film.

If the simplest form of awareness is not directly known, no amount of films that think about it achieve the direct knowledge of it.

You don't have to believe in any guru in order to successfully practice TM and directly be aware of the simplest form of awareness, which is the true objective state of awareness, simply because it is independent of any thought about it that may be subjectively expressed by any particular brain.

What arrives will not only be useless, it will not be remembered.

On the contrary, the core of memory is the simplest form of awareness, which enables the natural harmonious correlation among partial expressions of it. Without this natural harmonious correlation, partial expressions of it are no more than an aggregation of disjoint (memory-less) phenomena.

You can take a hammer and smash away at language all you want, but calling one thing something else does not make it so.

You take the about relative aspect of language at the level of thoughts, and try to use it in order to directly know the simplest form of language, also directly known as the simplest form of awareness.

You also ignored the following:

the brain is not functioning

The brain is functioning AND you are aware of yourself without thoughts.

This is exactly restful alertness (for example http://www.dejanrakovicfund.org/radovi/1999-INFORMATICA.pdf paragraph 4.1).

I do not agree with ...

Exactly because you are using only the about it subjective view without also use the objective direct view of it.

your view from that high horse is distorted.

Your "high horse" subjective-only knowledge about the simplest form of awareness, blocks any objective direct knowledge of the simplest form of awareness.

 

[realpaladin]

That post was a bit aggressive...

 

[Resume]

That post was a bit aggressive...

I was thinking he should look into some relaxation techniques to help calm down.

 

[Donn]

Metalol!

 

[tsig]

I was thinking he should look into some relaxation techniques to help calm down.

I have found that kicking back with my favorite TV show and a beer works a charm every time.

 

[realpaladin]

I was thinking he should look into some relaxation techniques to help calm down.

For some reason we mere mortals can't fathom, TM demonstrably does not help in the following area's:

- Clear and concise communications
- Proper and respectful manners
- A relaxed attitude when in discussions...

Doron demonstrates this in all of his threads... should he ask his money back or is it a 'feature' of TM?

 

[doronshadmi]

I confess that I am puzzled by the rhetorical device to which you have resorted in this post; that is, the odd third-person reference.

It is odd because you don't get yourself only as objective-only thing, or in other words, both objective and subjective aspects are involved (invariant (objective) AND variant (subjective)).

Moreover, it is odd exactly because a third-person reference is actually an attempt to address the subjective in terms of the objective.

I used third-person reference in order to expose your natural inconvenience of it.

This is exactly the case about consciousness, its invariant calm aspect is non-personal and totally objective, where its variant non-calm aspect (thoughts process) is personal and totally subjective.

Moreover, also the physical aspect of reality is the linkage among total symmetry (which is equivalent to the non-personal aspect of consciousness) and spontaneous symmetry breaking (which is equivalent to the personal aspect of consciousness).

 

[Donn]

It is odd because you don't get yourself only as objective-only thing, or in other words, both objective and subjective aspects are involved (invariant (objective) AND variant (subjective)).

Moreover, it is odd exactly because a third-person reference is actually an attempt to address the subjective in terms of the objective.

I used third-person reference in order to expose your natural inconvenience of it.

This is exactly the case about consciousness, its invariant calm aspect is non-personal and totally objective, where its variant non-calm aspect (thoughts process) is personal and totally subjective.

Moreover, also the physical aspect of reality is the linkage among total symmetry (which is equivalent to the non-personal aspect of consciousness) and spontaneous symmetry breaking (which is equivalent to the personal aspect of consciousness).

Thoughts:

Some variant non-calm aspect of consciousness, its variant calm aspect is odd because your natural inconvenience in terms of the personal and subjective.

Moreover, it is odd because a third-person reference in terms of the physical aspect of consciousness, its variant (subjective and spontaneous symmetry (which is equivalent to the subjective-only as objective aspect of consciousness, its variant calm aspect of reality is the person reference in other words, both objective.

Moreover, also the linkage.

 

[gentlehorse]

Thoughts:

Some variant non-calm aspect of consciousness, its variant calm aspect is odd because your natural inconvenience in terms of the personal and subjective.

Moreover, it is odd because a third-person reference in terms of the physical aspect of consciousness, its variant (subjective and spontaneous symmetry (which is equivalent to the subjective-only as objective aspect of consciousness, its variant calm aspect of reality is the person reference in other words, both objective.

Moreover, also the linkage.

Now I know who I am.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It is odd because you don't get yourself only as objective-only thing, or in other words, both objective and subjective aspects are involved (invariant (objective) AND variant (subjective)).

Ignoring for a moment the fact that it took you ten days (!) to craft this rationalization, please be so good as to explain how you can even pretend to claim that "invariant" is semantically equivalent to "objective"; or that "variant" is semantically equivalent to "subjective". It would also be interesting if you would provide a source of someone else (that means, someone other than yourself) making the same false equivocation, as I would be fascinated to see how you developed your error.

Moreover, it is odd exactly because a third-person reference is actually an attempt to address the subjective in terms of the objective.

That is an odd rationalization of a grammatical faux pas. Which are you claiming is "objective" (and to whom); the first-person reference, or the thrid-person reference?

I used third-person reference in order to expose your natural inconvenience of it.

"Inconvenience" is an odd circumlocution by which to refer to misuse. I am not, nor was I, "inconvenienced" by your use of the third person--I have a good idea as to why disputants of your quality resort to it.

This is exactly the case about consciousness, its invariant calm aspect is non-personal and totally objective, where its variant non-calm aspect (thoughts process) is personal and totally subjective.

...which has nothing to do with your third-person reference. For that matter, which has nothing to do with any demonstrable aspect of actual reality.

I wonder that you do not see the contradiction with referring to "consciousness" as "totally objective".

Moreover, also the physical aspect of reality is the linkage among total symmetry (which is equivalent to the non-personal aspect of consciousness) and spontaneous symmetry break (which is equivalent to the personal aspect of consciousness).

I did not order the word salad; you may have mistaken me for the "totally objective" iteration of "Slowvehicle" in you own mind (a totally subjective construct).

It is a good thing my musings about your misusing were, in fact, rhetorical.

 

[doronshadmi]

Ignoring for a moment the fact that it took you ten days (!) to craft this rationalization, please be so good as to explain how you can even pretend to claim that "invariant" is semantically equivalent to "objective"; or that "variant" is semantically equivalent to "subjective". It would also be interesting if you would provide a source of someone else (that means, someone other than yourself) making the same false equivocation, as I would be fascinated to see how you developed your error.

Being objective means that it remains the same under any possible transformation (for example: Total-symmetry, the non-personal calm state of mind).

Being subjective means that it does not remain the same under any possible transformation (for example: Non Total-symmetry, the personal non-calm state of mind).

That is an odd rationalization of a grammatical faux pas. Which are you claiming is "objective" (and to whom); the first-person reference, or the thrid-person reference?

Both of them are personal (first or third, it does not matter) and therefore subjective (done only at the level of thoughts process).

If one's consciousness is known only at the level of thoughts process, he\she thinks that addressing first-person as third-person will mark him\her as an object of the other person.

People naturally do not like to be marked as objects by other persons exactly because personality is naturally subjective.

The only thing that is really objective is the non-personal calm state of mind, and at this non-personal state there is naturally no first-person, second-person or third-person.

I have a good idea as to why disputants of your quality resort to it.

Please share it with me.

...which has nothing to do with your third-person reference. For that matter, which has nothing to do with any demonstrable aspect of actual reality.

What is actual reality?

I wonder that you do not see the contradiction with referring to "consciousness" as "totally objective".

If consciousness is known only at the subjective level of thoughts process, then any attempt to define some thought as totally objective, is always false.

I did not order the word salad;

Yet you eat it exactly because your consciousness is aware only of its subjective aspect.

At the moment that you transcend beyond the subjective, you naturally enable not to eat any word salad.

 

[doronshadmi]

Thoughts:

Thoughts are naturally subjective.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip, of much off-topic non-discussion, for focus>
Yet you eat it exactly because your consciousness is aware only of its subjective aspect.

You flatter yourself without cause, and without judgment.

At the moment that you transcend beyond the subjective, you naturally enable not to eat any word salad.

Actually, recognizing the peristaltic product you are dishing up requires no more than a passing familiarity with the language--no woo! involved.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Thoughts are naturally subjective.

As is consciousness, which is why it is entertainingly diagnostic when you try to pretend that it "objectively" represents "the" "invariant".

 

[bruto]

Now I know who I am.

But you will never quite know why.

 

[tsig]

But you will never quite know why.

That's the De Broglie Uncertainty Principle as understood by Schrodinger's cat.

 

[realpaladin]

That's the De Broglie Uncertainty Principle as understood by Schrodinger's cat.

I say! Live and learn! I never would have thought that the understanding of the De Broglie Uncertainty Principle by a feline would have any bearing on this.

But then again, it must follow that any conscious creature which has no thoughts has become a transcended being.

Hurrah the krill!

 

[tsig]

I say! Live and learn! I never would have thought that the understanding of the De Broglie Uncertainty Principle by a feline would have any bearing on this.

But then again, it must follow that any conscious creature which has no thoughts has become a transcended being.

Hurrah the krill!

Since Schrodinger's Cat is a being always on the cusp of being it follows that it has a grasp of uncertainty that we more materiel creatures lack, it's consciousness is purely metaphysical.