The Metaphysical Consciousness

[realpaladin]

Then consciousness is the lack of the Unconscious observerhood so we might form a Heisenberg* consciousness principle that the act of nonobserving consciousness gives rise to the Conscious.

*We might also use the Pauli Exclusion Law that Unconsciousness and Consciousness cannot temporally occupy the same space.

That will not be possible; temporal locations would create multiplicity and since direct perception is the result of total harmonious unity, there can be no distinct temporal spaces.

 

[bruto]

Not alone does not define anything.

More general, any logical connective alone is not wff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-formed_formula).

I must confess to a certain degree of admiration here, because it requires a spectactular level of both incomprehension and delusion to link to a site on logic to support the argument that negation is conditional.

If in the land of metaphysical consciousness false can be true and true false, then nothing can actually be known, nothing argued, and nothing found. In this land all mistakes are correct if you look at them upside down. It's perfect.

 

[doronshadmi]

Then consciousness is the lack of the Unconscious observerhood

The relative aspect of reality is the independence of observerhood, observinghood and observedhood of each other.

This independence enables multiplicity.

The absolute aspect of reality is Unity such that reality is Consciousness > any amount of multiplicity (Unity is not the sum of infinitely many things).

If, by analogy, Unity is Silence, then no multiple ways to define\express it, is actually Silence, but it at its best only about-Silence.

 

[realpaladin]

The relative aspect of reality is the independence of observerhood, observinghood and observedhood of each other.

This independence enables multiplicity.

The absolute aspect of reality is Unity such that reality is Consciousness > any amount of multiplicity (Unity is not the sum of infinitely many things).

If, by analogy, Unity is Silence, then no multiple ways to define\express it, is actually Silence, but it at its best only about-Silence.

This is old-hat philosophy; try researching "Das Ding an Sich" and you'll find them Veda people were lagging behind again.

 

[doronshadmi]

The absolute aspect of reality is Unity such that reality is Consciousness > any amount of multiplicity (Unity is not the sum of infinitely many things).

If, by analogy, Unity is Silence, then no multiple ways to define\express it, is actually Silence, but it at its best only about-Silence.

I wish to address the quote above (and also post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10234298&postcount=1035) by using the following diagram:

The non-composed AND non-bounded state of this diagram (which also addresses the term unbounded above of a binary tree (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10234298&postcount=1035)) is a single 1-dimesional element that is simultaneously non-vibrating AND vibrating (like an ocean that it is non-vibrating at its depth (represented by non-composed AND non-bounded straight 1-dimesional element) AND also vibrating upon infinitely many levels (represented by non-composed AND non-bounded non-straight 1-dimesional element)).

The single non-composed AND non-bounded 1-dimesional element represents absolute Unity (symbolized as ∞), where its infinite amount of vibrations at each given level upon infinite amount of levels, represent relative multiplicity (symbolized as ∞), such that no amount of ∞ is ∞, and this inequality is written as ∞ > ∞.

The beautiful thing about ∞ > ∞ is that reality is naturally non-entropic, simply because relative multiplicity (∞) always has a room for further complexity development (for more vibrations and combinations of vibrations).

As far as I'm concerned, realty is Consciousness (represented here as a single non-composed AND non-bounded 1-dimesional element) that is directly-known (straight 1-dimesional element) AND non directly-known (non-straight 1-dimesional element).

Unity Consciousness is the simultaneous awareness of straight AND non-straight states of the single non-composed AND non-bounded 1-dimesional element.

 

[realpaladin]

And we addressed these exact same images over 5 years ago in the other thread.

And Doron was shown the error of his ways...

But to respond again to these claims:

- If you read the text, then is nought but claims; there is *no* supporting proof.

- The 'definitions' are written in such a way that it disqualifies anyone who says otherwise *automatically*

Therefore the preceding two posts can be safely rejected as a constructive dialog into a metaphysical consciousness.

EDIT: if you want to say something about the images; they are simple represenations of 'reduction of frequency'; 1 full cycle is simply 1/2 of the next and so on. I would find it kid's stuff...

 

[jsfisher]

You implied a consensus in the post I quoted. That was challenged, and so in defense, you off this non sequitur:

1) Reality is not limited to this forum.

...followed by this inane claim that the silent majority agrees with you:

2) Even only in that forum there are more than 50 entrances per day of people that read the posts without reply to them, so my "we have" is also tuned to these silent readers.

Seriously? That is poor reasoning even by your standards, Doron.

What do you mean by using the word slant?

Slant: point of view, viewpoint, standpoint, stance, angle, perspective, approach, view, attitude, position, bias, leaning, spin, misrepresentation.

Why you do not reply to any part of my last post?

I did reply to a part, the very first part, of your last post. As is common with your posts, it begins with a false statement as its basis, and that is sufficient to render the rest without merit and unworthy of a response.

 

[doronshadmi]

I did reply to a part, the very first part, of your last post. As is common with your posts, it begins with a false statement as its basis, and that is sufficient to render the rest without merit and unworthy of a response.

"We have" does not need majority in order to be said (I am not the one and only person that claims (or claimed) that Reality is Consciousness).

 

[bruto]

"We have" does not need majority in order to be said (I am not the one and only person that claims (or claimed) that Reality is Consciousness).

When you begin a list of things with the representation that it is "what we have until now" the common understanding would be that this list comprises things that have been generally, if not universally, agreed upon. A consensus is implied, and a consensus, while it may not need to be total, is not the viewpoint of a very very small minority.

Your opinion is not, clearly, what we have. Your usage is at best sloppy and uninformative.

You can, of course, say what you want and make up what you want. It is, in fact, more permitted by forum rules to express a preposterous or stupid opinion than it is explicitly to point it out. However, every once in a blue moon you could humor the rabble here and admit to having said something badly instead of digging yourself deeper into it as if everything, once said, had been engraved on gold plates.

 

[bruto]

The claim that reality is Consciousness is generally done by people that their view is Idealism or Neutral monism, and they are not very very small minority (as for me, my view is in the direction of Neutral monism (https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Neutral_monism.html)).



Your "we have" is simply people that do not agree with Idealism or Neutral monism.


Please support your claim by reply to the contents of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10242078&postcount=1045 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10243166&postcount=1046 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10246153&postcount=1048.

How many neutral monists or idealists exist or have existed in the world is irrelevant. How many are participating in this thread? If it is a small minority, then your opinion is not what "we have." You have stated it, we have not accepted it.

If you spent the last fifty pages arguing that blue is green, you could not then sum up your argument by saying "we have the fact that blue is green." It would be a misleading implication that there is a consensus that does not exist.

I do not need to respond to the content of any post to express an opinion about language. It really does not matter here whether you're right or wrong. If your opinion is that of a small minority, your summary of it is not what we have. It is what you have.

 

[doronshadmi]

How many neutral monists or idealists exist or have existed in the world is irrelevant.

As I have already said, "we have" is exactly the group of people that accept Idealism or Neutral monism, and it is completely irrelevant that I am the single voice of this group in that particular forum.

I do not need to respond to the content of any post to express an opinion about language.

Since your opinion about language claims that my "usage [of it] is at best sloppy and uninformative" you need some examples taken from my posts, in order to support your claims.

It really does not matter here whether you're right or wrong.

In other words, all you care is about the number of posters here that reject what I say, no matter if I am right or wrong.

If your opinion is that of a small minority, your summary of it is not what we have. It is what you have.

Again, my "we have" is aimed the the group of people that accept Idealism or Neutral monism, where you and the other active posters here are clearly not members of this group.

So, as you see, I continue to air my view, whether you agree with it, or not (and in your case, by your own words, you actually don't care if I am right or wrong).

 

[jsfisher]

Still trying to disprove definitions, I see. Do care on.

 

[bruto]

As I have already said, "we have" is exactly the group of people that accept Idealism or Neutral monism, and it is completely irrelevant that I am the single voice of this group in that particular forum.


Since your opinion about language claims that my "usage [of it] is at best sloppy and uninformative" you need some examples taken from my posts, in order to support your claims.


In other words, all you care is about the number of posters here that reject what I say, no matter if I am right or wrong.


Again, my "we have" is aimed the the group of people that accept Idealism or Neutral monism, where you and the other active posters here are clearly not members of this group.

So, as you see, I continue to air my view, whether you agree with it, or not (and in your case, by your own words, you actually don't care if I am right or wrong).

You miss my point, of course. It is quite particular. I like to take things one thing at a time. This time the only question is whether a summary of minority ideas in a forum thread can be stated in the form "we have," which to most people suggests a consensus which does not exist. I do not have to cite other issues, or the ideas themselves, to criticize the language used. If you intended "we have" to mean something other than what it implied, fine. You made a poor choice of words. Get over it.

 

[realpaladin]

The remainder of the post contains the same stuff as always anyway. There's nothing new to argue. After a thousand posts of argument, a summary does not change anything.

A thousand? You are too kind.

On topic; this whole unity thing seems the wrong horse: there is more and more *evidence* that reality is rather multiplicity (multiverse).

And even more on topic: at what point were we discussing the Metaphysical Consciousness?

As far as I can conclude from TM and Doronetics they have nought to say about metaphysical since everything they claim is direct perception, hence directly linked to the perceptory doohickey's in the brain, hence physical, hence not *meta*physical.

 

[jsfisher]

Even if you right about something, it does not help for communication if you open some reply in such way.

Depends on what you are trying to communicate. I found bruto's approach quite effective.

Now, as to the topic, will you be communicating anything on the subject of The Metaphysical Consciousness in your next post?

 

[doronshadmi]

Now, as to the topic, will you be communicating anything on the subject of The Metaphysical Consciousness in your next post?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10242078&postcount=1045

 

[doronshadmi]

Meta (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-) meaning "after" or "beyond")

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta)

I understand the term Meta as "beyond", such that Unity transcends multiplicity, where the physical (objective)\mental (subjective) are multiplicity that is derived from Unity but not vice versa (Unity is not the sum of multiple things).

By using a point of view in the direction of Neutral monism, Consciousness is Unity that manifests itself as physical (objective)\mental (subjective) multiplicity, where no amount of multiple things is Unity (please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10242078&postcount=1045).

The Meta (or beyond) is notated by me as ∞ where infinitely many things (multiplicity) are notated by me as ∞, such that ∞ > ∞ (reality (Unity AND multiplicity) is after all non-entropic if also the Meta view is used).

 

[realpaladin]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta)

I understand the term Meta as "beyond", such that Unity transcends multiplicity, where the physical (objective)\mental (subjective) are multiplicity that is derived from Unity but not vice versa (Unity is not the sum of multiple things).

By using a point of view in the direction of Neutral monism, Consciousness is Unity that manifests itself as physical (objective)\mental (subjective) multiplicity, where no amount of multiple things is Unity (please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10242078&postcount=1045).

The Meta (or beyond) is notated by me as ∞ where infinitely many things (multiplicity) are notated by me as ∞, such that ∞ > ∞ (reality (Unity AND multiplicity) is after all non-entropic if also the Meta view is used).

This needs a rewrite. Nobody but Doron will be able to use any of this, especially since it is all of his own invention.

 

[Donn]

I enjoy the way his meta symbol looks like a :| perplexed face.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I enjoy the way his meta symbol looks like a :| perplexed face.

"You guys remember Tex, the girl that kicked all our asses?
This Meta-thing is, like, EIGHT of her..."