Sapius wrote:
Sue: Babies and animals don't have the ability to consciously formulate definitions. Instead, simple, broad categories suffice them: pain, pleasure, hunger, food, enemy, friend.
Yes, I do know they don’t have the ability to formulate definitions, but no, it is not them but YOU, creating broad categories for them according to your experience.
It is true that we can’t be certain that they experience the world exactly in the way I described, but based on observations, I’d say it would be a close approximation.
In my opinion they simply experience A=A. It is you who is defining categories now that you can. I don’t think they ‘think’ in those terms.
Your view that they experience A=A has me greatly interested. I’d like to meet these babies and animals that are living the highest wisdom. ; )
-
To “simply experience A=A†requires one to know what it is like to ‘not simply experience A=A’. Otherwise, it is a meaningless statement.
Sue: A step up from babies and animals are those people who have enough consciousness to be able to formulate simple definitions, such as "love is good", "I am me", "The bible is the word of god", "the objective world exists outside my mind", etc.
What they really don't have enough is self-consciousness, not consciousness itself.
Yes, lacking the ability to understand their causal natures does render them unable to even understand the shallows they live in.
Sue: Next are those people who possess a higher level of consciousness which enables them to formulate questions as to the validity of those simple concepts.
No, they have a higher level of thinking, questioning and reasoning power. More appropriately resulting in Self-awareness.
It is true that possessing a higher level of consciousness means having a “higher level of thinking, questioning and reasoning powerâ€, but perhaps a handful of people from this level ever have a major insight about the nature of the self, causality, or the feminine. Take for example, scientists and academics. They often possess “a higher level of thinking, questioning and reasoning powerâ€, but very rarely – if ever - do they have any “Self-awarenessâ€, or other philosophical awareness.
The reason for this is that the gulf that lies between this level and the next is extremely wide. Out of the handful of people who have an insight into Nature, one or two of them will try and make it across – but they rarely succeed.
Sue: Going from questioning to finding answers requires a much, much higher level of consciousness. Only people possessing this type of consciousness are capable of formulating definitions that accord with Nature: A=A, cause and effect is the fundamental creating force of everything, all things are mental constructs - being just a few.
You mean a different level of self-consciousness. That is just a matter of caused conditions, which creates a certain personality that values one thing over another, accordingly.
Valuing Truth over all other things is something very rare – so rare indeed, that the few people who do value it are ever thankful for being blessed so.
Sapius: As this topic says, ‘A=A represents making distinctions’, and that does not necessarily require defining as such.
Sue: If we weren't able to formulate definitions, we would all be like babies, cats, and dogs.
Sure we would be like babies, but does that mean that A=A does not exist unless you formulate that as a definition?
Without possessing a level of consciousness that defined the concept 'A=A' separate from all other things, 'A=A' would have no meaning - and therefore would not exist.
Does self consciousness discover A=A,
All grades of consciousness are defined by how close or far away they are from being conscious of Reality. Since delusions about things stand in the way of progress through those grades, destroying them is the only option. With a mind set upon doing just that, these falsehoods are quickly found out as the truth about them is uncovered. Gradually, as truths overtake delusions, a serious assault can begin on those deeper delusions. And once that is done, the job of attacking those delusions held up in the even deeper recesses of the mind can begin. And so on.
So, having “self consciousnessâ€: that is, being aware of the causal nature of all things, does sometimes contribute to an understanding of the truth of A=A – but not always. It is dependent upon how deep one understands causality. For example, a person may understand that everything is caused and see that all things are ultimately the same, but not be able to see that it is ultimately true that things are also finite.
or create it?
According to your statement below, ‘thinking’ is a “causality created processâ€. So, therefore, all thoughts of the ‘A=A’ type, or ‘not A=A’ type, must also be causally created.
So again, do we define what we sense or sense what we define?
I’ve already given you my ideas about this. What’s your thinking on it?
Sue: If you cannot see how you have consciously formulated the definition of the above thought,
What did I say that makes you think so? How do you gather that I cannot see how I formulate definitions?
The understanding that all thought arises complete with formulated definitions; is something you seem not to possess.
And that is not even being discussed. We are looking at what emerges first; the senses or formulation of definitions?
OK – the floor is yours. Which emerges first? And how does it do so?
Sue: I'd like to know how you think thoughts are formed?
A causality created process called thinking. Is that a big deal?
It depends on what you mean by “a big deal�
-
Sue
