My Disjointed Thoughts On The Topic Of Nothing.

[m4tt_666]

Thoughts Concerning Ones Universe 11-6-10 9:57PM Matthew Baldwin

'Matter exists only in the physical world. It is completely disconnected from the mental processes of thought, while at the same time matter is the very thing that sustains such mentality. It remains arguable that our mental processes need no such physical form to exist, but it is in this way we distinguish life and death at least for our individual physical forms. No form of consciousness can equally relate to any other form thus for every consciousness formed in this world (and maybe many others out there) is an identical Universe made specifically for that consciousness and that one alone. At best we can only loosely relate each others specifically adapted Universe.

Nobody can will their perception of the Universe and make you see other than what your conscious identity of the Universe is. At best we can guess what one another is thinking based on our finite form of physical communication while also being burdened with the fact we all possess an infinite form of mental communication with ourselves alone. It would be like trying to remember something on the tip of your tongue but never fully realizing what it was and have it gradually slip out of consciousness. Its in this analogy that no two forms of consciousness could ever be identical and therefore can never perceive any other equally existent reality, other than his own, and his alone. Our consciousness is a product of the unconscious Universe. Our bodies are created out of these unconscious materials. We are made up of the Universe in every sense except for the fact we can perceive via consciousness, thus we have infinitely, and will continue to create ourselves perpetuating this alien observation which is in turn rendered unexplainable to the conscious mind even though it was itself, who created it out of pure lack of awareness that itself exists.

It's like every living creature on Earth has two identities. On the one hand, he equally exists as a piece of the unconscious Universe, but is equally represented by conscious thought at the same time. How could he be expected to believe this as he has represented a species of survival up until this point of mental breakthrough. If as humans, all we know how to do is perceive our preset reality, how can we be expected to, by Nature discern the two when our conscious form is in a constant power struggle with our co-existent unconscious form by perceiving and retaining memory creating a false sense of motion. When one comes to the realization that even the reality he is forced to perceive is an ethereal construct created by himself, then one can begin to really think, free of the constraints that have previously bound him.

Every human, and form of conscious life, is equal to his reality alone. He is his own Universe. It’s a strict maximum occupancy of one per Universe. No other form of consciousness could ever hope to achieve entry into any other reality but the one he perceives. Distance is nonexistent because the only things that truly exist, is consciousness itself. Everything projected by consciousness is hollow for he is the only one that truly perceives it. Thus if only thought exists and what is perceived in the vicinity of consciousness at any given moment and instantly updated at random with no true knowledge of how we got to one second to the next. Cause and effect precedes cause itself making this possible. Our truest form exists suspended in the unconscious.

So for every individual human exists his equally created universe in which he and he alone occupies, thus he is his own Universe and his own creator. When his physical consciousness ceases to exist, he is then thrust back into unconscious suspension thus destroying his Universe and everything he had previously observed within it. He is then equally existent and reverted back into unconscious matter, and so the cycle repeats for Infinity.

Upon the destruction of ones consciousness, or death, so is his Universe and all within it as I have stated above. But this merely isn’t so for even the finite conscious being didn’t have a set birth, and upon death is only reverted back to the infinitely old suspended unconscious matter from whence he came. With this thought I would also like to tie in the notion that no two events perceived, can ever be identical, therefore we will only experience this consciousness once. For the Universe, in its purest form is without sense or awareness of itself and thus, without cause and ultimately, non-existent. Also take into consideration that it is an egotistic point of view to think that the Universe willed us into being. For to create anything you must first be conscious of the fact. Consciousness by nature, is a finite creation of itself, never having a set beginning nor end. It is unconscious matter that is infinite and without sense, and it’s the very lack of sense that makes it equally infinite as it does, non-existent.

I personally think that no idea is ever created, I believe that the true information has always existed and is just waiting for us to conceive it with the tool we all possess that is humanity’s consciousness as a whole. Ancient civilizations hold a seemingly mystic quality within their "predictions". for as I've stated, this information has always existed, it just took them to write it down physically, and preserve it at all costs to endure time for our mere discovery. you could call this discovery merely chance or divine fate, it all boils down to individual morals, I for one try for the most part to remain unbiased in every presented situation.'

-these are just some thoughts i had as i usually often have but never really cared much to write down. I was bored one night and decided to jot down some things and found it both fun and proactive. I still try but there is only so much one can think on the matter of the Universe before it becomes redundant as everything does eventually. I apologize if it just sounds like I'm rehashing those old philosophic views a lot of you are familiar with, any similarity is totally unconscious on my part as i did no research within the duration of these scribblings.

[Pam Seeback]

Matt, I enjoyed your thoughts, and it is because you called them disjointed and about nothing, that I am entering your individual thought world to challenge these thoughts. Why? Because I believe these is never a moment when thoughts are disjointed or about nothing.

Matt: For the Universe, in its purest form is without sense or awareness of itself and thus, without cause and ultimately, non-existent.

How is it possible for the Universe, I would say Consciousness, in its purest form, to be without awareness of itself? If this were so, then there could be no appearance of finite awareness, for without awareness of finiteness, by what agent or catalyst would finiteness appear?

It is my comprehension that Consciousness is never unconscious of itself, but that individual units of sense consciousness, the universe of sentient beings, only believes this to be true. Why? Because thought born of analysis arrives in the sense mind, one thought at a time. It is this linear appearance of thought that causes a man to believe that he has moments of unconsciousness, of darkness, but in truth, the light of every answer to every question he has is always present. Ask a question, an answer appears, is this not so? It may be an answer that unsettles or disturbs us, but an answer always comes. In other words, there is never a moment when a question goes eternally unanswered.

What I have come to comprehend is that when there is no sense of being either disturbed or pleased, that there is no question present, which means, that there is no answer present. The absence of a question does not mean that one is unconscious, rather, that they fully conscious that they are always conscious and always have been conscious. Their movements, then, are in perfect harmony or union with their awareness. Enlightenment then, is the realization of infinite and eternal consciousness, of never being without knowledge of Self.

I'll put it to you this way: breath or no breath, consciousness can never sleep, or it would be unable to breathe or stop breathing.

[m4tt_666]

i refer to the Universe as being unconscious in its natural state based off the fact that the inanimate matter that composes the Universe and everything in it lacks basic sensory perception.

life, on the other hand, being conscious and having sense, is somewhat contradictory to the Universe itself even though its existence is just a bi-product of the matter and conditions of the Universe. whose to say that a star going supernova isn't a hyper intense burst of consciousness completely aware of its surroundings and uncontrollable actions caused by a mixture of compression and heat. probably isn't, but then again...

[cousinbasil]

life, on the other hand, being conscious and having sense, is somewhat contradictory to the Universe itself even though its existence is just a bi-product of the matter and conditions of the Universe

If life is just a "bi-product," what is the main product? (The word is byproduct.)

[m4tt_666]

haha, you're right, i suppose i called it 'bi-product' to suit my contradiction theory better. objectively i don't see how it could be either :).

[cousinbasil]

You didn't answer the question, though. You make life sound like something that just happens. What makes you say that? How could you know that?

[Blair]

I refer to it as an anomaly, in that sentience rises and will pass away, be eradicated like a virus and nature's unconscious, indifferent 'being' prevails.

[m4tt_666]

well, life is something that just happened but the principle of cause and effect tells us that a cause would have to be in place. i don't expect anyone to know exactly what caused the spark of life or if it holds any significant meaning to our modern ideals these days. cause and effect is a little sketchy in my opinion, as life could be construed as a cause to some other effect, so every cause is an effect and vise verse.

lack of evidence tells me it was chance and if one were to speculate, by thought who or what created life and for what purpose the possibilities are endless but only one is right. near impossible task and even if you were, by chance to come up with the right answer to the origin of life you would lack evidence to cross-check this.

nice one Blair, i like that.

[cousinbasil]

well, life is something that just happened but the principle of cause and effect tells us that a cause would have to be in place. i don't expect anyone to know exactly what caused the spark of life or if it holds any significant meaning to our modern ideals these days.

lack of evidence tells me it was chance and if one were to speculate, by thought who or what created life and for what purpose the possibilities are endless

You're just asserting it again.

There is no lack of evidence, though. Matter does not order itself spontaneously. Matter supporting life - or containing it - does seem to do just that.

These "modern ideals" to which you refer sound like an excuse for lazy thinking and lack of curiosity.

Blair's idea of eradication is complete supposition, of course. The only example of life which we have ever known is still here. But you two can go on congratulating each other that you have identified life as some sort of anomaly.

[m4tt_666]

as i've said, my opinion on the origin of life is a non point to me as i see lack of evidence. it might not be the answer you were looking for but i don't regard it as an assertion or laziness on my part. the subject of life is actually dry to me, so maybe it is laziness.

[Blair]

Blair's idea of eradication is complete supposition, of course. The only example of life which we have ever known is still here.

Well, no if you recall I pointed you to a link stating that 99.8% of all species that ever existed on earth are now extinct.

Humans are the last vestige of life. A Hardy species, only through virtue of homo-sapian accidentally discovering that cooking food was much easier on the digestive system, and provided protein boosts that enabled brain development.

But as every rose has it's thorn, so has the human destroyed it's own future by virtue of it using this progressive mental capacity to evolve and simultaneously scorch the sky.

[Pam Seeback]

i refer to the Universe as being unconscious in its natural state based off the fact that the inanimate matter that composes the Universe and everything in it lacks basic sensory perception.

But is not life the principle or intent that causes the form to appear?

life, on the other hand, being conscious and having sense, is somewhat contradictory to the Universe itself even though its existence is just a bi-product of the matter and conditions of the Universe. whose to say that a star going supernova isn't a hyper intense burst of consciousness completely aware of its surroundings and uncontrollable actions caused by a mixture of compression and heat. probably isn't, but then again...

Matt, what other hand does life have? Are you saying there are two lifes?

How can there be a by-product of Life? When Life thinks, I want a car, does not a car appear? It may not extend itself as far as manifesting the car into physical form, the thought may remain on the mental plane, but that does not change the principle of the appearance of the car.

[Pam Seeback]

I refer to it as an anomaly, in that sentience rises and will pass away, be eradicated like a virus and nature's unconscious, indifferent 'being' prevails.

Is not your assertion that the eradication of sentience by nature not also an assertion of conscious intent? How can that which is, "nature's 'being'", be unconscious? Is not being a statement of consciousness?

Nature cannot both be conscious and unconscious, which is what you are saying above.

[Pam Seeback]

as i've said, my opinion on the origin of life is a non point to me as i see lack of evidence. it might not be the answer you were looking for but i don't regard it as an assertion or laziness on my part. the subject of life is actually dry to me, so maybe it is laziness.

Matt, life is not a subject or an object, you are the subject-object of your life.

You may think the thought "the subject of life is dry to me," but is not Life the reason or cause you are able to think this thought? And in realizing this, where can be the dryness of Life?

[Blair]

I refer to it as an anomaly, in that sentience rises and will pass away, be eradicated like a virus and nature's unconscious, indifferent 'being' prevails.

Is not your assertion that the eradication of sentience by nature not also an assertion of conscious intent? How can that which is, "nature's 'being'", be unconscious? Is not being a statement of consciousness?

Earthquakes, Volcanic eruptions, Cancer etc..= Nature being unconscious ie. not anthropomorphic.

If you think human (or any ) life can survive these things indefinately, you are sorely mistaken.

[cousinbasil]

Well, no if you recall I pointed you to a link stating that 99.8% of all species that ever existed on earth are now extinct.

It is the same instance of life, is it not? All the vanished species, and the countless ones that remain, trace common ancestors. It is all one unbroken chain. If no one knows whence the "spark" or "breath" of life, one does indeed know that it is still here. Outside of this one site in the universe where life has taken hold, we know of none. Therefore, every example of an instance of life of which we know anything is just this one, and it has not been "eradicated." One is not the most ideal size of a statistical sample, I realize this. But that one example has proved quite tenacious, I submit.

[m4tt_666]

the fact that we are all alive at this moment is not amazing to me. i see it as either life or death. whether you're doing the manipulating, or you're the matter being manipulated, it looks all the same to me. i'm not depressed or any of that shit i just don't see anything to life just like i don't see my soda can sprout legs and jump out of my hand.

[cousinbasil]

Then I leave you to your Disjointed Thoughts On The Topic Of Nothing.

[Pam Seeback]

I refer to it as an anomaly, in that sentience rises and will pass away, be eradicated like a virus and nature's unconscious, indifferent 'being' prevails.

Is not your assertion that the eradication of sentience by nature not also an assertion of conscious intent? How can that which is, "nature's 'being'", be unconscious? Is not being a statement of consciousness?

Earthquakes, Volcanic eruptions, Cancer etc..= Nature being unconscious ie. not anthropomorphic.

If you think human (or any ) life can survive these things indefinately, you are sorely mistaken.

Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, cancer, etc. = the laws, principles and patterns of Life set in motion.

Laws, principles and patterns that cannot, by their very definition, be an unconscious activity, or earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and cancer could not be.

These things will indeed end in man's consciousness when he transcends his analysis of these things, but the spirit of Life that brought them to existence for his analysis, and then, to non-existence, analysis finished, will never end, which is the same thing as saying that the spirit of Life will never be unconscious, which is the same thing as saying that the Spirit of Life has never been unconscious.

Do you think that just because you can no longer see or hear or feel or touch or taste these things of your senses, that you, as an emanation of Life as sense awareness, ceases to be conscious of Life?

[m4tt_666]

movingalways, so you believe that depending on the strength of ones belief on the subject matter of anything, this dictates how it actually is? earthquakes and cancer may be conscious to other earthquakes or other cancer cells, but for the sake of humanity, they are totally oblivious. i just can't see it from the point of view of god. i don't refuse to see it that way, i'm just not looking.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways, so you believe that depending on the strength of ones belief on the subject matter of anything, this dictates how it actually is? earthquakes and cancer may be conscious to other earthquakes or other cancer cells, but for the sake of humanity, they are totally oblivious. i just can't see it from the point of view of god. i don't refuse to see it that way, i'm just not looking.

Matt, if you weren't looking, you wouldn't be asking. :-)

I totally agree with your understanding that natural things are not conscious of the thoughts of humanity. Why? Because human consciousness is the only consciousness that analyzes Identity.

What is so key to this understanding of human consciousness being the interpreter of Identity is that it is this very activity that is the catalyst of spirit movement for consciousness everywhere, including that of earthquakes, volcanoes and cancer. "Man" therefore, is a metaphor for an activity or movement of consciousness. As is "God" or "Spirit" a metaphor for THE activity or movement within Pure or Infinite Consciousness.

I comprehend consciousness to be a continuum of eternal revelations of THAT or ME or SELF, expressed as emanations of individual consciousness, of which man is the conscience that seeks the identity of THAT or ME or SELF. The natural world is of SELF revelation, but it is not of IDENTITY revelation. In other words, the spirit of natural consciousness is equal in worth to the spirit of human consciousness to the Consciousness of Infinity, but is not equal in purpose or function. Without the ability of the spirit of human consciousness to analyze identity, there can be no transcendence of the emanation of sense consciousness. Why the transcendence of an emanation of consciousness? Because Life or Consciousness is about expansion of Its Principles, and until one emanation is wholly fulfilled of Its Principle, there cannot be a movement from this Principle unto that Principle. Worlds within worlds within worlds is the nature of the metaphor of I Am That.

To me, a thought becomes truth to a man when he analyzes it or reasons it within himself and at the moment of the "eureka" moment, of saying YES, he declares it to be true for himself. Therefore, anything I say to you of my truth may or may not ever become a truth for you. And of course, the same principle applies in the reverse.

[Blair]

One is not the most ideal size of a statistical sample, I realize this. But that one example has proved quite tenacious, I submit.

So? The conditions were and will be right for life until about 2050. Then it all starts falling to pieces (suffocation, slow-cooking anyone?)

Nature will have it's way. We are but worms on its back.

[Blair]

Do you think that just because you can no longer see or hear or feel or touch or taste these things of your senses, that you, as an emanation of Life as sense awareness, ceases to be conscious of Life?

Yeah.

Do you think that just because you spout a load of brainwashed drivel, that you, as an emanation of ignorance, matter?

[Pam Seeback]

Do you think that just because you can no longer see or hear or feel or touch or taste these things of your senses, that you, as an emanation of Life as sense awareness, ceases to be conscious of Life?

Yeah.

Do you think that just because you spout a load of brainwashed drivel, that you, as an emanation of ignorance, matter?

Please reason with this emanation of ignorance and tell her how she came to be ignorant? I not asking here for your opinion of my "brainwashed drivel", I am asking you to give me the metaphysics of my ignorance.

Please reason with this emanation of ignorance and tell her how she became a body of matter if she was unconscious of matter.

[m4tt_666]

movingalways, with that being said let me ask you this. do you believe in life after death? we can obviously note that there have been past lives before us going back as far as our science will let us.

i, for one, do believe in life after death, i hardly believe in this life after death, nor would i want to. it is my belief that we are sentenced to roam the countless planets suitable for any conscious life, until the Universe ceases to be with the only saving grace being through death, our brains also cease to exist, erasing any memory of what you are or what you were.

also take into account in this scenario, when you die, your perception of time also ceases. countless millenia could pass before your next life cycle but due to your skewed perception of time, it would feel to you, as if only seconds passed if you could somehow retain memory through death.

with that being said, i believe in no god(s) and i view the Universe as being very cold and indifferent to us humans, or any other life, advanced or otherwise and i also see no real reason anything should be alive or what purpose any of this serves.