On consciousness

[Liberty Sea]

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must pass over in silence" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

Our subject is consciousness. I will hereby attempt to briefly introduce my thoughts and observations on the subject.
Modern western philosophy began with Descartes's statement: "Cogito ergo sum" recognized as the only sure knowledge. The statement, however, is flawed as Descartes presupposed that the 'I' existed and that the action thinking was done by this 'I', or that there was such an action as thinking at all.

According to my observation, the truly accurate and certain statement must be: "Cognition exists." or "Consciousness exists." This is given, and from this we can process to develop certain knowledge about consciousness.
1. Consciousness exists.
2. Consciousness is a movement.
2.1 Consciousness changes constantly.
2.2 No consciousness stay the same between two consecutive moments.
2.3 Consciousness is no longer itself after a unit of time.
3. All movement of consciousness is inevitable.
3.1 All movement of consciousness is caused and conditioned.
4. All ordinary movement of consciousness remains trapped in the duality of the point of view and the pointed, of the viewer and the viewed, of the observer and the observed, of subject and object.
4.1 All ordinary movement consciousness has a vantage point, namely, a point of view, from which consciousness launches itself.
4.1.1 My ego is that vantage point ('I' is a vantage point).
4.1.1.1 I do not have an ego or a self beyond that vantage point.
4.1.1.1.1 My body is not my ego.
4.1.1.1.1.1 My body is but a totality of my parts.
4.1.1.1.1.2 My parts are my possessions.
4.1.1.1.1.3 My possessions are not me.
4.1.2 My vantage point does not realistically exist.
4.1.2.1 A vantage point is merely geometrical.
4.1.2.2 A vantage point is factually empty.
4.1.3 My ego does not realistically exist.
4.1.4 I do not have an inherent existence.
4.2 All consciousness is consciousness about something, launched toward something.
4.2.1 That something is my world.
4.2.1.1 My world is all that my consciousness perceives and all that is not my vantage point.
4.2.1.1.1 My consciousness is the reflection of my world.
4.2.1.1.2 My perceptions of my world is dependent on my vantage point.
4.2.1.1.2.1 I perceive my world as forms.
4.2.1.1.2.2 The existences and forms of all entities that my consciousness perceives are dependent on my vantage point.
4.2.1.1.3 My world is dependent on my consciousness.
4.2.1.1.3.1 No form exist independent of my perception.
4.2.1.1.3.2 Nothing possess form apart from what my consciousness perceives, namely my world.
4.2.1.1.4 My world is the only world I ever perceive.
4.2.1.1.4.1 What my consciousness perceives is all that I ever perceive.
4.2.1.1.4.2 My vantage point is the only point of view that I can ever possess.
4.2.1.2 I and my world are one.
4.2.1.2.1 The existence of a separation between I and my world is as realistic as the existence of my vantage point.
4.2.1.2.2 The separation is formed and strengthened through my educational environment in which 'I' have grown up.
4.2.1.2.3 Language strengthens the separation between I and my world.
4.2.1.2.3.1 All language is the result of categorization.
4.2.1.2.3.2 Language determines my thoughts.
4.2.1.2.3.2.1 My instincts and habits are petrified thought, established through a long history.
4.2.1.2.2 All ordinary movement of consciousness is pointed toward my world from my vantage point, but not self-pointed. In other word, consciousness at a particular moment is not conscious of itself and I am not conscious my own action right that moment.
4.2.1.2.3 My ordinary consciousness can only observe my past self and not my current self.
4.2.1.2.2.1 When I am happy I am not conscious my happiness.
4.2.1.2.2.2 When I am conscious of my happiness I am no longer happy.
4.3 Any merely oppositional movement of consciousness remains trapped in the networks of what it opposes.
5. Ordinary movement of consciousness is motivated by fear and at the same limited by fear, which is caused by the illusion of duality.
5.1 All ordinary movement of consciousness of caused, motivated by the deep-rooted desire for eventual pleasure, that is, to gratify itself. (Or to put it casually, we all want to feel good and everything we do is to achieve that good feeling, whether directly or indirectly, whether we are aware of it, whether we hasten or postpone it.)
5.2 All ordinary consciousness is limited by the fear of not being able to gratify itself.
5.2.1 All emotions is caused by this deep-rooted fear.
5.2.1.1 Emotions come through stimulation.
5.2.1.2 Emotions is the manifestation of the inability to accept the causes of emotions.
5.2.1.2.1 Emotions cannot end itself.
5.2.1.2.1.2 Emotions only breeds more emotions.
5.2.1.2.2 Emotions cannot be ended by thought.
5.2.1.2.2.1 Thoughts can intensify emotions.
5.2.1.2.3 At bottom there is only one emotion: fear.
5.2.1.4 The ordinary man doesn't want to be free from fear, because he doesn't want to be free from the bondage of emotions.
5.2.2 Emotions, caused by fear, prevent the cultivation of consciousness
5.2.2.1 Emotional pleasures are a distraction from fear, or a disguise of fear, generated by the desire to escape from the fear of loneliness.
5.2.2.1.1 All decadence of consciousness is caused by the escape from the fear of loneliness.
5.2.2.2 Loneliness is as realistic as the separation between I and my world.
5.2.2.2.1 Loneliness and fear strengthen each other.
5.2.2.2.2 Fear is caused by delusions.
6. Fear is overcome when all duality is transcended, including the duality of dualism and non-dualism.
6.1 Fear cannot be overcome through the rejection of fear.
6.1.2 The rejection of fear remains trapped in fear.
6.1.2.1 The rejection of emotions remain trapped in the network of emotions.
6.2 Fear can only be overcome the thorough understanding of fear, namely the piercing through delusions.
6.3 The through understanding of fear come through the cultivation of consciousness.
6.1 The cultivation of consciousness means to look at fear in the face, to accept loneliness and insecurity.
6.4 Genius is the cultivation of consciousness.
6.4.1 Genius is high sensibility fueled by passion.
6.4.1.2 Sensibility is enhanced perceptiveness, acute observativeness.
6.4.1.2.1 Logical ability it not itself sensibility and therefore not necessarily the nature of genius, but a faculty that can be strengthened by sensibility.
6.4.1.3 Cultivated and expanded sensibility and reflection bring about existential angst.
6.4.1.3.1 Cultivated and expanded sensibility brings to my face the meaninglessness of existence.
6.4.1.3.1.1 The reflection and observation of cultivated sensibility drives my to question my individuality, namely my ego, and my relation with the world around me, namely all that is not my ego, and my death, namely the finitude of my existence.
6.4.1.4 Existential angst enables me to unconceal the truth of existence and exposes me to the reality of my world.
6.4.1.5 The thorough understanding, acceptance and overcoming of existential angst is the beginning of the transformation of consciousness.
6.4.1.6 The transformation of consciousness brings about the disappearance of the illusion of self.
6.4.1.7 The disappearance of the illusion of self is the first step beyond duality.
7. All is one and all is different.

Liberty Sea.

[jupiviv]

All ordinary movement of consciousness remains trapped in the duality of the point of view and the pointed, of the viewer and the viewed, of the observer and the observed, of subject and object.

This is where you lost me. There is no ordinary or extraordinary movement of consciousness. Any consciousness is consciousness of reality.

[David Quinn]

A couple of things:

4.2.1.1.3 My world is dependent on my consciousness.
4.2.1.1.3.1 No form exist independent of my perception.
4.2.1.1.3.2 Nothing possess form apart from what my consciousness perceives, namely my world.

Your second statement here seems to have no connection with the others. You seem to be conflating "your" world (as perceived by your consciousness) with "the" world (the totality of all forms).

6.4.1.6 The transformation of consciousness brings about the disappearance of the illusion of self.
6.4.1.7 The disappearance of the illusion of self is the first step beyond duality.

If you are defining the self to be the vantage point from which the world is viewed, wouldn't the disappearance of the self entail the disappearance of consciousness itself?

-

[Liberty Sea]

All ordinary movement of consciousness remains trapped in the duality of the point of view and the pointed, of the viewer and the viewed, of the observer and the observed, of subject and object.

This is where you lost me. There is no ordinary or extraordinary movement of consciousness. Any consciousness is consciousness of reality.

By ordinary consciousness I mean my consciousness. It is just a safe statement. I don't possess extraordinary consciousness or super-consciousness so I can't make claim about whether there is such thing as extraordinary consciousness. Some people claim that super-consciousness exists and I don't have the authority to negate or affirm that claim with certainty, so I would refrain from commenting on it.
I mean, how can you be so certain that "there is no ordinary or extraordinary movement of consciousness'? I am not saying: if you had an altered state of consciousness that perceived golds as red metals, your reality would be superior to my reality. My golden-colored gold is just as real as your red-colored gold. But if you had an altered state of consciousness that had no vantage point whatsoever or that the whole universe was your vantage point or that everything with in the range f your consciousness was your vantage point, your consciousness would be indeed extraordinary.


Krishnamurti had a special state of consciousness, aside from his oft-quoted claim on meditation: "the observer is the observed". I haven't reached a way of knowing about his state of consciousness.

Your second statement here seems to have no connection with the others. You seem to be conflating "your" world (as perceived by your consciousness) with "the" world (the totality of all forms).

Are you sure that 'the' world is the totality of form?
From Wisdom of the Infinite:
"Note that we never experience the "outside world" in any shape or form."
"In the final analysis, there are only two things we can know about the hidden void for sure - namely, (a) that it is not nothingness and (b) that it possesses the capacity to create the construction in which we live. "
The forms are constructed by this hidden void based on my vantage point. For example, my vantage point as a human makes the mountain look gigantic and solid to me. If my vantage point was that of an atom, the mountain's form will appear to be an empty space with other atoms moving around. If my vantage point was that of giant to whose eyes 1 million human years passed in an instant, the mountain would appear as a... you know it.
The constructions of forms are (at least partly) dependent on 'my' vantage point, and therefore relative. (There is no such thing as absolute forms or objective forms, which means there are no inherent forms). I can be certain to that extent about how the world is a framework of illusion.

If you are defining the self to be the vantage point from which the world is viewed, wouldn't the disappearance of the self entail the disappearance of consciousness itself?

The self is a vantage point and a vantage point's existence is like that of a geometric point. You know that a geometric point does not 'realistically' exist because it has no dimension. Yet without point there is no line, no plane, and so solid.
"In geometry, topology, and related branches of mathematics, a spatial point is a primitive notion upon which other concepts may be defined. In geometry, points are zero-dimensional; i.e., they do not have volume, area, length, or any other higher-dimensional analogue." (Wikipedia)

The illusion of the self is that the self is something more than a vantage point, whose existence is as real as a geometric point. So no, the disappearance of the self wouldn't entail the disappearance of consciousness itself.
Perhaps I have not put it perfectly, but I think you can imagine what I mean by 'vantage point', and perhaps you can put it better.
Without a vantage point there is no time and space. I will develop this concept further.
----
It needs to be stressed again that this is the observation from an ordinary consciousness's point of view. I don't claim to know anything about super-consciousness.

[Gurrb]

fanciful. consciousness is defined, in some way, by the constraints of our physical world. it may have evaded the three tangible dimensions of our world, but i find it incomprehensible that consciousness is devoid of time, albeit a conceived dimension--more appropriately; it is confined by a certain metaphysical constraint. with that, consciousness is similar to a line rather than a single point. a point implies finite principles, and from our 'knowledge', the mind and consciousness are infinite. i'm not contradicting my point here though, for things of infinite nature can still be 'constrained' by time for time is infinite in nature. it is when something of finite nature acts upon another thing that both become finite.

'I' is subjective, but it shouldn't be defined simply by a physical self. therefore, i think the self is present if consciousness is present.

[Liberty Sea]

fanciful. consciousness is defined, in some way, by the constraints of our physical world. it may have evaded the three tangible dimensions of our world, but i find it incomprehensible that consciousness is devoid of time, albeit a conceived dimension--more appropriately; it is confined by a certain metaphysical constraint. with that, consciousness is similar to a line rather than a single point. a point implies finite principles, and from our 'knowledge', the mind and consciousness are infinite. i'm not contradicting my point here though, for things of infinite nature can still be 'constrained' by time for time is infinite in nature. it is when something of finite nature acts upon another thing that both become finite.

'I' is subjective, but it shouldn't be defined simply by a physical self. therefore, i think the self is present if consciousness is present.

I am not saying that consciousness is a point or a line. I am saying it is launched from a vantage point. I did not make claim about whether consciousness is finite or infinite.
Spatially this vantage point is a point. Temporally it is a line. But at a particular moment it is a point.
I am not making further claimw about time and space. As I said, I will save that for later.

[jupiviv]

I mean, how can you be so certain that "there is no ordinary or extraordinary movement of consciousness'?

As I said, regardless of what you are conscious of, you are conscious of reality.

Krishnamurti claimed a special state of consciousness where "the observer is the observed". I have no way of knowing about that state of consciousness.

Can an eye see itself?

Also, what do you mean by the "movement" of consciousness? I should have asked this in the earlier post, but I forgot.

4.1 All ordinary movement consciousness has a vantage point, namely, a point of view, from which consciousness launches itself.

Consciousness doesn't launch itself from anywhere. The "vantage point" is just a thing that you are conscious of.

Also, this caught my eye:

6.4 Genius is the cultivation of consciousness.
6.4.1 Genius is high sensibility fueled by passion.
6.4.1.2 Sensibility is enhanced perceptiveness, acute observativeness.
6.4.1.2.1 Logical ability it not itself sensibility and therefore not necessarily the nature of genius, but a faculty that can be strengthened by sensibility.

Genius is the consciousness of reality, for which logic is a necessity. Assuming you are using the conventional definitions of perceptiveness and observation, these aren't necessary for that.

And this:

6.4.1.5 The thorough understanding, acceptance and overcoming of existential angst is the beginning of the transformation of consciousness.

Again, there is no transformation of consciousness itself, but rather the removal of the delusions that hinder it, like the false self or ego. The self as such is just a logical entity, or a category. The false self is what arises when the self is mistaken for something other than a logical entity and thought of as inherently being something or possessing some qualities.

[Liberty Sea]

As I said, regardless of what you are conscious of, you are conscious of reality.

I did not really disagree with that.
To quote myself:

I am not saying: if you had an altered state of consciousness that perceived golds as red metals, your reality would be superior to my reality. My golden-colored gold is just as real as your red-colored gold. But if you had an altered state of consciousness that had no vantage point whatsoever or that the whole universe was your vantage point or that everything with in the range f your consciousness was your vantage point, your consciousness would be indeed extraordinary.

Can an eye see itself?

Normally, not. That is why I said "ordinary consciousness" just to be safe.
But can you be absolutely certain there are no altered states of consciousness in which an eye can see itself?
Or perhaps it refers to this state?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egolessness
And I find what Osho said about it to be quite interesting:
"Your mind is a constant traffic of thoughts, and it is always rush hour, day in, day out. Meditation means to watch the movement of thoughts in the mind. Just be an observer, as if you are standing by the side of the road watching the traffic -- no judgment, no evaluation, no condemnation, no appreciation -- just pure observation. As you become more and more accustomed to observation, a strange phenomenon starts happening.
If you are ten percent aware, that much energy has moved from the mind process to the observer; now the mind has only ninety percent energy available. A moment comes... you have fifty percent of energy. And your energy goes on growing as mind goes on losing its energy. The traffic becomes less and less and less, and you become more and more and more.
Your witnessing self goes on increasing in integrity, expanding; it becomes stronger and stronger. And the mind goes on becoming weaker and weaker: ninety percent observer and ten percent mind, ninety-nine percent observer and only one percent mind. One hundred percent observer and the mind disappears, the road is empty; the screen of the mind becomes completely empty, nothing moves. There is only the observer.
This is the state J. Krishnamurti's statement is pointing at."

Also, what do you mean by the "movement" of consciousness? I should have asked this in the earlier post, but I forgot.

Consciousness doesn't launch itself from anywhere. The "vantage point" is just a thing that you are conscious of.

You do direct your attention from one thing to another though. Attention is always one-pointed (or at least in ordinary consciousness). If you understand what the word "pointed" means, you will understand what the word "launch" mean. Launching is pointing.

Also, this caught my eye:

6.4 Genius is the cultivation of consciousness.
6.4.1 Genius is high sensibility fueled by passion.
6.4.1.2 Sensibility is enhanced perceptiveness, acute observativeness.
6.4.1.2.1 Logical ability it not itself sensibility and therefore not necessarily the nature of genius, but a faculty that can be strengthened by sensibility.

Genius is the consciousness of reality, for which logic is a necessity. Assuming you are using the conventional definitions of perceptiveness and observation, these aren't necessary for that.

Logic is just a tool and a step-by-step process. Sensibility is the direct experiencing of reality (I am not using experience as in "life experience") and is what initiated the use of logic to confirm or falsify its direct experience.
Believe it or not, a perceptive person can get the gist of another person's personality just by looking at his eyes for the first time or when he reads about or creates a fictional character he can feel the character live within him, which are phenomena I have experienced myself. And "Goethe is said to have said of himself that there was no vice or crime of which he could not trace the tendency in himself, and that at some period of his life he could not have understood fully." That is what I mean by sensibility or perceptiveness. Weininger seemed to have agree with me and he explained it pretty well:
"The ideal genius, who has all men within him, has also all their preferences and all their dislikes. There is in him not only the universality of men, but of all nature. He is the man to whom all things tell their secrets, to whom most happens, and whom least escapes. He understands most things, and those most deeply, because he has the greatest number of things to contrast and compare them with. The genius is he who is conscious of most, and of that most acutely. And so without doubt his sensations must be most acute; but this must not be understood as implying, say, in the artist the keenest power of vision, in the composer the most acute hearing; the measure of genius is not to be taken from the acuteness of the sense organ but from that of the perceiving brain." (Otto Weininger, Sex and Character).

Again, there is no transformation of consciousness itself, but rather the removal of the delusions that hinder it, like the false self or ego. The self as such is just a logical entity, or a category. The false self is what arises when the self is mistaken for something other than a logical entity and thought of as inherently being something or possessing some qualities.

For this I would just quote Eckhart: "The Kingdom of God is for none but the thoroughly dead." and Jesus: "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again". That is what I mean by transformation of consciousness.

[jupiviv]

But if you had an altered state of consciousness that had no vantage point whatsoever or that the whole universe was your vantage point or that everything with in the range f your consciousness was your vantage point, your consciousness would be indeed extraordinary.

Presumably by "vantage point" you mean its location? I would say consciousness has no location as such, even though it has causes. But I guess what you were getting at is a consciousness which is universal. I would say this is impossible.

But can you be absolutely certain there are no altered states of consciousness in which an eye can see itself?

It can see itself in other things, in the sense that it is a part of reality just like them. But not in any other sense.

Also, what do you mean by the "movement" of consciousness? I should have asked this in the earlier post, but I forgot.

Consciousness doesn't launch itself from anywhere. The "vantage point" is just a thing that you are conscious of.

You do direct your attention from one thing to another though.

The "I" *is* the conscious experience or attention. There is no "I" that "has"(literally) or directs this experience. Similarly the experience of something directing attention is another "I".

Logic is just a tool and a step-by-step process. Sensibility is the direct experiencing of reality (I am not using experience as in "life experience") and is what initiated the use of logic to confirm or falsify its direct experience.

How about this - logic is the only tool/process that can lead to a direct experience of reality.

"The ideal genius, who has all men within him, has also all their preferences and all their dislikes. There is in him not only the universality of men, but of all nature. He is the man to whom all things tell their secrets, to whom most happens, and whom least escapes. He understands most things, and those most deeply, because he has the greatest number of things to contrast and compare them with. The genius is he who is conscious of most, and of that most acutely. And so without doubt his sensations must be most acute; but this must not be understood as implying, say, in the artist the keenest power of vision, in the composer the most acute hearing; the measure of genius is not to be taken from the acuteness of the sense organ but from that of the perceiving brain." (Otto Weininger, Sex and Character).

If you genuinely experience just one thing, for one moment, then have you not in a sense experienced all things?

[movingalways]

jupiviv: I would say consciousness has no location as such, even though it has causes.

Because it is true that consciousness has no location, it is also true that even if causes exist within consciousness, they will never be located. Which means that a man who continues to seek causes and speak of causes is applying a false reference point on consciousness. Falseness = Ignorance.

jupiviv: How about this - logic is the only tool/process that can lead to a direct experience of reality.

Lead to, yes. But logic is not the direct experience of reality. Which means one must drop logic if expanding pure awareness, direct experience, is their objective.

Logic is the stairway to heaven's door, but once one crosses heaven's threshold, no stairway!

[movingalways]

And I find what Osho said about it to be quite interesting:
"Your mind is a constant traffic of thoughts, and it is always rush hour, day in, day out. Meditation means to watch the movement of thoughts in the mind. Just be an observer, as if you are standing by the side of the road watching the traffic -- no judgment, no evaluation, no condemnation, no appreciation -- just pure observation. As you become more and more accustomed to observation, a strange phenomenon starts happening.
If you are ten percent aware, that much energy has moved from the mind process to the observer; now the mind has only ninety percent energy available. A moment comes... you have fifty percent of energy. And your energy goes on growing as mind goes on losing its energy. The traffic becomes less and less and less, and you become more and more and more.
Your witnessing self goes on increasing in integrity, expanding; it becomes stronger and stronger. And the mind goes on becoming weaker and weaker: ninety percent observer and ten percent mind, ninety-nine percent observer and only one percent mind. One hundred percent observer and the mind disappears, the road is empty; the screen of the mind becomes completely empty, nothing moves. There is only the observer.
This is the state J. Krishnamurti's statement is pointing at."

Osho's description of pure awareness is also my experience of pure awareness. I am no where near 99% observer, but practice makes perfect!

Liberty Sea: For this I would just quote Eckhart: "The Kingdom of God is for none but the thoroughly dead." and Jesus: "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again". That is what I mean by transformation of consciousness.

Yes, the thoroughly dead, which means all things of the human mind, including emotion and logic.

[jupiviv]

Because it is true that consciousness has no location, it is also true that even if causes exist within consciousness, they will never be located.

Causes don't exist "within" consciousness. They can be located if they have a location.

Lead to, yes. But logic is not the direct experience of reality. Which means one must drop logic if expanding pure awareness, direct experience, is their objective.

Logic is the stairway to heaven's door, but once one crosses heaven's threshold, no stairway!

Are you using logic to come to the conclusion that one must drop logic before direct experience, or is this part of the direct experience itself? If it is the former, then there is immediately a contradiction, because you are trying to enter the gates of heaven without leaving behind the stairway. If it is the latter, then there is no way of knowing or determining the genuineness of this direct experience, since you are no longer using logic.

[Liberty Sea]

Presumably by "vantage point" you mean its location?

A vantage point is a point of view.

But I guess what you were getting at is a consciousness which is universal. I would say this is impossible.

It is good if you can say: "I am 100% sure it's absolutely impossible" and support it with logic.

Code: Select all

It can see itself in other things, in the sense that it is a part of reality just like them. But not in any other sense.


It's like thinking about not-thinking.

The "I" *is* the conscious experience or attention. There is no "I" that "has"(literally) or directs this experience. Similarly the experience of something directing attention is another "I".

When you think, you think about something. You don't just think. There has to be something that you think about. About the naked girl standing in front of you or about your naked cousin in Siberia. This 'aboutness' is what I was getting at when I use the word 'launching'. It doesn't really matter if consciousness launches itself or something else. The thing is: this 'launching' exists.

How about this - logic is the only tool/process that can lead to a direct experience of reality.

It is you sensibility that motivated you to use logic to experience reality.
For my case, I had firsthand understanding of reality with my sensibility and then use logic to clarify my understanding. Acute sensibility, expansive perceptiveness, keen attentiveness, sensitive awareness, cognizant mindfulness, observative conscientiousness, what you will.
The key is: if you have only logic and no sensibility, then why didn't you delve into something like math, for example, which is nothing but logic? With logic only, can you really be good at psychology? With only logic, can you feel many personalities living within you, can you catch the rhymes of lives, and resonate with heartbeats of geniuses? As Weininger said: "The ideal genius, who has all men within him, has also all their preferences and all their dislikes."
It's not romanticism. Genius originally meant spirit. Sensibility is this spiritual perceptiveness.

If you genuinely experience just one thing, for one moment, then have you not in a sense experienced all things?

That is true, but beside the point.

[jupiviv]

A vantage point is a point of view.

OK in that case I would say that the consciousness of a thing is itself a point of view. There is no point of view that it belongs to or is located in. Also, it is not possible a single consciousness to be of anything more or less than one thing.

But I guess what you were getting at is a consciousness which is universal. I would say this is impossible.

It is good if you can say: "I am 100% sure it's absolutely impossible" and support it with logic.

See above.

The key is: if you have only logic and no sensibility, then why didn't you delve into something like math, for example, which is nothing but logic? With logic only, can you really be good at psychology? With only logic, can you feel many personalities living within you, can you catch the rhymes of lives, and resonate with heartbeats of geniuses?

My computer can do math, but it is not logical/aware of anything. The math that it does only becomes meaningful and logical when I am there to see it.

Weininger said: "The ideal genius, who has all men within him, has also all their preferences and all their dislikes."

I refer you to what I said, namely that genuinely experiencing even one thing is the direct experience of Reality. That is the nature of genius - to experience/or be conscious.

[Liberty Sea]

OK in that case I would say that the consciousness of a thing is itself a point of view. There is no point of view that it belongs to or is located in. Also, it is not possible a single consciousness to be of anything more or less than one thing.

If you have ten eyes, some of which are located in your back, and some are located in the body of another human, how would your consciousness be?

My computer can do math, but it is not logical/aware of anything. The math that it does only becomes meaningful and logical when I am there to see it.

Perhaps we have different definitions of what 'logic' and 'being logical' mean.
Is a mathematician, such as Gauss or Fermat or Grigori Perelman, logical in his work?

I refer you to what I said, namely that genuinely experiencing even one thing is the direct experience of Reality. That is the nature of genius - to experience/or be conscious.

If I am not getting your idea wrong, everyone is equally genius, or more correctly, to put it in your words, anyone who is "genuinely experiencing even one thing", which "is the direct experience of Reality", is just as much a genius as any other who does that same thing.
But my stance is that some are more genius than some other, which manifests itself in the 'fact' that some are more perceptive and sensitive than some others; some have more personalities living within them than some others some feel more strongly and deeply than some others; some process their thinking with much more clarity and fluidity than some other; some have more creative, abundant and penetrative ideas and observations than some other;and so on.

[Kunga]

some

How many infinities are there ?

[Liberty Sea]

some

How many infinities are there ?

If you wish to know you can start counting them yourself.;)

[jupiviv]

If you have ten eyes, some of which are located in your back, and some are located in the body of another human, how would your consciousness be?

Depends on what I would be conscious of. Regardless of how many sense organs are present, the consciousness of the same thing will be the same in all cases. Even when more than one thing is perceived, it is still the consciousness of a single thing - i.e the category in which we include those many things.

Is a mathematician, such as Gauss or Fermat or Grigori Perelman, logical in his work?

Probably. It depends on whether they are aware of what they are doing.

If I am not getting your idea wrong, everyone is equally genius, or more correctly, to put it in your words, anyone who is "genuinely experiencing even one thing", which "is the direct experience of Reality", is just as much a genius as any other who does that same thing.

That's right.

But my stance is that some are more genius than some other, which manifests itself in the 'fact' that some are more perceptive and sensitive than some others; some have more personalities living within them than some others some feel more strongly and deeply than some others; some process their thinking with much more clarity and fluidity than some other; some have more creative, abundant and penetrative ideas and observations than some other;and so on.

There are degrees of genius in the sense of how consistently a person experiences, how many experiences he has, etc. We say there is clarity when we know more about a thing than we did before, i.e, we become aware of more aspects of that thing, or find its relationships with other things.

[Liberty Sea]

Depends on what I would be conscious of. Regardless of how many sense organs are present, the consciousness of the same thing will be the same in all cases. Even when more than one thing is perceived, it is still the consciousness of a single thing - i.e the category in which we include those many things.

I mean, we have sense of distance and sense of scale. We can sense the nearness or remoteness of the thing we perceive. We can sense the distances being shortened or lengthened. We can sense the reach of our vision being increased or decreased.
If consciousness has no location, how can you sense that a chair 1 meter away from you is closer to you than a chair 2 meter away from you, or that a bug is smaller than a tree, for example, when they are all within the range of consciousness, namely what you perceive? And you would perceive things differently, your senses of scale and distance would change if you were as small as an atom or as big as giant to whose eyes a million year passed in an instant.

Probably. It depends on whether they are aware of what they are doing.

But they were not sages. What is the relation between what you call 'logic' and wisdom?

[jupiviv]

If consciousness has no location, how can you sense that a chair 1 meter away from you is closer to you than a chair 2 meter away from you, or that a bug is smaller than a tree, for example, when they are all within the range of consciousness, namely what you perceive?

If I experience that a chair is 1 meter away from me then I am also experiencing something called "me"(e.g my body). If consciousness had a location then beings in two different locations could not understand the same thing, and truths in one location would be falsities in another.

What is the relation between what you call 'logic' and wisdom?

I define wisdom to be logic that is unfettered by any delusions. Basically, any logic at all is wisdom.

[Liberty Sea]

If I experience that a chair is 1 meter away from me then I am also experiencing something called "me"(e.g my body).

Yes.
To quote myself:

4.1.1 My ego is that vantage point ('I' is a vantage point).

4.2.1.1 My world is all that my consciousness perceives and all that is not my vantage point.

4.2.1.2 I and my world are one.

Which means I am my world and not my world at the same time.
This seems self-contradictory but I have explained why it is logical.

If consciousness had a location then beings in two different locations could not understand the same thing, and truths in one location would be falsities in another.

If a chair is 1 meter away from person A and 2 meter away from B then "The chair is 1 meter away from 'me'" is a truth for A and a falsity for B (when B says that sentence with 'me' referring to himself just as A does), but "The chair is 1 meter away from A and 2 meter from B' is truth for both.

I define wisdom to be logic that is unfettered by any delusions. Basically, any logic at all is wisdom.

I define wisdom to be the art of living.

[cousinbasil]

Spatially this vantage point is a point. Temporally it is a line. But at a particular moment it is a point.

Spatially this vantage point is really a set of points, IMO. If at a particular moment it is a point, over a number of moments, this points changes but does not go all over the map, but is constrained to a more or less well-defined set.

So from one moment to the next, it may be a line, but over a finite number of moments, it is a curve which traces a nonlinear world - it takes redaction to make it a line.

[movingalways]

movingalways wrote:
Because it is true that consciousness has no location, it is also true that even if causes exist within consciousness, they will never be located.

jupiviv: Causes don't exist "within" consciousness. They can be located if they have a location.

Jupiviv, your response to me has caused me to see causes in a new light, that is, that they are the same thing as a perceived object that is formed to support one's vision of who they are. I have always addressed such perceived objects as being those that emanate you toward attachment to sentience or toward nonattachment to sentience. This is why I have, in the past, called these emanated objects/causes, ‘living words.’ I realize now that it is more beneficial to realizing one’s objective, whether it is to be attached to sentience or to be unattached to sentience, to replace the idea ‘living word’ with the idea ‘conscious cause.‘ Where the first provides no vision of the objective of consciousness, the second does.

movingalways:
Lead to, yes. But logic is not the direct experience of reality. Which means one must drop logic if expanding pure awareness, direct experience, is their objective.

Logic is the stairway to heaven's door, but once one crosses heaven's threshold, no stairway!

jupiviv: Are you using logic to come to the conclusion that one must drop logic before direct experience, or is this part of the direct experience itself? If it is the former, then there is immediately a contradiction, because you are trying to enter the gates of heaven without leaving behind the stairway. If it is the latter, then there is no way of knowing or determining the genuineness of this direct experience, since you are no longer using logic.

Allow me to expand/rephrase my previous thoughts based on my current vision of ’conscious cause'. Logic, which I see as being the identification of a cause by the sentient mind is not the experience of heaven wherein neither sentience or identification is present. In essence, I am saying that if one desires to enter heaven, to be finished with identification with a cause, causes are used to move one beyond causes, one goes through the mind to go beyond the mind. That one can attain to a causal awareness that produces effects that single-mindedly suggest or point to the end of one's ideation of causes. Examples of such heightened causal awareness that points to an awareness beyond idea would be the 'holy' ideas of Jesus and the Buddha, which of my understanding, culminate in an reconciliation of all caused ideas into a final caused idea of "good and only good." And, upon completing this one caused idea of reconciliation that is "good and only good", [Jesus said "I come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it"] one is given entry into heaven where ideas exist not, the 'experience' of omniscience.

[jupiviv]

In essence, I am saying that if one desires to enter heaven, to be finished with identification with a cause, causes are used to move one beyond causes, one goes through the mind to go beyond the mind.

That is impossible, for obvious reasons. It's like the first cause argument.

[movingalways]

Liberty Sea: It needs to be stressed again that this is the observation from an ordinary consciousness's point of view. I don't claim to know anything about super-consciousness.

Liberty, do you not have to be in touch with super-consciousness to even be aware that such a thing exists? I suggest that the thing that is super-consciousness is the thing that is also not a thing and that we attain to super consciousness when we use things to refer to its non-thingness.