Women, Freedom, Entrapment, Strategy

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hello Diebert. For me to engage with you now actually requires a new Alex: Alex Number Four. And so I wish to introduce myself to one and to all because this is a new manifestation. The 'essence' and feel of Alex Number Four is pure fluidity, a kind of tingly-electrical thrill that makes sparks snap in the atmosphere. In some kind of triune testube where all the muck and garbage and barfed-up philosophical lunches of fruitless, vain and wicked little games, blended with something at least a little sattvic and kind-hearted, and it was out of that sad mass of 'personhood' that emerged Alex Number Four. It's been a long, hard travail, people, but the New Alex has been born. Let halavah be served! Still, he is only just solidifying into your world so have patience! There will be throwbacks, like in weird mutant corn, to Alexes of yore.

And wouldn't you know it! an old Alex (Alex Number Two it would seem, who still lurks about like a ghost, clawing at the shadows) is asking himself this question:

• When Dennis puts his slithery tongue up your butt crack and starts his tender licking, does it make you feel uncomfortable? And what is the correct etiquette in that situation? What about you, Pye? Do you enjoy that tongue on some level? Or, does it really creep you out but being polite and all you keep quiet and don't say anything?

Mmm, it seems you are mistaken about that last thing because it could have been my own oral movements which evoked reaction, perhaps even a flash of recognition. You would love such response, don't you? And do I feel good about this feedback? Perhaps I indeed felt good writing the spaces between the best words and there you have it: the key to good blessing or just good sex.

As for Alex Number Four, could we skip to Number Five ("i am alive!")? It would be a new adventure to see him write only replies of one or two not too long running sentences and let others make their own story from such zennish manœuvre de manure!

[Alex T. Jacob]

But was I wrong thinking you showed concern about where life would take people with their acidic philosophies?

No, you were not wrong. But so many things need to be put on the table in order to have a platform where 'all that' could be discussed. One fact which I think you recognize, and it is a temporal fact which you sort of 'straddle' (stand between): I define myself within a context of opposition. One fact of life in this domain is that of stress and conflict and tension. We strive for 'peace' as we strive for all things. We are beings that seem to require struggle. It is this struggle that we call 'being alive and also 'life'.

So, here, often, I desire to 'represent' and to defend, essentially, the Book. What 'the book' means is 'repository of human experience'. I don't really want to consume the brain-fuel to summarize either John's of Dennis's 'platform', their way of knowing or what they choose to do with what they know. But when it moves in the direction of acting as an 'acid' against the possibility of knowing, which is also the possibility of acting, I KNOW that I am facing a dangerous force. There are just so many different reasons why this sort of person has come on the scene and few here seem willing to or interested in talking about it. But to me it is one of the most important 'meta-messages' to be extracted from the conversational engagement that goes on here.

When I say you 'straddle' this issue---which is far broader than I have outlined---I think this turns back on the question that Pye brought up and which you have not bothered to answer: that question about postmodernity and the advent of meaninglessness (is how I would paraphrase it though I may link back to that post after I finish writing this). It seems to me that you are quite comfortable in a context of meaninglessness, and you are very tolerant of those who 'speak' from their platform of reduction, of mechanical thought, etc. It is quite possible that you are comfortable there because you are also enmeshed in that. Its tendrils interpenetrate you and you have acquiesced, at least on some levels.

You tolerate inferior, destructive minds like John's and Dennis's (though you recognize what you are dealing with, I think) whereas I believe their whole position should be resisted from the start: defeated. Killed. Destroyed. No mercy. I guess I really do take seriously the 'Introduction' to Genius Forums though they meant it differently. You have to be willing to get bloodied. There ARE consequences to ideas. In life you either define a position or you do not. It is much easier to 'straddle' the conflict and for purposes of 'comfort' fail to take a stand or a position. Under the influence of a style of thinking (Dennis's and John's on these pages) the platform for conversation will eventually be destroyed. It will cease to exist. That is determined by the inner logic of the positions themselves. It is that serious.

True, it is a form of folly (misplaced energy really) to spend so much time battling undefeatable windmills here but that is all because of a pragmatism on my part, a self-interest. In order to write (say, a novel) you have to define who you are. You really have to know yourself and your 'positions'. If you have not engaged in such a project it is unlikely you would understand what it requires (I didn't).

There are un-nice things in the world, un-nice people, un-nice circumstances, un-nice agendas, but if we assume the overarching response should always be niceness, then we lose our discriminating tastes and gobble-down dishes just because they make us feel good for the niceness in which they are delivered; we end up ingesting the poison (so to speak) willingly and unthinkingly...

Nice! Instead of a 'cookie' I rather gift you a loaded Baretta 12S and hope you'll let 'em have it!

[Pye]

Alex writes: Nice! Instead of a 'cookie' I rather gift you a loaded Baretta 12S and hope you'll let 'em have it!

There are far more powerful 'weapons' in the world than all those dreamt of in your violent philosophy, Horatio. :)

[Alex T. Jacob]

I've changed my mind (I can do that you know). I think the Mossberg 590A1 9-shot is really your best option, seeing as how you have trouble aiming and are confused about what to fire at anyway...

Chamber a round and THEN ask Dennis again if it is really 'empty & meaningless'...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But when it moves in the direction of acting as an 'acid' against the possibility of knowing, which is also the possibility of acting, I KNOW that I am facing a dangerous force. There are just so many different reasons why this sort of person has come on the scene and few here seem willing to or interested in talking about it. But to me it is one of the most important 'meta-messages' to be extracted from the conversational engagement that goes on here.

But don't you ever doubt if this "meta-extraction" is anything close to any factual assessment of what these folks you have mentioned are about? There isn't much talk here about what people do or don't do privately or professionally, If they ever pick up a book or not or really bother with living some kind of social life in the postmodern broken scene or how they somehow come by. The mind desires to be "free" and thinks that by arranging life around a notion of freedom, that there's some optimum achieved. There can be endless discussion about the modes and the moods involved but it's not one I found of much importance unless it's between friends where there are other motives, like creating familiarity in which friendship can function. Outside of this circle it's just psychotherapy at best. I do realize you believe otherwise and that things like these "matter" in all these discussions on existential matters. But I believe it has to go a step further than circumstances and preferences. It certainly has to go further than System, Law and Book.

I think this turns back on the question that Pye brought up and which you have not bothered to answer: that question about postmodernity and the advent of meaninglessness (is how I would paraphrase it though I may link back to that post after I finish writing this). It seems to me that you are quite comfortable in a context of meaninglessness, and you are very tolerant of those who 'speak' from their platform of reduction, of mechanical thought, etc. It is quite possible that you are comfortable there because you are also enmeshed in that. Its tendrils interpenetrate you and you have acquiesced, at least on some levels.

The main reason that I've not posted a specific reply was that I think I've been addressing the topic already for a while. Only a slight change in syntax seems to have struck a chord. But not much has changed in that regard and no special attention needs to be given. But feel free to comment on this.

You tolerate inferior, destructive minds like John's and Dennis's (though you recognize what you are dealing with, I think) whereas I believe their whole position should be resisted from the start: defeated. Killed. Destroyed. No mercy. I guess I really do take seriously the 'Introduction' to Genius Forums though they meant it differently. You have to be willing to get bloodied. There ARE consequences to ideas.

Well -- I'm more surprised at your eagerness to address mindsets which are to you so clearly inferior and appear to function at the very least in a different cognitive space than you desire to do your communication in. Which platform you think their style might "destroy"? The forum? Your pedestal? Do they really interfere with any meaningful discussion you intent to have? These are sincere questions by the way and your provided answer of it being a pragmatism on your part in terms of novelization of one's self, well, those reasons seem to avoid the question of choice, the question of why you would engage and look for such "young girls" to destroy or save in the first place.

[Alex T. Jacob]

I'm sorry, Diebert, but all this postmodern talk has got my mind working other angles. Mediums, messages, mediums, etc. I need to clarify something for you-all.

Okay, so imagine yourself with the Mossberg assault shotgun in this scene and instead of 'What?' it shall be 'Geddit?'

That is the kind of energy we need! That is how we cut through the BS. That is the way we actually get to Truth and to results...

Say 'geddit?' again, I dare you!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

followed through with it opens up the inescapable conclusion,
that,
(my and your)
true nature is:

infinite, not a thing, not phenomenal,

'I am' an empty space in which the World shows up as an experience.

which is your groove right?

Good description, where you headed? This is what I want to try and describe, you could help you know

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Consciousness is always consciousness-of. It does not rise until there is something to be conscious-of. If there's an "of," then consciousness has taken something in as an "object," made an object of it in order to contemplate it. Objects are making the shape of consciousness just as consciousness is shaping the objects in return. So yes, we have something of a closed loop here (but keep reading).

We cannot exceed the instrumentation of our own consciousnesses when confronting whatever "of" it has taken notice-of. It's only in this sentence that we would meet in the area you are recruiting for - I could use the phrase here, "World only exists in [my] mind," but I cannot (explanation forthcoming) say there is no world outside of mind, since it took an "of" for me to become conscious at all.

This same consciousness tells me other things; this same mind - the one that realizes it cannot exceed its own instrumentation to measure the world - is telling me that there is a world, or I would have nothing to become conscious-of. I'm conscious-of people who die and a world that goes on. The world has died for them, but not for every other consciousness that still and always takes the world for its object. Yes, we're still in the closed loop, but the loop itself does not exist if consciousness has nothing to be conscious-of.

Yes, there is a world, or there would be no reason for consciousness to rise to become conscious-of anything. No, we cannot exceed our own instrumentation (consciousness) when confronting this world. But if we refuse the ambiguity of the situation - that mind and world make each other or there would be nothing 'made' - then indeed, we're left stewing in the solipsistic soup. We will then have discovered the closed-loop nature of consciousness, but with half of what makes it what it is, sawn off; thrown away. It's disingenuous; a jesuitical trick; human hubris; and one of many ways people will negate the world (and hence themselves) in trying to address their suffering in it.

So, no, Little General (and I mean this affectionately), you will not be able to recruit me into your army of dreamers, or posit to me a thing called "consciousness-itself," or deny there is a world outside of consciousness (in any other way than intellectual parlour games), for it could not rise without things to become conscious-of. Others may resolve their suffering, negate the world, into the softness of a dream; for if ignorance is suffering, it can also be bliss. This self-same consciousness of mine tells me the bliss (my bliss) lies in thoughts other than disingenuous ones like these.

Subjectivity (the whole world does not, cannot, exist outside my mind) is meaningless when it refuses the objects it takes for itself that make it what it is.

Both replies to Laird and Pye are for both Laird and Pye

Ok so the main point you've given here is that what is seemingly individuated consciousness is dependent on conditions, without "objects" or "world" to be conscious-of there is no consciousness.

Consciousness is not existing in itself because it's very nature is to be aware of-something, "this".

I agree, although there is a point I'm going to make that I think you will agree you cannot refute:

Your point was that there must be something to be conscious-of for consciousness to arise, but this is wholly untrue, not in the sense that you can have consciousness without seeing things, just in the sense that those things do not have to exist independent of consciousness.

Otherwise, how is it possible to have consciousness and see objects while in a sleep state, while those objects do not really exist? Or to see objects that exist as nothing but imaginative experiences in the same way you would see one's that apparently exist as "more" than imaginative experiences?

This here has shown that consciousness can and does arise without "something" to be conscious-of, or more specifically, it exists without something external to be conscious-of.

Consciousness can both exist while experiencing "real objects" and while experiencing "not-real objects".

("Real" objects which are "more" real according to you and Laird) and while experiencing "not-real objects" (Which are only imaginative experiences and are apparently "less" real)

What you haven't explained is why these "objects" that consciousness needs to be conscious-of must be external to consciousness rather than simply an experience of consciousness?

Now the flaw I can predict you might make is to say that: Those "not-real" objects and experiences are simply "mind-mix's" or dream imaginations derived from your real experiences, although you would have a hard time showing this conclusively or showing that this idea has any kind of real support outside of being an abstract imagination.

Another question, if one were to honestly ask you in the moment: "How can you prove whether we are dreaming now or not?". How would you reply?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

John, thank you. This is the first post you've addressed to me in which I feel like you're actually responding to me rather than just talking at me. It's a breath of fresh air. I think you'll do even better with practice (I know that might sound patronising - I'm sorry about that, but I also think it's true).

Lol well in my opinion I would rather we were both just "talking at" each other as if it were a normal conversation, but you guys are into forum formality so I'm giving in.

Where I came up with this idea is obvious - it's part of our everyday experience: our intuitive, natural experience is of a three-dimensional physical world in which individual consciousnesses are located separately within those three dimensions. Why I suggest it as a reason to prefer my view of reality over yours is because it is hard to imagine what would be the case if this were not true in some way, not necessarily in the intuitive way we experience consciousness-within-a-three-dimensional-physical-world, but in some sense of dimensionality, some way in which consciousness is "within" or "located in" something. I mean, what is the alternative? I seem to recall you writing something to the effect in that thread of "It's just magic, it can't be described". OK, fine, I can't logically refute that, but in what way is "magic" a better or more plausible explanation than the concrete one that I've offered, which just happens to match our intuitions too?

Your natural experience is of sensations/mental formations, technically it is of a "sensational" world which apparently correlates to a "physical" external to sensations/mental formations world, one that we disagree on the existence of.

You are again implying that there must be some "place" for consciousness to reside and that the alternative of "no place" is somehow less plausible.

If you take into account the point being made I think you will see that it is saying that all these apparent "places" and ideas are rather located "within" or "reside" in consciousness.

(This point here you should be able to grasp perfectly well and to it's fullest degree as you have personally experienced "places" which reside "within" consciousness and not external to consciousness (Dreams, imaginative experiences). So hopefully my meaning comes through here)

So, again, this is not a knock-down argument against your view, but it does make it far less plausible.

I did have a better grasping of the point you were trying to make once you mentioned the first person shooter idea, there is a platform on which all individual consoles/PC's are "meeting", without this shared platform there would be no possibility for interacting with other players, it is this platform itself that makes such interaction possible, without this central server there is no shared platform.

Not to devalue the point you have made, but originally when I said "consciousness is harder to distribute in programming" or something a rather, I was being a little sarcastic, implying that such imaginations of the way a computer programmer might distribute playing experience using a central server bears no real relation to how consciousness might work.

Although I have grasped the point you were trying to make I don't think it is one you should put in too high a regard when considering consciousness.

Other than the reasoning I've just shared with you, it simply makes more intuitive sense to me, and this, probably more than that reasoning, is why I take the view that I do. I experience my physical body in a way that makes it extremely difficult for me to view it as a mere apparition of the mind; it is alive with tangible energy, both "ordinary" and spiritual energy.

Although you do agree this apparent "aliveness" is known only so far as your experiences?
And that you cannot be certain of it's "aliveness" outside of these experiences?

The point that is trying to be made, and I do believe this to be the truth, and hence one that I can lead both you and Pye to the realization of given enough time and cooperation, is that all apparently individual "objects", such as the body, are not truly individual or separated from other "objects", nor do they truly exist, but are really only particular manifestations of transient sensation/feeling. Which is always changing and altering and hence all these objects which you may perceive to contain a certain level of permanence in structure or form, do not actually contain this permanence.

That this perception is only there due to your experience of those structures/forms which appear to be in existence right now. (But are actually in no more existence than the horn on a bunny one might see in a dream, although while seeing that bunny, one might be convinced of it's "more reality".)

In other words, in the future, and you may see the plausibility of this, it is not so wild a notion to say that you might look back on your experiences now as if they were nothing more than a dream.

I would also like to restate again that the realization I am trying to bring you to is a very uncommon one known as awakening and must be accompanied by wakeful observation of your own conscious experiences. (Meditation and contemplation) The Buddha described that such enlightenment would only happen to one in a million people without the help of an enlightened teacher. Another of his more clear descriptions:

"Objects are discriminated by the ignorant who are addicted to assertion and negation, because their intelligence has not been acute enough to penetrate into the truth that there is nothing but what is seen of the mind itself." - Buddha Gautama

This "non-reality" is most easily perceived when past-association and familiarity is absent from the mind. (These being factors that cloud your perception) An empty mind is an open one.

If you were to try and demonstrate that you weren't in the middle of a room existing only of the mind, aka, an imaginative or dream-like experience, how would you do so?

[Pye]

Seeker writes: [1] "Real" objects which are "more" real according to you and Laird [2] and while experiencing "not-real objects" (Which are only imaginative experiences and are apparently "less" real)

[1] You have got to stop doing this, Seeker, attributing to others the windmills at which you tilt. Please read a little more carefully, a little more alertly, other people's thoughts, rather than smothering them in your own argumentative agenda regarding gradations of the "real", "more" or otherwise. I wouldn't know what to do with such an idea that gives existence gradations of existing.

[2] Perhaps you missed an earlier post of mine that indicated I believe thoughts to be things, too (dreams, fantasies, what-have-you). They exist as surely as anything else; they have existence. Why would you want me to speak of "more" or "less" existence in such a scheme? - comparing 'outside' worlds to 'inside' worlds and insisting one has more existence than the other? That's your bag, not mine.

Fixated upon the problem of not being able to distinguish being awake from being asleep? Descartes spent some time on that problem, too, in the Meditations on First Philosophy. He doubted all of the physical world as well: whether we are dreaming or awake, the presence of thinking (dreaming, either one) confirmed for him his own existence. Eventually he has to admit that everything he takes into consciousness adventitiously does the same thing. Eventually he works his way around to there being a world, too. Still, you might like his process.

Seeker, what do you think sentiency is? What do you think the senses are sensing? Or is "sentiency" to you also one of those things that performs its operations in the vacuum of mind - i.e. has nothing to sense but itself?

Seeker: Now the flaw I can predict you might make is to say that: Those "not-real" objects and experiences are simply "mind-mix's" or dream imaginations derived from your real experiences, although you would have a hard time showing this conclusively or showing that this idea has any kind of real support outside of being an abstract imagination.

I haven't seen you show conclusively much more than abstract imaginings yourself. It's yourself that will have to argue these gradations of real and more real; I've tried to make clear here there is only existence and all that has existence, exists: dreams, thoughts, elbows, teacups and people - even abstract imagination exists as abstract imagination. We cannot be talking about nothing. Nothing cannot be talked about, much less sensed or thought.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You provided the reason that there must be something/objects to be conscious-of for consciousness to exist.

I replied saying that consciousness does exist (you can see objects/experience them) without the need for the objects to have external existence outside of consciousness.

So you have seen clearly that the objects consciousness needs to be conscious-of can exist as nothing more than imaginative experiences.

The question still stands, why is it that you suppose waking state objects have independent existence while the same sensations/experiences you have in an imaginative state do not correlate to objects existing externally or independently?

Bit hard to read*

In other words, what reasoning can you provide to support the claim that your experiences now are "more" than imaginative experiences? (You agree dream objects don't inherently exist outside of mind, while waking state objects apparently do)

Besides saying that Descartes thought about it or that we need things to be conscious-of (Which we don't in dreams yet we still experience sensation)

[Alex T. Jacob]

John, listen to momma Pye, and stop fighting against the spoon! You gettin' ready to eat what everybody else is eatin'? We'll get you on some starter foods and pretty soon a little piece of toast!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Alex! My dear friend, I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to your song, I now ask that you discern the nature of a riddle I have come across, are you up for a bit of riddlin'?


"In the beginning was the Tao.
All things issue from it;
all things return to it.

*I must impede on your riddling time to inform you this is a spiritual riddle of sorts, it requires deep consideration.*


To find the origin,
trace back the manifestations.
When you recognize the children
and find the mother,
you will be free of sorrow.

If you close your mind in judgements
and traffic with desires,
your heart will be troubled.
If you keep your mind from judging
and aren't led by the senses,
your heart will find peace.

Seeing into darkness is clarity.
Knowing how to yield is strength.
Use your own light
and return to the source of light.
This is called practicing eternity."


What is your interpretation?

[Alex T. Jacob]

Negotiating with your teenager, rule number one: don't get stuck in the cycle of argumentation.

What is your interpretation?

Don't drop out of school just yet?

[Pye]

Seeker, it might be helpful for you to know that I'm not buddhist. I've been through buddhism and out the other side, and whereas I appreciate everything that came of it, I can't return to this single strain (or "pathology") of thinking in exclusion to all others. Same with the Tao, Socrates, Plato, Hinduism, Nietzsche, feminism, metaphysics, and yes, plenty of meditation in there too, et al, on and on, and it is the same with each of these: I appreciate what I got from them but cannot wrangle myself in adoption of any single one of them as a card-carrying member. So, the buddha quotes don't carry the kind of authority with me you would like them to have, especially since some of them have been thought through, transformed, and left long ago. Somewhere in all this, I 'stopped' meditating, without realizing I stopped meditating, as though everything about it has been carried forward without need of being 'meditation' per se anymore.

Anyway, I'll go do some dreaming now and see if I can answer your problem about it, even if I don't see it as a problem myself. :)

[Alex T. Jacob]

Goodnight everyone!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Oh the link changed, I'd rather stick to suckling on the teats of our "mother" Alex.

Pye

Neither am I a Buddhist or Taoist or any other, and I promise you if you go and do that dreaming correctly you'll wake up to see, without judgement, that you are still "dreaming", albeit it is referred to as your waking state :b

What do you think of these, next to each other:

"Wakefulness is the way to life. The fool sleeps As if he were already dead, but the master is awake and he lives forever."

"But those who drink the water I give will never be thirsty again. It becomes a fresh, bubbling spring within them, giving them eternal life."

The point is, that body, that self, is not you,

Remember this: "And one should understand, according to reality, and true wisdom:
"This does not belong to me; this am I not; this is not my Ego."

when you realize that it is then just an experience, you will become that eternal and you will know what you are, you will find the "kingdom of heaven", you will be in paradise, and you won't doubt for a second that it is eternal paradise, and that it is "within".

The world exists only in and of the mind, "the kingdom of heaven is within you" "It is spread out upon the earth but men do not see it" or
Lao Tzu "Free from desire you realize the mystery, Caught in desire you see only manifestations",

(Btw god is a three letter word,
nothing of the world exists but what is of the mind)

If you have looked over this and passed it, then you have looked over it without yet having enough of the required correlated experiences. For a proper awakening there requires conditions, there must be meditation and wakefulness of: thoughts, mental formations, sensations. There must be the endeavor to non-judgmentally assess your own knowledge and contemplate/ explore consciousness. After all this eventually it comes down to something very simple:

"The Truth of Noble Wisdom that is beyond the reasoning knowledge of the philosophers as well as being beyond the understanding of ordinary disciples and masters; and which is realizable only within the inmost
consciousness; for your sakes, I too, would discourse on the same Truth. All that is seen in the world is devoid of effort and action because all things in the world are like a dream, or like an image miraculously projected. This is not comprehended by the philosophers and the ignorant, but those who thus see things see them truthfully."
-Buddha Gautama, Chapter 1 titled "Discrimination" of a "Buddhist Bible" http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/bb08.htm

or

"nothing exists but what is seen of the mind itself" or "the world is but an illusion" - Buddha


Ask yourself, think about your answer, then reply, how can you prove or evidence or show or support that you aren't, right now, in the middle of a dream? (An imagination existing only of the mind)

Why, because it's consistent?

[guest_of_logic]

Hi Pye,

(I won't delve into your metaphysical qualms; that's a whole other discussion that we've mostly had already)

Thanks for your considered response. I, too, slept on my response, and have come back to it and edited it a fair bit.

In a lot of ways I agree with you, especially with respect to niceness, and I think it's because in my view (the practice of) niceness is (should be) conditional, whereas (also in my view, more of which below) respect is unconditional; niceness is the shallower concept, respect the deeper. You can be nice to someone without being respectful to that person, for example, where a person needs to hear something painful that it isn't "nice" to say, but that it is respectful to say - respectful of the listener's real needs, rather than of the speaker's need to be nice (in the shallow sense of nice as merely "obliging"; admittedly richer conceptions of niceness are possible). So, the practice of niceness is (should be) at least conditional (predicated) on it being respectful too (in context).

I think I understand what you're saying with, "The dishes are forked (i.e. meaning I'm not really feeling this niceness and kindness toward [rhetorical] you), but since I am valuing it ahead of the situation I'm in, I'll put the tray ahead of what's on it", and with, "Niceness can only come about in response to something, and it's only niceness if it's actually niceness". It might help to distinguish between the *feeling* of niceness/kindness/respect - respect-as-feeling - and *behaving* nicely/kindly/respectfully - respect-as-action. I think we both accept that respect-as-feeling can't be forced, there's no disagreement there.

As to whether we ought to respect-as-action in the face of lack of an accompanying respect-as-feeling, I argue that yes, we ought to, in the sense of unconditional respect and not necessarily of conditional "obliging" niceness, and I don't think that this is particularly controversial: would any among us argue that if one feels like slamming another's head into the table, one need not act respectfully towards that other, and is free to go ahead with the injurious act; or is it more likely that we would all agree that, to some extent (and there is room for reasonable disagreement on how much) one ought to moderate one's actions in spite of one's feelings? If we're not *feeling* respectful, that does not justify us in not *acting* respectfully. And I mean "respectfully" in the full sense of the word, which, again, is different to "niceness": not all niceness is respectful, and it's not necessary to be nice to be respectful.

Respect-as-action is authentic regardless of its backing by respect-as-feeling; nice-as-action not backed by nice-as-feeling could reasonably, as I think you might be suggesting, be seen as inauthentic (unsolicited niceness at least - going out of one's way to make it appear that one holds nice feelings for another that one doesn't in fact hold).

You write: "There are un-nice things in the world, un-nice people, un-nice circumstances, un-nice agendas, but if we assume the overarching response should always be niceness, then we lose our discriminating tastes". I agree - to be nice in the obliging sense to an abuser or an oppressor not only fails to be self-respecting, it also fails to respect him and his victims, because it enables him and his injustice [where "him" should be read "him/her"].

I acknowledge what you suggest here: "the opportunity to cloak things under the agenda of niceness becomes a fertile field of disingenuousness and manipulation". The challenge (to me, anyway, and it's one I know I'm far from having risen to yet) is to rise above a mechanical, fake nicety, as you say "cloaking" the type of thoughts and behaviour that you mention, to an authentic respectfulness - one that is responsive to the fullness of any situation and the needs of all players in that situation. This relates back to what you wrote about "valuing [niceness] ahead of the situation I'm in": this isn't possible when we substitute for "niceness", "respect" - "respect" in the fullest sense - because that type of respect *does* by its nature take the situation and the appropriate response to it into account. Men and women who embody that type of situational responsiveness-respectfulness are the men and women I most admire at any rate.

So, you get *some* sense of what I mean by respect being "unconditional"; it is the basis of an entire ethic. But I write all of this as affirmation of ultimate intent rather than as - which you and everyone else on this forum and in my "real" life already knows by now, knowing me as you do - ongoing practice. In any case, I don't think all of this is or would be particularly alien to you - you embody the practice of it better than I.

'As for "respect for women as a category," the same danger lies herein. I would rather make those judgments upon what is actually manifesting before me, rather than demanding of myself that I do not discriminate among those manifestations'. Fair enough. I would paraphrase that as: "Don't falsely assume that all women meet the same imagined ideal", and it seems to me to be sound advice.

[Dennis Mahar]

Laird,

I'm glad that at least we agree on the value (see how I slipped that one in there?) of a world where everyone's rights are respected. And where we can enjoy (one of?) the world's best harbour(s?).

Let's distinguish 'its empty and meaningless'.

this value:
Human Rights.

An important analysis upheld in existential philosophy and Zen is:

its empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless,
UNTIL YOU GIVE IT MEANING.
It doesn't exist in your 'I' space until you live and breathe it.

Human Rights has no intrinsic existence.
It's a set of concepts created by decent human beings as a winning formula for human beings to live by.
It came out of a set of assessments concerning fairness and suffering.

It is a vehicle for the 'We' space we share.

I repeat.
its empty and meaningless that its empty and meaningless,
UNTIL YOU GIVE IT MEANING.
It has no intrinsic existence.
It is a possibility for human being.
Its enrolled in.

It seems so hard to get that through.

After the fact of being,
there is derivative being or possibilities for being.

There is an inauthentic mode of 'Human Rights' where a person violates the rights of others and demands 'human rights' for themself.

I'm not speaking 'values' don't exist.
I'm speaking values as possibilities for action in the 'We' space.
I'm also speaking people 'talk' values and fail to demonstrate them in action.

Do you read me?

To think that a value exists in and of itself, has intrinsic existence
independent of a thinker/thought conceiving it and carrying it out authentically in the 'We' space is erroneous thinking.

To whinge about another shooting Bambi is empty and meaningless.
To educate another in the usefulness of Bambi for the 'We' space is authentic.
Kierkegaard spoke this commitment, this authenticity.

No values are unconditional.
they are hewn.

[guest_of_logic]

If you take into account the point being made I think you will see that it is saying that all these apparent "places" and ideas are rather located "within" or "reside" in consciousness.

(This point here you should be able to grasp perfectly well and to it's fullest degree as you have personally experienced "places" which reside "within" consciousness and not external to consciousness (Dreams, imaginative experiences). So hopefully my meaning comes through here)

None of this is an actual argument against my point, merely a counter-assertion: that rather than all consciousnesses being located in something, all somethings are located in consciousness. So you say - and you are free to say whatever you like, just don't expect what you merely assert to be convincing to anyone.

You correctly paraphrased me as saying that 'there must be some "place" for consciousness to reside and that the alternative of "no place" is somehow less plausible'. I argued that it is less plausible because it relies on the unimaginable, the "magical", (to which I would add:) whereas the notion of "located" consciousness requires no leap of faith and is grounded in a concept we already know to "work". So, do you have a counter-argument in response to that?

Not to devalue the point you have made, but originally when I said "consciousness is harder to distribute in programming" or something a rather, I was being a little sarcastic, implying that such imaginations of the way a computer programmer might distribute playing experience using a central server bears no real relation to how consciousness might work.

Well then, you would need to point out the ways in which you think it is deficient as an analogy. Right now, you have given no reason to think it "bears no real relation".

Although you do agree this apparent "aliveness" is known only so far as your experiences?
And that you cannot be certain of it's "aliveness" outside of these experiences?

Sure, just as I would agree in principle that the apparent control I have over my thoughts is known only so far as my experience of it, and could really be a cruel trick played upon me by a controlling demiurge. Thankfully, I have no good reason to believe that either are true, and nor have you offered me any that are remotely convincing.

If you were to try and demonstrate that you weren't in the middle of a room existing only of the mind, aka, an imaginative or dream-like experience, how would you do so?

I would turn the question around on you, seeing as how it's you who's trying to do the convincing, and ask, "If you were to try and demonstrate that you were in the middle of a room existing only of the mind, aka, an imaginative or dream-like experience, how would you do so?" And then while you were trying to demonstrate that, I would ask you, "So, if this room consists only of the mind, then how is it that there's a tangible something in it (where that something is the person you're conversing with, i.e. me)?"

[guest_of_logic]

To think that a value exists in and of itself, has intrinsic existence
independent of a thinker/thought conceiving it and carrying it out authentically in the 'We' space is erroneous thinking.

Does a value exist in the absence of a valuer? Does the number one exist in the absence of a mathematical mind? I answer yes to both. If all consciousness were extinguished, the number one would not be any less meaningful for not being comprehended, and, if/when consciousness re-emerged, it would be re-comprehended because it has intrinsic existence. Likewise for values.

[Dennis Mahar]

Does a value exist in the absence of a valuer? Does the number one exist in the absence of a mathematical mind? I answer yes to both. If all consciousness were extinguished, the number one would not be any less meaningful for not being comprehended, and, if/when consciousness re-emerged, it would be re-comprehended because it has intrinsic existence. Likewise for values.

Does what you just said depend?
If so,
what does it depend on.
If it is of dependent origination,
can we say it exists from its own side independently.

You've actually answered it because you said it depends on consciousness and consciousness re-emerging.
Because it depends it has no absolute existence.

Now you have some access to John-speak.

Took awhile.
at last.

[guest_of_logic]

You've actually answered it because you said it depends on consciousness and consciousness re-emerging.

Well, no, in fact I said the exact opposite: that the existence of values and mathematical truths doesn't depend on consciousness, and would continue were consciousness to be extinguished. I would suggest instead that consciousness "accesses" these.

[Dennis Mahar]

I would suggest instead that consciousness "accesses" these.

So,
it depends on consciousness.

no consciousness. no access. no values.


whether the values hang around waiting to be accessed
or
consciousness chooses reality as it goes along

is something else.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I would reply by asking them the reasons they have for thinking their experiences indicate something external to experience.

Look Laird what your saying is completely contradictory:

You say I am the one claiming something which I would need to evidence/support, but that isn't the case.

My claim is a fact, your experiences/sensations are actually manifestations of your mind. These are what we know to exist.

Your claim is that these manifestations of mind correlate with external "place" we don't know to exist, aka, you've had the idea that manifestations of mind indicate the existence of things which aren't manifestations of mind.


Your claim is completely false for this single reason:

Nothing has ever been experienced/known/seen/evidenced that doesn't exist as a manifestation of the mind. Agreed?

In fact, every single idea you may have had of something external to mind was actually residing "within" mind? Weren't they?

I am asking you to provide your reasoning for why you have asserted the existence of things external to consciousness and so far what you have given is:

1. It seems more plausible that consciousness has to reside somewhere in a "place". With no real reasoning provided besides that apparently it doesn't require any leaps of faith to have it this way and that this model "works". I would like you to point out how your model is a condition required to navigate or is needed to make life "work" out. (Btw all "places" ever experienced have been manifestations of consciousness)

2. Computer analogy, which bears no relation to ultimate reality because it is about computers not consciousness. Clearly.

You need to realize your flaw here, you have no reasoning to provide such an absurd claim as this: You are experiencing objects (which if you had any sense you would agree are experienced as manifestations of consciousness) and asserting that these objects of consciousness exist despite consciousness. Why?

You need to realize you are doing this with ZERO evidence.

I make no claims but that your experiences of world are experiences of mind. Fact.

You make the claim that the experiences of mind are derived from place external to mind. Place never experienced/evidenced. That makes it a not fact. It is a delusion.

This is another description, please read:

"Since the ignorant and simple-minded, not knowing that the world is only something seen of the mind itself, cling to the multitudinousness of external objects, cling to the notions of being and nonbeing, oneness and otherness, bothness and not-bothness, existence and non-existence, eternity and non-eternity, and think that they have a self-nature of their own, all of which rises from the discriminations of the mind and is perpetuated by habit-energy, and from which they are given over to false imagination. It is all like a mirage in which springs of water are seen as if they were real. They are thus imagined by animals who, made thirsty by the heat of the season, run after them. Animals, not knowing that the springs are an hallucination of their own minds, do not realize that there are no such springs."
- Buddha