The necessary context of action, purpose, and ambition

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Hey leave me out of it and her! [materialism I mean] There’s not much to believe in - if it cannot be imagined or thought about even, is there? All thought, drawing, writing and talking would be "faith based" and "assumption based" for the simple reason that this is how you're able to conceive, formulate, consider and as such communicate at all. You're trying to distance your self from the very thing you are doing by somehow loading it all unto others and then push it back. Maybe it helps you to define position, to clarity something for your self? It won't stand though, it will not survive scrutiny. Enjoy your artificial certainty while it lasts!

In regard to ultimate reality, the subject of our imaginations and thoughts can reveal no more than the blatant reality of the experience itself. Does one require imagination to have a sensation? Does one require thought to feel an emotion? My point is that the "observation" of reality- not that I'm implying an observer, but just talking about being/existence here- reveals absolute truth self-evidently. Not the subject of the thought but the thinking itself reveals its nature. Not the subject of the concept but the conceptualization itself reveals its nature.

It is self-evidently absolutely true that there is what we refer to as consciousness/impermanent appearances. Everything else lies therein. Everything else is a reference to these. Everything else is a manifestation/aspect of these.

When one forgets or eschews this fundamental truth, one easily clings to such appearances as a concept as if they have a metaphysical priority over the foundation, over their very nature.

To try and communicate this point again: you cannot contradict the nature of something with itself.

You can't use a thought to say thought does not exist. You can't use an imagination to say imagination is impossible.

What people do generally, is take something such as an imagination, and act as if it is more than it is. Again, the easy example, someone imagines God, then says that imagination is more than just an imagination, but is actually revealing something in reality other than what it is. This is exactly what happens when one imagines "being finished with consciousness of form" as moving expects. It is exactly what happens when one imagines "the end" to consciousness at bodily death. It is exactly what happens when one imagines a "physical mind-independent realm".

This of course is an entirely different situation when we're talking about the temporary/worldly/conventional, as opposed to literal absolute metaphysical claims.

[Pam Seeback]

You and Pam are definitely related.

Except by viewpoint, we're all related, are your molecules different than mine? And what is viewpoint but an imagined absoluteness that cause us to use words such as "definitely" when all that is really being offered is an opinion?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In regard to ultimate reality, the subject of our imaginations and thoughts can reveal no more than the blatant reality of the experience itself. Does one require imagination to have a sensation? Does one require thought to feel an emotion?

We're talking about composite stuff still, aren't we? A "revelation", a "sensation", a "feeling". They are upon closer examinations a lot of things interacting and appearing together. Not just "blatant" stuff. It's still possible to investigate here, like Buddhism attempted with their description of "five aggregates" - which is one way of going about it. Boiling it down further not unifies but actually breaks it down in many more components which one can study in cases, in bits and pieces, but that doesn't mean the whole "experience" can be reduced to a point, a blot appearing on invisible paper and then say "it just is" - when that is exactly what it's not -- something. Here you see the foundational problem of materialism: I'd call it blatanism or explicitism. It leads nowhere as it's just a matter of observing something from far away, somewhere emotional or impulsive and call it solid.

My point is that the "observation" of reality- not that I'm implying an observer, but just talking about being/existence here- reveals absolute truth self-evidently. Not the subject of the thought but the thinking itself reveals its nature. Not the subject of the concept but the conceptualization itself reveals its nature.

It is self-evidently absolutely true that there is what we refer to as consciousness/impermanent appearances. Everything else lies therein. Everything else is a reference to these. Everything else is a manifestation/aspect of these.

When one forgets or eschews this fundamental truth, one easily clings to such appearances as a concept as if they have a metaphysical priority over the foundation, over their very nature.

That sounds about right.

To try and communicate this point again: you cannot contradict the nature of something with itself. [/quote\
You can't use a thought to say thought does not exist. You can't use an imagination to say imagination is impossible.

But I can contradict the contradictory still right? Including any present in language (which is inescapable). I think the question is as well if you can use a thought to say thought does exist. And what that implies. It's a simple reversal which ultimately says the same thing. And yet it does highlight something else as well.

[Pam Seeback]

What I suggest is that one takes contradiction to the point where the intellect has no choice but to wave its white flag. For example, the idea of impermanence cannot erase the contrast of permanence or vice versa. What is specifically ironic about the contrast of impermanence vs. permanence (in contrast to good vs. evil or finite vs. infinite) is that in trying to assert that impermanence is absolute, without realizing it, one is asserting the permanence of impermanence. Which makes this particular contrast the perfect fuel for the fire of surrender.

[Leyla Shen]

You and Pam are definitely related.

Except by viewpoint, we're all related, are your molecules different than mine? And what is viewpoint but an imagined absoluteness that cause us to use words such as "definitely" when all that is really being offered is an opinion?

No, that was not an opinion, it was definitely sarcasm. But I understand you have trouble discerning a difference.

[Leyla Shen]

Seeker wrote:

What we refer to as consciousness continues completely independent of the appearance of any brain, when the brain/body is not to be seen, 'consciousness' will continue.

Since consciousness appears (to the mind/individual/consciousness/nothing?) independently of any physical appearance of brain/body, consciousness will continue to appear independently of any brain/body?

[Pam Seeback]

You and Pam are definitely related.

Except by viewpoint, we're all related, are your molecules different than mine? And what is viewpoint but an imagined absoluteness that cause us to use words such as "definitely" when all that is really being offered is an opinion?

No, that was not an opinion, it was definitely sarcasm. But I understand you have trouble discerning a difference.

Good thing that's just your opinion.

[Leyla Shen]

No, it's sarcasm.

Wanna go again?

[Leyla Shen]

Ring around the rosy, a pocket full of pose-ees,
A-tishoo! A-tishoo!
We all fall down.

[jupiviv]

Literally every thing in existence any person has ever experienced, thought, spoken, felt, seen, sensed, conceptualized, imagined, or dreamed of. Every time, all the time, a constant state of change. That is the nature of 'consciousness', and it's irrefutable.

I can see now that this isn't really about change and permanence but rather about "consciousness" (any brain activity you derive pleasure from) as "blatant reality" (pleasurable). A surreal powerpoint presentation that *distracts* you from your worries, but doesn't make them go away. Pray to the God of mercy and hope He makes you mad before lifting this veil of madness.

By themselves, your assertions about change and permanence are easily refutable. If everything constantly exists in some state then it - by definition - cannot be identified and cannot be contrasted with any other state, which means that it is not a state at all.

"The state of things is no state at all" - a statement far more likely to be uttered out of impudent foolishness than Zennish wisdom.

Both change and permanence are qualities that belong to finite things.

Wrong. Permanence is a quality which belongs to no finite thing whatsoever. It exists as a word referring to an abstract concept, there is nothing literally which is permanent. If there is, please point it out.

"Permanent" means "enduring", "lasting" etc., and also "everlasting" or "changeless". Do I really need to point out how things can stay the same for a period of time while not also being everlasting? If things are in a constant and total state of change, then there is no way we can even know let alone assert that fact - things will cease to exist whenever they come into existence.

permanence is the appearance of a single thing, like a mountain that won't move as Diebert said or a purpose striven for by the same mould of character; change is the appearance of different things, like an apple sapling and an apple. Whether permanent or changing, all things are eternal because ultimately they don't have anywhere to go.

You're only referring to a relative perspective here when you talk about the mountain. Again, your feelings about things and how you think they are relatively more 'permanent' (despite the fact that the mountain is not in any sense permanent) doesn't matter at all.

I didn't say anything about degrees of permanence. Regardless of anyone's perspective, an immobile mountain remains in that state for a period of time in order to be identified as such. An immobile mountain changing into Gouda must retain some resemblance to both of those things, to varying degrees, for the respective periods of time.

This unconscious world 'out there' which you refer to is summed up as the position of "materialism", one of the greatest delusions.

The unconscious world is not out anywhere. It is everywhere around you and connected to you through cause and effect.

I am not a materialist because I don't know what "material" means. But I do know that there are no reported cases of consciousness surviving brain death, and I also know that the unconscious seems to precede the conscious and not vice versa.

There is no unconscious world of infinite un-seeable unknowable indescribable and unimaginable causes 'out there', there is only what we refer to as thought, sensation, perception, feeling, awareness, etc.

Then there is only one mind in the world, since neither the causes of mind nor other minds exist according to this premise. I won't go through the trouble of refuting this ridiculous *henid*. It's vermillion-clad Creationism.

Materialists believe in a world that they cannot see, cannot draw, cannot think about, and cannot even describe, as I assume Diebert and Leyla do, Russell has already stated so.

Vermillion-clad Foaming-at-the-mouth.

Even the concept of that which is 'other than consciousness' is nothing more than a manifestation of 'consciousness'.

So what? I didn't see an argument there, bub.

[Pam Seeback]

No, it's sarcasm.

Wanna go again?

Sarcasm is not an opinion?

Biting tongue,
Love's longing;
As fair and true
As sugar's fire.

[Leyla Shen]

Thats right. Just like the shallows are not the ocean.

[jupiviv]

Thats right. Just like the shallows are not the ocean.

Vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

[Pam Seeback]

Thats right. Just like the shallows are not the ocean.

Vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

A wise man is given the possibility of absorbing the probability that death will strip him of his consciousness. So here the one who is awake stands, making meaning in the sand, his footprints existing only for as long as it takes for the waves to rush in. Understanding all is vanity: the possibility for sanity and liberation.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Vanity means always a mirror and the temptation to mistake the image - or the gazer- for having a life, an existence, even as "appearance".

That's why "all is vanity". It's never meant as nihilism. It's a warning sign not to think you will get much satisfaction out of it. Be careful that what you think you have will not fall apart like your new diamonds turning into sand next morning when you wake up. In that sense I don't believe humans are geared for wisdom at all. While I know you can not help it, being mesmerized like moths, what's the point of burning away the very wings which made you moth?

[Leyla Shen]

This is Diebert's Mirror. :)

[Pam Seeback]

Vanity means always a mirror and the temptation to mistake the image - or the gazer- for having a life, an existence, even as "appearance".

That's why "all is vanity". It's never meant as nihilism. It's a warning sign not to think you will get much satisfaction out of it. Be careful that what you think you have will not fall apart like your new diamonds turning into sand next morning when you wake up. In that sense I don't believe humans are geared for wisdom at all. While I know you can not help it, being mesmerized like moths, what's the point of burning away the very wings which made you moth?

I suggest that in prescribing that "we" not burn away the very wings which made us moth (from a previous post, your advice to "be light with the appearance", probably referring to reasoning) that you are not bringing into the light the psychological tension (suffering) that for some, is the result of just such a "keeping up of appearances."

Perhaps this outlines the difference between male wisdom consciousness and female wisdom consciousness. Where the male is satisfied to flutter on the surface of reasoning the appearance, the female dives into the ocean where the waves do not go. I am not implying that the male doesn't dive first, only that he doesn't stick around in the darkness and stillness as long as does the female who upon resurfacing, comes to a different wisdom perspective of the appearance than does the male. Not content to flutter or flap the wings that made her moth, she lives instead in the deep things of love: where liveth her moth but inside Her Breast? It's not that she can't flutter if she has to, the key phrase being "if she has to."

Having said this, I realize that for most wise males, event to suggest there is such thing as a wise female is an act of heresy. And of course, it goes without saying that I am not referring to biology when I speak of the two genders.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This is Diebert's Mirror. :)

It's true although in reality quite a lot worse! The face in the back is just as well looking at his fantasticaly tiny body in his own mirror. Mirrors are always two-way! The perceived is reflecting back, creating a new image in the original surface. This whole dynamic and exchange we could call the "hall of perception".

[jupiviv]

Vanity means always a mirror and the temptation to mistake the image - or the gazer- for having a life, an existence, even as "appearance"

But even this is vanity - to pretend that the image doesn't have a life. If all is vanity, i.e., thing are mere images, then those images are the reality. It appears that consciousness arises from unconsciousness, that it resides within a brain which is itself mostly unconscious, and that things are just as permanent as they're caused to be.

The essence of nihilism is the pleasure of denying the reality of something because it isn't what you really want. Kind of like the fox that called the grapes sour, except that you ate the grapes and they were too sour so you decided there weren't any grapes to begin with.

Be careful that what you think you have will not fall apart like your new diamonds turning into sand next morning when you wake up.

And the essence of wisdom is to guard and treasure those diamonds even after they have turned into sand.

In that sense I don't believe humans are geared for wisdom at all.

Women aren't geared for it, because their very soul is vanity. There isn't a single woman who doesn't believe deep down that everyone finds her lovable, even if they hate her or she hates them herself.

A man can understand that if he "dies to the world" then no one, especially women, will love him for it. Other corpses or aspiring corpses to the world may agree with and respect him, but they won't die with him or sit at his deathbed. This understanding (if it isn't suppressed or distorted) generates an abysmal and inhuman suffering that marks the beginning of Life.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I suggest that in prescribing that "we" not burn away the very wings which made us moth ... that you are not bringing into the light the psychological tension (suffering) that for some, is the result of just such a "keeping up of appearances."

It's no use suggesting to the moth to do anything differently with his dancing and diving. And I don't. But you are not the moth and certainly you are not the flame either. Suffering hower will desire the flame because of its very nature. The call is to understand.

Perhaps this outlines the difference between male wisdom consciousness and female wisdom consciousness.

You always with those gender based distinctions! ;-)

Not content to flutter or flap the wings that made her moth, she lives instead in the deep things of love: where liveth her moth but inside Her Breast? It's not that she can't flutter if she has to, the key phrase being "if she has to."

She lives in the deep things of attachment and the material. Sure, this is were the necessity was born, culturally, psychologically and is still echoing around us in a world starting to reflect amidst all the creeping up insanity and disarray. A world of change.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Vanity means always a mirror and the temptation to mistake the image - or the gazer- for having a life, an existence, even as "appearance"

But even this is vanity - to pretend that the image doesn't have a life. If all is vanity, i.e., thing are mere images, then those images are the reality.

If those images are your "everything", that will be your reality, your absolute, sure. But that's always the temptation. This is also why it's true to say "all [stuff] is vanity": all you see, think or feel are reflections, your own face staring back.

Be careful that what you think you have will not fall apart like your new diamonds turning into sand next morning when you wake up.

And the essence of wisdom is to guard and treasure those diamonds even after they have turned into sand.

Not a very good job of guarding if one would let them decay into sand. Unless you mean one would start revaluing sand :)

A man can understand that if he "dies to the world" then no one, especially women, will love him for it. Other corpses or aspiring corpses to the world may agree with and respect him, but they won't die with him or sit at his deathbed. This understanding (if it isn't suppressed or distorted) generates an abysmal and inhuman suffering that marks the beginning of Life.

This is the same for many things men undertake, foolish or wise they may be. If for whatever reason, a man doesn't take interest into her world or remain some part of it, he's a goner. It's true that suffering must follow if the things most desired will have to be let go. And not because one never has reached or possessed these things, some shortcoming or inability. It's about the addiction to the illusion of approach. Things are never reached, before men arrive, another horizon is drawn. The truth of never reaching the object is a secret not talked about. This is the way of things but so much of our own is caught up in it.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Jup, wrote a whole reply, wasn't logged in again, lost it. I think it's logging me out after a time while I'm replying. Anyway, you're wrong about the few blanket statements you made, one in regards to our ability to communicate all-encompassig qualities, as apparently knowledge only exists in contrasts, according to you. The other about how we can't talk about things, if they're constantly changing, do you even think before you make such claims?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

According to your reasoning emotions don't exist because they're constantly changing, and existence itself will come to an end at bodily death because you've made the error of placing a causal metaphysical priority on the appearance of the body. A priority which apparently precedes the arising of appearances themselves.Probably only because that is what you've been taught.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

You cannot at the same time admit that what you believe is almost entirely based on the words, works and studies of others, and then go on to say you are independent in your reasoning.

[Leyla Shen]

This is Diebert's Mirror. :)

It's true although in reality quite a lot worse! The face in the back is just as well looking at his fantasticaly tiny body in his own mirror. Mirrors are always two-way! The perceived is reflecting back, creating a new image in the original surface. This whole dynamic and exchange we could call the "hall of perception".

You've been sounding particularly Lacanian of late...