Value-based love for what was

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Post Reply
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Value-based love for what was

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:06 am

Those who do not think philosophically, i.e., about the nature of ultimate reality and instead, think self-consciously cannot do so unless the contrast of self-consciousness is present in awareness. Thinking does not happen in a vacuum, contrast is required to 'fire-it-up' and bring its fruit into manifestation.

If it is true that thinking a certain way requires contrast to what is perceived as being less evolved, then those who are self-consciousness also contrast themselves with what they believe to be a less-evolved way of thinking, i.e. animal consciousness.

Since the focus of this forum is philosophical, self-consciousness then is the primary 'fire for will.' The purpose of this post is to suggest that since self-consciousness is required before ultimate-consciousness can appear, that self-consciousness has intrinsic value, and that loving it for having this intrinsic (contrasting) value is beneficial for both 'levels' of consciousness. And by love in this context I am not referring to the self-conscious variety of relationship love, rather, the love of consciousness for necessity, in this case, the necessity of the lower so the higher can be made manifest.

How would love for the lower self-conscious realm translate into action by the higher ultimate-conscious realm is the question being asked here. I place forward that the most obvious action would be that of being acutely aware of one's speech and actions, that when addressing self-consciousness that one does not fall into self-conscious patterns and instead, be dedicated to lifting self-consciousness 'up-and-out' of its less expansive way of thinking, according, of course, to its current desire/will to be lifted up. And that when self-consciousness is not actively present as 'other' that value love for what-was both ensures 'what was' stays as 'what was' and that it satisfies the feeling aspect of value-cognition.

Serendipper
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Serendipper » Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:09 pm

Pam Seeback wrote:
Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:06 am
If it is true that thinking a certain way requires contrast to what is perceived as being less evolved,
It's not outright obvious to me why it's necessary that the contrast be to that which is less-evolved. All that seems required is a contrast, regardless of evolution.
then those who are self-consciousness also contrast themselves with what they believe to be a less-evolved way of thinking, i.e. animal consciousness.
The concept of self arises simultaneously with the concept of other. "Hey, you seem to be conscious, hmm... maybe I am conscious too!" Without the observation of the consciousness of others, we will simply persist in the oceanic feeling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_feeling
The purpose of this post is to suggest that since self-consciousness is required before ultimate-consciousness can appear,
They're codependent.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Pam Seeback » Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:52 am

Serendipper: The concept of self arises simultaneously with the concept of other. "Hey, you seem to be conscious, hmm... maybe I am conscious too!" Without the observation of the consciousness of others, we will simply persist in the oceanic feeling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_feeling
The concept of self arises with the naming of things so an observation of a conscious 'other' is not required. Remember the movie 'Cast Away''? A soccer ball was all that was required for Tom's Hank's character to keep his conceptual 'self'' alive. So no, it is not necessary to observe the consciousness of others in order not to, as you say, 'persist in the oceanic feeling.' Instead, simply thinking and speaking names does the job.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6050
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:16 pm

Pam Seeback wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:52 am
A soccer ball was all that was required for Tom's Hank's character to keep his conceptual 'self'' alive. (...) simply thinking and speaking names does the job.
It would be interesting to examine the notion "other" a bit further. Do we really just speak names or instill "otherness" and "being" on the object during the invocation? In the sense that soccer ball would become just some instant replacement, a "stand-in". A bit more extreme and therefore clarifying examples: sexual objectification and perhaps its opposite fetishism, where certain types of being, desire and psychological connection is transferred between objects and people. The boundaries are disappearing, leaving us with the impressions that at the root there is no such thing as an "object" to us if not at the very least still connected to the mesh of human association, memories and feeling. Remove those connections and not only the object becomes meaningless but it quickly fades into non-existence and will be ignored or renamed altogether.

Therefore Serendipper is right on target: "The concept of self arises simultaneously with the concept of other".

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Pam Seeback » Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:24 am

Diebert: It would be interesting to examine the notion "other" a bit further. Do we really just speak names or instill "otherness" and "being" on the object during the invocation? In the sense that soccer ball would become just some instant replacement, a "stand-in". A bit more extreme and therefore clarifying examples: sexual objectification and perhaps its opposite fetishism, where certain types of being, desire and psychological connection is transferred between objects and people. The boundaries are disappearing, leaving us with the impressions that at the root there is no such thing as an "object" to us if not at the very least still connected to the mesh of human association, memories and feeling. Remove those connections and not only the object becomes meaningless but it quickly fades into non-existence and will be ignored or renamed altogether.
I didn't go as deep as did you in addressing the nature of naming, so thank you, but when I speak of 'naming', I am including all the names that arise with the root naming of 'other', all the connections, memories, projections, etc.
Therefore Serendipper is right on target: "The concept of self arises simultaneously with the concept of other".
I wasn't questioning the idea that self arises simultaneously with the concept of other, yes, Serendipper is right on target, I was pointing out that that the 'other' didn't have to be conscious. He may not have meant to exclude unconscious 'others', but just in case...:-)

At the bottom of it all, to have wisdom of the nature of the concept 'self' is to realize that 'self' is not independent, separate subject or object, rather, that 'self' is the moment by moment appearance of patterns of memory (a reasoned or flowing narrative of naming) sometimes projected into a possible or probable future, sometimes not.

Serendipper
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Serendipper » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:15 am

Pam Seeback wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:52 am
Serendipper: The concept of self arises simultaneously with the concept of other. "Hey, you seem to be conscious, hmm... maybe I am conscious too!" Without the observation of the consciousness of others, we will simply persist in the oceanic feeling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_feeling
The concept of self arises with the naming of things so an observation of a conscious 'other' is not required. Remember the movie 'Cast Away''? A soccer ball was all that was required for Tom's Hank's character to keep his conceptual 'self'' alive. So no, it is not necessary to observe the consciousness of others in order not to, as you say, 'persist in the oceanic feeling.' Instead, simply thinking and speaking names does the job.
The first thing jumping out at me concerning the movie is that Tom was fully grown and had already developed a concept of self and then substituted a ball for company in order to persist in that duality. But had he been born into that solitary situation, he may not have developed a differentiation between what is self and what is other.

Serendipper
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Serendipper » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:32 am

Pam Seeback wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:24 am
I wasn't questioning the idea that self arises simultaneously with the concept of other, yes, Serendipper is right on target, I was pointing out that that the 'other' didn't have to be conscious. He may not have meant to exclude unconscious 'others', but just in case...:-)
Actually, I think I did :) How would I realize if I am conscious if I don't have an example of the consciousness of another to make me wonder? I can only have a concept of myself through the concept of another. How can there be a self-consciousness if there is no "other" to give the word "self" meaning?

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Pam Seeback » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:47 am

Serendipper wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:32 am
Pam Seeback wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:24 am
I wasn't questioning the idea that self arises simultaneously with the concept of other, yes, Serendipper is right on target, I was pointing out that that the 'other' didn't have to be conscious. He may not have meant to exclude unconscious 'others', but just in case...:-)
Actually, I think I did :) How would I realize if I am conscious if I don't have an example of the consciousness of another to make me wonder? I can only have a concept of myself through the concept of another. How can there be a self-consciousness if there is no "other" to give the word "self" meaning?
True, but once you realize you're conscious, you don't require the presence of a conscious being in order to arouse the self into appearance. A tree will do:

"O Christmas tree, o Christmas tree...etc."

Serendipper
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Serendipper » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:29 am

Pam Seeback wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:47 am
Serendipper wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:32 am
Pam Seeback wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:24 am
I wasn't questioning the idea that self arises simultaneously with the concept of other, yes, Serendipper is right on target, I was pointing out that that the 'other' didn't have to be conscious. He may not have meant to exclude unconscious 'others', but just in case...:-)
Actually, I think I did :) How would I realize if I am conscious if I don't have an example of the consciousness of another to make me wonder? I can only have a concept of myself through the concept of another. How can there be a self-consciousness if there is no "other" to give the word "self" meaning?
True, but once you realize you're conscious, you don't require the presence of a conscious being in order to arouse the self into appearance. A tree will do:

"O Christmas tree, o Christmas tree...etc."
I think once we conjure up the idea of a self, that really never goes away. It's as if we evolved to have that idea... as if it favored survival somehow. All this thinking and pondering we do, that's a selfie-thing because, realistically, we only need to be animatrons to get by. If being mindless in meditation is being one with the universe, then what is being deep in thought? So maybe there is no way to escape the self. No tree is needed because simply thinking about a tree will suffice.

Now, taking that idea back to the cradle.. what would happen to a child with no concept of self in terms of contemplation ability? "If I connect this lego to that one..." Then who is "I"? Obviously the child couldn't reason in terms of "I". It's mindblowing to wrap my head around. Now what is autism? Wait... No wonder women are better empathizers... they're anti-autistic! They have a stronger concept of self/other through better connectivity of the corpus callosum. I just stumbled upon that! Talk about serendipity :)

https://spectrumnews.org/news/lack-of-c ... to-autism/

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Pam Seeback » Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:01 am

I think once we conjure up the idea of a self, that really never goes away. It's as if we evolved to have that idea... as if it favored survival somehow. All this thinking and pondering we do, that's a selfie-thing because, realistically, we only need to be animatrons to get by. If being mindless in meditation is being one with the universe, then what is being deep in thought? So maybe there is no way to escape the self. No tree is needed because simply thinking about a tree will suffice.
There is no way to escape the self because every thought pattern that arises is the self, a thought pattern that is only truly meaningful to the 'individual' in the moment of its arousal. I'm glad you said "if being mindless in meditation is being one with the universe" because for the one who seeks wisdom (of the self), meditation is about insight, not getting lost in - here it comes again - the oceanic feeling. Having said that, once the oceanic feeling is discovered, it too can become part and parcel of insight meditation. Is insight meditation being deep in thought? I would say no, because not all thoughts are wise, that instead, insight medication is a silent listening for what is true, for example, that all things are caused.
Now what is autism? Wait... No wonder women are better empathizers... they're anti-autistic! They have a stronger concept of self/other through better connectivity of the corpus callosum. I just stumbled upon that! Talk about serendipity :)
Empathy can aid in the coming of wisdom because it has the potential to be transformed into compassion (for ignorance).

Serendipper
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Serendipper » Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:26 am

Pam Seeback wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:01 am
There is no way to escape the self because every thought pattern that arises is the self, a thought pattern that is only truly meaningful to the 'individual' in the moment of its arousal. I'm glad you said "if being mindless in meditation is being one with the universe" because for the one who seeks wisdom (of the self), meditation is about insight, not getting lost in - here it comes again - the oceanic feeling. Having said that, once the oceanic feeling is discovered, it too can become part and parcel of insight meditation. Is insight meditation being deep in thought? I would say no, because not all thoughts are wise, that instead, insight medication is a silent listening for what is true, for example, that all things are caused.
That seems right. Meditation, as I understand it, is the lake casting the reflection of the geese flying overhead, but having no memory to retain it. In other words, thoughts may come, but aren't seized and clung to.

Deep thought then is the antithesis in that thoughts are seized and mulled over with great effort.

Both methods can lead to revelation and the revelation ultimately comes from the same place because there is only one place.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Psychology

Free PDF download.

In biology, the unitary approach makes it explicit why no organism can be thought of without an environment. An organism as a skin bag is no functioning system; it may be such only together with the relevant environmental parts. The same applies to neurophysiology or “cognitive” brain research: without the rest of the world the nervous system is not a system at all; neither is the agent of the behavior a part of the body, such as the brain.

Therefore, my mind isn't in my head, my head is in my mind.
Now what is autism? Wait... No wonder women are better empathizers... they're anti-autistic! They have a stronger concept of self/other through better connectivity of the corpus callosum. I just stumbled upon that! Talk about serendipity :)
Empathy can aid in the coming of wisdom because it has the potential to be transformed into compassion (for ignorance).
Empathy seems to be the swapping of self and other. "What's it like to be you?" I don't understand why autistics can't do that. Perhaps they see unity too clearly to see the distinction of self and other. Therefore, "what's it like to be you" is a meaningless question since there is no you.

jufa
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by jufa » Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:49 am

Very thought provoking conversation.

Psychologically the path taken by the participants evoke, to me the questions: What is the difference between evolving and expanding consciousness? And does the Self stimulate past memories of association contemporary or eons ago? And finally, what define Self, or this Self's f capacity and capability to receive, and analyze what it has become receptive of, that It is not already aware of in the depth of the Spirit of the I It is?

Psychological, philosophical, and even common knowledge is linked by the stream of cosmic ethereal thoughts from yesterday up to the very moment these thoughts I present are absorbed. But is the value base based on love, or memory, or intellectual intake which are featured in the 10 commandments and other human laws generally assumed or believed - not by everyone though -?

This subject, at lease to me, is partial represented is atheism, and theological idealism is missing.

Just my outlook here.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Serendipper
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Serendipper » Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:05 am

jufa wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:49 am
Very thought provoking conversation.
Hi jufa!
What is the difference between evolving and expanding consciousness?

Trees expand into the atmosphere and into the ground by growing over time, which, I suppose, can be a type of evolution since some branches die and others survive. (I think it's the same neurologically.) Outside of that context, I can't think of evolving consciousness. It could be that I don't know exactly what you mean by "evolving".
And does the Self stimulate past memories of association contemporary or eons ago?
That looks like Pam's territory. I'll let her address that.
And finally, what define Self, or this Self's f capacity and capability to receive, and analyze what it has become receptive of, that It is not already aware of in the depth of the Spirit of the I It is?

The self is the idea (a thought) that you are distinct from your environment, which is the whole universe. Your brain and body is your environment along with everything else in the universe. Or, we could say the universe is your body. The point being that there is no division... and the idea that there is a division is the self.
Psychological, philosophical, and even common knowledge is linked by the stream of cosmic ethereal thoughts from yesterday up to the very moment these thoughts I present are absorbed. But is the value base based on love, or memory, or intellectual intake which are featured in the 10 commandments and other human laws generally assumed or believed - not by everyone though -?
Is the value-base based on love? I don't know what "value-base" means. Can you clarify?

jufa
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by jufa » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:50 am

Hi Serendipper!!!

This is a question I ran into on another forum, and the question was jumped over by most of the participants who were asked, and those who did answer were similar to yours. As you will note the question ask: "What is the difference between evolving and expanding consciousness?" To me, this takes it out of the air of philosophical discussion concerning the realm of three dimension matter of structural growth, and place it to invisible cause. Of course a tree must be conscious to come alive and evolve from a seed, but to me, the question come to "what is the spark which expand the knowledge of the seed to realize "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born," and it was its time?

I agree with you that the self is an idea, which is saying the physical self is an imitation of life of SELF. So again our frame of reference are coming from two different perspective.

The value based love statement is also on Pam, being it is her theme, and thus must be clarified by her, wouldn't you agree?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:31 am

jufa: This subject, at lease to me, is partial represented is atheism, and theological idealism is missing.
See below as to why, in my posts, theological idealism is missing.
Psychologically the path taken by the participants evoke, to me the questions: What is the difference between evolving and expanding consciousness? And does the Self stimulate past memories of association contemporary or eons ago? And finally, what define Self, or this Self's f capacity and capability to receive, and analyze what it has become receptive of, that It is not already aware of in the depth of the Spirit of the I It is?
I cannot reason your first question as those definitions are yours, not mine. As for your second and third question, my definition of self is the appearance of thought, therefore what stimulates self is unknown to self. Self is free to give that which stimulates it into appearance a name (an appearance) such as it appears you are doing here by your usage of the concept'the Spirit'', but ultimately, self has no idea of why or how it appears.'
Psychological, philosophical, and even common knowledge is linked by the stream of cosmic ethereal thoughts from yesterday up to the very moment these thoughts I present are absorbed. But is the value base based on love, or memory, or intellectual intake which are featured in the 10 commandments and other human laws generally assumed or believed - not by everyone though -?

Since the nature of existence is ultimately a mystery to the self, assigned values belong to memory. Wisdom of the nature of self, however, is not an assigned value, therefore is not of memory.

One of the reasons I left theological idealism behind is that its language, at least for me, tends to leave a residue in the mind of a false/illusory center of existence. Concepts such as 'God' or 'Allah' or 'Father' (or even 'a Spirit') come to mind, You may not reason your use of 'a Spirit' as suggesting a beginning point, fair enough, but I wanted to give you my reason for not including theological concepts.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:52 am

jufa: I agree with you that the self is an idea, which is saying the physical self is an imitation of life of SELF. So again our frame of reference are coming from two different perspective.
Self is a concept. SELF is also a concept. Just as life is a concept and tree is a concept and abortion is a concept. Now when these concepts come together in 'languaging', the self or 'life of the self' is formed.

There are not two selves, an invisible 'real' self and a visible 'imitation' self, there is (only) the appearance of the self.

An example of the self is this very sentence. This sentence is 'Pam's' self. Your answer if you give one will be 'jufa's' self. I cannot step into Jufa just as you cannot step into Pam. We can dance the dance of reasoning, that is all.
The value based love statement is also on Pam, being it is her theme, and thus must be clarified by her, wouldn't you agree?
Value-based statements are constructions of the self and are reasoned as such.

jufa
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by jufa » Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:13 am

Pam states: Self is a concept. SELF is also a concept. Just as life is a concept and tree is a concept and abortion is a concept. Now when these concepts come together in 'languaging', the self or 'life of the self' is formed.

There are not two selves, an invisible 'real' self and a visible 'imitation' self, there is (only) the appearance of the self.

An example of the self is this very sentence. This sentence is 'Pam's' self. Your answer if you give one will be 'jufa's' self. I cannot step into Jufa just as you cannot step into Pam. We can dance the dance of reasoning, that is all.
I am SELF. I am not a concept to me. To you I may be a concept, being I am a perception of thought of your objective vision, but I am irrespective of what you think, and regardless whether you think of me or not. However, the self is an image of yours and my precept, and that is an idea which is of objective human thought vision of analysis and awareness.

Pam states: I cannot reason your first question as those definitions are yours, not mine. As for your second and third question, my definition of self is the appearance of thought, therefore what stimulates self is unknown to self. Self is free to give that which stimulates it into appearance a name (an appearance) such as it appears you are doing here by your usage of the concept'the Spirit'', but ultimately, self has no idea of why or how it appears.'
The first question states: "What is the difference between evolving and expanding consciousness?. It does not give a defined definition of anything.

The second question ask: "And does the Self stimulate past memories of association contemporary or eons ago?" You did not give an answer to this question.

The third question ask: "And finally, what define Self, or this Self's capacity and capability to receive, and analyze what it has become receptive of, that It is not already aware of in the depth of the Spirit of the I It is? The first portion you attempted to say was because of thought, but above coverage of the issue of SELF voids this idea. And the second part of the question -asking what makes "Self's capacity and capability to receive, and analyze" has yet to be answered by you. Your statement dealing with "self, assigned values belong to memory. Wisdom of the nature of self, however, is not an assigned value, therefore is not of memory," is more confusing then anything else, especially with your saying self's nature is ultimately a mystery even to self.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Serendipper
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Serendipper » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:41 am

jufa wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:50 am
Hi Serendipper!!!
:D
This is a question I ran into on another forum, and the question was jumped over by most of the participants who were asked, and those who did answer were similar to yours. As you will note the question ask: "What is the difference between evolving and expanding consciousness?"
What's the significance of this question? Is there some deeper point you're driving towards? It seems any polarity between evolving and expanding is manufactured by subjective definitions for the words; therefore this whole dichotomy is conjured into existence as a semantic triviality. Evolving and expanding aren't mutually exclusive and connotations are shared. If you want them to be mutually exclusive, then you'll have to define them so, otherwise you're going to get answers that reflect the personalities and geographic locations of people. What good is that?
To me, this takes it out of the air of philosophical discussion concerning the realm of three dimension matter of structural growth, and place it to invisible cause. Of course a tree must be conscious to come alive and evolve from a seed, but to me, the question come to "what is the spark which expand the knowledge of the seed to realize "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born," and it was its time?
A tree is just a concept, as is consciousness, and one is an analogy for another. The process of growth (expansion and evolution) are symbolized by the tree. Philosophers have said "What is mind? Don't matter. What is matter? Nevermind." We can't talk about matter without the mind and we can't investigate the mind without matter. Mind and matter are two poles of a nondual system.

The tree didn't "come alive", but has always been alive. Life doesn't come from nonlife. Mammals eat birds who eat bugs who eat plants which eat rocks and rocks eat stars and stars eat gas which eats space which eats time and time eats everything else which completes the circle of life. The whole thing is a living system where nothing can really be considered "dead" because it's all growing, expanding, evolving, feeding and reproducing. Black holes are the guts of the cosmos, eating chunks of matter while spewing out fundamental particles anxious to congeal into stars and restart the process of rock and planet formation to give the plants something to eat.
I agree with you that the self is an idea, which is saying the physical self is an imitation of life of SELF. So again our frame of reference are coming from two different perspective.
Everything is an idea. It may be other things also, but it's an idea to us. If you want to see inside your head, take a look around ;)
The value based love statement is also on Pam, being it is her theme, and thus must be clarified by her, wouldn't you agree?
Value based seems Nietzschian and I don't know much about that.

Serendipper
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Serendipper » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:46 am

Pam Seeback wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:31 am
Since the nature of existence is ultimately a mystery to the self
A self cannot look at itself ;) To me, that is why fundamental reality can never be known... we can't look at the center of ourselves. We can look at aspects of our self, but not the fundamental.

Serendipper
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Serendipper » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:54 am

jufa wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:13 am
I am SELF. I am not a concept to me.
Your brain can only harbor concepts (conceptualizations), so you are your concept of yourself. You are also other people's concept of you.

As soon as you try to think about it some other way, you're reconceptualizing.

There was a young man who said though
it seems that I know that I know,
but what I'd like to see is the I that knows me
when I know that I know that I know.

You can't look at yourself. You can only have an idea of yourself, which is a fabrication. Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth.

jufa
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by jufa » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:17 am

Serendipper wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:41 am
jufa wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:50 am
Hi Serendipper!!!
:D
This is a question I ran into on another forum, and the question was jumped over by most of the participants who were asked, and those who did answer were similar to yours. As you will note the question ask: "What is the difference between evolving and expanding consciousness?"
What's the significance of this question? Is there some deeper point you're driving towards? It seems any polarity between evolving and expanding is manufactured by subjective definitions for the words; therefore this whole dichotomy is conjured into existence as a semantic triviality. Evolving and expanding aren't mutually exclusive and connotations are shared. If you want them to be mutually exclusive, then you'll have to define them so, otherwise you're going to get answers that reflect the personalities and geographic locations of people. What good is that?

Distinction of, and between, and beyond the perimeter ones inner subjective feeling and outer objective vision is always the thrust of questions. It is no difference than one asking themselves why this, and why that, which more often then not, leads to evolving from the dark ages of conformity of thought, to expanding from to the moon, m why is saying evolving from why, and expanding to why not? There is your connotations, but they are not shared mutually by the conformist
To me, this takes it out of the air of philosophical discussion concerning the realm of three dimension matter of structural growth, and place it to invisible cause. Of course a tree must be conscious to come alive and evolve from a seed, but to me, the question come to "what is the spark which expand the knowledge of the seed to realize "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born," and it was its time?
A tree is just a concept, as is consciousness, and one is an analogy for another. The process of growth (expansion and evolution) are symbolized by the tree. Philosophers have said "What is mind? Don't matter. What is matter? Nevermind." We can't talk about matter without the mind and we can't investigate the mind without matter. Mind and matter are two poles of a nondual system.

The tree didn't "come alive", but has always been alive. Life doesn't come from nonlife. Mammals eat birds who eat bugs who eat plants which eat rocks and rocks eat stars and stars eat gas which eats space which eats time and time eats everything else which completes the circle of life. The whole thing is a living system where nothing can really be considered "dead" because it's all growing, expanding, evolving, feeding and reproducing. Black holes are the guts of the cosmos, eating chunks of matter while spewing out fundamental particles anxious to congeal into stars and restart the process of rock and planet formation to give the plants something to eat.

Should it be true a tree is a concept, as is consciousness, then the tree has no life until the spark of thought life of the thinker brings it forth from what living conceptual domain? And should consciousness and a tree be analogized, what method of significance is there to compare matter and non matter? A tree is known, but consciousness is assumed because it cannot be defined by the mind which defines the tree. So what is comparison of the known and unknown?
I agree with you that the self is an idea, which is saying the physical self is an imitation of life of SELF. So again our frame of reference are coming from two different perspective.
Everything is an idea. It may be other things also, but it's an idea to us. If you want to see inside your head, take a look around ;)

So what is the idea of your life? Is it the meeting of minds concerning your parents, and if so, they are a continuum of the same idea. But whose idea was it before man could think, that is the question. As you stated earlier, life does not come from non-life, so true also, and idea does not come from a non-idea. Everything man is aware of is behind his uvea. All things men accept outside of themselves is within themselves. You are the life of everything you are, but where was that life of you before you were born?



The value based love statement is also on Pam, being it is her theme, and thus must be clarified by her, wouldn't you agree?
Value based seems Nietzschian and I don't know much about that.
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Serendipper
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Serendipper » Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:22 pm

jufa wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:17 am
Distinction of, and between, and beyond the perimeter ones inner subjective feeling and outer objective vision is always the thrust of questions.
What's the distinction between feeling and vision? I have a feeling that you have a vision in mind ;)
Should it be true a tree is a concept, as is consciousness, then the tree has no life until the spark of thought life of the thinker brings it forth from what living conceptual domain?
I can see that. Without eyes, the sun puts forth no light. If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, then it makes no sound. In that way, we conjure the universe into existence.

Like Alan Watts puts it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQEIUBORqvU

Transcription:

Some people will use a symbolism of the relationship of God to the universe wherein God is, say, a brilliant light... only somehow veiled... hiding underneath all these forms that you see as you look around you. So far so good, but the truth is funnier than that. It is that you are looking right at the brilliant light now... that the experience you are having which you call "ordinary everyday consciousness", pretending you're not it... that experience is exactly the same thing as IT! There's no difference at all! And when you find that out you laugh yourself silly! That's the great discovery.

In other words when you really start to see things, and you look at an old paper cup, and you go into the nature of what it is to see, what vision is, or what smell is, or what touche is, you realize that the vision of the paper cup IS the brilliant light of the cosmos. Nothing could be brighter. Ten thousand suns couldn't be brighter, only they are hidden in the sense that all the points of the infinite light are so tiny, when you see them in the cup, they don't blow your eyes out, but it is actually... See, the source of all light is in the eye. If there were no eyes in this world, the Sun would not be light. YOU evoke light out of the universe in the same way YOU, by virtue of having a soft skin, evoke hardness out of wood. Wood is only hard in relation to a soft skin. It's your eardrum that evokes noise out of the air. YOU, by being this organism, call into being the whole universe of light and color and hardness and heaviness and everything. You see?

And should consciousness and a tree be analogized, what method of significance is there to compare matter and non matter?
Matter and mind is the same as the tree and consciousness, right?

Tree branches and roots are groping through the medium searching for any significance that may or may not exist. Some branches strike pay-dirt and some find nothing and die. It's completely random because, if it weren't, there would be no point. Why watch a show if you know how it ends? In the same way, consciousness probes the unknown, strengthening some paths and dissolving others.
A tree is known, but consciousness is assumed because it cannot be defined by the mind which defines the tree. So what is comparison of the known and unknown?

Tree and consciousness go hand-in-hand; you can't know one without the other. It's like up and down or front and back.
So what is the idea of your life? Is it the meeting of minds concerning your parents, and if so, they are a continuum of the same idea. But whose idea was it before man could think, that is the question. As you stated earlier, life does not come from non-life, so true also, and idea does not come from a non-idea. Everything man is aware of is behind his uvea. All things men accept outside of themselves is within themselves. You are the life of everything you are, but where was that life of you before you were born?
The double slit quantum experiment demonstrated that conscious observation is required for a particle to decide where it wants to exist, but if consciousness is required, how did things exist before conscious beings existed? Well, obviously the consciousness was there because the conscious and nonconscious go together.

Another Alan Watts gem:

There was a young man who said "God,
I find it exceedingly odd
that a tree as a tree will continue to be
when there's no about in the quad."

Reply:
Young man, your astonishment's odd
I'm always about in the quad
That's why a tree as a tree will continue to be
since observed by yours faithfully, God.
where was that life of you before you were born?
The same place it has always been, I reckon. Where was the wave in the whip before it snapped? I can trace the process of me back to the big bang (if that's how it started).

You and I have illusions that we are separate beings as part of the show of the actor acting all the parts. The universe is acting the part of you and it's acting the part of me, for kicks. That's the most sensible explanation I've heard so far.

There can only be one person or else we have issues of unrecompensable immorality since prior injustices cannot be undone neither can they be atoned. However, one person cannot be immoral to their self. Zero persons will work as well, but the universe is alive, so... the only option is one.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Pam Seeback » Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:58 am

Pam states: Self is a concept. SELF is also a concept. Just as life is a concept and tree is a concept and abortion is a concept. Now when these concepts come together in 'languaging', the self or 'life of the self' is formed.

There are not two selves, an invisible 'real' self and a visible 'imitation' self, there is (only) the appearance of the self.

An example of the self is this very sentence. This sentence is 'Pam's' self. Your answer if you give one will be 'jufa's' self. I cannot step into Jufa just as you cannot step into Pam. We can dance the dance of reasoning, that is all.
jufa: I am SELF. I am not a concept to me. To you I may be a concept, being I am a perception of thought of your objective vision, but I am irrespective of what you think, and regardless whether you think of me or not. However, the self is an image of yours and my precept, and that is an idea which is of objective human thought vision of analysis and awareness.
But you are a concept to you. As you are a concept to me. The concept SELF could have been named 'BLURPY' and you would be saying "I am BLURPY'. Names are agreed upon pointers for the sake of meaning, for communication and as you know, no two minds communicate meaning in the exact same way. Our dialogue is a perfect example. The fact that concepts are used for expression, the appearance of self does not in any way take away from the mystery of this expression.
Pam states: I cannot reason your first question as those definitions are yours, not mine. As for your second and third question, my definition of self is the appearance of thought, therefore what stimulates self is unknown to self. Self is free to give that which stimulates it into appearance a name (an appearance) such as it appears you are doing here by your usage of the concept'the Spirit'', but ultimately, self has no idea of why or how it appears.'
The first question states: "What is the difference between evolving and expanding consciousness?. It does not give a defined definition of anything.
Precisely, you have your own ideas of what they mean, your own definitions (for now, as you did not have them when you were two years old) so why did you ask for a definitive answer from Serendipper and myself?
The second question ask: "And does the Self stimulate past memories of association contemporary or eons ago?" You did not give an answer to this question.

The third question ask: "And finally, what define Self, or this Self's capacity and capability to receive, and analyze what it has become receptive of, that It is not already aware of in the depth of the Spirit of the I It is? The first portion you attempted to say was because of thought, but above coverage of the issue of SELF voids this idea. And the second part of the question -asking what makes "Self's capacity and capability to receive, and analyze" has yet to be answered by you. Your statement dealing with "self, assigned values belong to memory. Wisdom of the nature of self, however, is not an assigned value, therefore is not of memory," is more confusing then anything else, especially with your saying self's nature is ultimately a mystery even to self.
I answered every question but the first question, go back and re-read my answer. All this proves to me is that we are indeed concepts to one another. If we were not, there would be no misunderstanding between us, we would, instead, understand each other absolutely, completely, perfectly.

Wisdom is not value based because it tells the truth of things. One of the truth of things is that just as a knife cannot cut itself, consciousness cannot see consciousness. There is no value placed on the knife not cutting itself or consciousness not seeing itself because truth is value-free. Love is also a concept but it is not a concept like consciousness. All beings are conscious in the sense of being aware of things, but not all beings are aware of what 'love' suggests nor do all beings value what 'love' suggests. This is all man can do, to suggest to another what he or she means by a certain concept. And, this self that can only suggest is not separate from the laws and principles that cause its appearance.

Placing the above into the context of 'The Word' from the bible: since there can be no separation anywhere in God's Kingdom, The Word refers to the wisdom of the truth of things (no separation) and the concepts that are used of the Kingdom of no-separation.

Serendipper
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Value-based love for what was

Post by Serendipper » Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:37 am

Pam Seeback wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:58 am
Names are agreed upon pointers for the sake of meaning, for communication and as you know, no two minds communicate meaning in the exact same way. Our dialogue is a perfect example.
I'm glad you brought that up.

Objective - impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral

Impartial - unbiased, unprejudiced, neutral, nonpartisan, nondiscriminatory, disinterested, detached, dispassionate, objective, open-minded, equitable, evenhanded, fair, fair-minded, just

Unbiased - impartial, unprejudiced, neutral, nonpartisan, disinterested, detached, dispassionate, objective, value-free, open-minded, equitable, even-handed, fair

Words define words in circular fashion. So "objective" means, you know... "objective" :)
I answered every question but the first question, go back and re-read my answer. All this proves to me is that we are indeed concepts to one another. If we were not, there would be no misunderstanding between us, we would, instead, understand each other absolutely, completely, perfectly.
That's interesting! So not-knowing each other is what causes us to know ourselves. If we knew each other absolutely, then we'd have no concept of self. So it can be said to be "a resistance to transfer of information". I state it that way because space is "a resistance to the transfer of information" since if information could transmit instantly, there would be no space. This world seems engineered for the sake of surprise, as if the goal were to not-know and slowly discover.
Love is also a concept but it is not a concept like consciousness. All beings are conscious in the sense of being aware of things, but not all beings are aware of what 'love' suggests nor do all beings value what 'love' suggests.
What is love? That way I understand it, we can only love ourselves, which seems to steal all meaning from the word. It also seems to argue for the existence of only one absolute being.

Post Reply