What Would Cause You to Stop and Listen?

cheers to both you and mrvortex. i am a grad of the songwriting program at berklee.

Questions are mundane and material. They work best when they deal with determining what is mundane and material.

this is why a formal system cannot be made to express the truth (as in PM). the essential nature of truth prevents symbolic categorical exclusion, which is all that words can provide. the best that you can hope for is to use the words themselves to eliminate the categorical exclusion and in so doing hope to illuminate the nature of truth. "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"

I haven't really looked very deeply into Ken Wilbur's work.

his work "sex, ecology, spirituality" is the single most useful text i know of. i cannot think of any better foundation of knowledge than what he has provided. the following diagram is a summary of his 1200 page thesis.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/9c3593a3cbc61a7f.gif[/atsimg]

....I know that you can't concretely explain to me what this HIGHER LEVEL means in a way that I'll be able to understand....The average intelligent and aware individual on this planet hasn't got this perspective and wouldn't even be able to accurately describe what this perspective consists of.....

of course i can, i certainly didnt mean for it to be obscure. i, too, am not terribly fond of the metaphysical elitists. even the least sophisticated person understands perfectly by direct apprehension the difference between "Me" and "my mind". that is why it was my first example. they may not be able to put into words, precisely, how this relationship works. but i assure you that every person has a quite intimate working knowledge of their own mind.

what allows this to happen is that "I" can observe the contents of my mind from a HIGHER LEVEL. in fact, my own self concept could be described exclusively in terms of the contents of my mind as a type of formal system similar to PM. but, similar to the follies of PM, "I" can construct mental abstractions which are irreconcilable from the perspective of the mental functioning itself. this is why "I" exist at a higher level than "my mind". and Godels Theorem exists at a higher level than PM.

this exact same relationship exists between all of the members of the set of questions i proposed.....all the way down and all the way up. there is a similar implicit understanding of the nature of the individual cell and its constituent macromolecular events.

the truth, then, is in the relationship.....NOT in either of the systems individually.

whats more: this relationship can be abstracted and applied as a tool for the verification of truthiness itself.

...Any theoretical physicist could bury a person (me, definitely, would be buried) under piles of jargon and references that would quickly become a milky wash of useless verbiage.

which is why the example of godels theorem is so perfect. if you were to see his theorem written as a statement of PM, it would be the very definition of incomprehensible. and yet! the essence of the theorem, perhaps the Truth of it, can be abstracted and applied to the system of English in which its self-referential contradiction can be perfectly understood by a system of symbols higher than English.

truth can be bounced out of systems and mapped onto other systems because it is a relationship and not a member of the system itself.

These are questions that have been festering for centuries within the minds of the academic elite. I can't see them being answered to anyone's satisfaction by a man that has yet to establish his own information's inherent credibility.

the "answer" would be immediately understandable and would establish its own credibility. this is why quantum mechanics is all the rage with the mystics these days. i certainly do not give any believe that your run of the mill mystic has an in-depth knowledge of QM. and yet, there are undeniable echoes of the truth that QM speaks which are directly apprehensible to your average inquisitive mind. this is why QM, or perhaps only certain interpretations of it, must certainly be true: because the relationships that it describes can be mapped directly into a completely unrelated system and thus understood.

...Whatever exists as real must touch what we already know to be real. This is the one fact that I seem to be having to reiterate. I asked my wife last night, "....

my previous series of questions address this issue directly. it can be built from the bottom up from real to more and more abstract:

How do you close the gap between 'Me' and 'my mind'?
How do you close the gap between 'my mind' and the brain?
How do you close the gap between the brain and a single neuron?
....between a cell and macro-molecular events?
....macro-molecular
....chemical...
....physical....
....non-physical (?!)...
....turtles, all the way down and all the way up....

so, you have gone off complaining to your wife about something that has been addressed and have failed to see?....or is it I that am being the lunk-head?

i really dont know how to construct your 5 questions.

thanks for letting me speak.

Originally posted by tgidkp
cheers to both you and mrvortex. i am a grad of the songwriting program at berklee.

I used to busk in that T station. I love that little section of the city.

....I know that you can't concretely explain to me what this HIGHER LEVEL means in a way that I'll be able to understand....The average intelligent and aware individual on this planet hasn't got this perspective and wouldn't even be able to accurately describe what this perspective consists of.....

of course i can, i certainly didnt mean for it to be obscure. i, too, am not terribly fond of the metaphysical elitists. even the least sophisticated person understands perfectly by direct apprehension the difference between "Me" and "my mind". that is why it was my first example. they may not be able to put into words, precisely, how this relationship works. but i assure you that every person has a quite intimate working knowledge of their own mind.

what allows this to happen is that "I" can observe the contents of my mind from a HIGHER LEVEL. in fact, my own self concept could be described exclusively in terms of the contents of my mind as a type of formal system similar to PM. but, similar to the follies of PM, "I" can construct mental abstractions which are irreconcilable from the perspective of the mental functioning itself. this is why "I" exist at a higher level than "my mind". and Godels Theorem exists at a higher level than PM.

I hate that I have no idea what PM refers to. I wish I was more knowledgeable of what everyone else has already moved beyond.

Concerning the observed mind, I have to confess that I see the whole process of thought, and the impact it has on perception, as being very different than you do. I can't separate the product from the process itself, and probably because I can't logically find the point of separation between what is and what brought it into existence.

I'll try to describe what I mean.

When an event occurs, the direct result of that event is the fact that the event occurred. It's immediate, and regardless of what was perceived by whatever might've perceived it - or regardless of whether it was not perceived as having occurred at all - what emerged as fact (a very primitive and elemental form of information) accurately represents the specifics of that event (including the contextual relationship that the event shares with all that existed at the precise moment of the occurrence of that event) with a disinterested clarity, since each bit of information contained within the fact is directly linked via causation to what brought it into physical existence.

This is how data (fact-centric information) comes into existence. This is the only way that information of any kind can come into existence. That said, the event itself can have properties and/or be of a specific nature that the information it causes to emerge can be very different per specific event. Large-scale matrixed events - such as an entire football game, with all the event sub-assemblies that are logically identified as being part of the holon unit identified as that unique and specific football game - produce a much different identifiable information whole than (let's say) one play within the whole of that football game. Related, yes. But still, the difference between the identified wholes is obvious, even if the unit of elemental structure for each is common. Like the difference between a wall and a cathedral. Both made of stone, but one definitely different in identity than the other.

Conscious thought (we'll limit this to human thought for obvious reasons) is the result of the human brain's response to physical existence. That response can be further specified as being due to external stimuli, or internal rumination of stored data (the result of previous responses). The range of specifics are well established, so we won't bother with that digression. What we want to examine is the nature of the brain's activity and the kind of information that emerges in direct response to that activity.

To call this form of information sophisticated is to give that word a raise and a corner office. Intellect (I prefer to use this word to shorthand the description of this form of information - I assume that it'll be okay to seize this term for use in this small explanation) is true awareness, and this is because the brain itself has achieved the capacity for dynamic awareness. The difficulty in "finding" that awareness within the brain's structure is because it is not the elements themselves that possess the awareness. There is no "human being" particle, or God particle that sits inside the brain. The awareness is the event itself, occurring as a string of unitary events (like the string of unitary events that organize to form a simple orbit), and organized to form a massively complex identifiable event (like that football game) that we have termed the corporeal life of a human being.

Now, since this event (and all sub-assembly - holon - events contained within it) exists only due to its capacity to achieve and maintain true identity (the most fundamental of all survival imperatives), it is critical that the inclusive event's Identity's consistency is treated as of primordial importance. This is where the brain's memory cells come into the picture, and where the "conscious mind" emerges as significant. Without this information/event symbiosis, the human experience would be a chaotic nightmare of disjointed images that would emerge and the scatter into meaninglessness. When the partnership doesn't work right, we call it insanity. Simple as that.

Now, keep in mind that this partnership between the brain's data storage and the conscious mind involves the ongoing presence of the corporeal information management system (the DNA), and at times there are clashes between the conscious mind and this contextual precedence, and sometimes the DNA wins (I couldn't stop myself from eating that greasy piece of chicken) and sometimes the mind wins (I couldn't stop myself from getting bombed last night). Usually, neither completely wins and the human being responds to life in a shifting blend between both. Freud's Id-SuperEgo-Ego battle sort of examines this constant contest, but of course it's more complicated than that. It's essentially the battle between corporeal survival and transcendent expression - regardless of how seemingly base that expression may actually appear to the enlightened perspective.

After all, transcendence is not an objective determination, and the conscious mind's dedication to unique expression is simply that - a dedication to unique expression, regardless of that expression's level of relative quality. Inimitable expression is about establishing information Identity (survival) and whatever achieves that end is considered successful.

How it is that we experience this entire effort, is that our conscious mind (I call it The Personality, because it creates what we've always seen as personality) - that gathering mass of informational response to our brain's relentless activity - has its own agenda (this information is aware, being the complete and accurate informational representation of awareness - making it aware) and as I just stated, that agenda is the crafting of unique identity. As I also stated, it battles for management of the brain's ongoing information generation (each brain-centric event causes information to emerge into physical existence, as you recall), and does so by choosing what it deems important and routing that response to the memory cells that such information is stored (carbon is an excellent data storage material, by the way - much better than silicon), as it shunts unimportant information to other regions of data storage. This process finalizes during REM sleep, and is why the brain will eventually malfunction if prevented from achieving REM state. Short term data storage is a holding tank. This Personality effort is a two stage process.

Now, as this initial triage is occurring, our short term data storage is being fed the Intellect information that our Personality has deemed pertinent and of importance. This process is what we experience as corporeal consciousness - the triaged awareness that our Personality has prepared for the brain as ongoing experience. Like I said, the Personality has the agenda of crafting this inimitable Identity, and it's got the brain as its tool to accomplish this. The DNA can do what it likes, but the Personality has firm control over what it knows to be most influential - the consistency of reality as experienced by the aware brain. Our Identity emerges as the Personality forces the brain to serve the primordial significance of ongoing event consistency. Like I said, this Intellect mass (the mind) is aware, and will have its way as long as the brain remains functional. Being the result of event consistency itself, the corporeal brain knows no other way that to maintain what has been established as consistent.

This begins to occur (the taking command of the information generation process by the Personality) as early as 3 and 4 years old for most human beings, and really kicks in after the first significant challenge by the DNA informational presence within the body and brain itself (inside every cell) when puberty hits and launches the massive hormonal changes that it launches. This is why teenagers start running off cliffs in search of themselves. There's no how-to guidebook to crafting an inimitable identity, and most human Personalities end up latching onto one archetype or another and hopefully it all ends up well.

So, in my view, this is how the mind sits "out there" and inspects itself. Like the operating system of a computer, the Personality accepts, rejects and directs all potential information that is generated in response to the brain's withering flurry of ongoing activity. The person's experience of it is the actual data storage of the triaged information set - from instant to instant - as the Personality moves from one Intellect burst to the next and does its best to make sense of how best to utilize what it has, to achieve what it exists to achieve - a dynamic, aware informational Identity that will emerge from this life-long corporeal generation process as a fully viable human being.

Yes, I know that it's not how other people see things, but this is what I see.

Now, I think I'm going to take a nap. Thanks for taking the time to respond to the questions.

Zoooooom... What a simpleton I have become. I guess the univeral truths just gets too complicated for me. And here I thought it was always simple. It always worked for me when I thought it was simple enough to understand it. Alas, I have become a dinosaur. Sorry, I guess I stopped listening. Oh dopey me!

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


Don't worry about it, I've gotten sick and tired of listening to my own self, let alone trying to read tombs of info posted by people who think they're so smart, it gets ridiculous and absurd after a while, and then all you can do is laugh out loud! LOL Now THAT's understanding imho.

reply to post by NorEaster


To be honest, I agree with Lovecraft's thoughts on the matter. I think if most humans realized how completely and utterly insignificant we were, things would fall apart.

Originally posted by DeadJester
reply to post by NorEaster

 

To be honest, I agree with Lovecraft's thoughts on the matter. I think if most humans realized how completely and utterly insignificant we were, things would fall apart.

And only then would we begin at last to realize how utterly extraordinary and significant we really ARE, but only then, in the realization that we are nothing of any significance whatsoever. Insignificantly significant! To get to that point of course, we`d have to be unreasonably reasonable, and get serious about not taking ourselves seriously, seriously!

Originally posted by electricalpup
No questions will be needed. You will be in awe and overcome with the energy of love, the energy may drop you to your knees, or you will cry in the splendor of love uncontrollably for a period of time. It is after the energy has left you, when your linear brain questions. Deep inside your heart you will know without a doubt you are never alone, and you have been given a blessing for a lifetime. This is when you will seek within, not outside of self for answers for your lifetime. We all are on different journeys, but yet we are all one. Love

ITA!...Also Know thy self, and you will be able to distinguish the truth from falsehood.

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by NorEaster

What consitutes physical existence? Can you describe it specifically?
Why did physical existence emerge? What brought it into existence?
What sits at the very base of physical structure and provides any sort of consistency at all?
Is there anything that exists that isn't physical? If so, what is it? Describe its nature.
What do we see that you can point to as directly connected to your premise? How is it associated?

My friend,

I do not believe anyone enlightened enough to know the answers would be unenlightened enough to share them with anyone. Mankind has yet to learn to love each other and preserve their existence with what they do know, why would anyone think they are prepared for greater knowledge at this point?

The answers are part of our journey, to discover together.

WIth Love,

Your Brother

IamIam,WOW i really like all that i have read of your posts, so much Wisdom, you have a Gentle Spirit to.Thank you for sharing it with us!

The truth is a personal thing, like believing in a god or whatever.

I don't like truthmen. Truthmen try to shove something personal like "truth" down people's throats. When one comes to tell me what my truth should be, he can sud off. No questions asked.

I don't care fooling myself with truth. I am perfectly happy not knowing.

What Would Cause You to Stop and Listen?

Due to the nature of my job,i have a bookstore oriented to sci-fi/paranormal/ufology etc,many people come to me with their "truth".Always convinced that their truth is the only one.
They feel confortable to talk to me,because they know i will not make fun of them and the most important i will listen to them.
You wouldn't believe what i have heard all these years.
I always listen to their point of view about the world.The 2 questions i ask are:
Why do you believe that?
Why do you feel that your belief is better than anyone else's?

I am open to everyone,to listen and/or debate the truth.Everyone up to now has a different truth,based on their beliefs.So it makes me believe that the truth is not one.Maybe there is a universal principle,but no human being can see the whole picture.
If someone come to me with the claim you make in your OP,then i will have to ask:
Where do you come from?(seriously)

Anyway i think we should listen to everything and then filter the BS and keep the information that might help to find the truth/see the whole picture.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Okay, so what the heck did I post that suddenly caused all this?

Like each of us, I have my own view of reality and aspects of how reality operates. My view isn't esoteric, but does that mean that it's not a respectable point of view?

My actual field of interest is not confined to what consciousness is, or how human beings experience their own conscious existence. I simply found a statement that I felt like commenting on, and went ahead and commented. Yes, my views are very well developed, and to be honest, I've always seen them as rather pedestrian when compared to the more elastic and expansive views of many others. Still, what part of my view concerning the mechanics of how the corporeal human being (notice that I did not say the fully developed and viable human being) pieces one instant of conscious awareness together with the next instant of conscious awareness deserved what seems to be a display of visceral disdain from you two?

I can easily prove that much of what I suggest is factually accurate. Brain injury studies have proven that the destruction of short term memory obliterates the human mind's capacity to examine itself to any degree that could reasonably be considered observational. A recent thread on this forum announced a research study that suggests that the human consciousness experiences the brain's deliberate choice between a proposed A or B a full 6 seconds after a modified MRI scanning device indicates what that choice is that the brain has made. Simple extrapolation of the direct ramifications of just these two facts alone would bring one to the conclusion that the experience of conscious thought (human consciousness) is reactive and not initiative.

It's a short walk from that conclusion to the tentative notion that there's a reason for the reactive nature of conscious awareness, and from there, it's a matter of employing the general imperative structure that seems to be overwhelmingly redundant within the entirety of corporeal existence as that reason is pursued. In the case of the human mind, there is the fact of human transcendence that must be included as being fundamental to how that imperative structure is specifically applied, with empirical data tossed in, like the obvious and personally experienced struggle between the carnal and the intellectual that I, myself, share with the rest of the human race. Finally, if the evidence of the survival of human consciousness (post-mortem) is dismissed, the how responsible can the examination possibly be? So that gets included, and the whole pile is reasonably gathered and picked through to see what can allow all of this to be true.

In the end, I simply balance it all out as best I can and work hard to not isolate my theory from what else exists that has already been proven to relative certainty. After all, unless I can prove all contradictions - especially the well established ones - to be inherently false, then I have to allow them to be instructive. To me, that just seems responsible, and what any good detective would do if given the task of sorting out the evidence that is known or suspected.

As far as the nature of non-corporeal "consciousness" - in some macro super-existential sense of what whomever might feel like envisioning it to mean, I guess that if you're the one envisioning it, then you're the one who gets to describe it. It belongs to you after all, since you're the one that's envisioning it. I don't envision such a thing, but that's just me. To me, consciousness is much too sophisticated to be primordial. I also have no primary impetus that demands the existence of universal consciousness. I can find an inevitable confluence of well developed imperative expressions that logically demand human consciousness, but nothing that requires the presence of a universal form of consciousness. Philosophy may suggest a value for such a thing, but philosophy is the product of human consciousness, so why wouldn't it. Certainly the human consciousness would see its own kind as primordial. It's a natural reaction to being what it is.

As far as the concept of an always was, always is, and always will be, universal intent (be it God, The All, The One, the universal consciousness, or that-which-cannot-be-spelled-with-vowels) whatever it is that exists as affectable and/or effectable, came into existence through a means of existential emergence. It has a definite reason why it came into existence, and it has a definite association with everything else that exists or has existed. There isn't anything that "just is", and (in my view of reality) there isn't anything that exists as a contextually associable whole that has always existed and that never didn't exist.

This thread is going into interesting directions....

I can just add - I would listen to this man (Karl Pribram), but he is not claiming to possess all the truth...

Bohm's and his ideas about the underlying fundament or how the reality is structured makes most sense to me:

www.youtube.com...

And a few of his articles (do read, it's worth wile):

www.paricenter.com...

www.paricenter.com...

www.paricenter.com...


And cheers back to the musicians, interesting how the interest in music and philosophy/fundament of reality is linked, right?

Here's one "metaphysical" pop song from an album in production with one singer-songwriting collegue, hehehe (I work more in world music-jazz fusion field otherwise, but like all kinds of music and collaborate with collegues from all fields: classical, jazz, alternative rock, pop, etc.

SONG LINK

reply to post by MrVortex


cool

Thanks for the links.

P.S. I just watched that YouTube interview and I agree with the suggestion that the brain shares the same sub-structural functionality as everything else that it shares the contextual environment with. I base everything that I believe on that one central premise as it applies to all that exists as interactable.

Oh, and great recording as well. Are you the producer?

Yes, I can relate to Karl Pribram's thoughts very well, too, although I am not a scientist and would get lost in actual mathematics of some of the model's proposed.

The articles are even more interesting...

Thanks for the comment on the song, yes, I'm the producer in this case and also percussionist and fujara (that flute like sound) player on this song.

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by MrVortex

 

cool

Thanks for the links.

P.S. I just watched that YouTube interview and I agree with the suggestion that the brain shares the same sub-structural functionality as everything else that it shares the contextual environment with. I base everything that I believe on that one central premise as it applies to all that exists as interactable.

Oh, and great recording as well. Are you the producer?

edit on 1/8/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

reply to post by NorEaster


that was a really great post and i can appreciate why you needed a nap afterwards!

Originally posted by NorEaster
I hate that I have no idea what PM refers to.

it refers to the Principia Mathematica. i apologise that my language skills are not as precise as yours.

When an event occurs, the direct result of that event is the fact that the event occurred. It's immediate, and regardless of what was perceived by whatever might've perceived it - or regardless of whether it was not perceived as having occurred at all - what emerged as fact (a very primitive and elemental form of information) accurately represents the specifics of that event (including the contextual relationship that the event shares with all that existed at the precise moment of the occurrence of that event) with a disinterested clarity, since each bit of information contained within the fact is directly linked via causation to what brought it into physical existence.

i really like how you are thinking about this. the author douglas hofstadter agrees with you. i have made a crude scan from his book "I am a strange loop" and posted it below. i figure it would be better to let a pro talk about it instead of "some guy who thinks he's so smart". (thanks for that little rant, BTW, newageman)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/52a24944328b.gif[/atsimg]

I can't separate the product from the process itself, and probably because I can't logically find the point of separation between what is and what brought it into existence.

the essential idea that i think you are missing is that once the self concept, loops back and itself becomes a concept (what you are calling the "inimitable identity"), then it can exhibit a type of reverse-causality on the entire system which is impossible to interpret from a reductionist perspective. this is where a purely reductionist materialist perspective falls apart.

the TOP -> DOWN view of existence is just as valid as the BOTTOM -> UP. in many ways, it is more valid, IMO.

again, thanks for the cool thread.

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by NorEaster

 

that was a really great post and i can appreciate why you needed a nap afterwards!

You're very kind. Sadly, the rest of my day (and today) was overwhelmed by the events in AZ. Not that I know anyone involved, but that the lead up to something like this has been troubling me a lot over the last few years. I wish I believed that this will be the end of it. People are simply too logically contradicted in general, and the intellectually challenged are that much more at a loss for any sense of rational center. Infinite and boundless reality is pretty, but the human mind doesn't function well within an intellectual environment that never stops clashing with the physical reality that brought that mind into existence. The schism has a corrosive effect. I was reading that kid's posts, and they reminded me too much of some forms of logic I've run into on sites like this one. As if a logical equation is a closed loop. It's not. Even relative logic has to make sense with the unaffected logic that rules the sub-structure that hosts the relative state in question. Nothing simply exists within its own primordial sense of reality.

A complete loss of visceral certainty can affect people in a wide range of ways. That guy seems to have imagined himself as some sort of initiating force for a larger transformation. Not very realistic, but like I said, I've read worse on this site and others. Reality is important to the inherently uber-logical human brain.

Originally posted by NorEaster
I hate that I have no idea what PM refers to.

it refers to the Principia Mathematica. i apologise that my language skills are not as precise as yours.

I must've misunderstood a previous reference you made. I'm not particularly well-read. In fact, I tend to not base my ideas off the thoughts of others. It's only in the last 6 months or so that I've begun hunting for detailed connection between my own notions and what's been previously determined. After publishing the book, so that I'll be able to understand references presented by others who wish to examine it. Before that, I spent time looking for general theologies and macro-theses that had already promoted the central theme, and surpsiningly never found one that was even in the ball park. My general interest has always been the paranormal and "logical explanations" for the stuff that goes bump in the night, so when it comes to quantum theory or some of the more esoteric concepts that many suggest to be real, I draw a real blank at times. Not because I can't comprehend the ideas, but because I am firmly rooted in what I can connect to the reality that I can directly affect with conscious intent.

When an event occurs, the direct result of that event is the fact that the event occurred. It's immediate, and regardless of what was perceived by whatever might've perceived it - or regardless of whether it was not perceived as having occurred at all - what emerged as fact (a very primitive and elemental form of information) accurately represents the specifics of that event (including the contextual relationship that the event shares with all that existed at the precise moment of the occurrence of that event) with a disinterested clarity, since each bit of information contained within the fact is directly linked via causation to what brought it into physical existence.

i really like how you are thinking about this. the author douglas hofstadter agrees with you. i have made a crude scan from his book "I am a strange loop" and posted it below. i figure it would be better to let a pro talk about it instead of "some guy who thinks he's so smart". (thanks for that little rant, BTW, newageman)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/52a24944328b.gif[/atsimg]

I wish I could connect this guy's notion of these simms and the impact of relative scope of POV with that blurb that you quoted of mine, but I honestly have no idea where they correlate. Maybe I don't understand the point that he's making?

I can't separate the product from the process itself, and probably because I can't logically find the point of separation between what is and what brought it into existence.

the essential idea that i think you are missing is that once the self concept, loops back and itself becomes a concept (what you are calling the "inimitable identity"), then it can exhibit a type of reverse-causality on the entire system which is impossible to interpret from a reductionist perspective. this is where a purely reductionist materialist perspective falls apart.

the TOP -> DOWN view of existence is just as valid as the BOTTOM -> UP. in many ways, it is more valid, IMO.

I understand the "feedback loop" of aware self-interest, and I think I described it in reference to the Personality's ongoing effort to triage the experience of consistent corporeal consciousness (the "I" observing the "self") on behalf of the end product's achievement of unique and inimitable Identity, but this reverse-causality does not affect the entire system (I'm assuming that you're referring to reality itself), since the isolating nature of contextual Identity - especially in the case of ultra-dense contextual composites that are capable of consciousness-level expression - expressly prohibits the logical possibility of any degree of expansive inclusivity.

In fact, the more sophisticated, the more isolated the conscious expression becomes. I understand that it may seem as though an intent imposes order upon a default chaos, but the truth is that contextual precedence, and the channels of "path of least reistance" redundancy provide the lion's share of order and predictable consistency that bases what we know of reality. The rest is fueled by the foundational imperative Survival, in its variety of expressions. Conscious intent is an achievement. It's not primordial in any way whatsoever.

again, thanks for the cool thread.

Thank you for really good contribution.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Erongaricuaro

 

Don't worry about it, I've gotten sick and tired of listening to my own self, let alone trying to read tombs of info posted by people who think they're so smart, it gets ridiculous and absurd after a while, and then all you can do is laugh out loud! LOL Now THAT's understanding imho.

By George, I think I think you're on to something. I consider there is always a simple and uncomplicated way to see things and that is the optimum level for each individual. Each person has his own comfort level to understand things and it is at that point that is right for him,

A person does not need to know how to build a television set from scratch to enjoy it. For some it is enough to merely learn how to turn it on. Those who can master some of the intricacies such as adjusting the volume or changing the channel are assured a fuller experience. Those at the advanced levels that can understand how to use all the remote control features can further enhance their experience. When you understand all the menu features... well, the possibilities seem endless.

By the time you have reached the level as to be able to drop by your local Radio Shack to buy the individual components to build your own set you have probably come to that point that most of what the television has to offer is of little or no interest and with the possible exception of some esoteric public broadcast programming you are beyond deriving anything worthwhile from the TV experience, and you would probably have very few friends either.

Ahhhh.... the sweet mysteries of life.