Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Soulless

Re: Soulless
June 02, 2012, 10:09:31 PM
Well, that's an interesting definition, although 'm not entirely sure what it means.
Do you think, perhaps, that consciousness bypasses the thinking mind?
It doesn't appear to calculate. Nor maneuver for advantage, the way the mind does.

Phoenix

Re: Soulless
June 04, 2012, 04:47:13 AM
Consciousness is impersonal and undivided as surely as a piece of infinity (soul) is in fact infinity proper by definition, apart from the whole as much as it is a part of the whole. By definition nothing finite can exist apart form the infinite. By definition, too, nothing infinite can exist apart from the finite. I give my soul life, not the other way around, the trick is to do so in an eternally sustainable fashion so that "I" don't fall off in reincarnation. When you die you get pulled back to this earth by your desires, but if your desires are properly aligned and transcended then you can realize liberation and live on eternally out there, a whole other universe.

Re: Soulless
June 04, 2012, 06:12:50 AM
Who, or what, is doing all this 'defining'?
'By definition' must mean the thinking mind.

Phoenix

Re: Soulless
June 04, 2012, 06:29:38 AM
Who, or what, is doing all this 'defining'?
'By definition' must mean the thinking mind.

The definition of "infinity" is that it cannot be divided and is all-encompassing, otherwise a specific value could be attributed to it and it would no longer be unlimited. That's what we agree the word means; it was my thinking mind that chose to use that word instead of a different word.

Re: Soulless
June 04, 2012, 06:33:47 AM
And how does infinite depend on finite, and finite depend on infinite?
The thinking mind can not make this so.
Although it may imagine it can.




Phoenix

Re: Soulless
June 04, 2012, 06:43:38 AM
Simultaneous oneness and difference.

We are a part of the whole as we are apart from the whole.

Let me put it in black metal terms: A living body is one thing, the same body scattered across the floor in various parts is quite another thing.

Re: Soulless
June 04, 2012, 04:45:58 PM
A living body is as finite as a dismembered dead one.
We are never apart from the whole; though we may perceive ourselves to be.

Phoenix

Re: Soulless
June 04, 2012, 05:33:45 PM
A living body is as finite as a dismembered dead one.
We are never apart from the whole; though we may perceive ourselves to be.


If we always perceive ourselves to be, what's the difference? The whole is just the whole, without sentient perception; it's precisely sentience that makes us individuals.

Re: Soulless
June 04, 2012, 05:46:31 PM
A drunk perceives it safe to cross the road, when if he were not drunk, he might perceive the approaching bus.
Perception comes with clarity, minus any distracting factors.
Both may be known as perception to the perceiver, yet one is true, the other false.
Mind gets in the way.
Along with whatever the mind is currently under the influence of.
Drink, drugs, delusion, ego...

Re: Soulless
June 04, 2012, 08:34:18 PM
Well, that's an interesting definition, although 'm not entirely sure what it means.
Do you think, perhaps, that consciousness bypasses the thinking mind?
It doesn't appear to calculate. Nor maneuver for advantage, the way the mind does.


Why are mind and consciousness considered separate? That's like claiming no connection between cars and driving. Well sure, chariots can be driven too I suppose.

I think this is best modeled on a gradient or spectrum like the electromagnetic one. If it has a nervous system, it can be found in our spectrum. Not all lifeforms qualify because not all have nervous systems per se; some, like microbes, utilize simpler chemical exchanges without the neural substrate medium which is insulated from the external environment because of problems in scale.

Not everything that exhibits what can be broadly measured as a behavioural or effect pattern is even a lifeform; see pseudo lifeforms like viruses, or inorganic effects like weather and cosmological processes.

Little behaviour is actual consciousness. Some behavioural commands transmitted over a nervous system are autonomic, for system maintenance. So what distinguishes consciousness from lack of it? Self-awareness, for which consciousness I consider to be a needless euphemism.

Self-awareness is the state in which a lifeform is capable of making a distinction between that which is itself and the rest of its environs.

So, returning to our spectrum model, I would place our own human consciousness (a deliberately vague term), in the visible light region, for most of us neslted up near the ultraviolet. Let's approximately map some sample critters:

** we are unable to operate at this level **
Inert matter: nothing
Bacteria: radio
Earthworm: far infrared

** basic self-aware, we begin to "see" here **
Garden lizard: near infrared to VL
Equine/bovine/retard: middle visible light

** advanced self-aware **
Simian/human: VL closer to UV
Genius: VL to near UV region

** nobody can "see" past here **

Advanced other/unknown/alien: UV? x-ray? parallel VL in a 3D spectrum model?

Re: Soulless
June 04, 2012, 09:16:02 PM
"Self-awareness, for which consciousness I consider to be a needless euphemism.
Self-awareness is the state in which a lifeform is capable of making a distinction between that which is itself and the rest of its environs.
"

You see self-awareness as a means of seeing where you end, and your environs begin, and equate that with consciousness.
But the two are entirely opposite.
Consciousness sees that there is no distinction between where one ends and something else begins, because there is no such distinction.
Everything is connected, and consciousness allows this to be both manifested and recognized.
Without consciousness, one is discrete and separate. Not just in perception, but also in fact.
Consciousness connects one with what previously lay outside of oneself.
Therefore, once conscious, on this level, there can be no return, no way back to unconsciousness.
The burning of bridges is the price one pays for such a state.

Re: Soulless
June 04, 2012, 11:58:44 PM
What if we are not born with a soul, after all, but are intended to use our lives to create one, as we go?
To head for consciousness in order to create the soul from a standing start?
This, in itself, is the basis of a true religion.
One that makes something honorable of man, rather than the empty, egotistic parasite he is, without any such goal.


I was going to post something like this, but you have stolen my words. Although trial itself is not an indicator of having a strong soul, I rarely have met strong people who haven't had much struggle.

There was once a man on the internet going by the name of Lykos who wrote a treatise on Asceticism and Carnivorism. I wish I had saved a copy somewhere. He was like us, a man of modern society with no real impetus for challenge. His idea was to consider and craft difficult challenges for himself. Although Ted K. may poo poo the idea, I think Lykos was on to something.

Re: Soulless
June 05, 2012, 12:59:02 AM
Manufactured hardship is not the same as genuine hardship.
All it can deliver are manufactured results.
Not everyone is destined to be equally challenged, or to be equally victorious over those challenges.
Each man's life is his, and his alone, to make of it what he may.

I hardly think I "stole" your words.
My words are all mine, and mine alone, while clearly (to me) not originating from my own mind.
In the sense that I wrote them, not from whence they came.
And none came from any previously written words, which is exactly why I never read any previous philosophy, or religion.



Re: Soulless
June 05, 2012, 01:04:49 AM
What precisely is everything is connected supposed to mean and why is this some sort of universal consciousness? That is bunch of New Age hokum in my book. There may be an endless chain of interdependencies between lifeforms, local natural systems, the terrestrial system overall and the entire cosmos but self awareness in particular occurs only briefly in instances among some lifeforms for a while. Again, this consciousness as implied so far is so vaguely defined that it is effectively useless. There was a challenge for someone to define it correct?

Re: Soulless
June 05, 2012, 03:04:23 AM
It means what it says. If it doesn't mean anything to you, you haven't discovered it yet.
If it sounds like new age hocus pocus, that may be because new age hocus pocus is hocus pocus, taking truths, or partial truths, without understanding those truths, and bandying them about, sans context.
Nobody knows anything, until they know it.
Which seems to be a point so fine that most fail to notice.
It's a strange thing, the internet:
Full of people that if they read something they haven't already read, quotable elsewhere, then they ridicule it without consideration.
I don't understand that at all.
As for challenging anybody, no, not so much a challenge as an invitation for input.
I asked what people thought. They told me. I responded. End of story.