What came before the Big Bang?

[Meow Mix]

As I said, that is perfectly legit when comparing other notions that are supposed to be based on logic and reason, but what you're failing to take into account is that the mystical view of the universe and of Reality, are not based on these kinds of knowledge. Basically, the primary difference is between seeing things as they are, and thinking about how things are.

The problem is that if something isn't based on logic or reason, then it isn't by definition checked for internal or external consistency. Something which doesn't go through this sort of process can't by any stretch of the imagination be called a type of "knowledge."

If I were to write a poem, I wouldn't have to exercise reason to do so; but I also wouldn't have claim to any sort of knowledge by doing so.

I'm not saying that all things everywhere have to be reasoned -- that would be such a sterile paradigm, indeed. Poetry (to stick to the example) is, in my opinion, fulfilling and awe inspiring despite not being strictly rational or based in reason.

So the problem isn't choosing not to employ reason with endeavors here and there. That can indeed still be very fruitful. The problem is in not employing reason, but then claiming to have something by doing so that only reason can be used to attain.

 

[godnotgod]

I first have to have any idea whatsoever what you mean by the utterance "consciousness" before I can do that.

Well YOU talked about it as being subject to time and space, so you must know what it is.

C'mon. What is the faculty you use for cognition; for your scientific investigations?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Poetry (to stick to the example) is, in my opinion, fulfilling and awe inspiring despite not being strictly rational or based in reason.

Hey. Now you're just getting personal:

An Ode to If

Oh "if"! fine particle art thee
To make of might necessary
To turn mere possibility
(Once we've assumed contingency)
Into facts, fie! vanity!

Of premise made, but 'twould not stay
Thou movest whence the protasis lay
And creepst most foul from thy bed
Unmark'd to my conclusions head!

One use of "if' and goalposts moved
Assuming all we've left unproved

Be wary of that marker of
Conditionals we'd hate to love
What we've to prove will not be won
By "if" of quiet assumption

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well YOU talked about it as being subject to time and space, so you must know what it is.

C'mon. What is the faculty you use for cognition; for your scientific investigations?

My friend, I cannot tell you how much I am enjoying this. Best therapy I've had in years.

 

[Meow Mix]

No. I meant 'logic'. What is the logic of infinite variety and profusion?

Can you uncover the inherent logic of the universe without being conscious?

I still think you're using the word in a way it's not meant to be used, because the only way to answer that question is like this:

The logic of infinite variety and profusion is that infinite variety is infinite variety (and not instead finite variety, or a horse, or anything else) and profusion is profusion (and not anything else other than precisely what it is).

That's the only meaningful answer to the question "What is the logic of x?"

x is logical if x is x, and not not-x.

That is all it means to be logical: to be self-consistent (and externally consistent).

As for your second question, it's a stacked question. To "uncover" anything obviously requires being conscious. However, logic doesn't have to be "uncovered" for the universe to be logical -- that is, the universe would be the universe (whatever it is) even if no consciousness were around or minds to look at it.

No one has to be around to say "the universe is what it is" in order for it to be the case anyway.

 

[Meow Mix]

What is it before you 'consider' it, before you give it a name, before you start to talk about 'properties'? IOW, what is it perse?

That's a good question. Sticking with the "steel ball," before there is a consciousness to demarcate "steel ball" from "everything else," I legitimately don't know whether there is any sort of mathematical realism that exists independently of minds that would demarcate that thing as something distinct.

Regardless, it would be the case that whatever exists, exists as that and not something else if it in fact exists. Even if no one is around to mentally group that bunch of atoms into a "steel ball" distinct from the "table" or "planet" or "rest of the universe," it would still be the case that all the stuff (we don't have to call it a name, or demarcate it, or anything) would still be the stuff that it is, whatever it is.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well YOU talked about it as being subject to time and space, so you must know what it is.

C'mon. What is the faculty you use for cognition; for your scientific investigations?

I have a conception of what "consciousness" is, but this is a semantic dispute: I must figure out how you're using the term in order to understand you and your argument.

The thing that I cognize when I use the word "consciousness" is to be both self-aware and sentient, able to experience things like intuition, introspection, perception, feelings, etc.

When I use this definition, I can't make sense of what it would mean for consciousness to "be" reality as you have claimed -- or for consciousness not to be individual. So, you must use a different definition I'm assuming.

The ones you've attempted to give me so far haven't made any sense, haven't formed any coherent understanding in me. So, I must ask for more clarification as I have been.

 

[Meow Mix]

Hey. Now you're just getting personal:

I'm out of frubals for you currently

IOU

 

[godnotgod]

The problem is that if something isn't based on logic or reason, then it isn't by definition checked for internal or external consistency. Something which doesn't go through this sort of process can't by any stretch of the imagination be called a type of "knowledge."

That's utterly ridiculous.

Again, infinite variety and profusion do not exhibit the logic you claim is a property of the universe, and yet, the universe 'knows' how to consistently create snowflakes, and in so doing, avoid duplication of pattern, and IT does'nt need to be checked for 'internal/external' consistency. (Probably because the universe has no inside or outside, LOL)

If I were to write a poem, I wouldn't have to exercise reason to do so; but I also wouldn't have claim to any sort of knowledge by doing so.

Actually, if you are writing real poetry, you need to have a different kind of knowledge which allows you to see reality beyond the ordinary.

All I'm trying to tell you is that there is a knowledge outside the sphere of logic, reason, and analysis, but you are simply unaware of it, because the noise of your paradigm is drowning it out. Your science only makes it worse, in that it makes you cocksure about what you think you know.

I'm not saying that all things everywhere have to be reasoned -- that would be such a sterile paradigm, indeed. Poetry (to stick to the example) is, in my opinion, fulfilling and awe inspiring despite not being strictly rational or based in reason.

It does more than inspire; it reveals a view of reality and is itself a kind of knowledge unavailable to the rational mind. It awakens an aspect of consciousness that requires intuitive insight, rather than conceptual thought. Haiku is probably the closest kind of poetry to higher consciousness, while a Zen koan is designed to short-circuit the rational mind.

So the problem isn't choosing not to employ reason with endeavors here and there. That can indeed still be very fruitful. The problem is in not employing reason, but then claiming to have something by doing so that only reason can be used to attain.

That kind of erroneous logic is why Reason fails. It's based on the ridiculous and thoroughly unreasonable assumption that Reason is the only way to know something. In fact, it is a surefire way of convincing you that you know something, when, in fact, you don't, as it's 'authority' is self created. I'm not saying that the facts that Reason finds are erroneous, but facts alone are not Reality. Facts need to be interpreted via of a higher knowledge, that does not come about via Reason. I think science itself has seen enough of QM to know that previous rational explanations of reality no longer hold true.

The diff between science and mysticism is that mysticism apprehends Reality just as it is, in its totality, while science selectively dissects it and analyzes its 'parts', on the assumption that one day the knowledge of the various 'parts' will result in an epiphanic 'ah ha' moment of overwhelming understanding. Not gonna happen. You don't know what music is by dismantling the piano.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm out of frubals for you currently

It's ok. I'll just frubal myself. I can do that here, right?

 

[Meow Mix]

It's ok. I'll just frubal myself. I can do that here, right?

Only if I can watch.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Only if I can watch.

C'mon. How am I supposed to one-up this? I surrender.

 

[godnotgod]

That's difficult to answer since the way I define "thought," an awareness would count as one.

Are you only using the word "thought" to refer to things that are more active like beliefs, preferences, propositions, exclamations rather than more passive things like perceptions, introspections, etc?

Consciousness is to be aware without discrimination. Thought discriminates.

METAPHYSIC: The indefinable basis of knowledge. Metaphysical knowledge or 'realization' is an intense clarity of attention to that indefinable and immediate 'point' of knowledge which is always 'now', and from which all other knowledge is elaborated by reflective thought. A consciousness of 'life' in which the mind is not trying to grasp or define what it knows.

Alan Watts

 

[Slapstick]

There is ordinary 'reality' and then there is True Reality. When you talked about banging my head against the keyboard, you are talking 'ordinary' reality, which is what most people refer to when looking at the world in terms of rational thought.

Yeah I remember that. Good to know that you acknowledge reality exists.

Rational thought is a product of the conditioned mind.

Does that involve some type of training or something? People can be rational without doing Yoga or studying philosophy. People discover the world around them for what it is and usually for themselves. Someone can be rational and not know diddly squat.

When consciousness is awakened, a new vision comes into play, and one no longer sees ordinary reality as they did before. One no longer sees via a conditioned mentality, but via an unconditioned consciousness. IOW, one now sees things as they are, rather than how our conditioning tells us they are. Once consciousness is awakened, you don't need to do anything, such as create ideas and concepts about Reality, because consciousness and Reality are one and the same experience.

I take it you adhere to the theory of materialism. *Blue for reference

So even though there is pain when banging the head against the keyboard, your experience is still a sensory one which says 'real', when, if you had the same experience with an awakened consciousness, and while there is still pain, it is understood that the 'material' world is still an illusion, but one of a higher order than ordinary illusion, in which, if the keyboard were a visual projection, there would be no physicality to the experience.

YES! Sweet Success!

So the key to differentiating between the two 'realities' is awakened consciousness. Because most of mankind is asleep spiritually, there is suffering, because the concepts by which they approach reality do not match Reality.

Sounds like a debate for another topic or thread that I'm sure a lot of people would find interesting.

As a simple comparison, you are in the desert and see a pool of water ahead. You firmly believe that what you see is real. You confirm its illusory nature via your consciousness and direct experience. That is true of the next higher level of consciousness in terms of what we call the 'physical' world as well.

From the point of view of ordinary consciousness, this world is real; from that of higher consciousness, it is illusory. (Actually, it is neither real nor not-real).

Alright so all I am getting out of all of this is that higher consciousness isn’t based on reality.

 

[godnotgod]

I still think you're using the word in a way it's not meant to be used, because the only way to answer that question is like this:

The logic of infinite variety and profusion is that infinite variety is infinite variety (and not instead finite variety, or a horse, or anything else) and profusion is profusion (and not anything else other than precisely what it is).

That's the only meaningful answer to the question "What is the logic of x?"

x is logical if x is x, and not not-x.

That is all it means to be logical: to be self-consistent (and externally consistent).

As for your second question, it's a stacked question. To "uncover" anything obviously requires being conscious. However, logic doesn't have to be "uncovered" for the universe to be logical -- that is, the universe would be the universe (whatever it is) even if no consciousness were around or minds to look at it.

No one has to be around to say "the universe is what it is" in order for it to be the case anyway.

That may be true in terms of our ordinary human consciousness, which we envision as mind encapsulated finitely via the brain. But universal consciousness would be a different story. It's not our personal consciousness, but it is the consciousness we employ. It's the consciousness of the universe, which you dismiss because your individual conditioned consciousness has predetermined that the universe is an unconscious 'thing' that is in need of clinical analysis.

Logic is a system of human thought, based on Reason. It cannot exist without human thought. To say that something in the universe is 'this and not that' is what goes on in human thought; it is the mind discriminating about what it sees as differences and limitations regarding what only appears to be real, when, in fact, it is dealing with the characteristics and patterns of an illusion. The system we call logic cannot exist until it is expressed via thought and consciousness. It is only because there is consistency in the patterns of the illusion that we can apply what we call logic to them. IOW, logic comes into play because of differentiation, but differentiation can only come into play because of the undifferentiated.

 

[godnotgod]

Yeah I remember that. Good to know that you acknowledge reality exists.

I acknowledge that it hurts when banging my head on a keyboard, but that the keyboard (empty form) is still an illusion. That's how good an illusion the physical world is, and so I try to avoid banging my head into keyboards to confirm reality, because I already know it to be an illusion.

Does that involve some type of training or something? People can be rational without doing Yoga or studying philosophy. People discover the world around them for what it is and usually for themselves. Someone can be rational and not know diddly squat.

By 'conditioned' I meant we are indoctrinated to see the world as real based on sensory awareness. Higher consciousness gives us a different view. We can be delusional and still appear to be rational. In fact, that is what delusion is.

Sounds like a debate for another topic or thread that I'm sure a lot of people would find interesting.

It's called 'Metaphysical Anxiety'.

Alright so all I am getting out of all of this is that higher consciousness isn’t based on reality.

No. Reality is based on higher consciousness, and vice-versa; they're one and the same.

 

[Mycroft]

The fact of the matter is, though, that there is a difference between objects and properties. Conflating the two is nonsensical -- in the sense that literally, it means nothing to do so.

We can step back and look at a steel ball and consider it in its totality. Sure. Yet it's still the case that if we talk about the steel ball and we refer to the total thing in one instance (e.g., "steel ball"), we are talking about an object. If we talk about the ball's steelness, we are talking about a property.

It would not make sense to say the ball is "steelness," as in the entire category of being steel. It only makes sense to speak of the ball as possessing steelness, of being a particular instance of a thing which exemplifies the property of steelness.

Conflating things with properties, again, doesn't convey any information or meaning. Might as well just type "sdlkjghsdljgh" instead.

Ah but is the ball steelness? Or is it a bunch of other properties for which we also have labels? The name is not the object after all. The 'steelness' refers to a bunch of other things at the atomic and subatomic level. And no steel ball is ever quite the same as the other.

Let us say before us we have a cow named Bessie. Bessie is a living organism, constantly changing, constantly ingesting food and air, transforming it, getting rid of it again. Her blood is circulating, her nerves are sending messages. Viewed microscopically, she is a mass of variegated corpuscles, cells and bacterial organisms; viewed from the point of view of physics, she is a perpetual dance of electrons. What she is in her entirety we can never know - same with the ball -; even if we could at any precise moment say what Bessie was, at the next moment she would have changed enough so that our description would no longer be accurate. It is impossible to say completely what Bessie or anything else really is. Bessie is no static object (as with the ball), but a dynamic process.

The Bessie that we experience, however, is something else again. Such as it is with the steel balll. We experience only a small fraction of both Bessie and the ball: the lights and shadows of Bessie's exterior (and the ball's), Bessie's motion, her general configuration, the noises she makes, and the sensations she presents to our sense of touch and smell. And because of our previous experience, we observe resemblences in her to certain other animals to which, in the past, we have applied the word 'cow'.

The 'object' of our experience, then, is not the 'thing' in itself, but an interaction between our nervous systems and something outside them. Bessie is unique, there is nothing else in the world quite like her at the atomic, subatomic and quantum scale. Indeed, her quantum information is unique only to Bessie. But our nervous systems, automatically abstracting or selecting from the process-Bessie those features of hers which she resembles other animals of like size and functions, as well as habits, classify her as 'cow'.

Such is the same with 'steelness'.

 

[Slapstick]

I acknowledge that it hurts when banging my head on a keyboard, but that the keyboard (empty form) is still an illusion. That's how good an illusion the physical world is, and so I try to avoid banging my head into keyboards to confirm reality, because I already know it to be an illusion.



By 'conditioned' I meant we are indoctrinated to see the world as real based on sensory awareness. Higher consciousness gives us a different view. We can be delusional and still appear to be rational. In fact, that is what delusion is.



It's called 'Metaphysical Anxiety'.



No. Reality is based on higher consciousness, and vice-versa; they're one and the same.

You are so back peddling.

 

[Mycroft]

By 'conditioned' I meant we are indoctrinated to see the world as real based on sensory awareness. Higher consciousness gives us a different view. We can be delusional and still appear to be rational. In fact, that is what delusion is..

But your 'different view' is based on a conditioning itself. Just a different conditioning and, perhaps, a different type of conditioning. And you are conditioned whether you like it or not and in many different ways. 'Higher Consciousness' does not make you free from conditioning.

 

[gnostic]

The problem is the whole "higher consciousness" is nothing more than sham like that of snake-oil peddlers.

To think everything we see, hear and touch as nothing more than illusions, like the keyboard that godnotgod banging his head with, that some of these people or even spiritual beings can perceive with higher consciousness as illusions, is nothing more than delusions.