Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 The nature of consciousness

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: The nature of consciousness Mon May 04, 2015 12:13 pm

Identity is this association with a pattern.
One identifies with what resembles, is the same, with self.
Self-consciousness is required.

At a higher level of self-consciousness, the organism associates self with a projected, abstraction.
This object/objective is considered an idea(l) state, and the organism adapts its behavior in relation to this desirable object/objective.
Morality is associated with this towards, as it affects otherness, and self in relation to this otherness.
The ideal is what shapes the moral judgment.

A value judgment is not necessarily a moral judgment.
An more objective judgment would be this detached evaluation of behavior, (inter)activity in relation to different object/objectives, Idea(l)s.

Each idea(l) promotes particular traits, particular behaviors.
For example valuing intelligence would adjust the behavior differently when compared to a valuing of pleasure, or of inclusion, or of happiness.
Moral judgment would adjust accordingly.
From the lowest-common-denominator the discriminating mind ascends upwards towards more refined self-identification - this process is called discrimination.

The ascent follows intentionality and levels of consciousness, mentioned before.
The goal determines the value.
And since all goals are founded on needs the need, the one particular to the individual, the one that dominates its psychology, born from organ hierarchies, is fundamental in making value judgments.

But not all object/objectives are equal.
Some are more and some less connected to reality; some aspire towards more temporally fit outcomes, and others towards ephemeral gratifications; some are based no objectivity and others surrender to the easy subjective; some are willing to sacrifice self than go on living outside the premises of their object/objective, and others shift form one object/objective to the next, placing self as worth sacrificing any objective for.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: The nature of consciousness Mon May 04, 2015 12:41 pm

Two ways of evaluating the objectivity of a subjective view - an opinion's level/degree of objectivity.

By the quantity and quality of its connection to the apparent.
The continuous juxtaposition of mental abstractions (interpretations of the phenomenon and its simplification/generalization as noumenon) and the ongoing apparent (stream of consciousness) - first hand knowledge/experience/understanding.
The continuous juxtaposition of  mental abstractions (interpretations of the phenomenon and its simplification/generalization as noumenon) and that of other minds, codifying and presented to you as symbols, metaphors, (language) art - second hand knowledge/experience/understanding.

The more objective view will hold true for longer periods of juxtaposition (interaction), if the mind is not protected form its own errors.
If it is then weak perspectives, subjectivity detaching from reality, will increase....as a memetic mutation, a mental cancer.
Morals will adjust to this changing condition.

Survival of the fittest and domestication processes apply memetically as they apply genetically.
Genes that are unfit are culled out of as gene-pool, as are perspectives that are unfit.
Except when the organisms are protected from the objective world by an intervening power.
The culling no longer applies entirely, and genetic/memetic mutations reproduce unaffected by the world, but selected by the intervening entity based on its motives (object/objective).    


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: The nature of consciousness Mon May 04, 2015 7:00 pm

Imbesil wrote:
Values primarily in consistency lead to continuous experience as fundamental, but values don't have to be primarily in consistency. Generally they are in utility when the foundation of your interpretation is in something discrete, like both you and Satyr are advocating.

What is discrete about what I or Satyr are advocating? What "foundation" have I even given, when I've been saying there can be no abs. foundation, no substance, no ground,, which is exactly why you even find me nihilistic...
In what discrete am I founding the fact that the occurrence of discretes themselves is how life self-organizes and what life Is?

Quote :
It's all very well if he wants to offer something philosophical in this thread, but it's only ever an insistence on his interpretation as the only one, and not only do I find this insistence doesn't benefit my development of Experientialism, it's also contradictory to his statements about non-absolutes.

We say life is essentially an agon because everything presents or strives to present itself as the highest standard. If a man didn't believe his own observations weren't the most superior, why would he even present it? This is healthy and as it should be.

It is your own absolutist thinking that cannot think the highest standard is one of degree, till it can be challenged. Saying I hold the most superior view so far is not the same as saying my view is the only one. Get it?

And its the firmest resistance that a strong will seeks, to be challenged by and only who doesn't esteem his own self enough would want the other to be easy and find the other's firmness a reproach.
Vanity is not self-reverence.


Quote :
His model for levels of cognition seems pretty set in stone, the same as everything else he says... If you don't agree with him, you're weak, suicidal, against everything he wants to be and thinks he is, unaware of and closed to his own inconsistencies.

Just below is you talking of setting something on solid ground... so its ok if you do it, but an absolutist and unworthy
if he does it, if he "grounds it on something solid"?
Are you serious that in a phil. forum, no one is going to present themselves as the most objective?

Some come with such biased minds and no self-reflection,, they see what they want to see and miss the irony of their own words.
And your deflection is noted.
As if,, it is to the levels of cognition post I was talking about and not his two direct posts at You, which you ignored blatantly. Honestly though, I'm a fan of this mentality than the other kind which engages with the attitude of lets agree to disagree... An indifference with a closed mind is better to engagement with a closed mind.

Quote :
I happen to find absolutes have their place - you see them as signs of Nihilism. Thing is, if you wish your words and logic to mean anything definite (to have meaningful definition), they must be grounded on something solid. The infinite regress of relatives does not have this, and being baseless is nihilistic. I guess the term "Nihilism" is easy to throw around.

Stability in the face of nihilism ["the world is essentially meaningless"] should be a product of taking the self as least-changing (through discipline, asceticism, self-demanding pride and courage), and not the world as least changing. You understand?
The sight of an empty desert and the fact that there is no god nor ground that gives me my meaning, should fill me with pleasure; the pleasure of an artist who creates taking his own self/knowing as ground and builds in tandem with greater and greater exposure to the reality of this essential meaninglessness.
He does not try to shelter the world in absolute principles and abstractly discrete it in least changing grounds, but gives "absolute" laws to himself.

It is I who needs to be firm in the face of chaos, and not chaos that has to be firmed-up before my face.



Quote :
I know that the truth is that there is truth. This is absolutely true, a tautology with necessary internal consistency, given that something meaningful can be said and demonstrably it can. The logic necessary for definite meaning leads to continuous experience as a singular absolute because there can be no nothing to separate.

This is you relying on useful discretes because "demonstrably" 1 would not even exist without abstraction. Such "truths" are human inventions for human convenience and apply to the human world and not the world at large.
If you are talking pragmatic philosophy or constructing an ontotheology, then yes. Else,

Satyr wrote:
"1+1=2

A logical proposition once one accepts, as a given, the existence of the abstractions 1/0; only once binary logic is taken as a starting proposition.
The statement is symbolic, linguistic, and only makes sense within the brain, whereas outside of it there is no reference to any one or nil.
The symbolic form is a representation of the greatest abstraction of phenomenon, and it is a human tool: a method of understanding.

A=A

A always equals A because A is a symbol referring back to itself.
This symbol taken out of a word form can now be applied, like a numerical value, to any simplification/generalization, as its representative symbol.
The letter A acquires a symbolic utility, referring back to a human abstraction; having been taken out of a word format, with a more specific definition, it becomes an all-purpose symbol that can be used to refer to any human abstraction or back to itself (tautology).

The letter A when used to refer to a phenomenon outside the human brain, it always refers to a different one, as the world is in constant flux.
It's symbolic utility is within a particular space/time simplification/generalization, which is stripped of its dimensions and made static for the sake of utility.

The symbol refers back it itself as being the same symbol, codified and abstracted so as to remain static. It refers back to the human brain, within which it has a utility.

It has no meaning outside the human brain, as when it is applied externally it always refers to a different phenomenon.
For example: "A tree" is never a reference to the same space-time continuum phenomenon, as the tree is always changing.
The "A" in this case, refers to a construct held together by memory: both the tree, as being a product of its essence as tree with its own programming directing its processes, and in the human brain which holds it together as part of the same continuum.

On a more precise level the "A" is never referencing the exact same phenomenon labelled "tree," or "dog," or "car".
The phenomenon is dynamic, as it is a part of existence which is defined as dynamic; the letter, the number, the symbol, is static.
The usage of a static symbol to refer to a dynamic process may be useful but it is never precise.

This is how reality, nature, is reduced to a code.
In time this code may construct artificial realities to contradict the real, the natural, the past.
These artificial realities only hold true within the brains indoctrinated into their logic."

Quote :
So by process of elimination, all is continuous. If it's Apollonian to experience becoming as fragmentation then this describes the departure from the consistent conception of continuity. FROM this departure point is the growth that you describe as Dionysian. But claiming this point to be the most fundamental is simply not true, because the continuous unfolding and extension of linking metaphors has no definite basis when it has nothing absolute to ground it.

That's right. It has nothing definite. No signification and that's why the world is essentially meaningless. Metaphors are continuous edges where 'two things' are both 'linked together' as well as 'transfered away'. In the Greco-Indo-Germanic world view, the world is one perpetual sacrifice; everything feeds off the other. The world has no beginning and no end.

"Spirit is life that cuts itself into life. It lives off itself and by its own torture does it increase"; self-organization towards maximal efficiency is its self-grounding in its self, that reaches a high point, grows, and then collapses, frgaments, and regathers itself again. ad. inf.

The question is then not what can ever be built on such abysmal volcanoes?, but Who would want to build on volcanoes? The ones who realizes there are only ever volcanoes....?
Meaning,,, such a question itself is Life's own consistency with itself towards the production of those types of individuals, as an expression of its will to grow towards max. becoming and attains a max. be...ing epiphenomenally, upon which as 'ground', it grows towards max. becoming... ad. inf.

Domination and the will to knowledge as a conquest of chaos, is Incorporation of more and more of the outside to one's inside as instinct, and not the elimination or the sheltering or the cocooning of the outside in false discrete absolutes. Affirming dionysian aesthetics means, I am not a believer in survival at all costs. Sheltering may protect me and I might even choose such useful absolutes as a *tool* but its not an ends for me; in safe ignorance is not how I want to live. "How much can you take on?"... see?

Aren't the insane ones who saw too much more sane than the 'sane' who live sheltered in ignorance and are the really insane?


Quote :
I don't care how cool it is to refer to your philosophy as "living dangerously", if it's un-grounded then why logically should I listen to you?

"All face the consequences of their own qualities; that is, that stupidity is its own burden, and intelliegnce its own reward." [Satyr]

Who said you should? Reality is indifferent but only in sheltering systems where you do not have to care for the natural consequences of your choices, can you afford to remain that untouched, and remaining untouched, believe that you have something soundproof.
Philosophy is not a "construct" in the sense I build around what I wish reality to be like... as though I had a preference to not say that reality is not essentially groundless...
If you do that, you are just tinkering and simply aurgasming in mind-games...

Yes, an artist builds a world, but his world is the one he dis/covered as a scientist.
Philosophy is the realm of spiritual integrity and not "might is right" - doing something just because I can do it.
When spiritual integrity *and* 'can'-aesthetics combine, then you have "philosophy as grand politics".

Quote :
I can see how the seeming strength and flexibility might appeal to the emotions, but if it's fundamentally inconsistent but claimed to be fundamental then it's wrong. Because of this I'm quite content to remain Apollonian rather than Dionysian, the latter being the one which I logically show to be the illusion rather than emotionally claiming the former to be.

You are Derrida stopping than deconstructing himself all the way. To you, "there is nothing with which to divide" has become a ground, a substance... but this is fundamentally inconsistent in degree to the more fundamental consistency that all stop-points of knowledge are our spiritual inertia, and our imposing Our limitations as the limitations on the world.
"The one who defends a castle must beware of becoming a castle himself."
"There is nothing with which to divide" is a tool for me towards ceaseless, discriminate, self-grounding, whereas it is a ground for you towards supporting a self you already are, an experience that has always existed, always present.

It is the latter position that is nihilistic... and the aesthetic, a weary one.

Quote :
Lyssa wrote:
"My experience has always existed." is what I want you to explain, not "My experience has always existed."

As I briefly mentioned before, the subject you focus on in the above quote is ever-elusive. Eliminating it because it is only ever conceivable as its proposed opposite, the object, you get "My experience has always existed."

Exactly; so where does that leave you, other than going in godelian loops? You have no grounds to say, My experience has Always existed.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Mon May 04, 2015 7:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: The nature of consciousness Mon May 04, 2015 7:04 pm

Imbesil wrote:
Some for nippled wits (we really ought to dispense with the running breast fixation here):

Then, onto some nibbled wits (I do not think of ruminators as pervs ; ))

Quote :
I decided to join Mensa because I'm vain.

Not because you needed a ground to impress? You knew what effect it would have for you more so than on others, is what I think. The more apart and distinguished you see yourself as, the more Then, you wish to belong. Its kinky, a ticklish private humour.

Quote :
I'm a social democrat because I'm a socialist who wants to find a more likely solution to Capitalism than violent revolution.

You are a hedonist who seeks and takes comfort in the strength of large numbers.

Capitalizing is a natural instinct; the problem is not capitalism but pacifist mindsets that have put a cap on thymotic releases, of masculine spiritualities and the surplus discharge of clashing agonistic creativities that capitalism encourages, that is the problem. What is "oppressive" is not capitalism, but the absence of natural selections as the system-become-code, system-usurping-reality permits no outlet, no natural culling and instead of attacking, they start consuming each other and everything like mindless zombies...

I strongly recommend that you read Bataille's  A theory of general economy, volumes I and II, if you haven't already.

What Sloterdijk described as the hedonistic morality of the Hesitator and the pacifist (btw., this does not discount the most violent revolutions were from and towards pacifism):

Sloterdijk wrote:
"The world situation today has brought about a permanent military eye-contact between two cowardly-heroic hesitaters who both arm themselves unrestrainedly to show the other side that being cowardly will remain the only sensible stance —and that it will never be able to be anything more than a hesitater. The position of the hero remains unoccupied. The world will not see any more victors. This implies a revolutionarily new kind of duel because duelers in the past regarded each other as potential heroes. Today, everyone knows about the opponent's realistic and even indispensable cowardice. The world still lives on because East and West think of each other as cowardly, highly armed Schweiks who, after all the loud- mouthed boasting has been vented, have only one thing in mind, namely, to live on this planet a little longer. But since the military process on the global level has arrived at this nadir of an heroic-cowardly hesitation, the previous system of values has been completely unhinged. The tension, at least theoretically, has dissolved into an open equivalence of all temperaments. Heroism may be quite good, but hesitation is at least as good, and cowardice is perhaps even better. The old negative has become as positive as the old positive has become negative. On the summit of military escalation, then, has the real fight become superfluous? The military alone cannot answer this question, especially not in an age that everywhere has proclaimed the (illusory) primacy of politics over the military.

Each side assumes that only a balance of progressive terror can secure so-called peace. This conviction is simultaneously realistic and absolutely paranoid; realistic because it is adapted to the interaction of paranoid systems; paranoid because in the long run and essentially, it is completely unrealistic. In this system of games it is thus realistic to be mistrustful to the point of a constant state of alert; at the same time, mistrust sustains the pressure to permanently continue the buildup of arms, more weapons could obviate mistrust. Modern politics has accustomed us to looking on a mas- sive folie a deux as the quintessence of realistic consciousness. The way in which two or more powers, in intricately thought-out interaction, drive each other crazy provides contemporary human beings with their model of reality. Those who accommodate themselves to this modern-day society, as it is, accommodate themselves in the last instance to this paranoid realism. And because there is probably no one who, at least subliminally and in "clear moments," does not understand this, everyone is caught up in modern military cynicism —if they do not expressly and consciously resist it. Those who resist have to, today and probably for a good while longer, put up with being defamed as dreamers, as people who, although perhaps led by good intentions ("The Sermon on the Mount"), have nonetheless begun to flee from reality. But this is not true. The concept of "reality," like no other concept, is used falsely. We must first flee into reality out of the systematized paranoia of our everyday world.

...How can subjects of power, sick with mistrust but nonetheless realistic, break down their destructiveness and their projections of hostility as long as the interaction of these systems until now has proved that weakness in the face of the opponent has always been exploited as an opportunity to strike again? Each thinks of itself as an essentially defensive power and projects aggressive potentials onto the other. In such a structure, relaxation of tension is a priori impossible. Under the conditions of the mania for making enemies it remains "realistic" to stay tense and ready for battle. Neither power can show any weakness without provoking the other's strength. With never-ending exertion the opponents must work for a small terrain on which something like self-limitation becomes possible, that is, a weakening of the consciousness of being strong, a relaxing of the feeling of being inflexible. This tiny terrain of self-limitation is, to date, the only bridgehead of reason in the military-cynical process. Everything will depend on its growth. For human beings it was difficult enough to learn how to fight, and everything they so far have achieved they have done so as fighters who have accepted challenges and through them developed into themselves (see Toynbee's concept of "challenge"). But to learn how not to fight would be even more difficult because it would be something completely new. Future military history will be written on a completely new front-there, where the struggle to desist struggling will be carried out. The decisive blows will be those that are not struck. Under them our strategic subjectivities and our defensive identities will collapse." [Critique of Cynicism]


Quote :
I'm an anti-capitalist because I find the form of competition it relies on petty and intellectually dishonest - I resent having to demean myself by having to play the game.

I do not confuse natural habitats with artificial environments.

David Hawkes wrote:
"The reason money cannot reproduce is that it is not an essence in itself, but an expression of the value of other essences."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And to take a medium, a media for the im-mediate, as an actual present, as a 'thing' is an unnatural abstraction.

Satyr wrote:
"And the most powerful form of magic known to the modern...Money.
Alchemical transformation of one element into another through the medium, the mystical symbol, the code.
It, too, measured using numbers, because the transformative code is 1/0.
One, and multiplications of it, is the God.
Nil is what balances God with the Satanic principle.

Both participate in the Nihilistic paradigm.
Each the opposite of the other, and both nullifying the real.
The power of money is in how it can make others indoctrinated, assimilated, into its "logic", do things - act.
Money does not only transform resources into code, to be transformed into another kind of resource, but it can be transformed into pride, honor, love, or any human, all too human, intangibles.
It's trasformative power is endless within the meme, and those completely integrated within it.

Everything is compensated for, with money.
Money representing effort in time.
It's what produces the resource naturally, reduced to the immediacy of the talisman, the coin, bank note.
Banks are a kind of energy refinery.
They store symbolic energies.

Money, because it is symbols, abstraction, can now bridge time/space.
It can represents more than just resources in the present.
Decades, centuries of effort, energy, can be reduced to its magical symbolism.

It, too, is a detaching from reality."

According to Baudrillard the traditional Marxist frame of viewing capital as a production of labour is now displaced by capital determining labour.

Baudrillard wrote:
"The same blind determinism-in-several-instances leads to the same kind of incomprehension of magic:
"For primitive man, labor is experienced and thought as the interior and indivisible unity of magic and technical knowledge."

In other words, the Trobrianders "know" that it is necessary to work in their gardens, but they think that this work is not enough and that magic is indispensable in order to guarantee the harvest. Magic is basically only insurance on the productive forces of nature! "By his magical practices, man thinks he can insert himself in the natural order's chain of necessary causalities."
In nature he sees forces "that he spontaneously endows with human attributes." He conceives of it "by analogy with society, as a network of intentional relations" where the rituals and magical practices were designed to underhandedly influence these forces, etc.

This vulgar rewriting of magic is always dominated by the prejudice of a separated nature and man, a separated nature and society then rethought "by analogy" and by the image of a primitive (naive-mischievous, rational-irrational) who compels nature to produce by transforming it through labor or manipulating it through signs.
Projected here is the worst Western psychology, our own melange of rational pragmatism and superstitious obsession. It is hard to imagine for what "mysterious reason," as Godelier says, control of forces could coexist with a rational operation, if not by his own magic of "the interior and indivisible unity" above. It is not true for archaic agriculture, as Vernant demonstrates in Travail et nature dans la Gréce ancienne: nor, a fortiori, for the primitive hunter or farmer. Like the Greek peasant, the primitive "contributes much less to the harvest by his pains than by the periodic repetition of rites and festivals."

Neither land nor effort is a "factor of production." Effort is not "invested labor power" recovered many times over in value at the end of a production process. It is in a different form as full of ritual as the exchange-gift lost and given without economic calculation of return and compensation. And the fruits of the harvest are not its "equivalent." As by an excess, they maintain exchange (the symbolic coherence of the group with the gods and nature). Moreover, part of the harvest will immediately be returned as first-fruits in the process of sacrifice and consumption in order to preserve this symbolic movement. Above all, it must never be interrupted because nothing is ever taken from nature without being returned to it. Primitive man does not chop one tree or trace one furrow without "appeasing the spirits" with a counter-gift or sacrifice. This taking and returning, giving and receiving, is essential. It is always an actualization of symbolic exchange through gods. The final product is never aimed for. There is neither behavior aiming to produce useful values for the group through technical means, nor behavior aiming at the same end by magical means. (This is really why there is no scarcity. Scarcity only exists in our own linear perspective of the accumulation of goods. Here it suffices that the cycle of gifts and counter-gifts is not interrupted.) And it is simply absurd to define primitive activity as abstract subjectivity (utility) or objective transformation (labor or suppletory magic).

Magic in the sense that we understand it, as a direct objective appropriation of natural forces, is a concept only negatively determined by our rational concept of labor. To articulate magic and labor in one "interior and indivisible unity" only seals their disjunction. It ultimately disqualifies primitive symbolic practices as irrational in opposition to rational labor.

Marx says, "All mythology masters and dominates and shapes the forces of nature in and through imagination, hence it disappears as soon as man gains mastery over the forces of nature...: is Achilles possible side by side with powder and lead? Or is the Iliad at all compatible with the printing press and steam press?" This crushing argument masks the entire problematic of the symbolic under a functionalist finalist retrospective view of mythology (and magic) in which it only awaits man's rational and technical domination in order to disappear." [The Mirror of Production]

Money in ancient times was based on confidence, now our confidence is based on money - money being a code detached from any real tangible standard and replaced by any code, any value that is made to precede the emergence of the object. Desires and wants and value are manufactured first which sets labour to work, rather than labour determining value, or creating demand-markets. The slow detachment from the real leads to a simulacra, where what is processed in repetetion is the simulation of that desire which creates the desiring subject. Baudrillard's main point is individual choice is a myth; the very choice is being manufactured by the very production of codes that determine and reinforce communal standards against which tastes are then measured, compared, disseminated as 'unique', 'freedom of choice', 'true individuality', 'happiness', etc.;

Baudrillard wrote:
"When everything is political, nothing is political any more, the word itself is meaningless. When everything is sexual, nothing is sexual any more, and sex loses its determi­nants. When everything is aesthetic, nothing is beautiful or ugly any more, and art itself disappears. This paradoxical state of affairs, which is simultaneously the complete actualization of an idea, the perfect realization of the whole tendency of modernity, and the negation of that idea and that tendency, their annihilation by virtue of their very success, by virtue of their extension beyond their own bounds - this state of affairs is epitomized by a single figure: the transpolitical, the transsexual, the transaesthetic." [The Transparency of Evil]

Quote :
Whilst I have little faith in the demos, I enjoy teamwork and the notion of de-centralised involvement in big-picture economic decisions,

A pragmatic hedonist is what you are.

Quote :
and whilst a few people by now have insisted I'm a natural leader, I don't see it nor do I have any illusions that one day I'll be some kind of dictator or person of power beyond that involved in fair and direct democracy. If I'm not going to be on top of the power structure, I see no reason to be pro-hierarchy.

How honest; I'm charmed.

This is like a philosopher saying for example, if I cannot attain to this truth, then I'd rather adapt my limitations as the philosophy. I wonder what the world we'd be living in today be like, if N. thought, because he could not be the overman himself, he decided not to champion the aesthetics and the direction of the overman...

Its more important to do the right thing, than to do things rightly.

On the latter path, you get China. Maybe you are not far off... experientialism is already daoistic.


Quote :
I would rather master philosophy.

So modest... aish...

Quote :
I'm not anti- or pro-immigration, I'm pro- whatever works best without unnecessary cruelty.

I dont believe in unnecessary violence myself, but my kind of peace is not one that is enforced.
The "whatever work best" is a loose end...  you do not finish with the "towards what"...?

The ideal of human as the humane and humanity as the most efficient performativity?

Quote :
I'm perceptive enough to notice that people of different race look different and have different genes, but regard culture to be a much more significant factor in determining the relative merits and flaws in mixing up the gene-pool and co-existing inter-racially. I'm anti- poor argument and infidelity to empirical facts when it comes to this issue.

So everything is relative, or you have no "objective" racial pride, that your empiricism has allowed so far, yes?
Are IQ differences negligible?
Are Mensa scores mere statistical validation of atomic inidiidualities or do they record objective race hierarchies?
As a Mensa member, do you value intelligence as a key trait for racial standards or do they become "discretes" conveniently at this juncture?

Quote :
None of this, of course, has anything to do with continuous experience. It's all a particular discrete interpretation of it that I seem to like the best, and which seems to be most useful to me at the moment. I could quite easily change it all if I see good reason to.

I told d63, rational pragmatists are the other side of de Sadeean sadists; he couldn't make the connection, maybe you will.

When pleasure becomes the highest good, then the vantage of advantage is the bubble that abstracts and enframes reality. Philosophy becomes a game of adjusting gears within pre-set mechanics below a polished hood ; )

Quote :

Lyssa wrote:
Are there samples on youtube?

Somewhat related to this topic, I do not evaluate musicianship by any specific finished static products. I define a musician as someone who is able to emotionally connect with the products of his or her instrument of music (which can be made through any art form) in a continuous feedback loop where separating lines dissolve. You don't need music (or meditation or hallucinogenic drugs) to perceive continuous experience as it is, but there is an inevitable point of entry through musicianship and these other things. But logically, you just need consistency, which is far simpler. In short, no I don't have any samples of my musicianship on youtube.

I agree, and that'd hold for any artist of passion; not just a musician... a painter and a cook as well, etc.
The art of living.

Quote :
Seems you can't get enough of me after all. I'm sure it's only so you have more to attack, but...

But you'd rather prefer a handshake?

I agree. Why attack, when you wriggle all the same with a feather-touch...? Wink

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The nature of consciousness Wed May 13, 2015 7:52 pm

Lyssa wrote:
What is discrete about what I or Satyr are advocating? What "foundation" have I even given, when I've been saying there can be no abs. foundation, no substance, no ground,, which is exactly why you even find me nihilistic...
In what discrete am I founding the fact that the occurrence of discretes themselves is how life self-organizes and what life Is?

I hate to do this because it sounds so cliché, but the complete "absence of foundation/substance/ground" and ubiquitous relativity.... is an absolute. Realising this myself, whilst formerly preferring your approach, I reduced all to existence in the abstract and experience in the concrete. The absolute relativist is like a thief, dependent upon the existence of others who first stand their ground and found their constructions so that only then can the thief pick them apart and steal from them their legitimacy. It's a great way to perpetually evade grounds to be disproven, having never established such grounds in the first place - this is what I find to be nihilistic. Its strength is in a parasitic flexibility.

Lyssa wrote:
We say life is essentially an agon because everything presents or strives to present itself as the highest standard. If a man didn't believe his own observations weren't the most superior, why would he even present it? This is healthy and as it should be.

Life as an agon is an interpretation. It may be an agon to you, it can be interpreted otherwise, I am sure you prefer to think of it as an agon and I can see the appeal, it's certainly a sign of individual health though not always a sign of communal health. Communal health is heightened in times of communal threat because it prevails. Individualist inter-competition is a sign of decadent richness and frustration, resulting in turning against one another with the ironic effect of weakening one other compared to if everyone was more communally minded. Either way, neither is a fundamental reflection on life - both are discrete interpretations, spawned of their own particular value sets.

My "absolutist thinking" is to transcend the circumstantial. Satyr hardly presents his "most superior view so far" as something that can be bettered, and he reacts particularly childishly when it is. You might possess that capacity but I don't think you realise your superiority to him. He has made his absolute stand of relativism as an authority and perhaps you feel you've learned from him, I'm not even convinced you're a different person to him - if not literally then figuratively.

Contrast this with my approach of admitted and demonstrated absolutism. It's not that absolutism is wrong or right, but how you back it up and how you present your absolutism. No deflection, just consistency, the ultimate grounds of this optional philosophy I call "Experientialism".

I agree that the "let's agree to disagree" attitude is unsatisfying. I don't want peace with someone with whom I am not intellectually at peace, this violates my grounds of consistency. My approach is admittedly tyrannical. But from my minimal tyranny I will allow deviance, but only with explicit reference to my foundation. I found the existence-at-all of an empty desert and find pleasure in myself and others creating what they will within it. There is meaning and knowledge but only in reference to the fundamental consistency that I have narrowed down. Get it?

Lyssa wrote:
Satyr wrote:
A=A

A always equals A because A is a symbol referring back to itself.

A=A is not as identical as just "A". Otherwise the first A is different from the second A against the first A is compared etc. A is continuous with itself, and no discrete syntax is provided in order to confuse this.

Lyssa wrote:
That's right. It has nothing definite. No signification and that's why the world is essentially meaningless.

Nihilist. I know what you're trying to say, and like I'm saying it only applies to existence supposed to be fundamentally discrete. Within a non-eternal snapshot, this perspective makes optimal though incomplete sense. It seems more sheltered to choose this snapshot where all things are separate than my continuous everythingness all-at-once.

Lyssa wrote:
You are Derrida stopping than deconstructing himself all the way. To you, "there is nothing with which to divide" has become a ground, a substance... but this is fundamentally inconsistent in degree to the more fundamental consistency that all stop-points of knowledge are our spiritual inertia, and our imposing Our limitations as the limitations on the world.

It depends if you regard stopping as weakness or strength. Satyr stops at "I am right", I stop at "consistency is right" and I am laying grounded claim to consistency. I win, and thus am stronger. It's easy to expose him as weaker but because of his spiritual inertia he will continue blindly anyway, and this is why I have no time for him. I am weary, yes, of the inconsistent. Does that make me old? Unhealthy? I agree that bouncing around relativistically is youthful.

Lyssa wrote:
You have no grounds to say, My experience has Always existed.

The "my" is a grammatical artifact for the purposes of communication. There is experience, neither fundamentally mine nor yours.

Lyssa wrote:
Imbesil wrote:
Some for nippled wits (we really ought to dispense with the running breast fixation here):

Then, onto some nibbled wits (I do not think of ruminators as pervs ; ))

I am a perve. That I ruminate just allows me to nibble your wits in order to *ehem* penetrate your thoughts.

My Mensa membership is a great excuse to impress others but it's not something I flash around for the vast majority of my time which is spent amongst the majority of people who would only resent me for it, if they even knew what it was. It's not as useful a qualification is it might be coveted to be. It does tickle though, to use it when it is appreciated.

Lyssa wrote:
A pragmatic hedonist is what you are.

Thank you, that wasn't so hard was it? I am a pragmatist when what I am dealing with is trivial to me: I would just rather get it over and done with. To what I enjoy as challenging to me, that is my hedonism.

Lyssa wrote:
Its more important to do the right thing, than to do things rightly.

On the latter path, you get China. Maybe you are not far off... experientialism is already daoistic.

Then I get China. Taoism has been an influence on me insofar that it gave a form of validity to the thoughts I was already putting together at a much younger age. Philosophy I have read has almost always been a validator to me rather than an original inspiration. Nietzsche is perhaps the only mind to have thought where I have not, and as such it is only really him who I have read. Other philosophy has only frustrated me in its limitations.

Doing things rightly according to the wrong tables is weak. The weakness of doing the right thing is the imaginative and intellectual limitations of the intuitive judge of "the right thing", though at least this is a better standard than the former when wrong. But finding the right foundation is the solution to both of those problems.

Lyssa wrote:
I told d63, rational pragmatists are the other side of de Sadeean sadists; he couldn't make the connection, maybe you will.

I always preferred the von Sacher-Masoch story anyway.

Lyssa wrote:
Philosophy becomes a game of adjusting gears within pre-set mechanics below a polished hood ; )

This must be the most intellectual innuendo I've ever heard.

Lyssa wrote:
I agree, and that'd hold for any artist of passion; not just a musician... a painter and a cook as well, etc.
The art of living.

I am glad you understand.

Lyssa wrote:
But you'd rather prefer a handshake?

You dirty harlot Wink I don't even know you, or your ILP pseudonym. I do wriggle easily, I am rather sensitive and enjoy being so.
Back to top Go down
OhFortunae

avatar

Gender : Male Scorpio Posts : 2478
Join date : 2013-10-26
Age : 23
Location : Land of Dance and Song

PostSubject: Re: The nature of consciousness Thu May 14, 2015 1:47 pm

Resent you for such a superficial test; I searched it because of your bragging and did the online test for 24 minutes; though they say the ''end-test'' and the online test will not have the same outcome and the label of being a member goes out for the so called 2%, the result stated that I belong to ''top 10%''. They simply ask for answers upon pattern recognition.
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://plus.google.com/u/0/109705167311303906720/posts
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The nature of consciousness Fri May 22, 2015 7:09 pm

OhFortunae wrote:
Resent you for such a superficial test; I searched it because of your bragging and did the online test for 24 minutes; though they say the ''end-test'' and the online test will not have the same outcome and the label of being a member goes out for the so called 2%, the result stated that I belong to ''top 10%''. They simply ask for answers upon pattern recognition.

It's interesting how people think I brag about my "superficial" qualification. Apparently mentioning it online proactively only once on a different forum a long time ago in order to ask if anyone else is in it and found it useful, is bragging. Since then it's been in every single one of Satyr's posts about me, without exception I believe, and I've responded reactively to such mentions - even understating it and trying to put it in perspective but no, I'm still bragging. In response to one of Lyssa's comments, I said yes I've mentioned it to people irl who I knew would not find it to be bragging and even taken a little satisfaction from their congratulations.
It seems to be that if you have a meritocratic qualification that is societally respected, you are bragging as soon as you mention it, however reasonably and/or modestly. Perhaps this is what those who haven't yet been eligible for any such qualification would do if they achieved such a thing, and thus this is projected. It seems more likely that it's resented by anyone so far excluded, and until then they feel threatened and must reduce the qualification to absurdity in order to protect their own ego. Yes it's just pattern recognition, that totally unimportant skill... yes there are other forms of pattern recognition that it doesn't test and yes there are other important things besides pattern recognition. So calm down.

Other comments have just simply stated "I can't see the value in your philosophy therefore your qualification is worthless". Not only is this a non-sequitur and persistently backed up by straw men, understanding is two-way. Not just a reflection on me. I am relieved Lyssa has been the first to even attempt to reconcile this issue and refine it. Anyone else would do far better to follow this example.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: The nature of consciousness Fri May 22, 2015 7:58 pm

Coming from a forum of idiotic blowhards, as you have, it's easy to include you among the likes of a 160 IQ shit-Stain, an almost MENSA Maj, an I am mean and lean Primal Rage, an I discovered a new philosophy Fixed Cross, a numerologist who has, among other things, cured cancer, solved immortality and proven God, HatingMeIsEasier, an I solved Morality and proven that it is Objective Ecmandu.... shall I go on?

Plus, getting under your skin and teaching you a lesson on the costs of mind-farting was a pleasure.

Here, we are accused of being a cult because we agree, in general, about what the world is like, but that ILP level of wacky we cannot match.
We never said we are an ideal, or an overman, or that we are saying something new, unique, or that it is something that has never been said before.
In fact, we say that what we are saying is readily available, it is apparent, it is accessible to all as reality, and can be tested on your own, and that it is old, but forgotten, denied, dismissed, for psychological reasons.
Forgotten because of the Nihilistic dis-ease, infecting Indo-European man.

Aletheia... as in we uncover what has been concealed, and not that we claim an absolute "truth".
The Hellenic aletheia, not the Roman veritas - See Heidegger.
We awaken the sleeper to a world that was always before him.

We claim that we perceive patterns, not an absolute, because we deny absolutes.
A superiority we claim, in clarity, honesty, of mind, courage, nobility, understood in the way we defined it.
We claim elitism, an aristocracy of spirit.   

Everything I've said you need not take my word on it.
See, look, for yourself.
Test my views.
Reflect on them.
Observe the world on your own, before you open a book.

Challenge them, but only after you've understood what is being said, and not with stupidities and bullshit you pull from your arse.
I will not deal with some moron that comes here with no clue as to what I am actually saying, challenging me with strawmen and then demanding I take him seriously...only to run away declaring victory, or that we've been exposed by him.
I'm too old for retards.
Got better things to do.  
Most of these turds do not even know what I am saying and why.
Do you think I have the interest and the time to deal with some simpleton who projects his deepest anxieties and fears upon me, associating me with some idiot they found easy to dismiss?
That is why they always attack personally, emotionally, and I reciprocate in kind.
I enjoy that, as well.
Attacking Satyr on what you think he said, or what you think he is, because he sounds like some other, will get you nowhere.  

Being considered a Randyan is but the latest retardation, and a moral objectivist when I deny morality as more than a survival tool which is never universal and means nothing without a reference to a motive, an ideal, an objective, a worldly goal.
Atlas Shrugged
Although, I did consider defending Rand against this chimpanzee, just for fun.
Then I thought about the wasted time, and that I do not like, or agree with Rand.

I've also been accused of being a Republican, a Nazi, a Fascist...read Evola on that.
That blowhard braggarts, with nothing to show for it, accuse me of pretending to be an alpha-male, or an uberman, only exposing them and how they think, and how clueless they are about what my views are.
Ironic is what it is.
How I make them feel is what I am.

Uberman being some caricature of a Nazi, "Might is Right" Neanderthal, as the typical Modern understands it...brainwashed through decades of edumucation.
Uberman is an ideal.
They don't even know what Nietzsche meant by the term, before the two Jews caricatured the idea and turned the concept into some superhero good guy.
They have no clue.
Do you?

The material is here, for you to read, or to ignore.
All the words defined and connected to the world - the noumena referring to phenomena, in past and present.
References to other thinkers are used as supportive elements, not as evidence.

Clarifications have been provided, by Lyssa in particular.

Challenge what is written and now what you think is written...and do not expect to be treated with cotton gloves, no matter how stupid your opinions might be.
Base the challenge on what is apparent, perceptible, sensible, sensual...not noetic, abstractions with no connection to the world, or linguistic symbol only representing the world.  
Memetic selection, as a extension of natural selection...here we do battle to sharpen our minds and the ideas they produce.
Here we live by the Spartan code.

Prove yourself in battle, or get lost.

Less is more.
We do not care for popularity and quantities.
The nihilists can have those.
They always have had the numbers.

Having said that, I also enjoy retards doing the work for me, and thrashing about trying to hurt my feelings.
A vain pleasure.  

 

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
OhFortunae

avatar

Gender : Male Scorpio Posts : 2478
Join date : 2013-10-26
Age : 23
Location : Land of Dance and Song

PostSubject: Re: The nature of consciousness Sat May 23, 2015 7:19 am

Imbesil wrote:
OhFortunae wrote:
Resent you for such a superficial test; I searched it because of your bragging and did the online test for 24 minutes; though they say the ''end-test'' and the online test will not have the same outcome and the label of being a member goes out for the so called 2%, the result stated that I belong to ''top 10%''. They simply ask for answers upon pattern recognition.

It's interesting how people think I brag about my "superficial" qualification. Apparently mentioning it online proactively only once on a different forum a long time ago in order to ask if anyone else is in it and found it useful, is bragging. Since then it's been in every single one of Satyr's posts about me, without exception I believe, and I've responded reactively to such mentions - even understating it and trying to put it in perspective but no, I'm still bragging. In response to one of Lyssa's comments, I said yes I've mentioned it to people irl who I knew would not find it to be bragging and even taken a little satisfaction from their congratulations.
It seems to be that if you have a meritocratic qualification that is societally respected, you are bragging as soon as you mention it, however reasonably and/or modestly. Perhaps this is what those who haven't yet been eligible for any such qualification would do if they achieved such a thing, and thus this is projected. It seems more likely that it's resented by anyone so far excluded, and until then they feel threatened and must reduce the qualification to absurdity in order to protect their own ego. Yes it's just pattern recognition, that totally unimportant skill... yes there are other forms of pattern recognition that it doesn't test and yes there are other important things besides pattern recognition. So calm down.

Imbesil wrote:

My Mensa membership is a great excuse to impress others but it's not something I flash around for the vast majority of my time which is spent amongst the majority of people who would only resent me for it, if they even knew what it was. It's not as useful a qualification is it might be coveted to be. It does tickle though, to use it when it is appreciated.

To recognise patterns without courage, or to cherry pick patterns in accordance with your ideology / education (filtering), is like a soldier afraid to point out the traitor to his kin; or like a male too afraid to acknowledge, based upon the outer manifestation, that 'this and such are ugly', denying instinct. There is more then just being able to recognise patterns, one should also dare and be able to apply it in everyday life in all kinds of fields.
So far your accentuation upon your self-proclaimed ''achievement''; believe me, to be exluded from your kind I can only encourage
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://plus.google.com/u/0/109705167311303906720/posts
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The nature of consciousness Sun May 24, 2015 8:03 am

OhFortunae wrote:
Imbesil wrote:
My Mensa membership is a great excuse to impress others but it's not something I flash around for the vast majority of my time which is spent amongst the majority of people who would only resent me for it, if they even knew what it was. It's not as useful a qualification is it might be coveted to be. It does tickle though, to use it when it is appreciated.

You embolden the first half of a sentence to back up your point, perhaps in the hope of attracting attention away from the latter half that explains that whilst it's a great excuse, I don't take it unless it's not bragging. I said in my last post that I've "taken a little satisfaction from their congratulations", and why not? Again, it's not bragging to be pleased with your achievements, it's bragging to flaunt them with the intention of trying to make others feel inferior relative to you. As explained and demonstrated, I do neither of these things, however the fact that anyone might think that I am in spite of the evidence, is consistent with my theory that even the mention of a meritocratic qualification makes them feel inferior if they don't yet have it too, and if they are made to feel inferior "then that must be due to bragging".
Another example of that very same abductive reasoning that I consistently identify on this forum.

You repeat my point that there are other important things besides pattern recognition, as though I had not already said as such.
You're so intent on finding something to reduce the qualification that you have to manufacture an assumed lack of courage that must accompany it because... it's necessarily cowardly to pass a test? Or if you have then you necessarily don't use it/apply the same skills to real life? You have to conclude to yourself that you didn't want to be in the top 2% in terms of IQ anyway: "believe me, to be ex(c)luded from your kind I can only encourage."

Your fallacious arguments and transparent ego-protecting gymnastics really are an abysmal show, sorry. D-

I felt it permissible to use you as an example of an aspect of consciousness, given the title of this thread. "The nature of consciousness" is something I find to be limited by the defenses and abilities of the one musing about such things.
Back to top Go down
OhFortunae

avatar

Gender : Male Scorpio Posts : 2478
Join date : 2013-10-26
Age : 23
Location : Land of Dance and Song

PostSubject: Re: The nature of consciousness Sun May 24, 2015 8:42 am

Sure I did repeat you, you are very important; I did not amplify my statement that: They simply ask for answers upon pattern recognition.

I mean: One may wery well read statistics and differentiate between this and such; but to for example not acknowledge a correlation between race, crime and genes while the statistics and scientific researches say there is, is cowardice and thus by passing such a test in these times I do not see as imporant qualifications besides that it is a prove that one can understand the content in accordance to current interpretation and one's potential to ''grow'', again, in accordance to current interpretation.

I don't have any government approved degrees at all, no ''qualifications'' written on ''official'' documents; hence, for the average, I am not qualified to make a judgment about this and that. The State approved, documented''qualifications'' are already reduced, I don't have a need to do that besides pointing out that it already is an abstract quality, reduced to the government's ideals and filtering.

One may read patterns very well, but if it is only on paper, and to not understand anything else besides such, is not something I see as a valuable quality.
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://plus.google.com/u/0/109705167311303906720/posts
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: The nature of consciousness Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:14 pm

Drome wrote:
Not sure if this qualifies as real "news"  - but I have seen it in my facebook feed for a few days now.

Nothing new has been researched, except testing of IQs pherhaps.


Can you think without a brain?

Is the brain really neccessary? How much of it do we really need, and what parts?



I have seen a video on that as a case for new age reincarnationists:



Perhaps the Minimally Conscious State activates some repressed memories in that 5% area of that hydrocephalic... no idea...

When your definition of consciousness becomes loose, you can equate the whole body to A sort of consciousness and then argue the brain is not really necessary, etc.

More word games...

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14631
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: The nature of consciousness Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:32 pm

The cells have memory stored in their organization, directing their processes.
Cells are replaced constantly and so new cells in the human body contain the effects of the human organisms experiences up to the point of the cell's production.

Plants function using this cellular memory, but with no brain to process the data collectively, it has no ability to prepare, project, or to be conscious of self.
There is data pointing to plant recognition of its own offspring and its aid to plants it has seeded.
If it happens then it must happen on the level of automatic re-activity - the same mechanism which helps the plant (re)cognize elements in the soil it needs.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Positive Pollyanna

avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 24
Join date : 2016-08-20
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: The nature of consciousness Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:50 pm

A good read. The quandary of consciousness. No angle is perfection.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The nature of consciousness

Back to top Go down
 
The nature of consciousness
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» The nature of consciousness
» Largest Single Completed Contract Similar In Nature To The Contract To Be Bid
» Nature Spirits in photographs
» How important is nature?
» Citta -- The Mind's Essential Knowing Nature

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: