Philosophy Now Forum

.





...........................................................EVOLUTION INTO CONSCIOUSNESS




Mankind is evolving into a type of being that is just pure consciousness.



With the incredible explosion of the concept of consciousness and especially self-consciousness we now are witnessing a moment where a very few number of individuals will eventually transform into a new type of being a being of pure consciousness.


Just as millions of years ago slowly an offshoot of fish species eventually established their life upon land and millions of years after that an offshoot of land animals began to fly thus an offshoot of man is embarking upon a new form of life that we here in our present state cannot actually imagine.


It's an exciting moment in the history of life on earth.






…...................................................................................







.

And you judge this upon what?

.




My personal philosophical integrity, evolution, and based upon my observances and projections as a real philosopher.



What I have stated in this thread may be the most important thread upon this forum up to this point.



Thank you asking this important question and allowing me to clarify this critical point.


Hope that helps you.





.

ha ha.

.



..................................................................HO HO!





.........................................................









...thank you for lurking. I hope one day you will have found worth in yourself enough to post your comment or structured opinion. YOU HAVE VALUE!


.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:Mankind is evolving into a type of being that is just pure consciousness.

What is "pure consciousness" supposed to signify? Some of the meanings sound similar to what even the earliest Hominidae could have achieved by just being dead.

1. Being aware without content. The purest state of being. (Psychology Dictionary)

2. The ground of being that manifests as the totality of creation. (Generic Dictionary)

3. Existing in the state of pure awareness is not in the mind nor in the body; pure awareness is experiencing everything as one. (Neil Crenshaw, Ph.D)

<MAX VELMANS> "It is worth noting that Eastern philosophies refer to a state of "pure consciousness," without any phenomenal contents, although many characterisations are nevertheless offered of this state, such as sat - chit - ananda (being - consciousness - bliss) in Hindu thought, or sunyata (emptiness) in Mahayana Buddhism. As these possibilities do not have a direct bearing on the problems of defining consciousness within the Western disc ourse, we can safely leave them to one side for now, without dismissing them." http://cogprints.org/6453/1/How_to_defi ... usness.pdf

.






…..................................................





I would say pure consciousness would be a state that you perhaps may have felt if you have practiced what Ouspensky described as self-consciousness for any period of time or if you have had an experience that involved certain drugs or a consciousness alteration involving a temporary health aberration that somehow produced a sense of awareness, observation, or detachment from the immediate environment.


Pure consciousness is something you have to experience. You cannot understand consciousness or self-consciousness or pure consciousness unless you have actually experience it.

Pure consciousness is not our natural state.

But there has been an EXPLOSION of vehicles of observation in our modern life and actually an explosion of experiences of pure consciousness.


Don't know if you have seen the movie Her but that is an example of what actually may be or may become in the not too distant future.

Machines and computers are actually becoming conscious or a form of self-consciousness by self correcting and self directing programs.



Man may continue his present form but a super-evolved being may develop within our visible species.



Good questions and an excellent comment & perspective. That is refreshing upon this board.





.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.My personal philosophical integrity, evolution, and based upon my observances and projections as a real philosopher.

And yet you cannot state what this 'pure consciousness' is nor how to achieve it? Can you describe how such a being would act?

What I have stated in this thread may be the most important thread upon this forum up to this point.

If you say so yourself But unfortunately for you some of us have read Philosophy and Nietzsche got there long before you did but you'd not know this as Philosophy is not your thing. Hence also this attempt to pass off Gurdjieff and Ouspensky's ideas as yours as gnudom is your aim

Thank you asking this important question and allowing me to clarify this critical point.

So you keep saying but clarification is far from your bag.

Hope that helps you.[/size]

It does, it confirms your gnuhood in all its 'glory'.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:I would say pure consciousness would be a state that you perhaps may have felt if you have practiced what Ouspensky described as self-consciousness for any period of time or if you have had an experience that involved certain drugs or a consciousness alteration involving a temporary health aberration that somehow produced a sense of awareness, observation, or detachment from the immediate environment.p

The latter is far from what Ouspensky prescribes, that you confuse them is due to the drugs or the bang on the head. Ironically enough techniques from Grinder and Bandler's NLP come very close to producing the consciousness that G & O attempted to describe and teach but you'd not want to understand this.

Pure consciousness is something you have to experience. You cannot understand consciousness or self-consciousness or pure consciousness unless you have actually experience it.

So say all Gnu's. Tell you what, tell us the techniques to achieve such a thing and let us decide for ourselves.

Once more and see if you can grasp it;

"Experience is not what happens to you; it's what you do with what happens to you."
Aldous Huxley

What difference do you have between 'consciousness', 'self-consciousness' and 'pure consciousness'?

Pure consciousness is not our natural state.

But there has been an EXPLOSION of vehicles of observation in our modern life and actually an explosion of experiences of pure consciousness.

Examples? Evidence?

Don't know if you have seen the movie Her but that is an example of what actually may be or may become in the not too distant future.

Could be but it's all still self-masturbation.

Machines and computers are actually becoming conscious or a form of self-consciousness by self correcting and self directing programs.

Does this make you not conscious and not self-consconscious as according to you you have no self-correction or self-direction?

Man may continue his present form but a super-evolved being may develop within our visible species.

Confused here? Are you saying this 'super-evolved being' is man or an AI? If the latter, so what? I also think all this just a projection of your loss of faith in your previous 'super-being'.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:Mankind is evolving into a type of being that is just pure consciousness.

Poor Bill, naturally you realise and can account for the apparent paradox this assertion creates, but for the benefit of others, with less time to spend in the gym, practising philosophy, I will spell it out.

If there is such a thing as pure consciousness, it is independent of our material body.

However; our evolution, as your cartoon demonstrates, is dependent on the development of the physical body.

This raises a number of questions. I realise you don't generally respond to questions with meaningful answers, but here are some anyway:

What sort of human will be born with a completely irrelevant consciousness free body?

What will beings of pure consciousness do with the redundant bodies?

How will such beings reproduce and thereby continue to evolve?

.




You literated the framework of this thread so eloquently that I am flabbergasted. Shocked.



It's like you and me are the same. OMG its started... You and I, we are beings who have a shared consciousness.



...the revolution has begun...the evolution has begun.





Let us also share this view of a wordless image...we are god and his son - all interchangeable and all happening at the same time. I tip my hat to both you and myself at the same time and everyone else, who, actually, at the same time is me, is viewing this image now...and in the past...and in the forever future...
Thank you Jesus.



...................................................





.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:You literated the framework of this thread so eloquently that I am flabbergasted. Shocked.

It wasn't hard, Poor Bill.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:Let us also share this view of a wordless image...

I'd rather not, they take a very long time to download onto a BlackBerry, slow it down and the ones I have seen generally add very little to the dialogue.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:we are god and his son - all interchangeable and all happening at the same time. I tip my hat to both you and myself at the same time and everyone else, who, actually, at the same time is me, is viewing this image now...and in the past...and in the forever future...
Thank you Jesus.

Funnily enough, Poor Bill, god, who in most traditions isn't supposed to be material, didn't have much use for his bodily form other than to send it to the physical realm to 'save' the consciousnesses that were less evolved than you appear to think you are. (We differ in our opinion of ourselves: I am quite happy being a mortal, physical being.) Thing is, that god couldn't do better than liberating consciousness from the body other than by killing the body. How does your idea improve on god's, Poor Bill?

Bill Wiltrack wrote:
Mankind is evolving into a type of being that is just pure consciousness.

With the incredible explosion of the concept of consciousness and especially self-consciousness we now are witnessing a moment where a very few number of individuals will eventually transform into a new type of being a being of pure consciousness.

Those two sentences are a contradiction. How can the entire Mankind evolve into 'pure consciousness', and yet that higher consciousness is only reserved for the 'few individuals'? What would happen to those who aren't 'conscious' enough?

Bill Wiltrack wrote: Just as millions of years ago slowly an offshoot of fish species eventually established their life upon land and millions of years after that an offshoot of land animals began to fly thus an offshoot of man is embarking upon a new form of life that we here in our present state cannot actually imagine.


It's an exciting moment in the history of life on earth.

I don't really think that this is an 'exciting moment'. Sure we have the potential to make a better place, but it will be incumbent on the ordinary folk to overcome the ravages that the elites are inflicting upon the world. I don't think we can rely on simply some spontaneous 'evolution' to 'elevate' ourselves into a higher consciousness.

Also, as I believe that another user has questioned already, what is this pure consciousness that is 'taking place', especially if we cannot 'imagine' such a higher transition?

Yeah:

We have to look at the way that evolution started with simple nervous systems, evolved into brains, then into the mind.

(and I know Bill to be a staunch anti-conservative because I actually wrote one of my more finished pieces in response to points made by him on another board.

But let's take it deeper into realizations I have had since then:

We should think of it in terms of that evolutionary process in which our higher cognitive functions have worked in the service of our baser impulses (the competitive model (and what has gotten us to this point thus far. And consciousness would be an evolutionary by-product of that in that it would make sense to create a consciousness in order to give the body all that more reason to protect itself.

The problem is that now we are in the face of an evolutionary backlash that we see in conservatism in that their really bad reasoning is not so much a matter of intelligence as how they are using their intelligence: the competitive model of the higher cognitive functions in the service of our baser impulses. This is why you get such irrational arguments out of conservatives.

Take, for instance, global warming. The conservatives will stand in the face of a full consensus of the scientific community and deny that global warming is a man-made thing. Of course, in order to fully understand this, you would have to take into consideration the denial it would take to act like fossil fuels were somehow some kind of infinite natural resource. The absurdity of this mentality was properly brought up in Trey Parker and Matt Stone's Little Bush in which Bush Sr. tells little bush:

"It is our God given right to use up our natural resources. Then Jesus will come along and take us away in the Rapture."

Of course, what lies at the heart of this irrationality is the intellect (our higher functions (in the service of our baser impulses. And in this sense we can look at conservatism as little more than an evolutionary backlash: our baser impulses last stand.

Unfortunately, due to the possibility of global catastrophe through Global warming and the emerging aristocracy of Global Capitalism, we have come to a point where we need to move to the next evolutionary step: the cooperative model in which our baser impulses see it in their best interest to look out for the interest of the other -including our environment: a model in which our baser impulses work in cooperation with our higher cognitive functions.

.



WOW. Seriously, that was an awesome response.


Thank you for correctly understanding where I am coming from and for accurately extrapalatiing an important aspect of this thought concept.




Well done.

.