Philosophy Now Forum

.





Consciousness. Has nothing directly to do with me...or with any individual human being.

Yet, indirectly, consciousness determines everything about you, me & the remainder of mankind.

I will die. We all pass by yet consciousness continues - un-phased.


I am not a part of consciousness yet the function of consciousness determines everything about our reality.


I suspect, that if we were to experience ecstasy; total detachment we could see that we are trapped, in a way, of being individual. Being tied to gestalt of accepting that we are nothing but individual.


What if...what if maturity, REAL maturity in being a complete human being entailed the being of all; of every man and every woman. Understanding all.





.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

What if...what if maturity, REAL maturity in being a complete human being entailed the being of all; of every man and every woman. Understanding all.
.

My immediate problem is understanding what on earth you are rambling on about.

.




Actually, I just re-read this original post of mine and I am completely impressed.


Can't believe I wrote this. May be one of my best quotes.


Fuck you. You are not supposed to understand this.

Hide. Hide behind your fallacy of your phony moniker. Hide. Go.








.

Bill Wiltrack wrote: Fuck you. You are not supposed to understand this.

Who are you talking to? If someone is not supposed to understand what you post, why are you posting it?

Your post seems kind of scattered. Maybe it made more sense in your head. Why curse other people for not understanding manic ramblings?

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.




Actually, I just re-read this original post of mine and I am completely impressed.


Can't believe I wrote this. May be one of my best quotes.


Fuck you. You are not supposed to understand this.

Hide. Hide behind your fallacy of your phony moniker. Hide. Go.



.

Well at least you seem to have understood what I wrote.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
What if...what if maturity, REAL maturity in being a complete human being entailed the being of all; of every man and every woman. Understanding all.

As summarized, it makes perfect sense. The mandate of consciousness is to expand and go beyond the sphere of one's self-centered cranium and all it's denoted imperatives clustered in "I". Though the physical brain is the organ from which consciousness radiates, supposing it's aura of extent could also be measured? The differences between that on an person-to-person basis compared to the weight and volume of the brain would be astronomical.

What Bill did here, it seems to me, which made it kind of abstract, was to take consciousness to its ultimate empathic conclusion, that is, to a much shorter and intense wavelength when considered within the context of spectroscopy. In any event, it's not an easy thought to convey but that doesn't make it any less viable.

.




........................................Good post. Thank you for articulating your view upon this important philosophical thread.





.

Dubious wrote: What Bill did here, it seems to me, which made it kind of abstract, was to take consciousness to its ultimate empathic conclusion, that is, to a much shorter and intense wavelength when considered within the context of spectroscopy. In any event, it's not an easy thought to convey but that doesn't make it any less viable.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

........................................Good post. Thank you for articulating your view upon this important philosophical thread.
.

You're bound to think it's a good post because he agrees with you but what it is that you agree about God only knows. It's quite remarkable, the chances of you two finding each other must have been one in a million.

Harbal wrote:It's quite remarkable, the chances of you two finding each other must have been one in a million.

You have long been the reigning overlord of incredibly stupid and malicious remarks. Ever think of shutting up and giving it some thought BEFORE replying or is this your way of decreasing brain depreciation by never using it?

Dubious wrote:

Bill Wiltrack wrote: What if...what if maturity, REAL maturity in being a complete human being entailed the being of all; of every man and every woman. Understanding all.

What Bill did here, it seems to me, which made it kind of abstract, was to take consciousness to its ultimate empathic conclusion..."

That assessment "ultimate empathic conclusion" seems a bit over-stated, Dubious. The "being of all" would surely include more than men and women. We, humans, are a small part of life and consciousness on this planet. To be truly empathic beyond our individual selves would surely not STOP with just humans. To think of humans as the final frontier seems like just another level of human self-importance and ego. And I wouldn't define it as "maturity"... but rather awareness... which can exist at ANY AGE... or never. Yes, we humans can learn to connect with, and be aware of, each other so much more than we do! But there's also the potential (I think) of realizing that "each other" extends beyond human beings. Considering how self-absorbed and intoxicated and even-unconscious we humans are at present in so much of what we think and do, it seems we must get clear of THAT before we can truly understand genuine connection with (and entailing) all... or simply anything beyond our own heads.

Lacewing wrote: That assessment "ultimate empathic conclusion" seems a bit over-stated. The "being of all" would surely include more than men and women. We, humans, are a small part of life and consciousness on this planet. To be truly empathic beyond our individual selves would surely not STOP with just humans...

I agree with every word of your post. It certainly does and MUST extend beyond what is only human. If that failed, the psyche would self sabotage all what drives it forward. That's what I meant by "ultimate empathic conclusion" but I agree it is somewhat overstated and clumsily expressed.

What I meant to convey was DIRECTION and not some grand fugal crescendo of consciousness which can hardly be conceptualized, least of all expressed no matter how great the genius which attempts it.

My purpose in replying was to counter the conclusion that BW's post amounted to mere rambling. Many years ago on a now defunct philosophy site the same ideas were debated in a long thread based on Buddhist philosophy and traditions. Unfortunately my current powers of expression are mightily foreshortened compared to what they once were.

Dubious, thanks for your response.

Dubious wrote: My purpose in replying was to counter the conclusion that BW's post amounted to mere rambling.

Yes, I was giving him a hard time when I refered to his post as "manic ramblings". I can see the impatience and lack of understanding in myself when I'm wanting to engage and connect with someone and it doesn't come easy. In person, I would simply avoid or politely exit such situations -- as I'm not into conflict or drama. But online, it's easy (and very tempting) to clearly say "what I'm really thinking". Although it can be rather entertaining to freely do so... I hope that people take it with a grain of salt... and only take to heart what is of value to them.

Dubious wrote:
You have long been the reigning overlord of incredibly stupid and malicious remarks.

I don't think my remarks tend to be either the most stupid or malicious to be found on this forum and I've never been called an overlord before. When I get called anything it's usually something of a much lower status.

Ever think of shutting up and giving it some thought BEFORE replying

It will surprise you to hear that I give a lot of thought to my replies. My trouble is that when I read a load of nonsense, such as Bill Wiltrack's post, I can't stop myself from responding and then when I see an even bigger load of it, as is the case with your post, I'm well past the point of being able to exercise any self control.

is this your way of decreasing brain depreciation by never using it?

If this is your attempt at making a stupid and malicious remark then I have to say you are certainly no overlord, it just makes you sound angry but inarticulate. Before you insult someone, you should put more thought into it, like I do.

Harbal wrote: My trouble is that when I read a load of nonsense, such as Bill Wiltrack's post, I can't stop myself from responding...

I feel the same way. After seeing Dubious' response, I thought maybe I had been too quick to cast aside BW's post on face value, so I went back and re-read it. It still appeared very scattered and somewhat senseless to me. So I focused on just the last paragraph that Dubious had focused on, and I re-read it about 10-15 times!!! Trying, VERY HARD, to see maybe how Bill had been trying to express his idea... which seemed to be about evolved consciousness/awareness? So, my follow-up post was to acknowledge that I was giving BW a hard time, and for me to take responsibility for my own impatience with him. However, if he writes another wacko post... which I'm sure he will... I will surely blast him again!

Oops... I'm sorry... did I just say that out loud?

Harbal wrote:

Dubious wrote:
You have long been the reigning overlord of incredibly stupid and malicious remarks.

I don't think my remarks tend to be either the most stupid or malicious to be found on this forum and I've never been called an overlord before. When I get called anything it's usually something of a much lower status.

Ever think of shutting up and giving it some thought BEFORE replying

It will surprise you to hear that I give a lot of thought to my replies. My trouble is that when I read a load of nonsense, such as Bill Wiltrack's post, I can't stop myself from responding and then when I see an even bigger load of it, as is the case with your post, I'm well past the point of being able to exercise any self control.

is this your way of decreasing brain depreciation by never using it?

If this is your attempt at making a stupid and malicious remark then I have to say you are certainly no overlord, it just makes you sound angry but inarticulate. Before you insult someone, you should put more thought into it, like I do.

I originally responded to BW's post which I considered having some merit reminding me of prior debates regarding the same subject. Yes! Bill's post could have been better expressed but all the clues were still there. Not too many write about this subject; as I mentioned the ideas are not always easy to follow or convey. But why do you find it necessary to start attacking me just because I found favor with the post which you regard as nonsense? Why the stupid supercilious vulgar remark?

It's quite remarkable, the chances of you two finding each other must have been one in a million.

You gave your opinion, I gave mine. I didn't respond to your reaction on Bill's post, you responded to mine in your true hairball manner because it was the opposite of yours. You just had to justify yourself against any counter view. The best thing to have done was to leave it alone, expressed by your opinion only.

Again, I repeat, is this your way of decreasing brain depreciation by never using it, since obviously it doesn't take much brainpower to create your immediately improvised one or two liner negatives but NEVER anything that could actually cause a debate.

BW at least came up with an idea by no means original but not often expressed while a trolling little parasite like you - and other sites as well - always looks for something to put down. You truly live in the slum areas of "Opinion" forums. If others, like Lacewing, who seems to regret her "follow-up" post, think it's a high-rise, so be it. Even wacko statements like "I'm High" are more interesting than any cheap superiority purchased, not by analysis, but derogatory remarks only.