Consciousness As Reaction

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Allow me to pauze for a moment then. Are we agreed on the consciousness and self-consciousness as relating to first and second order logic?

Arjen,

I am still unclear as to what that might be, is it the fact that even selfconsciouness is dependent upon object for its sense of being at the centre of reality? Sorry Arjen, I am not purposely trying to frustrate you, do we still have a stumbling block?

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by boagie

Arjen,

I am still unclear as to what that might be, is it the fact that even selfconsciouness is dependent upon object for its sense of being at the centre of reality? Sorry Arjen, I am not purposely trying to frustrate you, do we still have a stumbling block?

lol

Boagie,consciousness needs no object; self-consiousness needs an object. First order logic is "existance"; second order logic is responding to what one thinks on the basis of what one percieves; psychosis. That is the human condition...unbelieveable as it may sound.

Can you follow this part?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Arjen

lol

Boagie,consciousness needs no object; self-consiousness needs an object. First order logic is "existance"; second order logic is responding to what one thinks on the basis of what one percieves; psychosis. That is the human condition...unbelieveable as it may sound.Can you follow this part?

Arjen,

I believe I understand, I just do not agree, first order logic and second order logic infers a separation of subject and object, which is impossiable if one is to have a reality. To speak of a duality here is to miss the point of reaction as consciousness, consciousness is not autonomous, is not independent, is not, separate from the world as object.

[Arjen]

Boagie,

Try to look at this form a different angle:

What if the only thing that exists is consciousness? What if the only thing that exists is that paradox you are formulating?

The key is that self-consciousness cannot exist without consciousness; it is positioned on the firm basis of consciousness so to speak.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Boagie,

Try to look at this form a different angle:

What if the only thing that exists is consciousness? What if the only thing that exists is that paradox you are formulating?

The key is that self-consciousness cannot exist without consciousness; it is positioned on the firm basis of consciousness so to speak.

Arjen,

Interesting Arjen, I will be listening!!

[Arjen]

Allright then Boagie,

What is it that "all" is looking at it from a human's point of view?
- A grand paradox of Transcendentality, metaphysics and empirics.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Allright then Boagie,

What is it that "all" is looking at it from a human's point of view?
- A grand paradox of Transcendentality, metaphysics and empirics.

Arjen,

You need to take a bit more time with your statements, remember you may have been with some thoughts for sometime, they may be entirely new to those you intend to communicate with. Are you saying then, that, the statement from the Upanishads, "Thou Art That", is profoundly problematic, remember to, our prefrances in terminology do not always aline with one another.

[Arjen]

Boagie,

I do not think I need to take more time with my statements. Most of my posts are explaining the post before using your posts as a guidance as to what part of it was not understood.

If that does not work a new angle is needed; perhaps a new thread or a turn in these three. Perhaps you asking questions would help.

[boagie]

Hi Y'all!

Just a point of curiousity, scientology often promises its adherents that it can subdue the reactive mind, spoken of as a negative aspect of the mind. Are there any scientologists out there, time to come to the aid of your country, tell us the nature of this reactive mind.


"What is it that "all" is looking at it from a human's point of view?" quote Arjen

All is looking at its body!

[nameless]

Originally Posted by boagie

Hi Everybody!!

The nature of consciousness should be revealed by a linking back to its elemental beginnings.

I know that from 'your' perspective, which is correct (though necessarily limited, to one extent or another), that you feel you are correct. I agree. You are as 'correct' as the blind man touching a portion of the elephant to learn about elephants. Correct, in a way, but limited.
From what I have found, I tend to agree with millennial mystical experience, and the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics, that "Consciousness is the Ground of all Being"! It cannot be 'pared down' to fit in some comfortable mental box. It is ineffable.

What is thought of as cause and effect as an example, is..

Obsolete!
Science has taken the clumsy and erroneous notion of a 'temporally linear' notion of 'cause and effect' and 'redefined' it as the 'mutual (synchronously) arising of two aspects of One event'!