Reminder that, for humans, everything is mind, and theres nothing else than consciousness itself. This can only be realized by direct personal experience and has nothing to do with language.
Once you have realized this, all the speculations about how that consciousness arise, be them artistic scientific religious or whatever, are a model that the mind sends to that same consciousness, and are therefore ruled out from the start.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
shut the fuck up
shut the fuck up
life will go on
organic life maybe. but you mind has not fully been born without such realization.
Do week old fetuses have consciousness?
Do babies who are just born have consciousness?
Why can't you recollect any of it?
>This can only be realized by direct personal experience
of what?
maybe of
...things?
This such a vacuous point. No matter how "in the mind" everything is, we still perceive it externally. Just because everything that is knowable is knowable only within the mind itself that doesn't mean that this same things don't exist externally.
Just because the concept of the essence of the world only exists in the mind that doesn't prevent you from feeling the world externally.
When you've willed yourself a better argument do present it.
those questions disappear once you pay attention to experience itself. for the moment heres an answer: it is not simply consciousness, but consciousness aware of itself. this can only happen when there is nothing 'external' taking its attention. this needs a strong established base. and when a baby is born he is in the most urgent need to assimilate its surroundings, so the mind is fully at use perceiving every detail to make that base. and the 'memory' thing is too messy to get into.
the experience of your mind. when the mind experiences itself. so to speak. heres a hint: it is not when you experience 'things' but when you realize the 'same' thing can give different experiences.
where was it implied that 'things dont really exist'?
i dont concern myself with such a problem, cause it can only arise in language and a later stage, when a lot of things have happened.
if you want to play that game fine, im not against it, but to do so one has to have many fixed ideas about things the world etc. you are basing that debate already on a model that the mind gave your consciousness. and that model is not meant to be debated but it is simply practical.
So your mind experiences only itself, and from an infinite homogeneity derives difference?
So you're saying that "there is nothing other than consciousness" but "things can really exist" because "things" are linguistic constructs and linguistics, just like everything else, is simply a case of consciousness experiencing consciousness? Can't you see that having a DISCUSSION about something BEYOND LINGUISTIC EXPRESSION is going to get you in trouble? "consciousness" is also just a word, you know
Trademark'd haiku post.
That's how you know it is me,
Copping the Go-Pro
>where was it implied that 'things dont really exist'?
>i dont concern myself with such a problem, cause it can only arise in language and a later stage, when a lot of things have happened
Existence is just a linguistic construct then. Brilliant.
Honestly though, I get what you're saying. The judgement of being can only be made partially through the senses and formally through language, but there must be something existing before both those things in order for those things to be. This consciousness you talk about is what is there, which exists primordially in a way beyond the words that come afterwards. This and that and all are therefore incapable of acknowledging in a primordially meaningful way what came before said consciousness, because they are constructions that came afterwards.
I'm just saying in return that this knowledge is pointless, because we have nothing else to work with but our logical constructions and perceptions. The concept of an ineffable primordial knowledge is pointless, because in every aspect it can't affect those perceptions. What you've said is pointless information because it doesn't fundamentally change anything about anything, so I don't really know why you've said it at all.
Go back to /x/
...
>le eastern mysticism is suberstishus nonsense loogit me i am rational thinging western burger man
is this hegel
it is not that the mind experiences itself. that was just a way of saying it. it is rather that our experience is based on what the mind does with perception. but when this perception includes the mind itself, or is nothing but it, then the mind becomes aware of itself, and thus our experience of everything it does changes.
once you know what language is you can use it without falling on its traps.
>there must be something
thats simply a hypothesis, that is actually impossible to verify. therefore pointless to postulate.
>this knowledge is pointless
of course it seems pointless when discussed in words. but once attained in experience it changes everything and instead of solving problems, dissolves them and clears the way.
Please explain why mysticism should be taken seriously.
Not baiting.
because it deals with non-conceptual reality
see bruce lee
This isn't even mysticism.
>you can use it without falling on its traps
You can't though, unless you admit to yourself that nothing you can say about this stuff is *really* true. Saying "there is nothing but consciousness" is a case of trying to use the word "consciousness" to describe a transcendental unity with a word that refers to a specific thing. There is a unity beyond words, but it can't be described using words unless you do some behind-the-scenes redefining that ultimately renders what you say meaningless
>our experience is based on what the mind does with perception. but when this perception includes the mind itself, or is nothing but it, then the mind becomes aware of itself
Perception necessarily requires two things, a perciever and the percieved. If the perciever percieves some other part of itself, then there are at least two distinct things (ex: the eyeball that sees and the arm that is seen in what is one body) that might as well be described with different words
>of course it seems pointless when discussed in words
I dare you to discuss it without words. For fucks sake.
what is poetry?
dividing perception into subject and object is already an interpretation of the phenomena. if you take one of those away you lose everything, right? its like a stick: you can speak, by abstraction, of the two poles of the stick, but the reality is the stick. neither of the two poles exists as such. you are taking the abstraction of perciever and percieved for realities when the only reality is experience.
it cant be discussed without words, but it can be hinted at. it can only be experienced. and when done so, there is no need for discussion.
ITT: duuuuude weed lmao!
>Reminder that, for humans, everything is mind, and theres nothing else than consciousness itself
t. conscious experience
I won't be roped into your will to power, you flickering phantom
>it can only be experienced. and when done so, there is no need for discussion.
Well duh, there is no 'need' for discussion, yet here you remain oh enlightened one.
And of course things are just in the mind and of course this can be hinted at. I call it nihilism.
Its realization i eastern tradition tends to be in peace and on western it is endless angst. But nevertheless, even if there is no need for discussion that doesn't prevent you from discussing.
You've indulged yourself in the world, pretending you can be as indifferent as the void towards words and concepts and feelings. It doesn't need to be real for it to be your only reality,
>Coinciousness perceives the mind and assumes it is the mind
Is this the gist of what you're saying?
The very confirmation of an uncosciousness pretty much destroys the argument in this thread tbqh.
You don't understand what language actually is.
Before you reply, the problem with language is what you are doing, you are using abstract terms to explain other abstract terms. You do not even know if your abstract terms are being properly digested in the form you want it to.
It's literally impossible to do so. Philosophy is the cancer of the world, and at it's most basic (semantic) level your questions, your statements have literally no meaning or relevance as you cannot know if anyone, even yourself, actually understands it because the terminology you are using to try to explain yourself is inherently flawed.
1/3
2/3
3/3.
The Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase.
Thanks for those excerpts. I shall check this book out.
It's a piece of work which has slipped through the cracks with modern literature, it starts off with expressing the facts that authors do not really look at their tools and modify them the way anyone else who works with tools do.
It's pretty heavy reading though. I try to recommend it here as much as I can, gets people thinking about the way they actually speak, past the amount of words they know.
Check these out too.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org