The answer is 42

General discussion about the Elder Race, Life, the Universe and Everything.
User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:46 pm

This is a theory or philosophy I have been working on for some time, I wish to submit it for disection. Forgive my spelling errors, I can't figure out how to put my checker on, sad for an apparent writer.

When we think of consciousness we think of awareness, self awareness, who we are, where our thoughts come from perhaps but I want to lay down what I believe. The meaning of life, as opposed to what gives each of our lives meaning, is simply to percieve or experience where previously there was no perception or experiences. This is because all life has perception to some degree, if you consider the simplest cells have a rudimentary sense that they react to light and dark. In humans, this perception has evolved from that rudimentary reaction to the senses we have, all part of the brain functions.

Now if you consider the states before life, matter and energy, they do not perceive or experience but they do display constructive relationships. If science explains this it is by technical terminology or mathematical equations, but you must admit it more than resembles a conscious compulsion. This leads me to theorise that consciousness is a fundamental, even quantum, principle to the universe. We also believe that consciousness is one for each of us, but I believe consciousness is one for all of us, for everything.

Awareness is linked to perception, but people hold that self-awareness is linked to consciousness, I hold that self-awareness is linked to sentience. Sentience is an emotional being that has, or at least displays, conceptual thought. Everything that exists is sourced of consciousness, energy, matter, even when you get to us with emotion and imagination. Thought is sourced at Consciousness but by the time it is processed, filtered and translated by our (an individuals) emotions, experiences/memories and imagination/creativity (brain functions), it is but a Chinese wisper of its origin at the consciousness, so that we barely understand each other and we have such varieties of idea. (Not sure how much imagination/creativity is brain function, perhaps it pierces the vail between brain and consciousness, kind of Man made in the image of God, type of deal)

So, constructive relationships and destructive forces exist down to the quantum, to a layman these are described as love and hate. These relationships and forces are sourced at consciousness, which is even more fundamental. That love/constructive relationships are the positive, hate/destructive forces are the negative and consciousness/the source is the neutral. This means that love and hate are not emotions exclusive to humans, residing inside us, but that we exist in them, the state of being even existence, we are sourced from them not visa versa.

If you consider beauty, it is a matter of perception of not only our senses, the asthetic, but emotional and conceptual also. We perceive love/hate in the same way, we have conceptualized it and we feel it in emotion, but that is because it is all encompassing, like time/space, perhaps in some manner it is time/space. Love/hate is sourced at consciousness and it would make sense that our emotions are sourced at love/hate.

Thanks guys, hope you like a little crack and pot.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:36 pm

I also had a further conversation with someone about this. It went like this:

Q: So then where do we perceive the self that perceives all these things?

A: the brain is the self, the brain retains experiences/memories, it has artistic and scientific side, it has imagination and emotion. You see, every atom of your brain is linked to the same consciousness, as is every atom in your body, every atom and energy in existence. The brain simply processes the stimuli coming forth from this source, the consciousness. Falibly, mind you. The brain is a communication tool that seperates us all, consciousness is the source that binds us all.

Q: That’s a theory. Theories of embodiment state that the body and not the brain contain imagination, emotion, experience and memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition)

Are you saying that you are a brain?

A: You may be right about where they come from, I did say it is a theory. But the brain is what we use to translate it into an order that we can then communicate. Our thoughts are a product of experience/memory, emotion and imagination, but the end product of thought is after it has been through those 3 things, the original thought is from the consciousness of all things.

Q: Yeah totally agree the brain does all of those things and does them well. I just don’t see how we are the brain. Are we the brain?

If you take very seriously the idea that the brain does all these things, but the brain is not the self what kind of conclusions do you come to?

A: Well we are sourced from the same place as everything else in the universe. The brain is where ego manifests, people have called that the self, but it is really the tool we use to communicate ourselves. Desires stem from ego and these influence that original thought from the consciousness in the same manner as emotion, memory and imagination. Probably more that ego and its manifestations are products of emotion, memory and imagination, but are not the source of the self, just a deviating influence on the original thought from the source. Really the source is the self, we all are the samething at that level because of its fundamentality.

Q: How do you mean? i don’t really follow that part about the self. Wouldn’t that mean, if we are all one, that there are no selves but instead one unitary thing?

A: Our emotions are probably identical, out imaginations are probably identical, out experiences, however, are completely unique to each of us. I believe it is our memories that shape our ego, our ego is the translator of the original thought, the ego is made up of memory, emotion and imagination. The memory is the wild card that affects every persons translation because memory/experience affects imagination and emotion. When those two are deviated by memory/experience, this ultimately results in us all being individuals.
The human is a physical being designed by the consciousness to interact on the material level but over time, due to the clarity of material communication, the communication between each being on the fundamental level of consciousness has become too inefficient, it is more suggestive than definitive. Humans need to communicate with much more specific language than impressions so communication was re-routed to the human language.
This means that the thoughts are translated through the ego tool and it means our awareness becomes far more focused on our ego being self than the original source. This makes us individuals with different resulting thoughts although our self and our original thoughts are one.

Q: I hear you completely every human is individual I agree with all that. The only part I disagree with is the idea that because of our individuality we have selves.

When I look at my own life I find only perception and no perceiver.

A: Well, fundamentally what I’m saying is that there is no self, it is a collective consciousness. It is the ego tool of communication, emotion and imagination affected by memory/experience, that makes us individuals, not the fact that we are seperate human beings.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:33 am

Just a little more on the time/space theory:

If you think about the imagination, it is a vast realm, like space, and the imagination is creative so with this logic: Space is the creative imagination and constructive relationships of love, the positive.
Time has been described as the destroyer, linked to death, change is a constant because of time. With this logic: Time is the memory and experiences, the progression of age, that alter everything, a destructive force akin to hate, the negative.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:50 pm

Raytrek wrote:This is a theory or philosophy I have been working on for some time, I wish to submit it for disection. Forgive my spelling errors, I can't figure out how to put my checker on, sad for an apparent writer.
I use Firefox for a browser; it automatically underlines misspelled words when you are posting. You can just right-click on the misspelling and pick the correct word. I think the setup is browser dependent.
Raytrek wrote:When we think of consciousness we think of awareness, self awareness, who we are, where our thoughts come from perhaps but I want to lay down what I believe. The meaning of life, as opposed to what gives each of our lives meaning, is simply to perceive or experience where previously there was no perception or experiences.
So, not satisfied with, "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?" :D

The following are my thoughts on the matter, from conclusions drawn from personal research, not a specific theory or formulation.

One of the things I learned from the Reciprocal System is that there are two sides to every coin--two aspects--and in our perception a "local" (individuated) and "nonlocal" (collective) aspect. The atom manifests locally as a little ball in space and nonlocally as the surrounding electric and magnetic fields. They exist concurrently; two aspects of what Larson calls "motion."

Consciousness is no exception. We have a personal, individuated consciousness (once we pass a specific stage of development) that is linked to a collective consciousness, though it is usually termed a collective unconscious. I have found that the conscious and unconscious are two aspects of the same thing, a local and nonlocal expression of something else. The subconscious is the intersection point, similar to the center eye of a Vesica Piscis (mandorla).

And it appears to be stratified; you do not transit from one to all when you go to sleep and become unconscious. The levels are: personal, familial, cultural, societal, species and terrestrial. (It probably continues beyond that, as most nonlocal structures appear to have a concentric nature, like layers of an onion.)

Information that comes up from the unconscious, or nonlocal aspect of consciousness, usually moves in three stages: apprehension (close enough to the transition for the intuition and feelings to detect), awareness (in the subconscious transition) and comprehension (in consciousness).

That "Meaning of Life" stuff would therefore be twofold: a personal aspect and a collective aspect, in biological organisms. And I mean ANYTHING that is alive, blade of grass, bug, etc.

When you become ethically aware (which I am going to distinguish from self-aware), and you are no longer one of the pieces being pushed around the game board by karma and predestination, you can develop a "Meaning TO Life" as an act of free will, from the personal side of consciousness.
Raytrek wrote:This is because all life has perception to some degree, if you consider the simplest cells have a rudimentary sense that they react to light and dark. In humans, this perception has evolved from that rudimentary reaction to the senses we have, all part of the brain functions.
Larson, in Beyond Space and Time, splits out the mind from the brain, the former being temporal and the latter spatial. This matches Carl Jung's typology, where he splits intuition/feeling from sensation/thinking (former temporal, latter spatial).

Cells also react to invisible forces--electric and magnetic fields. The whole science of magnetic healing is based upon that. Perception does more than most people consider, since the coordinate time aspect of it is never considered. Perception of space we refer to as the physical senses. Perception of time becomes the metaphysical senses: ESP or psychic ability. The brain processes the physical, the mind processes the metaphysical.
Raytrek wrote:Now if you consider the states before life, matter and energy, they do not perceive or experience but they do display constructive relationships. If science explains this it is by technical terminology or mathematical equations,
And gets most of it wrong... :D
Raytrek wrote:but you must admit it more than resembles a conscious compulsion. This leads me to theorize that consciousness is a fundamental, even quantum, principle to the universe. We also believe that consciousness is one for each of us, but I believe consciousness is one for all of us, for everything.
For me, it is BOTH.

In Beyond Space and Time, Larson indicates that in order for an inanimate structure to go past the level of complexity (a metaphysical density) that can be expressed by the inanimate "rules," a material atom links with a cosmic atom (antimatter) in a stable combination, producing the seed for a life unit--a biological organism--with a much higher degree of freedom for expression.

I have found that when perception goes past the point that can be expressed by a life unit (considering both spatial and temporal aspects), it also links to something "beyond space and time," analogous to what Larson calls the "Ethical sector." (Larson's research here is minimal, as it was what he was working on when he died.)

The process is similar to throwing a seed on a fertile field. The seed sprouts and "individuated" plant from the collective soil--the birth of an individuated consciousness FROM a collective consciousness.

By the same token, a collection of individuated consciousnesses can create its own collective unconscious, just as the loadstone atoms in a rock can create a large, magnetic field surrounding it. (In the Law of One, this is referred to as a "social memory complex.")
Raytrek wrote:Awareness is linked to perception, but people hold that self-awareness is linked to consciousness, I hold that self-awareness is linked to sentience. Sentience is an emotional being that has, or at least displays, conceptual thought.
My view is that self-awareness is what the ego complex creates as the primary mechanism of preservation of the biological system. That would infer that all life is self-aware, even if humankind does not want to admit it.

What I call an ethical-awareness is a stage up from that, a part of the individuated consciousness that sees a larger picture and the "meaning of life" in that picture. What Graves would call "Tier 2" in Spiral Dynamics.
Raytrek wrote:Everything that exists is sourced of consciousness, energy, matter, even when you get to us with emotion and imagination. Thought is sourced at Consciousness but by the time it is processed, filtered and translated by our (an individuals) emotions, experiences/memories and imagination/creativity (brain functions), it is but a Chinese whisper of its origin at the consciousness, so that we barely understand each other and we have such varieties of idea. (Not sure how much imagination/creativity is brain function, perhaps it pierces the veil between brain and consciousness, kind of Man made in the image of God, type of deal)
I attended a lecture by James Burke some years ago, and he talked about humor as a tool to learn, because it was very creative in its approach to connecting things that would not normally be connected (which is why his TV series was called "Connections.") That would put the creativity aspect BETWEEN the cells storing information in the brain, a function of mind and on the temporal side of things.

Imagination is more like a virtual reality that we create to test out things, both structurally and emotionally. It is the biological version of a "white board" or scratchpad. Ideas are taken from both aspects, the collective mythos and personal experience, thrown together in this virtual reality, and tested out for viability and new ways to apply knowledge to both the inside and outside worlds. I see it differing from creativity in that it does not make new connections, as much as test out the ones that were provided to it to see if they will, indeed, hook up.
Raytrek wrote:So, constructive relationships and destructive forces exist down to the quantum, to a layman these are described as love and hate.
Or in more generic, Eastern terms: yin and yang.
Raytrek wrote:These relationships and forces are sourced at consciousness, which is even more fundamental. That love/constructive relationships are the positive, hate/destructive forces are the negative and consciousness/the source is the neutral.
In Nature, that which is positive is outward and destructive--it separates things and increases entropy. The negative is inward and constructive. As a polarity (rather than a value judgement), love is negative and hate is positive.

Individuated consciousness CAN be neutral if the two polarities are balanced within it. This is the goal of the Alchemists, where they try to balance the masculine (positive) and feminine (negative) aspects within, to achieve neutrality (the hermaphrodite) and move beyond it.
Raytrek wrote:This means that love and hate are not emotions exclusive to humans, residing inside us, but that we exist in them, the state of being even existence, we are sourced from them not visa versa.
I use the Eastern terms of yin (love) and yang (hate), since they have fewer subjective connotations.
Raytrek wrote:If you consider beauty, it is a matter of perception of not only our senses, the asthetic, but emotional and conceptual also.
Beauty is an interesting subject, as it is very difficult to define because it is so subjective. I find the prairie and bluffs of the Wyoming wilderness to be quite beautiful; most people see it as bleak and dreary. Who is right?

Beauty seems to be the result of beneficial memory patterns. When we have memories that have a strong, beneficial influence on our lives, and we spot a similar pattern, we tend to find it beautiful.
Raytrek wrote:We perceive love/hate in the same way, we have conceptualized it and we feel it in emotion, but that is because it is all encompassing, like time/space, perhaps in some manner it is time/space. Love/hate is sourced at consciousness and it would make sense that our emotions are sourced at love/hate.
If you take the Chinese Taoist approach, yin-yang is sourced at Tao.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:07 pm

Raytrek wrote:Just a little more on the time/space theory:
If you think about the imagination, it is a vast realm, like space, and the imagination is creative so with this logic: Space is the creative imagination and constructive relationships of love, the positive.
The default condition for 'space' is to fly apart at the speed of light... it is only the presence of atoms, temporal structure, that brings things together constructively.

In order for imagination to mimic the outside world as a personal scratchpad, it would have to have the same structure: coordinate space and clock time. But those rules, like the Holodeck on Star Trek, can be changed by the will. I would not say that "imagination is creative" as much as "imagination expresses creativity" in a realm where we can control the rules.
Raytrek wrote:Time has been described as the destroyer, linked to death, change is a constant because of time.
"Clock time" fits that description, not "time" as an aspect of the Universe, which is the creator of structure.
Raytrek wrote:With this logic: Time is the memory and experiences, the progression of age, that alter everything, a destructive force akin to hate, the negative.
I do not know how your memory works, but my personal memory is not chronological. I cannot tell you what happened at a date/time, outside of short-term memory of a few hours. My memory is indexed to "situation." For example, the memories associated with the trip my friend Al and I took to Lord's Point in his dad's boat. Couldn't even tell you the year that happened, nor what age I was, but I can relate everything that happened on the trip. My memory is a segmented relationship between physical and metaphysical experiences.

Is that the case with anyone else?

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:59 am

Thanks for that, you have pointed out numerous conclusions that are bias, which assumes certain things are negative or positive whereas in fact they all have what is percieved as negative and positive. In a completely objective view you would probably argue that the blend is equal.

I had a huge discussion on Mitchell Heisman, this is what I concluded:

So either the universe began, a force existed to initiate it or a force existed to stop it from initiating, which is a paradox because how could anything exist before anything existed?
So the alternative is that the universe always existed which means if one infinite exists then infinite infinite exists. This means there is infinitely small, infinitely large and infinite size inbetween. Also there are infinte centres to the universe and there are infinite limits to the universe and infinite no limits to the universe.
If there are infinite centres to the universe then there is also one centre to the universe which means that the infinitely small is the exact same size as the ifinitely large, and either nothing exists in between or everything exists in between two things that are the exact same thing, so everything or nothing exists between one thing.
You have always existed in an infinite universe because you have had infinite oportunities to exist as you exist, therefore you have existed as you exist infinite times before, but you also haven’t existed infinite times before. There is nothing to differenciate between existing and not existing except that it is a fact that you are existing, not because of what you see but because you are seeing initself.

So contrary to his conclusion of reason leads to nothing, or neutrality of itself, so infact reason does not even exist, I draw the conclusion that because you are seeing, not what you see, you must logically draw the conclusion of something, not nothing, therefore reason is sound in at least the most simplistic incarnation of it.

What do you think of Heisman, his conclusions and this conclusion I have drawn?

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Positive and negative

Post by LoneBear » Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:09 pm

Raytrek wrote:Thanks for that, you have pointed out numerous conclusions that are bias, which assumes certain things are negative or positive whereas in fact they all have what is percieved as negative and positive. In a completely objective view you would probably argue that the blend is equal.
I found out long ago that positive and negative are normally interpreted as subjective value judgements meaning "good" and "bad", respectively. And as an old mentor of mine described:

Good (positive) = I get what I want.
Bad (negative) = I don't get what I want.

That is why "love" is considered good and a "positive" thing--you got what you wanted, a "complimentary neurotic structure," as they say in psychology.

The normal convention comes from the ordinal numbers. We measure the positive direction AWAY from us, so positive was anything that was outward or separating. That is the same situation with yin-yang. Yang is that which moves away, yin is that which brings things closer:

* heat expands things, so the parts move away from each other: yang.
* straight lines move things away: yang
* sun is hot, yang is the sunny side.
* cold contracts things: yin
* curves tend to loop you back: yin.
* shade is cool, yin is the shadow side.

That is why I preferred the use of yin-yang in my RS2 research, because it does not have the subjective value judgement that positive and negative do, as you cannot tell what context a person is interpreting the meaning in. A positive charge does not mean it is a good thing... it just means that it is moving away from its source. (BTW, Larson, in Basic Properties of Matter, discovered that electrical charges are named backwards to the natural values--the electron has a natural, positive charge and the proton is negative even though we label the electron as negative and the proton as positive. So, you're not the only one!)
Raytrek wrote:I had a huge discussion on Mitchell Heisman, this is what I concluded:
The Harvard guy who committed suicide a couple years ago, leaving a 1900+ page suicide note describing how pointless life is?
Raytrek wrote:So either the universe began, a force existed to initiate it or a force existed to stop it from initiating, which is a paradox because how could anything exist before anything existed?
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." --Ford Prefect

In order to have a beginning and ending, one must also have clock time. I have discovered that clock time only exists in the Euclidean reference system--a shadow of the natural reference system that we call our physical reality. The natural reference system does not have a clock. What we would consider the start and end of something is just determining its temporal length (or technically, delta velocity). It doesn't pop in, hang around for a clock time, then disappear. Without a clock, you would see it as a concept similar to width, height or breadth, but just in time instead of space--it has edges, so when you measure it, you'll have a place where it starts and one where it ends. When that length is projected as a shadow on our "reality," the far edge is FAR... and what we call clock time is our movement from the origin of measurement until we fall off the far side.

So I guess you could say that the "shadow of the Universe began when the light of consciousness was turned on."

My RS2 research is here: The Reevaluation of the Reciprocal System of theory.

I am still updating the online version; have completed it up to the section on Uniform Motion. You may find the Conceptual Basis section informative.
Raytrek wrote:So the alternative is that the universe always existed which means if one infinite exists then infinite infinite exists.
Technically, if you have "no fininite" then you must have "infinite infinite", since they are reciprocals of each other. Since ONE is the reciprocal of itself, you can have ONE without "none" and "infinite." (See RS2 section on Datums.)
Raytrek wrote:This means there is infinitely small, infinitely large and infinite size inbetween. Also there are infinte centres to the universe and there are infinite limits to the universe and infinite no limits to the universe.
Or, that's just an illusion that only happens when one plays around with the geometry of shadows.

Zero and Infinity are considered to be "undefined" reciprocals of each other, because neither is a magnitude (cardinal number). They are references of a finite system that expresses the concepts of "none" and "all." "None" is not a number, which goes back to the ancient Greek argument of "how can nothing be something" -- show me someTHING in nature that is zero--you can't, because if you COULD, it would be one, not none.

A lot of confusion exists around the concepts of zero and infinity because people confuse cardinal numbers (finite, counting numbers) with ordinal numbers (ordering or measuring). You cannot have a finite quantity of zero, per the Greek argument. BUT, you can start a sequence with zero as an origin, and the end of a counting sequence with "everything" (infinity).

It is a difficult concept to get straight in your head, but IMHO, worth the effort as it sorts a lot of this "infinity" stuff out in your world view.

Try replacing the word "infinite" with "everything." For example, "The Universe is infinite" becomes "The Universe is everything." Duh. That's obvious. Just doesn't sound as cool.
Raytrek wrote:If there are infinite centres to the universe then there is also one centre to the universe which means that the infinitely small is the exact same size as the ifinitely large, and either nothing exists in between or everything exists in between two things that are the exact same thing, so everything or nothing exists between one thing.
There is some confusion here because you are crossing ordinal numbers with cardinal interpretations. You are basically saying that everything = nothing. Under certain premises, I'd agree with you--that premise being that you are at the natural, unit datum. Everything then becomes 1/1 -> n/1 and nothing is the opposite direction, 1/1 -> 1/n. When you reach the limits of 'n', 1/inf = zero/1.
Raytrek wrote:You have always existed in an infinite universe because you have had infinite oportunities to exist as you exist, therefore you have existed as you exist infinite times before, but you also haven’t existed infinite times before. There is nothing to differenciate between existing and not existing except that it is a fact that you are existing, not because of what you see but because you are seeing initself.
So, "All Is One?" (An interpretation of concept of nonlocality, not of magnitudes.)
Raytrek wrote:So contrary to his conclusion of reason leads to nothing, or neutrality of itself, so infact reason does not even exist, I draw the conclusion that because you are seeing, not what you see, you must logically draw the conclusion of something, not nothing, therefore reason is sound in at least the most simplistic incarnation of it.
At my level of understanding (which is constantly changing), the premise is false (that zero and infinity are cardinal in concept), any conclusions drawn from those premises are undefined. So my reasoning lead to something, and that something turned out to be nothing! :D

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:32 pm

That is why I preferred the use of yin-yang in my RS2 research, because it does not have the subjective value judgement that positive and negative do
I see what you mean with yin/yang instead of positive/negative, because for some reason people identify negative as bad, whereas it is as absolutely nessecary as the positive. In this sense its value is not disposable, you cannot prefer one over the other, or even have the option.
The Harvard guy who committed suicide a couple years ago, leaving a 1900+ page suicide note describing how pointless life is?
When I wrote this I was considering Mitchell Heisman in the manner that he was attacking reason, but it turns out it was about ethical values and their reasoning. If we did not value life over death then the effectiveness of terrorist attacks, and the pain of loss, would become obsolete so terrorists would have no reason to do what they do. This is an example of his point, which I understand now. I think ultimately it is not about the removal of emotion but the removal of attachment, a point which Eastern philosophies have been making for ages. Basically, you can love zombie movies but not think twice if you discovered you could never watch one again.
There is some confusion here because you are crossing ordinal numbers with cardinal interpretations
Yes, our measurements are in accord to artificial points in time/space that we have recognized or established as a baseline. Zero in itself is infinite, so to speak, it is more a case of binary with the universe when you are talking infinite, there is really no way to define between something and something, only between something/everything and nothing, zeros and ones, positive and negative (ha), yin and yang, opposites in general.
So I guess you could say that the "shadow of the Universe began when the light of consciousness was turned on."
Basically are you saying existence exists only as far a awareness of existence exists?

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:51 pm

Raytrek wrote:because for some reason people identify negative as bad, whereas it is as absolutely nessecary as the positive.
Unless you are HIV- ... then negative is positive! (As you can see, it is highly subjective.)
Raytrek wrote:If we did not value life over death then the effectiveness of terrorist attacks, and the pain of loss, would become obsolete so terrorists would have no reason to do what they do.
That has been a long-discussed metaphysical argument. If you remembered the afterlife and other bodily incarnations, you would have no fear and without fear, the control dramas are pretty much limited to "love." (This probably ties in with the "cosmic intelligence" topic, indicating that fear must be at the base of the binding of spirits to the earthly plane--I can certainly see that, given how attached people get to possessions and how the new order types are the reverse--they don't OWN anything, just control it.)
Raytrek wrote:This is an example of his point, which I understand now. I think ultimately it is not about the removal of emotion but the removal of attachment, a point which Eastern philosophies have been making for ages. Basically, you can love zombie movies but not think twice if you discovered you could never watch one again.
That's exactly what I was thinking--it is the binding caused by identification and transference that keeps you hooked, not the value judgement. Biological organisms only need THREE things as a "must have": sustenance (food, water), shelter (protection from environmental extremes) and reproduction (to keep the species going). Anything else is a "luxury." When a luxury becomes a necessity (or when you don't know the difference), then you're hooked.
Raytrek wrote:Yes, our measurements are in accord to artificial points in time/space that we have recognized or established as a baseline. Zero in itself is infinite, so to speak, it is more a case of binary with the universe when you are talking infinite, there is really no way to define between something and something, only between something/everything and nothing, zeros and ones, positive and negative (ha), yin and yang, opposites in general.
I assume you understand that "binary" is symbolic logic? It is conditional, so the values are the boundaries of "all" (true) and "none" (false). You have either everything or nothing--there is no between. To extract math from it, we have to arbitrarily assign zero to nothing and unity to everything--none or one. in binary, if you are "not one" then you must be "none." If you're "not none" then you are "one."

It requires an increase in dimensionality to go beyond 1: 00, 01, 10, 11 = 0,1,2,3. In this case, "3" is "all." I have always found it interesting in computers, "false" is zero and "true" is "not false," so you can always have something that is clearly false, but at the same time, only "partial" truths (since 1,2,3... all non-zero values are all "true"). Says a lot about reality.
Raytrek wrote:Basically are you saying existence exists only as far a awareness of existence exists?
I'm saying that when you become aware of existence, existence must have already been there for you to become aware of it. The objects in a room are still there to stumble on in the dark--you just don't see them until you turn the lights on--and then can walk around them.

That's the difference between unconsciousness (reactive) and consciousness (active), and why the Alchemists showed the "muggles" in their artwork walking around with blindfolds on. Alchemy was the process to remove that blindfold and see what was actually going on around you--to see that which cannot normally be seen.

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Gopi » Thu May 17, 2012 11:02 pm

LoneBear wrote:I do not know how your memory works, but my personal memory is not chronological. I cannot tell you what happened at a date/time, outside of short-term memory of a few hours. My memory is indexed to "situation." For example, the memories associated with the trip my friend Al and I took to Lord's Point in his dad's boat. Couldn't even tell you the year that happened, nor what age I was, but I can relate everything that happened on the trip. My memory is a segmented relationship between physical and metaphysical experiences.

Is that the case with anyone else?
It is similar with me, but I have met some people whose memory works in a completely different way, where it is linked to dates, and also to events surrounding it (it was before this but after that etc.).

I know a lady with a fantastic memory who remembers things chronologically up to age 3 (yes, three) and thereafter she has to take the help of events (before and after) and then much later on, things get non-local even in that sense, and many events become linked together.
LoneBear wrote:Beauty is an interesting subject, as it is very difficult to define because it is so subjective. I find the prairie and bluffs of the Wyoming wilderness to be quite beautiful; most people see it as bleak and dreary. Who is right?

Beauty seems to be the result of beneficial memory patterns. When we have memories that have a strong, beneficial influence on our lives, and we spot a similar pattern, we tend to find it beautiful.
Yes, but "benefit" basically yanks out all attributes of beauty which connect it to the sphere of inspirations, which is one of the primary qualities of beauty: it inspires people, and hence sticks. It is necessary for beauty (or the spirit) to be identified within oneself, in order to find it outside, hence giving one side of the equation: "Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder".

However, there is another side of the equation, which is where beauty lies in and of itself, regardless of the beholder. That is, just like light continues to exist for someone who's blind (and will also affect him in terms of heating him up or sending electricity through his wire) but is not seen, beauty is something in the world which exists even if we do not see it. So it is objective.

Putting the two sides of the equation together, beauty is objective, to the extent the subject is able to "live up" to it. It is neither purely subjective, nor objective. It pushes beyond that, and is hence a way for artists to find a path of expression for millennia.
It is time.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Sun May 20, 2012 3:24 pm

I wanted to get some opinions on this little idea I had.

I think there is a common consciousness for us all. Emotion and imagination are sourced at it, but what is not sourced at it is experiences and their memories. They say you need to triangulate three points to gain a true sense of where you are, emotion, imagination and memory, for the most part, are these three points. So in order to think, emotion and imagination go thru a process between consciousness and material communication, the memory that translates by its references gleaned by perceptions thru-out life. This is the ego, the thing that distorts thoughts and bends them to your attained value structure.
The memory is never a fixed point of reference so shouldn’t be used in this triangulation method, but for the most part the memory is so dominant in a human it over-rides the source, consciousness, or one of its two products, emotion or imagination, as a point of reference. Memory is the tool of translation of thoughts, not a point of reference for valuing thoughts, otherwise memory is just ego. Memory is so much more identifiable than the mystical consciousness that it is more commonly opted for in the triangulation process.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Mon May 21, 2012 12:11 pm

Gopi wrote:Yes, but "benefit" basically yanks out all attributes of beauty which connect it to the sphere of inspirations, which is one of the primary qualities of beauty: it inspires people, and hence sticks. It is necessary for beauty (or the spirit) to be identified within oneself, in order to find it outside, hence giving one side of the equation: "Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder".
Beauty can inspire (animating action or influence) someone to create more beauty, but that is just proving my point--the inspiration is just creation of a more beneficial environment. Appears to be a form of self-centrism. After all, how many pieces of art, music or literature do you find submitted to the public by "anonymous?"

Of course, I am consider the concept in light of karma and multiple incarnations that build that database of beneficial and detrimental experiences. The experiences may be unconscious, but there is every indication that they are there. (See research on the non-player-character simulation of emotions in computer gaming. Very interesting stuff.)
Gopi wrote:However, there is another side of the equation, which is where beauty lies in and of itself, regardless of the beholder. That is, just like light continues to exist for someone who's blind (and will also affect him in terms of heating him up or sending electricity through his wire) but is not seen, beauty is something in the world which exists even if we do not see it. So it is objective.
Are you are speaking of beauty as an archetype, such as Aphrodite? I would agree that there is an archetypal function that provides motivation for beneficial situations and circumstances, as a component to survival.
Gopi wrote:Putting the two sides of the equation together, beauty is objective, to the extent the subject is able to "live up" to it. It is neither purely subjective, nor objective. It pushes beyond that, and is hence a way for artists to find a path of expression for millennia.
Can you provide some examples where beauty is objective and not just a beneficial pattern?

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Mon May 21, 2012 12:45 pm

Raytrek wrote:I think there is a common consciousness for us all. Emotion and imagination are sourced at it, but what is not sourced at it is experiences and their memories. They say you need to triangulate three points to gain a true sense of where you are, emotion, imagination and memory, for the most part, are these three points. So in order to think, emotion and imagination go thru a process between consciousness and material communication, the memory that translates by its references gleaned by perceptions thru-out life. This is the ego, the thing that distorts thoughts and bends them to your attained value structure.
If you are referring to ego as the complex responsible for survival, then by nature, it would not distort thought--if anything you need "clean" data to survive. Bad information usually leads to injury and accident. That is why accurate intelligence is so important in the military.

The Norse sagas only use two points of reference, thought (huginn) and memory (muninn). Imagination is a kind of virtual reality where one can experiment with simulations to find those beneficial patterns, so it is an offshoot of memory. (Memory also includes "mind" in the Norse concept.)

Jung used thinking and feeling as valuing, combined with sensation and intuition (the spatio-temporal senses). This led to the psychological typing of people, as in the Myers-Briggs evaluation.

I think you may be on to something with "communication." Without it, you end up with the torment of Tantalus.
Raytrek wrote:Memory is the tool of translation of thoughts, not a point of reference for valuing thoughts, otherwise memory is just ego.
Memory is a necessary part of ego. If you don't remember "rattlesnake bites" then you won't be around long to remember anything.

I have found that there are different levels of memory, starting with "race memory" which is part of the collective unconscious, sort of like the BIOS of a computer booting up. It provides the basic survival rules.

Communication also has a memory, which psychology identifies as "persona." That memory, along with the senses, is used to generate a communication pathway.

The brain also has memory in a number of forms, short-term and long-term, as well as emotional memory and sense-based memory (images, sounds, smells, etc).

Something I've played on heavily in my life is "karmic memory"--memory and experience from other incarnations that I was able to adjust and integrate into this life.

When I died on the operating table, I had another kind of memory, a "spiritual memory" of sorts, the memory that defined who I was, my "identity," which transcends physical death.

I separate out my "conceptual translator" as a distinct component of my psyche, which goes between the memory and the brain (to run the mechanisms of communication). Communication then becomes a process of interpreting input (sensation and intuition) to build a concept map that is comprised of motifs. From there, I compare the concept map to my memory for similar patterns, which often returns a good number of matches. From there, I pull up my memory of who I am communicating with, to determine which symbols would provide for the most effective communication, then I can select one or more of the matching patterns to communicate additional information back--places that I have mapped and appear missing from the concept map under evaluation.

Many times, there will be nodes on the concept map that do not match anything in my memory maps, which is where I find "inspiration", such as the works of Larson or Mathis. The concepts were there in my mind, just not associated with the maps that were initially retrieved. That allows me to link my internal maps together into a larger world view, so I "learn." Sometimes I find a lot of duplicated or erroneous notations on my internal map because of this, and that is when I do a "correlative update" (term from Stargate's DHD mapping of star locations) to reduce the duplicate information and fix the associative errors.

A person's degree of consciousness would determine how to act or react to the retrieved and/or updated map. Reaction would just initiate a response based on prior valuing. Action would consider the reaction, use imagination (imagery played out internally) to alter the reactive response to a more beneficial situation.

That's is the "sharing of maps" concept I've written about on this site.

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Gopi » Wed May 23, 2012 10:57 pm

Raytrek wrote:This is the ego, the thing that distorts thoughts and bends them to your attained value structure.
Ego, the way I understand it, is something that makes a being an individual, giving it a uniqueness... a house for the Individual Self. That ego, in its primitive form, is still blown everywhere by emotions, and that is what you are pointing out as the distortions... the emotions distort the thoughts, and we call that Egoism, arrogance, or basic self-serving nature. The more the thoughts take hold, the more the Ego releases itself from instinct and emotions and re-organizes that energy into a sensible arrangement.
LoneBear wrote:If you are referring to ego as the complex responsible for survival, then by nature, it would not distort thought--if anything you need "clean" data to survive. Bad information usually leads to injury and accident. That is why accurate intelligence is so important in the military.

Actually, when you examine it further, the survival is a function of egoism, and not of the Ego per se, which actually survives death into multiple incarnations. Part of the "clean data" is also the fact that death is a transformation, and that karma works in between incarnations. It is when that data is ignored, that you get an intelligence which is distorted and based only on survival, as in the military, into something which results in cold blooded murder.
LoneBear wrote:Beauty can inspire (animating action or influence) someone to create more beauty, but that is just proving my point--the inspiration is just creation of a more beneficial environment.
Beauty inspires... and that can include anything. It can inspire one to represent that beauty in art, another to take hikes in scenic routes, another to delve deep into mathematics exploring it, another to pursue a woman or man, and another to pursue spirituality.

Creating a beneficial environment, in which sense? For me, the benefit is to the individual, and what helps him grow.
LoneBear wrote:Appears to be a form of self-centrism. After all, how many pieces of art, music or literature do you find submitted to the public by "anonymous?"
Agreed, in art, there is more elbow room to become egoistic, however there is also more opportunity for development. The aesthetic sense, when applied properly, actually gives nourishment to the soul. It is when one misses that objective connection to art and beauty, that the arrogance blooms among artists, everything becomes one sided and subjective, and people get lost in flights of fancy (or in drugs).
LoneBear wrote:Are you are speaking of beauty as an archetype, such as Aphrodite? I would agree that there is an archetypal function that provides motivation for beneficial situations and circumstances, as a component to survival.
Beauty in my opinion has little to do with survival... in fact, the same Nature which gives us beautiful sunsets and designs on a butterfly's wings also gives us the tiger ripping the throat of a deer, or the cockroach. That nevertheless is part of the whole rhythm of Nature, and possesses a tremendous beauty.

No, beauty as a sense for truth, and a sense for the Other World. Beauty is not an Archetype, but the Archetype IS beautiful! In fact, as an analogy, I would consider beauty like light... just in the way sunlight nourishes plants, and the way we feel our thoughts becoming alive in sunlight (even with blind men), in a similar way art and beauty nourish the soul (beyond a single life), even if one has no sense for it. But when one develops the sense for it, through training and intuition, then one can perceive it and also create it, just like how we light a candle after learning about light.

Light exists even if we are blind, and beauty exists, objectively, even if we are blind to it. In the same way that not everybody sees exactly the same colors, everyone might not get the same sense of beauty from every object.
It is time.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Thu May 24, 2012 9:38 am

Gopi wrote:Light exists even if we are blind, and beauty exists, objectively, even if we are blind to it. In the same way that not everybody sees exactly the same colors, everyone might not get the same sense of beauty from every object.
I am unable to follow the directions of the map you are relating, perhaps from lack of recognizable references. Can you describe "beauty" in terms identifiable in my world view?

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Fri May 25, 2012 11:52 pm

I kind of just throw ideas around, not really sure if they make sense or not, so this helps to have some kind of critiqueand adding of ideas I have missed. I have never really had friends that think on a level that understands me so with such lack of interactive experience, I find it hard (not impossible) to understand you guys. So I appreciate that.

Here is my latest idea that I can't tell if it makes sense or is just stating the obvious.

An idea may well be composed of existing factors but the imagination is the process of ordering those existing factors into something original. I do believe that all ideas are the same at the source, it is only a matter of our experiences/memories that alter it to the thought communicated. That experience/memory factor could be called ego but it is what the values of emotion and imagination are compared to in the process of thinking. So there are the ends of the spectrum, consciousness at one end which is a fixed possition and experiences/memories at the other end which is a variable.
The two factors that connect the two, the process of translating the source thought to the communicated thought, is emotion and imagination. I don’t know exactly what imagination is but it exists as an ordering of memories that have been stimulated by the source thought just as emotion exists as a valueing of experiences. No doubt the source thought is likely stimulated by external factors, experiences, like a cause and effect cycle.
ie: Something external happens to stimulate the perceptions which stimulates the source thought which stimulates the imagination, an ordering of memories from previous experiences, to value the new experience and develop responses to it, be they emotional and/or intellectual.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Sat May 26, 2012 10:16 am

Raytrek wrote:I find it hard (not impossible) to understand you guys. So I appreciate that.
If you need something clarified, please feel free to ask.
Raytrek wrote:An idea may well be composed of existing factors but the imagination is the process of ordering those existing factors into something original.
"Existing factors" would need some clarification.

Below, you infer that experiences and memory are those factors, but consider this... the younger the child, the more active the imagination. Being newborn, they are also the ones with the fewest experiences and memories to draw upon, so the logical conclusion would be that you become more imaginative with age, experience and memory. But the opposite is true!
Raytrek wrote:I do believe that all ideas are the same at the source, it is only a matter of our experiences/memories that alter it to the thought communicated. That experience/memory factor could be called ego but it is what the values of emotion and imagination are compared to in the process of thinking. So there are the ends of the spectrum, consciousness at one end which is a fixed position and experiences/memories at the other end which is a variable.
One of the things I learned from both Dewey Larson and Miles Mathis was the the only "constant" in the Universe is change. Nature is dynamic, and once you fix an endpoint (a zero or infinity) then you've entered a fictional representation, a shadow, of the Universe. I suspect that the basic concepts of projection apply to everything, including consciousness, thoughts, ideas, imagination and beauty. The Source would be in the dynamism of the Universe, and the expression in the static snapshots we make of it.
Raytrek wrote:The two factors that connect the two, the process of translating the source thought to the communicated thought, is emotion and imagination.
That is an interesting idea. Everyone knows that communication occurs on different levels, or perhaps "strata," where different assumptions are made--just like projective geometry. The more conceptual the communication, as in telepathy or empathy, the more accurate the communication becomes.

I was considering which was the "worst" form of communication that man uses. Thought it might be text, because you have to use "emoticons" to represent emotions, but then most well-written literature is inspiring. When I read a good book, I actually stop reading consciously and watch the story being played out in my mind as my eyes transform the text into images. Physical contact is used to express emotion, voice to express thought, with an emotional subtext (amplitude, accenting, microtremors, etc). What I've concluded is that the worst form of communication is electronic "texting." Digitized voice would be one up from that, as the narrow bandwidth on phone communication cuts off much of the expressive quality of voice.

I consider the best form of communication to be the "psychic Bard", the storyteller who uses voice, body language, facial expression, projected imagery and occasionally musical accompaniment to tell a tale. Thinking back to my past, the best teachers I had were the ones that could tell a good tale; the worst were the monotone lecturers.
Raytrek wrote:I don’t know exactly what imagination is but it exists as an ordering of memories that have been stimulated by the source thought just as emotion exists as a valuing of experiences. No doubt the source thought is likely stimulated by external factors, experiences, like a cause and effect cycle.
Since I've been your age, but you have yet to be mine, I'll relate this: imagination either fades out or overwhelms with age. People in my generation are either purely "scientific" with hard, fixed rules or live completely in a fantasy realm, with little connection back to reality. It is very difficult to maintain a balance.

Thinking back, my imagination started to fade out about 35 years of age, pushing more towards the "thinking." It was actually the same time I ran across Larson's Reciprocal System research, which forced me to continue to use my imagination because I could not comprehend the scientific basis (light is "still" and everything else is moving?) In the 20 year since then, I have noticed that I underwent a kind of "split"--my conscious self taking the rational, deductive logic approach and my unconscious self taking imaginative and creative route, expressing itself through dreams. With my RS2 research, I literally "dream up" ideas then use those insights to improve deductive theory. And what I do while awake has a reciprocal influence on my dreams--providing content for imagination.

It's a very interesting topic, Ray.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Mon May 28, 2012 7:40 am

"Existing factors" would need some clarification.

This was a discussion I had with someone else. Basically they were saying that each idea is reworking of existing ideas. They said that they think it was Descártes who said "The imagination does not exist" (not sure if he was right about that) and that every idea is traceable to a preceeding idea, and theoretically you could trace all ideas back to an original idea. I was saying that an idea may be comprised of existing ideas but the imagination is the process of re-ordering or reverse engineering the existing ideas into a new and original idea. Basically that this process itself can be described as the imagination.

But that is an excellent point you made about the imaginations of children, if anything the forging of new memories from experiences seems to constrain the imagination as time goes by. As though memories give us more grounding in "reality" and less freedom in this fantasy realm.

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 620
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Gopi » Tue May 29, 2012 10:42 am

Raytrek wrote:They said that they think it was Descártes who said "The imagination does not exist" (not sure if he was right about that) and that every idea is traceable to a preceeding idea, and theoretically you could trace all ideas back to an original idea. I was saying that an idea may be comprised of existing ideas but the imagination is the process of re-ordering or reverse engineering the existing ideas into a new and original idea.
That is a wonderful description of it. Yes, I'd say the imagination is creation of new ideas.
LoneBear wrote:Since I've been your age, but you have yet to be mine, I'll relate this: imagination either fades out or overwhelms with age. People in my generation are either purely "scientific" with hard, fixed rules or live completely in a fantasy realm, with little connection back to reality. It is very difficult to maintain a balance.
The unconscious capacities would die out, but didn't your powers of conscious "Image"-ination, or simulation, improve with age? I remember you mentioning the viewing of a solar system in your head... that is conscious imagination, or at least a start at it, isn't it?
LoneBear wrote:my conscious self taking the rational, deductive logic approach and my unconscious self taking imaginative and creative route, expressing itself through dreams.
Currently attempting to take the creative route while conscious... and that is where this comes in:
LoneBear wrote:I am unable to follow the directions of the map you are relating, perhaps from lack of recognizable references. Can you describe "beauty" in terms identifiable in my world view?
Separate thread for that... pretty important concept.
It is time.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Tue May 29, 2012 8:08 pm

Gopi wrote:
LoneBear wrote:my conscious self taking the rational, deductive logic approach and my unconscious self taking imaginative and creative route, expressing itself through dreams.
Currently attempting to take the creative route while conscious...
In a way, yes. But I recognize that my conscious self is productive, not creative. It is my unconscious self that has the creativity, but lacks productivity. What I am attempting to do is to build an accurate transform between the conscious and unconscious selves to merge the two into a larger whole. It is my psychological yin-yang that I am attempting to integrate into Tao. Still keeping both aspects, but just adding a lot of bridges over the boundary separating them.
Gopi wrote:
LoneBear wrote:I am unable to follow the directions of the map you are relating, perhaps from lack of recognizable references. Can you describe "beauty" in terms identifiable in my world view?
Separate thread for that... pretty important concept.
From the other thread, this is what I needed for "recognizable references," trimmed down to the exact phrases that provided the localization, in case you get curious about it:
Gopi wrote:Something can be true, but it can also feel ugly, as if it is not in the right place, ...
As they say "the ugly truth is that..."
There is a lot in the world today that assaults our sense of beauty, even if it does not assault our sense for truth.
...but the fact that we cannot do anything about it.
...it is our own initiative that we feel is being pushed back... that is our creativity.
The first is a correlation between truth and beauty. Truth is mapped and has a bridge, so that gave me a pointer as to which bridge I needed to cross.

"The ugly truth is" is an archetypal motif, which is a landmark on my unconscious side, so I was able to determine which direction your line of thought headed off in.

The third element is a dissonance between truth and beauty... a break in the landscape, so "over the river and through the woods..."

The remainder limits the search area (cannot do; pushed back).

I did not recognize the area because my "forest" is a lot more overgrown than yours. Been a good 10 years since I had any landscapers over in that region, but once my little piece of Kosh got in there and started looking around, I could identify the perspective from your other messages.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:45 pm

Say for a moment that God does exist and he is every bit as omnipotent as it is claimed, he has no limits at all. If this is true then he is capable of existing and not existing simultaneously. Everything that is possible, and that could be anything, could be happening right here and now, and not, simultaneously. Every time and every place may be this moment here and not. How does rationality stand to that potential? It can only say it is possible but then return to that which it can verify, it can only continue in its established paradigm and in that paradigm it is correct.


I believe that I don't need to believe anything. Beliefs are for people who need to rationalize existence. I have feelings, an imagination and I understand that is enough. Why wouldn't it be, I have a great imagination.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:56 am

Raytrek wrote:How does rationality stand to that potential?
Rationality would say "bad assumption."
Raytrek wrote:I believe that I don't need to believe anything. Beliefs are for people who need to rationalize existence. I have feelings, an imagination and I understand that is enough. Why wouldn't it be, I have a great imagination.
You mean you believe you have feelings and imagination, and you believe that understanding is enough? :D

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:15 pm

Ha, yes it seems like a contradiction but I did say I do not need to believe, a difference between needing and wanting. It is reasonably safe to assume that most animals have no grasp of concepts, so how can they exist without a belief stucture? That is the kind of principle I am driving at, not that we cannot entertain things such as imagination, but that it is more akin to an addiction than an instinct. So picking and chosing that which is advantageous, enjoyable things, and using the principle to disolve the relevance of things that offend our sensiblities. It maybe an unhealthy idea along the lines of compartmentalization and selective recall like memory repression, so I am interested in your take on it.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:58 am

Raytrek wrote:Ha, yes it seems like a contradiction but I did say I do not need to believe, a difference between needing and wanting.
It is an important distinction. The Self needs very little, but the ego wants a lot. Ah, another reciprocal relationship!
Raytrek wrote:It is reasonably safe to assume that most animals have no grasp of concepts, so how can they exist without a belief stucture?
Having spent more time with animals than with people, I would not say that was a "reasonably safe" assumption. If I were to judge humanity based on what I see at the local Pub, I would reach the same conclusion about mankind!

Animals range from Mortimer Snerd to Albert Einstein, just like people do. There are some animals that you can look in the eye, and there is definitely someone looking back at you, thinking, analyzing, calculating... but like people, not many that do.
Raytrek wrote:That is the kind of principle I am driving at, not that we cannot entertain things such as imagination, but that it is more akin to an addiction than an instinct. So picking and chosing that which is advantageous, enjoyable things, and using the principle to disolve the relevance of things that offend our sensiblities. It maybe an unhealthy idea along the lines of compartmentalization and selective recall like memory repression, so I am interested in your take on it.
My take is based on Carl Jung, that there are TWO, rational valuing systems: thinking and feeling. Like space and time, one can be directly "observed" and the other cannot, only being detected by how it changes the observed components (like magnetic lines of force moving iron filings).

Thinking is the "observable," based in concepts.

Feeling is the "unobservable," based in belief and faith.

Our faith and beliefs give us feelings about things, which modify our thinking and our responses, such as embracing or repression. In RS2, I represent "time" as an imaginary number--not because it is "make believe," but because we need to use our imagination to understand it, as it is not directly observable nor measurable. Same thing is going on with belief... we associate it with imagination because it is not purely conceptual, but it does not mean that it isn't--just like time is the reciprocal of space, belief is the reciprocal of concept.

If you were to move to the "other side," you would see belief and concept swap places. That's what happens when you are asleep and dream.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:14 pm

I came to an understanding of Nihilism, and doing so found it a liberation of attachment. In being free from the values of everything, which is an interesting state, I found I was free to assign any value I want to anything I want and remain able to dissolve those values at any given time. Of course I could remain in the pure Nihilistic state and be free of attachment, pressure and the need to justify anything to myself or others, but I found after a while that it was monotomous, lacking zest.

I also found that I am in this absolute state of freedom, so I asked "Why would I waste that freedom on nothingness?" and so I began to assign values to things such as morality, love, the search for wisdom, the exchange of insights and the embracing of passions. I assigned a metaphysical value to love, that it is a divine manifestation, infact all "good" things are attributed to this force. As for the "bad" things, I decided I can approach them for reasoning by way of scientific laws of cause and effect.

I also faced a conclusion that I had been considering for some time. That is: All things I do are done for my benefit, even my compassion and charity is ultimately given so I feel better about myself. In this way I forge a stronger bond with myself, both a friendship and loving relationship where I enjoy my own company and can more easily forgive my mistakes, especially that they are never done in malice. Yet knowing my kind acts are motivated by a selfish gain does not diminish the fact that kindness is performed because of it, so it still seems justified. In this sense, selfishness is truth and selflessness is a delusion.

The result is I am in a state of bliss most of the time, except on the occassion when I need to rationalize an instance relating to cause and effect, but if I come to an impass of sorts I can simply dissolve the need to satisfy it with Nihilistic techniques, and that happens less than expected. So even though I know my values are artificial, they afford me a satisfaction and pleasure that is unattainable in the pure Nihilistic state and it is all a value that I have designed for my own personal comfort, rather than an aquired and obligatory value system that I have been groomed and culture to dictate me over my life time.

Post Reply