I cannot imagine what reasons you have to say any of those things.

Someone who is considered "crazy" might simply be someone who is far more evolved and sees much, much more than the average human. You may be right smack in the middle of the "average awareness". I like to listen to those who are more than two standard deviations out.



Rich

Metaphysics tells us a lot about ourselves -- but nothing about nature itself.

Why would you not simply quote a more solid source for the idea you really want to explore rather than try to make words from elsewhere fit your ideas in a way that they are not generally accepted to?

How do you know where they fall on that spectrum?

nameless wrote:

On the other hand, if 'thought' is truly 'ego' (as it seems to be) then within the egoic (context) state of thought, exists the egoic 'self' (thought-image).

Chinese metaphysics has a more refined view of the nature of the human Individual Consciousness.

It is composed as such:

1) Shen: Spirit, the spark of life that comes from the initial Source.

2) Hun: Soul, the transcendental being that is learning, exploring, and gaining skills over multiple lives.

3) Yi: The creative mind that also brings Awareness

4) Zhi: The Willfulness

5) Po: The part of the being that is here for a single lifetime and manifests in the physical body. It uses the Zhi to survive.

It is a manner of learning to exercise the creative portion of the mind. [CENTER]Use it or lose it.
[/CENTER]

Rich

I am positing that the same consciousness that creates dreams in non-space/time also creates space/time, and the difference is how consciousness chooses to interact.
Rich

Dreams, first of all, do not contain things. They contain images of things. Dream-images.

What reason have you for thinking that those images are images of things in waking life.

Only that you now (waking) believe they do. But sometimes, people believe things and turn out to be mistaken. You seem to be so sure you are not? Any particular reason, or just your belief?

Can dream images resemble what you see in waking life? I suppose so. Are they? I guess we do not know, at least, now. There is no hard evidence either way. The anecdotal evidence is all your evidence.

I love Itzhak Bentov's, A Brief Tour of Higher Consciousness: A Cosmic Book on the Mechanics of Creation for starters

Think about rocks for a second.

All of the greatest minds in the world can ponder the metaphysical aspects of rocks. Issues of causality, of substance, of appearance versus substance, etc.

But what does that actually tell you about a rock? NOTHING.

All it tells you is how the human mind processes the idea of rocks, and how the human language can talk about them. Metaphysics is a mental exercise -- it can never provide knowledge of the substance of this world.

'Metaphysics' (as well as quantum physics) demonstrates that the "substance of 'this' world" IS a "mental 'exercise'"!
It does reveal the reality that 'rocks' are not something 'out there' as naively thought, but that there is only perceived 'substance'/rock, found only in the mind. There is no 'out there' as 'naively' conceived, there is Here!, Mind!
We learn much about 'rocks' through all sorts of disciplines/avenues of investigation and examination.
All contribute to the complete description of a 'rock'.
"The complete Universe is defined/described as the sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd (9:02:10)

Can you provide a link or resource to this "Book of Fudd" you often cite?

Thanks.

Actually it is not finished yet.
I am offering it online, with quotes here and there for now, and 'in toto' (no, not in Dorothy's dog) when finished, if ever. At present, I'm revising the updated revision.
It is spread through a few such philosophy sites.
Thank you for the kindness of your interest.
Peace

'Individual Consciousness is an illusion.

Consciousness is not dual, it is a monism.

"Spark of life" is poetic and sentimental and all but just what does it actually mean? If anything...

Suffers from the assumption of 'causality' and the vanity of considering ourselves as gods who 'create' anything.

On the other hand, the Chinese eat deer antler and tiger penises for 'virility' and cut the fins from live sharks and dump them back into the ocean to endure horrible deaths so they can gain whatever believed 'health' benefits from eating the fins. The list of common atrocities is enormous! In general, i don't hold much 'admiration' for the depth of undestanding and empathy and compassion and education of the common Chinese person.

There are a small few Chinese philosophers worth the effort, though, Lao Tsu, for one.

That is your reason? Do you know what a reason is?

So what? You cannot experience my dreams, thus, my anecdotal evidence is the only evidence available. You have to work with what you have.

I think it is an illusion to call things illusions, but as long as they are yours and not mine, I am OK with it.

For me, there is an Universal Consciousness and an Individual Consciousness - like waves in an ocean. BTW, this idea goes way back into many ancient cultures. Why? Because unity and individualism is all around to observe, and one has to make up concepts like illusions to get around the problem. Buddhists do it (they love illusions). Parmenides did it. Whenever there is something that is very prevalent and cannot be explained way, well ... why not make it an illusion. Problem solved??

Spark of Life is the wave emanating from the ocean. The ocean being the Universal Consciousness.

It sure seems like we create things - all the time. Probably why we are here. But what the heck, let's just put that in the illusion category. That's simple enough. Next problem!




Don't let it bother you. It is just an illusion. I got over it a long time ago.




Thanks for shortening the list of things to read. And btw, I am glad I finally found someone who has cleansed his soul of vanity. Me ... I'm still working on it.

Rich

---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 PM ----------



I'll go to the dictionary and check out the definition and then get back to you.

Rich

That is exactly like the old joke about the man who is searching for something at night under a street light. Someone asks whether he can help, and asks where the searcher lost the item he is lookig for. The searcher indicates a place about 20 feet away. So the new man asks, "Why are you looking here, then?" And the searcher replies, "The light is better here".

What are you talking about?

Do things appear in my dreams as they appear in reality? The only place to look is in my dream. I am the only person who has access to my dream.

I'm surprised that you are having such a hard time with this, and equally surprised that you do not have the same experience. You have never had a dream in which something in the dream appears as it does in waking life? Never a person you now? Never a place? Nothing?

What, then, is contained within your dreams?
[/COLOR]

Only Platonic Forms. As you might expect. It just might mean that the answer is that you don't know whether what appears in your dreams resembles what you experience when awake. Saying one doesn't know is not a disgrace. Consider this possibility: no one remembers dreams. You wake up, and a story pops into your head.

Only Platonic Forms.... So you believe that when we dream we see the true nature of reality, and that when we are awake we perceive only that which mimics the true nature of reality exposed by our dreams?

I did not realize that true wisdom was napping. Did not expect that at all.

Yes, I considered your possibility. It's possible. It's also possible that the universe was created and is sustained by a giant flying spaghetti monster who lives on Alpha Centauri.... it's possible, but doesn't make any sense.

A story pops into your head when you wake up. By what, magic?

Magic is not much of an explanation. But perhaps there are some physiological or psychological causes we don't know about. There is no good reason (after all) to think we are remembering anything that took place during the night except the feeling of remembering. Is there? But we have a lot of reason to think there are no spaghetti monsters. So that analogy is not persuasive, because it is a very poor analogy.