Define "being"

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

SammDickens
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 10:27 pm
@NoOne phil,
NoOne;93559 wrote:
If you take that view, you have to say "Not things are etc." You would have to predicate of the non-predicable. Take the time to read and reread Plato, for if you look at the two-element metaphysics, and what it implies, you find that historically man finds it impossible to grasp. They say such things as "A line is composed of an infinite number of points." Not realizing that they make the bounded the boundary, and it would make as much sence to say I can make a salad by waving a knife in the air an infinite number of times.

As Plato point out, all you can do is name these first elements. You cannot predicate of them. The idea is not part of man's understanding yet. But, when you begin to master it, you can see how foolish are the men called genius today. They are no more than popular mystics.

Words do not define words--not all words. We have two primary naming systems, names of things directly, and the names of things composed by the names of a things forms and material differences.

Some day your eyes may open and see the mountains of rubbish being passed off for wisdom, and learn that it is true, when man's eyes start to open, the wisdom of what he thought were wise shall perish. It is just a fact of what will happen when the linguistic ability of man evolves.


I don't know, but maybe I'm better off if I don't let Plato tell me what I can't do. I never told him what he couldn't do, and I think he did rather well for himself. This talk of predication is right scary. I thought a predicate was an element of grammar.

In other words, I'm way behind you on this. :perplexed: Sorry!

Samm
 
Richardgrant
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 02:43 am
@saiboimushi,
As a student of Walter Russell, I see being as the center of of all motion and at right angles to that motion. it is the true essence of Who I AM. It is the expression of that stillness we call matter and life. Richard
 
NoOne phil
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 05:48 am
@SammDickens,
Samm;93682 wrote:
I don't know, but maybe I'm better off if I don't let Plato tell me what I can't do. I never told him what he couldn't do, and I think he did rather well for himself. This talk of predication is right scary. I thought a predicate was an element of grammar.

In other words, I'm way behind you on this. :perplexed: Sorry!

Samm


I quote Plato because he was one of the first who clearly stated a physical fact. Predication is about grammar, and grammar is biologically abstracted from physical fact-- that is if you are using grammar and not just the common heap of words.

People say this and say that, and run around asking what is truth, etc. etc. A wiser man would ask, what determines if or if not one or more words can or cannot be predicated of another. After all Aristotle rightly pointed out, in the Law of the Excluded Middle, that any predicate can truely be asserted or denied of any subject. The next question he never answered, by what principle is the assertion and denial made? Plato tried to get the reader to abstract the principle--not a hard one, actually. Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. When you understand that, you understand the foundation of truth.

The problem today, is that one is not taught what a predicat is--it is a name composed of the names of a things material difference and the form-limit-boundary--ect. on that difference.

Thus a simple sentence can have, two subjects and no predicats. One subject and and two predicates. or four predicates.

Example:

Tom (thing) is Mary (thing). --two subjects.

Tom (thing) is all (material) man (form). -- one subject two predicates.

A (material) man (form) is an (material) animal (form). -- Four predicates and no subject.
 
salima
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 07:24 am
@saiboimushi,
so who changed all the rules in grammar since i was in school?
 
SammDickens
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 10:29 am
@salima,
salima;93717 wrote:
so who changed all the rules in grammar since i was in school?


Oh, Salima! You probably attended one of those backwards little schools that taught you that every sentence consists of a subject and a predicate, that a subject is some form of noun or pronoun, and that a predicate is an action or state of being associated with the subject. Like "Gladys (subject) ate a turkey sandwich from her lunch box (predicate)." The predicate here consists of the verb (ate), an object (a turkey sandwich), and a prepositional phrase (from her lunch box) that might also be broken down into its component parts.

I too attended such a backward little school, and often drew little space aliens in my notebook during English class, but I remember something to the effect of what I have written above. Smile

A subject and a predicate here are both "things", hence the leading articles. When I am told that a thing may be predicated, I want to get a turkey sandwich outta my lunch box and ponder such things imponderable. NoOne's last post, I thought, was a little helpful in this regard, but predicating and the condition of having been predicated are fearsome anomalies in my universe of grammatical understanding.

I think Plato has done something of which I am often guilty. He has taken a word and put it to use outside the parameters of its common usage. (I think philosophers necessarily have to do this more often than they would like.) It is part of the philosopher's (forgive me this) predicament.

I studied language a bit for some runic work I was doing. In English, I noted, there are only two kinds of verbs, "do" verbs and "is" verbs, in any predicate. "Is" verbs include any form of the verb "to be" (is, am, are, was, were, etc.). "Do" verbs include the bulk of verbs describing actions and can be restated with some form of the verb "to do". Thus "Gladys ate a sandwich" may be restated as "Gladys did eat a sandwich."

I wonder if Plato is saying that we can replace Gladys with some other noun or pronoun and test for viability? As in "The shoe ate a sandwich," or "A surly gang of troubadors ate sandwiches," or "The searing ions from the nuclear blast, scattering in a vast dome over the blast area and into the sky and the space above, ate a turkey sandwich." Humorous images, but they don't inspire me to insight. How 'bout you?

NoOne, help! :perplexed:

Samm
 
prothero
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 10:50 am
@SammDickens,
I do not think speculative philosophy lends itself well to linguistic analysis. That is not to say that defintion of terms and clarity of language are not helpful. Too often the discussion degenerates into purely an analysis of language and a reduction of language to logic.

It is precisely the rise of logical positivism, liguistic analysis and analytic philosophy that pushed philosophy into a corner where nothing of significance or value could be said. The modern trend is to reverse this and there has been a return to philsoophical speculation and the consideration of more fundamental questions even if definitive answers are acknowledged not to be available.

ie. Too much analysis takes all the fun and spirit out of speculation.
 
SammDickens
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 11:27 am
@prothero,
Prothero, you must tell me how you do the multi-quote response method (or of course I could look it up and try again). Anyway, perhaps someone as long-winded as myself should not have available such a weapon of discourse. Smile

The value of labeling our thoughts is that we can then refer to a large body of philosophical work with one word, like panpsychism. The danger of such labeling is that we may use such labels to identify something very similar and thereby conceal and ignore the little differences that may have some significance in and of themselves. (This message is to Salima too.)

I talk about the consciousness of rocks for shock value. And perhaps consciousness is not a good choice of words, but I think it is. I want to make the point that human consciousness did not just pop up out of nowhere as a result of millions of years of evolution. It is instead a higher development of a very basic and primitive process that has existed from the dawn of time. We are so very egotistical in our self-evaluations, to think that human perception and conscious awareness are some pentacle of evolution. Well yes, they are advancements, but they do not separate us entirely from the ape, the single-celled life form, the rock, the stars.

Consciousness, as the ability to experience and nothing more, is universal and perhaps the fundamental property by which an entity may be said to have reality in the cosmos. It is simply the ability to interact with other realities in the universe. The interaction of an electron orbiting an atomic nucleus is a process whereby the electron (and proton) "experience" the electrical charges that draw them toward one another. (I forget what it is that keeps them at bay so they do not crash together.) The interactive process by which an apple, relieved of its attachment to the apple tree, falls to the skull of a lazy young lad resting in the shade is simply the aggregate being of the apple experiencing (responding to the stimulation of) the gentle tug of the Earth to all things loitering in the sky.

Every reality in the universe is linked to all the other realities in its vicinity by such interactive processes which we call experiences and which, in humans, include the five (?) senses and other delights. In humans, we say that we are conscious, aware, perceptive. These are just labels. If we bind ourselves to carelessly with labels, we may not see that the processes they describe have more to them, are directly related to other phenomena that do not receive those labels. Rocks are real. They interact with other realities in their vicinity (their range of experience). They feel (in a non-sentient manner) wind and rain, sunlight and gravity and the bed of Earth in which they lie. They are conscious beings without sentient process. If they were not conscious, if they did not respond to other realities, if they did not experience, they would not warm in the sunlight or cool in an evening rain. They would not sink or drop in response to gravity. They would not be real because they did not interact with their environment. I love to declare that rocks are conscious beings, and I hope to wake a few people up to a new way of looking at ourselves in our universe, to a new awareness of our interconnectedness to all things, to our interaction with all things that makes us real.

Sorry, my donkeys have gotta be fed and I'm running late. :BRB: <-- does this mean "Be Right Back"?

Good day to all!
Samm
 
NoOne phil
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 11:48 am
@salima,
salima;93717 wrote:
so who changed all the rules in grammar since i was in school?


No one changed them, and if you search the net, they are not actually known. You will find, in a short time, a great many grammar theories available. However, If you research what is still in the work, in Plato and Aristotle, you will find a system of grammar that was being explored and developed. It did not survive history. Step by step it can be demonstrated to be true. If you wish more comments about it, search johnclark8659 on the internet archive. audio essays and all for free.

I have not written a difinitive work on it yet, it has taken a long time to research and understand it, even for me. I have been looking for a co author, someone who can learn and understand, but I think my time is over for that.

A co-author who can actually take a hatchet and cut off my rough edges, or perhaps has talent in explaining what I find simple to those who find it difficult. Face it, I'm artless.
j.c.
 
prothero
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 12:20 pm
@SammDickens,
[QUOTE=Samm;93752] Prothero, you must tell me how you do the multi-quote response method (or of course I could look it up and try again). Anyway, perhaps someone as long-winded as myself should not have available such a weapon of discourse. [/QUOTE]Well I personally quote the post and then copy it into a word processor where it is easier to work on than on the web site. You have to copy the [-QUOTE=Samm;93752] headers and footers [-/QUOTE] and delete or move blocks of text around but it makes it easy after a little while.


[QUOTE=Samm;93752] The value of labeling our thoughts is that we can then refer to a large body of philosophical work with one word, like panpsychism. The danger of such labeling is that we may use such labels to identify something very similar and thereby conceal and ignore the little differences that may have some significance in and of themselves. (This message is to Salima too.) [/QUOTE]Yes well there are significant differences between the views of various panpsychists, panexperientialists and psychialists but you can identify individuals who share many features of your basic worldview. Then the fun of exploring differences can be engaged in. That is what all forums and discussion groups do identify people with similar views and interests. Your most enjoyable discussions will often be with people who at least share your basic views.


[QUOTE=Samm;93752] I talk about the consciousness of rocks for shock value. And perhaps consciousness is not a good choice of words, but I think it is. I want to make the point that human consciousness did not just pop up out of nowhere as a result of millions of years of evolution. It is instead a higher development of a very basic and primitive process that has existed from the dawn of time. We are so very egotistical in our self-evaluations, to think that human perception and conscious awareness are some pentacle of evolution. Well yes, they are advancements, but they do not separate us entirely from the ape, the single-celled life form, the rock, the stars. [/QUOTE]I agree that the notion that human like mental abilities just "pop up" or "magically appear" is neither rational nor scientific and not in keeping with the evolution or process view of reality. I agree that mental properties including non sensory forms of perception,memory and response are widely present in nature. Nature is in some sense (alive, perceptive, responsive) to the very core.

[QUOTE=Samm;93752] Consciousness, as the ability to experience and nothing more, is universal and perhaps the fundamental property by which an entity may be said to have reality in the cosmos. It is simply the ability to interact with other realities in the universe. The interaction of an electron orbiting an atomic nucleus is a process whereby the electron (and proton) "experience" the electrical charges that draw them toward one another. (I forget what it is that keeps them at bay so they do not crash together.) The interactive process by which an apple, relieved of its attachment to the apple tree, falls to the skull of a lazy young lad resting in the shade is simply the aggregate being of the apple experiencing (responding to the stimulation of) the gentle tug of the Earth to all things loitering in the sky. [/QUOTE] I agree with the use of the term "experience" here which is the reason some writers in this area prefer panexperientialism for this view.


[QUOTE=Samm;93752] Every reality in the universe is linked to all the other realities in its vicinity by such interactive processes which we call experiences and which, in humans, include the five (?) senses and other delights. In humans, we say that we are conscious, aware, perceptive. These are just labels. If we bind ourselves to carelessly with labels, we may not see that the processes they describe have more to them, are directly related to other phenomena that do not receive those labels. Rocks are real. They interact with other realities in their vicinity (their range of experience). They feel (in a non-sentient manner) wind and rain, sunlight and gravity and the bed of Earth in which they lie. They are conscious beings without sentient process. If they were not conscious, if they did not respond to other realities, if they did not experience, they would not warm in the sunlight or cool in an evening rain. They would not sink or drop in response to gravity. They would not be real because they did not interact with their environment. I love to declare that rocks are conscious beings, and I hope to wake a few people up to a new way of looking at ourselves in our universe, to a new awareness of our interconnectedness to all things, to our interaction with all things that makes us real. [/QUOTE] One must be careful about using terms which already carry implications, understandings or conceptual baggage. You are redefining "consciousness" . I agree with your concept. The goal however is to get others to take you seriously and give the matter some thought not to dismiss what you say as "fanciful and amusing". From NPR "is your bike cold in the rain, is your fish lonely in the fishbowl, are leaves afraid of heights". The world is not composed of substance in motion but of events (experiences) in relation. That is process philosophy. You may already be completely aware of the more serious philosophical and scientific writings regarding these concepts.
 
richrf
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 12:27 pm
@prothero,
prothero;93766 wrote:
One must be careful about using terms which already carry implications, understandings or conceptual baggage. You are redefining "consciousness" .


Not everyone is interested in convincing or teaching. Some people just want to share.

I appreciate Samm's views on the merits alone. I understand it. I agree with it. I am glad it was posted on the forum.

Rich
 
prothero
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 02:57 pm
@richrf,
richrf;93768 wrote:
Not everyone is interested in convincing or teaching. Some people just want to share.
I appreciate Samm's views on the merits alone. I understand it. I agree with it. I am glad it was posted on the forum.
Rich

Gee, I feel chastised. I appreciate samm's views also as I indicated and I thanked him for them. If I offended Samm, my apologies to him.
but
People who try to get the concept of "experience all the way down" taken seriously fairly cringe at the "rocks are conscious" line. It is not the first time the line has been used and in the literature revelant to this area writers go out of their way to disavow that they mean "rocks are conscious". I apologise for my didatic writing style, an unforunate habit.
 
salima
 
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 12:24 am
@saiboimushi,
taken from Protheros' comment #420

Quote:
Originally Posted by salima http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
i do also see the mental as being part of the physical but on a different level, while consciousness is the ground or field from which they manifest.

Are you envisioning a 'cosmic mind"? a "universal soul"? or what form does this consciousness take?


Quote:
Originally Posted by salima http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
and prothero-

Quote:
Originally Posted by salima http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
consciousness does not emerge from matter and mind-it is the opposite. that is how there is consciousness in a rock, it is the essence of the rock which emerged or manifested from consciousness...may be it is still irrational, but that is my current level of understanding. i am willing to be shown why it isnt possible though...

I respectfully disagree. I think we both view the universe as enchanted and imbued with spirit. I do in some sense view everything as an "emanation of spirit" or a "manifestation of the divine" but I would avoid using the term "mind" or "consciousness" because of the concept laden nature of the terms. To begin to talk of "rocks as conscious" or of "rocks as created by consciousness" leads to serious confusion about terms and concepts. No serious writer in this area; and there are several (scientists and philosophers alike) talks about the consciousness of rocks.
See "Radical Nature" by Christian de Quincy or even better
"Panpsychism in the West" by David Skrbina
Skrbina's book especially gives a historical review of panpsychism as a historical and more modern philosophical and scientific concept.

****************************
hi prothero-
I am envisioning a cosmic consciousness-you would then call it a universal soul? I avoid the terms soul, divine and spirit for the same reasons you avoid mind and consciousness. they only cause misunderstanding. in mystic traditions the light separates into rays that appear to form individual souls, but are all connected to the source and rather than individual independent entities they are only reflections. that is a common analogy. however, I extend it to all that has manifested in the physical realms.

so I see everything as having been manifested (I simply cant think of a more appropriate word than that) from the same source, but some we call animals, some plants, some minerals,etc. we call certain conditions life, death, illness, health, etc. so you can say it is being projected-what to call the projector? call it god, call it is-ness, call it That, call it harvey...

I recall that I decided consciousness was not the best word to use; I have heard it called intelligence, when it is in the state of nothingness, and it becomes awareness after duality has occurred, since prior to that it couldnt be aware of anything-consciousness cannot be aware of itself, but only aware of an object. so I have read, anyway. and that by observing reflections of itself it can begin to know something of its own nature.

it is all very significant I think that mankind has come to the conclusion quite often that what is most important is to 'know thyself'. it is also said that the reason for manifestation was for 'whateveritis that has no name' desired to know itself. these things I dont know and consider it nothing but speculation.

I usually dont think of everything as being enchanted, but it is-and thank you for reminding me! and i really dont think we disagree on anything...



 
SammDickens
 
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 08:00 pm
@prothero,
Didn't offend. No apology needed. Our views are pretty close on this issue.

---------- Post added 09-28-2009 at 10:16 PM ----------

salima;94016 wrote:

hi prothero-
I am envisioning a cosmic consciousness-you would then call it a universal soul? I avoid the terms soul, divine and spirit for the same reasons you avoid mind and consciousness. they only cause misunderstanding. in mystic traditions the light separates into rays that appear to form individual souls, but are all connected to the source and rather than individual independent entities they are only reflections. that is a common analogy. however, I extend it to all that has manifested in the physical realms.

so I see everything as having been manifested (I simply cant think of a more appropriate word than that) from the same source, but some we call animals, some plants, some minerals,etc. we call certain conditions life, death, illness, health, etc. so you can say it is being projected-what to call the projector? call it god, call it is-ness, call it That, call it harvey...

I recall that I decided consciousness was not the best word to use; I have heard it called intelligence, when it is in the state of nothingness, and it becomes awareness after duality has occurred, since prior to that it couldnt be aware of anything-consciousness cannot be aware of itself, but only aware of an object. so I have read, anyway. and that by observing reflections of itself it can begin to know something of its own nature.

it is all very significant I think that mankind has come to the conclusion quite often that what is most important is to 'know thyself'. it is also said that the reason for manifestation was for 'whateveritis that has no name' desired to know itself. these things I dont know and consider it nothing but speculation.

I usually dont think of everything as being enchanted, but it is-and thank you for reminding me! and i really dont think we disagree on anything...


Salima,

You say you "see everything as having been manifested from the same source" and so do I. This implies that it must arise from an unmanifest state, a hidden and potential state of being.

I believe your source is a state of pure being independent of space and time, an absolute unity from which the necessary duality of experience (that-which-experiences and that-which-is-experienced) both derive. Because the space-time universe is a realm of experience, this duality is the essential element of our reality.

In our experience, there are two categories of things-that-are-experienced. Some things we experience belong to a shared realm where apparently many conscious beings all exist and interact within the same extended dimensions of space and time. We call this shared realm "the universe" (or the world). Other things that we experience belong to a private realm to which each of us conscious beings has exclusive access. In this private realm are our thoughts and reflections, our memories, our imagination with its many facets, and our feelings (which rather cross over from one realm to another). Here, there is time because there is process and change, but there is no space. We often call this realm of private experiences the mind (or the self).

When we say something is real, we mean not only that it exists (which all things-that-are-experienced do) but that it exists as a body in that universe, the shared realm of experiences. If we say that something is imaginary, we mean that it exists, but only in the private realm of the mind as a fabrication of the imagination.

While we may question which realm is the home of things-that-are-experienced, there are no such questions about that-which-experiences. It is us. We are inescapably aware of our own consciousness, our own something-that-experiences, but we can never experience the consciousness of another being. The seer cannot be seen. Sounds spooky and mystical don't it? :eek: The ghost in the machine, the thing in itself, the unknown knower. That's us. We can be dead certain that we exist because we are dead certain that we experience, and you can't experience if you don't exist. But everyone else? That we gotta take on faith.

But here's the rub. The only real things are conscious (experiencing) things. What does not experience is not real, and we got no way of knowing what is experiencing except us. But if something is experienced as being in the universe by more than one of us, and seems to be interacting with the other things around it, we are prone to consider it real until we find out otherwise. Also, the more like us in appearance and action it may be, the more likely we will accept its reality. otherwise, we rely on the evidence of our senses ("Show me!").

But "outside" the universe, there is no space. And "outside" the mind (or self) there is no time. They are only things-that-are-experienced. That-which-experiences must then exist outside of space and time. Whoa! That'll send ya into satori if you dwell on it a moment. Whoa! More later. Whoa.

Samm


 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 10:09 pm
@salima,
salima;93717 wrote:
so who changed all the rules in grammar since i was in school?

There is only one rule, really: It is only as good as it works...
 
SammDickens
 
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 10:56 pm
@saiboimushi,
Sorry. My realization, as simple and obvious as it should be, had escaped me until I was posting. There is only one thing-that-experiences, only one, and that is spirit (the name I give to existence itself. Because spirit is outside time, I assumed it could not experience. But it does experience, only not as we do. It is the observer within all beings in all universes at all times, but it experiences everything at once--a simple summary awareness of boundless potential and boundless memory all in one. There is no change, no process, only totality.

Please forgive my silliness here.

Samm
 
richrf
 
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 11:02 pm
@SammDickens,
Samm;94172 wrote:

But here's the rub. The only real things are conscious (experiencing) things. What does not experience is not real, and we got no way of knowing what is experiencing except us. But if something is experienced as being in the universe by more than one of us, and seems to be interacting with the other things around it, we are prone to consider it real until we find out otherwise. Also, the more like us in appearance and action it may be, the more likely we will accept its reality. otherwise, we rely on the evidence of our senses ("Show me!").


Hi Samm,

What I always find interesting is how when consciousness (the mind) is in a private sleep state, then that is what we consider real. It just changes its whole sense of everything with a POOF! Same consciousness/mind (I think), but a completely different sense of what is real and there is no space/time.

Rich
 
SammDickens
 
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 09:33 pm
@richrf,
richrf;94196 wrote:
Hi Samm,

What I always find interesting is how when consciousness (the mind) is in a private sleep state, then that is what we consider real. It just changes its whole sense of everything with a POOF! Same consciousness/mind (I think), but a completely different sense of what is real and there is no space/time.

Rich

...and when I awake from my dreams, rich, I always ask myself how I could have taken that for real, even for a moment. It was so incomplete a reality, always changing in details if not even in main features. But in my dreams, these flaws neve come to mind. I wonder if I might not some day awaken from this life into a greater wakefulness, a greater reality that makes this one seem flawed by comparison, and find myself to be quite someone other than I have dreamt I was. And shall I not perhaps awaken again from that dream too? How many layers of dream might I have fallen into, being taken in by the reality of each layer.

Fortunately, I have not often if ever fallen asleep and had dreams in my dreams. This is reassuring, given that I have no perfect argument against a labyrinth of dreams. If I were a good writer of fiction, I should take advantage of this idea. :-)

Samm
 
memester
 
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:35 pm
@richrf,
richrf;94196 wrote:
Hi Samm,

What I always find interesting is how when consciousness (the mind) is in a private sleep state, then that is what we consider real. It just changes its whole sense of everything with a POOF! Same consciousness/mind (I think), but a completely different sense of what is real and there is no space/time.

Rich
I've experienced many times drifting or bouncing between states, where I challenge the dream state and it dissipates, but sometimes only recedes a bit... and both being in the dream state, and being fully aware of my own struggle to awake, happen together.
 
salima
 
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 11:26 pm
@SammDickens,
Samm;94367 wrote:
...and when I awake from my dreams, rich, I always ask myself how I could have taken that for real, even for a moment. It was so incomplete a reality, always changing in details if not even in main features. But in my dreams, these flaws neve come to mind. I wonder if I might not some day awaken from this life into a greater wakefulness, a greater reality that makes this one seem flawed by comparison, and find myself to be quite someone other than I have dreamt I was. And shall I not perhaps awaken again from that dream too? How many layers of dream might I have fallen into, being taken in by the reality of each layer.

Fortunately, I have not often if ever fallen asleep and had dreams in my dreams. This is reassuring, given that I have no perfect argument against a labyrinth of dreams. If I were a good writer of fiction, I should take advantage of this idea. :-)

Samm


hi samm-
that's funny, i never thought of any of my dreams as having been incomplete-in fact, when i awake i often think that was a better world-less limitations, etc. the only time i realize i am dreaming is when i am talking to people who have died-at some point i always realize they are dead, and then i know i am dreaming and even if i dont wan to wake up, the dream cannot continue.

do you notice things missing in your dreams? like the sky and hills are only paionted on cardboard etc?
 
SammDickens
 
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 07:59 am
@salima,
Salima, I never notice a missing sky or painted backgrounds until I at least begin to wake up, like memester wrote about and you when you realize the person you are talking to is someone who is dead. And certainly when I have fully awakened, my realization of the lack of detail and consistency in my dreams becomes complete. You're very right that the dreamworld is better in some ways and has less limitations. One of the things that awaken me from dreams is the sudden realization of exceeding my limitations--"Hey! You can't do that! Oh. I'm dreaming." After which I sometimes doggedly try to return to the dreamworld and exceed my limitations again. :-)

I enjoy my time flying through the air; shapeshifting; revisiting places I have been, some of which are there no more; and enjoying the presence of people I have known and loved who are absent now from my waking world. I enjoy the fantasies of the dreamworld, and I have an intuition that some of it has a reality we do not fathom, a reality beyond the psychological and physiological implications we give our dreams.

I suppose if we are to talk long about dreams here, we should ask, "do our dreams, or the fact that we dream in itself, tell us anything about the nature of existence and reality?" What do we think?

Samm
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/22/2024 at 02:50:07