death of the Übermensch

[Nick_A]

Z

i would say consciousness is equal to the degree of utility we make of its resource [which = 0], then that utility is governed on arbitrary factors!

This is one of those great questions that are dificult to resolve. My path is valuable to me in that its cosmology makes faith understandable scientifically. The scientific method begins with a hypothesis that we are invited to experientially verify. Part of the hypothesis includes consciousnes as a source. This means that consciousness without contents doesn't exist but rather IS.

We've come to define consciousness in relation to contents. Jacob Needleman in his book "A Sense of the Cosmos" provides another perspective in chapter one.

Part Four

What Is Consciousness?
I realize that our task would be much easier if from now on we could be working with a precise definition of the word "consciousness." But it is important to stay flexible toward this question of the nature of consciousness. The word is used these days in so many different ways that out of sheer impatience one is tempted to single out one or another aspect of consciousness as its primary characteristic. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that our attitude toward knowledge of ourselves is like our attitude toward new discoveries about the external world. We so easily lose our balance when something extraordinary is discovered in science or when we come upon a new explanatory concept: Immediately the whole machinery of systematizing thought comes into play, Enthusiasm sets in, accompanied by a proliferation of utilitarian explanations, which then stand in the way of direct experiential encounters with surrounding life.
In a like manner, a new experience of one's self tempts us to believe we have discovered the sole direction for the development of consciousness, aliveness or--as it is sometimes called --presence. The same machinery of explanatory thought comes into play accompanied by pragmatic programs for "action." It is not only followers of the new religions who are victims of this tendency, taking fragments of traditional teachings which have led them to a new experience of themselves and building a subjective and missionary religion around them. This tendency in ourselves also accounts, as we shall see later, for much of the fragmentation of Modern psychology, just as it accounts for the fragmentation in the natural sciences.
In order to warn us about this tendency in ourselves, the traditional teachings--as expressed in the Bhagavad-Gita, for example--make a fundamental distinction between consciousness on the one hand and the contents of consciousness such as our perceptions of things, our sense of personal identity, our emotions and our thoughts in all their color and gradations on the other hand.
This ancient distinction has two crucial messages for us. On the one hand, it tell us that what we feel to be the best of ourselves as human beings is only part of a total structure containing layers of mind, feeling and sensation far more active, subtle and encompassing (like the cosmic spheres) than what we have settled for as our best. These lawyers are very numerous and need to be peeled back, as it were, or broken through one by one along the path of inner growth, until an individual touches in himself the fundamental intelligent forces in the cosmos.
At the same time, this distinction also communicates that the search for consciousness is a constant necessity for man. It is telling us that anything in ourselves, no matter how fine, subtle or intelligent, no matter how virtuous or close to reality, no matter how still or violent--any action, any thought, any intuition or experience--immediately absorbs all our attention and automatically becomes transformed into contents around which gather all the opinions, feelings and distorted sensations that are the supports of our secondhand sense of identity. In short, we are told that the evolution of consciousness is always "vertical" to the constant stream of mental, emotional and sensory associations within the human organism, and comprehensive of them (somewhat like a "fourth dimension"). And, seen in this light, it is not really a question of concentric layers of awareness embedded like the skins of an onion within the self, but only one skin, one veil, that constantly forms regardless of the quality or intensity of the psychic field at any given moment.
Thus, in order to understand the nature of consciousness, I must here and now in this present moment be searching for a better state of consciousness. All definitions, no matter how profound, are secondary. Even the formulations of ancient masters on this subject can be a diversion if I take them in a way that does not support the immediate personal effort to be aware of what is taking place in myself in the present moment.
In all that follows in this book, we shall continue to speak about levels of consciousness and intelligence within man and within the universe, for this idea is crucial in any attempt to reach a new understanding of science. But I wish, for the reader and for myself, that this more inner, personal meaning of the idea be constantly kept in mind.

You say that you see no God whatsoever which is true. If we are honest and admit our conscious limitations there is nothing to believe in. How can we believe in what is imposible to experience? Consciousness without content is something beyond our normal experiences. But at the same time if we admit our limitations, there is no reason to deny. It is better to just ponder the question itself and remain open to the question. Why deny something that cannot be proven? How can we deny what is theoretically beyond six dimensions but yet has no dimensions and consequesntly beyond our comprehension? God doesn't exist but rather "IS" and existence is within "IS" The fact that it is beyond our subjective comprehension doesn't deny an objective reality. This is why the question becomes if it is possible for us to increase our ability to understand?

If we live in a living conscious universe then the "Breath of Brahma" is a reasonable conception. Exhalation is analogous to involution into Creation, time/space existence, while inhalation is evolution or back to the source which is beyond existence and zero for us since we can only define it in terms of existence..

 

[_Z_]

francis

firstly we have to determine if there is an ‘i’, in buddhism there is not. let us say there is; it would not be of the brain nor of the material environment, hence the ‘i’ is more like an actor and our lives merely the part it is playing.

if everything is reducible to this non-point, then why not just be an atheist and a hedonist?

it gives us all a level playing field, we play our parts knowing that e.g. being alexander the great doesn’t actually mean you are a god, it is but a role. as all things are equal by this, then we may respect things on an equal bias, everything is important in the now.

we live to write our story, so make it a good one ~ is but one ethic i can draw from this theory.

it is just anarchism taken to the universal level, i see it as a positive thing.

nick a

The scientific method begins with a hypothesis that we are invited to experientially verify. Part of the hypothesis includes consciousnes as a source. This means that consciousness without contents doesn’t exist but rather IS

science says that consciousness is material, neural matrixes etc.
How can we believe in what is impossible to experience?
i have yet to find a valid thesis by which the notion of god makes any sense. though this thread is not about god, it is about putting absolutely everything on an equal level [which would include god if existent].

if there is a god we should be able to build a reality model with it in. the fact that we cannot doesn’t put it beyond our defining capacity, it just means it isn’t there.

 

[Nick_A]

francis

firstly we have to determine if there is an ‘i’, in buddhism there is not. let us say there is; it would not be of the brain nor of the material environment, hence the ‘i’ is more like an actor and our lives merely the part it is playing.



it gives us all a level playing field, we play our parts knowing that e.g. being alexander the great doesn’t actually mean you are a god, it is but a role. as all things are equal by this, then we may respect things on an equal bias, everything is important in the now.

we live to write our story, so make it a good one ~ is but one ethic i can draw from this theory.

it is just anarchism taken to the universal level, i see it as a positive thing.

nick a


science says that consciousness is material, neural matrixes etc.
How can we believe in what is impossible to experience?
i have yet to find a valid thesis by which the notion of god makes any sense. though this thread is not about god, it is about putting absolutely everything on an equal level [which would include god if existent].

if there is a god we should be able to build a reality model with it in. the fact that we cannot doesn’t put it beyond our defining capacity, it just means it isn’t there.[/quote]

What makes you think such models don't exist? It is what cosmology is based on. This is why our discussion is interesting. You don't seem to accept any sort of measure for objective quality and cosmology is a measure of relative objective quality. Then, by whatever name, the greatest level of objective quality within which everything exists is the "Absolute."