Thought is independent of time

Whew! The totality is nowhere near our discrete locality?

What is?

Not being able to peer over the wall of his prejudice regarding those who would shoot the doctrine of will to existence.

 

thedope:

The whole is as near to our own as ever in incorporating it.

:-D The euphemism you said was at rest. If we're both to blame for derailing this particular train of thought, we've still at least got a hand car in the matter.

I wouldn't take it personally. I mean, you did shoot it nowhere in particular, didn't you? lol


GreenGreenGrassOfHome:

Self-evidently? I would have thought that in evidence of the self they are not different things at all! :-D

 

Don't you start. "Self evidently" does not mean "in evidence of the self". In fact, that latter expression has no meaning.

 

Like hell it hasn't. It means nothing other than self-evident.

How is thought not consciousness? By thinking it isn't?! lol
Does the self make it something other? Nothing is being 'equated' here. Thought has never been anything but consciousness, regardless of consciousness being, and having been what we're beyond equating as thought.

 

What do we incorporate?

Well don't start jacking it you'll miss the point.

It wasn't my quote and I think not to even borrow it. I didn't learn much until I gave up the idea that I knew something. There are two voices in my head, point and counterpoint. One is loud and always wants to be first in deciding what is what, is full of all kinds of opinions and is easily offended when it doesn't get it's way. That voice also wonders in the mirror what he might look like to others finding himself with a face that he calls me. The other has been here always and has no need to hurry and is full of the innate wisdom of life's journey here about. It looks upon the world without prejudice, (free from fear) with no need to speak for itself. That voice is quiet and moves deeply in all men. That still quiet voice is not individual although it attends to individual circumstances. The interpersonal point endures, the separate individual does not being bound up in his own transient reflection.

I see where you are. When I first began speaking to you I didn't think I did because you were so bright. I see where you are now having become familiar with where you have been and I recognize it because I been then too. However, I see where I am now, not that it is anywhere other than you are, and I know that our own sorting out is a game of sorting and that is all. There is nothing eventful about it over time.

The mind is naturally abstract.

I disagree that we are the authors of our own being. I do agree we are the authors of our own temporal experience and this is made possible through communication, the body a communication device.

 

Thank you so much for coming to the table.

Let us by all means be precise.

There is no extant past or extant future however we have a mind that fashions continuity based on memory and projection. Consciousness in this way transcends space and time by dealing in potentials that are not immediately apparent.

 

thedope:

Ourselves. Unlike you, I like that we are authors of our being.

Like you have? Do you feel resigned to life?

Where do you think the interpersonal point endures if not in the individual who doesn't merely endure it, but welcomes it? The individual endures. I, as individual, can do nothing for your conscience. If there is no need for it to speak out, or that side of it you maintain to be innate as wisdom for life, then let your desire carry it forth.

Really, the only place our 'sorting' is eventful is over time. You haven't been where I've been. We're all only eachothers afterlives, with respect, as you say. You see the human process in me, and you should since we have humanity in common. And do you know me? Should you know me, having given up the idea that you know something? You did say that the will to exist is ubiquitous, what you don't see is that its only ubiquity is in not existing...

To hold the mind to be an abstraction is itself an abstraction that ends in mindlessness. The mind is natural, and being natural, is always embodied.

Our own being is our existence. Your ruling out the body itself as communication, having it apart as device, ultimately rules out the mind. We are the authors of our own being. Before you drag up our begatted ancestry again, consider that by we I mean everyone. Your disagreement only means you don't have to be.

All 0 All 0 All 0? What, do 'we' have here then?

Where does consciousness transcend spacetime?

 

Thank you so much for avoiding an unanswerable point. GGGOH 1, Thedope 0.

And, again, THOUGHT. Not CONSCIOUSNESS. I'm so sorry if that distinction is beyond you.

 

I didn't say thought wasn't consciousness, I said consciousness wasn't thought. Have you been to the thedopes school of Missing The Point?

 

GGGOH:

lol It's not so simple. There are always specifics, and no true school of missing the point. ;-D Let's keep the physics of the thing in mind, which, since neither you or I are metaphysicists, means the body. Consciousness isn't necessarily thought, but thought can only be conscious. You may say that this was naturally imputed, but internetted in here as we are, we've only our words for understanding oneanother. :-D

 

First, how do you know what I am, or am not?

Secondly, how does "the physics of the thing" mean "the body", which can have neither consciousness nor thought?

Understanding would be easier if people didn't write in double, triple and quadruple-speak.

 

First, I know you're human. I'm prone to assumption, and if that makes me presumptious, then so be it, but it would be more presumptious to hold me to my presumption. :-D

Secondly, the body can and does have consciousness and thought. Self-evidence.
Whether consciousness, ours specifically, can come to have the body definitely/indefinitely is another matter, or the very same depending on how you can change with the times, or change the time as the case may be. lol

 

What is beyond me is what unanswerable point you brought up? As far as I can tell you didn't raise one but misconstrued mine.

Again in what meaningful way does using the word consciousness cloud the debate?

As far a the score in sharing our thoughts at least as far as data connected to a particular user name is thedope 12,216, GreenGreenGrassOfHome 114.

 

and I own 16 forks.

 

What is not to like? I have no recollection of a time when I was not but illumination was sudden.

I do not at all feel resigned to life sprachmeister. I have said repeatedly that I am grateful. Do you see how flatfooted the interpretation of what I say?

At rest means not moving or dead.

The interpersonal point operates through not in transient individuality. We are none of us existing without each other regardless how talented we may feel we are. Life survives through diverse emergence not through individual durability. As an individual you can do nothing for my conscience and the world could give a fuck if I had one. I am not needed for any cause whatsoever, but I am grateful to be.

You mean here?

How many gravity,s are there?

Sow bathing.
Damned thing is Dejavu I can't hold mind at all which is why I say it is abstract.

Don't be silly, not in my lifetime.
The body is communicating and communicates. What apart?

Exactly, where is here now in our considerations. What is it we do for now in all your reaching for more?
Here and now are not at the forefront of our awareness much of the time.

see above

 

I have nail fungus too!

 

This reminds me of the racial prejudices that have long been attached to indigenous people by psychologists, anthropologists, and other academics whenever they spoke of prmitive thought. The idea is that they were more deeply connected to their subconscious and therefore responded to less conscious thinking. Yes---unfortunately, even my heroes in the Jungian school were prone to this prejudice. Indigenous people think just as much as modern civilized people do. Yes--they are more deeply connected to their subconscious minds, but this does not mean they think less. This falls into the same prejudices that allowed early American settlers, believing in manifest destiny, to kill off whole villages of Indians to get their fields, and then have a thanksgiving feast to thank God for the abundance he had provided them by helping them clear the savages off their land (yes that is what the original Thanksgiving holiday was about in the Americas). Even as African Americans were gaining rights, Indians were still treated as savage subhuman beings well into the 1900's.

For example, the problem with those drivers you mentioned (though I'm sure you were adding in some sarcastic humour---and not being serious, right?) is that they are thinking. Some are thinking "I have to put make-up on before I reach the office in 15 minutes" Other's are thinking, "Damn that chick in accounting has a nice tail, I wonder how I can get a piece of that." or "This is my favorite song, time to turn up the radio and sign along..." or "She (He) makes me so mad, I'll show her (him)..." or "Damn I missed the exit! ...And I'm so late! Let me think if I keep going on..." and so on and so forth.

How do you know that there are conscious life forms that exist without thinking. It falls back to the problem that being conscious is being conscious-of. And being conscious-of invlolves some kind of thought process even very rudimentary.

Do you think that a dog, watching his master prepare his food is not thinking? He isn't thinking in English (Oh wait---that's God's language---never mind, of course he is-----I'm JOKING!). Most likely he is thinking in terms of symbols---but he is conscious-of food, and knows that he wants some. If a dog couldn't think, then a whole school of psychology--animal psychology--is defunct and useless.

Is a paramecium conscious? Does it think? That gets a lot more complicated, but we don't know. Anything we say in this regard is an assumption. Dr. Grof has case studies that suggest that even lower level life forms think. There are studies on plants that suggest they are conscious of someone harming them, being fed, and other things. Recent studies within the past year show that when plants are being attacked that they warn other plants, particularly those of the same or similar species. To say that there is not some form of thinking in this process is again an assumption. Unless we can find proof that it is an automatic response mechanism, for example, then to say there is not some kind of thought form involved is to make an assumption.

Besides---if the question was really meant to be only about 'thought' then what is the point? Of course thought is time dependent. We use thought to consciously understand and operate in the physical world. Thought is generally a linear process. In other words it is almost like arguing over whether or not the night sky, in empty areas, is black.

Maybe thought can transcend time---but who cares? To separate thought from consciousness is to make the question of whether or not 'consciousness' transcends time far more important, and worthy of arguing over. To argue such matters over thought without consideration to consciousness is simply arguing over a bunch of empty ideas---as if it were simply the musings of the people of Laputa (See Gulliver's Travels) whose eyes do not focus on the person or object before them, but, "...instead one eye is turned upward as if in perpetual contemplation of the stars, and the other turned inward in empty and vacuous introversion."

 

thedope:

Being unlike you doesn't mean I don't like you.

I don't see, no. So what's at rest?

Through but not in!? You loco?! LOL You are grateful to be for a cause. I am grateful besides!
:-D

Life does survive through individual duration, as though that could somehow mean it doesn't do so through diverse emergence! lol

I mean me.

One. Which is why infinity supercedes your finding gravitys human equivalent to be intent.

Sow bathing?! I can only help you to make up your mind. You needn't give me reasons for saying what you say.

Your disagreeing we are authors of our existence. What else?

We advance our own existence. Existence itself advances as it does. About what is at the forefront of our awareness, whatever else may be there, here and now are there all of the time. lol

Consciousness transcends spacetime here and now? No. You are confusing creation with transcendence!

 

I defer to your ability to determine the presence of misconstruction, you being a master of the art

Perhaps because the topic is thought, not consciousness. Just an idea to stick to the topic....you should try it sometime.

The validity of an argument is not determined by either the volume at which it is delivered nor by the number of times it is repeated. 12 216 examples of spiritual-sounding mumbo jumbo remains just that.

 

Excellent. Now we can close this thread and start one about consciousness and time.

Glad you agree with me.