What hold Primacy?

[bernee51]

What holds primacy – consciousness or existence?

There are two opposing position which I believe are exclusive and exhaustive.

"Existence" - i.e the phenomenal universe holds primacy (is ontologically independent of) consciousness. This is the primacy of consciousness.

The primacy of consciousness holds the opposite; the universe is somehow dependent upon some form of consciousness. This consciousness the theist calls ‘god’.

Is it possible for consciousness to exist independent of existence? If we consider the world and our awareness of it we discover objects in our awareness such as a mountain, a lake or another person, we do not experience these objects as "coming into" existence with our initial awareness of them. We experience them as stable parts of reality, as unalterable facts of reality that exist independent of our awareness, but still perceivable by a means of perception. It would appear then that for consciousness to exist it requires something to be conscious of – consciousness is the awareness of existence.

Can consciousness be aware of itself? For any individual x, is it possible for x to be aware of nothing but its own consciousness? FWIW my personal experience with meditation would suggest not. It is not possible to observe the Witness because any observation is an object in awareness. Consciousness cannot observe itself for it would then be an object in the awareness of itself.

Consciousness, in my view, is an evolutionary development our of physical existence.

[Nick_A]

Goat

In other words, it is metaphysical philosophy that only 'the select' can understand, and does not contribute in any way or form to the rest of society.

Theoretically yes. Since we are as we are, everything is as it is. Our being attracts our life both individually and collectively.

The being of the collective is that of "The Great Beast" and it is what it is. My guess is that the influence of conscious humanity can be great enough to minimize the dangerous cycles normal for what cultures pass through. If Ecclesiastes 3 is right and I believe it is, we move through cycles. The experience of the better parts of cycles gives the impression of progress until the downward spiral begins. The question here is how bad must it become? Can the influence of humanity having acquired a conscious perspective minimize the horrors of the downward spiral. The cycles of Ecclesiastes must be since we are creatures of reaction obeying nature's laws. The question must be to what degree must we experience the horrors of war?

Nothing is denied anyone. Humanity as a whole doesn't feel the need to awaken to the human condition both in culture and within themselves nor the potential for the development of ones own being leading to a conscious perspective. You cannot blame the people that do or consider them elitist. They strive to be humans with conscious individuality and become a necessary part in making the best out of the human condition.

Simone Weil advises not to believe in false god's but society has made god's of secular values such as materialism or philosophical and psychological BS. The obsession with false god's denies experiential knowledge of the human condition, the ability to "Know Thyself" in the context of the human potential for conscious awareness.

Ecclesiastes 3:

1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,

3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,

4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,

5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,

7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,

8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

[Goat]

Goat

In other words, it is metaphysical philosophy that only 'the select' can understand, and does not contribute in any way or form to the rest of society.

Theoretically yes. Since we are as we are, everything is as it is. Our being attracts our life both individually and collectively.

The being of the collective is that of "The Great Beast" and it is what it is. My guess is that the influence of conscious humanity can be great enough to minimize the dangerous cycles normal for what cultures pass through. If Ecclesiastes 3 is right and I believe it is, we move through cycles. The experience of the better parts of cycles gives the impression of progress until the downward spiral begins. The question here is how bad must it become? Can the influence of humanity having acquired a conscious perspective minimize the horrors of the downward spiral. The cycles of Ecclesiastes must be since we are creatures of reaction obeying nature's laws. The question must be to what degree must we experience the horrors of war?

Nothing is denied anyone. Humanity as a whole doesn't feel the need to awaken to the human condition both in culture and within themselves nor the potential for the development of ones own being leading to a conscious perspective. You cannot blame the people that do or consider them elitist. They strive to be humans with conscious individuality and become a necessary part in making the best out of the human condition.

Simone Weil advises not to believe in false god's but society has made god's of secular values such as materialism or philosophical and psychological BS. The obsession with false god's denies experiential knowledge of the human condition, the ability to "Know Thyself" in the context of the human potential for conscious awareness.

Ecclesiastes 3:

1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,

3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,

4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,

5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,

7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,

8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

Well, I am not impressed with Simone Weil. This 'multiple layers' stuff seems to be unduly complicating things. You see a flower, you can look at it, and say 'the leaves symbolize this, the stem symbolizes this, and get all complicated about it.

But, the best way to appreciate it is to ignore the 'multiple layers', and just look at it like it's a flower, in it's simplicity.

[Nick_A]

Goat

In other words, it is metaphysical philosophy that only 'the select' can understand, and does not contribute in any way or form to the rest of society.

Theoretically yes. Since we are as we are, everything is as it is. Our being attracts our life both individually and collectively.

The being of the collective is that of "The Great Beast" and it is what it is. My guess is that the influence of conscious humanity can be great enough to minimize the dangerous cycles normal for what cultures pass through. If Ecclesiastes 3 is right and I believe it is, we move through cycles. The experience of the better parts of cycles gives the impression of progress until the downward spiral begins. The question here is how bad must it become? Can the influence of humanity having acquired a conscious perspective minimize the horrors of the downward spiral. The cycles of Ecclesiastes must be since we are creatures of reaction obeying nature's laws. The question must be to what degree must we experience the horrors of war?

Nothing is denied anyone. Humanity as a whole doesn't feel the need to awaken to the human condition both in culture and within themselves nor the potential for the development of ones own being leading to a conscious perspective. You cannot blame the people that do or consider them elitist. They strive to be humans with conscious individuality and become a necessary part in making the best out of the human condition.

Simone Weil advises not to believe in false god's but society has made god's of secular values such as materialism or philosophical and psychological BS. The obsession with false god's denies experiential knowledge of the human condition, the ability to "Know Thyself" in the context of the human potential for conscious awareness.

Ecclesiastes 3:

1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,

3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,

4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,

5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,

7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,

8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

Well, I am not impressed with Simone Weil. This 'multiple layers' stuff seems to be unduly complicating things. You see a flower, you can look at it, and say 'the leaves symbolize this, the stem symbolizes this, and get all complicated about it.

But, the best way to appreciate it is to ignore the 'multiple layers', and just look at it like it's a flower, in it's simplicity.

This is fine for you. However, there are those that seek to know the laws of world creation including evolution and involution and man's relative meaning and purpose within these universal flows of being. To do so I'm convinced requires the study of levels of reality which in turn requires grasping the significance of the axiom of the included middle.

[Goat]

Well, I am not impressed with Simone Weil. This 'multiple layers' stuff seems to be unduly complicating things. You see a flower, you can look at it, and say 'the leaves symbolize this, the stem symbolizes this, and get all complicated about it.

But, the best way to appreciate it is to ignore the 'multiple layers', and just look at it like it's a flower, in it's simplicity.

This is fine for you. However, there are those that seek to know the laws of world creation including evolution and involution and man's relative meaning and purpose within these universal flows of being. To do so I'm convinced requires the study of levels of reality which in turn requires grasping the significance of the axiom of the included middle.

When I see people claiming to see the 'laws of the world', yet getting some of the simple things so wrong, I have to wonder about the value of their methodology.

[Nick_A]

Well, I am not impressed with Simone Weil. This 'multiple layers' stuff seems to be unduly complicating things. You see a flower, you can look at it, and say 'the leaves symbolize this, the stem symbolizes this, and get all complicated about it.

But, the best way to appreciate it is to ignore the 'multiple layers', and just look at it like it's a flower, in it's simplicity.

This is fine for you. However, there are those that seek to know the laws of world creation including evolution and involution and man's relative meaning and purpose within these universal flows of being. To do so I'm convinced requires the study of levels of reality which in turn requires grasping the significance of the axiom of the included middle.

When I see people claiming to see the 'laws of the world', yet getting some of the simple things so wrong, I have to wonder about the value of their methodology.

So do I. That is why I look for that small minority capable of understanding in the real meaning of the word so I can learn from them.

[bernee51]

Bernee

Secondly I believe that consciousness existed before organic life appeared on earth.
On what do you base this 'belief'?

It would be absurd to believe that in this enormous universe of virtually infinite volume that consciousness manifested first on our planet.

The argument from ignorance has never impressed me. Besides - who is claiming that consciousness manifested first on our planet.

"A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...."

Please lay out for me a Theory of Involution (a la Theory of Evolution).

Involution presents a skeleton of levels of reality that structure our universe. Since the source is ineffable, involution is best comprehended as within the skeleton of creation It is much like you know of holons existing within higher holons. A cosmos is a living holon. It is a unity like the Milky way for example. Yet the Milky way is composed of stars or the plurality within the Milky Way.

OK so far

The galaxy as a whole is composed of a fine quality of materiality with a high vibratory rate that stars have in common. Their individuality consists of more coarse level of materiality.

Lost me in gobbledygook.

Each cosmos or level of reality one existing within another, is governed by mechanical laws. The higher the cosmos or its closeness to the source, the less it is governed by mechanical laws in relation to consciousness. The further a cosmos is structured from the source, the more mechanical laws support it and the greater the plurality of "things" within it.

And on what do you base this beleif?

Involution is the process of the division of "being" existing as a whole into plurality of actualizations, smaller wholes but lawfully reflecting the larger whole or of unity into diversity. Once the skeleton is created and involution has been actualized, evolution occurs both within a cosmos as within organic life on earth, or conscious evolution which connects cosmoses.

So who beamed you down this information?

Why would you say that?

Because before mechanical life can become self aware it has to be "in the image" so to speak.

No it doesn't..so to speak.

What does conscious evolution mean? Is it 'evolution of consciousness'? Or is it evolving consciously?

Conscious evolution is freedom from the restraints of mechanical laws that have become dominant for life in darkness within Plato's cave and supported by our imagination and fears in the form of egotism. This freedom allows consciousness to expand in conscious knowledge that connects levels of reality.

Consciousness has clearly evolved and no doubt continuing to do so.

[Nick_A]

Bernee

Have you ever asked yourself why you feel compelled to generate this negativity and sarcasm? Do you really feel it aids in your capacity for understanding? Can you at least accept the possibility that it establishes an emotional attitude within you that makes understanding impossible so consequently is self defeating?

[Goat]

Bernee

Have you ever asked yourself why you feel compelled to generate this negativity and sarcasm? Do you really feel it aids in your capacity for understanding? Can you at least accept the possibility that it establishes an emotional attitude within you that makes understanding impossible so consequently is self defeating?

Where is he generating negativity and sarcasm? He disagrees with you, but that is not negativity.

[Nick_A]

Bernee

Have you ever asked yourself why you feel compelled to generate this negativity and sarcasm? Do you really feel it aids in your capacity for understanding? Can you at least accept the possibility that it establishes an emotional attitude within you that makes understanding impossible so consequently is self defeating?

Where is he generating negativity and sarcasm? He disagrees with you, but that is not negativity.

Goat

You really don't read the sarcasm and negativity in these replies?

So who beamed you down this information?

No it doesn't..so to speak.

Lost me in gobbledygook.

[Goat]

Bernee

Have you ever asked yourself why you feel compelled to generate this negativity and sarcasm? Do you really feel it aids in your capacity for understanding? Can you at least accept the possibility that it establishes an emotional attitude within you that makes understanding impossible so consequently is self defeating?

Where is he generating negativity and sarcasm? He disagrees with you, but that is not negativity.

Goat

You really don't read the sarcasm and negativity in these replies?

So who beamed you down this information?

No it doesn't..so to speak.

Lost me in gobbledygook.

Nope, no negativity. Sarcasm yes, but appropriately supplied. The gobbledygook remark is quite accurate. Your previous comment was unintelligible. The 'beamed you down' comment was in response to a very unsupported assertion that was not credible, and disagreement is not negativity.

So, no negativity, Sarcasm , yes.