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.

[QED]

I think it's fairly accurate to say that in order to protect their careers, most physicists avoid discussing the Quantum enigmas so the literature tends to fill with unchallenged crackpot interpretations. In the long-run I don't think this is such a wise move on behalf of the physicists. It's surprisingly difficult to pin down the precise nature of the role of consciousness in the measurement problem and hence to address the problem without sliding down the slippery slope into mysticism. I wonder if we could bypass this problem (for a moment at least) and look at the origins of consciousness as best evidenced by the natural historic record.

Is it not reasonable to take the four or so billion years (on Earth) prior to the emergence of animals with primitive brains (in as much as they deserve to be called brains) as evidence for consciousness arriving after much preparatory "design" work by evolution? In this sense if disembodied consciousness was prime, how come it makes such a late arrival in living things? As an alternative to this we might contemplate animals without complex nervous systems having a degree of conscious self-awareness but if it was anything short of full consciousness we are still left with an obvious dependency on the physical aspects of the organism.

[Nick_A]

QED

If you are implying that Basarab Nicloescu is a fraud, I can assure you he is out of the league of most. He also is brilliant enough to understand the natural relationship between science and the humanities. The lunacy kicked up by the secularists assures the United States will be years away from admitting what to those like him is obvious.

Is it not reasonable to take the four or so billion years (on Earth) prior to the emergence of animals with primitive brains (in as much as they deserve to be called brains) as evidence for consciousness arriving after much preparatory "design" work by evolution? In this sense if disembodied consciousness was prime, how come it makes such a late arrival in living things? As an alternative to this we might contemplate animals without complex nervous systems having a degree of conscious self-awareness but if it was anything short of full consciousness we are still left with an obvious dependency on the physical aspects of the organism.

This is probably where we would disagree. I believe that consciousness exists without contents of consciousness. Secondly I believe that consciousness existed before organic life appeared on earth. The reactive consciousness of organic life is just an intended involution of consciousness itself where it exists as unity in potential and involves into plurality or the myriad of forms that compose organic life on earth. Thirdly I believe that man has reached the height of mechanical evolution and now has the possibility to continue as conscious evolution or become closer to the source of consciousness. Needless to say, we are far apart.

Believe me if I told you why I believe sexual reproduction and death was necessary and mitosis insufficient for cosmic conditions, as a secularists without interest in cosmological levels of reality, you would think me completely nuts.

[bernee51]

Is it not reasonable to take the four or so billion years (on Earth) prior to the emergence of animals with primitive brains (in as much as they deserve to be called brains) as evidence for consciousness arriving after much preparatory "design" work by evolution? In this sense if disembodied consciousness was prime, how come it makes such a late arrival in living things? As an alternative to this we might contemplate animals without complex nervous systems having a degree of conscious self-awareness but if it was anything short of full consciousness we are still left with an obvious dependency on the physical aspects of the organism.

This is probably where we would disagree. I believe that consciousness exists without contents of consciousness.

An evolutionary model does not limit this possibility.

Secondly I believe that consciousness existed before organic life appeared on earth.

On what do you base this 'belief'?

The reactive consciousness of organic life is just an intended involution of consciousness itself where it exists as unity in potential and involves into plurality or the myriad of forms that compose organic life on earth.

Again you use terms loosely. Involution cannot be demonstrated - evolution can.

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

Thirdly I believe that man has reached the height of mechanical evolution...

Why would you say that?

... and now has the possibility to continue as conscious evolution or become closer to the source of consciousness.

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

Believe me if I told you why I believe sexual reproduction and death was necessary and mitosis insufficient for cosmic conditions, as a secularists without interest in cosmological levels of reality, you would think me completely nuts.

Why don't you try it on for size.

Who knows - we could either be inspired...or...

[Furrowed Brow]

Is it possible for consciousness to exist independent of existence?

I’d say consciousness is a construct, with a form. One component being the ability to form a proposition about something else, and that ability must follow some formal rules. To be able to talk or think about anything at all requires following these rules. However the reality we then construct is always a representation that primarily follows the rules of representation, but not necessarily all the rules that form independent 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.

The thing in-itself, to borrow a Kantian phrase, that we see as a “mountain” is there, what we "see" comes into existence as we see it.

We experience them as stable parts of reality, as unalterable facts of reality that exist independent of our awareness,

Which suggests both the rules of representation and the rules that form existence are stable enough to allow our representations to seem stable to us.

It would appear then that for consciousness to exist it requires something to be conscious of – consciousness is the awareness of existence.

No. It is possible to form propositions about Pegasus. In this sense our rules of representation allows us to create non existent objects. So I’d say consciouness is the ability to form propositions that signify or do not signify.

Can consciousness be aware of itself? For any individual x, is it possible for x to be aware of nothing but its own consciousness?

I’d say no. This would requires a self referring proposition.

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

I’d say evolution got us there. However I believe there is a technical threshold that has to be reached and the threshold is the ability to form a proposition; and that requires the ability to follow and obey a specific logical syntax. In this sense the rules of thought are a stable niche environment that evolution sumbled upon.

[QED]

QED

If you are implying that Basarab Nicloescu is a fraud, I can assure you he is out of the league of most. He also is brilliant enough to understand the natural relationship between science and the humanities.

Sociological interpretations are one thing, but with the greatest possible respect, anyone claiming to understand the enigmas thrown up by experimental QM is most likely a fraud. Such a genuine understanding will be underpinned by a significant revision of our standard model of physics and while we can all glibly acknowledge this much -- we are still awaiting the broad sweep of just such an all-encompassing insight. Meanwhile, the resulting gap is wide enough to allow a coach pulled by the four horsemen of the apocalypse to drive through -- as well as the magical mystery bus -- but let's not get carried away!

The lunacy kicked up by the secularists assures the United States will be years away from admitting what to those like him is obvious.

Secular thinking? I can understand why battle lines have been drawn around the notion of a supposedly intentional agent to which we are to owe all our existences -- but to cast people on the basis of such a great cosmic ambiguity and then talk about what is obvious and what is not is clearly most inequitable.

I would also like to see your answers to bernee51's questions regarding your quote of me above.

[Nick_A]

QED

If you are implying that Basarab Nicloescu is a fraud, I can assure you he is out of the league of most. He also is brilliant enough to understand the natural relationship between science and the humanities.

Sociological interpretations are one thing, but with the greatest possible respect, anyone claiming to understand the enigmas thrown up by experimental QM is most likely a fraud. Such a genuine understanding will be underpinned by a significant revision of our standard model of physics and while we can all glibly acknowledge this much -- we are still awaiting the broad sweep of just such an all-encompassing insight. Meanwhile, the resulting gap is wide enough to allow a coach pulled by the four horsemen of the apocalypse to drive through -- as well as the magical mystery bus -- but let's not get carried away!

The lunacy kicked up by the secularists assures the United States will be years away from admitting what to those like him is obvious.

Secular thinking? I can understand why battle lines have been drawn around the notion of a supposedly intentional agent to which we are to owe all our existences -- but to cast people on the basis of such a great cosmic ambiguity and then talk about what is obvious and what is not is clearly most inequitable.

I would also like to see your answers to bernee51's questions regarding your quote of me above.

All I can say is that there are people of understanding that are far ahead of the norm. It takes a while to understand the ramifications of the axiom of the included middle which indicates the limitations of the excluded middle so egotistical resistance is expected

The whole concept of Transdisciplinary Education and Learning is years ahead of its time since it accepts the idea that the facets of knowledge that we believe are in isolation are actually connected as one within a higher holon. It is a broad usage of the axiom of the included middle. This includes the connection of science and religion which is the scorn of secularism so obviously scorned. I'll be dead and buried before culture begins to appreciate the obvious but it makes me happy to know that there are so many people of vision willing to share on what I believe is just natural. It may seem inequitable to stir the gravel but if one doesn't we don't realize that it is dirty. I know the resistance to people coming to see that they live in Plato's Cave psychologically. Socrates spoke of the nature of resistance. Excessive denial as a defense mechanism is a fact of life but doesn't mean everyone has to willingly become a part of it. We can grow in conscious freedom. Men like Dr. Nicolescu have both a brilliant scientific mind and an open spiritual presence. This is very meaningful for those especially those not as talented as he is that need it. I admire that simultaneous balanced presence and willingness to give..

http://www.metanexus.net/conference2005 ... olescu.pdf

[Goat]

QED

If you are implying that Basarab Nicloescu is a fraud, I can assure you he is out of the league of most. He also is brilliant enough to understand the natural relationship between science and the humanities.

Sociological interpretations are one thing, but with the greatest possible respect, anyone claiming to understand the enigmas thrown up by experimental QM is most likely a fraud. Such a genuine understanding will be underpinned by a significant revision of our standard model of physics and while we can all glibly acknowledge this much -- we are still awaiting the broad sweep of just such an all-encompassing insight. Meanwhile, the resulting gap is wide enough to allow a coach pulled by the four horsemen of the apocalypse to drive through -- as well as the magical mystery bus -- but let's not get carried away!

The lunacy kicked up by the secularists assures the United States will be years away from admitting what to those like him is obvious.

Secular thinking? I can understand why battle lines have been drawn around the notion of a supposedly intentional agent to which we are to owe all our existences -- but to cast people on the basis of such a great cosmic ambiguity and then talk about what is obvious and what is not is clearly most inequitable.

I would also like to see your answers to bernee51's questions regarding your quote of me above.

All I can say is that there are people of understanding that are far ahead of the norm. It takes a while to understand the ramifications of the axiom of the included middle which indicates the limitations of the excluded middle so egotistical resistance is expected

The whole concept of Transdisciplinary Education and Learning is years ahead of its time since it accepts the idea that the facets of knowledge that we believe are in isolation are actually connected as one within a higher holon. It is a broad usage of the axiom of the included middle. This includes the connection of science and religion which is the scorn of secularism so obviously scorned. I'll be dead and buried before culture begins to appreciate the obvious but it makes me happy to know that there are so many people of vision willing to share on what I believe is just natural. It may seem inequitable to stir the gravel but if one doesn't we don't realize that it is dirty. I know the resistance to people coming to see that they live in Plato's Cave psychologically. Socrates spoke of the nature of resistance. Excessive denial as a defense mechanism is a fact of life but doesn't mean everyone has to willingly become a part of it. We can grow in conscious freedom. Men like Dr. Nicolescu have both a brilliant scientific mind and an open spiritual presence. This is very meaningful for those especially those not as talented as he is that need it. I admire that simultaneous balanced presence and willingness to give..

http://www.metanexus.net/conference2005 ... olescu.pdf

Now,let's assume that piece of metaphysics is true.. and that it actually gets someplace.

What advantage does it give us? what tangible benefits would it give us? What tangible benefits has this given us so far?

[Nick_A]

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Why would you say that?

Because before mechanical life can become self aware it has to be "in the image" so to speak. This means that it has to reflect the three forces of the Trinity as we do with having a mind (thought), a heart (feelings), and the body. Only Man on earth is a representative of organic life on earth that has the quality of intellect that makes it possible to have a connection with higher consciousness that can profit from it through conscious evolution.

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.

In Christianity, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" is an expression of the potential for conscious connection between levels of reality. Of course the secular concerns of Christendom assure people remain unaware of the importance of consciousness to Christianity.

Who knows - we could either be inspired...or...

Yeah it is the "or" that is the problem. I can say that it is related to the unnatural creation of our moon. Only recently is science beginning to understand what the ancients have known which is its unnatural creation. So I can at least assert that I believe what scientists now say about the moon's genesis without being howled into oblivion.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/s ... 815-1.html

[Nick_A]

QED

If you are implying that Basarab Nicloescu is a fraud, I can assure you he is out of the league of most. He also is brilliant enough to understand the natural relationship between science and the humanities.

Sociological interpretations are one thing, but with the greatest possible respect, anyone claiming to understand the enigmas thrown up by experimental QM is most likely a fraud. Such a genuine understanding will be underpinned by a significant revision of our standard model of physics and while we can all glibly acknowledge this much -- we are still awaiting the broad sweep of just such an all-encompassing insight. Meanwhile, the resulting gap is wide enough to allow a coach pulled by the four horsemen of the apocalypse to drive through -- as well as the magical mystery bus -- but let's not get carried away!

The lunacy kicked up by the secularists assures the United States will be years away from admitting what to those like him is obvious.

Secular thinking? I can understand why battle lines have been drawn around the notion of a supposedly intentional agent to which we are to owe all our existences -- but to cast people on the basis of such a great cosmic ambiguity and then talk about what is obvious and what is not is clearly most inequitable.

I would also like to see your answers to bernee51's questions regarding your quote of me above.

All I can say is that there are people of understanding that are far ahead of the norm. It takes a while to understand the ramifications of the axiom of the included middle which indicates the limitations of the excluded middle so egotistical resistance is expected

The whole concept of Transdisciplinary Education and Learning is years ahead of its time since it accepts the idea that the facets of knowledge that we believe are in isolation are actually connected as one within a higher holon. It is a broad usage of the axiom of the included middle. This includes the connection of science and religion which is the scorn of secularism so obviously scorned. I'll be dead and buried before culture begins to appreciate the obvious but it makes me happy to know that there are so many people of vision willing to share on what I believe is just natural. It may seem inequitable to stir the gravel but if one doesn't we don't realize that it is dirty. I know the resistance to people coming to see that they live in Plato's Cave psychologically. Socrates spoke of the nature of resistance. Excessive denial as a defense mechanism is a fact of life but doesn't mean everyone has to willingly become a part of it. We can grow in conscious freedom. Men like Dr. Nicolescu have both a brilliant scientific mind and an open spiritual presence. This is very meaningful for those especially those not as talented as he is that need it. I admire that simultaneous balanced presence and willingness to give..

http://www.metanexus.net/conference2005 ... olescu.pdf

Now,let's assume that piece of metaphysics is true.. and that it actually gets someplace.

What advantage does it give us? what tangible benefits would it give us? What tangible benefits has this given us so far?

Such vertical thought is not common place so you cannot expect any cutural change. However, for individuals it gives practice in learning how to reconcile what appears as unrelated from becoming aware of our ability to acquire a higher perspective. It is education teaching how to psychologically become free of the restrictions of our reactive lives in Plato's cave.

Everyone is concerned with facts but who ever speaks of the ingredients that comprise human perspective within which facts acquire their full range of meaning? Yet it is only the gradual growth in human perspective that will assure man will not destroy himself by what technology and facts allow him to invent. Dr. Nicolescu is involved with our capacity for acquiring a higher perspective proper for "Man" that reconciles differences in our perception. For that he has my gratitude even if only in a minority.

[Goat]

QED

If you are implying that Basarab Nicloescu is a fraud, I can assure you he is out of the league of most. He also is brilliant enough to understand the natural relationship between science and the humanities.

Sociological interpretations are one thing, but with the greatest possible respect, anyone claiming to understand the enigmas thrown up by experimental QM is most likely a fraud. Such a genuine understanding will be underpinned by a significant revision of our standard model of physics and while we can all glibly acknowledge this much -- we are still awaiting the broad sweep of just such an all-encompassing insight. Meanwhile, the resulting gap is wide enough to allow a coach pulled by the four horsemen of the apocalypse to drive through -- as well as the magical mystery bus -- but let's not get carried away!

The lunacy kicked up by the secularists assures the United States will be years away from admitting what to those like him is obvious.

Secular thinking? I can understand why battle lines have been drawn around the notion of a supposedly intentional agent to which we are to owe all our existences -- but to cast people on the basis of such a great cosmic ambiguity and then talk about what is obvious and what is not is clearly most inequitable.

I would also like to see your answers to bernee51's questions regarding your quote of me above.

All I can say is that there are people of understanding that are far ahead of the norm. It takes a while to understand the ramifications of the axiom of the included middle which indicates the limitations of the excluded middle so egotistical resistance is expected

The whole concept of Transdisciplinary Education and Learning is years ahead of its time since it accepts the idea that the facets of knowledge that we believe are in isolation are actually connected as one within a higher holon. It is a broad usage of the axiom of the included middle. This includes the connection of science and religion which is the scorn of secularism so obviously scorned. I'll be dead and buried before culture begins to appreciate the obvious but it makes me happy to know that there are so many people of vision willing to share on what I believe is just natural. It may seem inequitable to stir the gravel but if one doesn't we don't realize that it is dirty. I know the resistance to people coming to see that they live in Plato's Cave psychologically. Socrates spoke of the nature of resistance. Excessive denial as a defense mechanism is a fact of life but doesn't mean everyone has to willingly become a part of it. We can grow in conscious freedom. Men like Dr. Nicolescu have both a brilliant scientific mind and an open spiritual presence. This is very meaningful for those especially those not as talented as he is that need it. I admire that simultaneous balanced presence and willingness to give..

http://www.metanexus.net/conference2005 ... olescu.pdf

Now,let's assume that piece of metaphysics is true.. and that it actually gets someplace.

What advantage does it give us? what tangible benefits would it give us? What tangible benefits has this given us so far?

Such vertical thought is not common place so you cannot expect any cutural change. However, for individuals it gives practice in learning how to reconcile what appears as unrelated from becoming aware of our ability to acquire a higher perspective. It is education teaching how to psychologically become free of the restrictions of our reactive lives in Plato's cave.

Everyone is concerned with facts but who ever speaks of the ingredients that comprise human perspective within which facts acquire their full range of meaning? Yet it is only the gradual growth in human perspective that will assure man will not destroy himself by what technology and facts allow him to invent. Dr. Nicolescu is involved with our capacity for acquiring a higher perspective proper for "Man" that reconciles differences in our perception. For that he has my gratitude even if only in a minority.

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.