Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Vimana]

Call me whatever you like. Have whatever opinion you want. The post itself is inference. I was merely attempting to put into words the nature of the base of consciousness and how it relates to joy and suffering and how its base is too simple for words and its manifestations too complex for laws. The base of consciousness is universal. That's hardly relative.

Edit: Correct by what standards? I'm curious.

Edit 2: I would advise you to avoid defining my views by any idea. I'm not a relitavist or universalist or anything. I'm nothing because things and ideas are experiences seen by awareness which is constant, while everything else changes.

 

[Dak]

I don't think you understand the nature of ethics or the problem of consciousness*. Ethics is social, and speaking of the "ethics" of isolated individual actions, (like the eating of sugar in itself) makes no sense. To make some sort of metaphysical claim about the base of consciousness that handwaves the Hard Problem is equally problematic. What does "thereness" even mean? It looks like you're trying to reference the Cogito without doing so specifically.

 

[Vimana]

Everyone understands consciousness because understanding is part of its own function and nature. Not everyone understands that they understand, though.

I wasn't merely talking about ethics. That's just a word to me, as is social. There are sentient beings seeking joy and so I find distinctions between social and non-social methods ultimately useless.

I don't need to give you the answer you want. I have nothing to say about the Hard Problem. My whole point was that all these concepts miss the point. So I'm not going to give an explanation that fits into some concepts you have, nor am I going to try to convince you I understand something in some way you define for yourself that I do not know.

Thereness is a word for something there can be no words for (because the base of consciousness makes EVERY experience possible). If you let go of all thought, emotion, and sensory experience, you experience the base of consciousness which can be called many words, love, peace, void, nirvana, whatever. A wave cannot describe a baseline. Words are not the experience of wordlessness.

It's not "cogito ergo sum," but "sum ergo cogito" if you look close enough.

 

[Dak]

Some 'sentient beings' seek joy by ending the 'sentience' of other 'sentient beings'. Therefore this is right? it's all just joy seeking? Only pleasure is intrinsically valuable, therefore get pleasure?

 

[Vimana]

It is right for those that seek to end it for others. It is wrong for those that are their victims. Each person creates right and wrong in their own minds. But that doesn't mean there aren't shared rights and wrongs. But nonetheless, they are mental creations.

Pleasure is not intrinsically valuable. Nothing is. It is given value by consciousness, but there is a baseline level of goodness to consciousness and conscious experience that does not necessitate being valued. Consciousness seeks to expand it. It is joyful to be with no experience, but experience is amplified being and more joyful, which is why it tends to be more fun to listen to music than watch paint dry. More conscious experience happens in the music.

My idea of why some people kill is that they are holding and hiding from themselves fear of death and pain and use their ability to hurt, kill, and control as a testament to their idea of their own invincibility. I do not justify their behavior or anything.

 

[Einherjar86]

Regarding triggers, the point is that no matter how much you condition individuals toward language, you can never prevent them from reacting negatively to certain words - language is changing all the time, and there's no way to avoid impulsive responses to its dynamics.

Therefore, there must be a space for reflecting on these matters in the public sphere, and there must be acknowledgement from all parties involved that part of the responsibility always lies with the speaker, even if an utterance is intentionally meant in the most innocent sense possible.

Everyone understands consciousness because understanding is part of its own function and nature. Not everyone understands that they understand, though.

No one understands consciousness because understanding would require a displacement of subjectivity from the conscious experience. Some people do mistakenly believe, however, that they understand consciousness.

It's not "cogito ergo sum," but "sum ergo cogito" if you look close enough.

"Cogito ergo sum" implies that confirmation of existence (i.e. "being") follows from thinking, and that thought necessitates being. "Sum ergo cogito" implies that thinking follows from being, and that being necessitates thought. So, according to that logic, plants do not exist.

 

[Vimana]

Regarding triggers, the point is that no matter how much you condition individuals toward language, you can never prevent them from reacting negatively to certain words - language is changing all the time, and there's no way to avoid impulsive responses to its dynamics.

I doubt it. No one could possibly say a single thing to hurt me now, and I used to freak out about shit people said to me years after it happened. I had social anxiety so bad that I had panic attacks from people being nice to me.

Therefore, there must be a space for reflecting on these matters in the public sphere, and there must be acknowledgement from all parties involved that part of the responsibility always lies with the speaker, even if an utterance is intentionally meant in the most innocent sense possible.

Again, people are not powerless in how they interpret language.

No one understands consciousness because understanding would require a displacement of subjectivity from the conscious experience. Some people do mistakenly believe, however, that they understand consciousness.

This is semantics. A better way to say it would maybe be "being in symbiosis with consciousness," but it's wordless and can't be described. Using a concept points one away.

"Cogito ergo sum" implies that confirmation of existence (i.e. "being") follows from thinking, and that thought necessitates being. "Sum ergo cogito" implies that thinking follows from being, and that being necessitates thought. So, according to that logic, plants do not exist.

This is your interpretation. This is going in your head, not mine. In humans that think, thinking follows being, which doesn't mean it always does for everything else. I am not speaking of all of existence without human perspective because I am human and can't do that.

 

[Dak]

I'm going to go a different route since this is just going in circles. You seem to be putting a significant amount of stock in your meditation experiences. How do you know that what you experience in meditation is some sort of "base of consciousness" rather than simply different input(s) (as opposed to the absence of input)?

 

[Vimana]

Hahaha, answering this question is creating a description of something simpler than any word. The best way I can put it right now is that conscious experience functions in a sort of loop. You always know you're there, but why? Words and experiences come, and then there is meaning, and after they pass, more experiences. During a meditation session, my mind shut off. It was nowhere, and where it always was my whole life, but no sensory, or meaningful experience was going on. I simply was the vantage point that understands all it understands and experiences all it experiences, but there was nothing there but itself, which is nothing. Anything that can be called a thing or experienced is not that vantage point.

Describing it is like a mirror trying to identify itself in what reflects off of it. It already is itself doing its own thing, only holding the idea that it does not know itself and must search in the light.

 

[Einherjar86]

Your words and consciousness condition your sensory experiences. You think they're some pure predecessor to how you communicate them - but that's false kiddo. All social experience and linguistic cognition infiltrates your body. You can't get away from it, no matter how "deep" your meditation goes. You wallow in solipsism. It's fine, but there's nothing intelligent in it. All you have to offer is mysticism.

I doubt it. No one could possibly say a single thing to hurt me now, and I used to freak out about shit people said to me years after it happened. I had social anxiety so bad that I had panic attacks from people being nice to me.

One need not be hurt or offended by language to react instinctively to it. One need only know how language functions in a cultural manner.

You claim to be beyond individual offense. That's wonderful. Another way of looking at your position is that you're apathetic and non-intellectual when it comes to dealing with social issues of language.

Again, people are not powerless in how they interpret language.

Certainly not; but you can't change the fact that "my pals" is a word with serious cultural gravity. If you choose to simply not be offended by it, then you're dismissing what some might call a social responsibility.

This is semantics. A better way to say it would maybe be "being in symbiosis with consciousness," but it's wordless and can't be described. Using a concept points one away.

Consciousness is reflexive, and reflexivity entails a conceptualization of itself; seeing as how this is impossible within the closed system of consciousness, full understanding is excluded. You can say that you feel being within consciousness, etc.; but you cannot claim to understand it beyond mystical notions of the spiritual and the arcane.

This is your interpretation. This is going in your head, not mine. In humans that think, thinking follows being, which doesn't mean it always does for everything else. I am not speaking of all of existence without human perspective because I am human and can't do that.

So, there's no science, no rational thinking of any kind that can operate between minds? That's fine if you think so; but if that's the case, then you admit to being a recluse, apathetic, apart from this world, with nothing to offer. "Cogito ergo sum" does not only apply to humans; Descartes considers animals as well. He seeks the essence of what "being" is, as have many metaphysicians and ontologists. Revising this as "sum ergo cogito" enters the philosophical discourse, and you cannot sever yourself from that field.

You have no real insight to offer. Your persistence in language betrays your reliance on it. Language effects how we understand reality. It conditions us, it controls us. Yes, we have some control over it, but we can never block its control over us.

 

[Vimana]

One need not be hurt or offended by language to react instinctively to it. One need only know how language functions in a cultural manner.

You claim to be beyond individual offense. That's wonderful. Another way of looking at your position is that you're apathetic and non-intellectual when it comes to dealing with social issues of language.

That is how you believe me to be. I experience many emotions. I care deeply about many things. But how can I convince you? You have your ideas and I am over here and we have never met.

Certainly not; but you can't change the fact that "my pals" is a word with serious cultural gravity. If you choose to simply not be offended by it, then you're dismissing what some might call a social responsibility.

I did not invent the word and it will eventually become meaningless like "barbaros." I actually met black people from Africa that didn't give two shits. I said it to them and they laughed.

What responsibility?

Consciousness is reflexive, and reflexivity entails a conceptualization of itself; seeing as how this is impossible within the closed system of consciousness, full understanding is excluded. You can say that you feel being within consciousness, etc.; but you cannot claim to understand it beyond mystical notions of the spiritual and the arcane.

Consciousness is. Everything else is on top of it. You can attempt to reduce it to concepts, but what perceives that action?

So, there's no science, no rational thinking of any kind that can operate between minds? That's fine if you think so; but if that's the case, then you admit to being a recluse, apathetic, apart from this world, with nothing to offer.

You seem quick to imagine how I think. I am not your ideas of me. They are your creations.

"Cogito ergo sum" does not only apply to humans; Descartes considers animals as well. He seeks the essence of what "being" is, as have many metaphysicians and ontologists. Revising this as "sum ergo cogito" enters the philosophical discourse, and you cannot sever yourself from that field.

I am not in that field to begin with. It is an idea. I merely used the words to make a point. I do not care about lining up with how you think about the field.

You have a hopeless approach to knowledge. I appreciate your self-seclusion, but it's useless to intellectual pursuits. Your arguments have no validity.

Not to you. But validity is beyond you.

 

[Vimana]

You have no real insight to offer. Your persistence in language betrays your reliance on it. Language effects how we understand reality. It conditions us, it controls us. Yes, we have some control over it, but we can never block its control over us.

That is what you believe. My body and mind go through countless experiences you cannot see. What I am to you is a creation of your mind.

 

[Einherjar86]

Consider the word, "my pals," which communicates a derogatory hatred for those of another skin color. According to you, the appropriate response would be for African Americans to condition their response to such a word rather than address the problem of racial hatred in which the word persists. This argument is not scientific or helpful, it is solipsistic and puts the weight of responsibility on blacks without asking everyone who participates in the public sphere to take responsibility for the cultural meaning of that word.

If that's your solution, then we can end our discussion here and now; because that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

[Vimana]

You put words in my mouth. Stop offense and racial hatred. Each makes the other possible.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm reading what you write and interpreting the logic. This is language pal. Use it, and use it well; because no matter what you believe, this is what you are. You're nothing beyond what you are to others except for a shred of darkness thrashing in the void. If you want meaning, it's all around you; not inside you.

 

[Vimana]

And what would I be if I never encountered another human or learned to speak? I would still exist. People's ideas of me are people's ideas of me. I am me. I can believe you're a talking banana. Are you?

 

[Einherjar86]

You've said it. Now it contributes to the discourse and body of text surrounding what I think of as "me." Your identification of me exists in some connection with how I think of myself. I'm not denying that I'm a body that exists; but every time we speak of each other, we contribute to the construction of how we think ourselves.

 

[Vimana]

We think very differently, then. I have no identification of you. I see words on a screen.

This discussion has not changed how I think at all. It is all a bunch of symbols relayed in front of me and none have stuck to me. Besides the memory of this discussion, it is like it never happened for me, unless the data in it affects a future action, but that is an effect on action, not my view of the world. My view changes from blank to sensory experience and back to blank. Each blank is as if nothing happened. I have no view per se because the content of my senses and mind are open to constant change without creating permanent conceptions. Ideas are not beliefs to me, but suggestions, entertainment, and stepping stones to action.

 

[Dak]

You might be less affected by some things than some others, but to claim you are not affected at all in any way except in the ways that you choose is to go too far. From your argument one can infer that you do not believe in the sub or unconscious, or at least do not believe they can affect your consciousness.

 

[Vimana]

I only know my own mind. I do not go too far to say I am not affected in the ways I choose. That is how it appears to you. Words are mere symbols for simulations of the mind. The reason being insulted does not bother me is the same reason calling you a chicken does not make you believe you are a chicken.

I do not think I have a subconscious. As I dug through a series of neuroses, I noticed that my mind is singular and I merely created a stack of emotional and mental protocols and obeyed them without understanding their origin. I dismantled them one by one and do not find myself with internal conflict. It was a long process, but eventually became automatic. The protocols would surface and dissipate shortly after. What was once my subconscious is now conscious.

There were many neuroses, which is why I infer that others can do what I did. I could list what I remember, but that's a wall of text. I basically jumped back and forth between thinking I'm amazing and thinking I'm scum. Same with how I viewed others. I had an imaginary contest of happiness in my head, pretended people weren't real, had anxieties as to how to speak to people and whether or not anyone could ever like me. Until pretty recently the idea of trust seemed impossible. Everyone was sort of my enemy and I hated everyone, even if on the surface I said I loved them. It was so horribly entangled. I got easily triggered by all kinds of shit. A single word could remind me of something stupid I did years ago and totally ruin my day. I would numb my emotions for months without realizing it. It goes on and on. Meditation helped me dismantle it, and so I infer that others can do the same.