Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Jimmy... Dead.]

As an audience member and fan of this thread I think you should go back to the 'altered states of consciousness' thread

BOOOOOO!BOO! BOOOOOO!

 

[Vimana]

Okay, dude.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Hey man you can be the Deepak Chopra of this thread if you want. It's just going to get silly.

 

[Vimana]

That was awesome. You got a laugh out of me. I don't know shit about that guy except for the homeopathy stuff which I know nothing about except that it's like using water to try to cure disease and people have died while doing "treatments."

I wasn't communicating anything mystic. Far from it. I was trying to point towards the axis of one's own consciousness that is constant through their entire lives. It was merely interpreted as mystic.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I wasn't communicating anything mystic. Far from it. I was trying to point towards the axis of one's own consciousness that is constant through their entire lives. It was merely interpreted as mystic.

In my best Deniro voice from Goodfellas "lil bit, lil bit"

Consciousness itself is pretty mystic.

and just for fun ... this is how I imagine Ein reading your posts

 

[Vimana]

You can call it that. To me, it's the most ordinary thing since it's present through all experience.

This was me the whole debate:

 

[Einherjar86]

In more productive news: I stumbled across an interesting text in the library yesterday, called The Accursed Share, by Georges Bataille.

It was originally published in 1967 and is subtitled "An Essay on General Economy." The volume is titled "Consumption."

In the book's preface, Bataille writes that he is not considering the facts "the way qualified economists do," but that he has "a point of view from which a human sacrifice, the construction of a church or the gift of a jewel [is] no less interesting than the sale of wheat." He goes on to say that his essay addresses "a problem that still has not been framed as it should be, one that may hold the key to all the problems posed by every discipline concerned with the movement of energy on earth - from geophysics to political economy, by way of sociology, history, and biology."

The final paragraph goes as follows:

I will simply state, without waiting further, that the extension of economic growth itself requires the overturning of economic principles - the overturning of the ethics that grounds them. Changing from the perspectives of restrictive economy to those of general economy actually accomplishes a Copernican transformation: a reversal of thinking - and of ethics. If a part of wealth (subject to a rough estimate) is doomed to destruction or at least to unproductive use without any possible profit, it is logical, even inescapable, to surrender commodities without return. Henceforth, leaving aside pure and simple dissipation, analogous to the construction of the Pyramids, the possibility of pursuing growth is itself subordinated to giving: The industrial development of the entire world demands of Americans that they lucidly grasp the necessity, for an economy such as theirs, of having a margin of profitless operations. An immense industrial network cannot be managed in the same way that one changes a tire... It expresses a circuit of cosmic energy on which it depends, which it cannot limit, and whose laws it cannot ignore without consequences. Woe to those who, to the very end, insist on regulating the movement that exceeds them with the narrow mind of the mechanic who changes a tire.

While I have no complete sense of Bataille's philosophy, I do have knowledge of disparate components (such as his "base materialism," which I find fascinating) and I find myself attracted by an approach that aims to theorize some anomalous aspect of any market system: namely, expenditures that do not yield any material return. Bataille concerns himself with human sacrifice in Aztec culture, the potlatch tradition in Native American cultures, some aspects of Eastern and Middle-Eastern religion, and Western political economy.

It may extend the definition of economy, but Bataille acknowledges that and makes it clear that he believes economy can't be properly critiqued without taking these libidinal expenditures into account. He's particularly interested, of course, with their institution at a socio-cultural level, beyond mere jouissance at an individual level.

 

[Vimana]

I agree with what that dude says (or how I interpret it anyway). I think trying to put human affairs (like economics) within the confines of the ideas used to understand them can result in failing to even know what one is trying to accomplish because it eventually becomes a matter of this idea versus that idea, not the bare observable facts like people wanting food, entertainment, to create new technologies, explore new recreations, whatever. Economic systems can accomplish these tasks, but they also have their own problems. The problems mainly are in the fact that economic theories are descriptions of human activity which, though it has patterns, is immensely complex and ever-changing. Whenever I read any political or economic idea, I see how it works, but also how much more there is to human activity. I don't think the solution to society's problems is within any idea because ideas are only a piece of life. The solution is within the harmony of all human actions, which sounds vague as fuck, but only because it is something so immensely complex that actually describing it word-for-word would be like counting every molecule in a DNA strand one-by-one.

In more productive news

I'm counting this as a reply and this is how you meant it no matter what you think.

 

[Dak]

I don't see what is anomalous about expenditures that do not yield a material return, whether deferred or not at all. Maybe that's just because of Austrianism.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think Bataille is interested primarily in excess. So, beyond scarcity of something necessitating production, Bataille says that all production also entails a kind of remainder that cannot be reduced to the needs of the producer. This is the theoretical model, as I understand it, but I haven't gotten far enough to investigate the argument. I'm looking forward to the section on human sacrifice, as this is something I'm interested in, as far as cultural anthropology is concerned.

 

[Vimana]

This just made my day. Keep rolling, Spicoli.

Yeah, people getting along and loving one another is so stoopid. I must be rolling face to love the human race. Hate, murder, crime, and war are just facts of life we can do nothing about. Unconditional love is just a stupid, drug-induced hippie dream lolololol.

 

[Dak]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that what is being rebuffed is a desire for "peace, love, and understanding", or the value of meditation/mindfulness, etc. The problem is you are claiming to do something which all good arguments and science have so far shown to be impossible, and you are providing no argument or evidence to back up the interpretation of your experience(s) as escaping or experiencing consciousness itself in some objective form.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

V, ya have to consider that you just might be a romanticist with poor value judgement.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that what is being rebuffed is a desire for "peace, love, and understanding", or the value of meditation/mindfulness, etc. The problem is you are claiming to do something which all good arguments and science have so far shown to be impossible, and you are providing no argument or evidence to back up the interpretation of your experience(s) as escaping or experiencing consciousness itself in some objective form.

And, on top of this, I just don't need mediation to prove that it is undesirable to do harm to others. This need not be an individual pursuit within the mind, it can be assessed and supported scientifically/theoretically.

 

[Vimana]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that what is being rebuffed is a desire for "peace, love, and understanding", or the value of meditation/mindfulness, etc. The problem is you are claiming to do something which all good arguments and science have so far shown to be impossible, and you are providing no argument or evidence to back up the interpretation of your experience(s) as escaping or experiencing consciousness itself in some objective form.

I got the idea from being called Spicoli. I inferred that perhaps ideas of peace and love were seen as childish, stupid, and related to drugs, kind of like my interpretation of Spicoli.

You can't escape consciousness because it's always there as you are. I was presenting ways to point to a wordless reality without concept and you guys have been trying to make inferences about it with words. Do you see the irony?

It's like being shown a food you've never tasted, and saying, "I've never tasted it, but it tastes like this or doesn't taste like that." It makes no sense. I'm talking about a way to a lack of concept. Conceptualizing it is false. No amount of reading anything I say will get to what I'm trying to point to. You are already there and just have to separate yourself from what is on top of it.

Edit: Here's a joke I made from this debate that I think Zen monks would find hilarious.

Person A: I experience a wordless knowledge of the reality I experience.
Person B: Really? What's it like?
Person A laughs.

 

[Vimana]

And, on top of this, I just don't need mediation to prove that it is undesirable to do harm to others. This need not be an individual pursuit within the mind, it can be assessed and supported scientifically/theoretically.

Where did I claim meditation was necessary for this? I said emptying concept can lead to that, but not that it was the only way.

 

[Vimana]

V, ya have to consider that you just might be a romanticist with poor value judgement.

Try considering that your interpretations of the words I say are not what is in my mind.

 

[Dak]

It doesn't really matter what you *think* is in your mind/is your mind - and whether or not you think words can adequately represent it - your insinuation that you have experienced/observed/etc the foundation, the basis of consciousness - necessitates a removal of the self from consciousness. This is why I suggested you are, whether knowingly or not, appealing to a multiplistic metaphysics - which does have existing, and very poor arguments.

In short, until you can somehow provide some good argument or empirical evidence for the ability to "step outside/away from yourself", we must hold that your interpretation of your experience that believes such relies on either merely an ignorant interpretation or at best an illusion, like the illusion of the visions when on shrooms or what have you. Until such an argument or proof is offered, all we are reading is "yeah but man, if you just meditate you will see the unicorns". Sure, if we meditate we might see unicorns - that doesn't mean we will believe they really exist, but rather that they are an illusion, and/or perceived due to the prior suggestion. In either case, things are not what they would seem - a possibility you are ignoring entirely.

 

[Vimana]

It doesn't really matter what you *think* is in your mind/is your mind - and whether or not you think words can adequately represent it - your insinuation that you have experienced/observed/etc the foundation, the basis of consciousness - necessitates a removal of the self from consciousness.

Self and consciousness are not separate at the core.

This is why I suggested you are, whether knowingly or not, appealing to a multiplistic metaphysics - which does have existing, and very poor arguments.

You think I'm appealing to this. I know very well what I'm pointing to. You don't, which is why you're conceptualizing.

In short, until you can somehow provide some good argument or empirical evidence for the ability to "step outside/away from yourself", we must hold that your interpretation of your experience that believes such relies on either merely an ignorant interpretation or at best an illusion, like the illusion of visions when on shrooms or what have you. Until such an argument or proof is offered, all we are reading is "yeah but man, if you just meditate you will see the unicorns". Sure, if we meditate we might see unicorns - that doesn't mean we will believe they really exist, but rather that they are an illusion, and/or perceived due to the prior suggestion. In either case, things are not what they would seem - a possibility you are ignoring entirely.

Empirical evidence for whom? I have verified it for myself. You can do the same, but you have not done the process of emptying yourself of concept, yet you claim I am speaking of something mystical like unicorns. I am not speaking of anything, because words or things or concepts are not it. I am pointing to what is always there and cannot be described or experienced.

It's like you're asking me to use words to make you physically taste a food you have never heard of or tried. Same as how describing a food does not make you taste it. There is nothing to find, look for, whatever. It is far from mystical. But I cannot describe it because it is " underneath" description.

If you want to falsify it or verify it, empty your mind of concept and sensation, yet be awake. It is more real than anything. It always there, inescapable. It makes you "you" through every physical, emotional, sensational change. You cannot prove it or find it because it's already there.

 

[Dak]

Self and consciousness are not separate at the core.

Ok, we have a claim. That is a start.

Empirical evidence for whom? I have verified it for myself. You can do the same, but you have not done the process of emptying yourself of concept, yet you claim I am speaking of something mystical like unicorns. I am not speaking of anything, because words or things or concepts are not it. I am pointing to what is always there and cannot be described or experienced.

It's like you're asking me to use words to make you physically taste a food you have never heard of or tried. Same as how describing a food does not make you taste it. There is nothing to find, look for, whatever. It is far from mystical. But I cannot describe it because it is " underneath" description.

If you want to falsify it or verify it, empty your mind of concept and sensation, yet be awake. It is more real than anything. It always there, inescapable. It makes you "you" through every physical, emotional, sensational change. You cannot prove it or find it because it's already there.

"I have experienced unicorns that cannot explained with words, you can't prove them or find them because they are hornfucking you constantly".