Equality is difficult if all we do is play with definition. I see it fairly subjectively as a kind of promise from me to do my best by others when the opportunity presents - but it's also connected with more social rules in place to keep us straight. Equality didn't make me a better half-back than Alex Murphy, but I got in a few sides as hooker. We all took the same match-fees back then. My sister was as good an athlete, but there was no professional sport for women. Of course, it's not in these trivial areas that equality needs to work. I'm afraid I've met too many 'jerkoffs of inner glow' to spend to much time looking at bandages. We have a bad record on 'inner reliance' in any simple form - and for that matter I'm currently watching my old team being slaughtered in the open! I might wonder what Wigan have been fed on - but we have drug testing. Some form of equality makes it possible for games like this to take place, even if one side appears so much better than the other. We are not all born with equal abilities to play rugby league, and its not that kind of equality that interests me (uniformity). There is a manufactured equality involved that does. That there are ways to experience and more than the 5 senses we generally acknowledge seems clear enough, but much of the stuff we come out with trying to explain this is dire. In epistemology (broadly defined) it regularly becomes clear that you can't achieve some clear and grounded system and that assumptions you didn't know you were making come out. This more or less leaves me with structured realism, but this leaves plenty of scope. Most of the time I can tell whether evidence claims are not phony in such a system - this sadly is not true of introspectively divined light and glow. The long history of this, taken externally, is not good. I can find light and glow, but I still find it hard not to cry watching Warrington lose. Neither matter in a larger sense of things. Equality doesn't collapse on the obvious issue that we are not all equal if that equality is built-into the public domain (it is increasingly obvious this isn't the case because of the operation of wealth in law and education). I'm a rational optimist in that this is not the best of all possible worlds and we can do better. I suspect the fix for modern narcissism is not under the bandages of the Old One and that doing our best for each other is a matter even more 'blindingly obvious'.
Direct apprehension? Hmm... wobbly jelly, experienced through asbestos gloves. Local? We don't even know what end of the holographic projection we may be at. A very small number of "financial geniuses" have convinced people of magic in much the same way as any of this, Argument hardly settled anything as it quickly becomes obvious you can make argument do almost anything. There are thus hundreds of states postulated one must achieve to be superior to argument that fails. Such states are inexplicable or can't be demonstrated. It might be enlightened to work out how these tricks work on people. Given the massive levels of illiteracy and innumeracy there's an obvious start. These are not enlightened practices but rather dark arts. This said, the story of Relativity takes us from pollen seeds in water, weird fascination with magnets and maths that doesn't assume 3 dimensions in space, but does give light a constant speed in vacuum. \this is a much magic to most people as the entirely stupid application of clever maths to Ponzi schemes that allow governments and bankers to steal our wages. Enlightenment may just come as people find what's on offer too boring and work out we could put work in towards something else. We may not see it coming at all. For we are collectively stupid enough to believe the next guy who reports the 'secrets' under the bandages. On Jul 23, 12:13 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > Bear with me while i dig deeper into this one, OM. > > By direct apprehension, or deep introspection, i can come to that > "pure" consciousness; no thoughts, no relational maps in space and > time, just presence of "being"; now, that organic sense is self, not > autobiographical self. It "emerges" from, the full integration of our > neural circuitry minus sensory input/feedback (and thats the > contentious point, because one could argue that this quality of being > isnt accessible from birth to early adulthood, which would suggest > some cultural substructure to the sense; but lets go with the organic > view for now); now, if the organic self is not reducible to a global > "beta map" (because if we re-created the latter we would not derive > the former), what is the source of the "spark", or is it a spark? You > see, if we cannot get to this question, we would have to concede to > the anthropocentric view of consciousness; which doesn't quite sit > comfortably with me, for now at least. What do you think? > > On Jul 22, 8:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > How?...if so, by direct apprehension. > > Where?...if so, I don't assign any one locality > > > On Jul 22, 11:31 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > That would be a breakthrough for me OM; how do we know where the > > > "more" comes from? > > > > On Jul 21, 7:44 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > paradox, thanks again for your attempt at clarification. > > > > > Assuming I grok your restated question, I will respond that the ‘more’ > > > > can be known equally as well. One caveat: I don’t embrace (yet do > > > > recognize them as existent) Faith nor Revelation as methodology… so > > > > this may not fit within your personal context as an answer. > > > > > On Jul 21, 10:26 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The question was more mine, OM. Here's what i'm thinking; we can > > > > > "know" and "feel" mind in the nude, without the accoutrements of the > > > > > autobiographical self (this is contentious though, i admit, but i'm on > > > > > the same page as Molly and yourself on this); the quality of that > > > > > conception is not the "sum" of neurobiological processes, it's more > > > > > (hence non-reductive); question (for me) is where the "more" comes > > > > > from (you can infer by this that i'm still on my journey of Faith). > > > > > It's the concept that science terms "Emergence". > > > > > > On Jul 16, 7:06 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for the response paradox. > > > > > > > I’m not sure that we raised nor intended to raise a question. > > > > > > Apparently you see one though. With this assumption along with your > > > > > > opinion about an *unresolved* question about ‘quality of mind’, > > > > > > what, > > > > > > for you, could/would resolve said question? > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 5:15 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > More relationship than locality, OM; yes, movies we watch; i was > > > > > > > re- > > > > > > > framing; our inner lives are a result of our neuro-physiological > > > > > > > architecture, yet non-reductive. Molly (and you) raise an > > > > > > > interesting > > > > > > > (and as yet unresolved IMO) question regarding the quality of > > > > > > > sheer > > > > > > > presence of mind. > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 10:36 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Paradox, IF I grok your question re: paradox, apparently … > > > > > > > > since you > > > > > > > > broached the notion. > > > > > > > > > As to ‘movie’ etc., perhaps you are asking as to its locality? > > > > > > > > Here > > > > > > > > I’m guessing (clearly not knowing) that you mean actual movies > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > watch. If not, your question is way too esoteric for me. An > > > > > > > > unpacking > > > > > > > > would be of benefit in such a case. > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > OM > > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 11:33 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Could this be the ultimate paradox, i wonder (no reference > > > > > > > > > intended), > > > > > > > > > o'mind; where is the "movie"? celluloid or storyline? Both? > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:34 pm, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > When it comes to Mind, awareness, thought, brain, > > > > > > > > > > subconscious, True > > > > > > > > > > Self etc., it is all too easy to get lost in semantics and > > > > > > > > > > personal > > > > > > > > > > beliefs based on limited experience. > > > > > > > > > > > Some skeptical materialists demand that, in a sense, we are > > > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > > thoughts…our thoughts are entirely electrochemical > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms…thus, we > > > > > > > > > > are only physical ‘beings’. This is understandable. There > > > > > > > > > > is plenty in > > > > > > > > > > current day realms of science to keep them busy. On the > > > > > > > > > > other hand, > > > > > > > > > > for those who have experienced that which is not thought, > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > awareness prior to thought or the unity of this emptiness > > > > > > > > > > and relative/ > > > > > > > > > > subjective thinking or the infinite, radiant oneness that > > > > > > > > > > is the > > > > > > > > > > Ultimate Ground of existence, simple mental constructs are > > > > > > > > > > known for > > > > > > > > > > what they are. > > > > > > > > > > > Molly has this one right…’right’ in the sense of knowing a > > > > > > > > > > larger > > > > > > > > > > view. > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:09 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I am suggesting that unless you clear the mind of > > > > > > > > > > > thought, feeling, > > > > > > > > > > > sensation, belief, image - and allow it to be filled only > > > > > > > > > > > with the > > > > > > > > > > > eternal presence that is you - your experience and mind > > > > > > > > > > > will preoccupy > > > > > > > > > > > itself with the limits of mind and nothing more. There > > > > > > > > > > > is more to > > > > > > > > > > > life. There is more to me. All ways more. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 7:42 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Molly, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes indeed there are many parts of the human dedicated > > > > > > > > > > > > to keeping it > > > > > > > > > > > > alive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind is a function of the brain though isn't it, > > > > > > > > > > > > rather like > > > > > > > > > > > > running is a function of the legs and the heart and the > > > > > > > > > > > > lungs? > > > > > > > > > > > > > So without the legs, heart and lungs, there will be no > > > > > > > > > > > > running. Like > > > > > > > > > > > > without the brain there would be no mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not hard to see that we use our intelect to > > > > > > > > > > > > study; intelect a > > > > > > > > > > > > funtion of the mind, which in turn is a function of the > > > > > > > > > > > > brain, so as I > > > > > > > > > > > > say I see no problems in seeing that the mind is used > > > > > > > > > > > > to study the > > > > > > > > > > > > mind, yes even our own minds. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree that there exists an awareness beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > mind, I have > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout my short span of life experianced all sorts > > > > > > > > > > > > of weird and > > > > > > > > > > > > wonderfull things, yet still I say that all awareness > > > > > > > > > > > > takes place in > > > > > > > > > > > > the mind. When I have had periods of expansion of the > > > > > > > > > > > > mind, it is > > > > > > > > > > > > still all taking place in my brain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think of it this way,I am dyslexic and this is because > > > > > > > > > > > > something about > > > > > > > > > > > > my brain causes certain senseory inputs to be > > > > > > > > > > > > inturpreted in a way > > > > > > > > > > > > that differs from the non dyslexic. This is most > > > > > > > > > > > > evidant in my > > > > > > > > > > > > spelling and if you read through enough of my posts > > > > > > > > > > > > you'll notice > > > > > > > > > > > > things like the way I often write 'Form' instead of > > > > > > > > > > > > 'From' > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you suggest that my dyslexcia stems form a place > > > > > > > > > > > > independant of > > > > > > > > > > > > my brain? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope I don't think it would be correct to suggest such > > > > > > > > > > > > a thing. Yet > > > > > > > > > > > > dyslexcia is a huge part of who I am, it has shapped my > > > > > > > > > > > > mind since my > > > > > > > > > > > > birth, it forces me to approach things in ways that the > > > > > > > > > > > > non dyslexic > > > > > > > > > > > > would not consider, I need to think about things in > > > > > > > > > > > > certian ways to > > > > > > > > > > > > ensure that my dyslexcia does not hinder my day to day > > > > > > > > > > > > life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying here is that my dsylexic experiances > > > > > > > > > > > > which we could > > > > > > > > > > > > say take place in my mind, are a function of my brain. > > > > > > > > > > > > If these > > > > > > > > > > > > experiances take place in my brain, so have all of my > > > > > > > > > > > > experiances, > > > > > > > > > > > > includeing all of the trances, and dream states, all of > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > meditations, all of the high magiks and ceremonies, all > > > > > > > > > > > > of this has > > > > > > > > > > > > taken place in my brain, the home of my mind. I have > > > > > > > > > > > > not encountered > > > > > > > > > > > > one iota of evidance nor experiance to suggest other > > > > > > > > > > > > wise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps though the most telling is in the use of LSD, > > > > > > > > > > > > or any other > > > > > > > > > > > > pschyotropic substance. When 'tripping' all sorts of > > > > > > > > > > > > things can > > > > > > > > > > > > happen, you can just enjoy the buzz for what it is, you > > > > > > > > > > > > can use it to > > > > > > > > > > > > 'open the doors of perception', but all who have > > > > > > > > > > > > partaken more than a > > > > > > > > > > > > few times know that to stave off a 'bad trip' it is > > > > > > > > > > > > useful to remind > > > > > > > > > > > > yourself that it is just the drug, and when the > > > > > > > > > > > > chemical reactions of > > > > > > > > > > > > the drug in your brain whare off, then all goes back to > > > > > > > > > > > > normal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is possible to use LSD to expand the mind? Yes of > > > > > > > > > > > > course it is, > > > > > > > > > > > > and chemicaly speaking the same result from a differant > > > > > > > > > > > > meathod(meditiaon for example) cause the same chemical > > > > > > > > > > > > changes in the > > > > > > > > > > > > brain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Almost finished now honset, so to reiterate in the > > > > > > > > > > > > shortest possibel > > > > > > > > > > > > way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The mind is seated in the brain, there is no other > > > > > > > > > > > > place that the > > ... > > read more »
