Practice what you Preach...

David,
I had designs, when I first read your responses directed at me, on actually quoting some of my previous posts and pointing out my problem with your response. I had initially intended to point out the fallacy of "calling someone out" for their arguments after you add words to it. But I have since thought better of it. Suffice it to say, I believe that language is incapable of expressing anything of any real value on the subject of opposition. The opposition you refer to (the "axiom") is an illusion, "literal" opposition does not exist. As to the greater, more ephemeral question of opposition, language fails to express it adequately, but it is absolutely true that we can only fully understand a thing by experience, and can only fully experience a thing thru the thing itself and what the thing is not...the "un-thing" if you will. Maybe I just made "cloudy water" straight "murky" but this is the best I can must right now...it's late and I've been up since 5am.

ren wrote:

Everything is conscious, on some level. All the universe is a sea of radiant, conscious energy.

you're entitled to your beliefs.

Yes, and you are entitled to disregard the truth by conveniently labeling it my opinion. First of all, it is not my opinion, or at the most my opinion is merely a reflection of its truth. Secondly, even if it were solely my opinion, at least it would be an opinion backed by ample experience, both my own and that of many others. Do you actually have a shred of experience that the world is not conscious, radiant, living energy? Or do you just have your glib skepticism rooted in supposition, with no direct experience serving in contradiction?

It may seem presumptuous of me to ask a question like this, or in this way. But what I know from direct experience tells me that if you had had any similar direct experience of the inner nature of the Force, it would have only served to put the lie to your current unfounded belief.

ren wrote:

If you limit your understanding of consciousness to the biological definition, then you will never fully understand the nature of the Force.

Anyone who claims they can ever hope to fully understand the true nature of the Force is in my opinion, a fool. I've spent a good 8 years now thinking about it though.

Yes, I am a Fool, and joyfully so. But that does not make me incorrect in my assertions here. Keep in mind that I said the "nature" of the Force, not the Force itself. The essence of the Force is unknowable, as I have said previously. But "the nature" of it means how it behaves while in manifestation, i.e. while expressing itself within duality.

The nature of the Force, as defined that way, is actually quite simple, as all profound things are. It is we who are complicated. It is our own lack of mastery of ourselves that prevents us from mastering the directing of the flow of its Water into the garden of our lives. Whatever portion of the Force or its manifestations that can be understood, the knowledge that it is based in conscious, living energy is a huge, fundamental piece of that portion.

So my assertion to you remains unchanged. But if it is more palatable to you, then we may reword it thus: If you limit your understanding of consciousness to the biological definition, then you will never grasp what is perhaps the most fundamental and powerful aspect of the Force as is manifest in the physical universe.

8 years is a healthy start... and you have obviously gained a lot during that time. I respect a lot of what you have had to say on other topics. But keep looking into this one.

ren wrote:

What do you think the Force is, if not pure consciousness?

I do not believe it is aware of itself, and do not believe there is anything other than the Force (and therefore it cannot be aware of that either).

I completely agree that there is Nothing other than the Force. (I intend both of the possible interpretations of that sentence.) I never said the Force was aware of anything other than itself, did I? As for Self awareness, The Force both is and is not aware of Self. At the most basic level, the Force is pure, undifferentiated, limitless consciousness. So there can be no Self at that level, because there is no assertion of Identity at that level. There is no "I AM".

But emanation of the Force into manifestation involves a relative concentration of Itself into a center of assertion, an "I AM". (For example, you are one such center of assertion.) Or as Joseph Campbell refers to it, the "This am I." Same principle of Self-awareness, which requires consciousness. How long has it been since you've watched those videos?

I realize that to tell you all this right now probably seems futile, but I say it more for the seeds it may plant for later than for your immediate edification. You definitely seem beyond that right now.

ren wrote: I'm not going to reply to your other "universal mind" comments because, obviously, it means nothing to me.

Oh, it means something to you, or you would have asked me what I'm even talking about. You are resistant to the ideas, for whatever reasons. Perhaps it is in your nature. I can find no fault with that, if so. We are all beautiful for different reasons. But mentally speaking, dissolution is typically required before there can be any fruitful congelation, brother.

Fraternally in the Living Force,
-David

Alluvius wrote: David,
I had designs, when I first read your responses directed at me, on actually quoting some of my previous posts and pointing out my problem with your response. I had initially intended to point out the fallacy of "calling someone out" for their arguments after you add words to it. But I have since thought better of it.

I sincerely apologize if, in the process of paraphrasing you, I misconstrued what you were trying to say. It was not my intent. You said exactly this:

"Anyone, in my humble opinion, who lives in the "real world" (and I will grant in good faith that all here do) knows that there is no light side, there is no dark side, there is simply the Force, and what you choose to make of it."

Which I paraphrased as, "you assert that the Force has no Light or Dark aspects."

How is saying that the Force has no dark side or light side fundamentally different from saying that you said it has no light or dark aspects? Those two statements are functionally equivalent. If the Force has light and dark aspects, that means it has light and dark sides. An aspect is a "side" or "facet" of a thing. I try never to put words into people's mouths if it can be avoided.

Alluvius wrote: Suffice it to say, I believe that language is incapable of expressing anything of any real value on the subject of opposition.

And thus we should not do our best? Interesting approach. I would say only imprecise use of language is incapable of expressing anything of any real value, about almost anything, not just the subject of opposition.

Alluvius wrote: The opposition you refer to (the "axiom") is an illusion, "literal" opposition does not exist.

Well, ok, this depends on what you consider "literal" opposition to mean. Do you mean it as, "the standing apart of two things in a state of mutual exclusivity"? Or in the sense of "opposing each other combatively"? I only mean the first definition, and such a definition is self-evidently true everywhere in the real world. We have only to look. If you find it more palatable, we can just say "polarities" or "poles" from now on. That does not imply contention. But the meaning will be the same.

Of course nothing ever really opposes, as in fights against, anything else, regardless of any appearances to the contrary. If there is only One Thing, then there is nothing against which to fight. But there can definitely be many experiences of opposition, and thus limitation, and this is what we seek wisdom about in order to experience ever greater freedom.

As for the Axiom, it simply is what it is. There is no illusion to it. As for the concept it is conveying, though, yes, I will agree that the whole universe is an illusion of sorts, so why should any of the Laws or Principles governing its operation be any less ultimately illusory? But such thinking does not benefit us in the art of living our lives well in this physical world. We cannot expect bills or taxes to go away, nor crimes to cease being committed, nor our bellies to stop needing food, solely by declaring them all illusory.

Alluvius wrote: As to the greater, more ephemeral question of opposition, language fails to express it adequately, but it is absolutely true that we can only fully understand a thing by experience, and can only fully experience a thing thru the thing itself and what the thing is not...the "un-thing" if you will.

I agree with this statement. Except I would leave out the second use of the word "fully".

Alluvius wrote: Maybe I just made "cloudy water" straight "murky" but this is the best I can must right now...it's late and I've been up since 5am.

No worries, Brother.

May the Force be with you,
-David

Br. John wrote: Panpsychism?

Yeah, that does look like it pretty much covers the concept, although in a way that is highly dependent on interpretation. Thanks for sharing that. I admit to never having heard that term before. Interestingly, it looks to me like emergentism does not fundamentally disagree with my form of panpsychism; it simply does not acknowledge how fundamental consciousness can be. It addresses only universal consciousness as it is able to be expressed through the form of human neurological centers, and does not acknowledge the source of that consciousness as arising from the universe. In some variants of emergentism, it does not attribute a source at all.

Either way, good stuff.

Fraternally,
-David

I ask that you all consider the peanut. It is a simple thing, but serves many purposes. It is often overlooked, but it still serves its purpose.

Such is language, though it may appear complex, it is vastly less complicated than a peanut. Still, as simple as it is it serves its purpose.

Next, Take a deep breath, and try to put yourself in the other arguer's shoes, and try to see what their perspective is, then ask questions for clarification. Through this you may come to better understand another being's perspective.

csmith wrote: I ask that you all consider the peanut. It is a simple thing, but serves many purposes. It is often overlooked, but it still serves its purpose.

Such is language, though it may appear complex, it is vastly less complicated than a peanut. Still, as simple as it is it serves its purpose.

Next, Take a deep breath, and try to put yourself in the other arguer's shoes, and try to see what their perspective is, then ask questions for clarification. Through this you may come to better understand another being's perspective.

I appreciate your calm perspective.

That's probably the nicest way I've yet heard for someone to say, "ok, everybody take a chill pill." LOL

Eh, I'm going to take a "go to bed you glutton" pill and wait til tomorrow to respond to Jestor's last post. I expect I may end up asking some questions there.

Good night for now, everyone.

-David

David,
When you "paraphrase" you invariably change the original statement. This is OK if you don't change the meaning of the statement, but you did, in fact, change the meaning of what I said. I did not say that the force has no light or dark aspects because that is not a true statement. What I said was the force does not have a light or dark side. So, you see, I made a general statement addressing the fact that the force is not a polarized, or polarizing, "entity" (not to suggest the force has consciousness...I just don't have a better word to stand in for the force in that context). And you paraphrased the statement, changing it's meaning to say: I don't believe that the force can have darker or lighter moments or parts. Again, my statement said the force is not polarized but simply a neutral whole, and you said I said that the force can't be dark or light. I'll grant that the distinction may be subtle...but it is still phenomenally important as one of those statements is true and the other is not.

The same things holds true for my statement of determining the opposite of an object...my statement meant that the only way to define a thing's opposite is in general terms, and you said I said that I was looking for specifics and didn't feel the need to define the object to find an exact opposite. The simple fact of the matter is, the more generally you define a thing, the more easily it's opposite can be expressed in language. It is possible to define a thing so specifically that it cannot have a literal opposite (or an exact opposite if you prefer). Opposition in the literal (which I define as suggested by the context of this entire conversation previous) sense, is impossible...because it depends on a detailed and explicit definition of the object itself...which is something that language itself fails at. And truly, an argument about literal opposition falls to the hobgoblin of "what is the opposite of blue?"

As for this topic in a more general sense, I agree (more or less) with the original post that passion indicates, at least a degree of, lack of control and as self-control is central to the Jedi code, it is at the very least a paradoxical state that we find ourselves in when we do not seek to master our passions, and at worst it is laziness in training and practice to find excuses to not strive toward that control.

For the community in general...I see a lot of novices (and I fully admit that this could be gross misinterpretation of the evidence at hand) striving to impress training masters who may be reading the threads with their own wisdom and perspective, rather than coming together in humility and common purpose to learn from each other. Not that I'm saying we can't express our own views, or even believe what we say. But the definition of the word novice is (to use dangerous paraphrasing) "you don't know everything, yet"...Should novices not be more open to an exchange of ideas rather than the simple gainsay of anyone they perceive as having less experience than they do (according to temple rank). Or do we hold that no life experience counts for anything until we hold temple rank?

If this is inflammatory, I'm sorry, I truly don't mean for it to be. But I am noticing a trend on these boards that disturbs me slightly.

you are entitled to disregard the truth by conveniently labeling it my opinion.

Just as you are entitled to disregard the truth by conveniently labeling your beliefs as truth.

Do you actually have a shred of experience that the world is not conscious, radiant, living energy?

Yes. I live in it.

Yes, I am a Fool, and joyfully so. But that does not make me incorrect in my assertions here.

Neither does it make you correct.

If you limit your understanding of consciousness to the biological definition

Actually what I was talking about was how most of biologically defined life (you know, animal, plant, single cells) does not have consciousness.

I completely agree that there is Nothing other than the Force. (I intend both of the possible interpretations of that sentence.) I never said the Force was aware of anything other than itself, did I? As for Self awareness, The Force both is and is not aware of Self.

I was however, using the regular philosophical definition of consciousness: to be aware of the self, or that which is around the self. If there is nothing other than the Force, and the Force is not aware of itself, it is not conscious.

Oh, it means something to you, or you would have asked me what I'm even talking about.

No. Just because something has no meaning to me does not mean I do not understand it. I understand what you say, I just do not believe as you do. What you see as truth, I see as non-sense.

You are resistant to the ideas, for whatever reasons.

Just as you are to mine.

You call what you believe "truth". I call what I believe "truth". That is why I say I do not believe as you do. Simply saying that people who do not see things as you do are a wrong is futile. Your experiences draw you to the conclusion there is a universal mind of sorts. Mine do not. One day, you will learn to accept that. I have.

ren wrote:

you are entitled to disregard the truth by conveniently labeling it my opinion.

Just as you are entitled to disregard the truth by conveniently labeling your beliefs as truth.

Nice try. But what experience do you have that tells you that my beliefs are not in alignment with truth?

ren wrote:

Do you actually have a shred of experience that the world is not conscious, radiant, living energy?

Yes. I live in it.

Again, nice try, but what about your experience living in the world tells you that the world is not conscious energy? You didn't really answer my question. At all.

ren wrote:

Yes, I am a Fool, and joyfully so. But that does not make me incorrect in my assertions here.

Neither does it make you correct.

I didn't say it does, did I? But I have yet to hear what experience(s) you have that tells you that I am mistaken.

ren wrote:

If you limit your understanding of consciousness to the biological definition

Actually what I was talking about was how most of biologically defined life (you know, animal, plant, single cells) does not have consciousness.

If single cells do not have consciousness, then how you do suppose that our human consciousness is expressed through a networked aggregation of single neurons? Just because consciousness is operating at a level so low you don't recognize it as being anything like your human consciousness, does not mean it is not conscious on some level. Everything is alive, everything has consciousness. They are inseparable. The biological definition of life is very limited and is only intended for the purposes of studying organic life. The biological definition has its place, but a Jedi should not rely on it for better understanding of the Force.

ren wrote: I was however, using the regular philosophical definition of consciousness: to be aware of the self, or that which is around the self. If there is nothing other than the Force, and the Force is not aware of itself, it is not conscious.

Regular, according to what sources? I hold to sources that define philosophy as a love of wisdom, not as conjecture. According to that much older, more ageless kind of philosophy, consciousness is simply awareness of some kind. It does not have to imply self-awareness. It typically does imply some level of self-awareness, but like in the instance of the Force outside of manifestation, it doesn't have to.

ren wrote: Just because something has no meaning to me does not mean I do not understand it. I understand what you say, I just do not believe as you do. What you see as truth, I see as non-sense.

Further experience on your part will resolve that problem. Samadhi, for example.

ren wrote: Just as you are to mine.

I am not resisting your idea. I have merely transcended it. Your idea is true, from a certain level of unawareness. Which is to say, the world definitely can seem to be possessed of no consciousness. But the problem lies in not realizing all the different ways in which consciousness can evidence itself. Any focused application of the Law of Suggestion will immediately demonstrate the truth of the Axiom of Mentalism, though. Your lack of experimentation in this regard does not constitute falsehood or nonsense on my part.

ren wrote: You call what you believe "truth".

No, in this case (and in as many cases as I can manage), I call truth whatever can be experientially confirmed time and time again in accordance with ancient ageless wisdom principles. I do my best to ensure that my beliefs are in alignment with universal laws and principles.

ren wrote: Simply saying that people who do not see things as you do are a wrong is futile.

Not to sound semantic, but I never said you are "wrong". That would imply a personality judgement. I said your view on this particular topic is incorrect, in the sense that it is not inclusive of as many levels of reality as it could be. But I did not just stop there, I also told you, indirectly, how you can go about experimenting to confirm this for yourself. Whether you see fit to be adventurous will determine what is futile and what is not.

ren wrote: Your experiences draw you to the conclusion there is a universal mind of sorts. Mine do not.

Again, what experiences of yours? It is one thing to just assume your experiences don't indicate universal consciousness, but if you don't examine them, how do you really know?

ren wrote: One day, you will learn to accept that. I have.

I have no problem with acceptance. I don't really care that you don't see the universe as I do. It does not remove from me the daily responsibility of bettering myself. But this is discussion, is it not? You can use your kind of dismissive attitude as an excuse to continue being blind about anything you please.

For a Jedi to be blind to the underlying nature of the Force, in a way that specifically prevents you from achieving any significant degree of knowledge or control of it, seems a waste. But suit yourself.

I appreciate the concrete contributions you are able to make to this Order on a daily basis, ren. I have respect for that regardless of anything else.

Fraternally in the consciousless Force,
-David

Alluvius wrote: David,
When you "paraphrase" you invariably change the original statement. This is OK if you don't change the meaning of the statement, but you did, in fact, change the meaning of what I said. I did not say that the force has no light or dark aspects because that is not a true statement. What I said was the force does not have a light or dark side. So, you see, I made a general statement addressing the fact that the force is not a polarized, or polarizing, "entity". I'll grant that the distinction may be subtle...but it is still phenomenally important as one of those statements is true and the other is not.

You are correct, of course. I apologize, Brother, for misconstruing your meaning in my paraphrasing. I remove my earlier statement that your involvement in this thread in support of the existence of Polarity seems strange. Thank you for your kind and level-headed response.

Alluvius wrote: For the community in general...I see a lot of novices (and I fully admit that this could be gross misinterpretation of the evidence at hand) striving to impress training masters who may be reading the threads with their own wisdom and perspective, rather than coming together in humility and common purpose to learn from each other. Not that I'm saying we can't express our own views, or even believe what we say. But the definition of the word novice is (to use dangerous paraphrasing) "you don't know everything, yet"...Should novices not be more open to an exchange of ideas rather than the simple gainsay of anyone they perceive as having less experience than they do (according to temple rank). Or do we hold that no life experience counts for anything until we hold temple rank?

I am curious who you are thinking of when you say this...