Incidental pawns in a very large chess game

[OP ED]

i said that, didn't i?

No, you said, if you say so, there was no mention of that until your last post?

oy. i'm pretty sure they're the same thing.

[n0x23]

oy. i'm pretty sure they're the same thing.

Umm, even though our cars appear to be on the same track, they seem to be headed in completely opposite directions, so, I'm going to prudently walk away at this point.

Although, I am still interested in your follow up on the Vedas, if and when you get the time.

[n0x23]

Anton van Leeuwenhoek's invisible (well actually very small) creatures didn't come from another world. They came from this one. They are physical structures.

Yes, we know that now
But at that time they did in fact come from another world, there was, at that time no "proof" of the other worldly microcosm that Leeuwenhoek was speaking of. That is why the British Royal Society thought Anton lost his grip on reality and sent a group of Doctors to seriously examine Leeuwenhoek's sanity, or the lack there of.

Blaming mythical creatures is what uninitiated children do.

Yes, that is exactly the mind-set that the British Royal Society had when first confronted with mandatory hand-washing and Leeuwenhoek's imperceptible/ invisible and therefore non-existent germs.

Am I sposed to dignify that with a response?

Well you don't have to, of course, but I wasn't being facetious in the slightest.

But where is the distinction between your statement...

The whole of the world is conscious to an extent, but self awareness, and the ability to create art that reflects on our place in the world, and mitigates the enourmous energies that drive ceation - thats where humans fit in.
We exist so nature can have a conversation with itself, and sing and dance in celebration of the wonder of being alive.

...and my question....

So do humans exist specifically so gravity can celebrate its gravitational pull?
What about the sun....does it exist so it can bask in its own light?

How is implying that we exist so Nature can interact and celebrate itself, any different then asking if humans exist so gravity can celebrate its gravitational pull?

Do waves exist so the ocean can celebrate in the wonder of its own existence?

I'm not being trite.

What it seems that you are stating is that the dependent object is creating and perceiving it's own objects.
In other words, the eye is perceiving the act of seeing.

How does Consciousness, which is dependent on its supporting conditions and therefore does not inherently exist and is as such an object, perceive and celebrate itself, while the sun, gravity and the ocean (which are dependent objects themselves) do not?

[Joe Hillshoist]

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Lets deal with the Royal Society first.

Yes, we know that now
But at that time they did in fact come from another world, there was, at that time no "proof" of the other worldly microcosm that Leeuwenhoek was speaking of. That is why the British Royal Society thought Anton lost his grip on reality and sent a group of Doctors to seriously examine Leeuwenhoek's sanity, or the lack there of.

The history of the royal society is a history of rejection of new ideas and self interested support. The Harrison v Maskelyne argument on longitude comes to mind.

But I guess what you are saying is that we are in the same boat as the worlds was pre Leeuwenhoek. Is that ight?

Its a fair point, but ultimately irrelevent to the point we were making re harm. Humans are responsible for the vast majority of harm humans are subject to. Taking responsibility for yourself is the thing. "The devil made me do it" doesn't actually cut it as an excuse. There may well be things that feed off human suffering and encourage humans to cause suffering in search of some tucker. That doesn't mean you, I or anyone else has to go along with them.

I should have said blaming mythical creatures for their actions is what unitiated children do.



Now to dignify that comment with a response.

What about the sun....does it exist so it can bask in its own light?

Thats what really irritated me about your comment. The sun doesn't bask in its own light. Everything around it does. On that level whats a true description of the sun? A nuclear furnace or angels singing glory to god as some poet once said? Who cares. It exists, thats enough, cos it exists we have life.

Gravity tho, that a different thing. Of course humans exist so gravity can celebrate the way matter is attracted to itself. And to give us something to strive against and succumb to. Why else would it be there? (Sorry that last sentence was a bit silly.)

Humans exist so (among other things) we can have a conversation with gravity and help it understand itself in the same way gravity helps us understand ourselves. It helps us define our bodies and gives those bodies an opportunity to extend themselves. To find their limits and try to push them.

How does Consciousness, which is dependent on its supporting conditions and therefore does not inherently exist and is as such an object, perceive and celebrate itself, while the sun, gravity and the ocean (which are dependent objects themselves) do not?

Is consciousness dependant on its supporting conditions? Seriously, or is what you call its supporting conditions a game it plays with itself to help in its self definition?

[n0x23]

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

No worries.

Is consciousness dependant on its supporting conditions? Seriously, or is what you call its supporting conditions a game it plays with itself to help in its self definition?

Yes. All objects, whether material or conceptual, are intrinsically void, they are wholly dependent on their causes, conditions and supporting factors.

Consciousness, be it individualistic, mind-consciousness, or Universal Consciousness , regardless, the distinction between the two is illusory, it is this erroneous distinction that supports the phenomenon of the pseudo-subject that manifests in sentient objects thereby producing a sensorially perceived Universe and the illusion of distinct and individual objects existing and functioning within it.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Wait a minute, are we kind of saying the same thing?

[OP ED]

that's what i said.

[Joe Hillshoist]

You did too.

[n0x23]

Wait a minute, are we kind of saying the same thing?

Hmmm....in a sense, I suppose. But with this particular comment of yours....

The whole of the world is conscious to an extent, but self awareness, and the ability to create art that reflects on our place in the world, and mitigates the enourmous energies that drive ceation - thats where humans fit in.
We exist so nature can have a conversation with itself, and sing and dance in celebration of the wonder of being alive.

... where as I am coming from the perspective of anatta, I get the feeling that your are presenting the expression of Atman.

Is this correct?

[AhabsOtherLeg]

AhabsOtherLeg, I'm not arguing for or against the actual existence of the Vril, it's just a recreational, "high weirdness" interest of mine, just as UFOs, the Nephilim, Occulture, etc, are...

Ps. that sentence you quoted was actually from 8bitagent.

Fair enough, n0x23. Sorry about my tone. I wasn't trying to dissuade you from being interested in anything - it's not my business. The more interest, generally, the better. It might be an interesting thing to look into when the pictures were actually taken, though.

I'm not a high wierdness person, much, and should stay out of this kind of thing - but I think 8bit might've been right on his instinct - that the pics were taken much, much more recently than they are billed as being taken.

[Luther Blissett]

Yeah...not sure I'm necessarily buying the complete authenticity of some of these photos.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Yeah...not sure I'm necessarily buying the complete authenticity of some of these photos.

The lass in the middle is clearly a Centaur.

[n0x23]

Fair enough, n0x23. Sorry about my tone. I wasn't trying to dissuade you from being interested in anything..... It might be an interesting thing to look into when the pictures were actually taken, though......that the pics were taken much, much more recently than they are billed as being taken.

No, no reason to apologize, I didn't take it that way at all, but thank you.

Yea, I agree those pictures are most definitely suspect, they look doctored for sure, not even that well, at that.

But these pictures I found look a bit more authentic, I can't verify their authenticity of course, but I would like to know your opinion of them, or anyone else who would like to interject...

[Joe Hillshoist]

Wait a minute, are we kind of saying the same thing?

Hmmm....in a sense, I suppose. But with this particular comment of yours....

The whole of the world is conscious to an extent, but self awareness, and the ability to create art that reflects on our place in the world, and mitigates the enourmous energies that drive ceation - thats where humans fit in.
We exist so nature can have a conversation with itself, and sing and dance in celebration of the wonder of being alive.

... where as I am coming from the perspective of anatta, I get the feeling that your are presenting the expression of Atman.

Is this correct?

Mybe....

I can understand how you would get that impression given what I am writing.

But as far the terms themselves ... no. Either is actually applicable to what i am saying. Or neither... depending on your perspective.

On refelction for the purposes of this discussion yes.

(IE I'm not trying to deny the other idea or put more validity on this one. It would be easy to equate consciousness with the self. I dunno if thats appropriate, but in the context of this discussion I spose it works.)

[OP ED]

But as far the terms themselves ... no. Either is actually applicable to what i am saying. Or neither... depending on your perspective.

due to the forms in which my own initiations have taken place, i am rarely inclined to think of these things in Vedantic terms.

many Hermeticists do not distinguish between the Self and the greater consciousness, only the Selfhood [the inferior ego] and the macrocosmic forms. Differently defined layers of "self" perceive these connections from much different vantage points, i.e. literally.

If i were to apply a term to the level of consciousness integration i was referring to, it would be sahu.