Thread: Motion: The ground state of all that is pecieved.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Does it experience time...?

~

Here is a part of an esoteric piece I found myself writing last night while writing to Cloud...:

Look to the golden key

All Duality is contained within the oneness

Oneness is the potential of Experience

Duality is the manifestation, realization of potential

Between the two, The Consciousness dwells

In duality One Consciousness appears as two

Inner and outer

Parrent and child

A veil inbetween

Self and self

Journey out

Then journey back

Two views, different yet the same

Remove the veil

You put it there Yourself

you are the veil

Stretched out, reaching, grasping, You lose yourSelf in yourself

Pull back and momentarily see yourSelf

Like a glove pulled on too tight

You focus all on the hand, losing touch with all else

Relax and quit forcing

Its all You, hand and glove

Love yourself, this chlid of Yours

Enjoy it, experience it, be it, but take care not to lose yourSelf in it

Time is only experienced by the outer consciousness, as time arises with the realization of potential and hence movement. The inner consciousness contains time and therefore cannot be caught up in it itself.

Realize too that the components are not seperate, though they can be semingly experienced in a "seperate" fashion by focusing on each.

With the above said; what is the function of memories?

Note: I do have an aim at these questions.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

With the above said; what is the function of memories?

Note: I do have an aim at these questions.

~

Memory deals with the perception of what has occured in time, even at the very moment what is, happens. Time itself is merely a concept based on movement, the reality of which may not be absolute, save for that which is caught up in time. Even then there is a certain relativity present.

It would seem apparent that the outer consciousness, dwelling in time, has need of memory to function in relation to percieved others, and movement going on around itself.

While on the other hand the inner consciousness contains time. For it what we see as past , present, and future, is all happeniing upon it, within it. There is no need of a "memory" as in its "view" any concept of beginning or ending as well as all in between is laid out in front of it , upon it, in it. Such is all present moment.


Keep prodding...

Its interesting to see what will be said next...

Without conscious beings having memories; is there such a thing as time?

In other words; if there were nothing to perceive time, is there time?

Also, does this view give leeway to clairvoyance?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Without conscious beings having memories; is there such a thing as time?

In other words; if there were nothing to perceive time, is there time?

Also, does this view give leeway to clairvoyance?

~

That seems to be where the writing is going.



It would go without saying that the individual, or outer consciousness, does have and use memories.

What you are apparently getting at is this idea, or definition of inner consciousness ( my, or this, take on Jungs collective unconscious), and characteristics thereof.

The real question to be answered is "being" or "Beings".

But then again maybe not.

If the inner "being" is connected to the outer "being"( or use the word consciousness in place of being) as it apparently is, then time would both exist and not exist in the same moment.

Exist- because that part "in time" is experiencing or percieving time first hand and subject to time.

Exist- also , because the inner being is observing or percieving time detached from it.

Not exist -because by the very virtue of that detacthment it is not affected in any way by time.


As to clairvoyance, you tell me. It would very likely seem so, albeit dependant or relative to the connection between the inner and outer consciousness. Or shoulld it be said rather on the level of interference in said connection?

Before touching on the clairvoyancy, would this sense of awareness that you are speaking of be similar to the true sense of "carpe diem"?

Being able to truly stop and create an epoche.

Consider:

To achieve this goal, two concepts have been central to Husserl's internalist interpretation of intentionality: the concept of a noema (plural noemata) and the concept of epoche (i.e., bracketing) or phenomenological reduction. By the word ‘noema,’ Husserl refers to the internal structure of mental acts. The phenomenological reduction is meant to help get at the essence of mental acts by suspending all naive presuppositions about the difference between real and fictitious entities (on these complex phenomenological concepts, see the papers by Føllesdal and others conveniently gathered in Dreyfus 1982. For discussion see Bell 1990 and Dummett 1993).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/

Epoché (εποχη) is a Greek term which describes the theoretical moment where all belief in the existence of the real world, and consequently all action in the real world, is suspended. One's own consciousness is subject to immanent critique so that when such belief is recovered, it will have a firmer grounding in consciousness. This concept was developed by Aristotle and plays an implicit role in skeptical thought, as in René Descartes' radical epistemic principle of methodic doubt. The prominent phenomenological philosopher Edmund Husserl picks up the notion of 'phenomenological epoché' in his influential work Cartesian Meditations where the world is 'lost in order to be regained' through placing the epoche and thereby 'bracketing' the world.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Epoché

What do you think...?
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Before touching on the clairvoyancy, would this sense of awareness that you are speaking of be similar to the true sense of "carpe diem"?

Being able to truly stop and create an epoche.

If I understand the words, it would seem in my view that such would apply to the relationship, or connection, between the inner and outer consciousness.
Specifically in if and when the outer turned about to recognize and face itself in the inner. Such would seem to be synonomous with complete and total Self Realization in it truest sense. The merging of the outer and the inner...

Its easy to get lost in the words and their definitions...

Yes, but truthfully, we can express anything. The problem is representation. No word can properly represent a transcendental thing. However, we can express it.

I think this may also be relevant issue, don't you?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes, but truthfully, we can express anything. The problem is representation. No word can properly represent a transcendental thing. However, we can express it.

I think this may also be relevant issue, don't you?

~

Quite relavant. Its likened to two peole talking different languages not understanding anything the other is trying to convey vs two who are using the same language.

Yes such can be expressed, but only in an esoteric sense using words to represent a metaphorical expression. Much n the way dreams convey meaning to the one experiencing the dream.

This is why I choose to write in an esoteric, "mystical", sort of way much of the time. It is far easier to convey what I am experiencing or "seeing" using metaphor than using words in their scietific, literal sense. Some can grasp onto what I say, others are completely lost to the meaning. This too I see as related to that connection with from the inner to the outer consciusness. Such would be a stronger connection in those who can relate to such writing than the connection in those who cannot relate.

Even the words esoteric and mystical turn some off. The words themselve may or may not convey the truth of what is trying to be expressed.


Your thoughts on this?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Quite relavant. Its likened to two peole talking different languages not understanding anything the other is trying to convey vs two who are using the same language.

Yes such can be expressed, but only in an esoteric sense using words to represent a metaphorical expression. Much n the way dreams convey meaning to the one experiencing the dream.

This is why I choose to write in an esoteric, "mystical", sort of way much of the time. It is far easier to convey what I am experiencing or "seeing" using metaphor than using words in their scietific, literal sense. Some can grasp onto what I say, others are completely lost to the meaning. This too I see as related to that connection with from the inner to the outer consciusness. Such would be a stronger connection in those who can relate to such writing than the connection in those who cannot relate.

Even the words esoteric and mystical turn some off. The words themselve may or may not convey the truth of what is trying to be expressed.

Your thoughts on this?

I profoundly agree with you because there are many things where metaphor and analogical reasoning is simply incompatible with the other person. We use metaphors and analogies to try and relate one idea to the other person based on previous knowledge. However, there are many cases where the individual has not formed these foundational experiences or knowledge.

So, for someone to even understand the cogito, they would have to had, at one time, think to themselves "I exist because I am". Furthermore, one has to experience an epoche before they can ever understand what it is.

Do you agree...?
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I profoundly agree with you because there are many things where metaphor and analogical reasoning is simply incompatible with the other person. We use metaphors and analogies to try and relate one idea to the other person based on previous knowledge. However, there are many cases where the individual has not formed these foundational experiences or knowledge.

So, for someone to even understand the cogito, they would have to had, at one time, think to themselves "I exist because I am". Furthermore, one has to experience an epoche before they can ever understand what it is.

Do you agree...?
~

I would, to the degree of understanding that is present in this moment with me. That understanding being that " I am" without a qualifier, without a relationship to anything in particular. For the thought or awareness "I am" is not subject to the world, physical or non physical, but that the world as such is subject to that awareness. This is how I have come to view such, and how such a view is continuing to presently grow, or rather reveal itself.

That said, the knowledge of what an epoch is, is rather hard to come to a mutaual consensus on as far as a definition, even between two individuals who have had the same experience. Mutual tell tale signs would exist, but they could be ever so subtle. Each may define their experience in drastically different ways and terms.

How would such a rift be bridged other than through metaphorical representations?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

That said, the knowledge of what an epoch is, is rather hard to come to a mutaual consensus on as far as a definition, even between two individuals who have had the same experience. Mutual tell tale signs would exist, but they could be ever so subtle. Each may define their experience in drastically different ways and terms.

How would such a rift be bridged other than through metaphorical representations?

I do not think there is any other way than going far back to the knowledge that they do have and working from there (likely through analogical means).

In the words of Morpheus from the Matrix, "I can only show you the door; it is up to you to open it." That seems to encapsulate the learning process to me.

Also, reading can be very enlightening. I think the crucial step to all learning and enlightenment is an openness to experience.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I do not think there is any other way than going far back to the knowledge that they do have and working from there (likely through analogical means).

In the words of Morpheus from the Matrix, "I can only show you the door; it is up to you to open it." That seems to encapsulate the learning process to me.

Also, reading can be very enlightening. I think the crucial step to all learning and enlightenment is an openness to experience.

~

I agree with that priciple.
In my estimation, the union of the inner and outer conscious can only be experienced by the individual on an individual level. It is nothing that can really be defined or communicated, only experienced.

So where would you like to go from here? BAck to the issue of clairvoyancy you brought up?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

So where would you like to go from here? BAck top the issue of clairvoyancy you brought up?

Yes, how can one be clairvoyant? Does this imply a senes of fate or determinism?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes, how can one be clairvoyant? Does this imply a senes of fate or determinism?

~

In this view, what is described as clairvoyance arises out of the relationship between the inner and outer consciousnesses. Particularly the degree of union of the two, or as said before the level of interference between the two.

It truly is all in ones own self perception. Perception, as in the degree to which one percieves the two as distinct and seperate or the degree of which one percieves the two as one.

The inner does not have the self imposed limitations of the physical senses like the outer consciusness does.

The more the view is to the perception of oneness the more likely that clairvoyance will arise to the outer view. Or, the less likely there will be seperation between the two conscious states.


In my thoughts on this, what we call clairvoyance is indeed the view of the inner consciousness. A view that is unbound by physical limitations, including time, distance, individual senses, a body, etc.


As to implying fate or determinism, I dont see fate as a reality. It is a illusiary concept. Determinism could be implied, but not in an absolute sense of its general defined understanding.
Such determinism is a reality, but not an absolute reality. There are exceptions. Those exception are also grounded in the relationship between the inner and outer consciousness. Again specifically to the degree of perception towards either oneness or twoness.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

As to implying fate or determinism, I dont see fate as a reality. It is a illusiary concept. Determinism could be implied, but not in an absolute sense of its general defined understanding.
Such determinism is a reality, but not an absolute reality. There are exceptions. Those exception are also grounded in the relationship between the inner and outer consciousness. Again specifically to the degree of perception towards either oneness or twoness.

I suppose my real question is what allows the means to clairvoyance? It if were simply awareness connecting to an intangible stream, then this stream ought to be integrated with all other individuals which inclines me to ask that this is an entity which determines the life of all individuals.

If otherwise, you are tapping into an intangible stream of consciousness that potentially integrates all individuals consciousness (like energy) then it cannot be completely fulfilling or completel because the system would be unstable, constantly changing. We could get ideas like when we throw a ball, we have an idea of where it will land. This could be similar to saying something (or doing something) and then predicting the likeliness of what the result would be.

Is this similar...?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I suppose my real question is what allows the means to clairvoyance? It if were simply awareness connecting to an intangible stream, then this stream ought to be integrated with all other individuals which inclines me to ask that this is an entity which determines the life of all individuals.

If otherwise, you are tapping into an intangible stream of consciousness that potentially integrates all individuals consciousness (like energy) then it cannot be completely fulfilling or completel because the system would be unstable, constantly changing. We could get ideas like when we throw a ball, we have an idea of where it will land. This could be similar to saying something (or doing something) and then predicting the likeliness of what the result would be.

Is this similar...?

~

Understand that inner and outer are truly One. There is nothing to tap into, nothing to connect to. All of it is already One.

It is the perception of the outer individual that creates the appearance, and therefore the manifest physical and non physical reality of being seperate.
The clairvoyance is already there, always has been and always will be. It is not in time. It is the perception of seperation that the individual has that creates the viel that hides the aspect of clairvoyance from the individual.

We as individual outer consciousnesses have this damning, self perpetuating drive to percieve ourselves as independant, isloated, individual entities. It is precisely this perception that creates the limitations that we experience. Non access to the clairvoyance that is already there is one of those limitations.

That we, as individuals, are part of a singular base essence does not mean that we cannot be distinct individuals. What it means is that , either being One, or being each an individual, are merely relavent aspects of our being. We can be one or the other or even both in the same moment.

If you as an individual want to access clairvoyance, you must move your perception towards being both Inner and outer merged as one. Not as easy as such may sound. Moving beyond the outer perception,or the perception of being a seperate individual to any degree requires total suspension of doubt.

Doubt is exactly why some cannot grasp esoteric writings, or even real meanings communicated in dreams.


Is this more helpful of an explanation as to how I am seeing this?

Originally Posted by O'nus

I suppose my real question is what allows the means to clairvoyance? It if were simply awareness connecting to an intangible stream, then this stream ought to be integrated with all other individuals which inclines me to ask that this is an entity which determines the life of all individuals.

If otherwise, you are tapping into an intangible stream of consciousness that potentially integrates all individuals consciousness (like energy) then it cannot be completely fulfilling or completel because the system would be unstable, constantly changing. We could get ideas like when we throw a ball, we have an idea of where it will land. This could be similar to saying something (or doing something) and then predicting the likeliness of what the result would be.

Is this similar...?

~

I will apply another type of explanation as to how I am seeing in this moment:

I do not see an integration of individual consciousnesses, or a collective of any sorts.

I do see the potentiality of connection to any and all mindstreams or streams of individual outer consciousnesses.

In this there now needs some defining of the "seeing" as I apply the term.

In all of our lives, the lives of any living thing capable of percieving with any or all of the physical senses, there is the "view". Initially you will take this term view as a visual identifacation, but it is more than that in my definition. I define the "view" as the combination of all the senses, not just one or another.
This "view" is inclusive of an aspect of consciousness, awareness in the notion of "I", not relating particularly to the body itself, but in actuality to the non corporeal aspect of the view itself.

This introduces the notion of the "absolute consciousness", or what I have been calling all along the "inner consciousness". This inner consciousness is absolute in that it is the same from one person to the next, one living thing to the next, always there, always the same, not relative to anything.

This idea of "one person to the next" ties to the notion of "relative consciousness", or what I have been calling the "outer consciousness". The outer consciousness is relative in that the phenomenon of the physical individual brings about relative conditions to impose or overlap onto the inner consciousness. Such is a placing of "blinders" so to speak upon the absolute inner consciousness.

These blinders limit and divide the view, creating distinct perceptions. Incidentally, all of this is also tied to the basis of this thread, motion. The variety of perceptions gives the illusion of a collection of individual consciousneses. Look at it like this. Say you have a drawer full of sunglasses, each with different colored and different sized lenses. You sit in a chair facing one direction all the time and without any glasses on you get a wide open field of view, untainted unhindered. With each set of glasses the perception of what is in the field is distinctly different. However, the view itself is unchanged. Such only appears to be changed by the limitations of the glasses worn.

Our own consciousness, our own view, our own very being is essentially like this. It is the absolute that empowers the relative. There is no collective, only one being, one which has been dispersed through the advent of motion in the form of perception.

Do you follow me so far?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

I will apply another type of explanation as to how I am seeing in this moment:

I do not see an integration of individual consciousnesses, or a collective of any sorts.

I do see the potentiality of connection to any and all mindstreams or streams of individual outer consciousnesses.

In this there now needs some defining of the "seeing" as I apply the term.

In all of our lives, the lives of any living thing capable of percieving with any or all of the physical senses, there is the "view". Initially you will take this term view as a visual identifacation, but it is more than that in my definition. I define the "view" as the combination of all the senses, not just one or another.
This "view" is inclusive of an aspect of consciousness, awareness in the notion of "I", not relating particularly to the body itself, but in actuality to the non corporeal aspect of the view itself.

This introduces the notion of the "absolute consciousness", or what I have been calling all along the "inner consciousness". This inner consciousness is absolute in that it is the same from one person to the next, one living thing to the next, always there, always the same, not relative to anything.

This idea of "one person to the next" ties to the notion of "relative consciousness", or what I have been calling the "outer consciousness". The outer consciousness is relative in that the phenomenon of the physical individual brings about relative conditions to impose or overlap onto the inner consciousness. Such is a placing of "blinders" so to speak upon the absolute inner consciousness.

These blinders limit and divide the view, creating distinct perceptions. Incidentally, all of this is also tied to the basis of this thread, motion. The variety of perceptions gives the illusion of a collection of individual consciousneses. Look at it like this. Say you have a drawer full of sunglasses, each with different colored and different sized lenses. You sit in a chair facing one direction all the time and without any glasses on you get a wide open field of view, untainted unhindered. With each set of glasses the perception of what is in the field is distinctly different. However, the view itself is unchanged. Such only appears to be changed by the limitations of the glasses worn.

Our own consciousness, our own view, our own very being is essentially like this. It is the absolute that empowers the relative. There is no collective, only one being, one which has been dispersed through the advent of motion in the form of perception.

Do you follow me so far?

I think I get it. Let me try to re-iterate what you are saying in a different way and let me know if you agree:

(Before explaining, I must share that this is something I have recently embraced as a true personal belief, much to your inspiration):

Each person has a unique share of the initial kinetic energy.

This energy is binding to all individuals in such a way that it causes them to interact or desire to interact, etc. (This is not a relevant point)

Our forms of kinetic energy (motion) is unqiue in the fact of how it interacts with the grand scale of things (like one instrument in a symphony).

However, all forms of kinetic energy (motion) move to the sway of a common collective. Also expressed as: symphony:song::personal consciousness:collective consciousness.

Thus, when we debate things and try to enlighten, we are utilizing the experinece of the motion for the other individual. We try our best to somehow have them experience the proper experience in order to understand that point. Fallacies would be the failure to properly allow the other person to experience the message you are trying to convey. I think this point is debatable alone, but when functioing it with the previous, I think it elaborates the function of consciousness.

I will stop there for the moment. Do you think I am on the same track as you...?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think I get it. Let me try to re-iterate what you are saying in a different way and let me know if you agree:

(Before explaining, I must share that this is something I have recently embraced as a true personal belief, much to your inspiration):

Each person has a unique share of the initial kinetic energy.

In my view I see such as " Each person, each and everything, is a unique dispersement of the initial kinetic energy". Also, each distinct consciousness, or mindstream, is a dispersement of the initial as well.

This energy is binding to all individuals in such a way that it causes them to interact or desire to interact, etc. (This is not a relevant point)

Actually, pondering it, I believe it is relevant.
If each person is actually this initial absolute consciousness and each mindstream or individual distinct stream of relative consciousness is merely a dispersement through kinetic energy that "overlaps" the initial or absolute, then each person is in fact tied to all other mindstreams or relative consciousnesses through the absolute that they indeed are, but currently unaware of. Unaware of due to the "sunglasses effect " suggested above.
The interaction you suggest would be at the absolute level which is not readily apparent to the relative level. Hence the idea of conscious and subconscious so to speak. Language could get to be a problem in this dicussion....

Our forms of kinetic energy (motion) is unqiue in the fact of how it interacts with the grand scale of things (like one instrument in a symphony).

However, all forms of kinetic energy (motion) move to the sway of a common collective. Also expressed as: symphony:song::personal consciousness:collective consciousness.

Collective does not truly express the way in which I am seeing this.

Lets see, how to explain?

Symphony, yes. Yes, definately! But in reverse! Let me show you how I see it as being...

The absolute, is like the music itself, all one -perfect harmony and balance. The relative is like the individual sounds playing alone, dispersed from the absolute, not creating the absolute . It is only an illusion that it seems the intruments are making up the overall music, when in reality it is the music that is making up the individual sounds. The variety of individual phenomenon are/is only a manifestation, a expression of the one, or the absolute.

Is this making sense? Adequate words seem difficult to come by.

Thus, when we debate things and try to enlighten, we are utilizing the experinece of the motion for the other individual. We try our best to somehow have them experience the proper experience in order to understand that point. Fallacies would be the failure to properly allow the other person to experience the message you are trying to convey. I think this point is debatable alone, but when functioing it with the previous, I think it elaborates the function of consciousness.

I think so, if I follow the summary correctly as intended.

I will stop there for the moment. Do you think I am on the same track as you...?

~

I think we are close to seeing in much the same manner what it is that is being looked upon.