[MEGA] God

[bleedingheartcommie]

thanks for clearing that up

we do agree on almost everything

a better word than deconstructionist would be post modernist... I'm assuming that they are the same thing and wondering if you have read much post modernism...

would you consider yourself to be a nihilist?

also... do you think it is possible for human consciousness to be decunstructed to the point where it is equal to a plant's? I'm asking this because I used to have the same philosophy as you. That is untill I got into meditation and eastern thought

 

[Jamshyd]

Glad we understand each other

I do not restrict myself to any particular philosophy... and, like you, I find great metaphors for the "truth" in eastern philosophies, most prominantly the Hindu Upanishads. I meditate often...

Re: Deconstruction vs post-modernism, I believe that deconstruction is part of the bigger umblrella term that is Post Modernism, which includes other things.

It is, IMHO, possible to be a decosntructionist without having being a nihilist. I am not really a nihilist or a solipcisit/relativist, in that beyond social/linguistic constructions, I think there is such a thing as reality.

I use deconstruction solely for ego-analysis. "Ego" can belong to a simple person, and many egos can belong to a larger (constructed ) super-ego.

I think that plants are much, much closer to the "truth" than humans are. Plants express selflessness so much better than we do. I believe it is possible to have the super-consciousness of plants for a few moments at a time, but I do not think humans in their current state are capable of retaining plant-consciousness, otherwise we become plants .

 

[vegan]

This multi univers that you are talking about is what I meant by universe. we just have two different definitions of what the term universe includes

so does that mean that it wasn't our universe that you were talking about when you said that "if there was nothing before the 'universe' ('multiverse' it seems now), then there wasn't anything before existence... thus it always existed.. i see no problems here"?
do you think that our universe, not being the whole multiverse, could indeed have popped into existence some 13,5 billion years ago?

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

the universe is the multi universe anything smaller is just a catagory

 

[B9]

Jamshyd, how are plants closer to perfection than humans? It would seem to me that they aren'y capable of self-awareness(though i admit this not proven) so therefore they just "are". Unless of course your perspective is that of a buddhist.

zophen.

 

[vegan]

the universe is the multi universe anything smaller is just a catagory

you said in this very thread

I am one who enjoys the journy, not the end.... so I would greatly aprechiate it if you could open my eyes a bit wider.

maybe you should honour those respectable words rather than ignore what we're saying

'multiverse' and 'universe' describe 2 different things
if there is a multiverse, our universe is just one of its universes

you said we had a misunderstanding because in your idea that "if there was nothing before the 'universe', then there wasn't anything before existence... thus it always existed", by "universe" you meant "all that exists"
on a material aspect, "all that exists" could be synonym of 'multiverse', but not of 'universe'
so in your sentence we have to replace 'universe' with 'multiverse' to get closer to your real meaning

thus, according to your own words, your demonstration (be it right or wrong) doesn't apply to our universe on its own, since there could very well have existed something else before somewhere else in the multiverse (or, i'll add, something else of a non-material nature, outside of the multiverse)

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

thus, according to your own words, your demonstration (be it right or wrong) doesn't apply to our universe on its own, since there could very well have existed something else before somewhere else in the multiverse (or, i'll add, something else of a non-material nature, outside of the multiverse)

you keep missing the point

you are arguing semantics

universe = everything = god

you keep seperating it from other things when by definition it is everything. (yes... my definition, which is what you keep overlooking... )

the convo has come ful circle and will not provide anything further that ego stroking... Good day sir

 

[Jamshyd]

Jamshyd, how are plants closer to perfection than humans? It would seem to me that they aren'y capable of self-awareness(though i admit this not proven) so therefore they just "are". Unless of course your perspective is that of a buddhist.

zophen.

Nope, I am actually only familiar with the basics of Buddhism, so I wouldnt say my perspective is Buddhist . However, you are welcome to call it that if you want...

My perspective is that self-awareness is actually an inferior state of being - it means that one is still vulnerable to the allures of the Ego. To be egoless is to be in a vegetative state, to not feel pain, and to not desire, to be selfless. In other words - to barely exist. Plants are closer to this state as we are. Plants have no biological pain apparatus. Even if they have other ways of percieving pain, they certainly do not react to it. Sure, they heal - but they do not react like animals or humans do. Plants readily provide all living things with energy needed to survive, and don't seem to hoard it. It is rather presumptuous of humans to think that we are suprerior. That is just my opinion coming from my own gnosis - you will likely disagree, and thats fine .

 

[B9]

Nope, I am actually only familiar with the basics of Buddhism, so I wouldnt say my perspective is Buddhist . However, you are welcome to call it that if you want...

My perspective is that self-awareness is actually an inferior state of being - it means that one is still vulnerable to the allures of the Ego. To be egoless is to be in a vegetative state, to not feel pain, and to not desire, to be selfless. In other words - to barely exist. Plants are closer to this state as we are. Plants have no biological pain apparatus. Even if they have other ways of percieving pain, they certainly do not react to it. Sure, they heal - but they do not react like animals or humans do. Plants readily provide all living things with energy needed to survive, and don't seem to hoard it. It is rather presumptuous of humans to think that we are suprerior. That is just my opinion coming from my own gnosis - you will likely disagree, and thats fine .

No i don't agree or disagree, i think it's a novel(to me anyhow) point of view and an interesting one. I'll think on it and get back if anything worthwhile occurs. Ah, so would you prefer to exist in a vegatative state?

zophen.

 

[elemenohpee]

Plants are closer to this state as we are. Plants have no biological pain apparatus. Even if they have other ways of percieving pain, they certainly do not react to it. Sure, they heal - but they do not react like animals or humans do. Plants readily provide all living things with energy needed to survive, and don't seem to hoard it. It is rather presumptuous of humans to think that we are suprerior. That is just my opinion coming from my own gnosis - you will likely disagree, and thats fine .

Actually, plants do react to pain by releasing hormones. The stress response is well documented.

My perspective is that self-awareness is actually an inferior state of being - it means that one is still vulnerable to the allures of the Ego. To be egoless is to be in a vegetative state, to not feel pain, and to not desire, to be selfless. In other words - to barely exist.

Plants did not evolve from humans and lose the ego. The ego evolved, and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it did because it is beneicial to the species. IMO, anyone who can look at the accomlishments of human intelligence and can say that a plant is superior has got to be nuts. To me it sounds like you value lifelessness over life. Is this not a correct assessment?

 

[Jamshyd]

Actually, plants do react to pain by releasing hormones. The stress response is well documented.

That is what I meant when I said that the reaction is a healing one, not an emotional/defensive reaction.

Plants did not evolve from humans and lose the ego.

If you think I'm THAT stupid, I must say I'm rather offended

The ego evolved, and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it did because it is beneicial to the species.

Indeed, it is benificial if selfishness is your idea of "Beneficial," which, btw, is what is generally considered "right" by society and taken for granted to the point of not even being questioned. Mind you, my definition of "Selfishness" goes beyond what society ordinarily considers selfish.

IMO, anyone who can look at the accomlishments of human intelligence and can say that a plant is superior has got to be nuts. To me it sounds like you value lifelessness over life. Is this not a correct assessment?

I value selflessness over selfishness, as I mentioned before. However, I am glad to see that you agree with me that life (in its current state) = selfishness, otherwise you wouldn't have inferred that, since never did I mention the word "lifeless."

However, by saying "lifelessness" you are really playing with words. Death is the only certain thing in life. But that is not to say that we should all be killed right now (although an apocalypse is a viable option in a society that values selfishness in the case that it doesn't learn from its mistakes, which it will eventually bring upon itself). I certainly do not think plants are "lifeless". In fact, I think plants are ultra-conscious, and constantly overflowing with lmitless Love. Mind you, not egoistic Love. I see more "life" in one minute of a plant than an entire lifetime of a human. If that makes me nuts, then so be it

I guess I forgot to state explicitly in my previous post that I believe that the ego is a necessesary, albeit intermediate, state of human evolution. You need to be conscious of the ego in order to control and minimize it. The problem is that many humans tend to think that the ego is an end, not a means...

Zophen: Yes, I do. In fact I try my best to model my life on plants.

 

[elemenohpee]

Even if they have other ways of percieving pain, they certainly do not react to it.

This is what I was responding to.

I guess I don;t understand what you mean by plants being "ultra-concious," or having limitless love, which is a human emotion. What do you mean by "non-egoistic love"? You say self-awareness is not desireable, and plants are closer to perfection than humans. This is where I gathered that you value inert matter over "life." It seems that a rock would exhibit this ultimate selflessness. Me personally, I think its a pretty cool concept that a segment of the universe can be aware of itself. The ego does not only have to lead to selfishness. This is a very cynical take on human intelligence IMO. If anything, the ego has allowed humans to commit more selfless acts that would have been possible if we were just big gene preservers, like plants are.

 

[Jamshyd]

This is what I was responding to.

Well I hope I cleared it up in my response.

I guess I don;t understand what you mean by plants being "ultra-concious," or having limitless love, which is a human emotion.

IMO, the answer to what I mean is in this very train of thought. I gather that you think humans are superior to everything else in the universe.

What do you mean by "non-egoistic love"?

Since you seem to define Love as being exclusively human, my only reply would be "non-human love." That is not to say that humans aren't able to experience it. I am refering to what some may call "Agapé," not the inferior sexually-tied love.

You say self-awareness is not desireable,

Not really...

I guess I forgot to state explicitly in my previous post that I believe that the ego is a necessesary, albeit intermediate, state of human evolution. You need to be conscious of the ego in order to control and minimize it. The problem is that many humans tend to think that the ego is an end, not a means...

and plants are closer to perfection than humans. This is where I gathered that you value inert matter over "life."

Again, if you consider plants as being "inert matter," then sure.

It seems that a rock would exhibit this ultimate selflessness.

Why not? .

Me personally, I think its a pretty cool concept that a segment of the universe can be aware of itself. The ego does not only have to lead to selfishness. This is a very cynical take on human intelligence IMO.

Yes, it is a cynical take. My definition of the ego is simply as being the will to exist and limiting consciousness to that. To exist in a world of limited resource (again, I emphasize "current state," since things could change) is to have to hurt something else's existance in order to maintain that existance.

If anything, the ego has allowed humans to commit more selfless acts that would have been possible if we were just big gene preservers, like plants are.

I repeat again that I agree that the ego is a necessary STEP towards selflessness. However clinging to the ego will never get you there. I tend to see the reproductive (ie. gene-preserving) aspects of plants as being vestigal. In any case, they are far less (but not totally) selfless than those of humans and animals. Plants do not go actively seeking reproduction. They put what they have out and hope for the best (a strong wind or a an insect...etc.)

Edit: I will remind you that, without plants' generousity, you would not be here to perform those selfless acts you speak of.

 

[B9]

So you're lamenting the, so called," fall of man"(in effect)?

zophen.

 

[Jamshyd]

Most definitely (keeping in mind that I only take this story as a metaphor). At some unknowable point, for some unknowable reason, something "forgot."

It seems like I have hijacked the thread. I apologize. However, I do not think I have gone off-topic .

 

[elemenohpee]

IMO, the answer to what I mean is in this very train of thought. I gather that you think humans are superior to everything else in the universe.

Well our brains are the most complex systems that we have discovered in the universe so far. I guess rocks don;t kill people, so in that sense they are superior to humans. But other than that...

Since you seem to define Love as being exclusively human, my only reply would be "non-human love." That is not to say that humans aren't able to experience it. I am refering to what some may call "Agapé," not the inferior sexually-tied love.

Agapé exists only in the human mind. It is still a human experience. What evidence suggests that plants experience this?

Not really...

Why would the ego be necessary in order to minimize the ego? Why not just not develop it at all?

Again, if you consider plants as being "inert matter," then sure.

I should have been more clear. I consider rocks and the rest of the non-living universe as inert matter. I was saying that you believe humans are imperfect, plants are closer to perfection, and by extension, inert matter is perfect.

Why not? .

So would you prefer everything in the universe be inert?

Yes, it is a cynical take. My definition of the ego is simply as being the will to exist and limiting consciousness to that. To exist in a world of limited resource (again, I emphasize "current state," since things could change) is to have to hurt something else's existance in order to maintain that existance.

We are using our intelligence to try and create a world where this is not the case. You would abandon all progress now because we are not already there.

I repeat again that I agree that the ego is a necessary STEP towards selflessness. However clinging to the ego will never get you there. I tend to see the reproductive (ie. gene-preserving) aspects of plants as being vestigal. In any case, they are far less (but not totally) selfless than those of humans and animals. Plants do not go actively seeking reproduction. They put what they have out and hope for the best (a strong wind or a an insect...etc.)

You say that the reproductive functions of a plant are largely vestigial, so what did they do to move beyond this? Everything that a plant does is for the purpose of reproducing its genes. That's how evolution on this planet works. If anything, it will be intelligence, specifically human intelligence, which allows us to move beyond this.

Edit: I will remind you that, without plants' generousity, you would not be here to perform those selfless acts you speak of.

First of all, the plants were not generous, different life forms evolved to use their waste products. I wasn't belittling the function of plants in this ecosystem anyways, I don't know why you threw that in there.

 

[Jamshyd]

I do not know why you choose to be hostile (or at least, word your posts in such a manner). In any case, it seems that we simply do not look at the same issue from a similar point of view. That is fine. I vehemently disagree with you, but I will not be disrespectful about it. Please don't take this as me "giving up"... I simply do not see the point in arguing when we clearly don't even agree on definitions. One last comment though...

Why would the ego be necessary in order to minimize the ego? Why not just not develop it at all?

The answer to that should be pretty obvious. How can you minimize something when you are not aware that it exists? Sure, not having an ego in the first place would be more convenient. Unfortuantely, we are stuck with an ego, so we might as well try and make the best out of it, instead of having it make the best out of us.

I am glad that you find my arguments outrageous though

 

[punktuality]

the ego is our sense of self..... a requirement to understand our place within the universe. Perhaps it is an ilusion but a nescesary one to survive

 

[vegan]

you keep missing the point

you are arguing semantics

didn't i just reformulate your idea, making clear what you meant by it since you hadn't used the word universe with its right definition?
haven't you yourself said that by 'universe' you meant what is actually known as multiverse? (btw, multiverse, not multi-universe. multiverse is an existing word. it has only one definition and by ignoring it, you're the one trying to play with semantics)
so why do you try to dodge my questions now that semantics are cleared?

universe = everything = god

that's something we're wondering and arguing about, not a definition

there can't be an argumentation if you only listen to others if their argumentation is build around your own axioms

you keep seperating it from other things when by definition it is everything. (yes... my definition, which is what you keep overlooking... )

have you actually read our posts!!!!
no, the universe is not by definition everything

i'll requote you once because now it makes me laugh

I am one who enjoys the journy, not the end.... so I would greatly aprechiate it if you could open my eyes a bit wider.

 

[Raven]

god = the sun.always has,always will