Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

the Consciously Unaware

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 5:27:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Neither idealism nor materialism is complete, in and of itself. The idea is contingent, on the physical; and, the physical is contingent, on the idea. Psychic content does not exist, alone; in other words, consciousness makes no sense, apart from unconsciousness. If only consciousness existed, at no time could we be ignorant of anything.

However, the question remains, can consciousness exist alone, as consciousness? In other words, are all things conscious elements, with nothing that is unconscious? Being all things are conscious, with no unconscious territory, the universe is illumined, with consciousness. Like water in an ocean, there is no place, in which it is not, no contrasting values, as one drop of water is no wetter than any other drop other. As water is separated by that which is not water, giving it meaning, consciousness is separated by that which is unconsciousness, giving it, likewise, meaning.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 6:02:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 5:27:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Neither idealism nor materialism is complete, in and of itself. The idea is contingent, on the physical; and, the physical is contingent, on the idea.

This assumes a physical world even exists in the first place. What some may call a physical things in a physical world may actually be ideas in a larger mind. Ergo, the mind wouldn't have to be contingent on anything physical or non-mental.

Psychic content does not exist, alone; in other words, consciousness makes no sense, apart from unconsciousness. If only consciousness existed, at no time could we be ignorant of anything.

I don't see how that follows.


However, the question remains, can consciousness exist alone, as consciousness? In other words, are all things conscious elements, with nothing that is unconscious?

What is unconscious to you may not be unconscious to its reference frame. Regardless, an aspect of consciousness doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious thing like I am conscious. For example, the words on this screen are an aspect of my consciousness experience and are made of conscious stuff, but the words aren't themselves conscious like I am necessarily. An aspect of an isolated conscious stream isn't necessarily an isolated conscious stream itself. That would be a fallacy of composition. The video I posted ("All is in consciousness, but not necessarily conscious" ) supports the same conclusion.

Being all things are conscious, with no unconscious territory, the universe is illumined, with consciousness. Like water in an ocean, there is no place, in which it is not, no contrasting values, as one drop of water is no wetter than any other drop other.

But there are different whirl pools and waves in the water which would account for contrasting. It isn't like the stream of consciousness is just doing nothing...

As water is separated by that which is not water, giving it meaning, consciousness is separated by that which is unconsciousness, giving it, likewise, meaning.

I addressed that above.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 8:39:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/16/2014 6:02:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/16/2014 5:27:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Neither idealism nor materialism is complete, in and of itself. The idea is contingent, on the physical; and, the physical is contingent, on the idea.

This assumes a physical world even exists in the first place. What some may call a physical things in a physical world may actually be ideas in a larger mind. Ergo, the mind wouldn't have to be contingent on anything physical or non-mental.

That which is immaterial has no meaning, apart from the material. For, how can you define one, without knowledge of the other? Or, how can one be defined in the absence of that which it's not?


Psychic content does not exist, alone; in other words, consciousness makes no sense, apart from unconsciousness. If only consciousness existed, at no time could we be ignorant of anything.

I don't see how that follows.


However, the question remains, can consciousness exist alone, as consciousness? In other words, are all things conscious elements, with nothing that is unconscious?

What is unconscious to you may not be unconscious to its reference frame. Regardless, an aspect of consciousness doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious thing like I am conscious. For example, the words on this screen are an aspect of my consciousness experience and are made of conscious stuff, but the words aren't themselves conscious like I am necessarily. An aspect of an isolated conscious stream isn't necessarily an isolated conscious stream itself. That would be a fallacy of composition. The video I posted ("All is in consciousness, but not necessarily conscious" ) supports the same conclusion.

My point exactly. Not all things are conscious elements.


Being all things are conscious, with no unconscious territory, the universe is illumined, with consciousness. Like water in an ocean, there is no place, in which it is not, no contrasting values, as one drop of water is no wetter than any other drop other.

But there are different whirl pools and waves in the water which would account for contrasting. It isn't like the stream of consciousness is just doing nothing...

There are different whirlpools and waves, because water alone doesn't exist, just as consciousness alone doesn't exist.


As water is separated by that which is not water, giving it meaning, consciousness is separated by that which is unconsciousness, giving it, likewise, meaning.

I addressed that above.