Please log in. To create a new account, enter the name and password you want to use.
If you supplied an email address when you signed up or added a email later, you can have your password reset.
This user name doesn't exist. If you want to create a new account, just verify your password and log in.
This user name exists. If you want to create a new account, please choose a different name.
Enter the current email address you have registered in your profile. You'll get an email containing your new password.
You have no email address in your profile, so you can't have your password reset.
Password reset. Check your email in a few minutes
That account does not exist.
The email address specified is not registered with this account.
Delivery to this email address has failed.
onisonfire said: Ultimately, at the absolute level, I think consciousness being the absolute reality transcends any concept or quality, so even as souls our individuality is still quite relative and temporally bound.
some interesting thoughts there...
according to the idea of definition by negation, "we" identify as "ourselves" because the self that, in philosophical terms, "experiences life" is unlike anything else we "experience". on a side note..."Experience" is arguably a purely passive state or action, therefore it would be impossible for someone to "experience" someone else's self, which arguably gives rise to a feeling of individuality, or uniqueness. If we were to (justifiably, IMO) assume that it's impossible to imagine anything one hasn't experienced already (4D shapes, new colours/smells, etc...), we'd come to the conclusion that it's impossible for us to know "what it's like" not to have a consciousness/self, because it's an essential "component/medium" to our experiences. All "experiencing" is done by (or through) the self and therefore we cannot, in our lifetime, have any experience without it. side note 2Which might, at least in part, explain why it's so difficult to explain/understand what this repeatedly mentioned self actually/essentially/(meta-)physically is. We (only) have nothing to "negate it against" (definition by negation). We "know" that we "have/are a self", but we don't know what it is. Interestingly enough, almost every philosopher or school of thought "assumes" the existence of the self. At least I can't, off the top of my head, think of anyone specific who denied it. A nice metaphor I read on this topic goes like this: In an old-fashioned lamp, there's some wax burning. Small particles of wax rise in the heated air, and "gain individuality". Only being aware of their immediate surroundings and perceiving, among other things, other particles, they assume that they are defined by their shape. Not realising that they are, in fact, primarily, wax. They dread the moment they will lose that individual shape. They think that by losing their shape, the will be destroyed, not realising, that they will merely return to "the big wax" at the bottom. It's tempting to think that the pieces of wax represent our bodies that return to the earth, but who's to say it isn't also the case for our mind/soul (that it returns to its source)?
Gregol
almost 9 years agoaccording to the idea of definition by negation, "we" identify as "ourselves" because the self that, in philosophical terms, "experiences life" is unlike anything else we "experience". on a side note..."Experience" is arguably a purely passive state or action, therefore it would be impossible for someone to "experience" someone else's self, which arguably gives rise to a feeling of individuality, or uniqueness.
If we were to (justifiably, IMO) assume that it's impossible to imagine anything one hasn't experienced already (4D shapes, new colours/smells, etc...), we'd come to the conclusion that it's impossible for us to know "what it's like" not to have a consciousness/self, because it's an essential "component/medium" to our experiences. All "experiencing" is done by (or through) the self and therefore we cannot, in our lifetime, have any experience without it. side note 2Which might, at least in part, explain why it's so difficult to explain/understand what this repeatedly mentioned self actually/essentially/(meta-)physically is. We (only) have nothing to "negate it against" (definition by negation). We "know" that we "have/are a self", but we don't know what it is.
Interestingly enough, almost every philosopher or school of thought "assumes" the existence of the self. At least I can't, off the top of my head, think of anyone specific who denied it. A nice metaphor I read on this topic goes like this:
In an old-fashioned lamp, there's some wax burning. Small particles of wax rise in the heated air, and "gain individuality". Only being aware of their immediate surroundings and perceiving, among other things, other particles, they assume that they are defined by their shape. Not realising that they are, in fact, primarily, wax. They dread the moment they will lose that individual shape. They think that by losing their shape, the will be destroyed, not realising, that they will merely return to "the big wax" at the bottom.
It's tempting to think that the pieces of wax represent our bodies that return to the earth, but who's to say it isn't also the case for our mind/soul (that it returns to its source)?