Marx's Failure & The True Solution To Injustice, Slavery and Inequality [Archive]

The New Consciousness

11th January 2009, 12:06

Universal control over the means of production and their equal distribution is sanity. It is logic. It is harmony. It is the only economic system worth considering. It is the kind of system that will be built by the mankind of the new consciousness but not by the mankind of the current insane consciousness. Whilst man is a fragment; suffering, insane and confused, he will not be able to maintain such a system. The proof of this is enormous, I can't believe you're denying it. ALL attempts have failed. I don't even need to give examples I am sure you are all aware of them.

The Spanish Marxist poet Antonio Orihuela writes about the massive division within Marxism and the consequent reason for its weakness and failure. This website is proof of that what with its constant argumentation over theory et cetera. How can it succeed if there is so much dissention and variation of opinion? It will only work when mankind is in singular consensus about it. That will not happen under the insane consciousness.
I will now explain to you what I mean by this.

The insane consciousness

Two crucial problems afflict man and these are the two defining characteristics of the current insane consciousness:

1) Definition of the self
2) Psychological time

1) Man's search for order in the chaos of the universe results in him becoming a fragment of the universe, feeling completely disconnected from it. The fragment identity thus created is one of hostility to all other fragments for it cannot feel a connection to them, but as they are the only point of reference the fragment identifies itself through comparison with or judgment of these other fragments (see Rousseau, Sartre)
Thus man fails to actually comprehend his true nature losing himself in a conceptualised view of the universe which stems from the artificial, intellectual ordering of the universe into forms and fragments.
Man's isolation as a fragment is his suffering and is the root cause for all problems.
As society is but the aggregate of fragments, society suffers from the same problems as the individual but on a larger scale.
Religion is an attempt to unify the fragments under one other fragment, god. That is why religion has never solved man's basic problem of suffering.
Culture/tradition is the long-term superficial unification of fragments into an incoherent body against other fragments.
Thus all problems commence with the individual. Other than the individual nothing else really exists.
To free ourselves from this suffering we need to address the issue of fragments and man's fragmentation in the Universe.
We need to thoroughly question our perception of the self. The solution is without doubt the transcendence of the fragment, about which all great visionaries have spoken of. (See New Testament, Teachings of Buddha, Bodhidharma, Meister Eckhart, Camus, Nietzche)
To transcend the fragment we must cease our quest for order. We must accept the chaos of the universe. We must cease to resist what is. Only then can we liberate ourselves from suffering.
This can be achieved through a) self-enquiry (see J. Krishnamurti and R. Maharshi) and b) meditation.

2) Man's concept of time is also part of the problem. Man lives most of his life in the past and in the future and out of these illusions creates an identity out of himself. In order to free himself man must escape time. Past and future do not exist, only the now exists. Time is an illusion.
It is my firm conviction that once these two problems have been overcome man will liberate himself from suffering and only then will he be able to create the kind of beautiful world Marx envisioned.

If you wanted to put a name on this you could refer to it as Zen Marxism or something like that. But it is best to avoid labels.

The new consciousness

In the new consciousness man ceases to invest a sense of self in himself in what he does. No longer viewing other human beings as fragments there is no competition, no hostility, no alienation, no misunderstanding. The human race attains a level of understanding that will result in pure cooperation. It is the flowering of compassion and creativity. This is inevitable. Mankind, if it wants to save itself, will only find salvation through the conscious evolution into this state of being. This is the state of being all the great visionaries have imagined. It is the only way. It has never been seen on a mass scale. But if we make the conscious effort it will take place and we will consciously evolve to this state of being.

Hit The North

11th January 2009, 12:23

We need a move forward in human consciousness to occur before or at the same time as a socialist transformation.

According to Marx's historical materialism, human beings change their consciousness through the process of changing their circumstances.

What I'm trying to say is that man will only be able to initiate change in a meaningful and effective way after a gradual evolution to the next level of consciousness (a conscious evolution). [my emphasis]

It is a mistake to divorce human consciousness from its relationship to human material relations. This is what your emphasis on consciousness changing does - it is one sided. What would drive this "gradual evolution"?

For that to happen we need a totally new redefinition of the self and of time.

Which would be what? You're long on cosmic sounding proclamations but very short on actual detail.

Pogue

11th January 2009, 14:02

At least this trolls polite and hasn't broken into the whole "ULSTER SOCIALIST UZE A KIKE ZOMG RATIONALISM" yet.

Bilan

11th January 2009, 14:03

Universal control over the means of production and their equal distribution is sanity. It is logic. It is harmony. It is the only economic system worth considering. It is the kind of system that will be built by the mankind of the new consciousness but not by the mankind of the current insane consciousness. Whilst man is a fragment; suffering, insane and confused, he will not be able to maintain such a system. The proof of this is enormous, I can't believe you're denying it. ALL attempts have failed. I don't even need to give examples I am sure you are all aware of them.

The proof of this is enormous, yet, despite long posts, it contains very little. Where thoughts are absent, words are brought in as convienent replacements.

These revolutions did not fail due to 'consciousness'. That doesn't mean anything. A revolution can't fail on the point of 'consciousness'. And the ones you mention - such as Russia - were successful in over throwing the Tsarist regime. They degenerated. This is not because of consciousness. This is because of material conditions.
This is because they were isolated.
This is because they were absent of proletarian structures of power - manifesting as the dictatorship of the proletariat - but instead had structures which perpetuated class systems.
You can't abolish class whilst perpetuating them; you can't do it in one state alone, it must occur internationally; the material conditions must be ripe for it to be able to succeed.

The Spanish Marxist poet Antonio Orihuela writes about the massive division within Marxism and the consequent reason for its weakness and failure. This website is proof of that what with its constant argumentation over theory et cetera. How can it succeed if there is so much dissention and variation of opinion? It will only work when mankind is in singular consensus about it. That will not happen under the insane consciousness.
I will now explain to you what I mean by this.

What a minority of marxists do is neither here nor there. What counts is what we do in a time of struggle. Will we ever win over comrades all to adopt a universal position? Probably not. There is a history to this division which will not undo itself. It has no intention of doing so.
The influential ideas and organisation are realized in action.

Two crucial problems afflict man and these are the two defining characteristics of the current insane consciousness:

1) Definition of the self
2) Psychological time

1) Man's search for order in the chaos of the universe results in him becoming a fragment of the universe, feeling completely disconnected from it. The fragment identity thus created is one of hostility to all other fragments for it cannot feel a connection to them, but as they are the only point of reference the fragment identifies itself through comparison with or judgment of these other fragments (see Rousseau, Sartre)
Thus man fails to actually comprehend his true nature losing himself in a conceptualised view of the universe which stems from the artificial, intellectual ordering of the universe into forms and fragments.
Man's isolation as a fragment is his suffering and is the root cause for all problems.

The root cause of it? So it has nothing to do with structures which perpetuate our subordination?

As society is but the aggregate of fragments, society suffers from the same problems as the individual but on a larger scale.
Religion is an attempt to unify the fragments under one other fragment, god. That is why religion has never solved man's basic problem of suffering.
Culture/tradition is the long-term superficial unification of fragments into an incoherent body against other fragments.
Thus all problems commence with the individual. Other than the individual nothing else really exists.
To free ourselves from this suffering we need to address the issue of fragments and man's fragmentation in the Universe.
We need to thoroughly question our perception of the self. The solution is without doubt the transcendence of the fragment, about which all great visionaries have spoken of. (See New Testament, Teachings of Buddha, Bodhidharma, Meister Eckhart, Camus, Nietzche)
To transcend the fragment we must cease our quest for order. We must accept the chaos of the universe. We must cease to resist what is. Only then can we liberate ourselves from suffering.
This can be achieved through a) self-enquiry (see J. Krishnamurti and R. Maharshi) and b) meditation.

2) Man's concept of time is also part of the problem. Man lives most of his life in the past and in the future and out of these illusions creates an identity out of himself. In order to free himself man must escape time. Past and future do not exist, only the now exists. Time is an illusion.
It is my firm conviction that once these two problems have been overcome man will liberate himself from suffering and only then will he be able to create the kind of beautiful world Marx envisioned.

If you wanted to put a name on this you could refer to it as Zen Marxism or something like that. But it is best to avoid labels.

The new consciousness

In the new consciousness man ceases to invest a sense of self in himself in what he does. No longer viewing other human beings as fragments there is no competition, no hostility, no alienation, no misunderstanding. The human race attains a level of understanding that will result in pure cooperation. It is the flowering of compassion and creativity. This is inevitable. Mankind, if it wants to save itself, will only find salvation through the conscious evolution into this state of being. This is the state of being all the great visionaries have imagined. It is the only way. It has never been seen on a mass scale. But if we make the conscious effort it will take place and we will consciously evolve to this state of being.

Right.
I suggest you read this: The Society of the Spectacle (http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/index.htm).

ZeroNowhere

11th January 2009, 14:15

'It should be fairly obvious that I do not.'

Why should it be?

Please give me evidence of any successful socialist system.

I can only think of the horrors of socialism or 'communism' (it's not real communism though is it?)

These atrocities have given socialism a bad name, so now people either scoff at it or recoil, like in the States where is its viewed as an 'evil'.

Sadly they are not truly representative of it, because they were executed by men who were trapped within the insane consciousness.
Yes, what I took issue with was the "Marx or Marxist inspired revolutions" bit.

Pogue

11th January 2009, 16:20

Let me refute this shit here and now. It would be impossible to make everyone decide to goo through this imagined personal psychotic transformation of which you know none of the details about but seem to hold as incredibly life changing. You assume, like religious folk, that through some sort of enlightenment we will do away with capitalism because everyone on a purely personal level will be nice. So we're relying on the bourgeoisie to change its mind and become communists? Bullshit.

Inane, unoriginal and pointless drivel.

Pogue

11th January 2009, 16:20

This is like a shit version of Situationism.

The New Consciousness

11th January 2009, 17:38

This is the ONLY way. I am certain of it. I liberated myself this way and my life has been bliss since. The greatest thing about it is that it spreads to others, this I have observed. It would be like a chain reaction. The New Consciousness would spread like a peaceful breeze calming all man's fears. This is beyond all religion, all gimmickry, all ideology, all lies. This is the truth. You all confirm your insanity with your aggressive responses. Why such anger? Anger and violence will not solve the problems of the world. Forget yourselves for a minute.

Revolutionary Youth

11th January 2009, 17:45

The New Consciousness

11th January 2009, 20:25

Yoga helps, as a form of meditation. But without intellectual self-enquiry it tends to become a diversion.

Hence a combination of the two is advised, meditation AND self-enquiry. If you don't know what self-enquiry means I advise you read Jiddu Krishnamurti or Ramana Maharshi as they explain it very well.

11th January 2009, 21:07

Hilarious.

The New Consciousness

11th January 2009, 22:29

Your insanity isn't. It's what's ripping this planet apart.

SocialDemocracy19

11th January 2009, 22:35

All I have to say about this so called new consciosness is how can u disagree with Marx if your in a leftist site? The only way for a neccessary revolution is to prepare and start one not write typical acamdemic hysteria making it sound like the academia is smarter than everyone else in the world criticizeing everything thats ever been tried by an idea at least someone is trying.

Woland

11th January 2009, 22:40

I'm a pretty sane person. Or?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th January 2009, 22:44

Your insanity isn't. It's what's ripping this planet apart.

Look, arrogantly proclaiming to be the only (or one of the few) enlightened person in the world, and recycling a load of Eastern mystical bollocks mashed up with a bit of Marxism, is not going to endear you to many people here.

And that includes me.

The world is changed by deeds, not thoughts.

Revolutionary Youth

11th January 2009, 23:08

Your insanity isn't. It's what's ripping this planet apart.

So, all of this sum up to the question: What are they so called sanity and insanity?

The New Consciousness

11th January 2009, 23:51

The old consciousness and the new, respectively. Re-read my post.

casper

12th January 2009, 01:38

some things make sense, i don't like how most people conceptualize also(the common system of conceptualization is flawed). however,the "new consciousness", you still have more to be conscious of.

one detail that stuck out of your post is:

Marx sees this and proposes to equalize human circumstances to create harmony.
no, communism isn't about equalization of human circumstances, rather it is about freedom and ability, it is about not being a slave. or alternatively, it is about the ability to create your own circumstances, it is the opposite of trying to force everyone into the same box.

Hit The North

12th January 2009, 01:57

I've had enough of this thread. I'm gonna send it to Religion where it belongs.

#FF0000

12th January 2009, 02:09

The old consciousness and the new, respectively. Re-read my post.

Would you mind directly responding to some of our criticisms? Like Syndicalisme ou Barbarie and Bob The Builder did, quoting each point and presenting a counter point. I want to see what you've got to say.

Dean

12th January 2009, 02:14

Before you delete my post, bear in mind that this is the closest you can get to true Communism.

If you delete me you are proving my point.

You're correct that the world is insane. But Marxism, ideology and morality are in no way intrinsically insane components of this system. Deleting your post or otherwise restricting you would be a rejection of your nihilistic, defeatist attitude - not an affirmation of your ideas.

ckaihatsu

12th January 2009, 02:48

It should not be forgotten that [postmodernism] is a materialist phenomenon (a reaction to/assessment of the exponential increase in and proliferation of multi-national capitalism)

Nicely put (about postmodernism)! This is the first time I've come across such a concise explanation for it, and it points to the reality-reflecting relationship that the dominant (mainstream) culture has to the dominant, ruling class state of stewardship over the world.

It's like a valid psychoanalysis of the ruling body politic -- funny how easily a materialist conception of the world can get us there, huh?

Chris

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

Phalanx

12th January 2009, 03:05

Your insanity isn't. It's what's ripping this planet apart.

What do you expect? You come in here like a pompous bastard and people get frustrated with you. Anger is natural, and it's probably more prevalent in humans because we're predators.

ckaihatsu

12th January 2009, 05:04

Hey, all, it's time to cut the cult leader some slack -- basically the mini-manifesto is along the lines of (though not entirely of) monistic materialism, believe it or not. It's anti-dualistic in its approach (until it becomes dualistic).

I'm going to go ahead and dissect the whole thing. Here's the part that's decidedly pro-Marxist:

Universal control over the means of production and their equal distribution is sanity. It is logic. It is harmony. It is the only economic system worth considering. It is the kind of system that will be built by the mankind of the new consciousness but not by the mankind of the current insane consciousness. Whilst man is a fragment; suffering, insane and confused, he will not be able to maintain such a system. The proof of this is enormous, I can't believe you're denying it. ALL attempts have failed. I don't even need to give examples I am sure you are all aware of them.

So, in other words, one has to come to terms with the dynamics of alienation in society and overcome that, and find some channels of connectedness, or else one can fall prey to (unjustified) paranoia. Fair enough.

The Spanish Marxist poet Antonio Orihuela writes about the massive division within Marxism and the consequent reason for its weakness and failure.

I'm not going to go read Orihuela right now, but, taking this at face value, one could say that, at critical historical points, the subjective, revolutionary factor just wasn't there -- ignoring objective factors at the same time.

This website is proof of that what with its constant argumentation over theory et cetera. How can it succeed if there is so much dissention and variation of opinion? It will only work when mankind is in singular consensus about it.

There's *something* to this, of course -- the more correct and focused a movement is, with excellent knowledge of where its opponent is in the class struggle, the better its chances of success in overthrowing the ruling class.

I *support* constant argumentation over theory as a way of getting there. Of course, no one should dissent with *me*, because I'm the Cyberspace Sovereign, so off with your electronic heads! = )

That will not happen under the insane consciousness.
I will now explain to you what I mean by this.

The insane consciousness

Two crucial problems afflict man and these are the two defining characteristics of the current insane consciousness:

1) Definition of the self
2) Psychological time

1) Man's search for order in the chaos of the universe results in him becoming a fragment of the universe, feeling completely disconnected from it. The fragment identity thus created is one of hostility to all other fragments for it cannot feel a connection to them, but as they are the only point of reference the fragment identifies itself through comparison with or judgment of these other fragments (see Rousseau, Sartre)

Okay, *this* part sounds pretty neurotic....

Thus man fails to actually comprehend his true nature losing himself in a conceptualised view of the universe which stems from the artificial, intellectual ordering of the universe into forms and fragments.
Man's isolation as a fragment is his suffering and is the root cause for all problems.

In other words, STOP reading Western philosophical thought...! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (This means you.) (Really.) (People don't realize that it's *all* been a fancy, bullshit industry ever since Western civilization peaked with the Enlightenment, and it's all been intellectually downhill ever since.)

As society is but the aggregate of fragments, society suffers from the same problems as the individual but on a larger scale.

This part is too atomistic / diffuse / Eastern....

Religion is an attempt to unify the fragments under one other fragment, god. That is why religion has never solved man's basic problem of suffering.

Monotheism developed during the Axial Age, with the rise of mercantilism and interconnected, cosmopolitan living. More complexity = more swirling activities going on around oneself. Don't build up too many grandiose expectations, and get used to it already....

Culture/tradition is the long-term superficial unification of fragments into an incoherent body against other fragments.

No, this, too, is too atomistic. Because of the class division there is a dominant, mass culture that is imposed on us, top-down, and then there is the bottom-up culture of d.i.y. and rebellion.

Thus all problems commence with the individual. Other than the individual nothing else really exists.

Ooooops! Just slipped into dualism right there, just for a moment.... (What a mish-mash!)

To free ourselves from this suffering we need to address the issue of fragments and man's fragmentation in the Universe.

We need to thoroughly question our perception of the self. The solution is without doubt the transcendence of the fragment,

WHO are you calling a "fragment"??? (Don't *make* me come over there!) = D

about which all great visionaries have spoken of. (See New Testament, Teachings of Buddha, Bodhidharma, Meister Eckhart, Camus, Nietzche)

Okay, so it's "salvation" into some kind of "non-selfhood", but that seems to beg the question, really.... (Helluva racket, though, right? C'mon, let's give it up for *religion*, people!!!)

To transcend the fragment we must cease our quest for order.

Uh-oh, here comes the Kool-Aid....

We must accept the chaos of the universe.

And now we're done. Thanks, folks, for reading this far. It's been a blast, really -- good start, had something good going, and then ran into some script problems along the way. If you meet The Chaos Of The Universe, please get a refund from your dealer, and *don't* pass along my email address.

We must cease to resist what is.

Karl Marx... has left the building.

Only then can we liberate ourselves from suffering.

Go with the flow. Accept the Matrix.

This can be achieved through a) self-enquiry (see J. Krishnamurti and R. Maharshi) and b) meditation.

Which is it??? Dualism or atomism? Fuck!

2) Man's concept of time is also part of the problem. Man lives most of his life in the past and in the future and out of these illusions creates an identity out of himself. In order to free himself man must escape time. Past and future do not exist, only the now exists. Time is an illusion.

That's going verbatim on my next timecard...! Seriously, you'd have to first be independently wealthy to even get invited to this stuff...!

It is my firm conviction that once these two problems have been overcome man will liberate himself from suffering and only then will he be able to create the kind of beautiful world Marx envisioned.

So, to recap: We must embrace the Chaos, and only then will we not give a shit enough to accept Karl Marx as our Lord God and Savior, Amen.

If you wanted to put a name on this you could refer to it as Zen Marxism or something like that. But it is best to avoid labels.

One Who Wishes To Be Free Of Suffering Must Become One With The Chaos And Avoid Labels In Total, Which Is Best Realized By Abstaining From Combining Mysticism With Materialism, No Matter What Label It Comes With.

The new consciousness

In the new consciousness man ceases to invest a sense of self in himself in what he does. No longer viewing other human beings as fragments there is no competition, no hostility, no alienation, no misunderstanding. The human race attains a level of understanding that will result in pure cooperation. It is the flowering of compassion and creativity. This is inevitable. Mankind, if it wants to save itself, will only find salvation through the conscious evolution into this state of being. This is the state of being all the great visionaries have imagined. It is the only way. It has never been seen on a mass scale. But if we make the conscious effort it will take place and we will consciously evolve to this state of being.

I have this sneaking feeling that the ruling class fascists are *not* going to go along with this -- am I being insane, hostile, angry, predatory, and violent?

How the *hell* did we wind up here, anyway? It *started off* okay, but then it *had* to forget about the class division and go all New-Agey.... Oh, well....

ckaihatsu

12th January 2009, 08:51

Here, on a more supportive note, I'd like to address these points using excerpts from Oscar Wilde's 1891 essay, "The Soul of Man Under Socialism":

Marxism is wonderful, without a doubt. It is the only way forward. That's why great intellectuals often align themselves with it.

Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material well-being of each member of the community. It will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper environment.

But it cannot be realised in the current consciousness.

We need a move forward in human consciousness to occur before or at the same time as a socialist transformation.

When man has realised Individualism, he will also realise sympathy and exercise it freely and spontaneously. Up to the present man has hardly cultivated sympathy at all. He has merely sympathy with pain, and sympathy with pain is not the highest form of sympathy. All sympathy is fine, but sympathy with suffering is the least fine mode. It is tainted with egotism. It is apt to become morbid. There is in it a certain element of terror for our own safety. We become afraid that we ourselves might be as the leper or as the blind, and that no man would have care of us. It is curiously limiting, too. One should sympathise with the entirety of life, not with life's sores and maladies merely, but with life's joy and beauty and energy and health and freedom. The wider sympathy is, of course, the more difficult. It requires more unselfishness. Anybody can sympathise with the sufferings of a friend, but it requires a very fine nature--it requires, in fact, the nature of a true Individualist--to sympathise with a friend's success.

[...]

Sympathy with pain there will, of course, always be. It is one of the first instincts of man. The animals which are individual, the higher animals, that is to say, share it with us. But it must be remembered that while sympathy with joy intensifies the sum of joy in the world, sympathy with pain does not really diminish the amount of pain.

[...]

For what man has sought for is, indeed, neither pain nor pleasure, but simply Life. Man has sought to live intensely, fully, perfectly. When he can do so without exercising restraint on others, or suffering it ever, and his activities are all pleasurable to him, he will be saner, healthier, more civilised, more himself. Pleasure is Nature's test, her sign of approval. When man is happy, he is in harmony with himself and his environment. The new Individualism, for whose service Socialism, whether it wills it or not, is working, will be perfect harmony. It will be what the Greeks sought for, but could not, except in Thought, realise completely, because they had slaves, and fed them; it will be what the Renaissance sought for, but could not realise completely except in Art, because they had slaves, and starved them. It will be complete, and through it each man will attain to his perfection. The new Individualism is the new Hellenism.

If the leaders of socialist movements are locked in the current insane consciousness their movements will inevitably end up failing turning into personalised despotisms (hence the reference earlier to Stalinism, Castroism, Maoism et cetera).

Not only that, but if there is no consensus in society for a socialist transformation the revolution will be violent. Violence is a by-product of the current insane consciousness.

What I'm trying to say is that man will only be able to initiate change in a meaningful and effective way after a gradual evolution to the next level of consciousness (a conscious evolution).

For that to happen we need a totally new redefinition of the self and of time.

The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely anyone at all escapes.

[...]

The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism--are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man's intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/slman10.txt

The New Consciousness

12th January 2009, 10:22

'An inward revolution. Not an instant change, nor gradual and drawn out.
Change in the very being of human beings. In the very structure and psyche. At the root. When this change takes place, society naturally will change. They are not two separate things. By changing the environment you cannot change man.'

J Krishnamurti, in his Talks with Dr Anderson.

Marx and Krishnamurti shared the same vision. A free world, a free man.
But their proposed methods to achieving that were radically different.
Marx believed in the evolution of man's situation.
Krishnamurti believed in the conscious evolution of man himself.
The evolution of man's situation, i.e. the improvement of his material conditions and the equalising of the distribution of and control over resources has not yet occurred anywhere on the planet.
It seems we are a long way away from said goal at the current moment. No single country exists in the world where such a just system presides. Inequality and competition are the hallmarks of man.
Marxists, impatient, branched away from the theory of historical materialism creating vanguard movements designed to push forward the situation through totalitarianism. This began with Lenin and was continued by Mao, Castro and all other 'Communist' leaders.
However their attempts to push forward the evolution of man's situation necessitated the use of extreme force. Naturally these movements failed, as the conditions simply did not exist. The result was disastrous, with millions killed.

You cannot change the circumstances of man, until man himself has changed. This is absolutely self-evident! Man creates his circumstances. Society, for example is but an aggregate of man and his ills. Thus society is as insane as man. As is politics. As is religion, culture et cetera. Do you follow?

Man has suffered from the same basic function for millenia: basic suffering. Psychological suffering. This is the root of all suffering. This stems from a lack of self-comprehension, an over-reliance on thought, which by its nature is limited and divisive. This has led to an identification with dogma, tradition and the search for identity in divisive forms and concepts, like nations et cetera.

Now, perhaps one day, the circumstances, as you believe, will be ripe. But that day seems rather far off no? And even if does arrive, there's no guarantee it will fundamentally alter man's nature.

Would it not be better to learn, NOW, how to transcend our circumstances, and then build the ideal society?

You aggressive revolutionaries justify violence as a means to an end. I believe this is a far better means. And you cannot deny that your ideology has the most sordid history, whereas what I propose has never even been attempted.

By the way, have any of you ever meditated? And have any of you ever attempted self-enquiry? You are not qualified to comment if you haven't.

Demogorgon

12th January 2009, 10:26

With all due respect, this really doesn't mean anything at all. I mean what exactly does this mean?

Man must change his very nature, his very consciousness.

Everything must change. The very definition of the self and of time.

Morality, culture, religion, and ideology and all other intellectual constructs must be transcended.

There is a way. The new way. The New Consciousness.
It sounds impressive, but so far as I can tell it is devoid of any meaning. What exactly does it mean in practical terms? How would one go about doing so?

Revolutionary Youth

12th January 2009, 11:11

You aggressive revolutionaries justify violence as a means to an end. I believe this is a far better means.

Revolutionary without violence? You gotta be kiddin' me! So what you propose is that: come up with a debate with the capitalists and won, then say "I won, give me the government's chair plz!"

By the way, have any of you ever meditated? And have any of you ever attempted self-enquiry? You are not qualified to comment if you haven't.

Such arrogance! Who do you think you are?

Thus society is as insane as man.

So, do you belong to that society? Perhaps not eh?

You are by far the most insane daydreamer I've never witnessed in my life.

Demogorgon

12th January 2009, 11:40

Revolutionary without violence? You gotta be kiddin' me! So what you propose is that: come up with a debate with the capitalists and won, then say "I won, give me the government's chair plz!"

This is pretty silly too. There has been no shortage of revolutionary change in history with little or no violence. It all depends on the circumstances whether it is needed or not.

Revolutionary Youth

12th January 2009, 11:49

This is pretty silly too. There has been no shortage of revolutionary change in history with little or no violence. It all depends on the circumstances whether it is needed or not.

Ha ha, maybe I was wrong about this! Sorry! :lol:
I was quite influenced by this poem:

Song to the men of England

Men of England, wherefore plough
For the lords who lay ye low?
Wherefore weave with toil and care
The rich robes your tyrants wear?

Wherefore feed and clothe and save,
From the cradle to the grave,
Those ungrateful drones who would
Drain your sweat -nay, drink your blood?

Wherefore, Bees of England, forge
Many a weapon, chain, and scourge,
That these stingless drones may spoil
The forced produce of your toil?

Have ye leisure, comfort, calm,
Shelter, food, love's gentle balm?
Or what is it ye buy so dear
With your pain and with your fear?

The seed ye sow another reaps;
The wealth ye find another keeps;
The robes ye weave another wears;
The arms ye forge another bears.

Sow seed, -but let no tyrant reap;
Find wealth, -let no imposter heap;
Weave robes, -let not the idle wear;
Forge arms, in your defence to bear.

Shrink to your cellars, holes, and cells;
In halls ye deck another dwells.
Why shake the chains ye wrought? Ye see
The steel ye tempered glance on ye.

With plough and spade and hoe and loom,
Trace your grave, and build your tomb,
And weave your winding-sheet, till fair
England be your sepulchre!

Revolutionary Youth

12th January 2009, 13:25

Frankly said, I think this guy's idea of a new consciousness is pretty impressive. Although it really irritated me when he's there bragging about "meditation" and "self-enquiry". Stop applying Yoga-ism on us! It won't work!

Also, a little reminder, mr. "The New Consciousness" (or whatever your name maybe!), that you were born in this world of the "old consciousness", which you accused for being "insane". You were raised by the insanity, if I'm not mistaken! :lol:

ZeroNowhere

12th January 2009, 13:42

Ha ha, maybe I was wrong about this! Sorry! :lol:
I was quite influenced by this poem:

Song to the men of England

Men of England, wherefore plough
For the lords who lay ye low?
Wherefore weave with toil and care
The rich robes your tyrants wear?

Wherefore feed and clothe and save,
From the cradle to the grave,
Those ungrateful drones who would
Drain your sweat -nay, drink your blood?

Wherefore, Bees of England, forge
Many a weapon, chain, and scourge,
That these stingless drones may spoil
The forced produce of your toil?

Have ye leisure, comfort, calm,
Shelter, food, love's gentle balm?
Or what is it ye buy so dear
With your pain and with your fear?

The seed ye sow another reaps;
The wealth ye find another keeps;
The robes ye weave another wears;
The arms ye forge another bears.

Sow seed, -but let no tyrant reap;
Find wealth, -let no imposter heap;
Weave robes, -let not the idle wear;
Forge arms, in your defence to bear.

Shrink to your cellars, holes, and cells;
In halls ye deck another dwells.
Why shake the chains ye wrought? Ye see
The steel ye tempered glance on ye.

With plough and spade and hoe and loom,
Trace your grave, and build your tomb,
And weave your winding-sheet, till fair
England be your sepulchre!
Percy Shelley, IIRC?

danyboy27

12th January 2009, 13:56

there is some right about what you say, and i seriously think eventually the people will have to develop a superior conciousness, but i dont think we can do much about it, after a fews hundred of year of worldwide cataclysm, we will grow up, or we will die.

The New Consciousness

12th January 2009, 14:22

Self enquiry is not a yogaism (whatever that is!). Self-enquiry is absolutely vital! I am not the best person around to define it for you but it basically means the utmost honesty and vigour in the endeavour of self understanding. There is no master but yourself. You accept NO authority, no dogma, religion, tradition, culture - nothing. You search for the truth yourself first-hand. Every single thought that enters your head you question. You question every perception and every assumption, every so-called truth. You must question the very nature of your current consciousness, your mind, your thoughts and their limitations. But only the individual can do it. That is why I referred to the 'individual' before hand, this way. I don't mean it in the dualistic sense, I mean it in the sense of a space in which the universe is unfolded through consciousness.

Self-enquiry NEEDS to be complemented by meditation as it is central to the process. Meditation is the feeling of the truth. Self-enquiry is the intellectual reconditioning of the mind to bring it as close to the truth as possible, but the truth can only be felt. This is the only universal truth in the world: we exist. There is no other incontrovertible truth. But one can only feel existence to experience its truth. Meditation is the best, most healthy way to achieve this.

Please, read about J Krishnamurti and R Maharshi, in particularly the former. There are dozens of his talks on YouTube. He was a great visionary of the New Consciousness.

I am not being pompous or condescending. This is insanity. I am merely trying to generate interest in this vital subject. This, I feel, is the absolutely ONLY way out of the chaos we live in and the suffering of mankind. My only evidence is that I have experienced the shift to the New Consciousness myself which has been utterly incredible I must admit and I have transcended all my conditioning. I'm not being arrogant or lying, this is fact. In my spare time I dedicate as much time to understanding better this amazing condition and finding ways to express it in understandable, effective terms; an immensely difficult task as there are no real words to describe it.

Thank you, and I apologise if I have offended people, that has not been my intention, but if it moves you towards Self-Enquiry then it is positive.

I am open to any questions you may have, and I will try to answer them as well as I can.

I feel this thread would be better placed in Philosophy, but I'm just glad it hasn't been deleted to be honest, knowing the rigidity of doctrinal views here.

Once again, thank you and peace.

Bilan

12th January 2009, 14:25

Why on earth this was in Religion is beyond me.
Moved to Philosophy.

Niemand

12th January 2009, 17:35

What the New Conciousness proposes is a society that is not plausible in any realistic situation. A world without suffering? To actually wish such a thing upon humanity would be the biggest folly. For it is suffering that defines us, molds us and shapes us into the figures that we become later in life. Should we just remove suffering so that humanity can be lulled, once more, into a lazy and ignorant complacency.

While such visions of the future may be beautiful and ideal, but in reality it is not only impractical, but it would also lead to the rise of an age of incompetence.

Hit The North

12th January 2009, 17:51

Why on earth this was in Religion is beyond me.
Moved to Philosophy.

How is a thread about consciousness raising through meditation not a religious matter?

Moved back to Religion.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

12th January 2009, 18:15

You're correct that the world is insane.

No it isn't. Individuals within the world may be short-sighted, selfish, cruel and greedy among other things, but to make such a sweeping statement like "the world is insane" is simply wrong.

It's also shockingly misanthropic and defeatist - if the whole world has lost it, nothing will get better because we're all too loopy to realise what to do for our common good as a species.

So why be any kind of revolutionary at all?

Self enquiry is not a yogaism (whatever that is!). Self-enquiry is absolutely vital! I am not the best person around to define it for you but it basically means the utmost honesty and vigour in the endeavour of self understanding. There is no master but yourself. You accept NO authority, no dogma, religion, tradition, culture - nothing. You search for the truth yourself first-hand.

That's not always possible. For example, I do not have the means to confirm all the discoveries in physical science (or any other branch of science for that matter) up to this point for myself - that would require a large, well-equipped lab that I simply cannot afford, and even if I could, I would be wasting my time when I could be making new discoveries. So I have to rely on science's ability to (eventually) correct it's own mistakes. The reason technology works is because of science's success at reaching closer and closer approximations of the truth. So I feel I am justified in trusting science as a body of knowledge and a process for improving that knowledge, but not individual scientists.

Every single thought that enters your head you question. You question every perception and every assumption, every so-called truth. You must question the very nature of your current consciousness, your mind, your thoughts and their limitations. But only the individual can do it.As science demonstrates, the search for truth works best as a collective process, as individual biases and idiosyncrasies are therefore cancelled out to a large degree, and reality serves as a check against the rest. That's why repeatable experiments are so important - so everyone willing to do so can check the facts for themselves if they have the need or desire.

Self-enquiry NEEDS to be complemented by meditation as it is central to the process. Meditation is the feeling of the truth. Self-enquiry is the intellectual reconditioning of the mind to bring it as close to the truth as possible, but the truth can only be felt. This is the only universal truth in the world: we exist. There is no other incontrovertible truth. But one can only feel existence to experience its truth. Meditation is the best, most healthy way to achieve this.Meditation hasn't discovered anything - scientific investigation of reality, on the other hand, has reaped untold rewards and truths about the universe, however approximate and/or provisional they may be.

For example, scientific investigation revealed that the once-common notion that the Earth was at the centre of the universe turned out to be false - in fact, as far as we can tell, there isn't even a centre to the universe.

I am not being pompous or condescending. This is insanity. I am merely trying to generate interest in this vital subject. This, I feel, is the absolutely ONLY way out of the chaos we live in and the suffering of mankind. My only evidence is that I have experienced the shift to the New Consciousness myself which has been utterly incredible I must admit and I have transcended all my conditioning. I'm not being arrogant or lying, this is fact. In my spare time I dedicate as much time to understanding better this amazing condition and finding ways to express it in understandable, effective terms; an immensely difficult task as there are no real words to describe it.Unfortunately, personal testimony has a terrible track-record, due to the limitations of the individual.

The New Consciousness

12th January 2009, 19:19

'No it isn't. Individuals within the world may be short-sighted, selfish, cruel and greedy among other things, but to make such a sweeping statement like "the world is insane" is simply wrong.

It's also shockingly misanthropic and defeatist - if the whole world has lost it, nothing will get better because we're all too loopy to realise what to do for our common good as a species.

So why be any kind of revolutionary at all?'

This is a revolution. A complete revolution of man's very nature and the way he looks at the world.

'That's not always possible. For example, I do not have the means to confirm all the discoveries in physical science (or any other branch of science for that matter) up to this point for myself - that would require a large, well-equipped lab that I simply cannot afford, and even if I could, I would be wasting my time when I could be making new discoveries. So I have to rely on science's ability to (eventually) correct it's own mistakes. The reason technology works is because of science's success at reaching closer and closer approximations of the truth. So I feel I am justified in trusting science as a body of knowledge and a process for improving that knowledge, but not individual scientists.'

Not science. Naturally science, technology et cetera, all require immense amounts of time. I am referring to other people. Our relation to other human beings and the world around us. Our direct relation. Not our intellectual understanding of it.

'As science demonstrates, the search for truth works best as a collective process, as individual biases and idiosyncrasies are therefore cancelled out to a large degree, and reality serves as a check against the rest. That's why repeatable experiments are so important - so everyone willing to do so can check the facts for themselves if they have the need or desire.'

Your own personal truth. Only you can answer that. Only you can answer the question: Who am I?

'Meditation hasn't discovered anything - scientific investigation of reality, on the other hand, has reaped untold rewards and truths about the universe, however approximate and/or provisional they may be.

For example, scientific investigation revealed that the once-common notion that the Earth was at the centre of the universe turned out to be false - in fact, as far as we can tell, there isn't even a centre to the universe.'

Of course you will not be able to form conceptualisations of the universe through meditation. Meditation is the absolute immersion into the universe, it is the direct experience of existence. It is vital as it is a mind-altering process. More and more discoveries are lauding the benefits of meditation. Have you ever tried it? All these discoveries you list are incredible without a doubt, but have they done anything to actually solve man's basic problem?

'Unfortunately, personal testimony has a terrible track-record, due to the limitations of the individual.'

What if I were to tell you that there is no individual, but instead, a space of consciousness?

'How is a thread about consciousness raising through meditation not a religious matter?'

Yes, it is religious in the purest sense of the word, and it is the only true spirituality. But religion is a four letter word with very different connotations to what I write about. For that reason I would prefer it to be in philosophy. But I don't mind. As long as people read it and consider it, without aggressively condemning it without a thought.

ckaihatsu

12th January 2009, 19:34

Your own personal truth. Only you can answer that. Only you can answer the question: Who am I?

We are the product of our forays into the world, our histories of what we've been able to do professionally, personally, and in politics and business. Next!

ckaihatsu

12th January 2009, 19:35

This isn't Religion *or* Philosophy!

Moved to Cult Group Marketing.

= D

The New Consciousness

12th January 2009, 20:53

'We are the product of our forays into the world, our histories of what we've been able to do professionally, personally, and in politics and business. Next!'

I don't understand you. If you mean our identity is our experience then that is a clear instance of the old insane consciousness. We have to overcome that.

'Moved to Cult Group Marketing.'

This has nothing to do with marketing or cults. This is an exploration of the reasons behind man's suffering and a viable cure. There are no leaders, no cults, no organisations, no profiteering. There cannot be for this exploration starts purely with the individual (not in the dualistic sense). Only you can achieve this. Though I fear your mind is closed.

Please don't post irrelevant nonsense.

ckaihatsu

12th January 2009, 21:04

This has nothing to do with marketing or cults. This is an exploration of the reasons behind man's suffering and a viable cure. There are no leaders, no cults, no organisations, no profiteering. There cannot be for this exploration starts purely with the individual (not in the dualistic sense). Only you can achieve this. Though I fear your mind is closed.

Please don't post irrelevant nonsense.

<Exhausted>

Can I just send you a check now and / or tell me who to kneel to? You want a bio, is that it?

I'm already a Cyberspace Sovereign, so I'm used to thrones, if you want to put me in a *real* one...(!) (Give me your email and I'll send along a list of dietary requirements...!)

= )

Revolutionary Youth

12th January 2009, 21:05

Plagueround

12th January 2009, 21:16

I forget what they call this game. Something like a variation on the Alien visitor game. The idea is to approach everyone as if you hold a higher understanding of the universe, but don't be specific...mystically dismissing everything said as a response as a result of the conditioning you have not yet shaken off. I had a few friends who were really big into Hakim Bey that used to do this to people for hours on end. It didn't take long to discover these people lacked actual substance if one pressed on enough and was able to break down their evasive tactics. Even then, they continue to use the trump card of a "higher consciousness", or their personal favorite of "being able to see the back of your head while you cannot".

While I can agree that many people need to reach a higher level of consciousness, that consciousness would be just a greater understanding of the material conditions around them, something that I think most are already capable of. To dismiss the majority of humanity as not developed enough to "get it" is not only somewhat insulting, but it betrays the supposed intent of creating the harmony and peace one claims to embrace.

Kassad

12th January 2009, 21:40

The problem with these 'new age consciousness' types is that they will often portray themselves as elitist. A lot of discussions I have with people like this usually boil down to "well, I guess you just don't understand." This new age stuff finds its roots in Eastern religions, such as Buddhism and Taoism, along with Hinduism and its concept of the 7 chakras. This 'we are one' thing has gained a lot of popularity with the new Zeitgeist trends.

Still, despite my many disagreements with these types, I can definitely relate to them. Consciousness does not have to be a discovery of something that influences your life and alters your spirituality. When someone realizes that they are being trampled by the bourgeoisie, they gain a new consciousness. When people like us stand up for our beliefs, we establish a new consciousness for ourselves and we attempt to help others realize these truths.

Still, when you post the G. Edward Griffin theory that we don't need to help others realize these things, you miss a core component of the revolution. Once you're awake, it's your duty to promote the truth in any way you can and return the favor bestowed upon you. Realizing the truth and not doing anything with your newfound knowledge is just as bad as not realizing the truth at all.

A revolution not based on love is not a revolution that will succeed. Unless you can look your brothers and sisters in the eye and willingly sacrifice for eachother's well-being, then you are still entangled in the bourgeoisie trap. The greed of the oligarchy still has its hold on you. It is our duty to spread a message of love. Love for eachother and a new form of community should be the core of any revolution.

Bill Hicks used to always say something like "I have an idea, if you're interested. You know all that money we spend on defense and arms every year? Trillions of dollars? What if we took all that money and instead, used it to feed, clothe and house the poor, which it could pay for many times over, not one human being excluded? We could then explore space, together, as one people, in peace. Forever."

It isn't about the oligarchy or the few. It is about all of us as a united front of people. Some of you may be black, brown, white, female or male. It doesn't matter. Life's just a ride and we can change it any time we want. It's about making choices that benefit all of us, not a select few in power. That is the core of what we are doing here and there is no need to act like we are two divided and different trends. We are one.

Pogue

12th January 2009, 21:46

Please just tell us how to reac this supposed new conciousness.

Kassad

12th January 2009, 21:57

Please just tell us how to reac this supposed new conciousness.

Don't act like a 'new consciousness' is the end-all mindset for all humanity until the end of time. We, as humans, are consistently developing. There's a reason we evolve. There's a reason we adapt. Humanity never stops growing; physically and spiritually.

A new consciousness isn't defined. I don't believe there is a singular 'consciousness' that we are all meant to embrace. What I do hope to see is the people of the world embrace a consciousness where the selfish and greedy nature that is promoted by the corporate elite and the wealthy is replaced by a selfless nature of brotherhood. Where we are united in revolutionary socialism for the benefit of everyone.

Pogue

12th January 2009, 22:34

Don't act like a 'new consciousness' is the end-all mindset for all humanity until the end of time. We, as humans, are consistently developing. There's a reason we evolve. There's a reason we adapt. Humanity never stops growing; physically and spiritually.

A new consciousness isn't defined. I don't believe there is a singular 'consciousness' that we are all meant to embrace. What I do hope to see is the people of the world embrace a consciousness where the selfish and greedy nature that is promoted by the corporate elite and the wealthy is replaced by a selfless nature of brotherhood. Where we are united in revolutionary socialism for the benefit of everyone.

?

Kassad

12th January 2009, 23:17

Okay, or we can be immature children about the discussion. Your choice.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

12th January 2009, 23:46

This is a revolution. A complete revolution of man's very nature and the way he looks at the world.

So you claim. But the proof is in the pudding - social revolutions as they have gone beforehand have involved methods vastly different from what you are proposing, and have worked. Fuedalism is all but dead, and it's passing has been anything but peaceful, and involved actions in the real world, beyond a simple change of minds.

Not science. Naturally science, technology et cetera, all require immense amounts of time. I am referring to other people. Our relation to other human beings and the world around us. Our direct relation. Not our intellectual understanding of it.

I treat other people with the respect and attention I feel owed to them. Beyond that, what would you ask me to do?

And besides, social interaction isn't necessarily any more simple than than physical interactions. If anything, they might be more complicated. But the point is that one can't fathom the depths of the psyches of others without some kind of interaction - introspection provides no clues.

Your own personal truth. Only you can answer that. Only you can answer the question: Who am I?

I am a human, that's what the evidence leads me to believe. Therefore everything that comes with being a human follows with that. I am by necessity a social creature. Therefore the search for truth is a social endeavour, to be taken collectively. Introspection can only provide the answers one wants to hear.

Of course you will not be able to form conceptualisations of the universe through meditation. Meditation is the absolute immersion into the universe, it is the direct experience of existence. It is vital as it is a mind-altering process. More and more discoveries are lauding the benefits of meditation. Have you ever tried it? All these discoveries you list are incredible without a doubt, but have they done anything to actually solve man's basic problem?

Yes, actually. They have served to greatly reduce hubris, at least among those in the know. The realisation that one is a single individual among a species of 6 billion+ inhabiting a thin skin on a vast lump of iron-silicates that is itself a microscopic part of a greater universe serves to give a somewhat appropriate perspective in the grander scheme of things.

I see it as an opportunity to realise that what truly matters is the survival of our species as a whole, and the opportunity to act on that realisation.

What if I were to tell you that there is no individual, but instead, a space of consciousness?

I would ask you to provide evidence.

The New Consciousness

13th January 2009, 00:40

So you claim. But the proof is in the pudding - social revolutions as they have gone beforehand have involved methods vastly different from what you are proposing, and have worked. Fuedalism is all but dead, and it's passing has been anything but peaceful, and involved actions in the real world, beyond a simple change of minds.

I agree wholeheartedly with you. Man has evolved. But now he must make the final leap if he doesn't wish to exterminate himself. The advent of powerful technologies makes this a very urgent problem. We cannot wait. We need to change, now.

I treat other people with the respect and attention I feel owed to them. Beyond that, what would you ask me to do?

This is a perfect example of insanity. You have requirements. Certain people have it owed to them others not. What requirements must these fortunate people have? And how have you formulated these requirements? What life experience, what biases, conceits, and concepts have contributed to these requirements? Ask yourself these questions and you are doing what is known as self-enquiry.

On the issue of respect, let me tell you that it is utterly insane. What does respect mean, other than subordination and superiority? Any other definition and it is the same as love. But often respect has very little to do with love! Being respectful is considered a good trait, perhaps even a hallmark of respectability itself. Respectful towards elders for example. Why should we respect elders? Where is the real logic in that? The common answer is that they know more than we do. So following that you should respect people who know more than you do. But what is knowledge, and why should it engender respect? Knowledge depends often on the privilege of having access to it, and a brain capable of absorbing it. You may say ‘knowledge of life’. What is knowledge of life? Experience? Experience is the name given to mistakes and the name given to knowledge of the banality and sickness of man. Experience = brutality, cynicism, resentment, pessimism, pragmatism, phlegm. Must we look up to such a thing? NO. We mustn't look up to anything.

When you love your fellow man, unconditionally and with compassion, there is no place, no need for respect.

But the point is that one can't fathom the depths of the psyches of others without some kind of interaction - introspection provides no clues.

But if we all share the same common problem, then we can all find the solution in ourselves no? You do agree we all share the basic problem which is suffering?

I am a human, that's what the evidence leads me to believe. Therefore everything that comes with being a human follows with that. I am by necessity a social creature. Therefore the search for truth is a social endeavour, to be taken collectively. Introspection can only provide the answers one wants to hear.

Is not society the aggregate of the individual? Are not society's fears and jubilations those of the individual?

Introspection in the context you refer to is insanity. Self-enquiry is completely different. Please, read and listen to J. Krishnamurti.

Yes, actually. They have served to greatly reduce hubris, at least among those in the know. The realisation that one is a single individual among a species of 6 billion+ inhabiting a thin skin on a vast lump of iron-silicates that is itself a microscopic part of a greater universe serves to give a somewhat appropriate perspective in the grander scheme of things.

If only man could see things which such perspective. But man suffers and toils and frets and worries about his life and his illusions, or 'tinsel' as Tagore wrote. We take on gigantic proportions in our minds. God, for example, that gigantic, stern, oppressive figure of old, is the outward reflection of our own egos.

I see it as an opportunity to realise that what truly matters is the survival of our species as a whole, and the opportunity to act on that realisation.

Then perhaps you are already there. But if you suffer you have a long way to go.

I would ask you to provide evidence.

What is the only incontrovertible fact? The only truth? I exist. The universe exists. Do you agree? It follows thus that if, based on this, I try to define myself in the simplest of possible terms, then I am the space in which the universe is experienced. I am a space of consciousness. A space in which the universe unfolds.

redguard2009

13th January 2009, 00:45

Can we drink the kool-aid now?

ckaihatsu

13th January 2009, 04:47

Can we drink the kool-aid now?

Me first!

This is like driving by a traffic accident -- I don't *want* to look, but I just can't seem to turn away!

8 /

---

On a more serious note, perhaps this has to do with the interconnectedness of all living things -- there's some evidence for the ionized atmosphere being a diffuse conduit for life-impulses, even down to the level of plants and bacteria...(!)

ckaihatsu

13th January 2009, 04:54

I'm working on an unrelated project, and one of the earliest versions came out like this -- seems apropos, huh? Feel free to use in your brochures, etc., and when you get to the top don't forget where you got your start, right here on RevLeft...!

Drace

13th January 2009, 08:07

Oh god not again!! At least thid one is funny in the way it tries to prove a point with cute poetic devices. For gods sakes LOL. This argument never goes into any more explanation then "people are greedy. Communism can't work"

I have something written about this. I'll post it up.

Revolutionary Youth

13th January 2009, 08:37

I agree wholeheartedly with you. Man has evolved. But now he must make the final leap if he doesn't wish to exterminate himself. The advent of powerful technologies makes this a very urgent problem. We cannot wait. We need to change, now.

This I agree with you.:thumbup: But not entirely. "Now" is quite hasty for a complicated matter.

Experience? Experience is the name given to mistakes and the name given to knowledge of the banality and sickness of man. Experience = brutality, cynicism, resentment, pessimism, pragmatism, phlegm. Must we look up to such a thing? NO. We mustn't look up to anything.

Against experientialism? Against Aristotle? Are you sure? Remember that experientialism is a part of materialism, which has formed our Communism now and then.

According to Roger Bacon, experiencing is the criteria of justice, the measurement of reasoning.

But if we all share the same common problem, then we can all find the solution in ourselves no? You do agree we all share the basic problem which is suffering?

The problem here is "if". Sadly, there is no "if" here, so not all of us can find the solution. And the way to harmony is still very far.

Please, read and listen to J. Krishnamurti

Okay, so now I read him. Here goes: "That is, knowledge, in relationship, in human relationship, is destructive. That is knowledge which is the tradition, the memory, the image, which the mind has built about you, that knowledge is separative and therefore creates conflict in our relationship."

How the heck are we goin to move forward without knowledge? How can revolutionary come WITHOUT knowledge? :confused:

“Meditation is the emptying of the mind of all thought, for thought and feeling dissipate energy. They are repetitive, producing mechanical activities which are a necessary part of existence. But they are only part, and thought and feeling cannot possibly enter into the immensity of life. Quite a different approach is necessary, not the path of habit, association and the known; there must be freedom from these. Meditation is the emptying of the mind of the known. It cannot be done by thought or by the hidden prompting of thought, nor by desire in the form of prayer, nor through the self-effacing hypnotism of words, images, hopes, and vanities. All these have to come to an end, easily, without effort and choice, in the flame of awareness.”

This sounds no different to Yoga to me! :confused:

I am the space in which the universe is experienced. Now you talk about "experiencing", well done!

PS: Are you from India? (No offence) Because I think you use quite a lot of Indian philosophy.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th January 2009, 10:43

I agree wholeheartedly with you. Man has evolved. But now he must make the final leap if he doesn't wish to exterminate himself. The advent of powerful technologies makes this a very urgent problem. We cannot wait. We need to change, now.

What's the rush? Societies are not changed on a whim - they require the culmination of decades, at the very least if that, of blood, sweat and tears on the part of a majority of the population dedicated to that change. Thoughts and ideals are only the start of such long and bitter struggles.

This is a perfect example of insanity. You have requirements. Certain people have it owed to them others not. What requirements must these fortunate people have? And how have you formulated these requirements? What life experience, what biases, conceits, and concepts have contributed to these requirements? Ask yourself these questions and you are doing what is known as self-enquiry.If someone treats me like shit, I have every damn right to treat them shit in return.

It's a basic rule of social interaction. People don't take kindly to being mistreated by dickheads, and thus act to discourage such behaviour with a wide variety of tactics including but not limited to avoidance, ostracism or beating the shit out of them. I personally try and avoid such people, but that's not always possible. Your mileage may vary.

On the issue of respect, let me tell you that it is utterly insane. What does respect mean, other than subordination and superiority? Any other definition and it is the same as love. But often respect has very little to do with love! Being respectful is considered a good trait, perhaps even a hallmark of respectability itself. Respectful towards elders for example. Why should we respect elders? Where is the real logic in that? The common answer is that they know more than we do. So following that you should respect people who know more than you do. But what is knowledge, and why should it engender respect? Knowledge depends often on the privilege of having access to it, and a brain capable of absorbing it. You may say ‘knowledge of life’. What is knowledge of life? Experience? Experience is the name given to mistakes and the name given to knowledge of the banality and sickness of man. Experience = brutality, cynicism, resentment, pessimism, pragmatism, phlegm. Must we look up to such a thing? NO. We mustn't look up to anything.I respect my elders for the same reason I have a basic level of respect for everyone, subject to change; because it's common courtesy, and people I am respectful towards are vastly more likely to return the favour, making my life easier and more pleasant.

Knowledge and experience are important things - that's why employers frequently advertise for job applicants with the revelant qualifications, expertise and experience. To dismiss them is insanity - who would you rather have maintaining a nuclear reactor, a team of qualified engineers, or a bunch of random folks off the street? Who would you rather have heading a chemistry lab, the professor with 30 year's lab experience or the undergraduate with five months?

To me, the answers are obvious.

When you love your fellow man, unconditionally and with compassion, there is no place, no need for respect.While I have a desire to preserve the human species as a whole, I do not love it - one should never love anything that cannot reciprocate that love - it's unhealthy.

I also cannot bring myself to love each and every individual human being - quite apart from being absurd (how would I "love" the Indian ricepicker whom I know nothing about and will never meet in my entire life?), I would be perfectly happy to see certain individuals drop dead.

But if we all share the same common problem, then we can all find the solution in ourselves no? You do agree we all share the basic problem which is suffering? The problem of suffering is far from basic, in fact it is highly complex, and like all complex problems, as well as requiring complex solutions, can only be solved with reference to material reality, in other words, we must do more than merely change minds - we must change the world.

Is not society the aggregate of the individual? Are not society's fears and jubilations those of the individual?No. Individuals have more immediate, smaller concerns, like paying the rent, finding a job, feeding the cat, and things like that. The concerns of society are far more general and wide-ranging, such as the economy, social stability, and resource management among others. True, the concerns of society and the individual can mesh somewhat, but to equate the two as one and the same is generalising them into uselessness.

Introspection in the context you refer to is insanity. Self-enquiry is completely different. Please, read and listen to J. Krishnamurti.Why? His WikiQuote entry is full of bland banalities, torrents of tautologies and vacuous verbosity.

Consider this statement by him:

Violence is not merely killing another. It is violence when we use a sharp word, when we make a gesture to brush away a person, when we obey because there is fear. So violence isn't merely organized butchery in the name of God, in the name of society or country. Violence is much more subtle, much deeper, and we are inquiring into the very depths of violence.
When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.

In this statement, he equates "sharp words" with actual physical violence. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be shouted at than be beaten up or skewered. Sharp words do not draw blood, but sharp objects do. The world would be a lot less violent if people used sharp words in place of sharp objects.

He then goes right off the deep end and equates self-identity with violence, which is complete nonsense. I hurt nobody by calling myself an anarchist communist transhumanist technocrat, no more than I hurt anyone by calling myself human, male, bisexual or British.

Of course, what he really means to say is that "humans can be a viciously argumentative species that divides itself along national/ethnic/ideological/whatever lines, and that's bad". But if he'd just came right out and said it, everyone would have just rolled their eyes and said "No shit, Sherlock" and pay no further attention to him.

If only man could see things which such perspective. But man suffers and toils and frets and worries about his life and his illusions, or 'tinsel' as Tagore wrote. We take on gigantic proportions in our minds. God, for example, that gigantic, stern, oppressive figure of old, is the outward reflection of our own egos.As I alluded to earlier in this post, that "tinsel" to which you refer is important, sometimes deadly so - if they don't pay the rent, their landlord will evict them and they will be homeless. If they don't find a job, then they must perforce live a life of beggary or starvation, or a marginal existance on state benefits if they are lucky enough to have been born in a country with such, and if they qualify for same. If they don't feed the cat, it will starve to death.

Then perhaps you are already there. But if you suffer you have a long way to go.I am a human with a functioning nervous system. Suffering is inevitable, whether it is the mental anguish of beloved relatives dying or the physical agony of barking my shin really hard on a coffee table.

What is the only incontrovertible fact? The only truth? I exist. The universe exists. Do you agree?No. There are indications that the "sense of self" is merely a clever illusion on the part of our brains. Certain rotating magnetic fields, when applied to the brain, can induce "out of body experiences" where you'll feel like you're floating outside your body, when in fact it's just your brain getting "confused". Oxygen deprivation and certain brain operations can also produce a similar effect.

Also, this paper (http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html) finds that decisions are effectively made up to 10 seconds before we're aware of them.

So whatever "I" am, "I" am not what "I" appear to be.

As for the universe, I accept it as a given that it exists - there's no concievable way I could operate without acknowledging material reality on some level.

It follows thus that if, based on this, I try to define myself in the simplest of possible terms, then I am the space in which the universe is experienced. I am a space of consciousness. A space in which the universe unfolds.How on Earth is that simple? And in any case, you're putting the cart before the horse - "you" exist because of the universe, not the other way round.

Pogue

13th January 2009, 10:45

Okay, or we can be immature children about the discussion. Your choice.

I have no idea what you're talking about or why you attacked me in the first place. I'd suggest you re-think your response to me, it makes no sense, hence my question mark.

You clearly didn't understand the irony in my first post.

Kassad

13th January 2009, 13:49

I have no idea what you're talking about or why you attacked me in the first place. I'd suggest you re-think your response to me, it makes no sense, hence my question mark.

You clearly didn't understand the irony in my first post.

All I was saying is that you misunderstood what I was trying to say about a 'new consciousness'. It isn't an end-all ideology. It isn't like we discover the one true ideology of unconditional love. It is a consistent development in humanity where we continue to discover love and peace for eachother. The new consciousness isn't the final step in human development, since our development never ends.

The New Consciousness

13th January 2009, 18:54

'The problem here is "if". Sadly, there is no "if" here, so not all of us can find the solution. And the way to harmony is still very far.'

We all suffer, and so we are equal in our suffering. I am referring of course to psychological suffering. All humans suffer from the basic psychological problem which is the problem that arises when one is a fragment; isolated from others and the universe.

Okay, so now I read him. Here goes: "That is, knowledge, in relationship, in human relationship, is destructive. That is knowledge which is the tradition, the memory, the image, which the mind has built about you, that knowledge is separative and therefore creates conflict in our relationship."

He is referring to knowledge in human relations. Thoughts are limited, limitation is division, division is conflict. Thus we need to go beyond thought. If I meet you and you tell me something I don't like, then the next time I meet you I am not really meeting you, I am meeting the impression of you that the past you gave to me, which is not necessarily who you are. I have distorted you completely through my own thought processes. This is what he means.

“Meditation is the emptying of the mind of all thought, for thought and feeling dissipate energy. They are repetitive, producing mechanical activities which are a necessary part of existence. But they are only part, and thought and feeling cannot possibly enter into the immensity of life. Quite a different approach is necessary, not the path of habit, association and the known; there must be freedom from these. Meditation is the emptying of the mind of the known. It cannot be done by thought or by the hidden prompting of thought, nor by desire in the form of prayer, nor through the self-effacing hypnotism of words, images, hopes, and vanities. All these have to come to an end, easily, without effort and choice, in the flame of awareness.”

This sounds no different to Yoga to me! :confused:

In Yoga it can happen but mostly people practice Yoga with an aim in mind: to improve the body, mind et cetera. There must be no concept of improvement, no concept of becoming, no time. It is just pure awareness. Zen for instance. Just sitting and doing nothing. No grasping. No becoming. Just pure awareness. It is very transformational and revelatory, and it is the ONLY way of transcending your circumstance. And when I say circumstance I mean the accumulation of your past experiences, or drama, and all your judgments, comparisons, concepts, notions, prejudices et cetera. Do you follow? Absolute stillness of mind.

Now you talk about "experiencing", well done!

PS: Are you from India? (No offence) Because I think you use quite a lot of Indian philosophy.

No I 'm not from India actually although I'd love to go. Yes I agree most of what I am saying is of a very oriental nature. But unlike many oriental faiths like Bhuddism and Hinduism, this involves no ceremony, no authority, no master, no concepts nothing. This is the purest spirituality and the most revolutionary, untainted by any of that nonsense.

---

What's the rush? Societies are not changed on a whim - they require the culmination of decades, at the very least if that, of blood, sweat and tears on the part of a majority of the population dedicated to that change. Thoughts and ideals are only the start of such long and bitter struggles.

These are not thoughts or ideals. I am talking about an instant shift in consciousness.

If someone treats me like shit, I have every damn right to treat them shit in return.

It's a basic rule of social interaction. People don't take kindly to being mistreated by dickheads, and thus act to discourage such behaviour with a wide variety of tactics including but not limited to avoidance, ostracism or beating the shit out of them. I personally try and avoid such people, but that's not always possible. Your mileage may vary.

But this is exactly the definition of the insane consciousness! Why do they treat you like shit in the first place? What is the cause of human brutality? Don't simply say human nature, that is the cop-out answer. You must self-enquire to understand violence and why it arises. Normally people behave in such ways because they are fragmented and hostile. The key is not to perpetuate that through further hostility but to understand it, shine the light of awareness on it and thus destroy it.

But simple self-preservation, which I believe what you are talking about, I agree, is undoubtedly justified. Just as long as there is no unneeded violence in return or vengeance. This is just going down the same pointless, insane spiral. Whenever you feel the urge to avenge something, ask yourself why. Self-enquire. Don't be an Old Testamenter. :P

Knowledge and experience are important things - that's why employers frequently advertise for job applicants with the revelant qualifications, expertise and experience. To dismiss them is insanity - who would you rather have maintaining a nuclear reactor, a team of qualified engineers, or a bunch of random folks off the street? Who would you rather have heading a chemistry lab, the professor with 30 year's lab experience or the undergraduate with five months?

Yes obviously but you seem to have missed the point. I am referring to knowledge of other human beings. A tree or a test-tube doesn't evoke quite the same complications that interactions with other humans does.

While I have a desire to preserve the human species as a whole, I do not love it - one should never love anything that cannot reciprocate that love - it's unhealthy.

It is unhealthy to give love expecting it in return. This is not love this is self-satisfaction. Love must be freely given otherwise it is not love, it is wanting. True love is the experience of things, be they human, animal or anything for that matter without investing a sense of identity in it, without being dualistic about it. Do you understand? That is compassion.

The problem of suffering is far from basic, in fact it is highly complex, and like all complex problems, as well as requiring complex solutions, can only be solved with reference to material reality, in other words, we must do more than merely change minds - we must change the world.

Surely you agree that all the problems of the world are created by man? Yes? You are a man. So it starts with you surely? Suffering is universal, universal in its purely divisive nature. Psychological suffering is born of the fragmentation of man. Thus is it is universal! If suffering is universal then the solution to suffering is universal, that is the shift of consciousness.

No. Individuals have more immediate, smaller concerns, like paying the rent, finding a job, feeding the cat, and things like that. The concerns of society are far more general and wide-ranging, such as the economy, social stability, and resource management among others. True, the concerns of society and the individual can mesh somewhat, but to equate the two as one and the same is generalising them into uselessness.

Of course, the problems of society are more wide-ranging, simply because they are a macrocosm (if that's a word) of the individual's problems. Society is an expression of the fears of its individuals and their problems. If there is inequality between men this will manifest itself in society. Society is created by man. It is in fact an illusion. You cannot touch society you can only conceive of it. It is the supposed unity between men but it is really a projection of the fragmentation of man. They feed off each other. Thus an insane individual aggregates to an insane society. And to the man who lives in that society it can appear that the society is insane and he is not or the society is making him insane. Man created the society of the fragment and that society now serves to fragment men even further. We need to transcend our fragmentation and our social conditioning which makes us into fragments.

In this statement, he equates "sharp words" with actual physical violence. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be shouted at than be beaten up or skewered. Sharp words do not draw blood, but sharp objects do. The world would be a lot less violent if people used sharp words in place of sharp objects.

He then goes right off the deep end and equates self-identity with violence, which is complete nonsense. I hurt nobody by calling myself an anarchist communist transhumanist technocrat, no more than I hurt anyone by calling myself human, male, bisexual or British.

Of course, what he really means to say is that "humans can be a viciously argumentative species that divides itself along national/ethnic/ideological/whatever lines, and that's bad". But if he'd just came right out and said it, everyone would have just rolled their eyes and said "No shit, Sherlock" and pay no further attention to him.

He is referring to the fragmentation of man. It is a fact that division breeds conflict. He doesn't equate it to physical violence but to conflict between men, which may result in physical violence. You label yourselves all those things, you create an identity for yourself based on thought, based on illusion, which automatically closes you off from other human beings with other thoughts. By identifying with Britain you are identifying with a fragment. Are you by your very nature British? No. You were born on an area of land which happens to be named Britain with a certain type of culture and way of life based purely on circumstantial fragmentation. You have narrowed yourself down when you could be absolutely anything. Your deepest core is completely universal and at one with all things. But when one forgets this one enslaves himself to concepts and divisions.

So whatever "I" am, "I" am not what "I" appear to be.

Yes but you are experiencing, in some form or another, whether it be 'outside of your body', the universe, right?

How on Earth is that simple? And in any case, you're putting the cart before the horse - "you" exist because of the universe, not the other way round.

But don't you see? It is one! The horse and the cart are one. I exist and so does the Universe and I am aware of the universe so what am I? How do I define myself if I am going to be as truthful as I possibly can? As rigorous and honest as possible? Well then I am a space that is conscious of the universe and existence!

Pogue

13th January 2009, 19:39

All I was saying is that you misunderstood what I was trying to say about a 'new consciousness'. It isn't an end-all ideology. It isn't like we discover the one true ideology of unconditional love. It is a consistent development in humanity where we continue to discover love and peace for eachother. The new consciousness isn't the final step in human development, since our development never ends.

I don't even know who you are let alone remember talking to you ever

hugsandmarxism

13th January 2009, 20:52

This guy still tossing off to the sight of his own prose?

yeesh.... oh well, whatever floats your boat. good luck hawking your new-age religion, or whatever it is you THINK you're doing ;)

TheCultofAbeLincoln

13th January 2009, 22:48

Please just tell us how to reac this supposed new conciousness.

Can you find any acid?

Revolutionary Youth

13th January 2009, 22:53

But unlike many oriental faiths like Bhuddism and Hinduism, this involves no ceremony, no authority, no master, no concepts nothing.

You use a lot of concepts from J. Krishnamurti and now you're telling me that this involves "no concepts"!? What the heck?!:confused:

Absolute stillness of mind. The mind can not and will never be still!!! Heraclitus said: "...nor is it possible to touch a mortal substance twice". Plato: "All beings going and remaining not at all"
You (as well as your mind) will never be the same by the time you read this statement of mine, to 1 second later! ;)

These are not thoughts or ideals. I am talking about an instant shift in consciousness. It's not that simple, to change one's consciousness instantly like cooking instant noodles! (I myself eat instant noodles almost everyday, so yeah, I know how fast they are!)

Don't be an Old Testamenter.Amen!

Love must be freely given otherwise it is not love, it is wanting. True love is the experience of things, be they human, animal or anything for that matter without investing a sense of identity in it, without being dualistic about it.This is too idealistic! (or maybe I smell another Mother Teresa here?! Amen!)

And also, "love is the experience of things", you keep on repeating "experience", the one which you denied in your previous post. You denied it and now you bring it here to defend yourself against us?!:confused:

Yes but you are experiencing, in some form or another, whether it be 'outside of your body', the universe, right?"Experiencing" again? Our anti-experientialist has turned back from the dark side of the Force! Give him a round of applause, stormtroopers!!! :laugh:

The horse and the cart are one.Okay, they are as one, what matter is that which comes first? You exist before your mother gave birth to you?! Quite scary there!

PS: I'm quite sure that you're going to piss our NoXion buddy here pretty much! And you should begin to use the button "quote"! ;)

Plagueround

14th January 2009, 00:08

Đoàn viên TNCS HCM hits the nails on the head. As more inquires are made, the inconsistency of rhetoric is made apparent. These ideas do not come from any sort of new consciousness, but are grounded in an amalgam of works subject to the same bias and shortcomings the original poster claims to have transcended.

The New Consciousness

14th January 2009, 00:50

You use a lot of concepts from J. Krishnamurti and now you're telling me that this involves "no concepts"!? What the heck?!:confused:

To say that Krishnamurti talks of concepts is ridiculous. What he says is against the whole concept of concepts! :P

The mind can not and will never be still!!! Heraclitus said: "...nor is it possible to touch a mortal substance twice". Plato: "All beings going and remaining not at all"
You (as well as your mind) will never be the same by the time you read this statement of mine, to 1 second later! ;)

Those quotes are barely intelligible, are you quite sure they're accurate? In any case where on earth do you derive the audacity to say that the mind cannot be still? Have you never meditated? Obviously not.

It's not that simple, to change one's consciousness instantly like cooking instant noodles! (I myself eat instant noodles almost everyday, so yeah, I know how fast they are!)

Obviously not. To have any lasting effect self-enquiry must be performed with rigour over a protracted period of time. But one can feel the new consciousness immediately if one wants to, simply by stilling the mind and meditating. Meditate.

And also, "love is the experience of things", you keep on repeating "experience", the one which you denied in your previous post. You denied it and now you bring it here to defend yourself against us?!:confused:

"Experiencing" again? Our anti-experientialist has turned back from the dark side of the Force! Give him a round of applause, stormtroopers!!! :laugh:

Semantics. I don't deny experience, that is absurd. If you had been paying attention you would have realised that what I said was that the creation of identity out of past experiences is a trademark of the insane consciousness. Please read properly what I have written.

Okay, they are as one, what matter is that which comes first? You exist before your mother gave birth to you?! Quite scary there!

You exist, the universe exists. You are part of the universe. That is what I'm trying to say. I apologise if the meaning wasn't clear.

Đoàn viên TNCS HCM hits the nails on the head. As more inquires are made, the inconsistency of rhetoric is made apparent. These ideas do not come from any sort of new consciousness, but are grounded in an amalgam of works subject to the same bias and shortcomings the original poster claims to have transcended.

I have said the same things from the very beginning. These ideas are the product of my direct experience of this state. But in the end of the day it's your responsibility to liberate yourself. I can only provide the signposts. The decision is yours, all yours. But I tell you happily that there is a way for all of us, a way to love and simplicity, to peace. There is hope for mankind.

Peace and love to all here.

Kassad

14th January 2009, 00:55

I don't even know who you are let alone remember talking to you ever

You asked The New Consciousness to explain how you are supposed to react to the 'new consciousness'. I explained that.

The New Consciousness

14th January 2009, 00:59

I must have missed that. I don't quite understand the question. If H-L-V-S could rephrase it, perhaps I could help him.

The New Consciousness

14th January 2009, 01:03

Here's the basic problem and solution again for all those interested.

The insane consciousness

Two crucial problems afflict man and these are the two defining characteristics of the current insane consciousness:

1) Definition of the self
2) Psychological time

1) Man's search for order in the chaos of the universe results in him becoming a fragment of the universe, feeling completely disconnected from it. The fragment identity thus created is one of hostility to all other fragments for it cannot feel a connection to them, but as they are the only point of reference the fragment identifies itself through comparison with or judgment of these other fragments (see Rousseau, Sartre)
Thus man fails to actually comprehend his true nature losing himself in a conceptualised view of the universe which stems from the artificial, intellectual ordering of the universe into forms and fragments.
Man's isolation as a fragment is his suffering and is the root cause for all problems.
As society is but the aggregate of fragments, society suffers from the same problems as the individual but on a larger scale.
Religion is an attempt to unify the fragments under one other fragment, god. That is why religion has never solved man's basic problem of suffering.
Culture/tradition is the long-term superficial unification of fragments into an incoherent body against other fragments.
Thus all problems commence with the individual. Other than the individual nothing else really exists.
To free ourselves from this suffering we need to address the issue of fragments and man's fragmentation in the Universe.
We need to thoroughly question our perception of the self. The solution is without doubt the transcendence of the fragment, about which all great visionaries have spoken of. (See New Testament, Teachings of Buddha, Bodhidharma, Meister Eckhart, Camus, Nietzche)
To transcend the fragment we must cease our quest for order. We must accept the chaos of the universe. We must cease to resist what is. Only then can we liberate ourselves from suffering.
This can be achieved through a) self-enquiry (see J. Krishnamurti and R. Maharshi) and b) meditation.

2) Man's concept of time is also part of the problem. Man lives most of his life in the past and in the future and out of these illusions creates an identity out of himself. In order to free himself man must escape time. Past and future do not exist, only the now exists. Time is an illusion.
It is my firm conviction that once these two problems have been overcome man will liberate himself from suffering and only then will he be able to create the kind of beautiful world Marx envisioned.

If you wanted to put a name on this you could refer to it as Zen Marxism or something like that. But it is best to avoid labels.

The new consciousness

In the new consciousness man ceases to invest a sense of self in himself in what he does. No longer viewing other human beings as fragments there is no competition, no hostility, no alienation, no misunderstanding. The human race attains a level of understanding that will result in pure cooperation. It is the flowering of compassion and creativity. This is inevitable. Mankind, if it wants to save itself, will only find salvation through the conscious evolution into this state of being. This is the state of being all the great visionaries have imagined. It is the only way. It has never been seen on a mass scale. But if we make the conscious effort it will take place and we will consciously evolve to this state of being.

Revolutionary Youth

14th January 2009, 07:57

Semantics. I don't deny experience, that is absurd. If you had been paying attention you would have realised that what I said was that the creation of identity out of past experiences is a trademark of the insane consciousness. Please read properly what I have written.

What is knowledge of life? Experience? Experience is the name given to mistakes and the name given to knowledge of the banality and sickness of man. Experience = brutality, cynicism, resentment, pessimism, pragmatism, phlegm. Must we look up to such a thing? NO. We mustn't look up to anything.

Your denial of "experiencing" is clearly stated by your own post there! Do I need to call out other members, who have been witnessing this thread from the very beginning, to prove this for me! :confused:

wallflower

14th January 2009, 08:08

to The New Consciousness:

I'm surprised nobody has said it yet: not only do I possess the "Insane Consciousness," I'm proud of it. What you have taken nearly twenty posts to describe, I can sum up in one hyphenated word: ego-loss. Do you honestly think your experience that special, that unique? You kid yourself. If it's not meditation, it's drugs or a waking dream - what you describe is remarkably banal, yet you feel the need to expound on the subject of you and your profound New Consciousness in prolix, obfuscated prose. Perhaps a little more "self-enquiry" will get you to get over yourself.

Why do I - yes, I, fragmented Me, sound so incredibly pissed off by your preaching? An example: I have worked extensively with the mentally ill. Try telling a schizophrenic who is hallucinating, hearing voices that tell him to kill himself, that he just isn't *meditating* hard enough. Try telling someone whose voices won't shut up that she can empty her mind and stop the chatter through meditation. And personally, having tried meditation, hoping to silence my inner demons, I have found it incredibly pointless. As far as I'm concerned, if I want ego-loss, I'll do drugs.

We are fragmented, and if there's one thing the mentally ill and the stigmas attached to them can teach us, it is precisely that. Get over yourself. Just be nice; it's not that hard to do and doesn't require meditation or self-righteous pomposity. And if I don't sound nice right now, it's because my fragment doesn't like what your fragment stands for. And frankly, your incessant ignorance is what has convinced me, once and for all, of my pride in being of the "Insane Consciousness." I, quite frankly, don't want to be one with the universe if the gate to oneness can only be opened with your blather.

Revolutionary Youth

14th January 2009, 12:29

Those quotes are barely intelligible, are you quite sure they're accurate? In any case where on earth do you derive the audacity to say that the mind cannot be still? Have you never meditated? Obviously not.
Maybe those quotes are not accurate, but the idea of Heraclitus about "nothing remains the same" is never to be denied! You can go around and ask people if you want, you'll only receive the same answer:
Panta rhei, "everything is in a state of flux"

;)

And stop telling us to do your meditating crap already! Nobody in this forum has ever done meditation! You are just an individual considered to be "abnormal" in this society, which me and my girlfriend will call you: "hentai"!!!;)

The New Consciousness

14th January 2009, 14:14

Your denial of "experiencing" is clearly stated by your own post there! Do I need to call out other members, who have been witnessing this thread from the very beginning, to prove this for me! :confused:

This is experience as it is known by the insane consciousness, completely past bound and imbued with identity. But experience, true experience, should have no self involved, only then does it result in compassionate and peaceful action. I have made this explicitly clear. You don't seem to have grasped the distinction.

Why do I - yes, I, fragmented Me, sound so incredibly pissed off by your preaching? An example: I have worked extensively with the mentally ill. Try telling a schizophrenic who is hallucinating, hearing voices that tell him to kill himself, that he just isn't *meditating* hard enough. Try telling someone whose voices won't shut up that she can empty her mind and stop the chatter through meditation. And personally, having tried meditation, hoping to silence my inner demons, I have found it incredibly pointless. As far as I'm concerned, if I want ego-loss, I'll do drugs.

The mentally ill are utterly brutalised by the insane consciousness. Look at them and you see the sickness of this condition. They are so brutalised that there is little hope for them ever to feel peace, which is so sad I agree. If you cared from them though surely you'd look for any solution available to such suffering. Your aggression towards me is insane. You should endeavour to understand where it comes from instead of indulging in it. True responsibility is self-enquiry.

To some extent all humans in the insane consciousness are scizophrenic. We have opposing voices in our heads that tear us apart causing great suffering. All of this is born out of our fragmentation and denial of our true nature.

I myself suffered from mental illness. As I became increasingly worse the voices in my head became louder and more persuasive. I was driven to the edge. I contemplated all sorts of dark things. I found peace in those days of despair through meditation and self-enquiry, through which I completely liberated myself from my own fragmentation and fear. The voices ceased to have meaning for I knew then what they spoke of was illusory and false. They soon vanished, and now they never disturb me. It is remarkable.

We are fragmented, and if there's one thing the mentally ill and the stigmas attached to them can teach us, it is precisely that. Get over yourself. Just be nice; it's not that hard to do and doesn't require meditation or self-righteous pomposity. And if I don't sound nice right now, it's because my fragment doesn't like what your fragment stands for. And frankly, your incessant ignorance is what has convinced me, once and for all, of my pride in being of the "Insane Consciousness." I, quite frankly, don't want to be one with the universe if the gate to oneness can only be opened with your blather.

I was not aware I wasn't being nice. I haven't been throwing insults at anyone here, nor have I expressed any of the aggression you and your comrades have expressed towards me. Aggression is pointless. The history of man testifies to that. When has war ever accomplished anything?

When you say 'get over yourself', you have misunderstood me entirely. This is nothing to do with me, there is no me in this, this is just a way to self-understanding. It has to be a personal endeavour. You are the one who has to do it. Don't confuse it with me. How can I be self-righteous when I'm completely against such a conceptualisation of the self?

The persuasiveness of my argument is that it goes against all the known. All other theories seek to solve the problem of man through further divisive solutions. Concepts created out of a fragmented consciousness and perception of the world will only perpetuate fragmentation. Examples: religion - god, another fragment. Nationalism - another fragment. Socialism - another fragment. All fragmented interpretatins of the world, all equally insane. The tragedy of Marx is that the ideal is clearly of the new consciousness but the means are rife with fragmentations.

As for my 'incessant ignorance', no-one here as been able to properly respond to my posts in a critical fashion without resorting to anger or insults. You all discard it as 'New Age rubbish' or 'yoga'. Fair enough, that's your choice. And if you wish to be a part of the insane consciousness then fine. You will live with suffering forever then, and you will perpetuate it. But remember it is your responsibility to change, for your children and their children. If you really loved your fellow man, your children, your family, you would endeavour to end all conflict between men. And where better to start than with the conflict within yourself?

And personally, having tried meditation, hoping to silence my inner demons, I have found it incredibly pointless. As far as I'm concerned, if I want ego-loss, I'll do drugs.

I am sorry you were not successful in your meditation, perhaps you should alter your method. There are many variations and people all have their own preferences for getting into the Now. But remember, meditation on its own is not enough, especially if you seek release from it. To seek release is to seek becoming and that is future time. Stay in the now, do not judge or grasp and rigorously enquire into the nature of your being. Each time you think or do something, be fully aware of it and where it's coming from. But please do not do drugs, they will harm you, at least the strong ones will. A bit of weed's alright. :P But meditation is the best. It is 100 percent healthy and has permanent transformational effects. It is wondrous.

I am not deriving sense of identity from this thread. I am outlining the basic problems of man. Yes they are obvious and simple. Many of you call them platitudes. But they point to the simple truth in us all, that psychological suffering and the problem of mankind is a universal one, and this is the only universal solution. The end of fragmentation.

If you are going to be so aggressive, I'd rather you didn't respond. It serves very little purpose and is a waste of time.

Peace and love.

The New Consciousness

14th January 2009, 14:15

Revolutionary Youth

14th January 2009, 14:29

Maybe those quotes are not accurate, but the idea of Heraclitus about "nothing remains the same" is never to be denied! You can go around and ask people if you want, you'll only receive the same answer: Panta rhei, "everything is in a state of flux"

Why is it never to be denied? Thought can be stopped. It doesn't mean things stop. It just means thought does. Thought of the kind typified by the insane consciousness, the mad grasping thought of identification with experience and consequent fragmentation.

And stop telling us to do your meditating crap already! Nobody in this forum has ever done meditation! You are just an individual considered to be "abnormal" in this society, which me and my girlfriend will call you: "hentai"!!!

Considering no-one has ever done meditation, it's no wonder no-one understands what I'm talking about. No wonder you are all so aggressive. 'Hentai'? Isn't that cartoon porn? I don't get it.
Let me tell you this, friend, don't ever label something "insane" or "sane". As you are so sure of yourself, branding something with an absolute title is utterly nonsense!

'Hentai', or 変体, is a word in Japanese that means "abnormal" or "freak". Later on, it is branded to be a type of Japanese porn cartoon.

You are so pathetic. I'm too tired of today's homework and Mass exercise, I'll leave this till the morrow.;)

Revolutionary Youth

14th January 2009, 14:52

All of this can be sum up to one ironic conclusion: Karl Marx really did meditate and do self-enquiry before he wrote the Communist Manifesto!

You are calling us to be aggressive, then just ignore us, as you are a "calm" and "sane" person yourself! Right?;) Why do you engage in battle with every post here in this thread of yours? Is it just because you are pissed off by our words and gone mad? I'm sure that's the case!

Look, you said that your "new consciousness" "involves no ceremony, no authority, no master, no concepts nothing". And now you are making us to believe your concepts? Spending days accusing people for being "insane" and "fragmented", and telling us to follow this meditation and self-enquiry craps of yours. Isn't that the whole thing you've said and done just refute and cancel themselves?;)

"It shall be engraved upon your soul! Divine assault! Nibelung Valesti!" :laugh:

Revolutionary Youth

14th January 2009, 15:08

Look, friend, we really don't want things to become like this. I came to this forum in the first place to find more friends around the world who are left-wingers, just like myself. I don't want to create enemies. But you, you are the one who came here out of nowhere, and at the very first post, you deliberately criticize Marxism in front of many left-wingers with such an arrogant manner like a freaking bastard! You are the one who make people frustrated at you! You are the aggressor here, not us! Think about this, I don't want to repeat myself.

Post-Something

14th January 2009, 19:13

This guy is still here!?

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm going to raise one point, and it's a point that I believe is central to the debate:

The New Consciousness, you are an idealist. You believe that people can change radically despite their material conditions. This is a fundamentaly flawed view, and it's one that Marxists have been battling for ages.

The problem is that the world which you live in determines who you are, rather than the other way round. It has more of an effect on you, than you on it. That's been proven time and time again. That's why the revolution cannot "start from within", we have to change our surroundings first. When you are being bombarded day and night with messages and signals, about ways to act and how to think, then it is inevitable that it will take some toll on you. The task of releasing oneself from ALL these notions is nearly impossible, and most certainly not a feasible course of action for an entire class of people, I'm sure you will agree. That's why we have to change the conditions we live in first, before we are able to change our mentality, and fully grasp our potential.

The New Consciousness

14th January 2009, 21:02

Spending days accusing people for being "insane" and "fragmented", and telling us to follow this meditation and self-enquiry craps of yours.

I'm not accusing anyone. There have been no accusations. But it is clear that certain human behaviour is simply insane and unproductive, of which there have been a few instances here. Don't take it as an offence, that's equally insane.

Have you even tried what I suggested? You keep having a go at it but you haven't even bothered to try it.

I have been replying to all the posts with the hope of perhaps opening up a more interesting debate but it just hasn't happened. Perhaps I will give up. I have maintained the point that only YOU guys can help yourself. I can't help you.

I don't want to create enemies. But you, you are the one who came here out of nowhere, and at the very first post, you deliberately criticize Marxism in front of many left-wingers with such an arrogant manner like a freaking bastard! You are the one who make people frustrated at you! You are the aggressor here, not us! Think about this, I don't want to repeat myself.

The same thing was said of Lenin by the Mensheviks after he split from them. At every stage in the development of Marxist thought this has happened. In the world of ideas criticism and division are natural occurences.

On the contrary, regardless of what you may think, I am actually very pro-Marx. I believe in exactly what he envisions, just not the means.

The problem is that the world which you live in determines who you are, rather than the other way round. It has more of an effect on you, than you on it. That's been proven time and time again. That's why the revolution cannot "start from within", we have to change our surroundings first. When you are being bombarded day and night with messages and signals, about ways to act and how to think, then it is inevitable that it will take some toll on you. The task of releasing oneself from ALL these notions is nearly impossible, and most certainly not a feasible course of action for an entire class of people, I'm sure you will agree. That's why we have to change the conditions we live in first, before we are able to change our mentality, and fully grasp our potential.

Excellent point my friend. It is very difficult for one person to achieve this, let alone a whole population of people. But the more people doing this the more the actually environment will benefit, making it easier for others. Like I said it would spread like a wild-fire bringing peace in its wake. Just imagine if our current leaders had this mentality. The world would be a far better place.

The shift in consciousness would naturally manifest itself externally, making it easier for others to attain it.

I hope I haven't offended you again by responding to your responses, I sincerely assure you it is not my intenton to offend anyone.

Peace and love to all.

The New Consciousness

14th January 2009, 21:04

I reccommend you check out Island by Aldous Huxley. He envisions a society based on these principles. I wish it existed, I really do.

Post-Something

14th January 2009, 21:29

Excellent point my friend. It is very difficult for one person to achieve this, let alone a whole population of people.

Good, then we are in the same world at least. So then, you would agree that the best way of going about this would be to directly change our surroundings? As opposed to changing ourselves, and somehow hoping that the world will change along with us?

But the more people doing this the more the actually environment will benefit, making it easier for others.

Woah. You're way ahead of yourself there. How? Without action how is this possible? Without informing someone of their situation, how will they know? Why are you preaching to us right now, if as you say, you have to find the answer from within?

Like I said it would spread like a wild-fire bringing peace in its wake.

No, it won't. If history has shown us anything, it's that people don't act on what they think sounds reasonable, they act on what is in there interests. If you live in a capitalist system, it's not really in your benefit to meditate for five hours everyday, is it? It is in your benefit if you get up an exploit a couple of people though, am I right? You'll be making profit, which you can use to stay successful in society, exploit more people etc.

Now, how exactly can we get people to change there mentality? Well, you would probably have to change their interests, and to do that, you would have to change the economic system they live in, surely?

Bingo: communism.

Just imagine if our current leaders had this mentality. The world would be a far better place.

Yes, but as I've said, imagining gets you nowhere. Those leaders will act in their interests. Even if the mentality you propose, which couldn't happen, it would be useless because the system we live in requires for the individual to be thrust into competition with others. What happens when you compete and suceed? You make profit. And when you have a system based upon making profit, greed is instilled in society.

The shift in consciousness would naturally manifest itself externally, making it easier for others to attain it.

Listen, people don't have time to look to some airy fairy ideology! If you want change in society, you have to find what the source of contention is in society, and in this one, it's the antagonistic economic relations. Once you change them, then people will change, but right now they are inhibited with too much crap.

Have you read any Gramsci? I recommend you check out his theory of Cultural Hegemony.

I hope I haven't offended you again by responding to your responses, I sincerely assure you it is not my intenton to offend anyone.

No, you haven't offended anyone :).

Post-Something

14th January 2009, 21:35

I reccommend you check out Island by Aldous Huxley. He envisions a society based on these principles. I wish it existed, I really do.

Hahahahaha!

Have you ever heard of the term "Utopian Socialist"?

Revolutionary Youth

14th January 2009, 21:44

Still better and worse! ;)
Suit yourself fellas!

Kassad

14th January 2009, 21:48

Hahahahaha!

Have you ever heard of the term "Utopian Socialist"?

I'm sure he has. It's an ideology that has long been obsolete and proven to be impossible. He was merely admiring the idea, which is something I believe all of us do.

I think some of you are looking too deeply into this. This new consciousness that's being described isn't this new age awakening where our houses are suddenly flooded with light and we fall to our knees, embracing a new world. It is a matter of hoping that there is a spark in everyone's life, no matter what age, color or creed, where they realize that the current religious, political and social insitutions are no longer relevant. They have held the masses to the fire for a long time. Much longer than any of us have been around.

Many of us here have embraced a new consciousness. We have all rejected the current political system. That is a new consciousness. We have all embraced the ideal that each and every one of us deserves shelter, food, healthcare and education. We all hit a point in our lives when we realized this undeniable truth. Stop painting this idea as utopian, because it truly isn't. It is a matter of hoping and working for change in the world; a world in which people are willing to stand by eachother for the betterment of society. It is a matter of making sure that everyone rises together, not just an elite few. That is everything that our revolution stands for.

The New Consciousness

15th January 2009, 02:31

In truth, this argument is like the chicken and the egg. Do our circumstances make us or do we make ourselves? The general opinion here is the former: we are defined by our circumstances. I believe in the latter, as you have probably realised.

Let's take an example I'm sure you leftists are familiar with, class consciousness. The above theory holds that class consciousness is brought about purely by material circumstances. That working class formation is a response to the 'catastrophic' effects of the industrial revolution: the orthodox view.

However modern historiographical trends have increasingly disproved this overly simplistic Marxist assumption. Take that seminal text, E. P. Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class. Thompson shows how the working class in fact, made itself, through conscientious political action. In this situation, an alliance of small producers and artisans partipated in radical movements which challenged the status quo, and this long before the advent of the Industrial Revolution (Thompson dates the beginning of class consciousness in the 1790s and the term was first used in 1789).

To deny that human beings are capable of changing their own nature is to place absolutely no hope in mankind. By this measure, man's freedom will always depend on his circumstances. Thus he will always be a slave to the conditions in which he lives. Man has no agency, no free will. His fate must be decided by communists or socialists or whatever ists who will tell him what to do and how to live. You talk of the 'means of production'. Why must there be 'production'? Why must there be labour in the first place? You seek to liberate man from suffering by redefining his environment through the use of concepts derived from his current environment, which you are opposed to. It should really be anathema to you.

The problem is concepts. Concepts and thoughts, all shackles on the human mind. I envision, as Nietzsche wrote, a man free of shackles, free of the mind-numbing divisions of culture, society, nationality, class and all the rest of it. The Superman. The man who has surpassed himself. Transcended himself.

Thought is limited. Thus thought is divisive. Thus thought is conflict. That is why you socialists, so bound in thought and concepts with your belief in the primacy of circumstance over will, will never be in accordance with each other. You will bicker with your constant fragmentation and in-fighting, with your constant 'isms' and 'ists' preaching to other people how to live their lives and how everything should be ordered this way and that way. You will tear each other to part in your misguided utopianism.

Yes. You are the utopians, divorced from reality. The reality of human suffering. You are the idealistic preachers. You are the leaders, the vanguard, the 'enlightened elite' that seeks to lead its flock to pasture. You accuse me of preaching but I am merely pointing to the solution that is yours but you have no idea of its existence. I am reminding you of your own free will, your own true individuality and your own power. But you would rather live with illusory concepts devised by men of other ages.

You talk of society and class divisions and inequality. You take these for granted. You do not investigate their roots. You build your concepts out of a fragmented, insane society, thus your concepts are inherently insane. You chain your mind with the dogma of men who lived in completely different economic circumstances to you, completely different times with completely different zeitgeists and values.

You propose thus to alter the circumstances to free man and his enslaved psyche. But to what end? And how? History has shown us the disastrous consequences of socialist vanguard movements. Take the tragedy of the Russian Revolution, the horrors of the great Cultural Leap, the brutalisation of North Korea. One poster here said he was proud to be 'insane'. Are such people capable of leading revolutions? You may change the form of human suffering, but it will still exist, only modified. A Tsarist suffering becomes a Communist suffering and so on and so forth until all that's left is death and no solution.

One must address its very roots, without the shackles of concepts. One must simply be honest, instead of chasing after lies. You and your rigidly defined beliefs. I am this, I am that. I believe in this, I believe in that. Belief is the trademark of the zealot, the solider, the brutalised, enslaved, monstrous, and yes, insane.

You must have faith in your own capacity to overcome your suffering, to realise the true individual that lies dormant within you. To become the Superman! To bring peace, creativity and compassion to the Universe!

Words cannot express what I wish to convey to you. The truth can only be felt. We are all part of an incredible thing: existence. Why lose ourselves in illusions when there is so much to explore in this amazing universe. So much potential, so much possibility for all of us?

Let me leave you with a quote written by a man of undeniable intellectual excellence, as this is what you prize so dearly:

Belief is the systematic taking of unanalyzed words much too seriously. Paul's words, Mohammed's words, Marx's words, Hitler's words---people take them too seriously, and what happens? What happens is the senseless ambivalence of history---sadism versus duty, or (incomparably worse) sadism as duty; devotion counterbalanced by organized paranoia; sisters of charity selflessly tending the victims of their own church's inquisitors and crusaders. Faith, on the contrary, can never be taken too seriously. For Faith is the empirically justified confidence in our capacity to know who in fact we are, to forget the belief-intoxicated Manichee in Good Being. Give us this day our daily Faith, but deliver us, dear God, from Belief.

Brother No. 1

15th January 2009, 02:39

Karl Marx was not deluded. end of story

Revolutionary Youth

15th January 2009, 10:12

To become the Superman! To bring peace, creativity and compassion to the Universe!
WARNING!
WARNING!
WARNING!
A SUPERMAN HAS BEEN DETECTED!!!:laugh:

Fellas, has anyone here prepared a Kryptonite? A superman is coming this way!:laugh: Grid yourselves well for battle!:laugh:

Stormtrooper: Lord Vader, an object with a maximum speed of 2000km/h is heading this way. It seems like a cosplay freak with a giant "S" before his chest!

Darth Vader: Prepare firing sequence for the Death Star!

Stormtrooper: Yes my lord!

Grand Admiral Thrawn: It's too late! INCOMING!!!

Darth Vader: WHAT??!!!

STORMTROOPERS: OH SH**TTTTT!!!!

Palpatine: WTF!!!!

BOOOMM!!!!
----------------------------------

Superman-hero of the rebels!!!:laugh:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/3199084006/

hugsandmarxism

15th January 2009, 11:00

:laugh:

Hit The North

16th January 2009, 13:44

Do our circumstances make us or do we make ourselves? The general opinion here is the former: we are defined by our circumstances. I believe in the latter, as you have probably realised.

Let's take an example I'm sure you leftists are familiar with, class consciousness. The above theory holds that class consciousness is brought about purely by material circumstances. That working class formation is a response to the 'catastrophic' effects of the industrial revolution: the orthodox view.

However modern historiographical trends have increasingly disproved this overly simplistic Marxist assumption. Take that seminal text, E. P. Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class. Thompson shows how the working class in fact, made itself, through conscientious political action.

Your ignorance of what Marx believed in this matter is shining through.

This is what Marx has to say on the issue:

The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change [Selbstveränderung] can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm

Thus, E.P. Thompson's great work merely adds detail to, and is in accordance with, Marx's assertion.

So, again, I must tell you that for Marx, there is an inseparable relation between consciousness and circumstance.

Perhaps your circumstances - reflected in your insistence that the world is insane and life is suffering - help explain why you have retreated into self-indulgent mysticism.

The New Consciousness

17th January 2009, 01:50

self-change [Selbstveränderung]

You have just unwittingly proved my point. Thanks! Enough said really.

Plagueround

17th January 2009, 04:42

self-change [Selbstveränderung]

You have just unwittingly proved my point. Thanks! Enough said really.

Apparently this new consciousness you've come across doesn't include much in the way of reading comprehension. Try again.

Kassad

17th January 2009, 07:14

Well, of course. The entire point of attaining a new consciousness or some form of political, social, economic or philosophical revelation is the revolutionary practice and action you produce after said revelation. If you choose to reject the revolutionary practice aspect, you waste the new enlightenment you have gained.

benhur

17th January 2009, 15:29

Hit The North

17th January 2009, 16:56

The op is right in certain ways.

Let's consider our desire to establish a socialist society. Obviously, that desire has come from within our own hearts and minds, it did NOT materialize out of nowhere, did it? So in a way, it's correct to say that change has to come from within, otherwise, why would man even bother with socialism? Or, why do we even talk to people, and try and convince them that socialism is better for them? It's because we want them to change, doing which they can change society and environment accordingly.

So it's quite logical to conclude that 'inner' changes are necessary, because ideas (which are inside our heads) often precede the actual physical action in the outside world.

So, like the OP, you believe that we must change ourselves before we can change the world? If so, how does this change in individual inner-consciousness occur? Spontaneously? Magically? No, through class struggle.

It is an unMarxist view to assert that ideas produce changed circumstances, without understanding that changed circumstances also produce changed ideas. In other words there is a reciprocal relation between two elements, the objective circumstances and the subjective apprehension of those circumstances. If you isolate one of these elements from the other (as crude materialism and idealism respectively do) you fail to understand either.

I mention this merely because you use an avatar of Trotsky but don't seem to understand this basic principle of historical materialism.

The New Consciousness

18th January 2009, 02:17

People ARE affected by their circumstances. But they still have the potential to transcend them, see what is better and try to create that for themselves.

The insane consciousness is when people base their lives around their circumstances without attempting to look beyond them for different solutions.

The new consciousness, which I espose, is when people look beyond the confines of their circumstances and change themselves and from there try to change the world.

What I say however is that one individual cannot change another. Only the individual can change him/herself. It is their responsibility to transcend their circumstances.

I said before what I talked about was Zen-Marxism. I understand that the material conditions are highly important in shaping man, however I have faith in man's capacity to transcend those circumstances.

Man can change and become more realistic, less insular, less hostile, and from that change onwards can try to influence others to change. But ultimately it must be their choice, for only the individual can change himself.

What I propose is a mixture of what Marx talks about, i.e. a society in which 'from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs' takes place' and what Zen is about, which is true individualism and freedom. I actually believe the two are perfectly compatible. That's all.

I maintain that a Marxist revolution can only take place when the people are enlightened.

Enlightenment is the transcending of circumstance, and thus the ending of suffering. It is the state of constant rebirth. Of great open-mindedness and freedom.

The world Marx envisioned can only be created and peopled by people that possess these qualities. Otherwise it will fail, as it has so many times in the past.

This is all I am saying.

The New Consciousness

18th January 2009, 02:22

how does this change in individual inner-consciousness occur? Spontaneously? Magically? No, through class struggle.

It occurs through a deep desire for peace. When the individual realises that it doesn't want to suffer needlessly anymore. When he or she decides to enquire thoroughly into his or her nature to find out who they really are.

Class struggle only perpetuates the problem of man's insular nature.

There must be no classes, no divisions. Don't you see?

We need to access that part of us that is universal to all men; existence. Only then can we be free.

We need to stop living 'my life' and start living 'life'.

Peace to you all.

ckaihatsu

18th January 2009, 03:31

What I propose is a mixture of what Marx talks about, i.e. a society in which 'from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs' takes place' and what Zen is about, which is true individualism and freedom. I actually believe the two are perfectly compatible. That's all.

I maintain that a Marxist revolution can only take place when the people are enlightened.

You know what it is that you're ignoring in your dualistic idealism, here, New Consciousness?

Luck.

Ironic, isn't it? Some people may actually *fall into* fortuitous circumstances -- whether it be an agreeable job, a good friend, a lover, a new hobby or passion, or whatever. (And many fall into *hazardous* circumstances, too....)

The complexity of modern society brings much variety and even opportunity together in jumbled ways, and plenty of us may simply *stumble upon* something novel and meaningful, >>> without preparing our consciousness to do so <<<.

Here's an easy example: What about slaves of past centuries who, in one way or another, became freed from bondage, through no action of their own? They may even have *sympathized* with their oppressors and believed their bondage to just be the way of the world -- but, once freed, they experienced a newfound *individualism* and *freedom* that they never even anticipated or welcomed.

This is why it's imperative for those of us with class consciousness and who give a shit to do something, whatever we can, *while* we can, because the results can be greatly disproportionate to our select efforts. You've heard of 'diminishing returns', right? Now consider the opposite, 'increasing returns', where a few people who figure out how to get primitive computer systems to send universal email to each other kick off a whole new method of human communications.

So we can keep the yardstick nearby and keep seeing if we "measure up" to your notion of consciousness, or we can do what we can to effect the end of private property rule and capitalist oppression with modern militaries, for the sake of millions and billions.

Here's one way of putting it:

Now as the State is not to govern, it may be asked what the State is to do. The State is to be a voluntary association that will organise labour, and be the manufacturer and distributor of necessary commodities. The State is to make what is useful. The individual is to make what is beautiful. And as I have mentioned the word labour, I cannot help saying that a great deal of nonsense is being written and talked nowadays about the dignity of manual labour. There is nothing necessarily dignified about manual labour at all, and most of it is absolutely degrading. It is mentally and morally injurious to man to do anything in which he does not find pleasure, and many forms of labour are quite pleasureless activities, and should be regarded as such. To sweep a slushy crossing for eight hours, on a day when the east wind is blowing is a disgusting occupation. To sweep it with mental, moral, or physical dignity seems to me to be impossible. To sweep it with joy would be appalling. Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt. All work of that kind should be done by a machine.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/slman10.txt

Also, on all this micro-oriented stuff, you may like to check out my own contribution to social psychology -- on a materialist basis -- please feel free:

Ideologies & Operations -- Dynamics
http://tinyurl.com/32qsdb

Ideologies & Operations -- Dynamics (Page 1 of 2)
http://tinyurl.com/275drt

Ideologies & Operations -- Dynamics (Page 2 of 2)
http://tinyurl.com/2vd8dg

Chris

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

The New Consciousness

18th January 2009, 13:18

What I write about is completely non-dualistic, you don't seem to have understood it.

The problem with people realizing that something is wrong and then trying to change the situation is that normally they do it from the insane consciousness. So they see the insanity of the world through their own biased, equally insane mind. And thus, their solutions, however well-intentioned, turn into complete failures.

A whole new range of factors come into play that may not necessarily be favourable to other people.

Thus, we revolutionaries, I feel, must understand ourselves thoroughly before we even begin to try to change the world. Otherwise it will end in disaster.

Like I said, you can change the form of suffering in society, but it will still remain unless you have eradicated it from yourself.

This is true responsibility and thus a real revolution. If you are going to be a revolutionary you have to take great responsibility. You have to be certain that you will not influence the process with anything superficial or unnecessary. You have to be sure that you will not hinder it with your baggage, your conceits, your prejudices.
Lenin
Stalin (in particular!)
Castro
Mao
Guevara
Mugabe
They all brought to the table their own prejudices and complexes. They were not enlightened beings. Their revolutions were bloody, inhumane affairs. Charnel-houses of horror and destruction that only brutalised man.

The only man I can think of who came close to enacting a real revolution was Mahatma Gandhi. He brought nothing of this kind to the table. It was the most peaceful revolution the world had ever witnessed. Sadly his successors, lacking his vision, proceeded to cock it all up.

Now do you see the vital importance of self-understanding? We cannot lead a socialist revolution if we are completely insane can we? If we are weak, fragmented, psychologically handicapped individuals, it just won't happen.

And judging by the incendiary responses this thread has generated, I feel the so-called revolutionaries here are suffering from such problems, which fills me with pity.

Peace and love to all.

Kassad

18th January 2009, 17:52

Well, as an avid defender of the Cuban Revolution, you attempting to say that it was a "bloody affair" is just ignorant to facts. In fact, many of Batista's supporters were allowed to leave. Everyone was given a fair trial and those currently in prison or those who have been executed were found to be a part of counterrevolutionary forces. The claim that Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were bloody murderers is nothing but anti-Castro propaganda and demonization of the revolution in Cuba that has made unbelievable progress since Castro took power.

Plagueround

18th January 2009, 18:58

And judging by the incendiary responses this thread has generated, I feel the so-called revolutionaries here are suffering from such problems, which fills me with pity.

On the contrary. It was my experienced with underhanded and dishonest mystics claimed to have transcended the human experience beyond others, all the while doing nothing to change the circumstances that cause human suffering, that led me to dismiss half-baked and unsubstantiated claims that reveal a genuine lack of understanding of human psychology and interaction. You haven't much demonstrated you're any different than them.

As far as your dealing with the responses here, you always have the advantage in this game in that you can dismiss responses as being "from the back of your head, which one cannot see" or "a part of the insane consciousness". You also have the advantage of being online and not having to respond on the spot, but I would suspect you're very much like these people in that, if pushed, you likely become more irrational and petulant than the people you claim to have become better than.

It is ok my friend, because if one stands on a pedestal for too long, not only can you get a clear view of the back of their head, but you also see right up their skirt.

The New Consciousness

19th January 2009, 00:24

underhanded and dishonest mystics claimed to have transcended the human experience beyond others, all the while doing nothing to change the circumstances that cause human suffering

On the contrary I believe in a fusion of inner transformation and external action in order to effect positive change. But perhaps I am too idealistic. Perhaps self-enquiry is too tasking or incomprehensible for most people. Or even absurd. The truth is it does require time and considerable effort, and for a lot of people this really isn't available. But I still hold firm to my beliefs. I do believe man's problems lie in his inability to transcend his own fragmented identity. And I am certain that suffering is universal. And I am certain that there is a way out of it available to all.

Anyway, sorry to have offended you, or disgusted you or whatever. I am not being underhanded or dishonest, I assure you. I'm not trying to profit from anything. I have been thorough with myself throughout this thread, thoroughly in pursuit of the truth that is. I don't feel special or worthy of a pedestal or anything. I feel simpler actually. My life's just so much easier. It's like being on drugs sometimes. I just wanted to share that with you guys.

Truth is I have learnt a lot from this debate and for that I would like to thank you all.

Kassad, I was under the impression that many executions were ordered by Castro and Guevara. Perhaps I was wrong. I still admire Cuba though and what it has achieved, and would love to go.

Anyway, I guess this is the last post.

If there is still some space in you free of skepticism or scorn, I appeal to it now: please try self-enquiry and meditation. You will surprised by its effects.
Here are some helpful sources:
Anything by J. Krishnamurti
Island by Aldous Huxley
Eckhart Tolle, The Power of Now
The Teachings of Buddha
I have also found that aspects of Nietzche's, Thus Spake Zarathustra, express this well
Camus, The Outsider
Rousseau, Discourse on the Origins of the Inequality of Men

Peace and love to you all.

Hit The North

19th January 2009, 02:56

Wow... Who was that masked man?

The New Consciousness

20th January 2009, 00:39

I am getting tired of your anti Marx threads.

What others are there this is the only one.

I will tell you what you fail at is life.

Charming! Thanks! Nice to know.

What a constructive post eh?

I can't be bothered with you silly people anymore.

Bright Banana Beard

20th January 2009, 01:01

What is this shit? Some guy who want to be better than everyone when the ironic is that you cannot be better but have different conciseness of others? We cannot pretend that we know what the answer or solution, it blessing arrogantly you are only showing, the world will not fall in happiness hippy logic conciseness you are having as long you are living in shit condition, face it. We have to live and move on.

My experience with the people like you show no solution but babbling about the change of conciseness that show no outlines, point, or support by evidence, just your mind.

Hit The North

20th January 2009, 01:46

I can't be bothered with you silly people anymore.

This must be because your consciousness is so much more advanced than ours. :mellow:

Revolutionary Youth

20th January 2009, 17:42

This must be because your consciousness is so much more advanced than ours. :mellow:
Sadly.:sleep:

Kassad

20th January 2009, 17:59

I can't be bothered with you silly people anymore.

You cannot allow your 'new consciousness' promote elitism and a condescending nature. You have failed to supress those vices throughout this thread.

The New Consciousness

21st January 2009, 00:53

What condescending nature? This is absolutely ridiculous. I propose something that goes against what you believe in and you label me condescending. Do you know what condescending means? It means you think I'm looking down on you. So you are actually perceiving me as being above you. It's insanity all of it. Up and down! There is no such thing. I am writing plainly. Why should I write in some obsequiously polite tone? You would then perceive me below you. But then of course I'm sure you wouldn't have any trouble with that! I have responded plainly and politely to everything you have said. Stop concentrating on your mental image of how I'm saying it. I could write in a thousand ways and it wouldn't change a thing.
And you are silly, I'm sorry. Many of you have been immensely silly since the beginning of this thread. How can you expect me to take you seriously if you come out with absolute irrelevant, mindlessly offensive, knee jerk reaction nonsense like:
I'm fed up with this junk like this
Bullshit
Your shits not original
because its bollocks
posting this shit
Prove this motherfucker's point
ifeelyou's 'You seem a bit dogmatic and hostile'. went almost ignored in this verbal spate of agressive diatribes.
I am going to enjoy this
That's a cop out
so is your bloody rant
You are far to self absorbed.
the original post is obviously crap of the most noxious kind
this drivel
Let me refute this shit
Bullshit.
Inane, unoriginal and pointless drivel.
This is like a shit version of Situationism
You come in here like a pompous bastard Anger is natural, and it's probably more prevalent in humans because we're predators.
You are so pathetic
You are calling us to be aggressive, then just ignore us, as you are a "calm" and "sane" person yourself! Right? Why do you engage in battle with every post here in this thread of yours? = contradiction in terms
self-enquiry craps of yours
freaking bastard
I will tell you what you fail at is life.
et cetera et cetera (yawn)
Now you see why I call you silly. Now let's forget this nonsense.
At some point I was given a quote by Marx: The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change [Selbstveränderung] can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.
Interestingly the phrase the 'educator must himself be educated' is identical to Krishnamurti's 'the observer is the observed' which is precisely what I have written about. I am arguing for Selbstveranderung, but in the furthest possible sense, beyond all illusions.
What I believe in is that the process can go further than this. Beyond even the concept of class and material circumstances. Beyond all circumstances into true self-understanding.
I believe that man can strip himself of all the rest of it. All the rest of the crap. The useless emotions. Fear. Regret. Guilt. Envy. Greed. Competition.
And this can be done through the methods I propose which is to go back to the very start, the very part of you which is not corrupted by the ideas of other people. Your own critical consciousness, pure and unblemished by conceits, concepts and thoughts which are insane reflections of an insane world. And through this process you can strip yourself of all wasteful crap.
Why do we have inequality in the first place?
Where did all this start?
Why do rich capitalists compete so vigorously for profit? Why do they make so much money when they know they could never even come close to spending it in their lifetimes? Why does everyone crave for success? Because they are looking into the future for something better than what they already have. They feel incomplete. They compete with other men and women, other fragments. And thus the desire to improve perpetuates itself. It's like an endless ladder. You keep going up, trying to overtake someone, constantly looking up. And when looking up becomes to hard because you cannot compete, because you lack the ingredient for success: say intelligence, good looks. Then you start looking down. And then you feel better. And this looking up and looking down is a product of man's fragmentation. His isolation from everyone and everyone else, and his conditioning by a society that encourages competition. Because that society is built by men who are unsatisfied with themselves. Who live their lives in what they will become. In becoming better instead of accepting the Now. The timeless Now. There is no future there is no past. Once you understand that there is no competition, there is no becoming, there is no comparison. Everything is unique. And from that revelation grows tremendous love and compassion and open-mindedness and presence.
And only once that state has been achieved, only then can man go about making a harmonious, peaceful society.
Thus it is pure freedom we are seeking. Exactly what I have been talking about from the very beginning. Pure freedom and this can only come from you, free of all external dogma, authority, all lies. Understanding your own nature. Understand your relationship with all things. Understanding your fragmentation and fear. Understand your needs and wants. Understanding your own definition of time and yourself.
You all cling so solidly to your Marxism. But Marxism has failed. Where in the world has it been successful? Marxist societies are just as depraved and insane as capitalist ones.
Only you can change. You cannot change others. And you cannot force your dogmas down their throats. All you can do is remind them that they can change. Which is what I have done. I have not forced anything down your throats now have I? I am pointing to what is within your capacity to achieve for yourself. And that's it. And your arguments have all fallen flat because you cannot conceive of this way of thinking, because you are conditioned to compare, to become, to conceive of the future as an end and the present the means when there is no end there is only means for there is only the now. This is a basic shift in the perception of the world and only from there can you begin to practically intellectualise about creating a society. Otherwise you will create a fragmented society out of your own fragmented self.
Krishnamurti once had a debate with a Marxist funnily enough. The Marxist wanted to understand his theory on relationship. Existence is relationship; to be is to be related. Relationship is society. The structure of our present society, being based on mutual use, brings about violence, destruction and misery; and if the so-called revolutionary State does not fundamentally alter this usage, it can only produce, perhaps at a different level, still further conflict, confusion and antagonism. As long as we psychologically need and use each other, there can be no relationship. Relationship is communion; and how can there be communion if there is exploitation? Exploitation implies fear, and fear inevitably leads to all kinds of illusions and misery. Conflict exists only in exploitation and not in relationship. Conflict, opposition, enmity exists between us when there is the use of another as a means of pleasure, of achievement. This conflict obviously cannot be resolved by using it as a means to a self-projected goal; and all ideals, all Utopias are self-projected. To see this is essential, for then we shall experience the truth that conflict in any form destroys relationship, understanding. There is understanding only when the mind is quiet; and the mind is not quiet when it is held in any ideology, dogma or belief, or when it is bound to the pattern of its own experience, memories. The mind is not quiet when it is acquiring or becoming. All acquisition is conflict; all becoming is a process of isolation.
We need to radically alter the way we see ourselves, others and the world. We need to redefine our concept of the self and time, for it is through time that all wanting, all becoming, all identity and fragmentation ultimately manifests itself.

Kassad

21st January 2009, 01:00

You're referring to the people on here as silly because we don't agree with your opinion. You will have to excuse us because we are often approached on here and in the real world by new age mystic types who claim to have achieved a level of spiritual enlightenment that others have not.

You're wrong, though. It's true that I can't force my ideas down someone's throat, but I can educate. I can do my part to spread awareness. That's how I became enlightened. I'm sure that's how many others on here became informed.

You think man can get rid of regret? That's assuming that we can get rid of mistakes because most people regret something in life. I regret not living my life for myself for many years. I'm sure everyone has some form of regret. Everyone will always fear something, but is that wrong? Is it wrong for me to fear being alone? Not at all.

You claim to reach a level of spiritual enlightenment where you see the world in a different light. Where you live without fear, greed and regret. Well, guess what? Not everyone is at that point. Most people never will be. It's time to form a movement to educate the masses and to awaken the dormant spirit of consciousness in people that helps them see the eyes of the oppressor and not be afraid to tear him down. It's time to unite and this new age enlightenment is just as disenfranchising as many of the things you claim to preach against.

The New Consciousness

21st January 2009, 01:29

I'm going to sleep now as it is late here. I will reply as soon as I have time though.

The New Consciousness

21st January 2009, 23:24

Hey chaps I'm back. Now Kassad, please read what I write carefully. I make a list of the silly remarks. They are silly. And not because you don't agree with me. Simply because so many people on here have responded in the most childish of ways, swearing and insulting me and being downright immature. This is not constructive. So I called it silly. Anyway who cares?
Let's talk about the main issue here. To be frank, I have difficulty understanding it myself intellectually and sometimes I have doubts, as every open minded human being should. Why should we cling to one thing or another? True freedom is the freedom to accept that we know little or nothing, and then to find out the truth for ourselves, not reliant on others. Only from there can we make real progress. This is the only thing I 'believe' in if you will: freedom. For what are without it? We cease to be human beings: we become dead. Slaves.
And this is what I propose here: absolute freedom. Freedom from the chains of religion, doctrine, dogma, ideology. But also free from the mind-numbing and exhausting burden of the self as we know it and all the pointless emotions such a self entails.
I am not telling you to do anything. I am not giving you doctrine. But I am reminding you all that you have the ability to find the truth for yourselves, without the mind-stunting influence of other men's doctrines. Only YOU can find out the truth, something I have stressed early on. We are all born with the capacity to free ourselves from conditioning. The problem is hardly anyone ever tries.
Are you all being thoroughly honest with yourselves when you follow Marx? When you follow his every word, or the interpretations of some other theorists? Are you being truly honest with yourselves when you label yourself Marxist or Leninist or Trotskyist or whatever? Are you truly free?
You believe in class conflict just like the Christian believes in the resurrection: blindly. You assume that everything has to be the way it is, that we have to follow the inexorable tide of history towards some ideal future, and you impose these ideas on others. You assume that history is all conflict and nothing else. You say that conflict is essential to human development. Thesis and antithesis thus synthesis. Capitalism and socialist in conflict and the outcome: a perfect society. You place all your hopes on conflict and in the future. Yet the future does not exist, it is an ideal, a mental construct based on thought. And what is thought? Thought is conditioning. Thought is the past. So you are really repeating the same old cycle. And this is why such revolutions have never achieved their aims. There has never been a Communist system on this planet. Why? Because those who have attempted to bring about such a wonderful revolution are not true revolutionaries. They are reacting, not revolutionising. They are reacting in the same way any human reacts, within the constraints of his conditioned mind. Like I said, you construct theories out of how things should be from the current conditions in which you live. Thus you are conditioned by those circumstances and naturally your theories are too. So your theories do not really envision anything new, only a rehash of the present, just in a different form or colour. Suffering, man's basic problem, continues because the same problems still exist. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis all contain one word 'thesis', which is the problem of man. Now I want to find out what the 'thesis' is. I am brutally honest with myself, I question everything I am told and told to believe in. I drop belief. I stop gazing at illusions, be they past or future. I am entirely in the now in an effort to understand who I am, beyond becoming and beyond identity. I obtain therefore a far more objective view of the way things are. I am free from all chains. Only then can I really possess 'free will', when all chains are cut loose. I become what Nietzche called 'the superman'.

And so I see Marxism with its dialectical materialist approach to everything. And I see the vital importance of conflict to this theory. So instead of nodding my head and agreeing, 'yes conflict is essential'. I ask myself, honestly and plainly and humbly 'what is conflict'? And is conflict essential? You can justify these things with clever reason, but the fact remains, whatever concepts you form out of this, or whatever interpretation you hold to, has been passed through the conditioned, subjective mind. There is never an absolute. The universe is relative as Einstein has shown. Thus to cling to one relative perspective and to apply it to the rest of the world is utterly absurd. It is the attempt to create order out of chaos and an example of utter futility.
Back to conflict, why is conflict so essential to progress? Does it really bring us to a profound understanding of the human problem? Does it result in growth? Conflict often results in disintegration. Does conflict exist in nature in the way you interpret it? Science is showing us that it doesn't. There is conflict yes. But it feeds into a cycle, self-sustaining and seemingly eternal. Thus it is not bound in with progress at all.
The idea of conflict and progress is bound in with time, and I said before thought is a time-bound phenomenon. But the problem with time is that it is illusory. The only thing that exists is the present moment. So why chase after an illusory, ideal, Utopian future. You look at the ends and from there construct a means, and this is the error. There is only the means. They are not two separate things. The means is all there is.
And the problem of time and the ideal is that we all suffer from this. From petty 'individualistic' goals and aims of becoming someone or something, this or that, to your grand ideals of transforming society. This is the root of what you call conflict. And conflict is illusory for it involves psychological time. Should we cling so fervently to this 'concept', for after all it is a concept, with which is associated such suffering and pain? Should we really see it as vital to progress, when the 'progress' we envision is created out of ideals, themselves rooted in limited, time-bound illusory thought, no different from the capitalist who wishes to progress to a higher salary. Should we not go beyond such concepts and terms? Escape from these illusions and find out the real truth?
You may well see this is as being passive. But this is not indolence. This is a rigorous enquiry into our nature. A ruthless examination of absolutely everything we take for true. All concepts. You may scoff that this will not address the inequalities in society. 'The rich will not give up power' you will say. 'We must take it from them'. Some of you have talked of the necessity of violence. You are making a highly arrogant assumption. You are effectively saying your knowledge is superior to that of 'them', these devilish capitalist scumbags as you see them. You know and others can either conform or die. And what does violence create? More suffering. More division. And thus so many socialist and communist revolutions have engendered hatred. There was hope for these ideologies, before they showed themselves completely incompetent in practice. And thus we have people scoffing at socialists and the cliché 'Marxism didn't work because humanity isn't ready'. It's interesting so many people have pointed that out. Just as they pointed out how religion was a complete disaster.
You, like fervent Christians or fundamentalist Islamists are chained and completely conditioned by illusion. As Krishnamurti said to the Marxist: 'What you know is merely an- other form of prejudice, a different kind of conditioning. Your historical studies, or those of your leaders, are interpreted according to a particular background which determines your response; and this response you call the new approach, the new ideology. All response of thought is conditioned, and to bring about a revolution based on thought or idea is to perpetuate a modified form of what was. You are essentially reformers, and not real revolutionaries. Reformation and revolution based on idea are retrogressive factors in society.'
You may ask me why I am quoting Krishnamurti, if I don't believe in following other people's ideas. An excellent question. I quote him because he is unique. He does not offer anything, just as the Buddha did not offer anything. They propose the dropping of illusion. In Krishnamurti's case conditioning, in Buddha's case suffering. They do not offer truth, they only offer ways to escape illusion. They are not doctrines. Thus they have great credibility and are truly radical. There is no actual theory. They cease to be theoretical or dogmatic. They cease to be ideas. They are anti-theoretical and anti-ideological. That is why they are unique.
So, having established that Marxism or any other ism is no real revolution of anything as it merely perpetuates the same problem, being theoretical and of thought, itself product of conditioning and time, both illusions, what is the real solution? What is the real revolution?
It is difficult to write about, for words are the product of thought and like thought limited and illusory. But we can say that the real revolution, the arrival of true order, harmony and the end of suffering and a 'New Consciousness' and existence for man, can only arise when thought, which is limited and thus divisive, ceases to play a part in human identity and relations. There must be no revolution which uses man as a means to an end as you all do. Freedom, that great goal, cannot be reached through any other means that freedom. Thus the means are the end and freedom is now and through an instant shift of consciousness.
When you use man as a means to an end he becomes a tool. You cease to relate to him. And when there is using of other people, which is not true relationship, there is only violence and misery and suffering. As I said, we must radically redefine our relationship with others, and thus also with ourselves, one free of using, of ends and illusions. Krishnamurti called this 'making man into your furniture'. Do you really share a relationship with furniture? No of course not. It is possession, bound in with some illusory concept of identity created out of past and future and becoming and wanting which is time and which is an illusion. Thus, however noble or lofty the end, while we are still using man this way we will never achieve it. Man becomes dead, like furniture. And as Krishnamurti so lucidly writes: 'Relationship can exist only between the living, and usage is a process of isolation. It is this isolating process that breeds conflict, antagonism between man and man.'
Any so-called revolutionary state must understand this. It must not use men. Otherwise it will unwittingly perpetuate that which it opposed. The thesis and the antithesis and the synthesis thus remain in the thesis and there is no real progress.
What is real human relationship? It is communion. It is love. And there is no room for exploitation there. Yes. Marxism like all other isms which see others as a means to an end, however wondrous that end, are exploitative. Exploitation creates violence and fear and suffering. And what better testimony to this than the appalling death toll and hatred Marxism has incurred.
'The mind is not quiet when it is disciplined, controlled and checked; such a mind is a dead mind, it is isolating itself through various forms of resistance, and so it inevitably creates misery for itself and for others. The mind is quiet only when it is not caught in thought, which is the net of its own activity. When the mind is still, not made still, a true factor, love, comes into being.'
And this is what I refer to when I speak of the New Consciousness.

Peace and love to all.

Kassad

21st January 2009, 23:49

Well, first of all, I'd like to let you know that you and I agree more than you and most others on here. I feel very content in my liberation from the common shackles of deceit, contempt and oppression.

Still, I can identify a mistake very quickly. I do not idolize Marx. I criticize his statements on dialectic materialism and the family consistently, as I do not agree with them and do not believe they fall in line with a consistent revolution of not only the working class, but the liberation of the mind itself. Without the liberation of consciousness, no one is free and they will fall back into the bourgeoisie oppression like they had before.

Now, I don't see myself as restrained by claiming that I am a Marxist-Leninist. My ideology is ever-developing and it does not always fall into line with Marxist thought or the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. The task for many people is to be able to separate a label from the true development of consciousness, ideology and revolution. A revolution does not come through a label. It comes from emancipation of a person's mind and body from the traditional standards of society.

We do agree at many points though. You know, I wasn't born Corey. I was just born a human being and I was conditioned to understand society's norms and the social and moral standards of the world. Liberation is achieved not only because you reject these things, but because you realize that you can reject those things. A man is only free when he realizes that the standards, morals and basis of society can be rejected and a society based on unity of consciousness and emancipation can be achieved.

You fail to comprehend some of our ideologies. I would love to see a passive revolution where humanity unites, hand in hand, and rejects the system of tyranny and oppression that has shackled it for thousands of years. Still, society is built to construct the social standards for a reason. Society is a puppet, in which the bourgeoisie hold the strings. The bourgeoisie elite have forged a society where questioning the religious, monetary and political systems can be considered unpatriotic and heretical. These divisive titles and terms have served to sever the link between humanity, or at least build up walls between them. The entire point of the bourgeoisie monetary, political and religious institutions is to create roadblocks in the mind where humans view eachother differently. Whiter, blacker, richer, poorer, smarter or dumber. This divisive nature keeps the wage slave in line and it makes sure that the majority submits to society's standards.

I don't believe you grasp Marxism in the way that you believe you do. Marxism does not use humans as a means of achieving goals. The bourgeoisie capitalism and manipulation uses the workers and laborers as a means of achieving profit and control. They use humans as subjects and tools of material gain. Marxism, Leninism and the emancipation of the workers lead to the destruction of the bourgeoisie state, meaning an end to exploitation. We envision a world where profit is not necessary for technological and economic development. A world where we do not have to sacrifice quality for expense because it will be unnecessary. The proletariat revolution will be based on the principles of emancipation and liberation through education, creation and distribution. I think the system you preach against is the very one you seek to establish.

The entire point of the Marxist liberation and socialist revolution is to stop seeing the proletariat as tools of gain and manipulation, but instead seeing a union of human beings working toward a better society. Not for monetary gain, but in the interest of human development. Our evolution didn't end with us growing thumbs. It continues every day through the education and revelation in the consciousness of each human being.

The New Consciousness

22nd January 2009, 00:03

I thank you for your measured, incisive response, Kassad.

Indeed, Marxism and all other isms must be dropped. Only then true freedom can be obtained.

As you say 'A revolution does not come through a label. It comes from emancipation of a person's mind and body from the traditional standards of society.'

You also write: 'These divisive titles and terms have served to sever the link between humanity, or at least build up walls between them. The entire point of the bourgeoisie monetary, political and religious institutions is to create roadblocks in the mind where humans view eachother differently. Whiter, blacker, richer, poorer, smarter or dumber. This divisive nature keeps the wage slave in line and it makes sure that the majority submits to society's standards.'

I am absolutely in accordance with this. We call it different things though. You call it the bourgeoisie, which is a concept. I call it the result of man's basic problem, for I feel concepts are limited.

Afterall, what is the 'bourgeoisie' as you Marxists call it, in the first place, but an expression of the sickness of man? They are human beings too.

'I think the system you preach against is the very one you seek to establish.'

Exactly. As I said, Marx's idea is the best solution for mankind. But as I pointed out, it is the means I disagree with, i.e the dependence on conflict. I see conflict not as a means to true lasting progress and no way a means of ending human suffering.

'It continues every day through the education and revelation in the consciousness of each human being.'

It is truly wondrous, and I feel the purer this revelation of consciousness is the better, for that is true freedom. I call this the 'New Consciousness' simply to put a label on it, but you could call it anything.

Peace my friend.

ckaihatsu

22nd January 2009, 04:15

Are you all being thoroughly honest with yourselves when you follow Marx? When you follow his every word, or the interpretations of some other theorists? Are you being truly honest with yourselves when you label yourself Marxist or Leninist or Trotskyist or whatever? Are you truly free?

Arrrrrggghhhh!!!

This... new... consciousness...

It's... pulling... me... away...

Cannot... resist... for... much... longer... now...

Strength... giving... way...

Body... strong... mind... weak... so... so... weak...

I can only hope My Master Mister Marx will forgive me when I see Him in Heaven -- or, would He (and I, by extension) be filed under Hell by our, uh, *entrancing* commentator?

You assume that history is all conflict and nothing else.

(robotic, monotone voice)

I-must-assume-that-all-history-is-conflict-and-nothing-else. I-have-been-programmed-this-way-and-cannot-rebuke-the-doctrine. Must-imagine-blood-and-guts-everywhere-even-when-there-is-none. Thank-you-Master-Marx.

Now I want to find out what the 'thesis' is.

Better not say this too loudly around the postgrads. You might not escape their clutches...!

I am free from all chains. Only then can I really possess 'free will', when all chains are cut loose. I become what Nietzche called 'the superman'.

Shit, that's it -- * that's * going on my bucket list!!!

these devilish capitalist scumbags as you see them.

...with sharp horns on their heads and twisty, devious moustaches, or did someone mention that already?

But also free from the mind-numbing and exhausting burden of the self as we know it and all the pointless emotions such a self entails.

Dude, when you look back on this stuff of yours years from now, do *not* blame the drugs -- they were innocent and should not have to suffer a bad rep because of this. You should've been in class. That's all there is to it.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

22nd January 2009, 07:38

Let's talk about the main issue here. To be frank, I have difficulty understanding it myself intellectually and sometimes I have doubts, as every open minded human being should. Why should we cling to one thing or another? True freedom is the freedom to accept that we know little or nothing, and then to find out the truth for ourselves, not reliant on others. Only from there can we make real progress. This is the only thing I 'believe' in if you will: freedom. For what are without it? We cease to be human beings: we become dead. Slaves.
And this is what I propose here: absolute freedom. Freedom from the chains of religion, doctrine, dogma, ideology. But also free from the mind-numbing and exhausting burden of the self as we know it and all the pointless emotions such a self entails.Freedom is an illusion generated by our ability to decieve ourselves into thinking we are truly autonomous entities. Total freedom of which you speak will never exist, for various reasons.

No, freedom is a fiction, an artificiality that we impose upon the universe. Search the length and breadth of the cosmos, grind the entire universe down into it's most elementary parts, and you will not find one quantum of "freedom", not one iota of "liberty".

Because of it's ephemeral nature, freedom is merely what society or individuals deem it to be. To speak of absolute freedom is to speak nonsense, because there is no such thing.

I am not telling you to do anything. I am not giving you doctrine. But I am reminding you all that you have the ability to find the truth for yourselves, without the mind-stunting influence of other men's doctrines. Only YOU can find out the truth, something I have stressed early on. We are all born with the capacity to free ourselves from conditioning. The problem is hardly anyone ever tries.
It's called "critical thinking", something that I think we should all strive for as individuals and as a species.

The trouble is, critical thinking isn't a skill that we're born with - it's something that has to be learned.

Not only that, but there are barriers to critical thinking, such as religious indoctrination, cultural anti-intellectualism, and the fact that it's hard work, let's face it.

Are you all being thoroughly honest with yourselves when you follow Marx? I don't follow Marx. I don't follow anybody. I blaze my own trail, intellectually speaking.

When you follow his every word, or the interpretations of some other theorists? Are you being truly honest with yourselves when you label yourself Marxist or Leninist or Trotskyist or whatever? Are you truly free?
I never claimed to be free.

You believe in class conflict just like the Christian believes in the resurrection: blindly.Class struggle is an observable phenomenon, therefore I have no need to "believe" in it at all - no more than I "believe" that the sun will rise tomorrow.

You assume that everything has to be the way it is, that we have to follow the inexorable tide of history towards some ideal future, and you impose these ideas on others.History is fluid, but even fluid flows in channels. That is to say; there may be laws to human history, and it may even be possible to predict things according to said laws, but that's not the end of the story. Chaos, emergence, unforseen consquences may alter the results or change the rules. Historical materialism, in my opinion, is just the start.

And I impose my ideas on nobody. I cannot force anyone to agree with me, but through reasoned argument I hope to have people change their own minds.

You assume that history is all conflict and nothing else. You say that conflict is essential to human development. Thesis and antithesis thus synthesis. Capitalism and socialist in conflict and the outcome: a perfect society.I reject dialectics as idealist mysticism.

You place all your hopes on conflict and in the future. Yet the future does not exist, it is an ideal, a mental construct based on thought.Forward-thinking is part of what makes us human, and has served us greatly as a species. Without being able to plan for the future, humanity would be as the rest of the animals, living only for the moment before the indifferent universe smacks them dead between the eyes.

Forward thinking humans can see that blow coming, and dodge it.

And what is thought? Thought is conditioning. Thought is the past.Conditioning, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. Do you really want your surgeon to be distracted by "icky" reactions and nausea while he's operating on you? What good is a firefighter if they can't overcome their survival instincts and jump into a blaze and rescue people?

The past is also important and useful. Thoughts of the past - memories - form a part of our personality, shaping it, guiding it, providing a yardstick with which to measure the present. We even record and study our past, whether privately in diaries or on the scale of whole societies, in that branch of scholarship known as History.

So you are really repeating the same old cycle. And this is why such revolutions have never achieved their aims. There has never been a Communist system on this planet. Why? Because those who have attempted to bring about such a wonderful revolution are not true revolutionaries.This is a fallacy. "No true Scotsman puts sugar on their porridge".

They are reacting, not revolutionising. They are reacting in the same way any human reacts, within the constraints of his conditioned mind.In that case, none of us will ever be "free" as you describe it because there is no such thing as a person unconditioned by society.

Like I said, you construct theories out of how things should be from the current conditions in which you live. Thus you are conditioned by those circumstances and naturally your theories are too. So your theories do not really envision anything new, only a rehash of the present, just in a different form or colour.Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Guess what? They were wrong too!

Suffering, man's basic problem, continues because the same problems still exist. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis all contain one word 'thesis', which is the problem of man. Now I want to find out what the 'thesis' is. I am brutally honest with myself, I question everything I am told and told to believe in. I drop belief. I stop gazing at illusions, be they past or future. I am entirely in the now in an effort to understand who I am, beyond becoming and beyond identity. I obtain therefore a far more objective view of the way things are. I am free from all chains. Only then can I really possess 'free will', when all chains are cut loose. I become what Nietzche called 'the superman'.Do you have any friends or relations that you remain in contact with? That's you, being constrained by the past. Do you have any bills to pay? That's you, being constrained by the future.

What you describe might work as a meditation technique, but as a way of living it'll quickly get you penniless on the street and with no friends.

And so I see Marxism with its dialectical materialist approach to everything. And I see the vital importance of conflict to this theory. So instead of nodding my head and agreeing, 'yes conflict is essential'. I ask myself, honestly and plainly and humbly 'what is conflict'? And is conflict essential? You can justify these things with clever reason, but the fact remains, whatever concepts you form out of this, or whatever interpretation you hold to, has been passed through the conditioned, subjective mind. There is never an absolute. The universe is relative as Einstein has shown.AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!! NO! NO! NO! :mad:

Congratulations! You've just hit my personal BERSERK BUTTON (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BerserkButton): Armchair philosophers/quantum mystics/any other kind of intellectual dillettante(sp?) you care to name misusing scientific terms and theories for their own rhetorical purposes. :cursing:

The General and Special theories of Relativity do not say anything as remotely asinine as "the universe is relative". No, what those theories actually say is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame) and there are no "preferred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame)" or "privileged" frames.

To generalise a theory that deals with gravity and inertia into the rest of human experience is, to quote Wolfgang Pauli, "not even wrong", and I will not let it slide if I can help it!

Thus to cling to one relative perspective and to apply it to the rest of the world is utterly absurd. It is the attempt to create order out of chaos and an example of utter futility.But humans have successfully created order out of chaos.

Back to conflict, why is conflict so essential to progress? Does it really bring us to a profound understanding of the human problem? Does it result in growth? Conflict often results in disintegration. Does conflict exist in nature in the way you interpret it? Science is showing us that it doesn't. There is conflict yes. But it feeds into a cycle, self-sustaining and seemingly eternal. Thus it is not bound in with progress at all.
The idea of conflict and progress is bound in with time, and I said before thought is a time-bound phenomenon. But the problem with time is that it is illusory. The only thing that exists is the present moment.Again, great technique for meditation, bad lifestyle.

So why chase after an illusory, ideal, Utopian future. You look at the ends and from there construct a means, and this is the error. There is only the means. They are not two separate things. The means is all there is.This is simply wrong. There are countless examples of successful plans for the future - almost every building worth the name was planned before it was built, existed on paper as a set of schematics, and was eventually made real.

The fact that plans occasionally fuck up for whatever reason is no excuse to dump plans for the future or forward-thinkingness, because such things have served as well as a species and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

And the problem of time and the ideal is that we all suffer from this. From petty 'individualistic' goals and aims of becoming someone or something, this or that, to your grand ideals of transforming society. This is the root of what you call conflict. And conflict is illusory for it involves psychological time. Should we cling so fervently to this 'concept', for after all it is a concept, with which is associated such suffering and pain? Should we really see it as vital to progress, when the 'progress' we envision is created out of ideals, themselves rooted in limited, time-bound illusory thought, no different from the capitalist who wishes to progress to a higher salary. Should we not go beyond such concepts and terms? Escape from these illusions and find out the real truth?Quite frankly, no. Awareness and taking account of the past and future, and acting accordingly, is an inseperable part of what makes us human. In fact, I would argue that all sapient beings must have a concept of past and future.

You may well see this is as being passive. But this is not indolence. This is a rigorous enquiry into our nature. A ruthless examination of absolutely everything we take for true. All concepts. You may scoff that this will not address the inequalities in society. 'The rich will not give up power' you will say. 'We must take it from them'. Some of you have talked of the necessity of violence. You are making a highly arrogant assumption. You are effectively saying your knowledge is superior to that of 'them', these devilish capitalist scumbags as you see them.No, we're saying that they're our class enemies and that we seek to defeat them by any means necessary. If that includes violence, then regretful as that may be, so be it.

You know and others can either conform or die. And what does violence create? More suffering. More division.Violence destroyed the Nazi Empire. I dunno about you, but I'm quite glad about that.

And thus so many socialist and communist revolutions have engendered hatred.Specific examples, please?

There was hope for these ideologies, before they showed themselves completely incompetent in practice. And thus we have people scoffing at socialists and the cliché 'Marxism didn't work because humanity isn't ready'. It's interesting so many people have pointed that out.Is it? People can talk a load of old bollocks when the fancy takes them. What makes this particular "gem" special?

Just as they pointed out how religion was a complete disaster.Religion is a disaster. An ongoing one.

You, like fervent Christians or fundamentalist Islamists are chained and completely conditioned by illusion.You see, it's this high-minded rhetoric that ticks me off. Rather than trying to argue your case, you engage in long-winded sermons about "conflict", "freedom" and other cloudy, ill-defined terms that could mean anything, and then have the temerity to call us "conditioned" (as if you aren't conditioned, which YOU ARE because you are human!) and "chained" by "illusion" - hey, if the universe is supposedly relative (GRRRR!) how can we tell the difference?

As Krishnamurti said to the Marxist: 'What you know is merely an- other form of prejudice, a different kind of conditioning. Your historical studies, or those of your leaders, are interpreted according to a particular background which determines your response; and this response you call the new approach, the new ideology. All response of thought is conditioned, and to bring about a revolution based on thought or idea is to perpetuate a modified form of what was. You are essentially reformers, and not real revolutionaries. Reformation and revolution based on idea are retrogressive factors in society.'He's criticising Marxists for being idealists?!

Cheeky bugger! :laugh:

You may ask me why I am quoting Krishnamurti, if I don't believe in following other people's ideas. An excellent question. I quote him because he is unique. He does not offer anything, just as the Buddha did not offer anything. They propose the dropping of illusion. In Krishnamurti's case conditioning, in Buddha's case suffering. They do not offer truth, they only offer ways to escape illusion. They are not doctrines. Thus they have great credibility and are truly radical. There is no actual theory. They cease to be theoretical or dogmatic. They cease to be ideas. They are anti-theoretical and anti-ideological. That is why they are unique.But since one cannot escape conditioning or suffering while remaining alive, the question is moot and such mystics can be safely ignored.

So, having established that Marxism or any other ism is no real revolution of anything as it merely perpetuates the same problem, being theoretical and of thought, itself product of conditioning and time, both illusions, what is the real solution? What is the real revolution?
It is difficult to write about, for words are the product of thought and like thought limited and illusory. But we can say that the real revolution, the arrival of true order, harmony and the end of suffering and a 'New Consciousness' and existence for man, can only arise when thought, which is limited and thus divisive, ceases to play a part in human identity and relations.Thought is inescapable. We need to think. What you are proposing is stupid - one cannot act by instinct alone.

Indeed, every single post you and I have made here required thought in some form. To banish thought is to banish what I value the most about the human species; sapience.

Not on my watch!

There must be no revolution which uses man as a means to an end as you all do. Freedom, that great goal, cannot be reached through any other means that freedom. Thus the means are the end and freedom is now and through an instant shift of consciousness.
Freedom is a thought. Why not banish freedom along with all other thoughts?

When you use man as a means to an end he becomes a tool. You cease to relate to him. And when there is using of other people, which is not true relationship, there is only violence and misery and suffering. As I said, we must radically redefine our relationship with others, and thus also with ourselves, one free of using, of ends and illusions. Krishnamurti called this 'making man into your furniture'. Do you really share a relationship with furniture? No of course not. It is possession, bound in with some illusory concept of identity created out of past and future and becoming and wanting which is time and which is an illusion. Thus, however noble or lofty the end, while we are still using man this way we will never achieve it. Man becomes dead, like furniture. And as Krishnamurti so lucidly writes: 'Relationship can exist only between the living, and usage is a process of isolation. It is this isolating process that breeds conflict, antagonism between man and man.'I do not seek to use people "like furniture". I seek primarily to reason with people.

Any so-called revolutionary state must understand this. It must not use men. Otherwise it will unwittingly perpetuate that which it opposed. The thesis and the antithesis and the synthesis thus remain in the thesis and there is no real progress.
What is real human relationship? It is communion. It is love. And there is no room for exploitation there. Yes. Marxism like all other isms which see others as a means to an end, however wondrous that end, are exploitative. Exploitation creates violence and fear and suffering. And what better testimony to this than the appalling death toll and hatred Marxism has incurred.Mistakes were made, and are to be regretted. Our task is to make sure we do not repeat history - and how can we do that if we dismiss the past as an illusion?

'The mind is not quiet when it is disciplined, controlled and checked; such a mind is a dead mind, it is isolating itself through various forms of resistance, and so it inevitably creates misery for itself and for others. The mind is quiet only when it is not caught in thought, which is the net of its own activity. When the mind is still, not made still, a true factor, love, comes into being.'
And this is what I refer to when I speak of the New Consciousness.

Peace and love to all.Maybe I'm just not "getting it". Maybe I've heard one too many god-racketeer and pseudophilosophising mystic use the word "love" as a cover for their fraud.

Whatever the case may be, I'm still not closer to understanding why this "New Consciousness" is worth giving a damn about; what's wrong with reason, critical thinking, the scientific method, realising that there is a universe outside one's own mind? These approaches demonstrably work. Why should I move on from a winning formula?

The New Consciousness

22nd January 2009, 14:35

Thank you for your response Noxion.

My main criticism with what you have written is your confusion about my views on time. You seem to think that I feel that pratical planning is useless. You seem to think I am opposed to intellectual ability:

Thought is inescapable. We need to think. What you are proposing is stupid - one cannot act by instinct alone.

Of course, thought is vital to our survival. What I am talking about is not so mundane as this. I am talking about thought as a generator of identity. I am talking about the past and the future as illusions of who we are.

The problem with mankind is that it identifies itself entirely with thoughts.

Now thoughts and the intellect are marvellous and what distinguish us from animals. The ability to build, to create, and so on - all marvellous gifts.

However, the problem of suffering arises when we cease to relate to other human beings. Thought is time bound and concerns itself, as I said, with ends. Now in the purely practical sense this is fine. I plan my day for tomorrow and thus when tomorrow comes I will do what I need to do efficiently and effectively. However when I imbue a sense of identity of my self or others in that thought process, I cease to love. Other human beings, and myself, become tools. Exploited. Chained. Unfree. I become no different from the practical tasks I attempt to act on. Thus I am not free.

Thus I become my thoughts. Thoughts are limited, so I become limited. Thoughts are divisive, so I become divisive. And thus I cease to relate to other human beings because I have isolated myself from them through time-bound thought.

Now, if man wants to escape from suffering and make a better society in which to live, he must redefine the way he relates to himself and others, for it is this crucial problem of relationships which results in slavery and suffering.

So time is fine. Thoughts are fine. They are marvellous in fact. But they are dangerous when imbued with identity and when they play a part in human relationships.

Can love be expressed by thoughts or words? Can you conceive of love? You can only feel it. If there are concepts and conditions attached to it then it ceases to be love. Then it is need. Wanting. Thus exploitative.

Thus man cannot advance unless he ceases to exploit himself and others. And this can only arise once he ceases to identify himself with thought, for thought is exploitative in relationships. Only then can human relationship truly develop. For there is no relationship otherwise and other people are merely 'furniture'.

Like I said, until this takes place, no revolution will achieve anything and the same age-old problems will exist.

Peace and love to all.

Kassad

22nd January 2009, 17:48

Simply put, a new consciousness is the ability to comprehend that one can reject society's morals, standards and stipulations. Once someone realizes that, they are more liberated than most others can possibly fathom. It is the rejection of the set conditioning that we are all raised to comprehend; that we are separate. Religious, political and monetary systems are established to keep social change, revolution and liberation from occuring. This 'new consciousness' goes hand in hand with the revolution that we advocate.

The New Consciousness

22nd January 2009, 21:02

Bud Struggle

22nd January 2009, 21:20

Let me take a stab at it! :)
Marx was deluded. His ideas were beautiful but the methods he espoused were completely wrong. Well right so far: lots of attempts--nothing to speak of in results.

All the great ideas Marx writes about: equality, communism, a brotherhood of man et cetera, none of these will be brought about by revolution. Well, no revolution has yet brought those ideals about.

While man remains in his current consciousness there will never be freedom and communism will never be seen on this planet. True--because the current consciousness isn't very Communistis, is it?

Communism as Marx wrote about it, has never been witnessed on this planet, and anyone who argues that it has is deluded. There's some stuff about the Paris Commune and some stuff in spain in the 1930's--but for the most part that's true.

Before we can even hope for anything resembling a truly communist system we must liberate our own minds. Pass the bong, dude!

Once mankind has cured his insanity, only then will he build societies in which the above mentioned noble ideals exist. Pass the hash pipe!

Man must change his very nature, his very consciousness.

Everything must change. The very definition of the self and of time. The crack pipe!

Morality, culture, religion, and ideology and all other intellectual constructs must be transcended. the LSD?

There is a way. The new way. The New Consciousness. Krishna?

Every single failure in mankind's history stems directly from the insanity of the current human consciousness. No it stems from the lack of realization of the fact that man is basicly evil, and that there's only a slim line of civilization that stops him from being the beast that's inside him.

Communism has never existed because the current consciousness cannot truly comprehend such a system. Well, in reality it can't. History has proven that.

We have never seen Communism, only Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism, et cetera. And these movements are no better than capitalism, while they are executed in the current consciousness. That's all there is to Communism--the rest is belly button gazing.

Before you don your beret, be honest with yourself. Are you really a Communist. Or are you just another isolated fragment of fear in a hostile world? :rolleyes:

If its the latter, please don't try and tell others how to live. This is pure insanity.
Just a boy and a Little girl
Trying to change the whole wide world
Isolation.

---

Before you delete my post, bear in mind that this is the closest you can get to true Communism.

If you delete me you are proving my point.

You made some good points here--other's are a bit delusional, but that's a label one could place on any post-Communism Communist. :)

Kassad

22nd January 2009, 22:30

Perhaps you do Kassad, but do the members of the Commie Club, whoever they are?

A great deal of hostility towards this post has been generated by them, and it is unsurprising. Any -ist is by his very nature hostile and divisive. This is what we must transcend, for all the reasons I have given.

Pure liberty has no labels. Freedom can only be achieved through freedom.

Once you have attained this freedom, then, I believe, and only then, can you go about a revolution.

Hey! I'm trying to get into that club! :D

We're always going to disagree on many methods, ideologies and the means of establishing revolutionary socialism, but I do agree with you on many points. I wish more people saw it that way.

The New Consciousness

22nd January 2009, 23:10

I wish more people saw it that way.

So do I, more than anything.

Bud Struggle

22nd January 2009, 23:55

Perhaps you do Kassad, but do the members of the Commie Club, whoever they are?

A great deal of hostility towards this post has been generated by them, and it is unsurprising. Any -ist is by his very nature hostile and divisive. This is what we must transcend, for all the reasons I have given.

The Commie Club are by their very existance Reactionary and Unrevolutionary--they should be overthown and a Democratic Soviet of all RevLefters be establisned.

There is no Communism without PERMANENT Revolution!

DOWN WITH THE OLD ORDER!!!!!:star2::hammersickle::star2:

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd January 2009, 00:28

Simply put, a new consciousness is the ability to comprehend that one can reject society's morals, standards and stipulations.

I've realised that for a long time. But that's not necessarily a good thing - sociopaths also reject society's morals, standards and stipulations as and when it suits them.

As for myself, my personal morals, standards and stipulations mostly overlap with the rest of society's, but there are of course differences. Just because one can reject all of society's standards doesn't mean one should.

Once someone realizes that, they are more liberated than most others can possibly fathom.How? One may choose to disregard society's morals regarding rape, but that does not prevent them from being arrested and sentenced.

Me, I'm too busy trying to raise other people's consciousness to preen myself for being "oh so smart and free and liberated etc".

It is the rejection of the set conditioning that we are all raised to comprehend; that we are separate.That's not what I was taught - I was taught that we are all individuals within a larger whole known as society.

Religious, political and monetary systems are established to keep social change, revolution and liberation from occuring.This is backwards. Such systems as you describe may have considerable inertia behind them, not least because some have a vested interest in maintaining them, but that is not the same as what you seem to be suggesting, which is that such systems were deliberately set up to hold us back. I'm sorry, but that's too far into kooky conspiracy theorist territory for my liking.

This 'new consciousness' goes hand in hand with the revolution that we advocate.It is true that people will "think differently" after a revolution, but it strikes me that such language serves to obscure rather than enlighten.

@ The New Consciousness:

You didn't answer a question which I particularly wanted you to answer: what's wrong with reason, critical thinking, the scientific method, realising that there is a universe outside one's own mind? These approaches demonstrably work. Why should I move on from a winning formula?

The New Consciousness

23rd January 2009, 00:42

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd January 2009, 00:58

what's wrong with reason, critical thinking, the scientific method, realising that there is a universe outside one's own mind? These approaches demonstrably work. Why should I move on from a winning formula?

I answered, you obviously missed it. Here it is again in condensed form:

There is nothing wrong with reason, critical thinking, the scientific method and the intellect as long as we DON'T IMBUE A SENSE OF IDENTITY IN IT.

You have basically summed up the problem. The universe IS outside one's own mind. The mind is isolation. If we imbue a sense of identity with that then WE are isolated.

I consider those things to be the most precious intellectual resources the species has. Is that "imbueing a sense of identity" in them? If it is, I must say I feel far from isolated. I feel no kinship towards magical thinking, religious beliefs or mystical modes of thought - but I am far from the only one who speaks the language of reason, I am not the only critical thinker in the world, and in that fact I can rejoice, because such things are not aberrations, they are potentials within the vast majority of the human species.

If WE are isolated then we cease to relate to each other and without proper RELATION BETWEEN HUMANS, there is exploitation and suffering.

Ok?Exploitation and suffering occurs for various reasons; exploitation can occur because someone sees it to be in their own self-interest to exploit others - our task then is to change the conditions so that it is no longer in their self-interest to exploit people, if we can't get them to stop in the first place.

Suffering can occur through malevolence, apathy, as well as sheer dumb luck - it isn't the fact that people "dont relate to each other" that causes monsoons to be too heavy and cause flooding and deaths.

I can't help but feel that you think that antagonistic relationships are not really "relationships" at all. This is simply untrue.

Kassad

23rd January 2009, 14:48

NoXion, I didn't say that every member of society should reject the morals and standards of the system. What I am saying is that liberation comes from the realization that the system we partake in is flawed. That's the first monumental thing that crosses people's minds when they join our movement, is it not? With the realization that the system does not properly sustain society, the economy and humanity. I am not saying that the standards of respect and courtesy should be rejected, but it is a fundamental quest of humans to discover the flaws in society and their political systems. I am saying that the bourgeoisie standards that have been established should be destroyed, but it is the realization that they can be destroyed that alters the mindset of humanity.

People can choose to reject whatever morals they wish. Of course, there are standards that maintain humanity, such as the criminalization of rape, murder and theft. I don't expect to see the day where we all agree and are pleased with our morals, but it is a never-ending journey towards creating an ideal society that we continue to strive towards establishing standards that benefit everyone. I believe class consciousness and this 'new' consciousness are intertwined. As a person realizes that the system fails, they achieve a level of consciousness that many people will never establish.

Everyone's taught differently, but as a person that grew up in a conservative, Christian environment, I was conditioned to believe that individuality brings success. I learned from an early age the contradictions of Christianity and theology. The conservative ideology that surrounded me consistently pumped into me that "poor people are alcoholics and addicts and you should never help them" or "if a person can't find a job, it's his fault." Divisive barriers were created every day around me as persistent racism, prejudice and exclusion were everywhere. That's why many Americans fear outsiders. That's why many fear radical change. They were condititioned to embrace society's standards.

Your notion that the monetary, social and religious institutions doesn't hold us back strikes me as very odd. These systems were created and are currently dominated by the bourgeoisie. Religion is a system that uses fear and formulates the ideas of malleable children and adults to fear their all-powerful deity. They are taught that they must blindly submit to the will of an unseen deity who will forever torture them if they choose to reject his word. The monetary system allows for the oligarchy to manipulate society and continue to formulate the corporate globalization schemes in the world, such as through NAFTA, WTO, IMF and the Federal Reserve, which is run by bankers who have little regard for anything besides their wealth. Everything in society is condititioned to keep the dormant consciousness from awakening and liberating the masses.

The New Consciousness

23rd January 2009, 18:31

I consider those things to be the most precious intellectual resources the species has.

So do I.

Is that "imbueing a sense of identity" in them?

No it's not.

If it is, I must say I feel far from isolated. I feel no kinship towards magical thinking, religious beliefs or mystical modes of thought - but I am far from the only one who speaks the language of reason, I am not the only critical thinker in the world, and in that fact I can rejoice, because such things are not aberrations, they are potentials within the vast majority of the human species.

Of course and I agree, they are marvellous, have I not said this plenty of times?

Exploitation and suffering occurs for various reasons; exploitation can occur because someone sees it to be in their own self-interest to exploit others - our task then is to change the conditions so that it is no longer in their self-interest to exploit people, if we can't get them to stop in the first place.

Self-interest is time bound. It is the obsession with 'becoming'. It is rooted in the future which is an illusion. It is what distances us from reality. It makes us use ourselves and others and our own lives as a means to an end, when all that exists is the means: the now. Only in the Now can we truly relate to one another. Otherwise we are exploiting each other for illusory gains.

Suffering can occur through malevolence, apathy,

Bandying around terms like these is superficial and does not lead us to the solution. This is what I mean by the snare of concepts. You have just made a huge generalization without fully understanding the origins. You are labelling instead of enquiring. Hallmark of the current consciousness.

People behave 'malevolently' for a reason. Let's get to the reason, if we are at all serious about this. Why would I want to wish suffering on someone else? Because perhaps in the past they inflicted it on me? So I have constructed an identity for myself out of a past incident which doesn't exist and now am prepared to repeat the same pointless cycle. It is all to do with time-bound illusions of self. He or she did something unpleasant to you, but ironically it was YOU who made it unpleasant. You are the guilty one. Your identity craves such drama, it feeds on the illusions of past experiences, be they painful or pleasant, and the anticipation of future ones. I am this, I am that, because of this, because of that. I am no longer free. I am a slave to my circumstances and what happens to me.

'Apathy' is an equally vague term. Why are people apathetic in the first place? Where does this lack of interest in life stem from? Often it is the result of a sense of absurdity or futility in ones existence. Thus a man says to himself despairingly: the circumstances under which I live are such that I will never be free. So instead of trying to find a way out I will be apathetic, I will make no effort. I will become cynical and depressed. More suffering. Once again it is the imbuing of identity in illusory time and circumstance that creates suffering. And this is done through thought and thought alone.

So to end suffering? We must cease to identify ourselves with thought. Afterall what is thought? Is it who you are? I am aware of my body thus I can't BE my body. Equally I am aware of my emotions, thus I can't BE my emotions. I am also aware of my thought, thus I can't BE my thought. So what am I really?

In the simplest of terms I am a space of consciousness in which the universe unfolds. And in that simplicity there resides great creative potential, and most importantly love. For love is not judgmental. Love is not hostile and isolated. Love does not need or want. You see my point?

as well as sheer dumb luck -

Please elaborate.

it isn't the fact that people "dont relate to each other" that causes monsoons to be too heavy and cause flooding and deaths.

Of course not! But this is a quite different form of suffering to the one I refer to. Man's basic problem is not the weather. It is his relationship with other men. We can overcome practical hurdles like that by employing our intellect. But can we overcome the problem of sharing this planet? That is an entirely different matter. And it is of that which I write.

I can't help but feel that you think that antagonistic relationships are not really "relationships" at all. This is simply untrue.

You may call them relationships but are you really relating to the person before you if you are constantly constructing an illusory image out of all those time-bound fantasies of past and future? No. You are relating to a phantom and you have forgotten the person before you.

Revolutionary Youth

25th January 2009, 15:57

Congratulations! You've just hit my personal BERSERK BUTTON (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BerserkButton)

uh oh! o.O
http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=195&pictureid=1260

The New Consciousness

25th January 2009, 17:16

The universe is relative as Einstein has shown.

I apologise for that pointless rhetorical touch, ignore it. I know nothing of Einstein. Anything I do know is probably ridiculously simplified.

What I was referring to was the isolation of the conditioned mind and the 'relativity' thus engendered by that isolation, rendering absurd all concepts of 'absolutes'.

By the way, in case you didn't know I have responded to your last post Noxion.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

25th January 2009, 23:47

Self-interest is time bound. It is the obsession with 'becoming'. It is rooted in the future which is an illusion. It is what distances us from reality. It makes us use ourselves and others and our own lives as a means to an end, when all that exists is the means: the now. Only in the Now can we truly relate to one another. Otherwise we are exploiting each other for illusory gains.

Self-interest is not the same thing as selfishness. Under certain circumstances one may consider it in their self-interest to sacrifice themselves for others, whether that is because of love, nationalism, religion, or any other cause or motivation that is percieved as worth sacrificing one's existance for. One may percieve it in their self-interest to be kind and generous to others. There is nothing wrong with this.

I fundamentally disagree with you that there is just "the now" - if that were true, then all plans and objectives would be fruitless and in vain. Obviously they are not. This is because we can actually predict the future in small and limited ways - rocket scientists send out probes and rovers to other worlds predict the future motion of those worlds all the time, with enough accuracy to have probes successfully fly by places and land on targeted worlds. And that's just ONE example.

Conversely, events in the past DO effect things in the present and the future. We must take this into account, therefore we must be mindful of the past. We must recognise it has an effect, even if it doesn't have some sort of tangible existance.

Basically, causality means that simply "living in the now" reduces us to the level of animals. Actually no, not animals, since some of them can remember faces and people who have been kind/cruel to them. It would reduce us to the level of non-social insects.

Bandying around terms like these is superficial and does not lead us to the solution. This is what I mean by the snare of concepts. You have just made a huge generalization without fully understanding the origins. You are labelling instead of enquiring. Hallmark of the current consciousness.My aim was not to find a solution to problem of suffering, but was an attempt to classify the various general sources of it. Scientists do this sort of thing all the time with life on Earth, astronomical bodies, meteorological events, and all sorts of other stuff. Classification systems actually aid scientific investigation, rather than hampering it. Occasionally the classification system has to be revised or thrown out completely and replaced with a new one, but that shows that the scientific method works.

People behave 'malevolently' for a reason. Let's get to the reason, if we are at all serious about this. Why would I want to wish suffering on someone else? Because perhaps in the past they inflicted it on me? So I have constructed an identity for myself out of a past incident which doesn't exist and now am prepared to repeat the same pointless cycle.Stop right there. Just because something is in the past does not mean it doesn't effect you now in the present. Suppose they had amputated on of your limbs? Gouged out one of your eyes? Burnt down your house, killed one of your loved ones? It is only natural to feel enmity towards someone who has genuinely hurt you and caused you suffering. I personally would hold nothing against you if you decided to have your (in my opinion) well-deserved vengeance and kill that person.

Of course, that's an extreme example. Some past transgressions against your person may be worth forgiving, if you can trust the other person not to do something similar again in the future.

And of course, in between forgiveness and personal vengeance there is a third option - throw the book at them. Sue them, press charges, whatever, and let the justice system (such as it is) do what it was designed to do.

There is no cycle because you have either forgiven them, got them tossed in the slammer, buried them, or any of a myriad other ways of settling disputes and grievances.

Believe it or not, but most people are not actually engaged in a blood feud with some other party.

It is all to do with time-bound illusions of self. He or she did something unpleasant to you, but ironically it was YOU who made it unpleasant. You are the guilty one. Your identity craves such drama, it feeds on the illusions of past experiences, be they painful or pleasant, and the anticipation of future ones. I am this, I am that, because of this, because of that. I am no longer free. I am a slave to my circumstances and what happens to me.That is blaming the victim, and that is complete and utter fucking bullshit!

'Apathy' is an equally vague term. Why are people apathetic in the first place? Where does this lack of interest in life stem from? Often it is the result of a sense of absurdity or futility in ones existence. Thus a man says to himself despairingly: the circumstances under which I live are such that I will never be free. So instead of trying to find a way out I will be apathetic, I will make no effort. I will become cynical and depressed. More suffering. Once again it is the imbuing of identity in illusory time and circumstance that creates suffering. And this is done through thought and thought alone.Believe me, apathy is easy. It doesn't require any thinking to not have an opinion of something, because it's not thinking. You are putting way too much thought into the apathetic mindset - in fact, you are simply twisting it to fit your preconcieved notion that identity causes suffering or whatever.

Basically, apathy is the response: "It's not good for me or bad for me; why should I care?"

So to end suffering? We must cease to identify ourselves with thought. Afterall what is thought? Is it who you are? I am aware of my body thus I can't BE my body. Equally I am aware of my emotions, thus I can't BE my emotions. I am also aware of my thought, thus I can't BE my thought. So what am I really?

In the simplest of terms I am a space of consciousness in which the universe unfolds. And in that simplicity there resides great creative potential, and most importantly love. For love is not judgmental. Love is not hostile and isolated. Love does not need or want. You see my point?No I don't. The self is an illusion created by a confluence of biophysical phenomena, hence it is not some static, unchanging quality - it is a constantly unwinding orchestra of physiological rhythms.

What do you mean when you say "space"? Is it an actual, physical space located somewhere in the universe (in which case how can the universe "unfold" within it?), or is it a conceptual space of some kind, like Misner space? In that case, what are it's properties? Can you describe it in an equation? If not, why not? What is the topology of this space? How does consciousness generate this space? What is the nature of this "unfolding of the universe" of which you speak?

Finally, how does this relate to creativity and love? Denial of the self is just as compatible with being an ice-cold killer - see the concept of Mushin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushin).

Please elaborate.I'm cycling along a road one night, when this drunk fellow, quite obliviously in his state, wanders into my path and I end up colliding with him. He suffers bruises and a couple of broken ribs. I become paralysed from the neck down, and I suffer a worse quality of life as a result. Of course, I could have been the one with the broken ribs and bruises, and the drunk person is the one who gets their neck broken. Or we could both come out of it with little more than scratching and bruising, or both become paralysed. Sometimes the universe simply shits upon you from a great height.

Of course, there are things one can do to improve one's chances, but you're never 100% safe from the vagaries of chance. Most of the time it's not worth worrying about, but it still happens.

Of course not! But this is a quite different form of suffering to the one I refer to. Man's basic problem is not the weather. It is his relationship with other men. We can overcome practical hurdles like that by employing our intellect. But can we overcome the problem of sharing this planet? That is an entirely different matter. And it is of that which I write.That remains to be seen, in my opinion. What do you hope to achieve?

You may call them relationships but are you really relating to the person before you if you are constantly constructing an illusory image out of all those time-bound fantasies of past and future? No. You are relating to a phantom and you have forgotten the person before you.I disagree. Sometimes the person in question may regret their past actions against you, in which case it is a worthless endeavour to continue in enmity. But other times they are unrepentant or maybe even proud of what they did, even if they hurt you immensely. They may simply scoff if you attempt to forgive them. In that case, I think the perpetrator deserves everything they get.

The mindset which you seem to be proposing sounds exactly like the sort of naive person who is easily taken advantage of (unconditional love to all? that's like opening a can of tuna in a pirhana tank) and who refuses to lift a finger in anger, even in their own defence.

The New Consciousness

26th January 2009, 20:57

Thank you for your incisive, critical reply NoXion.

Self-interest is not the same thing as selfishness.

I agree absolutely. Self-interest is deluded selfishness. Quite different. But both equally stupid. Unless of course it is practical self interest, like obtaining food and shelter and protection. That's fine and does not create suffering does it? It's purely practical.

Selflessness is what we want. And this does not imply denying self-interest and selfishness. True selflessness is simply not possessing an identity. It is the most expansive mental state because it is limitless. It is not restrained by one person. It is open-minded and accepting and non-judging. This is enlightenment.

Under certain circumstances one may consider it in their self-interest to sacrifice themselves for others, whether that is because of love, nationalism, religion, or any other cause or motivation that is percieved as worth sacrificing one's existance for.

How is it self-interest? I don't see it. I think you're using the wrong term.

One may percieve it in their self-interest to be kind and generous to others. There is nothing wrong with this.

This is a lot wrong with this in my opinion. If you are being kind and generous to others for your own gratification then you're a liar. You are not actually concerned with them are you? They are there just to provide you with satisfaction. If there is a sense of self or self-interest imbued in it, it will inevitably be unauthentic. True love has nothing to do with the self. Love is spontaneous and in love is compassion and true kindness and generosity. There is no petty self-interest in that. Compassion cannot be rationed out to serve some illusory, future purpose of self-interest or satisfaction.

I fundamentally disagree with you that there is just "the now" - if that were true, then all plans and objectives would be fruitless and in vain. Obviously they are not. This is because we can actually predict the future in small and limited ways - rocket scientists send out probes and rovers to other worlds predict the future motion of those worlds all the time, with enough accuracy to have probes successfully fly by places and land on targeted worlds. And that's just ONE example.

If we want to escape unnecessary human suffering we have to get rid of psychological time. This is when we imbue a sense of self in the past or the future. Practical time, that is, purely logical, intellectual time, like the time you speak of, is not conducive to suffering.

Conversely, events in the past DO effect things in the present and the future. We must take this into account, therefore we must be mindful of the past. We must recognise it has an effect, even if it doesn't have some sort of tangible existance.

Of course they do. This is obvious. But we are taking about the human problem: suffering. Can we not die to the past and the future? Can we not live in the now without resistance. Without infernal judgment and comparison and labelling? Without division and isolation? This is the question I ask. And I believe we can. The way to achieving this is the dropping of time as a determinant in the self and relationships.

Basically, causality means that simply "living in the now" reduces us to the level of animals. Actually no, not animals, since some of them can remember faces and people who have been kind/cruel to them. It would reduce us to the level of non-social insects.

We are social animals. Love brings us together. All humans, in the depths of their being, seek communion with one another. True communion can only exist when we seek to isolate ourselves from others through thought. Then we are not relating. We are relating to illusions.

Surely the highest, purest social act is communion? There is no conflict in communion. There is a coming together. That is love.

My aim was not to find a solution to problem of suffering, but was an attempt to classify the various general sources of it.

Of course and an excellent point to start from.

The source of man's misery can only be his isolation from other humans and the world around him. If you look at all aspects of psychological suffering they stem from this problem of the fragment, as I have shown.
Physical suffering, like hunger, is an entirely different matter. If you're hungry, you go and find something to eat. Then it's over.
But if you are resentful towards someone, why is it so hard to solve? Why does it entail so much more time and energy and suffering? Because it is another human being. Thus it must be a problem of relationship. Right?
Now why are relationships dysfunctional? Surely because there is a lack of understanding. A lack of communion. This stems from isolation.
Isolation arises through thought, for thought gives us fragmented, illusory time-bound identities.

Scientists do this sort of thing all the time with life on Earth, astronomical bodies, meteorological events, and all sorts of other stuff. Classification systems actually aid scientific investigation, rather than hampering it. Occasionally the classification system has to be revised or thrown out completely and replaced with a new one, but that shows that the scientific method works.

Has science made any progress in curing psychological suffering? Has science managed to solve the human problem?
Science is the understanding of the physical world. It is fascinating and the discoveries we humans have made are astonishing and intriguing.
But does it solve our problem of co-existence? Our dysfunctional relationships with others and ourselves? No.

Stop right there. Just because something is in the past does not mean it doesn't effect you now in the present. Suppose they had amputated on of your limbs? Gouged out one of your eyes? Burnt down your house, killed one of your loved ones? It is only natural to feel enmity towards someone who has genuinely hurt you and caused you suffering. I personally would hold nothing against you if you decided to have your (in my opinion) well-deserved vengeance and kill that person.

It is true, violence feeds on itself. That is why we have vengeance. It takes a strong man indeed to transcend vengeance. But where does violence and vengeance come from in the first place? To continue with your example, why did they do such atrocious things in the first place? Would it not be better to enquire into the sources of their brutality? Was it perhaps due to religion? Or ideology (like communism, or fascism)? Was it to do with nationalism? Or was it just pure malice? All of these are just examples of the basic human problem of isolation and division. You see the insanity of it.
What is the point of vengeance? What progress comes out of vengeance? Practically speaking, if these people then decide to do this to half-a-dozen other people, it would be advisable to halt their insanity. But this wouldn't be vengeance. This would be practical. You see being vengeful does not solve the problem, it merely perpetuates the same disease.

An apposite example of this is the clan killings of the Viking peoples. One man would kill another man's son in a brawl. That man would then kill that man. That man was someone else's son. And thus it goes on until there is annihilation. This is clearly not the way.

There is no cycle because you have either forgiven them, got them tossed in the slammer, buried them, or any of a myriad other ways of settling disputes and grievances.

Sometimes, as you say, the person is sufficiently mature for there to be no need for a pointless, degenerative cycle. But in the case of vengeance (presumably 'buried them') this will not achieve anything, unless you are carrying out a purely practical purpose, in which case it is advisable, depending on where you live of course, to leave it to the law system. Once again we have the vital distinction between 'egoic' i.e. insane behaviour and purely practical behaviour.

That is blaming the victim, and that is complete and utter fucking bullshit!

In many cases we victimise ourselves for the sake of our own sense of self. The time-bound identity feeds on drama. It is virtually impossible for it to act in a purely practical sense. If someone insults you, why should you absorb that into yourself? The fragmented mind does this. As it is constantly isolated and comparative an insult can lead to a severe crisis. If something happens to you and you are the victim of an attack, why should you be a victim for the rest of your life?

What is the nature of this "unfolding of the universe" of which you speak?

If we are to define ourselves in the simplest possible terms, surely this would be the definition. I experience the universe. I am a space of consciousness in which the universe experiences itself if you will. This can only be felt through immense awareness what is often referred to as meditation.

I'm cycling along a road one night, when this drunk fellow, quite obliviously in his state, wanders into my path and I end up colliding with him. He suffers bruises and a couple of broken ribs. I become paralysed from the neck down, and I suffer a worse quality of life as a result. Of course, I could have been the one with the broken ribs and bruises, and the drunk person is the one who gets their neck broken. Or we could both come out of it with little more than scratching and bruising, or both become paralysed. Sometimes the universe simply shits upon you from a great height.

Of course, there are things one can do to improve one's chances, but you're never 100% safe from the vagaries of chance. Most of the time it's not worth worrying about, but it still happens.

Of course, we live in a chaotic universe. In this extreme example naturally the individual will suffer. To not be able to move and feel things must be a terrible thing to suffer.
But we can always minimise whatever suffering we have by dropping thought and not resisting to what is through the entertaining of time-bound illusions of self, comparison and judgment.

That remains to be seen, in my opinion. What do you hope to achieve?

I ardently desire to see a world where man is not shackled by the pointless burdens of the egoic, time-bound, insane consciousness. A world where injustice, slavery and inequality cease to exist. This can only achieved when people start questioning things more rigorously, starting with themselves. We must endeavour to understand fully our own nature. But not through thought. Thought cannot release us from suffering. It is my fundamental belief that we need to separate thought from the sense of self and human relationships.

But other times they are unrepentant or maybe even proud of what they did, even if they hurt you immensely. They may simply scoff if you attempt to forgive them. In that case, I think the perpetrator deserves everything they get.

When you forgive why do you need to go and tell them? You can forgive them in yourself and get on with your life. But avenging your past suffering, what will that solve? Once again we come to the concept of vengeance. What does vengeance achieve? It has never achieved anything and it never will.
Drop the past suffering. And if you can prevent yourself from suffering more. That starts with a vigorous enquiry into your nature (on the psychological level) and practical steps (on the physical level). Why do you need to be a victim all your life? Revenge is what victims do.

The mindset which you seem to be proposing sounds exactly like the sort of naive person who is easily taken advantage of (unconditional love to all? that's like opening a can of tuna in a pirhana tank) and who refuses to lift a finger in anger, even in their own defence.

I am not advocating such a passive existence. One can take practical steps to protect oneself from harm and suffering. Indeed it is purely logical to do so.

But to make a victim out of yourself and carry it around with you, isolating you and brutalising you is completely pointless. Don't you see?

What we are essentially talking about is mature human behaviour. Vengeance does not fall under that category.

In order to reach maturity as human beings we have to stop day-dreaming. We need to drop all these time-bound illusory notions of the self and others. We need to drop all this convoluted nonsense.

Mankind, in simple terms, just needs to grow up. The New Consciousness, or whatever you want to call it, is man's adulthood.

Revolutionary Youth

28th January 2009, 09:41

We're always going to disagree on many methods, ideologies and the means of establishing revolutionary socialism, but I do agree with you on many points. I wish more people saw it that way.

I do, indeed, agree with him on some points. And I agree with him that, in the rapid advancing impetus of the world and technologies, we need to change to way of our thinking, our consciousness. But the fact that, bringing spiritual methods into this renovation, I strongly disagree. We can not come into our new consciousness, simply by meditation and then, become transcendental beings. His assurance in the stillness of mind is unacceptable, since everything moves, your thoughts can not be stopped, simply because when you stop thinking, then you are dead, or, to put it on a higher level, your thoughts are also composed from atoms, protons, and electrons, but those e and p are made from even smaller things, called quark and they spin*. In other words, everything in this world lose a portion of their properties every passing second. He also once said that this involves no concept, then he is wrong, we are bound to this world by concepts and theories, we define everything around us by concepts and theories, and they are never be 100% true, as such take Einstein as an example, he once said that light possesses the fastest speed of all, but now our scientists have discovered that, there are actually things out there that are even faster than light. This "new consciousness" of his itself is a theory and a concept, as such he has to borrow ideas from J.Krishnamurti. And even if he tries to escape himself and called himself an anarchic entity, that is impossible, everything in this world intertwine with each other and you are still bound to morality, the idea to be free and not to bound to each other.

In order to free himself man must escape time. Past and future do not exist, only the now exists. Time is an illusion. @New Consciousness:Time is bound to space to create space-time, and that means that past and future do exist. Perhaps you should read "A brief history of time" of Stephen Hawking to get a clearer idea about this.

Your idea is very impressive, but if you intend to do that this way, too idealistic, like Gorbachev once did to CCCP, then this is going to be an epic failure.

*Correct me if I'm wrong since I haven't fully understand this whole concept.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

28th January 2009, 09:51

@New Consciousness:Time is bound to space to create space-time, and that means that past and future do exist. Perhaps you should read "A brief history of time" of Stephen Hawking to get a clearer idea about this.

Your idea is very impressive, but if you intend to do that this way, too idealistic, like Gorbachev once did to CCCP, then this is going to be an epic failure.

*Correct me if I'm wrong since I haven't fully understand this whole concept.

Fuck me, I'm an idiot. Why didn't I think of this before?

Mind you, the existance of causality (which I did bring up) is also proof of the existance of past and future.

Revolutionary Youth

28th January 2009, 10:03

Fuck me, I'm an idiot. Why didn't I think of this before?

Mind you, the existance of causality (which I did bring up) is also proof of the existance of past and future.
I also wanted to use causality, but saw that you came to it first, so I changed my way of approaching.

The New Consciousness

28th January 2009, 13:57

Thanks for the posts guys.

On the topic of causality, it is of course an undeniable fact. I am not denying past and future.

I am saying that in order for human beings to be free from suffering they must cease to construct their identities out of past and future.

We all live with a picture of ourselves in our head, based on past experiences and a picture also of what we will become, in the future. We also live with pictures of others based on our past transactions with them and also pictures of what our future transactions will be.

All of these pictures are illusory. They are false mirrors. They deceive us. They, and they alone, are the causes of psychological suffering.

Don't take my word for it. Think of a time when you suffered (psychologically) and I guarantee it is related to this problem of the distorted self or the 'ego', if you will.

Thus in order for humans to live without suffering, in themselves and in human relationships, we need to shatter the 'mirror' of illusion - this time-bound fantasy of who we or others are.

This is the road to real open-mindedness, for without a 'mirror' as a point of reference there can be no judgment, no comparison, thus no prejudice.

In real open-mindedness there is freedom. There is maturity. Then we able to commune with others and truly love.

No external changes can do this. If you are tied to external changes you will never be free, no matter how positive they are. You must free yourself. And in order to free yourself you have to understand what is enslaving you. The root of human slavery and suffering is this core fundamental problem of seeing ourselves and others. It is this key inability to relate properly to things. We are disfunctional beings. Our disfunctionality arises out of our misinterpretation of ourselves and others, through an over-dependence on time-bound thought, in which we imbue our identity. Thought is limited thus thought is divisive thus thought is conflict. Conflict is suffering. In order to end this thought must cease to play a factor in our self-definition or identity and of course in our relationships with others.

Thought, otherwise, is perfectly fine and a remarkable tool. But thought is poison when we fuse it with 'me' or 'him or her'.

Thus thought is not the problem. We cannot simply turn off thought. Thought is who we are. Thought is not the problem. It is when we use thought to conceptualise identities for ourselves and others.

A thought-created identity is isolated and thus by its nature divisive and hostile. And from there arises exploitation and violence. And that is suffering.

Revolutionary Youth

28th January 2009, 14:36

This is the road to real open-mindedness, for without a 'mirror' as a point of reference there can be no judgment, no comparison, thus no prejudice.But after all, you are still bound to one thing: morality. What will you take as a measurement for your thoughts and actions?

We all live with a picture of ourselves in our head, based on past experiences and a picture also of what we will become, in the future.We also live with pictures of others based on our past transactions with them and also pictures of what our future transactions will be.
Thus in order for humans to live without suffering, in themselves and in human relationships, we need to shatter the 'mirror' of illusion - this time-bound fantasy of who we or others are.Very much space-time indeed, and that is unavoidable, unfortunately. There is, in fact, a figure of you in the "Future light cone" and "Past light cone", according to your present position. In other words, what you did in the past, will follow you to the present and future. You cannot escape it. This is what we are, everysingle being in this world contribute to the future light cone and always cross path with each other. You can not escape your image in the future, as well as the images of others, even if you don't want to have impact with them, you are still passively being affected by them, physically and psychologically.

http://www.natalcharts.biz/astrology_images/spacetime.jpg

All of these pictures are illusory. They are false mirrors. They deceive us. They, and they alone, are the causes of psychological suffering.As I explained above, those are not illusory. But of course, no one's gonna know what's going to happen next, we have not yet figured out a formula. Psychological or physical, they are all the same, since they all are made from matters. And in the case of matters, then they are still bound to space-time.

If you are tied to external changes you will never be free, no matter how positive they are. You must free yourself. And in order to free yourself you have to understand what is enslaving you.But we are effected by external changes. Even if we know what is enslaving us, what changes can be made? Or as you proposed:

In order to end this thought must cease to play a factor in our self-definition or identity and of course in our relationships with others.So your suggestion is that we must synchronize with all others and forget about our own self? Okay, this has gone too far. And this has become some kind of religion.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

28th January 2009, 14:41

Thanks for the posts guys.

On the topic of causality, it is of course an undeniable fact. I am not denying past and future.

I am saying that in order for human beings to be free from suffering they must cease to construct their identities out of past and future.

We all live with a picture of ourselves in our head, based on past experiences and a picture also of what we will become, in the future. We also live with pictures of others based on our past transactions with them and also pictures of what our future transactions will be.

All of these pictures are illusory. They are false mirrors. They deceive us. They, and they alone, are the causes of psychological suffering.

You're wrong, and here's an illustration why:

Who do I trust more, the person who I know from personal experience keeps his word and does no harm to others unless they harm him first?

OR

The person who I know, also from personal experience, to be a lying, decieving waste of skin who takes pleasure out of hurting and bullying others?

Of course, I put my trust in the decent fellow and have as little to do with the other bloke as possible. But the fact remains that there are assholes in the world, and I have no reason whatsoever to believe that will ever change.

You posit that your "new consciousness" will be able to do away with that sort of thing, but you have provided precisely ZERO evidence.

From what I can tell, humans are just too diverse and flawed, mentally speaking, to achieve universally the way of thinking that you propose. It's one thing to have a decent education system that teaches and promotes rational and critical thinking, but it's quite another to propose destroying the ego for all time.

Having an ego, an identity, is part of what makes us human. So until we can change who we are, until we can redefine "human" in a meaningfully material way (genetic alteration, mind uploading and reprogramming and what-have-you) "The New Consciousness" as I understand it will never take root, for the simple fact that it is not a human consciousness.

ckaihatsu

28th January 2009, 14:44

An thought-created identity is isolated and thus by its nature divisive and hostile. And from there arises exploitation and violence. And that is suffering.

At the risk of going crazy by indulging this continuing pap I'm going to go ahead and respond here because to *not* intervene would actually be crazier.

There is *nothing* wrong with having an identity. Let me repeat that: There is *nothing* wrong with having an identity.

This is not to say that forming an identity of one's own choosing and keeping it exactly to the outlines of one's own choosing is _easy_ as one makes one's way through the world, but it is certainly worth doing. Another way of putting this is simply to say that *life* (in an oppressive, exploitative capitalist society) is not always easy.

Marxists explicitly know that we engage in political struggle under conditions that are not of our choosing. The statement itself is practically redundant in meaning, since 'struggle' *implies* an environment of adversity.

Individualism, or liberation of one's own self -- if that has any significance to the reader -- *requires* the activity of self-reflection, if only so that we can separate ourselves at some point from the social world around us, to correspond to our separate physical brains and separate physical existence through space.

There's a saying that character is what you stand for, while reputation is what you fall for. This goes a long way to define the parameters of what identity is, especially in a real-world, social context.

I was watching Bill Maher's "Religulous" and one part of it got me thinking -- *plenty* of people, *especially* religious types, are essentially cultural roadkill. Instead of dealing with the actual multicultural social / political / economic world that we live in they stop at the kindergarten cardboard-fort level of identity and refuse to test themselves further. By keeping things conveniently simplistic they ignore entire continents of issues thereby limiting their identity to little more than that of a glorified goldfish.

On this following scale of social magnitudes we can mark off exactly where these religious types stop -- arguably a step above nationalism.

History, Macro-Micro

http://tinyurl.com/2dafgr

An thought-created identity is isolated and thus by its nature divisive and hostile. And from there arises exploitation and violence. And that is suffering.

It is * absolutely irresponsible * to say that exploitation, violence, and suffering grow out of one's "thought-created identity". Forging one's identity -- always a work-in-progress, anyway -- may require one to exploit, be violent, and cause suffering -- if inadvertently -- but that *does not* mean that *everyone's* identity requires this. And, as usual, this bullshit mysticism is myopic and does not focus on the culpability of the capitalism-driven exploitation, violence, and suffering-causing characteristics that we all must live in.

If all of this isn't enough to snap the reader back to reality, just consider the alternative, which is unthinkable: Not thinking. Not thinking will most certainly put you on the fast track to a cult group of some type, because you don't *have* to think for yourself when you're just following the herd.

And, of course, the biggest cult there is is the mainstream, so one should think their way out of those rapids first since it only carries one over the falls.

Kassad

28th January 2009, 14:54

I do, indeed, agree with him on some points. And I agree with him that, in the rapid advancing impetus of the world and technologies, we need to change to way of our thinking, our consciousness. But the fact that, bringing spiritual methods into this renovation, I strongly disagree. We can not come into our new consciousness, simply by meditation and then, become transcendental beings. His assurance in the stillness of mind is unacceptable, since everything moves, your thoughts can not be stopped, simply because when you stop thinking, then you are dead, or, to put it on a higher level, your thoughts are also composed from atoms, protons, and electrons, but those e and p are made from even smaller things, called quark and they spin*. In other words, everything in this world lose a portion of their properties every passing second. He also once said that this involves no concept, then he is wrong, we are bound to this world by concepts and theories, we define everything around us by concepts and theories, and they are never be 100% true, as such take Einstein as an example, he once said that light possesses the fastest speed of all, but now our scientists have discovered that, there are actually things out there that are even faster than light. This "new consciousness" of his itself is a theory and a concept, as such he has to borrow ideas from J.Krishnamurti. And even if he tries to escape himself and called himself an anarchic entity, that is impossible, everything in this world intertwine with each other and you are still bound to morality, the idea to be free and not to bound to each other.

Well, let's look at this a different way. The Native Americans, who occupied a significant portion of the present-day United States and Canada, were 'religious', in a sense. They worshipped what is now refered to as 'The Great Spirit', or something along those lines. The Great Spirit was not a separate deity. It was the omnipresent spirit of the Earth that surrounded us all. The Native Americans did not see themselves as separate from this deity. They saw themselves as one with the Great Spirit and they saw themselves as linked; united together with the Earth's resources.

The entire concept of modern religion, specifically the Abrahamic religions, has been to tear the deity from the person, figuratively, of course. Christianity, Islam, Judaism and all the other religious ideologies that see a deity as something to be feared and revered are behind the fraud of the age. They have constructed a society, hand in hand with the political institutions of the world, to put road blocks between the unity with 'god' and the separation from God that we see in modern religion. The entire concept of a significant amount of human condititioning is to convince people that they are separate from God and that we must praise him and sacrifice human desires in his name. Religion in its very nature is an attack on human responsibility, because it places human responsibility in the hands of God and says that he controls all things, and in turn, horrible crimes can be justified in the name of the divine pursuit.

I don't believe in God, gods, spirits or anything like what. What I believe is that we are one with 'god' and that he loves us. We are not separate in any way from a deity because we are all a part of human evolution, experience and love. There is no separation. Experiencing oneness with the world, its resources and eachother is a new form of consciousness. It is. It is a completely new revolution of the mind that is not focused on the past or the future. It is focused on the now. Imagine, if humanity spent all the time it spends worrying about the present as much as it does the future, we could make some significant changes and social reforms.

We are not bound by theories. Theories are there to help us understand things that we wish to comprehend, but the journey is not just about memorizing and advocating theories. It is also about realizing your ability to reject theories. That is a key compotent of human behavior. When we realize that we have that ability to reject that which ties our being to society's standards, we destroy the road blocks that have kept us in bondage for so long.

Revolutionary Youth

28th January 2009, 15:02

It is also about realizing your ability to reject theories. That is a key compotent of human behavior. When we realize that we have that ability to reject that which ties our being to society's standards, we destroy the road blocks that have kept us in bondage for so long.
To reject a theory, you then need another theory as your source of proof and claims for your arguments, and that is still the same cycle of causality. To reject the theory of Newton, Einstein had to build his own theory.

Kassad

28th January 2009, 15:17

To reject a theory, you then need another theory as your source of proof and claims for your arguments, and that is still the same cycle of causality. To reject the theory of Newton, Einstein had to build his own theory.

Desperate clinging to a theory causes numerous problems in the first place. Still, I accept many theories, but I understand that it is probable that many of them will be proven wrong and obsolete by theories that will later be proven wrong and obsolete. That is the continuation of human evolution and development and it does not require divisive labels.

Revolutionary Youth

28th January 2009, 15:19

Desperate clinging to a theory causes numerous problems in the first place. Still, I accept many theories, but I understand that it is probable that many of them will be proven wrong and obsolete by theories that will later be proven wrong and obsolete. That is the continuation of human evolution and development and it does not require divisive labels.
Then that is what I call the cycle of causality. So after all, we still need theories.

Kassad

28th January 2009, 15:24

Then that is what I call the cycle of causality. So after all, we still need theories.

No, what we need is human awareness peaking at the extent of realization that society's standards and stipulations are not always in line with human development. What we need is an ever-evolving mind, an ever-evolving consciousness and an the continuation of human evolution, which theories can never hold down because they will often become irrelevant in the face of human development.

Revolutionary Youth

28th January 2009, 15:32

No, what we need is human awareness peaking at the extent of realization that society's standards and stipulations are not always in line with human development. What we need is an ever-evolving mind, an ever-evolving consciousness and an the continuation of human evolution, which theories can never hold down because they will often become irrelevant in the face of human development.
...And then all of them will be sum up to theories, waiting for other theories to reject them, am I correct? I don't say that theories hold us down, they are just temporary protocols to prove our words in a debate like this.

The New Consciousness

28th January 2009, 17:12

The New Consciousness

1st February 2009, 17:55

Does anyone have any questions?

ckaihatsu

1st February 2009, 20:04

This is not to say that forming an identity of one's own choosing and keeping it exactly to the outlines of one's own choosing is _easy_ as one makes one's way through the world, but it is certainly worth doing.

Please elaborate. Why do we need this identity?

The reason why it's *worth* creating one's own identity is because it's synonymous with *living life* in a self-determining way, as much as possible.

Why do we need this limited, restrictive little label? This divisive little concept?

You just switched from talking about an actual person to talking about an *abstraction* ("label") of a concept, *identity* -- which itself is an abstraction of a person's life-in-progress.

You tend to throw these concepts and abstractions around like playthings without stopping long enough to define and discuss each concept. You're also not looking to come to terms with anyone else on the thread, so instead you just spin off into more of your intellectualizing.

It is my firm conviction that this is suffering. Have you every questioned your OWN suffering? The next time you feel something, jealousy, guilt, anger, whatever. Question it, don't just accept is as being normal. Don't accept this nonsense of the identity people have fed you. You don't need to live your life in a straightjacket not of your own making.

I think you have a suffering / disappointment phobia which will necessarily make it difficult for you to seek out and form personal relationships (of any kind). Sure no one *wants* to be disappointed, or let down, but it's inevitable in *any* social context, especially in contemporary ones which feature dizzying complexity.

It's *normal* to have social emotions about how things play out with the people we interact with -- we *should* allow ourselves to experience the jealousy, guilt, anger, and so on, because that's part of our interpersonal intelligence. As we mature we adapt and develop more sophisticated internal means for mitigating the *harsher* effects of these emotions, but they are still going to happen as our lives and situations rub past others' lives and situations.

Emotions are also an affirmation of our own, self-determining inclinations. If we *don't* have an identity of our own making (more or less), then our interactions with the world will assume greater significance than they probably should -- in other words, without a core of being one will be more like a pillar of Jell-O, absorbing too much from the outside world and also *losing* pieces of our lives and ourselves through our social interactions.

It is * absolutely irresponsible * to say that exploitation, violence, and suffering grow out of one's "thought-created identity". Forging one's identity -- always a work-in-progress, anyway -- may require one to exploit, be violent, and cause suffering -- if inadvertently -- but that *does not* mean that *everyone's* identity requires this.

What is exploitation? When I speak of exploitation I am going to the root of the problem. Exploitation is using yourself or others as a means to an end. It is the root of corruption and lies and violence. It breeds suffering and pain. Nothing good can come of it. While you are divisive and obsessed with future and becoming there will always be some form of exploitation in human relations and undoubtedly it will exist in yourself.

It is not a requirement but a necessary consequence of having an identity. We don't realise we're doing it at times.

And, as usual, this bullshit mysticism is myopic and does not focus on the culpability of the capitalism-driven exploitation, violence, and suffering-causing characteristics that we all must live in.

You're forgetting that the world *as a whole* has a *structure* to it, apart from our participating in it. We could be exploiters, or we may not be, but exploitation is going to continue until we *collectively* end it, and that's because of the existence of *class* in society for 20,000+ years now.

It's like a building that has two floors, with a staircase -- we may be on the lower floor, or on the upper floor, we may decide to go up the staircase or down the staircase, or we may not -- but regardless the two floors are still going to exist until we tear it all down. It doesn't *matter* what we think or what our attitudes are -- the building is still there.

'This bullshit mysticism' - most constructive. Where is this anger in you coming from? Why bother with the word 'bullshit'? What feeling was inside you as you wrote that?

Mysticism *is* bullshit -- the anger is because it's a waste of one's time -- and of mine right now -- to even *bother* with it.

And what is capitalism? There you go with your labels. Why do we have capitalism? Why are there so many capitalists in the world? Why do we love competition so much?

We're all climbing an endless ladder. We climb over each other and do anything it takes in the process. And what keeps us going are the multitudes below us.

But the ladder is endless, there is never a finality. There is never a true victory. Thus capitalism IS absurd.

The ladder is very hardy though. It will survive A LOT of change. You can tear down 'the system' and set up a new one, call it what you like you are merely playing with the patchwork of the same stupid, insane problem.

No, that's *not* true -- not all systems are the same, as you're asserting here. Some are *far* better than others. I'd rather be in an exploitative system that allows me some free time to have discussions over the Internet than in one that's even *more* oppressive, which would prohibit it.

The ladder will still stand. While we construe ourselves out of thought it will exist.

I say jump out of it. Climb off it and live without it.

I say organize with other class conscious people to destroy class, and with it any *need* to ladder-climb.

If all of this isn't enough to snap the reader back to reality, just consider the alternative, which is unthinkable: Not thinking. Not thinking will most certainly put you on the fast track to a cult group of some type, because you don't *have* to think for yourself when you're just following the herd.

Let me reiterate my point for you. I am not advocating 'not thinking' as you call it. On the contrary I am concerned with a real revolution of the mind, a mind that questions everything, absolutely everything, and every thought. Not merely in the banal sense of I am a worker and he is a capitalist, but beyond that, into the very fabric of the human self, to achieve an understanding of how our minds work. This is the most rigorous use of the intellect. You are questioning everything. You are no longer taking 'me' and all the childish rubbish that entails. It is a state of the utmost humility and honesty.

Now in my personal investigation of this, I have discovered that time fused with identity is the cause of suffering. It's like carrying around and egg. It's so fragile. You can't jump, sing and dance with an egg in your hand can you? Drop the egg.

You're treating *identity* like it's something *separate* from oneself, like a persona -- it's *not* -- we *all* have an accumulation of life experience which we inevitably review from time to time. Our judgments on our own role in those past life situations is what forms our *identity*. We might say we're good at our jobs, or we've done a lot around our families, or have accomplished something-or-other, or have been enjoying our time, or whatever -- our own *feelings* about our own past is what identity is about -- it's *not* an affectation...!

these religious types

If you are referring to me you have clearly lost the point of this.

You mention cults and things like that. Can't you see I am adamantly against this?

The most rigorous, questioning of mind, working at the highest level of its capacity, not a lazy mind that accepts notions and concepts others feed it, but a ruthlessly, enquiring mind. This is what I'm talking about.

Cults, religions, ideologies, dogmas: are for lazy minds.

You say you are this or that and you have closed off so much of the world.

And I say that the 'identity' or the 'self' is just another shackle, like capitalist exploitation.

Peace.

Again, I think that the development of the self, or identity, is what cuts against the laziness of mind.

Lynx

1st February 2009, 21:30

It is all to do with time-bound illusions of self. He or she did something unpleasant to you, but ironically it was YOU who made it unpleasant. You are the guilty one. Your identity craves such drama, it feeds on the illusions of past experiences, be they painful or pleasant, and the anticipation of future ones. I am this, I am that, because of this, because of that. I am no longer free. I am a slave to my circumstances and what happens to me.

That is blaming the victim, and that is complete and utter fucking bullshit!
Notwithstanding the use of the word 'guilty', this is a description of what it means to be a victim. It is a wretched state that only the victim can overcome. Overcoming it may be difficult, or never occur - and again, must be done by the victim. The state of the material world is only one factor in the recovery process.

Transcending a situation may seem mystical, but it is more practical than doing nothing and suffering, or hoping for an external event to occur, such as amnesia to erase one's trauma, or winning the lottery.

Does anyone have any questions?
Are comparisons always harmful?
What effect do assumptions have on one's thoughts?

Blackscare

1st February 2009, 21:51

Don't have time to read the whole thread right now, so let me just say this.

OP, you're a vague, self absorbed idiot. You're not actually proposing anything new or useful. What is this new consciousness bullshit anyways? How do we achieve it? Do you even have a useful definition of it? What are the practical applications of anything you are saying?

I know you think you're too far out for all us unenlightened neanderthals, but could you at least do better than make pointless and abstract proclamations? The problem I have with philosophies like yours and say... determinism (though I hate determinism a *bit* less because they can actually explain themselves), is that they have no practical applications. You pretty much want to throw up roadblocks to progressive ideas with no idea of a concrete alternative.

Jesus Christ that I don't even believe in, people like you make me want to quit weed. I can just picture you after a blunt ranting about how unenlightened we all are and how you have the answers. You GOT NOTHING.

Blackscare

1st February 2009, 22:04

Should we have a giant meeting with the whole human race and tell them to just chill out, man?

It's just really puzzling to me how any of this makes sense in the real world. You consider communism to be hopeless and naive but you want the whole world to become enlightened? Ever hear of Buddhism, it's a religion/philosophy that's WAY more deep and compelling than anything you're saying, that actually has deep philosophical teachings, and it's been around for 2,500 years. Guess what, most people are still stuck in Samsara! What you're going on about is never likely to happen amongst even a fraction of humanity and actually make a difference.

In fact, the Buddhists have a little line somewhere that communicates just how far universal enlightenment is from becoming a reality. They say it will happen in the time it would take for "a mountain of solid granite to be eroded to nothing by a bird that lands on it once a year to sharpen it's beak against the stone". In other words, dream on.

Lynx

1st February 2009, 23:04

BlackScare, you don't have to agree with everything TNC says. Sometimes we learn from people with pretentious names, sometimes we don't. What we do learn is for our own purposes.

Kassad

1st February 2009, 23:24

Agree or disagree, you're making yourself look like a fool when you call him names and act pretentious. At the core, he is advocating one thing: The emancipation from conditioning. People are conditioned into a society that they think is normal, rational and justified, when in truth, it may be a society like our current one that is forged in racism and injustice. People are raised in a world where labels mean everything; where people cling to their religion, their posessions and their lives, while failing to realize that true freedom and liberation comes from rejecting systems of injustice, like capitalism and free enterprise.

I don't think he's claimed that he is further up on humanity's hierarchy or social ladder. What he is advocating is the rejection of things that chain humans down, such as religion. When people become indulged in labels and dogmatic ideologies, they often forget their true nature and their minds can be clouded in a shroud of doubt, prejudice and illogic.

If anything, he's advocating a sense of class consciousness. He is promoting the ideology that humanity has the ability to reject the social standards of the world and that is something that no other species can fathom. We have a heightened intellect and reasoning ability that allows us to comprehend the world like nothing else can. He isn't advocating the total rejection of Marxism, but instead he is saying that binding yourself down to the label of Marxism is a form of slavery, since it can often lead to dogmatism. Now, do I agree that Marxism is a form of ideological slavery? Of course not. I'm a Marxist-Leninist. But are there examples of people who have strayed away from the path of logic and instead, embraced dogma? You'd better believe it.

Do I agree with all of his ideology? No. Do I respect him for comprehending the oppressive standards of society that have justified horrible crimes for as long as man can recall? Yes, I do. Be careful when dismounting your high horse, as a fall from that height could be potentially painful.

The New Consciousness

2nd February 2009, 02:31

Dear Ckhaitsu, thanks for your critiques. Here are my responses, hopefully you won't be too bored by all this 'mystical bullshit' :-)

The reason why it's *worth* creating one's own identity is because it's synonymous with *living life* in a self-determining way, as much as possible.

I agree with you. To find yourself and then live as honestly as possible, with no contradictions, no lies, no nonsense now that is ideal. But this MUST come from within, as product of an immensely rigorous enquiry into the self. To construe an identity out of experiences and time-bound thought is the path to suffering and perdition.

You just switched from talking about an actual person to talking about an *abstraction* ("label") of a concept, *identity* -- which itself is an abstraction of a person's life-in-progress.You tend to throw these concepts and abstractions around like playthings without stopping long enough to define and discuss each concept. You're also not looking to come to terms with anyone else on the thread, so instead you just spin off into more of your intellectualizing.

Perhaps I have been too vague with my definitions, in which case I apologise.

Let's go through this as logically as possible, step-by-step.

First of all, what is the problem? What is man's basic problem? Man's eternal, basic problem? Why can't men and women live in peace with each other and themselves? What is it that drives a wedge between them? What is it that causes all this misery? Is it not suffering?

Now what is suffering? There is physical suffering: pain, hunger, et cetera. But these can be solved through practical means. What about psychological suffering? This one's a little more tricky is it not? This suffering is generated through a problem with identity, no? This stems from perceptions of the self, and of others. It is a product thus of identity and dysfunctional relationships, the latter being so dysfunctional as it is passed through the prism of the identity. Thus, the problem is one of identity no?

What is identity then? Identity is what we 'think' we are, no? So inevitably it is bound in with thought.

What is thought? Specifically, what is thought when related to perceptions of identity and 'self' or the 'other'? Is it not thoroughly bound in with time? That is, past experiences and anticipation? Taking into consideration that such things are illusory, isn't the identity by its very nature illusory?

Thus it would seem that the problem is that of identity. If you will, human beings are experiencing a 'crisis of identity'. How are we to solve this problem?
We must change our perceptions of ourselves and others. The concept of identity, as we know it, must change considerably. We must make the leap from this current consciousness of divisiveness and hostility and suffering to one of peace. This can only be achieved at the base of the problem: the identity. Thus we must endeavour to redefine ourselves. Understanding that the problem of the identity is one of illusions: of past and future, of judgment and comparison, of division and hostility, of exploitation; we must endeavour to escape all this nonsense. To escape from illusions we must escape from thought. Thought mustn't play a role in human relations and human identity then, surely?

Thought does not lead to love. The intellect cannot comprehend compassion. But without love and compassion, how can we really know ourselves and relate to others at a profound level? We surely cannot.

I think you have a suffering / disappointment phobia which will necessarily make it difficult for you to seek out and form personal relationships (of any kind). Sure no one *wants* to be disappointed, or let down, but it's inevitable in *any* social context, especially in contemporary ones which feature dizzying complexity.

It is inevitable in the current human consciousness, yes. It breeds division and misunderstanding and ultimately more suffering.

It's *normal* to have social emotions about how things play out with the people we interact with -- we *should* allow ourselves to experience the jealousy, guilt, anger, and so on, because that's part of our interpersonal intelligence.

Why? Why should we suffer? Why should we perpetuate this collective human insanity? Shouldn't we at least try to find a solution? You are accepting so much tripe without a question with your 'it's normal to' and 'we should'. On what authority are you basing such claims? The 'interpersonal intelligence' you speak of is one of suffering, with all of its pointless, divisive and immature emotions. You wish to carry on this farce of human relations, this childish behaviour, which has been the cause of so much misery for so many years? I can't imagine why.

As we mature we adapt and develop more sophisticated internal means for mitigating the *harsher* effects of these emotions, but they are still going to happen as our lives and situations rub past others' lives and situations.

This is the insane consciousness. Agony, suffering, exploitation, et cetera. So pointless. If humans don't go beyond this they will never grow up. The world will never know peace.

What are these 'emotions' you talk about? Emotion comes from the Latin for 'disturbance', doesn't it? An interesting word. Why are there disturbances? Is it because something is off balance within us? Is it perhaps because our true selves are in conflict with these illusions of identity that we create? Is it perhaps because the body is so sickened by this illusory nonsense that it reacts in such ways? What are emotions? Are emotions who we are? Are we our emotions? Surely if we are aware of them we cannot be them? What are we? You are not being rigorous enough. You are making huge assumptions. You are taught about emotions at school and that's it, there are emotions but you don't ask why there are emotions. No more enquiry, no more progress. You are locked in pain and blindness and suffering.

Emotions are also an affirmation of our own, self-determining inclinations.

It's the other way round isn't it? Our emotions control us. They dictate what we do. If I feel guilt I will act on that guilt. If I feel envy or jealousy I will act on that. I cannot see how they can at all be linked to self-determination. We are slaves to our emotions when we invest identity and truth in them.

If we *don't* have an identity of our own making (more or less),

How many people have an identity of their own making? I speak of this identity. What I write about is the purest definition of such an identity.

What you seem to misunderstand is that most people's identity is not their actual self-determined sense of self, but their conditioning, their life experiences, their illusory time-bound thought.

then our interactions with the world will assume greater significance than they probably should -- in other words, without a core of being one will be more like a pillar of Jell-O, absorbing too much from the outside world and also *losing* pieces of our lives and ourselves through our social interactions.

When you realise who you really are, with no bullshit and lies and illusion. Then you are a rock. You are not 'Jell-O' as you say. You are as constant as a rock and as flexible as a willow. You are as broad-minded and open-hearted as you could possibly be. You are without prejudice. You are compassionate and loving. You are truly a mature, complete human being, independent of the illusions of society, conditioning and time-bound thought. Only then you are free. This is what I am writing about. It seems you have misunderstood me completely.

You're forgetting that the world *as a whole* has a *structure* to it, apart from our participating in it. We could be exploiters, or we may not be, but exploitation is going to continue until we *collectively* end it, and that's because of the existence of *class* in society for 20,000+ years now.

It's like a building that has two floors, with a staircase -- we may be on the lower floor, or on the upper floor, we may decide to go up the staircase or down the staircase, or we may not -- but regardless the two floors are still going to exist until we tear it all down. It doesn't *matter* what we think or what our attitudes are -- the building is still there.

Unless you have torn down the rotten building in yourself, how can you ever hope to tear it down without? Carrying the disease within you will only perpetuate it without, however noble your efforts. While the end is always your focus you will forget the means, which is the reality.

Mysticism *is* bullshit -- the anger is because it's a waste of one's time -- and of mine right now -- to even *bother* with it.

You respect only one authority: that of the intellect. But cold reason cannot fathom love and cold reason cannot solve the problem of man's suffering. Thus we must go beyond reason. You are not a machine. You are not an automaton of reason and logic. You are not a calculator. You are also a being capable of creative intuition and love. Now that is enigmatic, for it can only be felt. Love cannot be defined in words or intellectual arguments. Love exists, but it can only be felt. Now being so seemingly irrational, love is perhaps, 'mystical', after all, isn't mysticism that which does not fall within the rigid confines of logic and reason? So, really you are saying love is bullshit, no? Is love bullshit? If you really believe that then you are a lost cause. And if that were true, there is no hope whatsoever for man. But I happen to know that love DOES exist, and I see it all the time in my fellow human beings.

No, that's *not* true -- not all systems are the same, as you're asserting here. Some are *far* better than others. I'd rather be in an exploitative system that allows me some free time to have discussions over the Internet than in one that's even *more* oppressive, which would prohibit it.

Of course, and I count myself most privileged to be able to speak so liberally about key problems and issues on the Internet. But we all suffer from the same basic problem do we not? Man's suffering is universal is it not? The form may vary slightly but at the root it is the same isn't it? And who's to say that this privilege will last forever? In the insane consciousness nothing is ever constant. War is everywhere. Exploitation is everywhere. Privation, perdition and suffering is as omnipresent as the wind. Be afraid. Be very afraid! :-)

I say organize with other class conscious people to destroy class, and with it any *need* to ladder-climb.

And what is class? Class is merely a product of the insane consciousness. I say end the insane consciousness. Go to the root of the problem. Eradicate it for good.

You're treating *identity* like it's something *separate* from oneself, like a persona -- it's *not* -- we *all* have an accumulation of life experience which we inevitably review from time to time. Our judgments on our own role in those past life situations is what forms our *identity*. We might say we're good at our jobs, or we've done a lot around our families, or have accomplished something-or-other, or have been enjoying our time, or whatever -- our own *feelings* about our own past is what identity is about -- it's *not* an affectation...!

I believe that there is more to human beings than what thought, limited and divisive, dictates to them. I believe there is more to human beings than the accumulation of their past experiences, their tragedies, triumphs and tribulations; their drama. I believe there is more substance to man than petty, illusory aims and competition. I believe there is more to man than the childish rubbish we bear witness to each day in the headlines. I believe there is more to man than hatred, war, injustice, slavery and suffering.
I happen to believe that man is a creative being, capable of great things and most of all, he is a compassionate being.
Call me an idealist, but it is better to look for solutions than resign oneself to the specious conclusion that mankind is this or that and mankind is doomed.
I believe man can free himself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Lynx, great questions, I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability:

Are comparisons always harmful?

In human relations, I believe so.
Think about it. If I am comparing you with someone else I have met I'm not really experiencing you first hand am I? I am not really relating to you. I am not giving my full attention to you. I have missed out on your uniqueness. There is no communion, no compassion, no love nor understanding. You have become an illusion, for comparison is thought and thought is illusion. You may as well not be there. I have categorised you and compared you with this or that and thus formed a prejudice about you. You are ranked and filed away somewhere. I will never really find out about you, for you will forever be confined to my silly little label. Thus arises misunderstanding and hostility and conflict and suffering.

What effect do assumptions have on one's thoughts?

Assumptions cage us, restrict us. Assumptions, like all judgments, put things in boxes and leave them there. They limit us and make us limited beings. Assumptions are dangerous particularly in the field of human relations.

Hope that helped! I can be more specific if you want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To BlackScare:

Don't have time to read the whole thread right now, so let me just say this.

OP, you're a vague, self absorbed idiot. You're not actually proposing anything new or useful. What is this new consciousness bullshit anyways? How do we achieve it? Do you even have a useful definition of it? What are the practical applications of anything you are saying?

Without any real understanding of what I have been talking about you have already judged, categorised, labelled and condemned me. Is this not a perfect example of what's fundamentally wrong with mankind?

I know you think you're too far out for all us unenlightened neanderthals

I am not enlightened. I'm not special. If anything I'm the neanderthal! I'm a lot more simple then most of you here, simply because I have learned to dump all the complex notions of self based on convoluted experiences and emotions and illusions.

Remember that we are simply seeking an end to suffering. There is no hierarchy in this. There are those who are at peace, and those who aren't. I'm just trying to help the people who aren't. There's no hierarchy. Hierarchy is an absolutely insane concept, and one that has caused and will always cause untold suffering.

Ever hear of Buddhism, it's a religion/philosophy that's WAY more deep and compelling than anything you're saying, that actually has deep philosophical teachings, and it's been around for 2,500 years. Guess what, most people are still stuck in Samsara! What you're going on about is never likely to happen amongst even a fraction of humanity and actually make a difference.

Buddhism is fascinating and has inspired me greatly. Indeed most of what I write about (if you had read it you would know) is very similar to Buddhism, i.e the transcendence of the ego and the power of the present moment et cetera. In fact my central concern has been to find a solution to the problem of human suffering and does not Buddha say that to reach Buddhahood is simply to 'end suffering'?

This crucial phrase 'the ending of suffering' is central to what I believe in. I don't offer anything. I merely remind you that it is within your power to negate the crap you have been conditioned to believe in and identify with by society and your own divisive, egoic intellect. It is through awareness of and subsequently negation of the many knives and illusions of your mind that you are able to reach peace and what I refer to rather vaguely I must admit as the 'New Consciousness'. I used the term because I feel anything which has -ism is bound in with dogma and doctrine. Dogma and doctrine cannot set you free.

Remember, Buddhism is an elitist religion. There are masters and teachers and hierarchies and monasteries. But surely this is a corruption of the central teaching? It is your responsibility to end your suffering, not some priest to whom you prostrate or some icon. Bhuddism is just another example of the corruption of the original message.

This is a key problem with religion. Religion is the sacred packaged into divisive thought and words. The meaning is lost in the process and so religion ceases to be sacred.

True religion has no text. True religion is love. Love is the sacred. Religion shrouds this essential message in intellectual rubbish: words, dogma. Humans, slaves to their intellects, only pick up on the distorted meanings of the divisive words which only cause more conflict, slavery and suffering leading them further from the truth of love.

Truth, which is love, is a pathless land. You cannot come to it through any text, any authority, any dogma.

What I write about are merely signposts, reminding you that you CAN do it. You can free yourselves.

Peace and love to everyone, and thanks for commenting on my post.

ckaihatsu

2nd February 2009, 03:03

Now what is suffering? There is physical suffering: pain, hunger, et cetera. But these can be solved through practical means. What about psychological suffering? This one's a little more tricky is it not? This suffering is generated through a problem with identity, no? This stems from perceptions of the self, and of others. It is a product thus of identity and dysfunctional relationships, the latter being so dysfunctional as it is passed through the prism of the identity. Thus, the problem is one of identity no?

Look, TNC, I appreciate the effort on your part, but all I can say is that you're getting into an area of immense complexity -- human relationships at the ground level -- and then trying to describe it all with abstractions.

Your focus on the *problems* therein is a rather pathology-oriented approach to human relationships, and you end up blaming identity, or more precisely, *unexamined, societally imposed identity*.

I find this whole inquiry to be very self-oriented, touchy-feely, and intellectualizing. I suppose it *might* be useful to someone who is painfully alienated, but to me it just begs the question -- why don't they change their environment so that they can change their life? If they're in a situation that they *can't* change by themselves, then it's necessarily a *political* issue, and that's why we're categorically anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist here on this discussion board.

I'm glad that you conclude by saying that you believe people to be creative and compassionate beings -- perhaps that's all that you really meant, or needed, to say at all.

Allow me to politely leave off and just say that Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a good general tool to use to describe the individual in society. I've incorporated it into a socialist, supply-oriented framework, which is here:

Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://tinyurl.com/5mjhhh

Again, thanks for the reply, take care.

Blackscare

2nd February 2009, 03:38

Bah, whatever. For some reason stuff like this always gets my blood boiling.

I still don't think you've broken any new ground, in fact this whole philosophy of yours seems like a synthesis of many others. Also, I stand by my attack because your first post oozed of pretentiousness and clearly attacked others. Also, I'm not a marxist, so I have nothing personal against what you said, I'm against the condescending way you decided to speak to everyone.

Also, I'm firmly in favor of practical, concrete thought, and since you dragged practical social philosophy into this discussion of personal philosophy in a most disrespectful way, I felt compelled to point out that what you're saying really doesn't have anything to offer a mass movement of people. A lot of what you're saying really does sound good in a personal contemplative way, but it's not a good wrecking ball to try to attack communism (or any other social ideology) with.

Blackscare

2nd February 2009, 03:49

Also, I'm not against hierarchy in private institutions that have no effect on the broader social life of the working masses. It isn't elitism to me, or at least it's not bad. There's nothing wrong in admitting that there are people more wise than ourselves, and they have things that they can teach us.

The fact is, the type of study and practice Buddhist monks go through requires the wisdom and guidance of a teacher, if you're a serious student. The Buddha never said anything about abolishing religious hierarchy in the sense you described. People followed him around in droves and received teachings from him in a master-student relationship. I'm pretty into Buddhism, my grandfather being a Buddhist monk himself. I keep correspondence with his old monastery and study Buddhism in my spare time. If you're a serious monk there's nothing wrong with respect for those more learned than yourself, because you're walking down the path to enlightenment and they know more than you do. Buddhism isn't easy as reading and absorbing teachings, the deeper meaning that comes from meditation and a master-student relationship are needed.

Revolutionary Youth

2nd February 2009, 10:23

All things *seem* to go quite while then it comes to this:

Why do we love competition so much?
We need competition to move forward, to go with the flow of technologies and society. When you are doing IGCSE, then you are competiting with other candidates around the world to achieve grade A/A*. Why do we need this? To go to university, college, to gain knowledge, to fulfill my never-ending thirst of knowledge.

We're all climbing an endless ladder. We climb over each other and do anything it takes in the process. And what keeps us going are the multitudes below us.
We are climbing an endless ladder since knowledge is endless. Competition is natural instinct of animals. We are homosapiens, we are also animals. What make us different than a mere sheep are that, we have something called knowledge and revolution. But we are animals from the root of us.
This world is not simple as you think, either you in or you out, either you live or you die, either you pass or you fail. The world it self is cruel. And yet, there are people out there dare to face it, to live, to commit oneself to the ideology that he/she realizes it is for the people whom he/she loves.
Pavel Korchagin, "How the Steel Was Tempered", is a great example for this.

There is never a true victory.
Who said that we need a true victory anyway?
We don't simply live to win and to lose, those are absurd. We don't compete each other for a mere certicate or a piece medal.

I say jump out of it. Climb off it and live without it.
Now this is your downfall, no competition, no will to move on, just accept the same old thing everyday, this is what I call lazy. And this reminds me of Pol Pot.

ZeroNowhere

2nd February 2009, 11:14

No it stems from the lack of realization of the fact that man is basicly evil, and that there's only a slim line of civilization that stops him from being the beast that's inside him.
People can't be evil.

When you are doing IGCSE, then you are competiting with other candidates around the world to achieve grade A/A*.
Well, that's silly. Then again, I most certainly do not see schooling or exams as 'competitions'.

to fulfill my never-ending thirst of knowledge.
Which somehow has to do with the fact that schools try to indoctrinate people into the whole competitive mindset that leads to the whole, "People who are doing worse than me are a load of suckers, people doing above me are better than me" attitude that fuels competition among the working class later on?
Of course, going to school is not necessary in order to go to college (I only go because unschooling would require doing National Service due to our lovely government), as people should, but don't, know by now. It used to be huge news when an unschooling kid got into a college, now it's fairly unextraordinary. You certainly don't need it to gain knowledge. Hell, I've gained more knowledge through Trivial Pursuit than high school.

Now this is your downfall, no competition, no will to move on, just accept the same old thing everyday, this is what I call lazy. And this reminds me of Pol Pot.
I don't-

This world is not simple as you think, either you in or you out
Of?

either you live or you die
There's no reason that we should have any trouble with the whole 'living' thing.

either you pass or you fail.
Human concepts, and in general just a load of bullshit. For example, to drive a car it can be important to make people pass something first, but exams and grades in schools are just meaningless bullcrap that:
a) Lowers some students' self-confidences, with the help of parents, so that they stop enjoying learning, and just accept that they are 'failures'.
b) Perpetuates the 'Meritocracy Myth', as it has been called.
c) Takes away most people's love of learning.
d) Wastes everybody's time, both teachers and students.

The world it self is cruel.
No, it's not, it doesn't have a personality.

The next time you feel something, jealousy, guilt, anger, whatever. Question it, don't just accept is as being normal.
Well, they are natural feelings, quite possible beneficial enough in earlier times to have become natural through evolutionary process. Though yes, seeing as I reject 'free will', I'm with Spinoza on this one, “The mind is determined to this or that choice by a cause which is also determined by another cause, and this again by another, and so on ad infinitum. This doctrine teaches us to hate no one, to despise no one, to mock no one, to be angry with no one, and to envy no one.”

Then again, this 'New Consciousness' or whatever seems not to be anything new, really, or to be especially productive, or to be much other than pseudophilosophical ramblings quite often. Then again, its proponent may like Situationism.

The New Consciousness

2nd February 2009, 12:07

Thanks for all your replies guys!

I suppose it *might* be useful to someone who is painfully alienated

Aren't we all at some point or another? The whole world is painfully alienated, that's why we have so much suffering. And with all the suffering in the world, is it enough to attribute it to capitalism? Shouldn't we be a bit more enquiring?

"The mind is determined to this or that choice by a cause which is also determined by another cause, and this again by another, and so on ad infinitum. This doctrine teaches us to hate no one, to despise no one, to mock no one, to be angry with no one, and to envy no one.”

How can a mind thus predetermined by external causes possibly NOT feel hatred, envy et cetera? This quote just doesn't make sense. If you could elaborate I'd be much obliged.

Then again, this 'New Consciousness' or whatever seems not to be anything new, really, or to be especially productive, or to be much other than pseudophilosophical ramblings quite often. Then again, its proponent may like Situationism.

This is not philosophy or anything like that. This is not intellectual. We are talking about love here. What is love? We are also talking about freedom. What is freedom? Competition, hostility, exploitation, these are not freedom. A conditioned mind is an enslaved mind. Can we fundamentally change ourselves? You'll never know unless you try. I am merely reminding you all that you can try.

How many of you have actually tried some of the things I have suggested? Have you questioned yourselves? Have you been thoroughly inquisitive into your own nature? Have you asked yourself why? You take so much for truth. So much illusion. I say question it.

What is truth? What is real truth? Surely it is love. Shouldn't we, if we are at all serious about improving this depraved world, try to find out more about this wondrous thing?

Revolutionary Youth

2nd February 2009, 12:53

.
Well, that's silly. Then again, I most certainly do not see schooling or exams as 'competitions'.

You don't see it as competition, but itself is a competition, I don't make it up. You don't know the grading system of IGCSE, do you?
You think I take schooling and exams as competitions? You think I go to school to beat the hell out of the students by my grades?

ZeroNowhere

2nd February 2009, 13:01

You don't see it as competition, but itself is a competition, I don't make it up. You don't know the grading system of IGCSE, do you?
No, I just don't really care enough to do anything other than what gets me through. That is: not much.
Though yes, the system is set up as something of a competition. However, when it comes to getting into IB (since the final exams aren't as important as the mock exams here, interestingly), at least here, it's not much of a competition, since they decide based on absolute rather than relative grades.

The New Consciousness

2nd February 2009, 14:19

Education systems round the world perpetuate the insanity of the current, comparative consciousness, what with their emphasis on competition and grades and all this nonsense.

We must take the conditioning out of education.

Revolutionary Youth

2nd February 2009, 17:40

No, it's not, it doesn't have a personality.
It's just a metaphor, idiot!

Lynx

2nd February 2009, 19:46

Are comparisons always harmful?
In human relations, I believe so.
Think about it. If I am comparing you with someone else I have met I'm not really experiencing you first hand am I? I am not really relating to you. I am not giving my full attention to you. I have missed out on your uniqueness. There is no communion, no compassion, no love nor understanding. You have become an illusion, for comparison is thought and thought is illusion. You may as well not be there. I have categorised you and compared you with this or that and thus formed a prejudice about you. You are ranked and filed away somewhere. I will never really find out about you, for you will forever be confined to my silly little label. Thus arises misunderstanding and hostility and conflict and suffering.
What compels people to make harmful comparisons?

What effect do assumptions have on one's thoughts?
Assumptions cage us, restrict us. Assumptions, like all judgments, put things in boxes and leave them there. They limit us and make us limited beings. Assumptions are dangerous particularly in the field of human relations.

Hope that helped! I can be more specific if you want.
Your answers have helped, thank you.
I don't see how you are attacking communism, as some have claimed or assumed. Communism (and Anarchism) hope to reinvent our relationships with other people, by creating a society that would minimize the need and incentive for manipulative behavior. What you are describing sounds complementary to this, with the focus on how we view ourselves.
Perhaps you care to reiterate what you believe communism can and cannot accomplish?

As for myself, I'm of the belief that Communism cannot eliminate all forms of manipulative behavior. My next question is thus:
Is manipulative behavior unavoidable?

The New Consciousness

3rd February 2009, 11:38

Hey Lynx thanks for the Qs. Here are my replies:

What compels people to make harmful comparisons?

The intellect is a tool of measurement, thus the intellect is constantly comparing, weighing up and judging. We need to take the intellect out of human relations.

I don't see how you are attacking communism, as some have claimed or assumed. Communism (and Anarchism) hope to reinvent our relationships with other people, by creating a society that would minimize the need and incentive for manipulative behavior. What you are describing sounds complementary to this, with the focus on how we view ourselves. Perhaps you care to reiterate what you believe communism can and cannot accomplish?

You are quite right, I am NOT attacking communism. I am lauding it. In my opinion it is the ideal system, the only real sane system. The problem is man must accept it himself, he must not be coerced into it. Coercion will merely lead to more exploitation and suffering. For man to accept such an advanced system he himself must be advanced. For man to accept such a sane system he himself must be sane. How are we to be advanced and sane? How are we humans to mature? How are we to get out of this insane consciousness of division, hence, conflict, hence suffering? I can't say I have all the answers or a definitive solution but isn't it good to go into it? Go deep into ourselves to try and find out if we can change?

I think the problem is of perception, i.e. how we see ourselves and others. The problem of suffering surely must be one of relationships between humans no? That's why I say we should start there. And the only way to understand this is by going deep into oneself and rigorously questioning the very fabric of one's sense of self and one's perceptions of others.

A communist system peopled by communists would be able to accomplish anything. A communist system peopled by immature, insane individuals will fail miserably, just as most examples of 'communism' have.

Is manipulative behavior unavoidable?

Manipulation is using other humans as a means to an end. This is a product of the insane consciousness. When you do this you make other humans into furniture. You cease to relate to them. Thus it is a dysfunctional relationship. If we can take the illusory suffering-bound 'end' out of relationships and dwell fully in the means, which is the reality, which is the present moment, without grasping or desiring, without past shackles and future pressures, then human relationship can really come into being in a compassionate way. Then we have true communion. There is no manipulative, exploitative behaviour in communion.

Thanks,

Peace and love.

Lynx

4th February 2009, 19:43

The intellect is a tool of measurement, thus the intellect is constantly comparing, weighing up and judging. We need to take the intellect out of human relations.

Are there relationships that do not involve the use of intellect?

You are quite right, I am NOT attacking communism. I am lauding it. In my opinion it is the ideal system, the only real sane system. The problem is man must accept it himself, he must not be coerced into it. Coercion will merely lead to more exploitation and suffering. For man to accept such an advanced system he himself must be advanced. For man to accept such a sane system he himself must be sane. How are we to be advanced and sane? How are we humans to mature?

We learn. We replace our ignorance with knowledge of the external world. This knowledge consists of facts and assumptions. Both facts and assumptions lead to the creation of more assumptions. Eventually, we replace our curiosity with rationalizations (or conclusions) about the external world. Our knowledge of the external world is also perceived as having implications for ourselves. We define ourselves (and are defined) by what we know and what we assume.

How are we to get out of this insane consciousness of division, hence, conflict, hence suffering? I can't say I have all the answers or a definitive solution but isn't it good to go into it? Go deep into ourselves to try and find out if we can change?

How can it not be good? Are there limits to introspection? Are there limits to change?

I think the problem is of perception, i.e. how we see ourselves and others. The problem of suffering surely must be one of relationships between humans no?

It may be the crux of the problem for most people. For those who are solitary in nature, such as myself, relationships are fewer in number, fewer in practice. Our perception of relationships we do not engage in are arrived at through observation.

That's why I say we should start there. And the only way to understand this is by going deep into oneself and rigorously questioning the very fabric of one's sense of self and one's perceptions of others.

Many relationships appear to involve expectations. Some also involve hierarchies. Relationships appear to have particular requirements, as well as benefits. Our perception of others may be defined by a relationship (eg. a friendship), and by comparisons (eg. bigotry). Our perception of ourselves may be defined by our relationships (as in: how others relate to us + how we think we relate to others), and by comparisons.

Much of the above involves assumptions, including this analysis.

A communist system peopled by communists would be able to accomplish anything. A communist system peopled by immature, insane individuals will fail miserably, just as most examples of 'communism' have.

Would it be better to describe immature, insane individuals as 'lacking in awareness'?

Manipulation is using other humans as a means to an end. This is a product of the insane consciousness. When you do this you make other humans into furniture. You cease to relate to them. Thus it is a dysfunctional relationship. If we can take the illusory suffering-bound 'end' out of relationships and dwell fully in the means, which is the reality, which is the present moment, without grasping or desiring, without past shackles and future pressures, then human relationship can really come into being in a compassionate way. Then we have true communion. There is no manipulative, exploitative behaviour in communion.

Am I not using you as a means to an uncertain end?

What I find disconcerting about manipulation is that it gives us power over others. It doesn't take a sociopath, or a Machiavellian, to want to abuse this power. All it takes is an 'end', as you said, or a goal, or someone who is goal oriented. Our society does seem to be goal oriented.

Can you decribe an example of a communion? (this question may be redundant in light of the first question in this post, or from earlier posts in this thread which I have forgot)

Thank-you for your patience and consideration :)

ckaihatsu

4th February 2009, 20:59

What I find disconcerting about manipulation is that it gives us power over others. It doesn't take a sociopath, or a Machiavellian, to want to abuse this power. All it takes is an 'end', as you said, or a goal, or someone who is goal oriented. Our society does seem to be goal oriented.

Hey, Lynx, if you don't mind my addressing this on a tangent to your discussion -- wouldn't *all* revolutionaries be goal-oriented?

And, unless someone was *perfectly* content with the status quo and with their lives in it -- (itself problematic) -- wouldn't they *want* something to change, maybe in a certain direction, and wouldn't they want to be a part of *making* that change happen? If so, then they have *plans*, however tentative, and would then be goal-oriented. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's just the way of the world, part of the "physics" of having discrete, individual bodies while going about our lives.

The real zinger is the question of how much our own plans are our own, given the superstructure of the economic and political society around us. Just how much self-detemination do we have in light of obligations, responsibilities, historical precedents, need for political activity, etc. -- ?

And, finally, if I may say, Lynx -- you make the "others" in your statement sound like metal iron filings that would line up and follow a magnet around wherever it goes. Certainly human society, especially one in more of an existential-crisis period regarding the future, is susceptible to the formation of cults of personality, but I don't think that we should conceptualize people as lemmings. People have more access to more and better information and knowledge than ever before in human history. This has a profound impact on bourgeois politics, because the old tricks won't work anymore when people can just look stuff up to double-check everything, *and* effortlessly create their own ad-hoc networks over the net.

The New Consciousness

5th February 2009, 01:25

Are there relationships that do not involve the use of intellect?

- and -

Can you decribe an example of a communion? (this question may be redundant in light of the first question in this post, or from earlier posts in this thread which I have forgot)

Those of pure love and compassion. The kind of relationship a mother has with her newly born child. The kind of relationship Jesus supposedly had with people, if he existed. The kind of relationship humans have when they feel this mysterious, yet wondrous surge of love for each other. The kind of feeling we get a glimpse at when we take mind-altering drugs but is all too brief. The kind of love in Sri Ramana Maharshi eyes as he diced his vegetables, for instance.

This compassion extends to all things, not just humans. Even vegetables. I know it sounds odd, but once we start relating properly to each other, we will start relating to everything else properly as well, nature, animals, the universe. But I think our priority should be with each other no? That is after all the most pressing and challenging objective.

We learn. We replace our ignorance with knowledge of the external world. This knowledge consists of facts and assumptions. Both facts and assumptions lead to the creation of more assumptions. Eventually, we replace our curiosity with rationalizations (or conclusions) about the external world. Our knowledge of the external world is also perceived as having implications for ourselves. We define ourselves (and are defined) by what we know and what we assume.

Precisely, everything conditioned, limited, narrow, conducive to a hostile mind-set.

How can it not be good? Are there limits to introspection? Are there limits to change?

It is more than good, it is wondrous. But this is not introspection in the sense of going quasi-neurotically through our thoughts and living in a state of self-obsession or self-indulgence. This is the state of pure awareness which is a state of pure communion with the self and all external things.

It may be the crux of the problem for most people. For those who are solitary in nature, such as myself, relationships are fewer in number, fewer in practice. Our perception of relationships we do not engage in are arrived at through observation.

Perhaps solitary people are less conditioned, or perhaps they are driven to despise others for their own unbearable conditioning. Why do you crave solitude? Is it really your 'nature' as you say? Communion between humans is a truly wondrous thing, it would be a shame if you were to miss it.

Many relationships appear to involve expectations. Some also involve hierarchies. Relationships appear to have particular requirements, as well as benefits. Our perception of others may be defined by a relationship (eg. a friendship), and by comparisons (eg. bigotry). Our perception of ourselves may be defined by our relationships (as in: how others relate to us + how we think we relate to others), and by comparisons. Much of the above involves assumptions, including this analysis.

Indeed - the product of thought, time-bound, comparing, judging thought. I maintain that the truth can only be 'felt'. I put felt between apostrophes simply because the sensation of no-mind cannot be given a name. It is a sense of universality and infinity which cannot be compressed into a limited, divisive word, the product of the intellect.

Would it be better to describe immature, insane individuals as 'lacking in awareness'?

Thanks for that! Much better than immature and insane I agree. From now on I will refer to this state as 'lacking in awareness' or 'unaware'. It expresses far more succinctly and less offensively what I want to say; I realise that those probably aren't the most endearing terms. : - )

Am I not using you as a means to an uncertain end?

Ironically, yes you are. But how else are we to obtain awareness? Those who are aware must alert others to their capacity to achieve the same awareness, but without commands, or ends or exploitation or any of the same old crap that has plagued man since time immemorial.

I like to refer to it not as means but as 'signposts'. People like Krishnamurti, Maharshi, the Buddha, even Christ, must be seen as simply providing signposts. No dogma, no truth, nothing like that. They are simply providing the signposts to your own truth, which of course, you yourself must encounter.

There is no easy route to the truth. No text, messiah, ideological tract, divination or scientific enquiry will provide you with the truth. Laziness will not bring you truth. Constant vigilance and awareness and rigorous self enquiry however, will give you a glimpse of what's clearly NOT the truth.

All you can do is see the false as false. Thus to arrive at truth you must negate the false. The truth cannot be reached through a path. You must strip down the crap that numbs you to it and then, when there are no more insane distractions, 'feel' it for yourself.

What I find disconcerting about manipulation is that it gives us power over others. It doesn't take a sociopath, or a Machiavellian, to want to abuse this power. All it takes is an 'end', as you said, or a goal, or someone who is goal oriented. Our society does seem to be goal oriented.

Indeed. There is nothing 'evil' about the human condition. It is in fact my staunch belief that there is no such thing as good or evil or morality. Simply insanity and sanity, or better said unawareness and awareness. Most people simply aren't totally in control; they are slaves to the dictatorship of their intellect. Thus the most good-hearted man can become the most foul tyrant, through corruption by power and amour-propre.

PEACE AND LOVE

Lynx

5th February 2009, 19:51

Hey, Lynx, if you don't mind my addressing this on a tangent to your discussion -- wouldn't *all* revolutionaries be goal-oriented?
More or less, yes. Revolutionaries have relatively uncommon political goals.

And, unless someone was *perfectly* content with the status quo and with their lives in it -- (itself problematic) -- wouldn't they *want* something to change, maybe in a certain direction, and wouldn't they want to be a part of *making* that change happen? If so, then they have *plans*, however tentative, and would then be goal-oriented. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's just the way of the world, part of the "physics" of having discrete, individual bodies while going about our lives.
I imagine most people have goals in life, both concrete and abstract. Someone who is goal-oriented may be more ambitious or eager to put plans into action. Others may prefer to spend their time plotting and scheming in preparation for an opportunity.

The real zinger is the question of how much our own plans are our own, given the superstructure of the economic and political society around us. Just how much self-detemination do we have in light of obligations, responsibilities, historical precedents, need for political activity, etc. -- ?
Well, just look at how ubiquitous some plans/goals are - find a job, make a living, fall in love, buy a house, start a family. Perhaps these things reflect what most people want. Or perhaps, due to a lack of awareness, some people are merely "following the herd". Either way, the question is whether we have to manipulate others in pursuit of our dreams.

And, finally, if I may say, Lynx -- you make the "others" in your statement sound like metal iron filings that would line up and follow a magnet around wherever it goes. Certainly human society, especially one in more of an existential-crisis period regarding the future, is susceptible to the formation of cults of personality, but I don't think that we should conceptualize people as lemmings.
It isn't my intention to liken humans to lemmings. It is an unfortunate fact however that we suffer from a list of cognitive biases. The existence of mass propaganda techniques (ie. marketing of products and ideas) suggests that human behavior is quantifiable, predictable and malleable.

People have more access to more and better information and knowledge than ever before in human history. This has a profound impact on bourgeois politics, because the old tricks won't work anymore when people can just look stuff up to double-check everything, *and* effortlessly create their own ad-hoc networks over the net.
Possible questions to ask:
How many people watch the news or follow current events?
How many create their own ad-hoc networks?
To what extent do people seek viewpoints anathema to their own?
To what extent do they double-check everything?
Polemical gut check:
Is Stormfront an example of an ad-hoc network?

I'm sorry if I sound pessimistic Chris, but there are at least two sides to most developments.

Lynx

5th February 2009, 20:10

Those of pure love and compassion. The kind of relationship a mother has with her newly born child. The kind of relationship Jesus supposedly had with people, if he existed. The kind of relationship humans have when they feel this mysterious, yet wondrous surge of love for each other. The kind of feeling we get a glimpse at when we take mind-altering drugs but is all too brief. The kind of love in Sri Ramana Maharshi eyes as he diced his vegetables, for instance.

.... timeless moments? As in moments we cherish? Yes, everyone should be familiar with these, memory permitting. Do we not remember these moments and then wonder how so much of the rest of our lives seems to have passed us by? Like a rushing river long since forgotten...

This compassion extends to all things, not just humans. Even vegetables.

Of course, only kindness matters.

I know it sounds odd, but once we start relating properly to each other, we will start relating to everything else properly as well, nature, animals, the universe. But I think our priority should be with each other no? That is after all the most pressing and challenging objective.

It is easier in a way to relate to our pets who are not judgmental. We can offer unconditional love without the risk or pain of rejection. With humans, moments are lost to worries, to problems we must face, to misunderstandings. The person you once held and loved, who held and loved you, can become someone you no longer trust. Its not the impermanence of love we fear, it's the pain of love lost, of love unrequited.

I sound like a poem.

Precisely, everything conditioned, limited, narrow, conducive to a hostile mind-set.

I wouldn't disagree with it being conducive, and I couldn't say if most people indeed have a hostile mind-set.

It is more than good, it is wondrous. But this is not introspection in the sense of going quasi-neurotically through our thoughts and living in a state of self-obsession or self-indulgence. This is the state of pure awareness which is a state of pure communion with the self and all external things.

Moments are wondrous, the rest I perceive as being hard work. Or perhaps like an eventful yet forgettable journey through calm waters.

Perhaps solitary people are less conditioned, or perhaps they are driven to despise others for their own unbearable conditioning. Why do you crave solitude? Is it really your 'nature' as you say? Communion between humans is a truly wondrous thing, it would be a shame if you were to miss it.

I suppose I crave solitude because I feel at ease when I'm alone. I'm shy and self-conscious when I'm in the physical presence of people - and feel more relaxed when I'm not. Loneliness is a foreign concept, the worst I've felt in that regard is boredom. Perhaps my need for solitude is greater than my need for intimacy.
I'm not an ogre who hates people, or a mass murderer in the making. I can make friends, and have friends, but prefer to spend my time alone. I can find myself enjoying a social occasion, yet never feel the need to engage in another one. My shyness never went away, nor the exhaustion I feel after a day spent 'socializing' in public.
I may be less conditioned through experience, but am conditioned through observation. I don't know if this indicates a difference in any discernible sense.

Indeed - the product of thought, time-bound, comparing, judging thought. I maintain that the truth can only be 'felt'. I put felt between apostrophes simply because the sensation of no-mind cannot be given a name. It is a sense of universality and infinity which cannot be compressed into a limited, divisive word, the product of the intellect.

I have this image of a stereotypical English sheepdog, often shown in movies, bounding across an open field, with not a care in the world. Pure rambunctious happiness.
There was also a TV commercial, featuring a cat that ran along the top of a fence to say goodbye to a young woman who was leaving for college. This one makes me cry but in a good way.
These kind of moments are a part of life. I just don't know about universality and infinity.

Ironically, yes you are. But how else are we to obtain awareness? Those who are aware must alert others to their capacity to achieve the same awareness, but without commands, or ends or exploitation or any of the same old crap that has plagued man since time immemorial.

I hope I haven't judged you.

I like to refer to it not as means but as 'signposts'. People like Krishnamurti, Maharshi, the Buddha, even Christ, must be seen as simply providing signposts. No dogma, no truth, nothing like that. They are simply providing the signposts to your own truth, which of course, you yourself must encounter.

There is no easy route to the truth. No text, messiah, ideological tract, divination or scientific enquiry will provide you with the truth. Laziness will not bring you truth. Constant vigilance and awareness and rigorous self enquiry however, will give you a glimpse of what's clearly NOT the truth.

All you can do is see the false as false. Thus to arrive at truth you must negate the false. The truth cannot be reached through a path. You must strip down the crap that numbs you to it and then, when there are no more insane distractions, 'feel' it for yourself.

Can you ascribe this to events from your life?

Indeed. There is nothing 'evil' about the human condition. It is in fact my staunch belief that there is no such thing as good or evil or morality. Simply insanity and sanity, or better said unawareness and awareness. Most people simply aren't totally in control; they are slaves to the dictatorship of their intellect. Thus the most good-hearted man can become the most foul tyrant, through corruption by power and amour-propre.

Is total control of one's life, an illusion?

Quiescence
¯\(º_º)/¯

Pogue

5th February 2009, 21:03

The New Consciousness

8th February 2009, 11:07

Can you ascribe this to events from your life?

I have found countless times that real freedom and peace, for me, can only be achieved through a state of great awareness. It is actually quite amusing at times to watch the ego, now completely useless, squirm around at this or that, all the time being constantly aware of it and thus immune to its tentacles which cause such suffering.

Is total control of one's life, an illusion?

The universe is so chaotic that control is an illusion as is order. We must not confuse peace with order. Peace can only be achieved through awareness of the chaos, a total acceptance of what is, not through a quest for order. A quest for order is a quest for illusions, and in the quest for illusions we resist and we suffer.
Chaos ceases to be chaos in this state. The moment we cease our insatiable quest for order is the moment that chaos ends. The moment that chaos ends is the moment when man reaches his full potential which is the state of permanent peace.

Still, all this vague bullshit, in real life you're just another ordinary person like us who is no more advanced than anyone else, its just aload of post-left wank. Thereas a reason its so vague, and thats because its fucking substanceless.

Why are you so angry? I apologise for being 'so vague' as you seem to think I have, perhaps if you ask me a specific question I can give you a more specific answer.

ckaihatsu

8th February 2009, 11:34

*Can you ascribe this to events from your life?*

I have found countless times that real freedom and peace, for me, can only be achieved through a state of great awareness. It is actually quite amusing at times to watch the ego, now completely useless, squirm around at this or that, all the time being constantly aware of it and thus immune to its tentacles which cause such suffering.

In material terms this is an existence of privilege. The oppressed class throughout human history would have *loved* to have been in the position of privilege that you're describing. Fortunately in our current, modern age, there is more opportunity for self-determined lives, but it is hardly universal.

*Is total control of one's life, an illusion?*

The universe is so chaotic that control is an illusion as is order. We must not confuse peace with order. Peace can only be achieved through awareness of the chaos, a total acceptance of what is, not through a quest for order. A quest for order is a quest for illusions, and in the quest for illusions we resist and we suffer.

You're greatly exaggerating here -- the universe, and the earth in particular, is *not* "chaotic" -- it is *complex*. Because of chains of causation, or material determinism, causes for anything's motion can be traced back to other events. By this definition *nothing* is truly chaotic -- even the seemingly random motion of molecules of H2O in a fairly still body of water are still subject to the same laws of causation.

On earth we have much greater complexity, in the direction of order, still. Our human brains are a marvel of order, of a complex nature, compared to everything else in the universe that we know of.

And, with Marxism and social science, we can explain much of the macro-dynamics, even down to much of individual behavior, which is a discovery and acknowledging of a certain kind of order, albeit complex.

Chaos ceases to be chaos in this state. The moment we cease our insatiable quest for order is the moment that chaos ends. The moment that chaos ends is the moment when man reaches his full potential which is the state of permanent peace.

Your whole worldview, based on the notion of a chaotic universe, relegates the individual to existence as a "fragment" (your term), which is dehumanizing and would cause irrational fear in anyone who subscribes to that worldview. Now less-than-human, our "fragment" must seek out refuge from the "chaotic universe", in a passive way, hoping at best to find a shelter, and an idealistic, timeless state of "peace" away from the doings of the rest of the world.

This is a recipe for isolation, self-denial, self-repression, and fear. I would advise more of a humanistic, pro-active attitude to one's own life and to involvement in the world, depending on one's goals, of course.

*Still, all this vague bullshit, in real life you're just another ordinary person like us who is no more advanced than anyone else, its just aload of post-left wank. Thereas a reason its so vague, and thats because its fucking substanceless.

*Why are you so angry? I apologise for being 'so vague' as you seem to think I have, perhaps if you ask me a specific question I can give you a more specific answer.

The problem with *all* religion is that it focuses too much on the individual, pretending that the surrounding social world can just be blithely ignored. Any normal person who hears this sort of bullshit *should* be offended, because it is an insult to a person's intelligence. Most people, especially the oppressed, are much more used to dealing with the world out of obligation, and wouldn't even have the *freedom* to do what this religious stuff prescribes, even if they *wanted* to, which they shouldn't.

Revolutionary Youth

8th February 2009, 12:12

Still, all this vague bullshit, in real life you're just another ordinary person like us who is no more advanced than anyone else, its just aload of post-left wank. Thereas a reason its so vague, and thats because its fucking substanceless.
I think you are the one who is vague here, friend. He has been spending alot of time answering very carefully every question of ours, I'm sure you are aware of this. You should reply him with a more constructive post, rather than just bluntly jump to conclusion. He has a very pro-Marxist idea, he has convinced me of this. Although some of his ideas may be rather hard to apply, but from the very root, he is my comrade, so is yours. You guys should show more respect to him.

The New Consciousness

8th February 2009, 15:27

In material terms this is an existence of privilege.

Materialism doesn't come into this. This is a radical change of consciousness, independent of external factors. Nevertheless I understand what you mean. Obviously if you are starving, over-worked and oppressed you will find it undoubtedly more tasking to engage in self-enquiry and meditation than someone of privilege, but the power of awareness is available to all human beings.

The oppressed class throughout human history would have *loved* to have been in the position of privilege that you're describing. Fortunately in our current, modern age, there is more opportunity for self-determined lives, but it is hardly universal.

The problem of oppressor and oppressed is one of fragmentation and hence exploitation and suffering. The whole system is a product of this basic human problem.

For some people it will be easier to liberate themselves from this mad cycle, simply because their particular privilege grants them more time to engage in this vital endeavour. But it HAS to start somewhere. Once people start changing their consciousness, so the whole of human consciousness begins to change. The more enlightened people there are, the less unenlightened behaviour takes place. This is when change happens.

The thing about awareness is that is spreads. The act of communion is an immensely powerful thing. There is a quality to this state of being which is wondrously infectious. In human relations it is fascinating how the state of communion negates all division and hostility. Conflict is fuelled by opposing forces, dialectics. But when two humans meet and one of them is liberated there is only one conflictive force, and thus surely conflict must lessen considerably no?

How are we humans to become aware on a mass-level when it is our individual responsibility? The change must come in education surely, for is not education the prime facilitator of social conditioning? We must allow young people the freedom to learn for themselves, to question their environment, and to find out for themselves about life and relationships and love. There must be no conditioning, no deceitful 'truths', no commands, no obligations, no notions of competition, comparison, judgment or morality, no shackling dogmas.

Someone once said you can change the world through education. One generation educated in a new way can change everything.

Things like this thread also help. Discussions about awareness and the problem of fragmentation provide signposts (not paths!) to freedom and challenge readers to think for themselves, beyond dogma and conditioning.

You're greatly exaggerating here -- the universe, and the earth in particular, is *not* "chaotic" -- it is *complex*. Because of chains of causation, or material determinism, causes for anything's motion can be traced back to other events. By this definition *nothing* is truly chaotic -- even the seemingly random motion of molecules of H2O in a fairly still body of water are still subject to the same laws of causation.

Naturally, events in the Universe are the product of causation. This is undeniable. But can one even fathom this complexity, let alone control it?
Chaos means disorder. Disorder only exists when one is looking for order. When one ceases to look for order, chaos simply becomes 'what is'. It isn't given any negative charge. Right?

What is order? Isn't order a sense of control or understanding? Yet the universe is incomprehensible in its totality and it is out of our control. Therefore there cannot be order. Then surely it follows that if we carry on looking for order we are only going to find disorder? Disorder is chaos. Disorder and chaos are merely negatively-charged terms for what is. Thus the whole problem originates out of the human perception and our obsessive desire for order.

True order is peace. And this can only be achieved through a total awareness of acceptance of what we perceive, in our order-obsessed state, as chaos, which is simply 'what is'.

Is this clear? I can go into more detail if you like.

Your whole worldview, based on the notion of a chaotic universe, relegates the individual to existence as a "fragment" (your term), which is dehumanizing and would cause irrational fear in anyone who subscribes to that worldview.

No. The individual is only a fragment in the unaware state; when he is unaware of the fact that he is everything, that he IS the Universe, at one with the 'chaos'.

The fragment is an illusion and is not really the individual. It becomes problematic when man identifies himself with the fragment. Got it? I'm sorry if I haven't explained well enough in previous posts.

Now less-than-human, our "fragment" must seek out refuge from the "chaotic universe", in a passive way, hoping at best to find a shelter, and an idealistic, timeless state of "peace" away from the doings of the rest of the world.

No this state of peace is not 'away' from anything. It comes out of a total immersion into the Universe. It comes out of sense of inclusion and integration into the Universe. It comes when we transcend the illusory, fragmented state, creator of all suffering and misery.

You have got this all the wrong way round.

There is no refuge. This is what the 'fragment' lives in: refuges, consolations, secure little identities, frameworks, concepts and notions and dogmas - all illusions. We must transcend this. This mess is the quest for 'order' I wrote about. Instead we must accept the chaos i.e. 'what is'. There is no refuge, there is no hiding in this. You seem to have completely misunderstood me.

This is a recipe for isolation, self-denial, self-repression, and fear. I would advise more of a humanistic, pro-active attitude to one's own life and to involvement in the world, depending on one's goals, of course.

No, it is exactly the opposite! Once again you have got it completely wrong! There is no self-denial or repression because the self, as we know it, which is the ego, ceases to be a factor in our being and relationships with others. In fact, this way of being is the most humanistic as it leads to compassion and communion with all other beings. This is the only way to live in this world, without goals, which you seem to laud so. Goals are ends, and ends always involve exploitation and suffering. There are no goals in love are there?

The problem with *all* religion is that it focuses too much on the individual, pretending that the surrounding social world can just be blithely ignored.

The surrounding social world of course exists. We are not ignoring that. Time and time again the problem of conditioning has been addressed here. Of course society exists. But does it have to play a factor in the identity of the individual? Can the individual live free from this conditioning? Free from the amour-propre and perfectibility and all the suffering those social diseases entail? Can the individual transcend divisive, conflictive society and live instead in communion with other men? Communion being compassion, true relation and love? These are the questions I have been asking. There is no pretending that things don't exist or self-deluding lies here. This is the exact opposite. We are trying to transcend illusions here my friend.

Any normal person who hears this sort of bullshit *should* be offended, because it is an insult to a person's intelligence.

Funnily enough that's true. This whole thread is an insult to the time-bound identity, a product of the intellect. Naturally such expansive thinking is bound to offend it, what with its limited notions of the world and inherently divisive and thus hostile nature.

Most people, especially the oppressed, are much more used to dealing with the world out of obligation, and wouldn't even have the *freedom* to do what this religious stuff prescribes, even if they *wanted* to, which they shouldn't.

Once again the pertinent issue of privilege is raised. But let me remind you that awareness is something all human beings can engage in, regardless of their circumstances. Love is universal. All human beings at some point or another have loved and felt the warmth of compassion. What we are trying to do here is to find out how to make this a permanent state of being.

Peace and love.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

8th February 2009, 18:33

Naturally, events in the Universe are the product of causation. This is undeniable. But can one even fathom this complexity, let alone control it?
Chaos means disorder. Disorder only exists when one is looking for order. When one ceases to look for order, chaos simply becomes 'what is'. It isn't given any negative charge. Right?

What is order? Isn't order a sense of control or understanding? Yet the universe is incomprehensible in its totality and it is out of our control. Therefore there cannot be order. Then surely it follows that if we carry on looking for order we are only going to find disorder? Disorder is chaos. Disorder and chaos are merely negatively-charged terms for what is. Thus the whole problem originates out of the human perception and our obsessive desire for order.

True order is peace. And this can only be achieved through a total awareness of acceptance of what we perceive, in our order-obsessed state, as chaos, which is simply 'what is'.

Is this clear? I can go into more detail if you like.

Just because we can't (yet!) impose order on the entire universe, does not mean that imposing order is in itself pointless. Every object of human artifice is a testament to the human ability to impose order on a disordered universe.

This is the only way to live in this world, without goals, which you seem to laud so. Goals are ends, and ends always involve exploitation and suffering.No they don't. Goals like providing cities with decent sanitation systems actually alleviate suffering.

Flushing toilets provide more succour than ego-destroying peace and love drivel.

All human beings at some point or another have loved and felt the warmth of compassion. What we are trying to do here is to find out how to make this a permanent state of being. Well, that's easy in theory. Human emotions are a product of mental and physiological processes, which can be affected by certain chemicals. You could genetically engineer humans to be nothing but peace and love mentally speaking, but to be honest that sounds boring.

Or one could use a cocktail of drugs administered hourly to dope up people so they feel nothing but peaceful, calm and loving. The problem with this solution is that it renders its subjects unfit to operate heavy machinery or drive. It also stinks to me of cheating.

So it looks like we will have to learn the hard way to get along. And no, I don't think your ego-destroying, identity-discarding way of thinking will catch on.

The New Consciousness

8th February 2009, 19:16

Just because we can't (yet!) impose order on the entire universe, does not mean that imposing order is in itself pointless. Every object of human artifice is a testament to the human ability to impose order on a disordered universe.

And look how much of that human artifice has created suffering and misery! History is witness to all this terrible mess.

No they don't. Goals like providing cities with decent sanitation systems actually alleviate suffering.

Those are practical goals. The goals I am referring to are goals to do with identity and time-bound illusions of self. I apologise, I should have been more clear on that.

Well, that's easy in theory. Human emotions are a product of mental and physiological processes, which can be affected by certain chemicals. You could genetically engineer humans to be nothing but peace and love mentally speaking, but to be honest that sounds boring.

Such chemicals are boosted through alert awareness. Countless studies of meditation are showing its massively positive effects. Awareness brings great energy, inspiration and joy. Chemicals or not, this is an immensely wondrous thing, worthy of contemplation.

Or one could use a cocktail of drugs administered hourly to dope up people so they feel nothing but peaceful, calm and loving. The problem with this solution is that it renders its subjects unfit to operate heavy machinery or drive. It also stinks to me of cheating.

Drugs are escapes. They can provide a sense of peace for a limited amount of time but can also do great harm to the body and as you say, incapacitate certain abilities. They also do nothing to solve the permanent problem of the 'fragment'. We cannot take holidays away from it and then expect it to be gone when we 'return'. We must confront this truth head on, in rigorous self-enquiry and awareness. We must not cheat ourselves. We must be as honest with ourselves as we possibly can.

I don't think your ego-destroying, identity-discarding way of thinking will catch on.

If people continue to be unaware and thus isolated, hostile and insular, no it won't. Pure awareness is a light that dissolves suffering.

Peace and love.

ckaihatsu

13th February 2009, 12:51

TNC,

I'm seeing more and more overlap between our positions -- if you will -- as this discussion goes on. I think there *have* been a number of misunderstandings based on word usage and meaning. What I'm going to do in this post is concentrate on some terms and definitions so that at least we can be clear on meanings.

In material terms this is an existence of privilege.

Materialism doesn't come into this. This is a radical change of consciousness, independent of external factors.

Materialism, as used in secular, political and societal contexts, is used to include *everything* that can be traced back to underlying, material dynamics. Our individual consciousnesses -- if you agree -- are wholly dependent on the satisfactory biological functioning of our brains. If we do *not* have the regular, proper state of health for our brain (organ) -- like temperature, etc. -- then our *consciousness* will be affected, correct?

This is then materialism. Expanding outward from this is the overall societal context in which we live which also, obviously, affects our brains and consciousness, but in *qualitative* ways.

Once again the pertinent issue of privilege is raised.

This excerpt above is from the tail end of your same post. I'd like to point out that it contradicts the excerpt above, where you're saying that materialism -- specifically privilege -- is *not* relevant. Here you're saying that privilege *is* pertinent.

Nevertheless I understand what you mean. Obviously if you are starving, over-worked and oppressed you will find it undoubtedly more tasking to engage in self-enquiry and meditation than someone of privilege, but the power of awareness is available to all human beings.

For some people it will be easier to liberate themselves from this mad cycle, simply because their particular privilege grants them more time to engage in this vital endeavour.

I'd like to *emphasize* and focus on this part, if you don't mind. You're agreeing that it is *easier* to engage in self-inquiry and meditation the *less* one is starved, over-worked, and oppressed. This, in a nutshell, *is* materialism.

The reason the people on this board are so focused on politics and economics and other outward-oriented stuff -- instead of focusing on the individual consciousness, as you do -- is because of this very fact that you've acknowledged.

* Of course * we *all* here want people to have more time for self-inquiry and whatever else they want to do with their free time -- and, so, wouldn't it help for everyone to *have* more comfortable, obligation-free free time in order to make this happen -- ?

Because of this reasoning we then ask, "How come more people *don't* have more free time for themselves? What *are* they doing instead of self-inquiry and other stuff they'd *like* to do? Are there some things about society in general that are *preventing* *lots* of people from having the free time and means that they would like?" And, finally, "What can *we* do, now that we realize this fact, so that these things that are preventing more people from having free time, can be removed once and for all -- ?"

The oppressed class throughout human history would have *loved* to have been in the position of privilege that you're describing. Fortunately in our current, modern age, there is more opportunity for self-determined lives, but it is hardly universal.

The problem of oppressor and oppressed is one of fragmentation and hence exploitation and suffering. The whole system is a product of this basic human problem.

What if I were to say that our only big point of contention is over something trivial -- which came first: Fragmentation or oppressor / oppressed / exploitation / suffering -- ?

You've been pounding home the point that "fragmentation" came first. At the same time you're *acknowledging* the existence of oppression, exploitation, and suffering. This means that we agree on the *reality* of things, and we've mostly been revolving around the issue of *causation*.

For some people it will be easier to liberate themselves from this mad cycle, simply because their particular privilege grants them more time to engage in this vital endeavour. But it HAS to start somewhere. Once people start changing their consciousness, so the whole of human consciousness begins to change. The more enlightened people there are, the less unenlightened behaviour takes place. This is when change happens.

The thing about awareness is that is spreads. The act of communion is an immensely powerful thing. There is a quality to this state of being which is wondrously infectious. In human relations it is fascinating how the state of communion negates all division and hostility. Conflict is fuelled by opposing forces, dialectics. But when two humans meet and one of them is liberated there is only one conflictive force, and thus surely conflict must lessen considerably no?

A few things here:

[1] Yes, I agree that consciousness has to change -- in the direction of being * class * conscious, which is a *very* *specific* type of consciousness.

[2] You're positing that "Conflict is fueled by opposing forces...." If you will accept that the ultimate, most pervasive *source* of these common conflicts is *rooted* in * class *, then you would agree that the conflict is based in the class division in society. In other words, you're not being specific enough -- in general, would you consider adding more adjectives to your terms so that they become more specific? We can talk about "conflict" by itself, which is an *enormous* subject, if we don't *make* it more specific. The entire RevLeft board was created to address * class conflict *, which is the absolutely biggest problem that wracks society.

[3] You're misusing the term 'dialectics' -- while it *does* imply conflict, it is *not* the kind of conflict you're thinking of -- violent, flesh-piercing conflict. 'Dialectics' simply refers to *any* two ideas or forces which are *different* -- one is called the 'thesis' while the other is called the 'antithesis' -- I think this probably sounds much more dramatic and black-and-white than it has to be -- we could be speaking of the concepts of organic processes and inorganic processes and combine them ('synthesis') into a broader category called 'chemistry'. *That* would be an example of dialectics.

How are we humans to become aware on a mass-level when it is our individual responsibility? The change must come in education surely, for is not education the prime facilitator of social conditioning?

We must allow young people the freedom to learn for themselves, to question their environment, and to find out for themselves about life and relationships and love. There must be no conditioning, no deceitful 'truths', no commands, no obligations, no notions of competition, comparison, judgment or morality, no shackling dogmas.

Here is another contradiction -- you're recognizing social conditioning, from education, as being a primary force for change and increasing awareness, yet you then say that "There must be no conditioning...." It can't be both.

Someone once said you can change the world through education. One generation educated in a new way can change everything.

Things like this thread also help. Discussions about awareness and the problem of fragmentation provide signposts (not paths!) to freedom and challenge readers to think for themselves, beyond dogma and conditioning.

It's really too bad that you're hedging. I think RevLeft is the single greatest tool that has ever been available to revolutionaries. It is the epitome and trailblazer of what can be called "the information revolution" in that it brings people together from all over the world, in the most convenient and useful format conceivable, in the advancement of revolutionary leftist politics and activities. It *is* *indeed* a path, and *not* a mere "signpost".

You're greatly exaggerating here -- the universe, and the earth in particular, is *not* "chaotic" -- it is *complex*. Because of chains of causation, or material determinism, causes for anything's motion can be traced back to other events. By this definition *nothing* is truly chaotic -- even the seemingly random motion of molecules of H2O in a fairly still body of water are still subject to the same laws of causation.

Naturally, events in the Universe are the product of causation. This is undeniable. But can one even fathom this complexity, let alone control it?
Chaos means disorder. Disorder only exists when one is looking for order. When one ceases to look for order, chaos simply becomes 'what is'. It isn't given any negative charge. Right?

What is order? Isn't order a sense of control or understanding? Yet the universe is incomprehensible in its totality and it is out of our control. Therefore there cannot be order. Then surely it follows that if we carry on looking for order we are only going to find disorder? Disorder is chaos. Disorder and chaos are merely negatively-charged terms for what is. Thus the whole problem originates out of the human perception and our obsessive desire for order.

True order is peace. And this can only be achieved through a total awareness of acceptance of what we perceive, in our order-obsessed state, as chaos, which is simply 'what is'.

Is this clear? I can go into more detail if you like.

Just because we can't (yet!) impose order on the entire universe, does not mean that imposing order is in itself pointless. Every object of human artifice is a testament to the human ability to impose order on a disordered universe.

And look how much of that human artifice has created suffering and misery! History is witness to all this terrible mess.

Now we're returning to the issue of causation -- where, exactly, will you put the blame for a world-gone-wrong? Which artifice(s) of human making are culpable? Again, I'll ask you to be more specific because generalities are a little too easy to make to have a useful discussion. Shall we blame "human nature" -- ? Then we're predestined to be doomed. Shall we blame "a few bad apples" -- ? Then why do *new* bad apples keep popping up and spoiling things again? I thought our efforts were supposed to get rid of just the few that were messing everything up.

No they don't. Goals like providing cities with decent sanitation systems actually alleviate suffering.

Those are practical goals. The goals I am referring to are goals to do with identity and time-bound illusions of self. I apologise, I should have been more clear on that.

You're distinguishing between societal ("practical") goals and individual goals, which I find encouraging.

I'll ask you to consider that the accomplishment of societal ("practical") goals cuts against privilege -- that is, it helps to bring more people to having more free time for self-inquiry and anything else they want to do.

Well, that's easy in theory. Human emotions are a product of mental and physiological processes, which can be affected by certain chemicals. You could genetically engineer humans to be nothing but peace and love mentally speaking, but to be honest that sounds boring.

Such chemicals are boosted through alert awareness. Countless studies of meditation are showing its massively positive effects. Awareness brings great energy, inspiration and joy. Chemicals or not, this is an immensely wondrous thing, worthy of contemplation.

You're not acknowledging or addressing NoXion's point. He's saying that there's a tradeoff between goals and means -- we could achieve permanent bliss for every single last person on earth, with the technology that we have today, but the tradeoff is that it would be entirely artificial and free-will-sapping.

What your line is, TNC, is the *other* extreme from this -- you're saying that *everyone* should use their own *means* of increasing *awareness*, but you're not *focused* on a *goal* for *society* that would come *out* of this awareness -- you're only addressing individuals.

Or one could use a cocktail of drugs administered hourly to dope up people so they feel nothing but peaceful, calm and loving. The problem with this solution is that it renders its subjects unfit to operate heavy machinery or drive. It also stinks to me of cheating.

Drugs are escapes. They can provide a sense of peace for a limited amount of time but can also do great harm to the body and as you say, incapacitate certain abilities. They also do nothing to solve the permanent problem of the 'fragment'. We cannot take holidays away from it and then expect it to be gone when we 'return'. We must confront this truth head on, in rigorous self-enquiry and awareness. We must not cheat ourselves. We must be as honest with ourselves as we possibly can.

So you're *agreeing* with NoXion here -- but since you acknowledge alienation ("fragmentation"), oppression, exploitation, suffering, and privilege, what *goal* or *plan* do you have to offer that would address *these* problems?

I don't think your ego-destroying, identity-discarding way of thinking will catch on.

If people continue to be unaware and thus isolated, hostile and insular, no it won't. Pure awareness is a light that dissolves suffering.

Peace and love.

I, along with many here, would say that * awareness * doesn't go * far enough *. Even if, hypothetically, *everyone* were conscious of these problems of alienation ("fragmentation"), oppression, exploitation, suffering, and privilege, as you have related them, it *would not* be enough to *overcome* and *eliminate* the problems.

Your whole worldview, based on the notion of a chaotic universe, relegates the individual to existence as a "fragment" (your term), which is dehumanizing and would cause irrational fear in anyone who subscribes to that worldview.

No. The individual is only a fragment in the unaware state; when he is unaware of the fact that he is everything, that he IS the Universe, at one with the 'chaos'.

The fragment is an illusion and is not really the individual. It becomes problematic when man identifies himself with the fragment. Got it? I'm sorry if I haven't explained well enough in previous posts.

*I'm* sorry if what I'm about to say is going to sound harsh or offensive to you, so allow me to just say that it's *not* my intention to be *harsh* or to *offend* you -- nonetheless it is what I consider to be valid, and so I'll say it:

This is another contradiction -- an *individual* person *cannot* be said to be *synonymous* with the universe. You can say it in a *figurative* sense, or in an *illustrative* sense, or as a personal, introspective *narrative*, but you cannot stand by it as fact. It is as ludicrous as saying that a wafer has transformed into the flesh of a person, or something wacky like that. (To everyone else reading this: Hey, don't look at me -- I'm not even making this stuff up!!!)

Now less-than-human, our "fragment" must seek out refuge from the "chaotic universe", in a passive way, hoping at best to find a shelter, and an idealistic, timeless state of "peace" away from the doings of the rest of the world.

No this state of peace is not 'away' from anything. It comes out of a total immersion into the Universe. It comes out of sense of inclusion and integration into the Universe. It comes when we transcend the illusory, fragmented state, creator of all suffering and misery.

You have got this all the wrong way round.

There is no refuge. This is what the 'fragment' lives in: refuges, consolations, secure little identities, frameworks, concepts and notions and dogmas - all illusions. We must transcend this. This mess is the quest for 'order' I wrote about. Instead we must accept the chaos i.e. 'what is'. There is no refuge, there is no hiding in this. You seem to have completely misunderstood me.

Again, this is problematic -- you're *not* making any sense by equating the individual to the universe.

Also, as NoXion pointed out, human ability *does indeed give us* the means with which to create * order * out of "chaos". As an example, where did the grid come from? There is *nothing* in nature, except for human beings, that can create several lines that are parallel to each other, and then other sets of lines in parallel that are perpendicular to the first set. And yet look at all the good (and bad) that has come out of that simple ordering -- !!!

This is a recipe for isolation, self-denial, self-repression, and fear. I would advise more of a humanistic, pro-active attitude to one's own life and to involvement in the world, depending on one's goals, of course.

No, it is exactly the opposite! Once again you have got it completely wrong! There is no self-denial or repression because the self, as we know it, which is the ego, ceases to be a factor in our being and relationships with others. In fact, this way of being is the most humanistic as it leads to compassion and communion with all other beings. This is the only way to live in this world, without goals, which you seem to laud so. Goals are ends, and ends always involve exploitation and suffering. There are no goals in love are there?

Why are you automatically going from *goals* to *exploitation and suffering*??? This is *not* automatic. Please review this, from above:

No they don't. Goals like providing cities with decent sanitation systems actually alleviate suffering.

Those are practical goals. The goals I am referring to are goals to do with identity and time-bound illusions of self. I apologise, I should have been more clear on that.

The problem with *all* religion is that it focuses too much on the individual, pretending that the surrounding social world can just be blithely ignored.

The surrounding social world of course exists. We are not ignoring that. Time and time again the problem of conditioning has been addressed here. Of course society exists. But does it have to play a factor in the identity of the individual? Can the individual live free from this conditioning? Free from the amour-propre and perfectibility and all the suffering those social diseases entail? Can the individual transcend divisive, conflictive society and live instead in communion with other men? Communion being compassion, true relation and love? These are the questions I have been asking. There is no pretending that things don't exist or self-deluding lies here. This is the exact opposite. We are trying to transcend illusions here my friend.

Social world = society = communion. These terms are approximately the same -- the only thing that would vary in any of them is the *degree* to which each exists. We could *imagine* a planet of scattered individuals, in which case *no* social world, or society, or communion would exist *at all*. Where we are now is *more* social world / society / communion than that, obviously. And I think we agree that we can go farther still....

Any normal person who hears this sort of bullshit *should* be offended, because it is an insult to a person's intelligence.

Funnily enough that's true. This whole thread is an insult to the time-bound identity, a product of the intellect. Naturally such expansive thinking is bound to offend it, what with its limited notions of the world and inherently divisive and thus hostile nature.

So, in short, don't get too hung up on your own social identity, or on your own conception of your own identity -- got it.

Most people, especially the oppressed, are much more used to dealing with the world out of obligation, and wouldn't even have the *freedom* to do what this religious stuff prescribes, even if they *wanted* to, which they shouldn't.

Once again the pertinent issue of privilege is raised. But let me remind you that awareness is something all human beings can engage in, regardless of their circumstances. Love is universal. All human beings at some point or another have loved and felt the warmth of compassion. What we are trying to do here is to find out how to make this a permanent state of being.

Peace and love.

Allow me to suggest that there is *** no mystery *** about "how to make [love and compassion] a permanent state of being" -- we need to * eliminate * alienation ("fragmentation"), oppression, exploitation, suffering, and privilege.

You're acknowledging that privilege -- which is a *societal*, or 'practical' (your term) characteristic -- is pertinent. So, then, what practical goal should we have, that addresses society, that can * eliminate privilege * -- ?

synthesis

13th February 2009, 20:37

I actually think this guy has a few good points that would come across as a lot more reasonable if they weren't drenched in pretentious purple prose (ooo, alliteration) and sauteed with a heaping tablespoon of incomprehensible New Age rambling.

Here's how I interpret it: as humans, we are ingrained with an "us vs. them" mentality and a mindset that seeks to distinguish ourselves from everything else that exists, which often impedes our progress as a species. Overcoming this mentality would make a communist society much more tenable, but what TNC seems to ignore is that plenty of people benefit from these divisions in some way or another and would oppose a communist revolution. These people would say, "Fuck the New Consciousness, I'm making money" and that's exactly when we'll need the "us vs. them" mentality. That's revolution.

But if we're on the same page, I don't necessarily disagree with you on the usefulness of changing our mentality. You just need to drop the "guru" act and focus on the specific points you want to make.

The New Consciousness

14th February 2009, 10:52

Here's how I interpret it: as humans, we are ingrained with an "us vs. them" mentality and a mindset that seeks to distinguish ourselves from everything else that exists, which often impedes our progress as a species.

Spot on!

What TNC seems to ignore is that plenty of people benefit from these divisions in some way or another and would oppose a communist revolution.

They are human beings just like the rest of us. You assume that you are somehow morally superior to them, but you share the same problem. Just because idealistically you would love to live in a progressive society doesn't necessarily mean you are fit to dwell in it, afterall you are to some extent a product of this capitalist world you were born in, which is itself a product of the basic human problem. This problem is shared. It is man's collective burden. You make the change, and it WILL affect others.

But I agree. The sooner the elites change the better. But remember, an elite is a product of the general problem. The elite is no different from you or me. We are all humans, with the same petty fears and egos. Transcending them is the only way. It is this basic problem that permits elites. If humans were truly enlightened the concept of elites would be utterly laughable. We ourselves are perpetuating the problem. It's not simply a matter of them vs us. Have a look at some of my previous posts on Marxism in this thread to get an idea of what I'm talking about. In a nutshell, conflict will not solve the problem of human suffering.

You just need to drop the "guru" act and focus on the specific points you want to make.

I had no intention of coming across as a guru. In fact I find all gurus and teachers utterly pointless in this matter. Only YOU can find the truth, afterall. If you create a guru out of me you'll never find it for you'll always be looking for your solution in me and my words.

synthesis

16th February 2009, 05:24

So how are you going to go about "converting" these elites when they're benefiting from the system? Conversely, how would you achieve equality without "converting" them?

The New Consciousness

16th February 2009, 12:17

So how are you going to go about "converting" these elites when they're benefiting from the system? Conversely, how would you achieve equality without "converting" them?

All conversion and conditioning must end. We have established that the problem is one of conditioning. Humans are conditioned to think this way by their social surroundings and by education. We must endeavour to take the conditioning out of education. We must bring our children up without conditioning and our education systems must be rid of its shackling effects. We are talking about a complete redefinition of education.

William Lovett, leader of the Chartist movement (an English revolutionary working-class movement which aimed for universal male suffrage) wrote about the stupidity of his contemporary education system. He saw it as stunting man, making him into a mere cog for the capitalist system. An elite is just another cog. People only strive to be elites because they are conditioned to be competitive. All their self-realization is in the future - again, time bound and illusory. They believe that by attaining some kind of rung on the endless ladder of competition they will achieve peace. But they never do. They only create suffering for others and themselves. They do this because they have been conditioned to compete since they were infants, instead of being shown how to understand themselves and others and given free reign to think for themselves.

Lovett saw that education needed to change nearly 200 years ago. It still hasn't changed. It's the same, pathetic, insane system as it always has been.

You can change the world by educating one sole generation in a new way.

We should really be rigorous and try to envision a proper way of educating people, not one with egoic ends, but one with a fervent desire to enlighten. But the first step is to actually start thinking about this.

There is no need for revolution. When people start questioning things more thoroughly, of course they will drift away from this nonsense of competition and capitalism, and the system will fall apart by itself. If there is no consumerism, for example, in the society the whole thing fails. Everything comes from within.

My whole point is that you must change yourself first before you start thinking about changing the world, otherwise it will inevitably be a disaster. Change first, then think about changing the world. This, I believe was Marx's mistake. What he envisioned was ideal, but the means were not, simply because we need a new definition of ends and means, one I hope I have given here in this thread.

Thanks.

Peace and love.

synthesis

16th February 2009, 12:24

People only strive to be elites because they are conditioned to be competitive.

...and because they see profit and power as a result of it.

You say there should be no conversion and no revolution, but I'm still not sure how you plan to create any meaningful change without making an effort. Unless I've somehow overlooked the "10-Point Programme of the New Consciousness."

Lynx

16th February 2009, 12:46

Our most principled goal is education, or enlightenment, of the masses. Unfortunately the means available to achieve these goals are inefficient.

Lynx

16th February 2009, 13:06

Lovett saw that education needed to change nearly 200 years ago. It still hasn't changed. It's the same, pathetic, insane system as it always has been.

You can change the world by educating one sole generation in a new way.

We should really be rigorous and try to envision a proper way of educating people, not one with egoic ends, but one with a fervent desire to enlighten. But the first step is to actually start thinking about this.
Should we be thinking about methodologies such as rote learning, critical thinking or heuristics?

Surely a better way for people to learn is to get them to ask questions. Listening is important but it's passive. It's only the first step.

Revolutionary Youth

16th February 2009, 13:25

Should we be thinking about methodologies such as rote learning, critical thinking or heuristics?

Surely a better way for people to learn is to get them to ask questions. Listening is important but it's passive. It's only the first step.
In a contribution to "listening", here is what I said in one of my previous post:

Learning is reserved for those that in addition to memory also have the sense of hearings. Those animals which have memory are more intelligent and capable of learning than those that are not capable of remembering,whereas those that are not able to hear sounds are intelligent without being able to learn.

ZeroNowhere

16th February 2009, 13:27

Learning is reserved for those that in addition to memory also have the sense of hearings.
Um, just wondering, but are you implying that deaf people can't learn? Or...?

Revolutionary Youth

16th February 2009, 13:33

Um, just wondering, but are you implying that deaf people can't learn? Or...?
Well, animals which are different to human!
If you just leave them there in the wild when they are just born, compare them to the normal people with the same circumstance and see the difference.

Lynx

16th February 2009, 14:13

What makes people willing to learn? Willing to listen?

(We can see in this thread how TNC was attacked just from using a few words or a manner of expression that some quickly took offense to.)

Revolutionary Youth

16th February 2009, 14:18

What makes people willing to learn? Willing to listen?

(We can see in this thread how TNC was attacked just from using a few words or a manner of expression that some quickly took offense to.)
They are instincts.

The New Consciousness

16th February 2009, 23:36

You say there should be no conversion and no revolution, but I'm still not sure how you plan to create any meaningful change without making an effort. Unless I've somehow overlooked the "10-Point Programme of the New Consciousness."

There are no '10-point programmes' I'm afraid.

Children must be taught simply to be honest with themselves and to question everything. They mustn't be given value systems or other such mind-stunting nonsense.

Once you awaken people to the reality of suffering they are more able to find out for themselves what is false and through this process of negation reach their own liberation.

We must consider these two vital aspects of human existence: suffering and love, very carefully.

Education systems always forcibly imbibe into students some kind of sense of 'goodness' or socially acceptable behaviour, but they never go beyond this. What is 'goodness' anyway? What is 'socially acceptable behaviour'? No-one questions these. Children are fed this rubbish before they can even think for themselves. They are taught to be loyal to a nation they had no part in creating, to a religion completely irrelevant to their times, to a system of thought that is so perverse and twisted. They are taught to compete with one another. From the very start society brutalises man so that he may function like a cog within its framework. A cog that knows no love and will suffer eternally perpetuating the same divisions and conflicts that have haunted man since time immemorial.

Wouldn't it be better to learn about love? Not some superficial definition but to really get to the root of it. Or better still, to find out what love isn't? To find out why we are all so fucked up? Why there is war instead of blandly accepting that there is war?

Once we begin to see the false as false, the truth of love will reveal itself. Everything else is secondary; knowledge, academia, skills. Purely practical matters.

Lynx

17th February 2009, 00:28

They are instincts.
Instincts... leading to a rush to judgment?
Is curiosity an instinct?

Wouldn't it be better to learn about love? Not some superficial definition but to really get to the root of it. Or better still, to find out what love isn't? To find out why we are all so fucked up? Why there is war instead of blandly accepting that there is war?
Yes!

synthesis

17th February 2009, 00:57

Wouldn't it be better to learn about love? Not some superficial definition but to really get to the root of it. Or better still, to find out what love isn't? To find out why we are all so fucked up? Why there is war instead of blandly accepting that there is war?

So you're talking about reforming education? Education in capitalist societies educates people to live within the capitalist system. How would all these education reforms happen without first getting rid of capitalism?

Revolutionary Youth

17th February 2009, 07:23

Instincts... leading to a rush to judgment?
Is curiosity an instinct?

Yes. Take an example of a new born baby.

The New Consciousness

17th February 2009, 12:31

So you're talking about reforming education? Education in capitalist societies educates people to live within the capitalist system. How would all these education reforms happen without first getting rid of capitalism?

To be honest I don't know. I don't know how one would go about such a reform. I don't know how we could change this system when there are so many that blindly adhere to it. But I do believe that we must internally revolt before we even think about doing it without. This has been the point of my thread. Change YOURSELF, then change the world. If you don't, you'll just be another chapter in the history of mankind's disastrous existence.

The New Consciousness

17th February 2009, 20:38

ckaihatsu! I only just saw your post today when I was going through the thread! Here's my response:

And, finally, "What can *we* do, now that we realize this fact, so that these things that are preventing more people from having free time, can be removed once and for all -- ?"

What can we do? If we are trapped in the unaware consciousness, if we have issues with ourselves and others, surely whatever we conceive of will be tainted with the same weakness? We will merely recreate without the turmoil within.

Thus we return to my central point: we must endeavour to change ourselves before we change the external world. For a truly successful, creative, energetic revolution we must have a similar revolution within.

If you carry on suffering in yourself how on earth can you even hope to conceive of effective measures to alleviate others' suffering? You will perpetuate the same crap.

What if I were to say that our only big point of contention is over something trivial -- which came first: Fragmentation or oppressor / oppressed / exploitation / suffering -- ?

You've been pounding home the point that "fragmentation" came first. At the same time you're *acknowledging* the existence of oppression, exploitation, and suffering. This means that we agree on the *reality* of things, and we've mostly been revolving around the issue of *causation*.

Indeed, as I believe I have mentioned this question is like the one about the chicken and the egg. This is an issue of causation.

I believe that fragmentation, indeed, as you say, came first.

Let's go deeply into it, to determine precisely which came first.

If we maintain that the circumstances are what have made us fragmented, and in order to change we must first change the circumstances, then there is no change. There will never be change. We will always be tied to circumstances, no matter how much they improve or worsen, we will be a reflection of those circumstances.

This approach will never create anything it will merely recreate. Suffering, in this approach, is recreated endlessly. The form may change, the ends may me noble but the same problem remains. And so we see how a wide array of systems, be they capitalistic, socialistic, communistic et cetera, all suffer from the same basic problem and harmony does not reign. Thus there is no true revolution, revolution being a complete definitive change in human behaviour and relations.

This real revolution can only originate within. Now I'm not going to deny it, of course I believe that man is influenced by his circumstances, but I differ from you in that I know he has the power to transcend them and to master himself independently. I may sound idealistic to you but in myself I am convinced of this essential fact; I have seen this in the ideas of too many great men, be they religious or philosophical, and in my own experience for it to be otherwise.

There IS a universality to existence that is beyond conditioning and circumstances. There is a quality of broad-mindedness and freedom that is within man's capacity to reach. Love is an example of this. Examples of compassion are frequent in this world. We just need to learn how to make this a permanent state of being.

To understand love is what all humans should endeavour to do. How do we understand love? We cannot come to it through thought, for, as we have established, thought is limited and divisive. Thus surely we can only come to it by stripping away thought. This is meditation; the negation of the false which automatically guides us to the truth - love. I know it sounds wishy washy, but it really doesn't matter how it is written. How else are we to arrive at the state of compassion? It is beyond thought. It must come from a negation of illusion. I have tried to explain this in this thread with respect to time-bound illusory self and 'other' conceptions - all a product of thought.

Yes, I agree that consciousness has to change -- in the direction of being * class * conscious, which is a *very* *specific* type of consciousness.

So once you become conscious of your class, bourgeoise or working class, then what? Does suffering end? Does conflict end? Do classes ever end? I talked before about the fault with the Marxist theory of thesis vs antithesis resolving in optimum synthesis. All of these things contain the same, constant 'thesis'. This constant is the problem of suffering. You can hand power from capitalist to state but it's still 'the other'. You will still have the same problem of conflict.

You're positing that "Conflict is fueled by opposing forces...." If you will accept that the ultimate, most pervasive *source* of these common conflicts is *rooted* in * class *, then you would agree that the conflict is based in the class division in society. In other words, you're not being specific enough -- in general, would you consider adding more adjectives to your terms so that they become more specific? We can talk about "conflict" by itself, which is an *enormous* subject, if we don't *make* it more specific. The entire RevLeft board was created to address * class conflict *, which is the absolutely biggest problem that wracks society.

And where does class conflict originate from? It comes from inequality. And why is there inequality? It is man himself who creates inequality for his whole existence is one of striving to be different to or better than his fellow men instead of communing with them. This is the source and consequence of his eternal suffering.

You're misusing the term 'dialectics' -- while it *does* imply conflict, it is *not* the kind of conflict you're thinking of -- violent, flesh-piercing conflict. 'Dialectics' simply refers to *any* two ideas or forces which are *different* -- one is called the 'thesis' while the other is called the 'antithesis' -- I think this probably sounds much more dramatic and black-and-white than it has to be -- we could be speaking of the concepts of organic processes and inorganic processes and combine them ('synthesis') into a broader category called 'chemistry'. *That* would be an example of dialectics

I understand the concept of dialectics: of thesis and antithesis. I mentioned it earlier on in the thread and posted quite extensively about this flawed view of progress being tied in with conflict. The whole thing is just another example of time-bound thought, of means subsumed to ends. While there is an end there will always be exloitation and suffering. The same problems thus manifest themselves eternally within this formula. We must transcend the formula, drop the ends and live in the eternal now. Eternity is the key to love. It sounds vague I know, I wish I could express it more succinctly. Perhaps if you look back at my previous posts that will help and if you give me specific questions I can whittle it down a bit.

Here is another contradiction -- you're recognizing social conditioning, from education, as being a primary force for change and increasing awareness, yet you then say that "There must be no conditioning...." It can't be both.

Awareness is not increased for awareness is not a variable. It is an eternal state accessible to all of us. In awareness there is no scale system, awareness is simply awareness, be it awareness of the body, the thoughts, the emotions or conditioning. I am saying that there must be no conditioning and that students must simply be reminded of this wondrous ability of awareness. There is no conditioning in that is there?

It *is* *indeed* a path, and *not* a mere "signpost".

It may awaken people more to the general injustice of the world but is it going to cure them of their suffering? No. No paths can. Suffering cannot be cured by processes and ends and methods. Such things are products of thought which is the cause of suffering. It would be like trying to put a fire out with fire. Awareness is the quenching water. But naturally there is no path to awareness. You can only remind people of its presence. This I refer to 'signposts'. Although now that I think of it such terms are too intellectual as they suggest a destination which is in future and thus illusory. I should say 'reminders'. Yes, that's better.

Words! Part of the problem is words. As the product of thought they are just as limited and divisive as the intellect. But they can serve as useful reminders, if used with care. It's my job to learn how to use words properly to express the problem of suffering and love, something this thread, and all the incisive questions I have been asked (as well as the abuse!), has given me ample opportunity to do.

Now we're returning to the issue of causation -- where, exactly, will you put the blame for a world-gone-wrong? Which artifice(s) of human making are culpable? Again, I'll ask you to be more specific because generalities are a little too easy to make to have a useful discussion.

The problem is man's way of looking at the world, what I like to call the CCC, the Constantly Comparative Consciousness. This state of being identifies itself and others through measurement; judgmental comparisons and concepts of past and future, all illusions in the infinite chaos of the universe which has no standards or measurements. This illusory mental existence is at odds with the natural state of the body and the conflict between the two produces emotions (latin: emovere, disturbances). These disturbances can be called: 'suffering'.

You're distinguishing between societal ("practical") goals and individual goals, which I find encouraging.

I'll ask you to consider that the accomplishment of societal ("practical") goals cuts against privilege -- that is, it helps to bring more people to having more free time for self-inquiry and anything else they want to do.

Purely practical goals that do not involve a sense of self or 'other' based on time-bound illusory thought are fine, i.e. constructing a house. You have a time plan. But once you start worrying that your friend is going to construct the house faster than you or better than you or that you are going to lose, or alternatively gain (it works both ways) from the endeavour in some kind of sense of self-satisfaction or realization, then its egoic and clearly unaware behaviour.

You're not acknowledging or addressing NoXion's point. He's saying that there's a tradeoff between goals and means -- we could achieve permanent bliss for every single last person on earth, with the technology that we have today, but the tradeoff is that it would be entirely artificial and free-will-sapping.

I am writing about a way that does not 'sap' free will as you say.

What your line is, TNC, is the *other* extreme from this -- you're saying that *everyone* should use their own *means* of increasing *awareness*, but you're not *focused* on a *goal* for *society* that would come *out* of this awareness -- you're only addressing individuals.

Once the individuals change so does the society. The society responds to the needs and beliefs of the individual. Thus you change the individual the society changes. Society is an aggregate of fragments.

So you're *agreeing* with NoXion here -- but since you acknowledge alienation ("fragmentation"), oppression, exploitation, suffering, and privilege, what *goal* or *plan* do you have to offer that would address *these* problems?

These problems arise out of the unaware consciousness. Cure that and they become illusory and pointless. Once you truly realise this, and not in some abstract sense of classes and conflicts but in simply a matter of unaware behaviour and aware behaviour, then you can start thinking about changing the world around you. I feel that I must remind people of their ability to be aware and love. That's what this new, aware consciousness is inspiring me to do. Not to proselytise or convert or condition; I have no personal ends in this. I merely want to start a debate about this in which we are all reminded of our capacity for awareness and love and to discuss further the ways to abide in this state and also find out what is false and create more 'reminders' if you will. I feel that so far this thread has achieved this stupendously.

I, along with many here, would say that * awareness * doesn't go * far enough *. Even if, hypothetically, *everyone* were conscious of these problems of alienation ("fragmentation"), oppression, exploitation, suffering, and privilege, as you have related them, it *would not* be enough to *overcome* and *eliminate* the problems.

Of course it would. If everyone were aware of these things, firstly there would be far more human understanding and relationship and secondly we would be much more mature and wise in our dealings with one another. Oppression, exploitation, suffering and privilege are all playthings of immature, stunted, frankly insane individuals.

This is another contradiction -- an *individual* person *cannot* be said to be *synonymous* with the universe. You can say it in a *figurative* sense, or in an *illustrative* sense, or as a personal, introspective *narrative*, but you cannot stand by it as fact. It is as ludicrous as saying that a wafer has transformed into the flesh of a person, or something wacky like that. (To everyone else reading this: Hey, don't look at me -- I'm not even making this stuff up!!!)

Of course we are part of the universe. We are the universe and the universe is us. We are part of this global unity movement called life. Don't you see this? Don't you see the totality of it? We are all humans together. The concept of the individual, as you know it, as one tunnelled into a cage-like, restricted existence by conditioning, i.e. time bound thought, is what needs to be transcended. It is so artificial and its artificiality and illusory nature is what creates so much suffering in man. We need to start communing with the world, other people, nature. We need to stop this intellectual isolation.

What I refer to as the individual (not to do with life experience or anything egoic like that) is merely a space of consciousness in which the universe is aware of itself.

Also, as NoXion pointed out, human ability *does indeed give us* the means with which to create * order * out of "chaos". As an example, where did the grid come from? There is *nothing* in nature, except for human beings, that can create several lines that are parallel to each other, and then other sets of lines in parallel that are perpendicular to the first set. And yet look at all the good (and bad) that has come out of that simple ordering -- !!!

You have missed the point entirely. I am talking about order on a psychological level, not on the simple practical level of a grid. This quest for order is manifested in the time-bound illusory sense of self and the CCC.

Why are you automatically going from *goals* to *exploitation and suffering*???

When imbued with a sense of self, goals are synonymous with exploitation and suffering.

Social world = society = communion. These terms are approximately the same -- the only thing that would vary in any of them is the *degree* to which each exists. We could *imagine* a planet of scattered individuals, in which case *no* social world, or society, or communion would exist *at all*. Where we are now is *more* social world / society / communion than that, obviously. And I think we agree that we can go farther still....

Let me explain what communion means. Communion is pure relating. Communion is when you relate to something without illusions of comparison, judgment or time. You are experiencing in the most direct way something else. You are communing with them. This is love and compassion.

Society and social relations, as we know it, tend to lack this. That is why they are so divisive and problematic.

So, in short, don't get too hung up on your own social identity, or on your own conception of your own identity -- got it.

Don't have an identity at all. Do you really need one? Just live and love.

Allow me to suggest that there is *** no mystery *** about "how to make [love and compassion] a permanent state of being" -- we need to * eliminate * alienation ("fragmentation"), oppression, exploitation, suffering, and privilege.

Indeed. And what causes those? Is it not the way we look at the world? Is it not the CCC? The ego? The time-bound illusory way of perceiving ourselves and others?

You're acknowledging that privilege -- which is a *societal*, or 'practical' (your term) characteristic -- is pertinent. So, then, what practical goal should we have, that addresses society, that can * eliminate privilege * -- ?

I never said privilege was practical. I see it as completely illogical. Why should some be privileged and others no? It's entirely the product of the CCC. To eliminate privilege we must transcend the CCC, and reach TNC. But don't get hung up on the words.

Just be aware. And then see what happens.

I'm surprised no-one has asked any questions about the nature of awareness. This is the most important issue after all.

Lynx

19th February 2009, 13:07

Yes. Take an example of a new born baby.This is a wonderful example. Curiosity at its peak, judgment at its nadir. Our early memories - observing, unblinking, unknowing - memories without thought. Please tell me more!

I'm surprised no-one has asked any questions about the nature of awareness. This is the most important issue after all.
What is the nature of awareness?
Is it the untarnished wonder of a new born baby? The wisdom of experience?
Is it the need to question, to learn? We see this level of curiosity in children and throughout the lives of a lucky few.
Is awareness the act of rebelling? of accepting? of suffering?
Is it me, my name sake, watching from the forest with baleful yellow eyes?

Are you surprised! at the questions we fail to ask or the amount of time it takes for us to ask them?

The New Consciousness

20th February 2009, 18:15

Is it me, my name sake, watching from the forest with baleful yellow eyes?

What a lovely image. Yes, I think it is.

Awareness is the most expansive mental state. It is pure consciousness: no thoughts, no remembering, no becoming, no fragmentation, no illusion. Awareness is the realization that all you need to be happy abides eternally in the present moment. It is the state of internal silence that is behind all the noise of thought and movement. It is what quantum physicists refer to as 'consciousness', that which acts upon waves of possibility creating action and movement. There is immense power in this realm of awareness. This is where free will surely resides.

Are you surprised! at the questions we fail to ask or the amount of time it takes for us to ask them?

It seems that we are lost in concepts and illusions here, when there is only one real reality: the infinite state of awareness. I feel we ought to endeavour to explore this wondrous thing more.

Lynx

21st February 2009, 20:18

Is it me, my name sake, watching from the forest with baleful yellow eyes?

What a lovely image. Yes, I think it is.

Awareness is the most expansive mental state. It is pure consciousness: no thoughts, no remembering, no becoming, no fragmentation, no illusion. Awareness is the realization that all you need to be happy abides eternally in the present moment. It is the state of internal silence that is behind all the noise of thought and movement. It is what quantum physicists refer to as 'consciousness', that which acts upon waves of possibility creating action and movement. There is immense power in this realm of awareness. This is where free will surely resides.
I have experienced such moments, they are brief.
Would "losing yourself" in a good book meet this criteria?

Are you surprised! at the questions we fail to ask or the amount of time it takes for us to ask them?

It seems that we are lost in concepts and illusions here, when there is only one real reality: the infinite state of awareness. I feel we ought to endeavour to explore this wondrous thing more.
We are endeavouring, rest assured some of us are. With silent countenance.

Revolutionary Youth

22nd February 2009, 08:53

I have experienced such moments, they are brief.
Would "losing yourself" in a good book meet this criteria?
Nah, I have experienced it through meditation, that is one level higher than you.

This is a wonderful example. Curiosity at its peak, judgment at its nadir. Our early memories - observing, unblinking, unknowing - memories without thought. Please tell me more!What do you want to know more?
And don't get me wrong Lynx, I agree with him in a lot of things, it just I want to ask questions, that's all.

The New Consciousness

22nd February 2009, 13:02

Would "losing yourself" in a good book meet this criteria?

I'm not sure. Good question though. I think this certainly diverts attention away from the time-bound illusory self, but I think it's more distraction that meditation. It is too intellectual.

We are endeavouring, rest assured some of us are. With silent countenance.

Great! It's so important.

Nah, I have experienced it through meditation, that is one level higher than you.

Meditation is more intensely 'in the now' than losing yourself in a good book, which however enjoyable, is more of a distraction than anything else. But please try not to think in terms of levels. Comparison is egoic.

I like to see it this way: the truth is a sun. A blazing sun; love incarnate. And we are planets spinning around it. Certain states of being can bring our orbit closer to this sun. Meditation can bring us as close as Mercury, say. As do drugs sometimes. But while we are not facing the sun, we will never know of its existence. We may feel its warmth, but we will never know it first-hand. We will forever be facing outwards: to the darkness of the world. Thus, I feel we must endeavour to understand, not just be present. If you don't know the significance of being present, there's no point in doing it surely? This is why I think self-enquiry is vital.

Lynx

22nd February 2009, 18:24

Meditation helps me relax, helps clear my mind. I wouldn't say its as enjoyable as other unplanned moments. Is awareness 'in the now' supposed to be enjoyable?

When I'm tired of thoughts racing through my mind, I usually change what I'm doing in order to forget. It is rare that I try and meditate, and I have no real concept of meditation other than descriptions I've read.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

22nd February 2009, 18:36

Meditation sounds boring. Sitting still doing and even thinking of nothing? There are much more productive and interesting things I could do with my limited time.

The New Consciousness

23rd February 2009, 00:54

Meditation helps me relax, helps clear my mind. I wouldn't say its as enjoyable as other unplanned moments. Is awareness 'in the now' supposed to be enjoyable?

I think it goes beyond the simple definition of pleasure or enjoyment. I find it to be an earth-shattering sensation of joy and a completely new way of looking at the world. It's a trip, and a fascinating one. And there's no need for harmful drugs.

When I'm tired of thoughts racing through my mind, I usually change what I'm doing in order to forget. It is rare that I try and meditate, and I have no real concept of meditation other than descriptions I've read.

I try to meditate at all times, to be aware of everything that happens to me, physically, emotionally and mentally. Obviously at times this is hard to do, but it brings a great deal of peace.

At times though I like to plunge deep into the intensity of the present moment. To achieve this I simply close my eyes and focus my attention on my breathing and the energy in my body. We are often unaware of the massive amount of energy flowing through us. Focus on your hand now for instance, probably resting on a keyboard. Let's start with this. Just look at the hand. Focus your attention singularily on the hand. You don't have to look at it to do it. You can have your eyes closed. Just focus on it. You will begin to feel a kind of prickly sensation within the hand, as if there were a hand within your hand. This is energy. This is life. Now feel this all over your body. Try and feel it all at once. Do this whilst focussing on your breathing, on the sounds around you, on the smells. Just give them your attention one by one or all simultaneously if you can. Don't think about them. Just experience them. If thoughts come as they always do, don't resist them. Just observe them. Soon they will pass too. Just keep this going. You will start to feel a wonderful rushing sensation within, like a fountain bubbling up through your core; well that's how it is for me. You may feel very warm, as if you were bathed in light. Your head may feel pleasantly heavy: these are all signs that you are meditating.

Meditation sounds boring. Sitting still doing and even thinking of nothing? There are much more productive and interesting things I could do with my limited time.

Meditation is simply a state of being. No wanting, no grasping. No past, no future. In this state of being the world is so much more vivid. Something so ordinary as a flower can become the most exquisite, incredible and absorbing thing. One is immersed so fully in the sensual experience of the now that all one's perceptions acquire a new dimension of interest. There is also a feeling of great elation, causing the hairs on the back of the neck to stand up and wonderful shivers to pass through the length of the body, akin to an orgasm. Couple all that with its immense healing qualities and the peace, joy and compassion it provides in abundance; I think you'll find, NoXion, that meditation certainly isn't boring.

Lynx

23rd February 2009, 20:40

I try to meditate at all times, to be aware of everything that happens to me, physically, emotionally and mentally. Obviously at times this is hard to do, but it brings a great deal of peace.
Do you practice slow, deep breathing?
What methods do you remember to use in case you find yourself in stressful situations?

At times though I like to plunge deep into the intensity of the present moment. To achieve this I simply close my eyes and focus my attention on my breathing and the energy in my body. We are often unaware of the massive amount of energy flowing through us. Focus on your hand now for instance, probably resting on a keyboard. Let's start with this. Just look at the hand. Focus your attention singularily on the hand. You don't have to look at it to do it. You can have your eyes closed. Just focus on it. You will begin to feel a kind of prickly sensation within the hand, as if there were a hand within your hand. This is energy. This is life. Now feel this all over your body. Try and feel it all at once. Do this whilst focussing on your breathing, on the sounds around you, on the smells. Just give them your attention one by one or all simultaneously if you can. Don't think about them. Just experience them. If thoughts come as they always do, don't resist them. Just observe them. Soon they will pass too. Just keep this going. You will start to feel a wonderful rushing sensation within, like a fountain bubbling up through your core; well that's how it is for me. You may feel very warm, as if you were bathed in light. Your head may feel pleasantly heavy: these are all signs that you are meditating.
I believe I have done this. One variation involves imagining you are about to jump out of your chair in a rush of movement and flailing about - this can lead to feelings of exhilaration. Another variation involves relaxing every inch of your body as you try to remain aware of it.
I can also place my hands on a horizontal surface in front of me, close my eyes, and make it seem my hands are shifting sideways. I can feel my hands and the surface underneath them shifting back and forth, usually at an angle to the horizontal.
If I am in a well lit room, I can dilate the pupils of my eye (or do something) that makes colors and contrasts stand out.
If I'm the slightest bit cold and feel goosebumps I can enhance them and make them wash over me like a wave.

I like to be able to go outside and be as aware of my surroundings as much as possible. I like to bask in the sun or sit in my car after it has been basking in the sun, so I can feel the heat go right through my body.

The New Consciousness

23rd February 2009, 20:50

Do you practice slow, deep breathing?

Yes this is fine, although not essential as after a while it just seems to become deep by itself!

What methods do you remember to use in case you find yourself in stressful situations?

If I feel stressed I just focus my attention away from what is causing me stress (i.e thoughts) to the physical sensations the stress is producing, i.e. the emotional pains. I find that by focussing all my attention on the actual physical feelings of stress, not the ideas and concepts I have about it in my head, but the ACTUAL physical reality of it: it diminishes. If it doesn't, then I tend to focus on my body and senses again. (see above)

By ceasing to dwell on it in thought and instead dwelling on it in its actual reality, it is understood and in that comprehension it is destroyed.

Lynx

23rd February 2009, 20:57

You focus on the emotions you are feeling and/or their physical manifestation?

I admit I don't pay attention to what I am feeling. Physical signs are ignored, unless they hurt in a way comparable to pain.

Edit: And I keep forgetting to use coping mechanisms like slow, deep breathing!!

The New Consciousness

23rd February 2009, 21:02

Yes exactly, the actual physical sensations of the emotions, for this is in reality what they are. The moment you get lost in what you 'think' are emotions, with concepts and notions of the nature of emotions, you have lost them. Emotions can only be felt right? So you must start there surely? No? Please try it, you'll find that all unneeded emotions are diminished when the light of awareness is shone on them, thus breaking the self-perpetuating conflictive link between thought and body which creates them. It's fascinating to observe. I'm not denying the reality of emotion. Nor am I saying we should be rid of them. They are a part of who we are, but when they cause suffering, within us and to other people, then surely we must drop them no? This would not leave us machine-like, cold and dead. Emotions, bear in mind, are not the same as joy and compassion. The latter are states of being. Emotions are disturbances caused by inner conflict.

Peace friend.

Lynx

23rd February 2009, 21:14

There's not much I can say about my own emotions, other than believing I know what they feel like. If I'm angry sometimes I wish to feel vulnerable. Or grateful.

Do each of us have a state of being?

The New Consciousness

23rd February 2009, 21:32

There's not much I can say about my own emotions, other than believing I know what they feel like.

What is an emotion then, for you?

synthesis

24th February 2009, 01:15

Meditation sounds boring. Sitting still doing and even thinking of nothing? There are much more productive and interesting things I could do with my limited time.

It's not "thinking of nothing," it's not thinking at all, which may sound strange, but it's an excellent way of centering yourself. There's also proven medical benefits to meditation, mostly the alleviation of stress.

Lynx

24th February 2009, 04:32

What is an emotion then, for you?
An emotion is a categorized feeling.

The New Consciousness

24th February 2009, 12:58

And a feeling?

Lynx

24th February 2009, 18:02

A feeling is a state of being. If a feeling is temporary it is analogous to a swerve in the road.

The New Consciousness

25th February 2009, 01:49

Could you list some specific examples? Examples of emotions and feelings?

-

Here's how I see it:

When we imbue our thoughts with identity this results in a disturbance in the body, as this is a conflictive, dualistic process. This disturbance is the emotion (latin: emovere).

The disturbance generally manifests itself above and around the abdomen, although symptoms in other areas of the body are also common for some. I like to think of these areas of pain as the points where the tentacles if you will of the time-bound illusory identity, or ego, make contact with the body. But really it is the body reacting against the dualism and consequenT antagonism of the ego (I think).

Thus, under observation all our emotions can be traced back to thought.
For example:
Regret = linked to past imagery and (thought)
Guilt = ditto
Nervousness = linked to future imagery (thought)
Excitement = ditto
Jealousy = past/future (thought)
Envy = ditto
Embarassment = ditto
Irritation/Anger = ditto
Thus we see that all emotions stem from image making and comparisons/judgments = all a product of thought. [CCC: Constantly Comparing Consciousness]

Thus it is thought which creates these. But not just normal thought. A special kind of thought process is involved, a thought process in which images of the self are imbued with identity (illusion being often that the fulfilment of which will lead to peace), and in which images of others form the foundation of relationships.

When we SEE this. When we see 'the ego' if you will, this constantly comparative, judgmental mindset, with its constant identification with images - when we see that this 'demon' does exist within, then its power is reduced immensely. There is a process of desidentification with thought and image making, which makes the emotional pain of thoughts less potent.

We are now a step 'behind' that if you will. It is still there, but we have stepped out of it and away from it. We can see it, but it cannot hurt us so, simply because our AWARENESS has rendered it impotent.

Now that we are out of it, we are in a part of us which we didn't realise existed before.

No-one really knows what existence is like in this consciousness. Yes, there is heightened awareness, but what else? Having been in this state myself for only 6-7 months, I have yet to discover fully what it has in store for me. But what I can report to you so far is all very interesting, and positive.
1) Obviously, less emotional pain
2) more efficiency
3) more appreciaton and enjoyment of the present moment
4) more freedom, i.e in the sense I am now able to drop things that may bother me very easily
5) peace and contentment
To be brutally honest, I have not yet felt the constant mind-blowing love or compassion some writers talk about. But when I do feel love, I see now that it comes from this state of being, this 'field of consciousness' if you will. Thus it is my conviction to help people to understand the whole problem of the time-bound illusory intellect, i.e. the common field of current human consciousness, and how, through negation and personal effort and self-enquiry, to enter into the new field of consciousness, what I call rather mundanely, I must admit: The New Consciousness.

synthesis

25th February 2009, 04:11

To be brutally honest, I have not yet felt the constant mind-blowing love or compassion some writers talk about.

I don't know that I'd necessarily want that. I mean, MDMA is fun, but I wouldn't want to be on it all the time. "Turning the other cheek" has its disadvantages, sometimes lethal - such as not fighting back against an aggressor.

ckaihatsu

25th February 2009, 12:01

I haven't gotten back to this discussion sooner because it's really not worth it. For the record I'd just like to note that my absence from this discussion does *not* in any way signify *agreement* with whatever your response happens to be. I'll address a few points here, briefly.

Thus we return to my central point: we must endeavour to change ourselves before we change the external world. For a truly successful, creative, energetic revolution we must have a similar revolution within.

If you carry on suffering in yourself how on earth can you even hope to conceive of effective measures to alleviate others' suffering? You will perpetuate the same crap.

This is absolute bullshit. You make it sound as if we have to be fully enlightened / perfect people before we can practice sound politics. *That's* a load of crap -- plenty of people, particularly scholarly types, may have personal issues, as we all do, but may be *excellent* at what they know and practice about politics, meaning revolutionary Marxism.

I believe that fragmentation, indeed, as you say, came first.

Let's go deeply into it, to determine precisely which came first.

If we maintain that the circumstances are what have made us fragmented, and in order to change we must first change the circumstances, then there is no change. There will never be change. We will always be tied to circumstances, no matter how much they improve or worsen, we will be a reflection of those circumstances.

This is absolutely fatalistic, as your entire line is -- you make it sound as if our being perfectly *carbon-copies* over into the results of our actions. I would hope you know that social interactions are far more complex than this. We *do not know* and *cannot calculate* exactly how our words and actions will filter out into the larger world.

We are neither omnipotent motivators over the social world around ourselves nor are we passive receptacles to the circumstances in which we live. You're revealing your essentially dualistic approach to the self within society.

Thus there is no true revolution, revolution being a complete definitive change in human behaviour and relations.

If you're going to continue to speak then at least stay away from political statements, because you're just sounding ignorant in that regard. A (political) revolution is *not* "a complete definitive change in human behavior and relations." It *is* a structural change in political and economic relations, particularly over the issue of which social group controls the means of mass production.

So once you become conscious of your class, bourgeoise or working class, then what? Does suffering end? Does conflict end? Do classes ever end? I talked before about the fault with the Marxist theory of thesis vs antithesis resolving in optimum synthesis. All of these things contain the same, constant 'thesis'. This constant is the problem of suffering. You can hand power from capitalist to state but it's still 'the other'. You will still have the same problem of conflict.

Class consciousness is the beginning of correct-oriented practice of politics.

Marxism is *not* about "hand[ing] power from capitalist to state". Again, you should avoid anything relating to politics, because you obviously have no interest in understanding it.

Once the individuals change so does the society. The society responds to the needs and beliefs of the individual. Thus you change the individual the society changes. Society is an aggregate of fragments.

No, this also is too simplistic -- there is *plenty* of change that occurs in society apart from *all* individuals, and even from collective human activity. For example, does *anyone* really want to see the loss of massive amounts of money from the economy as we're seeing these days? Many people's pensions and life savings are tied up in this, and they have reason to be concerned. Yet the economic crunch continues, apart from anyone's will that it should happen this way. Same thing for needless deaths, etc.

Of course it would. If everyone were aware of these things, firstly there would be far more human understanding and relationship and secondly we would be much more mature and wise in our dealings with one another. Oppression, exploitation, suffering and privilege are all playthings of immature, stunted, frankly insane individuals.

No, they're products of the fact that society creates an ongoing surplus and has not resolved on a fundamentally equitable system for producing, distributing, and consuming it. People are *born into* all sorts of circumstances, which allow them to more easily benefit from this reality, or to be victimized by it.

Of course we are part of the universe. We are the universe and the universe is us.

These are two *very* different statements. I agree with the first sentence -- it's factually true. The second part is a severe over-generalization.

We are part of this global unity movement called life. Don't you see this? Don't you see the totality of it? We are all humans together.

Yes, that's called a category, but it doesn't say much or illuminate much. There's *universes* of complexity within all aspects of life, and within the infinite permutations of humans combined together.

The New Consciousness

25th February 2009, 14:34

This is absolute bullshit.

Ah yes, once more the intelligent response! If you want your arguments to have some degree of credibility, I suggest you refrain from behaving like a 10 year old. The point is to avoid acrimony. Just a tip.

You make it sound as if we have to be fully enlightened / perfect people before we can practice sound politics.

Give me an example of sound politics, an actual example.

I am not saying we need to be 'perfect'. What is perfect anyway? Another concept. I'm saying we need to understand the root of our suffering so we don't unwittingly perpetuate it externally, in our interactions with others.

*That's* a load of crap

Great stuff. Rich and compelling...

- plenty of people, particularly scholarly types, may have personal issues, as we all do, but may be *excellent* at what they know and practice about politics, meaning revolutionary Marxism.

Give me an example.

I guarantee in some way their personal issues will spill over into their politics. How could it not? It would require a massive amont of self-will and discipline, and how many people possess that?

Wouldn't it be better to simply to take some time to mature first? Just consider it, don't simply write it off as 'crap' or 'bullshit'. You're too passionate subjective at times, in fact you're a perfect example. Half of you is participating seriously in this and the other half is judging, comparing, spitting insults and trying to cover your arse and self-image. Sort yourself out.

This is absolutely fatalistic, as your entire line is

To define oneself entirely using one's experiences and interactions with the world is as passive as a sitting duck. In this state one is no better than a slave.

Once you are free of this, then you can really start to make choices.

-- you make it sound as if our being perfectly *carbon-copies* over into the results of our actions.

Doesn't make sense, please think over slowly what you want to say, punctuate accordingly and elaborate. Thanks.

I would hope you know that social interactions are far more complex than this. We *do not know* and *cannot calculate* exactly how our words and actions will filter out into the larger world.

Of course not. But ironically, while we attempt to control them what inevitably happens is that they end up controlling us. I say drop control, i.e stop making it so important and stop binding it in with the self.

We are neither omnipotent motivators over the social world around ourselves nor are we passive receptacles to the circumstances in which we live. You're revealing your essentially dualistic approach to the self within society.

The self within society, i.e. is dualistic. When the observer is perceived as separate from the observer, there is dualism and conflict.

The real self, the TNC, this is monistic. No identity, no division, no dualism.

You haven't seemed to have grasped any of this, probably because you are so set against it you haven't actually thought about it properly. This would explain why you never ask any questions.

If you're going to continue to speak then at least stay away from political statements, because you're just sounding ignorant in that regard. A (political) revolution is *not* "a complete definitive change in human behavior and relations."

Excuse me, did I say it was a political revolution? Please READ properly before you rant.

Ultimately the real and only revolution worth considering is the revolution of man's consciousness.

Class consciousness is the beginning of correct-oriented practice of politics.

Marxism is *not* about "hand[ing] power from capitalist to state". Again, you should avoid anything relating to politics, because you obviously have no interest in understanding it.

Once more we see how your limited egoic mind is confined to the narrow spectrum of politics, another concept born of man's insane consciousness. We are going beyond this here.

No, this also is too simplistic -- there is *plenty* of change that occurs in society apart from *all* individuals, and even from collective human activity.

I don't understand your English. Please rewrite in clearer language.

For example, does *anyone* really want to see the loss of massive amounts of money from the economy as we're seeing these days? Many people's pensions and life savings are tied up in this, and they have reason to be concerned. Yet the economic crunch continues, apart from anyone's will that it should happen this way. Same thing for needless deaths, etc.

Are you serious?! What about the capitalists, the ones who have hardly lost a penny? Are you really a Marxist? The reason why we haven't sorted this mess of recession out is because the capitalists hold the means of production, fronted as they are politically and 'legally' by rightist yes men. Isn't this the general leftist view? Or am I completely ignorant? If so make sure to classify me as a lumpenproletariat and ignore me. ;)

Anyway, the point is we live in an inegalitarian society where power and money are concentrated in the hands of the few. This much is indisputable. So there's your answer.

the economic crunch

Odd that you should use such a bland, vacuous capitalist phrase. This is a crisis of capitalism. That merry little phrase is being used to make it sound less disastrous than it really is. Oh it's a crunch. Yeah, that's why my uncle has no money left in the bank is it? Oh well, it's just the crunch. It's a disaster, not a merry little crunch.

Anyway I'm digressing here.

No, they're products of the fact that society creates an ongoing surplus and has not resolved on a fundamentally equitable system for producing, distributing, and consuming it. People are *born into* all sorts of circumstances, which allow them to more easily benefit from this reality, or to be victimized by it.

You rant against my observation that the CCC is fatalistic but look at this beauty: 'products of the fact that society creates an ongoing surplus'. What is this wondrous society? An external entity imposing itself on us no?

And where does that all originate from? The dualistic mindset, no? Thus what is society, but a macrocosm of the CCC?

Society didn't just invent itself and come out of nowhere and oppress human beings. Society was built by human beings and is a macrocosm of their petty little problems. Humans in the CCC crave inequality so they create it in their pathetic, weak little divisive societies, where they suffer until their miserable, lonely deaths. Nice!

These are two *very* different statements. I agree with the first sentence -- it's factually true. The second part is a severe over-generalization.

How on earth can it be generalization? If you knew your physics you'd know that physically there are no walls and divisions in the universe. The smaller the scale of observation, the more space we find. In fact there's a massive amount of the stuff! Just because our limited visual perception sees things in units and fragments doesn't mean that's the case. Physics has been contesting this for donkey's years.

Yes, that's called a category, but it doesn't say much or illuminate much. There's *universes* of complexity within all aspects of life, and within the infinite permutations of humans combined together

Oh without doubt, there is a great complexity of movement. But the space it's all moving in is the same no? Quantum theorists call this 'waves of possibility'. Very interesting. I recommend you check it out if you haven't already as I am no way qualified to attempt to explain this to you.

Anyway, I apologise for the rather direct, blunt responses, but let's not beat around the bush here. We've been going over the same nonsense now for weeks. If you cannot see the problem of perceived fragmentation, the CCC, and the cause of human suffering, then I don't know how I'm going to explain it to you better, unless of course you actually ask me questions instead of spitting bile at me.

Thanks for the reply though, better than just ignoring me I suppose!

Have a good'un pal.

The New Consciousness

25th February 2009, 14:36

MDMA

What's that then friend?

"Turning the other cheek" has its disadvantages, sometimes lethal - such as not fighting back against an aggressor.

Oh of course, don't let someone kick the shit out of you. Take practical steps to avoid such mindless suffering, even if that means self-defence. Just don't follow the bad example of the aggressor.

Lynx

25th February 2009, 16:26

Could you list some specific examples? Examples of emotions and feelings?
Generic or commonly described emotions: fear, anger, sadness, happiness, serenity.
Additional categories can be specified: terror, anxiety, annoyance, rage, melancholy, joy, gratitude, contentment, bewilderment.
The words emotion and feeling are interchangeable for me. Feeling can also refer to physical sensory input such as pain , warmth, cold or pleasure. These do not signify emotion, but can be employed as adjectives. Hence, emotions can be perceived as being pleasant or unpleasant, etc.
Emotions can produce physical sensations and behaviors, as output. Laughter and violence are examples of behavior. The observation and expression of behavior can reinforce an emotion, sometimes resulting in a feedback loop.

Here's how I see it:

When we imbue our thoughts with identity this results in a disturbance in the body, as this is a conflictive, dualistic process. This disturbance is the emotion (latin: emovere).

The disturbance generally manifests itself above and around the abdomen, although symptoms in other areas of the body are also common for some. I like to think of these areas of pain as the points where the tentacles if you will of the time-bound illusory identity, or ego, make contact with the body. But really it is the body reacting against the dualism and consequenT antagonism of the ego (I think).

Thus, under observation all our emotions can be traced back to thought.
For example:
Regret = linked to past imagery and (thought)
Guilt = ditto
Nervousness = linked to future imagery (thought)
Excitement = ditto
Jealousy = past/future (thought)
Envy = ditto
Embarassment = ditto
Irritation/Anger = ditto
Thus we see that all emotions stem from image making and comparisons/judgments = all a product of thought. [CCC: Constantly Comparing Consciousness]
I largely agree. However, the physical symptoms can be difficult to detect for some people.
A slight exception might be emotions driven by physical trauma to the body.

Thus it is thought which creates these. But not just normal thought. A special kind of thought process is involved, a thought process in which images of the self are imbued with identity (illusion being often that the fulfilment of which will lead to peace), and in which images of others form the foundation of relationships.
The foundation is also comprised of assumptions and conclusions that are rarely acknowledged when interpreting our thoughts in the usual time-saving fashion. Unexamined conclusions about ourselves and others can lead to illogical or unnecessary anguish.

When we SEE this. When we see 'the ego' if you will, this constantly comparative, judgmental mindset, with its constant identification with images - when we see that this 'demon' does exist within, then its power is reduced immensely. There is a process of desidentification with thought and image making, which makes the emotional pain of thoughts less potent.

We are now a step 'behind' that if you will. It is still there, but we have stepped out of it and away from it. We can see it, but it cannot hurt us so, simply because our AWARENESS has rendered it impotent.
Agreed.

Now that we are out of it, we are in a part of us which we didn't realise existed before.
Even when we realize it, few of us can remain in that state of being for long.

No-one really knows what existence is like in this consciousness. Yes, there is heightened awareness, but what else? Having been in this state myself for only 6-7 months, I have yet to discover fully what it has in store for me. But what I can report to you so far is all very interesting, and positive.
1) Obviously, less emotional pain
2) more efficiency
3) more appreciaton and enjoyment of the present moment
4) more freedom, i.e in the sense I am now able to drop things that may bother me very easily
5) peace and contentment
Avoiding or removing unnecessary, unproductive thoughts should have its benefits. I would hope there are additional approaches, like regular exercise and critical thinking, that can help.

To be brutally honest, I have not yet felt the constant mind-blowing love or compassion some writers talk about. But when I do feel love, I see now that it comes from this state of being, this 'field of consciousness' if you will. Thus it is my conviction to help people to understand the whole problem of the time-bound illusory intellect, i.e. the common field of current human consciousness, and how, through negation and personal effort and self-enquiry, to enter into the new field of consciousness, what I call rather mundanely, I must admit: The New Consciousness.
Whether perceived as mundane or pretentious, your use of this term has prompted some misgivings.