Money should be discontinued.

[darkwolfunseen]

I'd agree with Mesc... pretty succinct.

 

[Mescaline]

anything and everything only exist in relation to something else :lol: . the chicken does not exist without the egg and the egg doesn't exist without the chicken. reactivity is human nature because we are doing it right now! humans are a part of nature! :lol:

Hehe, ya, you're right and I agree mostly, except.. The only thing that does not exist in relation to something else is existence itself (existence as a whole), i.e. the relation itself. And what is a human? Is he only part of existence, or all of existence..? I'd say in one way humans are merely part of it and in another every one of us is all of existence. Or put differently, aren't we the relation itself? As I see it, exactly as you put it yourself, observer and the observed or environment do not have an independent existence, it's a chicken and egg thing. And the observer and the observed certainly have a reactive (and creative) relationship, but are we the observer? Isn't it the Ego that is the observer, which is moreover an illusionary 'thing'? And isn't our true nature the relationship/existence/experience (consciousness) itself, instead of the Ego? That's why I said it depends on what you would call a human Is our true nature still human?
If the ego is our true nature, then we are royally fucked :lol: But you could argue that what is human is the ego, and our true nature is not-human

i personally would say instead: "...because it does not have to be our nature.." because it clearly is in our nature right now!

Hmm, ok, but then you simply have a different sense of the word nature in this context. To me a behaviour or trait is human nature if it inevitably comes about in humans and will never go away, "because it is in the human's nature to be like that". If something that has been human nature at some points suddenly isn't anymore, then, to me, it cleary wasn't human nature in the first place.. unless you argue that human nature changes. But then what is the difference between human nature and human behaviour? :S To me behaviours and traits that could 'disappear' are just that, (transitory) human behaviours and traits. But, well, it really doesn't matter much, let's not discuss terminology

PS: sorry for hijacking this thread, turning it into philosophy of human nature :lol:

 

[ophiuchus]

Hehe, ya, you're right and I agree mostly, except.. The only thing that does not exist in relation to something else is existence itself (existence as a whole), i.e. the relation itself.

"existence and non-existence" ? not 100% on what you mean by relation itself... the relationship between the two?

And what is a human? Is he only part of existence, or all of existence..? I'd say in one way humans are merely part of it and in another every one of us is all of existence. Or put differently, aren't we the relation itself? As I see it, exactly as you put it yourself, observer and the observed or environment do not have an independent existence, it's a chicken and egg thing. And the observer and the observed certainly have a reactive (and creative) relationship, but are we the observer? Isn't it the Ego that is the observer, which is moreover an illusionary 'thing'? And isn't our true nature the relationship/existence/experience (consciousness) itself, instead of the Ego? That's why I said it depends on what you would call a human Is our true nature still human?

i think i see what you did there. i can grasp that. it's tricky to put to words but i believe i follow you, although i am still not 100% on your use of "relation".

"...because it does not have to be our nature.." because it clearly is in our nature right now!

comes about in humans and will never go away

well it's not that i necessarily believe human nature changes, more that i believe everything changes. everything. time is change, and everything is bound within time. the rest is terminology, i agree.

threads will take their course. every thread gets off topic at somepoint. this is simply an exploration into human nature, who's terms must be agreed upon/discussed on at least one level to understand why one might discontinue money. i think it's still on topic. what else would we talk about?

 

[Mescaline]

"existence and non-existence" ? not 100% on what you mean by relation itself... the relationship between the two?

By "relation" I mean the relationship between observer and observed, between ego and the surrounding, subject and object. Synonymous for relation in this context would be Experience. Experience is all we have access to, it is all there is, it is existence. But the existence of experience directly implies (at least in our case) the existence of something that is experiencing (the observer/Ego) and something that is being experienced (the observed/surrounding). As soon as you think of experience as a relation between the two, well, it can be called a relation And in turn the relation itself cannot stand in relation to something else because there is nothing outside of this relation, just as there is nothing outside of experience.

well it's not that i necessarily believe human nature changes, more that i believe everything changes. everything. time is change, and everything is bound within time. the rest is terminology, i agree.

Ye, but because everything changes, that's precisely why in my opinion there is no human nature except our nature to exist. Hah, but that's terminology again. Maybe we could put it like this, just thinking out loud.. First there is our "true nature" that is existence/experience/relation, which would actually not even be human (if you don't agree with the above just ignore this one). Then there is a "human nature" which could be to be in relation/to be reactive/to exist/to experience. And lastly for example "the nature of homo sapiens", although maybe it would be better to call the modern human homo economicus. When we "modern humans" change in nature, when we stop being "economical", using money and being greedy etc, we will simply stop being a homo economicus and become something else.. for example homo informaticus or something lol. For our "new nature" would not be the nature of the homo economicus, but something new. But at the same time our "human nature" would still remain the same, as would our true nature.
edit: And from this it would follow that because our human nature is not the same as the nature of the homo economicus we can, at least in theory, overcome greed and money. But in the process, while staying human in nature, we would become a different species of human

 

[Apeiron]

After serious thought on what separates human nature from animal nature.. I think a humans ability to tap into imagination may be what separates us. Ophiuchus was accurate in a way by pointing out a humans propensity to create. Creativeness may be a product of imagination. Perhaps an animals behaviour, for the most part, is haphazardly driven by the environment. Nature, driving the evolution of the animal by circumstance. While man, driving his own evolution through imaginings and popular whims. 

Apologies, Ophiuchus, for not giving it more thought at the time.

Experience is but a sliver of existence. A finite, narrow view of all that exists..
life is a tiny porthole from existence/creation into this tangible world. The observer is like a lens that plugs the hole, one side facing life, the other side facing creation. The ego is a filter, that usually fortifies over time, and works to suppress information to and from the observer and protect the interests of the organism, so to speak.

In a way we are all one being. Dreaming/experiencing everything simultaneously throughout all time, because time is an illusion, along with a degree of individual existence. Because In another way our imaginings have a universe of there own. Just as intangible as creation itself but every bit as real because we see them. 

The relation is the sharing of a single intangible existence on the other side of our observers. Where every lesson can be shared. Access is absolute and wisdom is infinite there. Our entities are capable of omnipotence within themselves but in life are stifled by destraction, blind presumptions and short patience. The only lessons kept by each observer are the ones experienced directly by the organism through pondering or other means. 

It's possible that the imagination lies at the core of this lens. Stradling the finite and the infinite.

 

[Mescaline]

Nature, driving the evolution of the animal by circumstance. while man, driving his own evolution through imaginings and popular whims.

I agree, though I would add that it is through becoming non-human that we can tap into this imaginative power, although this again depends on where you draw the line for what is human and not.. What kind of imaginings and popular whims do you mean? Common human "imagination" is still reactive in my opinion. Only true imagination is not reactive, and for a human to tap into it he would have to remove himself from any kind of environment, and this would seem to require to be in a state of mind where all is one. And this state I would not call human. I think I would add that, aside from reactivity, it is also human nature to be able to choose not to be (human), in order to account for such influences of true imagination. The only kind of true free will, you could say. Then afterwards, when (or if) one returns to being human, one will, once again, react to the true imaginings experienced while being "non-human".

Experience is but a sliver of existence. A finite, narrow view of all that exists..

I agree that our experience is just a sliver of all of existence. But can there be a kind of existence that is not necessarily a kind of experience, albeit totally different from our own? Pure consciousness comes to mind, but this is existence itself and does not stand "outside" of experience. It's just what experience is made of.

The observer is like a lens that plugs the hole, one side facing life, the other side facing creation. The ego is a filter, that usually fortifies over time, and works to suppress information to and from the observer and protect the interests of the organism, so to speak.

Why do you differ between ego and observer? Wouldn't a lens that acts as a filter work just as well?

 

[Apeiron]

I agree, though I would add that it is through becoming non-human that we can tap into this imaginative power, although this again depends on where you draw the line for what is human and not.. What kind of imaginings and popular whims do you mean? Common human "imagination" is still reactive in my opinion. Only true imagination is not reactive, and for a human to tap into it he would have to remove himself from any kind of environment, and this would seem to require to be in a state of mind where all is one. And this state I would not call human. I think I would add that, aside from reactivity, it is also human nature to be able to choose not to be (human), in order to account for such influences of true imagination. The only kind of true free will, you could say. Then afterwards, when (or if) one returns to being human, one will, once again, react to the true imaginings experienced while being "non-human".

The threshold of humanity is probably awareness of consciousness, at which point you might sit and ponder things to do or create because you want to not because you must. Or wonder the reasons why instead of only accepting with disregard for intricacy. All human behavior considered I can see how being called non-human could be construed as a compliment. Or maybe our ability to do more with our minds was what was meant by humanity all along.. Like a bullet is a bullet, no matter the caliber, perhaps we are the same way. Whether new-human, extra-human, neosapien.. it's still human until we find out exactly what made a human, human, and from that knowledge gauge what would make us more, much like how science differentiates geological eras in stone. The answer is perhaps in DNA.

Imaginings beyond preconceived notions. Genius. J. Robert Oppenheimer, Nikola Tesla, James Brown.. Genius in their fields because they thought bigger. Were different. Weird, even. Just about everyone is capable of discovery if they are matched with an occupation for which they have aptitude. Common human imaginings are limited by economics, among other things.. To tap into genius he/she would have to remove himself/herself not from the environment, but from the opinion of the environment. A whim. New to you. Not necessarily new to everyone. But very little is.

I agree that our experience is just a sliver of all of existence. But can there be a kind of existence that is not necessarily a kind of experience, albeit totally different from our own? Pure consciousness comes to mind, but this is existence itself and does not stand "outside" of experience. It's just what experience is made of.

Experience is a trait of an organism, and what's more, with out awareness of consciousness the experience wouldn't be much more than tunnel vision-animal mentality.

Why do you differ between ego and observer? Wouldn't a lens that acts as a filter work just as well?

An observer is just that. It's not a player or a fan or a referee or a coach or a waterboy. It's a watcher. It doesn't know the rules of the game of even what the game is called. A filter gives me the impression of bias of spectrum of perception. Children are not born with bias. They are born with instincts to cry when they're hungry and to suck tits. Bias is conditioned from that point from which tit they suck to people they like or dislike based on preferences drawn from experience. The observer is pure from inception but living gives it more and more bias, fortified over time through misled self and peer reinforcement.

 

[Mescaline]

Imaginings beyond preconceived notions. Genius. J. Robert Oppenheimer, Nikola Tesla, James Brown.. Genius in their fields because they thought bigger. Were different. Weird, even. Just about everyone is capable of discovery if they are matched with an occupation for which they have aptitude. Common human imaginings are limited by economics, among other things.. To tap into genius he/she would have to remove himself/herself not from the environment, but from the opinion of the environment. A whim. New to you. Not necessarily new to everyone. But very little is.

What I meant by common human imagination is imagination that is limited to being reactive in nature. For example I can imagine a forest with some birds and squirrels here and there, and some mushrooms on the ground. Or I can imagine a fictional animal that is a combination of a cat, turtle and bird - a burtlecat . In both cases the process is limited to using things from the environment or rather from (past) experience to create an imagining.
In contrast true imagination is not forced. When such imaginings beyond preconceived notions arise, they really seem to come out of the blue. They seem to befall us, without effort. Of course someone might be pondering hours and hours on end about something, but in the end the eureka moment does appear to come by itself. It's not like you're "building" a truly novel idea from scratch. It realy does seem to suddenly present itself out of the blue. "Using" true imagination is not something humans "do", but more like something that happens to us, although we can choose to encourage it to happen to us.
What we seem capable of is creating the right conditions under which it is more likely for true imagination to befall us. Such as for example meditating, taking high doses of psychedelics, or really thinking about a subject for hours. In all cases one will forget the environment. You said that someone would not have to be removed from the environment but only from the opinion of the environment.. If you are immersed in deep thought or meditation, completely absent of any thought about the environment, you completely forget where you are, that it is even you that is thinking, what time it is etc. you're absolutely immersed in the arising thoughts. In that state of mind you really are removed from the environment. Although other people might still see your body sitting on a chair, to you the surrounding environment does not exist, you don't even exist, only thought exists. Then I wonder if this state of mind is still human, or if it would be more accurate to call it non-human? Either way, in my opinion, it is in this state of mind that true imaginings that are completely free of preconceived notions seem to arise. Then when such an imagining befalls us we suddenly have this eureka moment and are kind of startled or awoken, and we immediately remember where we are, who we are, what we were doing, and start reacting to the novel idea that had arisen. To me the moment of "waking up" is the moment where one would become human again.

An observer is just that. It's not a player or a fan or a referee or a coach or a waterboy. It's a watcher. It doesn't know the rules of the game of even what the game is called. A filter gives me the impression of bias of spectrum of perception. Children are not born with bias. They are born with instincts to cry when they're hungry and to suck tits. Bias is conditioned from that point from which tit they suck to people they like or dislike based on preferences drawn from experience. The observer is pure from inception but living gives it more and more bias, fortified over time through misled self and peer reinforcement.

Aah, I see. Agreed, you are right

Experience is a trait of an organism, and what's more, with out awareness of consciousness the experience wouldn't be much more than tunnel vision-animal mentality.

My understanding of experience is not limited to organisms, if that is what you are assuming? To me anything that exists has an experience; how could existing not be an experience? It can be possible for existence itself to not be an experience, thereby remaining pure existence. To put it in your words, there is life (existence) and creation (experience), and there could be life that is not a creation. But as soon as you give life/existence any qualities at all it becomes an experiencence of existing (a creation of life); "experienced" by the observer, with or without ego. For example adding only the color blue to pure existence would provide the observer with the experience of existing as blue (a creation of life as being blue). Hope I didn't wrongly use your sense of the words life, creation and observer here, but I think we were just using different words for the same concepts :lol:

 

[Apeiron]

Either way, in my opinion, it is in this state of mind that true imaginings that are completely free of preconceived notions seem to arise. Then when such an imagining befalls us we suddenly have this eureka moment and are kind of startled or awoken, and we immediately remember where we are, who we are, what we were doing, and start reacting to the novel idea that had arisen. To me the moment of "waking up" is the moment where one would become human again.

I agree with you almost completely. Except I think of the epiphany and the awakening as being synonymous with the moment of true humanity.. Cliché, I know.

My understanding of experience is not limited to organisms, if that is what you are assuming? To me anything that exists has an experience; how could existing not be an experience? It can be possible for existence itself to not be an experience, thereby remaining pure existence. To put it in your words, there is life (existence) and creation (experience), and there could be life that is not a creation. But as soon as you give life/existence any qualities at all it becomes an experiencence of existing (a creation of life); "experienced" by the observer, with or without ego. For example adding only the color blue to pure existence would provide the observer with the experience of existing as blue (a creation of life as being blue). Hope I didn't wrongly use your sense of the words life, creation and observer here, but I think we were just using different words for the same concepts.

Hmm.. I think I get what you're saying.
To me existence and experience are like square and rectangle.
Just like every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square.
Every thing that experiences exists but not every thing that exists experiences.
There are special circumstances for experience.

I use the words Existence and Creation interchangeably from time to time, so, my apologies for any confusion that may have derived from that. I see them as synonymous in the context of this subject.

The observer, some would call it, soul, spirit, what have you, always exists much as existence itself just a scaled down version. The observers access to experience with senses comes with the habitation of a sensical being. 

For example if the Internet was existence itself, the only way for the Internet to experience life is through a being. The being, being the user(ego). The observer being the computer. The observer is always open for any download or search. But the user, and sometimes the search engine or adds(imagination), ultimately navigate interests and decide upon knowledge deemed reasonable or acceptable.

If existence is a color, then it's that color. It wouldn't be "only" that color. It would just be, because existence is all there is. Similarly if you have a gold necklace, and you pound it or melt it into a sheet, it's still gold. Turn it into a bar, it's gold. You can change it's shape but not what it IS. 
Experience is just a shape.
Existence is the gold.
That's how I look at it, at least.

 

[Mescaline]

I agree with you almost completely. Except I think of the epiphany and the awakening as being synonymous with the moment of true humanity.. Cliché, I know.

Haha, oh well, I think we do agree then that this state is our true nature, whether truly human or non-human. Probably most important is that, either way, it can be differentiated from the "ordinary" human state.

I use the words Existence and Creation interchangeably from time to time, so, my apologies for any confusion that may have derived from that. I see them as synonymous in the context of this subject.

If existence is a color, then it's that color. It wouldn't be "only" that color. It would just be, because existence is all there is. Similarly if you have a gold necklace, and you pound it or melt it into a sheet, it's still gold. Turn it into a bar, it's gold. You can change it's shape but not what it IS. 
Experience is just a shape.
Existence is the gold.
That's how I look at it, at least.

Yes! That's exactly how I see it as well I used that analogy myself in the entitiy and identity thread, haha. Adding the color blue to existence was not meant as blue being symbolic of existence, but blue as a "shape" for existence. It doesn't work as well with the gold analogy, but imagine you could paint molten gold blue; it would still be gold, but in a blue "shape".
But now I'm confused as to what you mean by life; where does life fit in the gold analogy? Would you call the existence (gold) you described here creation as well? Is life then the experience/shape? Because intuitively I'd say that it is rather life that is formless whereas as (a) creation has a shape.

Every thing that experiences exists but not every thing that exists experiences.
There are special circumstances for experience.

But the only special circumstance for experience seems to be existence getting a shape/form, or do you have others in mind? I would agree that existence itself does not have to be an experience, but something that exists would be an experience, because "a thing" always has a shape.
Hmm, lets take a rock. A rock exists, so does it have an experience..? In my opinion the rock may not have an egocentric experience, as there (probably :lol is no sense of I involved, but the rock nevertheless is experience. If not on itself, then at the very least when someone sees it.
If it isn't an experience on itself, then, in my opinion, when there is noone present (no ego) to see it it also ceases to exist as something, as a rock, and will fall back into existence itself. Then there would simply be no rock anymore at all, and thus neither something that exists without experience. There would neither be an observer because if there would the experience would stay intact.
So on the other hand if the rock is an experience even if there is noone present (no ego) then the rock will stay in existence as a rock even if there is noone present to witness it. Thereby making every thing capable of existing as a thing in and of itself, by the continueous watching of the observer.

*edited + want to write a little more about this last part but I'm in a hurry now

 

[Apeiron]

But now I'm confused as to what you mean by life; where does life fit in the gold analogy? Would you call the existence (gold) you described here creation as well? Is life then the experience/shape? Because intuitively I'd say that it is rather life that is formless whereas as (a) creation has a shape.

Life, is the shape, in gold analogy synonymous with experience, yes. And life takes many different shapes. Much more than only carbon based life forms. Our instruments for measuring life(as we recognize it) are limited at best. Added to the fact that our instruments of measurement are conceptually and practically, of this environment and this environment only. Also considering how little we know of our own environment, let alone an alien environment. I think it's safe to assess that we wouldn't know life on another world unless it literally bit us on the ass. As far as creation itself having a shape?.. I might compare it to energy that isn't created nor destroyed.., or a particle, even, considering how particles look like they have a shape, but they're not really solid, giving the impression that they're there, but not, as if they exist everywhere at the same time. Something with no beginning or ending, and permeates everything couldn't have a shape. Like standing in between two walls of mirrors like.. "where do the reflections end..?" Life does not exist with out a life form. It is the form that is the shape. Existence, like the gold, is what everything that exists in it, shares in common. Our consciousness is a reflection of creation, so, like it, is shapeless, yet comparable to it's being.

..If it isn't an experience on itself, then, in my opinion, when there is noone present (no ego) to see it it also ceases to exist as something, as a rock, and will fall back into existence itself. Then there would simply be no rock anymore at all, and thus neither something that exists without experience. There would neither be an observer because if there would the experience would stay intact.
So on the other hand if the rock is an experience even if there is noone present (no ego) then the rock will stay in existence as a rock even if there is noone present to witness it. Thereby making every thing capable of existing as a thing in and of itself, by the continueous watching of the observer.

I've pondered this many times myself. The rock thing is tricky. First, I thought life was experienced through anything with a nervous system or equivalent.. The nervous system, fostering biological energy in an organism and producing chemicals based on stimuli, and visa versa. So, bugs, mammals, even plants.. 

Then I thought, well, there are several energetic reactions between everything that exists. Not always chemical, yet energetic, nevertheless. And just as there are different levels of energetic reactions between what we consider objects. Who's to say that there isn't a certain level of experience taking place between or within the reactions. Wind blowing. Pebbles skipping on a pond. Waves. Carried on by everything that exists, from particle, atoms, molecules, spores, inanimate yet occasionally kinetic objects, single cell and complex life, alike. Everything that exists may have a point of view of everything else that exists. How and what they may perceive from their point of view is yet another mystery. Every level of energy most likely has a relative level of experience in my opinion. "giving it life" takes on a whole new meaning when you think of things this way.. Or perhaps, it was the original meaning, that has long since been lost in translation..

 

[Mescaline]

Life, is the shape, in gold analogy synonymous with experience, yes. And life takes many different shapes. Much more than only carbon based life forms. Our instruments for measuring life(as we recognize it) are limited at best. Added to the fact that our instruments of measurement are conceptually and practically, of this environment and this environment only. Also considering how little we know of our own environment, let alone an alien environment. I think it's safe to assess that we wouldn't know life on another world unless it literally bit us on the ass. As far as creation itself having a shape?.. I might compare it to energy that isn't created nor destroyed.., or a particle, even, considering how particles look like they have a shape, but they're not really solid, giving the impression that they're there, but not, as if they exist everywhere at the same time. Something with no beginning or ending, and permeates everything couldn't have a shape. Like standing in between two walls of mirrors like.. "where do the reflections end..?" Life does not exist with out a life form. It is the form that is the shape. Existence, like the gold, is what everything that exists in it, shares in common. Our consciousness is a reflection of creation, so, like it, is shapeless, yet comparable to it's being.

Ok I understand, the distinction you make is the exact same I would make, just using different words. So what you call Life, I call experience, and what you call Creation, I call existence. Terminology really is one of the biggest obstacles in philosophy, haha. Creating a lot of confusion when there should be none :lol:

First, I thought life was experienced through anything with a nervous system or equivalent..

Everything that exists may have a point of view of everything else that exists. How and what they may perceive from their point of view is yet another mystery. Every level of energy most likely has a relative level of experience in my opinion. "giving it life" takes on a whole new meaning when you think of things this way.. Or perhaps, it was the original meaning, that has long since been lost in translation..

Yes I agree completely. I think this is one of the biggest flaws of modern psychology/neuroscience. It is assumed that a description of the workings of our nervous system (and of other "lesser" organisms) provides us with an essential explanation of (or reason for) the existence of experience in general. But it really doesn't at all, because it merely describes our experience. Letting go of the assumption that it explains anything, also immediately makes it quite probable that things without nervous systems have experiences as well, like for example the pebbles and wind you mentioned.
The funny thing about this is that a lot of neuroscientists would probably not deny that their research results and eventual conclusions are merely descriptive in essence, yet at the same time they fool themselves into believeing that it explains the existence of experience. It's like they're taking a dump on neuroscience, but subsequently they put on gasmasks and continue working inside their own pile of shit :roll:

 

[Apeiron]

Succinct