What are the fundamental "qualities" of consciousness?

[Keryo Koffa]

35 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

That made me laugh. So true.

When I returned from Peru, I had a bunch of San Pedro and had to get through Customs. With the officer, I had to speak calmly / matter-of-factly about myself and trip. They are very good at sensing nervousness.

Similarly, a colleague recently caught me smuggling some God into the classroom. I recontextualized it into "System Thinking", of which we have little in our science department. She pushed back a bit about what systems thinking is. . . I agreed and added there are other forms. I went on to describe multiple forms of system thinking that can be inter-related into a higher system that includes the traditional forms she speaks of. . . which is true. She eventually said: "What you are describing is at higher level". I then knew I was home-free. I replied "Each form of cognition has its own complexities, nuances and value. It's great that we each contribute to different areas in our courses". . . I then got through Customs and moved on. . . Everything I said was true and expanded her mind a tiny bit.

How I imagine the argument: "Well you see, God is merely a conceptual pointer and meta-recontextualization of the innate intelligence passed through the morphic fields across lifeforms in the interconnected divergent ecosystem holarchies constructing ever complexifying operational epigenetic flux, which converges at the singularity, that humans from various traditions have commonly conceptually unified as a continuous god-like gestalt, because... [100 page essay later] which is why "The Evolution of Consciousness" as a course is an expansive introduction into the super-tautology, that resolves previous errors in epistemological [200 page essay later] unifying metaphysics through the construct aware syntactic simplicity of implicit holographic structuring of various layers of experiential awareness, effectively creating a strange loop within the [300 pages later] which is why Leo Gura should be president, but that's besides the point" 😂

[Forestluv]

@Keryo Koffa That’s crazy 🤪. A form of complexity my mind can’t handle. I’ve never imagined “integration” like that. Yet it gives me a different perspective. 🙏 

[Keryo Koffa]

11 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

@Keryo Koffa That’s crazy 🤪. A form of complexity my mind can’t handle. I’ve never imagined “integration” like that. Yet it gives me a different perspective. 🙏 

Just make meta baseline and turn paradigms into everyday words like verbs
Let every word be a noun, verb, adjective, and adverb simultaneously
And then just replace all function words with them as you navigate
Contextualize paradigms holistically and flow through them 😁

Most importantly: play around and have fun like: The metamorphic fabric of reality reflects the psyche that structures the experience in response to stimuli, which themselves are a higher-level metaphysical construct, at least practically speaking, across layers of interconnected holarchies, which dynamically evolve the very organism they are a part of in a give and take, emerging ever new structures in the creative act of self-transformation and optimization🥳

I'm mostly in the process of condensing hgher layer concepts, because there are so many.
But then you wonder about the levels of depth and specificity, and how to maintain it.
And then you wonder what is and isn't necessary and so you look at it like:

Life, everything I said can be summarized with life
Life is Metamorphisis, life is dynamic intelligence
Life is evolution, life is self-structured
Everything we study and are fascinated by is touched by it

And then you can expand Life into 2 words, 3, 10, 100, 1000, 10000
And you wonder what is and isn't purposeful 

Edited September 8 by Keryo Koffa

[Leo Gura]

@Forestluv Wouldn't you fit better in the philosophy department vs hard sciences?

[Ero]

54 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Forestluv Wouldn't you fit better in the philosophy department vs hard sciences?

Philosophically-informed science is more rewarding than pure philosophy for some people. It is also harder because you are not only trying to get the big picture, but also the details. 

An example of this is Steve Patterson - after your blog post I read his book, multiple of his post and reached out.  We corresponded. Whilst he has very developed understanding of the limits of science, its social dynamics, etc., his actual ideas on how to fix the 'foundations of mathematics' are exceptionally ignorant, i.e finitism, discreteness and entirely rejecting continuity. 

Edited September 8 by Ero

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Forestluv Wouldn't you fit better in the philosophy department vs hard sciences?

Hmmm. . . I’m not sure. I don’t have much  knowledge of philosophy so its hard for me to imagine.

Edited September 9 by Forestluv

[Inliytened1]

On 9/7/2024 at 1:11 AM, Joshe said:

@Leo Gura What I really want to know is what determines the quality of a consciousness. For example, why do some people care about reality and others don't. I was trying to answer this question by defining the qualities. 

David Hawkins has said people are mostly born with a fixed level of awareness. Some are born with high and some low. This may be true but I don't like this answer. Do you think it's true? 

Also consider from the Absolute sense the distinct possibility that you are the only thing in existence.  You ARE existence.   So it's basically existence asking the question - Why are things the way they are and not some ofher way?  Why am I a certain way and others a certain way?  Notice the relationship between self and other could literally be a projection of Consciousness.  Self and other could essentially be one thing tricking itself into thinking it is one way and other is a different way.

So, there are answers within the dream and then there is an Absolute answer.  The relative answers are all so unfuliflling. 

Edited September 9 by Inliytened1

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Ero said:

his actual ideas on how to fix the 'foundations of mathematics' are exceptionally ignorant, i.e finitism, discreteness and entirely rejecting continuity. 

Yes, I know.

[Ayham]

@Forestluv do you like your job? who would you say it is for? what sort of person would enjoy it?

[Sandroew]

As much as i hate the answer that genetics have to do with the quality of someone's consciousness, i cant deny it...

Also i think early childhood/childhood has to play a big factor. Atleast as in how much one would reach their potential. Sort of like building a solid foundation.

 

[Keryo Koffa]

@Sandroew You're right about the foundation but do overestimate the childhood aspect.

The inflexibility is mostly circumstantial expectation-based psyche solidifying reinforcement.

Karmic patterns get ingrained and limit flexibility, you can fix them anytime but they snowball.

And when identity is entirely tied up in karma, then getting rid of that karma becomes existential.

Nothing psychedelics and shadow work can't fix though, as long as one's willing and doesn't resist.

Of course, foundations you built will have to be torn down, but that's a psychic, not somatic limitation.

[Sandroew]

@Keryo Koffa Yo, reading your comments is a task one has to do before their due bedtime.

After reading this multiple times i determined what you just said is quite genius, but you could really work on making it more understandable, if thats something you want at all. 

One thing though, i think you are overestimating how much psychedelics can do for people. I mean "as long as one's willing and doesn't resist" yes, but i find that quite unrealistic.

Good night! Lmao

 

 

Edited September 9 by Sandroew

[Joshe]

@Keryo Koffa What do you mean by these:

• psyche solidifying
• karmic patterns

Do you view karma as defined by Sadguru? i.e, cause and effect (iirc) ? Does your definition include karma from past lifetimes or other realms? I don't have a robust metaphysical vocab. 

Also, can  you give examples of psychic and somatic limitations?

The way I interpret your post is:

The human organism sought to figure out what it was and it made a decision to become something and it sought to reinforce that decision over and over, simultaneously making other decisions to reinforce the initial decision, and this unconscious identity building process can be tore down if one is open to it. 

Is that right? 😂

Edited September 9 by Joshe

[Keryo Koffa]

11 minutes ago, Joshe said:

@Keryo Koffa What do you mean by these:

• psyche solidifying
• karmic patterns

Do you view karma as defined by Sadguru? i.e, cause and effect (iirc) ? Does your definition include karma from past lifetimes or other realms? I don't have a robust metaphysical vocab. 

Also, can  you give examples of psychic and somatic limitations?

The way I interpret your post is:

The human organism sought to figure out what it was and it made a decision to become something and it sought to reinforce that decision over and over, simultaneously making other decisions to reinforce the initial decision, and this unconscious identity building process can be tore down if one is open to it. 

Is that right? 😂

psyche solidifying = the definition of insanity, ego-defense mechanisms, comfort zones, fear, boring life choices rationalizing

karmic patterns = holarchies of mutually reinforcing "neural connections" (metaphoric context) synthesizing experiences

Karma = pretty rooks you picked up & put into your backpack, getting heavy but I like their looks & don't wanna throw away

Also, yes basically, but the realization of the speicifc personal significances is far greater than just abstracting it this way

[Keryo Koffa]

35 minutes ago, Sandroew said:

@Keryo Koffa Yo, reading your comments is a task one has to do before their due bedtime.

After reading this multiple times i determined what you just said is quite genius, but you could really work on making it more understandable, if thats something you want at all. 

One thing though, i think you are overestimating how much psychedelics can do for people. I mean "as long as one's willing and doesn't resist" yes, but i find that quite unrealistic.

Good night! Lmao

Pros and Cons of this approach:

Pros:

• 25% time saved on conversion
• sounds lofty and eccentric
• it's funny to confuse people
• meta-humorous trickster infinity
• makes others think a bit
• vocab homework 4 you
• fast

Cons

• egolomania
• takes much space
• inefficient

You're underestimating, thinking psychs can cure every disease is a strawman, they can do much more than that 😁

But that's just a theory, a Consciousness Theory! Thanks for reading!

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Sandroew said:

As much as i hate the answer that genetics have to do with the quality of someone's consciousness, i cant deny it...

Also i think early childhood/childhood has to play a big factor. Atleast as in how much one would reach their potential. Sort of like building a solid foundation.

 

The answer is lame but If you were God and had to split Beings into various levels of Consciousness....wouldn't you create a giant story or book that began all the way at the beginning so it could explain away everything?   Things such as genetic makeup could then explain such things away.   So if you have something that is One and then you have to divide it up - what's the best way to explain this away?    It's lame because you know it's a story.  And that just doesn't satisfy you as you know there is a deeper epistemological reason for everything.   That epistemological reason is Oneness.  

So you can come up with all kinds of nice theories and wonderful things about how Consciousness takes different shapes, and all that.  But ultimately it really comes down to there really isn't multiple Consciousnessnes happening simultaneously.  There can't be due to Oneness.