Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

60001Re: Nothing is inside/outside the frame

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Jul 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Wil,

      Thank you. It seems we've come full circle back to nothingness, the place where most non-philosophical conversation ends, where in fact it should be begin.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      > Mary,
      >
      > I like that very much. Of course, unless one already knows what this means, one doesn't.
      >
      > Wil
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
      > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Tue, Jul 2, 2013 10:25 am
      > Subject: [existlist] Nothing is inside/outside the frame
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yes perspective involves framing as an endless series of observations in ever widening circles. This merely points to the nothingness of consciousness as a circularity of being in-itself and being for-itself. Framing points to human consciousness as an appearance within an appearance, which is all that reality is. Knowledge, or the determination of an appearance, doesn't change the subjective relationship of consciousness with its objects, including itself. All continues to be merely appearance out of nothing, but only the subject is free. Only a subject knows it is nothing as well as being.
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Eduard,
      > >
      > > Thank you for your post.
      > >
      > > My claim was that I am capable of two levels (or orders) of consciousness. I have first-order consciousness – consciousness of the objects around me in my immediate environment. I also have second-order consciousness – I can focus my attention and awareness on my first-order conscious experience itself – I can be consciousness of my present (first-order) conscious experience. I don't claim to have any third-order consciousness, or any further higher-order consciousness.
      > >
      > > I thought your original point was that you thought only first-order consciousness was possible. You seemed to be saying second-order consciousness was not possible.
      > >
      > > In your latest post, you seem to be making a different point – that in any level of consciousness there is something missed out – the "I" (or the eye) behind the lens, so to speak. Just like in ordinary vision the eye which sees does not see itself. Of course a mirror can enable the eye to see itself, but in the case of the "inner eye" there is no "inner mirror".
      > >
      > > This point is similar to Hume's old point that in any experience or thought I can have, I can never experience the "I" that is the subject of the experience or thought. I think this point is correct.
      > >
      > > I view the subject of my first-order consciousness and my second-order consciousness to be the human being Jim Stuart. Whether or not in any conscious experience something is missed out - the subject of the experience "behind the lens" – I am not sure. Perhaps you are right – the film crew doing the filming is a part of reality which is never observed.
      > >
      > > Jim
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Show all 171 messages in this topic