Individuality?

[Iksander]

Today I had some interesting thoughts regarding individuality and what individuality actually entails; how do I define individuality without basing it upon my perception of other people?

I started by thinking about what my expectations for social interaction are and how a definition of that individuality can be plugged into those expectations. These days my concept of 'social' is rather large, when I put it in perspective. When I think of social, I think of massive sprawling cities and the internet - in comparison with hundreds of years ago, when living in a tribe was all you had.

So, if I were living in a tribe - what would 'being an individual' entail? Since the tribe is so small, wouldn't it kind of entail singularity - just you and no one else? Blowing that up to present day where I am now living in a metropolis of a million people, that same 'individuality' seems to have a relative scale - the sigularity now becomes a tribe. (hermitage excluded)

As social creatures we naturally like to interact with our environment and our social environment - kind of a given if you are inside a body anyway. How do you define/refine what you call individuality without basing that process on anything you externally interact with?

How do you define it so that humanity is your tribe? How do you define it so absolutely that when other people come and go in your life the interaction is one of calm resolve; rather than the typical, 'I have to be different from them, where are more people like me?'.

I have a strong tendency as a person to be very black or white in my perceptions - gray areas are hard for me to perceive (I see it as a gift, actually). The answer I have concluded upon for myself based on that character prerequisite, comes from my all-time favorite book: Dune.

The entire story is an allegory for the maturity of one's individuality and how fear is to be released in order for transformation to occur. It also lightly touches upon how individuality is actually a fallacy - because once you are no longer afraid, you no longer yearn for individuality and therefore are a true 'individual'. <-- interesting tangent to pursue there

I know this is a long post, but I am interested in reading about your conception of individuality and how it applies to you in the social context.

[Ak47]

I am one and nothing more. You are also one. Everyone together is all (not an individual).

Each person can think, and decide for his/her self- this is what makes them individuals mentally. Phsyically, the answer is obvious. We influence eachother by a statement, etc, but this goes back to: you can ask 100 different people the same question, and get back 100 different answers.

Perhaps not quite a deep explination you were hoping for, but it makes sense- i'm just not sure which direction you want to go deeper with.

As far as an individual in a tribe; i'd guess that most individuals in a tribe would have a special talent (as all people do anyway) or skill that they used to help the greater cause, or life of the tribe. Same goes for the populous now i'd say. Only now, there are so many people, one blacksmith can't be expected to provide all the swords. All the same, every blacksmith is different; has a different style, personality, or price (thus each is an individual).

[Iksander]

But, isn't that still relying upon society for a definition? Fear is based on the perception of external factors; indifference to fear is based on a concrete inner core derived from confidence and will; not the perception of sensory input.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Iksander

I know this is a long post, but I am interested in reading about your conception of individuality and how it applies to you in the social context.

For the longest time I saw myself as this individual human being in a sea of others like me, then I started thinking about how things come into creation, who's in charge, how's it work, who gets stuff, why, how and why don't people get the stuff they want.

The I realised that viewing existance through the individual lens always ends up in conflict of self and others.

I just don't see my physical body as the true identity anymore, it's familar, but hardly the individual me and I don't see other people as individuals either, they present as seperate humans with their own thought packages, but that is very limiting (for me) to think like that.

True creative power has very little if anything to do with the physical individual, but if we consider that there is n individual consciousness, a oneness of creative power, that knows no individuality, then we can see how we are all connected to it, by it and that true purpose and power stems from it.

Individual humans are output, individual consciousness, is the true individual and if you identify with that, there is no need for conflict, no need for seperation, it's all one and it's all good.

Works for me

Max

PS I should mention that because individual consciousness chooses the full reality package, the illusion of individual physical being is a very strong one. Consciousness isn't looking for full acceptance of truth as in it's one thing and all one thing, it's looking for an experience that alludes to seperation, hence the resistance to let oneness flow better and that's why the acceptance of the truth is very challenging.

"I've spent all day at Disneyland, but I'm not ready to go home yet"

[Iksander]

Well said Max.

Disney Land needs its visitors; but the visitors don't need Disney Land, they just enjoy going to Disney Land. The same is said for the body and the physical world as a whole - physicality requires consciousness to remain 'intact'; yet, consciousness does not need it, consciousness can exist without physicality.

Though, isn't that a form of individuality at a personal, or even grander scale? Of course one would need to believe this in order for that to occur, but, it still factors down to fear being the 'limiting' element. Once a person realizes the trueness of their individuality, which we now have identified as being consciousness in and of itself, fear would pass into the realm of after-thought.

But, why fear? If fear stems from ignorance and the ultimate ignorance, in this case, is forgetting who we are - consciousness; then I would assume that an intellectual and experiential awakening would be required for this remembering. The remembering that there is no authority but that which is self, or, consciousness.


To continue your train of thought - regarding individuality of consciousness among 'consciousness'. If consciousness is only a singular whole, a 'Unit Sphere' if you will, then anything we interact with at a physical or mental level is us, individually. A symbiotic relationship representing the path of zero to infinity and its reciprocal of infinity to zero... Turning water into wine and wine back into water.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Iksander

Well said Max.

Disney Land needs its visitors; but the visitors don't need Disney Land, they just enjoy going to Disney Land. The same is said for the body and the physical world as a whole - physicality requires consciousness to remain 'intact'; yet, consciousness does not need it, consciousness can exist without physicality.

Though, isn't that a form of individuality at a personal, or even grander scale? Of course one would need to believe this in order for that to occur, but, it still factors down to fear being the 'limiting' element. Once a person realizes the trueness of their individuality, which we now have identified as being consciousness in and of itself, fear would pass into the realm of after-thought.

But, why fear? If fear stems from ignorance and the ultimate ignorance, in this case, is forgetting who we are - consciousness; then I would assume that an intellectual and experiential awakening would be required for this remembering. The remembering that there is no authority but that which is self, or, consciousness.


To continue your train of thought - regarding individuality of consciousness among 'consciousness'. If consciousness is only a singular whole, a 'Unit Sphere' if you will, then anything we interact with at a physical or mental level is us, individually. A symbiotic relationship representing the path of zero to infinity and its reciprocal of infinity to zero... Turning water into wine and wine back into water.

I would guess that consciousness is extremely clever and that it's actually constantly wanting to revel itslef to self and to maintain the illusion. This is why the whole thing is so very deep and challenging, consciousness on one hand building worlds and perception and then on the other hand limiting itself down to the indivdual to enjoy it all.

"I'm the most powerful thing in existance, but I trip over myself sometimes, d'oh! stupid consciousness"

Works for me

Max

[Michael Chui]

Individuality is a negative. It's more a description of what you're not than what you are. What you are, by necessity, is a sum of what you would not immediately expect to be a part of yourself. Atoms, molecules, organs, carbon and oxygen, water, social connections, knowledge, experience, thought... these are not inherently You, except that you experience or contain them.

Instead, the individual is the entity that represents a dividing line between some of the above and others of the above. This bit of carbon belongs to a snail, and thus is not me. So I am differentiated from the snail, and so am an individual. Whereas if I eat the snail, the snail is now the same.

I define love and fear to be diametric opposites of each other. Love, I define as an increasing union with Other (whether other people, other things, etc.) through an increase of knowledge. Whereas fear is the decrease of union--a rejection, avoidance, separation, distinction--through a decrease of knowledge (believing untruths, for instance). Thus, the fullness of love is expressed as a complete disregard of the need for individuality or distinction. It is, in this sense, blind. And blindness is not the greatest goal: rather, knowledge is. Thus, some knowledge will cause distinction and separation; I call this discrimination.

The fulfillment of individuality can also be rephrased as the maturation of the personality. Thus, the enlightened individual is one who has a clear understanding of what he both is and isn't: what he accepts as a part of himself and what he does not. And that is Godhood, where God is all things and the Void is that which is not.

[Iksander]

But is it not the Void from which our consciousness spawns? There are many symbols that make reference to this.

So if we are aspiring to 'All Things' (Goodhood) having come from 'Not Things', how do 'All Things' become 'Some Things' from 'Not Things'? This is a concept I believe I ran into numerous times while in philosophic debates with people - it can be applied to any facet of internal (consciousness) or external (physical) reality; yet is incapable of becoming 'Conclusive' or 'All Things'.

I heartily agree with your thoughts on Love and Fear - they are quite accurate, but, here we run into an abstract wall again: if Love is synonymous with union and fear is a form of separation why does Individuality inspire such life within the individual? Fear does NOT inspire life, that is for certain - Love it would seem to me, does. But is Fear in truth a separation? Or is it receding back into the void, 'From hence ye came.' where love is proceeding towards, 'What may be'? If the void is the birthplace of consciousness from hence all consciousness is born of the Godhead; and Love is Union a bonding unto consciousness of the Godhead - then, we just end up in the same place?

It sort of resembles the allegory of life - the birth process, the living process, and the death process; then all over again, birth, live, die; ad infinitum...

I do hope I am articulating myself clearly.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Iksander

But is it not the Void from which our consciousness spawns? There are many symbols that make reference to this.

Far be it from me to presume I have any idea what is meant by "consciousness".

Originally Posted by Iksander

So if we are aspiring to 'All Things' (Goodhood)

I'm certainly not saying we are aspiring to that.

Originally Posted by Iksander

if Love is synonymous with union and fear is a form of separation why does Individuality inspire such life within the individual?

Because love does not denote life; knowledge does. Love does so incidentally, but Individuality is a facet of Discrimination, which is knowledgeable yet not-unifying.

Originally Posted by Iksander

But is Fear in truth a separation? Or is it receding back into the void, 'From hence ye came.' where love is proceeding towards, 'What may be'?

Listen to what you just said. "From hence ye came," implies a separation of geography, identity, and time.

Originally Posted by Iksander

It sort of resembles the allegory of life - the birth process, the living process, and the death process; then all over again, birth, live, die; ad infinitum...

Life is not a circle; it is a spiral. Because amidst the cycle is irrevocable change. My preference is to label the third dimension as "knowledge".

[Liara Covert]

Why does consciousness have to seem like it emerges from a void? That's only an interpretation. Consider the film Contact with Jodi Foster. Whatever extent an individual is affected by intense experience, a time period follows where readjustment to the present is a bit awkward. You have a new frame of reference. Your ego may fade and a spiritual side may be more prominent.

[Iksander]

@Liara: what if Ego were the spiritual side?

@michael:

Listen to what you just said. "From hence ye came," implies a separation of geography, identity, and time.

Good point...

Because love does not denote life; knowledge does. Love does so incidentally, but Individuality is a facet of Discrimination, which is knowledgeable yet not-unifying.

Does knowledge actually denote it? Or is it connoted by our knowledge, implying an attribute structure that really doesn't exist?

Life is not a circle; it is a spiral. Because amidst the cycle is irrevocable change. My preference is to label the third dimension as "knowledge".

I tend to think life is the circle and we are the spiral moving about the circle. Why knowledge? Why not label it as 'choice'? This 'reality' seems to be much more about choosing than it does about knowledge; whether those choices are informed or not.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Iksander

I tend to think life is the circle and we are the spiral moving about the circle. Why knowledge? Why not label it as 'choice'? This 'reality' seems to be much more about choosing than it does about knowledge; whether those choices are informed or not.

Because choice itself doesn't matter. Choosing is nothing remarkable; it happens whether you do so consciously or not. But more importantly, choice is backed by knowledge. Knowledge explains and predicts choice, and then creates and diversifies choice.

Originally Posted by Iksander

Does knowledge actually denote it? Or is it connoted by our knowledge, implying an attribute structure that really doesn't exist?

I think of life as the capacity to change, whether to be change or to enact change. Similarly, power is the capability to enact change. And in the immortal words of Francis Bacon, knowledge is power; the nuance of this statement is explained above in the context of choice.

Knowledge, thus, is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of life. But now I'm resisting going over to The Matrix Reloaded and pulling excerpts for quotation.

[Iksander]

But if choice itself doesn't matter, rather, the knowledge behind and resulting of the choice; then choosing to have or obtain knowledge doesn't matter.

I still think Choice is the basis, rather than knowledge - for with choice comes experience and with experience results knowledge; therefore over a period of time, making choices results in a greater amount of knowledge to make further more refined choices.

Sort of a 'brute force' approach to acquiring knowledge; while this process is not as extended as I am making it out to be (we have books, the internet, parents that pass down knowledge, etc...) I still find the basic idea rather accurate.

On another note, however, that could be erroneous - that viewpoint is actually rooted very much in the physical world; if the physical needs consciousness and not the other way around then I might assume that a segment of the mind should still be responsible for 'outcome'.

What if it is imagination, rather than knowledge OR choice? Even though the detail of imagination is directly proportionate to life experience (I do distinctly remember the scale of my imagination as a child was much larger than it is now, but, my imagination is now more 'detailed')...

I question: "Knowledge is power" - I would think knowledge is actually subordinate to Imagination; so: "Imagination is power". What if knowledge were but a tool of the imagination and did not actually have a direct effect upon the form of our reality.

[Groundless]

There is only one choice, that is, to realize I Am and to wake up from our delusion.

We are dividuals not individuals.

The only love there is is to realize all of us is "I"

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Groundless

We are dividuals not individuals.

Nice insight.

Originally Posted by Iksander

But if choice itself doesn't matter, rather, the knowledge behind and resulting of the choice; then choosing to have or obtain knowledge doesn't matter.

You're twisting it around into circularity.

You're right: choosing to have or obtain knowledge doesn't matter. It's having or obtaining knowledge that does matter. The choice is irrelevant; the action is everything. The presumption of free will is pointless and narcissistic.

Originally Posted by Iksander

I still think Choice is the basis, rather than knowledge - for with choice comes experience and with experience results knowledge; therefore over a period of time, making choices results in a greater amount of knowledge to make further more refined choices.

Choice occurs, but choice for its own sake is without meaning or purpose. One can choose to fear, choose to be ignorant, choose to die. So what? This does not grow or evolve; it is only the choice to love, to know, to live that pushes us forward.

The choice doesn't matter. It's what you choose that does.

Originally Posted by Iksander

What if it is imagination, rather than knowledge OR choice? Even though the detail of imagination is directly proportionate to life experience (I do distinctly remember the scale of my imagination as a child was much larger than it is now, but, my imagination is now more 'detailed')...

If we are more imaginative today than we were a hundred years ago, then perhaps it is. I doubt it, though; knowledge I can measure. Imagination I cannot.

Originally Posted by Iksander

I question: "Knowledge is power" - I would think knowledge is actually subordinate to Imagination; so: "Imagination is power".

And my school likes to say "Information is Power", and all knowledge is but a subset of information.

Is Imagination power? Yes. And? Imagination is an action, a process. It is something that is done, not something that is had.

Originally Posted by Iksander

What if knowledge were but a tool of the imagination and did not actually have a direct effect upon the form of our reality.

What if indeed. What do the skeptics love to say? Oh, yes: let's sit in our rooms and imagine millions of dollars and expect they'll manifest.

So what? Certainly you cannot know what you cannot imagine, but does subordination matter? All the housecats in the world are subordinate to the lion, but that does not mean the lion matters in the slightest.

[Iksander]

Choice, in my understanding, would have an important role to play with knowledge. From choice comes gained knowledge - the experience being the agent; such as this example: "Danny, a young child, put his hand on the burner causing him to yelp and retract his hand quickly." But now another argument arises, choice can also be preceded by knowledge: "Danny now says he doesn't put his hand on the burner because he knows it burns his hand, which hurts."

I know this gets twisted back into a cyclical system - but is that such a faulty interpretation? Aren't they, in essence, two siblings of a parent; both equally important in the process of evolution, both inseparable; but both fill very distinct roles.

I refine my previous statement and would prefer to state that the process consciousness entertains with choice/knowledge - knowledge/choice is a core building block for the reality. Imagination can be thrown in the mix, too, in essence creating a triangular structure with Choice, Knowledge, and Imagination all acting as supporting nodes.

We do, after all, exist within a three dimensional reality: three being the most 'stable' of all structures in the current physical realm we occupy. That, of course, is not to neglect the possibility that there is an inverse component to the material realm (sort of like 'dimensions of the non-physical'); with the possibility for a configuration that is not directly reciprocal and therefore could support higher-order structures of consciousness within this realm.... (That is a thought I will have to think through further, it is interesting though)

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Iksander

Choice, in my understanding, would have an important role to play with knowledge.

Reversed. Based on your examples, knowledge has an important role to play with choice. In the former case, knowledge is gained. In the latter case, knowledge is used.

If it were choice, then the statements would be different. In both cases, choice merely exists, contingent upon knowledge or lack thereof.

Thus, choice is irrelevant: knowledge matters; choice is simply there.

Originally Posted by Iksander

I know this gets twisted back into a cyclical system - but is that such a faulty interpretation? Aren't they, in essence, two siblings of a parent; both equally important in the process of evolution, both inseparable; but both fill very distinct roles.

And the role of choice is a distinctly irrelevant one, certainly.

I am certainly not saying they're the same thing; I am simply saying that choice doesn't matter.

Show me how choice is "important in the process of evolution".

Originally Posted by Iksander

I refine my previous statement and would prefer to state that the process consciousness entertains with choice/knowledge

I still have no idea what this "consciousness" thing you speak of is.

Originally Posted by Iksander

knowledge/choice is a core building block for the reality.

And why are we building realities now?

Originally Posted by Iksander

Imagination can be thrown in the mix, too, in essence creating a triangular structure with Choice, Knowledge, and Imagination all acting as supporting nodes.

Okay, we have agreed that choice and knowledge act circularly, creating each other. How do you wish to fit the third vertex in to the process?

Originally Posted by Iksander

We do, after all, exist within a three dimensional reality

My reality has eleven dimensions. Or four. Depends on whether or not I've read mathematics lately.

Originally Posted by Iksander

three being the most 'stable' of all structures in the current physical realm we occupy.

Why do you keep putting words in quotation marks? Say what you mean and mean what you say. I know that you're referencing architectural engineering, but does the nature of the triangle matter? What if it were a right triangle, rather than an equilateral one?

I am hardly trying to create dualities here, by the way. I am trying to point out a singularity: knowledge. Neither choice nor imagination matter, though I will admit I have yet to think through Imagination, and it may have a role I'm yet unaware of.

Originally Posted by Iksander

That, of course, is not to neglect the possibility that there is an inverse component to the material realm (sort of like 'dimensions of the non-physical'); with the possibility for a configuration that is not directly reciprocal and therefore could support higher-order structures of consciousness within this realm.... (That is a thought I will have to think through further, it is interesting though)

I would certainly never accuse you of neglecting such. Personally, I find the physical realm sufficiently complex and difficult to understand that I must beg off and keep my feet on the ground.

[Iksander]

Well, your words read as though you are frustrated - I am enjoying this, I hope you continue to do so as well because despite the differences, the experience is one I am certainly learning well from.

Show me how choice is "important in the process of evolution".

Because choosing, itself, is forward progression - whether or not the choices are informed and whether or not they are right/wrong.

I still have no idea what this "consciousness" thing you speak of is.

I am connoting the subject and the attributes of the subject that comprise such concepts as self-awareness, sapience, subjectivity, identity, individuality and an ability to translate sensory impressions into perceptions. The ability to choose and the ability imagine.

Consciousness is your personality - the thing that is you that is not directly measurable.

And why are we building realities now?

We build them everyday - everything that is your reality is a result of impressions upon your consciousness that you interpret as 'reality'.

How do you wish to fit the third vertex in to the process?

By placing it as the third vertex.

My reality has eleven dimensions. Or four. Depends on whether or not I've read mathematics lately.

I dunno about you, but, I haven't been able to get past three axis yet - I do believe there is the possibility for four dimensions, up-to 8; but that requires a new reality - current reality could not support more than three, as far as I know.

Why do you keep putting words in quotation marks? Say what you mean and mean what you say. I know that you're referencing architectural engineering, but does the nature of the triangle matter? What if it were a right triangle, rather than an equilateral one?

Quotation marks? When I am writing I will come across a word in my mind and it will feel like it is 'individual' and must be differentiated from the flow of words to provide a more clear idea of what my mind is doing.

I am only speaking of an equilateral one. I think it matters quite a bit, it is a very old symbol; and a very stable structure.

...physical realm sufficiently complex and difficult to understand...

That is a good point - an old mentor of mine said this once: "Simplicity is boring, but complexity is entertaining - if you want understand something, make it simple.".

I still think a triangle is pretty simple though.

I also do believe I am saying what I am meaning - if my choice in words is confusing certainly say so, and ask for disambiguation. Many of my posts are written in a 'thinking out loud' manner; so I change my ideas and interpretations fluidly within the topic - this discussion has given me great opportunity to make my ideas and thoughts more concrete.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Iksander

Well, your words read as though you are frustrated - I am enjoying this, I hope you continue to do so as well because despite the differences, the experience is one I am certainly learning well from.

I am. You're saying less and less as we continue, and it's frustrating to speak with someone who's speculating with less and less apparent basis for his words.

Originally Posted by Iksander

Because choosing, itself, is forward progression - whether or not the choices are informed and whether or not they are right/wrong.

Fair enough. But in such a case, nothing matters. Choice does not cease to exist, and thus cannot be striven for. So you choose and you choose; and since the choice itself is what moves us forward, what does it matter where we go?

I am reminded of the Marine yell: "Retreat Hell! We're just attacking in another direction."

Originally Posted by Iksander

I am connoting the subject and the attributes of the subject that comprise such concepts as self-awareness, sapience, subjectivity, identity, individuality and an ability to translate sensory impressions into perceptions. The ability to choose and the ability imagine.

Consciousness is your personality - the thing that is you that is not directly measurable.

Interesting. I wonder if you're using "personality" the same way I am. Because if anything, I am certainly a dividual, to use Groundless' term.

Originally Posted by Iksander

By placing it as the third vertex.

How terribly useful.

Originally Posted by Iksander

I dunno about you, but, I haven't been able to get past three axis yet - I do believe there is the possibility for four dimensions, up-to 8; but that requires a new reality - current reality could not support more than three, as far as I know.

That's interesting. What is it about reality that supports dimensions?

Originally Posted by Iksander

I am only speaking of an equilateral one. I think it matters quite a bit, it is a very old symbol; and a very stable structure.

Why does it matter, and why should it be an equilateral triangle, and why does the stability matter, and why do you choose those vertices?

Originally Posted by Iksander

That is a good point - an old mentor of mine said this once: "Simplicity is boring, but complexity is entertaining - if you want understand something, make it simple.".

If you want to pretend you understand something, simplify it. Slicing away the complexities is an excellent way to achieve understanding of a non-complex thing; it's also a good way to make sure you won't understand anything but what you want to. But you always have to go back to the bigger, complex picture if you want to understand that picture.

If you want to create something, on the other hand, begin simple.

Originally Posted by Iksander

I also do believe I am saying what I am meaning - if my choice in words is confusing certainly say so, and ask for disambiguation.

Quotation marks are used, typically, to signify that a word is not being used as it normally would be. By subtly implying that it was formerly speech, culture believes that something within quotation marks (or "scare quotes") is not completely accurate.

So every time you use quotation marks, like "individual", it's like you say, "I'm saying individual, but I don't really mean individual, but you might call it an individual."

[Iksander]

So every time you use quotation marks, like "individual", it's like you say, "I'm saying individual, but I don't really mean individual, but you might call it an individual."

Then I will just use bold tags...

I am. You're saying less and less as we continue, and it's frustrating to speak with someone who's speculating with less and less apparent basis for his words.

But why get frustrated? I am learning to better articulate myself - I am learning how to present my arguments with sufficient, yet, concise language. It also is giving me an opportunity to observe and differentiate between arguments that I have a solid conceptual (not necessarily factual) foundation for, and those that I do not.

Choice does not cease to exist, and thus cannot be striven for. So you choose and you choose; and since the choice itself is what moves us forward, what does it matter where we go?

Can that not also be said for knowledge as well? If knowledge is a forward progression, a progression always away from where you are now (therefore a given); then it doesn't matter where we are going but more upon what we are doing while we are going - whether that be trains of thought or active choices.

Interesting. I wonder if you're using "personality" the same way I am. Because if anything, I am certainly a dividual, to use Groundless' term.

We are probably using the words in two different ways - what would be your concept of consciousness? (or personality)

That's interesting. What is it about reality that supports dimensions?

Well, in this case, consciousness - since the translation (perception) of sensory impressions by consciousness is reality it would be directly related to the thoughts that do the translating. I suppose, since that is an entirely subjective configuration, any interpretation is possible - but, simply because I am interpreting it that way, it becomes supported. It also means, however, that any other format is capable of being supported based on any other unit of consciousness perceiving and translating.

Side note: by a unit of consciousness I mean the consciousness that connotes a person or creature, as a subject, singularly.

That also implies there is a direct relationship between physical dimensions and states of consciousness... It would still require a new reality, or, new state of consciousness to support more dimensions than that which is experienced.

Why does it matter, and why should it be an equilateral triangle, and why does the stability matter, and why do you choose those vertices?

It matters because (based on my statement above) if a unit of consciousness is only supporting three dimensions (based on the state of consciousness) then the most stable structure is manifesting itself as the number three (or four for a fourth dimension); it just so happens I was thinking of Knowledge, Choice, and Imagination together at the same time making that conceptual connection. It seems to make sense to me, why? Because choice, knowledge, and imagination create forward progression; they are forward progression; sort of like the three musketeers - one for all and all for one.

If you want to create something, on the other hand, begin simple.

This is certainly a topic we are polar opposites on - off topic here, but maybe we can discuss this further in another thread?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Iksander

Then I will just use bold tags...

Which denote emphasis and importance.

Originally Posted by Iksander

I am learning to better articulate myself - I am learning how to present my arguments with sufficient, yet, concise language.

Which is good. My frustration is my fault, and judging by the time I made the post, I was likely tired, too, which didn't help. I've always had a problem with my temper, though I've learned to deal with it, I could do better.

Originally Posted by Iksander

If knowledge is a forward progression

Hold up. Knowledge is not a forward progression. It's a measure of progression. These are different things. Imagine that you are following a trail of breadcrumbs and collecting them with a bucket. Knowledge is the breadcrumbs themselves, whereas progression, choice, imagination are the act of picking them up, moving forward, and placing them in the bucket.

Perhaps that's why we disagree so sharply in this thread. When I say "knowledge", I do not refer to a process or activity, but rather something to be had, acquired, used.

Originally Posted by Iksander

it doesn't matter where we are going but more upon what we are doing while we are going

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Why doesn't it matter where we're going?

Originally Posted by Iksander

We are probably using the words in two different ways - what would be your concept of consciousness? (or personality)

Personality to me, and loosely defined, would be the solidity of one's individuality in terms of characteristics and traits, mostly mental. I would reference my friend Josh's essay that I linked earlier in this thread: the_sinistral: Personality and the Closed or Open Mind

Originally Posted by Iksander

That also implies there is a direct relationship between physical dimensions and states of consciousness... It would still require a new reality, or, new state of consciousness to support more dimensions than that which is experienced.

*dryly* Well, you've certainly explained why the number of dimensions in my universe differs based on whether or not I've read mathematics recently. Not familiar with string theory, I take it?

Originally Posted by Iksander

It matters because (based on my statement above) if a unit of consciousness is only supporting three dimensions (based on the state of consciousness) then the most stable structure is manifesting itself as the number three (or four for a fourth dimension); it just so happens I was thinking of Knowledge, Choice, and Imagination together at the same time making that conceptual connection. It seems to make sense to me, why? Because choice, knowledge, and imagination create forward progression; they are forward progression; sort of like the three musketeers - one for all and all for one.

And if "the most stable structure" happens to be the number 31, then what? Taking coincidence and making correlation does not make causation and results in fantasy, which is precisely what was frustrating me here. It is no different from astrology or gossip rags. That is precisely the problem with Pythagorean mathemagic: the worship of numbers creates what any worship does: a religion, which stultifies and makes thought unbearable.

What makes 0 less stable than 3? Why can't it be the square root of -1? How about 5, the third prime number? Why not 3.3?

The intuitive feeling is good. I do a lot of philosophy based on my intuition. However, in my presentation of these feelings, I spend much time and thought on inductive logic, creating a logical pathway between what is agreed and assumed to what I've concluded.

It's well and good to assert that KCI are the holy triumvirate of three dimensions, but who are the Lord and Lady of two dimensions? What fourth power enters the stage at the fourth dimension? What Supreme Concept reigns the first dimension? Or perhaps the question should be "Which?"

It is not that different, in my opinion, from saying, "And if the sky is green, that'd be interesting." I would have to add, like many English professors, to the end of such a paper, "So what?"

Originally Posted by Iksander

This is certainly a topic we are polar opposites on - off topic here, but maybe we can discuss this further in another thread?

Certainly. Make it, invite me, and I will come.

[Liara Covert]

What is knowledge and what is worth learning for each of us, is subjective. All feelings and emotions seem to bring us closer to understanding a powerful internal and creative potential. Whether we describe it as "consciousness" or "God" or some broader connection, it can be very uplifting. .