Is superconsciousness boring?

[Thelema]

figure that you are in a dream and suddenly become lucid within the dream, then you are what I might call superconscious within the dream. Do you or should you accord any moral standing to other people agents or things within the dream? If so, why? What types of things should you do in the dream? Rape and pillage, become a superhero or spend your time aquiring possessions or trying to access altered states or mysteries, or just sit down and wait for the dream to end?

figure now that reality is a dream, and that "you" are no longer "you" but superconscious over reality. Then answer the same questions: and agree with me, that no moral basis exists, and that there is nothing to be done in the world that is worthwhile, in fact "worthwhile" does not exist when superconscious in reality.

in the lucid dream one therefore eventually decides to "die" from the dream and becomes the waker. does it not then follow that the superconscious in reality leads to one thing: death, or more specifically, suicide?

[ 24. November 2004, 16:37: Message edited by: Thelema ]

[hairyplant]

Cool topic!

As long as a bit of compassion and altrusim for life, ad the universe are present, I don't think any kind of superconsciousness would led to suicide etc.

Maybe reality is the place to find these things so in a superconscious state, 'boredom' might be less likely to set in ?

[strangebrew]

I think it depends on the emotional states experienced in "superconsciousness". Are any felt? Is trying to achieve happiness worthwhile?

When I have been lucky enough to lucid dream in the past, I just seem to naturally seek out pleasurable states of being, such as sex or flying. I have never voluntarily woken up from a lucid dream - it has always been forced upon me.

[devance]

When I am occasionally lucid dreaming I usually am gliding in the air trying to remain there and direct myself somehow.

So far unsuccessful in doing superman type flight.

As far as having superconsciousness over reality

and purpose and morality, its been proposed that starting a family is involving enough even for a superconscious being.

I think some governing familial principles might be how well does a superconscious being wants to totally clone himself to the exclusion of other cognizant mental life differences, which he would cause to be physically born.

The born mental life would be physically clothed by the superconscous being.

Obviously a individual awareness vs total/whole awareness balance must be struck. Not a either or situation, but both existing.

I don't think much of good vs. evil scheme of things or a yingyang concept where there a little bit of evil in good and little bit of good in evil is satisfying.

Dying from superconscousness or normal consciousness might not be easy, as nothingness by defination has no interest in someone being nothing.

Nothingness might be more like a neutral growth medium for the [spontaneous?] generation of promordial life, conscious or unconscious, which can be clothed in

superconsciousness generated reality.

A person waking from lucid dreaming becomes aware of reality, a person dying from individual reality might become a aware of a greater whole reality.

Cognizant failures that don't have empathy towards their fellow reality mates might be naturally declothed and returned for further maturation in the primordial medium.

[Northern Gnome]

In the past I have often wondered if the truth might be that suicide is a ticket to heaven, until you decide that living an earthly existence is not worth it you keep coming back. Once you opt out through suicide you are done with the wheel of rebirth, if you believe in such a thing. It's a strange thing to contemplate, the opposite of what society teaches. Then again, society might be right, suicides tending to be more selfish than not are probably sent back to learn their lessons, until they learn to accept what has been delt to them without running away.

The above was written under the assumption that reincarnation is a fact for most of us, a big assumption on my part. I can believe, but to really know, that's another thing. In one way, I see reincarnation to be moot when you view one another as extensions of the same thing, really one but living in parallel, having separate lives but in truth our separateness no more than the separateness of fingers in a glove, all of the same hand.

Devance, you brought up one of my fav subjects, the concept of good and evil. For me, the good and evil concept breaks down to nothing more than directions of flow. One is radiating out the other pulling in. Good as an all for one or one for all force, evil as one for one, none for all force. One desires all for it self, the other desires all for all. A yin yang cycling of good VS evil throughout eternity, both originating from the same crack in the crystal ball of creation.

I wrote some ideas about good and evil over at http://www.luciddreamer.com - but the truth is, it's only a representation, no absolutes, what is good can turn evil, what is evil can turn good, as long as we have the freedom to choose we can be selfish for ourselves alone, or loving with caring and compassion for all. No one is pure evil, no one is pure good, at least, not here. If there is an all seeing and powerful God we obviously must be more important than good and evil, otherwise we would not be allowed the freedom of choice for either. Either that or the concepts of of the two are nothing but constructs of the mind, beliefs, choosing to believe, deciding to see as you want to view your world.

If you want to maintain a separate identity it's very simple, point at good and evil, fight the good fight and you will be under their twisting and alternating spell for an eternity. Be careful what you believe in, it becomes your own limits, the confines of your philosophy builds strong walls.

As long as I am on the subject, might as well have a few inaccurate statements about the concept of God; what is God? A small word for something big is as close as I can get to explain it right now. Sometimes I like to say "the all that is" instead of God, too many assumptions are often made, often too many dogmatic beliefs attached to "God".

Sometimes I ponder God, if there is an omni-present conscious all seeing eye viewing all of life throughout creation, the central point of consciousness, the cosmic collective of all sentient beings, the pinacle on top of the pyramid of creation... Being God, the all knowing unlimited state of being you would know everything right? But for one thing, how can the unlimited know ignorance without being it? Only one way, by placing a part of itself into a limited being. It would only really work if you made it real, the only way to do that is by making the only way out an overcoming the resistance of your limitations, one step at a time. Resistance, both a spot to stand on and a path to tread.

edited for your reading pleasure, trying to make more sense of it all....

[ 26. November 2004, 05:17: Message edited by: Orb ]

[gomaos]

hmmmm.... contemplating suicide... I think I'll go with the traditional belief that that is the "coward's way out", like saying "life is too hard" or "life is too boring" and then taking the "shortcut"...

I believe everyone is on this planet for a reason or they wouldn't be here...

you have to get through this to get to the "next level" (somewhat like n64 or playstation or xbox)or else you have to repeat everything, make the same mistakes again blablabla...

I for one wouldn't like to make the same mistakes again, would like to do things right next time, or better at least...

my greatest wish atm is to go back 15 years or so and do things right that I stuffed up then...

perhaps next time...

but suicide/ that's gobbledigook, death is always there as a possibility, as a threat to be avoided, don't play into that sucker's hands...

[2b]

Lucid dreaming ? You mean those violent slasher dreams you have when you when you first go on nicotine patches ? In my opinion this lucid dreaming is directly related to external factors , weather they be drug / medication / fever or just plain body temp whilst sleeping. I will ' lucidly' dream when any of these factors are part of my sleeping , not sure if it is anything deeper tho ? Call me a synic or a soleless heathen but that's just how i see it.

[The Dude]

2benubee - erm i think you got the wrong idea of lucid dreaming fella.

Lately i've been having more frequent lucid dreams, that is to say more controllable lucid dreams.

Usually when i lucid dream i end up making out with some chick i really have the hots for at that given moment. And I suppose imposing my will on them in that they can't really say 'no' -it IS my dream

but then i usually get all tingly, regain sensation of external stimuli and wake up OR fall back into an uncontrolled dream again.

So I guess if i had a superconsciousness in exoreality i'd do more of the same: impose my will on others and shift all the laws of physics and all that to my own liking but as in lucid dreaming (for me at least) this state would be hard to maintain...

it's like we move between these steps of dreaming.

dreaming <-> lucid dreaming <-> waking.

so i guess after waking it goes...

waking <-> 'lucid' waking <-> death.

hmm i'm not sure i totally understand what you mean here by superconsciosuness though.

Because as we dream the path the dream takes is dictated by our subconscious. Lucid dreaming is a higher level of consciousness allowing us to consciously dictate what we do and in fact all that happens in our percieved reality - including the shifting of the laws of physics (ie: flying) but of course in dreaming there are no laws, merely assembled memories and new thoughts/ideas.

But in exoreality we already do have conscious control of what we do, so would achieving 'lucidity' add the ability to shift the laws of physics and allow things like telekenisis etc?

If such a state could be held indefintely i doubt i'd be bored i'd do whatever the hell i want and impose my will on others.

Heh if i'm feeling real humanitarian-like i'd fix the current fucked up state of the world. But my self-serving ego won't allow that. First i should probably kill it.. hmm then how the fuck will 'i' do anything?

I just noticed i'm babbling and have NFI what i'm on about, it's probably time i should go to sleep.

[Hagakure]

i dont see the situation you have described as suicide.

i see it like this superconciousness is cracking the code, solving the puzzle.

knowing the meaning of everything.

once you have worked it out and if you had fun doing so why not play again and place yourself back into it.

not suicide but play again.

this is if i have understood what you are saying properly. Am i close?

[macro]

I dont think that superconscious death necessarily equates to the physical death that a human goes through. Suicide in a physical stae is final. Death in the superconscious dream state is made with the assumption that you will return to a lower state of awareness after dying and waking up. This shouldn't change if you translate the superconscious state to reality..

[mesq]

The dream state is where we can practise doing stuff with intent of thought.

[mr toodly]

Thelema:

Do you or should you accord any moral standing to other people agents or things within the dream?

Assuming "lucid" means that I am unfettered physically and emotionally, the answer is no. Moral law is only an agent insofar as I am capable of feeling disgust or guilt--in the case that I am susceptible to reprisals in this world, or a fear of punishment in the next.

 

quote:

---

What types of things should you do in the dream?

---

I am not sure. How much power does my lucidity afford me? Ideally, I would become the macrocosm, to feel the rumble in its bowels.

 

quote:

---

Figure now that reality is a dream, and that "you" are no longer "you" but superconscious over reality. Then answer the same questions: and agree with me, that no moral basis exists, and that there is nothing to be done in the world that is worthwhile, in fact "worthwhile" does not exist when superconscious in reality.

---

All meaning here escapes me. I think you are talking about the world of representation, and not reality at all? Unless of course you believe that everything in appearance is real?

Is your nihilism only a condition of "superconsciousness", or is the baselessness of morals and value a belief you subscribe to in everyday circumstances as well?

 

quote:

---

in the lucid dream one therefore eventually decides to "die" from the dream and becomes the waker.

This is not my experience.

 

quote:

---

does it not then follow that the superconscious in reality leads to one thing: death, or more specifically, suicide?

No? Although, death being marked by a moment of lucidity is an interesting idea, as I invariably wake from dreams after becoming lucid.

[Braitok]

Hmmm ... can't help but reply to this. I have had many (non-enhanced) lucid dreams and have never felt the need to rape or pillage (or murder) .

Morality is a sign of cosmic enlightenment (not puritantical morality mind you), just basic common decency. Something I hope we can all aspire to .

Peace, love and mung beans all.

[Thelema]

THANKS for all of the replies. It seems however that my point has been missed by some, but understood readily by others.

The essential point is a parallel:

dreaming-->lucid dreaming PARALLELS

waking consciousness-->superconsciousness

in my confusion of how one should relate to the world of normal waking consciousness in superconsciousness I draw the observation that this is parallel to the question about how the lucid dreamer relates to his/her dream-world.

I began to think, is there really anything wrong in killing someone in your dreamworld? then the parallel to this is: Is there really anything wrong with killing anyone in the world of normal consciousness, from the "vantage" of being superconscious?

Perhaps the best explanation so far is the idea of compassion, the fingers of a glove, that the glove should be compassionate towards its fingers(essentially towrad itself). But drawing the parallel again back into the dreamworld, does this mean there IS something essentially morally WRONG in killing someone in your dreamworld whilst in a lucid state? Im not sure if I completely buy that.

As a corollary, I begin to feel that the world of normal consciousness begins to be stripped away of all doxa, of "should-ness" in relation to doing (goalsetting behaviour) as well as morality when viewed from the vantage of superconsciousness.

Further input highly appreciated.

[mr toodly]

Thelema:

dreaming-->lucid dreaming PARALLELS

waking consciousness-->superconsciousness

Yes, however, it remains questionable whether or not "superconsciousness" denotes anything existent.

quote:

in my confusion of how one should relate to the world of normal waking consciousness in superconsciousness I draw the observation that this is parallel to the question about how the lucid dreamer relates to his/her dream-world.

If the relationship between a dream world and lucidity is analogous to the relationship between "normal waking consciousness" and "superconsciousness", the world of "normal waking consciousness"-its rules, physical laws, etcetera- become totally inert in the "superconscious" state, Thelema. There is no more relating or a need to relate for one wields supreme power over his environment(?). It is not the same environment as a consequence.

quote:

I began to think, is there really anything wrong in killing someone in your dreamworld?

I don't know. You haven't commented on any of the conditions I proposed earlier.

quote:

then the parallel to this is: Is there really anything wrong with killing anyone in the world of normal consciousness, from the "vantage" of being superconscious?..

Again, they're separate spheres. The rules of "superconsciousness" have no bearing on "normal waking consciousness".

quote:

Perhaps the best explanation so far is the idea of compassion, the fingers of a glove, that the glove should be compassionate towards its fingers(essentially towrad itself).

I have no idea what this is supposed to relate to, but in my experience, a glove is not compassionate toward fingers, but complementary. Also, in my experience, gloves have never been essentially fingers.

It seems that few people understand what compassion is anymore. Recently, someone told me that an insect is the most compassionate of creatures. Maybe there is something to that. I mean, some people do resemble insects. It would explain geo-politics.

quote:

But drawing the parallel again back into the dreamworld, does this mean there IS something essentially morally WRONG in killing someone in your dreamworld whilst in a lucid state? Im not sure if I completely buy that.

Heh, well. It depends on what you think morals emanate from. You need to explain that before you ask any moral questions.

quote:

As a corollary, I begin to feel that the world of normal consciousness begins to be stripped away of all doxa, of "should-ness" in relation to doing (goalsetting behaviour) as well as morality when viewed from the vantage of superconsciousness.

Cool. Now give me some answers.

[Braitok]

I believe it is not a question of being morally wrong to murder 'entities' you meet in the 'superconscious' realm but, that it is morally wrong for the 'self' to 'murder' in any state of consciousness.

Once you have crossed that boundary once, where does it end. It might eventually cross over into other states of consciousness and then you are lost.

Personally, it would be unthinkable for my 'self' to 'murder' in any state of consciousness.

[Thelema]

rjackson, i would like to respond to your posts since you are the only person who has asked for a reply. I have been thinking about this for a while, and have decided not to answer your queries or questions.

There is a convention amongst people who are serious about philosophical questions to adopt a "principle of gratuity", if you have not encountered this, let me explain:

it means construing the best possible case out of your opponents argument, lest all you are doing is setting up a "straw man" to make your own objections appear stronger, and, more often than not, this comes out of an adversarial philosophical mindset that is not so much synthetic or critical. (which is surprising and hypocritical given your signature!LOL)

you are obviously well versed in philosophical thought, would you like to revise anything in your previous post in line with the "principle of gratuity" and then maybe together we can build from there TOGETHER?

all too often i see this phenomenon of the ego getting in the way of philosophical discussion; even in learned journals people use their cleverness to construe straw-men around the words of their "opposition", when in fact that cleverness could be used to create a synthesis that reaches higher than either (blahh HEGEL)

if you really do not see what i am talking about, i am happy to retract my claims. but do me a favour and try to see where your gratuity might fail you.

[Hagakure]

so what your saing basically is with superconciousness comes a realistaion that there are no universal truths.

superconciousness, however, doesnt come with superpowers like a lucid dream that make it easy to push the limits of the world around you and unlike the dream world consequences follow them.

and if you say there are no universal truths it is still advantagous to follow the ones set by society as if you dont you will be imprisoned.

thats my take.

[ 18. December 2004, 01:40: Message edited by: Hagakure ]

[Cyjack]

My experience of lucid dreaming tells me that once you arrive at an awareness of where you are, you can go one of two ways;

(1) You try to become more conscious and do the 'fun' stuff that consciousness would want to do like fly, create things for amusemnt etc. In these cases I do not last too long in the dream and wake eventually.

(2) Allow your state of consciousness to remain at the level that it is, and let your subconscious self travel the dream. In this case, I can continue in the dream as an entity that is partly recognisable and communicate with other dream characters through instincts and higher emotions. In my view this is the prefered option. If you have ever had the chance to communicate with some dream characters, you would realise how complex the nature of dreams actually is.

Is this super consciousness? This may be another example of where words lead astray. I dont know.

Something I have found that might help lucid travellers though, is that it is more important to be aware of what is happening, than it is to controll what is happening. More often than not, you are meant to experience the dream on the terms of the dream's constructs. In this way, the message (and lesson) has a greater chance of being communicated.

Or so I believe...

[woof woof woof]

"the NO moral basis" can not in no way possible be a part of superconsciousness! (THE RIGHT WORDING?) But a lucid dreamer can be a stupid A-Hole with no morals.

morals stem from logical thinking "action and consequence"

What you give is what you get. What goes around comes around. This applies in waking reality and in the dream reality. energy is a 2 way lane. since everything is energy you can see the logic and understand karma and even the basis of morals.

If you are so called superconscious during waking (leaving out dreaming) you will feel that your past experiences have taught you values,... you will then not the stupid things you have mentioned. It will go against your feelings. If you have been braught up otherwise or suffer from some sort of mental impairment, we can understand that you can not help it that you do stupid things.

i think, with death ( suicide ) you might mean letting go of that part of you that is not worth holding on to. In extreme cases when someone does not have anything to live for or thinks he has nothing to live for (maybe based on illusions or not being able to cope with certain emotions), it might mean putting an end to the physical self.

in less extreme, thus most cases it means MOVING ON!

Where you die is also where you are born.

So what's your deal with the hypophothis** (spelling). "Do stupid and getting away with it with no consequences???"

------

APPROACH LUCID DREAMS WITH UNCONDITIONAL LOVE AND UNDERSTANDING, JUST LIKE YOU SHOULD DAILY WAKING LIFE. DUHHHH

[ 02. January 2005, 09:34: Message edited by: brian ]

[mr toodly]

rjackson, i would like to respond to your posts since you are the only person who has asked for a reply. I have been thinking about this for a while, and have decided not to answer your queries or questions.

There is a convention amongst people who are serious about philosophical questions to adopt a "principle of gratuity", if you have not encountered this, let me explain:

it means construing the best possible case out of your opponents argument, lest all you are doing is setting up a "straw man" to make your own objections appear stronger, and, more often than not, this comes out of an adversarial philosophical mindset that is not so much synthetic or critical. (which is surprising and hypocritical given your signature!LOL)

Thelema, I would like to respond to this post since you are the only person who has asked for a reply. However, I have been thinking about this for a while, and I have decided not to take your suggestion seriously, because you did not so much as cite an example of me misconstruing the cases you gave above.

I have watched you for two years, and it seems like you really enjoy wallowing in obscurity. The well is deep when one can't see the bottom, right?

[Thelema]

Why should I bear the brunt of your difficulty in discerning me?

Edited April 2, 2007 by Thelema

[chilli]

I have watched you for two years...

That is sooo creepy.

[mr toodly]

Why should I bear the brunt of your difficulty in discerning me?

If you were the least bit serious (or intellectually charitable for that matter), you might give examples of my misinterpretations and show me where I went wrong. The professionals do it all the time (with the exception of Derrida).

It is really a bit strange that you would accuse me of having an adversarial attitude, when I have always asked you for explanations and clarity and you have acted like a person under siege.

It does not seem like you want to be understood. It seems like you enjoy saying, "NO! YOU HAVEN'T UNDERSTOOD ME!" and slapping your opponent (or whatever) on the head.

That's your prerogative. When you're ready to be open, give me a ring.

[Thelema]

I agree, this is pretty creepy of you. To continue a thread more than 2 years later after the last post having nursed a grudge all this time over a minor matter that you didn't address at the time. Stalking me for 2 years...waiting for the time to be ripe to exact your futile revenge.

Gimme a break. I post about a large number of topics, ethnobotanical, legal as well as the occasional philosophical rant. And I think its rather ungenerous (or should i say uncharitable) to characterize me mainly as "obscure" when in every single area apart from philosophical discussions my meanings are absolutely clear.

In general what I mean about you being uncharitable in that circumstance (it was not intended as a generalization) is that people with philosophical acumen generally avoid being led into the forest by continually bumping into trees. Or it could be characterized less metaphorically as that i wished you would have followed the conversation into it's broadest ramifications rather than being so meticulous that you end up being sidetracked into a narrow area of speculation that frustrates the broad aim of the scenario and metaphors involved.

"not letting the small stuff fly" "hypercriticalism" is another way of putting it, techniques usually used by clever but rampant egos who by convincing themselves of their superiority in mincing over the finest details fail to notice that it is actually an act of incharitability bought at the expense of not following the broad direction of the conversation.