Artificial metabolism and disscociation of MAL

[Jim Cross]

Actually the in-body-experience is so compelling because it is completely real. I'm not saying that the Big Bang is completely real but that our thinking about it certainly is. The way we imagine the outer world may be illusionary but our thoughts about it certainly are not. So the fact that we experience color, tone, warmth, touch, smell and so on are completely real. The fact that we experience ideas about all these sensations is also completely real. Even the meaning of the ideas is completely real. When we imagine a material world independent of consciousness, this in itself doesn't make it true but the meaning of the idea, which fills our consciousness is completely real. We live in the idea - it is what gives us a framework for understanding of our experience.

Or completely unreal? You choose.

[Ben Iscatus]

I agree a silicon chip doesn't meet either criteria no matter which you use.

Indeed, Jim, and while we're on the subject - nor do products of the Judaic imagination like the angelic hierarchy.

[Cleric K]

Actually the in-body-experience is so compelling because it is completely real. I'm not saying that the Big Bang is completely real but that our thinking about it certainly is. The way we imagine the outer world may be illusionary but our thoughts about it certainly are not. So the fact that we experience color, tone, warmth, touch, smell and so on are completely real. The fact that we experience ideas about all these sensations is also completely real. Even the meaning of the ideas is completely real. When we imagine a material world independent of consciousness, this in itself doesn't make it true but the meaning of the idea, which fills our consciousness is completely real. We live in the idea - it is what gives us a framework for understanding of our experience.

Or completely unreal? You choose.

Then what is real in your view?

[Jim Cross]

Actually the in-body-experience is so compelling because it is completely real. I'm not saying that the Big Bang is completely real but that our thinking about it certainly is. The way we imagine the outer world may be illusionary but our thoughts about it certainly are not. So the fact that we experience color, tone, warmth, touch, smell and so on are completely real. The fact that we experience ideas about all these sensations is also completely real. Even the meaning of the ideas is completely real. When we imagine a material world independent of consciousness, this in itself doesn't make it true but the meaning of the idea, which fills our consciousness is completely real. We live in the idea - it is what gives us a framework for understanding of our experience.

Or completely unreal? You choose.

Then what is real in your view?

Not this. Not that.

[Cleric K]

Not this. Not that.

So you're telling that either (1) nothing is real or (2) only thinking is real (not the products of thinking 'this' or 'that', but our actual activity speaking forth the thoughts)?

[Jim Cross]

Not this. Not that.

So you're telling that either (1) nothing is real or (2) only thinking is real (not the products of thinking 'this' or 'that', but our actual activity speaking forth the thoughts)?

I'm not telling you anything.

Neti. Neti.

[Cleric K]

I'm not telling you anything.

Neti. Neti.

OK Jim,
very mature.

[Jim Cross]

I'm not telling you anything.

Neti. Neti.

OK Jim,
very mature.

I suppose your remark is sarcastic but you mistake my seriousness. Or, perhaps you have some gaps in philosophical education?

I meant literally: "I'm not tell you anything" to your question offering an either/or for what I was telling you.

[Cleric K]

I suppose your remark is sarcastic but you mistake my seriousness. Or, perhaps you have some gaps in philosophical education?

I meant literally: "I'm not tell you anything" to your question offering an either/or for what I was telling you.

I surely have huge gaps, actually I don't have any philosophical education. I was genuinely interested in your view. From what you express I take it that real/unreal are just arbitrary, undecidable categories, something like that the Turing machine neither halts nor runs indefinitely. If that's the case - fine.

Just to make clear - my usage of 'real' was completely practical (or relative). Real, as in the difference between going through an imaginary wall and smashing one's head in a real one. I have nothing against the claim that from the perspective of the Absolute such distinction is meaningless.

[Soul_of_Shu]

BK has consistently said that there is no reason why dissociation could not be induced abiogenetically - as long as it is has metabolism. If it looks like a silicon chip, it is not dissociation, it has no metabolism, it cannot eat, drink, pee or poo and has no conscious inner life.

BK is quite insistent that ipseity can only be associated with the appearance of metabolizing life forms when focused within the corporeal construct. I did once ask him in an email exchange how ipseity might appear if not focused within the corporeal construct, but he declined to speculate about the possibility of sustained ipseity absent the appearance of any corporeal life form—despite his tale about communicating with a disembodied Other written about in MTA, which at least indicates that he doesn't imaginatively rule it out altogether. Apparently a daemon, for example, would not qualify.