Attention and its direction is to a large the only real thing in us. We are conscious in direct relation to the degree of intentionality invested in attention. Consciousness and attention are inseparable. Attention is at the heart of ever effort yet for the most part ignored.
-
-
Replying to @memeristor @NoaidiX
The excerpt I posted earlier Self Remembering an act of dividing attention acts as a solvent. I would suggest that Buddhism ignores attention as it is integral to a sense of self. Hard to push near nihilism and unpack attention.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @memeristor
My experience, at least, suggests otherwise. Attention functions integrally in the various flavors of Buddhism I've practiced without recourse to a substantial or enduring self. Perhaps we're working with different aspects or definitions of attention, but I see no contradiction.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NoaidiX
Different definitions of self? Did you read the posts where the similarities between attention and electricity were discused? Moving away from biological properties to electrical properties seeds become capacitors storing the current of experience.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @memeristor
Different definitions of attention, but likely self as well. I understand electricity to be a metaphor for a process. The same goes for seeds and all the various other images that are invoked. Do you see them some other way, perhaps as literal entities?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NoaidiX
More then a metaphor. No one suggested entities. I am asserting that the other side of our physiology is electrical that attention is in fact electrical in nature that our default states of semi consciousness can be be nicely described with electrical theory.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @memeristor @NoaidiX
That transcendent states fit nicely into the functional properties of memristors.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @memeristor @NoaidiX
Certainly you accept that you have a body maintained through a variety of chemical and electrical processes. Is it likely the the electrical properties are merely secondary artifacts?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @memeristor
I accept it with several extended footnotes.
Typically, I'm inclined to treat mind/consciousness as "primary" but equally as insubstantial as body/physicality. These are just different ways of describing experience.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @NoaidiX
Respectfully that is sophistry. If cause and affect is accepted as real then the physical spectrum in its entirety must also be accepted as the Real World. It may not be the real world as imagined nevertheless the knife cuts the roof shields and the fire burns.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
There seems to be some kind of strawman at play here. I don't deny causality, nor physicality, nor morality. These are all aspects of experience. I understand mind (i.e., intention) as playing a primary role in all of them.
-
-
-
Replying to @memeristor
No problem, friend!
Pardon any lack of clarity on my end.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.