ziplock

Of course v3d4, and I was being pretty critical with that one. It's really just a personal bias of mine in regards to this topic. To me sufficient brings up a system of qualification, one being able to fulfill a particular role. When this is integrated into a system of conscious development or to the verification of proof in a statement, it vexes me in a way. Addresses a persons competency It's purely semantical of course.

This goes also for the matter of levels of consciousness. This of course being one of our symbols to explain the development of consciousness. I do choose to avoid higher and lower terminology as this implies a heirarchy of sorts. While this may align more accurately with some peoples beliefs, it does not to mine. Some may choose a higher or lower terminology, but it has to be relative to a vertical axis of sorts. What determines that vertical axis is really up to you.

So we get to the original post. Many inconsistances and perplexing circumstances arise when you attempt to have Godel's theorems apply to consciousness and the pursuit of truth. This isn't to say not accurate, we're just trying to stuff an elephant into the trunk of a VW beetle. Some of it fits, but there's a lot left hanging.This comes to mind: "He is still hung up on his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive." - Bruce Lee.

Symbolism, as you touched on, is extremely intimate with consciousness. We like to create systems of symbols, attempting to have them represent as closely as possible the reality we observe. Many have different methods in formulation and application, and we enjoy regarding one anothers methods and criticise them. This is great! It gives us the opportunities to learn other artistic techniques, to hone our craft. However, this has to of course be done in a respectable manner. You have to respect the artist, respect their choice of expression. While abstract may not be our cup of tea, it's an artform in nonetheless.

While we can engage heavily in and focus intently on this platonic game of prisoners in a cave, we have to at some time recognize that these shadows we pay so much attention to are still just that, shadows, silhouettes of the forms that cast them. The only way to penetrate that truth is to abandon the forms, and walk out of the cave. The shadows that we create are a part of existence, they're beautiful in their own way. However, you're cheating yourself and extremely naive if you think that the shadows in themselves are absolute. Every theory and belief we have in regards to reality is just that, in regards to reality. They're dependant on reality as the shadow is on the form. Without the form there is no shadow. Seek out the source of the shadow. Then the source of the light. So on and so forth.

When we commit ourselves fully to any shadow we're restricting ourselves. We have to adapt our methods of description and analyzation according to the subject. Each subject requires a different method. Logic, mathematics, these are great for certain things. When you tangible, specific phenomena that you're attempting to describe mathematics is a great way to describe them, and logic is a great way to check and verify them. Now we get to the tricky part.

When you take methods used for the tangible, specified phenomena and apply it to the intangible, abstract, symbolic nature of the individual, you get a lot of short comings. This is fine, we can still adapt these (such as demonstrated in your original post) to fit to a degree. They can aid us in determining say the location of someone's subjective existence in regards to objective reality. Or in other words, someone's beliefs, religion, etc. I can describe to you my understanding symbolically, and you can then use these as sign posts in order to determine my location. It's a game of marco polo, back and forth exchange, constant verification of position in relation to course, correcting any deviations. Like flying a plane from Boston to Los Angeles.

Now, you have the subjective, isolated, statements of opinion, constructed out of experience. These require no proof, no relative position other than to the individual in order to be held as truthful. The construction and reinforcement of these statements can lead to any number of subjective experiences. These experiences can then go to further verify and support them, a self sustaining system. It draws from it's environment (anything conscious including perceptions offered by the senses) what it requires and what is most suitable for it's growth. It's an organism of made up of conscious matter. They can be anything, you're imagination is the limit.

Knowing this, we can then make up anything we want and have it be truthful on it's own, isolated level. It's your natural ability and right to, thanks to the freedom of the imagination. Even the most seemlying absurd concepts like omnipotent invisible pink unicorns of the 32nd and 1/2 dimension, hamburger dictators, tax free living, and ewoks, are all completely true in this context. We can convince ourselves as deeply as we want of their reality. Visualization for example is a good example of this.

Due to it's intangible nature, (that is I can't percieve it directly, that'd be telepathy) it cannot be proven, but that doesn't make it untrue, as you stated. Proof has to be related to, outside of the isolated, subjective mind. It has to be something offered to compliment it. This can be provided by relating it to another's thoughts and beliefs, or towards physical occurances that would compel one to accept our chosen system. The moment you do this though, the subjective isolated truth no longer applies, and the form of truth is now a collective one.

When determining a collective truth, one must continually expose their concepts to whatever relative material they can. They must take their organisms and sit them in different environments. This, and imo your post as well, would imply that we should never seek to solidify or crystalize our forms, instead keep them changing and adapting to the environment or subject fluently like fluid. This ensures the best application. We're not restricted by the single sided approach of some blunt object. We can encompass, circle around the subject and work our way into the crevices. "Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way round or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves." - Bruce Lee.

Basically, there are limits in the application of all forms based on their characteristics. One then should seek their forms to be formless and adaptive in accordance to what the form is in contact with. To become minimize ones limits, to become limitless. I enjoy forms, playing with them, holding them temporarily, but I do not hold onto them. Cage myself within them. I find it amusing when people take with so much certainty and seperation towards things like logic, faith, religions. This and that, this set outside of that set. It's really unhealthy.

__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.