"People of MTV generation have no patience. They want instant satisfaction."

could someone help me with this topic? i must write an essay for&against but i have no idea for arrguments... please help me. thanks for all answer

You can write an essay for or against implementing school uniform policy, but you can't write for or against this statement. You have to write whether you agree or disagree.

Are you supposed to write "for or against" about a particular issue? If so, you need a different topic. However, if you are allowed to write whether you "agree or disagree" with the statement, you can write that you agree, because capitalism and digital technology have caused people to get accustomed to instant satisfaction.

You can say that businesses try to satisfy people quicker than their competitors can, and you can say that technology has spoiled us!

Does that help?

Philosophically, it is the argument whether "patience" as a virtue is worth cultivating anymore; when technology has "evolved" the world to the point that we can demand and expect instant gratification in everything, and every time. The latter argument implying that fundamentals such as "patience" are from an earlier schools of thought, and need not apply in the newer(evolutionary) understanding of the world.

EF_Kevin thanks! ;-) U're right. i must agree or disagree with topic and give some <2-3> argumets confirming it. now i know it isn't exactly essay, but something like mini-presentation. you know about what i say? firstlly i present a topic. secoundly say why i agree <2-3 arguments> and on next paragraph why i dissagree. in conclusion say what is my opinion. and i must present it on the forum of the class . when i finish they are asking me questions.

ps. sorry for my english but i'm from poland and I am still studying :PPP :)

and in my county is 7:32 p.m :P

Here is some more on "patience"; first from an evolutionist's point of view -

People were advised to cultivate patience, so that things that were in process, would complete, having gone through the stages, or steps they were designed to or known to have. Point to understand being, that were you already aware of the time each stage of the process would take, you wouldn't need "patience". You need patience only when you do not know what's going on, and must keep yourself from becoming agitated; as when, your child or your sibling isn't back from somewhere and it's past the time that they were expected to be. Patience is a schooling of the mind.

Interestingly, the non-evolutionary idea of patience goes further. It says, that it is due to the effort the individual makes, and effort here is not the usual kind of exerting ourselves, but often in some other fashion, maybe holding thoughts of anxiety at bay by focusing on something at a deeper level, that we cause the "forces in nature" to set things to happen as per our will. So patience is a force of its own kind.

I hope the presentation is a success! When you write the 3 reasons to agree, it will be important to read about this term "the MTV generation." What is meant by it? Does it just mean the same as "kids these days"...?

I almost think it is distracting to call them "the MTV Generation." However, it implies commercialism because you see commercials on TV... so I think commercialism should be oe of the reasons.

Rajiv, the evolutionary explanation for patience is interesting! I think, though, that making a connection between patience and "uncertainty" is not necessarily necessary. Also, could we have evolved patience? Actually, in this crazy world of capitalism I see a different process going on: survival of the fittest means survival of the most competitive businesses, and the most competitive businesses are the ones that give satisfaction quickest -- thereby dimininishing the need for patience.

Kevin I was hoping you would've picked on the latter explaination of patience - the force in nature - to comment upon. What do you think of that? Have you come across this idea before?

Your arguments might also look at what it means to have patience. For instance, people of the MTV generation might have no patience when it comes to waiting for a web page to load, because they are used to high-speed internet. However, they might still have patience for something they expect to take a long time. So, if they were trying to master, say, the art of origami, they might patiently put in hours of practice without complaining. In other words, is patience really just a matter of expectation, with the younger generation having greater expectations of many things happening faster? Or, is it that they can no longer take the time to do anything unless it has immediate payoff? And if so, is this perhaps a different problem than a mere lack of patience?

Oh, I actually had not understood at first, but I do now. I like it. Daoism is my favorite spiritual tradition, and in Daoism it is said, "Do nothing, and nothing will be left undone."

If indeed circumstances are such that doing nothing and holding still is the best course of action, then patience can be the most effective action. I guess that includes any situation for which patience is necessary.

Mayb the opposite of patience is restlessness. Or recklessness.

But I wonder if you notice, that even in what you have quoted, or rather in your explanation of it, you are falling short of admitting to an action happening simply because you have that thought in your mind. As though an intelligence, over yours, recognizes it and then acts it on your behalf.

And this is again, simply because of a certain mental attitude you have when you are patient, a little humble, a little accepting that other things of which you may not be aware of, in the larger play of events within which yours is a part, need to be carried through. This is more like when a teacher might notice the student who sits and waits patiently to have his question answered.

The opposite of the "squeaky wheel".

You have more faith in teachers than I do. Still, the "squeaky wheel" versus "proud nail" metaphors probably capture the essential difference between the cultures that came up with them as well as anything.

That reminds me of a conversation that Wayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra once had about "manifesting an apple." To me, it seems perfectly likely that a thought in my mind can affect material reality. That is because, as I discussed in another thread, it seems to me very likely that material reality springs forth from consciousness rather than vise versa.

It explains a lot. For example, magic. You describe a patient mind as one that is conducive to magic, and Zen Master Taisen Deshimaru describes a similar state of mind resulting from the practice of fasting. In his limited English, or perhaps it was someone's translation, he explains, "Supernatural powers are not so difficult. However, eat a little bit of food and you lose them."

Anyway, I think it is logical to believe that a patient state of mind can make magic possible. That would make no sense if I thought that physical matter somehow came to life and evolved into us, but it makes perfect sense if I see all this stuff, this wonderland, as imagery being projected by consciousness.

Something completely different: Also, Eckhart Tolle mentions people who say to him that he seems so "patient," and he says, "I don't feel that I am being patient," because he is forever enjoying the fulness of the present moment.

I too am a great believer in magic. After all, who among us hasn't cast magic missile at a squirrel just to watch it jump? And how is one supposed to kill trolls without a good fireball spell? In fact, you might want to drop by your local cleric's and see about picking up a "reverse insanity" scroll or two. Mighty useful spell, that.

Normally I would avoid engaging in purely scathing ridicule, but really, what else is one to do in these sorts of situations? There is no way to argue against magic, no rational arguments that can ever convince. Yet, saying nothing seems dangerous, because those who read your post might think you were being serious. Of course, I know that you are really just joking, that you have no intention, say, of jumping off of a fifty story building because you believe magic will allow you to float to the ground, or of drinking cyanide because you believe you can cast "antidote" on yourself, as in an 8-bit video game. But, even the brightest of American teens tend not to recognize that A Modest Proposal is satire. Who knows what insidious corrupting influence your seemingly innocent jest might have such people? Moreover, such "magic" as one finds today generally has its roots in the suggestibility of those who dabble in it, making such glib talk especially risky.

Surely there are enough psychological benefits to meditation, and to the practice of other rituals with their roots in eastern philosophy, that they can be easily defended without recourse to the supernatural?

I'm in good company: Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra, Anthony DeMello, Father Paul Cho, Rhonda Byrne, just to name a few.

All it is is being spiritual. What you are ridiculing is spirituality in general. All it is is believing in the possibility of something more than the simplicity on the surface of things. If you do not believe in anything "magic," then you certainly cannot believe in continuing your experience after the body dies.

Like I explained before, in this reality NOTHING is as it seems. The world seems flat, and it is round. The planet seems motionless, but we all know that it is flying around in space. Even molecules consist of particles whizzing around in vast space.

And the only reason you are even here to refute my idea is because you magically found yourself here!

It's pretty bold for someone who can't explain his own existence to make fun of someone for considering all the possibilities. If you discovered that life really did work much like the way dreams work, you would not even be surprised!

But no! You can just go on scoffing at people who are starting to see through the illusion, and enjoy the smug satisfaction of playing the role of the scientific one!

But scientists have to come up with hypotheses to explain what they do not yet understand. You do not yet know the answer to th Big Question, but somehow you feel justified in making fun of... of... magic. You feel justified in making fun of my hypothesis about the Magic Origin of Things, even though you do not have a hypothesis of your own!

How can anyone who has appeared into this crazy reality not believe in magic. The very foundation of life in the universe is nothing short of magic. If you want to make a hypothesis that can bring us closer to an answer to the Big Question (i.e. about the magical beginning of life in the universe), then you have to talk in terms of things that are magic -- even though some people will take advantage of the opportunity to make fun of you.

:-)

Oh, I have no objection to spirituality, to believing in something greater, for psychological comfort. As a psychological technique for clearing and focusing the mind, spirituality is very useful. What I object to is genuine belief, the sort that people kill for. A parent who prays for the recovery of a sick child is devout. A parent who refuses to take the child to the hospital because he believes God will magically heal her (or that the power of his prayer will) is criminally negligent and guilty of homicide. In fact, I was just reading about such cases when I read your earlier post, which probably accounts for much of the vehemence in my reply.

There is an old saying -- if you talk to God, you are spiritual; if God talks to you, you are insane.

And really, if I'm wrong, I am at least easy to convince -- just jump off of a fifty story building without a parachute or other technological aid and float safely to the ground using magic, and I'll happily concede that magic exists, and that all of my previous posts were mistaken.

I do! Self-deception for the sake of comfort will not get me any closer to knowing the best use to make of my time as a human. I want no self-deception, only insight into the real magic that made life possible.


Spirituality is reduced to a technique? Maybe you mean meditation. With meditation, I clear the mind to see if any insights come naturally, like memories of things long-forgotten -- innate knowledge that some have experienced and called the "small, still voice of God."

As for your criticism of spiritual "science" and stubbornness that compels people to deny their children medical care, I agree with you. It is just like something you said about not wanting to jump out a window and depend on magic. Bill Hicks once said (of a guy who thought he could fly and jumped out a window), "Why didn't he try taking off from the ground first? You don't see ducks lining up to take the elevator, do you?" ha ha...

So, I agree with you that self-deception is bad.


How do you know this? This is exactly where you overstep your limitations. You found yourself alive in the world, and perhaps you encountered parents and other beings. If, in old age, you encounter even more beings during this crazy trip, those encounters will be no weirder than any of your other encounters.

As for proving the existence of magic, I'll do something even more impressive than jumping off a building. I'll simply point out that, in this reality in which energy cannot be created or destroyed, and in which matter cannot appear without cause out of nothingness, we are all spontaneously here.

Because of that, you have to accept the reality of "magic." You have to accept the fact that there are forces at work that you do not understand. You don't know exactly what to make of all this, but you do know one thing: Whatever the true nature of reality is, it's is not what it seems!

You know that reality is fundamentally different from the cause-and-effect system proposed by material science... otherwise we would not be here! So, do not be surprised when you suddenly wake up to a reality that is completely different from the one you have gotten so accustomed to, so confident in.

So, you will not attempt to perform any acts of magic that put you at any risk should you fail, nor do you believe that people should be allowed to rely on magic to save their children when technology is available that could save them instead. Yet you claim to believe in magic? I see you have only been playing devil's advocate, then, as your actions and other beliefs clearly indicate that your claim to believe in magic is some sort of jest. That's a relief. As to the rest of your argument, I'm afraid it isn't very convincing. All you have shown is that, at some point, several billion years ago, the laws of reality as we know them didn't exist yet. This doesn't prove that they somehow don't really exist now. Just because we don't know how something came about doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If I see a plow rusting in the woods, I don't say to myself, "I don't know how the plow got here -- it must not really exist at all." Nor, when lightning strikes, do I say to myself. "I do not know how clouds could produce lightning, which is nothing at all like the clouds themselves. There are forces at work that I don't understand. Clearly, lightning is a form of magic, or maybe an expression of the anger of gods." Of course, for hundreds of thousands of years, people did think that, and worshiped sky gods, and had their buildings burnt flat by lighting strikes for their troubles. Then, someone thought that maybe lightning could be explained, and studied it. Now, buildings in areas prone to lightning strikes have lightning rods. The sky gods have no followers, but far fewer buildings burn.

Oh, man, I seriously am considering hitting you with a magic missile.

What you wrote... all good points. I am glad that you mentioned things like lightening, because it actually supports the point I have been trying to make. We call things "magic" when we do not understand them, and when we understand them we no longer call them magic. In the same way we figured out about lightening, we might figure out other things. That is WHY you should not make fun of my use of the word magic. We have to stay open to the possibilities.

By scoffing at the idea of magic, you reveal that you believe that nothing is possible that we do not already understand. It is easy to make fun of a little-kid word like magic, but admit that it is wrong to assume we know everything there is to know. If you agree with that, you "believe in magic." I'm very serious about this.

The original point I was trying to make was that -- and this is very fascinating to me -- it is appropriate to use the word "magic."

You can't deny that the very foundation of this material universe defies our understanding.

As you mentioned, the fact that matter exists now proves that


Consider the implications of that!! That means that all this could change in crazy ways. It means that nothing is certain -- not even death. In fact, there is no logical reason for us to even age!

Your experience might continue after the body dies. That sure would be "magic", but like you said, "magic" existed billions of years ago to form the very universe you are standing in. My original point was that, interestingly, "magic" is not a silly, little-kid word. This universe was founded on something inexplicable. "Something inexplicable" is a good definition for magic.

Can we agree that, if the laws of nature can change, that anything is possible? Can we agree that it is POSSIBLE that consciousness is more fundamental than matter and that, therefore, it is POSSIBLE that expectation can influence the unfolding of events? (although you may not agree that it is probable). Can we agree that it is POSSIBLE before we proceed?

And do you understand what I mean about the notion that consciousness may be more fundamental than matter?

We can certainly agree that it is possible. But is it possible in the way that say, it is possible that more people will post in this forum, or is it possible in the way that it is possible to win the lottery, or is it possible in the way that it is possible for a solid marble statue to wave at you? All three things are possible, but the last item is so improbable that we think of it as being impossible, and are justified in doing so. So, probability matters, because after a certain point, something can become so improbable that it essentially is impossible, given the constraints of time and space.

Also, it is possible that we are all brains in vats.

Hey, I just came back to the computer because I thought of your argument in a new way and wanted to say I respect everything you are saying. I looked at my posts from your perspective. Your comical responses (ridiculing my post) are exactly the way I would respond to, for example, people who would opt for magic over medicine for their kids.

We have been having two different discussions! Isn't that always the way.

Anyway, you'll have to wait til tomorrow when I will reveal the great significance of what you and I just agreed about: That it is possible that consciousness is more fundamental than matter. (you did not comment on that. Say something to let me know you know what I mean.)

Tomorrow I'll make an argument that, at that time you mentioned (i.e. billions of years ago), it may have been CONSCIOUSNESS rather than MATTER that magically came into existence. I'll make an argument that it is at least AS probable that consciousness is what came first. That would mean that your experience probably does not end when the body dies! So, stay tuned.

I said before that you clearly didn't mean it when you said you believed in magic, because by your own admission you don't act as if you do. Your general spiritual belief that consciousness is more fundamental than matter is a very reassuring one, as it helps you cope psychologically with your awareness of your own mortality. I respect that -- we all have to come up with some way of dealing with it. I would argue, though, that doing so is, and should be, an act that involves cognitive dissonance. That is, it involves believing something in theory that we know in practice isn't true. Or, we believe in it the same way we believe in the story of Icarus, as something whose literal truth is unimportant to its meaning. So, in some sense I do believe the story of Icarus, even though I know it isn't true. When contemplating matters of courage versus arrogant foolishness, the story is meaningful and useful. When contemplating matters of aerodynamics and atmospheric realities, the story is rightfully ignored.

Some people, though, don't believe in the spiritual and religious like this. They *really* believe, and so will let their children die, or blow themselves up, or do any of a thousand other crazy things, because they have chosen to accept the metaphorical and illusory as literal truth.

The discussion seems to have gone astray. I'm going to bring it back to the original question.

For a presentation such as this, the teacher wants simply to see that you can cogently express an understanding of both sides of the question. If you are still studying English, it will be especially important to keep it simple and not get distracted by questions such as how to define the MTV generation or whether patience is a virtue.

State simply and clearly two reasons why you believe the current generation has less patience. Then say "on the other hand," and give one reason why that may not be true. For example, you might state that the internet has made students less willing to take the time to read whole books or that being able to shop online has made people more impatient when they have to wait in lines. As an opposing idea, you might raise the possibility that young people always seem impatient to their elders or that it is the nature of adolescence to want things quickly.

Next, take up each of your points in turn and explain it, giving details or examples from your own life.

Finally, restate your thesis, again stating the two reasons you think young people today are more impatient and the one reason that might not be true.

Because it is always complicated to give "for" and "against" arguments in the same presentation and because you are working in a second language, I think it will be most important for you to "keep it simple." Good luck!

What!? This is just an elaborate way of saying, "no, I don't believe that it could be consciousness that spontaneously came into existence instead of matter."

But I am trying to get you to admit that it is equally probable that, when this explosion that is the universe "began", it was something being dreamed; I'm trying to get you to admit that, even though it seems at first glance like a spontaneously-existing material universe made conscious life forms possible, it is JUST AS PROBABLE that spontaneously existing consciousness made a dream of a material universe possible.

Do you have any argument against the assertion that they are equally probable? (We don't know how matter & consciousness appeared in the universe, but as I said before, if matter spontaneously existed it would have to also somehow develop consciousness, whereas if consciousness spontaneously existed it would certainly have a dream.)


What came to mind for me was that, although the Internet and other technology diminish patience by providing quick answers and satisfaction, people also need to be patient in order to sit at the computer for hours each day. Is that something that might help you? Thanks, by the way, for starting this great conversation! Let's see some of your writing, and we'll help you improve it.

Two, actually. First, the world behaves as if matter were primary. That is, we cannot bend reality to our will, as in the Matrix. Second, consciousness is merely a property of a certain type of matter, namely our brains. It seems to me that a property of matter has to come after matter, however it got started.


I would say that it is definitely easier to keep it simple if you first define your key terms in the introduction. I'm not sure how you could agree or disagree with the statement that "People of MTV generation have no patience." without first deciding what was meant by "people of the MTV generation", and "patience." For instance, does the prompt also apply to the millennial generation (1982-2001), which would presumably have been even more influenced by the Internet? Or was there something about those born just before that makes them more likely to suffer from a lack of patience than people born just after them? Notice that this question only arises if you research the term "MTV generation" and find out that it does not mean "kids today" but rather people born around 1980 or so, i.e. people who are now hitting 30.

I'm excited about the possibility that you are about to get the same great insight that I got from reading Dr. Chopra's books. Your last response set the stage for me to perhaps finally explain this notion in a way that makes you see it in a new way. Here it is, below! I am excited about possibly changing your ideas about reality and convincing you of the possibility of something that can rightly be called an afterlife.


You can't bend dreams to your will either. Some dreams, like some lives, even become nightmares. Dreams are great examples to explain my argument, because they present us with situations where consciousness makes things seem to exist when they actually don't. If there were no such thing as dreams, it would be very hard for me to explain myself in this discussion.

While you are saying that consciousness is a property of matter, I am saying that the reverse might be true. The apparent matter in a dream is a property of consciousness. We are consciousness existing. We are consciousness dreaming. There is no reason to expect that you should be able to bend the illusion to your will; the extent to which you can control the illusion is the extent to which you can see through it. Consciousness has created a dream for itself; otherwise it would not be conscious.

It seems that consciousness and material both exist in the universe. I'm saying that maybe ONLY consciousness exists.

The very point that I have been trying to make is that, if consciousness was primary, the world would still seem as though matter was primary. Do you agree? Obviously it SEEMS like matter makes consciousness possible; I'm saying that it would seem that way even if consciousness was primary. To me, it seems much more plausible that consciousness is primary. That means this dream might be followed by more dreams.

I grant your second point but not your first. I admit that the world might appear the same way if consciousness were primary, much the way the sun seems to revolve around the earth even though it doesn't. However, I deny your assertion that we cannot bend dreams to our will. We most certainly can. Once you are aware that you are dreaming, you can do whatever you like in a dream. So, if you were to achieve a state of enlightenment through meditation, and were to become aware that consciousness were primary rather than matter, then you really should be able to leap off of tall buildings, or manifest an apple. That people don't do these things, and fairly consistently, still therefore seems to me to be a strong case against your argument.

Also, what do you mean by consciousness? Because I thought that consciousness didn't do anything. Our conscious minds don't create dreams, for instance. For that matter, one could argue that consciousness is merely an artifact of intelligence. That is, an intelligent being will become conscious as a result of the exercise of its intelligence. However, the consciousness may not be a particular asset, or even useful for anything. It may even be a weakness, an unfortunate cost that must be paid for the really useful thing (intelligence) much as feces are the unfortunate by-product of our metabolic system, something we have to produce in order to get the really useful thing (energy). This seems to be a particularly good analogy, actually. So, why are you arguing that a phenomenon that, for all we can tell, is the mental equivalent of feces, should be treated as a primary force in the universe?

Awesome! And part of my argument is that the possibilities may be unlimited for those of us who "become aware that we are dreaming." In fact, my attitudes can even influence subsequent dreams. However, this is rare. It is rare for me to become aware that I am dreaming, just as it is rare for Buddhists and Daoists to experience the drastic change called enlightenment.

Most importantly, the higher level of awareness might be important for influencing what happens in the "afterlife." Imagine how ironic it would be if indeed expectation influenced subsequent life-dreams. Then all the realistic people, the atheists, would end up being less pragmatic than even those people with blind faith. The people with blind faith have clear visions of their afterlife, and, if it is true that consciousness is fundamental and that reality is like a "projection"... well, you know what I mean.

The stakes are high! Maybe it DOES matter what you expect about "afterlife." Isn't that always the way?! Life is so ironic; it would be too simple if the realists were right! It just rings true to me that, perhaps, we are able to control "It."


Yep, there's the rub. I am not trying to make my case seem stronger than it actually is. And yet, if this reality is so illusory, perhaps the real miracles and whatnot are things that take place within someone's subjective experience. Moreover, there are many things that seem miraculous in real life, and oh my, does Deepak Chopra present great examples of miracle healings and phenomena. Gives me chills.

Yet, it is also true that we often deceive ourselves, and furthermore, as Buddhism continued to be practiced over the years, I am sure that much quackery existed in its ranks as well. But IF it is possible for me to control the dream in some way... or if it is possible for me to see through the illusion... well, I want to explore that possibility because I'll do anything I can to have a chance at figuring out the answer to the Big Question.

I realy liked your description of how your experience of dreams transforms when you realize you are dreaming. That has only happened a few times in my life.


You gave some interesting commentary about "consciousness." the way I am using the word, it could be interchangeable with "intelligence." I think you already know how I am using the word. I sure do not presume to be able to define it. I use the word "consciousness" to refer to "awareness" or "intelligence" that is not of the sort that depends on a brain.

Maybe that sounds silly to you, but I am using the word "consciousness" like the way I use the word dream -- just as models for conveying a concept. Obviously, for you and me, we only know "consciousness" and "dreams" of the sort that depend on physical brains.

But I think you know what I mean by "consciousness" when I say "consciousness that may be more fundamental than matter." The reason I think you know what I mean is because you talked about "brains in vats" and other notions that hint at the possibility that this material world might be illusory. What I mean by consciousness is a formless ... well... consciousness that, if it spontaneously existed INSTEAD of the material reality that seems to spontaneously exist and become alive, would make things appear the way they do. Consciousness that would project a world of form.

Remember: If substance magically appeared, it would also have to magically become "alive" (i.e. conscious), but if it had been INTELLIGENCE that magically appeared, it would definitely have a "dream," an experience.

Reflect on that, and you might start to feel confident in the possibility that you do not just become worm food when this body dies. I mean, I am a pretty smart person, and it really seems more plausible, rings more true, (but certainly not certain), that we are conscious ENTITIES that for some reason cannot fathom eternity, and so we are limited to "dreams" in which "death" seems to loom on the horizon. To me, it seems plausible that all this weird matter (molecules?! Come on! Obviously this is a dream! Stars?! Come on! Get real! and look at the sunset. I live at the ocean, and when I look at it I see a crazy kind of heaven, something that could only be dreamed up.)

So, if you had to bet fifty bucks, would you bet that your experience continues when the body dies? You may as well say yes, because if you bet against it and win, you won't even be able to collect the money from me when the bet is settled. :-)

Hmmmm . . . you want me to agree that consciousness is more fundamental than matter, but you cannot tell what consciousness is, nor do you have the ability to define it. Well, now, how about if I said to you, say, do you believe that glorschampf is better in a kitchen than set of knives? You might reply, what is glorschampf? And if I in turn said "I cannot explain it to you, or define the term, but I think you know what I mean"how then would you respond? Presumably, you would say something along the lines of "I know what knives are, and how they are used, and from my own experience can say that they are useful in the kitchen. As for this glorschampf, I do not know what you mean by it, and moreover, by your own admission, you do not what you mean by it. Not only can I not agree with your assertion, but I strongly suspect that it isn't even a meaningful statement that I should take seriously.

Now, at the moment I see no difference between the circumstances in my example and the ones in our present circumstances. I honestly have no idea what you mean when you use the term "consciousness." You said it was that which had dreams, yet argue that we rarely have conscious control of dreams. You say it is synonymous with intelligence, but I would have said that it seems rather to be a by-product of intelligence, and not a very useful one in many cases. Then you stated that any intelligence would dream, yet I see no reason why this should be, either. Since, by your own admission, you cannot define it yourself, I am not quite sure why you should think I can somehow define it for you, or that, if I could, my definition would be one you would agree with. If you want me to agree that consciousness can be more fundamental than matter, you are first going to have to explain to me what consciousness is. I suppose if anything, I would think of consciousness as the equivalent of software, and the brain as the equivalent of the hardware that runs it. I don't understand how you could have software with no material medium to record it, or that could run itself without hardware, and it seems to me that this is what you are asking me to believe -- that software came about and dreamt the hardware it needed to run into existence. I find that difficult to accept, for reasons that should be obvious.

I'm all for open discussion and intelligent conversation, in the appropriate time and place, but is that place in this thread?

Tangents can keep things interesting when they're sparse and spontaneous; however, when you try forcefully as a rule, to get off point, and the posts in the thread no longer bear any resemblance to the mother post which birthed them, it's not very fair to the person who has seen their request for advice/constructive criticism devolve into an inconsiderate, deviant slugfest of words.

We responded fully to both of the thread owner's posts. The thread has since become a rather extended digression, I admit, but those of us participating are enjoying it, and the original poster has not been harmed. I could see your point if the person who opened the thread had posted an essay that got lost in the shuffle, but she didn't -- she merely gave the topic in her first post, then the instructions for the assignment in her second. You know how little help we generally give people who do that anyway. Usually, that sort of thing is followed by a comment to the effect of either "google the topic and do some research" or else "we're not here to do the work for you. Try your best in a first draft and post it here." Given that, I'd say that the conversation, before it got off-topic, probably got her more advice than she would otherwise have received without actually posting any of her own work for revision.

It's possible that people who come to this site don't know the way the site works, since the instructions aren't to be found anwyhwere.

Why not add it somewhere that if you want the best possible experience, show up with some work in hand already (or whatever rule the owners of this site deem appropriate)?

That way, there would be no ambiguity about which threads are worth replying to, and which are not.

If you have the rules posted somewhere easy to see, and in a way that's easy to read, I bet some people who would have originally posted with the instructions for their assignment and no more, will now make that first post with some workable material.

I don't know how you'd exactly measure this, but I'm pretty sure that you'd see a statistically significant decline in "lazy threads" lets call them, if you were clear about what is expected of a person submitting for review/help.

If you don't post those rules, and just "naturally" assume that a person is lazy or a slacker trying to get others to do his/her work, you are making a very speculative assumption.

Once you have the guidelines in plain view, you can rest a little easier in knowing that you at least gave it a shot.

Otherwise, I could be a person unfamiliar with English and taking a developmental English class; the teacher says we're going to work on "essays" and to "keep an eye out for the instructions" -- it's not making much sense to me, so I bang out "Essay help" in google and on the second page, 8th link down, I find this site.

I don't know much except that we are supposed to do something with essays, and these "instruction" words are especially important.

I type all that I know and I'm desperate for help, the internet being my last resort.

I hit "Post Reply" and I'm either redirected to google or given a half-hearted reply, which will soon degenerate into the product of a mentality that "why should we care -- this person is a slacker -- it shouldn't matter that I wipe my cleats with this joke of a first post, since this person is not genuine about contributing some effort."

In actuality you've spurned a really great person who is hopelessly lost when it comes to this foreign language "English", and how to write essays according to the rules that govern the same.

To be fair, the site's purpose would seem to be self-evident, so much so that, in the very first FAQ section of the site (which isn't that hard to find, btw) one of the students posted the following "The purpose of this site lies in its own name: essayforum. If you have an essay, you should post it here in order to receive comments." Moreover, this category is called "Essay Writing Feedback," which likewise suggests that one should post an essay here, in hopes of getting feedback on it.

Besides, we don't spurn people who post "lazy" threads -- we just tell them to research their topic, take their best shot at a draft, and post it here, which is advice I stand by. Many of them do this, and find the site quite useful. Some don't, for whatever reason.

I would also venture to say that students who just post the instructions without even asking a question, or who just want someone to give them "ideas" or "arguments" are in fact being lazy. After all, if they know enough to track down this site using Google, then they know enough to be able to track down at least some ideas and arguments on their own. They may not realize they are being lazy, and there may be other factors involved, such as shyness, or fear of not expressing themselves well in a second language, but they have still got to make an effort to come up with something on their own if they want meaningful feedback. I don't doubt that this is tougher for some than for others, but that doesn't alter what is required one whit.

No, no, nevermind all that! You know it cannot be defined. Can a fish define water if it has no objective way of observing it?

It is not important for me to define consciousness. What is important is for us to have a common understanding of a certain concept, a notion: What if all this material seems to be real, not because it is "real" but because it is being projected by creative beings.

We do not know much for sure about reality, but we do know that creative, conscious beings exist. All this could be the virtual reality contrived by creative entities.

The point I wanted to make was that there is another possibility, a possibility other than the simple acceptance of Things as They Seem. As they seem, things suggest that our experience stops when the body dies. However, as Eckhart Tole wrote, "The dreamer is not the person. The person is part of the dream."


Your face is a glorschampf.


Yes, well, like I said above, we do not know if any of this is real, but we do know that creative, conscious beings exist. While you are fussing over definitions, I am trying to make use of these words to convey an idea -- one that is quite simple, actually: We know that conscious beings exist, and we know that they experience a world of form. What if the conscious beings are actually formless, timeless beings that project a world of form to serve as the


I mean, if it is possible for material to spontaneously start existing, and if it is possible for it to "come to life" like Frosty the Snowman, then surely it is possible for formless, timeless beings to "dream up" experiences in a world of form.

Again, it is entirely possible that our experience stops when we die, but I just wanted to point out this other possibility. To me, this notion has the ring of truth.

This ranting "slugfest" inspired me to read Hawkings' A Brief History of Time, and on page 18 he mentions that a philosopher named Berkely believed all objects in space and time to be illusions. He must have gotten the same insights I got. Another philosopher, Johnson, represented in this thread by Sean, said, "I refute it thus," and he stubbed his toe on a stone.

Ha ha. Of course all this is "real." It's as real as anything in a world where everything is fleeting, fading, impermanent forms.

Did beings collectively create the world, or did the world make life forms possible? Whatever the case may be, we know that our ability to understand ultimate reality is limited. My guess is that conscious beings dream up worlds of form, and apparently they do not fully understand it. They have no objective view of it, just as fish have no objective views of water.

But the very phrase creative beings implies that they are made of matter. That is, "being" implies a physical existence. Reality might be a matrix-like illusion, but the illusion must ultimately run on some physical reality that isn't.


But how do expect to use words to do that if you do not first establish what the words mean?


Lol! Excellent!


Oh, no. If it had been me, I would have said, "I refute it thus," then knocked Berkley over the head with the stone. Since the stone, and his head, are both merely illusions, he would have had no reason to protest.

Ha ha, well, the thing about definitions is that... they are imperfect. Words are imperfect SYMBOLS for things, and some words symbolize concepts, so...

James Mitose said, "Words are a difficult means of communication."

Anyway, my issue is that some realistic, science-loving intellectuals dismiss all ideas of an afterlife as a bunch of self-deception and hogwash. I have been trying to find the right words to convey the idea that THIS present-life, with red-orange sunsets and weird creatures, is just as far-fetched as the idea of an after-life. My reasoning is sort of like, "Wow, after seeing my spontaneous existence in this strange, inexplicable wonderland, I'll believe just about anything!"

I heard a story about a mystic who asked, "Why are you believing this rumor about death?" ha ha!! a rumor...

Being so realistic and clear thinking, if before you experienced life as a human I had suggested to you that life forms could appear in an otherwise empty universe, you would not have believed it. Would you really be that surprised if, on your death bed, this dream spilled into another dream? Would you really be surprised if, after your body and mind change in the next 10 years, a memory of previous lives started to come back to you? In a reality this zany, anything can happen.

Add to that the fact that, for many people, reality may well have transformed completely from their subjective points of view, and they would not even have been able to explain it in a way the rest of us could believe or understand! (see the above rant about the limitations of language).

All the phenomena that you can talk about realistically, and the facts that make it seem as though your experience will end when the body dies... they all depend on the notion that matter came before consciousness and made consciousness possible.

If we define consciousness as "awareness", there would need to be something to be aware of. You say there can be no consciousness without matter to be aware of, so matter must have come first. I say there can be no consciousness without matter to be aware of, so consciousness would certainly have dreamed up a world of matter.

I read somewhere that people generally tend to want to believe in an afterlife because they can't imagine not existing anymore. So, when they think of death as not leading to an afterlife, they imagine themselves sliding, not into oblivion, but into a state where they continue to exist as floating disembodied in darkness forever. If that were what death as oblivion really meant, then any conception of a different afterlife would be better than that. But that isn't what oblivion means. Oblivion means complete cessation of consciousness, of all pain, sadness, anxiety, etc. It's not really something to be afraid of. In fact, I think most people fear the pain of dying, rather than death itself. So, I suppose, I have no psychological investment in the idea of an afterlife, and it is a difficult concept to believe in without that.


But, consciousness could not have existed to dream up a world of matter unless matter already existed, if in fact it is true that there can be no consciousness without matter.

Well, yes, no consciousness without matter. But SOMETHING began to exist without having been caused. Some people believe all this was created by a god, but then you must try to fathom how the god came into existence. Was it matter or consciousness that spontaneously came into existence? That is the real question. But I'm getting repetitive now with that point.

My crazy quest has been to convince you that it is actually not far fetched to think that an afterlife is a possibility. Dawkins and Bill Maher and others who point out certain silliness inadvertently cause many people to group "afterlife" together with "god-concepts." Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, as they say.

There is a rumor, you know, that meditation practitioners sometimes experience a sudden change in their experience of reality, a sudden "enlightenment" that leaves them actually experiencing one wholeness, experiencing themselves not as the separate, dying person but as everything-all-at-once.

I would like to suddenly see through this illusion that makes me think I am a separate, slowly dying individual. It would be great to suddenly "remember" my existence independent of the person.

Hmmm . . . let's try a different approach.

Is reality more fundamental than illusion? For instance, can we trust our sense more often than not? If I see a car coming down the road, it could be an actual car, or it could be a mirage or an hallucination. Now, which is it more likely to be -- an actual car, or a mirage? I don't know about you, but most of the cars I have seen, and bothered to test, have been real, rather than mirages and hallucinations. So, let us assume, then, that, if you are being honest rather than playing devil's advocate, that you will admit that the number of real cars we encounter is much greater than the number of illusory ones.

Not being Socrates, I won't make us go through the same example only with computers, tables, chairs, horses, and the like. I'll just go with the idea that reality is more fundamental than illusion.

Now, which is more common -- to experience yourself as a separate, slowly dying individual, or to experience yourself as being at one with everything? As you attribute the latter to something that only occurs during periods of extensive mediation, and as I assume you spend more time not meditating than meditating, then I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you will be forced to answer that you more often experience yourself as a separate person than as one with the universe. So, which, then, is more likely to be real and which the illusion?

Put another way, you are saying that for some reason, our perceptions are all wrong and misguided. This is certainly possible, but it seems exceedingly unlikely. The only reasonable scenario that would permit for this would be if we were being deliberately deceived, as by Descartes demon or the computer from the Matrix. And even then, the deceiver would have to possess most of the attributes you claim are illusory in our case, to be able to perpetrate the deception.

That is quite an interesting statement.

Indian philosophy offers an explanation here. That unlikely as it appears, deliberate deception is precisely the intention. And the deciever is Maya. It has three qualities and everything -- everything other than consciousness is Maya, and it's three qualities.

The moot point being that Maya, cannot be understood, since our minds too are only it's components. Depending on what we may be talking about, the definitions of these qualities come across a shade different. The actuality of things, is the Satva quality. Our extrapolations, is the Rajas quality of our minds. The last, negative and dark, is Tamas.

It is the first, the actuality of things which we want to be most concerned with. We seek the light and Satva, also interpreted as truth, is the way. Though it isn't itself consciousness -- that being us.

I know all this adds up only to definitions and in no way explains anything; but one way I think about this is that, quite independently you've come to a definition which is a fundamental concept in another philosophy. It's like coming up to a door and not going in.

Could you explain Maya in more detail? I am uncertain of how you intend this concept to be interpreted. Is Maya supposed to be a god, or the universe itself, or some combination of both? And is Maya conscious? If so, why would Maya choose to be deceptive? If not, how does Maya arise so to create a situation in which there are conscious beings who are deceived by the world around them?