Is consciousness fundamentally meaningless?

Question

In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the concept of semioticist reality. It could be said that if Foucaultist power relations holds, we have to choose between nationalism and neocultural libertarianism. The premise of the dialectic paradigm of reality holds that truth is capable of truth, but only if consciousness is equal to sexuality; otherwise, the State is part of the fatal flaw of consciousness.

“Sexual identity is dead,” says Baudrillard. Therefore, Lyotard promotes the use of subtextual discourse to analyse class. Marx uses the term ‘nationalism’ to denote the stasis of dialectic sexual identity.

What do you think?

And if you hit refresh, it says "The characteristic theme of the works of Gaiman is not discourse, but neodiscourse. Von Junz[2] suggests that the works of Gaiman are postmodern. Thus, many discourses concerning the cultural paradigm of context may be found."

Brilliant! Well, I like it. The postmodern essay generator. Thought I'd give it a bit of a plug.

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo

Answer 1

It is pseudo academic left wing feminist elitist bullshit, designed to control, by confusing people into deference, that they maybe in contact at last, with the higher forces of attainable human intelligence.

Answer 2

Thanks for the thought provoking question. I believe in the process oriented world rather than product orient world. However I cannot discard product in the name of the process that because we need the balance of each. The people who are post modernist they are in-search of the subjectivity within diversity. As you mentioned the Foucault, he proposed the power theory how the power is circulated thourgh the discourse. However, he talks about the subjectivity of the discourse within the diversity. Likewise, Baudrillard views that the sexual identity is dead simply because the tradition sexual role was based on patriarchal society(male dominate society) which didn't have any relation with the biologically different male and female. In this regard, these people are doing nothing just adding something within something. Specially, they are just adding new consciousness instead of old one. Thus, in the process oriented world consciouness is not meaningless rather a way for the generation of meaning, which are even affected by the culture or discourse laden within it. That is also because the culture also shape your mind.

Answer 3

Excellent question. To all those who really have nothing to add, please don't post an answer. MySpace is for teenagers looking to socialize, I suggest using it's message boards.

A couple more references for you, Sexual Personae by Camille Paglia, and I always reccomend Out of Control by Kevin Kelly and Simulation and Simulacra by Baudrillard. Also The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is okay, but he turns everything into an argument against the existence of God when it has nothing to do with what he's even talking about.

Try analyzing things from the perspective of network theory, system theory, and even cybernetics -- this is the only true way to look at things objectively and see the greater patterns in how they work.

My answer to you would be no, consciousness is not fundamentally meaningless, even when you remove emotion from the analysis.

Richard Dawkins would argue we are vessels for our genes to propogate information and spread to every possible form and our consciousness is an emergent result of that and simply helps the process, and we are just along for the ride. It's about propogation of the biological meme, which is ultimately what sex is.

My take is a bit different. The only reason for consciousness to exist is to give us choice, and at the very least that provides a certain amount of unpredictability and change that would not happen without consciousness, allowing US to create the meaning and guide what would otherwise be "nature's" course.

But we are nature's course. Our consciousness (ability to think and choose) is a pinnacle emergent evolutionary event for a system -- in our case we are the top of the biological brain-food chain with regard to value simply because we are moral vessels who can choose not to act like animals (this is the social contract and the birth of concepts such s trust and honor).

Having choice ultimately means we have a question (what do I do?), and that question spawns the quest for meaning. What came first the question or the meaning being sought in it's answer? Can you have a question if there is no meaning? If not then does that mean you have no choice or consciousness?

Does the value of consciousness come from having a choice/freewill, or from the outcome of the choices that are made?

The Future Is Now, But There Is Always A Tomorrow...

What this means is not matter how advanced things seem, or how much you think you know, something really mind blowing is always around the corner that changes things. Just because we may not be able to see what the net effect of our consciousness is right now, doesn't mean it's not part of some greater system outside of our awareness.

For all we know our own cells could be conscious, and we are just outside of their awareness. For all we know one day very soon our consciousness may be transplanted into machines as a natural part of the evolution of consciousness.

The meaning exists as much as infinity exists. We know it's there and we may never be able to reach it absolutely but it becomes finite as we come to understand it. The Mythos becomes the Logos. Possibility becomes probability. But in the end no matter how much meaning or knowledge you find, there's always more to seek. One day when the human race is immortal they'll still be asking your question, which validates itself yes.

Whether a person can perceive meaning, it's there, and maybe the only reason we can question is because we can sense it even if we can't perceive it.

Answer 4

Just an idea.

Perhaps if we can free ourselves of our consciousness and fundamentally forget the fact that we are alive we can live happier lives. Maybe we were better off as apes.

Our minds are so good. What a gift. We can all feel good no matter what sex, colour or level of society we are born into and live our lives in. Even utter outkasts can find good in their own impenetrable worlds. We always want to improve ourselves which is what causes our greatest anguishes but also causes our purest extasies. Our minds make it all worth while.

The sad thing is that it seems to get us no nearer to any understanding of existance.
We know we are here and we know we are controlled and preserved by things that we cannot change, see or even begin to understand.
So what is your question? Is it 'why try'?
If it is I would have to say I don't know.
Maybe because we are programmed to
Maybe because the human condition commands us to.
Be it for sex. Be it for evolution. Be it for god. Or be it for life.
We struggle on.

I get myself bogged down very often in questions of this vain and it hurts and it feels like a waste of time. But the sheer euphoria that can be experienced by a human something quite amazing

I would like to talk more about this but my thoughts aren't straight enough in my head.

I didn't really understand your question because it seemed to be written in that bullshit jargon kind of way.
It seems strange to me to put a theory of existance and thought into such incomprehensible terms.
Surely the answer is something simple that noone will ever think of. Something utterly under our scope.

Inspiraiton works its magic from behind the eyes and is
manifested in true originality.

An idiot suffers as much as an intelligent man they just see things differently.



Who really cares anyway, eh?

Answer 5

First i don't anticipate I recommend something or the two do my concepts. 2d, it is amazingly unusual slippery slope logic using fact even the bible says that all and sundry is conceitedness (Ecclesiastes) and Lewis grew to become into arguing in protection of the G-d of the bible. And purely for the checklist I do believe in G-d, yet i don't settle for the premises of this argument. via Lewis asserting that which skill can't come from non which skill, he has already assumed his end with out proving it---a minimum of as you have it written it is not shown. The opposition argument to creation bargains with the transformation of inanimate gadgets into animate, sensible, reproducing gadgets and the transformation of the meaningless to the significant is greater of a dilemna for believers in G-d and not vice versa on account that it is the right argument provided via the non believer. The shape of the argument fairly lots says "no, you're incorrect. and because you're incorrect, i'm suitable", even although I believe the tip there's a G-d does not recommend I see the premises as valid.

Answer 6

My head hurts! I'll have to read this again tomorrow, too tired to understand it today.

Answer 7

Wot de F u k are you on dude

Answer 8

I should cocoa,

Answer 9

Mine is.

Answer 10

Can we have that in Plain English please?