--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > First of all: Thanks for your answer Curtis. My comments follow. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > You have the right to say anything you want. When you say "I am > God" > > > > I have the right to say "Uh oh". I have my reasons. > > > > > > Or not. Most reasons are rationalizations, as brain research suggests. > > > What you think to be 'my decision' or 'my reason' is very often, if > > > not always a later rationalization of processes in the brain which are > > > under the threshold of your awareness. And yet you feel sure (most of > > > us do) that its us doing it, us thinking and us being independent. > > > > A lack of compelling evidence has nothing to do with unconscious > > processes. I don't feel independent of unconscious processes. Quite > > the opposite, I use them for my art. > > When you say: 'I use them for my art' you obviously feel in charge > that you have some kind of control of what is conscious and what is > unconscious, its exactly that which I am doubting.This transition of > unconscious processes to conscious ones is something we are obviously > not aware of, so how could 'you' possibly control them? I know what > you mean, and I am sure that you have worked out a means to be > creative in that way, but I am obviously challenging he overall > picture. Which is that the I, ego is in control. >
Curtis, this is addressed to you and I'm sure you will respond, but.....may I ? Trinity3, why would you doubt that he doesn't feel independent of unconscious processes, and that he uses them (uncoscious processes) for his art ? It seems that Curtis is fully one with the creative expressions from their inception, through their expression through his art, in his case blues music performance. The concept of control of the process was introduced by your question, and isn't what he asserts. He seems to be a fully enlightened artist, at one with the first creative impulse, through its relative expression of his own voice, guitar, and physical expression. Expanding the range of awareness of the conscious mind to percieve the first impulses of creativity is what FFLers have been doing naturally for a very long time. -Mainstream > > Being confident about knowledge > > is not undermined by studies on our rationalization processes. There > > are many methods that we use to avoid this among many possible human > > cognitive errors. > > I am not talking about errors here, but about the general process of > brain-processes coming into awareness. These processes in your brain > are not under your control. But the result of these processes are then > , once they come into awareness, owned by an ego, the self, with which > we identify. From reading your posts until so far, I have got the > impression, that you have sort of a naive belief into the ego, your > sense of self, as a given. You take whatever appears to be as it is, > as the truth, as far as I understood you. > > > > E.g. in my view, which is just a POV, are are an atheist, precisely > > > because God wants you to be so. In my view we are not independent > > > units, but are guided by a cosmic force, that you might call 'God' The > > > sense of the I and doer-ship is one of the greatest miracles. Which > > > you take for granted obviously. > > > > > > I don't take our sense of I an doer-ship for granted, I love being > > alive. I just don't believe that any of the explanations for how we > > got here rise above mythology. (which has its valuable uses) I am > > satisfied with the miracle of life itself without the overlay concepts > > of cosmic forces. My awe, wonder, joy and even bliss come from being > > alive, not from one of the many, many God concepts. > > Even people who believe in God, know that whatever we think about him > /her or them is a concept. Ask the most fundamentalist Muslim, and he > will tell you that God cannot be described or understood by the mind. > So when you talk about God, you talk about something indescribable. As > such you have a metaphor for the indescribable, and that is God. I > would say most people are aware of this. If you say ' I do not know > God (as he is beyound the mind)' or if you say 'I do not know the > origin of the world' whats the difference really? If you say: ' I am > satisfied with the miracles of live' you obviously simply substitute > the word 'God' with 'life', as an overall concept of the processes > going on in the world. I don't see any big difference there. If you > speak of the 'miracle' you even more so use religious terminology. > > > If you find these concepts useful in interpreting your experiences of > > your consciousness, that is your business. > > Sure. I feel using concepts of something I experience with certainty > (God) as helpful of getting things 'out of the way'. I mean why bother > with questions I can have a metaphor for as a working hypothesis? I > don't have to think about things my intellect cannot grasp. (and I can > still use my intellect to probe deeper into 'higher realties' having > such expressions and metaphors I can work with. Its like the steps of > a ladder I can use) > > > But not adapting these > > concepts doesn't make me take anything for granted. > > It seems you have taken many things for granted, for example that you > are in control of your actions. Or that he intellect is a valid means > to understand reality, which exceeds personal experience. > > > You yourself have > > decided not to adapt literally hundreds of God concepts to arrive at > > the one that works for you. > > I am actually not exactly sure in how many Gods/gods I believe ;-)But > basically there is no big difference in believing in 108 Gods or only > 107 Gods or actually just one God. It doesn't matter, as you believe > there is a consciousness beyound your individual mind, and that there > is consciousness behind the processes in nature. Actually thats my > definition of God: Consciousness. Because God, any God, to be a real > God would have to be Conscious. So Consciousness comes first > obviously. Which is of course why the vedic literature defines Brahman > as Sat Chit Ananda. > > > I have rejected them too and probably for > > many of the same reasons. I just have one less God than you have. > > Haha, very funny, but no its fundamentally different, see my > explanation above. >
