--- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > First of all: Thanks for your answer Curtis. My comments follow.
Likewise. I'm sure I'll learn something. >Snip> Me > > the opposite, I use them for my art. > T:> 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. > I didn't say I control them, I said I use them. There are lots of ways people access their unconscious processes, meditation being one. I don't feel as if I am in control of them or conscious of them. But like the fungi that live under the soil occasionally a mushroom pops up on the surface. If you know something about what conditions to make them pop you can create more favorable conditions for it to happen more often. I think I am in agreement with your point that there is much that is never known. Certainly my ego isn't in control of all of my unconscious processes. > ME: > > 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. > T: > 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. I can be as naive as the next person, but I don't think I really follow your point here. I don't take anything as it appears as "the truth". My sense of self is a given I guess. I'm down with Decartes' first principle. I am not confused about who I am, but that does include plenty of mystery including unconscious processes. <Snip> T: > 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. ME: I often find that down deep under the spiritual terms, I share beliefs about life with overtly spiritual people. The term "God" isn't useful for me but I understand it is for others. But when I say life, I don't mean any of the God concepts I have come across. Maybe Pantheism, I should look into that. I would attend WICCA meetings but I am sure to get kicked out for leering. > > > If you find these concepts useful in interpreting your experiences of > > your consciousness, that is your business. > T: > 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) ME: OK > ME > > But not adapting these > > concepts doesn't make me take anything for granted. > T:> 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. Me: I hope I have cleared up that I do acknowledge unconscious processes beyond my conscious mind. If you are taking it to an extreme version of philosophical skepticism about the authorship of the actions I do control, you may be going beyond my POV. Even using "the intellect" in this way is coming from a whole epistemological POV that I don't share. I don't cut up my mental processes that way. I understand "reality" with all my human faculties just like you. > ME> > You yourself have > > decided not to adapt literally hundreds of God concepts to arrive at > > the one that works for you. > T: > 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. Me: I don't share your confidence in this assertion. T: 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. Me: It seems that you started with logical necessity as a proof system and then ended with scriptural authority. I don't really accept your use of logic because you have included premises that I don't share. And I dig the Vedic literature as much as the Bible for insight about human nature and history. Brilliant stuff. But I understand the limitations they had which we have grown beyond in human knowledge. In my POV I can be conscious without having a concept of Brahman. > Me: > > I have rejected them too and probably for > > many of the same reasons. I just have one less God than you have. > T: > Haha, very funny, but no its fundamentally different, see my > explanation above. ME: Thanks for taking the time to answer in detail. I enjoy reading your POV even when I don't share it. >
