My sense of being connected to a cosmic consciousness is not something I would argue about. It is not something I can, or would want to try to, prove to anyone.It's a matter of experience and it is my experience; if you don't have the experience of that kind of a connection, no one can show it to you or explain it. So, clearly, it isn't something that I believe can be argued about in the sense of whether it does, or doesn't exist. It exists for me. If I understand Brad correctly, and I'm not sure I do, he argues that reality is what we think it is, so that is reality for me. And, in Harry's terms, I 'know' it more certainly than I know anything else.
Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Selma Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 3:04 PM Subject: Re: My curious dog, Lottie (Re: Intertwined (was Name Dropping) > Brad and Selma, > > We are often in disagreement, Brad, but here we are together. > > Selma, I doubt that there is anything larger than the things we already > know. This is not to say we know everything - but simply to say there seems > to be only us and the universe. We know a little about the universe, which > doesn't stop us from hypothesizing extensively. > > Human's have always hoped for "something larger". At first we placated the > unseen - later we took to us the unseen "good guys" who would protect us > from the unseen "bad guys". > > This is helped by our tendency to assume that sequences are consequences. > (I'm not sure you were on the list went I traced the path to "Natural Law") > > The is nothing but us - which seems awfully bleak. Yet, I think the best > thing any of us can do is to exchange thoughts with others - not > necessarily with language. > > And that's what we are doing. I wasn't completely sure about the complete > absence of human instinct - because of such things as a baby's suckling. > But I suppose a pain in the tummy leads to sucking something pushed in your > mouth - a reflex action. > > We should have continued with the difference between an animal baby, which > quickly survives instinctually, with the helplessness of a human baby until > it learns to help itself. > > Incidentally, with the two basic assumptions of human behavior, we can get > to "good people" very easily, both logically and reasonably. > > So there, Keith! > > Harry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brad wrote: > > >Selma Singer wrote: > > > > > > To point out that language and consciousness of self distinguish humans > > from > > > animals is not mutually exclusive with an understanding that all creatures > > > are part of something larger than any of us. > >[snip] > > > >This seems to me precisely the notion which I am trying to show is > >only a partial truth, whereas generally in our society people > >(even, as said, with PhDs!) think it is the whole truth: > > > >Clearly we are part of something larger than us: my physical body is > >6 feet long and the planet earth is 8,000 miles in diameter, > >and the Milky Way galaxy is even bigger than that. > > > >But there is another sense in which the whole universe, including > >G-d, "mother earth" and everything else, is *in us*, because > >they are all objects in our consciousness, apart from which > >they are not even nothing, since nothing is itself an > >object in our consciousness. > > > >Kant spoke of the two majesties of the moral order > >within and the starry heavens above. I have recently > >read that Hegel got into trouble [political correctness > >in the 19th century already!] by asserting that > >the stars were only leprous spots in the night sky. > >I think Hegel got it right, since the only thing > >majestic about the stars -- the only reason > >we even have the thought that there are stars and > >not just pinholes in a bowl over our heads at night... -- > >is the we have constructed astronomical theory. > >The majesty is in the fact that man could construct > >astronomical theory --> but people get enthralled > >by the objects of thought and fail to notice that > >they are only objects *in and for* thought --> like the > >[perhaps false?] > >cliche about primitive persons being enchanted by > >the glass baubles European explorers brought with > >them.... > > > >-- > > > >As Gregory Bateson wrote: It isn't so bad to attributre human > >traits like majesty to inhuman things like > >the universe (his particular example was: > >mountains), since the inhuman things > >remain what they are no matter > >what we tell them they are. But it is a tragedy when persons > >attribute inhuman traits to persons (or fail to attribute > >human attributes to them!), because then the > >persons act to become what they believe they are, i.e., > >those inhuman traits, and, in consequence, the persons' > >lives are unnecessarily impoverished. > > > >I would hope that "we" may at last waken from our naive > >belief that "all creatures > >are part of something larger than any of us" -- Although there > >is a sense in whiuch that is true: The "something larger" is > >our (in each case *my own*, e.g., *your own*, dear reader...) > >*consciousness*. > > > >I have on several occasions argued that man is in fact generally > >a mythical animal, but that he (she, other...) is in essence > >a narrative animal. > >I find Edmund Husserl's Vienna Lecture (e.g.) a much more appealing > >"story" than all the stories which make us small. > > > > http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/husserl_philcris.html > > > >My parents and teachers believed som versions of > >those stories, and they did their > >best to make me be small like they believed they were. This was > >a tragedy. Once one has had a childhood in which > >one was shaped to be "a part of a larger whole", one > >can never really have a straightforwardly graceful "self" -- > >at best one will be constrained in one's > >imaginative movements by keloids of the soul. > > > >Never again! > > > >"Yours in discourse...." > > > >\brad mccormick > > > > > >-- > > Let your light so shine before men, > > that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) > > > > Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) > > > ><![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > >
