A very well thought out, transparent and honest post Mike. I appreciate it very much.
As to dreams in the sleep state and self awareness, this is possible. I’ll leave it for you to find your own method(s). And, yes, it is quite possible to be more and/or less aware while in the awake state too. There are specific levels that are innate and scientific. Observing one’s own thinking is a form of awareness/consciousness too. It is one aspect of self-observation, an ancient practice found in many traditions. Sufi traditions being one of the more commonly understood and known. It is at the very center of the whirling of the dervishes. I speak from experience having practiced 9 ways of Zhikr since the early 1970s. The specific state arrived at is known as fana. Now your specific question incorporates this state to some extent. And, since the shortest definition of fana is: fana Pronunciation: (fu-nä'), [key] —n. Islam. the ecstatic union of the Sufi with the Divine. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc. …it will be obvious that such a state is difficult, no, impossible to give a one to one definition using words, as is the case for any inner state and/or emotion. Since you have asked and appear to be truly seeking knowledge here, I will go further. As to how it is done, there are differing methods. Zhikr is one for an instant result. Specific practices, from this and other traditions, are available too. For some, just reading Rumi approaches the result. Further still, there are numerous levels/states involved here. Schools of Buddhism quite accurately list and describe them. So, overall, self observation (including being aware of consciousness itself) is not only one ‘state’. You already are aware of your own thinking. Many don’t even achieve this level of self awareness. When one is residing in quiescence, a term common in Buddhism and even found in behavioral neuroscience or zoology in the west, one is observing mind within itself. One of the first websites talking about this that Google provided is: http://www.tricycle.com/new-buddhism/mental-discipline/tibetan-buddhist-meditation They also point towards method there. You can study/read about it from many different sources if you wish. I do suggest a personal teacher though at some point, one who has traveled the path and thus knows it. To show that this is a universally recognized, thus scientific, state, I will suggest Stephen MacKenna’s translation of Plotinus’ “The Enneads”. Until/if you find it, this may be a pointer too, for now. http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/plotinus.htm In a sense, differing forms of emination also represent some of the states of luminosity, or mind residing within it’s own state. http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/emanatio.htm Of course, as you have already guessed, an analogy of sharing such states, although legion, is telling a blind person what the color blue is or telling someone who hasn’t experienced orgasm what that is. It is why the Sufis use the notion of wine and being ‘drunk’. Also it is why Buddhists represent upon their sacred Tibetan Thangkas some states as being in coitus. http://lhamo.tripod.com/images/PBC-Samantabhadri.jpg So, in this way, it IS esoteric, thus the terms gnostic and agnostic. I’ll close by quoting my primary teacher: “The mind that understands itself is the Enlightened mind. Nothing else, by the way, is Enlightenment.” – Oscar Ichazo On Nov 13, 8:46 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Orn, > > As of late I prefer to use the word mind and consciousness > differently, though I sometimes forget and use them in same or similar > ways. > > I think the idea of observing means that one is consciously focused on > some object (which could be thoughts or feelings rather than a > "material" thing). I am not able to directly observe consciousness. I > can observe mindful actions and some of these seem to indicate that > consciousness is present while others do not. For example, the heat > seeking missile takes mindful action but does not appear to be > conscious, even though it migh be. My dreams are another example. When > I am dreaming, I am conscious (aware of something, in this case my > dreams), but it seems to be a lowered state of consciousness since I > am not self aware, contextually aware and in other ways asleep. I am > even in different degrees of "sleep" when I am awake. It seems that my > one of my most, perhaps the most aware state is one in which I am able > to observe my thoughts about awareness (consciousness), but I am still > not directly aware of awareness. If you are able to be conscious of > consciousness, please attempt to explain this to me. How do you do it? > What is it like? Is it possible to explain this to someone who hasn’t > experienced it himself? > > Thanks > > On Nov 12, 1:05 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > “do you prefer to be called Orn or something else?” – Mike > > > Anything that clearly identifies me is fine. > > > And, your ways of using mind and consciousness differently are > > appreciated. However, it still may cause some confusion in our future > > interaction. I suggest that if the meaning of these terms is not clear > > in context that we continue to spell them out, OK? > > > Some observations about how you approach Mind: > > You say you can see Mind ‘from the outside’. (…by mindful actions.) > > The first part is a strange notion to me. I find Mind to be neither > > inside nor outside. And, continuing, a mindful action is no more the > > Mind than the wave on an oscilloscope is the fluctuation of potential. > > > I do see that you appear to be using the term Mindful actions as being > > something consciously done, is this correct? > > Yet, you say these actions are in response to the environment. This > > latter could easily suggest no consciousness at all. > > > Your heat seeking missile example in a strange way is almost a > > Flatland example of teleology [“The forces and impacts are controlled > > by a goal (follow the heat to its source)”] rather than something > > ‘mindful’ as I understand you mean the term. And, addressing the > > notion of randomness, I do understand it and use it, but I’m not sure > > that in any ultimate sense it has an application. I see no accidents > > at all in an ultimate sense. > > > Your mindful action example using a dog seems to imply that the dog > > has a sort of self-will rather than instincts. > > > When you completed a disambiguation for missile and dog, you appear > > to be saying that any action at all is mindful in that it (acts????) > > to achieve a goal. Perhaps you do embrace teleology. I can’t tell yet > > for sure. > > > Of course, you are using that very thing that is being observed (mind/ > > mindfulness) to make the determination about mind/mindfulness. This > > sort of reflex has difficulties as I see it. > > > And, I do get it that you are agnostic when it comes to consciousness > > and who/what ‘has’ it. > > > Oh, and overall I agree that complexity of behavior does not determine > > mind nor mindful behavior. > > > I fully agree with you about the non-locality of consciousness. I too > > have been watching the developing understanding about photons etc. In > > fact, I think this knowledge started back in the 1970s or 80s, didn’t > > it? Regardless, the association of appearances with Mind will still > > have to be addressed at some point by those observing such things. > > Thus, I have begun that specific journey of consciousness observing > > itself. Even William James had strongly suggested this as one of 3 > > methods of study of Mind way back in the late 1800s! > > > And, of course, the technique has been known ‘forever’. Today, the > > union of science and such eternal methods is the real work as I see it > > > I hope this doesn't come across as being too disjointed. I was > > attempting to address your notions and questions without doing a > > deconstruction using quotations from your post. > > > On Nov 12, 6:49 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Orn, > > > > do you prefer to be called Orn or something else? > > > > Here is an attempt to explain my position on this more clearly. In one > > > approach to thinking about these things, I consider mind different > > > than consciousness. Mind can be seen from the outside, by mindful > > > actions. Mindful actions are responses to differences in the > > > environment. For example, a heat seeking missile detect differences in > > > air temperature and steers itself towards the source of the heat > > > which. This action is mindful in that it is not directed by forces an > > > impacts acting randomly on the missile. The forces and impacts are > > > controlled by a goal (follow the heat to its source). Another example > > > of mindful action is the idea that if slap a dog on the nose, the dog > > > will move a bit from the impact following the laws of physics, but > > > will probably move a great deal more using its own energy and mindful > > > action to get away from the source of the pain (or else move towards > > > you and attempt to bite which also a mindful action). > > > > From the first example, the heat seeking missile, I believe that most > > > people would say that the missile is not conscious, meaning for the > > > moment that it has an inner experience. I would say that I don’t know. > > > I also believe that some people, perhaps most, would also say that it > > > has no mind. But I think that it is perfectly reasonable to say that > > > anything that acts to achieve a goal as mindful. In the second > > > example, I believe most people would say that the dog is conscious, > > > that it has an inner experience. I also believe that the dog has an > > > inner experience, but I have no way to know for sure. > > > > Now here is the point of all this, I don’t how see that consciousness > > > arises simply from more complex behavior or from the same sort of > > > organization that makes more complex mindful behavior possible. It > > > might arise from this, but I don’t see how it could. To me this is > > > like saying a wheel arises merely from the circular shape. But will a > > > wheel work if it is not also rigid, to a degree. If matter was like > > > bosons, an elementary particle in which more than one particle can > > > occupy the same place. Then a wheel made out of this sort of matter > > > would collapse and not work. But fermions, from which matter is made, > > > or usually associated, cannot share the same space. > > > > In quantum mechanics experiments have been run where one photon seems > > > to “know” what another photon is doing. As an aside, this happens at > > > distance and speeds that seem to require faster than light > > > communication. That is another mystery and it leads most physicists to > > > acknowledge that there are problems with our idea of location and > > > reality. For my point, is this “knowing” what the other particle is > > > doing analogous to the partial rigidity of matter due to the fact that > > > two or more fermions cannot occupy the same place at the same time? > > > Does consciousness build from the “communication” between photons in > > > the same way that a wheel and rolling build from the fermions? If so, > > > then at the base of it what gives rise to consciousness is non-local > > > and perhaps in some way consciousness is also non-local. > > > > Orn, please tell me what you think? > > > > On Nov 11, 12:05 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > ...all credit for the above philosophy is given to it's originator, > > > > Ichazo > > > > > .“… FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW IS IS A MYSTERY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T > > > > SEEM TO FIT INTO THE SYSTEM….” – Mike > > > > > Yes Mike, and this is one reason that as practical and useful as the > > > > scientific point of view is, one using it alone clearly is not able to > > > > accurately apprehend reality as such. > > > > > “iT SEEMS THAT MINDFUL BEINGS COULD EXIST WITH NO INNER EXPERIENCE > > > > (PHILOSOPHICAL ZOMBIES.” – Mike > > > > > As much ‘fun’ as such a hypothetical might be, again, it seems to be > > > > looking in the ‘wrong place’ if one is on a search for the being as > > > > such. > > > > > “…ALSO WE CANNOT EXPERIENCE THE CONSCIOUNESS IN OTHERS DIRECTLY(AT > > > > LEAST I CAN'T; MAYBE YOU CAN).” – Mike > > > > > Ahhh, yes. This is an excellent point and one seldom addressed. If > > > > examined and taken to it’s logical conclusion, clearly mind would be > > > > omniscient, among other attributes. > > > > > “THE PHENOMENOL VIEW TEMPTS ME TO ADOPT SOLIPSISM; AT LEAST IT IS > > > > CONSISTANT THOUGH NOT SATISFYING. IT MAKES ME FEEL TOO ALONE ANS ALSO > > > > SEEM INTUITIVELY FALSE. > > > > – Mike > > > > > Exactly Mike! Being conscious negates both, phenomenology and > > > > solipsism for at least the reasons you present. > > > > > “BUT THE QUESTION ARISES CAN MACHINES BE MADE THAT ACT AS IF THEY ARE > > > > CONSCIOUSS? IF SO ARE THEY CONSCIOUSS?” – Mike > > > > > Here you point out, subconsciously perhaps, the central point. > > > > Machines can be made that ACT AS IF ……. > > > > Acting is not being in this case. It is so obvious. > > > > > “THE IDEA OF MATERIALISM ARISES IN CONCIOUSNESS, SO PERHAPS IS IS > > > > ONLY SECONDARY.” – Mike > > > > > I’m not exactly sure what you mean here Mike. Taking a guess, I’ll > > > > point out that many different systems can > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
