Archy - You say - I'd say public consciousness is now being falsely > represented because of an unwillingness to take on new technology and > research methods in real time dialogue - the very 'viewpoint' that can > be shown to work over and over in reprersenting public consciousness - > presumably allowing it to be worked on through fair argumentation.
Is not Minds Eye taking on new technology to engage a real time dialog and achieve a public consciousness through fair argumentation? No.At least I don't think so. Minds Eye may be using a new technology. But what we seem to achieve here, to me, is a bunch of different, but still individual, viewpoints. There seems to be no attempt to integrate these private viewpoints into a public viewpoint. And I sense no inclination to work toward such an integration. Does anyone else? So public consciousness is not shown, not even here and not even once, to result from a real time dialog. I wish it were different. But then, it may well be the reason that so many topics generate at least two extremes and a dialog about where along the continuum the better view, or a right answer, lies - that is the way things here are designed: to foster dialog not answers. Jim On Sep 8, 7:29 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > There used to be a laboratory joke that the stuff you were swilling > down the sink was what you were really looking for. There are a lot > of moments in science that I'm inclined to think 'bugger, that > explains a lot' of - viewpoints that are somehow 'better'. Sometimes, > such moments have left me wondering how I had managed to be so > inadequate before. When it comes to consciousness, it's pretty clear > our definitions wander and it must, presumably, be as hard to work out > a satisfactory notion of 'false consciousness'. Slip's comments are > entirely pertinent. I wouldn't challenge the others either, though > I'm sure we could get into further elaboration. > > My experience of public debate as we witness it in newspapers and > current affairs is always that it is too limited to obvious interests > that need challenge that never seems to come. Expert professors are > wheeled on and tell us we might find happiness in being happy! Others > that the war in Afghanistan is to keep our streets safe - some bland > assumption is made that 'we' are somehow happy to exchange blowing the > crap out of Iraq (etc.) to maintain our security. Bwankers come on > and tell us we 'will starve to death' without their wheeler-dealing. > Entertainment TV is full of jingles that make me sick. 'The Wire' is > more accurate than political punditry. I'm sure many will recognise > this tale and could add to it. I'd just take one more step - the grim > spectacle of business teaching by people who have done no more than > attended university and read some bits of textbook-level dross and > don't know why it is mostly wrong. > > I don't believe the above is false consciousness, but rather that it > is designed to tune us into something I would give the label to, > something not necessarily an essence. It's a bit like seeing crowds > persuaded by demagogues - only this is more obsequious - a sort of > banal totalisation. Without pursuing this, I'd jump back top ideas > that the Nazis' evil was banal and bureaucratic. I can cry out that > their 'doings' were false - but how do we find a way for sufficient > fact and information, reasoned through, to be present in 'public > consciousness' to feel that what we get is not false and manipulated - > remembering that there are some who can never be satisfied on this. > It's the feeling that arguments that can be clearly made are routinely > excluded in favour of the false balance of air time for a few > viewpoints (usually hymns we have heard over and over) that can all be > exploded by critical reasoning that sickens me enough to believe > something as broad as consciousness is false. Part of this may be the > creation of 'govern-mentality' in which we accept only privileged > 'representatives' get the full facts, and thus all we can do is accept > or challenge their integrity rather than make our own decisions. > Currently, throwing debate 'open' to emails and so on, merely seems to > throw up goons. I'd say public consciousness is now being falsely > represented because of an unwillingness to take on new technology and > research methods in real time dialogue - the very 'viewpoint' that can > be shown to work over and over in reprersenting public consciousness - > presumably allowing it to be worked on through fair argumentation. > > I have wondered whether this latter stuff could be a viable commercial > model given many of us reject newspapers and television. > > On 8 Sep, 12:59, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 8 Sep, 12:28, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I am not sure there is "false" consciousness, but that we deem is so, > > > and this may be relative. The Dennett video struck me because I > > > thought it illustrated nicely the idea of viewpoint. I could feel > > > myself change, or had a change in feeling once I "saw" what he was > > > leading me to see. At first, I could not see it, then I could. And > > > once I could, my viewpoint changed. This doesn't mean that my > > > previous viewpoint was false and my new viewpoint true. It only means > > > that my viewpoint has changed. Unless it means something to me to > > > give it this value. And then I do. > > > > It struck me that we go through life like this, missing the complete > > > picture (which to Pat, might be God's Will, or, the big picture of > > > possibility) and only seeing, feeling, thinking, believing what our > > > current viewpoint allows. > > > Yup, I'll confirm that. Although there ARE techniques for glimpsing > > ahead. Edward De Bono's 'Water Logic' being one. The concept is to > > follow the flow of actions. I.e., one action will lead to another, > > which leads to another and so on. If we take the time to see where > > our actions will lead us, we catch a wider view of the future. > > However, this doesn't (and can't) take into consideration unknown, > > outside influences, which end up dictating A LOT of what happens. > > > >It is a change in view that allows us to > > > see more, and not more coming into being, Nothing changes but our > > > viewpoint, in the Dennett example, it only included a visual > > > perception, but in life may include conceptual, perceptual, emotional, > > > rational and many more changes. But consciousness is consciousness, > > > there is only brahman. > > > > Someone in another group suggested there is pure consciousness > > > (knowing of everything and everywhen or cosmic consciousness) or > > > consciousness in context - consciousness that is filtered through our > > > experience (which is shaped by your viewpoint) I suppose, the > > > integration of these might be the non dual perspective. > > > Sounds reasonable. Thre trick there is tapping into the big > > picture. For example, right now, there are children in Darfur that > > are starving or worse. Most people think this has no direct effect on > > them. They may well be right, but the indirect effects could be > > enormous. For example, malaria isn't the mosquito's fault, after all, > > IT'S been infected by a parasite and is only acting (unknowingly) as a > > vector. Most effects are a combination of indirect effects and > > knowing all the causes is a task beyond the capabilities of all the > > supercomputers we will EVER have. > > > >http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html Here is > > > another interesting Dennett video, where he leads us through his > > > thinking on the concept of memes. How does our environment or our > > > experience effect our consciousness. The answer is, of course, that > > > it influences us in many subtle and profound ways - until it doesn't. > > > And it doesn't when we gain the understanding that it doesn't need to, > > > that our viewpoint need not depend on the content of our experience, > > > in fact, it is the other way around, our experience is the > > > manifestation of our consciousness through viewpoint. When we can > > > operate from this realization, our viewpoint and experience become one > > > creative dynamic, with awakened imagination providing all the > > > necessary energy. > > > The proof of that can be found walking down the street. Give a > > tight-lipped smile to someone and they will, most likely, return in > > kind; give an open smile and they will, most likely, return in kind. > > And one can smile even when in pain that the 'other' couldn't possibly > > know about. > > > > On Sep 8, 2:10 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Perhaps it's not false consciousness at all but simply irrational > > > > reasoning, discretion gone wild or living an indoctrinated lie. > > > > > On Sep 7, 10:56 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I suppose most of our experience of the why continuum has been > > > > > disappointment - largely because it's been about manufacturing consent > > > > > along Orn's lines - the human sciences have certainly played their > > > > > part in this. There has been some focus on what gets 'hard-wired' in > > > > > the brain, leading to the notion that religion is and that this > > > > > togetherness is an evolutionary advantage. I tend to like notions of > > > > > extra-human consciousness because I would prefer something better to > > > > > tune into. I much prefer a world in which, told at the door of a New > > > > > York restaurant in the 1960s that there was no admittance to women > > > > > wearing trousers, Gillian Anscombe (a catholic philosopher with a > > > > > clutch of kids) promptly removed hers, to a world of worthies who > > > > > prosecute women for wearing them. > > > > > 'Hard-wiring' is clearly something for biology to be looking at, but > > > > > how has it come to Dawkin's black box to be ignored as irrational - > > > > > itself an irrational, unexplored base for 'rational science'? > > > > > Introspection has led me to know there is lots of hard-wiring in me I > > > > > would rather do without, except in time-constrained moments of fight- > > > > > flight and maybe some forms of enjoyment. I am still hard-wired > > > > > against being attracted to black women (no doubt a great relief to > > > > > them) and inclined to be attracted to white and Asian women and not > > > > > men of any shade. I seem, these days, to have become hard-wired > > > > > against advertising, cosmetics and commodity-fetishism - which are > > > > > linked to disgust in me (such a link is proposed as a learning > > > > > mechanism for hard-wiring). There is much 'false-consciousness' I > > > > > would like to sweep away in order to have better environmental effects > > > > > on what I can be (though we don't want a bunch of PC Nazis in charge > > > > > of this). We could have a more virtuous circle of 'consciousness'. I > > > > > was brought up in a false consciousness of hating Germans and Japanese > > > > > and considerable other racism. I suspect it's Muslims these days. If > > > > > we end up not being able to define consciousness I guess we get this > > > > > about right - there are > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
