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? RJ
Not an intentional attempt but views of posts run into the thousands, weekly, on a global scale and indirectly influence public view somewhere, in a ramifying process where discussions outside the forum take place. Like Dennett's video going out to millions, ME threads might reach and effect millions of minds. Much of what transpires here, in the past took place in smokey rooms full of opinionated power plays secluded from the general populous. Often elite social clubs held segregated mind melting parlays which now are open to public view and scrutiny. The collective consciousness is now more than likely reaching greater proportions then ever before in history, mostly the awareness that there is a collective consciousness. This is the opportunists dream that allows for pants wearing condemnation to become part of the collective consciousness. Everyone is watching and waiting as those in the shadow come to the realization that they are part of the whole, no longer hidden in the dark consciousness. On Sep 8, 10:56 am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
