Slip - excellent. Thanks for the post. You are quite right - a collective consciousness is surely happening outside of ME. That's an encouraging thing to ponder. Jim
On Sep 8, 9:23 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
