Now if you insert the ever elusive soul you > would suddenly have consciousness.
The problem with this line of thinking is the meaning of the word "insert". It presupposes that something exists beforehand that is then placed into something else that also exists beforehand. But consciousness is existential. It is not something, let alone something that could be placed inside of something else. That would make it spatial and temporal. It is existential in meaning and fact. It is a reference to the fact of having been or of being. So until consciousness occurs then you aren't or if you prefer, you weren't- without it you can't be. There is some wiggle room here in two directions:. If you are unconscious and lying on a table then one might say that you still are there lying on the table and to destroy your body would be murder, and so some ideas of "you" include or bridge during these lapses of consciousness. On this lies a lot of medical ethics and the abortion debate is tied to it with the mere potentiality of becoming conscious and having a materially differentiated biology leading some to conclude that "you" existed from the moment of conception (don't necessarily agree with that just describing it). However, if we were to permanently remove consciousness from your body and then see it lying on the table the correct conclusion would be you are no longer there, you aren't, you are "dead", and in fact that is what happens when someone is pronounced "brain dead" even though many of their cells, indeed many of their brain cells are "alive". If, on the other hand, we were able to revive you, and your body was necessary for that revival, or some other material structure was required for that revival, like data in some machine, then that material instantiation could still be referred to as "you" and care fore it would fall under ethical restraint. However, that is only because "you" could be potentially "revived" meaning brought back to consciousness. The fact of consciousness is still existential for you. The second way there is wiggle room is that by some meanings conscious can be conscious and "you" still aren't. There are some modes of consciousness that comprehend - I'll use the shorthand phrase - "mystical" union. This mode of consciousness is non-individuated and not separated from its content and the meaning of "you" therefore is not differentiated from all other being. Because the term "universe" is so close to the term "all other being" and not just "all other being" but "all being" and ultimately "being" they are frequently confused. In a sense it then can be conceived that the preexisting world individuated into a "me" when I became conscious and there is an attempt to date "me" before my birth, or indeed before the moment I became conscious in the womb. But even that doesn't work because the preexistence was not "me being conscious" and while it is true that the universe existed before humankind it is not know that there is, or was, a "consciousness" "prior" to that. There are some other ideas that believe in my individuated pre-existence and while I am not completely sure I think that these are a form of fundamentalism and are not strictly speaking valid, or rather they may be valid but evidence is required to substantiate them. The experience of mystical union however transcends time and is. That is different than saying that the universe was conscious before I was differentiated from it and therefore I always existed but was then inserted into my body. > Now Lee and Vam if this is true, and you deprived the body of water till it > lost consciousness (basically died) the soul which provides consciousness > would simple separate form the shell we call a body and go its merry way as > it is not dependent on water for life.. > Allan LOL be aware this opinion is full of shit..!!! > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Did you miss this, Lee ... " pure, undifferentiated > > consciousness." > > > That is, one without forms ... without all forms ... all I and all > > matter and beings and creatures and knowledge and thoughts and > > emotions and desires and events and effort or action. > > > At this point, you may disagree with the perspective or find it > > without meaning for yourself. But there's nothing I could add to what > > I 've already stated in this regard. > > > And, Lee, there are things one can know and not have the ability to > > express it or express it beyond a point. > > > On Sep 10, 6:38 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Well Vam you must have the words to express the idea you have or how > > > have you come to this knowledge. > > > > I would ask you try as hard as you can to put your idea across to me, > > > look at it as doing Seva! > > -- > ( > ) > I_D Allan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
