"How does one know when the "undifferentiated, ineffable, omniscient
realm of all possibility be experienced in sleep if one is
unconscious?"
In my experience, vivid dreaming allows the conscious recognition of
this state.
"And if it is possible to experience such a state when one is
unconscious then it reasonable to believe that one can experience when
one is also conscious."
Yes, in the awake state, I first accessed this state in meditation,
then contemplation. Now, as I say, I believe it is part of the
background program in my moment to moment consciousness.
" If so by what criterion does one know if and when he or she is
experiencing such a state?"
I think this is like someone who has never seen Mt. Rushmore, asking
how they will know when they arrive there. It is unmistakable, and I
know this only by experience.
"And even if such a state is perceivable what difference does it
make?"
It seems to have made a difference to me in my viewpoint, how I see
the world; my character, how I respond in my experience; my
relationships, how I treat others; my self image, how I maintain my
living self.
This is how I understand it. Others may have a different view.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Sat, Sep 12, 2009 12:51 pm
> Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: consciousness
>
> Also, the undifferentiated, ineffable, omniscient,
> realm of all possibility can be experienced in sleep or deep
> meditation and contemplation.
>
> The atonement thing - that everything is connected with everything else -
> appears to me to be obvious. But
>
> so what? Individuals must still individually reckon with the meaning of that
> experience which is differient for
>
> different people.?In reflections about the nature of consciousness I think
> there is entirely too much emphasis
>
> on the unity 'thing' and way too little on differences. Case in point - my
> personal and professional experience
>
> (I am a practicing psychoanalyst for the past 44 years) indicates there is
> not just one consciousness (such as
>
> unconscious, sub conscious, pre conscious, but a continuum of consciousness.
>
> ?
>
> Among the states of consciousness along the continuum of consciousness are:
> kaleidoscopic consciousness,
>
> symbiotic consciousness, transcendent consciousness, transitional
> consciousness, transformational consciousness,
>
> ego consciouness, unity or syntehtic consciousness, and cosmic consciousness
> - perhaps more.
>
> ?
>
> Consciousness functions like a filter which enables a person to organize the
> raw data of their experience. Each state
>
> of consciousness functions as a different filter or set of filters which
> changes (interprets) what is perceived with alternative
>
> perspectives.
>
> ?
>
> This way of viewing things is what I think accounts for the stark difference
> in differing interpretations as to the nature of lets say synchronicities.
> Jung's basic unproven assumption about the collective unconscious as the core
> of reality enables his mystical magical interpretation of synchronicities to
> be what it is -? whereas an assumption of lets say the personal unconscious
> generating personal meanings of whatever is perceived would result in a
> purely naturalistic non mystical non magical interpretation of the nature of
> synchronicities.
>
> ?
>
> Viva le differance!
>
> ?
>
> : consciousness
>
> Yes, and I think we generate meaningful connections by the experience
> of consciousness, not the intellectual speculation of consciousness,
> as has been suggested in a couple different threads. I believe that
> states like cosmic consciousness (experience all time and others and
> all that is) can and are experienced in sleep and deep meditation or
> contemplation. Also, the undifferentiated, ineffable, omniscient,
> realm of all possibility can be experienced in sleep or deep
> meditation and contemplation. Once accessed, it is carried with us
> like a background program running though all our experience. We all
> have the potentiality. We recognize and experience when a change in
> viewpoint allows the possibility to manifest as real in our
> experience. The intellectual speculation may lead us to a change in
> viewpoint, or it may not. Our viewpoint manifests the experience.
>
> On Sep 12, 12:03?am, [email protected] wrote:
> > Doesn't everything in the body have a physiological component? But that is
> > not
> the point about consciousness.
>
> > Whatever else consciousness is - is that it's essence is the awareness of
> awareness plus. The plus factor are the
>
> > idiosyncratic meanings we consciously and unconsciously attribute to any of
> our individual experiences. So that the
>
> > mystery of consciousness I believe is ultimately bound up with understanding
> the way we individually generate meaningful
>
> > connections.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Fri, Sep 11, 2009 5:09 am
> > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: consciousness
>
> > Hey Just,
>
> > Yes that is the idea my claim is that conciousness is held in the
> > brain, and so it must be a biological mechanism, so yes it does assume
> > that answer.
>
> > You say:
>
> > ' If you realize (start from the fact that) consciousness is not a
> > mechanism then the fact that manipulating a mechanism affects it does
> > not mean its a mechanism or that there is a *mechanical* linkage to
> > it.'
>
> > Whi
> ch really is you doing the same thing is it not?
>
> > Of course not all mechaninsims can be said to be objects either. Would
> > you not call mathamatical formulea mechinisms? ?Lets take Pi for
> > example, is it not a mechanism by which a carpenter can figure out the
> > diamater of ?round table that he has been asked to build?
>
> > On 10 Sep, 16:09, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Lee,
>
> > > Thanks for the great post it is very clear.
>
> > > I think there is a flaw however in your argument. Here it is: You
> > > write:
>
> > > > If we can manipulate our conciousness via the use of electricity and
> > > > chemicals, then it is safe to assume that our conciousness uses both
> > > > electricity and chemicals in order to work, yes or no?
>
> > > In general, if by "use in order to work" you mean anything like what
> > > happens in steering linkages then I think your argument fails because
> > > it assumes the answer. Here is why:
>
> > > If our consciousnesses are like steering linkages and if we manipulate
> > > one end of the linkage the other end moves then it is safe to assume
> > > that our consciousness "uses one end of the linkage" where "uses one
> > > end of the linkage" means something like what happens generally in
> > > mechanical linkages.
>
> > > If however, our consciousnesses are not like steering linkages and if
> > > we manipulate one end of the linkage and the other end moves
> > > (consciousness is affected by material manipulation) then it is not
> > > safe to assume that our consciousness ?"uses one end of the linkage"
> > > where "uses one end of the linkage" means something like what happens
> > > generally in mechanical linkages.
>
> > > The possibility would still exist that if ?our consciousnes
> > ses are not
> > > like steering linkages and if we manipulate one end of the linkage and
> > > the other end moves (consciousness is affected by material
> > > manipulation) then it is due to some other process than "uses one end
> > > of the linkage" where "uses one end of the linkage" means what happens
> > > in linkages. It would the
> n be due to an entirely different process
> > > that still allows the cause to be transmitted.
>
> > > Whether consciousness can be affected by material manipulation is
> > > given and has been known ever since the cavemen ducked a rock thrown
> > > at their heads. It does not rely on modern advances in neurology in
> > > the slightest.
>
> > > If you realize (start from the fact that) consciousness is not a
> > > mechanism then the fact that manipulating a mechanism affects it does
> > > not mean its a mechanism or that there is a *mechanical* linkage to
> > > it.
>
> > > Furthermore if you understand what a mechanism means to include
> > > roughly it "being an object" and you understand that "consciousness"
> > > means to be an "experiencing of the object" as *opposed* to the object
> > > itself. Then saying that consciousness is a mechanism is a
> > > contradiction in terms and no empirical question is needed to
> > > determine whether it is materially affected. It cannot be affected
> > > materially because what we mean by the term is not something either
> > > objective or material. That does not mean it cannot be manipulated by
> > > manipulating a physical object. It is obvious it can. It only means
> > > that the linkage need not be material indeed cannot be material.
>
> > > Consider the mechanism of your brain. If consciousness is an objective
> > > property of that mechanism then you are correct. But if consciousness
> > > is not an objective property (meaning that when say "consciousness" we
> > > mean something other than an objective property ) then describing the
> > > influence of matter on it in terms of a mechanism which is an
> > > interaction between two objects
>
> > > I further assert that what I mean by "my consciousness" is not some
> > > property of what I experience. Therefore it
> > is not objective,
> > > therefore it is not material.
>
> > > Again thanks for the exasperated attempt at rigor and clarity. It is
> > > actually that kind of clarity that is necessary to sort this out
>
> > > On Sep 9, 6:20?am, "[email protected]" <l...@rdfm
> edia.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Umm there seems some flaw here, now what is it?
>
> > > > Ahhh yes!
>
> > > > If I was to suggest that to manipulate where a car goes you need to
> > > > use the stearing wheel, that sounds about right yes?
>
> > > > I was to further say that a stearing wheel does not in fact stear the
> > > > car, it only manipulates where the car can be steared, then maybe
> > > > you'll begin to see what is wrong with your statement above?
>
> > > > If we can manipulate our conciousness via the use of electricity and
> > > > chemicals, then it is safe to assume that our conciousness uses both
> > > > electricity and chemicals in order to work, yes or no?
>
> > > > Or put in another way. ?If I drink a glass of water and notice no
> > > > change in the way my conciousness is working then it is safe to
> > > > suggest that water is not a mechinism that conciousness uses in order
> > > > to work.(apart from our bodies dependancy upon it of course)
>
> > > > On 5 Sep, 14:48, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
