yes, it does seem trendy now to try to cash in on spirituality. I think it is wonderful that so many people are interested in intrinsic experience that it can be a cash cow.
I come at it knowing that it is all true. For someone, if only the writer, it is true. Some is more coherent in presentation. Some is more coherent in terms of the evolution of human ideas. Some of what I read and see interests me more that other stuff and I find myself following a trail - reading what one person has to say leads to the next. I find that information finds me, as a way to validate my experience that presents new possibility to me. This information has often been around for centuries, but is in front of me now, I think, because I am in a place to understand it, it validates my viewpoint. There seems to me to be a "spirit in action" element at work, and if I am not caught up with anxiety, I am usually perceptive enough to catch important information that comes my way. On Sep 13, 3:39 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Well stated Molly. I am concerned that these so called states imply some > extraordinary experience > > that appears to be highly seductive but ultimately is but one more of a range > of normal human experience. > > Putting it in different terms I like William James' concept of the "cash > value" of an idea, concept, or experience. > > I have nothing against altered states of consciousness and I absolutely love > vivid esthetic perceptions, and I bleieve I have > > personally experienced unusual experiences so I vote for everyone having as > many of these as possible. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Sep 13, 2009 1:58 pm > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: consciousness > > es, I see what you are saying. But hopefully you can appreciate that > am a poet, not a scientist. I have never set myself to the task of > etermining criterion, only writing about my experience. I think that > t is important that we each make the journey, although understand > hat some do not find the value in it. Because the process is > nternal, and at best all we have is a description of the individual > rocess, (other than measurement of body function and environment), it > ould stand to reason that yes, when we look at composite results we > re left with myriad descriptions of individual processes. Is the > rocess different, our ability to describe it different? Does our > anguage place limits on our perceptions, or simply our ability to > elate them? > I can > speak to you about my experience, and include anecdotal > nformation from others I have read ( which is probably more limited > han some others in the group.) And, I would be glad to do so! > If you have not had this experience, you may never accept anyone > lse's description of it. This, I have noticed in talking with other > eople about it. > > n Sep 13, 1:12 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Molly - Not to trivilaize your response. But it is a little bit like the > liche answer to > > coming up with a satisfactory answer to the nature of pornography. "I may not > now excatly > > how to describe it, but I know it when I see it." > > I am inclined to believe that such states of consciousness are indeed > dentifiable however it is also > > quite likely that their meaning and use are subject to a wide vsariance due > to > ndividual differences. > > For example: as a psychoanalyst I am a change agent. I know that signficant > hange can and does occur. > > I also know that it is incremental and always met with strong resistances. I > lso know that when significant > > changes occur - as lets say when a person experiences a synchronicity - there > s always a major shift in > > consciousness (expansion?) which can have wide spread ripple effects in the > reas you describe. > > However the changes are always person specific. I think you probably will > ubstantially agree with what I am describing. No? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye"=2 > 0<[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Sep 13, 2009 12:53 pm > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: consciousness > > How does one know when the "undifferentiated, ineffable, omniscient > ealm of all possibility be experienced in sleep if one is > nconscious?" > In my experience, vivid dreaming allows the conscious recognition of > his state. > > And if it is possible to experience such a state when one is > nconscious then > it reasonable to believe that one can experience when > ne is also conscious." > Yes, in the awake state, I first accessed this state in meditation, > hen contemplation. Now, as I say, I believe it is part of the > ackground program in my moment to moment consciousness. > > If so by what criterion does one know if and when he or she is > xperiencing such a state?" > I think this is like someone who has never seen Mt. Rushmore, asking > ow they will know when they arrive there. It is unmistakable, and I > now this only by experience. > > And even if such a state is perceivable what difference does it > ake?" > It seems to have made a difference to me in my viewpoint, how I see > he world; my character, how I respond in my experience; my > elationships, how I treat others; my self image, how I maintain my > iving 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:=2 > 0consciousness > > 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 - > ppears to me to be obvious. But > > so what? Individuals must still individually reckon with the meaning of that > xperience which is differient for > > different people.?In reflections about the nature of consciousness I think > here is entirely too m > uch emphasis > > on the unity 'thing' and way too little on differences. Case in point - my > ersonal and professional experience > > (I am a practicing psychoanalyst for the past 44 years) indicates there is > ot > ust 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: > aleidoscopic consciousness, > > symbiotic consciousness, transcendent consciousness, transitional > onsciousness, transformational consciousness, > > ego consciouness, unity or syntehtic consciousness, and cosmic consciousness > > erhaps more. > > ? > > Consciousness functions like a filter which enables a person to organize the > aw data of their experience. Each state > > of consciousness functions as a different filter or set of filters which > hanges (interprets) what is perceived with alternative > > perspectives. > > ? > > This way of viewing things is20what I think accounts for the stark > difference > n differing interpretations as to the nature of lets say synchronicities. > ung's basic unproven assumption about the collective unconscious as the core > f > eality enables his mystical magical interpretation of synchronicities to be > hat it is -? whereas an assumption of lets say the personal unconscious > enerating personal meanings of whatever is perceived would result in a purely > aturalistic non mystical non magical interpretation of the nature of > ynchronicities. > > ? > > Viva le differance! > > ? > > : consciousness > > Y > es, 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. A > 0Our 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 > ot > 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 > nderstanding > 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 > 0> 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
