Returning to Chad’s original post, on many levels I agree with his notion that ‘thinking separates’; although I’m not sure that I come to this conclusion for only the reasons he mentions. Yet, his ‘You cannot think of anything you have not known.’ has a lot of validity within it. Here even Plato has addressed this notion in his “Republic” and elsewhere.
My personal contemplation of ‘thinking’ in this context includes things like the fact that words have been learned over time with associations to each and every word that are unique to each and every person’s own experiences. Add this to the original notion of words only being representative of knowledge and not knowledge itself and the hall of mirrors in the search for Truth can become even more perplexing. His last two sentences are quite pithy in the sense that I perceive them as being presented as a guide. However, as others here have rightly pointed out it is quite difficult to see past one’s own self concepts. It surely does appear that we each have an apparently artificial ‘self’ that we have identified over time which for lack of a better word I’ll call ego for current purposes. And, although this self-developed identity is not truth, reality, etc., it is necessary in the sense of being ‘selfish’ in order to survive…something that seems to be at the core of each and every one of us. We each want/need food, shelter etc. and with limited resources, such ‘selfish’ needs can produce what appears to be conflict – something that most likely wouldn’t be considered to be part of ‘collective consciousness’. Returning again to Chad’s last two sentences, I hope that he will expand upon his understanding here. On face value, and with my own interpretation, I’m not sure that I find many of his apparent core tenets to be the case. Acknowledging that I’m not sure I understand what he means by his words I’ll still forge ahead with my best guess: I don’t identify ‘Self’ with consciousness. Seldom if ever do I find that when directing thought to anything at all does consciousness itself arise as an automatic result. And I just don’t grok the notion of thought and essence as presented here. Having shared my skepticism on these last points, I do acknowledge and recognize an essential ‘self’ that only consciousness can know…one that is not defined by words and concepts. Also, as a technique to clarify consciousness I too acknowledge that one pointed concentration can be quite helpful. And as to the last point, I agree that when contemplated enough, thought can be seen for what it is – so in this way I guess one could say that it is ‘reduced into its essence.’ Perhaps my last two paragraphs are representative of: thought and essence…the first one being that where thinking and concepts are used in a debate mode which does separate and the second where there is less thought/recognition and just an empathetical sense which does unite. Moving for a moment to PSK’s direct questions, my suspicion is that we all on at least an intuitive level are aware that all ego manifestations are artificial in the sense that our personalities, beliefs etc. are temporary and not permanent. Thus, they are not universal nor ‘real’ in the sense of being eternal. Perhaps one could use the notion of ‘collective consciousness’ here as a replacement for ‘being eternal’. Regardless, as gabby so rightly points out, it takes self observation to root out and transcend such ‘selfishness’. She is quite accurate in the observation that as long as a person is only seeing ‘self’, this will be projected upon everyone else rather than allowing us all to just ‘be’. However, this truism itself is ripe for a topic of its very own. Things seem to get very deep very quickly here. What exactly are we without the reflection of other people within (or outside of) our own culture? How does culture even exist without the unifying basic beliefs? Can we exist without culture these days? Personally, I don’t think so. And, as rigsy so rightly points out, human consciousness is not bounded by time. It is this fact that allows so many of us to find kindred spirits/thinkers from entirely different eras and cultures. This too is part of what I’d suggest is a universal mind…that which unifies us all. So, her next post about it taking ‘a brave rebel to contradict society or challenge group thought’ is at once true and possibly self defeating. He he, as a bit of levity here, I almost said “What do you think?” :D On May 3, 1:30 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > With collective consciousness you mean this group-think programme à la > Molly's [mission] What do YOU think? Na, you're right, PSK is definitely > different from that. > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM, the taoist shaman <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > PSK selfishness arouses discontent because it is contrary to > > collective consciousness , try reading the meditations of marcus > > auralius chapter 2 verse 1 from the harvard classics . > > > gabbydott wrote: > > > From a top-down perspective this is correct. But I understood that PSK > > asked > > > for individual responses from each of us. > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:09 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > But you have to admit there are humans who haven't the chance to even > > > > consider this type of thinking as their lives are miserable due to > > > > poverty, war, sickness and all other ills. Plus- what does a culture > > > > celebrate? Wealth? Power? Etc.? You can hardly fault some for buying a > > > > false self and image if that is what their culture teaches them, can > > > > you? It takes a brave rebel to contradict society or challenge group > > > > thought. > > > > > On May 2, 12:20 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If the selfish would truly search their self, they'd quickly die out. > > > > > Problem is how they don't see themselves but see themselves in the > > others > > > > > with the poor others not knowing that they are not taken for > > themselves > > > > but > > > > > for someone else. My explanation. > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:57 PM, pol.science kid < > > [email protected] > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > at the first glance of your reply came a thought to my mind about > > > > > > collective consciousness...rather a question...does the collective > > > > > > consciousness exist independently...what does it mean exactly...to > > put > > > > it > > > > > > crudely is it the realisation that you are not the only > > phenomena..but > > > > what > > > > > > i feel is....it is very difficult to transcend ones own > > person...but is > > > > it > > > > > > important....why do we really get irritated with self absorbed or > > self > > > > > > seeking people....why do we condemn selfishness..in any sense...are > > we > > > > so > > > > > > insecure as to feel deprived because of that ...or is it something > > > > more.. i > > > > > > hope i make sense.. and i hope you get waht i am trying to ask...i > > > > would > > > > > > like all to answer...cos i really want to know.... > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:36 PM, DarkwaterBlight < > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > >> This take appeals to my understanding. Perpetually changing, > > evolving > > > > > >> and reforming. Input has an outcome and causes an expanded "mind > > > > > >> space", if you will. Is logic all logical and what is to be said > > about > > > > > >> rationalizing the "irrational"? Should my thinking be correct by > > the > > > > > >> standards of others or to my own? What of "raising the bar" in > > > > > >> consciousness and of a paradigm shift to a more correct thinking > > of > > > > > >> our "collective mind" ? Of all that goes into into thought and > > mind is > > > > > >> this not the desired effect? > > > > > > >> On Apr 30, 9:23 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > might thought be colored by the mind that engages it ....what is > > the > > > > > >> realm > > > > > >> > of pure thought that you mention here .... is it logic and > > > > > >> > rationalisation...do you mean the method of employing that > > > > > >> thought...because > > > > > >> > ....knowing...percieving something for the first time the mind > > will > > > > > >> > automatically fall back on the things it thinks it does know.... > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Chad Moore <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > Knowledge unites, in being or in identity. Thinking > > separates, in > > > > > >> > > subject-object relationship. > > > > > >> > > Knowing has no place in the ordinary thought process. Thinking > > > > about > > > > > >> > > something > > > > > >> > > which has to be known is wrong, since it moves in a vicious > > > > circle. > > > > > >> You > > > > > >> > > cannot think > > > > > >> > > of anything you have not known. Such thinking can never take > > you > > > > to > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > Truth. > > > > > >> > > But when you direct your thought to something (say yourself) > > which > > > > you > > > > > >> have > > > > > >> > > otherwise > > > > > >> > > visualized, the thought loses its own characteristics and > > limits, > > > > and > > > > > >> > > stands > > > > > >> > > revealed as that Self (Consciousness) itself. Thought is thus > > > > reduced > > > > > >> into > > > > > >> > > its essence. > > > > > > >> > -- > > > > > >> > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
