Cheers at this point, Orn. :D Let me see what the next postings have been doing in the meantime to change my mood. *laughing*
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:37 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 - >
