hiya,
>
> I appreciate the effort you put into this response, Gav,
> but I can't buy any
> of it. We are all influenced by the ideas of others, past
> and present, but
> thoughts do not "come to us"; we create them.
but this is contradicted by experience. you have never had an 'a ha' moment; a
'eureka' a la archimedes? you have never ever had something just come to you?
this is how life works. this is how life guides us. significant/relevant data
sticks and sticks out. we just need to pay attention. 'we' are the witnessing
consciousness, the one consciousness, that is behind all things.
> Nor are original thoughts
> necessarily answers to questions. Jaynes'
> "struction" is garble to me, and
> the phrase "...has been investigated thoroughly"
> always arouses my
> suspicion.
have you read jaynes?
have you read miller?
if you haven't i guess it will seem a cursory treatment - cos it is
Finally, the notion of "DQ/Tao erupting
> into consciousness" is
> the weirdest explanation of intuition I've ever heard.
> As far as I'm
> concerned, this epistemological argument is just more
> fodder for the
> collectivist position.
hmmm, dunno what you are getting at. it's 'irrupting' by the way - slightly
different - to enter (into consciousness) suddenly. this is how intuition
operates...you don't think so?
>
> Again I'm reminded of this statement by the leading
> objectivist of the 20th
> century:
>
> "The mind is an attribute of the individual.
no it's not. Mind is the one consciousness that we partake of.
There is
> no such thing as a
> collective brain.
no there isn't i guess. but the concept of a collective consciousness is
valuable and proven (100th monkey; novel crystallisations becoming easier)
There is no such thing as a collective
> thought.
no - wrong. every thought is collective because it relies on language which is
a collective phenomenon.
An
> agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or
> an average drawn
> upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary
> consequence. The primary
> act - the process of reason - must be performed by each man
> alone.
reasoning is an individual intellectual processs that relies on a common
language for general comprehension to exist.
We can
> divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a
> collective stomach.
> No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No
> man can use his
> brain to think for another. All the functions of body and
> spirit are
> private. They cannot be shared or transferred. "
jesus this is poisonous stuff! all functions of the spirit and body are
private? what about lovemaking?
what makes the spiritual spiritual is that is a shared archetypal experience
common to all humanity, irrespective of culture. myth transfers and shares this
knowledge.
hope this helped....
>
Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online experience. www.yahoo7.com.au
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
