[dmb] It's a little harder to square Jung with this idea but his is still an interesting way to think about the small self and Big self. In a nutshell, he thought that the whole evolutionary history of the universe was in the collective unconscious. He took it all the way down. Our human history, our animal, fish and plant pasts and even the physical universe. In the same way that the instructions for the entire organism are contained in every cell of that organism, the whole history of the species is contained in each organism. This doesn't come in the form of molecule chains of course. He's talking about the Psyche, the whole mind, both the conscious and unconscious aspects. His is an almost literal version of THOU art THAT.
[Krimel] While you may be right that Jung saw the collective unconscious as the Akashi field of some other kind of nonsense he was, especially early on, reluctant to voice such foolishness. Taken at face value there is nothing odd about the idea that each of us carries with us the genetic history or our species. DNA is memory. To go beyond this is flakey at best. I also think that while your version of THOU art THAT is what is usually meant, it suffers from the same huge ration of flaketude that your interpretation of Jung does. When I look at the computer in front of me it is in a very real sense, me. It is the product of sensory input and perception on my part. It is my experience of a computer and it carries with it my history of interactions with computers. It is me and I am my experience. As Pirsig illustrates we can't really have knowledge outside of empirical experience. Again I think you want much more than THAT for Thou. But again you seem to have less aversion to flakes than I do. [dmb] I don't even know the source of one of my favorite conceptions. It's usually thought that consciousness is a product of biological complexity, that it emerged as one of life's abilities. In this picture, human self-consciousness is the peak of achievement. But it's also a bit of a lonely freak show. Our science looks out at an unconscious material universe and it doesn't look back. It's not really so stark as that, but you get the picture One of my favorite ideas turns this on its head. It says that consciousness is an inherent feature of all reality and that our senses and brain just bend and focus this consciousness in a particular way, a constricted, narrow way. This picture of consciousness as completely ubiquitous goes with all these other ways of thinking about the small self-Big self thing, more or less. [Krimel] And here we come to full blown off the charts flakey. You have insisted time and again that you are not clinging to any supernatural ideas with your "mysticism" and yet what else would you call this. You are asserting that an unknown and unmeasureable something pervades the universe. This is nothing short of a theological idea and it is worthy of all of the venom you have spewed on theist of every stripe. I have a favorite conception too. It involves uploading my emergent consciousness into positronic network. But I usually have the good sense to keep it to myself. _________________________________________________________________ HotmailR has a new way to see what's up with your friends. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutori al_WhatsNew1_052009 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/ 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/
