Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Hi Pete, May I join this directly? Lewis Pedsie2 wrote: > > In a message dated 2/28/05 8:20:44 AM, ombhurbhuva writes: > > > >>Hi Pete, >> M: >You have a point. At first I was >> >>>distinguishing between those thing that we >> >>experience and those that we are conscious >>of. In that I was beginning to isolate >> >>>the concept of consciousness of something >> >>in the sense that we are aware and know >> >>>that we are aware. Consciousness has many >> >>modalities and each of those can be looked >>at. That is more or less where I was at >>with my response to you. I was >> >>>incidentally agreeing with you that there >> >>are things we experience that we are not >>conscious off. Your wife experienced your >> >>>touch. >> >> > However to isolate consciousness as such >>is impossible because it is always on. It >>can be shown but not known. Anthony >> >>>Quinton the English Philosopher makes this >> >>point about the soul/self. " Suppose that >>>from its very first stirrings my >>consciousness has contained a continuous >> >>>whistling sound of wholly unvarying >> >>character. I should clearly never notice >> >>>it, for I can only notice what varies >> >>independently of my consciousness - the >> >>>whistles that start and stop at times >> >>other than those at which I wake up and >>fall asleep. It is this fact that ensured >>>from the outset that Hume's search for a >>self over and above his particular >> >>>perceptions was bound to fail. " >> >>>Is that any clearer? If not, state >>>specifically where its not clear. >> > P: This is not clear: " However to isolate consciousness as such > is impossible because it is always on. " To me that is a proposition > which cannot be proven. And one that closes the door to all > investigation because it implies " c " is undetectable. Just sounds like > a comforting belief. Not to mention that what makes the word 'c' > its meaning is that is conscious, so to say it's always there even > when unconscious, is absurd. > >>M: >May I add a question? If we can have >>experience without being conscious of it, >> >>>can we have a conscious state without >>>experiencing it? >> >>P: This is a tricky, but interesting question. It's tricky because >>if we are not careful to stick to the meaning we gave above to the > > word experience (which was the subconscious processing of inf. > by the brain) we could switch to the meaning of experience as > knowledge, and wind up with: can we be conscious without knowing > we are conscious? So, is the question: > Can we know consciousness without any content, any object of'c'? > Or can we distinguish in an act of perceiving both the object and > > consciousness as separate? Or are they one. Sometimes when meditating > a great flare up of clarity is there which is all embracing, is that a flare > up of consciousness, or something different, and does it matter? > Or did you intend to ask, can we be conscious and not know it? > >> >> >> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 > Do you think that is fair ? Yes, my friend it isn't fair towards those working in whatsoever scientifical branch or in whatsoever philosophical or artistic ambit. I meet a lot of " wise " people everyday doing some cientifical stuff. We work together. We talk and have lunch together. Most of them are very humble, easy, ordinary, almost elementary. No big issues besides work. I simply would like to know sometimes what qualifies people on spiritual lists to make so rash decisions about things they actually don't know or, are unwilling or, unable to apprehend. So I just pass on the impressions I get. Besides, never heard Ramana, Niz nor the Dalai Lama going around telling people what science is and what not. Sure, our Pete isn't the Dalai Lama but, who knows, maybe in a next life. And, I promise you, he will be prepared for the task! ) All:One Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 In a message dated 3/1/05 8:20:21 AM, kipalmazy writes: > >Pete, you make me laugh! Isn't that above hubristic? As you know so > well what science and scientifical work constitutes come out of the > >closet and tell us if you are in the business. Don't be shy! Where > have you got all that knowledge? Man, it's incredible how much you > >know! What's artistic and what not! What's the role of science and > what not! What psychonalysis is and what not! What subjective > >reasons are and what not! And so, on and on and on, always. > >Overwhelming, Pete. You truely have reached the state of Buddha. > P: I have reached a state of complete certainty. Lot's of people have reached that state, which doesn't mean they are always right. having no doubts is no prove of Buddhahood. Hitler had no doubts, and destroyed Germany and a good part of Europe. Fortunately, I have no warlike intentions, and no army to command, so the worst I can do when I'm wrong is to annoy a few people. Which can be good for them, if they look at the real source of their annoyance. I'm not anti-science, I'm not even anti-psychology, but psychoanalysis is not a science, and many in the scientific community, including many in medicine will say the same. And certainly I would be glad to amuse you, but you don't sound amused, you sound quite irritated. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Pete Wrote: P: This is not clear: " However to isolate consciousness as such is impossible because it is always on. " To me that is a proposition which cannot be proven. And one that closes the door to all investigation because it implies " c " is undetectable. Just sounds like a comforting belief. Not to mention that what makes the word 'c' its meaning is that is conscious, so to say it's always there even when unconscious, is absurd. & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & Hi Pete, If we take for the sake of argument experience and consiousness as fundamental facets of our being in the world. We can combine them into (a) Experience + Consciousness (b) Experience + Unconsciousness © No Experience + Consciousness (d) No Experience + Unconsciousness Both Experience and Consciousness can be viewed as acts or states. As I whittle this stick I experience the sharpness of the blade and the resistance of the wood. I am also conscious of this in a general way and this consciousness can have a tinge of ' I'm jes a whittlin' fool '. Sartre spoke of bad faith as a general cast of consciousness. I think this is intelligible though you could not separate the various acts which incarnate this and the bad faith itself. We might well be in agreement about the possibility of (a) and (b) in the sense of act. We would most likely disagree on the notion of a state of consciousness. Dennett's guru Gilbert Ryle in the Concept of Mind held that consciousness was displayed in the manner of doing something e.g. coiling a rope and that substantive consciousness was a category error. The sage Yajnavalkya took a different view in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad. He attemps to trace consciousness in Waking, Dreaming and Deep Sleep states. It's in IV.iii.1ff. If you can get a hold of it with Sankara's commentary. I will try to extract the gist of it at another time, it's a very long section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 The Brhadaranyaka Upanisad Part IV Chapter III:1-38 without Sankara's commentary in three different translations can be found at: Brihadâranyaka Upanishad, IV, THIRD BRÂHMANA, 1-38 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15075.htm or Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Part Four, Chapter III—Investigation of the Three States, 1-38. (Scroll down) http://sanatan.intnet.mu/upanishads/brihadaranyaka.htm or brihadaranyaka-upanishad 2 FOURTH ADHYAYA, THIRD BRAHMANA, 1-38. (Scroll down) Lewis ombhurbhuva wrote: > Pete Wrote: > > P: This is not clear: " However to isolate > consciousness as such > is impossible because it is always on. " To > me that is a proposition > which cannot be proven. And one that > closes the door to all > investigation because it implies " c " is > undetectable. Just sounds like > a comforting belief. Not to mention that > what makes the word 'c' > its meaning is that is conscious, so to > say it's always there even > when unconscious, is absurd. > > & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & > > Hi Pete, > If we take for the sake of > argument experience and consiousness as > fundamental facets of our being in the > world. We can combine them into > (a) Experience + Consciousness > (b) Experience + Unconsciousness > © No Experience + Consciousness > (d) No Experience + Unconsciousness > > Both Experience and Consciousness can be > viewed as acts or states. As I whittle > this stick I experience the sharpness of > the blade and the resistance of the wood. > I am also conscious of this in a general > way and this consciousness can have a > tinge of ' I'm jes a whittlin' fool '. > Sartre spoke of bad faith as a general > cast of consciousness. I think this is > intelligible though you could not separate > the various acts which incarnate this and > the bad faith itself. > > We might well be in agreement about the > possibility of (a) and (b) in the sense > of act. We would most likely disagree on > the notion of a state of consciousness. > Dennett's guru Gilbert Ryle in the > Concept of Mind held that consciousness > was displayed in the manner of doing > something e.g. coiling a rope and that > substantive consciousness was a category > error. > > The sage Yajnavalkya took a different view > in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad. He > attemps to trace consciousness in Waking, > Dreaming and Deep Sleep states. It's in > IV.iii.1ff. If you can get a hold of it > with Sankara's commentary. I will try to > extract the gist of it at another time, > it's a very long section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 The Brhadaranyaka Upanisad Part IV Chapter III:1-38 without Sankara's commentary in three different translations can be found at: Brihadâranyaka Upanishad, IV, THIRD BRÂHMANA, 1-38 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15075.htm or Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Part Four, Chapter III—Investigation of the Three States, 1-38. (Scroll down) http://sanatan.intnet.mu/upanishads/brihadaranyaka.htm or brihadaranyaka-upanishad 2 FOURTH ADHYAYA, THIRD BRAHMANA, 1-38. (Scroll down) http://www.comparative-religion.com/hinduism/upanishads/brihadaranyaka_2.php Lewis ombhurbhuva wrote: > Pete Wrote: > > P: This is not clear: " However to isolate > consciousness as such > is impossible because it is always on. " To > me that is a proposition > which cannot be proven. And one that > closes the door to all > investigation because it implies " c " is > undetectable. Just sounds like > a comforting belief. Not to mention that > what makes the word 'c' > its meaning is that is conscious, so to > say it's always there even > when unconscious, is absurd. > > & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & > > Hi Pete, > If we take for the sake of > argument experience and consiousness as > fundamental facets of our being in the > world. We can combine them into > (a) Experience + Consciousness > (b) Experience + Unconsciousness > © No Experience + Consciousness > (d) No Experience + Unconsciousness > > Both Experience and Consciousness can be > viewed as acts or states. As I whittle > this stick I experience the sharpness of > the blade and the resistance of the wood. > I am also conscious of this in a general > way and this consciousness can have a > tinge of ' I'm jes a whittlin' fool '. > Sartre spoke of bad faith as a general > cast of consciousness. I think this is > intelligible though you could not separate > the various acts which incarnate this and > the bad faith itself. > > We might well be in agreement about the > possibility of (a) and (b) in the sense > of act. We would most likely disagree on > the notion of a state of consciousness. > Dennett's guru Gilbert Ryle in the > Concept of Mind held that consciousness > was displayed in the manner of doing > something e.g. coiling a rope and that > substantive consciousness was a category > error. > > The sage Yajnavalkya took a different view > in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad. He > attemps to trace consciousness in Waking, > Dreaming and Deep Sleep states. It's in > IV.iii.1ff. If you can get a hold of it > with Sankara's commentary. I will try to > extract the gist of it at another time, > it's a very long section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 I'm not anti-science, I'm not even anti-psychology, but psychoanalysis is not a science, and many in the scientific community, including many in medicine will say the same. And certainly I would be glad to amuse you, but you don't sound amused, you sound quite irritated. Tell me, Pete, which rogue has told you that psychoanalysis is a science? Medicine too is not regarded as a science. Are mathematics a science, Pete? Are you anti-psychoanalysis, then? What and where is *the* scientific community? Do I sound irritated to you? Why? Where does it sound irritated? It could be a benefit to change some preconceived opinions, my friend, instead of throwing callow expressions of opinion just and only for the sake of discussion. Who actually benefits of that? All:One Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.