Consciousness - Take Two

[Guest guest]

Geo and All,

 

The recent traffic here on this topic more

or less proves the argument that the word

" consciousness " remains undefined and that

this stems from an underlying confusion that

similarly persists concerning what it is,

where it comes from, how it functions, to

name just a few of the many unanswered questions

that surround it.

 

We tend to gather all these quandries, along

with our experience of being conscious, into

a single word, " consciousness " and say, well

that's what all this stuff is.

 

All I meant to say was that as a group, humans

don't yet know what consciousness is in the

way that they know what other aspects of their

existence are. It is, after all, one of the

more complex dynamics that we experience,

and our understanding of complexity is a

rather recent, in fact still emergent property.

 

I do not know what it is, nor do I believe

do any of those who have posted recently

suggesting that they do.

 

I think it is important that we learn to

differentiate between what is known and

what is not known. There are all kinds of

mental states that surround not knowing,

but it is most useful in its pure and

unadulterated state. Recognizing that we

don't know something is often the key

that allows us to discover it.

 

I believe that Geo recently made reference

to this. The balance of my remarks are

directed to Geo, but I hope that others

will find them useful.

 

If we simply decide to dispense with the

third person, as Geo has suggested we do,

limiting our discussions to " personal knowledge "

(I put it in parentheses because I'm not

at all sure what it means), why stop there?

 

If we elminate the third person, why not

do away with the second person? Why not

cancel the experience of " other " ?

 

Well, clearly we cannot simply decide that

" you " don't matter anymore than we can decide

that " I " don't matter, annihilate ourselves

and put an end to the whole thing.

 

Even suicide begs the point. When you

take your life away from your body/mind

you don't solve the problems you were

experiencing, you simply stop taking

responsibility for them.

 

From another perspective, all we have of

ourselves, of others (regardless if they

are " second " persons or " third " persons) is

a series of images that we narrate into

a story...an ongoing...never ending, if you

will, story that one half of the brain

appears to be telling the other half.

 

We can tune in and listen to such stories

from others, whether their written or

spoken or otherwise conveyed or within our

own brain/mind...or whatever

the heck it is or should be called. I really

have no idea and am not immediately concerned

about having an idea or a better idea, but

I am concerned that we recognize that we

don't know. I might also point out that

there are many other concerns that surround

the current initiatives to develop insight

and understanding of the various processes

that lead to and result in consciousness.

 

My copy of Tony Damasio's books are filled

with notes and questions about the political

and military implications of a clearer understanding

of the mind and consciousness. As has been pointed

out, the ascendancy of science has empowered

and resulted in a fairly outlandish sequence

of politically oppressive militarism. Bucky

Fuller was clear in identifying the urge/need

to throw bigger bombs greater distances as

the driving force behind the bulk of scientific

research and technological development.

 

What I meant by " strength " in my last post

was simply the demonstrated capacity to

survive. Indeed, as is often the case, this

strength may well turn out to be humanity's

greatest weakness. I would say, at this

point, we shall see, but I doubt that we

will. More than likely we shall not see.

More than likely the vast historical trends

with which we like to stimulate our imaginations

will not simply resolve but go on changing in

ever more incomprehensible fashion.

 

I am curious to know why Geo, you seem to

be concerned about what one set of third

parties says and does, i.e., in pointing

out that " science " does not consider the

mind as the host of consciousness...and

not about other third parties or third

parties in general, i.e., suggesting that

we discard the text of the Dao De Jing

and address these issues solely from the

perspective of personal experience.

 

We know books in as personal a way as

is possible. And besides, I like that old

book.

 

It's one thing to question whether or

not your own thoughts are appropriate

to the discussion about Chinese medicine.

I assure you on behalf of everyone who

doesn't write to say otherwise that they

are.

 

It's quite another thing to suggest

we rule out reading in our discussions

or that texts in general, ancient or

modern, are somehow not relevant.

 

I must say in passing that it's somewhat

hypocritical to denounce the third party

angle when it is the obvious purpose of

a list such as this to provide it for

general consumption.

 

We can and no doubt will continue to

describe the nature and extent of the

relevance of any and all of what we

talk about to the education and training

in Chinese medicine. But I don't think

we can afford to suddenly discover

that lo and behold we don't need any

of that old stuff or the stuff written

in books because of some sort of supposed

epistemological breakthrough.

 

You must realize that you're talking

to a writer by now and to suggest the

abandonment of books is well...

 

 

....unthinkable!

 

 

Thanks to everyone who has waded in

or who will wade in as this thread

continues. It's a tough one, but as I

said, I think it is an are in which

the theoretical materials associated

with Chinese medicine can help guide

the research of contemporary investigators.

 

So I think we have little choice but

to slog through this stuff.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

geo> It is almost with a sense of regret that I write. I am quite

convinced that the topic I have dived into is indeed not too much

related to CM, and somewhere deep down there I feel like an

intruder. I am an 5E practitioner by profession - and I feel these

questions raised in the past few posts perhaps should be discussed

elsewhere. It doesn't bother me at all - but I understand other member's

concerns. But I would like to clear a few things before I stop.

 

It is my personal understanding that there are TWO basic fields

that mankind is concerned with. The first is the huge field of

technological issues, involving all "knowable" matters including CM.

This field is accumulative, we learn in a chronological time-bound manner.

It is perfectly alright to read books, write books, lecture, learn, accumulate

knowledge in memory, practice, progress...- in other words acquire

technological skill. This IS the way of acquired knowledge.

 

But there is another field that must be approached in a different manner.

It is a field that lies beyond the limits of thought, beyond the limits

of accumulated knowledge, not because its mystic or "spiritual" but

very simply because thought can not touch it. Thought is unable to

function outside the frame of time and tridimensional space.

In this field I feel one is better off not bringing in third parties - not

because they are "less" capable of understanding all this, but it is

my personal experience that every time "another" is brought in things

may get complicated. The reason is that one then goes of the tangent by

discussing what the other said instead of dealing with the present issue

at hand - the unknowable. Besides, others use the same words with different

meanings and it is an aditional problem sometimes not easy to clear.

 

Consciousness. Ken, as I said elsewhere, this expression is used in many

ways. But one of these ways is very useful and makes allot of sense.

Consciousness is all we know at present, or may know in the future, through

our human senses and brains. It is the very interpretation of this human world.

There is nothing outside of it that our brain could touch. This consciousness

- and now this is the difficult but essential part - includes the observed and

the observer. This physiological entity that observes is part of consciousness

and the world that it observes also. Understanding this is the end of duality.

There is only unitary observerless observation. And the question "from where this

observation issues?" may lead one beyond the limits of thought, of formal

knowledge - as I suggested up there.

I don't know... out of respect for other practicioners perhaps this should go

on (if) privately... :^)