Personal "God" and self-representation

by Narkissos 50 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  OldSoul

  Narkissos: So yes we can become more and more aware of our thinking devices and processes, deconstruct them from within language, even "close" some of them by some sort of meditation, but inasmuch as there is perception of anything I guess there is still something working in our "mind" or whatever you may call it.

  I think I understand completely what you are expressing here. Contraindicating this, however, I am also personally aware of my capacity to conceive and experience that which I cannot explain, that for which I have no words, that for which language is insufficient.

  While I require language to communicate my experiences to you, I do not believe the mind to be so wholly fettered to linguistics as to be incapable of conceiving beyond the boundaries of descriptors. Our ability to invent descriptors would argue strongly against that belief. I am not certain I believe our mind is constrained to itself as a boundary, but time will tell. Some of the ways our mind works are calculable and quantifiable, but many are not. As we learn, humanity becomes more certain that we are but a small part of a much larger whole. What that "whole" is, in essence, is an uncertainty.

  Shall we say it is "energy?" Can you objectively define energy? No more than JT can objectively define consciousness. Does energy exist, even if you can't define it linguistically? Even if it exists outside your mind?

  If I understand your argument correctly I would have to conclude that in your world the experience of an individual human is ultimately only of import to the extent that those experiences can be communicated through language. With that view I must respectfully disagree. That may not be end result of the view you expressed, I may have misunderstood you.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  JamesThomas

  [quote]"Mmm... that's more of a statement than a reasoned argument. Why should the Universe require an intelligence beyond the human mind? How do you know that the Universe is not wholly a product of your mind? If a such intelligence comes about as a result of mechanistic processes that made this Universe, how is this anymore relevant to our understanding of the Universe than the human conceptualization of there being a 'little man' inside is to our understanding of the human mind?"[/quote]
  
  Actually I don't see anything I say as "reasoned argument". Far, far greater minds have hammered away and discussed this subject for centuries to little or no avail. Whenever I get in a pissing contest, I'm afraid all I can do is dribble down my leg. I am not at all attempting to convince anyone of anything, only perhaps help in some small way to motivate some to question the conceptual constructs of the mind to which we have for so long unquestionably surrendered our identity, reality and existence.
  
  Your questions regarding the universe are good ones, which can be vehicles for inner investigation. I mentioned the presence of the universe, because I can not hold up to your view the underlying Source of it; and it is often the awe and wonder which we sense in observation of the universe -- and life therein -- that can spur one to look deeper into it's Source.
  
  I am not attributing the existence of phenomena to any "mechanistic process", if I were then you would be correct in that I had only enhanced the problem. Our Source is the underlying Openness which allows all seeming "process", all phenomena, and space/time to exist. It, does not move, nor make or create, as the mind would regulate how things must be. This, can not be understood by the mind which generally works in a linear mode operating via past and future and breaking everything into small enough peaces to get a "sense" of understanding. The minds view is like looking at an infinite vista through a straw; and thus not seeing the reality before it at all. Plus, this mind-vision creates a seemingly concrete sense of dualism and separation between a believed entity who is looking, and other: or all that is being viewed. However, it can be realized that there is not two.
  
  But what does it matter what I say? It doesn't matter. Can we just see that all our intellectualizing still leaves us hungry for deeper meaning and understanding? Can we admit that the tools we use have been inadequate? Can we then investigate to see if conscious awareness is limited to mental thought, or not? Is there an Awareness, an Intelligence far vaster than human neural activity? Can we leave behind the fog of thought and enter stillness deep enough to realize we are One with the Source; and only conceptualized a separate self? Can there be a dissolving of the boxes and partitions which have defined us? Can the very same consciousness which looks out the eyes right now, undeniably see that it is not at all contracted and isolated to a person or thing, but rather IS the unmoving and pristine Vastness which embraces all?
  
  Like I say, it doesn't matter what I feel or experience or say; I'm just a fool standing in a little pool.
  
  
  j
• 

  JamesThomas

  Speaking of dissolving boxes, I ain't doing html quote box right. How do I do that? I have seen others discuss it before but obviously wasn't paying attention.
• 

  Narkissos

  Steve:

  I think the the overall concept of the perennial philosophy is that there is no little man but the little man thinker only imagines he exists as a real man

  I fully agree (perhaps I wasn't clear enough). To me the ever-elusive and ever re-appearing "little man" is no-thing but the potentially endless reflection of the "speaking animal/body" in the mirror play of language. Homo loquens is, ipso facto, homo sapiens sapiens... ad infinitum. "I" am a fiction, or rather a bundle of fictions, a knot of symbolical and imaginary connections in the network of words. "I" can't and won't escape the realm of fiction. But this realm is not a prison to me.

  And while speaking I can't help speaking of the unspeakable -- which, however impossible, may be the only thing worth speaking... Perhaps paradox, or aporia, is just my own "trip".
• 

  frankiespeakin

  I don't think the conscious mind is that big a part of our minds, and its slow process of information could never keep up with all the things the mind does to keep us alive and breathing. Maybe the mind is just a signal sending and recieveing device. I think that evolution of the human speices will continue with the mind grasping more and more intelligence, rewireing itself to be more efficiant and useful, governed less by harmfull emotions.

  It does seem to me that our speicies is pointed in the direction of mind developement,, we love to learn and gain knowledge more than we like sex (as a species) and I see the way the brain rewards us with endorphins and feel good chemicals when we accompliss learning and create the new and improved,,this has to be leading us somewhere evolutionary wise towards some type of mega brain maybe even some type of unison mind hook up where we share and explore and grow even more intellectually, the internet could be a step in that direction.

  The evidence from altered states of consciousness seem to give some wieght to Carl Jung's idea of the "collective unconsciousness" which we all seem to be connected in some way,, it could be coded in our DNA or we may have some type of psychic information reading and sending ablility that uses a higher frequency of energy to communicate it is hard to say but I think we will learn more about this in time.
• 

  OldSoul

  frankiespeakin: this has to be leading us somewhere evolutionary wise towards some type of mega brain maybe even some type of unison mind hook up

  If you think we've yet to build it, I think you've yet to accept it.
• 

  Siddhashunyata

  Something to consider is that in the "altered" state (perception without "thinking") many questions become irrelevant because the answers are self evident. For example is there another kind of intelligence other than the one I have been using ? This question is no longer relevant when, in that altered state, that intelligence is operating.. For that reason it is important for each to experience the thing for himself. Only then can there be real communications about the experience.

  The practical side of all this is that in that state of mind we are alive and perceiving without our prejudices and conditioning. This translates into understanding, tolerance, acceptance and ultimatly compassion. In that state, a racial difference means very little other than the marvel of beauty being expressed differently. It is worth exploring.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Sid,

  When I think of alter state of consciousness I think of many different states, like dreaming, or when you spank a child, all the way to the Satorri(sp?) state.

  Is that the state you refurr to in your post?
• 

  Siddhashunyata

  frankiespeakin, no I'm speaking of a veryspecific state of "clarity"of the present instant. I used the term "altered state" to distinguish the thinking state from the "non-thinking state". I should have chosen better words.

  Here we are dealing with the powerful individual intellect verses Intelligence itself. The distinction is between a "thinking mind" and its "intelligence" that does not perceive things directly and a nonthinking mind and Intelligence that perceives things directly. Speaking boldly, there is only one Intelligence in all men , its operation is made impotent by the domination of the cerbral cortex.

  In trying to address the implications of your question, the next statements open up a subject for another time. Enlightenment. Apparently the altered states you mention, and there are many others, are part of the dynamic of the individual psyche . Attachment to any of them slows the development of awareness. Even attachment to direct perception slows that development. In other words direct perception is not the "endzone" although it is a wonderful state of mind in this body. The quest is to " wake up".
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Sid,

  Thanks for the clearification.