Mind, identity, and consciousness -- was RE: Riddles

September 24, 2002

Yo Bill --

Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> dan330033 [dan330033]

>

> > When it is not being conscious of something,

> > why would it be called " consciousness " ?

> Because it *is*.

As compared with what?

> I suggest considering conciousness in this regard

> as much like attention.

Why consider it as anything?

Once you're considering it as something, it's

an object for you, no matter how subtle or

how much like yourself you consider this object.

Attention can be " on "

> something. Attention can be focused. But attention

> can also be relaxed. Phil Jackson used to teach the

> Chicago Bulls to use " fuzzy focus " . This would be

> a " softening " of attention. But I suggest that

> attention can be further *distended*, and that when

> the relaxing of attention is taken to the extreme

> attention becomes " fully distended " . At this point

> there is no object for attention, yet the consciousness

> that is normally " applied " to an object has not

> disappeared.

Then, there is still an object, which you are

calling consciousness, and which you are saying

can do things, like soften and distend.

> The consciousness simply is.

Compared with what?

> Typically

> consciousness is " degraded " by constraint to

> particulars.

How would that degrade it?

> Regarding the relation between attention and consciousness

> I suggest that attention is a manifestation of

> consciousness.

You can suggest what you want about your own ideas.

After all, they *are* your ideas, and you can do

what you want with 'em.

> > Who or what is there to define it as " consciousness "

> > or as something with a quality of some sort?

> Why assume there is " someone " ? [see my Disclaimer.]

If there is not someone, then who is to say

that there is something with a quality?

Once a quality is observed, there is the observer,

no matter how cute you get about it.

The disclaimer is meaningless, because all words

are just flowing, just arising, just being typed.

In that sense, nothing is responding to anything else,

and nothing has meaning, everything is an arising.

Which is fine, but is a conversation-stopper ...

> It is as if there were a Black Hole of some sort, and

> that the mind can come up to the event horizon of the

> Hole, but cannot enter. And yet the Black Hole can emit

> words ( " words arise " ).

That's why the analogy is limited.

There is no place other than " this " which is

why there is no quality to it.

Which is why words cannot be emitted by it,

because what is not emitted by it?

Where else is there, for something to be emitted

by it?

[Compare in this regard Stephen

> Hawking's demonstration that astronomical black holes

> emit energy.]

> A mind perceiving words emitted by this (metaphorical)

> Black Hole may construe that there is an entity that

> is the source of the words. Yet there may not be any

> " who " behind the words.

If not, there is no entity behind any words.

And then, there is no entity to which any word refers.

There is no one to say anything, and no one to hear

anything.

It's very dark in here.

>

> Nevertheless, words should stand on their own. Should

> it matter " who " wrote them?

Should it be assumed they refer to something?

Why?

For whom?

-- Dan

September 24, 2002

Dan,

Obviously I have failed to communicate.

Perhaps another day I will find a better way

to communicate about consciousness.

Besides, the following item in your message

is worth the whole trip:

> It's very dark in here.

Ah! Now that is sweet!

I sent that last message with some misgivings

because it was too analytic for my taste, but

it wanted to write itself so I let it. Maybe

with that little blood-letting I can now return

to my poetic roots.

-Bill

dan330033 [dan330033]

Monday, September 23, 2002 3:54 PM

Nisargadatta

Mind, identity, and consciousness -- was RE: Re:

Riddles