Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > > > What is the 'Other' Lacan talks about? Isn't that only a > > thought/emotion construct in a person? And what is that other than a > > fragmented view of reality? Isn't that another illusion of separate > > authority? > > > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > No, it is a transpersonal thingy within the " dream " composed by the > > Imaginary, Real and Symbolic. The discourse of the Other is > > unconscious. The flow of the unconscious; a transpersonal, a > > collective phenomenon. It is the mold built since immemorial times > > in which the subject, Anders, suddenly has found himself, entering > > language (very short). > > > > > > BTW, no need to be afraid about illusions and authorities, like > > Werner said.....don't avoid them, they are only ghosts. > > > > > > rgds > > Kip Almazy > > Is there such a thing as the unconscious? This was a question asked by > J. Krishnamurti. Isn't it only when there is fragmented perception the > need for concepts like the 'unconscious' is needed? And isn't that > fragmentation the main cause of human suffering? > > /AL The word " unconscious " gets used in so many different ways. For Freud, it meant all the emotions, thought processes, images, memories, motivations that weren't included in the " conscious " review processing of the forebrain, that relies on logic and verbalizable conceptualizations. From that perspective, the word is useful to explain conflicts between the decisions made after conscious review (in the forebrain) and what actually occurs in terms of action, emotion, motivation, that often doesn't fit the scenario that " logic " and verbal processing of situations seems to dictate. (That is, forebrain processing, logic, and awareness of consequences - which Freud called " ego functions " - don't fully dictate, by any means, how we actually live, feel, relate, and make decisions). Fron Krishnamurti's perspective, which relied on viewing awareness as unsplit, the division into conscious and unconscious makes no sense. So, it all depends upon what you're addressing, what you're communicating about, and how you're using words, as to whether terms like " conscious " and " unconscious " make sense. D.T. Suzuki talked about Zen and the unconscious, because he wanted to emphasize that the conscious mind that Freud talked about isn't the basis for what I would call a " whole understanding " or a " totality awareness. " Also, Herrigal talked about Zen and the unconscious in terms of archery training, that the conscious mind learns to relax its hold with much training in archery, and the archery gets more accurate at a certain point when the " unconscious " can take over - there isn't conscious deliberation about aiming, for example. It all depends on what you're addressing, whether or not a word like " unconscious " makes sense. But certainly, it can make sense in some contexts. Perhaps not if you're discussing unsplit awareness that is not of thought or memory, which is what Krishnamurti was addressing. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> > wrote: > > > > > > What is the 'Other' Lacan talks about? Isn't that only a > > > thought/emotion construct in a person? And what is that other > than a > > > fragmented view of reality? Isn't that another illusion of > separate > > > authority? > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > > > > No, it is a transpersonal thingy within the " dream " composed by > the > > > Imaginary, Real and Symbolic. The discourse of the Other is > > > unconscious. The flow of the unconscious; a transpersonal, a > > > collective phenomenon. It is the mold built since immemorial > times > > > in which the subject, Anders, suddenly has found himself, > entering > > > language (very short). > > > > > > > > > BTW, no need to be afraid about illusions and authorities, like > > > Werner said.....don't avoid them, they are only ghosts. > > > > > > > > > rgds > > > Kip Almazy > > > > Is there such a thing as the unconscious? This was a question > asked by > > J. Krishnamurti. Isn't it only when there is fragmented perception > the > > need for concepts like the 'unconscious' is needed? And isn't that > > fragmentation the main cause of human suffering? > > > > /AL > > The word " unconscious " gets used in so many different ways. > > For Freud, it meant all the emotions, thought processes, images, > memories, motivations that weren't included in the " conscious " > review processing of the forebrain, that relies on logic > and verbalizable conceptualizations. > > From that perspective, the word is useful to explain conflicts > between the decisions made after conscious review (in the forebrain) > and what actually occurs in terms of action, emotion, motivation, > that often doesn't fit the scenario that " logic " and verbal > processing of situations seems to dictate. (That is, forebrain > processing, logic, and awareness of consequences - which Freud > called " ego functions " - don't fully dictate, by any means, how we > actually live, feel, relate, and make decisions). > > Fron Krishnamurti's perspective, which relied on viewing > awareness as unsplit, the division into conscious and unconscious > makes no sense. > > So, it all depends upon what you're addressing, what you're > communicating about, and how you're using words, as to whether terms > like " conscious " and " unconscious " make sense. > > D.T. Suzuki talked about Zen and the unconscious, because he > wanted to emphasize that the conscious mind that Freud talked > about isn't the basis for what I would call a " whole understanding " > or a " totality awareness. " Also, Herrigal talked about Zen and the > unconscious in terms of archery training, that the conscious mind > learns to relax its hold with much training in archery, and the > archery gets more accurate at a certain point when the " unconscious " > can take over - there isn't conscious deliberation about aiming, for > example. > > It all depends on what you're addressing, whether or not a word > like " unconscious " makes sense. > > But certainly, it can make sense in some contexts. > > Perhaps not if you're discussing unsplit awareness that is not of > thought or memory, which is what Krishnamurti was addressing. > > -- Dan I wonder what Ken Wilber has to say about the unconscious. He always talks about an integral view of things. Maybe the integration of the conscious and the unconscious is a way to liberation, to harmony. One way to approach this is to see that what we think and feel about things may have more degrees to it than what first meets the eyes. For example, if I meet a person and I don't like him or her, then there is perhaps something I don't see. Every person has a wide range of values. What I don't like about a person has probably more to do with my conscious and unconscious fears than the full characteristics of that other person. By opening up oneself to many possibilities one might integrate and come into harmony with one's unconscious/subconscious. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > What is the 'Other' Lacan talks about? Isn't that only a > > > > thought/emotion construct in a person? And what is that other > > than a > > > > fragmented view of reality? Isn't that another illusion of > > separate > > > > authority? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it is a transpersonal thingy within the " dream " composed by > > the > > > > Imaginary, Real and Symbolic. The discourse of the Other is > > > > unconscious. The flow of the unconscious; a transpersonal, a > > > > collective phenomenon. It is the mold built since immemorial > > times > > > > in which the subject, Anders, suddenly has found himself, > > entering > > > > language (very short). > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, no need to be afraid about illusions and authorities, like > > > > Werner said.....don't avoid them, they are only ghosts. > > > > > > > > > > > > rgds > > > > Kip Almazy > > > > > > Is there such a thing as the unconscious? This was a question > > asked by > > > J. Krishnamurti. Isn't it only when there is fragmented perception > > the > > > need for concepts like the 'unconscious' is needed? And isn't that > > > fragmentation the main cause of human suffering? > > > > > > /AL > > > > The word " unconscious " gets used in so many different ways. > > > > For Freud, it meant all the emotions, thought processes, images, > > memories, motivations that weren't included in the " conscious " > > review processing of the forebrain, that relies on logic > > and verbalizable conceptualizations. > > > > From that perspective, the word is useful to explain conflicts > > between the decisions made after conscious review (in the forebrain) > > and what actually occurs in terms of action, emotion, motivation, > > that often doesn't fit the scenario that " logic " and verbal > > processing of situations seems to dictate. (That is, forebrain > > processing, logic, and awareness of consequences - which Freud > > called " ego functions " - don't fully dictate, by any means, how we > > actually live, feel, relate, and make decisions). > > > > Fron Krishnamurti's perspective, which relied on viewing > > awareness as unsplit, the division into conscious and unconscious > > makes no sense. > > > > So, it all depends upon what you're addressing, what you're > > communicating about, and how you're using words, as to whether terms > > like " conscious " and " unconscious " make sense. > > > > D.T. Suzuki talked about Zen and the unconscious, because he > > wanted to emphasize that the conscious mind that Freud talked > > about isn't the basis for what I would call a " whole understanding " > > or a " totality awareness. " Also, Herrigal talked about Zen and the > > unconscious in terms of archery training, that the conscious mind > > learns to relax its hold with much training in archery, and the > > archery gets more accurate at a certain point when the " unconscious " > > can take over - there isn't conscious deliberation about aiming, for > > example. > > > > It all depends on what you're addressing, whether or not a word > > like " unconscious " makes sense. > > > > But certainly, it can make sense in some contexts. > > > > Perhaps not if you're discussing unsplit awareness that is not of > > thought or memory, which is what Krishnamurti was addressing. > > > > -- Dan > > I wonder what Ken Wilber has to say about the unconscious. He always > talks about an integral view of things. Maybe the integration of the > conscious and the unconscious is a way to liberation, to harmony. One > way to approach this is to see that what we think and feel about > things may have more degrees to it than what first meets the eyes. For > example, if I meet a person and I don't like him or her, then there is > perhaps something I don't see. Every person has a wide range of > values. What I don't like about a person has probably more to do with > my conscious and unconscious fears than the full characteristics of > that other person. By opening up oneself to many possibilities one > might integrate and come into harmony with one's unconscious/subconscious. > > /AL Yes, that makes sense to me. Also this: Where does the unconscious end, have its limit? For example, the genetic and biochemical aspects of unconscious functioning trace back millenia. Unconsciously, we know how to use sunlight to manufacture vitamin D. Plants know how to use sunlight directly for energy. Cells are busy ingested, digesting, excreting, fighting off invaders, continually without any conscious direction. In this sense, the unconscious links all life, and links life with natural processes such as sun, air, water. Is there an intelligence to the unconscious, of which the conscious mind (the forebrain review processes) are necessasrily unaware? Is there a fear, a constriction that comes about due to overreliance on conscious processes, the so-called ego-functions and logic? What happens if one realizes that the conscious mind is only a portion of the unconscious mind that has been split off (Freud said this). What if you realize this clearly, now -- that there is no real or actual barrier, that the splitting off is a fiction that is part of the design of the forebrain review processes and their dependence on sequential, logical thought? If there is no actual split between conscious and unconscious, it is only bias toward the conscious and the ego-functions that makes a split seem as if real. That is, we have no separable individuality of our own, and our conscious minds don't give us any personal centers of being. In this sense, liberation is of the unconscious. But that liberation is when the conscious and unconscious are understood as unsplit, and one is clear that nature and oneself are not-two. This has meaning for the question of life and death you were discussing earlier on this list. Because although the body dies, the unconscious (nature) doesn't die. By dying psychologically (as an ego-center) you know yourself as inseparable from eternity - now. You don't have to do anything to get unsplit awareness. It's already always unsplit, and conscious and unconscious thought processes have never created any real split - only a fictional split through biased perception. That biased perception seems to separate inside from outside, subject from object, and gives a self that is subject to a personal birth and death. When in fact, it's all an impersonal process, manifesting through our apparent individuality as human beings. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > .... > > > > I wonder what Ken Wilber has to say about the unconscious. He > always > > talks about an integral view of things. Maybe the integration of > the > > conscious and the unconscious is a way to liberation, to harmony. > One > > way to approach this is to see that what we think and feel about > > things may have more degrees to it than what first meets the eyes. > For > > example, if I meet a person and I don't like him or her, then > there is > > perhaps something I don't see. Every person has a wide range of > > values. What I don't like about a person has probably more to do > with > > my conscious and unconscious fears than the full characteristics of > > that other person. By opening up oneself to many possibilities one > > might integrate and come into harmony with one's > unconscious/subconscious. > > > > /AL > > Yes, that makes sense to me. > > Also this: > Where does the unconscious end, have its limit? > > For example, the genetic and biochemical aspects > of unconscious functioning trace back millenia. Exactly. The human being is a vast and extremely complex organic web that is a part of, and integrated with, all of nature/Kosmos. > > Unconsciously, we know how to use sunlight to manufacture > vitamin D. Plants know how to use sunlight directly > for energy. Cells are busy ingested, digesting, excreting, > fighting off invaders, continually without any conscious > direction. > > In this sense, the unconscious links all life, and links > life with natural processes such as sun, air, water. > > Is there an intelligence to the unconscious, of which the > conscious mind (the forebrain review processes) are > necessasrily unaware? > > Is there a fear, a constriction that comes about due to > overreliance on conscious processes, the so-called > ego-functions and logic? Yes, could be. The intellect has run away a bit too fast " on its own " without understanding its deeper roots. > > What happens if one realizes that the conscious mind > is only a portion of the unconscious mind that > has been split off (Freud said this). > > What if you realize this clearly, now -- that there > is no real or actual barrier, that the splitting > off is a fiction that is part of the design > of the forebrain review processes and their > dependence on sequential, logical thought? > > If there is no actual split between conscious and > unconscious, it is only bias toward the conscious > and the ego-functions that makes a split seem as if real. > > That is, we have no separable individuality of our own, > and our conscious minds don't give us any personal centers > of being. > > In this sense, liberation is of the unconscious. > > But that liberation is when the conscious and unconscious > are understood as unsplit, and one is clear that nature > and oneself are not-two. > > This has meaning for the question of life and death you > were discussing earlier on this list. > > Because although the body dies, the unconscious (nature) > doesn't die. > > By dying psychologically (as an ego-center) you know yourself > as inseparable from eternity - now. > > You don't have to do anything to get unsplit awareness. > > It's already always unsplit, and conscious and unconscious > thought processes have never created any real split - > only a fictional split through biased perception. > > That biased perception seems to separate inside from outside, > subject from object, and gives a self that is subject to > a personal birth and death. > > When in fact, it's all an impersonal process, manifesting > through our apparent individuality as human beings. > > -- Dan The illusion of separation is what makes human life possible. But maybe it's time for humanity to find its way back to its roots without loosing the sense of separation, but instead with a sense of separation that is rooted in unity with all-there-is: a.k.a. One Taste. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Great post, Dan! > Also this: > Where does the unconscious end, have its limit? > > For example, the genetic and biochemical aspects > of unconscious functioning trace back millenia. > > Unconsciously, we know how to use sunlight to manufacture > vitamin D. Plants know how to use sunlight directly > for energy. Cells are busy ingested, digesting, excreting, > fighting off invaders, continually without any conscious > direction. > > In this sense, the unconscious links all life, and links > life with natural processes such as sun, air, water. > > Is there an intelligence to the unconscious, of which the > conscious mind (the forebrain review processes) are > necessasrily unaware? > > Is there a fear, a constriction that comes about due to > overreliance on conscious processes, the so-called > ego-functions and logic? > > What happens if one realizes that the conscious mind > is only a portion of the unconscious mind that > has been split off (Freud said this). > > What if you realize this clearly, now -- that there > is no real or actual barrier, that the splitting > off is a fiction that is part of the design > of the forebrain review processes and their > dependence on sequential, logical thought? > > If there is no actual split between conscious and > unconscious, it is only bias toward the conscious > and the ego-functions that makes a split seem as if real. > > That is, we have no separable individuality of our own, > and our conscious minds don't give us any personal centers > of being. > > In this sense, liberation is of the unconscious. > > But that liberation is when the conscious and unconscious > are understood as unsplit, and one is clear that nature > and oneself are not-two. > > This has meaning for the question of life and death you > were discussing earlier on this list. > > Because although the body dies, the unconscious (nature) > doesn't die. > > By dying psychologically (as an ego-center) you know yourself > as inseparable from eternity - now. > > You don't have to do anything to get unsplit awareness. > > It's already always unsplit, and conscious and unconscious > thought processes have never created any real split - > only a fictional split through biased perception. > > That biased perception seems to separate inside from outside, > subject from object, and gives a self that is subject to > a personal birth and death. > > When in fact, it's all an impersonal process, manifesting > through our apparent individuality as human beings. > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > Great post, Dan! Thanks, Kip! 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.