Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 More at this site: http://spiritrambler.blogspot.com/ Werner People say that we don't have the past, and we don't have the future. All we have is now. We don't even have that. What we have is a memory, a working memory, usually quite short term. What we call the immediate present is not present. It requires memory. You use memory to get to the end of this very sentence. None of it was " now. " In contrast to the above, Eastern gurus teach that to think is to be plunged into time. They say that to be in the eternal present of consciousness is to be without thought. Given the memory scenario, the closer likeness is a steady stream into the past. Awareness can only be awareness of the past. Conscious awareness is a creature of time. To be conscious of the moment is to be aware of what is within short term memory. Consciousness, then, is a function of memory. In electronics and electricity, one finds two kinds of wiring, serial and parallel. At one time, Christmas tree lights were serially connected. If one bulb went out, they all did. Nowadays they are wired in parallel so that a single bulb failure does not cause all to turn off. Because of more wires, parallel circuits also have the advantage that they can handle more impulses, more traffic than can series circuits. They are not as subject to " traffic jams. " Daniel Dennett, for one, has compared the brain to series and parallel circuits. Consciousness is serial; unconsciousness, parallel. Consciousness sees images, representations of unconscious systems, one at a time. As in a computer, they are data serially appearing on the monitor of the mind. Advaita, or nondualism, calls this the theater of the mind. The data is represented by symbols. Consciousness is limited in what it can process because it is proscribed by the " uni-linear " nature of the symbols arising before it. By comparison, the unconscious operates non-symbolically and across many neural circuits. It does not need the same representation as does consciousness. With parallel circuitry, it can process much faster with its own " codes " unbeknownst to consciousness. This helps explain why Eastern teachers say that you are not the thoughts. They teach that thoughts are mistaken for the self. They also teach that the thinker is in the thought. (See J. Krishnamurti & David Bohm, 23 March 2006, a few articles below.) In other words, the thinker is part of the theater of the mind. The series/parallel explanations of consciousness accord with this teaching. There is no conscious thinker, except as an after-effect perceived on the screen of consciousness. Everything happened at a " lower " level. Benjamin Libet's experiments fit the pattern of this perspective. In his experiments, he found that the " decision " area of the brain lit up after the actual deed was done. In other words, the subjects thought they decided, but in fact the " decision " was an after-effect. (Among other Invetrate Bystander articles on free will, see Benjamin Libet and Free Won't, 15 March 2004.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > More at this site: > > http://spiritrambler.blogspot.com/ > > Werner > > > People say that we don't have the past, and we don't have the future. > All we have is now. We don't even have that. What we have is a > memory, a working memory, usually quite short term. What we call the > immediate present is not present. It requires memory. You use memory > to get to the end of this very sentence. None of it was " now. " > > In contrast to the above, Eastern gurus teach that to think is to be > plunged into time. They say that to be in the eternal present of > consciousness is to be without thought. Given the memory scenario, > the closer likeness is a steady stream into the past. Awareness can > only be awareness of the past. Conscious awareness is a creature of > time. To be conscious of the moment is to be aware of what is within > short term memory. Consciousness, then, is a function of memory. > > In electronics and electricity, one finds two kinds of wiring, serial > and parallel. At one time, Christmas tree lights were serially > connected. If one bulb went out, they all did. Nowadays they are > wired in parallel so that a single bulb failure does not cause all to > turn off. Because of more wires, parallel circuits also have the > advantage that they can handle more impulses, more traffic than can > series circuits. They are not as subject to " traffic jams. " > > Daniel Dennett, for one, has compared the brain to series and > parallel circuits. Consciousness is serial; unconsciousness, > parallel. Consciousness sees images, representations of unconscious > systems, one at a time. As in a computer, they are data serially > appearing on the monitor of the mind. Advaita, or nondualism, calls > this the theater of the mind. The data is represented by symbols. > Consciousness is limited in what it can process because it is > proscribed by the " uni-linear " nature of the symbols arising before > it. By comparison, the unconscious operates non-symbolically and > across many neural circuits. It does not need the same representation > as does consciousness. With parallel circuitry, it can process much > faster with its own " codes " unbeknownst to consciousness. > > This helps explain why Eastern teachers say that you are not the > thoughts. They teach that thoughts are mistaken for the self. They > also teach that the thinker is in the thought. (See J. Krishnamurti & > David Bohm, 23 March 2006, a few articles below.) In other words, the > thinker is part of the theater of the mind. The series/parallel > explanations of consciousness accord with this teaching. There is no > conscious thinker, except as an after-effect perceived on the screen > of consciousness. Everything happened at a " lower " level. > > Benjamin Libet's experiments fit the pattern of this perspective. In > his experiments, he found that the " decision " area of the brain lit > up after the actual deed was done. In other words, the subjects > thought they decided, but in fact the " decision " was an after- effect. > (Among other Invetrate Bystander articles on free will, see Benjamin > Libet and Free Won't, 15 March 2004.) > Werner, did you ever answer my question about the relationship between the 300 ms always-in- the-past thing and Krishnamurti's " now " ? I don't recall seeing that. If not, am still curious. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Werner, did you ever answer my question about > the relationship between the 300 ms always-in- > the-past thing and Krishnamurti's " now " ? > > I don't recall seeing that. > > If not, am still curious. > > Bill > Bill, I can't remember your asked me that question. Maybe I thought it was just a rethorical question because you only wanted to give a talk about your favorite hangup: The Now But I rather think for me your question had an odour of philosophy and in additition I am no expert qualified to answer it. Reading your question now it creates the impuls to quickly leave this list and better watch tv I must admit that what K said about the Now never did interest me and the same is with what you have to say about the now. It has nothing to do with you, it simply is not my thing. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Werner, did you ever answer my question about > > the relationship between the 300 ms always-in- > > the-past thing and Krishnamurti's " now " ? > > > > I don't recall seeing that. > > > > If not, am still curious. > > > > Bill > > > > Bill, > > I can't remember your asked me that question. Maybe I thought it was > just a rethorical question because you only wanted to give a talk > about your favorite hangup: The Now > > But I rather think for me your question had an odour of philosophy > and in additition I am no expert qualified to answer it. Reading your > question now it creates the impuls to quickly leave this list and > better watch tv > > I must admit that what K said about the Now never did interest me and > the same is with what you have to say about the now. It has nothing > to do with you, it simply is not my thing. > > Werner > Thank you for the explanation Werner. And no it wasn't a rhetorical question. I generally try to avoid such. I am under the impression that K's teachings do have significant meaning for you... for example you post quotes of his from time to time. So may I ask what of what K has to say does interest you? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Werner, did you ever answer my question about > > > the relationship between the 300 ms always-in- > > > the-past thing and Krishnamurti's " now " ? > > > > > > I don't recall seeing that. > > > > > > If not, am still curious. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > I can't remember your asked me that question. Maybe I thought it > was > > just a rethorical question because you only wanted to give a talk > > about your favorite hangup: The Now > > > > But I rather think for me your question had an odour of philosophy > > and in additition I am no expert qualified to answer it. Reading > your > > question now it creates the impuls to quickly leave this list and > > better watch tv > > > > I must admit that what K said about the Now never did interest me > and > > the same is with what you have to say about the now. It has nothing > > to do with you, it simply is not my thing. > > > > Werner > > > > Thank you for the explanation Werner. > And no it wasn't a rhetorical question. > I generally try to avoid such. > > I am under the impression that K's teachings do have > significant meaning for you... for example you post > quotes of his from time to time. > > So may I ask what of what K has to say does interest you? > > Bill > Thats a difficult question Bill, because I had to tell you my complete life which finally led to this interest in K. For me the crux of all, the main thing I am now interested in is one's own non-existence (as an entity), one's absence, or íf you like - one's nothingness. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner, did you ever answer my question about > > > > the relationship between the 300 ms always-in- > > > > the-past thing and Krishnamurti's " now " ? > > > > > > > > I don't recall seeing that. > > > > > > > > If not, am still curious. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > I can't remember your asked me that question. Maybe I thought it > > was > > > just a rethorical question because you only wanted to give a talk > > > about your favorite hangup: The Now > > > > > > But I rather think for me your question had an odour of > philosophy > > > and in additition I am no expert qualified to answer it. Reading > > your > > > question now it creates the impuls to quickly leave this list and > > > better watch tv > > > > > > I must admit that what K said about the Now never did interest me > > and > > > the same is with what you have to say about the now. It has > nothing > > > to do with you, it simply is not my thing. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > Thank you for the explanation Werner. > > And no it wasn't a rhetorical question. > > I generally try to avoid such. > > > > I am under the impression that K's teachings do have > > significant meaning for you... for example you post > > quotes of his from time to time. > > > > So may I ask what of what K has to say does interest you? > > > > Bill > > > > Thats a difficult question Bill, because I had to tell you my > complete life which finally led to this interest in K. > > For me the crux of all, the main thing I am now interested in is > one's own non-existence (as an entity), one's absence, or íf you > like - one's nothingness. > > Werner > Interesting and thanks for sharing that. If you don't mind I might get back to you on that. That's my starting point as well. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 --- Werner Woehr <wwoehr a écrit : Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Werner, did you ever answer my question about > > > the relationship between the 300 ms always-in- > > > the-past thing and Krishnamurti's " now " ? > > > > > > I don't recall seeing that. > > > > > > If not, am still curious. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > I can't remember your asked me that question. Maybe I thought it > was > > just a rethorical question because you only wanted to give a talk > > about your favorite hangup: The Now > > > > But I rather think for me your question had an odour of philosophy > > and in additition I am no expert qualified to answer it. Reading > your > > question now it creates the impuls to quickly leave this list and > > better watch tv > > > > I must admit that what K said about the Now never did interest me > and > > the same is with what you have to say about the now. It has nothing > > to do with you, it simply is not my thing. > > > > Werner > > > > Thank you for the explanation Werner. > And no it wasn't a rhetorical question. > I generally try to avoid such. > > I am under the impression that K's teachings do have > significant meaning for you... for example you post > quotes of his from time to time. > > So may I ask what of what K has to say does interest you? > > Bill > Thats a difficult question Bill, because I had to tell you my complete life which finally led to this interest in K. For me the crux of all, the main thing I am now interested in is one's own non-existence (as an entity), one's absence, or íf you like - one's nothingness. Werner One of them exposed himself, The other one said : not my thing, and <difficult question>. But since you are a caring person, ( that is all you cared to share about yourself in 4 months), going toward the one that exposed himself, reading between his lines, Holding his intentions, Going along with him, Might reveal how much you care. And further the exchange along. Because that is an exchange. Communication : caring for.. Patricia ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. 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.