Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Valery at NDS wrote: Consciousness: That annoying time between naps. P: That stroke me as partly true. If it were 100% awful, or 100% bliss, would that content remain conscious long? Consciousness needs change, yet longs for immutability, and there lies the rub, or the annoyance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Right, Pete, You can only be conscious of change. Take a spot on you table and stare at it without any movement away from and don't move you eyes. After a while everything gets foggy and finally all disappeats. Werner Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > Valery at NDS wrote: > > Consciousness: That annoying time between naps. > > P: That stroke me as partly true. If it were 100% > awful, or 100% bliss, would that content remain > conscious long? Consciousness needs change, > yet longs for immutability, and there lies the rub, or > the annoyance. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > Valery at NDS wrote: > > Consciousness: That annoying time between naps. > > P: That stroke me as partly true. If it were 100% > awful, or 100% bliss, would that content remain > conscious long? Consciousness needs change, > yet longs for immutability, and there lies the rub, or > the annoyance. > Go deeper. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 In a message dated 4/28/2006 7:26:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:47:02 -0000 " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr Notes on Consciousness 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.) Agree with that, except for this convoluted bit of logic: " 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. " We begin with " awareness " , then call it " conscious awareness " , then separate " conscious " and " aware " , then drop the aware, and conclude we are really talking about consciousness. I believe it was purposely designed to get from awareness to consciousness. More betterer might be to call experience a function of time, and therefore memory. That seems pretty obvious. Consciousness underlies this experiential process and makes it possible, but consciousness still is, regardless of whether experiential awareness is occurring or not. This was, perhaps, the conclusion that was being avoided in the logic above. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 In a message dated 4/29/2006 4:30:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bigwaaba writes: > Hi Bill, > > when light meets water > something happens, a new vibration is added > call it trouble? L.E: Call it the beginning of organic life. Light is energy, animate vibration. Water is atomic energy taking on a molecular form of material intelligence. Combined with electrical energy from lightening and the physical elements of minerals, living things emerge. Must have been. Leaving your god myth out of it, where else could it have come from? Remember that matter is not just dead stuff, it is already organized community, relationships of the atomic invisible world. Matter is already life, full of the animating principle. There is no break between what is matter, metals, minerals, and what is life. It is a continuous flow into form. Where does the water come from and what is it? The water is a condensate from other gases that come from heat, pressure and light combined with electricity. That phase is gone as the earth changes and the life on earth changes in accord. Where it is all going, we can't say. We can only live out our days and nights as we are within the window of our expressions, just as you and I are doing. Our life is the whole universe in action, in expression, just the same with all the planets and the sun as well, living and changing. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 Phil, You see, discussing consciousness is often confusing. Therefore: " Awareness " is the invention of spiritual dreamers who need an excuse to believe in a super-ego which will go on existing in an after-life. " Awareness " which is part or a split-off of consciousness is also well known with the term 'neurosis'. Consciousness is subjectivity and totally personal. To say " You are consciousneess " is the same as " You are th world " . And this " world " is your own subjectivity. Consciousness is a function needed for tribal and social communication and is in no way a key or a door to enlightenment, liberation, realization or whatever you will name it. Why ? Because consciousness is always to late, to late as a base to react from. Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > > Agree with that, except for this convoluted bit of logic: > > " Awareness can > onlelievey 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. " > > > > We begin with " awareness " , then call it " conscious awareness " , then separate > " conscious " and " aware " , then drop the aware, and conclude we are really > talking about consciousness. I believe it was purposely designed to get from > awareness to consciousness. > > More betterer might be to call experience a function of time, and therefore > memory. That seems pretty obvious. Consciousness underlies this experiential > process and makes it possible, but consciousness still is, regardless of > whether experiential awareness is occurring or not. This was, perhaps, the > conclusion that was being avoided in the logic above. > > Phil > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Phil, > > You see, discussing consciousness is often confusing. > > Therefore: > > " Awareness " is the invention of spiritual dreamers who need an excuse > to believe in a super-ego which will go on existing in an after- life. > > " Awareness " which is part or a split-off of consciousness is also > well known with the term 'neurosis'. > > Consciousness is subjectivity and totally personal. To say " You are > consciousneess " is the same as " You are th world " . And this " world " > is your own subjectivity. > > Consciousness is a function needed for tribal and social > communication and is in no way a key or a door to enlightenment, > liberation, realization or whatever you will name it. Why ? Because > consciousness is always to late, to late as a base to react from. > > Werner > always fresh!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 > Consciousness is a function needed for tribal and social > communication and is in no way a key or a door to enlightenment, > liberation, realization or whatever you will name it. Why ? Because > consciousness is always to late, to late as a base to react from. > > Werner The trouble I see with your analysis here, Werner, is in the presumed abstractions going into it. If there is no one to *have* consciousness, then what does consciousness pertain to? There is a lot of baggage that goes along with the notion of consciousness as you use it. To move into the " always too late " model of looking at the activities of the brain means that the very notions of 'man', of a 'world outside' etc. are also up in the air. And when all those abstractions go out the window the question of consciousness goes with it. Is fine to throw all that out the window. Probably a good idea. But then connecting that with actual experience in a meaningful way not so obvious. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Consciousness is a function needed for tribal and social > > communication and is in no way a key or a door to enlightenment, > > liberation, realization or whatever you will name it. Why ? Because > > consciousness is always to late, to late as a base to react from. > > > > Werner > > The trouble I see with your analysis here, Werner, > is in the presumed abstractions going into it. > > If there is no one to *have* consciousness, then > what does consciousness pertain to? There is a > lot of baggage that goes along with the notion > of consciousness as you use it. > > To move into the " always too late " model of looking > at the activities of the brain means that the very > notions of 'man', of a 'world outside' etc. are > also up in the air. > > And when all those abstractions go out the window > the question of consciousness goes with it. > > Is fine to throw all that out the window. Probably > a good idea. But then connecting that with actual > experience in a meaningful way not so obvious. > > Bill > Bill, I was well aware that we won't meet here. The main reason, as I think, is your fixation to now-ness and I am not at all intrested in the now. And I am also well aware that I have to use words and expressions which, when meeting another brain, will cause unintended misunderstandings and misinterpretations: One subjectivity meets another subjectivity. And indeed, you got my main motivation, to throw all out of the window, no matter if someone calls it abstraction or false or a lie: Get out of here and now, or as Niz would say, go beyond it. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > Consciousness is a function needed for tribal and social > > communication and is in no way a key or a door to enlightenment, > > liberation, realization or whatever you will name it. Why ? Because > > consciousness is always to late, to late as a base to react from. > > > > Werner > > The trouble I see with your analysis here, Werner, > is in the presumed abstractions going into it. > > If there is no one to *have* consciousness, then > what does consciousness pertain to? There is a > lot of baggage that goes along with the notion > of consciousness as you use it. > > To move into the " always too late " model of looking > at the activities of the brain means that the very > notions of 'man', of a 'world outside' etc. are > also up in the air. > > And when all those abstractions go out the window > the question of consciousness goes with it. > > Is fine to throw all that out the window. Probably > a good idea. But then connecting that with actual > experience in a meaningful way not so obvious. > > Bill > Hi Bill, when light meets water something happens, a new vibration is added call it trouble? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > Consciousness is a function needed for tribal and social > > > communication and is in no way a key or a door to enlightenment, > > > liberation, realization or whatever you will name it. Why ? > Because > > > consciousness is always to late, to late as a base to react from. > > > > > > Werner > > > > The trouble I see with your analysis here, Werner, > > is in the presumed abstractions going into it. > > > > If there is no one to *have* consciousness, then > > what does consciousness pertain to? There is a > > lot of baggage that goes along with the notion > > of consciousness as you use it. > > > > To move into the " always too late " model of looking > > at the activities of the brain means that the very > > notions of 'man', of a 'world outside' etc. are > > also up in the air. > > > > And when all those abstractions go out the window > > the question of consciousness goes with it. > > > > Is fine to throw all that out the window. Probably > > a good idea. But then connecting that with actual > > experience in a meaningful way not so obvious. > > > > Bill > > > > Bill, > > I was well aware that we won't meet here. The main reason, as I > think, is your fixation to now-ness and I am not at all intrested in > the now. > > And I am also well aware that I have to use words and expressions > which, when meeting another brain, will cause unintended > misunderstandings and misinterpretations: One subjectivity meets > another subjectivity. > > And indeed, you got my main motivation, to throw all out of the > window, no matter if someone calls it abstraction or false or a lie: > > Get out of here and now, or as Niz would say, go beyond it. > > Werner > Hmm, I just realized that the expression I used " my main motiviation " is not a lucky one. I better should have written: I can't help than throwing all out of the window. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > Consciousness is a function needed for tribal and social > > > > communication and is in no way a key or a door to enlightenment, > > > > liberation, realization or whatever you will name it. Why ? > > Because > > > > consciousness is always to late, to late as a base to react > from. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > The trouble I see with your analysis here, Werner, > > > is in the presumed abstractions going into it. > > > > > > If there is no one to *have* consciousness, then > > > what does consciousness pertain to? There is a > > > lot of baggage that goes along with the notion > > > of consciousness as you use it. > > > > > > To move into the " always too late " model of looking > > > at the activities of the brain means that the very > > > notions of 'man', of a 'world outside' etc. are > > > also up in the air. > > > > > > And when all those abstractions go out the window > > > the question of consciousness goes with it. > > > > > > Is fine to throw all that out the window. Probably > > > a good idea. But then connecting that with actual > > > experience in a meaningful way not so obvious. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > I was well aware that we won't meet here. The main reason, as I > > think, is your fixation to now-ness and I am not at all intrested > in > > the now. > > > > And I am also well aware that I have to use words and expressions > > which, when meeting another brain, will cause unintended > > misunderstandings and misinterpretations: One subjectivity meets > > another subjectivity. > > > > And indeed, you got my main motivation, to throw all out of the > > window, no matter if someone calls it abstraction or false or a lie: > > > > Get out of here and now, or as Niz would say, go beyond it. > > > > Werner > > > > Hmm, > I just realized that the expression I used " my main motiviation " is > not a lucky one. I better should have written: > > I can't help than throwing all out of the window. > > Werner > Ops! just in time! 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.