Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Hi Werner, > > if we say " consciousness is memory " , do we also have to conclude: > there is no such event like " the present moment " ? > > Stefan > Yes, Stefan, we have to conclude it. But anyway, the only present we know is that which consciousness is offering. In respect to all those philosophies emphasizing the importance of the NOW, that time lag of 500 msec between the " real " present which we never are conscious of and that 'now' which consciousness is representing, that doesn't matter. The inevstigations of neuroscience that consciousness is memeory will cause and is causing resistance in most of so called " spiritual " Disneylanders, seekers and irrational day-dreamers who believe in " cosmic consciousness " , " universal consciousness " or " pure consciousness " etc, as you also may realize on this list here. Sooner or later all these " spiritual " people have to realize and to accept that consciousness is not the Master but only a shabby little social function which is just needed for communication between those who share a similar consciosuness but consciousness itself in no is way needed for orientation because the orientation of the physical organism already happened before it gets conscious. The world we communicate is the world of consciousness. Because each person represents its own personal contents of consciousness the consequence is that consciousness is subjective. Werner > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > >Consciousness is memory. There is no single case known of any > >person who's STM was demaged and the person still was conscious. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > if we say " consciousness is memory " , do we also have to conclude: > > there is no such event like " the present moment " ? > > > > Stefan > > > > > Yes, Stefan, we have to conclude it. > > But anyway, the only present we know is that which consciousness is > offering. In respect to all those philosophies emphasizing the > importance of the NOW, that time lag of 500 msec between the " real " > present which we never are conscious of and that 'now' which > consciousness is representing, that doesn't matter. > > The inevstigations of neuroscience that consciousness is memeory will > cause and is causing resistance in most of so called " spiritual " > Disneylanders, seekers and irrational day-dreamers who believe > in " cosmic consciousness " , " universal consciousness " or " pure > consciousness " etc, as you also may realize on this list here. > > Sooner or later all these " spiritual " people have to realize and to > accept that consciousness is not the Master but only a shabby little > social function which is just needed for communication between those > who share a similar consciosuness but consciousness itself in no is way > needed for orientation because the orientation of the physical organism > already happened before it gets conscious. > > The world we communicate is the world of consciousness. Because each > person represents its own personal contents of consciousness the > consequence is that consciousness is subjective. > > Werner well said..... but spirituality isn't so much concerned about whatever " consciousness " .....it's about awareness Marc > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > >Consciousness is memory. There is no single case known of any > > >person who's STM was demaged and the person still was conscious. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > if we say " consciousness is memory " , do we also have to conclude: > > > there is no such event like " the present moment " ? > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > Yes, Stefan, we have to conclude it. > > > > But anyway, the only present we know is that which consciousness is > > offering. In respect to all those philosophies emphasizing the > > importance of the NOW, that time lag of 500 msec between the " real " > > present which we never are conscious of and that 'now' which > > consciousness is representing, that doesn't matter. > > > > The inevstigations of neuroscience that consciousness is memeory > will > > cause and is causing resistance in most of so called " spiritual " > > Disneylanders, seekers and irrational day-dreamers who believe > > in " cosmic consciousness " , " universal consciousness " or " pure > > consciousness " etc, as you also may realize on this list here. > > > > Sooner or later all these " spiritual " people have to realize and to > > accept that consciousness is not the Master but only a shabby > little > > social function which is just needed for communication between > those > > who share a similar consciosuness but consciousness itself in no is > way > > needed for orientation because the orientation of the physical > organism > > already happened before it gets conscious. > > > > The world we communicate is the world of consciousness. Because > each > > person represents its own personal contents of consciousness the > > consequence is that consciousness is subjective. > > > > Werner > > > well said..... > > but spirituality isn't so much concerned about > whatever " consciousness " .....it's about awareness > True, Marc, And the most wondeful charactristic of that " Awareness " you mentioned is that no one ever has seen it or knows what it is. And I doubt that Niz knew it or was in it. But it is greatly suitable to invent new cults and religions in the name of it, or call it God or the Source. That " awareness " is such a wonderful vessel for all kinds of speculation one never can get hanged, executed or thrown into prison for because it is just all hot air which no one can prove or reject. Werner > Marc > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > > > >Consciousness is memory. There is no single case known of any > > > >person who's STM was demaged and the person still was conscious. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > > > if we say " consciousness is memory " , do we also have to > conclude: > > > > there is no such event like " the present moment " ? > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Stefan, we have to conclude it. > > > > > > But anyway, the only present we know is that which consciousness > is > > > offering. In respect to all those philosophies emphasizing the > > > importance of the NOW, that time lag of 500 msec between > the " real " > > > present which we never are conscious of and that 'now' which > > > consciousness is representing, that doesn't matter. > > > > > > The inevstigations of neuroscience that consciousness is memeory > > will > > > cause and is causing resistance in most of so called " spiritual " > > > Disneylanders, seekers and irrational day-dreamers who believe > > > in " cosmic consciousness " , " universal consciousness " or " pure > > > consciousness " etc, as you also may realize on this list here. > > > > > > Sooner or later all these " spiritual " people have to realize and > to > > > accept that consciousness is not the Master but only a shabby > > little > > > social function which is just needed for communication between > > those > > > who share a similar consciosuness but consciousness itself in no > is > > way > > > needed for orientation because the orientation of the physical > > organism > > > already happened before it gets conscious. > > > > > > The world we communicate is the world of consciousness. Because > > each > > > person represents its own personal contents of consciousness the > > > consequence is that consciousness is subjective. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > well said..... > > > > but spirituality isn't so much concerned about > > whatever " consciousness " .....it's about awareness > > > > > True, Marc, > > And the most wondeful charactristic of that " Awareness " you mentioned > is that no one ever has seen it or knows what it is. And I doubt that > Niz knew it or was in it. > > But it is greatly suitable to invent new cults and religions in the > name of it, or call it God or the Source. That " awareness " is such a > wonderful vessel for all kinds of speculation one never can get > hanged, executed or thrown into prison for because it is just all hot > air which no one can prove or reject. > > Werner yes.....sure, this your mentionned " investigations of neuroscience Disneylanders " can't get It..... what is It to investigate on?.....except on oneSelf?..... scientifics of whatever research aren't, indeed, conscious about, that they only research on themSelf.... there is Nothing else......and never will something else....than reality of their being ....it's ok, this your mentionned : consciousness = the content ....and then?..... what is it what " you " are finding soo fabuloes on it?..... when you look in the mirror.....you see yourself.... not your father....and also not your mother.... this is worth to write about?.... awareness let such consciousness.....behind..... when there is no more consciousness which belong to whatever ego- minded entity....then this is called awareness awareness give the opportunity to see and feel as an entity within a whole world.......And at same time.....as a reality....which has nothing in common with anything of this appearing world (thoughts of restless mind) many Masters who talk about...... Not, because they don't know about what they are talking..... and also Not, because they need " Werner " telling them that it's only bullshit or....whatever.... Awareness also has no direct relation to any " source " or " God " .... you love to mixe up all such things....for some reason.... .... Marc > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >Consciousness is memory. There is no single case known of any > > > > >person who's STM was demaged and the person still was > conscious. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > > > > > if we say " consciousness is memory " , do we also have to > > conclude: > > > > > there is no such event like " the present moment " ? > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Stefan, we have to conclude it. > > > > > > > > But anyway, the only present we know is that which > consciousness > > is > > > > offering. In respect to all those philosophies emphasizing the > > > > importance of the NOW, that time lag of 500 msec between > > the " real " > > > > present which we never are conscious of and that 'now' which > > > > consciousness is representing, that doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > The inevstigations of neuroscience that consciousness is > memeory > > > will > > > > cause and is causing resistance in most of so > called " spiritual " > > > > Disneylanders, seekers and irrational day-dreamers who believe > > > > in " cosmic consciousness " , " universal consciousness " or " pure > > > > consciousness " etc, as you also may realize on this list here. > > > > > > > > Sooner or later all these " spiritual " people have to realize > and > > to > > > > accept that consciousness is not the Master but only a shabby > > > little > > > > social function which is just needed for communication between > > > those > > > > who share a similar consciosuness but consciousness itself in > no > > is > > > way > > > > needed for orientation because the orientation of the physical > > > organism > > > > already happened before it gets conscious. > > > > > > > > The world we communicate is the world of consciousness. Because > > > each > > > > person represents its own personal contents of consciousness > the > > > > consequence is that consciousness is subjective. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > well said..... > > > > > > but spirituality isn't so much concerned about > > > whatever " consciousness " .....it's about awareness > > > > > > > > > True, Marc, > > > > And the most wondeful charactristic of that " Awareness " you > mentioned > > is that no one ever has seen it or knows what it is. And I doubt > that > > Niz knew it or was in it. > > > > But it is greatly suitable to invent new cults and religions in the > > name of it, or call it God or the Source. That " awareness " is such > a > > wonderful vessel for all kinds of speculation one never can get > > hanged, executed or thrown into prison for because it is just all > hot > > air which no one can prove or reject. > > > > Werner > > > yes.....sure, this your mentionned " investigations of neuroscience > Disneylanders " can't get It..... > > what is It to investigate on?.....except on oneSelf?..... > > scientifics of whatever research aren't, indeed, conscious about, > that they only research on themSelf.... > > there is Nothing else......and never will something else....than > reality of their being > > ...it's ok, this your mentionned : consciousness = the content > ...and then?..... > what is it what " you " are finding soo fabuloes on it?..... > > when you look in the mirror.....you see yourself.... > not your father....and also not your mother.... > > this is worth to write about?.... > > awareness let such consciousness.....behind..... > when there is no more consciousness which belong to whatever ego- > minded entity....then this is called awareness > > awareness give the opportunity to see and feel as an entity within a > whole world.......And at same time.....as a reality....which has > nothing in common with anything of this appearing world (thoughts of > restless mind) > > many Masters who talk about...... > Not, because they don't know about what they are talking..... > and also Not, because they need " Werner " telling them that it's only > bullshit or....whatever.... > > Awareness also has no direct relation to any " source " or " God " .... > you love to mixe up all such things....for some reason.... > > ... Forget what my reason is or could be, Marc, Just see what you wrote of awareness is just all speculation. Werner > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Consciousness is memory. There is no single case known of > any > > > > > >person who's STM was demaged and the person still was > > conscious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > > > > > > > if we say " consciousness is memory " , do we also have to > > > conclude: > > > > > > there is no such event like " the present moment " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Stefan, we have to conclude it. > > > > > > > > > > But anyway, the only present we know is that which > > consciousness > > > is > > > > > offering. In respect to all those philosophies emphasizing > the > > > > > importance of the NOW, that time lag of 500 msec between > > > the " real " > > > > > present which we never are conscious of and that 'now' which > > > > > consciousness is representing, that doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > The inevstigations of neuroscience that consciousness is > > memeory > > > > will > > > > > cause and is causing resistance in most of so > > called " spiritual " > > > > > Disneylanders, seekers and irrational day-dreamers who > believe > > > > > in " cosmic consciousness " , " universal consciousness " or " pure > > > > > consciousness " etc, as you also may realize on this list here. > > > > > > > > > > Sooner or later all these " spiritual " people have to realize > > and > > > to > > > > > accept that consciousness is not the Master but only a shabby > > > > little > > > > > social function which is just needed for communication > between > > > > those > > > > > who share a similar consciosuness but consciousness itself in > > no > > > is > > > > way > > > > > needed for orientation because the orientation of the > physical > > > > organism > > > > > already happened before it gets conscious. > > > > > > > > > > The world we communicate is the world of consciousness. > Because > > > > each > > > > > person represents its own personal contents of consciousness > > the > > > > > consequence is that consciousness is subjective. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > well said..... > > > > > > > > but spirituality isn't so much concerned about > > > > whatever " consciousness " .....it's about awareness > > > > > > > > > > > > > True, Marc, > > > > > > And the most wondeful charactristic of that " Awareness " you > > mentioned > > > is that no one ever has seen it or knows what it is. And I doubt > > that > > > Niz knew it or was in it. > > > > > > But it is greatly suitable to invent new cults and religions in > the > > > name of it, or call it God or the Source. That " awareness " is > such > > a > > > wonderful vessel for all kinds of speculation one never can get > > > hanged, executed or thrown into prison for because it is just all > > hot > > > air which no one can prove or reject. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > yes.....sure, this your mentionned " investigations of neuroscience > > Disneylanders " can't get It..... > > > > what is It to investigate on?.....except on oneSelf?..... > > > > scientifics of whatever research aren't, indeed, conscious about, > > that they only research on themSelf.... > > > > there is Nothing else......and never will something else....than > > reality of their being > > > > ...it's ok, this your mentionned : consciousness = the content > > ...and then?..... > > what is it what " you " are finding soo fabuloes on it?..... > > > > when you look in the mirror.....you see yourself.... > > not your father....and also not your mother.... > > > > this is worth to write about?.... > > > > awareness let such consciousness.....behind..... > > when there is no more consciousness which belong to whatever ego- > > minded entity....then this is called awareness > > > > awareness give the opportunity to see and feel as an entity within > a > > whole world.......And at same time.....as a reality....which has > > nothing in common with anything of this appearing world (thoughts > of > > restless mind) > > > > many Masters who talk about...... > > Not, because they don't know about what they are talking..... > > and also Not, because they need " Werner " telling them that it's > only > > bullshit or....whatever.... > > > > Awareness also has no direct relation to any " source " or " God " .... > > you love to mixe up all such things....for some reason.... > > > > ... > > > Forget what my reason is or could be, Marc, > > Just see what you wrote of awareness is just all speculation. > > Werner ok, i think there is no reason about it.....so i forget about means....i give you as much space you like.... to speculate on yourSelf.... Marc > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >Consciousness is memory. There is no single case known of > > any > > > > > > >person who's STM was demaged and the person still was > > > conscious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > <s.petersilge@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if we say " consciousness is memory " , do we also have to > > > > conclude: > > > > > > > there is no such event like " the present moment " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Stefan, we have to conclude it. > > > > > > > > > > > > But anyway, the only present we know is that which > > > consciousness > > > > is > > > > > > offering. In respect to all those philosophies emphasizing > > the > > > > > > importance of the NOW, that time lag of 500 msec between > > > > the " real " > > > > > > present which we never are conscious of and that 'now' > which > > > > > > consciousness is representing, that doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > The inevstigations of neuroscience that consciousness is > > > memeory > > > > > will > > > > > > cause and is causing resistance in most of so > > > called " spiritual " > > > > > > Disneylanders, seekers and irrational day-dreamers who > > believe > > > > > > in " cosmic consciousness " , " universal consciousness " > or " pure > > > > > > consciousness " etc, as you also may realize on this list > here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sooner or later all these " spiritual " people have to > realize > > > and > > > > to > > > > > > accept that consciousness is not the Master but only a > shabby > > > > > little > > > > > > social function which is just needed for communication > > between > > > > > those > > > > > > who share a similar consciosuness but consciousness itself > in > > > no > > > > is > > > > > way > > > > > > needed for orientation because the orientation of the > > physical > > > > > organism > > > > > > already happened before it gets conscious. > > > > > > > > > > > > The world we communicate is the world of consciousness. > > Because > > > > > each > > > > > > person represents its own personal contents of > consciousness > > > the > > > > > > consequence is that consciousness is subjective. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well said..... > > > > > > > > > > but spirituality isn't so much concerned about > > > > > whatever " consciousness " .....it's about awareness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True, Marc, > > > > > > > > And the most wondeful charactristic of that " Awareness " you > > > mentioned > > > > is that no one ever has seen it or knows what it is. And I > doubt > > > that > > > > Niz knew it or was in it. > > > > > > > > But it is greatly suitable to invent new cults and religions in > > the > > > > name of it, or call it God or the Source. That " awareness " is > > such > > > a > > > > wonderful vessel for all kinds of speculation one never can get > > > > hanged, executed or thrown into prison for because it is just > all > > > hot > > > > air which no one can prove or reject. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > yes.....sure, this your mentionned " investigations of > neuroscience > > > Disneylanders " can't get It..... > > > > > > what is It to investigate on?.....except on oneSelf?..... > > > > > > scientifics of whatever research aren't, indeed, conscious about, > > > that they only research on themSelf.... > > > > > > there is Nothing else......and never will something else....than > > > reality of their being > > > > > > ...it's ok, this your mentionned : consciousness = the content > > > ...and then?..... > > > what is it what " you " are finding soo fabuloes on it?..... > > > > > > when you look in the mirror.....you see yourself.... > > > not your father....and also not your mother.... > > > > > > this is worth to write about?.... > > > > > > awareness let such consciousness.....behind..... > > > when there is no more consciousness which belong to whatever ego- > > > minded entity....then this is called awareness > > > > > > awareness give the opportunity to see and feel as an entity > within > > a > > > whole world.......And at same time.....as a reality....which has > > > nothing in common with anything of this appearing world (thoughts > > of > > > restless mind) > > > > > > many Masters who talk about...... > > > Not, because they don't know about what they are talking..... > > > and also Not, because they need " Werner " telling them that it's > > only > > > bullshit or....whatever.... > > > > > > Awareness also has no direct relation to any " source " or " God " .... > > > you love to mixe up all such things....for some reason.... > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Forget what my reason is or could be, Marc, > > > > Just see what you wrote of awareness is just all speculation. > > > > Werner > > > ok, i think there is no reason about it.....so i forget about > > means....i give you as much space you like.... > > to speculate on yourSelf.... > > Marc and to be foolish enough to believe in the speculations from investigations of a pseudoscience like 'neuroscience'(sic). all that bullshit changes and reverses it's 'conclusions' at a rate of about once every year. some investigations huh? guess who's really in Disneyland Marc...or is that Wernerland? ;-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > > <s.petersilge@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if we say " consciousness is memory " , do we also have to > > > > > conclude: > > > > > > > > there is no such event like " the present moment " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Stefan, we have to conclude it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But anyway, the only present we know is that which > > > > consciousness > > > > > is > > > > > > > offering. In respect to all those philosophies emphasizing > > > the > > > > > > > importance of the NOW, that time lag of 500 msec between > > > > > the " real " > > > > > > > present which we never are conscious of and that 'now' > > which > > > > > > > consciousness is representing, that doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The inevstigations of neuroscience that consciousness is > > > > memeory > > > > > > will > > > > > > > cause and is causing resistance in most of so > > > > called " spiritual " > > > > > > > Disneylanders, seekers and irrational day-dreamers who > > > believe > > > > > > > in " cosmic consciousness " , " universal consciousness " > > or " pure > > > > > > > consciousness " etc, as you also may realize on this list > > here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sooner or later all these " spiritual " people have to > > realize > > > > and > > > > > to > > > > > > > accept that consciousness is not the Master but only a > > shabby > > > > > > little > > > > > > > social function which is just needed for communication > > > between > > > > > > those > > > > > > > who share a similar consciosuness but consciousness itself > > in > > > > no > > > > > is > > > > > > way > > > > > > > needed for orientation because the orientation of the > > > physical > > > > > > organism > > > > > > > already happened before it gets conscious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The world we communicate is the world of consciousness. > > > Because > > > > > > each > > > > > > > person represents its own personal contents of > > consciousness > > > > the > > > > > > > consequence is that consciousness is subjective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well said..... > > > > > > > > > > > > but spirituality isn't so much concerned about > > > > > > whatever " consciousness " .....it's about awareness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True, Marc, > > > > > > > > > > And the most wondeful charactristic of that " Awareness " you > > > > mentioned > > > > > is that no one ever has seen it or knows what it is. And I > > doubt > > > > that > > > > > Niz knew it or was in it. > > > > > > > > > > But it is greatly suitable to invent new cults and religions in > > > the > > > > > name of it, or call it God or the Source. That " awareness " is > > > such > > > > a > > > > > wonderful vessel for all kinds of speculation one never can get > > > > > hanged, executed or thrown into prison for because it is just > > all > > > > hot > > > > > air which no one can prove or reject. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > yes.....sure, this your mentionned " investigations of > > neuroscience > > > > Disneylanders " can't get It..... > > > > > > > > what is It to investigate on?.....except on oneSelf?..... > > > > > > > > scientifics of whatever research aren't, indeed, conscious about, > > > > that they only research on themSelf.... > > > > > > > > there is Nothing else......and never will something else....than > > > > reality of their being > > > > > > > > ...it's ok, this your mentionned : consciousness = the content > > > > ...and then?..... > > > > what is it what " you " are finding soo fabuloes on it?..... > > > > > > > > when you look in the mirror.....you see yourself.... > > > > not your father....and also not your mother.... > > > > > > > > this is worth to write about?.... > > > > > > > > awareness let such consciousness.....behind..... > > > > when there is no more consciousness which belong to whatever ego- > > > > minded entity....then this is called awareness > > > > > > > > awareness give the opportunity to see and feel as an entity > > within > > > a > > > > whole world.......And at same time.....as a reality....which has > > > > nothing in common with anything of this appearing world (thoughts > > > of > > > > restless mind) > > > > > > > > many Masters who talk about...... > > > > Not, because they don't know about what they are talking..... > > > > and also Not, because they need " Werner " telling them that it's > > > only > > > > bullshit or....whatever.... > > > > > > > > Awareness also has no direct relation to any " source " or " God " .... > > > > you love to mixe up all such things....for some reason.... > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > Forget what my reason is or could be, Marc, > > > > > > Just see what you wrote of awareness is just all speculation. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > ok, i think there is no reason about it.....so i forget about > > > > means....i give you as much space you like.... > > > > to speculate on yourSelf.... > > > > Marc > > and to be foolish enough to believe in the speculations from > investigations of a pseudoscience like 'neuroscience'(sic). all that > bullshit changes and reverses it's 'conclusions' at a rate of about > once every year. some investigations huh? guess who's really in > Disneyland Marc...or is that Wernerland? > > ;-) > > .b b.b. i'm wondering why Werner didn't talk once about all this nice speculations to Niz......or to J.K. ..... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > > > <s.petersilge@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if we say " consciousness is memory " , do we also have > to > > > > > > conclude: > > > > > > > > > there is no such event like " the present moment " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Stefan, we have to conclude it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But anyway, the only present we know is that which > > > > > consciousness > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > offering. In respect to all those philosophies > emphasizing > > > > the > > > > > > > > importance of the NOW, that time lag of 500 msec > between > > > > > > the " real " > > > > > > > > present which we never are conscious of and that 'now' > > > which > > > > > > > > consciousness is representing, that doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The inevstigations of neuroscience that consciousness > is > > > > > memeory > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > cause and is causing resistance in most of so > > > > > called " spiritual " > > > > > > > > Disneylanders, seekers and irrational day-dreamers who > > > > believe > > > > > > > > in " cosmic consciousness " , " universal consciousness " > > > or " pure > > > > > > > > consciousness " etc, as you also may realize on this > list > > > here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sooner or later all these " spiritual " people have to > > > realize > > > > > and > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > accept that consciousness is not the Master but only a > > > shabby > > > > > > > little > > > > > > > > social function which is just needed for communication > > > > between > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > who share a similar consciosuness but consciousness > itself > > > in > > > > > no > > > > > > is > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > needed for orientation because the orientation of the > > > > physical > > > > > > > organism > > > > > > > > already happened before it gets conscious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The world we communicate is the world of consciousness. > > > > Because > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > person represents its own personal contents of > > > consciousness > > > > > the > > > > > > > > consequence is that consciousness is subjective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well said..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but spirituality isn't so much concerned about > > > > > > > whatever " consciousness " .....it's about awareness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True, Marc, > > > > > > > > > > > > And the most wondeful charactristic of that " Awareness " you > > > > > mentioned > > > > > > is that no one ever has seen it or knows what it is. And I > > > doubt > > > > > that > > > > > > Niz knew it or was in it. > > > > > > > > > > > > But it is greatly suitable to invent new cults and > religions in > > > > the > > > > > > name of it, or call it God or the Source. That " awareness " > is > > > > such > > > > > a > > > > > > wonderful vessel for all kinds of speculation one never can > get > > > > > > hanged, executed or thrown into prison for because it is > just > > > all > > > > > hot > > > > > > air which no one can prove or reject. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes.....sure, this your mentionned " investigations of > > > neuroscience > > > > > Disneylanders " can't get It..... > > > > > > > > > > what is It to investigate on?.....except on oneSelf?..... > > > > > > > > > > scientifics of whatever research aren't, indeed, conscious > about, > > > > > that they only research on themSelf.... > > > > > > > > > > there is Nothing else......and never will something > else....than > > > > > reality of their being > > > > > > > > > > ...it's ok, this your mentionned : consciousness = the content > > > > > ...and then?..... > > > > > what is it what " you " are finding soo fabuloes on it?..... > > > > > > > > > > when you look in the mirror.....you see yourself.... > > > > > not your father....and also not your mother.... > > > > > > > > > > this is worth to write about?.... > > > > > > > > > > awareness let such consciousness.....behind..... > > > > > when there is no more consciousness which belong to whatever > ego- > > > > > minded entity....then this is called awareness > > > > > > > > > > awareness give the opportunity to see and feel as an entity > > > within > > > > a > > > > > whole world.......And at same time.....as a reality....which > has > > > > > nothing in common with anything of this appearing world > (thoughts > > > > of > > > > > restless mind) > > > > > > > > > > many Masters who talk about...... > > > > > Not, because they don't know about what they are talking..... > > > > > and also Not, because they need " Werner " telling them that > it's > > > > only > > > > > bullshit or....whatever.... > > > > > > > > > > Awareness also has no direct relation to any " source " > or " God " .... > > > > > you love to mixe up all such things....for some reason.... > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Forget what my reason is or could be, Marc, > > > > > > > > Just see what you wrote of awareness is just all speculation. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > ok, i think there is no reason about it.....so i forget about > > > > > > means....i give you as much space you like.... > > > > > > to speculate on yourSelf.... > > > > > > Marc > > > > and to be foolish enough to believe in the speculations from > > investigations of a pseudoscience like 'neuroscience'(sic). all > that > > bullshit changes and reverses it's 'conclusions' at a rate of about > > once every year. some investigations huh? guess who's really in > > Disneyland Marc...or is that Wernerland? > > > > ;-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > i'm wondering why Werner didn't talk once about all this nice > speculations to Niz......or to J.K. ..... > > > > Marc > could be that he just is bowing to the seekers and daydreamers in neuroscience (that word is funny!).. and is attempting to join the cult. he may be just orienting himself before he gets conscious. he may be a lot of things. maybe he's just using a shabby little social function which is just needed for communication to express his non sequiturs. who knows...or cares. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > <wwoehr@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > > > > <s.petersilge@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if we say " consciousness is memory " , do we also have > > to > > > > > > > conclude: > > > > > > > > > > there is no such event like " the present moment " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Stefan, we have to conclude it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But anyway, the only present we know is that which > > > > > > consciousness > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > offering. In respect to all those philosophies > > emphasizing > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > importance of the NOW, that time lag of 500 msec > > between > > > > > > > the " real " > > > > > > > > > present which we never are conscious of and that 'now' > > > > which > > > > > > > > > consciousness is representing, that doesn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The inevstigations of neuroscience that consciousness > > is > > > > > > memeory > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > cause and is causing resistance in most of so > > > > > > called " spiritual " > > > > > > > > > Disneylanders, seekers and irrational day-dreamers who > > > > > believe > > > > > > > > > in " cosmic consciousness " , " universal consciousness " > > > > or " pure > > > > > > > > > consciousness " etc, as you also may realize on this > > list > > > > here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sooner or later all these " spiritual " people have to > > > > realize > > > > > > and > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > accept that consciousness is not the Master but only a > > > > shabby > > > > > > > > little > > > > > > > > > social function which is just needed for communication > > > > > between > > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > > who share a similar consciosuness but consciousness > > itself > > > > in > > > > > > no > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > > needed for orientation because the orientation of the > > > > > physical > > > > > > > > organism > > > > > > > > > already happened before it gets conscious. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The world we communicate is the world of consciousness. > > > > > Because > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > person represents its own personal contents of > > > > consciousness > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > consequence is that consciousness is subjective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well said..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but spirituality isn't so much concerned about > > > > > > > > whatever " consciousness " .....it's about awareness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True, Marc, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the most wondeful charactristic of that " Awareness " you > > > > > > mentioned > > > > > > > is that no one ever has seen it or knows what it is. And I > > > > doubt > > > > > > that > > > > > > > Niz knew it or was in it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But it is greatly suitable to invent new cults and > > religions in > > > > > the > > > > > > > name of it, or call it God or the Source. That " awareness " > > is > > > > > such > > > > > > a > > > > > > > wonderful vessel for all kinds of speculation one never can > > get > > > > > > > hanged, executed or thrown into prison for because it is > > just > > > > all > > > > > > hot > > > > > > > air which no one can prove or reject. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes.....sure, this your mentionned " investigations of > > > > neuroscience > > > > > > Disneylanders " can't get It..... > > > > > > > > > > > > what is It to investigate on?.....except on oneSelf?..... > > > > > > > > > > > > scientifics of whatever research aren't, indeed, conscious > > about, > > > > > > that they only research on themSelf.... > > > > > > > > > > > > there is Nothing else......and never will something > > else....than > > > > > > reality of their being > > > > > > > > > > > > ...it's ok, this your mentionned : consciousness = the content > > > > > > ...and then?..... > > > > > > what is it what " you " are finding soo fabuloes on it?..... > > > > > > > > > > > > when you look in the mirror.....you see yourself.... > > > > > > not your father....and also not your mother.... > > > > > > > > > > > > this is worth to write about?.... > > > > > > > > > > > > awareness let such consciousness.....behind..... > > > > > > when there is no more consciousness which belong to whatever > > ego- > > > > > > minded entity....then this is called awareness > > > > > > > > > > > > awareness give the opportunity to see and feel as an entity > > > > within > > > > > a > > > > > > whole world.......And at same time.....as a reality....which > > has > > > > > > nothing in common with anything of this appearing world > > (thoughts > > > > > of > > > > > > restless mind) > > > > > > > > > > > > many Masters who talk about...... > > > > > > Not, because they don't know about what they are talking..... > > > > > > and also Not, because they need " Werner " telling them that > > it's > > > > > only > > > > > > bullshit or....whatever.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness also has no direct relation to any " source " > > or " God " .... > > > > > > you love to mixe up all such things....for some reason.... > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Forget what my reason is or could be, Marc, > > > > > > > > > > Just see what you wrote of awareness is just all speculation. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > ok, i think there is no reason about it.....so i forget about > > > > > > > > means....i give you as much space you like.... > > > > > > > > to speculate on yourSelf.... > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > and to be foolish enough to believe in the speculations from > > > investigations of a pseudoscience like 'neuroscience'(sic). all > > that > > > bullshit changes and reverses it's 'conclusions' at a rate of about > > > once every year. some investigations huh? guess who's really in > > > Disneyland Marc...or is that Wernerland? > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > i'm wondering why Werner didn't talk once about all this nice > > speculations to Niz......or to J.K. ..... > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > could be that he just is bowing to the seekers and daydreamers in > > neuroscience (that word is funny!).. and is attempting to join the > > cult. > > he may be just orienting himself before he gets conscious. > > he may be a lot of things. > > maybe he's just using a shabby little social function which is just > > needed for communication to express his non sequiturs. > > who knows...or cares. > > :-) > > .b b.b. .....or dreaming to write a book....titled: " My sweet dreams, for You!...My consciousness " .....one never know... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok, i think there is no reason about it.....so i forget about > > > > > > > > > > means....i give you as much space you like.... > > > > > > > > > > to speculate on yourSelf.... > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > and to be foolish enough to believe in the speculations from > > > > investigations of a pseudoscience like 'neuroscience'(sic). > all > > > that > > > > bullshit changes and reverses it's 'conclusions' at a rate of > about > > > > once every year. some investigations huh? guess who's really in > > > > Disneyland Marc...or is that Wernerland? > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm wondering why Werner didn't talk once about all this nice > > > speculations to Niz......or to J.K. ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > could be that he just is bowing to the seekers and daydreamers in > > > > neuroscience (that word is funny!).. and is attempting to join the > > > > cult. > > > > he may be just orienting himself before he gets conscious. > > > > he may be a lot of things. > > > > maybe he's just using a shabby little social function which is just > > > > needed for communication to express his non sequiturs. > > > > who knows...or cares. > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > ....or dreaming to write a book....titled: > > " My sweet dreams, for You!...My consciousness " > > ....one never know... > > > Nice to see that you both made friends and stabilized each other on my behalf. And so I am pondering now if I should ask for a stabilization fee from you. Let's say, 500 bucks each would be rather fair. Werner > Marc > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Hi Werner, thanks for the answer. A few things come to my mind. One is, that the model which shows the famous time lag is based on the reference of a time continuum. So, maybe the experiment does not prove a negative time-lag but instead the non-existence of a one-directional time continuum? Haha, don't take me too serious here, just fooling around :-) But, as far as time is concerned, e.g. there is Ernst Pöppel who found out about a 3 second time-frame which he calls " island of presence " . Or we have the phenomenon of simultaneity. Dancers or musicians are able to act highly synchronous, in a range of only a few milliseconds. Wolf Singer and Charles Gray have shown how simultaneousness inside the brain is derived through oscillation (and not through the necessarily futile attempt to synchronize two single impulses). The discovery of mirror neurons is suggesting, that synchronicity between individuals is possible in the same way. So, maybe we just have to think about " the present moment " less static and more in terms of flow, spontaneity etc. Here is an article (in German, sorry): http://www.zeit.de/1996/51/zeit.txt.19961213.xml?page=all And then I want to say something about those " spiritual dreamers " . I know how this kind of dreaming feels. I was blessed to have a few spiritual teachers during my life. I always had the feeling that they are trying to tell me something which I cannot fully grasp. Much later, when I understood the simplicity of everything I could see, that they had told me quite clearly what is going on. I just could not listen. But it was good to hang on. Now, there is this video of Unmani (about not-knowing). I am amazed how simple and clear her statement is: " there is absolutely nothing " . But who wants to hear that truth? There she said it, and nothing is nothing, but the mind is able to make even out of nothing a complicated or fantastic thing. I better stop that thought-flow now... Thanks for reading this. Stefan Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > if we say " consciousness is memory " , do we also have to conclude: > > there is no such event like " the present moment " ? > > > > Stefan > > > > > Yes, Stefan, we have to conclude it. > > But anyway, the only present we know is that which consciousness is > offering. In respect to all those philosophies emphasizing the > importance of the NOW, that time lag of 500 msec between the " real " > present which we never are conscious of and that 'now' which > consciousness is representing, that doesn't matter. > > The inevstigations of neuroscience that consciousness is memeory will > cause and is causing resistance in most of so called " spiritual " > Disneylanders, seekers and irrational day-dreamers who believe > in " cosmic consciousness " , " universal consciousness " or " pure > consciousness " etc, as you also may realize on this list here. > > Sooner or later all these " spiritual " people have to realize and to > accept that consciousness is not the Master but only a shabby little > social function which is just needed for communication between those > who share a similar consciosuness but consciousness itself in no is way > needed for orientation because the orientation of the physical organism > already happened before it gets conscious. > > The world we communicate is the world of consciousness. Because each > person represents its own personal contents of consciousness the > consequence is that consciousness is subjective. > > Werner > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > >Consciousness is memory. There is no single case known of any > > >person who's STM was demaged and the person still was conscious. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok, i think there is no reason about it.....so i forget > about > > > > > > > > > > > > means....i give you as much space you like.... > > > > > > > > > > > > to speculate on yourSelf.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > and to be foolish enough to believe in the speculations from > > > > > investigations of a pseudoscience like 'neuroscience'(sic). > > all > > > > that > > > > > bullshit changes and reverses it's 'conclusions' at a rate of > > about > > > > > once every year. some investigations huh? guess who's really > in > > > > > Disneyland Marc...or is that Wernerland? > > > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm wondering why Werner didn't talk once about all this nice > > > > speculations to Niz......or to J.K. ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > could be that he just is bowing to the seekers and daydreamers in > > > > > > neuroscience (that word is funny!).. and is attempting to join > the > > > > > > cult. > > > > > > he may be just orienting himself before he gets conscious. > > > > > > he may be a lot of things. > > > > > > maybe he's just using a shabby little social function which is > just > > > > > > needed for communication to express his non sequiturs. > > > > > > who knows...or cares. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > ....or dreaming to write a book....titled: > > > > " My sweet dreams, for You!...My consciousness " > > > > ....one never know... > > > > > > > > > Nice to see that you both made friends and stabilized each other on > my behalf. > > And so I am pondering now if I should ask for a stabilization fee > from you. Let's say, 500 bucks each would be rather fair. > > Werner do our insights about you pull away your carpet of romance with pseudo-scientific dreams under your feet... or what is it that you are afraid of ? we'll take a full Grand each, in payment for setting you straight. none of this chintzy 500 bucks for our efforts will suffice. you work cheap. must be because you don't really do anything. 'stabilize'.........pullllleeze! where did you get that nutzoid crap? from neuroscientific(ha ha haaa) investigation? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Hi Werner, > > thanks for the answer. A few things come to my mind. One is, that the > model which shows the famous time lag is based on the reference of a > time continuum. So, maybe the experiment does not prove a negative > time-lag but instead the non-existence of a one-directional time > continuum? Haha, don't take me too serious here, just fooling around :-) > > But, as far as time is concerned, e.g. there is Ernst Pöppel who found > out about a 3 second time-frame which he calls " island of presence " . > Or we have the phenomenon of simultaneity. Dancers or musicians are > able to act highly synchronous, in a range of only a few milliseconds. > Wolf Singer and Charles Gray have shown how simultaneousness inside > the brain is derived through oscillation (and not through the > necessarily futile attempt to synchronize two single impulses). The > discovery of mirror neurons is suggesting, that synchronicity between > individuals is possible in the same way. So, maybe we just have to > think about " the present moment " less static and more in terms of > flow, spontaneity etc. > > Here is an article (in German, sorry): > http://www.zeit.de/1996/51/zeit.txt.19961213.xml?page=all > > And then I want to say something about those " spiritual dreamers " . I > know how this kind of dreaming feels. I was blessed to have a few > spiritual teachers during my life. I always had the feeling that they > are trying to tell me something which I cannot fully grasp. Much > later, when I understood the simplicity of everything I could see, > that they had told me quite clearly what is going on. I just could not > listen. But it was good to hang on. > > Now, there is this video of Unmani (about not-knowing). I am amazed > how simple and clear her statement is: " there is absolutely nothing " . > But who wants to hear that truth? There she said it, and nothing is > nothing, but the mind is able to make even out of nothing a > complicated or fantastic thing. > > I better stop that thought-flow now... > > Thanks for reading this. > Stefan > > And thanks for writing this, Stefan, Its a pleasure to read you. I never have read Pöpperl but a bit of those mirror neurons. When Libet made his discoveries of that mind time lag he definitely has meant with time the time of the watch and not the psychological time which is past, present and future and which is the subject of philosophers, sages, gurus and spiritual teachers. So we should not confuse both and throw away our watches when we have read Ramana Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Werner, > > > > > > if we say " consciousness is memory " , do we also have to conclude: > > > there is no such event like " the present moment " ? > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > Yes, Stefan, we have to conclude it. > > > > But anyway, the only present we know is that which consciousness is > > offering. In respect to all those philosophies emphasizing the > > importance of the NOW, that time lag of 500 msec between the " real " > > present which we never are conscious of and that 'now' which > > consciousness is representing, that doesn't matter. > > > > The inevstigations of neuroscience that consciousness is memeory will > > cause and is causing resistance in most of so called " spiritual " > > Disneylanders, seekers and irrational day-dreamers who believe > > in " cosmic consciousness " , " universal consciousness " or " pure > > consciousness " etc, as you also may realize on this list here. > > > > Sooner or later all these " spiritual " people have to realize and to > > accept that consciousness is not the Master but only a shabby little > > social function which is just needed for communication between those > > who share a similar consciosuness but consciousness itself in no is way > > needed for orientation because the orientation of the physical organism > > already happened before it gets conscious. > > > > The world we communicate is the world of consciousness. Because each > > person represents its own personal contents of consciousness the > > consequence is that consciousness is subjective. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > >Consciousness is memory. There is no single case known of any > > > >person who's STM was demaged and the person still was conscious. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " .b bobji baba " > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok, i think there is no reason about it.....so i forget > about > > > > > > > > > > > > means....i give you as much space you like.... > > > > > > > > > > > > to speculate on yourSelf.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > and to be foolish enough to believe in the speculations from > > > > > investigations of a pseudoscience like 'neuroscience'(sic). > > all > > > > that > > > > > bullshit changes and reverses it's 'conclusions' at a rate of > > about > > > > > once every year. some investigations huh? guess who's really > in > > > > > Disneyland Marc...or is that Wernerland? > > > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'm wondering why Werner didn't talk once about all this nice > > > > speculations to Niz......or to J.K. ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > could be that he just is bowing to the seekers and daydreamers in > > > > > > neuroscience (that word is funny!).. and is attempting to join > the > > > > > > cult. > > > > > > he may be just orienting himself before he gets conscious. > > > > > > he may be a lot of things. > > > > > > maybe he's just using a shabby little social function which is > just > > > > > > needed for communication to express his non sequiturs. > > > > > > who knows...or cares. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > ....or dreaming to write a book....titled: > > > > " My sweet dreams, for You!...My consciousness " > > > > ....one never know... > > > > > > > > > Nice to see that you both made friends and stabilized each other on > my behalf. > > And so I am pondering now if I should ask for a stabilization fee > from you. Let's say, 500 bucks each would be rather fair. > > Werner lol......ok, let's talk about business Marc > > > > Marc > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2007 Report Share Posted September 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr > Yes, Stefan, we have to conclude it. > > But anyway, the only present we know is that which consciousness is > offering. In respect to all those philosophies emphasizing the > importance of the NOW, that time lag of 500 msec between the " real " > present which we never are conscious of and that 'now' which > consciousness is representing, that doesn't matter. > >> Werner: What if Mr. Libet--is that his name?--were somewhat more sensitive than he is and could be witness exactly at the moment when a decision emerges or as it forms from the serial and parallel processes if you like--not 500 milliseconds after? I think he was just too scatterbrained to look into his own direct experience.Too impatient.So he rounded up a bunch of electrodes and ekg machines and grant moola and got some evidence together and did a huge amount of canny speculating on what it all meant--and now he's got disciples who are laughing their asses off at all these Now-sayers for being half a second and a thousand miles behind.Libet is right, of course-- consciousness AS HE KNOWS IT--is nothing but memory.Ordinarly consciousness winks out as soon as memory ceases to funcion.But there are folks who can go consciously into areas whose vibratory rate is too high for memory to enter. But all of this is silly. Look at yourself. See how thoughts just happen. See how all these ideas that make up youir system are coming out of nowhere and so are " you " right along with them.And all the ideas that oppose this Libet system are coming out of nowhere too.And on the strength of this stuff coming from you know not where or how or why you are going to go up to Ramakrishna, let's say, and tell him what a sad case he is for being forever .5 seconds away from where it's really at and has landed in Disneyland instead? Oh, Mickey! Have mercy on us! Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2007 Report Share Posted September 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > Yes, Stefan, we have to conclude it. > > > > But anyway, the only present we know is that which consciousness > is > > offering. In respect to all those philosophies emphasizing the > > importance of the NOW, that time lag of 500 msec between > the " real " > > present which we never are conscious of and that 'now' which > > consciousness is representing, that doesn't matter. > > > >> > Werner: What if Mr. Libet--is that his name?--were somewhat more > sensitive than he is and could be witness exactly at the moment when > a decision emerges or as it forms from the serial and parallel > processes if you like--not 500 milliseconds after? I think he was > just too scatterbrained to look into his own direct experience.Too > impatient.So he rounded up a bunch of electrodes and ekg machines > and grant moola and got some evidence together and did a huge amount > of canny speculating, on what it all meant Hi Tom, At the moment you are the one wo is specualting, " you think if " and on your speculation you build your conclusions. In his book Libet wrote that he started his researches to prove how free will is working and in the course of time he just found the opposite: There is no feee will. And the people who decied him to be the Nobel prize winner of 2003 in psychology were all dumb idiots but thanks heaven you, Tom, are not that dumb But ok, I just have told you what I have read about consciousness and I am not very interested to convince you with it. So its up to you what to do with it. Werner > --and now he's got > disciples who are laughing their asses off at all these Now-sayers > for being half a second and a thousand miles behind.Libet is right, > of course-- consciousness AS HE KNOWS IT--is nothing but > memory.Ordinarly consciousness winks out as soon as memory ceases to > funcion.But there are folks who can go consciously into areas whose > vibratory rate is too high for memory to enter. But all of this is > silly. Look at yourself. See how thoughts just happen. See how all > these ideas that make up youir system are coming out of nowhere and > so are " you " right along with them.And all the ideas that oppose > this Libet system are coming out of nowhere too.And on the strength > of this stuff coming from you know not where or how or why you are > going to go up to Ramakrishna, let's say, and tell him what a sad > case he is for being forever .5 seconds away from where it's really > at and has landed in Disneyland instead? Oh, Mickey! Have mercy on > us! Z > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2007 Report Share Posted September 19, 2007 Hi Tom, do I understand you correctly, that you believe that it is possible to consciously catch up with " now, zero ms " , if you are only sensitive and patient enough? But how? The experiencing of being " here/now " surely cannot be attained through consciously catching up with a running watch. In fact, in " here/now " a watch cannot run, it is impossible. The running of a watch can only be experienced through memory. But memory is never here/now. This means, one has to step out of memory, but this again would mean to step out of time completely. Are you following? Now, please consider that your whole personal identity, all that you are calling " Tom " , is based on memory, and memory is based on time. When you would be " here/now " , time would cease to exist, and also all that you are currently calling " I " . And it could be very hard to come back from such a state (which is not even a state, because " state " is another time based concept)! The amazing thing is, that this scientific finding about " time-delay in consciousness " is confirming exactly what Nisargadatta and all the masters are telling us again and again, since thousands of years. In a nutshell they say that everything perceived in time and space is maya, an illusion. And they continue, that " what you really are " is beyond time and space. In Nisargadattas terminology " here/now " equals " timelessness " . This universe is really a wonder... Greetings Stefan Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote: >Werner: What if Mr. Libet--is that his name?--were somewhat more >sensitive than he is and could be witness exactly at the moment when >a decision emerges or as it forms from the serial and parallel >processes if you like--not 500 milliseconds after? I think he was >just too scatterbrained to look into his own direct experience.Too >impatient.So he rounded up a bunch of electrodes and ekg machines >and grant moola and got some evidence together and did a huge amount >of canny speculating on what it all meant--and now he's got >disciples who are laughing their asses off at all these Now-sayers >for being half a second and a thousand miles behind.Libet is right, >of course-- consciousness AS HE KNOWS IT--is nothing but >memory.Ordinarly consciousness winks out as soon as memory ceases to >funcion.But there are folks who can go consciously into areas whose >vibratory rate is too high for memory to enter. But all of this is >silly. Look at yourself. See how thoughts just happen. See how all >these ideas that make up youir system are coming out of nowhere and >so are " you " right along with them.And all the ideas that oppose >this Libet system are coming out of nowhere too.And on the strength >of this stuff coming from you know not where or how or why you are >going to go up to Ramakrishna, let's say, and tell him what a sad >case he is for being forever .5 seconds away from where it's really >at and has landed in Disneyland instead? Oh, Mickey! Have mercy on >us! Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2007 Report Share Posted September 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > do I understand you correctly, that you believe that it is possible to > consciously catch up with " now, zero ms " , if you are only sensitive > and patient enough? > > But how? The experiencing of being " here/now " surely cannot be > attained through consciously catching up with a running watch. In > fact, in " here/now " a watch cannot run, it is impossible. The running > of a watch can only be experienced through memory. But memory is never > here/now. This means, one has to step out of memory, but this again > would mean to step out of time completely. Are you following? > > Now, please consider that your whole personal identity, all that you > are calling " Tom " , is based on memory, and memory is based on time. > When you would be " here/now " , time would cease to exist, and also > all that you are currently calling " I " . And it could be very hard to > come back from such a state (which is not even a state, because > " state " is another time based concept)! > > The amazing thing is, that this scientific finding about " time-delay > in consciousness " is confirming exactly what Nisargadatta and all the > masters are telling us again and again, since thousands of years. In a > nutshell they say that everything perceived in time and space is maya, > an illusion. And they continue, that " what you really are " is beyond > time and space. In Nisargadattas terminology " here/now " equals > " timelessness " . > > This universe is really a wonder... > > Greetings > Stefan .....why caring about appearing entities " Tom " , ...etc....who aren't realy " Tom " ....etc....? (making reference of your statement: " what you really are is beyond time and space " ) " Tom " , " Stefan " , " Marc " ....etc....are mind-fictions..... not of " your " and not of " my " mind..... and that's the point of " ego " .....ego-sickness is persisting on seperated minds.....seperated consciousness.....seperated memory......seperated contents.......and so on... there has never be a seperated working mind ....so all this talk in here.....is, indeed, only possible within " Maya " ......without any real meaning.... Real Self....is timeless.....out of time & space.....out of working mind & memories Greetings, through Maya, Marc > > > Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen@> wrote: > > >Werner: What if Mr. Libet--is that his name?--were somewhat more > >sensitive than he is and could be witness exactly at the moment when > >a decision emerges or as it forms from the serial and parallel > >processes if you like--not 500 milliseconds after? I think he was > >just too scatterbrained to look into his own direct experience.Too > >impatient.So he rounded up a bunch of electrodes and ekg machines > >and grant moola and got some evidence together and did a huge amount > >of canny speculating on what it all meant--and now he's got > >disciples who are laughing their asses off at all these Now-sayers > >for being half a second and a thousand miles behind.Libet is right, > >of course-- consciousness AS HE KNOWS IT--is nothing but > >memory.Ordinarly consciousness winks out as soon as memory ceases to > >funcion.But there are folks who can go consciously into areas whose > >vibratory rate is too high for memory to enter. But all of this is > >silly. Look at yourself. See how thoughts just happen. See how all > >these ideas that make up youir system are coming out of nowhere and > >so are " you " right along with them.And all the ideas that oppose > >this Libet system are coming out of nowhere too.And on the strength > >of this stuff coming from you know not where or how or why you are > >going to go up to Ramakrishna, let's say, and tell him what a sad > >case he is for being forever .5 seconds away from where it's really > >at and has landed in Disneyland instead? Oh, Mickey! Have mercy on > >us! Z > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2007 Report Share Posted September 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: >....why caring about appearing entities " Tom " , ...etc....who aren't >realy " Tom " ....etc....? >(making reference of your statement: " what you really are is beyond >time and space " ) Sorry, but this was not my statement. It was referred to " the masters " and I have read it somewhere. As far as I am concerned I do not know who i " really " am But I am sure you know it :-) Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2007 Report Share Posted September 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > >....why caring about appearing entities " Tom " , ...etc....who aren't > >realy " Tom " ....etc....? > >(making reference of your statement: " what you really are is beyond > >time and space " ) > > Sorry, but this was not my statement. > It was referred to " the masters " > and I have read it somewhere. > > As far as I am concerned > I do not know who i " really " am > > But I am sure you know it :-) > > Stefan you are surely not this body,mind intellect....called " Stefan " ..... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2007 Report Share Posted September 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr > Hi Tom, > > At the moment you are the one wo is specualting, " you think if " and > on your speculation you build your conclusions. > > In his book Libet wrote that he started his researches to prove how > free will is working and in the course of time he just found the > opposite: There is no feee will. > > And the people who decied him to be the Nobel prize winner of 2003 in > psychology were all dumb idiots but thanks heaven you, Tom, are not > that dumb > > But ok, I just have told you what I have read about consciousness and > I am not very interested to convince you with it. So its up to you > what to do with it. > > Werner > Werner: Free will was not the the issue in my last post.If Libet had watched the arisings a while he wouldn't have had to go to the enormous bother of setting up a scientific experiment to prove that it--free will-- did or did not exist.He would SEE that it DOESN'T. What I was really getting at was:all this stuff is on the same smokey level--freewill vs no free will, time vs NOW, truth vs Disneyland.It is all just stuff arising.Today we're for it.Tomorrow we're against it and the day after that we're for it again.Science is ok and ,if you have a talent for it, it is fun--like a high class video game but ultimetely it's come and go stuff and don't bet your life on it. Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2007 Report Share Posted September 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > do I understand you correctly, that you believe that it is possible to > consciously catch up with " now, zero ms " , if you are only sensitive > and patient enough? > > But how? The experiencing of being " here/now " surely cannot be > attained through consciously catching up with a running watch. In > fact, in " here/now " a watch cannot run, it is impossible. The running > of a watch can only be experienced through memory. But memory is never > here/now. This means, one has to step out of memory, but this again > would mean to step out of time completely. Are you following? > > Now, please consider that your whole personal identity, all that you > are calling " Tom " , is based on memory, and memory is based on time. > When you would be " here/now " , time would cease to exist, and also > all that you are currently calling " I " . And it could be very hard to > come back from such a state (which is not even a state, because > " state " is another time based concept)! > > The amazing thing is, that this scientific finding about " time- delay > in consciousness " is confirming exactly what Nisargadatta and all the > masters are telling us again and again, since thousands of years. In a > nutshell they say that everything perceived in time and space is maya, > an illusion. And they continue, that " what you really are " is beyond > time and space. In Nisargadattas terminology " here/now " equals > " timelessness " . > > This universe is really a wonder... > > Greetings > Stefan > Stefan: Yes,the I and it's panoply and paraphernalia are all based on memory.And all memeory is powered or energized or projected by NOW. NOW is a power word and not a time word. I really can't say anything on Libet and his findings--except to say that they are like everything else that arises--nothing to bet the farm on.You are so right, the universe is a wonder. The business of time-lags, and parallel and serial processes and freewill or no freewill--all that is just imagination and mist. Foam.Don't try to eat it for breakfast.Of course this is being spoken by one who has no knack for science and that makes it easier to say.Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2007 Report Share Posted September 19, 2007 > Hi Tom, > > At the moment you are the one wo is specualting, " you think if " and > on your speculation you build your conclusions. > > In his book Libet wrote that he started his researches to prove how > free will is working and in the course of time he just found the > opposite: There is no feee will. > > And the people who decied him to be the Nobel prize winner of 2003 in > psychology were all dumb idiots but thanks heaven you, Tom, are not > that dumb > > But ok, I just have told you what I have read about consciousness and > I am not very interested to convince you with it. So its up to you > what to do with it. > > Werner > > > Werner: You are right. It is no use getting revved up on these issues.If I had more talent for science, I would probably know better how to talk about them and integrate their findings into some useful context--but I guess that is not auite right.Let's say that with a different type of personality the integrating would take place. Anyway You are rightfrom your side and I from mine and neither of of us knows up from sideways and happy are we that we know it.Z > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2007 Report Share Posted September 19, 2007 Nisargadatta , " tom " <jeusisbuen wrote >NOW is a power word and not a time word. Wow, this was new to me, and I do not know what to say... I always thought " now " was a time word. About science, well, science is just like everything else, and true science confronts us with the hard facts. They are a challenge. And if we have intelligence and the power to use it... should we not use it the way Nisargadatta (and others) have shown us? By taking the challenge? By sharpening the sword until we are able to cut through? Thinking things to their very ends? Again and again until they loose their foamy and foggy smokiness? This is the tradition and this can be a powerful means. Intelligence is the power word, for me. Of course, it is nice to sit in our cozy corners that we have created with our belief systems. It is good that we can have such refuges and they are only human like you and me. But once you have smelled that fresh air... ahhhhhh... :-) Stefan > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@> > wrote: >Yes,the I and it's panoply and paraphernalia are all based on >memory.And all memeory is powered or energized or projected by NOW. >NOW is a power word and not a time word. I really can't say >anything on Libet and his findings--except to say that they are like >everything else that arises--nothing to bet the farm on.You are so >right, the universe is a wonder. The business of time-lags, and >parallel and serial processes and freewill or no freewill--all that >is just imagination and mist. Foam.Don't try to eat it for >breakfast.Of course this is being spoken by one who has no knack for >science and that makes it easier to say.Z 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.