Correction and re. the speed of functions
Jan 23, 2003 12:37 PM
Correction to Dallas: I have said you quoted HPB. It was the "Mahatma" you quoted. Whoops.
Hi Everyone. Here is a message I have posted on another list, as it is very relevant here. If you are planning to go to the United Nations, might want to read this first. Look carefully, as there is something hidden in it. I am, with great difficulty, learning how to communicate by using my own words. In this way, I can become more of a participant and less of a mechanical parrot by addressing contemporary situations and individual enquiries in a way that is alive and not static.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hi.This is a correction to my message. I have said "consciousness is a field that is constantly being imprinted with new data." This statement erroneously implies I am saying that the field exists independently of the perceiver, which is not the case.
Though one moment obviously does take place over time, and is therefore extended, as you have contributed SO many times, Alex, the word, "point" is a symbol for a location, and I sort of resented you taking up so much of my time and energy because you got stuck on a literal interpretation, which is another reason I have not been on this list for a while. When I give someone directions and I say, start at this point, and indicate a place on a map, I do not expect to get into diversional semantical discussions about the nature of a point, as, if I am visiting Paris, I will never get to the Eiffel Tower. If something observes the body (as if) from outside, washing dishes or walking down the street, it is obvious that in order for this to occur, many different sets of the brain and body are being engaged, and these are not happening at the exactly the same time.
The problems with words is that people have their own agendas which they are often consciously NOT aware of. This means that there are different levels of consciousness. It would be nice if people studying "consciousness" could become committed to studying consciousness in themselves, as there is no way to really study consciousness and get to the heart of the matter without factoring in oneself as an object of study AS one is perceiving. If I am a studying how to make a new kind of anesthesia, or how the brain works so I can design yet another psychiatric medication, it is one thing, but in terms of understanding, the nature of conscious,ness itself, in my opinion, the Newtonian model will not work, and this should be somewhat obvious, but it is not.
This is why I put out the link to "Quining Qualia." by Dennett, and went into the lengthy thing about materialism and idealism. There are many idealists on here, no matter how sophisticated they may sound, who believe that consciousness is a field that exists independently of the perceiver of this field. It is natural for people to think this way, but it is a wrong view, which needs to be corrected, as it is creating great disorder in the world. This is why Dennett went to great lengths to put out his argument in Quining Qualia. It is a VERY important subject, and an understanding by many cognitive scientists of what he was saying would change the tendency toward an unrealistic and idealistic approach in modern psychology. But you do not even need to read his essay to understand that the subjective self, based on subjective experience is not a self-sustaining and substantial entity that exists independently on its own side. Yes, there is individual experience, but the farther we get into the maze of this and the physical material or territory or whatever we need to sustain the illusion of this, the less chance there is of solving the problems of the world so that future generations can survive,
There was a study done at Columbia University which discovered something about brain cells in the stomach area, yes? You are all probably familiar with this. I do not know how many of you are from the United States and saw Gov. Ryan, who pardoned 167 prisoners from death row, before he retired as governor of Illinois, but if you happened to hear this extraordinary speech, you had the rare opportunity of seeing a politician make a speech from his CONSCIENCE. There was a distinctly different material quality to his voice and demeanor that stood out and could not be missed by anyone who heard this. It was quite extraordinary and I was lucky to have turned on the t.v. at this moment. My grandson saw it to, to his good fortune. The reason I am able to verbalize this to you out here is that I have the words to cup around this experience and make sense out of it, not just for myself but for many others. I am able to communicate and discuss about different grades and qualities of materiality (however clumsily) because something with no opinion has studied this in myself and gathered data about it. There is no way to figure out sensation by thinking about sensation as when I think about sensation I displace my ability to sense and maybe to make a certain kind of sense. We all know what conscience is, right? Is conscience a quale or is it something in common that can resonate with together? Does it cut the grease? When things get too slippery, there is no grip (grp). What is grip and is it essential for things to work in an orderly manner? Is sensation the same as perception, as a thought. If the"present" takes place over a continuum, this means that different functions have different speeds. If a tape is running too slowly or too fast, is it harder or easier to understand the content? What is BREATH? Does a traumatized person suck in air, and have we all been traumatized? Hope this is some food for thought. I know my words are simple, but maybe there is still something timportant to read between the lines. Sincerely, Wry
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application