notion that 'thinking separates'; although I'm not sure that I come to
this conclusion for only the reasons he mentions. Yet, his 'You cannot
think of anything you have not known.' has a lot of validity within
it. Here even Plato has addressed this notion in his "Republic" and
elsewhere.
My personal contemplation of 'thinking' in this context includes
things like the fact that words have been learned over time with
associations to each and every word that are unique to each and every
person's own experiences. Add this to the original notion of words
only being representative of knowledge and not knowledge itself and
the hall of mirrors in the search for Truth can become even more
perplexing.
His last two sentences are quite pithy in the sense that I perceive
them as being presented as a guide. However, as others here have
rightly pointed out it is quite difficult to see past one's own self
concepts. It surely does appear that we each have an apparently
artificial 'self' that we have identified over time which for lack of
a better word I'll call ego for current purposes. And, although this
self-developed identity is not truth, reality, etc., it is necessary
in the sense of being 'selfish' in order to survive…something that
seems to be at the core of each and every one of us. We each want/need
food, shelter etc. and with limited resources, such 'selfish' needs
can produce what appears to be conflict – something that most likely
wouldn't be considered to be part of 'collective consciousness'.
Returning again to Chad's last two sentences, I hope that he will
expand upon his understanding here. On face value, and with my own
interpretation, I'm not sure that I find many of his apparent core
tenets to be the case. Acknowledging that I'm not sure I understand
what he means by his words I'll still forge ahead with my best guess:
I don't identify 'Self' with consciousness. Seldom if ever do I find
that when directing thought to anything at all does consciousness
itself arise as an automatic result. And I just don't grok the notion
of thought and essence as presented here.
Having shared my skepticism on these last points, I do acknowledge and
recognize an essential 'self' that only consciousness can know…one
that is not defined by words and concepts. Also, as a technique to
clarify consciousness I too acknowledge that one pointed concentration
can be quite helpful. And as to the last point, I agree that when
contemplated enough, thought can be seen for what it is – so in this
way I guess one could say that it is 'reduced into its essence.'
Perhaps my last two paragraphs are representative of: thought and
essence…the first one being that where thinking and concepts are used
in a debate mode which does separate and the second where there is
less thought/recognition and just an empathetical sense which does
unite.
Moving for a moment to PSK's direct questions, my suspicion is that we
all on at least an intuitive level are aware that all ego
manifestations are artificial in the sense that our personalities,
beliefs etc. are temporary and not permanent. Thus, they are not
universal nor 'real' in the sense of being eternal. Perhaps one could
use the notion of 'collective consciousness' here as a replacement for
'being eternal'. Regardless, as gabby so rightly points out, it takes
self observation to root out and transcend such 'selfishness'. She is
quite accurate in the observation that as long as a person is only
seeing 'self', this will be projected upon everyone else rather than
allowing us all to just 'be'. However, this truism itself is ripe for
a topic of its very own. Things seem to get very deep very quickly
here. What exactly are we without the reflection of other people
within (or outside of) our own culture? How does culture even exist
without the unifying basic beliefs? Can we exist without culture these
days? Personally, I don't think so.
And, as rigsy so rightly points out, human consciousness is not
bounded by time. It is this fact that allows so many of us to find
kindred spirits/thinkers from entirely different eras and cultures.
This too is part of what I'd suggest is a universal mind…that which
unifies us all. So, her next post about it taking 'a brave rebel to
contradict society or challenge group thought' is at once true and
possibly self defeating.
He he, as a bit of levity here, I almost said "What do you think?" :D
On May 3, 1:30 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With collective consciousness you mean this group-think programme à la
> Molly's [mission] What do YOU think? Na, you're right, PSK is definitely
> different from that.
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > PSK selfishness arouses discontent because it is contrary to
> > collective consciousness , try reading the meditations of marcus
> > auralius chapter 2 verse 1 from the harvard classics .
>
> > gabbydott wrote:
> > > From a top-down perspective this is correct. But I understood that PSK
> > asked
> > > for individual responses from each of us.
>
> > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:09 AM, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > But you have to admit there are humans who haven't the chance to even
> > > > consider this type of thinking as their lives are miserable due to
> > > > poverty, war, sickness and all other ills. Plus- what does a culture
> > > > celebrate? Wealth? Power? Etc.? You can hardly fault some for buying a
> > > > false self and image if that is what their culture teaches them, can
> > > > you? It takes a brave rebel to contradict society or challenge group
> > > > thought.
>
> > > > On May 2, 12:20 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > If the selfish would truly search their self, they'd quickly die out.
> > > > > Problem is how they don't see themselves but see themselves in the
> > others
> > > > > with the poor others not knowing that they are not taken for
> > themselves
> > > > but
> > > > > for someone else. My explanation.
>
> > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:57 PM, pol.science kid <
> > r.freeb...@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > at the first glance of your reply came a thought to my mind about
> > > > > > collective consciousness...rather a question...does the collective
> > > > > > consciousness exist independently...what does it mean exactly...to
> > put
> > > > it
> > > > > > crudely is it the realisation that you are not the only
> > phenomena..but
> > > > what
> > > > > > i feel is....it is very difficult to transcend ones own
> > person...but is
> > > > it
> > > > > > important....why do we really get irritated with self absorbed or
> > self
> > > > > > seeking people....why do we condemn selfishness..in any sense...are
> > we
> > > > so
> > > > > > insecure as to feel deprived because of that ...or is it something
> > > > more.. i
> > > > > > hope i make sense.. and i hope you get waht i am trying to ask...i
> > > > would
> > > > > > like all to answer...cos i really want to know....
>
> > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:36 PM, DarkwaterBlight <
> > > > douglas.bli...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > >> This take appeals to my understanding. Perpetually changing,
> > evolving
> > > > > >> and reforming. Input has an outcome and causes an expanded "mind
> > > > > >> space", if you will. Is logic all logical and what is to be said
> > about
> > > > > >> rationalizing the "irrational"? Should my thinking be correct by
> > the
> > > > > >> standards of others or to my own? What of "raising the bar" in
> > > > > >> consciousness and of a paradigm shift to a more correct thinking
> > of
> > > > > >> our "collective mind" ? Of all that goes into into thought and
> > mind is
> > > > > >> this not the desired effect?
>
> > > > > >> On Apr 30, 9:23 am, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > might thought be colored by the mind that engages it ....what is
> > the
> > > > > >> realm
> > > > > >> > of pure thought that you mention here .... is it logic and
> > > > > >> > rationalisation...do you mean the method of employing that
> > > > > >> thought...because
> > > > > >> > ....knowing...percieving something for the first time the mind
> > will
> > > > > >> > automatically fall back on the things it thinks it does know....
>
> > > > > >> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Chad Moore <nis...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > Knowledge unites, in being or in identity. Thinking
> > separates, in
> > > > > >> > > subject-object relationship.
> > > > > >> > > Knowing has no place in the ordinary thought process. Thinking
> > > > about
> > > > > >> > > something
> > > > > >> > > which has to be known is wrong, since it moves in a vicious
> > > > circle.
> > > > > >> You
> > > > > >> > > cannot think
> > > > > >> > > of anything you have not known. Such thinking can never take
> > you
> > > > to
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > Truth.
> > > > > >> > > But when you direct your thought to something (say yourself)
> > which
> > > > you
> > > > > >> have
> > > > > >> > > otherwise
> > > > > >> > > visualized, the thought loses its own characteristics and
> > limits,
> > > > and
> > > > > >> > > stands
> > > > > >> > > revealed as that Self (Consciousness) itself. Thought is thus
> > > > reduced
> > > > > >> into
> > > > > >> > > its essence.
>
> > > > > >> > --
> > > > > >> > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment