[Mind's Eye] Re: Just a thought...

To answer in terms of clarity; A "collective" of any sort cannot exist
"independently". Likewise, all that is has purpose and exists
collectively and even though I may reject a notion as being "real" or
"truth" it exists as real and truth for those who accept it as such.
Perhaps even more real and true as a result of those who relent
against such notions as it brings conflict and re enforces and
solidifies for those who hold these beliefs. To accept all as being or
taking the middle path is a good start to understanding a "collective
consciousness" because it neither accepts or rejects any knowledge,
wisdom or thought but just is, as life is! Not something to be
possesed, life that is, because we cannot keep it we just are it.
Gabby, Rigsy and Om hit on some great points btw and this is just my
personal understanding of things so, for what it's worth, I hope I
helped to answer your questions.

On May 2, 12:57 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 -