Yes, the big red button at the top left of the discussion list page (you have to go back one from here) lets you post, pol. The questions of bystander is a good one. There are many occasions I know that becoming involved in the drama serves no purpose. Then again, if someone is suffering or in danger, then involvement seems important. I had an incident recently that shook me up. The fool across the street left his 2 year old in a running truck with the drivers door open (to traffic) for about 15 minutes. Now, I noticed when he exited the truck, but did not see the baby at that time. When I looked again later, I could see the hysterical baby who was smart enough not to exit the truck from the open door. Now here was my moral dilemma - do I go get the baby now and relieve her terror immediately, or call the cops and wait for them to intercede. Yes, I have had enough experience with domestic calls to know that if I did both, the cops might believe any lie told them and I could be in for mayhem and legal problems. On the other hand, the authorities should know this guy has endangered the baby. Well, I pondered my moral dilemma for a minute and went and got the baby, calmed her down, pounded on the door of the house (it took quite awhile for him to answer - no sign of mom) and presented him with his child while ripping him a new one.
-- Two days later, I noticed the social worker making her rounds to that house anyway. These neighbors are now gone, thank goodness. We do the best we can in any given moment. Alan's do no harm tenant means we could go either way with involving ourselves or not, depending on the circumstance. Often times, in the case of big drama designed to create big emotion and not much else, we are only adding to the problem.
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 2:37:47 PM UTC-4, pol.science kid wrote:
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 2:37:47 PM UTC-4, pol.science kid wrote:
i cant get how to make a new post on this new design for groups!!... anyways.. ill post here... i dont kknow how to begin... but i want to pose this question... what is the integrity of a bystander.. in a given situation.. i mean.. suppose you watch a prey being hunted by the predator.. would you just stand there and say its nature taking its course or would you interfere...? ... most of my ethical dilemmas are sourced form the animal life.. the thing is.. it might be for you a small mundane matter in the larger scheme of things.. but see.. just know.. in front of my hostel.. a pack of dogs were chasing after a baby squirrel.. i tried to save it.. but it hid in the grass .. and its night... and the dogs just wont leave it alone.. i came back after some time.. after waiting.. hoping it would stay in hiding.. my friend said..its not my concern.. that its food for the dogs.. but the thing is.. i feel... the fact that i stand makes me a party to the situation... isnt it our responsibility (food or no food/nature not nature).. to save the unprotected... the fact that it is happening.. notwithstanding your presence the situation would have happened anyway..that is no excuse for inaction.. but you are in fact there .so it means you have to do something in your power .. ? .. and its ok if it is an emotional response.. I dont think that a spectator position is amoral.. i think its immoral.. but then i was thinking.. suppose i had a hungry dog.. would i not hunt for it.. but i cant use the thought of this situation as an excuse to not help when there is something i can do... the horror of the thing is that a part of me agrees that it is a natural course of things.. but a greater .. and forceful part of me is repulsed by this thought .. and chose to take the side of the latter... what would you have done?.....
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Molly <moll...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is for each of us to discover ourselves. I don't have to prove anything, RP. That's the beauty of it. Since you haven't yet defined your own terms, I will leave it to you.
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 9:19:17 AM UTC-4, RP Singh wrote:Freud's use of consciousness is quite simple. When he uses the term conscious he means that part of our memory and motives of which we are aware , and the ' unconscious ' is that of which we are not aware but what remains in the background and influences our behaviour --these he calls repressions. Again he has a third term 'subconscious' in which we recollect our memories after a little effort.But Molly you were talking about consciousness and awareness as different , I don't see the difference , maybe you are confused and lost in a labyrinth of philosophy where you are ascribing meanings to commonplace words. Consciousness is awareness and if you say not , you have to prove it.On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Molly <moll...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't quite understand your term either RP. I think Gabby's quote a pretty good example of how Freud applied his model of the workings of the conscious mind it interprets consciousness.Here is a Joseph Campbell take on it:"In one of the Upanishads it says, when the glow of a sunset holds you and you say 'Aha,' that is the recognition of the divinity. And when you say 'Aha' to an art object, that is a recognition of divinity. And what divinity is it? It is your divinity, which is the only divinity there is. We are all phenomenal manifestations of a divine will to live, and that will and the consciousness of life is one in all of us, and that is what artwork expresses."
Joseph Campbell, "Creativity," The Mythic Dimension, p.154
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 5:29:02 AM UTC-4, Allan Heretic wrote:I have no Idea what God conscious is as I am not God.. yet I would think it is a total awareness of the totality of everything. simply because everything is created from his essence.. this is not unlike our own awareness of our own body.. just an abstract though..as for freud.. ( today there are excellent translators on line so.. ) So a translation followed by an opinion..
Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious "by Sigmund Freud"In adults, it seems generally valid condition for the fantastic creative desire, that it to conscious thought strange, that was a repressed desire, or at least that he could consciousness have unknown reinforcements. Without adoption of the unconscious in the sense set out above, I know the theory not to develop the dream and not to interpret the experience material of dream analysis. the influence of this unconscious wish to consciousness proper material of the dream-thoughts now is the dream. latter is thereby equally pulled down into the unconscious, more specifically, exposed to a treatment as at the level of unconscious thought processes and vorkömmlich for this stage is characteristic. We know the characters of the unconscious mind and its differences from the consciousness capable "preconscious" so far only from the results of just the "dream work". "I do believe the word 'Psychobabble' describes what he said.On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 2:27 AM, gabbydott <gabb...@gmail.com> wrote:Roughly speaking, the difference is the agreed upon difference within a historically evolved sociological entity as expressed and replicated in their language. These language barriers have never stopped me in assuming I understand the topic under discussion. Ahem. Ah well, I had myself affected by Molly's impuls and looked up how Freud had solved the consciousness/ awareness confusion. Here is a language excerpt from "Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewußten" by Sigmund Freud:"Beim Erwachsenen scheint es allgemeingültige Bedingung für den traumschaffenden Wunsch, daß er dem bewußten Denken fremd, also ein verdrängter Wunsch sei, oder doch, daß er dem Bewußtsein unbekannte Verstärkungen haben könne. Ohne Annahme des Unbewußten in dem oben dargelegten Sinne wüßte ich die Theorie des Traumes nicht weiter zu entwickeln und das Erfahrungsmaterial der Traumanalysen nicht zu deuten. Die Einwirkung dieses unbewußten Wunsches auf das bewußtseinskorrekte Material der Traumgedanken ergibt nun den Traum. Letzteres wird dabei gleichsam ins Unbewußte herabgezogen, genauer gesagt, einer Behandlung ausgesetzt, wie sie auf der Stufe der unbewußten Denkvorgänge vorkömmlich und für diese Stufe charakteristisch ist. Wir kennen die Charaktere des unbewußten Denkens und dessen Unterschiede vom bewußtseinsfähigen »vorbewußten« bisher nur aus den Ergebnissen eben der »Traumarbeit«. "He speaks of Bewußt-sein and the Un-bewußt-en. The pre- and suf-fixes make the difference here. He did not really differentiate between human- and god-consciousness. Speaking of really or reality, in German we are allowed to make a difference between Realität (reality) and Wirklichkeit (reality in effect). Quite useful sometimes.2013/9/15 RP Singh <123...@gmail.com>
If consciousness is not awareness , what is it ? What is the difference between human consciousness and god-consciousness ?On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Molly <moll...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we are confusing consciousness with awareness in the conversation. Consciousness is. It is infinite. Some say that God is consciousness and we are the limited expression, like a passing thought. I don't know about that. But I do know that my awareness of consciousness, whether mental, emotional, spiritual or physical, can (but does not always) limit my experience of consciousness. Our viewpoint, vantage point, or sum total of our awareness in any given moment (or in some cases, the moment eternal) creates our own unique experience of life.When psychologists use the term conscious mind, unconscious mind, they are referring to a specific aspect of mind - what we are and are not aware of in our experience. When Freud hijacked the term, he knew that Hermetic philosophy used it quite differently. This subtle, yet significant semantic aspect of the conversation seems to be creating barriers to communication. Agreeing on the terms is important when delving this deep.
On Friday, September 13, 2013 6:29:10 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote:Butt away pol - we'll never bottom this one. We are sort of conscious of the unconscious as we have a name for it and can be aware of such as unconscious desires at some point. The only good god is a dead one RP. Saves on the embarrassment of him not turning up when asked. I'm tempted to say a dead immortal is a bit like a Cretan saying all Cretans are liars, Gabby makes sense and other such ... though there are known counterexamples on the latter two.
On Friday, 13 September 2013 15:54:34 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:Is an unconscious God equal to a dead one? If that were so Life with order and intelligence wouldn't come out of it. We have become so used to thinking of oblivion as death that the possibility of the greatest power to exist in an unconscious state doesn't find acceptance in our belief-systems. Consciousness or awareness is a must for us , the finite individuals , but for the One who is infinite and the source of all , it would be limiting. Consciousness is limiting as it cannot be infinite and has boundaries , also it entails two , the creator and the creation , which is against logic at least to my mind.--To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.. --To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.. --To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.. --
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
Of course I talk to myself,
Sometimes I need expert advice..--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out .
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out .
--
EverComing
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment