Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Perception-second message ever

Expand Messages
  • SKIBO79
    You are defining Descartes cognito I think. Sartre stopped the never ending cycle with his idea of consciousness, but I take it one step back. He says that
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      You are defining Descartes cognito "I think." Sartre stopped the
      never ending cycle with his idea of consciousness, but I take it one
      step back. He says that self-consciousness is the last aspect of
      consciousness. This doesnt mean the ego, which is what Descartes
      describes. Self-consciousness is the knowledge of what u are not,
      eaning other objects. I state that self-consciousness is the
      breaking from pure-consciousness where we are one with the world,
      but then try to describe the world, which is self-consciousness.
      Then we see our ego as an object in the world as this computer or

      Thinking isnt perception or consciousness. Thinking is an object in
      the world. We are aware of it like the computer. I how we describe
      ourselves is the amount of distance between things. Things that are
      the closest to us, we define as being us. Hence our thoughts, ego,
      etc. But if were aware of them, then they arent us. Life is
      neither hell nor joy. It simply is. U give a definition of what
      hell and joy are and whatever matchs up to those u label it. But Im
      sure u cant find a good or bad in an object. Its ur choice, but I
      try to stay away from saying whats good or bad. often times I fail,
      but I try not to get down (or up) cause then thats labeling it
      haha. Good luck.


      --- In existlist@y..., "Pat Collins" <retropat7762@h...> wrote:
      > . You are aware of your own perception of your perception and on
      and on....
      > is not thinking just perception of perception and hence not
      thinking but
      > just being as if we were an ant... if by thinking you mean a lie
      that we
      > ("we" is used only because words are used) play with. then that is
      > thinking... the best is a good lie... a good fake... is there a
      > yes?... and it is hell and joy... but that is also a lie... I
      > know..... Is not the sound of one hand clapping our perception
      that we call
      > thinking... is that it??? ... all that I know is that I don't
      > Forgive me saying a word like "I"....
      > Words are our liberation and our destruction are they not...
      > ...Pat
      > >From: eduard <yeoman@v...>
      > >Reply-To: existlist@y...
      > >To: existlist@y...
      > >Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: humans again
      > >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:26:29 -0500
      > >
      > >Brian,
      > >
      > >The brain always seeks to find something to think
      > >about. Even if you are meditating and suddenly
      > >you think about your not thinking, then you are
      > >really thinking. The hardest thing to do is to
      > >stay in that state of non-thought. In Zen
      > >meditation sessions, one monk will carry a rod and
      > >rap the shoulder of those who lapsing into a state
      > >of sleep. The method seems to be to get into
      > >non-thought and somehow to remain aware. I really
      > >don't understand it that much myself, that is
      > >supposed to be it. I am using "aware", not in the
      > >sense of consciousness when you are still focusing
      > >and labeling things.
      > >
      > >eduard
      > >
      > >-----Original Message-----
      > >From: SKIBO79 [mailto:brianskibo@h...]
      > >Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:15 PM
      > >To: existlist@y...
      > >Subject: [existlist] Re: humans again
      > >
      > >
      > >HAHA YES WE ARE, SWEET. Thats one of my biggest
      > >questions that I
      > >have been trying to answer. What snaps us back to
      > >self-reflection?
      > >Im not sure if I tried to answer that in my paper.
      > >Alot of this
      > >oneness stuff and self-reflection is in my paper,
      > >maybe ull get a
      > >greater feel of what Im saying if u read that.
      > >But yes we are in
      > >agreement. Its probably the hardest question that
      > >I have been yet
      > >to answer. I tired to answer wit with Sartre's
      > >idea of the "Other's
      > >Look but I dont think it worked out too well.
      > >Haha, oh well.
      > >
      > >Brian
      > >
      > >
      > >Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > >(Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > >
      > >TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > >existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > >
      > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!  Try MSN.
      > http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.