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

The Content of Consciousness?

Expand Messages
  • Dick.
    The Content of Consciousness? [ You speak of the content of consciousness as opposed to consciousness itself; and say that there can be no consciousness devoid
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 24, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      The Content of Consciousness?



      [ You speak of the content of consciousness as opposed to consciousness
      itself; and say that there can be no consciousness devoid of content.
      What do you mean by this exactly?]



      It means that which you are consciously aware of at any moment. Walk out
      of your front door and what are you consciously aware of? You can see
      what you see, you may have some kind of feelings about that, and you are
      consciously aware of them. It may be cold or it may be hot and you can
      feel that. You might not be concentrating on these things and thinking
      about something else, and you are consciously aware of them, etc etc. So
      these things are the content of you consciousness at that moment. You
      could also sit in a dark room and cut off all your sensory input but you
      are still consciously aware of existing at that moment. In dreamless
      sleep you are not consciously aware of anything, so there is no
      conscious content. And no consciousness.



      So, if folks are going to speak of consciousness as independent of
      content (observer less, ego less) then they had best explain as to how
      they could know it and what they know at that moment and as to how they
      could exist knowing that there was no content to their consciousness.
      Physicist, or quasi physicists, talk of quantum consciousness. So what
      is it like and what is it aware of? Religionists talk of the Divine
      Consciousness, so what is it like and what is it conscious of? Gurus
      talk of uniting with (whatever it is) so what is it like and what is it
      conscious off? Some talk of Cosmic Consciousness, so what is that like?
      You ask them this and not a bloody one of them answers you. So, are they
      talking about something which they know by experience? If they know it
      then they could talk about it and describe what it is like. But they
      don't.



      I talk of the Timeless consciousness in the root of MY being, and I
      describe exactly what it (I) is like and what it is conscious of. If I
      can do that then why don't they describe what they are talking
      about? If not then why do they talk about something which they
      don't know? How could one do that anyway? Can you talk about
      something which you have never known? I have never known a headache so
      I keep off the subject. But let those who have known a headache talk
      about it. And no I would not ask them to prove that they have had a
      headache. I would just listen to what they had to say. Neither would I
      say that there is no such thing as a headache just because I have not
      known one. Neither would I say it was pointless and meaningless saying
      it because it cannot be proved. I would have thought that having a
      headache is proof enough of its existence. What more proof would they
      need than having it? Or is it the case that they are not really real
      because they don't last for ever? Yeah, I have met them all mate.



      rwr







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • eduardathome
      Some talk of Cosmic Consciousness, so what is that like? You ask them this and not a bloody one of them answers you. So, are they talking about something
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 24, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        "Some talk of Cosmic Consciousness, so what is that like?
        You ask them this and not a bloody one of them answers you. So, are they
        talking about something which they know by experience? If they know it
        then they could talk about it and describe what it is like. But they
        don't."

        I agree entirely. These words [cosmic consciousness] that are dreamt up and
        passed off as being some kind of reality. And the speaker requires that
        everyone should pause for the moment and accept it.

        Consciousness is simply a function. We are conscious when we are aware of
        stuff, like the cold out there. The brain doesn't shut down when you are
        not being aware of something. It kinda runs on idle, since being aware is
        actually being aware of sensor differences. Humans quickly become unaware
        when the scene does not change. Like I cannot feel my watch at this moment
        even though it is a weight on my wrist. Which is also the reason why I have
        lost the recognition [interesting word] of certain things in my room,
        because I see them all the time.

        Consciousness requires a brain. The Cosmos does not have a brain and thus
        cannot be said to be conscious.

        eduard

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Dick.
        Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:04 AM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] The Content of Consciousness?


        The Content of Consciousness?



        [ You speak of the content of consciousness as opposed to consciousness
        itself; and say that there can be no consciousness devoid of content.
        What do you mean by this exactly?]



        It means that which you are consciously aware of at any moment. Walk out
        of your front door and what are you consciously aware of? You can see
        what you see, you may have some kind of feelings about that, and you are
        consciously aware of them. It may be cold or it may be hot and you can
        feel that. You might not be concentrating on these things and thinking
        about something else, and you are consciously aware of them, etc etc. So
        these things are the content of you consciousness at that moment. You
        could also sit in a dark room and cut off all your sensory input but you
        are still consciously aware of existing at that moment. In dreamless
        sleep you are not consciously aware of anything, so there is no
        conscious content. And no consciousness.



        So, if folks are going to speak of consciousness as independent of
        content (observer less, ego less) then they had best explain as to how
        they could know it and what they know at that moment and as to how they
        could exist knowing that there was no content to their consciousness.
        Physicist, or quasi physicists, talk of quantum consciousness. So what
        is it like and what is it aware of? Religionists talk of the Divine
        Consciousness, so what is it like and what is it conscious of? Gurus
        talk of uniting with (whatever it is) so what is it like and what is it
        conscious off? Some talk of Cosmic Consciousness, so what is that like?
        You ask them this and not a bloody one of them answers you. So, are they
        talking about something which they know by experience? If they know it
        then they could talk about it and describe what it is like. But they
        don't.



        I talk of the Timeless consciousness in the root of MY being, and I
        describe exactly what it (I) is like and what it is conscious of. If I
        can do that then why don't they describe what they are talking
        about? If not then why do they talk about something which they
        don't know? How could one do that anyway? Can you talk about
        something which you have never known? I have never known a headache so
        I keep off the subject. But let those who have known a headache talk
        about it. And no I would not ask them to prove that they have had a
        headache. I would just listen to what they had to say. Neither would I
        say that there is no such thing as a headache just because I have not
        known one. Neither would I say it was pointless and meaningless saying
        it because it cannot be proved. I would have thought that having a
        headache is proof enough of its existence. What more proof would they
        need than having it? Or is it the case that they are not really real
        because they don't last for ever? Yeah, I have met them all mate.



        rwr







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        ------------------------------------

        Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      • devindersingh
        Cosmic spirit? It is the cosmic spirit, it is the universal spirit, it is the spirit that s in the whole universe. There is a universe. You know what the
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 25, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Cosmic spirit? It is the cosmic spirit, it is the universal spirit, it
          is the spirit that's in the whole universe. There is a universe. You
          know what the universe is? Well, this universe has a spirit, and this
          spirit is the cosmic spirit; this universe has a consciousness and its
          consciousness is the cosmic, universal consciousness.

          One may very well imagine that the universe is only an entity in
          something which is still vaster, as the individual is only an entity in
          a much vaster totality. Now, each unit has its consciousness and its own
          spirit which contains all the others, as a group consciousness is made
          up of all the individual consciousnesses which constitute it and as a
          national consciousness is made up of all the individual consciousnesses
          which constitute it, and something more. The individual is only an
          element in the whole, even as the earth is a part of the solar system,
          and the solar system makes a part of all the systems of the universe. So
          just as there is an individual consciousness, there is a group
          consciousness and a consciousness of the system, a universal
          consciousness which is made up of the set of all the consciousnesses
          composing it, plus something, something – something more subtle.
          Just like you: you have lots of cells in your body; each cell has its
          own consciousness and you have a consciousness which is the
          consciousness of your total individuality, though made up of all these
          small cellulary consciousnesses.

          Mother, here it is written: "... there is a wall of separative
          ignorance between" the individual and the cosmic consciousness. Then how
          to break down this wall?

          Get rid of the ignorance, enter the knowledge.

          First of all you must know what I have just told you, that you are a
          part of the whole, that this whole is a part of a greater whole, and
          that this greater whole is a part of a still greater whole, right up to
          its forming one single totality. Once you know that, you begin to become
          aware that in reality there cannot be any separation between you and
          something greater than you of which you are a part. This is the
          beginning. Now, you must come to the point not only of thinking this but
          of feeling it and even living it, and then the wall of ignorance
          tumbles: one feels this unity everywhere and realises that he is only a
          more or less fragmentary part of a whole much vaster than he, which is
          the universe. Then one begins to have a more universal consciousness.

          The Mother; Collected Works, Vol 7 Page – 236-37

          http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBecoming/message/293
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
          >
          > "Some talk of Cosmic Consciousness, so what is that like?
          > You ask them this and not a bloody one of them answers you. So, are
          they
          > talking about something which they know by experience? If they know it
          > then they could talk about it and describe what it is like. But they
          > don't."
          >
          > I agree entirely. These words [cosmic consciousness] that are dreamt
          up and
          > passed off as being some kind of reality. And the speaker requires
          that
          > everyone should pause for the moment and accept it.
          >
          > Consciousness is simply a function. We are conscious when we are
          aware of
          > stuff, like the cold out there. The brain doesn't shut down when you
          are
          > not being aware of something. It kinda runs on idle, since being
          aware is
          > actually being aware of sensor differences. Humans quickly become
          unaware
          > when the scene does not change. Like I cannot feel my watch at this
          moment
          > even though it is a weight on my wrist. Which is also the reason why
          I have
          > lost the recognition [interesting word] of certain things in my room,
          > because I see them all the time.
          >
          > Consciousness requires a brain. The Cosmos does not have a brain and
          thus
          > cannot be said to be conscious.
          >
          > eduard

          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Dick.
          > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:04 AM
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [existlist] The Content of Consciousness?

          > The Content of Consciousness?

          > [ You speak of the content of consciousness as opposed to
          consciousness
          > itself; and say that there can be no consciousness devoid of content.
          > What do you mean by this exactly?]

          > It means that which you are consciously aware of at any moment. Walk
          out
          > of your front door and what are you consciously aware of? You can see
          > what you see, you may have some kind of feelings about that, and you
          are
          > consciously aware of them. It may be cold or it may be hot and you can
          > feel that. You might not be concentrating on these things and thinking
          > about something else, and you are consciously aware of them, etc etc.
          So
          > these things are the content of you consciousness at that moment. You
          > could also sit in a dark room and cut off all your sensory input but
          you
          > are still consciously aware of existing at that moment. In dreamless
          > sleep you are not consciously aware of anything, so there is no
          > conscious content. And no consciousness.

          > So, if folks are going to speak of consciousness as independent of
          > content (observer less, ego less) then they had best explain as to
          how
          > they could know it and what they know at that moment and as to how
          they
          > could exist knowing that there was no content to their consciousness.
          > Physicist, or quasi physicists, talk of quantum consciousness. So what
          > is it like and what is it aware of? Religionists talk of the Divine
          > Consciousness, so what is it like and what is it conscious of? Gurus
          > talk of uniting with (whatever it is) so what is it like and what is
          it
          > conscious off? Some talk of Cosmic Consciousness, so what is that
          like?
          > You ask them this and not a bloody one of them answers you. So, are
          they
          > talking about something which they know by experience? If they know it
          > then they could talk about it and describe what it is like. But they
          > don't.

          > I talk of the Timeless consciousness in the root of MY being, and I
          > describe exactly what it (I) is like and what it is conscious of. If
          I
          > can do that then why don't they describe what they are talking
          > about? If not then why do they talk about something which they
          > don't know? How could one do that anyway? Can you talk about
          > something which you have never known? I have never known a headache
          so
          > I keep off the subject. But let those who have known a headache talk
          > about it. And no I would not ask them to prove that they have had a
          > headache. I would just listen to what they had to say. Neither would I
          > say that there is no such thing as a headache just because I have not
          > known one. Neither would I say it was pointless and meaningless saying
          > it because it cannot be proved. I would have thought that having a
          > headache is proof enough of its existence. What more proof would they
          > need than having it? Or is it the case that they are not really real
          > because they don't last for ever? Yeah, I have met them all mate.

          > rwr



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • eduardathome
          One can say anything has a spirit or consciousness. I can say that this table I am working on has a spirit. In brief, I can say it; the act of saying doesn t
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 25, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            One can say anything has a spirit or consciousness. I can say that this
            table I am working on has a spirit. In brief, I can say it; the act of
            saying doesn't make it so.

            But let's go with your idea that there is a universal spirit. If there is a
            cosmic spirit, it must be doing something. Otherwise, it doesn't matter if
            it is there or not. If it does nothing, or can't have some action
            attributed to it, then it might as well not exist. It used to believed that
            the universe was full of "aether" which enabled the transmittance of light.
            After they did a number of tests, they could not find any affect due to this
            aether; thus, they looked elsewhere and found that light is propagated in
            the form of electromagnetic waves. So the conclusion was that there is no
            such thing as "aether".

            Therefore, let's test your theory and ask ... what action can be said due
            to this universal spirit?

            eduard

            -----Original Message-----
            From: devindersingh
            Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 6:35 AM
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [existlist] Re: The Content of Consciousness?


            Cosmic spirit? It is the cosmic spirit, it is the universal spirit, it
            is the spirit that's in the whole universe. There is a universe. You
            know what the universe is? Well, this universe has a spirit, and this
            spirit is the cosmic spirit; this universe has a consciousness and its
            consciousness is the cosmic, universal consciousness.

            One may very well imagine that the universe is only an entity in
            something which is still vaster, as the individual is only an entity in
            a much vaster totality. Now, each unit has its consciousness and its own
            spirit which contains all the others, as a group consciousness is made
            up of all the individual consciousnesses which constitute it and as a
            national consciousness is made up of all the individual consciousnesses
            which constitute it, and something more. The individual is only an
            element in the whole, even as the earth is a part of the solar system,
            and the solar system makes a part of all the systems of the universe. So
            just as there is an individual consciousness, there is a group
            consciousness and a consciousness of the system, a universal
            consciousness which is made up of the set of all the consciousnesses
            composing it, plus something, something – something more subtle.
            Just like you: you have lots of cells in your body; each cell has its
            own consciousness and you have a consciousness which is the
            consciousness of your total individuality, though made up of all these
            small cellulary consciousnesses.

            Mother, here it is written: "... there is a wall of separative
            ignorance between" the individual and the cosmic consciousness. Then how
            to break down this wall?

            Get rid of the ignorance, enter the knowledge.

            First of all you must know what I have just told you, that you are a
            part of the whole, that this whole is a part of a greater whole, and
            that this greater whole is a part of a still greater whole, right up to
            its forming one single totality. Once you know that, you begin to become
            aware that in reality there cannot be any separation between you and
            something greater than you of which you are a part. This is the
            beginning. Now, you must come to the point not only of thinking this but
            of feeling it and even living it, and then the wall of ignorance
            tumbles: one feels this unity everywhere and realises that he is only a
            more or less fragmentary part of a whole much vaster than he, which is
            the universe. Then one begins to have a more universal consciousness.

            The Mother; Collected Works, Vol 7 Page – 236-37

            http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBecoming/message/293
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
            >
            > "Some talk of Cosmic Consciousness, so what is that like?
            > You ask them this and not a bloody one of them answers you. So, are
            they
            > talking about something which they know by experience? If they know it
            > then they could talk about it and describe what it is like. But they
            > don't."
            >
            > I agree entirely. These words [cosmic consciousness] that are dreamt
            up and
            > passed off as being some kind of reality. And the speaker requires
            that
            > everyone should pause for the moment and accept it.
            >
            > Consciousness is simply a function. We are conscious when we are
            aware of
            > stuff, like the cold out there. The brain doesn't shut down when you
            are
            > not being aware of something. It kinda runs on idle, since being
            aware is
            > actually being aware of sensor differences. Humans quickly become
            unaware
            > when the scene does not change. Like I cannot feel my watch at this
            moment
            > even though it is a weight on my wrist. Which is also the reason why
            I have
            > lost the recognition [interesting word] of certain things in my room,
            > because I see them all the time.
            >
            > Consciousness requires a brain. The Cosmos does not have a brain and
            thus
            > cannot be said to be conscious.
            >
            > eduard

            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Dick.
            > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:04 AM
            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [existlist] The Content of Consciousness?

            > The Content of Consciousness?

            > [ You speak of the content of consciousness as opposed to
            consciousness
            > itself; and say that there can be no consciousness devoid of content.
            > What do you mean by this exactly?]

            > It means that which you are consciously aware of at any moment. Walk
            out
            > of your front door and what are you consciously aware of? You can see
            > what you see, you may have some kind of feelings about that, and you
            are
            > consciously aware of them. It may be cold or it may be hot and you can
            > feel that. You might not be concentrating on these things and thinking
            > about something else, and you are consciously aware of them, etc etc.
            So
            > these things are the content of you consciousness at that moment. You
            > could also sit in a dark room and cut off all your sensory input but
            you
            > are still consciously aware of existing at that moment. In dreamless
            > sleep you are not consciously aware of anything, so there is no
            > conscious content. And no consciousness.

            > So, if folks are going to speak of consciousness as independent of
            > content (observer less, ego less) then they had best explain as to
            how
            > they could know it and what they know at that moment and as to how
            they
            > could exist knowing that there was no content to their consciousness.
            > Physicist, or quasi physicists, talk of quantum consciousness. So what
            > is it like and what is it aware of? Religionists talk of the Divine
            > Consciousness, so what is it like and what is it conscious of? Gurus
            > talk of uniting with (whatever it is) so what is it like and what is
            it
            > conscious off? Some talk of Cosmic Consciousness, so what is that
            like?
            > You ask them this and not a bloody one of them answers you. So, are
            they
            > talking about something which they know by experience? If they know it
            > then they could talk about it and describe what it is like. But they
            > don't.

            > I talk of the Timeless consciousness in the root of MY being, and I
            > describe exactly what it (I) is like and what it is conscious of. If
            I
            > can do that then why don't they describe what they are talking
            > about? If not then why do they talk about something which they
            > don't know? How could one do that anyway? Can you talk about
            > something which you have never known? I have never known a headache
            so
            > I keep off the subject. But let those who have known a headache talk
            > about it. And no I would not ask them to prove that they have had a
            > headache. I would just listen to what they had to say. Neither would I
            > say that there is no such thing as a headache just because I have not
            > known one. Neither would I say it was pointless and meaningless saying
            > it because it cannot be proved. I would have thought that having a
            > headache is proof enough of its existence. What more proof would they
            > need than having it? Or is it the case that they are not really real
            > because they don't last for ever? Yeah, I have met them all mate.

            > rwr



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



            ------------------------------------

            Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

            Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.