Superconsciousness versus Subconsciousness.

2 op

nature doesn’t see a consciousness and a subconsciousness, there is a physical object which makes patterns [info] based upon the mirror of that in the world = the brain/subconscious aspects of, and it has also consciousness. Nature doesn’t see this thing we call subconsciousness.

There is no superconscious at least one that’s measurably [or et al] affecting – nothing to be in conflict with.

Consciousness is a unique thing, like music or colour or any facet of our reality. There are no variations or other kinds of consciousness sub or super, extant in this world imho.

I would certianly think that before we get to the level of ‘the universe’ there will always be some kind of super for each sub. But it seems not necessarily of the same kind, that a category shift, a move away from the object or organism in question takes place or can. IOW I am not saying that there is nothing beyond my consciousness (and in fact in my belief system there is something that could perhaps be called a superconsciousness), but for, for example, a physicalist, we have a subconsciousness, a consciousness, but there is nothing conscious in super relation, as part of that human, beyond. There is stuff beyond the consciousness of the individual, but it would not be his or hers. What I am saying here is that a physicalist could use the term subconscious, when referring to Joe, without it entailing a superconsciousness. The subconsciousness is below a threshhold and consciousness is above it. No need to bring in a superconsciousness which is above or surrounds that.

Which brings up another issue. To me consciuosness is surrounded by what I would call the unconscious, not the reverse.

You are agreeing now?

I suppose that model is similar or really at such a level of abstraction that it can fit with my beliefs.

So you have never, for example, realized later that you had motivations in a certain event that you were not aware of, motivations that still managed to make decisions and were based in part at least on sensory reactions. IOW unconscious processes that were aware of your surroundings, but which you were not aware of.

That is indeed another issue.

Yes, because: (1) Hierarchies may have limits. May! We just know not much about it. (2) You are a kind of theist, yes. (3) It seems to you that it is being fooled by logic, yes. (4) Reality must match deductions based on language, yes. The linguistic relativity should not be underestimated but also not overestimated.

It can fit with your beliefs? Could you describe your beliefs precisely?

Yes, I am not making a rule that language is arbritrary. I am countering the rule that reality must work the way language implies it will and that we can always deduce via language to how reality will be. I have no rule in either direction. Sometimes we can and sometimes we cannot.

Well, no, not really. But relevent to this I can say that I believe there is a wider consciousness of which our own is a fragment. Western logic has the either A or not A type self evident truths. I think these are limited. IOW I think there are ‘things’ events processes where it is me AND not me. Inside but also outside. Self and not self. We can see this with things that are unconscious in us. Say we have a pattern of behavior in relation to women. Others notice this. We are not aware of it. Years later we become aware of it. Perhaps first we notice that they have a point. We do behave in a certain way that implies this. But why would we be angry at women? The anger is in the unconscious. Yet - and here’s the key point - when we do become aware of it, there is a way in which we can feel we were always aware of it. This is a an A and not A situation, but, sadyly for certain logicians, I think it is the case.

I mention this because this is consciousness and unconsciousness, but something like this seems to me to be the case in the consciousness to superconsciousness direction. Separation and connection.

Thus: A superconsciousness!(?)?(!).

I wonder how you have come to the latter conclusion, if it is one.

That reminds me a bit of Heidegger and his concept of “Angst”.

Yes, I can agree with that.

And I agree with it the more, the more it is not meant in the way of psychoanalysis but of pure existence and its analysis (compare: “Dasein” and “Daseinsanalyse” - Martin Heidegger).

Yes. If your various exclamation points, etc., can be interpreted to mean something like: Hey, but I thought you didn’t think it existed what was all that stuff about not being able to deduce…etc., I was arguing in general, not because your conclusion was one I disagreed with, but the process seemed weak to me. I stand by my issues with deducing it exists because a subconscious exists, but, for my own intuitive and experiential reasons do in fact believe in something that could be called that.

I was using it as an example, a hypothetical. That said, I do think men and women are angry at each other…all of them. There are degrees of this and degrees of awareness of this.

I’ll do that. I am not a Freudian, though I suppose I am a post-Freudian. There are things not dreamt of in his philosophy that I beleive exist. And I think he saw some patterns and made them rules when they are not. I also think his map of the mind is limited. I rather liked Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson’s book on how Freud ended up with his SEduction Theory. It nicely places Freud in his time as an individual.

I do not think it is just consciousness however. There is also a super…hm, not sure a good term here, but it would be feelings, desires, urges, intuitions. What fills the internal space of consciousness. That from which consciousness springs and which gives life.

A lot of the mystical traditions have what I would consider a rather male idea of transcendence, this super awareness. Sort of a Buddha, or Angel gazing out over existence. I think that’s only part of life.

Would you say that the sexes are the main issue of being angry, or are they just a part of many other issues of being angry (one ILP example we have is WW III Angry who is indeed WW III angry, as he told me)?

By the way: What do you think about the Ancient-Greek mythology, especially how it was put into everyday practice?

yes of course, I didn’t mean that there is no subconscious its just the affix ‘conscious’ that I was aiming at. when sleepwalking there is possibly no consciousness, and yet the brain body functions as if like an organic robot. so sure things like ‘blindsight’ where the brain ‘sees’ things you don’t, are occurring all the time.

I use the example of the sexes often because I think any person with some ability to introspect and remember will have noticed 1) they have had reactions before they were not aware of 2) that they have intense reactions 3) and that these reactions often affect behavior so they can be noticed by oneself (before in some cases one can identify the reasons) by others before one does oneself. So, my hope in using it is that I can get a little hook in where the person might not on a more conceptual, ‘my belief system’ based reaction level be will to notice. Race, politics, religion…many other issues could certainly work as examples, but they often more easily thought of in non-personal terms.

I certainly remember many of the myths, but it has been a long time since I read anything about daily practice issues, so I have little to say. I mean, I have some ideas of requests and sacrifices and honoring them and oracles, etc. But I have lost any grasp of how this played out in detail there or in contrast to other pagan practices.

Do you mean the “consciousness in blue”?

• viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190178#p2600004 .

So you are aying that “[color=##4080FF]the awareness is enhanced by the informed perception” and therefore claiming that the consciousness grows and develops?

Are the levels always separate from each other or do they ever overlap? Does some or all of the unconscious
eventually migrate to the subconscious? And does some or all of it then eventually migrate to the conscious?

As soon as they separate, there is only one level. The
other is nihilized. It becomes primary.

But in fact this separation is unknown, because at this level there is no superconsciousness, except primitive totemism, or objectivisation.

When they do overlap, then too, they become indistinct, because they can only be experienced unitarily.

The idea is that early primary objectivization requires the knowledge of a con-scious invention, hence the
requisite idea of ‘consciessness’ per se, is a sine quo
non of human development.

Needless to say, this development is not attributed to a
will to or not to go on with it, is but an existential requirement to escape the oft hazardously challenging circumstances of early man.

The same with superconsciousness, it is not convenience alone which pushes the need to go on,
but a realization formed long ago, that if consciousness merely threads at a certain level, it will actually start falling backwards.

There is no reified status quo, implicit in consciousness,it is this superconscious effort, to factor in more and more possibilities into consciousness which creates the super consciousness. Therefore,
in a sense, the separation is more a product of denying the gravity of staying still, by viewing
consciousness as an objective as an object,imputed
within it’s own object, or vice versa.Consciousness, need not at all be a product of being conscious, or even of having existence as it’s predicate. While not
implying of any kind of separation or overlap, they function to the real requirements of life.

I would prefer to see it more in terms of saturation,
or lack of, rather then in terms of degrees of overlap or lack of.

I also think saturation is a better description given how
the brain is an organ and composed primarily of water

Sure, but saturation, like overlap, or consciousness has literal as well as figurative nuances.

The mere fact that you mention water, implies the kind of object that feeds into the literal idea of saturation. But consciousness has to include other options, such as the idea of the immaterial versus the material.

Such an idea was certainly novel at the time, and fitted in with a lot of casual relational sub ideas, based on perhaps initial observation into the mechanics of visual perception.

The farther some object is, the more distant it’s relation with other objects. Furthest object near the horizon are almost imperceptible, hence to archaic vision, may appear as less real. If the water logged brain is fed this series, then it will conclude that behind the horizon, the object is totally unreal=it is immaterial. The same could have gone with consciousness, by extension, the immaterial was not an object of consciousness, but of sub-&-superconscious realms.

So the separations were only cut off points relating abstracting qualifying extension with their limits.

But these limits are really not real, in the sense of having passed the crisis surrounding the conflicting views of the flatness with the roundness of Earth, and likewise, some of the limits imposed between the subconscious , conscious and superconscious elements.

Everything in the brain is about acuity …

It is lack of acuity that allows for perfection

Alistair Hugh in brain research posed the question of what can we see by hearing? An interesting bit about sensory substitution. They do interrelate. Visual acuity has consequences.

There’s conceptual acuity as well

All implying what?