Dream Interpretation: Making Puzzle Books

[zinnat]

Gib,

I am extremly sorry for being so late in replying. Last some days were very busy and still the same.

@gib

What does this say about the God–with a capitol ‘G’–the one the Abrahamic religions introduced. Is this just another god, equal to the rest? Could each successive religion–from ancient Judaism, to Christianity, to Islam–be considered as ushered in by a new god that replaced the old one–a coup d’etat? Same position–like the President ruling over the same people–but occasionally swapped out for different players.

Something of that sort. I am not sure but my guess, which is derived from what i came to know, is that three subsets of Abrahamics represent three different rulers, where each one issued amended/better guiding principles according to the prevailing circumstances through different prophets.

Perhaps, that is why Muhammad said that Islam is the final one.

@gib

I know. That’s why I brought up psychedelics–I think those are the kinds of drugs you’re talking about.

Yes.

@gib

This could be true. It’s hard to say with these kinds of experiences. I know I certainly wouldn’t be describing my drug-induced experiences the way you are, but that doesn’t mean your description isn’t fitting–it actually fits quite well.

Yes, it fits well. But, that cannot happen unless we do not conceptualize mind and consciousness as different entities, instead of one.

@gib

What I’m calling heightened emotion and heightened imagination could be the result of focusing on my thoughts in more depth and staying with them for slightly longer than I usually would when sober

When the speed of the incoming cars would go down, the observer will certainly get more time per car(staying longer). That is the only way which you can have more focus on the thoughts/cars you want. The feeling capacity of the consciousness is constant because that is unchangeable entity in all respects. That is why i am saying that it only seems to be heighten, not heightens in actual terms.

If a tyre of a vehicle will bust during the noise of day traffic, nobody will pay attention to it, because its sound would be lost in the crowd. But, if the same tyre will burst in the silence of midnight, it would have far more impact. But, the fact of the matter is that the busting is making the same level of sound in both occasions.

@gib

But I certainly think my emotions and imagination are heightened–there’s no question about that from where I sit–and you might say those emotions and imaginary ideations were there all along, cluttered and obscured by the heavy traffic of my thoughts, but I don’t think it’s just the slowing down of thought that brings my emotions and my imagination to the fore

Okay.

@gib

I think it also has to do with what I find when I dig too deeply into my thoughts–especially when I’ve lost the ability to dismiss thoughts I would otherwise disbelieve (<-- that’s a whole other factor there)–the things I find can frighten me and they can send my imagination spinning. So there’s definitely some amplifying of emotion and imagination as a result of my thoughts slowing.

Here one more subtle issue is also pertinent, which plays its part, though it is still rooted on the premise of duality of mind/consciousness.

Any observer (consciousness) can focus only one issue at a time, not many. Means, this notion of multitasking is an illusion.
Mind can perform multitasking to some extent but consciousness cannot. This seems not to be true but if look carefully, we will find otherwise.

We experience this in our lives daily but do not pay attention to it. Say, you are listening some music sitting in your home and enjoying it lyrics. And, all or a sudden, your see that your infant child, who is also sleeping in the same room, has been moved to the very corner of the bed and going to fall on the floor.

Now, your whole attention would shift from the lyrics and would go the child. You would go to him, again move him to the centre of the bed and perhaps also place some pillow at his side so that he would not come to the corner again. Say, that will take 15-20 seconds.

On the other hand, that song is still playing on the music system. But, if anyone would ask you what was the lyrics which played within those 15-20 seconds, you will not able to recall that. That is going to happen every time in such cases.

But why? Now, let us look at this phenomenon from what perspective that we have of the mind. Lyrics was still paying on, means that sound was still going into your ears. It also means that your mind was still technically hearing that lyrics. Nothing changed. Right. But, why you are not able to recall the lyrics of those very seconds but can recall the lyrics played before that?

That phenomenon establishes two things. Firstly, there must something else and independent evolved in the process of feeling than what we generally perceive as a mind. And, secondly, we can focus/feel only one thing at a moment, not many and we always go for the most intense feeling at any given time.

Secondly, basically mind operates in four ways, or we can say that mind has four parts/subsets; Imagination, memory, wisdom (analyzing), ego( ordering/selfism). These parts acts like different parts of the body. Means, we use which part more and more, it becomes stronger and stronger. These parts are not the same in the case of every mind. Their strength differs in every case and is changeable too. But, the cumulative sum of the strength of the mind remains constant at any given time.

In other words, mind is roughly like a RAM of a computer. If you use its most of the capacity in any one of these four functions, other processes/capacity will be slowed down because it has its limit.

As we know that different parts of the brain use to perform different acts. These four parts of the mind correspond to different sections of the brain. Means, each particular part of the mind is related/dependent on its corresponding brain part. It means that if any part of the brain is not performing or decreased its performance, its corresponding part of the mind becomes relatively free and leads to the availability of the mind’s RAM for other functions. As a result, they become more active than normal.

I am neither a neuroscientist nor a drug expert, but my assumption is that drugs affect those part of the brain, which correspond to memory and wisdom subsets of the mind. That results in more availability of mind’s RAM for imagination and ego. Perhaps, that is why we can imagine more and become more adamant (egoism) more under the influence of drugs.

So, it may be the combination of many factors.

@gib

Aw, damn!

Yes, do not even think of that.

@gib

Suit yourself–the way I define these is: philosophy on metaphysics, the cosmos, the afterlife, science, politics–these are all insight philosophies–depth philosophy is more about the human soul. One is outward looking, the other inward. One escapes into rational thought, the other digs deep into emotion. One is Apollonian, the other Dionysian.

There is nothing in the names. One can do that as one likes. But, i disagree that inward philosophy escapes rationality. The inward journey is used merely to find the facts, so one can get his basic premises right. That is all. After that, one has to rely again on rationality to construct the ontology.

@gib

I agree completely, Sanjay. No one is more an expert on the mind that the mind owner himself.

This statement of yours seems to be saying else besides its face value. I can smell something non-vag in a vegetarian dish. Like, one has put chicken stock in a vegetarian soup, instead of plain water.

@gib

Have you read Daniel Dennett’s “Multiple Drafts” theory of consciousness?

No. As you know i am not very philosophically literate person in conventional sense. But, as you mentioned his name, i tried to a have a look at his wiki page.

It looks to me that he heading in the right direction. His Bipartite theory is rooted exactly in the same premise that i am suggesting in the name of mind and consciousness; different entities for different jobs.

He explained the methodology of the mind in his concept of The Intentional Stance.

Here is how it works: first you decide to treat the object whose behavior is to be predicted as a rational agent; then you figure out what beliefs that agent ought to have, given its place in the world and its purpose. Then you figure out what desires it ought to have, on the same considerations, and finally you predict that this rational agent will act to further its goals in the light of its beliefs. A little practical reasoning from the chosen set of beliefs and desires will in most instances yield a decision about what the agent ought to do; that is what you predict the agent will do.

—Daniel Dennett, The Intentional Stance, p. 17

This is again similar to how i suggested as my theory of four subsets of mind above. Though, his theory is still vague and does not have the right order too.

First of all, mind activates imagination, which may be caused by many reasons, mostly from circumstances/observation. After that, mind tries to explore memory and see what previous knowledge it have stored there about the recent observation. Then, both these thoughts were send to wisdom to analyze what should be done with that. And lastly, the conclusions of the wisdom are looked by the ego( selfism). This is the final and most crucial stage. Most of the conflicts happen here. In many occasions, wisdom and ego, do not agree with each other and try to take control of the final ordering for the action. Sometimes wisdom wins and sometimes ego and this struggle go on and on.

But, when he puts forward his theory of Multiple Drafts, he rejects the existence of the consciousness as an independent entity again goes back to square one saying that derived behavior is consciousness.

Gib, as i said in the other thread, it is not within the limit of intellectual philosophical exploration to get it all right. It cannot be intellectually deduced. One has to be aware of some basic facts and use those as the basic premises in his ontology.

Secondly, what do you think of my proposed thought experiment of putting a man in the isolation and registering his thoughts?

@gib

Right, and would this mean that one can exercise one’s consciousness under either condition–the drugs or meditation–by strengthening one’s concentration?

One can do nothing to consciousness because that is not eternal and unchangeable too. It has its own default character and that is to feel the most intense thought at any moment. No one can stop that. Changes can happen at the level of mind only.
It can be trained to act in both ways, rightly or wrongly.

But yes, the mind can be trained to function normally under the influence of drugs and mediation. But, in the case of the drugs, this would not serve any purpose. Because, drugs affect the brain, which is made of flesh. Mind can not stop drugs to infect the brain. As brain is the mediator between mind and body, thus its weakening would affect the body, no matter how strong the mind would be.

Say, you have taken a drug and now your body is not in your control. You want to walk normally but your body will not respond to your mind in such a way that it does normally. Because, those signals from the mind would have to come via brain, and that is not functioning normally. As the result, your body will get the distorted orders, not the perfect ones. And, you will never be able to use your body in normal way, no matter how strongly your mind wants that.

But, there is no such issue in mediation. That is why it can serve the purpose and drugs cannot. So, if you have any thought of experimenting any such things with drugs, please throw it out of the window. You will get nothing positive from all that, except for some temporary ecstasy.

@gib

This is what some self-proclaimed psychic told me. She had a Reiki practice and I went to a few sessions

Gib, i can bet my last penny that no human in this world can cure anyone from Reiki. Anyone, who claims any such thing is either ignorant or liar. That happened only once in the case of that Japanese Buddhist monk, who invented Reiki.

@gib

The way she explained it was that the imagination is known to be notorious for spontaneity–thoughts and images come in through that channel seemingly out of nowhere–

No, imagination is not notorious, but only seems to be notorious. There are some certain causes, which give imagination a kick start. From there, the imagination subset of the mind takes the clue and takes it to further heights. Mind cannot think of anything out of the blue. It always needs some hint to start with and that comes mostly from circumstances/ observation or memory.

@gib

if it is not the spirits communicating with us directly, then at least it could be them dropping subtle messages (thoughts, images, insights) into our minds which, to us, would seem "out of nowhere

She is right in saying that. If you remember, i have said the same thing in this thread. They can plant the thoughts in our mind in such a way that we take those as our thoughts. That is how they ensure that we keep going in the direction that they want.

@gib

She said this is how psychics work–they don’t actually know the future, or see what’s behind the door, or truly read your mind–but guess instead

Yes, it is nothing but guesswork.

@gib

Psychics are those who have simply formed a working relationship with some spiritual agency who puts ideas into his/her head as means of help them in their psychic work. If they’re aware of this relationship, they are prone to actually tell you that the can know the future, see what’s behind the door, read your thoughts, etc.

That is theoretically possible. But, i have very sincere doubts of the existence of any singular such person in the world right now, who can do that at his/her will. That needs the elevation of the soul to very high levels, almost close to enlightenment.

As a thumb rule, it is forbidden for the humans to know or inquire about their future. And also, it is also forbidden for the governing authorities to tell humans about their future. Because, in both cases, the very purpose of the human life would be cheated.

Humans cannot know their future, neither own nor others. In very rare cases, the authorities may inform any particular person about his/her or others future. But, in no case, it can be a routine.

@gib

Well, it should be taken as a metaphor for me–I’ve never literally heard voices emanating from my unconscious.

You have felt some of his thoughts only but not listen his voice. But, that is possible for any human, including you.

@gib

I like to think of Carl Jung as a subjectivist version of Sigmund Freud. Freud was definitely an objectivist–always overselling the scientific integrity of his work–and his model of the mind–with the ego, the unconscious, the id, etc.–shows this. Most post-secondary education text books on the subject depict it as an egg. The conscious mind covers only a small portion of the egg at the top, like the tip of an iceberg, while the unconscious takes up the rest. From this perspective, the unconscious is a closed off system–it’s inside the eggs, bound off by the inner surface of the shell.

But from a subjectivist perspective–which was Jung’s–you don’t see the whole of the unconscious–it’s not like looking at an egg, an object before your eyes–for the subjectivist perspective is the perspective from the inside–what the ego sees. From the point of view of the ego, the unconscious, if noticed at all, would look like a dark region inside a room. The ego would be standing in that room, closed off by walls behind him and on each side, and in front of him would be this vast stretch of darkness. He could not see far enough into it to tell if there was a fourth wall there. For all he knows, it could stretch off into the infinite depths of space. He can tell that the side walls continue on at least a little ways into the darkness, and therefore it is obvious that at least a part of this personal space of his lies within darkness, but there is no reason to presume there is any sharp cut off between his personal space (the region within the walls) and whatever great expanse lies beyond it–no reason to believe a back wall exists at all–so the personal space may well just merge seamless into a collective space.

The first version of an egg is closer to the reality. Jung needlessly makes it complicated and vague. It is not that complicated, once you get the basics right.

@gib

Of course not! I just realized this was stupid question to ask a few minutes after I hit submit. It’s like asking: does having higher social confidence and being drunk have the same effect on the brain. I highly, highly doubt it. For one thing, getting drunk makes you stumble, slur your words, want to vomit, want to sleep, and gives you an awful headache the next morning. Having social confidence doesn’t. But getting drunk will give you greater social confidence, at least temporarily. So there’s gotta be at least a few differences in the brain between having high social confidence and getting drunk, though the part responsible for social confidence might be the same.

Gib, you need to understand a basic difference between the two and you can easily get the answers on your own.

Drugs can affect only brain, not mind. On the other hand, meditation can affect only mind, not brain. But, as mind and brain are both connected, thus both gets affected to some extent, but the point of impact is different in both cases.

@gib

So if meditation lessens the number of thoughts entering the mind, does that mean that when thoughts do enter the mind, they might still be too quick to notice?

Yes. And not only that, as the time interval between the incoming cars is also increased, the observer would have more time to focus on each car. He may be able to remember the numbers of the cars too, besides noticing merely their make or color.

@gib

So what is it then that raises one up spiritually in the long haul–that is, as one gets older and more spiritually practiced or enriched–is it just the knowledge and insight one gains from the practice of meditation? I’m a bit confused because you seem to be using “knowledge” literally–I was using it as a metaphor (for something that stays in the mind once you acquire it)–which would imply that the knowledge one gains from the experience of meditation is what lifts one up spiritually in the long haul.

I tried to explain this issue in the last post too but the job is not done yet.

Gib, first thing to remember is that generally, the elevation of the soul does not have much bearing on the human life, except that he comes to know about what is happening there. Secondly, this knowing (realization) happens only in the case of mediators, not others. It means, that it is also possible that a person’s soul may elevate without the knowledge of that person, which is not an extraordinary phenomenon and happens in many cases. But, meditation increases the momentum of that process. It can hasten the process and even take the soul to such level, which was not initially proposed.

I am using the term knowledge here as its literal meaning. Having knowledge means that you just know what is going on at that level. Neither you can interfere there nor all that will interfere in your human life in any way. You can merely know the events. That is all. Yes, knowing/witnessing/realizing all that may change your perception about many basic things and that may affect your human life. But, that is a different thing altogether.

Secondly, it is not always one way journey. One’s soul may also come down to some stages, it if makes any mistakes. I once again suggest going through that link of Sufi snakes and ladders. That will help you a lot to understand what i am saying.

Say, one makes very sincere effort in his business and earns a lot of money. So, he decides to leave his middle class locality and shifts to a very posh colony. But, reaching there, he may lost himself in girls and parties and starts neglecting his business. As the result, he suffers huge losses and has to go back to that middle class locality to live.

Now, he is back where he was. But, as he has been lived at high end locality, thus he knows how is living there. But, now he just knows that knowledge, he does not have access to that lifestyle anymore.

The same thing happens in the case of soul. It may go up and down, depending on its efforts. But it will always have the memory of all that. That is what i mean by knowledge. I am not using knowledge as an alternative of power/capability/status etc. it is mere information or memory.

During my efforts in that direction since last 20 years or so, i came to know about many things. But, it is just information as far is my human life is concerned. I cannot do anything extraordinary using that knowledge except using that to draw conclusions. Yes, that still may help a lot.

It is has not anything to do with getting old either. With the time and practice, a mediator’s mind can have more and more access of the mind of the soul. But, at the end of the day, all depends on the mind of the soul, not on the human’s mind. Because, it is only the soul that have to deal there, not human.

In general, human mind acts as an proxy for soul’s mind. But, mediation can reverse that process and soul mind may start acting like a proxy to human mind while dealing there. Then, such stage may come that both became identical in knowledge in thinking. In that case, human mind will live forever in the form of soul’s mind even after the human body would dissipate.

But, still all that will not going to affect human life in any way, except very rare cases, like Abrahamic prophets or Buddha. At that level, humans may have direct interaction as an human and that will affect their life too. But, that happens with one rare individual in centuries. That is not a natural phenomenon.

@gib

Hm, didn’t know that. Then it’s just Christianity which is 90 degrees from Hinduism.

Being the final draft, Islam tried to make all amendments, which were pertinent to that time line and context. Islam is not mere a ideology, philosophy or religion, but offers a complete lifestyle regarding all verticals of the life, from the smallest to the most crucial ones.

Most of the intellectuals may not be aware of the fact that Islam even suggests how one should behave in the toilet. How one should urinate, how one should sit on the toilet seat, which hand one should use to clean etc. Almost nothing is left behind.

@gib

How do spirits from other realms acquire a human body to occupy in this realm

There is a mechanism placed for it. Authorities of spiritual realms use to send such souls from there to spend some time here, which are supposed to acquire some special skills. The entry of the soul in the human body happens sometime during the fetus stage, before being born. I am not sure but that happens sometime near the completion of four months of the fetus. This is precisely the time when fetus becomes alive and takes a life form. Before that, it is mere a clump of flesh. A soul has to suffer a lot being there in the fetus during next five months, until it comes out from the mother’s body.

@gib

How do human beings themselves reincarnate?

That is a misperception. Humans do not/cannot incarnate themselves. It is decided by the governing authorities that which soul requires incarnation or not and where also. To more precise, humans do not incarnate. Human body and mind is meant only for one lifetime. It is only the soul, which is an independent entity from humans, use to incarnate as another human. Yes, the soul carries the memories of the previous human life. Human mind can also know about that if it becomes able to have enough access of soul’s mind.

@gib

I mean, if a baby is born with consciousness anyway, how does the consciousness of the reincarnating soul get into the same body? Does one consciousness get kicked out for the other? Do they meld together?

No, no. You are getting it wrong here.

Baby/humans do not have their own consciousness. It is only the consciousness of the soul that keeps humans alive. A living entity can have only one consciousness, not many. And, it cannot be either melded together or divided.
It is what it is.

Let us go back to the original premise that the consciousness is eternal and unchangeable too. So, nothing can happen to it ever. it is only mind and matter (body), those are open to any change.

@gib

Does the reincarnating soul inject his consciousness into the body before the body’s natural consciousness has a chance to come into being–like when it’s barely a zygote

As i said above, there is no natural consciousness of the body. All three, consciousness, mind and body, are made of three different types of matter. They cannot react with each other in real sense. They can only co-exist with each other in the form of a temporary mix (humans and other spiritual entities).

with love,
sanjay

[gib]

@zinnat13

I am extremly sorry for being so late in replying. Last some days were very busy and still the same.

No worries. We’ve got the rest of our lives.

@zinnat13

Something of that sort. I am not sure but my guess, which is derived from what i came to know, is that three subsets of Abrahamics represent three different rulers, where each one issued amended/better guiding principles according to the prevailing circumstances through different prophets.

Now you said that the affairs of the gods were very much like that of men in that the power and rankings they have over one another is much like the power and rankings men have over other men–namely, political (hence, a “god” is a title, not a type of being). Could it be, then, that just as with men in power, some gods can be corrupt and some can make horrible leaders? Could it be that the dynasty of the Abrahamic gods is a lineage that, euphemistically, didn’t rule over their chosen people very well (and at worse, were horrible demons)?

I mean, I did ask before whether you thought there was something about the Abrahamic religions that made them more prone towards cruelty, violence, and war. You said this was a tendency in all men. I still question this. Many in the West look upon the Abrahamic god as a tyrant. Maybe the Abrahamic god and his decedents are more like despotic leaders in this realm, and other gods, by contrast, some of whom have lead men, were far better.

This might actually shed light on why Christ depicted Hell as eternal.

@zinnat13

Yes, it fits well. But, that cannot happen unless we do not conceptualize mind and consciousness as different entities, instead of one.

I can only agree with you in terms of abstract conceptual differences: I can conceptualize consciousness as the constant feeling of things (or seeing, or knowing…), whereas mind is that which is felt (or seen, or known)–at least in terms of the qualities of experience. But I think of the feeling of things as part and parcel of the things felt–it comes “pre-packaged” with the felt, so to speak. Consciousness, to me, is being–the feeling of things is the essence of their being.

@zinnat13

When the speed of the incoming cars would go down, the observer will certainly get more time per car(staying longer). That is the only way which you can have more focus on the thoughts/cars you want. The feeling capacity of the consciousness is constant because that is unchangeable entity in all respects. That is why i am saying that it only seems to be heighten, not heightens in actual terms.

So you’re saying that the fear I’ve experienced at moments of extreme intoxication have always been there–are still being felt by me right now–even though I’m too distracted by other mental content to take notice?

@zinnat13

Here one more subtle issue is also pertinent, which plays its part, though it is still rooted on the premise of duality of mind/consciousness.

Any observer (consciousness) can focus only one issue at a time, not many. Means, this notion of multitasking is an illusion.
Mind can perform multitasking to some extent but consciousness cannot. This seems not to be true but if look carefully, we will find otherwise.

We experience this in our lives daily but do not pay attention to it. Say, you are listening some music sitting in your home and enjoying it lyrics. And, all or a sudden, your see that your infant child, who is also sleeping in the same room, has been moved to the very corner of the bed and going to fall on the floor.

Now, your whole attention would shift from the lyrics and would go the child. You would go to him, again move him to the centre of the bed and perhaps also place some pillow at his side so that he would not come to the corner again. Say, that will take 15-20 seconds.

On the other hand, that song is still playing on the music system. But, if anyone would ask you what was the lyrics which played within those 15-20 seconds, you will not able to recall that. That is going to happen every time in such cases.

But why? Now, let us look at this phenomenon from what perspective that we have of the mind. Lyrics was still paying on, means that sound was still going into your ears. It also means that your mind was still technically hearing that lyrics. Nothing changed. Right. But, why you are not able to recall the lyrics of those very seconds but can recall the lyrics played before that?

That phenomenon establishes two things. Firstly, there must something else and independent evolved in the process of feeling than what we generally perceive as a mind. And, secondly, we can focus/feel only one thing at a moment, not many and we always go for the most intense feeling at any given time.

Multitasking may be like a CPU trying to run multiple processes at the same time–it never really does it “at the same time,” rather it switches from one to the other in nanoseconds, the result being that they seem like parallel processes to us.

I agree that it’s extraordinarily difficult for consciousness to focus on two or more things at once–the attempts I’ve made to do this have resulted in neither task being fully understood or processed correctly because I’m only getting half the information on each (or I’m only half as conscious). It’s like when more than one person is trying to talk to me at the same time. I end up understanding neither.

I think what you’re calling consciousness, I’m calling thought (or epistemic awareness). I think what’s happening when we focus on one task at the expense of another is that the brain engages in thinking about the task–processing the information that’s coming in with thought–and everything else is simply not being acknowledged (though it might still make its way into memory so that you can recall it as if you were thinking about it at the time).

@zinnat13

I am neither a neuroscientist nor a drug expert, but my assumption is that drugs affect those part of the brain, which correspond to memory and wisdom subsets of the mind. That results in more availability of mind’s RAM for imagination and ego. Perhaps, that is why we can imagine more and become more adamant (egoism) more under the influence of drugs.

Yes, I think that’s a good rough-and-ready analogy. It fits well with my point earlier about certain brain parts inhibiting other brains parts, and that when the inhibiting parts themselves get inhibited (by drugs), the inhibited parts become more active.

@zinnat13

But, i disagree that inward philosophy escapes rationality.

No, it doesn’t escape rationality, but it’s not rationality–rather, I should say rationality is not it’s chief priority, but discovery. Rationality can help though. These two forms of philosophy are not mutually exclusive.

@zinnat13

This statement of yours seems to be saying else besides its face value. I can smell something non-vag in a vegetarian dish. Like, one has put chicken stock in a vegetarian soup, instead of plain water.

Oh, did you order the vegetarian, Sanjay?

I’m saying that one’s own mind is something that one spends time with 24/7–he has spent time with it since the day he was born–and when you compare this with the experience of an “expert”–say a therapist who has spent, I don’t know, 100 hours with you–that’s still only a fraction of a percentage of the amount of experience you’ve had with your own mind. Even if you took 100 hours of your own time, that’s time looking under the hood, whereas the therapist has only looked at the car from a distance and tried to guesstimate based on bumps and ticks she’s heard coming from somewhere inside the car. What the therapist has is knowledge of general patterns seen throughout her practice and from scientific research, but individual minds are so nuanced, diverse, and deep that this general knowledge hardly does it justice (especially when it’s not that much more difficult for an individual to gain the same general knowledge simply from hands on experience with his own mind and his experience dealing with people in general).

@zinnat13

No. As you know i am not very philosophically literate person in conventional sense. But, as you mentioned his name, i tried to a have a look at his wiki page.

It looks to me that he heading in the right direction. His Bipartite theory is rooted exactly in the same premise that i am suggesting in the name of mind and consciousness; different entities for different jobs.

He explained the methodology of the mind in his concept of The Intentional Stance.

…

This is again similar to how i suggested as my theory of four subsets of mind above. Though, his theory is still vague and does not have the right order too.

First of all, mind activates imagination, which may be caused by many reasons, mostly from circumstances/observation. After that, mind tries to explore memory and see what previous knowledge it have stored there about the recent observation. Then, both these thoughts were send to wisdom to analyze what should be done with that. And lastly, the conclusions of the wisdom are looked by the ego( selfism). This is the final and most crucial stage. Most of the conflicts happen here. In many occasions, wisdom and ego, do not agree with each other and try to take control of the final ordering for the action. Sometimes wisdom wins and sometimes ego and this struggle go on and on.

But, when he puts forward his theory of Multiple Drafts, he rejects the existence of the consciousness as an independent entity again goes back to square one saying that derived behavior is consciousness.

Dennett’s theory of Multiple Drafts is essentially a theory that says the brain is constantly computing multiple interpretations of its incoming data–multiple narratives, or multiple stories–all at once, and in a matter of a few microseconds, the brain decides on one, or one wins out–that one is what’s consciously experienced as “what’s going on right now”. Dennett says that this is just what consciousness is–the winning draft.

(If you’ve ever seen the end of The Matrix part II–where Neo meets the architect–you’ll see what I think might be a metaphor for this: the multiple TVs all around him, each one representing one of several of Neo’s reactions, each one (maybe) a “draft,” until it focuses in on one; the architect does mention that he had to alter Neo’s consciousness for this.)

I brought this up in response to your statement:

@zinnat13

Actually, our mind use to produce all types of thoughts all the time, from highly rational to total bizarre ones. But, we neither pay attention nor act upon the all of those. Secondly, we came to know about any thought only when consciousness feels it, otherwise it comes and go unattended, lost in the crowd. And, as i said before, consciousness can feel only one thought at a time, which is the strongest at any given time. It cannot entertain all. So, we never know what and how much we have been missed.

@zinnat13

Gib, as i said in the other thread, it is not within the limit of intellectual philosophical exploration to get it all right. It cannot be intellectually deduced. One has to be aware of some basic facts and use those as the basic premises in his ontology.

I think I agree. Although, I wonder if this is true of teaching the lessons one learns from these premises taken from inner experience and exploration. I mean, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that one needs something more than just to think intellectually to come to these conclusions; one needs the right premises to begin with and such premises come only after digging into the right experiences (whether that’s meditation, drugs, divine revelation, or whathaveyou). But once you’ve got it, once you’ve got the premises, and are able to draw some conclusions from them, can you show this process–from the premises to the conclusion–to others who haven’t had the same experiences?

@zinnat13

Secondly, what do you think of my proposed thought experiment of putting a man in the isolation and registering his thoughts?

I think you might be right. Four hours is a long time to be alone with nothing to do; it will probably have a very serious effect even if you, as the subject, aren’t aware of how much your mind has altered.

@zinnat13

But, there is no such issue in mediation. That is why it can serve the purpose and drugs cannot. So, if you have any thought of experimenting any such things with drugs, please throw it out of the window. You will get nothing positive from all that, except for some temporary ecstasy.

Yeah, who would want temporary ecstasy? (Just kidding. I know what you’re trying to say).

@zinnat13

Gib, i can bet my last penny that no human in this world can cure anyone from Reiki. Anyone, who claims any such thing is either ignorant or liar. That happened only once in the case of that Japanese Buddhist monk, who invented Reiki.

What do you know about Reiki? Why can it not cure?

@zinnat13

She is right in saying that. If you remember, i have said the same thing in this thread. They can plant the thoughts in our mind in such a way that we take those as our thoughts. That is how they ensure that we keep going in the direction that they want.

Excellent. This is what I’m trying to say. Perhaps you would recognize these thoughts as come in through wisdom, not the imagination.

@zinnat13

That is theoretically possible. But, i have very sincere doubts of the existence of any singular such person in the world right now, who can do that at his/her will. That needs the elevation of the soul to very high levels, almost close to enlightenment.

As a thumb rule, it is forbidden for the humans to know or inquire about their future. And also, it is also forbidden for the governing authorities to tell humans about their future. Because, in both cases, the very purpose of the human life would be cheated.

Humans cannot know their future, neither own nor others. In very rare cases, the authorities may inform any particular person about his/her or others future. But, in no case, it can be a routine.

Is there anything like a black market in the world of the higher entities? Could it be that some entities interfere with the lives of humans (helping them to see the future, for example) against the laws of their world?

@zinnat13

You have felt some of his thoughts only but not listen his voice. But, that is possible for any human, including you.

Are you saying I can literally hear voices coming from my unconscious?

@zinnat13

The first version of an egg is closer to the reality. Jung needlessly makes it complicated and vague. It is not that complicated, once you get the basics right.

Maybe, but from a subjective point of view, you couldn’t know that. You’d have to be taught.

@zinnat13

@gib

I mean, if a baby is born with consciousness anyway, how does the consciousness of the reincarnating soul get into the same body? Does one consciousness get kicked out for the other? Do they meld together?

No, no. You are getting it wrong here.

Baby/humans do not have their own consciousness. It is only the consciousness of the soul that keeps humans alive. A living entity can have only one consciousness, not many. And, it cannot be either melded together or divided.
It is what it is.

Let us go back to the original premise that the consciousness is eternal and unchangeable too. So, nothing can happen to it ever. it is only mind and matter (body), those are open to any change.

@gib

Does the reincarnating soul inject his consciousness into the body before the body’s natural consciousness has a chance to come into being–like when it’s barely a zygote

As i said above, there is no natural consciousness of the body. All three, consciousness, mind and body, are made of three different types of matter. They cannot react with each other in real sense. They can only co-exist with each other in the form of a temporary mix (humans and other spiritual entities).

I’m still confused. Please be patient. Here’s how it all started. I asked:

@zinnat13

@gib

Would we have still had consciousness and minds if the spirits hadn’t discovered the Earth

Yes. And, why not? After all, human is not a natural life form.

Here’s how I understand it:

The higher entities decide who gets incarnated in a physical human body on Earth. This means that a soul gets assigned a human body, and somewhere within the first or second trimester, it gets put into the fetus. When this happens, the fetus suddenly gains consciousness.

Now, this is only possible because the higher entities discovered the Earth and this realm. If they hadn’t, physical evolution would have continued anyway, right? Human bodies would still be born, live, and die. But there would be no soul to occupy them. And if there is no soul, there is no consciousness, right? So all this life would consist of physical occurrences only.

But when you say “Yes. And, why not?” do you mean that we’d have consciousness as a pure soul? Perhaps, living in another realm?

[zinnat]

Gib,

Sorry, out of the station for many days. I came back yesterday. Reply follows tonight.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

@gib

Now you said that the affairs of the gods were very much like that of men in that the power and rankings they have over one another is much like the power and rankings men have over other men–namely, political (hence, a “god” is a title, not a type of being).

Yes, without any doubt.
Gib, i am so sure of this as you are about the rising of the sun in the East, not West.

@gib

Could it be, then, that just as with men in power, some gods can be corrupt and some can make horrible leaders? Could it be that the dynasty of the Abrahamic gods is a lineage that, euphemistically, didn’t rule over their chosen people very well (and at worse, were horrible demons)?

Though, that is possible technically but i do not think that can happen in reality.

First of all, they are more knowledgeable and wiser entities than humans.

Secondly, they are far far ahead both in powers and accumulated knowledge because of their very long history and life span. Their life span starts from double digit thousand thousands years and tend to increase as we move up to the chain, and lastly it reaches to immortality. So, there are very few chances that they allow bad elements to take over. Yes, there may be some odd cases here and there but they cannotdictate the terms.

Thirdly, they are very choosy about giving any power or post to anyone. For all thier important posts, they choose some most eligible candidates and send them here to show their worth. Here, those candidates have to learn and perform as a human in the tailor made circumstances. That is precisely what humans are made for.

Fourthly, they are not autonomous civilizations but controlled by a larger system. This happens at three levels. At every level, there is a supreme authority, who watches at all important developments and whose decisions are final and binding to all.

So, there is no possibility that either Abrahamic or any other religions can be propagated by the bad spiritual entities. Furthermore, spiritual entities of different realms cannot interfere here directly without asking the permission of the local administration here, who controls the mankind behind the veil.

@gib

I mean, I did ask before whether you thought there was something about the Abrahamic religions that made them more prone towards cruelty, violence, and war. You said this was a tendency in all men. I still question this. Many in the West look upon the Abrahamic god as a tyrant. Maybe the Abrahamic god and his decedents are more like despotic leaders in this realm, and other gods, by contrast, some of whom have lead men, were far better.

Gib, people want to see what they believe. If Islam has some so called cruel elements, then it has the poeitic and soft side of the Sufism too. Sometimes i wonder why people, both within Islam and outside, do not relate it with Rumi but Osama only?

The west thinks that what happens in the Middle East only is Islam. They tend to forget that more than the half of the Muslim population lives outside ME in the countries like India, China, Indonesia and Bangladesh. These four countries have more than 1/3 of the would muslim population and that remains peaceful by and lange too, but no western intellectual talk about the muslims of these countries, because it does not serve their mindset of seeing Muslims and Islam in the bad light all the time.

It is not the Islam but Russia and US who tilled the seeds of extremism in Afganistan to counter each other. And, the whole of intellectual and civilized west watched silently. Now, the same people are trying to judge Islam?

Gib, people use to have very short memory, even if they like to call themselves intellectuals. Have a look at this-

n 1985, at a White House ceremony in honour of several Afghan mujahideen — the jihadists out of which al-Qaeda evolved — President Ronald Reagan declared, “These gentlemen are the moral equivalent of America’s Founding Fathers.” Earlier in 1982, Reagan dedicated the space shuttle ‘Columbia’ to the Afghan resistance. He declared, “Just as the Columbia, we think, represents man’s finest aspirations in the field of science and technology, so too does the struggle of the Afghan people represent man’s highest aspirations for freedom. I am dedicating, on behalf of the American people, the March 22 launch of the Columbia to the people of Afghanistan.”

The Afghan war veterans came to haunt the security of many countries. Less known is the fact that the Islamic State’s self-declared caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — like Libyan militia leader Abdelhakim Belhadj (whom the CIA abducted and subjected to “extraordinary rendition”) and Chechen terrorist leader Airat Vakhitov — become radicalised while under U.S. detention. As torture chambers, U.S. detention centres have served as pressure cookers for extremism.

US and other forces did the same with ISIS initially when it was fighting Asad in Seria. But, now, all of a sudden, they become redicals and the most hate worthy people and Islam the most hate worthy religion as well.

So, the same Islamic fundamentalists were equivalent to America’s founding Fathers and now they are most bad people of the earth because of 9/11?

No religion is bad unless it does not kill western people but kills in third world countries only.

@gib

I can only agree with you in terms of abstract conceptual differences: I can conceptualize consciousness as the constant feeling of things (or seeing, or knowing…), whereas mind is that which is felt (or seen, or known)–at least in terms of the qualities of experience. But I think of the feeling of things as part and parcel of the things felt–it comes “pre-packaged” with the felt, so to speak. Consciousness, to me, is being–the feeling of things is the essence of their being.

But, besides other reasons, the ontology itself cannot be completed unless you cannot take something unchangeable and everlasting too.

Something cannot manifest from absolute nothingness. As the existence was always there in one form or other, there must be something eternal. Rest is manifestation caused by the change.

@gib

So you’re saying that the fear I’ve experienced at moments of extreme intoxication have always been there–are still being felt by me right now–even though I’m too distracted by other mental content to take notice?

More or less, yes.

It is not the distraction but compulsion because of the very nature of consciousness of not being able to do multitasking. What one is able to know/feel is consciousness, not the mind. And, it can handle only thought/feeling at a moment. But, it does not mean that the mind has only one thought at that time. It may have many, and that happens almost all the times.

@gib

Multitasking may be like a CPU trying to run multiple processes at the same time–it never really does it “at the same time,” rather it switches from one to the other in nanoseconds, the result being that they seem like parallel processes to us.

That may be true. I am not a computer expert but i know that you have some formal degree in computer so i can take your world on that.

@gib

I agree that it’s extraordinarily difficult for consciousness to focus on two or more things at once–the attempts I’ve made to do this have resulted in neither task being fully understood or processed correctly because I’m only getting half the information on each (or I’m only half as conscious). It’s like when more than one person is trying to talk to me at the same time. I end up understanding neither

Yes, that will happen every time in such cases.

@gib

I think what you’re calling consciousness, I’m calling thought (or epistemic awareness). I think what’s happening when we focus on one task at the expense of another is that the brain engages in thinking about the task–processing the information that’s coming in with thought–and everything else is simply not being acknowledged (though it might still make its way into memory so that you can recall it as if you were thinking about it at the time).

No, no. You are disobeying the basic premises of the ontology.

Actually, mind can do multitasking, or rather it does all the time. The issue is with feeling entity (consciousness) only.

Let us go back to the analogy of falling child. You may not able to hear the lyrics of the song, but your mind does not stop taking care of other things.

Mind does not only think about present events but also controls all the default actions of the body too like breathing, blood flow etc. But, during those some seconds of distraction, your mind would not let your body to stop breathing. If your mind is either fully engaged with the child or incapable of multitasking, you would have been dead within those some seconds, because the body cannot remain alive with dead brain even for a moment. Brain dead means dead, game over.

Secondly, i am not considering consciousness as some set of thoughts or any other conceptual entity. It is for real and actually, that is the only thing in the cosmos that is real. Rest is its manifestation through mind and thus illusion.

Consciousness is the root of existence. Everything else (mind and body) wraps around it. Any live entity must have consciousness. As soon as it leaves the body, body becomes dead. It is not the mind that creates consciousness. It is the other way around. Consciousness creates mind. Mind is some sort of necessary intrusion for the consciousness. It drags consciousness into the trouble all the time, But, on the other hand, consciousness becomes useless without it because if there would be nothing to feel in the absence of the mind.

I am suggesting just opposite to the general perception. The general perception is that complexity of the mind creates consciousness. But, I am saying that consciousness creates complexity.

[b]Any live entity, right from the tiny insects to the God or Enlightened person, is the same regarding consciousness. The difference is only in the outer wraps. It is not the consciousness but those wraps that decide their status. The less the wraps would be, the more the consciousness tends to be light/pure and will move upwards. The higher the wraps, the more it would fell down.

Enlightenment is nothing but merely an almost pure form of the consciousness, with just a hint of mind/desire. It needs that bit of desire to exist; otherwise it would not able to feel anything and cannot be omniscient.

It starts from Let there be light as Bible says, comes down to the complexity of the human, then starts moving upwards again up to from where it started. That is the journey from omnipotence to omniscience. The job is done.

Let there be light means that omnipotent consciousness thinks or desire of something. As soon as it desires, mind is manifested. But, from now, the omnipotence of the consciousness shifts forever to the mind and it takes control of the situation and consciousness became helpless. Now, it can only feel what mind is doing but cannot do anything on its own.

Becoming omnipotent, mind does not stop at let there be light. It starting desiring for more and more, and as the result, it accumulates more wraps which push consciousness further down. This process continues till the lowest spiritual realm.

Now, as spiritual entities found themselves stuck forever embedded with desires, thus they created a way to move upwards again in the form of humans. Unlike all other spiritual entities living in the spiritual realms, humans live a proxy life for their souls. The main part is hidden inside and only its radiation comes out. That is the best way to train and test[/b].

Human life is just like taking Norco test. A person can lie willingly but it is very difficult to lie when he is not in control of his mind under the influence of drugs. Human life is the same. The mind of the soul can lie but as it does not have the direct control on the human mind, thus, it cannot force human mind to lie or pretend. Humans will do what they think is right, irrespective of what their soul wants them to do.

Means, humans will not do the same what their souls what them to do, unless their souls would become pure and stop pretending. If a soul is not yet pure from the heart and only pretending to be so, that will reflect on his human behavior, and it would be caught. This testing is not possible on the spiritual realms and a soul/spiritual entity may cheat there. But, that is possible here. Souls are exposed here completely.

@gib

and everything else is simply not being acknowledged (though it might still make its way into memory so that you can recall it as if you were thinking about it at the time).

No.

You can recall only that part of the memory, which consciousness has witnessed. If any thought has not gone to the consciousness and remained at the level of the mind only, it cannot be recalled. It is lost forever. As the memory is meant to last forever, thus its storage device should also be capable of lasting forever. And, there is only one such entity; consciousness. Everything else is temporary.

Gib, mind is only RAM, not the hard drive. All storage capacity/memory is within the consciousness. Mind can have or handle very short term memory. You cannot put too much pressure on the RAM, otherwise it will exhaust its capacity very soon and will not able to do what it is main function; thinking. Yes, mind can access the memory stored within the consciousness, whenever it wants. But, that depends on the probing capacity of the mind.

@gib

Yes, I think that’s a good rough-and-ready analogy. It fits well with my point earlier about certain brain parts inhibiting other brains parts, and that when the inhibiting parts themselves get inhibited (by drugs), the inhibited parts become more active.

That seems to be the case, but only an expert neuroscientist can confirm that. Try to consult it if any such expert is within your reach. I do not have any such facility now.

@gib

No, it doesn’t escape rationality, but it’s not rationality–rather, I should say rationality is not it’s chief priority, but discovery. Rationality can help though. These two forms of philosophy are not mutually exclusive.

Okay.

@gib

I’m saying that one’s own mind is something that one spends time with 24/7–he has spent time with it since the day he was born–and when you compare this with the experience of an “expert”–say a therapist who has spent, I don’t know, 100 hours with you–that’s still only a fraction of a percentage of the amount of experience you’ve had with your own mind. Even if you took 100 hours of your own time, that’s time looking under the hood, whereas the therapist has only looked at the car from a distance and tried to guesstimate based on bumps and ticks she’s heard coming from somewhere inside the car. What the therapist has is knowledge of general patterns seen throughout her practice and from scientific research, but individual minds are so nuanced, diverse, and deep that this general knowledge hardly does it justice (especially when it’s not that much more difficult for an individual to gain the same general knowledge simply from hands on experience with his own mind and his experience dealing with people in general).

I agree with that. But, i was making a different point.

I was saying that, though i do not have much conventional philosophical knowledge, but just because of empirical investigations and experiences of my mind during meditation, i know not less than any prominent present philosopher about the working of the human mind in general. I was not talking about my own mind only.

@gib

Dennett’s theory of Multiple Drafts is essentially a theory that says the brain is constantly computing multiple interpretations of its incoming data–multiple narratives, or multiple stories–all at once, and in a matter of a few microseconds, the brain decides on one, or one wins out–that one is what’s consciously experienced as “what’s going on right now”.

Yes, i got the same sense and i agree with him too up to here.

@gib

Dennett says that this is just what consciousness is–the winning draft.

Here i tend to part ways. Consciousness is not the winning draft itself but one who is reading the winning draft.

@gib

(If you’ve ever seen the end of The Matrix part II–where Neo meets the architect–you’ll see what I think might be a metaphor for this: the multiple TVs all around him, each one representing one of several of Neo’s reactions, each one (maybe) a “draft,” until it focuses in on one; the architect does mention that he had to alter Neo’s consciousness for this.)

I have seen that. I think that the film is quite closer to the reality of humans. I myself gave the analogy of matrix to someone in my replies at ILP.

This human life is actually a matrix, created by spiritual entities. The only difference in the film and reality that, unlike the film, the creators of the matrix are neither our enemies not they want to trap or control us forever. They are one of us or we are one of them.

@gib

I mean, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that one needs something more than just to think intellectually to come to these conclusions; one needs the right premises to begin with and such premises come only after digging into the right experiences (whether that’s meditation, drugs, divine revelation, or whathaveyou).

You are absolutely right.

The reason is the we have only one mean to conclude anything, and that is mind. But, how can a mind conclude itself?

Let me put it another way. Imagine that you have one stick of exact one meter. Now, you can measure any length from it which is more or multiple than one meter. But, what if you have to measure a centimeter from that yardstick?

That is precisely what happens in the case of pure intellectual investigation of the mind. You cannot deduct a thought from the thought itself. You need a smaller yardstick. And, the only yardstick available for this job is consciousness. When it is provoked and becomes active, only then one can see its mind working in front of him.

@gib

But once you’ve got it, once you’ve got the premises, and are able to draw some conclusions from them, can you show this process–from the premises to the conclusion–to others who haven’t had the same experiences?

Gib, I am not nor sure but are you asking me how I do that?

@gib

I think you might be right. Four hours is a long time to be alone with nothing to do; it will probably have a very serious effect even if you, as the subject, aren’t aware of how much your mind has altered.

Gib, forget about four hours, the result will be the same even for 15 min. If you do not believe me, try it on yourself.
Sit alone and idle for 15 min and have a close look at your mind. Do not try to think anything, just see how it behaves. It will surprise you.

@gib

What do you know about Reiki?

That it is healing practice initiated by some Japanese Buddhist monk, where he can sure people by touching their body by his hands.

@gib

Why can it not cure?

For a very simple reason that monk discovered that power by going through very hard spiritual practices and everyone cannot do that.

Gib, it is not the case that such things are impossible. They are very much with the reach of humans. But, very difficult to achieve. Training of sometime in the exchange of money cannot make one reach to that level. Such things require a life time commitment. And, it is for serving others, thus that commitment should be selfless too. You would not find now many such persons who have both these qualities.

@gib

Excellent. This is what I’m trying to say. Perhaps you would recognize these thoughts as come in through wisdom, not the imagination.

Those thoughts would be of any type and in any form, from hinting about a scientific discovery to thinking about a beautiful naked woman. Means, there is no fix pattern. They can be good and helpful or even harmful.

@gib

Could it be that some entities interfere with the lives of humans (helping them to see the future, for example) against the laws of their world?

Yes, that happens sometimes but in very rare cases. That is not a practice. It is not the case that they do not have law breakers at all but not as many as we have.

@gib

Are you saying I can literally hear voices coming from my unconscious?

Yes, of course. But, that is not unconscious but soul. You can hear him taking to others.

@gib

The higher entities decide who gets incarnated in a physical human body on Earth. This means that a soul gets assigned a human body, and somewhere within the first or second trimester, it gets put into the fetus. When this happens, the fetus suddenly gains consciousness.

Right.

@gib

Now, this is only possible because the higher entities discovered the Earth and this realm. If they hadn’t, physical evolution would have continued anyway, right? Human bodies would still be born, live, and die. But there would be no soul to occupy them. And if there is no soul, there is no consciousness, right? So all this life would consist of physical occurrences only.

No. Evolution of live forms cannot possible on their own. Evolution of living entities is not a natural process but caused by spiritual entities from the very beginning. Only non-living evolution is possible without consciousness like forming or mountains and seas. Even dinosaurs used to have the same consciousness as we have.

After a certain level, any organism needs consciousness to become alive or evolve further. I am not sure where is the dividing line between conscious and unconscious organism, but there certainly comes a point when an organism becomes conscious ready. And, that is its saturation point or evolvement without consciousness. It cannot evolve further if consciousness in not infused into it.

Gib, even an ameba has a consciousness. It is said that there are 8.4 million different live forms of consciousness in this cosmos, having life span from some min to some hundred thousand years, or even more.

with love,
sanjay

[gib]

@zinnat13

Gib, people want to see what they believe. If Islam has some so called cruel elements, then it has the poeitic and soft side of the Sufism too. Sometimes i wonder why people, both within Islam and outside, do not relate it with Rumi but Osama only?

The west thinks that what happens in the Middle East only is Islam. They tend to forget that more than the half of the Muslim population lives outside ME in the countries like India, China, Indonesia and Bangladesh. These four countries have more than 1/3 of the would muslim population and that remains peaceful by and lange too, but no western intellectual talk about the muslims of these countries, because it does not serve their mindset of seeing Muslims and Islam in the bad light all the time.

It is not the Islam but Russia and US who tilled the seeds of extremism in Afganistan to counter each other. And, the whole of intellectual and civilized west watched silently. Now, the same people are trying to judge Islam?

Gib, people use to have very short memory, even if they like to call themselves intellectuals. Have a look at this-

n 1985, at a White House ceremony in honour of several Afghan mujahideen — the jihadists out of which al-Qaeda evolved — President Ronald Reagan declared, “These gentlemen are the moral equivalent of America’s Founding Fathers.” Earlier in 1982, Reagan dedicated the space shuttle ‘Columbia’ to the Afghan resistance. He declared, “Just as the Columbia, we think, represents man’s finest aspirations in the field of science and technology, so too does the struggle of the Afghan people represent man’s highest aspirations for freedom. I am dedicating, on behalf of the American people, the March 22 launch of the Columbia to the people of Afghanistan.”

The Afghan war veterans came to haunt the security of many countries. Less known is the fact that the Islamic State’s self-declared caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — like Libyan militia leader Abdelhakim Belhadj (whom the CIA abducted and subjected to “extraordinary rendition”) and Chechen terrorist leader Airat Vakhitov — become radicalised while under U.S. detention. As torture chambers, U.S. detention centres have served as pressure cookers for extremism.

US and other forces did the same with ISIS initially when it was fighting Asad in Seria. But, now, all of a sudden, they become redicals and the most hate worthy people and Islam the most hate worthy religion as well.

So, the same Islamic fundamentalists were equivalent to America’s founding Fathers and now they are most bad people of the earth because of 9/11?

No religion is bad unless it does not kill western people but kills in third world countries only.

I’m sorry if my comment offended you, Sanjay; when I talk about the Abrahamic religions I’m including my own religion too (at least, the religion of my heritage): Christianity. And I say it merely as a brute fact about the West: we do have a tradition of rebelling against the religions of old (although I wouldn’t say this is a complete picture of the West as probably more Westerners are still religious than non-religious).

@zinnat13

But, besides other reasons, the ontology itself cannot be completed unless you cannot take something unchangeable and everlasting too.

Something cannot manifest from absolute nothingness. As the existence was always there in one form or other, there must be something eternal. Rest is manifestation caused by the change.

Yes, there is something everlasting. We can think of consciousness as a light that perpetually changes color. Red, blue, yellow… these are like different thoughts, emotions, sensations ← This is the mind. What’s constant and unchanging is the fact that there is always a light ← This is consciousness.

@zinnat13

Secondly, i am not considering consciousness as some set of thoughts or any other conceptual entity. It is for real and actually, that is the only thing in the cosmos that is real. Rest is its manifestation through mind and thus illusion.

Consciousness is the root of existence. Everything else (mind and body) wraps around it. Any live entity must have consciousness. As soon as it leaves the body, body becomes dead. It is not the mind that creates consciousness. It is the other way around. Consciousness creates mind. Mind is some sort of necessary intrusion for the consciousness. It drags consciousness into the trouble all the time, But, on the other hand, consciousness becomes useless without it because if there would be nothing to feel in the absence of the mind.

I fully agree with this. It’s the light that creates the color.

@zinnat13

I agree with that. But, i was making a different point.

I was saying that, though i do not have much conventional philosophical knowledge, but just because of empirical investigations and experiences of my mind during meditation, i know not less than any prominent present philosopher about the working of the human mind in general. I was not talking about my own mind only.

Ah, then that makes sense too.

@zinnat13

@gib

But once you’ve got it, once you’ve got the premises, and are able to draw some conclusions from them, can you show this process–from the premises to the conclusion–to others who haven’t had the same experiences?

Gib, I am not nor sure but are you asking me how I do that?

I’m asking if it’s possible that the initial premises can at least be taught by those who have had the necessary experiences.

[zinnat]

@gib

when I talk about the Abrahamic religions I’m including my own religion too (at least, the religion of my heritage): Christianity

I know that.

@gib

I’m sorry if my comment offended you, Sanjay;

Technically, it does not offend me because i do not belong to any of Abrahamic religions. But yes, i am offended to some extent because it is not truth but propaganda. And, more importantly, those people who consider themselves intellectual either cannot see it or do not want to see it.

That offends me, nothing else.

@gib

And I say it merely as a brute fact about the West: we do have a tradition of rebelling against the religions of old (although I wouldn’t say this is a complete picture of the West as probably more Westerners are still religious than non-religious).

Gib, it is not about all religions that much but especially about Islam.

There may be some exceptions but a good majority of western intellectuals now days start with the premise that Islam is nothing but a horrible set of beliefs. That includes the western establishments too. But, it is not Islamic scholars those pushed and helped Islamic extremists, but the same western establishment.

The whole of the western world, especially US, lived under the impression that they can play and use the mindset of the Muslims and Islamic extremists for their vested interests as much as they like and they (Islamic extremists) will kill only Muslims and others in their relative countries. US helped and praised them until they were doing so.

US never thought that one day it would also have to face its consequences like 9/11 and Afghan war. But, that was inevitable. The ontology would go on at its course unless you do not bring any change to it. After 9/11, instead of limiting their interference in the Muslim world to a rational level, they committed another mistake by engaging militarily in Iraq.

It is only since 9/11, when the west started to put Islam in the bad light. Till then, they were freedom fighters. No western intellectual can ever explain to me how those freedom fighters, who were equilent to the forefathers of America, became terrorists all of a sudden after 9/11, just because they killed Americans this time instead of their fellow Muslims?.

I have quoted none other than US president itself in support of my argument. It cannot be more official than that.

Had the west supported Saddam during the first Gulf War in the 1990 instead of Kuwait, Islam would have not been in the shape what it is right now. It is not Osama or Al Qaida, which killed US civilians in 9/11 and its soldiers in Afghanistan, but US establishment itself.

Having said that, my assumption is that the peak of Islamic terrorism is behind us. It cannot increase now but would go down further only with the time. The circumstances and the recent developments are suggesting such. Though, there may be one huge subsiding event for that.

@gib

Yes, there is something everlasting. We can think of consciousness as a light that perpetually changes color. Red, blue, yellow… these are like different thoughts, emotions, sensations ← This is the mind. What’s constant and unchanging is the fact that there is always a light ← This is consciousness.

You can say so. The key thing is here is that it is consciousness that creates mind and thoughts initially, not the other way around. But, after creating mind, they become two instead of one. The active part is the mind and the passive part is consciousness.

Secondly, let there be light is not merely a metaphor but there is some truth in that. Consciousness is actually like this ( [size=200] ~ [/size]), a zigzag type of entity made from white radiant light, with a hint of blue color.

@gib

I’m asking if it’s possible that the initial premises can at least be taught by those who have had the necessary experiences.

Yes, why not? But, there still will be a huge difference between getting information about the premises from others and realizing those through personal experience. Though, merely having the impression still can serve the purpose to some extent by giving the right perception.

But, the million dollar question is that how one can find those worthy to believe? Where or how one can find the evidence?

with love,
sanjay

[gib]

@zinnat13

Technically, it does not offend me because i do not belong to any of Abrahamic religions. But yes, i am offended to some extent because it is not truth but propaganda. And, more importantly, those people who consider themselves intellectual either cannot see it or do not want to see it.

That offends me, nothing else.

I can appreciate that.

Also note that my comments and questions were not directed at any religion itself, but at the deities of those religions. The adherents of the religion, including Muslims, would be, if anything, victims of an excessively tyrannical god… but all this would be moot if the answers to my questions were in the negative (which they are according to you).

@zinnat13

You can say so. The key thing is here is that it is consciousness that creates mind and thoughts initially, not the other way around. But, after creating mind, they become two instead of one. The active part is the mind and the passive part is consciousness.

I see. Well, our ontologies are close but they are not the same. But I’m more interesting in understanding your ontology. In regards to what you just said, I have to assume that consciousness at least has the power to be active (even if this is not its natural state) for otherwise how could it create anything let alone the mind?

@zinnat13

But, the million dollar question is that how one can find those worthy to believe? Where or how one can find the evidence?

Evidence that one is worthy to be taught? I don’t know, Sanjay, you tell me.

[zinnat]

@gib

@zinnat13

Technically, it does not offend me because i do not belong to any of Abrahamic religions. But yes, i am offended to some extent because it is not truth but propaganda. And, more importantly, those people who consider themselves intellectual either cannot see it or do not want to see it.

That offends me, nothing else.

I can appreciate that.

Also note that my comments and questions were not directed at any religion itself, but at the deities of those religions. The adherents of the religion, including Muslims, would be, if anything, victims of an excessively tyrannical god… but all this would be moot if the answers to my questions were in the negative (which they are according to you).

@zinnat13

You can say so. The key thing is here is that it is consciousness that creates mind and thoughts initially, not the other way around. But, after creating mind, they become two instead of one. The active part is the mind and the passive part is consciousness.

I see. Well, our ontologies are close but they are not the same. But I’m more interesting in understanding your ontology. In regards to what you just said, I have to assume that consciousness at least has the power to be active (even if this is not its natural state) for otherwise how could it create anything let alone the mind?

@zinnat13

But, the million dollar question is that how one can find those worthy to believe? Where or how one can find the evidence?

Evidence that one is worthy to be taught? I don’t know, Sanjay, you tell me.

Gib, I’m trying to answer you on my mobile instead of laptop as the Internet connection of the laptop is not working. So, please bear with me if there are any mistakes.

As far as your enquiry about islam is concerned, the answers are certainly negative as you assumed rightly.

Now, to the second point of consciousness.

As I have been said many times in this thread already that consciousness is the only permanent and unchangeable entity in the whole of the cosmos. Everything else is temporary but this does not mean that they do not exist.

Consciousness certainly has the power to manifest anything further because it is omnipotent but remember it is not omniscient yet. When consciousness evolves further and becomes omniscient, it becomes the God. But, that evolution goes through human realm.

At the initial level, consciousness inherits the quality of manifest mind or thoughts because of its omnipotent nature. Somehow, it starts thinking. That is how it all begins. Then, one thought gives birth to the second one and that to the third one and so on. That is how the mind is manifested.

Now, the thinking quality of the consciousness comes into existence but, while doing so, consciousness loses its quality of thinking and becomes only a witness. It becomes helpless and at the mercy of the mind forever also and the play begins.

Your 3rd question was about believe worthy things. I I will address this issue in the next post along with that one which I want to borrow from the other thread.

With love,
Sanjay

[gib]

All right, Sanjay, thanks for the answers.