I go back and forth between the idea that the mind and body are separate entities somehow entwined and the idea that there is no such separation. There are reasons to believe either, but I think it is most healthy to think of them as aspects of one entity, as there is no true separation of the Self, only different parts of the whole. Every part performs a function, and our mind is simply one of those parts, albeit an important part. Body parts are in different locations, have different functions, and are made of different materials, but we do not think of any part of the body as being a different entity from another. My toes are just as much a part of me as my eyes are although they are in different places and perform entirely different functions. Therefore, it makes sense that although I do not know the location or makeup of my mind, it is still a part of me. I could view my Self as many different pieces, depending on how exact I wanted my classification to be, but all the pieces are still parts of the whole. Even the pieces’ importances to the whole do not affect the fact they are all parts of me. I could view my Self as being many faceted, or dual, but there will always be a singular Self at the base of my being.
This does not mean that I do not have to work at strengthening the ties between my mind and my body, just as I do not let my muscles become uncoordinated. ‘Yoga’ means, basically, to yoke together to achieve work. In context of the term’s use, Yoga means yoking the mind and body together to achieve enlightenment. By disciplining the connections between mind and body, I can perform any task better. This is a simple idea but profound in implications. Discipline of the mind and body is essential to knowing the Self, being true to the Self, and controlling the Self.
I believe that the most basic classifying division of the Self is into mind and body, but that I do not have a dual nature; I am one person, not two, with many complimentary facets that can work together to achieve voluntary, controlled action.
Despite that I am a devout materialist/monist, I think everyone uses at least the metaphor of mind/body. But metaphors don’t have to be literally true to be useful. Or even necessary - metaphors, at their best, add meaning and take none away.
so in your view then, awareness is a property which begins and ends with an organism?
that is, awareness arises out of its own absence or lack of?
i do think thoughts themselves are physical/energetic potentials, as they clearly affect our physiological functions
but the origin of thought? surely this is prior to physicality (in the traditional materialist sense), especially that of the truly original and creative sort
surely we participate in something greater than ourselves, just as the cell does in the organ, and likewise the organ in me - fractal perspectives
but is a cell cognizant of its purpose or existence within an organ? or an organ with a body?
certainly not, and likewise we humans do as we do in this vast expanse - not knowing what or why.
it is much too easy for us to lack the perspective necessary to see our inferior place on a cosmic scale, our part in a far greater whole
but unlike our cells and organs, we are capable of both inquiry and perspective, imagination and perception
einstein rode a beam of light to discover relativity and matter/energy equivalence - and what is not either matter or energy, in your mind?
Awareness arises out of brain function - it is a brain function.
The origin of thought? Brains.
We participate in many things greater than ourselves - like Super Bowl parties.
But nothing spooky, no.
I will admit that we could be part of something spooky that we are not aware of, sure. i just have no evidence of that.
That may be the easy way, or it may not. But I see no reason to invent a perspective out of whole cloth. In many ways, it’s easier to be part of God’s flock. I just don’t see any reason to do so, besides that it is easier.
And imagination is not the same thing as perception. We are capable of imagination, but I prefer not to base my worldview on imagination alone.
I’m not sure I have any idea what it would mean to believe oneself divine.
And I’m afraid that I don’t know what a priori perception is, either.
We can surely be rational about our imagination - when it’s useful to do so. And imaginative as we use reason, sure.
I am not setting them as opposites. I think they both have their uses - not mutually exclusive uses, either. But neither my emotions nor my reason leads me to metaphysics.
I think temperament has a lot to do with one’s philosophy.
Yes - even a metaphysician could write with his blood.
But it wouldn’t be easy.
I have seen it done, however.
I’m not sure we should avoid mere discomfort, but nausea, perhaps. I cannot swallow metaphysics - it won’t stay down. I can hardly control that - it is almost not a choice.