dostf

john page:

Eventually we become conscious of our own consciousness ("I think therefore I am"). (jP)

ok, we become concious of our own conciousness.
(i think therefore i am)- If i remember correctly it is Descartes. It is always the "I am" assertion that i contest. Mind thinks (from whatever is collected there and asserts this is"me" or "I exist".-then defines it by whatever information it has available. I state these conclusions are incorrect. or, if this statement(i think therefore i am) is reasonable, one still might ponder -I am, well what am i then?.

I painted a very simple theory of how the identity of a perceived object is created. (jp)

I don't have a problem with your theory as it is a reasonable explanation "on how the identity of a perceived object is created." It explains an aspect of how perception and information intermix well to give us sense of "what things are" .
Again mind must do this (compare, organize,categorize,) in order for us to funtion on that level. However i assert "truth" is "more" than this.

I don't see that "self" needs to be any more complex than the internal identity "onesself".(jp)

ok as long as we recognize we all have some idea of this ( i think you would agree) and we recognize other people(other than "me") also have this idea of "self".
Again i use "self" to describe the sum of attributes.-which we erroneously take as "me".

Changing the name label doesn't change what you are. Self is embedded within and develops as the individual develops.You are not the dostf you used to be! (jp)

Changing the name label doesn't change what you are. (jp)
yes its so, but it would effect the ideas you have about what "you" are.

Self is embedded within and develops as the individual develops.

No, the IDEA of self develops as we do.

You are not the dostf you used to be! (jp)

YES!-exactly we always think we are something we are not. Further i would state i was never that "dostf" to begin with! (at that time) it was an incorrect conclusion.

Your post was clear, so don't worry!

John Page

dostf:

This guy's site is interesting on your Hegelian topic. Deals with this-what and what-is-to-be (haecceity) related to Identity.

Here's the link <a href="http://structuredindividuals.com/let/lt.html" target="_blank">Let X=x but not necessarily</a>

Cheers!

dostf

jp brooks

But I thought your point was that communication and "love" with another "person" were the important characteristics of a relationship that enables us to get past "self". The entities that I mentioned above are held, by those who personify them as distinct ("conscious") entities, to be capable of entering into a "love" relationship and communicating with humans. So, if "love" and communication with another "person" are really the important things about a relationship between persons, why exclude the personified entities that I mentioned?(jpb)

Yes certainly "love" is the important aspect here.
The "personified entities" you decribe are certainly held by a vast amount of people as "real" or "concious".
However, the idea of discussion between us is to clarify as best we can as to what is "true".
For example, if i believe in the muslim idea of "god" or "truth", and you do not, it is up to you to show me reasonably and logically why my assertions are false.( if you are able and know it). If as i think i stated before, i am somewhat "reasonable" and "open minded", I would no longer hold to these former beliefs. This brings about an "affection" for you as i like what you are saying( it is more "truthful" than my previous assertions, and we are both interested " finding what is true no matter what".

In conjuntion with this , i would state this is part of the "cleaning" process that occurs before new information can properly be processed.If you hold some belief as "true", you will inevitably compare the new information to what is already present in your mind as "true". You will "hear it" and say to yourself" oh that sounds just like......". Put another way, if we pour water in a glass it should not be partly filled with milk, as it will ruin the taste. That is why we should have at least a basic knowledge of all religious/philosphical/atheist etc. ideas. This is done for 2 purposes-
1. to be able to reasonably and logically discuss them with others who might be interested in truth.
2. To be sure for ourselves we have not "missed" anything that we may later discover as "true".

This is a tall order!-however even knowing basics is a very good start. For example what are the basic tenents of Buddism? if we don't know maybe they are where truth lies? But if we know for example one of the basic "truths" of Buddism is that "life is suffering". We then can reasonably make a judgement is this seems reasonable to us.

So we must incorporate both approaches into our lives.(jp)

Yes, although i suggest the "mind" will funtion "automatically" with regards to our "everyday needs". It has learned the requirements necesary for our "protection" and "day to day living".It does not conflict or oppose "living truth".

Yes, I think I understand ......(jp)
I agree with this paragraphs statement. It is well said!!

Time constraints are frustrating.....(jp)

What i meant here was posting takes a lot of time-wish i had "time" to read and write more!!!

dostf

john page:

Thanks for your suggested link.
I apologize if my posts have given you the idea i am some sort of "Hegelist".
Hegel was a philosopher( a pretty good one though one might argue)
Philosophy is limited by reason and therefore incomplete.( said without predjudice, and without explaining further at it may be of no interest to you)
Again thanks for your suggestion and i will try to check it out-although from the little i saw it is of that "mind numbing" type.!ie. my brain hurts.!!(not that that should disuade us from anything)

jpbrooks

I didn't mean to suggest that rapport with another human would not suffice for the purpose of getting past "self". That would exclude people who don't believe in any deity at all.

In mentioning Scientology, I don't mean to suggest that it is true, or that your views coincide with its tenets, but Scientologists are taught that "ARC" (an acronym for "Affinity" [with the other person], "Reality" [or agreement on an issue], and "Communication") in our (friendly) social interactions, are all interrelated such that a "break" or interruption in one of the three ("ARC") characteristics of social interaction mentioned above usually results in a "break" in the other two. In fact, this relationship is depicted as a triangle with "A", "R", and "C" at each of the verticies of the triangle to illustrate their connectedness.
This view seems to provide too simplistic a characterization of social interaction, but there may be some truth in it.

I wholeheartedly agree.
In fact, it is precisely because I have found point 2) above to be true that I don't discard everything a person says just because their "worldview" differs from mine.

But doesn't "living truth" involve having a different state of mind than the ordinary state of mind that is involved in survivng and protecting ourselves in our everday lives? If so, then how can we have two different states of mind at the same time?
But if not, then how can the same state of mind be involved in both affirming and denying the existence of the "self" at the same time?

Thanks. Now that I understand your view a little better, I am coming to agree with some of the things you are saying.

I know and I agree.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

John Page

No - I should apologize because I'm the one who made the mistake!

Cheers!

dostf

jp brooks:

In mentioning Scientology, ......(jP)

Their decriptions of social interaction may be more or less accrurate, although i would contend that their ideas or definitions of "reality" "affinity: et al. are "debatable".
The example you gave(from scientology) i would place under sociology.
For your information, I am certainly not a scientlogist,nor do i endorse any of their "theology"-which is again HIGHLY debatable.
(not that you thought that, but i wanted to make it clear anyway.)

But doesn't "living truth" involve having a different state of mind than the ordinary state of mind that is involved in survivng and protecting ourselves in our everday lives? If so, then how can we have two different states of mind at the same time?
But if not, then how can the same state of mind be involved in both affirming and denying the existence of the "self" at the same time?(jpb)

"Living truth" is a "wholeness". Mind could be viewed as a "part" of this wholeness. The idea here is not to alter "state of mind"(which in itself is a somewhat problematic term). But to educate our "mind" and "reason" in order to dismiss what is "false"(ideas,beliefs, etc) from it.If we "live truth" it does not mean we will somehow "forget" how to drive a car or cook a meal. That knowledge is there for use and not "lost". ex.-we are no longer children, but we still have the knowledge of how to tie a shoelace. This is "automatic" to us now. I suggest the mind would function very similar to this if we "live truth". In fact it could be said it would then be doing its proper function- instead of trying to "solve" that which it cannot.

Thanks. Now that I understand your view a little better, I am coming to agree with some of the things you are saying.(jpb)

Very Good!- as long as they seem reasonable and logical to YOU is what is important. If they don't ask more! Never "believe" anything anyone ever states. First their statement should satisfy your reason, then "live" it yourself-then you will know if its "true" or not.( i state this not to say you don't already know this, but for emphasis)
Also, this kind of communication(posting,chatrooms) etc. is useful for exchanging ideas, but is far less effective than face to face.