oorqueue

Hey, this will be my first post here. It will be the first of three that i am going to make. These are essays that i wrote for my first philosophy class, and are therefore based mostly off of my own conjecture and 'theories'.. I dont necessarily think of these things as definites, or even Truths, but they are ideas that i like to play with.

I am a person of theory and open-ended possibilities, so please take that into consideration when reading my thoughts. I try to take the most outlandish and even remote ideas and create logical systems that will allow them to work. I do my best to avoid fallacies and stuipid assumptions...

So, i hope that i spark enough interest for you to respond. Thanks for your time.

This first essay was in response to reading some of Chuang Tzu's basic writings. Honestly, i didnt really do the required reading and used the assignment mostly to create a place where i could pontificate on my own thoughts...

Chuang Tzu's Basic Writings, a collection of metaphor used to descriptively communicate the most abstract and obscure qualities of the human condition, sheds light upon some extremely important facets of life, and how, without the effort of thought, one may soon be lost in the sea of reality. From the discussions alluding to a need to relinquish a need for control over ourselves and our environments, to the tendency of humanity to place moral judgments upon all that is perceivable, and to the importance of not resting on a set of beliefs in order to control, but instead to know that nothing is known, the Taoist philosophy presents a Universe rich in possibility, yet also full of deception, for it seems that many concepts so easily accepted by consciousness are in fact illusions created out of fear.

These concepts have some important and deep parallels to my own realizations about existence. I have a fundamental philosophy in which consciousness is a separate entity from our physical bodies, that consciousness is a completely abstract awareness, unable to be measured in any scientifically accepted way. As such, the physical body would then act not as the residence for consciousness, but as a conduit, a filter, and an interpreter of physical reality. By transmitting electrical impulses it receives from the "external" world to the brain, which exists as the fundamental link between the physical and the abstract, it allows an abstraction to become concrete.

By viewing consciousness in this manner, variations in intelligence, perception, and how physical changes in the brain can seem to affect consciousness itself, can be explained. If the brain is a filter, then depending on its unique physical structure, consciousness will be manifested differently for each individual. So, as every brain is slightly different, behavior and psychology also varies. However, beyond the external manifestations of consciousness in the form of behavior and psychology, I maintain that all consciousness is the same. Even applied to animals, which have their conscious manifestations inhibited by more simplistic brains, the theory holds true to its form. For, if all consciousness is present as not simply an externalized behavior but also an immeasurable, non-linear, potentially infinite internal awareness, it can be thought that all consciousness is then fundamentally shared as well as fundamentally separated.

Everything possessing consciousness has an ability to partially manipulate their environment. Some do this through physical labor, others through oratory skills. The possibilities are seemingly endless, yet physical sciences describe "laws" governing nature which conflict with a myriad of observations recorded over time. As awareness develops, a profound understanding of reality is reached, deeper questions are asked, and slowly, previously accepted "laws" of nature fall to new and more complex definitions. Yet, people seem to possess different levels of awareness of their own consciousness. Some may even "see" beyond linear space, through strong intuition and empathy, or have unique abilities they seem to talk to the dead, predict the future, or read the thoughts of other minds. Some may even possess the power to manipulate their environments by thought alone. These are individuals who have retained "full," or at least extended, consciousness such that the division between subjective awareness and the objective consciousness begins to break down. They seem to have an intuitive knowledge of the fundamental workings of the Universe. They are labeled as mystics, geniuses, schizophrenics, and prophets.

So, if subjective consciousness occurs due to the mating of a physical filter for the Universe (the body), and an infinite awareness existing beyond time and space, then the relationship of free-will and determinism can occur simultaneously. Fate can be described as our plan of life, set even before it begins. For prior to a subjective consciousness taking form as a physical being, it already knows everything that has happened and will happen due to its existence outside of linear time, from which all events in temporal existence are "visible" simultaneously. Once in the physical universe, it is unable to consciously view time-space as anything but linear, and can then sense only the occurrence of the present moment, or reflect, through "memory," to the past.
Since we no longer have the ability to see outside of linear time, we then perceive life as one of "free-will," often following the wrong path: one which our universal unconscious "knows" is not meant to be taken. These are perceived as "low points" in our lives. At these points, nothing needed to make us happy is present. We have no ability to improve the satisfaction of our consciousness, and hopelessness ensues. However, since the unconscious knows the destiny of this particular consciousness, sometimes it may "steer" the consciousness in the right direction.

Often, this unconscious message relaying capability manifests through dreams. If one becomes aware enough to recognize this tendency and capability, they may re-focus on their true path at an accelerated rate through methods such as lucid dreaming, meditation, or self-hypnosis. These methods, in addition to truly understanding our dreams, can guide us through life and help to fulfill internal desires. They allow our consciousness to become more aware of the unconscious through questioning and self-reflection; barring the possibility of lapsing into the routine of ignoring the unconscious by not questioning one's beliefs or assumptions, then constant growth may be achieved.

Life follows a cycle. The happiest times are those times when our inner desires are most filled, when we truly are on the path. Our most ecstatic moments are simply those chance instances where all conscious and unconscious desires for pleasure are fulfilled at the same instant. However, moments of suicidal thoughts are representative of the total denial by the consciousness of the existence of the unconscious. When one forgets that things will always get better, denying that knowledge of the true nature of self, extreme depression and suicide become increasingly likely.

So then, the "Way" described by Tzu is present as well as the inherent tendency for subjective consciousness to desire freedom, and to make judgments or distinctions. How is it possible to define a "Way" which by inherently seems to negate the validity of defining and judging? It seems possible that through the process of becoming so aware of his collective nature, describing it as the "Way," he may have forgotten that only part of life is passively observing and experiencing reality. What is the purpose of living a subjective life that possesses no subjective effort or struggle? Is it not through these conflicts that awareness increases? If the struggle for internal peace is important, then it must follow that externalized personal struggle is important as well: balance and symmetry.

Vorkosigan

<a href="http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html" target="_blank">http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html</a>

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Systems of thought which are logically built on arbitrary (unproven, unprovable) premises, cannot be called rational.

Keith.

Answerer

Hmmm, interesting but not necessary true.

Hugo Holbling

Keith Russell wrote:

...like assuming the uniformity of nature, for example? Or causality?

Keith Russell

Hugo:

Nice try, but I don't consider those premises, but self-validating axioms.

You are right that they cannot be proven, and this is because they are the conditions necessary for proof to exist.

Keith.

garthoverman

Hello, ooqueue. A few comments:

I think you are incorrect to posit the seperation of the body from its consciousness. Instead, I would say that they are delicately interwoven. While consciousness does not need the body to exist, physical existance requires a physical manefestation with which to manipulate. The body, thus, is more of an interface than a filter, though the limitations of our physical sensory mechanisms most certainly exclude a great deal of expriential data available to us.

Events are not concretely laid out prior to taking physical shape. Instead certain probable events are perceived; events that are then drawn into actualization by an individual consciousness's desire and intent. Actualizing events out of the probable alternatives, then also affects the probabilties of the events that can follow the actualized probability. In this way, "fate" can only be perceived loosely by becoming aware of the probabilities that exist and evaluating the likeliness of any of them to come to pass.
Nothing happens that isn't "meant" to happen. It is the nature of consciousness to creates its reality based on its beliefs and expectations. If one is in a "low" point, one must then examine his/her own expectations carefully to determine the source and the solution. While various probable selves may simultaneously exist in a much more subjectively preferrable state, any experience that one finds subjectively undesireable is a consequnece of that individuals own desire and intent.
Moments of ecstacy are quite possible at any given time under any given circumstance. However, as a consequence of an individual's belief such a state may not occur. Suicidal situations are usually representative of points where an individual has accepted beliefs that inherently limit his/her expression and has thus closed whatever avenues that may have been open previously. This is a subjective state, and not objectively warranted.
Effort and struggle are not absolutley necessary in any form. Both imply an imbalance. It is arguable that the true "Way" be one of cooperation and harmony, thus symbolizing the balance and symmetry of which you spoke. Though it is futhermore argueable that "Struggle" and "Cooperation" could be synonymous from appropriate perspectives.

Yours,

Garth

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: garthoverman ]</p>

Starboy

Keith, study more mathematics.

Starboy

tronvillain

An interesting essay, but certainly not a position I really agree with. Now, I do think that the self is an abstract phenomenon, but it is the product of the physical body and is generally located within it. As Dennett says in Consciousness Explained, the self is a narrative centre of gravity.

To my knowledge, there are no unique and magical abilities in need of explanation. When someone speaks with the dead the dead do not hear or answer, when someone makes a prediction about the future they do so based upon the present and the past, and when someone reads the thoughts of another they are in reality extrapolating from outward behavior. No one has the power to manipulate the environment by thought alone.

Hugo Holbling

Keith:

I should point you to Starboy's reply, but i wonder if i may ask you a question concerning these two "self-validating axioms": are they praxeologically sound, rather than philosophically? That is, is it possible to act without implicitly or otherwise assuming them to hold?

Starboy:

As a biased mathematician, i may say your advice is sound.