[You:] Fine, then we agree there is no supernatural source for consciousness. THAT was my point.
I didn’t exactly say that there is no supernatural source for consciousness. I guess that would depend on how one defines “supernatural.” I’m not sure I know how to do that. In a certain way, merely to define the thing would instantly cut it off from “nature” by converting it into an abstract object – an object created by an intending mind. Such a procedure seems virtually to eliminate the entire idea of the supernatural, while clearly putting a premium on the operations of conscious mind.
Let me try to make a difficult distinction clear. There are the laws of physics, physical theories of the universe, mathematics, et al. Arguably, all these things are mental constructs, descriptions of the nature and properties of the physical universe. What they are not is the physical universe itself. The description is already a “once remove” from the Reality it observes and articulates. It is not that Reality itself.
So, are such powerful and enduring mental constructs “natural”; or might they be regarded as “supernatural” in some way? Though perhaps not in the way we usually understand that term these days?
Similarly, is conscious mind – most particularly in its aspect of will (i.e., the power to discriminate and select from alternative potentialities, to make choices) – natural? We can’t say it’s unnatural; for clearly it appears in nature -- at least in terms of its observable effects.
Yet if it’s not strictly “natural” (since it can intervene in the natural and transform it), and it can’t be unnatural, where do you have left to go but to supernatural – if you have a mind to classify such things in the first place?
* * * * * *
Shifting gears. You wrote:
Oh, and proper meditation is silent. Maybe that is the problem, you ever stop thinking about the unthinkable?
Which leads me to depart from my normal custom and actually take umbrage with a correspondent, on two points. First, apparently you didn’t conduct a meditation on the Walker passage I quoted. You analyzed it instead. There is a big difference in the respective procedures. And I’m sorry you didn’t do the meditation, because Walker ended it with a perfectly lovely Zen koan that I thought you would find particularly appealing.
Second, you must think me a moron to advise me that “proper meditation is silent.” Well, Duh! Your reference to me “thinking about the unthinkable,” and do I ever stop doing that, is perfectly gratuitous, and misses the point of the meditation to which you seem to refer entirely.
That particular mental operation involves clearing the mind of all thoughts, of getting rid of all words. Its object is to completely “still the mind.” There is to be no “thinking.” Then, if you can hold this state for long enough (and that’s surprisingly difficult), you get to see what happens next – which is the object of the exercise.
What you describe as “unthinkable” is, thus, partially right. But it misses the object, which is to experience consciousness as a state of pure awareness – that is, keenly aware of the presence of a unique self, a conscious mind, that precedes all thought and which constitutes the matrix in which all thought takes place.
IMHO, you don’t want to “fiddle around” with that particular meditative form.
Meditating a good koan usually is challenge enough. Such a meditation would be “silent,” too.
Thanks for writing, LogicWings.
"So we at last find that reality is the observer observing. It is the two parts of our great separation coming together. There is a separation. There is a dreadful and vast separation. But there is no space and really no matter to die but that our own minds did not first come together to create it. Our observation – our coming together – created matter. Observation is the stuff of the space that reaches out past the vast clusters of galaxies. Reality is the fruit of love’s embrace."
The passage strikes me as fine grist for an extended meditation....
You already conceded the point. It cannot be anything but strictly natural, or we couldn't know about it. You simply cannot take a phenomenon like 'will' and define it as something other than 'natural' without defining away your ability to discern it, (i get so tired of saying this) BY DEFINITION. Either your definition and concept represents something 'natural' or it is fantasy, since you cannot experience anything outside the 'natural' world. If you can experience something, it then becomes part of the 'natural' world. If you want to say God is the natural world, I have no problem with that. But I don't think YOU understand where your little ripples will then lead you.
Which leads me to depart from my normal custom and actually take umbrage with a correspondent, on two points.
And umbrage? What kind of umbrella is that? Did you pay for it before you took it?
First, apparently you didn’t conduct a meditation on the Walker passage I quoted. You analyzed it instead.
Yes, exactly. There was nothing to meditate on, it was irrational. If you think that 'meditation' is based upon reflecting upon thoughts then you don't know what true meditation is. Which is probably what the problem is here. You are talking down to someone who has been there and is standing above you. Your high horse is merely a rocking horse, dear.
And I’m sorry you didn’t do the meditation, because Walker ended it with a perfectly lovely Zen koan that I thought you would find particularly appealing.
Stop projecting and start listening. You have so many filters going I'm surprised you can see anything at all. Stop trying to cram everything that comes your way into your little comfortable box. It won't fit. I don't care much for Zen koans. I know them, I went there, I wasted years there, but I also see right thru them. It is why Zen is frozen in some picturesque past like a leaf in the ice of a frozen lake. It goes nowhere. Zen is about acceptance, not about growing. That is why it never made a single machine, never contributed to progress in any way. It is a pretty picture painted for the leisure classes to while away the time while they all get older and closer to death. Yuch!
YOU: First, apparently you didn’t conduct a meditation on the Walker passage I quoted.
YOU: Second, you must think me a moron to advise me that “proper meditation is silent.” Well, Duh! Your reference to me “thinking about the unthinkable,” and do I ever stop doing that, is perfectly gratuitous, and misses the point of the meditation to which you seem to refer entirely.
These two paragraphs are mutually exclusive. One cannot meditate upon a passage and be entirely silent at the same time. One is either silent, or one is thinking. Years and years and years of meditation have proven this to me. Most people don't meditate. Most people indulge in imagination and think they meditate. Your statements here are self evident.
That particular mental operation involves clearing the mind of all thoughts, of getting rid of all words. Its object is to completely “still the mind.” There is to be no “thinking.” Then, if you can hold this state for long enough (and that’s surprisingly difficult), you get to see what happens next – which is the object of the exercise.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've got the formula down pat. Reminds me of the story of the student who comes in and says "Master, I finally know how to meditate" and the Sensei just hits him with a stick. Like the old saying, He who doesn't know speaks, he he knows is silent.
But it misses the object, which is to experience consciousness as a state of pure awareness – that is, keenly aware of the presence of a unique self, a conscious mind, that precedes all thought and which constitutes the matrix in which all thought takes place.
Now, are you talking Zen? In Zen there is no 'self' of any kind, 'self' is seen to be an illusion created by the selfish reasoning mind. So if you are saying this is the 'object' of Zen meditation you are wrong. Thought in Zen is always considered a hindrance. It should never take place. What you say here contradicts that. You do not know whereof you speak.
Now if you are speaking of some other kind of meditation, that is another story.
IMHO, you don’t want to “fiddle around” with that particular meditative form.
In my less than humble opinion you should hold your rash opinions about me to yourself. Not only are they offensive, they prove you make judgements about others when you can't possibly have enough information to make such judgements. Unless you are bucking to lose what little respect for you that remains. To the point, there is only one form of meditation, all else is fantasy. That was the point. You were terming something meditation that isn't meditation, just another way of thinking. Meditation is without thought. One cannot 'meditate' on something.
This gets into a very esoteric point. There are good schools of philosophy and there are wrong schools, phony schools. People who get wrapped up in a wrong school get just enough to let them think they are really getting something, but because they don't have the power to discriminate between the real and the unreal, true and false, reality and fantasy, they never realize what they are in is a wrong school. There are always clues, like the contradictions you present here, that if examined reveal false ideas. But people caught within these never see them until they step outside them. If they ever do.
You've done the classic dodge here. Ignoring all the points where I proved you wrong and focusing upon those elements that you feel you can 'take umbrage' with. Fact is, your whole post here is throwing more stuff against the wall, all opinions, all suppositions, all assertions, all questions, but not one rational refutation of a single point I made.
Makes my point, keep in irrational, keep it in the muddy realms of unprovable philosophical sophistry, and denigrade logical thought in the process.
And I just noticed something reviewing for post.
Your reference to me “thinking about the unthinkable,” and do I ever stop doing that,
Though you meant the opposite, you inadvertently spoke the truth here. I do believe they refer to this as a Freudian slap!!! Maybe the slap will wake you up.