Re: Mind's Eye Re: What is the individual?

I used the word "Soul" to denote the Being , unconscious in my view ,
from whose mind the entire Creation emanates. As all beings animate or
inanimate have sprung from him , although in a natural way, I regard
Him as the Soul of all.

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:19 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't disagree with Molly, though I was just presenting what her
> words 'rang' in me.  My belief is that consciousness in used too
> infrequently - the basics of the mess of our communities and people is
> unconscious and broadly animal (the mess includes some good stuff).
> Consciousness is too easily overcome by cunning, and, as Molly says,
> narcissism.
> What has struck me for a long time is how difficult it is to present
> argument because it's too difficult to get anyone to take part
> 'honestly' - this is particularly difficult for teachers these days!
> In some areas, I have stopped thinking in standard ways - gender is an
> example.  I tend to see in terms of certain types being fascinated by
> trinkets, fashion, gossip - one could imagine a shaggy dog story here
> in which these types all turn out to be women - but honestly that's
> not what I mean.  I'm not interested in my identity as a man - but in
> terms of what I'm able to be and do - maleness is largely a
> constraint, animal and not much I want.  The opportunities for
> identity seem very much off-the-peg and already detailed to copy.  One
> modern identity that interests me is that of the 'empty creditor' -
> those who bring bankruptcy about through derivatives wangles.  Some of
> my students clearly see such as models to copy - shrewd in money-
> making.  The image of this identity in me is more one of the vile
> usurer demanding sex through threats of eviction in silent film.  The
> apparatchiks quickly became entrepreneurchiks once Soviet rhetoric
> gave way to World Bank trash.  There is surely a false individualism
> that is merely chameleon-like?  And soul is denied RP.  I suspect mine
> troubles me and I don't not welcome that given what I see around me!
>
> On Feb 26, 3:53 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The thes [THEs] that define this may come in undivided by duality, what
>> they have been multiplied with is to be experienced nevertheless.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:25 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The one who is aware of oneself and the others is the individual  --
>> > and that cannot be without consciousness. The one that is unconscious
>> > is not an individual but the Soul from which all the individualities
>> > emanate. The identity is just the covering of an individuality.
>>
>> > On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 7:33 PM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Ideas of identity are related to matter - I allow that to happen every
>> > > night.
>>
>> > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> I know my view is not that of the world..  if it was  there would have
>> > >> been massive changes long ago,,  the best I can hope for is to ask the
>> > right
>> > >> questions,  throw out some ideas,,  in talking with young people and
>> > >> hopefully they may start thinking and come up with ideas that they
>> > might be
>> > >> able to bring about change.. they are the one that have the
>> > responsibility
>> > >> now. My role at best would be of that of an elder.
>>
>> > >> I do know you can not pay off debt with more debt. all though people
>> > will
>> > >> try to convince you that you can do it with poverty. whether they like
>> > it or
>> > >> not their souls are at risk.
>>
>> > >> Our ideas need to be put out there for examination whether they are
>> > right
>> > >> or wrong, it doesn't matter..
>> > >> Allan
>>
>> > >> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >>> If what is on either side of the equal sign goes both ways, your
>> > >>> interpretation of my statement would be accurate.  I think I was
>> > >>> saying that we confuse our world view for what is in actuality, our
>> > >>> individual view.  In other words, we sometimes think the whole world
>> > >>> has a view that is actually just ours in the moment.  There is a
>> > >>> narcissistic psychology to this that seems to be prevalent in those
>> > >>> that need to feel themselves "right" or superior or more powerful.
>> > >>> I've also found it interesting that everyone else in the room can
>> > >>> sometimes see it, but the person espousing.  A good absurd joke can
>> > >>> bust through that illusion and humble us in a way that brings us to
>> > >>> the point of knowing that we know nothing, it is all a matter of view.
>>
>> > >>> To discuss individuality, we should probably discuss identity, which
>> > >>> is what the narcissist will defend to the end, needing to be right,
>> > >>> see others as wrong and so on.  How we create our identities has a
>> > >>> direct relationship to consciousness, because as more of our
>> > >>> consciousness is found in the infinite, and less in limitations, we
>> > >>> quite naturally let go of our stories, identity, our values - and they
>> > >>> are aligned with the eternal.  We are by design, both finite and
>> > >>> infinite.  Our identities are steeped in duality and limitation.
>> > >>> After a long day a work, a good comedy routine can help shed all the
>> > >>> tensions of the day, and restore my harmony.  Resting my(our)self(ves)
>> > >>> in the paradox of the one and the many brings a good nights sleep.
>>
>> > >>> On Feb 24, 4:06 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>> > Molly made the point in another thread that we conflate individuality
>> > >>> > with what is really a world-view.    Most of us like to think we have
>> > >>> > a good quota of individuality - but then express this as dedicated
>> > >>> > followers of fashion.  I know as a teacher that trying to set up
>> > >>> > lessons that students really take hold of and do their own thing in
>> > >>> > relies an having some pretty unusual people in.  Most students claim
>> > >>> > to want to do their own thing, but the vast majority will do no
>> > >>> > constructive work (even against my open standards on what this can
>> > be)
>> > >>> > if they have to organise it themselves.  US society is often claimed
>> > >>> > to be the most individualistic in the world - yet look at the
>> > >>> > organisation in American Football.
>>
>> > >>> > My own view is that our lack of individuality actually arises from
>> > the
>> > >>> > promulgation of celebrity, either as in mad political cults or via
>> > >>> > 'International Hollywood'.  An example of the first is North Korea
>> > >>> > and, of course, we are the prime example of the latter.  In our case,
>> > >>> > the ready-to-hand of ADMASS means we have almost no real public
>> > >>> > dialogue as everything is mediated through the crass world view and
>> > >>> > most people have soaked this up as their individuality.  Quine made
>> > >>> > the point long ago that the notion of evidence is difficult because
>> > of
>> > >>> > something like this.  People think the evidence has come from the
>> > >>> > outside, when in fact they only deal with what has impinged and
>> > >>> > networked in the world-view they have soaked up.
>>
>> > >>> > There's a classic example of this about at the moment.  It's debt and
>> > >>> > the way we construe the term in the way we think about household debt
>> > >>> > as the same as this economic-bankster stuff.  Normal dialogue is
>> > >>> > impossible because most people can't understand the language because
>> > >>> > they have never invested the effort to get beyond an imprinted self.
>>
>> > >>> > Much has been written on this, usually under the guise of paradigms -
>> > >>> > with the idea that we can learn different ones in external language.
>> > >>> > This seems a non-starter for me, as at least 85% of "language" is
>> > non-
>> > >>> > verbal and huge amounts manipulative.  I would contend that
>> > >>> > individualism is the curse of our times and exemplified by such
>> > >>> > discussions as whether bankers and sports stars are worth their
>> > riches
>> > >>> > - always discussed in the paradigm of an individual meritocracy that
>> > >>> > goes unchallenged.  From other perspectives the presence of these
>> > >>> > "individuals" is evidence of what they system produces and reason
>> > >>> > enough to change it.
>>
>> > >> --
>> > >>  (
>> > >>   )
>> > >> |_D Allan
>>
>> > >> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

0 comentários:

Postar um comentário