On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:29:11 -0800, "Tom"
 blethered:

>
>"Halla"  wrote in message
>news:e5gjk3d64bhk4ofbbuvvp2khh2t71fro7u@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:06:16 -0800, "Tom"
>>  blethered:
>>
>>>
>>>"Halla"  wrote in message
>>>news:2f5ck31v9srotbbffj63crq5ejf69h3nnv@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> Would we be able to be aware of awareness, though?
>>>
>>>We are able to tell ourselves we're aware.
>>
>> ...how? Or, when?
>
>Upon reflection, of course. Action may be taken without our being aware of
>it, but it's upon reflection on that action that we decide we  are aware.

Right. Or, we decide that we *were* aware? (I note the difference
discussed below - so we could decide that we *were* essentially aware,
but *are* self-aware?)

>
>If the mechanism by which we repesent our experience is damaged or otherwise
>rendered inoperative, we act without self-participation.  Even very
>complicated, but generally purposeless, actions can take place this way.  In
>neurological parlance, they call this "automatism" or an "absence seizure".

Interesting.

>
>> I think I am getting the wrong idea of what sort of
>> awareness we're discussing here. If awareness does not require
>> narration how are we going to tell ourselves that we are aware, which
>> is of course an act of narration?
>
>We are not going to tell ourselves anything if we're not narrating.
>Essential awareness does not require narration.  Self-awareness is
>narration.

Gotcha.

Can essential awareness be a permanent state, do you think, is it even
desirable as a permanent state? Or is it something that's experienced
for short times?

>
>>>Reality is in the moment.  Past is memory, a story we tell ourselves about
>>>what happened, and future is anticipation, a story we tell ourselves about
>>>what will happen.  Reality is right now.
>>
>> Yes. I think, therefore, it is possible to live completely in reality
>> from moment to moment while also seeing the past and future (although
>> not too far ahead, generally).
>
>One of the things we do in the present is make pictures and stories in our 
>heads about things "past" and "future".  We don't just "see" them.  We 
>"make" them.  

So we make the future. If we make or imagine the future then see it
that way are we deluding ourselves or using an act of will to change
reality?

>Memory is not like a recording.  It doesn't impartially play 
>back some past event as a video recorder would.  The act of remembering is 
>in some very significant ways a creative act.  Memory research indicates 
>that it is possible to introduce imaginary events into one's memories of 
>past events.  

I have read a little about recovered memories, and how they haven't
always been recovered at all. 

>As it turns out, it's not that hard to do.  Elements of our 
>imaginations, if they are vivid enough and their emotional content is high 
>enough, can become memories that we think have physically occurred.  We can 
>literally talk ourselves into remembering events we have merely imagined as 
>if they really happened externally.  And we do.

<nods> I know that one, yes. :-)

>
>>>> OK. How do you know? What is reality and why is it more real than what
>>>> we imagine to be real? Would we know if we did apprehend it, and would
>>>> we be able to carry that apprehension into the narrated world?
>>>
>>>We know by direct experience.  When we stop narrating, what we narrate
>>>goes
>>>away.  However, when we stop narrating, reality does not go away.  When we
>>>stop narrating, we are no longer telling ourselves what we are feeling. We
>>>are simply feeling.
>>
>> Right, think I've gotcha there. Can we simply think, too? Or is all
>> thought narration?
>
>I subscribe to the notion that some forms of thought are unnarrated.  We
>often call this "intuition".  It's not a psychic power, it's simply
>unnarrated thought and is no more reliable or truthful than any other form
>of thought.

OK.

>
>>>We can carry the memory of a period of non-narration into our next story.
>>
>> A memory of feelings?
>
>Yes.  A recreation of feelings within the context of a represented
>situation.

Right.

>
>A feeling is the basic unit of consciousness.

OK... what counts as feelings then? Are they the same as emotions? Or
are emotions part of the set of feelings? Or something else entirely.

>
>>>Primal?  Possibly.  It seems to go deeper than that, though.  Instinctual?
>>>That depends on what you want to call an "instinct".
>>
>> Those things that seem to happen by themselves - like ducking when
>> hearing a loud noise,
>
>Reflexes.  Very simple actions.  The more complex the action, the less
>likely it is to happen without the mediation of the executive function of
>the brain.
>
>>>> Up unitl now I have received the idea that viewing more of the
>>>> imaginary objects for longer is also a path to revelation. <:-)
>>>
>>>Sure, if what you want is to reveal more imaginary objects.
>>
>> Or reveal them *as* imaginary objects. :-)
>
>That's sort of like walking backwards up a hill.  Yeah, you can do it that 
>way, but why would you want to?

Contrariness. Our chief weapon is contrariness... contrariness and
nosiness... nosiness and contrariness.... Our two weapons are
contrariness and nosiness...

Ahem. Sorry. <:-)

>
>>>>>We do not have more than one form of awareness.
>>>>
>>>> Collectively, or individually?
>>>
>>>Both.
>>
>> OK. How do you/we know that?
>
>Because we can discern no more than one and there's no reasonable excuse to 
>postulate any others.  We can see many ways through which awareness can 
>manifest itself, but it's the same awareness in every case.  It goes clear 
>on down to the nuclei of cells and the chemicals that make them up and 
>beyond that into the subatomic ballet that's been going on since the Big 
>Bang.  On that level there's no difference between one thing and another and 
>it cannot even be recognized as consciousness anymore.  So what do you need 
>with a presumption that there are multiple forms of awareness?  Where would 
>you fit one in and how would you explain its origin?

I see. 

>
>You know, this gets me thinking about  what a wonderful quality it is to 
>have the ability to imagine ourselves.  Alone among all our animal kin human 
>beings have the capacity to understand that we are both individually and 
>collectively alive.  It's ecstatic.  And it has it's dark side, too.  Along 
>with that vision of life comes a vision of death.  Human beings are the only 
>life-forms to be able to understand they they are inevitably going to die. 
>Ernest Becker, for some very good reasons, felt that religion arose from our 
>reaction to the awfullness of our anticipated individual oblivion.  If you 
>haven't read "The Denial of Death", I heartily recommend that you do.

Added to the list, ta. :-)

>
>>>So is your true nature no better than your false nature?  If so, why seek
>>>one or the other at all?
>>
>> Nosiness. Rather flippant answer, but I really do feel that's a great
>> human motivator. Call it an exercise in ID skills, or similar.
>
>When something itches, we want to scratch.  Curiosity is one way to explain 
>your heightened attention.  But what's the itch you're using curiosity to 
>scratch?

Hmm. Well, I don't know until I go and look at the itch. 

>
>>>"Essential" might be a better term.
>>
>> It might be, but that also carries connotations of being better than
>> other words or states.
>
>My use of the term "better" was to express a more accurate description, not 
>a morally superior one.  Some things *are* better than others under certain 
>conditions and for some specific purpose, but a general catergory of 
>intrinsic"betterness" is absurd.
>

I agree. Was merely clarifying, or being, y'know, contrary. <looks
contrite>


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:ijflk3ppa05a0db0r5fljlojb2iau8mdeb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:29:11 -0800, "Tom"
>  blethered:
>
>>
>>"Halla"  wrote in message
>>news:e5gjk3d64bhk4ofbbuvvp2khh2t71fro7u@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:06:16 -0800, "Tom"
>>>  blethered:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Halla"  wrote in message
>>>>news:2f5ck31v9srotbbffj63crq5ejf69h3nnv@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Would we be able to be aware of awareness, though?
>>>>
>>>>We are able to tell ourselves we're aware.
>>>
>>> ...how? Or, when?
>>
>>Upon reflection, of course. Action may be taken without our being aware of
>>it, but it's upon reflection on that action that we decide we are aware.
>
> Right.

Whew.  I wasn't sure it would be on the test.

> Or, we decide that we *were* aware? (I note the difference
> discussed below - so we could decide that we *were* essentially aware,
> but *are* self-aware?)

I'd say so.  I debated adding "and were" to my sentence originally but opted 
for clarity over thoroughness this time.

> Can essential awareness be a permanent state, do you think, is it even
> desirable as a permanent state? Or is it something that's experienced
> for short times?

It *is* a permanent state.  We tend to direct our attention to our 
representation system, what with it being so massively useful as a survival 
tool, but underneath it all flows a constant undifferentiated organic 
awareness.

>>One of the things we do in the present is make pictures and stories in our
>>heads about things "past" and "future".  We don't just "see" them.  We
>>"make" them.
>
> So we make the future.

We don't make up the future. We make up stories about what we think will 
happen.  We anticipate.  Quite often we're right, which reinforces the 
illusion that the future exists before it happens.

> If we make or imagine the future then see it
> that way are we deluding ourselves or using an act of will to change
> reality?

Every representation is incomplete.  It has to be incomplete, since it's a 
representation and not the thing it represents.  Thus we cannot envision the 
future, or the past, without it being in some way delusional.  Imagining a 
different future is one step in the magical act of changing reality 
intentionally, but more is needed than simply imagining it.

>>A feeling is the basic unit of consciousness.
>
> OK... what counts as feelings then? Are they the same as emotions? Or
> are emotions part of the set of feelings? Or something else entirely.

Sensory data.  Emotions are representations of body states.  Our senses 
include the five we are directly aware of and several that are simply 
monitors of things like blood chemistry and generally function below the 
threshold of our self-awareness.  Those internal monitoring senses are 
usually interpreted by the executive brain functions as "emotions".

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:17:40 -0800, "Tom"
 blethered:

>
>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>news:ijflk3ppa05a0db0r5fljlojb2iau8mdeb@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:29:11 -0800, "Tom"
>>  blethered:
>>
>>>
>>>"Halla"  wrote in message
>>>news:e5gjk3d64bhk4ofbbuvvp2khh2t71fro7u@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:06:16 -0800, "Tom"
>>>>  blethered:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Halla"  wrote in message
>>>>>news:2f5ck31v9srotbbffj63crq5ejf69h3nnv@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would we be able to be aware of awareness, though?
>>>>>
>>>>>We are able to tell ourselves we're aware.
>>>>
>>>> ...how? Or, when?
>>>
>>>Upon reflection, of course. Action may be taken without our being aware of
>>>it, but it's upon reflection on that action that we decide we are aware.
>>
>> Right.
>
>Whew.  I wasn't sure it would be on the test.
>

Aren't you glad you revised thoroughly then?

>> Or, we decide that we *were* aware? (I note the difference
>> discussed below - so we could decide that we *were* essentially aware,
>> but *are* self-aware?)
>
>I'd say so.  I debated adding "and were" to my sentence originally but opted 
>for clarity over thoroughness this time.

Fair enough. I must be pedantic because I am trying to grasp new
understanding. Sorry and all that. <:-)

>
>> Can essential awareness be a permanent state, do you think, is it even
>> desirable as a permanent state? Or is it something that's experienced
>> for short times?
>
>It *is* a permanent state.  

That we're not aware of. Generally speaking.

>We tend to direct our attention to our 
>representation system, what with it being so massively useful as a survival 
>tool, but underneath it all flows a constant undifferentiated organic 
>awareness.

OK.

>
>>>One of the things we do in the present is make pictures and stories in our
>>>heads about things "past" and "future".  We don't just "see" them.  We
>>>"make" them.
>>
>> So we make the future.
>
>We don't make up the future. We make up stories about what we think will 
>happen.  We anticipate.  Quite often we're right, which reinforces the 
>illusion that the future exists before it happens.

OK.

>
>> If we make or imagine the future then see it
>> that way are we deluding ourselves or using an act of will to change
>> reality?
>
>Every representation is incomplete.  It has to be incomplete, since it's a 
>representation and not the thing it represents.  

Now I'm reminded of the map that was 1:1 scale, so as to accurately
represent the countryside it referred to...

>Thus we cannot envision the 
>future, or the past, without it being in some way delusional.  Imagining a 
>different future is one step in the magical act of changing reality 
>intentionally, but more is needed than simply imagining it.

OK.

>
>>>A feeling is the basic unit of consciousness.
>>
>> OK... what counts as feelings then? Are they the same as emotions? Or
>> are emotions part of the set of feelings? Or something else entirely.
>
>Sensory data.  

Which could be false.

>Emotions are representations of body states.  Our senses 
>include the five we are directly aware of and several that are simply 
>monitors of things like blood chemistry and generally function below the 
>threshold of our self-awareness.  Those internal monitoring senses are 
>usually interpreted by the executive brain functions as "emotions".

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. :-)


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."