what is "consciousness"?

In a way, there is . . . you just vote "thumbs up" for any post which you partiuclarly like . . .

You are absolutely right. Thanks for the reminder.

And that's the point of Searle's proposition that all is subjective and that's an objective fact.

indeed, thats the proposition I was referring to, I just wasn't sure who said it.

Its a bit of a paradox isn't it? "all is subjective" yet that in itself becomes an "objective fact".

Because it's logical.

Some people are more capable of looking past their first hand perspective than others.

go on....

I just mean that the subjective perspective we all share on account of our biology isn't experienced similarly by all of us. Some think of it as their "default" state of being, while others think of it as an illusion (though a needed and useful one). But those in the latter group tend to have a greater ability to percieve themselves as part of something, and tend to have a greater capacity to think "without ego".

I believe our existence is made up from both the default state of being and illusion. Where people's median lies between the two is a whole new ball game.

I can relate to that.

I am on page 176 (out of 299) of my 74th reading of Being and Time and I can't wait to read it the 75th time.

Who you are is in the 'truth' of 'Be'-ing-there (Dasein). Only by getting to the bottom of the 'truth' can you uncover the limitlessness of who you really are.

Academic philosophy, as presented in this forum, is the avoidance of 'getting to the bottom' of 'Be'-ing-there by skimming over the top of 'truth' with 'acceptable' memorized philosophy concepts and making sure we don't uncover anything.

I thought you would be interested.

Ohhhhhh...memorized what? That one is certainly not aimed at me...thats for sure...never did I ever get an A on my life based upon memorized anything...for the better and for worse I am one of those who always speaks is mind...you in turn speak a book...

What has made you switch from typing "Be-ing" to " 'Be'-ing"?

We throw 'human being' and 'being' around as if we know what we're talking about. 'Human being' and 'being' are concepts. They are an 'agreed upon' reference to a combination of characteristics which have nothing to do with 'Be'-ing. The 'secret handshake' in life is to assume that everybody knows what is being said when 'Human being' is being used. I write 'Be'-ing this way to remind my 'self' to think and not just skim over the top of life by assuming to know what people are saying.

When you question what is being said you remind people that they haven't done their 'due diligence' and that they haven't earned the right to be talking about what they're talking about. I am talking about a lifetime of ambiguity here. Finding out that you don't know that you don't know doesn't make anybody happy. People don't want to be reminded of that.

Diplomas or teaching credentials don't automatically annoint a person with the title "He knows what he is talking about, listen to him". People use diplomas, teaching credentials and life as a safe place to hide.

Finally, to answer your question, no thing has made me switch. I thought about it and made a choice.

Are you referring to our ability to think about things, and discuss things in terms that are not always simply about how things relate to us, but rather in more abstract or philosophical terms?

In this way we can have discussions about consciousness, the nature of the universe etc, in terms that are void of an "ego perspective".

In my experience, not all people can.

Most of us in here can, since our philosophical disposition was probably what led us to seek out a2k in the first place. If it weren't for the fact that the majority of the people I encounter in my daily life are either incapable of or uninterested in examining these questions, it is not at all certain I would ever find such a home here on a2k, simply because I would have no need to seek one.

I think what you're talking about has to do with what Heidegger called 'non-relational possibilities' in Being and Time. We all know what these 'possibilities' are, but of course we cannot speak of them.

It's sort of like saying "I love you" to someone. One says it to the other and the other merely 'echoes' it back(or not). All that gets expressed here is the "I love you" which everyone knows the meaning to, however we cannot speak or even think of this meaning.

I think it has to do with what Heidegger means when he says "we are already in an understanding of being whenever we comports ourselves to entities as an entity".

All 'relations' had to of come from a 'possibility of a non-relation', right?

Indeed. It would be interesting to try to understand what it is that attracts some people to want to engage in a "philosophical" mode of thought. Curiosity is itself quite a curious thing.

Sartre, for example, said of himself that many of his philosophical ideas were inspired somewhat by his life-long struggle to overcome his own personal difficulties regarding his self-described ugliness. He thought of himself as ugly. That might sound quite funny, but I think its quite revealing. Some of us tend to think of "great thinkers" as being interested in such subjects due to some kind of intrinsic genius that they possess, but in reality, their pursuit for philosophical brilliance stemmed from quite common personal difficulties.

Especially if the philosopher is an existentialist.

Especially if the philosopher is an existentialist, and in the case of Sartre, an existentialist with a lazy eye.