Does consciousness arise out of having a language?

itll take me the rest of the day, i have time in between runs to do somewritiung and putting thoughts into words. been at it all morning so far , got to go to work shortly.

Should be able to get back to this tonight or tommorrow morn.

peace to you my friend

Zetherin,

I may hate you for this when its all said and done.

You have been the catalyst causing me to delve deeper into my identity question and it has not been easy.

It was something that I have been leading up to though over the course of these last few months, so it would have been addressed at some point with or without you I guess, so I will let you off the hook,lol.

However, I am pretty sure that you will not appreciate what I have been finding as I have been meditating on this, and it seems far fetched even for my open thinking. But, to me, and in my mind's potential at this level of development, it is the best I can do. I am sure that a greater mind will be able to improve on it at some future point. I want you to remember well that last sentence that I just wrote because it is key to what I have been moving toward.

I have had to alter my original thinking somehwat in order to progress, but that is not a problem for me, as my key belief is that we only learn by being willing to change what we think as we learn new options through new opportunities. if we do not allow ourselves to correct mistakes we can not move forward in knowledge. so to me, learning something new and correcting something old is a celebration. More an alteration or adjustment than a correction actually.

I only hope that what I have come up with in my thinking does not leave you thinking i am a nut job.

I can only assure you that the things I profess are not off the cuff, traditional piecemeal puzzles compiled from wordly thinking that appeal to me. My opinions always come from meditative thought and never from studying other teaching. I admit I have studied many other teachings, and I am sure they are always at least subconsciously influencial, but being aware of that causes me to try harder to avoid being influenced, and to be more open. My opinons are always a product of determined thought process that often times becomes things that are really not appealing to me, but that I must still acknowledge. many times I see similarities to other teachings after the fact, but once investigated they usually reveal some aspect that I cannot settle on and I am forced to cast aside that particular philosophy.

Buddhism seems to corrolate with much of what I think, but the whole deity thing just doesn't sit well with me.

Theosophy sounds appealing but I cannot justify the man attaining creator status.

I believe we are creators in our own way and means, but certainly not to the potential of whatever the real creator is. No man has ever or likely ever will reach the ability to create a universe.

So with this in mind prepare for my bombardment of your philosophical talent later this evening. It will be intersting to see how it sits with one who leans toward biogenesis.

Later,
Pathfinder

Hi, guys,

I have been away, but here are a few comments on your latest posts

Richard Dawkins is one unhappy disalussioned man, a former believer who is trying to use his silly finite human logic to disprove his INFINITE CREATOR

His views will not alter the truth one by sub quantum particle. If I had to choose the the truth of JESUS or the delusions of Hawkings it is obvious to any idiot who I would choose.

So choose Dawkins...............................??

Or choose Jesus..........................................??

I am not saying choose atheism or theism I am saying choose between the two persons above, which is closer to the truth?? The ball is in your court guys

What would life be without the mysterious? The mysterious is simply a reality you are not aware of in your reality.

Todays science would have resulted in you being burned at the state a few hundreds of years ago.

Our human perception is so limited that we are just a little less than blind and deaf to the real reality just next to us

It would be nice to know what we do not know, dint you think?

"Reason is the ememy of faith." Martin Luther--duh!!

Pathfinder

We are ever changing, ever evolving ever progressing particles of the "Great "Reality"

We are bundles of unique eternal energy each formulating our own path back to the great ocean of consciousness from whence we came.

We are in a ceaseless cycle of never ending creation, we have no beginning and we will never end

We can know all if we just wait and think

Friend Zetherin,

These last few days have been very eventful for me, although quite disturbing. I have our discussion to thank for that. I hope my response will be as disturbing for you as it has been for me, because if it is then you are at least listening wholeheartedly.

I have been forced to reconsider some portion of previous understanding for a degree of newer understanding. But as I said earlier, as disturbing as that can be, it is always cause for celebration whenever one manages to further their understanding through logical thought. I am certainly not declaring any truths or prophetic revelations. What I am claiming is that through a process of rational thinking, evasion of traditional and secular opinions, and sheer determination, I am gaining a better understanding of my life, as I am able to comprehend it.

As you know, I believe that there is most definitely an intelligent force behind creation. If we walked into the forest and came upon a towering fortress we would immediately know that someone had built the structure. We would certainly not consider it an accidental happening. I refuse to define what that creative intelligence is, I simply refer to it as the great mystery. As with the builder of the fortress, I know that the builder of creation exists, I just have no idea who or what it is.

So beginning from that attitude, I surmise that the human is designed by this great mystery. And because we know the human is capable of theorizing beyond the ability of the plant and animal kingdoms, I also surmise that the creator 'deliberately' designed us with such ability. Purposeful intent is usually done with an objective reasoning. There is usually an objective to the purpose. To my thinking, if the creator had a purpose behind the human being designed with a capacity to improve their intellect, than it stands to reason that the goal of the human is to acheive that improvement.

So, if you consider this so far as being at least worth listening to, you might find the following to be at least entertaining.

Given what we know about the human capacity for improving thought, regardless of the origin of it, we can agree that there is a great span between the mind of the oaf and the mind of the wise man. It is at this point of acknowledgement that I begin this topic in my blog in much greater detail if you are interested in reading that. For the purpose of etiquette here on the board, I must summarize my findings which degrades the logic to a great degree.

I think that the gulf between the simple minded oaf and the wise man is too great to be breached in the span of what a person can acheive in one lifetime. Therefore it must be agreed that to reach higher levels of comprehension and wisdom one must attain the ability from birth. One will not be born with the mental capability of an oaf and attain such intellect as the great scholars within the same lifetime. And yet, the goal of the human to acheive such levels, designed into him by the creator, purposefully, requires that such acquisition be possible.

So how could it be possible if it cannot be done in the course of one lifetime? The only answer is that there must be a possibility of transferance through more than one lifetime. And this is not illogical because we know from our present situation this can be done at least once, so why not more than once? This is why I strongly lean toward the possibility that this "life giving force" that brings both life and an evolved degree of intellect to the human containing it, must be passed on through reincarnation.

So what does this have to do with identity of the 'inner self' and how has my thinking been altered?

I have contended that the inner self was a spiritual identity which was what was transferred from one incarnation to another. And because of that self awareness definition I had difficulty comprehending how the identity would be retained when the next incarnation would have no recall of its past lives.

It is one thing to be aware of your inner self, and another to identify yourself with it. Whatever the strange "life giving force" within you can be defined as, it certainly is bonded with your identity in your thinking. That comes from an inability to define that which is incomprehensible, mainly a created thing, of a mysterious creator.

So I was forced to break it down into its most simple, basic concept. And when I related this inner "life giving force" to the creator's interaction with what it creates, and the need to continue the evolution of thought, I realized that we were not talking about something spiritual in the sense that this inner awareness is one's spiritual identity; instead we were talking about the continuation of the creator's original thought and purpose, being manifested in the human as it is spawned to life. In this physical body each of us carries the continuing thought of this creator, which evolves individually as separate life giving forces, which enable the humans they dwell in.

Existence is neatly wrapped around this entire thought process, originating with the mysterious creator, proceeding into the human, and interacting with creation through the human. The human is a vessel of the creator's thought, and their individual identity is that of a simple "life giving force" transferring from one incarnation to another, all the while bound to the original thought of creation.

I am a thought of the Creator, and at this time I am known as Pathfinder. When I leave this body I will bring life, and whatever degree of wisdom and intelligence I have acquired throughout my history of reincarnations, to the next incarnation, where I will assume a new name and body. The new incarnation will have to learn how to use my "life giving force" and access its level of intellect to learn and continue to evolve me.

What evolves is not the human. What is reincarnated is not the identity or person or inner self. What continues is this thought of the Creator that instills life, and which brings an evolving, progressing potential of intellectual capability to each of its hosts. I am this "life giving force" , this mystery. I cannot be defined, but I can be observed. What I gain is evident in the quaility, character and intelligence of the human forms I inhabit. Each has its own lifetime choices and decisions to make, but my presence within assists in making each host what it becomes, as well as evolving the inner force within them that is me.

My moral character and integrity, and my wisdom and knowledge, developed over lifetimes of experience in various human identities, is retained and passed on throughout the incarnations, evolving and growing, being perfected and improved upon with each new lifetime. What I am acheiving in this present identity is the sole responsibility of this present identity, Pathfinder, who must make decisions and choices in life's trials and encounters. I am along for the ride and assisting with what I have to offer, but ultimately what will become Pathfinder's legacy will be the improved version of the "life giving force" that I am.

I hope that you will take the time to read the blog section called The Human Identity, Natural Logic: The Human Identity where this is elaborated on in much more depth.

Sincerely,
Pathfinder

If I had to choose between the delusions of Dawkins and the delusions of Jesus, I would choose the Bright Noon of Zarathustra...

Language mirrors thought, and is medium for thoughts to be communicated. So I presuppose that rationality is requirement for language-which is thought communication.

Patty,

I think there is a good deal of truth in what you say, however, I do feel that the primary source of language is feeling, the emotions, these in elemental form were I think the first utterances, only to become more complex and abstract with the ability to form concepts, a biological truth is not a concept, it is a sensation, it is experience, and it becomes emotionally grounded only then to become concept.- winging it here, take it with a gain of salt.

:detective:

Thanks. But, I believe it looks quite true from the perspective that a baby in fact cries when it hungry suggests an emotional aspect that is tied with the sound it makes, but if so, then animals that make sound out different situation have language? I think language mainly rests on an intended communication of thought. I believe concepts of languages don't necessarily arise from emotions, I think it is a medium, the mind conceives and perceives of concepts and abstractions, and language is just its own way of transmitting it to another active thought.

Patty,

Yes I think your right, just how different experiences go from experience to idea, to concept is difficult to imagine, but first communication I think was emotion, first in self-expression, then a common expression, thus language. Interesting, and puzzling.

Patty hit the nail on the head with this one,

"..intended communication of thought.."

I am not sure about all of this other conjecture with regard to language but when you wipe off all the smudge of scientific jargon from the glass its easier to see through it.

A person or animal has a thought," Hey, I think Im hungry, how can I get food?"

Then comes the cry out, in a baby it would be WAAAAAAAH. With me it would be BEEEEEER.

or a person would like to have sex, so they say "Hey, how YOU doin?"


Now seriously,

Language is thought intended to be communicated to something besides yourself. In short, expression of thought.

It can have purpose if the originator requires a need to be heard. It can simply be an expression of emotion.

Language however does not have to be verbal or mathematical. It can be grunts, roars, and even body movement.

In so long as the intention of the communication is directed from the originator to the goal, it becomes realized. Is it not just a little convenient that this ties in nicely with my post above about the human identity? This is not coincidental.

Communication is obviously a key factor in the actual forward motion of creation. With regard to both the originator of creation and the originator of any thought. Thought in a creature completely removed from reality only exists in its own mind. That thought does not exist as a reality until it becomes expressed somehow into creation. Just as creation itself would not exist if it had not been projected from the mind of the Originator.

BrightNoon,




But your bright noon Zarathustra had all the delusions of Jesus, good god, bad god, evil hell heaven all the same.

I will trust in my own logic not some forced fed exclusive religious dogma in whatever form it came in.

My destiny is in my own hands not some invisable deity:)