The eye and the mind

Well, it's not like Fresco to lose his cool. I feel a wee bit responsible. I did find a great article by a woman named Wider. I'll post it tomorrow.

goodnight.

From Letty with love

0 Replies

Through open minded exposure to the unfamiliar (i.e., esoteric) idea or paradigm, we eventually come to "apperceive", to make connections (conscious or not) with our extant knowledge and intuitions.
Much of what Fresco, Twyvel, Val and Cyracuz say I assume I understand, but when I respond to them I sometimes have the feeling that I am responding to a very subjective interpretation of their meaning. I don't mind because I sense that they are occasionally doing the same with me. Nevertheless, we gradually move toward shared understandings that would never have occured had we demanded total clarity from the beginning. An argument by Twyvel is like an obscure but powerful abstract painting. It may even have more than one valid interpretation. I do believe that much of our thinking includes but goes beyond empirical and logical evidence. Much of it is intuitive thinking. That is sometimes hard to articulate and share. Its penetration usually takes considerable effort and open-minded good will.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Through open minded exposure to the unfamiliar (i.e., esoteric) idea or paradigm, we eventually come to "apperceive", to make connections (conscious or not) with our extant knowledge and intuitions.
Much of what Fresco, Twyvel, Val and Cyracuz say I assume I understand, but when I respond to them I sometimes have the feeling that I am responding to a very subjective interpretation of their meaning. I don't mind because I sense that they are occasionally doing the same with me. Nevertheless, we gradually move toward shared understandings that would never have occured had we demanded total clarity from the beginning. An argument by Twyvel is like an obscure but powerful abstract painting. It may even have more than one valid interpretation. I do believe that much of our thinking includes but goes beyond empirical and logical evidence. Much of it is intuitive thinking. That is sometimes hard to articulate and share. Its penetration usually takes considerable effort and open-minded good will.

Nicely said JL. I like the idea that there is art in communication, which almost implies a living essence to an exchange of thought.

It's also interesting that verbal and written communication offer such different challenges.

0 Replies

Thanks, Rosborne. I would expect you to appreciate its complexities.

0 Replies

Bm, trying to learn :-)

0 Replies

Since our topic is the Mind and the Eye, I might throw out the wonderful , albeit hazy, saying of the Dominican mystic, Meister Eckhart (for those who have not read it in other threads): "I see God with the same eye that God sees me." To me this indicates the circularity of experience mentioned before. It's one of those fortunate dicta that serve us for many years, as objects of contemplation.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Since our topic is the Mind and the Eye, I might throw out the wonderful , albeit hazy, saying of the Dominican mystic, Meister Eckhart (for those who have not read it in other threads): "I see God with the same eye that God sees me." To me this indicates the circularity of experience mentioned before. It's one of those fortunate dicta that serve us for many years, as objects of contemplation.

A cleansed sole will reflect itself and God. If he was truly able to view himself as God did, I would say he had a clear lens (sole, the minds eye) that reflected, like a mirror would.

0 Replies

Letty,

No loss of cool I assure you....That link was a spoof ! Laughing

Here's a "real one".

http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpkantcogito.htm

Kant was concerned with the status of the "I which observes".

I( :wink: ) tend to take this fundamental issue at least four ways.

1. Such an "I" is absent most of the time but is evoked at times of potential perceptual choice. (Heideggar and/or 2nd order Cybernetics)

2. Such an "I" represents an intersection of interaction paths beteween organism and environment leading to a concept (or schema) of "self as an origin of action". (Piagetian view)

3. Such an "I" is an illusion in everyday life ....there is no "unity" only a committee of discordant "little me's" (the Gurdjieff view)

4. Such an "I" is a reflection of a transcendental "non-self" or "cosmic consciousness" (achieved according to Gurdjieff by "work" but according to Krishnamurti by "silencing the mind")

Views 1 and 2 tend to look to mathematics for potential coherence, whereas 3 and 4 encompass the seeking of "ultimate truth", or at least the rejection of dualism on the grounds of "incoherence."

0 Replies

Whoa, a lot of new development here since my last visit.

JLnobody and everybody, regarding our answers to eachother. I cannot say you are wrong in that I sometimes respond in a very subjective understanding to your questions and statements. I do not think I actually know something you don't. I just know different ways of saying things and thinking about them.

This, I believe is the whole intention of this excercise. I do not believe in absolute or objective truth, but I believe that we can share our subjective views in order to expand them to better accomodate eachother. After all, we have to live together, brothers and sisters.. Smile

At the risk of offending someone, I'd say that this argument has lapsed into it's usual course. We are back at arguing over the chicken and egg, as I see it, though I confess, this early in the day, I only have one eye open.

JLnobody wrote:

Quote:

"I see God with the same eye that God sees me."

Great quote. To me there is little doubt that the relationship between the thinker and the thought is the very relationship between the mind and the world. In discussion we treat the two as separate more often than not. Why is that when plainly their evolution has been hand in hand? One could not be without the other.

Letty, from where does the notion stem that I am a woman? Smile

0 Replies

Twyvel wrote:

Quote:

With sight, light is the carrier, as air is for sound. You do not see light, but the vision is made up of it. With sound, you do not hear waves, even though sound travels in that manner to your ear.

But all visions are made up of light, so then light is in fact the only thing the eye can see. All descriptions of objects you see are in reality descriptions of light, not the actual object.

I see now, Letty, where you got the notion that I'm a woman. But don't let val fool you. Just wishful thinking on his part. Smile

0 Replies

Cyracuz

Sorry. I don't know why I made that confusion. Perhaps due to the similarity of your name and the greek island (in portuguese language, Siracusa, is female gender).

0 Replies

No harm done val. Smile

0 Replies

Ah, the art of the spoken and written language.

Fresco, glad that we didn't tick you off. I always enjoy reading through these philosophy threads. I'll check out your link later, as my mind is not yet awake. Ros understood the nuance much better than I.

We have also cleared up the questionable status of Cyracuz's gender. <smile>

JL. I understood what you said. (I think.)

0 Replies

Great breakdown, Fresco. The first two focus on the reasons for (or functions of) the "I". The last two focus on its lack of substance. Both are essential. I've been saying repeatedly that the ego is illusory but a functionally necessary illusion. I'll read your link later.

0 Replies

fresco, Your post on the "I" is the best post on this thread so far - as far as "I" am concerned. Thanks.

0 Replies

It has taken me all day to think through this thread, and I have considered the benefit of internalizing what others say about explaining why we do what we do, and why others do what they do. That's really what it's all about, is it not?

It is almost impossible to remove "I" from the equation. As much as we care about the well being of others, we have to look to ourselves for the ultimate answer.

We are who we were, and as we grow older it seems that nothing changes except the broadening of our field of knowledge.

When Friar Laurence told Romeo to rely on sweet philosophy, and Romeo's response was "...hang philosophy if it can not restore to me a Juliet..." (not the exact words) he was still in his tantrum phase.

Later, as tragedy matured the young man, he became a sage almost over night, resulting in a terrible, and impetuous decision. Therein lies the paradox of wisdom.

0 Replies

C.I. and JLN. Thanks for your responses.

I've only recently been involved with Kant who appears to be a seminal source for writers on "consciousness". These include neurophysiologists interested in the "unity of conscious experience". (Try "Mashour Kant Neurodynamics" on Google if interested).

This of course begs the question of whether there is such "unity" or whether it would be more fruitful to talk about "levels of consciousness".

0 Replies

It would depend on who is defining "unity." Wink

0 Replies

val wrote:

Cyracuz

Sorry. I don't know why I made that confusion. Perhaps due to the similarity of your name and the greek island (in portuguese language, Siracusa, is female gender).

Sure Siracusa is female gender as it relates to a city in Sicily.(Não é?)

0 Replies

The "I" is a constellated entity with many geodesics to its center. It is hardly expoundable by any other means except metaphor. Everything which colludes to create consciousness must in effect be given an ID if it is to operate as a singularity and all the variations possible within it. That ID are the bookends called "I". It is our most unrenouncable illusion being the most massively centralized and difficult to achieve escape velocity from.

Enlightenment remains our greatest burden because it requires disenfranchisement of the "I" without losing identity. To me, it is more akin to a form of inner cosmology than anyone's philosophy. That is, whatever forces created the cosmos, created consciousness; infra-human, human, ultra-human. One can almost "feel" those paradigms in operation everywhere.

0 Replies

The eye and the mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know