An astounding state of affairs

[boagie]

I agree it is an emergent quality. I have this idea not really well formulated but here it goes. It necessarily relates to object or rather the relation between subject and object, thus our continued development might well depend upon the quality of object, in the form of society and/or the physcial environment. As the quality of either of these aspects of object declines I believe that the quality of consciousness will as well, a kind of correlation is involved. That saying by Schopenhauer that subject and object stand or fall together could mean more than providing our basic apparent reality, it could also speak to the quality of the subject, as in the quality of human consciousness. Any ideas around this thought?

[Belinda]

Boagie's reference to society and the environment is like society and the environment are the otherwhich the individual consciousness regards. So, we have self, and the other. I think. "what is me, and what is the other?"

The more I think "I am not the other, there are firm and unchangeable boundaries between me and the other" the more I am afraid and distrustful of the other, who may be some individual, society, or the natural world.

The more I think " I am the other because I am a living system that causes changes in society and in the natural world, and in some other individual" the more I am likely to understand and cooperate with the other, whether nature, society,or some other individual.

[boagie]

Hi Belinda,

The Yin-Yang symbol comes to mind, in the dark half there is a light spot, in the light half there is a dark spot, which I take to mean, that there is no absolute other, for with an absolute other there can be no relation/relationship. However if you consider the physcial world as object for the purpose of this example, it seems evident that the quality of the environment determines the quality of ones life, even the quality of ones thoughts and development.

We indeed are not separate from our environment, but, a correlation needs to be appreciate here I think, the low quality of ones thinking allows for the degradation of the environment, the degradation of the environment leads to further degradation of the human spirit/psyche/thought.
If this correlation is not appreciated we with our environment are suck down into a whirlpool of our own making. Only half of our consciousness is incased within the cranium, the other half is out there. What I am in fact stating is that the self is not bounded by our skins we have to come to realize the totality of the self to include the environment, not just as a fancy but as our reality. I might add, others as individuals are part of that environment, so the degradation of our fellows has a degrading effect upon us, perhaps hard to discern fully, but It sounds a reasonable principle to me.

[OTavern]

Lifegazer wrote #2 :

Did consciousness evolve, or was it just the contents of consciousness that have evolved?

How about this: the contents of consciousness are the mental , and consciousness as neuronal events are the physical ? Two sides of the same coin and both of them necessary.

Both of them evolved from life forms that were less conscious than our homo sapiens life form. It's true that within the context of evolution consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, and to understand this includes understanding that consciousness did not and does not arise fully formed all at once but is and has inclused differences of degree.

I don't see this. Consciousness is an either/or kind of phenomenon. Either you are conscious or you are not. What you are conscious of (the content) may change, but consciousness itself is something you either have or you don't, i don't see it as "emergent."

In fact, I doubt that presently existent human beings are conscious of "more," content wise, than historical humans have been. Granted, we might think so, but that is likely an egocentric/ethnocentric belief. Sure, we have more complex tools and technology than our forefathers, but it could be argued that these have made each of us individually less capable of survival - if those tools and techniques disappeared - than our ancestors. What we have constructed is a huge technological "crutch" which externally bolsters ours lives but has left our internal "being" flaccid and weak; in fact, not better fit for survival, but less so.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I think consciousness is not so black and white.

I think I am more conscious than a newborn baby. I think I am more conscious than a severely brain-damaged man who is coming in and out of sleep. I think I am more conscious than a very smart monkey or ape that knows many words in sign language. I think such a monkey or ape is more conscious than the average cat or dog. I think the average cat or dog is more conscious than insects or the world's smartest robots.

I think a lot of what we refer to as consciousness is just the ability to observe (which isn't much more than a camera can do) combined with the continuing attempt during waking hours to categorize observations usually as words, which usually takes the form of an continuous stream of words. Feelings are just observations, a.k.a. sensations. The nerves on my hand can feel that the stove is hot. The electronic thermometer can feel that the stove is hot and record that, and where the heat poses some sort of danger the thing that feels it may thus be sent into an emergency mode where normal ongoing processes are temporarily changed or overrode. Of course, our brains create a self-image, sense of self and various illusions to make it seem as though there were a little man in our heads watching a screen of images and streaming words and controlling our bodies like a remote controlled car, but that's sort of an illusion or a matter of perspective for practical purposes.

[Belinda]

boagie #18 Yes! That's right, the yinyang symbol portrays what I meant by 'me and not-me' and the ensuing need to keep the boundary fluid because in nature the boundary when it exists is pro tem only because life is change. The boundary between me and not-me is immoral when it's set in concrete.

[Santini]

Of course, our brains create a self-image, sense of self and various illusions to make it seem as though there were a little man in our heads watching a screen of images and streaming words and controlling our bodies like a remote controlled car, but that's sort of an illusion or a matter of perspective for practical purposes.

Yes. The illusion of the homunculus . . . which doesn't answer the question of consciousness but only shifts its focus to another being or leads to an infinite regress because of the question, what goes on inside our little inner person's head? Is there another little person inside that little person's head and yet another little person inside that little person's head, and on and on?

[Stormeyy]

boagie #18 Yes! That's right, the yinyang symbol portrays what I meant by 'me and not-me' and the ensuing need to keep the boundary fluid because in nature the boundary when it exists is pro tem only because life is change. The boundary between me and not-me is immoral when it's set in concrete.

The question below only leads to the further cartesian arguement of the "I think" which does not infintely regress.

And your description of not me and set in concrete are not valid assersions. Yin and yang is a notion of indifference, and one with nature as you have asserted, and yet it does not complete the distinction of which is entirely a mistaken notion represented by the author and authors to be precise- of this opening post.

It's an issue of empathy and cannot be asserted in a different or alternate way.

[Belinda]

And your description of not me and set in concrete are not valid assersions. Yin and yang is a notion of indifference, and one with nature as you have asserted, and yet it does not complete the distinction of which is entirely a mistaken notion represented by the author and authors to be precise- of this opening post.

Yin and Yang can be applied to the feminine and the masculine, as indeed they are in LaoTse and I Ching. Yin, the feminine is wholistic, and Yang the masculine is individualistic.This symbolism is present in cultures other than the Chinese. The rose for instance is a hollow shape, poetically she, and the worm a phallic shape that invades her poetically is a he.

If the boundary of self is fixed or crystallised, that idea of self is too masculine and should be balanced by the feminine openness to the other,i.e. to the not-me.Taoism is strong on harmony.

As boagie wrote

That saying by Schopenhauer that subject and object stand or fall together could mean more than providing our basic apparent reality, it could also speak to the quality of the subject, as in the quality of human consciousness. Any ideas around this thought?

[Stormeyy]

As boagie wrote

That saying by Schopenhauer that subject and object stand or fall together could mean more than providing our basic apparent reality, it could also speak to the quality of the subject, as in the quality of human consciousness. Any ideas around this thought?

[/quote]


Belinda. I'm sure you've got a book of old Sartre lyin around somewhere. ..........................................
read below

For great criticism, you need to answer 3 questions about the player:

Where are they coming from? (How were they playing 3 months ago.)

How do they sound now?

Where are they going?



At the Harmonica Jam, we often have to infer (A) and (C) from (B), the only thing present. But, without (A) your criticism may be too harsh, and without (C) your criticism may be just plain irrelevant. What's a poor critic to do? I don't know --that's why constructive criticism is a bit of an art form.

If the criticism is too withering, then the act of practicing and uploading to the jam may cross the line from fun to stressful, discouraging people from participating.

On the other hand, if criticism is too light, it makes people feel no one is really listening so why bother. If there's no content then you don't learn anything, and we are all here to become rock stars as fast as possible (ahem) , so, man, we need that honest feedback.

Knowing the answers to (A), (B), and (C) is the best, but I do have a shortcut for getting around imperfect knowledge. After months of cogitation on this subject, I decided that Mom was just about right: Never say anything "bad" without saying something "good" to balance it. I call this Yin/Yang criticism.

Yin/Yang criticism has a way of generating answers to questions (A), (B), and (C). Suppose we have the worse case scenario where you listen to a solo you really don't like. Most likely, there is something good about the person's playing, and by forcing yourself to listen more closely to uncover it, the critic may learn something himself. Looking for the good in something you don't like is a way of forcing yourself out of your own pre-conceived notions. I also found it is a way of remembering stuff I forgot a long time ago. This learning/remembering process usually mysteriously provides clues for questions (A) and (C).

But, closer to Mom, you could justifiy Yin/Yang criticism from a psychological stand point also. Whether people admit it or not, they have egos, and if you sting them, you should always give them something good to hold on to because this will help them absorb the medicine. You could also call this the Mary Poppins principle.