Feelings v Reason and the Mind-Body Problem

[Pincho Paxton]

Oh yeah I forgot you know what consciousness is, should have asked you first pincho.

Pincho, please, think, and consider what if I was correct before answering.

When are you conscious? When you are awake, driving, etc. Do you have any memories? Well yeah, duh, you were conscious.

Now when you are asleep, when do you remember something? When you're dreaming.

You can turn off your consciousness by going to bed, did you forget about that, or are do you not sleep?

Yes you may be right. Short term memory could be consciousness. I think I meant sentience, not consciousness. Sometimes I get them mixed together. There is still a big problem with cause, and effect here though. You have to store something to remember it, and the storage still requires consciousness, so it is chicken / egg. So I presume that sentience comes before consciousness.

[Animus]

Why don't you guys buy a book or something

[Gurrb]

what is more tragic? a person who is hopped up on drugs killing someone, or a person who is entirely sober killing someone?

[David Quinn]

I appreciate the feedback David and I think I see where you are coming from. Allow me to introduce into the conversation what I said the conversation wasn't about, and its still not strictly about Christianity, its more of the idea of the anthropomorphized universe.

As regards logic another poster made the point that cause-effect is dichotomous and that the reality is something much vaguer like an emotion. Emotions seem to be characterized by a strong presence but lacking definitive substance, they all have a quality to them that makes them differentiable from each other. That is love feels different than hate and although this might be a relative quality arising through dualistic perception, the main point here is that within the sensation of emotions there can be no carving up of them beyond their differentiable qualities. I hope I'm making this as clear as possible. An emotion seems to go from point A to point B with no apparent break-down of its inner workings. That is, experientially speaking, emotions are unbreakable, impenetrable phenomena. It would seem that conceptually this has more semblance of a non-duality. Now, keep in mind, I'm not saying that one's sensation of lust has anything to do with the nature of reality besides its impenetrability. Whereas logic has a tendency to spiral out into infinity in all directions with no sense of the whole. In my experience when I meditate on the infinite I'm brought back to a vaguer mental image more resembling the impenetrability of emotional states than a logical dissection.

If I understand you aright, you're saying that you get a stronger sense of unity via certain emotional states than you do through logic - and that is because logic, at the moment, causes you to be too aware of divisions and dichotomies, whereas particular emotional states helps your mind smear over them, as it were. In other words, you are finding it easier to use emotion to elevate your mind. Would that be a fair summary?

As I said in my last post, this is a perfectly natural occurrence when you're starting out. I used to be like that as well. It was primarily mystical experiences and altered states which first stimulated my interest in philosophic wisdom. Experiencing these states really captivated me and I used to scour around for anything that would stimulate them. I used to love the Buddhist imagery, for example - the statues in the temples, the incense, the stillness, etc - as well as artistic forms of music, Catholic mythology, Taoist imagery, Hindu mysticism, the writings of Alan Watts and Hermann Hesse, etc. Whenever I experienced these things, my mind would tend to become spellbound and start altering towards a heavenly sense of timelessness.

So there is nothing wrong in using these things. If they help strengthen and enhance a love of Truth, then that's great.

Learning how to use logic to propel the mind beyond all the divisions and dichotomies into a state of utter clarity and infinite understanding is certainly a step beyond this, and can only be undertaken by more advanced students. But such a step can't be performed without a deep love of Truth. So we can think of the emotional/mystical stage as a preparatory phase for the next stage of employing logic fully and fearlessly in the effort to punch through maya and attain ultimate understanding.

I've begun viewing Christianity and the like as mere tools for the truth-seeker, with varying strengths and weaknesses. There is nothing particularly evil about them other than the people who follow them. I'd be curious to know what the state of the world would be like in their absence.

Well, I guess that would depend on what else is occuring in the world. If the world was, say, populated by enlightened sages, then such tools wouldn't be missed. It is only because we are currently living in a very crass and shallow world, increasingly dominated by the myth of scientific materialism, that the world still needs religion and its (somewhat crude) ability to point people's minds in the direction of eternity.

I suppose, the moral of all this is that people by and large need a bit of incentive and going at them full-force doesn't help.

For most people, that would be true. There is still plenty in the world to provide those incentives in terms of religious texts, art, music, suffering, saints, etc. At the same time, there also needs to be places where the full-on, uncompromising approach for more advanced people is expressed, which is what this forum is all about. A little oasis of advanced intensity in a sea of incentives.

It doesn't seem like you disagree with the emotions still playing a role. So, I'm curious if you dislike Christianity and similar traditions and if-so is it because of the way it is manifest publically as fundamentalism and religiosity?

Something like that. I don't like the way they promote subservience, passiveness, blind faith, herd values, etc. In other words, I don't like the way they cut off people's rational explorations and undermine any potential they might have had for embarking on that higher stage of logic to which I alluded earlier, the one that lies beyond the emotional/mystical stage.

It is very much in the interests of the priests and monks to keep people confined to the emotional/mystical phase.

Is this any different than the atheists who attach the same mental phenomena to scientific truth?

None whatsoever. Although in this case, they shackle people in a different way, by emphasizing that rationality is exclusively a collective, scientific affair, and can't be extended into the higher philosophic path of inwardness.

Not that they are doing this deliberately, of course. Athiests and religious people are as ignorant as each other when it comes to these higher matters.

Isn't it really that both groups aren't even in the right ballpark, they are unpacking all their equipment out in the parking lot or something. Not even tackling the right questions to begin with but mucking around with symbolism of various sorts.

Spot on.

I can see why an inclination toward atheism is closer to the truth, but I think there is something that its missing. Its like its missing the hole idea of being a human, its primarily about the fact God does not exist, so its not really a way to live a life. I mean, sure God does not exist, whether or not God exists does not directly inform how to live, that seems to be the problem. But Christianity and other religions contain philosophical and spiritual substance that is attractive to that part of the human psyche. I can't really explain my own sense of being a part of reality, but its a quality all in its own, its not like being a part of a team of people, its much closer than that. And its not nothing. Its closer to freedom wrought by determinism. I guess this is where all of this is driving at, my mind lately has been pretty focused on this kind of thinking, but its very difficult to sort out. What I'm saying is that it doesn't feel like nothing, but its not the norm and there is nothing within it that is inherently good or bad, its more like a raw sense of being.

I like this verse in the Tao Te Ching:

The bright path seems dim;
Going forward seems like retreat;
The easy way seems hard;
The highest Virtue seems empty;
Great Purity seems sullied;
A wealth of Virtue seems inadequate;
The strength of Virtue seems frail;
Real Virtue seems unreal.
The perfect square has no corners;
Great talents ripen late;
The highest notes are hard to hear;
The greatest form has no shape;
The Tao is hidden and without name.
The Tao alone nourishes and brings everything to
fullfilment.

-

[IJesusChrist]

Why don't you guys buy a book or something

... Way to be.

How is reading a book about consciousness going to solve anything?

[Animus]

I appreciate the feedback David and I think I see where you are coming from. Allow me to introduce into the conversation what I said the conversation wasn't about, and its still not strictly about Christianity, its more of the idea of the anthropomorphized universe.

As regards logic another poster made the point that cause-effect is dichotomous and that the reality is something much vaguer like an emotion. Emotions seem to be characterized by a strong presence but lacking definitive substance, they all have a quality to them that makes them differentiable from each other. That is love feels different than hate and although this might be a relative quality arising through dualistic perception, the main point here is that within the sensation of emotions there can be no carving up of them beyond their differentiable qualities. I hope I'm making this as clear as possible. An emotion seems to go from point A to point B with no apparent break-down of its inner workings. That is, experientially speaking, emotions are unbreakable, impenetrable phenomena. It would seem that conceptually this has more semblance of a non-duality. Now, keep in mind, I'm not saying that one's sensation of lust has anything to do with the nature of reality besides its impenetrability. Whereas logic has a tendency to spiral out into infinity in all directions with no sense of the whole. In my experience when I meditate on the infinite I'm brought back to a vaguer mental image more resembling the impenetrability of emotional states than a logical dissection.

If I understand you aright, you're saying that you get a stronger sense of unity via certain emotional states than you do through logic - and that is because logic, at the moment, causes you to be too aware of divisions and dichotomies, whereas particular emotional states helps your mind smear over them, as it were. In other words, you are finding it easier to use emotion to elevate your mind. Would that be a fair summary?

As I said in my last post, this is a perfectly natural occurrence when you're starting out. I used to be like that as well. It was primarily mystical experiences and altered states which first stimulated my interest in philosophic wisdom. Experiencing these states really captivated me and I used to scour around for anything that would stimulate them. I used to love the Buddhist imagery, for example - the statues in the temples, the incense, the stillness, etc - as well as artistic forms of music, Catholic mythology, Taoist imagery, Hindu mysticism, the writings of Alan Watts and Hermann Hesse, etc. Whenever I experienced these things, my mind would tend to become spellbound and start altering towards a heavenly sense of timelessness.

So there is nothing wrong in using these things. If they help strengthen and enhance a love of Truth, then that's great.

Learning how to use logic to propel the mind beyond all the divisions and dichotomies into a state of utter clarity and infinite understanding is certainly a step beyond this, and can only be undertaken by more advanced students. But such a step can't be performed without a deep love of Truth. So we can think of the emotional/mystical stage as a preparatory phase for the next stage of employing logic fully and fearlessly in the effort to punch through maya and attain ultimate understanding.

I've begun viewing Christianity and the like as mere tools for the truth-seeker, with varying strengths and weaknesses. There is nothing particularly evil about them other than the people who follow them. I'd be curious to know what the state of the world would be like in their absence.

Well, I guess that would depend on what else is occuring in the world. If the world was, say, populated by enlightened sages, then such tools wouldn't be missed. It is only because we are currently living in a very crass and shallow world, increasingly dominated by the myth of scientific materialism, that the world still needs religion and its (somewhat crude) ability to point people's minds in the direction of eternity.

I suppose, the moral of all this is that people by and large need a bit of incentive and going at them full-force doesn't help.

For most people, that would be true. There is still plenty in the world to provide those incentives in terms of religious texts, art, music, suffering, saints, etc. At the same time, there also needs to be places where the full-on, uncompromising approach for more advanced people is expressed, which is what this forum is all about. A little oasis of advanced intensity in a sea of incentives.

It doesn't seem like you disagree with the emotions still playing a role. So, I'm curious if you dislike Christianity and similar traditions and if-so is it because of the way it is manifest publically as fundamentalism and religiosity?

Something like that. I don't like the way they promote subservience, passiveness, blind faith, herd values, etc. In other words, I don't like the way they cut off people's rational explorations and undermine any potential they might have had for embarking on that higher stage of logic to which I alluded earlier, the one that lies beyond the emotional/mystical stage.

It is very much in the interests of the priests and monks to keep people confined to the emotional/mystical phase.

Is this any different than the atheists who attach the same mental phenomena to scientific truth?

None whatsoever. Although in this case, they shackle people in a different way, by emphasizing that rationality is exclusively a collective, scientific affair, and can't be extended into the higher philosophic path of inwardness.

Not that they are doing this deliberately, of course. Athiests and religious people are as ignorant as each other when it comes to these higher matters.

Isn't it really that both groups aren't even in the right ballpark, they are unpacking all their equipment out in the parking lot or something. Not even tackling the right questions to begin with but mucking around with symbolism of various sorts.

Spot on.

I can see why an inclination toward atheism is closer to the truth, but I think there is something that its missing. Its like its missing the hole idea of being a human, its primarily about the fact God does not exist, so its not really a way to live a life. I mean, sure God does not exist, whether or not God exists does not directly inform how to live, that seems to be the problem. But Christianity and other religions contain philosophical and spiritual substance that is attractive to that part of the human psyche. I can't really explain my own sense of being a part of reality, but its a quality all in its own, its not like being a part of a team of people, its much closer than that. And its not nothing. Its closer to freedom wrought by determinism. I guess this is where all of this is driving at, my mind lately has been pretty focused on this kind of thinking, but its very difficult to sort out. What I'm saying is that it doesn't feel like nothing, but its not the norm and there is nothing within it that is inherently good or bad, its more like a raw sense of being.

I like this verse in the Tao Te Ching:

The bright path seems dim;
Going forward seems like retreat;
The easy way seems hard;
The highest Virtue seems empty;
Great Purity seems sullied;
A wealth of Virtue seems inadequate;
The strength of Virtue seems frail;
Real Virtue seems unreal.
The perfect square has no corners;
Great talents ripen late;
The highest notes are hard to hear;
The greatest form has no shape;
The Tao is hidden and without name.
The Tao alone nourishes and brings everything to
fullfilment.

-

Thanks for the feedback, I think I've got my head around it now. Your use of the word smearing helped, and the statement about this being an oasis of sorts. As I meant to say, its not that I'm really into different states of consciousness, I haven't bothered with any gurus outside of this joint and listening to people like Allan Watts. I'm not, nor ever was big on aesthetics. I've just found myself in different states through contemplation. A lot of synthesizing of different schools of thought. More or less find it difficult to deal with society and myself. We are very abrasive to each other. Sometimes I feel like tearing my eyes out so I don't have to see what others are doing. Otherwise I feel obligated to say something to them, and that almost never ends positively. Then, I have my quirks which doesn't make me a perfect example of how to be. The difference I find is whether or not an individual is making an effort or not. But then, who is to be blamed? Straddling the dualistic nature of thought proves to be tumultuous at times. I wonder if I'm in the right environment sometimes, or if it should really matter what the environment is. You know? Changing environments might change my mental state, but then I haven't really changed anything in the mind.

[Animus]

Why don't you guys buy a book or something

... Way to be.

How is reading a book about consciousness going to solve anything?

It might help clarify your thinking. Its too easy to allow ego to get involved in debates with others. Reading a book, its easier to disconnect from yourself and clarify how you really think.

[Jason]

I assume you believe that what you've written above is also the product of reasoning. Reasoning which has itself been justified by reason.

Q: Why choose reason?

A: Because my reasoning tells me to choose reason.

Don't you see any problem with this circular justification?

^##$*& $$#$#@# $#$*!@#@ !!!!

-

Sorry, I thought I'd give emotion a go. Didn't seem to work.

It's possible to communicate emotion without resorting to gibberish. Here's an example: "I feel that rationality alone will not lead to truth."

I assume you believe that what you've written above is also the product of reasoning. Reasoning which has itself been justified by reason.

Q: Why choose reason?

A: Because my reasoning tells me to choose reason.

Don't you see any problem with this circular justification?

No. Reason doesn't need any justification, other than seeing that it necessarily underpins every coherent thought we have. It isn't a matter of choice. It is part and parcel of being conscious.

In other words, in the very act of being conscious of "things" our minds are already employing logic (i.e. in affirming that a thing is what it is and not something else). Becoming logical (from top to bottom in our thinking processes) is merely a recognition of this fact and a refinement of it.

For something that you initially say doesn't need justification, that sure looks like one big load of justification.

It is the greatest tribute that we can pay to the gift of consciousness.

Great tributes are so emotionally satisfying aren't they? ;)

[David Quinn]

It's possible to communicate emotion without resorting to gibberish. Here's an example: "I feel that rationality alone will not lead to truth."

Without a context, I'm not sure what such a statement is meant to communicate. That the person is guessing?

Reason doesn't need any justification, other than seeing that it necessarily underpins every coherent thought we have. It isn't a matter of choice. It is part and parcel of being conscious.

In other words, in the very act of being conscious of "things" our minds are already employing logic (i.e. in affirming that a thing is what it is and not something else). Becoming logical (from top to bottom in our thinking processes) is merely a recognition of this fact and a refinement of it.

For something that you initially say doesn't need justification, that sure looks like one big load of justification.

To me, it looks like an explanation of why reason doesn't need justification.

-

[jupiviv]

there is nothing wrong in using these things. If they help strengthen and enhance a love of Truth, then that's great.

Are you sure about that? Because often the love of Truth/philosophy can bring an end to the intellectual progress of a person. He'll keep returning to the same problem, and avoiding it every time he's faced with it. There's nothing wrong with experimenting, but reason should always be top priority.

I personally find that the love of Truth is only required when there is some philosophical problem which seems unsolvable. In such cases, it's always better to solve the problem.