consciousness & reincarnation

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:14 am

As I noted in another thread, oneâ€™s view of reincarnation is interdependent with oneâ€™s view of other concepts (e.g. â€“ anatta, karma, etc.). One such concept is oneâ€™s view of consciousness (or awareness).

Some people believe that consciousness is the â€˜substanceâ€™ of reality (the Mind Only school). Technically, these people can believe in rebirth from life to life, but not in reincarnation, since there is no body, only mind (and the mental projection of a body).

Some people believe that consciousness is one of two fundamental â€˜substancesâ€™ of reality; i.e., reality is physical and mental. These people can, depending on their views of other concepts, believe in reincarnation.

Some people believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon that arises from a more fundamental â€˜substanceâ€™ of reality. These people can, depending on their views of the conditions required for consciousness to arise and be sustained, believe in reincarnation.

There may be other possible views.

Personally, my view is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon. While some people who hold this view believe that the physical is the fundamental substance of reality, I believe that the physical, like the mental, is an epiphenomenon of reality. That said, based on my experience, I believe our bodies and minds arise in mutual co-dependence and cease together, and that there is no self (or soul) entity apart from our body/mind.

Do no harm,
clyde

brokenhead · Post by **brokenhead** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:31 am

Then if I have an out-of-body experience, what is it that is doing the experiencing?

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:55 am

brokenhead;

An â€œout-of-bodyâ€ experience is not a â€œwithout-a-bodyâ€ experience. That said, it may be that just as we experience a center-point of experience, usually, if vaguely, associated with our body, I think we may be able to shift that focus outside our body. While I have had a few such experiences, I am not an expert on such phenomena.

clyde

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:02 am

The next Reasoning Show podcast will be with Susan Blackmore who has researched this kind of phenomenon for years. Though this won't be the focus of the discussion with her, we may address it passingly and get a bit of an insight into how science attempts to explain out of body alterted states.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:14 am

Clyde,

Personally, my view is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon. While some people who hold this view believe that the physical is the fundamental substance of reality, I believe that the physical, like the mental, is an epiphenomenon of reality. That said, based on my experience, I believe our bodies and minds arise in mutual co-dependence and cease together, and that there is no self (or soul) entity apart from our body/mind.

Interesting. This position sounds a lot like neutral monism. It's also my own position, although I make some minor distinctions and call it "dialectical monism."

I also place more emphasis on epistemology than ontology these days, since I think a "default" physicalist/phenomenalist dialectical monism can be arrived at purely by examining the nature of knowledge. I talk about that a bit more here.

I think the ultimate "substance" of reality, the "real reality," is "beyond" in the sense that it doesn't appear to the senses or the intellect. Body (material) and mind (mental) are the two complementary polarities of experience, the yin and yang of existence. What lies "beyond" this duality is the unity of the duality itself, which has no existence or appearance except as it is expressed through the ever-interacting polarities. It transcends conceptual description, because it goes beyond the dualistic principle of non-contradiction upon which all logical thought and all meaningful language depends.

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:15 am

Nat;

I read your article on â€œdialectical monismâ€ ( http://naturyl.humanists.net/diamon.html ) and our views are very similar with, as you noted, â€œminor distinctionsâ€ and even these may be more in expression than substance.

I often find reflection and philosophical discussion pleasurable, but I place more emphasis on conduct than on views while recognizing that our views have some effect on our conduct.

clyde

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:06 pm

Well, my conduct usually kinda sucks, so I like to try to win some points verbally.

I'm working on it, though. :)

clyde · Post by **clyde** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:00 am

Nat;

Of all the current exchanges, responding to your post was the most difficult.

I am not a 'model of proper conduct'. I think you would find my conduct to be quite ordinary.

We are events in process.

clyde

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:23 am

Yeah. In my view, the awareness that one's conduct is not as good as it could be and the willingness to improve it are key. Nobody's perfect, and it takes time to make any substantial progress. But as long as we're at least trying to move in the right direction most of the time, there's hope.

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:23 pm

Unidian wrote:Nobody's perfect

My ears always prick up when someone uses this common phrase. To me it seems that it's the defensive reply of a failed perfectionist(seeking perfection in the widest possible way, not someone arranging books alphabetically on a bookshelf). A comforting reassurance:"I may not be perfect, but no one else is either, so there. It makes me feel so much better that I am part of a group".

It's probably the same mentality that drags others down in a bid to raise oneself in comparison. I find it pessimistic and defeatist. I also find it lacking in imagination and fire, since it measures things by a scale based around comparison with other humans. Personally I try my best not assume that myself or others are necessarily subject to inherent or everlasting imperfection. I also try to create goals based around my dreams, not so much on the previous achievements of other humans.

I think this is all traversing what Dan rightly called the resignation of the mature. I'm not focusing on you personally Nat, just highlighting what I find in general. I have used the phrase myself, and when I have it probably carried the same associations and origins that I'm describing. It might seem to be simply a common phrase to some, but I have found that from the subtle and seemingly least important things, the most fundamental understandings of psychology can often be derived.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:51 pm

Well, I don't share you and Dan's viewpoint on this "resignation of maturity" business. In my view, it's code for keeping the door open to salvation. Just as I lack belief in Allah or Zeus, I lack belief in perfection. It's not something I've ever seen evidence of. If you, Dan, or anyone else is able to reach perfection, I'd be happy to adopt the belief that such is possible. Until then, I remain skeptical.

Reconciling oneself to imperfection is part of the spiritual process, for me. It's much more challenging to come to terms with life without hope of reaching some perfect state of salvation, and it is therefore a much greater opportunity for real growth.

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:01 pm

Unidian wrote:Well, I don't share you and Dan's viewpoint on this "resignation of maturity" business.

I don't know if Dan would agree with the things I wrote in my previous post. I don't want to misrepresent him. I mentioned Dan to give him due credit for inspiring my use of the word "resignation" to describe some of the traits commonly assigned to maturity. Here's Dan's post that I'm referring too. "Resignation" has stuck in my mind ever since reading that post, because I think it is such a perfect word to describe these things.