romansh

Neon It would depend on how we interpret John 10:30. If this is as true for me as it is christ then a lot can be interpreted atheistically. As there are many authors and editors, so how can we be sure of Jesus's central message? From a purely pragmatic point of view it may be worthwhile looking at Jesus the historical charcter and Christ the myth. But both ultimately are one and both have their place.

Again: Meister Eckhart You may call God love, you may call God goodness. But the best name for God is compassion Here is someone I think "nails it" in the the thirteenth century.

Shakespeare A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. Incomplete? Almost by definition. I suspect the years of meditation and introspection cannot be crammed into such a short essay. But her central observation I find to be true for myself. And you Dutch? I hope she has nor been careles with the word consciousness - in that she has written university entry level psychology textbooks on consciousness. Joseph Illusions are real - but they remain illusions.

When we put our experiences (thoughts) into words, is this not an interpretation? If you see what I mean? Egos are fine Joseph. They are just like colour - a useful illusion.

Dutch I find my perceptions agreeing with your point of view. (I think). Fools seldom differ? The only thing I am unsure about is the "mental" states. Either everything has a mental state (consciousness) to some degree. Or nothing does - hence the Blackmore essay.

The question I think we need to ask ourselves is whether the energy and matter fuels life is somehow different from that fuels the inanimate.

Joseph I am still no closer to you explaining as to what you meant. If you do not want to give a clarification that is OK, just let me know. Thanks rom

And her conclusion that she is not conscious?

Ok, when you say who I am in reality is never lost nor indeed can be. There are several ways of interpreting this. At one end we could have a traditional Christian soul and at the other more of an Eastern there never really a self in the first place. So in your own words what do you mean by this. That's OK - I was not sure either, but then it was not that it important either (to me). Just curious did anyone read Susan Blacmore's essay? If so, any thoughts?

Frankly trust there is no evil in your garden, natural or otherwise. That evil is simply a confluence of events that result in a way of thinking. Albeit very different from my way of thinking.

Can you clarify your path to this point Joseph. In some ways I agree completely with what you say but I would be interested in your context - so to speak.

Yvonne I think we can draw a boundary anywhere. For the purposes of your message you were conveying the boundary you were drawing was around the brain, which is fair enough. In reality the brain is a product of the nerve impulses, which in turn the impulses are products of our environment, earth, solar system, galaxy, universe. If you catch my drift. Of course we can also include our genetics, our experiences, the foods and chemicals we eat and imbibe. We can include a societal interactions.Our mind is a product of all these things and more.

There are certain fungal infections while not evil per se in any reasonable sense of the word, I would have no problem harming them even if they are part of creation.

The mind has various nuances - for the purpose of my view I will treat them essentially as one. Names the mind might have include: consciousness self awareness sentience soul spirit This is ultimately hard. I think I know what my perception feels like. What does your perception feel like? I can only presume it is similar to mine. What is a brick's perception like? Either it is a nonsensical question or it is different to mine. Here's a nice meditative essay that shows a different point of view. It is short and easy read. I am not sure I agree with Susan's conclusions - but I do feel her "awakening", I think. Was I conscious at conception, I don't think so? Will I be conscious after death? Am I conscious now? Interesting question.

From PoM “That is to say, put yourself back in the position of paradise before you thought in terms of good and evil. You don’t hear that much from the pulpits.” To be fair, Campbell then goes on to say: “Why was the knowledge of good and evil forbidden to Adam and Eve? Without that knowledge we would still be a bunch of babies in Eden, without any participation in life.”

Another Campbellian thought (the late Campbell must be rolling over in his grave today). As a broad western generalization (and therefore not completely accurate): Many atheists and theists have one thing in common - they interpret the Bible in a literal fashion to varying degrees. I don't think most atheists would have a problem with the many wonderful metaphorical interpretations that we (ignoring balking psychologists ) have. It is when we concretize our religious texts the problems start. I suppose the same could be said of our scientific texts. But our science texts are in a constant flux. No scientist wants the textbook to remain fixed.

It is in PoM - page 2XX - unfortunately I have lent out my copy - it is towards the end. Try here

then we can ask that the said psychologists take reponsibility for their balking Quite simple really, the original sin was thinking in terms of sin. Thinking in terms of separation. ... and with respect to separation this Campbell quote just about nails it for me: ... But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one's god. With that, duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts, has dissolved in identification with ground of your own being, because that to which the metaphorical image of your god refers to the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well.

Yep and we can be responsible without good and evil. In exactly the same way the sun is responsible for a good portion of our weather patterns on earth, life on Earth and melanomas. We don't need morality to be responsible. We don't need the guilt trip. Another Cambell quote: If all you think of are your sins then you are sinner.

Thanks minsocal I'm not terribly familiar with these concepts and psychology in general. But choosing Bowen at 'random': Here is a description of particular aspect of Bowen therapy: Bowen's multigenerational model goes beyond the view that the past influences the present, to the view that patterns of relating in the past continue in the present family system (Herz Brown, 1991). Hence the therapist uses questions to encourage clients to think about the connection between their present problem and the ways previous generations have dealt with similar relationship issues. http://www.familysystemstraining.com/papers/bowen-illustration-and-critique.html This to me reads as past patterns do affect the way individuals in families handle relationships. The therapist does get the individuals to be aware of past causes. Reads like reductionism to me. Reductionism I think has been given a bad rap. It is a fundamental way of understanding how the universe ticks. There may be others - eg meditation. But if we ever want to communicate the logic of an idea, it has to be based in some form of reductionism. Even your act of countering my position is a form of reductionism - I would argue.

Actually it is a very simplistic view Dutch. But you are right free will does come into it. Infact when we say free what exactly do we mean? Yep sure, is there an appropriate thread open already? (It sort of fits into the free will thread). But to answer one your questions: Is the mind wholly and sufficiently caused by the biochemical events in the brain? The short answer is no! But it it is not separate from the brain either. You are pointing to the Hard Question here Dutch. I don't have the answer(s), but I do have some questions.

I am not an expert on this topic, so I need to tread with care - here is a Campbellian interpretation (not necessarily Campbell's). 21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. Verse 22 states (clearly to me) that Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for gaining the knowledge of good and evil. If we take up a monistic line of thought then we do realize several things. There is no separation from god. There is no good or evil other than our arbitrary definitions. We live in the now. Campbell's translation for eternity is now.

Can you give an example of a non-reductionist theory? This concept is illuding me. Thanks Why is a daft question especially if we are asking for the purpose behind the question.

I think we are almost on the same page. when Hillel says: That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. The golden rule or at least a form of it I take as the message. You point to the same thing as you said it is about our lives lived - so to speak.

Hmmn ... interesting question. The short answer for the purposes of this discussion is "no". Different parts of my body have responded using different chemical pathways. That is for me what is the difference between belief and desire. Though I would suggest that wise agnostics should remain sceptical of beliefs. Therein lies a knot of circularity. Take sexual desires; certain coloured splodges on pages on certain kinds of magazine will elicit certain autonomic reponses (at least in my case ). A philosophical statement will elicit a different autonomic response. I have to be very careful here. I don't mean to imply a separation of the self and the cosmos. 'Me' (the boundaries it implies) and the rest of the universe is an arbitrary convention (albeit a useful one). This reply does not leave me a lot to go on minsocal. Taking psychology one of the most nebulous of our arbitrary boundaries we draw. Does not a clinical psychologist try to understand the antecedents (causes) of a patient's behaviour; more importantly for the patient to be aware of those causes. Of course this is daunting task.