In our world (the U.S.) it is expected that a person's life consist of mostly gradual changes over time. When a person experiences a drastic change in a short time (such as the sudden loss of a loved one, a job, or home) then we recognize this as highly stressfull and in some cases traumatizing.
But what we fail to recognize, perhaps because it is so far “off the map” of our cultural experience, is what happens when a person's entire world is yanked out from under their feet. Not just the loss of a loved one, or a job, or home, but the loss of all loved ones, friends, family, and all prospects of any jobs, and of ever having a home ever again. Not even a severe accident can cause this kind of loss, because even if you are paralyzed from the neck down, you still have family, friends, and community support. You can still “rebuild”, and therefor there is still hope.
But what happens when even hope is taken away? What is a person supposed to do when all of their options, even the most extreme options, can promise no light at the end of the tunnel? There is one circumstance where this is the case in our society, and it is an all too common and completely ignored tragedy, called “Criminal Conviction”.
I know, I know; criminals bring it upon themselve, so they “deserve what they get”. But does anyone every really deserve to have all hope taken from them?
You might think that there is always hope. But if that is what you think then you do not yet understand even what hope is.
Hope is something that only exists when it is “seen”. A person who sees no hope, has no hope. Just because others see hope for that person does not mean the person has hope. That is why so many “criminals” end up trapped in their hopeless worlds, because other people can “see” a way out for them, but they themselves can see no way out.
If a man does not realize that he is responsible for his own demise, then how can be responsible? He can't. It is like the dog I saw recently on A.F.V., who did not realize that the glass had been removed from a storm door, so there was nothing to stop him from going outside by walking straight through the empty door frame.
The dog would wait for someone to “open the door” before he would pass through, even after watching another person walk through the unopened door. This is very funny to us, but completely humorless to the dog.
Now suppose the dog's owner did not realize that the dog could not go through the empty storm door frame, so he leaves the regular door open expecting the dog, that is house trained, to go out on its own when it needs to relieve itself.
Of course the dog ends up urinating in the house. So the owner thinks the dog needs a “lesson”, and he punishes the dog expecting the problem to be solved that way. But the dog is only confused by the punishment, and still does not realize that it can go outside anytime it wants.
And the owner soon discovers not just urine, but BM as well. He becomes irate and bannishes the dog outdoors indefinately. The owner begins to see the dog as a burden on the household and no longer a member of the family. The dog soon developes very real antisocial behaviors from the lack of human attention and is eventually put to sleep.
All of this happened because the dog could not see an option that the owner (authority) could plainly see. And there you have criminal behavior in a nutshell.
So, using this analogy, how can we open the “storm door” for criminals? Education is one way. I once did a college research paper on the effects of education in prison on recidivism (re-offense rates). Every study I found, even those unfavorable to prison education, showed a strong direct relationship between the amount of education a prisoner receives in prison and the chances that he will stay out of prison once he is released. These studies show that the relationship holds even when the prisoners are compelled to educate themselves (sort of like pushing the dog through the storm door to show him there is no glass in it). The theory is that an education helps the “criminal” overcome his blindness to his options. An educated criminal begins to realize that just because he painfully banged his no on the “glass” a few times (for example, losing a good job because of unfair workplace practices), that doesn't mean the “glass” is always there. He learns what “glass” is (i.e. workplace politics, ethics, etc...) and learns to function in a word with “glass” in it.
Of course, it will be a long time methinks before the dog owner of this world (i.e. the authorities) learn how to properly traind the dogs of this world (criminals). In fact, in the last 30 years, education programs in prison have been reduced to practically nothing. It's almost as though someone figured out a great way to make a lot of money playing “dog catcher”. And the trauma that these poor ignorent “dogs” suffer is real, and profound. We punish them unjustly for their ignorance, and eventually bannish them to the yard, or put them to sleep. Euthanasia ends up being our only act of kindness.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
The Blind One
When I say that capital punishment is a crime, I am not saying so because I believe that killing someone for any particular reason is a crime.
Perhaps the word “crime” is not the correct word for what I am attempting to express since it is a word that is normally used to denote behavior that is arbitrarily defined by society as deviant and subject to censure. But I use the word only to make the point that the behavior society condemns is essentially no different then the behavior they themselves indulge by condemning the so-called criminal.
What I'm trying to say is that most “criminal behavior” is the result of individualistically motivated dehumanization of other people, and in fact that would be my definition of crime, if it were up to me.
The key terms in this definition of crime are “individualistic” and “dehumanization”.
By individualistic I mean selfish. So an arbitrarily large group of people can behave just as individualistically as an individual. I use the word individualistic to indicate the true cause of selfishness; a view of the self as essentially independent.
I also avoid the word “selfish” because it is too weak to express the truly “criminal” demension of its definition. In our society, “selfish” does not necessarily mean “criminal”, though in my view, selfishness, or individualistically motivated behavior as I say, should be the very definition of crime.
The second critical term in my definition of crime denotes the specific mechanism used by a “criminal” to detach themselves from the person they intend to victimize. The term “dehumanize” puts the emphasis in the definition on the act of seperating oneself from another person, rather than the behavior that such seperation allows. It does not matter whether we “murder” or “execute” the other person; the real crime is the seperation from that person that occures in our subconscious (i.e. “heart”).
Dehumanization can be mistaken as a “spiritual” crime because of the internal (subconscious) rather than external crime scene, or “location of the crime”. But as I define it, it is not spiritual at all. It is a very real crime that any honest trial could easily expose (unlike conventional behaviorally defined crimes that are almost impossible to prove without an actual confession, which is a dirty little secret that the “Criminal Justice System” would prefer you didn't know). It is relatively easy to conceal your behavior, but almost impossible to conceal your feelings, which when perceived by an honest person (such as a child, or enlightened adult) are as transparent as glass and a direct indication of one's motives (i.e. internal state).
Of course, the problem then with my definition of crime is that unless we live in an enlightened world it can not be practically applied as a form of social control. But the beauty of my definition is that in an enlightened world it would apply itself, and social order would be maintained with no formal effort!
You may say, “Dream on!” and that I will. But my point is only this: The current “Criminal Justice System” is counter productive. It not only fights crime with crime (disguised as “law”), but it in fact generates more “crime”, even as it defines it! It must do this in order to justify its own existence! But it very ingeniously conceals this fact with a system of doublespeak and diversion (Orwell's book “1984” has been dismissed too soon! Also, the movie “A Scanner Darkly” beautifully illustrates exactly what I am saying here, not to mention uncountable other books, plays, and movies throughout history. So it's nothing new, just very well concealed – perhaps too well.)
There is just one more point that I would like to illustrate here. Since, by my definition of crime, crimes occure in the “heart”, it is still possible to kill. But killing would no longer be defined by silly laws as “murder” in one case and “execution” in another (i.e. “lawless” and “lawful”). Instead we would only kill as an act of compassion, and/or necessity (which ends up being the same thing in an enlightened world). It is because of this that I do not challenge my own death sentences. I am not an enlightened person, therefor I do not have the ability to consciously perceive another person's motives. So it is not possible for me to “judge”, even by my own definition of “crime”, whether or not I should or should not die. And this further illustrates also why I have struggled as much as possible to not be a part of the decision process (i.e. “Criminal Justice” proceedings). In the past I have tried to prevent others from becoming involved in that process as well by asking to represent myself, and my recent decision to ask for a court appointed attorney reflects my deeper commitment to the beliefs outlined above; I have realized that trying to protect someone from judging me is a backhanded form of judgement on my own part. I was assuming I knew better than they did. I no longer make that assumption. For all I know, this is an enlightened world, and I am the blind one!
Perhaps the word “crime” is not the correct word for what I am attempting to express since it is a word that is normally used to denote behavior that is arbitrarily defined by society as deviant and subject to censure. But I use the word only to make the point that the behavior society condemns is essentially no different then the behavior they themselves indulge by condemning the so-called criminal.
What I'm trying to say is that most “criminal behavior” is the result of individualistically motivated dehumanization of other people, and in fact that would be my definition of crime, if it were up to me.
The key terms in this definition of crime are “individualistic” and “dehumanization”.
By individualistic I mean selfish. So an arbitrarily large group of people can behave just as individualistically as an individual. I use the word individualistic to indicate the true cause of selfishness; a view of the self as essentially independent.
I also avoid the word “selfish” because it is too weak to express the truly “criminal” demension of its definition. In our society, “selfish” does not necessarily mean “criminal”, though in my view, selfishness, or individualistically motivated behavior as I say, should be the very definition of crime.
The second critical term in my definition of crime denotes the specific mechanism used by a “criminal” to detach themselves from the person they intend to victimize. The term “dehumanize” puts the emphasis in the definition on the act of seperating oneself from another person, rather than the behavior that such seperation allows. It does not matter whether we “murder” or “execute” the other person; the real crime is the seperation from that person that occures in our subconscious (i.e. “heart”).
Dehumanization can be mistaken as a “spiritual” crime because of the internal (subconscious) rather than external crime scene, or “location of the crime”. But as I define it, it is not spiritual at all. It is a very real crime that any honest trial could easily expose (unlike conventional behaviorally defined crimes that are almost impossible to prove without an actual confession, which is a dirty little secret that the “Criminal Justice System” would prefer you didn't know). It is relatively easy to conceal your behavior, but almost impossible to conceal your feelings, which when perceived by an honest person (such as a child, or enlightened adult) are as transparent as glass and a direct indication of one's motives (i.e. internal state).
Of course, the problem then with my definition of crime is that unless we live in an enlightened world it can not be practically applied as a form of social control. But the beauty of my definition is that in an enlightened world it would apply itself, and social order would be maintained with no formal effort!
You may say, “Dream on!” and that I will. But my point is only this: The current “Criminal Justice System” is counter productive. It not only fights crime with crime (disguised as “law”), but it in fact generates more “crime”, even as it defines it! It must do this in order to justify its own existence! But it very ingeniously conceals this fact with a system of doublespeak and diversion (Orwell's book “1984” has been dismissed too soon! Also, the movie “A Scanner Darkly” beautifully illustrates exactly what I am saying here, not to mention uncountable other books, plays, and movies throughout history. So it's nothing new, just very well concealed – perhaps too well.)
There is just one more point that I would like to illustrate here. Since, by my definition of crime, crimes occure in the “heart”, it is still possible to kill. But killing would no longer be defined by silly laws as “murder” in one case and “execution” in another (i.e. “lawless” and “lawful”). Instead we would only kill as an act of compassion, and/or necessity (which ends up being the same thing in an enlightened world). It is because of this that I do not challenge my own death sentences. I am not an enlightened person, therefor I do not have the ability to consciously perceive another person's motives. So it is not possible for me to “judge”, even by my own definition of “crime”, whether or not I should or should not die. And this further illustrates also why I have struggled as much as possible to not be a part of the decision process (i.e. “Criminal Justice” proceedings). In the past I have tried to prevent others from becoming involved in that process as well by asking to represent myself, and my recent decision to ask for a court appointed attorney reflects my deeper commitment to the beliefs outlined above; I have realized that trying to protect someone from judging me is a backhanded form of judgement on my own part. I was assuming I knew better than they did. I no longer make that assumption. For all I know, this is an enlightened world, and I am the blind one!
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Wordless Lessons
If you close your mind to ideas and experiences that you think are bad for you then you are making yourself deaf to the voice of experience.
This does not mean you should stick a knife in your hand so you can “hear” a lesson. But it does mean that if you ignore or condemn the man who puts a knife in his hand (or someone's back for that matter) then you will not “hear” the lesson that this experience was meant to convey.
The lesson you miss is not meant for words. If it were, then no stabbing would have been necessary, you could just be told. So no one can simply tell you what the lesson is that you will miss. You must learn for yourself. And the lesson will be repeated over and over until you do. So if you have to stick a knife in your hand in order to understand, then maybe you should.
This does not mean you should stick a knife in your hand so you can “hear” a lesson. But it does mean that if you ignore or condemn the man who puts a knife in his hand (or someone's back for that matter) then you will not “hear” the lesson that this experience was meant to convey.
The lesson you miss is not meant for words. If it were, then no stabbing would have been necessary, you could just be told. So no one can simply tell you what the lesson is that you will miss. You must learn for yourself. And the lesson will be repeated over and over until you do. So if you have to stick a knife in your hand in order to understand, then maybe you should.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Imagination vs Intuition
In this world, we condition our children to ignore their intuition in favor of etiquette, which is extremely unfortunate considering that a child's intuition is the purist form of communion they will ever experience.
We instinctively recognize the closeness of our children to “God”, even if we are not religious. A child's empathy is awe inspiring. They can sense our feelings with uncanny accuracy. Most people typically dismiss this “sixth sense” as trivial, or perhaps even annoying, because the child cannot provide useful dialog or even articulate what it is that they are sensing.
So we send them away when they ask, “What's wrong”? Or, even worse, we lie to them, thinking they could not possible “understand”.
But, it's not understanding that they lack. It is only the ability to put their intuition into words. And as they grow they eventually learn that if you can't say something then it is not important. Our culture over emphasizes the importance of words, and by doing so we condition our children to ignore the very source of their happiness. They soon become “deaf” to the same voice that called them into existence! And in place of their intuition they are trained, both formally and informally, to depend on their imagination instead.
Imagination is the perfect stand in for intuition because it can be trained to conform to social standards. It also allows us to “believe” in things that can be formed and expressed in social terms such as words and other symbolisms (i.e. idols).
But these beliefs that are based on human symbols can never provide the insight and guidance that is absolutely necessary for the heathy functioning of not just the individual but the entire planet. Without some kind of central source of communication to give us purpose and guidance, our “images of god” (i.e. imagined purposes) will inevitably result in turmoil and confusion.
That all being said, here are some ways that I have found that have helped me to recognize the voice of intuition (as opposed that of my imagination).
Intuition always demands genuie self sacrifice. Imagination demands that others sacrifice (or change).
Intuition never expects to be rewarded. Imagination is driven by reward (i.e. “heaven”, “a better life”, “peace”, etc...).
Intuition is the strongest sense of all, so strong in fact that we can never “not hear” it, we can only ignore it. Imagination is barely “audible” by comparison, so if we only think we can hear intuition then that is a sure sign that we can't “hear” at all – we are only imagining things.
Intuition speaks from the experience of the entire universe. Imagination can only speak from individual experience.
Intuition is the basis of religious beliefs. Imagination sustains religion with stand-in beliefs.
Intuition can never be conveyed via human language. Imagination depends on human language (and imagery) to give it form.
Intuition appears contradictory and nonsensical to the unintuitive mind. Imagination strives to be rational, and even though it usually has different sides (e.g. “Pro-life”v. “Pro-choice”, “conservative” v. “liberal”, etc...), the side you happen to be on will always seem “to make perfect sense” to you.
Intuition never shies away from suffering. Imagination promises to end suffering while it causes more.
Intuition does not comprehend fear. Imagination defines fear and thrives on it.
Intuition will inform our imagination, if we let it. Without intuition, our imagination is uninformed (i.e. ignorant).
Intuition sees beauty in all things. Imagination see beauty in only those things that conform to it.
Intuition cannot lie. Imagination cannot tell the truth.
Intuition remembers for you. Imagination expects you to remember yourself.
Intuition never forgets anything. Imagination depends on you to forget so it can deceive you.
Intuition ties us to the Universe. Imagination seperates us from everything.
That's all for now (I could go on like this forever, but this short illustration should help).
Of course “intuition” is only a word that I am using here to represent something that ultimately defies reprentation (in fact, any reprentation at all can only detract from it). So please do not be dissuaded if the word intuition means something else to you. Just keep in mind that there must be something making life happen, it is just silly to think life happens all by itself.
Also, imagination is not a “bad” thing either. In fact, it is also used by “intuition” to serve a purpose. So even as imagination deprives us of direct knowledge of, and communication with, our intuition it is still very much fulfilling the purpose it was made for (but definitely not its only purpose).
So again I say, relax, and just listen. You will hear your intuition when it needs you to hear. There is never any rush with intuition, and imagination, of course, is always in a hurry. :)
Okay, one more:
Intuition asks us to change ourself and tells us how. Imagination wants us to change the world, but doesn't tell us how.
We instinctively recognize the closeness of our children to “God”, even if we are not religious. A child's empathy is awe inspiring. They can sense our feelings with uncanny accuracy. Most people typically dismiss this “sixth sense” as trivial, or perhaps even annoying, because the child cannot provide useful dialog or even articulate what it is that they are sensing.
So we send them away when they ask, “What's wrong”? Or, even worse, we lie to them, thinking they could not possible “understand”.
But, it's not understanding that they lack. It is only the ability to put their intuition into words. And as they grow they eventually learn that if you can't say something then it is not important. Our culture over emphasizes the importance of words, and by doing so we condition our children to ignore the very source of their happiness. They soon become “deaf” to the same voice that called them into existence! And in place of their intuition they are trained, both formally and informally, to depend on their imagination instead.
Imagination is the perfect stand in for intuition because it can be trained to conform to social standards. It also allows us to “believe” in things that can be formed and expressed in social terms such as words and other symbolisms (i.e. idols).
But these beliefs that are based on human symbols can never provide the insight and guidance that is absolutely necessary for the heathy functioning of not just the individual but the entire planet. Without some kind of central source of communication to give us purpose and guidance, our “images of god” (i.e. imagined purposes) will inevitably result in turmoil and confusion.
That all being said, here are some ways that I have found that have helped me to recognize the voice of intuition (as opposed that of my imagination).
Intuition always demands genuie self sacrifice. Imagination demands that others sacrifice (or change).
Intuition never expects to be rewarded. Imagination is driven by reward (i.e. “heaven”, “a better life”, “peace”, etc...).
Intuition is the strongest sense of all, so strong in fact that we can never “not hear” it, we can only ignore it. Imagination is barely “audible” by comparison, so if we only think we can hear intuition then that is a sure sign that we can't “hear” at all – we are only imagining things.
Intuition speaks from the experience of the entire universe. Imagination can only speak from individual experience.
Intuition is the basis of religious beliefs. Imagination sustains religion with stand-in beliefs.
Intuition can never be conveyed via human language. Imagination depends on human language (and imagery) to give it form.
Intuition appears contradictory and nonsensical to the unintuitive mind. Imagination strives to be rational, and even though it usually has different sides (e.g. “Pro-life”v. “Pro-choice”, “conservative” v. “liberal”, etc...), the side you happen to be on will always seem “to make perfect sense” to you.
Intuition never shies away from suffering. Imagination promises to end suffering while it causes more.
Intuition does not comprehend fear. Imagination defines fear and thrives on it.
Intuition will inform our imagination, if we let it. Without intuition, our imagination is uninformed (i.e. ignorant).
Intuition sees beauty in all things. Imagination see beauty in only those things that conform to it.
Intuition cannot lie. Imagination cannot tell the truth.
Intuition remembers for you. Imagination expects you to remember yourself.
Intuition never forgets anything. Imagination depends on you to forget so it can deceive you.
Intuition ties us to the Universe. Imagination seperates us from everything.
That's all for now (I could go on like this forever, but this short illustration should help).
Of course “intuition” is only a word that I am using here to represent something that ultimately defies reprentation (in fact, any reprentation at all can only detract from it). So please do not be dissuaded if the word intuition means something else to you. Just keep in mind that there must be something making life happen, it is just silly to think life happens all by itself.
Also, imagination is not a “bad” thing either. In fact, it is also used by “intuition” to serve a purpose. So even as imagination deprives us of direct knowledge of, and communication with, our intuition it is still very much fulfilling the purpose it was made for (but definitely not its only purpose).
So again I say, relax, and just listen. You will hear your intuition when it needs you to hear. There is never any rush with intuition, and imagination, of course, is always in a hurry. :)
Okay, one more:
Intuition asks us to change ourself and tells us how. Imagination wants us to change the world, but doesn't tell us how.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Something More Than Human
It seems to bother a lot of people that what I did (murder and rape children) doesn't seem to bother me. In fact, I do believe that one of the purposes of the so-called “Justice System” is to make what I did bother me (i.e. make me “pay for” my crimes). This is decidedly ironic since the purpose I set out on my rampage of rape and murder in the first place was for the exact same reason; to make society “pay for” what it did to me.
So, should I be bothered? I think not, since clearly all I did was what people (in general) seem to always do. Whether you call it “justice” or “revenge” doesn't matter. The only difference between what I set out to do, and what the “System” sets out to do, is the number of people who concur. As if to emphasize this, I even received a letter once from a man who insisted I would get what I “deserve” because “majority rules”. Well, if that is true, then the Holocaust was deserved by the Jewish people (because the majority of Germans supported the Nazi regime that condemned the Jews as criminals who poisoned society – which by the way, prior to WWII was a popular and majority belief in the United States as well!).
So again I ask, should I be bothered? It seems to me that I was only being human by attacking what I perceived to be the source of my misery. So when the present regime officials put their poison needle in my arm “to make me pay” then my own attempt to “make society pay” will be vindicated.
A part of me sincerely looks forward to that day for the vindication alone (not to mention the ultimate freedom and escape that death promises). And yet, another part of me thinks that it is selfish for me to even want to be vindicated. What I did may be “just what people do”, but that doesn't make it acceptable; it only makes it human.
Someday, I believe, we will all become something more than human.
So, should I be bothered? I think not, since clearly all I did was what people (in general) seem to always do. Whether you call it “justice” or “revenge” doesn't matter. The only difference between what I set out to do, and what the “System” sets out to do, is the number of people who concur. As if to emphasize this, I even received a letter once from a man who insisted I would get what I “deserve” because “majority rules”. Well, if that is true, then the Holocaust was deserved by the Jewish people (because the majority of Germans supported the Nazi regime that condemned the Jews as criminals who poisoned society – which by the way, prior to WWII was a popular and majority belief in the United States as well!).
So again I ask, should I be bothered? It seems to me that I was only being human by attacking what I perceived to be the source of my misery. So when the present regime officials put their poison needle in my arm “to make me pay” then my own attempt to “make society pay” will be vindicated.
A part of me sincerely looks forward to that day for the vindication alone (not to mention the ultimate freedom and escape that death promises). And yet, another part of me thinks that it is selfish for me to even want to be vindicated. What I did may be “just what people do”, but that doesn't make it acceptable; it only makes it human.
Someday, I believe, we will all become something more than human.
Probability Limits
They say that if a monkey could type randomly on a typewriter for infinity, it would eventually produce the entire works of Shakespeare by sheer chance. But some day we will discover that this is not true at all.
I cannot yet say how I know this, but I can “see” it plainly via intuition. There exist in nature a kind of probability limit, where the extremely improbable becomes factually impossible.
This limit is already indicated by well known “laws” in science, such as the law of dispersion. If you put a drop of red dye in a cup of water, in a short period of time it will become evenly dispersed in the water. This dispersion occures as a result of the random motion of the dye molecules. If there were no probability limit then it would be possible, though extremely improbable, for the dye to randomly concentrate back into a single drop while it is still in the water.
Is this improbable or impossible? To give you an idea of the improbability of this occuring, the odds would be exactly the same for the red dye to “randomly” form a perfect three dimensional rendering of the Seattle Space Needle.
The significance of the probabilitylimit is that if it exists, then nothing in the universe is random. Randomness requires that there be no limit to the possible permutations of a given set out variables. If there is a limit, no matter how high the limit is, then the result is not random at all; it is determined!
But determined by what? Now that is the question that is impossible for rational science to answer. So science demands that the universe be undetermined, and that monkeys can, given enough time, randomly produce works of art. How silly is that?
I cannot yet say how I know this, but I can “see” it plainly via intuition. There exist in nature a kind of probability limit, where the extremely improbable becomes factually impossible.
This limit is already indicated by well known “laws” in science, such as the law of dispersion. If you put a drop of red dye in a cup of water, in a short period of time it will become evenly dispersed in the water. This dispersion occures as a result of the random motion of the dye molecules. If there were no probability limit then it would be possible, though extremely improbable, for the dye to randomly concentrate back into a single drop while it is still in the water.
Is this improbable or impossible? To give you an idea of the improbability of this occuring, the odds would be exactly the same for the red dye to “randomly” form a perfect three dimensional rendering of the Seattle Space Needle.
The significance of the probabilitylimit is that if it exists, then nothing in the universe is random. Randomness requires that there be no limit to the possible permutations of a given set out variables. If there is a limit, no matter how high the limit is, then the result is not random at all; it is determined!
But determined by what? Now that is the question that is impossible for rational science to answer. So science demands that the universe be undetermined, and that monkeys can, given enough time, randomly produce works of art. How silly is that?
Can There Be Consciousness Without Experience?
It is utterly insane for us to postulate that consciousness somehow arises from the biological mind (i.e. brain). And yet every modern science book I read makes that assumption, even though the very basis of this assumption has been proven over and over to be preposterous.
Why then do we continue to insist that somehow consciousness depends on the brain? Well, the so-called imperical reason is that when the brain is damaged, or otherwise ceases to function, our consciousness is obviously effected. Also when we tamper with the chemisrty of the brain we experience destortions in consciousness. This seems to strongly imply that consciousness depends directly on the brain, and therefor must somehow be derived from biological processes.
But what this rational fails to realize is that it is not consciousness that is effected by the brain, but it is what we are conscious of that is effected! This is an important distinction, because it seperates consciousness from experience, and by doing so it compells us to rethink our views of (and questions about) what consciousness is. In fact, it raises the most important question to modern thought today: Can there be consciousness without experience?
I suspect that the answer to that question is enlightenment (hint: there is no “yes” or “no” answer, but there is an answer).
Clearly I am talking about what some people call “pure consciousness”. And that brings up a second reason that science insists that consciousness arises from the brain: because if it doesn't then the only other explanation is beyond science. It becomes a philosophical quest instead. It moves into a realm that science cannot go; the realm of extra-experience, more commonly called metaphysics.
Science absolutely depends on experience. Without it there can be no science. So you could say that science worships experience. And if “experience” is only an illusion, then science is a false religion! It is no wonder then that scientists insist that consciousness arises from experience, and even that Experience created us! Because experience is the “god” of science. So, if it is possible to exist (i.e. be conscious) without experience, then science is a lie, and the enemy of the Truth (i.e. pure consciousness). And that is why I assert that the question of consciousness without experience is so vital. I do not propose an answer though, because that would be the “scientific” thing to do (i.e. answer question based on experience). But again, I assure you, there is an answer, and no mortal words will ever be able to convey it.
Why then do we continue to insist that somehow consciousness depends on the brain? Well, the so-called imperical reason is that when the brain is damaged, or otherwise ceases to function, our consciousness is obviously effected. Also when we tamper with the chemisrty of the brain we experience destortions in consciousness. This seems to strongly imply that consciousness depends directly on the brain, and therefor must somehow be derived from biological processes.
But what this rational fails to realize is that it is not consciousness that is effected by the brain, but it is what we are conscious of that is effected! This is an important distinction, because it seperates consciousness from experience, and by doing so it compells us to rethink our views of (and questions about) what consciousness is. In fact, it raises the most important question to modern thought today: Can there be consciousness without experience?
I suspect that the answer to that question is enlightenment (hint: there is no “yes” or “no” answer, but there is an answer).
Clearly I am talking about what some people call “pure consciousness”. And that brings up a second reason that science insists that consciousness arises from the brain: because if it doesn't then the only other explanation is beyond science. It becomes a philosophical quest instead. It moves into a realm that science cannot go; the realm of extra-experience, more commonly called metaphysics.
Science absolutely depends on experience. Without it there can be no science. So you could say that science worships experience. And if “experience” is only an illusion, then science is a false religion! It is no wonder then that scientists insist that consciousness arises from experience, and even that Experience created us! Because experience is the “god” of science. So, if it is possible to exist (i.e. be conscious) without experience, then science is a lie, and the enemy of the Truth (i.e. pure consciousness). And that is why I assert that the question of consciousness without experience is so vital. I do not propose an answer though, because that would be the “scientific” thing to do (i.e. answer question based on experience). But again, I assure you, there is an answer, and no mortal words will ever be able to convey it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)