[MD] atheistic and content

[MarshaV]

Good Morning Arlo,


On Mar 19, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Marsha]
> ... but it does seem to be clearly proprietary.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Well, sure. Its proprietary due to the unique sensory trajectory of the biological organism. But it is not *only* proprietary. Our "selves" are the social construction of thousands of years of shared dialogue, the thoughts and memories of our culture as we appropriate this "collective consciousness". The "self" is both proprietary and shared. As I said, to give dominance to one is fall into a politically motivated sham.

Here's where I am talking about something different.  Of course there is no-self.  I've searched and searched, and found no such entity.  The self that I thought I knew has turned out to be patterns/stories built on memories and projections, on fears and desires, on past and future all built conceptions.  But there is an awareness, that is separate from the five sense and patterns, that does not cling to such imaginings.  This awareness/experience sits in the present.  Witnessing.  It seems to be as proprietary as my eyes.   


> [Marsha]
> That individual conscious awareness would seem to be what John meant by his phrase "experiences itself as experience."
> 
> [Arlo]
> This is the illusion (or "delusion", according to Einstein). The "self" is a convenient (pragmatically useful) social construction that organizes the narratives constructed by the biological organism through the assimilation of a shared "culture". In Western culture, the "self" is a story that has increasingly adopted the "myth of independence", and this is why those in the East (or many indigenous peoples) have quite a different understanding of the "self" narrative.

No self, more like a witnessing consciousness.  Not independent, I have found nothing to be independent.  Nothing.  It is this witnessing consciousness that I think of when I read Ham's posts   I wonder if this isn't what he's eluding to.   (Language can make all this explanation very messy, indeed.)   I always read Ham's posts looking for a clue, but when I don't find it I mostly move on.    


> Prior to the appropriate of a shared, cultural consciousness, the human organism has a sense of the world exclusive to its sensory experiences.

So the books say.  
 
 
> Its sense of differentiation from "the world" is entirely informed by its sensory (biological) experience. When a wolf eats a rabbit, it is informed (simplistically here, of course) by the sensation of the substances on its tongue, and the lack of pain input received by its brain.

No offense Arlo, but this is all analogy, patterns, storytelling.  I'm trying to discover what is going on from the experience point-of-view., and why I find this witnessing-awareness so interesting.  There does seem to be a level thing going on.  There's an experience and an experiencing the experience, seeing and experiencing the seeing.  Here I'm not talking about unpatterned experience, but something else.


> Why I mention "pain" is that experiments done on rats (always rats, everyone hates them) has shown that by removing certain parts of the brain that register pain, rats would actually begin to eat their own bodies when hungry. They no longer had a sense of "differentiation" regarding their own legs, eating their own leg was (to these rats) an identical sensory experience to eating "something else". The rat is trapped with nothing but this "proprietary" sensory trajectory to inform its sense of "differentiation" from the "world".

That is really sick!!!  Sick experimentation by sick patterned individuals.  Want to live longer to perpetrate more sickness?  Besides we know there are big problems with science.  For one, the fact that experiments are built to prove a particular hypothesis.   It is tortuous to read these words.  This is a sad pattern for civilized man!   Not very kind at all!!!!   

Boooooooo to you for replicating, even through writing, such monsterous patterns.



Marsha
 
 
 
  



 
___