The Experiencer of the Experience
Joseph Polanik
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Cayuse wrote:
>>>"There is no such thing as the subject that thinks or entertains
>>>ideas. [...]" (TLP 5.631).
>>can you state your position in the first person without thereby
>>refuting your own claims?
>"I speak, therefore I am"
a first person statement of the position you stated above would be
something like "I am experiencing thinking or entertaining ideas; but, I
am not anything at all"; or, more generically, "I am experiencing; but,
I am not anything at all".
in PI 304, Wittgenstein writes, "'And you you again and agin reach the
same conclusion that the sensation [of pain] itself is a *nothing*'. ---
Not at all. It is not a *something*, but not a *nothing* either!"
if the experience of pain is not nothing at all; then, how could the
experiencer of that pain be nothing at all?
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
mec...@sbcglobal.net
The following is an overview of my perspective on consciousness.
Bear with me. It takes a while to develop the basis of the analogy
I am using.
I'm not at all sure that it is something that would be appropriate
to your discussion group.
Just an FYI.
Michael Cecil
The following "thought experiment"/analogy is proposed in answer to the
question "What Is Consciousness?":
1) Assume a 3-dimensional co-ordinate system; "x" signifying length, "y"
signifying height, and "z" signifying depth.
2) An observer-in a train moving at 40 m.p.h. and holding a ball and a
measuring rod-drops a ball and measures the distance that the ball falls.
3) The only information or knowledge that the observer on the train has
about the path of the ball is the information or knowledge of its motion
along the "y" axis; that is, how far the ball has fallen in a line straight
downward.
4) An observer in a train station, however, standing on a line parallel to
the path of the moving train, observes the path of the same ball as it falls
and has additional information or knowledge. He can measure not only the
distance that the ball falls along the "y" axis; but, also, the distance
that the ball moves along the "x" axis as a result of the speed of the
train. To this observer, the path of the ball is not a straight line
downward at all; but a curved line which has values along both the "y" and
the "x" axes.
5) Assume that the path of the train through the train station is not a
straight line but a very sharply curved line; and that there is an observer
with a measuring rod standing on a line which is not parallel to, but is a
tangent to the path of the train. She has information or knowledge about the
path of the ball along the "y" axis (like the observer on the train), along
the "x" axis (because of the speed of the train), and along the "z" axis
because of the curvature of the path of the train (and her ability to
observe and measure the curvature of that path).
6) The question "What is the 'true' path of the ball?", then, has no real
answer because the path of the ball differs with respect to the frame of
reference from which it is observed: whether the observer is on the moving
train, in a train station on a line parallel to the path of the train, or on
a line which is a tangent to the path of the train.
7) But, while there is no real answer to the question "What is the 'true'
path of the ball?", another question must be asked: "Which observer has the
most information or knowledge about the path of the ball?"
Clearly, the observer on the train has the least amount of information or
knowledge about the path of the ball, having information or knowledge only
with respect to the "y" axis; whereas the observer on a line which is a
tangent to the path of the train has the most information or knowledge,
consisting of information or knowledge of the motion of the ball along the
"y", the "x" and the "z" axes.
And this is the basis of an analogy with regards to the question "What Is
Consciousness?"
1) The observer on the moving train can be understood as representing the
consciousness originating in the 'movement' of self-reflection and the
postulation of the thought of the "self", the "I", the 'mind', or the
'thinker'. In other words, the observer on the train represents the
consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker'; and, because he is moving
with the train, he has information or knowledge only about the motion of the
ball along the "y" axis. That is, he has no information or knowledge about
either the speed of the train or the motion of the ball along the "x" axis
as it falls. And this consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' (as
described by Western psychiatrists from Freud to Jung) is the source of the
information and knowledge about human consciousness of those who write about
the "science of consciousness"; all of which is based upon the 'movement' of
self-reflection and the postulation of the thought of the 'thinker' (both
causing and resulting in the 'movement' of thought), and occurs within the
requirements of the paradigm referred to as the scientific method.
2) The stationary observer in the train station on a line parallel to the
path of the train, not being involved in either the 'movement' of
self-reflection or the 'movement' of thought of the observer on the moving
train, can be understood as representing the "observing consciousness";
which, inasmuch as it has not 'boarded the (now) moving train', exists prior
to both the 'movement' of self-reflection and the 'movement' of thought
(specifically, the postulation of the thought of the "self", the "I", the
'mind', or the 'thinker'). And this consciousness, as described in some
detail in the writings of J. Krishnamurti, has access to more information or
knowledge-specifically, knowledge or information about 'the motion of the
ball along the "x" axis' which is not accessible to the consciousness of the
"self' and the 'thinker'-about consciousness than merely the knowledge or
information conveyed by the 'scientists of consciousness'.
3) The (also stationary) observer on a line tangential to the path of the
train, also not being involved in either the 'movement' of self-reflection
or the 'movement' of thought, has even more information or knowledge about
the 'path of the ball'-that is, more information or knowledge in response to
the question "What Is Consciousness?"; information or knowledge which is not
accessible to either the observer on the moving train (representing the
consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' and the knowledge of
consciousness conveyed by the scientific method) or the stationary observer
standing on a line parallel to the path of the train (representing the
knowledge or information accessible to the "observing consciousness" as
conveyed in the writings of J. Krishnamurti). This information or knowledge
is about 'the motion along the "z" axis' [representing information or
knowledge about consciousness which is conveyed through two specific
Revelations: The Revelation of the "resurrection" (including the Revelation
of the Memory of Creation-cf. Genesis 2:7-and the revelation of the memories
of previous lives-cf. Luke 20:36) and the Vision of the "Son of man", and
conveying information or knowledge about the consciousness Created 'by and
in the image of God'-cf. Genesis 1:27-as well as the 'fallen'
consciousness].
4) Thus, while there is no real answer to the question "What is the 'true'
answer to the question 'What Is Consciousness?'", it can readily be seen
that the knowledge or information about consciousness accessible to the
consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' (and conveyed by the
scientific method) consists of, in fact, the least amount of information or
knowledge with which to answer that question; whereas the observations and
writings of J. Krishnamurti also consist of less information and knowledge
about human consciousness than is conveyed by the Revelations.
The consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' typically (and
reflexively) characterizes as either non-existent, meaningless, trivial,
irrelevant, an illusion, delusional, incontrovertible evidence of
psychopathology, and/or a manifestation of cosmological Evil any information
or knowledge from another 'frame of reference' (in terms of consciousness);
and typically responds with paranoia, envy (including the lust for power),
anger, censorship, and/or violence against anyone who conveys such
information or knowledge; despite the fact that its fundamental purpose is
the attaining of Justice and Peace and the very preservation of human
civilization itself.
Joseph Polanik
>The following is an overview of my perspective on consciousness.
>Bear with me. It takes a while to develop the basis of the analogy I
>am using.
>The following "thought experiment"/analogy is proposed in answer to the
>question "What Is Consciousness?":
>1) Assume a 3-dimensional co-ordinate system; "x" signifying length,
>"y" signifying height, and "z" signifying depth.
>2) An observer-in a train moving at 40 m.p.h. and holding a ball and a
>measuring rod-drops a ball and measures the distance that the ball
>falls.
Michael,
the moving train analogy is quite nice; and, may help to clarify where
we each stand.
the I that is on the moving train is the I that says "I experience;
therefore, I am". it is the experiencing I of traditional Western
psychology and philosophy.
I agree that this I has the least information; but, the purpose of
philosophical inquiry is to obtain more knowledge. the experiencing I is
capable of wondering about its own origins and is aware of claims that
are made about its origins (that it is produced by a part of the brain
or that it is produced by a greater self or whatever).
consequently, from the viewpoint of the experiencing I, the question is
always 'how do I come to know which of these claims is true'?.
you speak as one who has achieved some measure of enlightenment; and,
perhaps you have; but, then you made a choice. you chose to present the
rest of us with a fish instead of a fishing lesson.
that's one choice and it's okay that you made it because that's all some
people want; but, you will always face the consequences of your choice
--- how do I repeat the journey you've made.
the experiencing I wants to know how it may come to know that what you
claim is true really is true or false.
mec...@sbcglobal.net
-----Original Message-----
From: mo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:mo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
Joseph Polanik
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 5:56 AM
To: mo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MoFPP: 211] Regarding Your Manifesto
mec...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>The following is an overview of my perspective on consciousness.
>Bear with me. It takes a while to develop the basis of the analogy I
>am using.
>The following "thought experiment"/analogy is proposed in answer to the
>question "What Is Consciousness?":
>1) Assume a 3-dimensional co-ordinate system; "x" signifying length,
>"y" signifying height, and "z" signifying depth.
>2) An observer-in a train moving at 40 m.p.h. and holding a ball and a
>measuring rod-drops a ball and measures the distance that the ball
>falls.
Michael,
the moving train analogy is quite nice; and, may help to clarify where
we each stand.
The analogy was 'plagiarized' from the thought experiments on Relativity
Theory. (But you only quoted the first part of the thought experiment with
reference to the consciousness of the "I".)
the I that is on the moving train is the I that says "I experience;
therefore, I am". it is the experiencing I of traditional Western
psychology and philosophy.
the 'movement' of thought. That 'motion' is part of its perceptual
processes. It is 'involved' in (and 'perturbs') its perceptions of reality;
as is suggested by quantum physics.
I agree that this I has the least information; but, the purpose of
philosophical inquiry is to obtain more knowledge. the experiencing I is
capable of wondering about its own origins and is aware of claims that
are made about its origins (that it is produced by a part of the brain
or that it is produced by a greater self or whatever).
Why must it 'wonder' about its own origins?
This should be fairly obvious: the origin of the "self" and the 'thinker' is
in, respectively, the 'movement' of self-reflection and the postulation of
the thought of the 'thinker'. This is more or less straight-forward. This is
the origin of space, time, and the consciousness that is simultaneous with
space and time. No 'wondering' is either required or helpful here.
'Wondering' is relative to thought. What I am talking about here is the
actual *observation* of the origin of the "self" and the 'thinker'. Thought
cannot observe its own origin.
consequently, from the viewpoint of the experiencing I, the question is
always 'how do I come to know which of these claims is true'?.
Just as there is no 'true' path of the ball--rather, the path of the ball is
determined by the frame of reference of the observer--there is no claim
which can be said to be 'true' except within its own frame of reference. The
"I" is a particular dimension of consciousness which provides a 'true'
description of reality *only as far as it goes*. But it is not the ONLY
dimension of consciousness. (It would have been helpful to have included the
entire thought experiment rather than just the part about the "I".)
you speak as one who has achieved some measure of enlightenment;
solves.
and,
perhaps you have; but, then you made a choice. you chose to present the
rest of us with a fish instead of a fishing lesson.
that there is another dimension of consciousness beyond the "self" and the
'thinker' (and not merely psychosis); that the "self" and the 'thinker' do
not have the *last word* about what consciousness is.
A person must know that there is such a thing as a fish before he can be
motivated to 'go fishing'. Or else he will not know when he has been
successful.("No, that's not a fish, that's a shoe.")
that's one choice and it's okay that you made it because that's all some
people want; but, you will always face the consequences of your choice
--- how do I repeat the journey you've made.
fundamental characteristics of that journey held in common by those who make
it. That is the purpose of the thought experiment; to first open a person to
the possibility of other dimensions of consciousness beyond the "self" and
the 'thinker'. J. Krishnamurti gives a wide range of approaches on how to
observe the structure of thought itself in the perpetuation of conflict and
violence; whereas I focus on the 'movement' of self-reflection itself as the
origin of such duality and conflict.
In short, one must change one's perspective from 'thinking' thoughts and
becoming identified with thoughts, to observing thoughts, and observing the
origin of thoughts in a 'movement' of consciousness in response to fear.
But, even standing back from that, to observe the 'movement' of
self-reflection itself, which is alluded to in Kierkegaard's Sickness Unto
Death, when he defines the "self".
the experiencing I wants to know how it may come to know that what you
claim is true really is true or false.
terms of thought) train; realizing, of course, that this can a *very* rough
landing depending upon how fast the train is 'moving' (to what degree the
person has become completely identified with thought--as alluded to in the
opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes).
Joe
Michael Cecil