Are we the Body, Mind, or Consciousness?

I think that, for me, decent is someone who for the most part, lives by a particular positive and caring code of ethics, and who tries to remember “to do no harm”. Of course, we are far from perfect and we do struggle to maintain decency at times. I know I do.

Strive to me is the struggling, the mindful, conscious awareness of keeping ourselves in check, keeping ourselves aware of what we are doing and how that can affect others. We have a dark side, a shadow side, so it is oh so easy to slip, to fall, to lose awareness of what “decent” means. We’re lazy creatures.

I know that that wasn’t a good example of strive but you do know what the word means.
I would have you imagine “keeping on” as in the children’s book “The little engine that could” .

A little railroad engine was employed about a station yard for such work as it was built for, pulling a few cars on and off the switches. One morning it was waiting for the next call when a long train of freight-cars asked a large engine in the roundhouse to take it over the hill. “I can’t; that is too much a pull for me”, said the great engine built for hard work. Then the train asked another engine, and another, only to hear excuses and be refused. In desperation, the train asked the little switch engine to draw it up the grade and down on the other side. “I think I can”, puffed the little locomotive, and put itself in front of the great heavy train. As it went on the little engine kept bravely puffing faster and faster, “I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.”

As it neared the top of the grade, which had so discouraged the larger engines, it went more slowly. However, it still kept saying, “I—think—I—can, I—think—I—can.” It reached the top by drawing on bravery and then went on down the grade, congratulating itself by saying, “I thought I could, I thought I could.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Littl … That_Could

Profound in its simplicity, yes?

“For the most part?” I think that what I meant in that moment was inasmuch as is humanly possible in that moment. “For the most part” also means to me a pretty good measurement which one could be satisfied with - though “ought” one to be satisfied with “for the most part?”

Gossip is actually a social meme…in and of itself it’s not such a bad thing but it depends…and it can get out of hand.
It’s only when it is harmful to someone’s reputation and is capable of doing harm that it becomes malicious. Some People have actually committed suicide over the malicious derogatory gossip that has been aimed at them.

Yes, you did, by stating that you would not gossip like he did.

Do you have an emotional attachment to me Phyllo…none of ? You do keep score . I wonder why?

You are very welcome, deservedly so.

Let’s bring this down to earth:

Jerry is about to bite down on a Big Mac when Jean from Peta spots him.

Two bodies, two minds, two consciousnesses.

Jerry’s body needs food in order to sustain his existence. His mind chooses a Big Mac. He is conscious of doing this.

Jean’s body also needs food to sustain her existence. Her mind chooses a garden salad. She is conscious of this.

Now, in the either/or world, the three components here are intertwined the same way for all of us. And in a wholly determined world even a discussion of where one component stops and the others begin is only as it ever could have been.

It simply is that way. In sync as it must be with the laws of matter.

But my “thing” here however always revolves around the part where a discussion of this sort is embedded in one or another level of autonomy.

Where does the body stop and the other parts begin when we are no longer able to agree on whether one ought to eat the Big Mac?

Both bodies still need food. Both bodies are intertwined in a particular brain out of which emanates a particular mind; a mind conscious of making choices of this kind.

But here where does one stop and the others begin?

So, that, among other things, any particular conscious mind embedded in any particular body can know to make the right choice?

The part where all the controversy crops up.

Oh my, “The Big Mac Controversy”…what more enticement do I need to enter Biggie’s mental contraptions?

Wait…I have a list of must haves.

This is the philosophy forum.

I made my points above. I intertwined ideas that folks have regarding the relationship between body, mind and consciousness “out in the world” of actually human interactions.

The aim being to take these “mental contraptions” and to bring them down to earth.

So, in a particular context, relating to particular behaviors of your own, how would you go about doing this?

Is the question how one ought to live, Biggie? Do you eat burgers, both, or salad’s only? Answer and I’ll tell you how you ought to live, philosophically.

Confucius taught me … it’s OK to suggest a direction to look in … to tell people what to ‘see’ should they look in the direction suggested is the epitome of arrogance.

In other words, it may be based on extensive and reliable research or it may be a quack idea or you may have just fabricated it this morning. You won’t tell us. The best that we can do, is to waste a lot of time trying to figure out what you already know.

Thanks buddy. No wonder China was stagnant for hundreds of years.

[b]

[/b]

[b]

[/b]

[b]

[/b]

[b]

[/b]

[b]

[/b]

Eaglerising had the kinder reaction to my post … though he soiled his kindness somewhat by bragging about it … an anonymous act of kindness is the nobler act.

One needs not dive into research … testing the claim for intuitive correctness is sufficient. For example:

Either/Or fosters violence … end of story.

And/Both fosters absorbtion of contradictions … reducing violence as a consequence.

Absorbing it, like a water-filter that keeps the impurities, toxins, and dirt inside of itself and gives back only pure water. Be a tension-absorber inside all the communities wherein you live. Absorb the bitterness, the anger, the hardness, the group hysteria, the lack of reconciliation, as a water-filter might. Then drink wine with a friend to rid yourself of your own toxins.

Suppose there was an ‘and/both’ philosophy. Who says that the Semites had it and lost it? If it was useful, why did they lose it? How did it work on real examples?

Intuition isn’t going to tell me if it’s effective in the real world. I might have a feel good intuition which is just a pie in the sky fantasy.

I guess that we have very different ideas about the nature of communication, the exchange of information and education.

If I have information which you seem to lack, then I don’t think that I’m being kind by withholding it from you. I think that I’m being an asshole if I do that.

But suit yourself. Now that I know how you feel, I won’t offer you anything. You’re welcome.

Wendy,

Though this wasn’t addressed to me…

That’s a really good question. Darn if I know.

Do you feel that consciousness and soul are closely related? Or that, for lack of a better way to express it, the one fits into the other?
What “soul” are you speaking about? That “thing” created by God (I’m agnostic) which is you, me, everyone, et cetera, that might supposedly survive after death?

Our consciousness is what makes us individually who we are. I think that is different for all of us though I may be wrong. What we know about the big C can fit into a paper cup I think.

I don’t know. I would like to believe that what I experience, who I am, what thoughts and emotions come to me, as i gaze up into the night sky on a starry night, will follow me despite my death. But all of that does come, is caused, because of the brain, how we are wired, our personal living journey, our wonderful chemicals surging through our brain.

Is our soul really just a part of our own personal and unique energy, that which animates us and influences it? And where is it? Where does it reside? When I believed in a God, I kind of felt that the soul wasn’t so much within but surrounding us, within a certain amount of space. lol
Who could really explain this stuff? (I’m banging my head up against the wall ~ figuratively speaking. Anyway, with all of these unanswered questions, just think of the great fun and awe which we can experience in the here and now.

Who needs a soul? Who needs an after death?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. I like your questions Arc…yes or no…easy so far.

Your soul houses your long term memory…definitely this lifetime in whole, but there are no emotions attached to all of those memories which came as a surprise to me. I found the attachment of experience and emotion only occurs here.

The brain assists but does not house our essences.

Mine resides in my physical body, usually. I’ve described its location in my body more than once I believe. I’ll try to find those posts.

Human beings do, not sure about animals, but they deserve souls. After death living may not be a choice.

No, that is merely the philosophical question that most interest me here. As that relates to the part where different folks make a distinction between body, mind and consciousness.

No, but I do eat chicken and [occasionally] fish. But that is because in my current frame of mind I see this as more conducive to sustaining my health.

With regard to the moral conflict here I am course embedded in my dilemma:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

And you? Do you eat the flesh of animals? And, as it is perceived by many to be a moral question, how are you not entangled in my dilemma?

Or are you?

For myself, consuming animal flesh in moderation is ideal for my health. I am willing to kill what I eat being part of the food chain, ideally, older animals. The amount of my meat consumption has decreased and will continue to decrease as I get older, one day I may only eat meat 2-3 times a month.

I think gluttony is more the moral issue.

I see myself as all three of those things.
For me, consciousness is either synonymous with the mind, or a mere aspect of it, along with thoughts, feelings, perceptions and sensations, rather than something outside it.
The mind is like the body, consciousness, thoughts, feelings, perceptions and sensations are like the activities of the mind, and memories are like snapshots of this activity.
We tend to forget things we have no cognitive or emotional connection with.
Furthermore, mind is another part of the body.

For me, consciousness isn’t anymore special than any other mental, physical or organic process, and it isn’t anymore reliable, sometimes I’m conscious, sometimes I’m subconscious and sometimes I’m unconscious.
Sometimes my consciousness is broad, and othertimes it’s honed in on something specific.
My consciousness changes from time to time, depending on how tired I am, on what I’ve ate, on what drugs I’ve taken, on what I’m focusing my attention on…
As far as I know, I wasn’t conscious before I was born, and probably won’t be conscious after I die, there probably isn’t a spirit or soul, althou I’d like to do more research on this matter.

Some eastern schools of thought identify themselves primarily with consciousness, where as others say there is no self, and still others say everything is the self, eastern metaphysicians aren’t united on this front.
Western schools of thought tend to identify themselves with mind, especially thinking, or with body, or with both, but rarely with consciousness apart from mind or with nothing or with everything.
I tend to identify with both mind and body, especially with thinking, because it’s something I do a lot of, and thinking is the thing perhaps most capable of self identification.
However most of what I am is unconscious, the physical body, althou I think the whole body is conscious on some level, just as the whole mind is unconscious on some level.
While I see validity in all these ways of categorizing the self, strictly speaking, quantitatively I’m the body, and qualitatively the mind, especially thinking, but also conscious attention/awareness, feeling…

I’ve listened to Alan Watts and Eckhart Tolle give talks on the self, and their conception of it is very different.
Watts will say everything is the self, and Tolle will say consciousness apart from the mind and thinking is the self.
Both have been inspired by eastern thought, yet their notion of self is very different.
And one of the fundamental tenets of Buddhism is no self.
So we have three very different ideas here.

There ought to be words or terms for these different ideas about the self.

All-self, no-self.
Mind-self, body-self.
Incorporeal-self, corporeal-self.

In Greek, self is translated as auto.

Panauto, Anauto.
Psychauto, Somauto.
Pneumauto, Hylauto.

Oh Wendy. Tom is your Dad?

The heat, the heat, the heat!