"Integrated Consciousness, response"
To: Egoism and Ethics Debate
Subject: Re: Integrated Consciousness
From: "David G. McDivitt"
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:26:24 -0700
Thank you for agreeing with me two times in your response. It helps my
self esteem more than you will ever know. I will reply to the question
you ask at the very bottom.
In viewing various so-called personality disorders, some manner of
psychological "dualism" often lies at their root, and the outward
maladaptive disorder is simply the way in which that dualism is
manifested. Dualism is this regard is an example of nonintegrated
consciousness. The various parts of the brain or consciousness, in
whatever new way they are defined for us from month to month, do not
seem to work in concert. A person appears irrational or moody because
there is no set focus or fixation for the brain as a whole. Instead the
focus changes, as various parts take their turn in reacting or
responding to environment.
I think this observation has philosophical significance. In our society
there is often a dualism between such things as authority and obedience,
physical and spiritual, real and ideal potential, cognitive and
affective, male and female, self and society. I enjoyed watching the
show on the Discovery Channel because it expressed this idea
anthropologically. If mankind was that way in past, it may be worthwhile
to recognize what way mankind may still be that way today, and if so,
further evolution of mankind cognitively may be determined by the extent
to which consciousness continues becoming more integrated.
The concept of integrated consciousness would seem to have great
significance personally as well. For this reason, expressing
objectification, identification, and definition as standalone qualities
themselves, offers a sense of detachment from those things we find
ourselves fixated upon. By wilfully denying self these fixations, the
brain can be trained to think in more integrated terms. As a result I
seek out philosophical models which stress relativism more than realism.
I do not want to find things I can fixate upon and be more of a bigot.
I'm tired of that. My new "rule" or "principle" is to avoid that.
>From: Dennis Hudecki
>Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 01:35:17 -0700
>
>On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, David G. McDivitt wrote:
>> "Being Good versus Being Christian", by David McDivitt
>>
>> Often times when a person speaks of being good, religion replies, "But
>> being good will not get you into heaven".
>
>
>wrong
>
>
> We are left therefore to
>> wonder how being good rates against religious or spiritual belief.
>> Through which focus does society fair better? Surely there is something
>> to be said for ethical conduct.
>>
>> The hope of going to heaven is at best a selfish desire.
>
>wrong
>
>
> Living a life
>> of toil, woe, and obligation,
>
>
>wrong
>
>
> the thought of one day having relief or
>> satisfaction may have great meaning. Why must this supposed reward be in
>> the afterlife?
>
>
>
>wrong
>
>
>
> Why not enjoy the life we have now?
>
>
>
>wrong. Religion wants you to enjoy your life now.
>
>
>
> If a person has
>> fondness for principles and values, surely living by those principles
>> and values can provide happiness, now.
>
>
>
>wrong if you think religion does not want you live by your principles and
>values
>
>
> If people are being who and what
>> they want to be now, should they not be happy now?
>>
>
>
>wrong if you think that religion does not want you to be happy now
>
>
>
>> Religion represents an authority game lasting for thousands of years.
>
>
>wrong; you must be confusing religion with some bad church practices
>
>
>> There are whatever standards, said to be dictated by God.
>
>
>wrong; the standards are there for reason to grasp and things like the
>commandments not to kill and steal are mere summaries of what the mind has
>already discoverd
>
>
> There are
>> individual men who disseminate those standards,
>
>
>wrong
>
>
> enjoying that position
>> in society, and there are others who grudgingly or not abide by those
>> standards. Strictly in the classic sense, doing good or abiding by
>> standards is said to be hard, and human nature is said to be inherently
>> evil or bad.
>
>
>wrong, if you are thinking of X-ity or Judeism.
>
>
> It is said man cannot be good, worthwhile, or wholesome
>> except by going against his nature.
>
>
>
>completely and utterly wrong; dead wrong. And you think you understand
>religion????????????????
>
>
>>
>> Assuming God does exist and dictates rules for people to live by,
>
>
>wrong
>
>
> what
>> forces people to obey?
>
>
>nothing
>
>
> One may say "going to hell", but does the
>> presence of hell necessarily prevent people from killing each other?
>> Does it prevent discrimination in our society based on race or sex?
>> Okay, the mere presence of hell does not prevent crime, so one may then
>> say the fear of hell prevents crime, or the fear of judgement or
>> punitive action prevents crime. But does it really?
>
>
>
>You wrongly think--and this is anothe bigtime mistake, that religion, if
>it were true, would stop evil or even slow it down 1%
>
>
> Observing human
>> behavior, it is realized that as authoritarianism increases, so does
>> rebellion against that authoritarianism.
>
>
>true
>
> How strange to have religion
>> demand compliance with its own authority
>
>
>
>wrong
>
>
>, and people suffer that burden
>> of servitude,
>
>
>wrong; Jesus blamed the pharisees for trying to put the people into
>servitude and said that they were not truly religious
>
>
> then following death religion says it will provide peace
>> and reward.
>
>not to the phony religious-types that you are describing
>
>
>
> Need it be said people are no longer any use to religion
>> after they die?
>
>
>what do you mean?
>
>
> This abuse of naive human participation in religious
>> endeavor is not the fault of religion. It is the fault of no one. It is
>> however representative of inconsistencies in the consciousness of
>> mankind, how difficult it remains for men to reconcile the real to
>> perceived ideals, and how from an evolutionary perspective human thought
>> has yet to be fully integrated. Integration stands in contrast to
>> fragmented or dualistic consciousness.
>>
>> Another perspective is to realize people do what they want to do. Some
>> think and act with a sense of purpose. Some think and act with regard to
>> principles and values. Some think and act with no forethought at all. It
>> is possible to enjoy being good without being religious.
>
>
>true; you are wrong in thinking that religion does not see this
>
> It is possible
>> to recognize what principles do for self and society. It is possible to
>> say, "These are my values", instead of, "I have God's values",
>
>
>wrong in the sense you think the two are mutually exclusive
>
>
> or "I
>> obey God". An integrated consciousness is thus represented which does
>> not flip flop back and forth between views of authority and obedience.
>
>
>
>Yuk. We agree that authority and obedience are not the way to live a good
>life,
>
>
>> Nor does one vacillate between the real and ideal, or the physical and
>> the spiritual.
>
>
>What do you mean?
Return to things I've written
egoism, religion, atheism, codependency, selfishness, collectivism, mailing, SOC-FIX, FreeWare, software, science, philosophy, cooking, recipe, ethics, morality, ethic, moral, debate