Is morality objective or subjective?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have no "concerns" about you. I've got the picture very clear. I know exactly where you're coming from.

What information am I lacking?

You’ve offered comments about character issues but you’re avoiding explaining, here among your peers, exactly what I am not understanding. Stick just to the ideas. Can you talk about that? Can you confine yourself to that alone?

What am I “to know”?

Again: put me aside.

[Immanuel Can]

Again: put me aside.

Brush you off?

Okay.

[Walker]

What am I “to know”?

You should know that the right question is half the answer.

In asking “what,” you are expressing the formulation of a pre-conceived limitation, one that excludes who, why, when and where, any of which in fact could be the answer you are actually seeking but have excluded by the artificial, specific boundary that you included in the question, with the word “what.”

Keying on this habitual use of language that creates the limitation of knowing, perhaps your inquiry should begin with the nature of boundaries.

Some folks say that boundaries are illusory. Why would they say that? Dirty Harry says a man has to know his limitations. Why would he say that?

[Walker]

What am I “to know”?

Again: put me aside.

- From the Hindu perspective, Brahmacharya means more than celibacy.
- From the Holy Bible perspective, does the word “knew” mean more than sex the verb?

[bahman]

I've done a great deal of pointing to all that in my earlier comments on the Christianity thread. So I invite you to seek that out there, if you're interested.

So you decline to discuss things with me!

Far from it. I tell you where to look, so you can have the discussion. If you can't be bothered to look, then it's you who doesn't want the discussion.

That is alright.

How could that be?

If your alleged "extensive experiences" were actually "experiences," then how could you still "not know"?

All the experiences of the conscious mind are produced by the subconscious mind.

If that were true, then there would be no "subconscious" mind: just the mind we happen to have.

We have both.

There'd be no "conscious" or "subconscious," just the latter.

What do you mean?

I am not sure whether my spiritual experience is produced by my subconscious mind or if they are real.

Wait: now you've got two categories, not one: "subconscious" and "real." But you say that all our experiences come from the former, so what does the latter indicate?

The latter means that we experience things directly rather than through the subconscious mind.

So I stay agnostic until I become sure. That is after when I die!

What makes you "sure" of anything -- including the subconscious mind, or of the real, or of death, of your own agnosticism?

This isn't making sense. Can you fix it?

I am free after my death, so I can have direct experience of things if there is such a thing as life after death.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, you know that there is something that is called the subconscious mind. All the experiences of the conscious mind are produced by the subconscious mind. I am not sure whether my spiritual experience is produced by my subconscious mind or if they are real. As simple as that. So I stay agnostic until I become sure. That is after when I die!

Makes good sense from where I sit. CG Jung wrote a great deal on the difficulties involved in remaining aloof to subterranean complexes which can erupt into our field of perception and belief. Notably in relation to Anima (or Animus) and Shadow: the projection and exteriorization of our own internal capacity to evil.

The Platonic Cave metaphor is continually useful. Or for example those images that appear in our dreams. Who fabricated them? Why have they appeared? It surely wasn’t our “conscious self”. Yet it is not exterior to us. And if 9/10s of what we are in located there, it puts a certain pressure on the “self” that we prefer to identify with and present to the world.

You may wonder why IC necessarily denies the existence of such subterranean areas in ourselves. The ‘model’ (of self) that he has at his disposal is thoroughly simple — similar to his child-belief in Gardens, Arks, Red Sea Crossings and Divine Dispensations. Anything that complicates the Story has the capacity of weakening a *pillar* that upholds it.

Visionary experience is a psychic and psychological experience which is like a symbolic transmission. It is not “real” but rather a complex communique that must be interpreted by a mature, centered individual (according to Jung anyway). To take it at face value is a child’s mistake.

[bahman]

Well, you know that there is something that is called the subconscious mind. All the experiences of the conscious mind are produced by the subconscious mind. I am not sure whether my spiritual experience is produced by my subconscious mind or if they are real. As simple as that. So I stay agnostic until I become sure. That is after when I die!

Makes good sense from where I sit. CG Jung wrote a great deal on the difficulties involved in remaining aloof to subterranean complexes which can erupt into our field of perception and belief. Notably in relation to Anima (or Animus) and Shadow: the projection and exteriorization of our own internal capacity to evil.

The Platonic Cave metaphor is continually useful. Or for example those images that appear in our dreams. Who fabricated them? Why have they appeared? It surely wasn’t our “conscious self”. Yet it is not exterior to us. And if 9/10s of what we are in located there, it puts a certain pressure on the “self” that we prefer to identify with and present to the world.

You may wonder why IC necessarily denies the existence of such subterranean areas in ourselves. The ‘model’ (of self) that he has at his disposal is thoroughly simple — similar to his child-belief in Gardens, Arks, Red Sea Crossings and Divine Dispensations. Anything that complicates the Story has the capacity of weakening a *pillar* that upholds it.

Visionary experience is a psychic and psychological experience which is like a symbolic transmission. It is not “real” but rather a complex communique that must be interpreted by a mature, centered individual (according to Jung anyway). To take it at face value is a child’s mistake.

As usual, it is a nice writing by you.

[nemos]

All the experiences of the conscious mind are produced by the subconscious mind.

The logic of this statement does not seem very clear.

- When we talk about the subconscious, we mean something that is outside of consciousness and works before consciousness, similar to feelings and reflexes. As far as I understand it, the subconscious, unlike reflexes, which are the basis for direct actions (remove the hand from heat), manifests itself as a feeling (sixth sense) about the right choice when you are faced with a choice, or as a feeling of anxiety, etc. as intuition.
- When we talk about consciousness, we mean our self, our ego. Consciousness can record and process reflex signals (pain) and actions, as well as subconscious, post factum. If the reflexes cannot be influenced by the consciousness, unless we are specially tuned to it, perhaps because at the moment when the consciousness records them, everything has already happened, the subconscious does not determine the actions directly, so the consciousness can decide not to follow the instructions of the subconscious (or maybe intuition), as long as the consciousness is given given enough time for analysis.
Nothing that has not entered our consciousness can form our experience because it is not stored in memory. It can be said that anything that has happened to us in a state of unconsciousness (under anesthesia, for example) does not exist for us and therefore cannot form an experience. For example, our senses register a huge amount of information, but not all of it reaches the attention of consciousness and forms our experience.

[bahman]

All the experiences of the conscious mind are produced by the subconscious mind.

The logic of this statement does not seem very clear.

What you experience is not produced by your conscious mind. I call all portions of the brain that produce what the conscious mind experiences the subconscious mind. The subconscious mind not only does that but also memorizes all the things you have ever experienced. It is more intelligent than the conscious mind. It works with a huge data set that is coherently memorized. It seems slower because it works with a tremendous amount of data. Conscious mind on the other hand seems faster because it only works with a few things so-called working memory.

- When we talk about the subconscious, we mean something that is outside of consciousness and works before consciousness, similar to feelings and reflexes. As far as I understand it, the subconscious, unlike reflexes, which are the basis for direct actions (remove the hand from heat), manifests itself as a feeling (sixth sense) about the right choice when you are faced with a choice, or as a feeling of anxiety, etc. as intuition.

Subconsciousness makes decisions as well. Studies show that subconscious decision is better when there are many things in a decision to deal with. Conscious decision on the other hand works well when there are few things to deal with when a decision is needed. These two work together.

- When we talk about consciousness, we mean our self, our ego. Consciousness can record and process reflex signals (pain) and actions, as well as subconscious, post factum. If the reflexes cannot be influenced by the consciousness, unless we are specially tuned to it, perhaps because at the moment when the consciousness records them, everything has already happened, the subconscious does not determine the actions directly, so the consciousness can decide not to follow the instructions of the subconscious (or maybe intuition), as long as the consciousness is given enough time for analysis.

Nothing that has not entered our consciousness can form our experience because it is not stored in memory. It can be said that anything that has happened to us in a state of unconsciousness (under anesthesia, for example) does not exist for us and therefore cannot form an experience. For example, our senses register a huge amount of information, but not all of it reaches the attention of consciousness and forms our experience.

Subconsciousness does determine the action directly too. Think of deriving for a long time while you are focusing on listening to music. What does all the action required in deriving? You have to pay attention to it so perhaps it talks to you as it talks to me.

[nemos]

... Subconsciousness does determine the action directly too...

Our experience in these matters is a little different (not even trying to insist that mine is more correct), so I can't comment much for now.
It just seems to me that unlike consciousness, which is characterized by doubts, reflexes and subconsciousness do not have doubts - one could say that they can be attributed to the so-called holistic perception and reactions that many talk about. That's why I don't think that the subconscious can be slower than the conscious, at least my experience denies it, because the subconscious always gives me instant and uncompromising real-time solutions. In situations where I am forced to act without thinking, relying on subconscious cues, I act quickly and without hesitation, because doubt is within the purview of consciousness. I have often challenged the subconscious choice by stubbornly saying that I will do as intended and not as right. Of course, almost always, it turns out that it would have been correct to follow the choice of the subconscious.

How do you think intuition works, what is the mechanism?

[Immanuel Can]

So you decline to discuss things with me!

Far from it. I tell you where to look, so you can have the discussion. If you can't be bothered to look, then it's you who doesn't want the discussion.

That is alright.

All the experiences of the conscious mind are produced by the subconscious mind.

If that were true, then there would be no "subconscious" mind: just the mind we happen to have.

We have both.

You're missing the problem, I can see. I'll try to make it clear.

Either there are two "minds," the "conscious" and the "subconscious." Or there is only one "mind," which is neither "subconscious" nor "conscious," because it's the only "mind" there ever is.

But you say that reality itself is composed of "the subconscious mind." But if that's the case, there's nothing to be "conscious" of...it's ALL "subconscious," and as such, is not stably tied to any "reality" at all.

Which way is it?

There'd be no "conscious" or "subconscious," just the latter.

What do you mean?

I am not sure whether my spiritual experience is produced by my subconscious mind or if they are real.

Wait: now you've got two categories, not one: "subconscious" and "real." But you say that all our experiences come from the former, so what does the latter indicate?

The latter means that we experience things directly rather than through the subconscious mind.

If there's a "we" that "experiences things directly," then that's different from "the subconscious mind," obviously. It's some kind of "conscious" mind, presumably.

Do you see why I can't add up what you're saying?

So I stay agnostic until I become sure. That is after when I die!

What makes you "sure" of anything -- including the subconscious mind, or of the real, or of death, of your own agnosticism?

This isn't making sense. Can you fix it?

I am free after my death, so I can have direct experience of things if there is such a thing as life after death.

How can you be "free" "after your death"? Who makes you "free"? Where are you "free"? And what "things" are you "directly experiencing" only after death?

Again...I can't make any sense of this. Help me out, if you would.

[promethean75]

"How can you be "free" "after your death"? Who makes you "free"?"

I think what bahman is tryna say is

[Immanuel Can]

"How can you be "free" "after your death"? Who makes you "free"?"

I think what bahman is tryna say is

Or "Don't Pay the Ferryman"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwEMfLjxq8M

[bahman]

... Subconsciousness does determine the action directly too...

Our experience in these matters is a little different (not even trying to insist that mine is more correct), so I can't comment much for now.

Well, if you pay attention to what you are doing then you realize the importance of the subconscious mind. I already gave the example of deriving while your conscious attention is on the music, chatting with others...

It just seems to me that unlike consciousness, which is characterized by doubts, reflexes and subconsciousness do not have doubts - one could say that they can be attributed to the so-called holistic perception and reactions that many talk about.

Subconsciousness also has doubt.

That's why I don't think that the subconscious can be slower than the conscious, at least my experience denies it, because the subconscious always gives me instant and uncompromising real-time solutions.

The subconscious mind could be faster than the conscious mind, but given the fact that it deals with a huge dataset, it takes longer to come up with a solution.

In situations where I am forced to act without thinking, relying on subconscious cues, I act quickly and without hesitation, because doubt is within the purview of consciousness. I have often challenged the subconscious choice by stubbornly saying that I will do as intended and not as right. Of course, almost always, it turns out that it would have been correct to follow the choice of the subconscious.

Well, if you have enough time then it is better to give the thought to be processed by the subconscious mind. The subconscious mind also decides better when there are many things involved in a situation.

How do you think intuition works, what is the mechanism?

Intuition is nothing but a solution that is provided by the subconscious mind after giving it enough time to process the situation. Our intuition could be right or wrong though depending on how complicated is the situation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Either there are two "minds," the "conscious" and the "subconscious." Or there is only one "mind," which is neither "subconscious" nor "conscious," because it's the only "mind" there ever is.

But you say that reality itself is composed of "the subconscious mind." But if that's the case, there's nothing to be "conscious" of...it's ALL "subconscious," and as such, is not stably tied to any "reality" at all.

Which way is it?

Immanuel, you are a little boy asking big boy questions. You can only receive and understand little boy answers.

I want to help you to pass through the turbulent phase of your (extended) childhood but you have to be willing.

If you constantly work against me — how will you make progress? How??