False Consciousness: Why Most are not really Conscious

[Felasco]

...but I'm talking of the Ego and the false perceptions it attaches itself to.

The false perceptions won't be solved by analyzing them, as the problem arises from the nature of thought itself.

[WanderingLands]

The false perceptions won't be solved by analyzing them, as the problem arises from the nature of thought itself.

So how are we to know what thoughts are of truth and what thoughts are just thoughts?

[jackles]

personal thoughts or ego thoughs are not general to the field.personal attitudes or ideas limit the self to the ego.

[WanderingLands]

personal thoughts or ego thoughs are not general to the field.personal attitudes or ideas limit the self to the ego.

True, yes.

[Felasco]

So how are we to know what thoughts are of truth and what thoughts are just thoughts?

No thoughts are truth, they are instead all highly imperfect symbolic representations of the real world, ie, the truth.

As example, the symbol "Felasco" has a practical value in helping readers identify that the author of one post is the same as the author of some other post. But the word "Felasco", or even the real name of that poster, does not even begin to accurately convey the truth about the person who goes by those names. One could write an entire book about poster Felasco, and most of the truth of such a person would still be unavailable, even if Felasco himself wrote the book (most especially then ).

The word "apple" is not an apple we can eat, and it never will be no matter how well the word is defined or refined etc. And so it is for all "truths" expressed in thought. The seeker looking for truth focuses on taking a bite out of the apple (which is real), and not in worrying too much about the word apple (which is only a symbol).

Truth can not be expressed in thought due to limitations of the medium of thought itself. All philosophies are made of thought, thus no philosophy can ever be true.

Truth is what happens when philosophy, symbols and thought are set aside. Truth exists in the real world, not in the symbol world.

This is less obscure than it might seem. For the last few minutes my attention has been focused on this post (the symbol world) and so I've not heard the birds chirping outside my window (the real world). Now that I'm leaving this symbolic place, I can hear the real world again.

In every moment that our focus is on philosophy, we are turning our backs on the truth.

[jackles]

felasco yas is in the kingdom.the kingdom that moves not.

[Felasco]

felasco yas is in the kingdom.the kingdom that moves not.

No, that's incorrect, I'm in the Gullible Gals Ashram. The gals are pretty gullible, or they wouldn't be here, but they won't let me call it a Kingdom. They say I have to call it a Galdom.

[jackles]

ha ha.the kingdom of consciousness is not clever.it cannot be clever.clever can never be stationary to its self.as you know very well.

[chasw]

Wanderinglands: Following in the footsteps of the Marxists, you appear to be misusing the term consciousness. Its true the human race can be neatly divided into people who demonstrate the desire to think deeply about themselves and the world they inhabit, while the remainder seek to live as simply as possible, tending their own gardens and shutting out the larger issues facing humans generally. I prefer to use the term awareness to characterize the distinction between these two classes, thereby reserving consciousness to mean that mental state of being awake that all higher-order animals possess, when not sleeping or otherwise "unconscious".

The larger question is, what is it that motivates most people to shun the intellectual life, actively choose to be unaware, even though they are possessed of all the same mental faculties as the deep thinkers? I believe its culture itself. Our fundamental mission in life is to survive, reproduce and maybe enjoy a few interludes. Becoming a thinker or activist in larger issues is extra work, something reserved for ambitious, curious, even brave people. Therefore, our baseline culture, regardless of where you live, impels us to cooperate with society, make a living for yourself and your family, keep your head down and don't make waves.

Fortunately for the human race, ambition, curiosity and bravery are ingrained in our DNA. Part of our success as a species is the impulse for some humans to surpass other members of the community. In spite of the pressures of society to conform, do your job and stay out of trouble, some people choose a heightened awareness of their world and the actions that entails. Most people take their cues in this regard from their parents, during childhood. For humanity, this leader/follower social order is conducive to evolutionary success. - CW

[uwot]

Truth can not be expressed in thought due to limitations of the medium of thought itself. All philosophies are made of thought, thus no philosophy can ever be true.

I'm not really picking on you, Felasco, I'll call you Felascio if I do, but I do like a good paradox. Could you explain to my crispy shell how can we know whether the above is true?

In every moment that our focus is on philosophy, we are turning our backs on the truth.

Well that's 30 years of my life down the toilet.

[Felasco]

I'm not really picking on you, Felasco, I'll call you Felascio if I do,

Fiasco has been popular with some posters. You may also address me by my real name if you wish, Baba Bozo.

Truth can not be expressed in thought due to limitations of the medium of thought itself. All philosophies are made of thought, thus no philosophy can ever be true.

Could you explain to my crispy shell how can we know whether the above is true?

Is the word uwot really true? Or does it only point to a real thing?

The word uwot intends to point to a unique thing, something separate from everything else. Is anything really separate from everything else?

To answer your question, we might know such things are true by investigating them ourselves, not merely agreeing or disagreeing with something somebody said. Somebody might be full of shit. Somebody might even be a bozo.

[Arising_uk]

...
This is less obscure than it might seem. For the last few minutes my attention has been focused on this post (the symbol world) and so I've not heard the birds chirping outside my window (the real world). Now that I'm leaving this symbolic place, I can hear the real world again.

More philosophical nonsense from you. This 'real' world you hear is symbolic as the chirping is only real to another bird.

In every moment that our focus is on philosophy, we are turning our backs on the truth.

How would you know? As by your own admission you've neither studied nor read any.

[uwot]

You may also address me by my real name if you wish, Baba Bozo.

Baba Bozo it is then.

Is the word uwot really true?

It's hard to know where to start. From the point of view of proper philosophy, this doesn't mean anything. Any word, even noun, in isolation, has no truth value; if you are interested in logic and truth, you should listen to Arising, because he really does know what he's talking about. I'm not much cop with logic, but like anyone with a bit of philosophical training, I know my way around a syllogism.

Or does it only point to a real thing?

Like I said, logic is not one of my strengths, but this smacks of semiotics: signifiers and signified and all that.

The word uwot intends to point to a unique thing, something separate from everything else.

I know what you mean Baba Bozo, but the word uwot doesn't intend anything: it's a word. I'm all for understanding words in context, but it's easier to do so with the appropriate words.

Is anything really separate from everything else?

Who knows, Baba Bozo? That's something that philosophers have been asking for thousands of years. Check out Parmenides.

To answer your question, we might know such things are true by investigating them ourselves, not merely agreeing or disagreeing with something somebody said.

Baba Bozo; you bang on about improving the quality of philosophy on this forum. At the same time you pose the sort of questions that are ironed out of anyone who survives the first term of an undergraduate philosophy course. One of the things you learn by studying philosophy, is the truth of Descartes observation that no idea is so absurd that some philosopher has not thought it already. There are over 7 billion people alive today and who knows how many billion that have ever lived, most with broadly the same faculties and more or less the same phenomena with which to construct a coherent narrative; there is only a very small pool of things that haven't been thunk. By studying philosophy, you acquaint yourself with the ideas that have influenced the way we think today, the good, the bad and the ugly. Every idea that has made it to print, has been challenged, it's strengths and weaknesses scrutinised so that there is a wealth of material that dissects and ruthlessly examines every idea or thought you are likely to have. It is humbling to submit yourself to that, and it would improve the quality of philosophy on this site no end, if contributors understood that. Some people though, are content to believe their intuition is novel, or even unique. You for instance have said several times that thinking is limited; I'm not sure if you have explained why or how: linguistic determinism might be the place to start.

Somebody might be full of shit. Somebody might even be a bozo.

Well, yes they might.

[jackles]

i think here the questioner refers to the differents between being event consciouse and being consciouse consciouse.ha

[uwot]

i think here the questioner refers to the differents between being event consciouse and being consciouse consciouse.ha

Maybe. Our consciousness of events is necessarily restricted to actual events, personally, I suspect the same is true of consciousness of consciousness, I'm a bit of a Humean in that regard. As in David Hume, in case anyone thinks that's a typo.