How Does an Atheist Come to Believe in God?:

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veitas, you avoid the most important thing: experience. What good is philosophy iof we do not verify it experientially? Susan Sontag wrote of Simone Weil:

The principal value of the collection is simply that anything from Simone Weil’s pen is worth reading. It is perhaps not the book to start one’s acquaintance with this writer—Waiting for God, I think, is the best for that. The originality of her psychological insight, the passion and subtlety of her theological imagination , the fecundity of her exegetical talents are unevenly displayed here. Yet the person of Simone Weil is here as surely as in any of her other books—the person who is excruciatingly identical with her ideas, the person who is rightly regarded as one of the most uncompromising and troubling witnesses to the modern travail of the spirit.

How can we understand a person who lives their philosophy? This is absurd in modern times where BS is the cultural standard. But she sought to experientially verify Greek philosophy and most of all her beloved Plato. That is how she became a Christian mystic. It was the result of experiential verification.

"Truth is sought not because it is truth but because it is good." Simone Weil

This is the idea. The attraction of wisdom is not that it is true but because it is good. Thos like Simone seek the experience of the "Good" which leads to its verification.

"Experience" is covered within 'philosophy'. Generally, experience with knowledge is implied in wisdom, which is the fundamental base of philosophy.

"Truth' and "Good" are highly relative and perspectival. Weil may have genuine good intentions, but I think the Gita's 'actions without the fruits of actions' would be more effective, i.e. without any 'good' in mind or as an end itself. In one sense, it is let one's 'dharma' flows spontaneously.

My point is, one still need to reduce the 'emotional' element in one psyche to a minimal, say 2%. i.e.

From:
A mystic like Simone Weil acceptance of mysticism may be,
Emotional (20%) + intellectual (30%) + philosophical (40%) + others (10%) = Accept God

To:
the following refined set, i.e.
Emotional (2%) + intellectual (20%) + philosophical (70%) + others (8%) = No God

btw, are you familiar with the philosophy of Nagarjuna.

[mtmynd1]

V.A.... a comment on your reply:

On one hand you say the following -

"... but I think the Gita's 'actions without the fruits of actions' would be more effective, i.e. without any 'good' in mind or as an end itself. In one sense, it is let one's 'dharma' flows spontaneously."


... which we can be in agreement with.

But then you say:

"one still need [sic] to reduce the 'emotional' element in one psyche to a minimal, say 2%. i.e."

... which to me interferes with the dharma 'flow'. Emotions need not be artificially, intellectually or even emotionally reduced to 2% or any percentage.

Emotions are not harmful or detrimental to the hu'man being. Emotions are just as necessary to our being as mind and body and we respond to our emotions when they happen. It is part of that dharma you mention.

I also must comment on your use of these percentages. They seem a bit outlandish given the fact that you, me or anyone else is not going to carry around a (yet made) 'emotion meter' and gauge how emotive one's emotional state or intellectual state or philosophical interest... as much as that obviously seems to appeal to you. That is totally against the very dharma that you mentioned.

[reasonvemotion]

God is a Psychic Fact

I think Carl Jung's interpretation of God could be embraced by atheists and belivers. He states that "God is a psychic fact of immediate experience, otherwise there would never have been any talk of God. The fact is valid in itself, requiring no non-psychological proof and inaccessible to any form of non-psychological criticism. It can be the most immediate and hence the most real of experiences, which can be neither ridiculed nor disproved.

God is a fundamental aspect of both the collective and individual human experience. Jung was somewhat ambiguous in his writings on the transcendence of God. He seems to take many perspectives throughout his writings: sometimes he views life as a scientist, other times as a mystic, other times as a shaman. What is clear is that even in those instances when he is being very scientific he still points out that God as psychically true within our inner worlds. For instance he said:

It should not be overlooked that I deal with those psychic phenomena which prove empirically to be the bases of metaphysical concepts, and that when I say ‘God,’ I can refer to nothing other than demonstrable psychic patterns which are indeed shockingly real.

"This is not a rejection of the idea of a transcendent God but a deceleration that from a scientific perspective God is psychical truth. He is leaving open the possibilities that God exists outside of life, while making it clear that it is certain that God is an important psychic phenomena. In other words, we cannot make definitive claims as to the existence of God outside of life, but we can make claims regarding the significance of God in our inner worlds".

[Veritas Aequitas]

V.A.... a comment on your reply:

On one hand you say the following -

"... but I think the Gita's 'actions without the fruits of actions' would be more effective, i.e. without any 'good' in mind or as an end itself. In one sense, it is let one's 'dharma' flows spontaneously."


... which we can be in agreement with.

But then you say:

"one still need [sic] to reduce the 'emotional' element in one psyche to a minimal, say 2%. i.e."

... which to me interferes with the dharma 'flow'. Emotions need not be artificially, intellectually or even emotionally reduced to 2% or any percentage.

Emotions are not harmful or detrimental to the hu'man being. Emotions are just as necessary to our being as mind and body and we respond to our emotions when they happen. It is part of that dharma you mention.

I think you did not happen to read my earlier post which I wrote;

The revision takes into account a reduction of the emotional levels to the minimum.
In this case, the emotion circuits in the primal part of the brain are not removed (they are still pulsating as usual), but rather are modulated by the higher human brain with the theories and practicals of philosophy.
There should be effective rewirings in the brain to make the higher human brain more active philosophically and in overall control.

In philosophy, there is no perfection, absolutes and certainty. Realistically, there is no 'either black or white', rather there are a million or trillion shades of greys between.

As such instead of committing to 0%, I just threw in 2% to signify the minimum. The specific quantum is not significant in this case as it would impossible to give precise measurements, but rather it is relative to the maximum.

I also must comment on your use of these percentages. They seem a bit outlandish given the fact that you, me or anyone else is not going to carry around a (yet made) 'emotion meter' and gauge how emotive one's emotional state or intellectual state or philosophical interest... as much as that obviously seems to appeal to you. That is totally against the very dharma that you mentioned.

The numbers and percentages I used are not meant to be precise, but for relative comparison.
If I were to give you a rating of 1 to 10 (worse) to pin point the various emotional feeling in your life, i.e. fear, anger, love, sadness, I am confident you will be able to place them relatively in one of the number.
For example, you may likely to give a rating of 1 (10%) fear when walking across a 10 feet by 1 foot wide plank 5 feet from the ground, and 9.5 if it were to be 200 feet above ground between two buildings. The numbers in between the two extremes will vary with the height.
Neuroscientists are now beginning to measure emotions objectively based on the flow and quantity of neurotransmitters and activities in the brain.

Btw, the numbers are only for discussion purposes and not be carried around as you thought it should be.

[Veritas Aequitas]

God is a Psychic Fact

Yes, but it is a psychic fact out of the primordial fear of inevitable death and its associated cognitive dissonance.

From baby up to a certain age, a child is dependent on the father and mother for security and the child is not conscious of its own inevitable death as this is highly suppressed within the brain. To the child, the parents are sort of omnipotent beings as far as the child is concern.

If not brainwashed earlier, a child will someday realize the parents are fallible human beings and when the child/teenager realize that death is inevitable, he/she will suffer some sort of cognitive dissonance. If the parents are fallible, the best option would be some thing beyond, i.e. a supreme being, i.e. God. As Keirkegaard has stated, when one suffers from such cognitive dissonance, one has to lean on something, even if it is a lie. But most theists or pantheists will insist what they believe is the Truth when in fact, it is a white lie.

The majority of the 7 billion people on Earth will suffer greatly from the above cognitive dissonance, and depending on the degrees will choose a range of god from the anthropomorhic personal god to the universal pantheist god.
One who suffer from tremenduous cognitive dissonance would likely to be a fundy or a jihadist. Those who suffer very much less degrees of cognitive dissonance would be mystics or people like Jung who are god apologists.

There would be a minority of people for various reasons would be able to see through the white lie of theism. This resistance is due to certain neurons inhibiting the theist impulse. These neural inhibitors suffer are subjected to atrophy with age. Whenever these 'athestic' inhibitors loose their strength, in an atheist's brain, they would likely to turn theists and they think they have a rational basis for it, not knowing that it is due to atrophy of neurons. This is what happened in the OP.

There are other reason why a person is an atheist rather than a theists.

[mtmynd1]

In this case, the emotion circuits in the primal part of the brain are not removed (they are still pulsating as usual), but rather are modulated by the higher human brain with the theories and practicals of philosophy.

There should be effective rewirings in the brain to make the higher human brain more active philosophically and in overall control.

In philosophy, there is no perfection, absolutes and certainty. Realistically, there is no 'either black or white', rather there are a million or trillion shades of greys between.

You are dabbling in areas of scientific research here rather than any philosophical approach to what being hu'man truly is.

"There should be effective rewirings in the brain to make the higher human brain more active philosophically and in overall control"...? Seriously? Who would do this rewiring? And why? Are we not the pinnacle of creation as we are? Must we rewire ourselves to improve our condition? Too much mind.

Our very hu'manity is dependent upon Being, plain and simple. The problem our species has is mind. We place far too much importance on that one word, within the vital discussion of what it is that makes us hu'man. Mind is nothing more than a tool. A tool is not what or who we are. We are what our tools create.. symbolic references to our desires, our dreams, our needs and wants.

That being said, V.A., your ideas are no different than the vast majority ... solely reliant upon mind instead of our very Being... a Being that we have yet to acknowledge exists within our fragile and fallible physical body. Look at the history we have written for ourselves. We've made our species out to be the pinnacle of evolution because we can make ourselves anything we want using a language that only we know and understand... using ideas and theories that only we have concluded with that mind. Indeed, if we are truly as marvelous a creature that has ever walked this earth, why is everything we have created, why is all the knowledge we have amassed still insufficient to live our lives freely... free of worry, free of doubt, free of confusion, free of material needs, free of gods, free of religions and philosophies...? Mind. Mind, that fallible entity that we place so much value upon, has yet to completely fulfill not only our basic needs but even our desires. All these things I've listed are ideals we work long and hard for but eventually all becomes a burden... insufficient. We were better off on the journey before we settled in to a destination.

Mind is not only fallible but it is demanding - wanting to be constantly listened to... keeping us from our much needed rest, diverting our attention from one thing or the other... mind is a child-like tool that loves to play with it's environment. Witness our ecological upsets mind has forced us to engage in.

We've allowed mind to run amuck while we attend to it's demands as if mind were what we are versus what mind is... a tool for our ongoing evolution. We've aggressively used mind to create our religions, our philosophies, our arts and sciences but still we are unsatisfied. The fallibility of mind has not been able to fully materialize our need for expressing that Being within us all.

Not to negate what you've written here, V.A., but to use as an example of what I am writing about - we collectively are all at fault by allowing mind to be our life rather than allowing our Being to Be. Over the years we have become so enamored by mind that we have built up a fear that we use against ourselves such a "losing our minds" or insistent declarations "Use your head!" Mind is not who we are no more than a hammer is what we are. Too much mind = too much nonsense.

Fear not putting mind away to give our Being a reprieve. It's not a great mystery to put mind away. We've all done it. Witness our abandonment in lovemaking. When we meditate or in deep prayer our mind is at rest. When we are consumed in the creative process our minds are at rest... "lost" in the beauty of music... we all have our escapes but few realize what we are escaping from is mind.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In this case, the emotion circuits in the primal part of the brain are not removed (they are still pulsating as usual), but rather are modulated by the higher human brain with the theories and practicals of philosophy.

There should be effective rewirings in the brain to make the higher human brain more active philosophically and in overall control.

In philosophy, there is no perfection, absolutes and certainty. Realistically, there is no 'either black or white', rather there are a million or trillion shades of greys between.

You are dabbling in areas of scientific research here rather than any philosophical approach to what being hu'man truly is.

"There should be effective rewirings in the brain to make the higher human brain more active philosophically and in overall control"...? Seriously? Who would do this rewiring? And why? Are we not the pinnacle of creation as we are? Must we rewire ourselves to improve our condition? Too much mind.

The individual can rewire his/her own brain. There are 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses. The brain analogically is like, there are 100 billion people on Earth, each individual handling up to 10,000 computers on the internet.
Every time a human learned a new skill, acquired new knowledge, one of these synapse is connected to another and thus rewired. It is a question of the complexity of connections between these synapses.
Mental progress (though not yet very precise) can be measured by the thickness of connections and brain activities.
There are many research done and comparison of hundreds of brain images of credible seasoned meditators with the contrasting images of beginners and non-meditators.
Thus if one were to improve one's consciousness state via meditation, brain rewirings and imaging feedback in comparison with those of the seasoned meditators, that would be very effective and expedite progress.

Our very hu'manity is dependent upon Being, plain and simple. The problem our species has is mind. We place far too much importance on that one word, within the vital discussion of what it is that makes us hu'man. Mind is nothing more than a tool. A tool is not what or who we are. We are what our tools create.. symbolic references to our desires, our dreams, our needs and wants.

Mind is a very loose term and the question is whether it has any inherent existence at all. Nevertheless, if mind is taken as a tool and it is conditioned by the brain and its neuron, wouldn't it be rational to make the tool more refined, precise and effective by rewiring the brain.

That being said, V.A., your ideas are no different than the vast majority ... solely reliant upon mind instead of our very Being... a Being that we have yet to acknowledge exists within our fragile and fallible physical body. Look at the history we have written for ourselves. We've made our species out to be the pinnacle of evolution because we can make ourselves anything we want using a language that only we know and understand... using ideas and theories that only we have concluded with that mind. Indeed, if we are truly as marvelous a creature that has ever walked this earth, why is everything we have created, why is all the knowledge we have amassed still insufficient to live our lives freely... free of worry, free of doubt, free of confusion, free of material needs, free of gods, free of religions and philosophies...? Mind. Mind, that fallible entity that we place so much value upon, has yet to completely fulfill not only our basic needs but even our desires. All these things I've listed are ideals we work long and hard for but eventually all becomes a burden... insufficient. We were better off on the journey before we settled in to a destination.

I think the idea of developing the 'mind' as interdpendent with the brain is not a majority idea.

I understand the idea of 'Being' is deliberated by the minority. However, it is merely a more refined form of the ontological God of the majority. Whilst the concept of Being is more refined, it is still illusional (re Kant) and has remnants and traces of uninhibited impulses of emotions from the lower animal brain.

Mind is not only fallible but it is demanding - wanting to be constantly listened to... keeping us from our much needed rest, diverting our attention from one thing or the other... mind is a child-like tool that loves to play with it's environment. Witness our ecological upsets mind has forced us to engage in.

We've allowed mind to run amuck while we attend to it's demands as if mind were what we are versus what mind is... a tool for our ongoing evolution. We've aggressively used mind to create our religions, our philosophies, our arts and sciences but still we are unsatisfied. The fallibility of mind has not been able to fully materialize our need for expressing that Being within us all.

As I had said, the concept of mind is a very loose term.

A mind ( /ˈmaɪnd/) is the complex of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, thinking, reasoning, perception, and judgement — a characteristic of human beings, but which also may apply to other life forms.[3][4]

I think what you are referring to is the 'self' and the lower self, the ego "I". That is what the Hindus termed the atman and Brahman as the 'Being'.

Fear not putting mind away to give our Being a reprieve. It's not a great mystery to put mind away. We've all done it. Witness our abandonment in lovemaking. When we meditate or in deep prayer our mind is at rest. When we are consumed in the creative process our minds are at rest... "lost" in the beauty of music... we all have our escapes but few realize what we are escaping from is mind.

What you are talking is an experience of non-self or 'depersonalization', a mental state which can be independent and interdependent of any other positive or negative mental state.
Yeah, one can experience depersonalization during lovemaking, in meditation (non-duality), in awe and wonder, peak performance and other positive mental states, but one can also experience non-self and depersonalization via drugs, mental sickness, brain damage, and other related negative mental states.

An experience of non-self or positive depersonalization can be a mark of spiritual progress, but it is not a default standard of progress.

Spiritual progress should be represented objectively by the rewirings and the relevant and appropriate neural connectivities. This can be evidence by fMRI brain imagings. It should be supplemented with other external elements, like the school of spiritual practices, length of meditative practices, natural disposition, expression of knowledge and wisdom, etc.

A drug addict or mental sick person can experience Being, God, being God and being Being. However, brain imagings will reveal dead and inactivities in other parts of the brain that are necessary for wholesome and holistic spirituality.

Suggest you expand your knowledge on neuroscience and biology with spirituality rather than be too quick to put down the ideas of others.

[Nick_A]

Veritas, I began this thread with an observation by Jacob Needleman so I'll continue with him. He differentiates between consciousness and the contents of consciousness.

You seem to be defining consciousness by its contents created through neurology. This may be true for animal reactive life or the lower parts of our essence, but not necessarily for the higher parts suggested previously by Simone Weil.

Jacob Needleman writes in his book "A Sense of the Cosmos:"

http://www.rawpaint.com/library/jneedleman/jnch1d.html

In Part Four he mentions the results of fragmentation. A lot of explanations of consciousness are begun from the bottom up as I believe you are doing. But suppose this is limited to mechanical reaction. What about conscious action? Is it possible?

n order to warn us about this tendency in ourselves, the traditional teachings--as expressed in the Bhagavad-Gita, for example--make a fundamental distinction between consciousness on the one hand and the contents of consciousness such as our perceptions of things, our sense of personal identity, our emotions and our thoughts in all their color and gradations on the other hand.
This ancient distinction has two crucial messages for us. On the one hand, it tell us that what we feel to be the best of ourselves as human beings is only part of a total structure containing layers of mind, feeling and sensation far more active, subtle and encompassing (like the cosmic spheres) than what we have settled for as our best. These layers are very numerous and need to be peeled back, as it were, or broken through one by one along the path of inner growth, until an individual touches in himself the fundamental intelligent forces in the cosmos.

At the same time, this distinction also communicates that the search for consciousness is a constant necessity for man. It is telling us that anything in ourselves, no matter how fine, subtle or intelligent, no matter how virtuous or close to reality, no matter how still or violent--any action, any thought, any intuition or experience--immediately absorbs all our attention and automatically becomes transformed into contents around which gather all the opinions, feelings and distorted sensations that are the supports of our secondhand sense of identity. In short, we are told that the evolution of consciousness is always "vertical" to the constant stream of mental, emotional and sensory associations within the human organism, and comprehensive of them (somewhat like a "fourth dimension"). And, seen in this light, it is not really a question of concentric layers of awareness embedded like the skins of an onion within the self, but only one skin, one veil, that constantly forms regardless of the quality or intensity of the psychic field at any given moment.

Thus, in order to understand the nature of consciousness, I must here and now in this present moment be searching for a better state of consciousness. All definitions, no matter how profound, are secondary. Even the formulations of ancient masters on this subject can be a diversion if I take them in a way that does not support the immediate personal effort to be aware of what is taking place in myself in the present moment.

If consciousness without content exists, it must be a part of our presence that wasn't created from the bottom up but rather always was and allows us the ability to "Know thyself" to experience ourselves from the top down.

The Gospel of thomas has a good description of the top down experience. I'm not asking you to believe it but rather including it as a necessary part of this discussion in order to appreciate why human "being" is unique amongst all other animal life on earth. Human "being" has a part that doesn't originate on earth as does the rest of organic life on earth but rather has a higher cosmological origin.

From the Gospel of Thomas:

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

Notice how qualities of consciousness are connected. It is the conscious part that observes the mechanical part of Man that can in turn be consciously seen and aided by higher consciousness. If true it cannot originate from below.

[mtmynd1]

A lucid reply, Nick_A... and so true.

[Bernard]

I am an atheist who believes in God. God to me is a verb, not a thing: infinity reaching for awareness of itself. I wouldn't say its maleness at all, yet males resemble what it is; a filigree of the main source of energy out there and within here: Life! 'Life is a woman' sprach Zarathustra, as I recall it, and I would agree with that poetic analogy. God is life intensified every now and then like a (Usain) bolt of lightening, but most of life is all the rest of what's going on in the sky.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas, I began this thread with an observation by Jacob Needleman so I'll continue with him. He differentiates between consciousness and the contents of consciousness.

You seem to be defining consciousness by its contents created through neurology. This may be true for animal reactive life or the lower parts of our essence, but not necessarily for the higher parts suggested previously by Simone Weil.

Jacob Needleman writes in his book "A Sense of the Cosmos:"

http://www.rawpaint.com/library/jneedleman/jnch1d.html

In Part Four he mentions the results of fragmentation. A lot of explanations of consciousness are begun from the bottom up as I believe you are doing. But suppose this is limited to mechanical reaction. What about conscious action? Is it possible?

Actually, I am saying Simone Weil and Jacob Needleman are still influenced by the lower parts of human essence, albeit in much lower degrees than the typical theist and fundy.

I have no problem understanding Weil and Needleman if they are expressing from the Gita's perspective. From the Gita, many interpret the atman as the confined consciousness that unfolds in its spiritual progress toward the unconditioned Brahman, the ultimate Consciousness. The analogy used is often the individualistic ego water-droplet in the mountain moving downward and merging with the oneness of the ocean.

The above concepts and philosophy is obviously more refine that the Hindus who go to temples and pray to idols, plus other lay spiritual activities.

However, from a more refined level of consideration, the concept of atman-Brahman has very refined elements of attachments manifesting very subtlely from the lower consciousness.

Needleman is differentiating consciousness from the contents of consciousness. But differentiating is still talking and not doing. What I am discussing is what and how are we actually doing to our brains to express higher consciousness (not Brahman btw).

Even the ancient yogis main focus is on the development of the brain besides discussing and contemplating on their philosophies, via the Gita or otherwise. The ancient spiritual savants are progressing based on experience and via the trial and error methods.

What I am stating is there are more refined philosphies than what is in the Gita and other Vedanta texts. In addition, the progress in consciousness and higher cognitive powers should be supplemented with science and other faculties of knowledge.

Banging on theistic-pantheistic based philosophies is relatively progressive but there is more room for improvements to the secular from that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am an atheist who believes in God. God to me is a verb, not a thing: infinity reaching for awareness of itself. I wouldn't say its maleness at all, yet males resemble what it is; a filigree of the main source of energy out there and within here: Life! 'Life is a woman' sprach Zarathustra, as I recall it, and I would agree with that poetic analogy. God is life intensified every now and then like a (Usain) bolt of lightening, but most of life is all the rest of what's going on in the sky.

Why "God", the verb and not something else or just X.
What I had been implying is, the attachment (cannot let go for some reason) to the notion 'God'* has to do with some sort of emotional element, which in this case, could be refined.

* the definition of God ranges from a personal god who grant immortality, a supreme being, a transcendental entity, greater than anything imaginable.

[Bernard]

There are instances of the use of the word that are to my mind accurate... and for which there is no adequate replacement. I can use terms such as X for sure, and Indeed I do, but X has its own mundane syntax as much as God does, and if one fails in somehow communicating God as verb then at least someone will have a better clue of what was attempted than using X. It's hardly possible to overcome the mundane usages inherent to any unit of language, but one has to try, and if that doesn't work, give it a much harder try, and if that doesn't work then fuck God.

Emotional elements are fixed points that don't enlighten, that are as useless as the terms that may be securing or obscuring them. What I like are endless journeys.

[Nick_A]

I am an atheist who believes in God. God to me is a verb, not a thing: infinity reaching for awareness of itself. I wouldn't say its maleness at all, yet males resemble what it is; a filigree of the main source of energy out there and within here: Life! 'Life is a woman' sprach Zarathustra, as I recall it, and I would agree with that poetic analogy. God is life intensified every now and then like a (Usain) bolt of lightening, but most of life is all the rest of what's going on in the sky.

My guess is that most atheists are atheists in rebellion against a personal god concept. Your idea of god as a verb is similar to what I've read from Rabbi David Cooper on what he calls the godding Process where God is also a verb.

It makes sense when we consider Ein Sof as similar to the Tao and Plato's "Good" for example. they are ineffable so cannot be experienced other than as a process or as you say, a verb.

http://rabbidavidcooper.com/newsletters ... ocess.html

Along the same lines Simone Weil wrote:

In order to obey God, one must receive his commands.
How did it happen that I received them in adolescence, while I was professing atheism?
To believe that the desire for good is always fulfilled--that is faith, and whoever has it is not an atheist.
- Simone Weil, First and last notebooks (last notebook 1942)
(Oxford University Press 1970) p 137

From this perspective the Good is a verb, a continuing process, not just a singular result.

[Nick_A]

Veritas, I began this thread with an observation by Jacob Needleman so I'll continue with him. He differentiates between consciousness and the contents of consciousness.

You seem to be defining consciousness by its contents created through neurology. This may be true for animal reactive life or the lower parts of our essence, but not necessarily for the higher parts suggested previously by Simone Weil.

Jacob Needleman writes in his book "A Sense of the Cosmos:"

http://www.rawpaint.com/library/jneedleman/jnch1d.html

In Part Four he mentions the results of fragmentation. A lot of explanations of consciousness are begun from the bottom up as I believe you are doing. But suppose this is limited to mechanical reaction. What about conscious action? Is it possible?

Actually, I am saying Simone Weil and Jacob Needleman are still influenced by the lower parts of human essence, albeit in much lower degrees than the typical theist and fundy.

I have no problem understanding Weil and Needleman if they are expressing from the Gita's perspective. From the Gita, many interpret the atman as the confined consciousness that unfolds in its spiritual progress toward the unconditioned Brahman, the ultimate Consciousness. The analogy used is often the individualistic ego water-droplet in the mountain moving downward and merging with the oneness of the ocean.

The above concepts and philosophy is obviously more refine that the Hindus who go to temples and pray to idols, plus other lay spiritual activities.

However, from a more refined level of consideration, the concept of atman-Brahman has very refined elements of attachments manifesting very subtlely from the lower consciousness.

Needleman is differentiating consciousness from the contents of consciousness. But differentiating is still talking and not doing. What I am discussing is what and how are we actually doing to our brains to express higher consciousness (not Brahman btw).

Even the ancient yogis main focus is on the development of the brain besides discussing and contemplating on their philosophies, via the Gita or otherwise. The ancient spiritual savants are progressing based on experience and via the trial and error methods.

What I am stating is there are more refined philosphies than what is in the Gita and other Vedanta texts. In addition, the progress in consciousness and higher cognitive powers should be supplemented with science and other faculties of knowledge.

Banging on theistic-pantheistic based philosophies is relatively progressive but there is more room for improvements to the secular from that.

You seem to be advocating Plato's balanced man and I agree. I also agree that the brain is aided through the efforts of meditation, contemplation, conscious attention, detachment, and of course impartial efforts to "know thyself" or have the experience of oneself. How many pursue them?

We may differ in how we understand the limitations of fallen human being. We can just do so much through our own initiative. I believe without help from above in the form of grace we are destined to psychologically turn in circles.

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil

I believe she is right. If she is, all these modern efforts of secular humanism that deny grace become meaningless in the face of the blindness of the human condition. Everything repeats because since we are as we are, everything is as it is.