tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post113678838780466070..comments2023-11-17T00:21:43.022-08:00Comments on The Broken Yogi Samyama: Science can't know consciousnessBroken Yogihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1136876203674804942006-01-09T22:56:00.000-08:002006-01-09T22:56:00.000-08:00I agree with you on the subject of science and con...I agree with you on the subject of science and consciousness but unfortunately, 'science' will not leave well enough alone. They will co-opt it and are, as we speak. And they will shape the thought and perception of the world because people, including the media, do conflate science with authority regarding the nature of reality. I read one review in which the reviewer said that after reading the book, consciousness seemed more like an invention of the human mind than a reality. See what I mean?<BR/><BR/>It is this materialist mindset or paradigm that I thank religion for rescuing me from and I want to do whatever I can to keep that escape hatch open for others. <BR/><BR/>I do think there is only conscious being in which everything appears and so I cannot see how can it not have an effect. <BR/><BR/>From there it is purely speculative but I do not see forward planning as much as I do spontaneous action based on such subjective forces of attraction and repulsion, identification, equilibrium, liberation, and so on. The result of this action is to create trailing effects which concretize and then influence and restrict further action and movement of consciousness as it changes focus. I do actually see the possibility of cosnciousness operating at the physical level although the level at which our consciousness is focused is far from that at the moment. <BR/><BR/>I know its bizarre and probaly best not mused aloud in public, but really I have nothing at stake in it all other than to suggest the possibility of divinity acting from subjectivity rather than as some objective idea of the divine appearing within its own creation, as atheists tend to be restricted to.<BR/><BR/>I see the divine more its own dupe than some grand designer creating ready made perfect worlds, in love with its own reflection, but really divinely profoundly in love, and then only later waking up to what it's gotten itelf into and seeking liberation from its own actions. Do I take this seriously? Yes and no. No because of the poverty of my imagination and because I don't know. Yes, because it seems a more likely creation myth to me than most. But 'creation' only relates to the appearance itself, not that from which it all springs. There, there is no doubt in my mind. There was no beginning. There is only the eternal for which no words really surfice. <BR/><BR/>I do hope we widened the ID debate a little from its tiny little oppositional warfare situation to something a bit more meaningful and real. <BR/><BR/>BTW, I love science. I think its amazing what has come from the materialist mindset. I just wish this reductionist view wouldn't get conflated with notion that it is the official cultural view of the nature of reality in the popular mind, of which mine was once a desperately trapped example.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com