The concept of "attention"

[OpenSource]

During the first three hundred years after Jesus’ death, there was a split in Christianity. This was at a time when Emperor Constantine chose Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire. In both versions of Christianity, the trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) was used to express the basic principles of the religion. In each version, the Father represented consciousness, the Son reason or thinking, and the Holy Ghost represented creativity (a piece of God within you).

The “Gnostic” Christians believed that thinking was a process used by consciousness to communicate and to plan your activities, etc. It must always be balanced with creativity so that the thinking process does not become rigid.

This was expressed as “The Bridal Chamber”, in which the bride (creativity) and groom (thinking) were united and balanced within the larger space of the room (pure consciousness). And so they explained that the Father “begets” the “Son” and is not the same as the “Son”.

The “Apostolic” Christians believed that thinking is the same as consciousness – that there is no other state of consciousness than thinking. Creativity is also thinking. Everything is thinking. They expressed this as the Son IS the Father or “Jesus is God”.

Emperor Constantine called for a conference in the city of Nicaea in 323 AD to settle these differences. The emperor set himself up as the moderator. Now, using our thinking minds to good advantage, which version would an empire, needing to keep control over vast numbers of people of many different cultures, choose as the “correct” version of Christianity? If thinking was the only version of consciousness considered legitimate, and the Roman Empire and the Apostolics provided a list of approved thoughts, then that inconvenient factor of creativity could be eliminated.

It is easier to control people whose minds all conform. To this day it is hard to convince people that there is another state of consciousness other than thinking. The state of consciousness which is controlled by the thinking process is one dimensional. Each thought follows the other, one by one.

And yet, even while thinking, you must also at the same time, use the state of pure consciousness, even though you might not recognize it. It is this larger state that keeps track of where the thoughts are going to wind up somewhere useful. It is like the map that gives you the overall picture, while the thinking process is like the little dot on the map that shows you where you are at the moment. If the “map” part of the mind weakens and you are left only with the dot (thinking), then you are lost. And that is the state of many people today.

 

[Julia_Mae]

During the first three hundred years after Jesus’ death, there was a split in Christianity. This was at a time when Emperor Constantine chose Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire. In both versions of Christianity, the trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) was used to express the basic principles of the religion. In each version, the Father represented consciousness, the Son reason or thinking, and the Holy Ghost represented creativity (a piece of God within you). .

I didn’t get any farther than this. Pretty sure there’s not going to be substantiating documentation for this description. Or the “both versions” hypothesis.

 

[bzkoss236]

The issue I see in this is that the “map”, if we’re talking about the general idea of how memory works in the brain (which we can assume is similar to how computer networking works, because it is all network theory), is usually created by thought having passed that point before. In the human brain, thought creates pathways as much as it traverses them again, like forming a path in the woods. It “wanders” until it makes the correct connection and it creates that first path, like having made the path for the first time through the woods. Then over time that path becomes clearer and clearer as it is traversed again and again when making the same connection. This, combined with other paths, creates the map, which you call consciousness. For how can you have consciousness without thought? “I think, therefore I am”

Aside from the philosophical stuff, Jesus even says in the New Testament, “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30)

 

[meltzerboy]

During the first three hundred years after Jesus’ death, there was a split in Christianity. This was at a time when Emperor Constantine chose Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire. In both versions of Christianity, the trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) was used to express the basic principles of the religion. In each version, the Father represented consciousness, the Son reason or thinking, and the Holy Ghost represented creativity (a piece of God within you).

The “Gnostic” Christians believed that thinking was a process used by consciousness to communicate and to plan your activities, etc. It must always be balanced with creativity so that the thinking process does not become rigid.

This was expressed as “The Bridal Chamber”, in which the bride (creativity) and groom (thinking) were united and balanced within the larger space of the room (pure consciousness). And so they explained that the Father “begets” the “Son” and is not the same as the “Son”.

The “Apostolic” Christians believed that thinking is the same as consciousness – that there is no other state of consciousness than thinking. Creativity is also thinking. Everything is thinking. They expressed this as the Son IS the Father or “Jesus is God”.

Emperor Constantine called for a conference in the city of Nicaea in 323 AD to settle these differences. The emperor set himself up as the moderator. Now, using our thinking minds to good advantage, which version would an empire, needing to keep control over vast numbers of people of many different cultures, choose as the “correct” version of Christianity? If thinking was the only version of consciousness considered legitimate, and the Roman Empire and the Apostolics provided a list of approved thoughts, then that inconvenient factor of creativity could be eliminated.

It is easier to control people whose minds all conform. To this day it is hard to convince people that there is another state of consciousness other than thinking. The state of consciousness which is controlled by the thinking process is one dimensional. Each thought follows the other, one by one.

And yet, even while thinking, you must also at the same time, use the state of pure consciousness, even though you might not recognize it. It is this larger state that keeps track of where the thoughts are going to wind up somewhere useful. It is like the map that gives you the overall picture, while the thinking process is like the little dot on the map that shows you where you are at the moment. If the “map” part of the mind weakens and you are left only with the dot (thinking), then you are lost. And that is the state of many people today.

I “think” what you’re talking about is the concept of mindful thought or repetition as opposed to mindless thought or repetition. The latter occurs when we are not paying attention and behave according to rote learning and habit. Mindfulness, on the other hand, requires attention to the external environment as well as to our own thought processes (metacognition). Creativity, however, goes further in enabling us to think outside the box, such as when we use a tool for something other than its ordinary purpose.

 

[Rudy_Baga]

So, in this line of thinking, if the Father is pure consciousness and the Son thinking, then I must wonder… when Jesus said that thinking about a woman lustfully was the same as committing adultery in Matt 5:28, wasn’t he making the claim that a thought is an action? And as such is cannot be separated from the sin? So am I to presume that by this thinking process that Jesus would be the action of God, which would lead the Spirit to be that which manifest action proceeding from the pure consciousness of God?

Now we can accept that thought is creative. Everything made by man had to start as a thought. The more people thinking a single thought, the more creative it can become. By unifying the thoughts of the body of the church, the church attempts to create the heaven that Jesus taught. And rightly so. Therefore, while one may presume that thought was used to stifle creativity, another may presume that thought was used to try and unify to the common good. It is all a matter of perception. Of course, we see this in action in the world today. Just look at politics, or any other group with an agenda, and many times you’ll see the facts skewed to make an opposing thought seem evil or wrong. It is all designed to bend the thoughts of the majority in order to create the environment of the few. Many are misled in this manner and never realize what happened until it is too late.

That said, I would have to say that it does appear that many choose to ignore what you call the map. Interesting fodder for thought…

 

[OpenSource]

Just look at politics, or any other group with an agenda, and many times you’ll see the facts skewed to make an opposing thought seem evil or wrong. It is all designed to bend the thoughts of the majority in order to create the environment of the few. Many are misled in this manner and never realize what happened until it is too late.

YES! Very well put.

By expanding your attention so that it fills your whole body and surroundings, you learn that your surroundings are really part of you. Your sense of identity moves from a set of opinions and a pattern of emotions to a whole living body and vibrant, creative awareness. From there, it expands to your natural environment, your community and to all life.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I really don’t think you know what the heck you are talking about. You have put your interpretation not only on the theory of knowledge but on the true " motives " of historical events. You are welcome to them. The exercise of raising objections does not establish the validity of the one raising the objections, nor does it necessarily require an answer. Just another one of those endless discussions we find in the philosophy forum that lead nowhere.

 

[greylorn]

During the first three hundred years after Jesus’ death, there was a split in Christianity. This was at a time when Emperor Constantine chose Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire. In both versions of Christianity, the trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) was used to express the basic principles of the religion. In each version, the Father represented consciousness, the Son reason or thinking, and the Holy Ghost represented creativity (a piece of God within you).

The “Gnostic” Christians believed that thinking was a process used by consciousness to communicate and to plan your activities, etc. It must always be balanced with creativity so that the thinking process does not become rigid.

This was expressed as “The Bridal Chamber”, in which the bride (creativity) and groom (thinking) were united and balanced within the larger space of the room (pure consciousness). And so they explained that the Father “begets” the “Son” and is not the same as the “Son”.

The “Apostolic” Christians believed that thinking is the same as consciousness – that there is no other state of consciousness than thinking. Creativity is also thinking. Everything is thinking. They expressed this as the Son IS the Father or “Jesus is God”.

Emperor Constantine called for a conference in the city of Nicaea in 323 AD to settle these differences. The emperor set himself up as the moderator. Now, using our thinking minds to good advantage, which version would an empire, needing to keep control over vast numbers of people of many different cultures, choose as the “correct” version of Christianity? If thinking was the only version of consciousness considered legitimate, and the Roman Empire and the Apostolics provided a list of approved thoughts, then that inconvenient factor of creativity could be eliminated.

It is easier to control people whose minds all conform. To this day it is hard to convince people that there is another state of consciousness other than thinking. The state of consciousness which is controlled by the thinking process is one dimensional. Each thought follows the other, one by one.

And yet, even while thinking, you must also at the same time, use the state of pure consciousness, even though you might not recognize it. It is this larger state that keeps track of where the thoughts are going to wind up somewhere useful. It is like the map that gives you the overall picture, while the thinking process is like the little dot on the map that shows you where you are at the moment. If the “map” part of the mind weakens and you are left only with the dot (thinking), then you are lost. And that is the state of many people today.

This is the most exquisite interpretation of Gnosticism that I have ever read.

It is also a superb analogy for the phases of human mental activity.

Good work!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

This is the most exquisite interpretation of Gnosticism that I have ever read.

It is also a superb analogy for the phases of human mental activity.

Good work!

Greylorn, and this is a compliment, whenever I look at your posts I always expect to read something there I didn’t expect to see. You haven’t disappointed me yet. (I had no idea what your response to this post would be). And as an aside (I mentioned this too on another thread), I originally thought Greylorn was a screen name but when I heard you were an author I looked you up. Your book looks fascinating, I’m definitely going to try and track down a copy at my library soon.

Anyway, to the OP:

Your writing on what the Trinity “represented” in the first centuries of Christianity is something I’ve never seen before; this whole “thinking vs. creativity” thing is new to me, and I’ve done a little bit of research on this before (admittedly very little, but enough to be familiar with the events you mentioned). I believe interpretation of the Gospels was the issue; I’ve never read or heard ANYTHING until now about the differences between creativity vs. thinking vs. having a piece of God in you as having anything to do with the debate. And I’m willing to bet that with all of my trawling to find different objections and counter-obections to Catholicism I would have heard this at least once before.

Also, it doesn’t jive with modern Trinitarian theology. St. Thomas never proved that the Trinity was necessary philosophically, but the idea of three persons in One God he DID prove to not be nonsensical. The concept is, in fact, coherent. Remember, today Thomism is the philosophy most generally used by the Church.

In Thomism we DO make a difference between intellect (the faculty where we grasp abstract concepts), imagination (the faculty by which we form mental images), and sensation (the faculty by which we perceive the goings on in the external material world and the internal world of the body-this one is stolen verbatim from Dr. Feser). Thomists still believe in the Trinity. Your big exposition on Trinitarian history sounds sketchy historically and rather unnecessary theologically, seeing as we can separate the different aspects of thinking and still accept the modern formulation of the Trinity.

A source verifying that my philosophy is accurate: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/08/think-mcfly-think.html