D
Detales
Guest
Hi Grannymh,
My specialty is not in research, and I am not a “deep web” navigator, but try:
oliversacks.com/hat.htm
drjilltaylor.com/articles.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain
nature.com/nrn/journal/v6/n8/abs/nrn1740.html
scienceray.com/biology/human-biology/are-two-minds-better-than-one-separate-but-not-equal/
My own experience with the realm of ideas that surround some of the factors in this area have to do with a mild trauma experienced in a game of touch football. My entire concept of what it means to be a “person” and how we experience that was unceremoniously and summarily pulled out from under me. I looked far and wide in the annals of Catholic resources for a cogent explanation of my new basis for understanding. My knowledge of Catholic theology was not insignificant at the time, having won prizes in knowledge of Church teaching even on a State-wide basis. I found nothing that clearly interpreted nor properly classifies what happened to me. It deeply disturbed me that my tyro understanding was not adequately addressed by either clerics or literature.
I eventually came upon a system of philosophy that accounted, for me and from my experience, for not only what befell me, but gave me an ordered system, over time, that was far more inclusive both fundamentally and practically than the cumbersome and veiled offerings of the Church, which had now seemed to me to engage in a two millennia campaign of obscurantism about something both very simple and very basic, though rare, to and in human experience.
Put simply, it became clear to me that, generally speaking, religiosity, particularly the Abrahamic religions, had truck primarily with the contents of awareness, not the nature of human Conscious awareness itself. In fact, “conscious” and “aware” seemed to be used interchangeably and I had discovered that that is not the case. And as other systems started at the point of discovering the nature of the container which holds experience, namely the mind, christianism barely touches on that, save perhaps in such statements as Paul’s “now we see as through a glass darkly.”
In other words christianism fails to integrate the two major modes of edifying human awareness ability in a forthright and clear manner, leaving it to the individual to blunder through obscure and veiled methodology, whereas there are direct, if work intensive, techniques for arriving at the necessary experiential understanding. Other than suffering trauma, that would be the recommended way, in my opinion.
Unfortunately, since these methods tend to remove the underpinnings of faith, that being a questionable foundation for the rational mind to begin with, and put them on a practical and utilitarian, yet cosmically profound foundation, the Church tends to discount any effort in that direction. Yet, ultimately, before its attempt to popularize The Way, it is exactly where the Church stems from, whether the pious like that notion or not. Direct experience would clear that objection in short order, as I found, and as many thousands of others have as well.
That is all I have to say at the moment, as I have written extensively on these fora about this topic and have been met with derision. Others have done similarly and have excused themselves from these fora for similar reasons to my reception. That, I feel, has been to the detriment and loss of many on these pages. Tragic, in fact. Please tell me if anyone thinks that God is in the least effected by a sincere inquiry into the origins of faith and of practical inquiry into the nature of one’s Self? Why has it said for aeons in all the teachings: “Gnothi Seauton?” Know ThySelf. The reluctance to make that inquiry is in my opinion a sign of weakness in faith as faith, and a poor advertisement for it, along with the factions and discord it causes. God is not divided against HimSelf or The Self.
My specialty is not in research, and I am not a “deep web” navigator, but try:
oliversacks.com/hat.htm
drjilltaylor.com/articles.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain
nature.com/nrn/journal/v6/n8/abs/nrn1740.html
scienceray.com/biology/human-biology/are-two-minds-better-than-one-separate-but-not-equal/
My own experience with the realm of ideas that surround some of the factors in this area have to do with a mild trauma experienced in a game of touch football. My entire concept of what it means to be a “person” and how we experience that was unceremoniously and summarily pulled out from under me. I looked far and wide in the annals of Catholic resources for a cogent explanation of my new basis for understanding. My knowledge of Catholic theology was not insignificant at the time, having won prizes in knowledge of Church teaching even on a State-wide basis. I found nothing that clearly interpreted nor properly classifies what happened to me. It deeply disturbed me that my tyro understanding was not adequately addressed by either clerics or literature.
I eventually came upon a system of philosophy that accounted, for me and from my experience, for not only what befell me, but gave me an ordered system, over time, that was far more inclusive both fundamentally and practically than the cumbersome and veiled offerings of the Church, which had now seemed to me to engage in a two millennia campaign of obscurantism about something both very simple and very basic, though rare, to and in human experience.
Put simply, it became clear to me that, generally speaking, religiosity, particularly the Abrahamic religions, had truck primarily with the contents of awareness, not the nature of human Conscious awareness itself. In fact, “conscious” and “aware” seemed to be used interchangeably and I had discovered that that is not the case. And as other systems started at the point of discovering the nature of the container which holds experience, namely the mind, christianism barely touches on that, save perhaps in such statements as Paul’s “now we see as through a glass darkly.”
In other words christianism fails to integrate the two major modes of edifying human awareness ability in a forthright and clear manner, leaving it to the individual to blunder through obscure and veiled methodology, whereas there are direct, if work intensive, techniques for arriving at the necessary experiential understanding. Other than suffering trauma, that would be the recommended way, in my opinion.
Unfortunately, since these methods tend to remove the underpinnings of faith, that being a questionable foundation for the rational mind to begin with, and put them on a practical and utilitarian, yet cosmically profound foundation, the Church tends to discount any effort in that direction. Yet, ultimately, before its attempt to popularize The Way, it is exactly where the Church stems from, whether the pious like that notion or not. Direct experience would clear that objection in short order, as I found, and as many thousands of others have as well.
That is all I have to say at the moment, as I have written extensively on these fora about this topic and have been met with derision. Others have done similarly and have excused themselves from these fora for similar reasons to my reception. That, I feel, has been to the detriment and loss of many on these pages. Tragic, in fact. Please tell me if anyone thinks that God is in the least effected by a sincere inquiry into the origins of faith and of practical inquiry into the nature of one’s Self? Why has it said for aeons in all the teachings: “Gnothi Seauton?” Know ThySelf. The reluctance to make that inquiry is in my opinion a sign of weakness in faith as faith, and a poor advertisement for it, along with the factions and discord it causes. God is not divided against HimSelf or The Self.