Metaphysics is the name given to a branch of philosophical thought that deals with issues of the fundamental nature of reality and what is beyond experience.


Laura broached the subject on the nature of consciousness: Just what do we mean by the concept of conscious awareness?

Nathan replied that conscious awareness may not be just a measurable item emanating from a person, perhaps its something already existing in nature.

L. But then how would one know that? Does it mean that all the photons, atoms and stuff of the universe somehow manifest awareness or an inner-connected means of communication?

N. Don’t know.

L. Bishop Berkeley says that sensory data exists because of our perceptions. This means the world has meaning because of our existence, but could it be that in the entire universe, we are the only life-sentient beings? That doesn’t seem reasonable.

N. Elemental Mind (the book) talks about the Eccles Gate as a candidate for consciousness, or it could be conceived as a generator or originator of what we call the conscious awareness of our world. This is located somewhere in the synaptic gap where neurons travel between cell endings and receptors.

L. Does that mean then, there is a physical location or actual manifestation that we call ‘mind’?

N. I’m not sure, but it’s interesting that Ospensky seems to be starting from the premise that we are mechanical beings, a sort of behaviorist model of life. Yet he implies that by teaching, we can achieve a state of awareness that goes beyond that mechanical state, perhaps a sort of spiritual or idealist type of attainable state-of-being.

This is unusual in that usually the behaviorist and the idealist find little common ground and one doesn’t expect to transition from one to the other.

L. Exactly.

N. Could that be similar to the atheist/materialist view transforming into a spiritual/idealist view?

L. I think that the idea of mind can be defined locally as the cerebral cortex and all of its functions. All the sensations and data come into that location and manifest via thought patterns and /or reactions, what have come to know (or to speak of) as consciousness.

N. Now that makes sense to some degree, but what if the idea of mind already exists somehow as an entity outside the central nervous system (CNS) and mind then merely serves as sort of an antenna that receives and emits or as you will, partakes of the mind stream.

L. But how would that make sense? The mind, it seems to me, works more like an unchanging entity that interprets the world, both physically and spiritually.

N. Don’t you think that the very core of mind could be different for a person if different environmental elements surround it? i.e., would the mind of a normal person be altered if it were transplanted, for example, into the body of another person? Would not that other person’s total body environment then be altered to such an extent that sensations and experiences of the other would influence the data coming into the CNS of person 1?

L. I suppose in that case it could be possible.

N. Then what if the mind of a normal person were so altered into such an extreme environment, it’s possible that the conscious reality of person 1 would somehow be influenced by all the physical parts of person 2: blood, lungs, extremities, digestive system, etc. to some extent?

L. You mean that the mind state of person 1 would somehow, due to the total physical alteration, become influenced or outlook variations have an influence on the stream of consciousness such that person 1 would become perhaps not the same as before?

N. I think that process would make sense. And if so, then the mind as somehow having only one central location, viz., inside the head, maybe would not be the only viable option in trying to describe the actual location of a conscious state.

L. There is a book I was reading that tells about seeing through the eye as it centers the whole being of self-contemplation. It’s like, when you see properly; the rest of the whole becomes or creates a sense of unity. You feel more of what’s around you.

N. You mean that one becomes focused and more self-aware?

L. Yes, and more real.


L. Once a minister said to me that there can only be a Heaven but no Hades. That’s because what would a mother feel if she knew her child was in a burning fire of torment? How could she be content in a heaven knowing that her child was suffering?

N. But doesn’t Jesus say that for those who follow him, you leave behind your spouse and children? In other words, (this seems to say) for those who follow the way, there can be no looking back or emotional attachment to earthly family. Why would a minister not account for this New Testament statement?

L. Yet the holy books all seem to employ the concept of punishment and reward, so how can we deny the minister’s comment?

N. Don’t have a good response here. I like reading about Nestorius, from the General Council of Ephesus in 431. To me, he defines some crucial issues in Christianity.

<><><>

L. Can one ever feel that a spouse should be a physical mate and a soul mate? Does it make sense that in marriage you can expect to discuss philosophical ideas with your mate? And does it matter if that never happens?

N. I don’t really expect it. My wife and I (and others) do not discuss what I take to be genuine philosophical questions. To me, philosophy is what’s really important. Few people care or understand why it’s important and that’s ok with me. I don’t really expect anyone else to be interested enough to let ideas take them wherever they might go. Most religious discussions already have a landing spot, i.e., no matter what the discussion starts, it will always land at the same conclusion of stratified, accepted, doctrine of set beliefs.

L. Yes, and that’s a beautiful place for them to go. Sometimes though, I feel there are questions that don’t get answered to my satisfaction. I mean, my true feelings about consciousness and being.
Also, we are just animate beings, basic mechanical creatures?

N. You mean you feel there is no spiritual side to our nature?

<More questions than answers, that was always ok with Socrates. Aristotle, on the other hand, liked clear definite assertions. He would be considered more on a scientific philosopher whereas Socrates was more of one to constantly stir it up.>


 --perhaps to be continued--

©   Used with permission of the authors.

 
Please see: Nathan B. Spooner and Family Publishing

---

Contents

---