|[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]|
|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
Aug 20, 1996 06:07 PM
by Paul M.M. Kieniewicz
Sy Ginsburg writes: > ATTENTION requires INTENTIONALITY, in the same sense that >Gurdjieff's "3rd state of consciousness" just does not happen unconsciously >(except for brief moments accidentally). Effort is required. That is my >experience. This is also the view of Edmund Husserl. I recommend to anyone interested in the issue of consciousness, the book "Ideas" by Husserl. It's a heavy tome, but in my view more transparent than most theosophical texts. In it, Husserl derives an entire science of consciousness, and lays down the methodology and techniques for exploring consciousness. But then - the question: If we accept that consciousness is "intentional" then: 1. Intentionality, or effort require a sense of the "ego" or "I". 2. Is it at all relevant to discuss consciousness as seperate from the ego, the way that many theosophists and Krishnamurti do? Personally, I don't think so, and find K's expression "choiceless awareness" has nothing to do with consciousness. Many Eastern religions speak of transcending the "ego". Sure, it can be done - but then once the ego is transcended, is there any consciousness left? 3. Theosophists also speak of consciousness often as seperate from the body. Is this again relevant? Or are we to accept the idea of a disembodied "ego"? Paul M.M.K.