Wow — pleasantly deep — worthy of a philosopher. Thank you for this.
You take a large step by refusing to be trapped in “self-identity as ego,” which I applaud — along with your story. Yet to call it “consciousness” doesn’t go far enough, either. Would love to see you write more deeply on that.
Humanity’s Belief Systems (BS) are largely nonsense — & for those who doubt that, just look around at the fruits of them we’re reaping, daily. Chaos, wherever we look. No need to denominate the unpleasant ugliness that passes for “normal,” these days — we all know the drill, having seen it in action, directly experienced it, ourselves, in various ways.
Science lost something huge when it went materialistic, refusing to look at either the being/soul, or consciousness as anything apart from the physical attributes of the form. Just take the assumption/belief that memory, thought, & consciousness somehow resides within the brain & its workings — mechanical to the extreme, in the presence of well documented reports of NDE, OBE, remote viewing, hypnotic regression into prior lives, even life between lives… The list goes on.
What if the brain (& nervous system) were more akin to a transmitter/receiver? Consider the Native American scouts of WWII — who lost their tracking ability after the obligatory crew cut. After trial & experimentation, the result was haircut waivers — pretty extreme, for the military. So what would require the antennae of hair — perhaps a transmitter/receiver?
Nothing is what it appears to be, is believed to be — not even us. Studying the body, the mind, trying to determine via great specialization how it all works to answer the many “why” questions, is akin to studying the car, trying to determine how & why it does what it does — with no regard for the driver, nor even acknowledgement that a driver exists, apart from the vehicle. LOL, right?
But then, even “consciousness” is a vague label — for what? You’ve done well to distinguish it from ego or mind — but we still don’t know who — nor even what — we are. Perhaps Descartes put the cart before the horse with, “I think, therefore I am.” How about, “I am, therefore I think?”
We’re willing take the 99.99999% empty atom to be the foundation of everything solid. We leave quantum-entanglement — “spooky action at a distance” — hanging, not following these things much deeper than the initial discoveries. We’re frankly nuts, IMO — in our current mental state. Glad to see someone like you going deeper into something so vital — or which deserves to be — philosophy. You have a new follower. I hope you continue on in this vein.
~♥~
