Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: the inner judge/observer

  1. #1 the inner judge/observer 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,119
    I assume everyone knows what I mean.
    I have a few questions about it though.

    Firstly is this a universal phenomenon (just part of being conscious/alive) ?

    Secondly ,although I have heard it described as something bad does it have its good attributes (or again is it just a fact of life -neither good nor bad) ?

    Thirdly are there people entirely without this facility (perhaps those who are supremely un self critical) or are they just able to compatmentalise it?

    thanks in advance


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  

    Related Discussions:

     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    I think I know what you mean.

    I only think I know what you mean because evidence suggests that many have aimed, via conscious exercise without perhaps knowing it at the time, to create the concept of an "inner Kingdom", as per "the Kingdom is within". And yet this concept is not exclusive to just one process of exercising one's faith. There are others. But along this line of thought, allow me to express the following:

    It's only recently in our deliberate conscious decision making that we have become to regard what lies within, that Kingdom, could be evil, as per "Devil inside", that sort of thing..........hardly optimistic given all the preparation for the other way of seeing the concept.

    Can one person be a Kingdom? Can a person "object" exist within our very own personal "subject"? I doubt a "person" should be used as the excuse for being the Kingdom, but rather a key to unlocking the Kingdom (I'm being positive here, please bare with me) in all of us. There's just no survival for that person being the "object" everyone must overcome. It's ridiculous. There has to be more to it, more "insight" so to speak of such a facility.

    This concept of the "within" naturally would be embroiled in a person reasoning a subject-object existence whereby they themselves would aim to be the ultimate winner, with the inner object lucking out. But this is the thing, the "positive" side of the concept as far as I know utilises the idea of a "ghost", an image, an imagination so to speak..............why try to fight an imagination?? Surely the idea of an inner "whatever" proposes more than allowing itself to be an anomaly, proposes more "enlightenment" on matters group mentality can't construct as a group? I mean, if it is real, whatever it may be, that human-type inner Kingdom, should we not first ask how it became real by our own conscious will to make it happen in the first place?

    Are these the words to the issues you are in search of ;> ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    (sorry about the second post)

    ....but, if the concept is universal, as it was designed to be, maybe the concept could be useful to a unified enlightenment of all things "universal"??

    Perhaps?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    I assume everyone knows what I mean.
    I think I do and remember a long time ago assuming the internal arguments I could make with myself were attributable to the voice of the holy ghost, or the devil speaking to me--this view was reinforced by family, religious services, in popular culture (e.g. cartoon showing angel and devil sitting on opposite shoulders). Later in college I got familiar with the whole ego, super ego, id concept which is a similar view--though still seriously flawed it at least allowed me a path to examine drives and motivation for those desires and voices. Today I reject most of that junk, if I'm conflicted about whether to have the donut some coworker brought in, I do a wee bit of analysis determine the why's, weigh them pro and cons, and make a decision. Using language to form thoughts for reflection about your own feelings shouldn't be considered anything more than an inherent ability of the brain--something to be fosters as part of our reasoning skills and never exploited by others who want to attribute the ability to anything other than a natural brain's process. I don't care for judge as a word as a word because its the stalking horse for manipulation by others. I don't know if there are those that don't have this facility--it's probably more a matter of suppressing it.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    I assume everyone knows what I mean.
    No, your title is unclear. I assumed you referred to conscience.

    Firstly is this a universal phenomenon (just part of being conscious/alive) ?
    It presumably has some benefit or it would not have survived in our genes.

    Secondly ,although I have heard it described as something bad does it have its good attributes (or again is it just a fact of life -neither good nor bad) ?
    If you mean conscience then it's not bad but now I guess that's not what you mean.

    Thirdly are there people entirely without this facility (perhaps those who are supremely un self critical) or are they just able to compatmentalise it?
    There are people without conscience. They are sociopaths, or borderlines, and may also be narcissists. It is most likely a genetic problem that might not always materialize as behavior, depending on environment. (Nature and nurture both play a part.) Milosevic and Mao come to mind as extreme examples of people who were narcissistic, scheming, impulsive, sadistic and lacking in empathy and could be described as having no conscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,119
    well I think I mean what could be considered the opposite to "doing something without thinking" which is cited as a good way of of doing things at times -especially in sport perhaps.
    I also had to mind what I think is targetted in meditation techniques (stilling the mind) and , perhaps falsely , wondering if this could be a kind of everpresent state (one of the rooms of the mind so to speak) that would allow one to not give the ongoing inner dialogue more weight than it is entitled to.
    Is that what happens when people suffer from hallucinations and hear voices - that this low level chatter doesn't have the countervailing influences that should be present elsewhere in the mind and so this "chatter" spreads from its appropriate area of the mind to areas that should have other things to be occupied with?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Time and the observer
    By nokton in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 1st, 2011, 03:31 PM
  2. Can we judge God? Can't judge God?
    By sondivp456 in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 7th, 2009, 06:04 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 21st, 2008, 01:17 AM
  4. Judge upholds UC's decision not to award credit
    By EvanB in forum In the News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 15th, 2008, 06:14 PM
  5. The observer and the universe.
    By leohopkins in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 22nd, 2007, 04:30 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •