>Moving right along...
>
>>1) We talked about a conseptual scheme, you suggested the sixth sence was
>>it, I said 'I don't think so' but lets still aknowledge it. So: 'we have a
>>way of looking at things' - a conseptual scheme.
>
>PS- luke- its "conceptual", not "conseptual"- (sorry :))

I knew that! ;) - thanks.


>>Now I'm goig to link our idea of a conseptual scheme with teh idea of
>>entity we cam up with ages ago, the conceptual scheme is part of our
>>entity.
>
>Hold on- I think we understood different things by "entity"- and I 
>havn't clicked ointo its importance: give me a summary (we should 
>develop a set of definitions about the things we are thinking about- 
> I'll work on that)

The way I see it, we keep coming up with abstract idea's, so we give them labels. 


From a very old email:
>I don't think that its wrong to say that we exist above our components when
>we aren't sure what our components are, ad what we have so far defined as
>them seems little. Just as two people can do the work of three, 1 + 1 = 3.
>Perhaps the missing link is the 'X' it may have something to do with our
>entity, and so we don't exist above our entity because we ARE our entity.
>I'll stop before I get lost.

Entity is the sum above our components. What exactly we can't know, we use a lable to represent an abstract concept because we don't fully understand it yet, it is so with entity. Hows that? - If you need more, I'll think about it more.

I think it's a great idea to have a list of terms, tell me how you get on, and preferably send me the list. Thanks.


>>This would suggest:
>>
>>Entity = conseptual scheme + whateve else.
>>
>>Now when I think about it, what is the difference between entity and
>>conseptual scheme? I think it has something to do with time and experience.
>>At any one time we have our conseptual scheme, but because we exist though
>>time we are more. We are different one day from the next, it's not JUST
>>that out conseptual scheme  has altered, although I'm sure it has, it's
>>more. Or so I think. Assuming this the entity = conseptual scheme + what
>>has happend (that's our exp.)
>
>I'd li8ke to condier the related idea, pretty much due to Gurdjieff, 
>that "man has many "I"'s".  Jocelyn is a good person to ask about 
>this, though I except most of the ex-Chief people can clue you in.  I 
>understand it like this: the mind is not a simple, homogenous being: 
>considered objectively, I mean different things by the term "I" at 
>different times.  Our characters are composed of many sub-characters 
>which vie for conrtol of the body and our lives, and are responsible 
>for our attitudes at different times.  

I'm very hesitant to disect myself, beacsue it may take apart entity, which I feel exists. But I'm very willing to go into our entity and look at what we are. Perhaps another reason I cringe is that if we have different selves then we have no real personality, this scares me. But at the same time I DO act differently at different times. Another thing I dislike about the idea of diferent selves is that it sounds to me like we're chikcening out, we say 'Oh, I wasn't myself' We should face what we do as if we are one person otherwise we don't do anything about anything.

No, The very idea of entity means that I am one. Although I may behave differently. The only reason I can see for multiple I's is in an attempt to understand myslef better, but I don't think It's acturate to think in this way normally - only when under serious objective self observation. 

(am I being negative?) :)

But the idea is to understand what we are, so out with the scalple!


>Thus- I have both a "benign Intellectual" self, who loves to talk and 
>discuss, and that;s the self that is wriitng this; I also have a 
>"chill- out Lover" self, who deals with most of my relaxation and 
>relationships; and I have a "Sadistic Destroyer" personality, who 
>steps in from time to time and tries to wreck everything.  I'm 
>conscious that this is very superficial,: its at most a first step on 
>the road to mapping myself and my mind.  Freud had a related idea, in 
>hos doctrines of the Id, Ego, and Superego- each of these plays a 
>different role in our feelings and actions, and each has a different 
>agenda concerning the way our lives should be led.  I'm not sure 
>which of the two theories is best as a starting point-- my polan is 
>to observe myself, try and fit everything into a pattern, and work 
>out what role consciousness has in this picture- as we are not 
>conscious all the time, and consciousness seems to be realtively 
>independent of the actions of the various selfs.

I just want to clareify we are on the same ground: We aren't equally conscious all the time. But we are, to a degree, conscious all the time.


>  I;ve just been 
>discussing, ina tutorial, the doctrine of "consious inessentialism"- 
>which basically saya that all human cognitive functions could take 
>place without the presenceof consiousness, and there certainly seems 
>to be SOMETHING rioght about this.  

This get right down to the definitionm of consciousness. Is consciousness the awareness of existance? If so yes, when we sleep we are not aware of our existance in what we considr reality, but our body continues.


>What do you reckon?   

As I said, I initially dislike the idea of many selves, but I can make it berable by considering different states of consciousness, or different personalities at different times, but I still think I'm one entity.