I will be citing this online translation: http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Phil_100/Plato_files/310585462-Plato-Phaedo.pdf — Fooloso4

Thanks for this. I have downloaded it and hope to read along with you and others.

We soon learn that Plato was not with Socrates on his final day. He was sick. (59b)... What would have been so serious as to keep him away?...But for now we should note that Plato is twice removed...Here it is his absence rather than his presence that he draws our attention to. — Fooloso4

Ah, how intriguing. The dialogue sounds like a Russian doll. What kind of illness...hmm...physical, mental...a broken leg causing great pain...

Socrates is doing something he has never done before, writing — Fooloso4

Really ?

the same dream had visited me, now in one guise, now in another, but always saying the same thing: — Fooloso4

I've just been discussing dreams elsewhere in the forum - the fact that strange figures flit in and out and we can have weird conversations with them. Again, I once talked about dreams as a source of inspiration which led to real life problems being solved. Dreams are a bit of a mystery.

So, whose voice would be it be ? That of his daemonion ? Some kind of a spirit ?

the dream was telling me to do the very thing that I was doing, to make music, since philosophy is the greatest music. (61a) — Fooloso4

But why would it need to do that, or Socrates assume that - if it is a source of inspiration, then Socrates already has it in spades.

I reflected that a poet should, if he were really going to be a poet, make stories rather than arguments, and being no teller of tales myself, I therefore used some I had ready to hand …(61b) — Fooloso4

Does S. then see himself as a poet, even as he makes arguments ?
Why, if he was being encouraged to 'make music and practise it' - or rhythmic lyrics - would he dismiss his own talent and rely on second-hand material?

But here he tells a story about a dream from his past life. That it is just a story will become clear. — Fooloso4

Oh, hot damn...this is beginning to sound like Dallas. Bobby in the shower. Everything that had happened previously - Bobby dying - was only his wife's dream...
So, we don't get to read any of Socrates' poems then ?

What we will hear are not simply arguments but stories. — Fooloso4

I am looking forward to seeing how this all pans out...soap opera meets political drama ?

a comedy or tragedy — Fooloso4

Both ?

Phaedo says that he was not overcome by pity and that Socrates seemed happy (58e) Phaedo reports feeling an unusual blend of pleasure and pain. (59a). As we shall see, opposites will play an important part in Socrates’ stories. — Fooloso4

A bitter-sweet play.

That's OK.
Unfortunate - because referencing sources is good practice.
It helps to substantiate and readers can decide if it is a correct interpretation of a view.
However, I can follow it up. Appreciate your contribution.

I think I'm done here in any case. Enjoy :smile:

I got c. 14 mins of this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hHp77_NfJag&feature=youtu.be

I think enough already, don't you ?

I wasn't commenting on the content of what Daemon said. — T Clark

That is my point. The substance of the post was a useful contribution to the way consciousness is defined. Why not make a response to that ?

I used it as a positive example of why it is important for us to make sure people understand the meaning of the words we use. — T Clark

I understood that albeit in a roundabout way.

It was clear to you because he gave the definition, which was my point. — T Clark

Yes Actually - No. I first guessed at meaning of 'ostensively' as I read. Then the 'that is...' confirmed it. It wasn't an obvious definition of 'ostensively'.
So why then did you appear not to 'get it' ?

I wouldn't have been able to figure out what you meant from context. I think that is true of most people on the forum and in the world in general. — T Clark

John Searle says that, like many other terms, consciousness is best defined ostensively, that is, by pointing to examples. — Daemon

So, what did or do you think, if anything, of Searle's view as put forward ?

I'm reasonably well-read but I had never heard the word used in that way. I wouldn't have been able to figure out what you meant from context. I think that is true of most people on the forum and in the world in general. — T Clark

This distracts from the point @Daemon was making*
It was clear to me from the context.

*John Searle says that, like many other terms, consciousness is best defined ostensively, that is, by pointing to examples.

I meant to ask @Daemon if he could provide the source.

one definition could be that it's polysemous in nature. Meaning (pardon the pun), because not only do we have the phenomena associated with the conscious, subconscious and the unconscious mind (all working together in an illogical mix), we have philosophical ambiguities connected with an individual's perception of truth (Subjectivity). Different people experience the same text, and come away with different statements of fact about that text’s meaning. — 3017amen

Indeed. See also @Wayfarer right at the beginning
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/532466

Responses:

I tried to pick the definitions I think are relevant to the kinds of discussions we have on the forum. It would be nice if the people starting those discussions would be clear about these kinds of issues. That's not likely to happen. I mostly started this post to clarify in my own mind what I mean when I use these words. — T Clark

From: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/532484

I at least want to come up with a meaning that applies to the "hard problem of consciousness" people talk about.
— T Clark

Are you familiar with the original paper, which is here http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

Perhaps it might be useful to talk in terms of what you do or don't agree with or understand about this paper, as that is the one that defined the problem. — Wayfarer

From: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/532486

Follow up:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/533243
Ending with:

I must admit I'm not much interested in the experience of consciousness from a scientific or philosophical perspective. It doesn't seem that important to me. For me, consciousness is a behavior. We know it the way we know other human and animal behaviors - by observing it, including what the person says about it when that is available. There really is only one experience of consciousness in my universe - mine.
Yes, yes. of course I believe other people experience it too, but that's because I've observed their behavior. This list from Chalmers identifies at least some of the behaviors related to consciousness that we can observe. He acknowledges that. — T Clark

Followed by an interesting discussion re behaviour with @Joshs

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/533311

I do not move by arguments ... arguments are futile friend ... — Anand-Haqq

In one sense, your post is an argument in that you are setting out statements as to what mind means to you.

Mind is a social by-product. And unless this mind dissolves, you cannot go within; you cannot know what is really your nature, what is authentically your existence, your consciousness. — Anand-Haqq

OK. That is one mind talking, even if it is from the source of consciousness.
For me, 'real nature' includes the brain and mind as tools which enable awareness of the world; the experiences, thoughts and feelings.
This kind of consciousness involves sentient elements, some label 'qualia'. The subjective feel of what it is like to be 'human'.

Mind, as such, is the disturbance, the disease — Anand-Haqq

The mind can certainly disturb and it can be the source of ill health. However, it is not a disease in itself.
It can be seen as a tool whereby we attend to and process the world; we observe, assess, evaluate with a view to action based on best evidence available. That includes decision-making. Which path to follow.
But it's even more than that...

You are two persons simultaneously. How can you have the same face for your servant? Your one eye has a certain quality, a certain look. Your other eye has a different quality, a different look — Anand-Haqq

No. I am one physical person with a brain and mind. My eyes might have different qualities.
But it is the quality of mind that matters. I note and respect differences. It is true that we can change our 'face' according to circumstance and context - that is done for all kinds of reasons. Call it a survival instinct or being flexible, taking others needs into account...as well as our own.

Remember well that you don't have one mind; you have multi-minds. Forget the concept that everyone has one mind. You don't have, you have many minds: a crowd, a multiplicity; you are poly-psychic. In the morning you have one mind, in the afternoon a different mind and in the evening still a different mind. Every single moment you have a different mind. — Anand-Haqq

Who or what is it that tells you to 'Remember well that...'
I consider it to be a case of one mind, different 'selves' or 'voices'.
That one mind can and does change. That is its nature.
Adapting to the environment and different experiences.

We go on saying, insisting, 'My mind. I think this way. This is my thought. This is my ideology.' Because of this identification with the mind, you miss that which you really are. — Anand-Haqq

Who is this 'we' you talk of ?
That is a generalisation, not always applicable to individuals.
Some don't have a single ideology, they have a 'way of thinking'. This can involve looking at life holistically. Also being sceptical of what they are being told e.g. 'Remember well that...'.

Dissolve these links with the mind. Remember that your minds are not your own. They have been given to you by others: your parents, your society, your university. They have been given to you. Throw them away. Remain with the simple consciousness that you are ¯ pure consciousness, innocent. This is how one moves from the mind to meditation. This is how one moves away from society, from the without to the within. This is how one moves from the man-made world, the maya, to the universal truth, the existence. — Anand-Haqq

No. I will pass on dissolving links with the mind. Without it, I could not respond.
Again, one mind, different 'selves' or 'voices'. Not about to be discarded.
I can exist and move between any internal and the external world quite happily.

Thanks for your thoughts. Worth considering if only to clarify my own :cool:

Addendum:
Re holding the 'I Don't Care' attitude.

It can be harmful to us depending on context and why we adopt it.
If the defence mechanism is activated and there is a withdrawal from an increasingly tense discussion, we might not be doing ourselves any favours.
Sometimes it takes strength to 'take on' our perceived adversaries.
I have struggled with this, at times, on TPF.
It takes a stepping back - not a complete withdrawal - to take time and think.

To examine what has been said and how it has affected you.
It is easy to jump to the wrong conclusions about someone depending on how you interpret their words or tone in response.
I try to read and re-read the situation carefully.
Why do I feel like telling the person to fuck off.
Why the instant wish to dismiss...
That needs to be addressed and not shrugged off.

If I am to maintain any kind of respect for myself or someone else, the tension has to be resolved.
This might require a painful re-adjustment of attitude and thought.
Perhaps applied perspective and sense of humour...
Turn it around.

And yes, in the long run...from a distance...none of it might matter at all.
Let's face it.
I'm really just here avoiding housework.
I really 'Don't Care' about the ironing...

'It Don't Come Easy' - Ringo Starr (2:54)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvEexTomE1I

At the 'Concert for Bangladesh':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zez0-vxyKuE

It don't come easy,
You know it don't come easy.

It don't come easy,
You know it don't come easy.

Got to pay your dues if you wanna sing the blues,
And you know it don't come easy.
You don't have to shout or leap about,
You can even play them easy.

Forget about the past and all your sorrows,
The future won't last,
It will soon be over tomorrow.

I don't ask for much, i only want your trust,
And you know it don't come easy.
And this love of mine keeps growing all the time,
And you know it just ain't easy.

Open up your heart, let's come together,
Use a little love
And we will make it work out better.

(ah -)
(ah -)
(ooh-ooh)
(ah-ooh-ooh)

Got to pay your dues if you wanna sing the blues,
And you know it don't come easy.
You don't have to shout or leap about,
You can even play them easy.

Peace, remember peace is how we make it,
Here within your reach
If you're big enough to take it.

I don't ask for much, i only want your trust,
And you know it don't come easy.
And this love of mine keeps growing all the time,
And you know it don't come easy.

I’m kind of an advocate for apathy. Within reasonable limits I find it useful for living a happy life. I try not to care about things that don’t involve me directly, or that I’m powerless to change. At least I try to not care that much. — Pinprick

Yes. This is the more positive sense of the word 'apathy'.
Similar to the Stoic notion of 'indifference'; also the 'Serenity Prayer', with or without 'God'.
Earlier @180 Proof linked to the wiki article on 'Apatheia':
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/532594

It’s easier to do what you truly want, and say what you truly feel when you don’t care about possibly being ridiculed, or offending someone, etc — Pinprick

Probably it is easier but, clearly, it isn't always wise to say what you truly feel in certain circumstances.
Like telling your boss to fuck off or the surgeon operating on you that her breath stinks...
Judgement still needs to be exercised if that kind of freedom to offend is to be 'virtuous' rather than 'vicious'...
If behaviour comes from a place of honesty as in integrity rather than raw, unthinking bluntness, then it is more likely to increase wellbeing for all concerned, apathetic or otherwise.

Even if you have adopted the shield of 'indifference' so that potentially harmful words bounce off you, that is not the case for everyone.
Attentive care still required even if you 'Don't Care'...it makes sense to care-fully choose who, what and how you direct your attention towards.

It is a useful strategy even when listening to your 'inner' critical voice telling you that you are rubbish.
Or painful memories suddenly arising.
I tell it to ''Just Stop !'' and replace with something positive - a walk on the wild side :cool:

The mind and the way we think - to reach a state of well-being-ness...
Nobody said it was easy.

Who the fuck are those people? =] — Shawn

I wish I knew. Some are quite attractive and active. It's like a parallel universe :scream:

It's fascinating to me to witness other people as if with a separate mind in a dream. What do you think? — Shawn

You mean observing people in your dream as if you are separate or outside the dream itself - or the people in the dream as having separate minds from you, or what ?

I just love it when I am aware that I am dreaming yet I am still having a conversation within the dream with a dream figure...sometimes I have to tell myself to wake up !!

The figures and settings are recognisable from the past but not necessarily so. And always changing - like a kaleidoscope :cool:

Excellent.
Yeah, you need to be strong for this lark :wink:

I think you have to state your own working definition, in the specific context.
— Daemon
That makes complete sense to me. — Amity

Also, useful to read TPF Guidelines on 'How to Write an OP':

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op/p1

On it :smile:

I am not sure very much is understood about how cognition functions, so I'll leave that to somebody with a larger imagination than mine. — synthesis

How do you measure 'imagination' ? :wink:

(Can't help it :wink: — 180 Proof

:smile: I was waiting for it - and you didn't disappoint.
He's So Fine, My Sweet Lord George :cool:

Both songs are just fine by me.
The UK already celebrated Mother's Day but hey, in the USA and anywhere else, Love and Hugs :flower: :heart: :sparkle:

[Apathy]...the result of subtle forms of spiritual oppression that someone has endured for a long period of time. And yes, in some cases this can result in tremendous pain. — Adam Hilstad

I felt I was being told that the meaning or purpose of my life was invalid, or even wrong in some way. This led to feelings of invisibility, helplessness and isolation. — Adam Hilstad

Sorry to hear that.
It sounds like a kind of spiritual abuse within the family, parents or church.
A difference in the way you want to live your life, moral outlook or belief system.
Like a strict and narrow cult practice where members ignore or expel unbelievers.
A traumatic separation.
People can lose any 'fight', energy and willpower to defend themselves.

Thanks for sharing some of your experience.
Hopefully, you have recovered well from that period in your life.
The word 'apathy' seems too light to cover that...

I think you have to state your own working definition, in the specific context. — Daemon

That makes complete sense to me.

John Searle says that, like many other terms, consciousness is best defined ostensively, that is, by pointing to examples. — Daemon

Again, thanks for that. Exactly the way I was thinking - so it must be right :wink:

:cool:

in order to know whether you have come up with a correct definition, you must already know what the term means. — Daemon

I don't know about there being a single correct definition but yes, I think it clear that you must have an idea of what it is you want to pin down...
Does that mean that some kind of background research or thinking should be done first.
That being the case, it is not always possible to define terms before you start an exploratory thread ?
So, people should not be unduly concerned or constrained.

Dialogue can lead to a better understanding...hopefully.

I am not sure I understand the process of how experiences are 'reified through the brain's hardware'.
Help me out here ? — Amity

Perhaps something along these lines....?
( having been introduced to Solms by @Daemon here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10867/what-does-consciousness-mean/p6 )

Why did empirical dream researchers reject Freud? A critique of historical claims by Mark SolmsG. William Domhoff

https://dreams.ucsc.edu/Articles/domhoff_2004c.html

'Neuropsychologist and psychoanalyst Mark Solms (1997) made a major contribution to dream research through his clinico-anatomical studies, which reveal the outlines of the neural network that underlies dreaming. However, in more recent work he misunderstands the history of the rapid eye movement (REM)/non-REM (NREM) controversy in a Freudian-serving way and ignores the considerable systematic empirical evidence that contradicts the key claims of the Freudian dream theory he is trying to revive. After summarizing Solms's claims about the history of laboratory dream research, this article suggests a different version of that history and summarizes the empirical findings that explain why Freudian theory is not considered viable by most dream researchers.'

I have been very struck by this recent video lecture by Mark Solms, who is both a neuroscientist and a psychiatrist: https://youtu.be/CmuYrnOVmfk — Daemon

That sounds most interesting, thanks.
I will listen later. In the meantime, I discovered that he offers a free online course:
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/what-is-a-mind

'Professor Mark Solms, Chair of Neuropsychology at the University of Cape Town, will adopt a multidisciplinary approach.

He will bring in perspectives from a range of disciplines, to explore four specific aspects of the mind- subjectivity, intentionality, consciousness and agency. Together, these will help us think about the fundamental questions: what it is to be a mind, why we have a mind and what it feels like to have a mind.'

-------

A bit off track...but interesting to consider I think...
Apparently, Solms has been criticised as to his dream theory.

'Neuropsychologist and psychoanalyst Mark Solms (1997) made a major contribution to dream research through his clinico-anatomical studies, which reveal the outlines of the neural network that underlies dreaming. However, in more recent work he misunderstands the history of the rapid eye movement (REM)/non-REM (NREM) controversy in a Freudian-serving way and ignores the considerable systematic empirical evidence that contradicts the key claims of the Freudian dream theory he is trying to revive.'

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/533602

I have worked in the area of mental health and addictions for 30 years. Apathy/anhedonia and social withdrawal are classic negative symptoms associated with the condition. Among the classic positive symptoms are auditory hallucinations, movement disorders, disorganised behaviour. — Tom Storm

In another lifetime, I worked in mental health - and I have forgotten so much of it.
However, it is still very much in or on my mind.

There are a multiplicity of reasons for apathy to take hold of someone - too many choices; not enough choices; trauma; substance misuse; chronic physical illness; mental ill health; excessive rumination; decadence; hopelessness. It can often be an understandable response to experience. — Tom Storm

Yes. We are a complex animal, are we not ?

I imagine we sometimes use the word apathy to describe someone who doesn't share our enthusiasms. — Tom Storm

:smile: Scurrilous rascals !!

I suspect that apathy is usually if not always the result of subtle forms of spiritual oppression that someone has endured for a long period of time. And yes, in some cases this can result in tremendous pain. — Adam Hilstad

Interesting. What kinds of spiritual oppression are you thinking about ?
And what kind of tremendous pain is a result of it ?

I've been told recently that apathy arises from too much pain. — Shawn

Who told you this and why ? What kind of pain ?

Before anyone points out that the truth lays with rather depression, I don't really buy into that. — Shawn

Quite right too. Apathy is independent of depression and v.v.
Having said that, the two can co-exist in a person.

Apathy also sounds distinct from being 'lazy'. — Shawn

Yes, it does. But are you too 'lazy' or 'apathetic' to actually go and find some definitions and meanings over and above your opinions ? :chin:

I'm having a hard time pointing out what apathy may be about; anyone care to elucidate? — Shawn

Why are you having a hard time ? Isn't it easy enough to google, as others have done ?
Just kidding - it's good to talk :cool:

I've had some premonition that apathy is expressed due to too much rationality. — Shawn

How so ?
This 'too much' with reference to 'pain' and 'thinking' - is this related to a mental health disorder? Overthinking past, present or future scenarios > anxiety. Thinking too much about self, what?

Apathy might be that place people go between delusions. — synthesis

Schizophrenia ?
Why can't apathy exist even when experiencing delusions ?

Eventually, reality catches up with folks and they realize that their path hit a dead-end. This throws them into the abyss for awhile until they climb their way out and seek out their next path. If their new path is good for them, apathy disappears. — synthesis

Depression ? They can't see how to go on...overwhelmed by the world...their circumstances...
If long-term or clinical, then it isn't always possible to climb own way out or seek a path.
Chronic or deep apathy needs to be treated first.
Also, even if new path is good, there can still be occasions of low level apathy.

In cases such as Alzheimers or a neurodegenerative disease...where the capacity to think or change is extremely limited, life goes on - with physical and mental pain. There seems no choice to take a new path. However, action can still be taken to alleviate - to try to make life worth living...

I’m kinda skeptical that apathy exists in practice. — TheHedoMinimalist

OK - is that because you haven't experienced or recognised it in yourself or others.
It is considered a mental state:
https://patient.info/signs-symptoms/apathy

Lately, my experience of apathy has been related to covid restrictions.
I call it being 'scunnered'...
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scunnered

The mind has the extraordinary capacity to encapsulate the totality of the world in a realistic manner.

Namely, the mind can encapsulate the sum total of what space 'feels' like, what sound, 'sounds' like (ever hear music in a dream as if played on a device; but, in a dream), and what food 'tastes' like. — Shawn

The mind certainly has extraordinary capacity. However, how certain are you that it encapsulates the totality of the world in a realistic manner ?
What or whose world ? How do you if the mind is sound enough to capture anything, never mind everything, in a realistic manner ? What do you mean by 'realistic' ?

I don't think that it is possible. What does 'space' feel like to you ?

Yet, these, feelings, sounds, and tastes are not entirely qualia. They are actual experiences, reified through the brain's hardware into a phenomenological experience — Shawn

What do you understand by 'qualia' ?
Which mental states possess qualia:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/#Which

I am not sure I understand the process of how experiences are 'reified through the brain's hardware'.
Help me out here ?

It is intriguing that when one experiences these amalgamates of past experiences that is what one would call a 'qualia'. — Shawn

What an intriguing way to describe 'dreaming'.
Is it the case that dreams show only past experiences ?

Everything in a dream is qualitative in manner to be more clear, with the observer or subject further experiences these qualia... — Shawn

I think we need to know more about what 'dreaming' is.
What does it mean when we dream:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/284378

I wouldn't consider that an experience on top of another experience; it's just part of the dream experience. There is something it is like to have a dream, just as there is something it is like to listen to Mozart in reality. This is the distinction I would draw between the two qualia or qualitative experiences. — Luke

I agree that there is something it is like to have a dream - it seems to be a subjective mental state.
What fascinates is perhaps the level or nature of the consciousness involved.
There is perhaps more of a mystery to the experience of dreaming than a straightforward 'feeling'.

It is quite unique and complex.
I think dreaming includes not just the brain processing e.g. a replay of past actual events in a quite surreal manner but can pick up on things we missed or ignored.
It gives space to analyse in a weird way e.g. our feelings or relationships about someone.
This can be quite unsettling; they can feel so real that it can make a difference to how we view other people in our lives.
And yet, how reliable are they ?

Yes, dreams have a phenomenological, qualitative aspect (in my experience). — Luke

Yes. And that is only the start of how we think about the experience of whatever dreams we have.
Some people deny having any - or they simply can't remember.

Thanks @Shawn for discussion... :sparkle:

'Dignity' - Bob Dylan (6:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeeJImmYj0Q

Fat man lookin' in a blade of steel
Thin man lookin' at his last meal
Hollow man lookin' in a cottonfield
For dignity

Wise man lookin' in a blade of grass
Young man lookin' in the shadows that pass
Poor man lookin' through painted glass
For dignity

Somebody got murdered on New Year's Eve
Somebody said dignity was the first to leave
I went into the city, went into the town
Went into the land of the midnight sun

Searchin' high, searchin' low
Searchin' everywhere I know
Askin' the cops wherever I go
Have you seen dignity?

Blind man breakin' out of a trance
Puts both his hands in the pockets of chance
Hopin' to find one circumstance
Of dignity

I went to the wedding of Mary-Lou
She said "Don't want nobody see me talkin' to you"
Said she could get killed if she told me what she knew
About dignity

I went down where the vultures feed
I would've got deeper, but there wasn't any need
Heard the tongues of angels and the tongues of men
Wasn't any difference to me

Chilly wind sharp as a razor blade
House on fire, debts unpaid
Gonna stand at the window, gonna ask the maid
Have you seen dignity?

Drinkin' man listens to the voice he hears
In a crowded room full of covered up mirrors
Lookin' into the lost forgotten years
For dignity

Met Prince Phillip at the home of the blues
Said he'd give me information if his name wasn't used
He wanted money up front, said he was abused
By dignity

Footprints runnin' cross the sliver sand
Steps goin' down into tattoo land
I met the sons of darkness and the sons of light
In the border towns of despair

Got no place to fade, got no coat
I'm on the rollin' river in a jerkin' boat
Tryin' to read a note somebody wrote
About dignity

Sick man lookin' for the doctor's cure
Lookin' at his hands for the lines that were
And into every masterpiece of literature
For dignity

Englishman stranded in the blackheart wind
Combin' his hair back, his future looks thin
Bites the bullet and he looks within
For dignity

Someone showed me a picture and I just laughed
Dignity never been photographed
I went into the red, went into the black
Into the valley of dry bone dreams

So many roads, so much at stake
So many dead ends, I'm at the edge of the lake
Sometimes I wonder what it's gonna take
To find dignity

Songwriters: Bob Dylan
For non-commercial use only.
Data from: Musixmatch

'Dignity' - Deacon Blue, with lyrics (3:53)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZs54pOJjB0

'This Song' - George Harrison (3:53)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T0i9rjTxhpY

'Harrison wrote the song as a response to the copyright infringement suit launched against him over his early 1970s hit "My Sweet Lord". The lyrics use terminology associated with the court case and mention other song titles as a satirical comment on the notion of plagiarism in popular music.[2]'

'My Sweet Lord' - George Harrison (4:41)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SP9wms6oEMo

'Crackerbox Palace' - George Harrison (3:57)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ac34Khe-fc

Some Pythonesque fun with gnomes at home :love:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crackerbox_Palace

Again - big thanks for this song, new to me and much appreciated :sparkle:
What George says about it in his book, p134:
OLD BROWN SHOE. I started the chord sequences on the piano ( which I don't really play) and then began writing ideas for the words from various opposites:
I want a love that's right
But right is only half of what's wrong.
Again, it's the duality of things - yes-no, up-down, left-right, right-wrong, etc.

-----

The Beatles' Anthology documentary several years later consummated my "Beatle George" renaissance and deep appreciation of him as a musician, a spiritual seeker, an old "grotty" wit, and a quite admirable person (certainly as global celebrities go). — 180 Proof

Lovely to hear your story of getting to know George.
It seems like I have known and loved George forever ! Since the 60's anyway...
There was a long gap when I didn't listen to music much at all.
I'm so glad that I am rediscovering him, his music and thoughts...and having this conversation.

I met him once - I think it was 1991 - you wouldn't believe where. Not gonna tell...
But our eyes met as he jammed with my ex and friends...playing the ukelele.
Did I say that I love him....

I was given a cassette of his 'The Best of Dark Horse 1976 -1989'. Played it to death.
Later - like you - totally wowed by the magic and chemistry of the Traveling Wilburys.
'A bunch of friends that just happened to be really good at making music' *

The first Traveling Wilbury's hit single "Handle Me With Care" almost two decades later for me began a complete reassessment of George and his elemental role in the musical alchemy of The Beatles — 180 Proof

-----
'The True History Of The Traveling Wilburys Documentary' (24:56) *
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUQ_gj-biIc

... filmed in the spring of 1988 whilst the band were recording 'Vol. 1' in Los Angeles, and includes footage shot by Nelson Wilbury.

In trying to explain how the Wilburys originally came together, George Harrison once said, “The thing about the Wilburys for me is—if we’d tried to plan it, or if anybody had said, let’s form this band and get these people in it—it would never happen, it’s impossible. It happened completely, just by magic, just by circumstance. Maybe there was a full moon that night or something like that. It was quite a magical little thing really.”

'Marwa Blues' - instrumental by George Harrison (3:42)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u4I4KvFu9_I

From: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/533100
An amazing performance of 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps' :fire:
"While My Guitar Gently Weeps" Live (6:22)
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2004
written by George Harrison, 1968
performed by Dhani Harrison, Jeff Lynn, Tom Petty, Steve Winwood & Prince

Thanks @180 Proof :cool:

From p120 of George's autobiography 'I -Me -Mine':

Around the time of writing...I had a copy of the 'I Ching - the (Chinese) Book of Changes' which seemed to me to be based on the Eastern concept that everything is relative to everything else, as opposed to the Western view that things are merely coincidental.

This idea was in my head when I visited my parents' house in the North of England. I decided to write a song based on the first thing I saw upon opening any book - as it would be relative to that moment, at that time. I picked up a book at random - opened it - saw 'Gently weeps' - then laid the book down again and started the song. Some of the words to the song were changed before I finally recorded it - as can be seen here:

I look at the trouble
and hate that is raging
While my guitar gently weeps
While I'm sitting here
Doing nothing but ageing

----
There follows 3 pages of handwritten lyrics - scrawls and scratchings as he chooses the right words.
The final lyrics on p 124:
----

I look at you all, see the love there that's sleeping
While my guitar gently weeps
I look at the floor and I see it needs sweeping
Still my guitar gently weeps
I don't know why nobody told you how to unfold your love
I don't know how someone controlled you
They bought and sold you

I look at the world and I notice it's turning
While my guitar gently weeps
With every mistake we must surely be learning
Still my guitar gently weeps

I don't know how you were diverted
You were perverted too
I don't know how you were inverted
No one alerted you

I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping
While my guitar gently weeps
I look at you all...
Still my guitar gently weeps

I just love this guy :100: :heart: :sparkle:

Can't speak for George Son of Hari :pray: :flower:, but I can't help smiling whenever I see & hear this Bad Lil Mofo blaaaaze that solo :fire: — 180 Proof

You know what. I have always loved that song but this performance is...words fail me...
And to see Dhani, George's son, start off quite serious and tentative and then bursting into smiles with the amazement of the whole experience...

Thanks @180 Proof - you have made my day, month, year...
:fire: :heart: :sparkle:

It seems to me that the meaning of ‘conscious’ or ‘consciousness’ originally referred to the qualitative idea or faculty of awareness. — Possibility

Perhaps so.

The Contents of the SEP article on 'Consciousness' starts with 1. History of the issue.
This links back to what @Banno discussed re the etymology of 'conscious' and 'conscience'.
Here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/532902

Although the words “conscious” and “conscience” are used quite differently today, it is likely that the Reformation emphasis on the latter as an inner source of truth played some role in the inward turn so characteristic of the modern reflective view of self. The Hamlet who walked the stage in 1600 already saw his world and self with profoundly modern eyes. — SEP article by Robert Van Gulick

It continues with, and expands on types, here:

2. Concepts of Consciousness
2.1 Creature Consciousness
2.2 State consciousness
2.3 Consciousness as an entity

3. Problems of Consciousness
The Questions of Consciousness are explained individually but are inter-related.
The What, How and Why.
The Descriptive, the Explanatory, the Functional.

The Descriptive Question: What is consciousness? What are its principal features? And by what means can they be best discovered, described and modeled?

The Explanatory Question: How does consciousness of the relevant sort come to exist? Is it a primitive aspect of reality, and if not how does (or could) consciousness in the relevant respect arise from or be caused by nonconscious entities or processes?

The Functional Question: Why does consciousness of the relevant sort exist? Does it have a function, and if so what is it? Does it act causally and if so with what sorts of effects? Does it make a difference to the operation of systems in which it is present, and if so why and how?

The three questions focus respectively on describing the features of consciousness, explaining its underlying basis or cause, and explicating its role or value. The divisions among the three are of course somewhat artificial, and in practice the answers one gives to each will depend in part on what one says about the others. — As above

Sections 4,5 and 6 expand on the 3 Questions.
From 4:

A comprehensive descriptive account of consciousness would need to deal with more than just these seven features, but having a clear account of each of them would take us a long way toward answering the “What is consciousness?” question. — As above

The example from first aid shows that consciousness is something we see in others. I think it inherently interactive - mutual. — Banno

I think it is also something we see in ourselves; 'thoroughly' would bring out this aspect.
The First Aid course example was broad. It included all the aspects.
At a minimum 3 people are involved: the trainer, the trainee and the person being treated. Knowledge, awareness and experience - a holistic view.
The meanings as outlined in the OP can be seen in each individual and their interaction.

So I'll make a different contribution, perhaps as partial recompense, by referring to https://www.etymonline.com/

c. 1600, "knowing, privy to" (poetic), from Latin conscius "knowing, aware," from conscire "be (mutually) aware," from assimilated form of com "with," or "thoroughly" (see con-) + scire "to know" (see science). The Latin word probably is a loan-translation of Greek syneidos.

"to know with". — Banno

Interesting website.
This refers to the word 'conscious'. Why did you choose 'to know with' rather than ' to be thoroughly aware' ?

So, to add on the - ness of it all, from the same website:

- ness

word-forming element denoting action, quality, or state, attached to an adjective or past participle to form an abstract noun, from Old English -nes(s), from Proto-Germanic *in-assu- (cognates: Old Saxon -nissi, Middle Dutch -nisse, Dutch -nis, Old High German -nissa, German -nis, Gothic -inassus), from *-in-, originally belonging to the noun stem, + *-assu-, abstract noun suffix, probably from the same root as Latin -tudo (see -tude).

From this, 'consciousness' :
'an action, quality or state' related to:
'knowing with, mutually or thoroughly'
or
'being aware with, mutually or thoroughly'
or
'being privy to'

I am not sure if this helps in any way.
It raises more questions...
What is it we are aware with or of ?

In any case, it reminds me why with regards to 'consciousness' and brain states, I think neuroscience is more useful than this kind of philosophical dancing in the dark.
Fascinating as it all is...

Wow. That was pure joy and real musicians having a blast :fire:
Lyrics, what lyrics ?

' It was a teenage wedding, and the old folks wished them well
You could see that Pierre did truly love the mademoiselle...

...Seven hundred little records, all rock, rhythm and jazz
But when the sun went down, the rapid tempo of the music fell
"C'est la vie",…

Source: LyricFind