Are we more free in consciousness or unconsciousness?

Damn man i'd like to chat with you.... :) When i think of freedom i think of several different concepts: civil liberty (in terms of not being incarcerated), mutually exclusive independence (as opposed to interdependence), and volition (or free will). As an american i have heard the freedom word thrown around all my life, often in very slanted ways, so, as usual, it's good to clarify. I think the question hinges upon the idea of free will, which itself hinges upon interdependence, and for that we need to get down to the basics of a person's philosophical beliefs.

Your stance sounds very much like that of advaita or zen, which are essentially monistic, holding to the essential unity of 'being'. It seems likely that most advaitans or 'zennists' would hold to the idea of the unconscious as being, not only true freedom, but as close as we can imagine to the original state of pure "mind/self/substance".

On the other hand, it seems unlikely that most dualists would ever come to such a concept without being in a horrible state of depression. Dualism, in its many, many forms, tends to embrace the phenomenal self and the consciousness it allows. More over we have to consider the differing stances of rationalism (and empiricism) vs the intuitive. I personally do not put a division between the two, but i am a monist. It would seem that the vast majority of christians, muslims, jews, atheistic scientists, etc would not be swayed by the things you have stated in your question. For such people our waking consciousness and what we do (or do not do) with it is what matters, maybe even all that matters.

Personally, if you believe what you stated in your question, it would seem that we are of similar beliefs. I do not believe in phenomenal freedom...with the possible exception of civil liberty. The universe is a single body of energy. Multiplicity is an illusion of the conscious mind trying to understand something that is inherently contrary to such cognition. Even if we accept a multiplicity of forms, they are fully inter-DEPENDENT, each form depending upon all others to be what it is; change any one thing and all other things will change accordingly. There is no room in holism for some 'thing' that is truly independent. Likewise, i would present the idea of dissipative systems/structures as a modern, scientific approach at viewing a form more as a systemic process than as an actual concrete 'thing-in-itself'.

As for personal experience, this is tricky. Pushing the philosophy aside for a moment, i'm guessing if we were to ask the extremely rich or powerful this question, they would probably begin to laugh along with the dualists. For a fortunate person, the lavish pleasures of this world have likely become an addiction. Even if such a person was disciplined and not a hedonist, having a life with so few restrictions likely leads to frequent pleasure, and away from 'touching the source of mind' as such tends to be viewed as quite boring even amongst those who would not inherently disagree with such a concept. Likewise, there are many who acknowledge just how close zen philosophy skates the edge of nihilism, or think that such "hippy-esque" concepts throw personal responsibility to the wind. On the other hand, it seems only fair to say that if someone is miserable in life then their take may be the opposite of what a fortunate person's is, which is to say to get out of life as much or as soon as possible. For someone who lives a life akin to torture, what part of the day could be better than sleep (excluding disturbing dreams)?

Ultimately, i would agree with the inherent freedom of unconscious presence, but then, i subscribe to the teachings of advaita and zen, so, i'm a little biased. As regards this question one might ask "why" i have come to subscribe to such a path, but the problem is that it is not fully a matter of reason or proofs. Because i hold personal experience and intuition on par with reason and empiricism i am able, not only to have certain profound experiences, but more importantly i am able to acknowledge them as such without beating them to death with the cognitive mind. As a firm believer in both science and advaita as different aspects of a single body of understanding i have tried to talk holistic science with other scientifically inclined people, but reductive materialism and "no truth without proof" mentalities usually prevents such a thing before it gets off the ground. It would seem that a person, of whatever variety of personal philosophy, needs to experience something before they subscribe to it. Thus, we have the born-as-christians who utterly deny evolution without having any real idea of what supports such, as well as atheists and materialists who simply refuse to even accept the sheer 'possibility' that something more than simple materialism is going on here.

Interesting how many different takes we have here; though not surprising. Also funny how so many immediately think that unconsciousness either equals 'non-existence' or a state of dreaming. I suppose the idea of impersonal, unconscious awareness is pretty foreign in the west. Although the idea that "freedom", in itself, is only present as a concept in consciousness and nonexistent in the unconscious state is pretty well stated. Without an individual, personal self, who is there to be liberated or in bondage?

Everything you say is based on damn assumptions. Who says freedom of will exists? Most philosophers and people studying philosophy realize human actions must be caused by something and whatever a person is going to will isn't within their control. A person acts the way the acts because of outside influences and if a person choose B over A they could only chosen B would have only chosen B and choose B. You are a religious zealot. In your mind you think you had freedom of choice in that but you didn't its because of something and its interaction with how you act casues you to be how you are. You couldn't be any other way. If predetermination doesn't exist than actions have to be random and if actions are random people don't free will either so before you start talking about your "freedom" you should question whether or not it even exists at all before going off on this stupid tirade about being more or less free it becomes pedantic and meaningless.

Sleep, even deep sleep, is not unconsciousness.

If a patient can be roused by sound, movement, or pain, he was not unconscious.

Spiritually speaking, a person who is asleep is still aware of his own identity and keeps ideas of what he would and would not do. Think of Alice in Wonderland, who, faced with the most illogical situations, remained true to her own personality.

Basically, we don't know much of what happens to a person mentally while in coma. Some return and insist that they heard everything that went on in the room.

Some return to report a Near-Death Experience, where their soul was given a choice whether to retake the body or just remain in the Other World.

Just like a pilot first learns via simulation before actually piloting a real plane, so too do we. But we learn at a level beyond that which is simulated. Ours is so real, we call it reality. In other words, consciousness and unconsciousness are a part of the same reality. That is, whatever we consider to be reality.

Freedom is the experience of knowing the experience is real, in all aspects in respect to being.

One is free to experience whatever one experiences, by chance and by choice. Often our choices create the chance. What does one experience when they are completely unaware or unconscious? When one is completely unaware or unconscious one is oblivious of everything...including themselves. It is a reflection on the fragility of our identity, our existence. One's identity is not written in stone, so to speak.

"During consciousness we create for our being an identity" - no. this is not consciousness. only a sleeping man attempts to define himself. the one who is truly awake has no identity. the consciousness you have described is not absolute consciousness. there is a place beyond. what you have described is a midway point, and midway points are the most dangerous existential places to remain in. one is in danger of slipping back deeper into unconsciousness, where they are at the mercy of symbols, karma and destiny. the consciousness you have described is not Christ–Consciousness, but is a mixture of both places of awareness. in that space, one is not yet self-realized. unconsciousness has its beauty, consciousness has its beauty. but there is a space beyond both. those worlds are not superior or inferior to each other, they are only opposed- and you have opposed them! the opposition is not the reality, reality is split apart only in unconsciousness. in unconsciousness, you create separate worlds, one in which you are more free, and one in which you are less free. in other words, the distinction you perceive is only perceived in an unconscious state, where freedom is relative.

"....you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment. You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief, but rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound.

And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour?

In truth, that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle your eyes." (Kahlil Gibran - The Prophet)

The feeling of freedom or of non-freedom is a sensation unfolding through your state of consciousness. While existing and being conscious of your existence, you may have a feeling of freedom or of for example being a fettered victim in an open prison or in a cage.

While being unconscious, you are not perceiving any sensations, so the sense of freedom or of non-freedom is not in your life.

When being at rest, perhaps in deep sleep, you do still have sensations and imaginations that we call dreams or nightmares. When you are in deep sleep your brain is still at work, perhaps very intensely, perhaps digesting or elaborating in transfigured ways the effects of the reality during your wake time.

The real freedom is when you do feel elated glowing as if in your fantasy or in reality you are in a great apotheosis of glowing certainty and of delicious as if perennial bliss, or simply unhindered flying the perhaps boundless stretches of material and of spiritual consciousness.

I am not joking! Ah! ah! ah! ah! ... ah! Good luck!

From the perspectives you outline, unconsciousness

seems the greater `freedom`.

Yet not all have that depth of spirit-replenishing sleep, so it is

possible only as a hypothesis.

The better plan/ chosen aim/ perspective might be to bring that `self` into

waking consciousness, to access it , to experience it

so as to deepen

one`s capacity to validate one`s life and that of others, where possible.

i think that i can easily determine the answer you are pointing at: unconsciousness.

and here all along i had been thinking that 1) there is only consciousness, and that 2) my individualized being is a focal point of cosmic consciousness and will. and, that increased clarity of consciousness, from my focal point of view, involves increased freedom from perceptual distortion regarding those two things i had been thinking all along.

but maybe your apparent implication is correct. maybe there is consciousness, and then somehow also unconsciousness, the latter of which is often associated with being knocked out cold, and maybe it's better to be knocked out cold.

TQRP

consciousness and unconsciousness are the same. consciousness is active level of consciousness and unconsciousness is at inactive level. obviously.

both are no freedom.

Being unconscious is in two contexts - one is coma and one is being unaware. As being unaware, we can get cheated or delusional or gullible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA9SRj1nne4

the two contexts are actually the same. the popular saying is "if a tree falls in the forest..."

there are things we are not aware of but very much our concerns. coma is the same. in coma, you are simply unaware of even the closest events (e.g. a loud sound).

check this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwCsQKQOaq4

I think unconsciousness is closest to freedom, at least it is for me. People create who they think they are but they see who they truly are within their dreams. Although some people wouldn't want to see what lurks in the back of their mind, I think it would be fascinating. I'd rather know myself truly and be disgusted than not know myself and be happy.

unconsciousness and subconscious, because your minds seeing all and your thinking different things, whereas the other way when your unconscious your thoughts are resting. As for your subconscious its always in the background working to help you more than your conscious. Mike