Science, Krishnamurti & the Three Dimensions of Consciousness, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times
Topic started on 10-9-2010 @ 06:03 AM by Michael Cecil
The entire paradigm referred to as the scientific method is based upon Meditations On First Philosophy by Descartes; a writing which establishes the existence of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ as the one indubitable fact and fundamental datum of human experience; and, thus, the basis of all scientifically accurate (and true) descriptions of both human consciousness and the space-time reality.

Thus, it is not at all surprising that, when attempts are made by the scientists to develop, specifically, a “science of consciousness”, those efforts are, for all practical purposes, exclusively focused on describing the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ and its perceptions of reality; almost as if the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ is, in fact, the only dimension of human consciousness.

A close reading of the Meditations of Descartes, however, clearly demonstrates that there is, in fact, a second dimension of consciousness referred to as the ‘unconscious’ or the “self”; anyone with even a minimal understanding of Jungian or archetypal psychology being able to recognize that the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes are descriptive of the emergence of the ‘unconscious’.

But the very existence of the ‘unconscious’ or the consciousness of the “self” necessarily strikes at the very foundation of the entire paradigm of the scientific method itself, which defines the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ as the very source of all scientific truth. And, while there have been very, very, very minimal efforts by certain ‘scientists’ of consciousness to consider, if not include the findings of Sigmund and Anna Freud, C. G. Jung and Wilhelm Reich in the development of a “science of consciousness”, there is one fundamental and inescapable truth:

Human consciousness cannot be accurately described exclusively from the frame of reference of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’; a frame of reference which specifically ignores and denies the relevance and reality of any information suggesting that there is not only a second; but, in fact, even a third dimension of consciousness beyond the consciousness of the “self” and the consciousness of the ‘thinker’.

In other words, any “science of consciousness” which ‘succeeds’ only by focusing exclusively on the consciousness of the ‘thinker’—and specifically ignoring any and all evidence of the existence of any other dimensions of human consciousness—is, essentially, of no value whatsoever; the amount of data that it is incapable of explaining being far in excess of the data that it is capable of explaining.

Now, according to the Buddhist and Eastern esoteric traditions (as well as certain Revelations, but not theologies, of the monotheistic religions), there is a non-dualistic consciousness which exists ‘prior to’ and ‘beyond’ the dualistic consciousness of both the “self” and the ‘thinker’—a dimension of consciousness which, for example, has access to information beyond the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’; specifically, memories of previous lives. But, even in the absence of any memories of previous lives, there are certain elements of reality which simply cannot be either acknowledged or explained in any way whatsoever without the existence of a non-dualistic, non-spatial, and non-temporal “observing consciousness”; for example, pre-cognitive dreams and Prophecies and certain ‘paranormal’ experiences such as telepathy.

Thus, the task of any serious “scientist of consciousness” in establishing an accurate description of human consciousness is really quite daunting: such an understanding must necessarily not merely threaten—but, in fact destroy—the fundamental assertion of the scientific method itself (and the consciousness of the ‘thinker’) that it is the fundamental determiner of the truth.

And, yet, there is another aspect of this problem.

While the “scientists of consciousness” have focused almost exclusively on the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ as an absolute or ‘inertial frame of reference’ for the determining the truth about human consciousness

(see, for example, the discussions at: tech.groups.yahoo.com... ),

the followers of Krishnamurti

(see, for example, the discussions at: www.kfa.org... )

focus, instead, on destroying the consciousness of the ‘thinker’, in the expectation that what remains after the destruction of that consciousness is a non-dualistic consciousness; when, in fact, what remains is merely the dualistic consciousness of the "self".

In other words, they are no more interested in the existence of a third dimension of consciousness than are the “scientists of consciousness”.

Michael Cecil


reply posted on 10-9-2010 @ 07:50 AM by Michael Cecil
Originally posted by JimIrie
Actually i see where you refer to krishnamurti as i understood him at a very early age. But you maybe want to give out more infos about him /his work? For the beginners its a very good starting point to develop a consiousness for this type of "relevations"...


Well, the problem is that I have several quite serious disagreements with Krishnamurti.

He focuses almost exclusively on the evils of the consciousness of the 'thinker''; seeming to suggest that the 'thinker' is the very origin of the duality. The consquence of this, just read the discussions of his followers, is dozens upon dozens of people reverting to nothing more than a primitive consciousness of "self" and considering themselves 'enlightened'. I have spent the last few years arguing with people like this.

Krishnamurti never seems to have seriously appreciated the truths of the scientific method. But, even more importantly, there is, to my knowledge, no discussion whatsoever in his teaching about the 'movement' of self-reflection as the origin of the duality. This I consider to be a lethal error.

There are also, from recent discussions I have had on that forum, numerous instances in which he asserted that 'thought can observe thought'. That is another fatal error, although I must admit that I don't know when such statements were said; and I do recall him saying on another occasion--unless my memory is failing me--that thought cannot observe thought.

So, while I do appreciate certain aspects of his teaching, this is not something that I would recommend to people because the truth about consciousness can be much more directly approached through the understanding that there is a third dimension of consciousness altogether.

In other words, the axe has to be placed at the very root of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Genesis 3) as the "self".

Michael Cecil


reply posted on 10-9-2010 @ 11:58 AM by Michael Cecil
Originally posted by JimIrie
Well, higher "self" is maybe the wrong word for it...
And i would say that if there is the ego, the subconsiousness and the higher i that seems to me more of a trinity then a dual system...

clearly, you cannot observe your whole self from a point of "normal awareness but i surely can observe my subcon within my ego awareness and also can observe my ego from a point of a higher "self"...


As described in the Revelation of John, John observed a 'beast emerging from the sea'. That beast is the "self".

He also observed a beast 'emerging from the earth' (echoed in Sura 27:82 of the Quran). That beast is the 'thinker'.

But this is not any knowledge conveyed by any "higher self". This is knowledge conveyed by means of a non-spatial dimension of consciousness altogether--a 'flat' space consciousness out of which the consciousness of the "self" and the 'curved' space reality emerges.

In the Eastern esoteric traditions, this is as far as it goes: the non-dualistic, non-spatial, non-temporal consciousness prior to the dualistic consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' and the space-time reality.

According to the Revelations of the monotheistic religions, however, this non-spatial, non-temporal non-dualistic consciounsess is not God; rather it is a consciousness Created by God.

This also means that there is additional information accessible to that "observing consciousness" which is not accessible to those of the Eastern esoteric traditions.

Michael Cecil


reply posted on 11-9-2010 @ 06:40 AM by JimIrie
reply to post by ExplosiveForce


Thanks.
But i think you have confused the thread here.
THIS one is not mine but feel free to write in MY ones too!

To Michael:

I see that you are longer in this "bizz" like i am. But you haven´t got any efforts?
I for myself have so much positive to say...
If i even can help one mislead spirit to find to the light i had a success!
I really see an increasing in the last years!
Sure it won´t reach for a 51 % positivity ((that is needed for the conjunction) but thats another story...
Oh and i do this surely not only in here...
I am musician, author, artist, docent, spiritual guide and a kind of healer and my full daily life is filled with this mission to help others...
I spread the words all over and also give positive vibes to everyone that is listening to my music, talking with me or even only standing next to me... (i.e. morphologic fields...)

Keep on and do everything that is in your possibilities to change...

Peace, love and light,
let u guide by higher i

Jim


reply posted on 7-3-2011 @ 08:02 AM by NinjaSwill
reply to post by Michael Cecil


The scientist involved should have progressed from his neutral stance in university. Thank you for the info.
edit on 7-3-2011 by NinjaSwill because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 11-4-2012 @ 11:33 AM by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Michael Cecil


I think you might like this video if you are inquiring into the one who is aware of the self:
youtu.be...
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Do you feel this way too?
  Posted 6 days ago with 64 member flags
Fibonacci Numbers, Phi, and the Venus/Earth Relation
  Posted 3 days ago with 57 member flags
The Truth about "New Agers"
  Posted 14 days ago with 36 member flags
Evolution happens. That\'s a fact.
  Posted 6 days ago with 28 member flags
If you could be anything what would you be?
  Posted 4 days ago with 17 member flags
Charles Manson - "nutjob" or something more?
  Posted 19 days ago with 16 member flags