It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Reality" is founded on Thought and Consciousness, not Matter.

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened I've pondered the origins of consciousness for a long time.


The origin of the consciousness of the "self" is not at all complicated: it is the 'movement' of self-reflection; that reflex of the nervous system by which you become aware that you are aware.

The origin of the consciousness of the 'thinker' is, typically, just as straight-forward: it is the postulation of the thought of the 'thinker' which, then, 'thinks' other thoughts.


For many years I was a hardcore materialist atheist, believing unconscious matter/energy to be the fundamental building blocks of reality. During this time, the biggest philosophical problem that I wrestled with was how raw conscious experience can arise from these unconscious, "dead" building-blocks.


This, of course, is a direct consequence of the 'movement' of self-reflection by which a person removes himself or herself, as a conscious entity, a conscious "self", from a non-conscious or 'unconscious' physical reality.


There have been atheist authors who have tried to tackle this subject, often with some remarkable insight. My favorite was Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained, where he attempts to use an inanimate, "nothing but matter and energy" worldview to explain conscious experience. He does about as good a job as I could ever imagine, and yet it still fell short. It still left me with questions and a feeling that he still didn't really "get it", and was perhaps trying too hard to ponder consciousness while maintaining a materialist worldview. I think it was this book that finally made me realize that there was something wrong with my fundamental worldview.


'Beware of the leaven of the scientists of consciousness.' Everything they say is in support of the assumption that there is only one dimension of consciousness: the consciousness of the 'thinker'. This is why they focus on "conscious" experience; by which they mean the experiences of the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

But the consciousness that falls in love and the consciousness that experiences psychosis are not the consciousness of any 'thinker'; but, rather, the consciousness of a "self". But the "scientists of consciousness" are not really interested in that dimension of consciousness. Neither are they interested in what the Buddhists refer to as the "non-dualistic observing consciousness".

Considering such things would be too much of a threat to the scientific paradigm per se.

Mi cha el




posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Oh, by the way, with regards to the consciousness of the "self":

The consciousness of the "self" is created by the 'movement' of self-reflection as a 'spatiality' or a 'container' within which the consciousness of the "self" exists. The contents of the consciousness of the "self" are sensations, perceptions, emotions and such things as body memories (like learning how to ride a bike, drive a car, throw a football, type, etc.) and memories of all of these; as well as the writing of poetry, the lyrics of songs, and music; the drawing of pictures; choreography, etc. All of these things are produced by a "self". But this is also the consciousness that 'falls in love' and that becomes psychotic.

The consciousness of the 'thinker', then, is the consciousness that makes plans, balances a checkbook, reads or writes books on philosophy, science, politics, and religion, etc; makes scientific inventions, declares war, constructs buildings, etc. etc.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Oh, by the way, with regards to the consciousness of the "self":

The consciousness of the "self" is created by the 'movement' of self-reflection as a 'spatiality' or a 'container' within which the consciousness of the "self" exists. The contents of the consciousness of the "self" are sensations, perceptions, emotions and such things as body memories (like learning how to ride a bike, drive a car, throw a football, type, etc.) and memories of all of these; as well as the writing of poetry, the lyrics of songs, and music; the drawing of pictures; choreography, etc. All of these things are produced by a "self". But this is also the consciousness that 'falls in love' and that becomes psychotic.

The consciousness of the 'thinker', then, is the consciousness that makes plans, balances a checkbook, reads or writes books on philosophy, science, politics, and religion, etc; makes scientific inventions, declares war, constructs buildings, etc. etc.

Mi cha el


I will come back later and discuss further your analogy of the "train", but for now I would like to go deeper into what you have wrote above.

I must admit I am still confused on your separation between the "Self" and the "Thinker", how have you come to this conclusion and is there anyone else who has wrote about such an idea which may help me understand it better? And are you saying there is a state of consciousness beyond these two? Is this what you mean when you say 3D Consciousness?

I believe we may be eluding to the same thing, although I am not sure I would separate the "self" and the "thinker", maybe or maybe not depending on what you mean. One might say the "thinker" creates the "self" through thought, and the "self" is just a representation of that "thinker".

I also agree with your analysis that modern psychological science in a general establishment term wants no part in this discussion, although there are some who are willing to delve into such ideas, and I feel more and more will do so in the future as other areas of science such as; quantum physics, challenges their perception of reality.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy I must admit I am still confused on your separation between the "Self" and the "Thinker", how have you come to this conclusion and is there anyone else who has wrote about such an idea which may help me understand it better?


Well, first of all, as previously stated, these are not conclusions but observations. And don't be looking for any hard and sharp line of differentiation between these things. It is much more fluid and amorphous than that. After all, the function of the consciousness of the 'thinker' is to establish and maintain the temporal continuity of the 'space' consciousness of the "self". So, clearly, there is a point where they are undiffereniatable (cannot be separated). I would liken it to the concept of "fuzzy logic".The consciousness of the 'thinker' demands definitions with very hard lines of separation around them; but the knowledge originating in the archetypes has a tendency to morph into other understandings over time.


And are you saying there is a state of consciousness beyond these two? Is this what you mean when you say 3D Consciousness?


The 3-dimensional 'curved' space consciousness is the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' which are directly tied to the 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time going only in one direction, forward.

The consciousness beyond the "self" and the 'thinker' is the 2-dimensional 'flat' space consciousness which is either non-temporal, or in which time is described as going in a forward direction, a backward direction, or standing still.


I believe we may be eluding to the same thing, although I am not sure I would separate the "self" and the "thinker", maybe or maybe not depending on what you mean.


Well, there are certain things I would have to insist on; such as that the 'thinker' does not, cannot 'fall in love'; the 'thinker' cannot appreciate music and cannot read poetry. Similarly, for a quarterback in the NFL. It is not the 'thinker' that throws the ball for a touchdown; and for Michael Jordan when he scores in basketball. The 'thinker' cannot operate quickly enough to accomplish such things; they exist at the immediate level of perception and neurological response--very much quicker than thought.


One might say the "thinker" creates the "self" through thought, and the "self" is just a representation of that "thinker".


Not surprisingly, you have it precisely reversed in terms of time; which, of course, is par for the course for a consciousness of a 'thinker'. The 'thinker' does not create the "self" through thought--the "self" is created by the 'movement' of self-reflection prior to thought. But the 'thinker' does maintain the consciousness of the "self" from moment to moment. That is, the 'thinker' is nothing more than a representation of the "self" over time.


I also agree with your analysis that modern psychological science in a general establishment term wants no part in this discussion, although there are some who are willing to delve into such ideas, and I feel more and more will do so in the future as other areas of science such as; quantum physics, challenges their perception of reality.


Well, I certainly hope this happens QUICKLY, because the failure to understand the whole issue of consciousness constitutes a very serious threat to the future of human civilization itself. That is, both the consciousness of the "self" and the consciousness of the 'thinker' are fundamentally SUICIDAL (Freud referred to it as the "death instinct".) And it is only by adopting the perspectives of that third dimension of consciousness that the annihilation of human civilization can be prevented.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Ok, thanks. I am still trying to piece together what you are saying, doesn't mean I think your wrong, but I just can't see it as you've described right now. Again, is there anywhere or anyone else you can recommend to me that has spoken or wrote about these concepts in the way you are describing them? Maybe that will help.

See what you are saying seems to directly contradict Buddhist's understanding of the "self", which is the least argued or debated concept in Buddhist philosophy. Also, as I stated previously, it contradicts my own understanding of the "self" which I derived from the cessation of thought through meditation, where there was only a simple state of "awareness" left and my "self" was non-existent, it was as if my being was completely one with my surroundings.

Now I am willing to keep an open mind and set aside this experience and my understanding of Buddhist philosophy to try and actualize what it is your saying. I am willing to accept, for the present moment, the possibility that my understanding of Buddhist philosophy may have conditioned my mind into perceiving this experience as I did. However, for me to come to a conclusion, or as you stated observe this reality as you say you have, I will need to better understand what this concept or observation is, as my own observation has led me to a different conclusion.

Anyway, good convo, and I definitely agree with your last paragraph.


edit on 19-11-2010 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil



In any case, for anyone following this thread, I sincerely hope that you can appreciate the quality of the discussion that is going on here. This is a discussion about consciousness which probably cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet.

I certainly hope that more people become involved in the discussion.



The "self" and the duality was created by a reflex 'movement' of self-reflection which instantaneously, and prior to the emergence of thought at all, creates the "self"/"not self" as a 'space' or 'container' within which the consciousness of the "self" exists.

Mi cha el


NonDuality is discussed on the Net. Just not seriously on ATS. This is the first serious attempt at it that I have seen.
In fact there is an ocean of non duality on the net and it would be easy to drown in it.

Now your second quote above is almost on the mark.
Just eliminate the "was created" and replace it with,"is being created". The Ego Self,or false self,creates its sense of separation which is Fear, in each moment, and not in the past. Thus the True self is realized by this simple observation in each moment.

Adi Da ,Self described as the Fourth Great Avatar,has reduced
reality to two words. With these two words you can duplicated
the Meditation of God, Who is the Supreme Meditator.

The Two Words of Reality

Those who are interested will read the book. The rest will
meditate upon themselves.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
Ok, thanks. I am still trying to piece together what you are saying, doesn't mean I think your wrong, but I just can't see it as you've described right now.


Understood.


Again, is there anywhere or anyone else you can recommend to me that has spoken or wrote about these concepts in the way you are describing them? Maybe that will help.


No. No one else can help you with these things; the reason being that what I am talking about is Knowledge which has been Revealed through the "Vision of Knowledge" and the Revelation of the Memory of Creation, which is the Revelation of the consciousness of man at the Moment of Creation. Such Revelations are received only by the very few. But, in more than 35 years of readings on this, I have never found anyone who approaches this subject in the way that I have; which means that it is my responsibility to explain it as best I can.


See what you are saying seems to directly contradict Buddhist's understanding of the "self", which is the least argued or debated concept in Buddhist philosophy.


Just so: "concept of Buddhist philosophy".

What I am talking about here is not a concept. It is an observation. From the perspective of a person in the train station.

The observer on the moving train understands everything in terms of motion and thought. There are thoughts of a "self", thoughts of "enlightenment", etc. etc. And then there are contradictory thoughts of the "self" and "enlightenment". But none of that is from an inertial frame of reference. The first problem is concluding that there can be NO other perspective on the path of the falling ball. Or, on the other hand, there can be speculation that the observer in the train station sees precisely the same thing as the observer on the train. But that is still thought. Until time and motion STOP--which is the perspective of the observer in the train station who does not move--there can be no understanding that there is a completely different perspective.


Also, as I stated previously, it contradicts my own understanding of the "self" which I derived from the cessation of thought through meditation, where there was only a simple state of "awareness" left and my "self" was non-existent, it was as if my being was completely one with my surroundings.


OK. First of all, I know precisely what you are talking about here. It is not like I have not had a similar experience. What I am saying is that there must be a 'movement' of self-reflection--you must become aware of what it is you are experiencing--even to be able to use the words "my 'self' was non-existent" in the first place. In other words, you had to reflect upon the "self"--thereby bringing it into existence--in order to be able to say that it is "non-existent".


Now I am willing to keep an open mind and set aside this experience and my understanding of Buddhist philosophy to try and actualize what it is your saying. I am willing to accept, for the present moment,


Well, this right here is the crux of the issue. The "self" and the 'thinker' on the train have dropped the ball hundreds of thousands of times and always seen precisely the same thing. That is hard-wired into their nervous system. Then someone comes along and says: "There is an observer in the train station which (the observer in the train station is not even a "who", but a "which") has a different description of the path of the falling ball." The response of the observers on the train is, first of all, to categorically deny that possibility at all. They have performed the experiment too many times to be wrong. To those observers, no other observation is possible. They interpret any other observation than theirs as "wrong", "evil", "heretical", "possessed by demons", "insanity", etc.


the possibility that my understanding of Buddhist philosophy may have conditioned my mind into perceiving this experience as I did. However, for me to come to a conclusion, or as you stated observe this reality as you say you have, I will need to better understand what this concept or observation is, as my own observation has led me to a different conclusion.


Well, first of all, you have to acknowledge that it is possible to get off the train altogether; and that, eventually, it will be possible for you not merely to understand but to actually observe what the person in the train station is actually observing. And the first step in that process is to listen to the way in which the observer in the train station describes what it is that he observes. Setting aside your thoughts completely, and acknolwedging that it is actually possible to step backwards in time prior to the 'movement' of self-reflection and outside of the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' is a step in the process of actually having an immediate experience of that dimension of consciousness.

Is this easy?

Not on your life.

But it is possible.

Mi cha el

edit on 20-11-2010 by Michael Cecil because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2010 by Michael Cecil because: add commentary: observer is not even a "who", but a "which"



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyyNonDuality is discussed on the Net. Just not seriously on ATS. This is the first serious attempt at it that I have seen. In fact there is an ocean of non duality on the net and it would be easy to drown in it.


Of course. Of course. There are a gazillion thoughts about duality and non-duality and the people discussing those thoughts actually conclude that they have become 'enlightened' by and through such discussions. But it is all thought.

Just ask one of them whether they know the origin of the duality. And, almost certainly, they will talk about thought. Not one of them who I have ever encountered has observed the duality as occurring in the 'movement' of self-reflection. And, if you are unable to observe that, you have no understanding of the duality--and its dangers--at all.


Now your second quote above is almost on the mark. Just eliminate the "was created" and replace it with,"is being created".


Of course. Of course. It is an active process. A reflex process.


The Ego Self,or false self,creates its sense of separation which is Fear, in each moment, and not in the past.


Sure. But not merely fear alone. Prior to fear there is desire. So, both the 'movement' of self-reflection and the postulation of the thought of the 'thinker' are based in fear and desire.


Thus the True self is realized by this simple observation in each moment.


There is no "True self" which has any temporal continuity. That is merely back into the whole duality of thought.

That is, the "self"--whether true or false makes no difference--occurs only at the very instant of self-reflection. It is the consciousness of the 'thinker' that attempts to preserve and maintain that duality; saying such things as that the "True self" is "non-dualistic". It is still dualistic because it is thought. Any 'movement' of self-reflection results in the creation of a "self"/"not self". That is simply not escapable. In the 2-dimensional 'flat' space consciousness, there are no "selves"/"not selves" at all.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Come on, guys.

10 hours without a reply?

You're starting to be an embarrassment to the sex.

Many, many years ago, I started walking my wife down this path.

Now she understands, and can explain from a woman's perspective, the whole issue of the three dimensions of consciousness as well as the train analogy. And she never studied quantum physics or relativity theory or any of that. (Oh, by the way, there is a second observer in the train station, a woman observer; whose perceptions are, in a way that I certainly cannot explain, largely but not completely identical to the observations of the male observer in the train station.)

"Don't be such panzies. It's not that difficult. Even a woman can do it."

Her words.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
If consciousness creates matter, then what's this about?




posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 

Okay here’s a couple though nothing deep or metaphysical


You say…

“When your nervous system reflexes with the 'movement' of self-reflection--this is something over which there can be no conscious control--that reflex creates a 'space' of consciousness within which your "self" exists.”

Now the first part of this i.e.… “When your nervous system reflexes with the 'movement' of self-reflection”. Is really just a statement, I mean, how does the nervous system reflex and what is the movement of reflection? And this ‘self’ that exists within this space of consciousness, do you mean our awareness of self? And is awareness of self not just consciousness anyway? It’s late maybe I’m confused…

Some questions,

How do you know that self-awareness begins in this way?
If indeed it can never be observed happening?
Which part of the nervous system is concerned with facilitating this?
I mean, what is actually moving?
Does this mean that consciousness arises from the physical?
Or does the physical just create a ‘space’?
Is this reflex triggered by an electrical impulse?

I have read that a young baby has no concept of self and doesn’t differentiate between itself and the external world. If this is so, then at what age do you think this ‘reflex movement’ begins?
What role do the senses play in this?
I have also heard it said that a child or a fool is closer to god (for want of a better word), is this because they have less self awareness?

Where is this space of consciousness located?
How small can it be?

Is self-reflection primarily an instinctive self/non self without the conscious ‘I am’ realization?
Is ‘I am’ the product of the first identification of self awareness with thought?
Is it only when consciousness unconsciously identifies with thought that the false image of self is created?


I’ll pause there…the questions might seem silly really but they are endless, and I have a
Few more,

Regards Midicon.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Come on, guys.

10 hours without a reply?

"Don't be such panzies. It's not that difficult. Even a woman can do it."

Her words.

Mi cha el


Narcissus,the Ego Self has no interest in its own death so very few will be interested in this subject.
And while anyone can understand the concept of non duality,at least as explained by Adi Da, I have only met one person who actually existed at that level and that was Adi Da.
He appeared as the Divine and was able to transmit spiritual energy (Shaktipat) to his disciples.
It appears that Enlightenment is something that happens to a few rare individuals,one in a billion. Even the great Sage Ramana Maharshi is only credited with the Enlightenment of his mother on her death bed by force, and a cow.

When that Realization becomes permanent one undergoes Transfiguration.


The Glorious Signs That May Surround the Sacrifice of Man In the seventh or ultimate stage of human life, and in the fourth or terminal stage of practice and Realization in the Way of Divine Ignorance, the individual body-mind is sacrificed into the absolute Intensity that is the Reality, Condition, Source, Destiny, and God of all beings and worlds. It is a matter of the direct Realization of unqualified, uncaused, nonobjective, nonsubjective Bliss, or Ecstasy. Associated with this Realization of Ecstatic Translation may be any number of otherwise apparent and secondary phenomena, which are glories of the mechanical body-mind. Such phenomena may generally be grouped into three categories: 1. phenomena of Transfiguration, or signs of the pervasion of body and mind by Transcendental Radiance; 2. phenomena of bodily and mental Transformation, including longevity, healing power, psychic capabilities, and other supernormal signs or abilities; 3. phenomena of literal bodily and mental Translation, or Dissolution in Radiant Bliss, primarily in the process of death. Such phenomena may be generated by Nature, in the given or "chance" circumstances of the individual's birth, and also by yogic or personal psycho-physical efforts of a secondary or mechanical kind. But the devotee in the Bliss of Divine Translation, or the perfect stage of the Way of Divine Ignorance, does not seek to create or generate any of these phenomena or their effects. Rather, if they appear, they do so quite spontaneously, in the case of the transcendental sacrifice of the individual, or the sacrifice of the stepped-down intensities of the independent body-mind. Thus, such signs or glories may appear in the case of devotees who are yielded to the Destiny that is Ecstasy, beyond all fascinations.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


This male, female thing seems interesting. I see you have some observations to relate.
In the male the self is female, do you think its the same for the female, or is it male?
I suppose that would be too simple, particularly as you have already identified thought as primarily masculine.
I'll mull this over tonight, as its late...

And your 2 dimensional model is really only just a theory, and may only exist in abstract form.
And not only that, it is created by subtracting one dimension from the third, as if this somehow justifies its integrity as a realistic proposition.
Your wife sounds really smart!


Jung classifies the self for a woman as a virtual ' bevy of flying dutchmen' !
edit on 20-11-2010 by midicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


Michael, with all due respect, it seems as if your ego is getting the best of you. I say that because no matter what is said you seem to oppose it find a different way to say it, even if it is essentially saying the same thing. In doing so you are sure to contradict yourself many times.



LifeIsEnergy: Again, is there anywhere or anyone else you can recommend to me that has spoken or wrote about these concepts in the way you are describing them? Maybe that will help.



Michael: No. No one else can help you with these things...



Michael: Many, many years ago, I started walking my wife down this path. Now she understands...






Michael: But, in more than 35 years of readings on this, I have never found anyone who approaches this subject in the way that I have; which means that it is my responsibility to explain it as best I can.



Michael: Just so: "concept of Buddhist philosophy". What I am talking about here is not a concept. It is an observation. From the perspective of a person in the train station...


Are you saying you are the only one who understands this concept/observation?

And let us not get into twisting words, ie. concept vs. observation, as a concept is merely the 'way' of explaining an observation. Obviously these Buddhist philosophers have 'observed' what they are speaking of, the concept is just the 'way' to explain these observations.

tic for tac, let us move beyond the ego and come to a common conclusion or cease conversation and agree to disagree. Few things I am sure we agree on is that this realization cannot come from an outside source, only from within, and humans and their science's must embrace this line of thinking or humanity is bound to fall into more and more chaos.

edit on 20-11-2010 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
Few things I am sure we agree on is that this realization cannot come from an outside source, only from within, and humans and their science's must embrace this line of thinking or humanity is bound to fall into more and more chaos.


This kinda negates the whole tradition of Gurus. While they may not be able to give perfect Enlightenment to anyone they do give glimpses of it and do energize people with Shaktipat.
Its also said that one may not become Enlightened until they have looked into the Eyes of an Enlightened one and received his Grace.

John the Baptist:
I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

A disciple of Adi Da told me he could see "fire" coming out of Da's eyes during a Darshan ceremony.

The Knee of Listening is the greatest spiritual book ever written on the subject of nonduality.
Read it here for free.
edit on 20-11-2010 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 

"That kinda negates the whole tradition of Guru's."

Yes and no. A Guru is like a guide for a person who is stranded in the great desert, blinded by the sand storm of life, he/she can help you see more clearly and point you in the right direction when you are unsure of where to even start. But ultimately it is up to you to move beyond, to actualize the depth of the landscape, and to find what you are looking for. Any great Guru or "enlightened" master will tell you this. If the only way to become "enlightened" was through an "enlightened" person, than no one would of ever become "enlightened" in the first place. The problem I see with the Guru/Disciple relationship is that the disciple can become dependent on the Guru's wisdom, constantly asking for the Guru's opinion of whether he/she is pointed in the "right" direction, never being able to move beyond and actualize that wisdom for him/herself.
edit on 20-11-2010 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


That was an interesting video clip, which for a moment made me think.
However what is this really saying, other than what we already know?
We know that we are unconscious of certain predispositions we have.
We do so much unconsciously all of the time and it is no surprise that there is predisposition when one knows a choice is coming up.
Also the ‘me’ that we think we are, that makes the choice, has really no choice to make, we were always going to go a certain way.
Even spontaneous decisions made in a split second are in a sense predetermined, because we ourselves are not somehow ‘new’, and even if we surprise ourselves, we make the only choice available to us from our frame of reference.
In fact we should be talking about the illusion of choice!
Or is that what we are doing anyway?

The test would have been better done ‘blind’ where the subject does not know what the purpose of the test is and is asked to make a snap choice ruling out the six second delay.
Even then of course, the outcome will be the same.
It just may not be as obvious.

Does any of that make any sense?

Midicon.

edit on 21-11-2010 by midicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   
First of all, your questions are not at all "silly".

They are specifically directed at the reality of the situation.


Originally posted by midicon

“When your nervous system reflexes with the 'movement' of self-reflection--this is something over which there can be no conscious control--that reflex creates a 'space' of consciousness within which your "self" exists.”

Now the first part of this i.e.… “When your nervous system reflexes with the 'movement' of self-reflection”. Is really just a statement, I mean, how does the nervous system reflex and what is the movement of reflection? And this ‘self’ that exists within this space of consciousness, do you mean our awareness of self? And is awareness of self not just consciousness anyway? It’s late maybe I’m confused…


I have been over this territory before with many respondents. And it all comes down to understanding what, precisely, is meant by the 'movement' of self-reflection:

You are at a concert listening to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. You are completely immersed in and absored by the beauty of that music. At that moment, there is no "experiencer" and "experience". Both exist as one 'entity' of some kind or another. Then, for no reason whatsoever, you 'reflect' upon yourself experiencing that beauty; so, you turn to tell your wife or your girl friend how much you enjoy this. So, this is the order of the occurrences: 1) You are completely absorbed in an experience. There is no knowledge of any "self", there is no understanding that the music is "beautiful". There is no real awareness separate from the experience at all; 2) you reflect upon yourself--this occurs without any thought--and you become aware of your "self" as hearing that music; an experience which you assess as being pleasurable. This does not really occur with thought either. In other words, you have a very clear sensation of pleasure, but no thought of pleasure; 3) then thought enters the situation when you describe to someone else what you are experiencing.

So, why is it that the 'movement' of self-reflection is so easily lost in this series of events?

Because the 'movement' instantly moves to the pleasure of the experience itself, rather than the realization that there is an experiencer of that pleasure; and, then, the desire to communicate your experience to someone else.


Some questions, How do you know that self-awareness begins in this way?


Because this can be observed rather than thought.

If indeed it can never be observed happening?


Well, this is my experience. That I have a knowledge that this has happened.


Which part of the nervous system is concerned with facilitating this?


I have no idea. And my expectation is that this will not be determined by science. It would be such a minute change of electrical signature that it would be completely swamped in 'noise' and could not be pulled out of that noise as a particular signal.


I mean, what is actually moving?


The consciousness actually changes from one into two. There is a totality of "experience" and "experiencer" in one instant; and, the very next instant, there is an awareness of an experiencer which is actually experiencing an experience which is separate from the experiencer itself. This is why I use the half quotes around 'movement'. In the song Solsbury Hill, this is referred to as a "pirouette" of consciousness; which, now, is my favorite word description.

And, in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says: "On the day that you were one, you became two."

This is what he was talking about: the differentiation of a non-dualistic consciousness into the dualistic consciousness.


Does this mean that consciousness arises from the physical?


This is one of those questions in which time goes forward and backwards.

Sure, consciousness 'arises' from the physical; but, to be aware that there is any "physical" in the first place, a person must be conscious; but, in order for a person to be conscious, there must be a "physical"; but a person must first be conscious to understand that there is a "physical", etc. etc.


Or does the physical just create a ‘space’?


It is this 'movement' of consciousness which creates 'space'. In other words, it is much more accurate to say that the brain occurs 'within' the 'space' of the consciousness of the "self" than that the consciousness of the "self" exists within the brain.


Is this reflex triggered by an electrical impulse?


The electrical impulse is a neurological correlate of the reflex or the 'movement' of self-reflection. In other words, at this level, there is no causation; causation being utterly dependent upon time going only in one direction.


I have read that a young baby has no concept of self and doesn’t differentiate between itself and the external world.


This is theory. And it contradicts a very specific memory I have of being in a high chair at maybe 10 months of age. The baby's sense of self is conveyed by means of picture meanings which occur prior to thought. Those pictures consist of representations of relationships between itself and the people around it.The description would be too difficult.


If this is so, then at what age do you think this ‘reflex movement’ begins?


The psychologists and neurologists would probably say that it is somewhere around the acquisition of language. But that is merely left hemisphere memory. There is also right hemisphere memory; which tends to be suppressed in this society in favor of left hemisphere, or verbal rather than picture, memory.


I have also heard it said that a child or a fool is closer to god (for want of a better word), is this because they have less self awareness?


Jesus makes reference to this, yes.

But it is because they have more self-awareness; that is, self-awareness as being very intimately inter-related with other conscious entities and operating immediately at the level of knowledge rather than thought. The consciousness of a baby, as I remember it, is a totally "bliss" consciousness.


Where is this space of consciousness located?


Well, yours is over there and mine is over here and that of other people are "over theres".

Not sure that anything more than that can be said with certainty.


How small can it be?


Just big enough for you to be aware; just big enough for you to have sensations, perceptions and emotions, and memories of such and thoughts.


Is self-reflection primarily an instinctive self/non self without the conscious ‘I am’ realization?


You are in Africa, observing a tiger coming across a plain in your direction. Quickly.

Your eyes interpret the speed with which the distance between you is rapidly decreasing. If you are so "blissed out" that you cannot perceive the increasing size of that tiger as representing the shortening of the distance between you, you will soon become the tiger's lunch. There is no "I am" realization in this. It is a neurological reflext originating in self-preservation that prompts you do do something in regard to the approaching tiger.


Is ‘I am’ the product of the first identification of self awareness with thought?


Is it not interesting that Descartes gets the time sequence here precisely wrong?

A feminine consciousness would have said "I am, therefore, I think". Only a masculine consciousness is able to say, as if it is something cosmically important: "I think, therefore, I am".

It is an instantaeous flight from the reality.


Is it only when consciousness unconsciously identifies with thought that the false image of self is created?


Don't know the meaning of "false image of the self".

The "self" is dualistic, consisting of "self"/"not self". It does not exist at all at the next moment without the intervention of thought, whether true or false.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy

Hmmmmmm....

Any suggestion that "Realization", whatever that is, can be Permanent consists of a thought.

Anyone who is alive must 'self-reflect' on a more or less continual basis. This is what experience consists of; whether it be sensing one's body, perceiving one's surroundings, experiencing love, sorrow, anger, etc. etc.

Whenever self-reflection occurs, there is a descent into the duality.

The thoughts of the 'thinker' are also dualistic.

Now, if you can show me a nervous system that does not 'reflect' upon itself...

I will show you a nervous system which is dead.

The trick is in moving easily from a dualistic perspective to a non-dualistic perspective.

And realizing that there are three dimensions of consciousness; each and every one of which is essential to human life.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


Thanks for taking the time to reply and 'fleshing out' your understanding.
Part of me sees this as incredibly simple, and yet, too simple.
Then of course my thoughts make it incredibly complicated.
If I may I'll post some more questions when I have digested this.
This is really fascinating...as it should be!

Regards Midicon.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join