BK on the unconscious.

[findingblanks]

{{{*see the footnote at bottom if you are somebody who interprets this kind of post as evidence that somebody does not have deep respect and gratitude for Bernardo's work.}}}

When making the distinction between meta-consciousness (knowing THAT we are having a given experience) and the more general phenomenal consciousness (simply any state of which there is something it is like to be), Bernardo often uses the example of the experience of breathing.

He says that ten minutes ago you were having the experience of breathing but you simply were not focusing on it and thereby making it 'meta.'

I understand the point he is trying to make and I agree with the main point. The main point to me is that when I am not directly noticing my breathing or the sounds of voices in the background they are still 'in' my experience in some way. However, Bernardo talks about the way they are there as if they are there as themselves and we simply haven't directly the spotlight of meta-consciousness onto them. In the latest video (just up today) he describes the fine detailed sensations that go along with breathing (from the air in the nostrils, to pressure changes through the face, neck and diaphragm and much more) and he says that ten minutes ago you were aware of all those details you simply were not meta-conscious of them.

I one level I just think this is a clumsy and not very accurate way of describing the actual process of shifting from one kind of awareness to another. To this degree it may lead people astray and create a wrong impression but it still makes a general point that there is only consciousness.

But on another level, I think this sets up some ontological snags.

Bernardo says that ten minutes ago you were directly aware of the the fine and very intricate details of the temperature and pressure of the air as it enters your left nostril, but you simply were not meta-conscious of the temperature and feel of that moment. At the same moment you were also aware of the strain and frustrated anger coming from the boy's voice across the street, but you simply were not meta-conscious of it. And at the same exact moment that you were aware of your nose and the quality of anger in the boy's voice, you were also noticing the rhythm of the string that was fluttering on the bookshelf behind the book you were reading, but, again, you simply were not meta-conscious of it. And there are probably a dozen other things you were aware of but not meta-conscious of in that exact same moment of noticing the temperature of air moving through you right nostril. What you were meta-conscious of was the idea you were trying to understand from some book. But at the exact same time that you were thinking about the meaning of the word 'implicit' in the book, you were phenomenology conscious of those dozens of intricate details.

To conceptualize this the way that Bernardo puts it, we basically have to drag in his DID theory (which I love, by the way) of the relationship between mind-at-large and its alters...and apply it to every second of our ongoing experience. In other words, as I am meta-consciously thinking about how the author of the book is using the word 'implicit,' there are dozens and dozens of alters within me that are having very intricate and specific experiences that are unique and separated from each other. One of my alters is noticing the anger in the boy's voice. Another is noticing the exact warmth in my right nostril; another the pressure of air moving through that nostril; another notices the string swaying in the background, and on and on. Bernardo is not claiming that outside of my meta-conscious thoughts about the meaning of 'implicit' there is ONE field of experiencing that somehow is simultaneously aware of distinct sounds and thoughts and feelings and objects....

This is where I think Eugene Gendlin's Process Model comes to the rescue. I won't go into it, but it points to the way we can honor Bernardo's ontological model without having to claim that the phenomenal experiences that are not in meta-consciousness have the form that they have when they become the object of meta-consciousness.

Yes, all those other experiences are functioning within my experience right now and even shaping aspects of my meta-consciousness right now, but they are not doing so 'as themselves'; they are not 'there' as they will be when I shift my meta-attention to them. That very process of shifting explicates them into the forms they become under the spotlight of meta-attention. That process of explication (The word became flesh kind of thing) is a metamorphosis. And a constant part of our experiencing.

But maybe there is another way to think about how Bernardo expresses this relationship that doesn't imply a slew of alters within my alter.

* There is a certain kind of personality that considers comments like those above to come from a psychological place of ill-will or sometimes even hatred. Because it is impossible for me to always stress all the reasons I feel deep gratitude towards Bernardo for his work, and because not all of my posts can be explicitly about what I fully agree with or understand, I will often bring up various kinds of tensions I have with his work or ways of expressing it. I can't convince such people that my ideas are happy and breezy and ready to be friends, but I can make footnotes like this to at least create some wiggle room towards that kind of enjoyment.

[Soul_of_Shu]

* There is a certain kind of personality that considers comments like those above to come from a psychological place of ill-will or sometimes even hatred. Because it is impossible for me to always stress all the reasons I feel deep gratitude towards Bernardo for his work, and because not all of my posts can be explicitly about what I fully agree with or understand, I will often bring up various kinds of tensions I have with his work or ways of expressing it. I can't convince such people that my ideas are happy and breezy and ready to be friends, but I can make footnotes like this to at least create some wiggle room towards that kind of enjoyment.

So if this 'formal' topic is not to be derailed into a side show, this preemptive defence against a "certain kind of personality" (ahem) making unfounded insinuations, seems quite counterproductive in that regard, as it subdivides the topic right from the start, seeming like a ruse almost certainly tempting a lawyerly counter-defence. I'll grant the benefit of the doubt, and let it stand for now, trusting that it can stay focused on metaphysics, rather than interpersonal gripes.

[Soul_of_Shu]

But maybe there is another way to think about how Bernardo expresses this relationship that doesn't imply a slew of alters within my alter.

Regarding the formal topic, having reread it a few times in order to understand the point, at no time has it ever occurred to me that BK's explication of how we are subliminally aware of obfuscated 'background' percepts, even while we are metacognitively focused on mental activities like daydreaming, in any way implies that there are multiple sub-alters experiencing all otherwise extrinsic percepts. What he is actually intending to convey seems quite clear, so I'm not getting the concerns that his explication is inclined to lead anyone astray. But maybe I'm just missing what you're getting at.

[findingblanks]

Hi Soul, you wrote:

"this preemptive defence against a "certain kind of personality" (ahem) making unfounded insinuations, seems quite counterproductive in that regard.."

I respect your opinion on that. But just please try to be consistent a bit when it comes to this sort of thing. Already I've had two different people take time away from a conversation to make insulations about my 'hating' Bernardo or that I only post to troll. Anyway, like I said, your opinion matters and I'm happy to try not to preempt needless comments about each other's inner lives. I used 'personality' because I don't think that implies too much about one's motives have no clue why they feel the need to claim I dislike Bernardo. All of my personal conversations with Bernardo are smooth and he certainly doesn't object to arguments related to the finer points.

Thanks.

[findingblanks]

Soul wrote:

"Regarding the formal topic, having reread it a few times in order to understand the point, at no time has it ever occurred to me that BK's explication of how we are subliminally aware of obfuscated 'background' percepts, even while we are metacognitively focused on mental activities like daydreaming, in any way implies that there are multiple sub-alters experiencing all otherwise extrinsic percepts. What he is actually intending to convey seems quite clear, so I'm not getting the concerns that his explication is inclined to lead anyone astray. But maybe I'm just missing what you're getting at."

I'm not sure I claimed it implied exactly his notion of alters. I hope I pointed to something like an alter. But we can just get specific. Let's see if you agree with this basic string below.

1) You are reading a book and your meta-consciousness is focused on the possible meanings of the phrase "implicitly functioning"

Are you comfortable with the following claims:

2) At the same time, you are aware (but not meta-cognitively) of the strain of anger and sadness in the boy's voice yelling outside.
3) You are also aware of the heat of air going into your nostril and how it changes.
4) You are aware of the slight increase of pressure on your tummy as you inhale.
5) You are aware if the anger you feel towards the guy who cut in line at the coffee shop earlier this morning.
6) You are aware of the excitement of your upcoming vacation get away.
7) You are aware of being worried you'll forget to buy the snacks for the trip.
8) You are aware of the sirens from the police car outside.
9) You are aware that your co-workers are whispering.
10) You are aware of feeling curious about what they are whispering.
11) You are aware of feeling worried that they are whispering about you.

We could go on and on. But all of these are utterly simultaneous to your being aware of the possible meanings of the phrase 'implicitly functioning.' If somebody tapped your shoulder and asked if you were aware of any of 2 - 11, you could easily say "No" or "Yes" upon reflection.

So, now in terms of Bernardo's way of framing the vast spectrum of our simultaneous phenomenal experiences, I'm curious how we conceptualize them in relation to each other.

I have no desire to invoke the notion of 'alters'. What we know is that you are an alter. We know that as an Alter you are experiencing the process of thinking about the meaning of a phrase. And we know that as an alter you are experiencing worry about your co-workers. You are also experiencing deep curiousity about the topic they are whispering about. You are also experiencing the emotional effect that the boy's straining shouts are provoking in you. You are also feeling the exact nature of the warmth moving in your right nostril. And there are literally hundreds of other sensations and experiences from earlier in the day 'impinging' on your thinking about the meaning of 'implicitly functiong.'

So rather than imagine that each of these VERY DISTINCT separated experiences are being had by some other experiencer, we need to find a way to talk about how they are being experienced.

It isn't enough to simply say "Well, they impinge upon the one experience that is meta-consciousness". Are they like buckets that surround the metaconscious experience, barely touching it's rim with their rim and thereby having their subtle effect?

Bernardo talks about these phenomenal experiences as if they are in the same form as they would be if we simply shown the light of meta-consciousness upon them. If you suddenly stopped thinking about the meaning of 'implicitly functioning' and thought about your excitement for the trip, you would be noticing the experience that you were already having outside of meta-consciousness. Or if you shifted your attention to the way the air is warm in your nose, you are now simply noticing in meta-consciousness the form of the experience you were already having phenomenally.

These phenomenal experiences (and let's keep in mind that we are drastically and artificially making our list much to small. As I type these words I am aware of the cold nature of my keyboard, the accent of the man who's been talking, my enthusiasm for this subject, a buzzing in my arm...) are all distinct from each other. In other words, the way my excitement for the trip this weekend feels is utterly distinct from the odd nostalgic sadness that the boy's loud voice evokes, and that nostalgia is nothing like the worry I feel about the whispering or the sonic pattern of the police siren.

So let's not say that these distinct experiences are alters within my alter.

1) As distinct and separated experiences, is there a distinct TWE having them? I know that in BK's ontology we ultimately reduce all TWE's to the one and only TWE which is M@L, yet we still recognize why we want to specify that as an alter there is a twe that is me. What is a more accurate way to distinguish that which is experiencing the excitement from that which is experiencing the sadness from that which is experiencing the warm air, and all the rest?

2) Finally, let's look at the claim that these phenomenal experiences are all happening in their distinct own ways separately and ask if this matches or phenomenological experience. If not, how else might we characterize them? I won't add more to this post, but I'll say that it does not match my experience and yet I fully agree with Bernardo that these countless experiences are currently shaping my present experience. I have no doubt they are implicitly functioning in how my current experience is taking shape, but I doubt they exist in the form Bernardo indicates, and, hence, I'm curious to hear how people conceptualize them being distinct and separate and simultaneous in Bernardo's terms.

Thanks.



.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Hi Soul, you wrote:

"this preemptive defence against a "certain kind of personality" (ahem) making unfounded insinuations, seems quite counterproductive in that regard.."

I respect your opinion on that. But just please try to be consistent a bit when it comes to this sort of thing. Already I've had two different people take time away from a conversation to make insulations about my 'hating' Bernardo or that I only post to troll. Anyway, like I said, your opinion matters and I'm happy to try not to preempt needless comments about each other's inner lives. I used 'personality' because I don't think that implies too much about one's motives have no clue why they feel the need to claim I dislike Bernardo. All of my personal conversations with Bernardo are smooth and he certainly doesn't object to arguments related to the finer points.

Thanks.

This section is in place with the intention of avoiding getting into that kind of side-tracking commentary, which I agree can become a needless distraction. So while a certain amount of leeway may be granted in the other section, given that we're human after all, with the usual foibles, I can only assure you that if that's the way any comments are trending here, they will be deleted accordingly.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I'm not sure I claimed it implied exactly his notion of alters. I hope I pointed to something like an alter. But we can just get specific. Let's see if you agree with this basic string below.

1) You are reading a book and your meta-consciousness is focused on the possible meanings of the phrase "implicitly functioning"

Are you comfortable with the following claims:

2) At the same time, you are aware (but not meta-cognitively) of the strain of anger and sadness in the boy's voice yelling outside.
3) You are also aware of the heat of air going into your nostril and how it changes.
4) You are aware of the slight increase of pressure on your tummy as you inhale.
5) You are aware if the anger you feel towards the guy who cut in line at the coffee shop earlier this morning.
6) You are aware of the excitement of your upcoming vacation get away.
7) You are aware of being worried you'll forget to buy the snacks for the trip.
8) You are aware of the sirens from the police car outside.
9) You are aware that your co-workers are whispering.
10) You are aware of feeling curious about what they are whispering.
11) You are aware of feeling worried that they are whispering about you.

I'm fine with some of them, but not all. I suppose I'll have to watch the presentation in which BK actually makes these specific claims, because I haven't heard such claims from him elsewhere.

[findingblanks]

Sure, you can find it in several of his books and articles. Oh and his new video on the The Unconscious has him go into it as well. Here you can read from chapter 5 of The Idea Of The World:

"Let us start from the second question. Contrary to the question’s premise, we are all, in fact, personally familiar with dissociated experiences that causally affect each other while remaining dissociated from each other. Imagine, for instance, that you are having relationship problems at home. When you go to work, you successfully ‘park’ your problems—that is, repress your emotional life—in order to perform your tasks. Your emotions then become temporarily dissociated from your ego, in the sense that they are no longer evoked in your awareness while you work. But they do still impinge on it: they may, for instance, cause your imagination to flow in a somber direction, lead you to misunderstand comments received from colleagues, lock your intellect into repetitive patterns of reasoning, etc.7 All the while, your ego doesn’t directly experience the emotions themselves; they remain dissociated from it. But from across the dissociative boundary they still causally influence what arises in your egoic awareness."

In the above he doesn't use the more technical language of phenomenal consciousness vs meta-consciousness, but he is making the same point that we always having the dissociated experiences but they are...well....dissociated.

[findingblanks]

And to future readers of this thread, please know that I am most interested in how we can conceptualize the point BK is making within his own model, even if it means making adjustments based on our actual experience and based upon a slightly differently formulated way of relating phenomenal consciousness to meta-consciousness.

I'm not trying to take down his model, just trying to see if what he is saying in this context makes sense or has been explained. When he says that we are aware of the countless details of our breathing at all times, I agree but he says they each exist as dissociated particulars that impinge.

As I said above, I believe we are 'having' countless phenomenal experiences in each moment but not in the way he describes.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Well, I concur that one can be experiencing suppressed endogenous emotions at a subliminal level, while being metacognitively focused on a task at hand, and as such one's actions are to some degree influenced by those subliminal feelings. However, addressing the list above, while I can concur that while being metacogintively involved in some daydream about an upcoming vacation, one can also be subliminally aware of the percept of some coworkers' whispering in the background (#9), I do not concur that one would be subliminally aware of being curious about what they're saying (#10), or subliminally aware of being worried about that (#11), since that would involve paying attention to the whispering, rather than to the daydream, and also imposing some metacognitive overlay onto it—i.e. thinking about what they are thinking, and thus no longer just subliminal. This seems to be significantly different from being subliminally influenced by repressed endogenous emotions.