Questions about higher consciousness

[idlecuriosity]

I have to promise this will be the last of my pseudo spammy questions on philosophical discourse and that I haven't abandoned ship on reciprocating people for answering my other inquiry, but Sam Harris (I think) and some other neuroscientists I've listened to say that there's nothing outside of our matter interfering with the matter in a way that would eradicate their conception of cause/effect predictability. This isn't to say that I think (or at least that I know) their argument is even correct or that we could ever conjure the prerequisite knowledge for falsifying that to our arsenal anyway but I wanted to talk about how utilizing higher consciousness could manifest in real world control over ourselves, both within the predictable control for what a neuroscientist/physicist would read as normal under experimentation, as well as anything they might be missing about their measurements.

How do these changes manifest in our day to day lives? I do not mind if it's very difficult or even impossible to word these things as it's higher consciousness for a reason,

Yeah. This is key. The immediate conception of clairvoyance for most people is that a kind of extra layer of perceptions is overlaid on top of our ordinary senses (for example we begin to see shiny auras around people). This of course implicitly assumes that the relation of the thinking ego towards these higher perceptions is the same as to the sensory. In other words, higher seeing is imagined as something like sensory vision but of some finer, more ethereal kind.

this excerpt by mr Cleric K had grabbed my attention by explaining that very well

So my questions are, are there credible reasons to believe scientists cannot rightly measure every effect of consciousness on how it expresses in matter and experience without unwittingly intruding upon falsifiable territory? And second, am I right to believe that this mode of cognition manifests in your real life human agency as a better form of self control than being tethered to material and worldly troubles?

Bonus round would be that I'd love a comprehensive index of all the posts and things besides Steiner's Higher Consciousness that I should read but that isn't necessary, I'm a 'connoisseur' of technique and if I'm told where to look with reason to do so I can set myself about that. To in one breath profess humility and flanderize the word spiritual by evoking the pop culture use of it, I consider myself a very spiritually weak and psychologically lacking person who has panic attacks when he tries to meditate and who's failed to the best of his ability at escaping his past traumas, but I seek technical understanding in my pursuit of mastery (the arts, martial and not) and in being in control of myself to not let my friends and family down in future when they're suffering and need my assistance. I'd be happy to grow.

Would higher consciousness enable me more self control and inner strength? I definitely consider the, not only materialistic, but 'typical' way people are taught to conceive of problems to be suboptimal even within the boundaries of what's considered mundane understanding, as if cultural paradigms and zeitgeists work as a sort of prison for our perception.

I would not mind learning a new way. Even if I have to learn patience to read a lot of materials and push myself to meditate upon them, figuratively or literally, for many hours a day. I am stubborn when I start, spectrum borne susceptibilities be damned.

[AshvinP]

Yeah. This is key. The immediate conception of clairvoyance for most people is that a kind of extra layer of perceptions is overlaid on top of our ordinary senses (for example we begin to see shiny auras around people). This of course implicitly assumes that the relation of the thinking ego towards these higher perceptions is the same as to the sensory. In other words, higher seeing is imagined as something like sensory vision but of some finer, more ethereal kind.

this excerpt by mr Cleric K had grabbed my attention by explaining that very well

(1) So my questions are, are there credible reasons to believe scientists cannot rightly measure every effect of consciousness on how it expresses in matter and experience without unwittingly intruding upon falsifiable territory? (2) And second, am I right to believe that this mode of cognition manifests in your real life human agency as a better form of self control than being tethered to material and worldly troubles?

Hello curiosity,

I am not the person to provide much specific counsel in these areas, but here are a few thoughts. To be honest, I keep re-reading your question #1 and cannot figure out what it means. For #2, I would say yes, working towards higher cognition will definitely improve self-discpline, inner conviction, etc. The reason is rather simple - the pursuit of higher cognition, i.e. making the subconscious conscious via heartfelt Thinking, is the attuning of one's body, soul, and spirit (mind) with the metamorphic structure of Reality itself. Just as a person who wants to remain physically healthy must eat healthy, do some cardio and weights, etc., which allows their entire physical organism to function more harmoniously, the same holds true for the soul-spirit organism. We don't really need to look for any deeper why's than that, but, as mentioned on another thread, the real value is in discovering this for oneself through patience, good will, effort, experience, and precisely reasoned logic. Simply dreaming about the idea of "higher cognition" in abstract will really lead nowhere. If one feels they are not the "precisely logical reasoning" sort, then I would say that capacity is developed much more easily than people think when there is a trust in one's own Spirit. Devotional prayer is a key way to build up that trust. It is not prayer to get things from God, but to "seek first [God's] Kingdom and his righteousness". I refer you to Cleric's post in this regard:


viewtopic.php?p=10339#p10339

So in the Fall man has to worry about food and clothing. He is pressed down by the environmental forces and he has to fight for his survival. Now we're getting back to the Kingdom. The Sun Spirit, the "I", has made its way into the dense decohered Earthly spectrum. Now it begins its work of bringing back the resonant harmonic relations of the Cosmic Organism. This is what everyone of us does individually through Thinking in which the "I" manifests. So far humans are busy hijacking this Thinking for the satisfaction of egoistic desires which perpetuates the out-of-phase relationships, keeps the stock market graph chaotic and makes everyone worry for the 'daily bread'.

The Gospel tells us that we can never fix things by focusing on the bread. As long as the decohering forces rule, the bread will always be uncertain. Instead, the Gospel invites us to first seek the Kingdom and its righteousness. What does this mean? It starts from the individual. Each person is an image of the Cosmic organism. As Thinking is recognized more and more as manifestation of the Cosmic Spirit within the sensory spectrum, it becomes more and more empowered, it becomes creative. Today it is entirely within reach of every human being to take their destiny in their own hands. By enlightening our Thinking, filling our hearts with Love and conducting through our Will only noble and righteous deeds, we begin to restore the coherence within our own being. This leads to actual healing. Of course it's of great significance also what we eat, drink, breathe. We can't expect to elevate ourselves spiritually while at the same time we destroy our physical vessel.

Once these powerful impulses move beyond the individual we already have the means for transformation of family and social life. All of this can only happen by completely free and fully conscious individual initiative. Ultimately, as the invisible structure of the Cosmic organism begins to be harmonized, the effects of the Fall begin to be reversed. In the far future this will extend to the other realms of Nature, for example man will be able to communicate with the animal kingdom. If we may use the expression, to live in such a harmonic spectral structure would be as having perpetual luck. Food will be there when needed, the right beings will cooperate when needed and so on, just as in a healthy organism a cell receives its nutrition on time, it gets its immune defense on time and so on. Of course all of this will happen not instinctively but fully consciously it will be up to us to create these resonant and harmonic relations within the spectrum of existence. Clearly this is still very far ahead of time. And the funny thing is that humans still don't even know that such a work must be undertaken.

Also, the logical reasoning approach is not the only path by which one can approach these things to begin with - if one is more creatively inclined, for ex., there are alternative ways to approach the same Reality of higher imaginations, inspirations, and intuitions. But all such paths will require our own personal dedicated effort. So your curiosity will need to become less idle

[ParadoxZone]

Yeah. This is key. The immediate conception of clairvoyance for most people is that a kind of extra layer of perceptions is overlaid on top of our ordinary senses (for example we begin to see shiny auras around people). This of course implicitly assumes that the relation of the thinking ego towards these higher perceptions is the same as to the sensory. In other words, higher seeing is imagined as something like sensory vision but of some finer, more ethereal kind.

this excerpt by mr Cleric K had grabbed my attention by explaining that very well

(1) So my questions are, are there credible reasons to believe scientists cannot rightly measure every effect of consciousness on how it expresses in matter and experience without unwittingly intruding upon falsifiable territory? (2) And second, am I right to believe that this mode of cognition manifests in your real life human agency as a better form of self control than being tethered to material and worldly troubles?

Hello curiosity,

I am not the person to provide much specific counsel in these areas, but here are a few thoughts. To be honest, I keep re-reading your question #1 and cannot figure out what it means. For #2, I would say yes, working towards higher cognition will definitely improve self-discpline, inner conviction, etc.

Hi again curiousity,

I'll just add briefly to what Ashvin said. By the way, I'm not clairvoyant either and am not seeking it for a personal purpose. I mention this because I read what you said on the other thread and know that you're aware of what the ego might do with this, eg increasing "cunning".

I think the answer to your first question above is yes. However, if you focus on words like "consciousness" you might get into territory that might lead to speculations about contents of consciousness etc . That's all fine and important in its own right. However, figuring those things out, in your own way might not need to happen in a typically linear way. A similar thing applies to falsifiability/verifiability.

You mentioned that you were reading Cleric's and others posts. You'll probably find these things addressed in ways that make a lot of sense to you when you come across them, there's no need to "get" everything all at once, or even quickly. Being open to it all is key.

In particular, the parts about preparedness are key. You'll come across bits where acquiring abilities for personal gain is addressed. They might prove particularly useful to your own understanding, particularly as you've more or less alluded to them yourself.

It's a work in progress for me too as you've seen from the other thread. Maximum understanding and minimum discombobulation (for yourself and those around you) seem to be twin goals worth achieving.

[idlecuriosity]

Whether I must survive a disease or an army, I do not care if it's with psychic powers or a particularly elucidating morsel of know-how that'd net me a win with a string and some scissors. Or luck. But back then and for a while from here, it was and is the time to stand up for myself. I was naively conciliatory and I lost a lot of things to my mercy. Instead of crying about my misfortune or upending my cowardice for the arrogance I can go back and win my dreams now, which MAY have been a train I missed boarding and the best avenue I could've taken, I've instead foregone it all in lieu of what might be a better course. To take a step back, realize that if the disparity between my skill level and life results have been so great for so long then the problem is me. Girls I like, friends I love, the last half decade of peak biological functionality that those in athletics or competition can aspire to preserve - I can risk losing it all and sitting out if I ascend. I want to believe what I gain will give me all of that and more and I wouldn't even let being told that it can't prevent me from trying, having character takes a leap of faith

I am what needs to improve or I'll give up forever. As said above my curiosity needs to be less idle

@Mr. Paradox Zone,

I'm looking back through his post history but getting to the posts about meditation has been a trek, beyond the few I've read already. Would you recommend I bite the bullet and read them all indiscriminately? I'll listen to Steiner audiobooks and apply that, too. *lastly, I'm going to ease off here for a while to make some real headway on this, yes

@Ashvin

To be honest, I keep re-reading your question #1 and cannot figure out what it means.

it's difficult for me to explain because I forget my source and am not familiarized with the science but let me try. I've heard of neuroscientists being absolutely sure that they know nothing is affecting the brain beyond matter and causing it diverge from expected cause/effect outcomes, what would this bode for the assertion that there is something to be made of higher domains or that any extra self control can be gleamed from it? Wouldn't those who can access it show up different readings in terms of brainwaves or whatever it is I'm erroneously recalling about their methodology?

[AshvinP]

@Ashvin

To be honest, I keep re-reading your question #1 and cannot figure out what it means.

it's difficult for me to explain because I forget my source and am not familiarized with the science but let me try. I've heard of neuroscientists being absolutely sure that they know nothing is affecting the brain beyond matter and causing it diverge from expected cause/effect outcomes, what would this bode for the assertion that there is something to be made of higher domains or that any extra self control can be gleamed from it? Wouldn't those who can access it show up different readings in terms of brainwaves or whatever it is I'm erroneously recalling about their methodology?

Nothing will really make sense with the material reductionist view (or any reductionst view). If you have followed BK's idealist arguments so far, then everything he claims about materialism and its numerous deficiencies is valid. If we abstract ideas into "material stuff" or even "personal concepts in my head" and then expect our own abstractions to explain the living dynamics of essentially transpersonal (shared) ideas, we will always run into insurmountable problems and logical absurdities. These abstractions include the sense-perceptible 'things' in the world, like brains and brainwaves. I really have no idea what readings would show up when someone engages higher cognition, but we should remember that we are always [subconsciously] engaging higher cognitions, we just aren't aware of it and therefore we have no conscious control over it. I refer to another recent Cleric post re: the anti-reductionist idealist perspective:

There's not a single place within our experience where we can give an example of true reduction. If this seems absurd claim to make, it is only because both science and philosophy today are completely blindfolded about the thinking process through which they develop their own subjects.

Reduction does not exist as far as our conscious experience is concerned. There's not a single phenomena which can be reduced to other phenomena. There are countless correlations which we can find between phenomena but not reduction. Even the concept of 'two' can't be reduced to a pair of 'one'-es. Every concept that we use in thinking is discovered independently. A toddler may be looking at a pair of objects but it requires a flash of insight to conceive of the quality of 'two-foldness', which later becomes condensed into a concept of the intellect. No amount of rearranging of the two objects can mechanically produce a new concept. If we don't know the color red, no amount of juggling with our concepts of blue and green, or any other color, will lead us to the concept of red. Here by concept of red I mean the concept that we experience when we behold the quality of red, not some abstract concept of 650 nm EM radiation.

Again - if it seems strange that attention is pointed to these details, it is only because the 'thinkers' of our age do not really observe what they are doing with their thinking. They have completely 'user-experience' of thinking - they only care for the consumer end products. We can only make some progress if we seek also the 'developer-experience', to learn something about the process in the kitchen.
Let's look at simple example. I stretch my arm to take the pen on my desk. There's a whole spectrum of conscious phenomena which are correlated in the most complicated, yet consistent ways. Physically, the motion of my arm, the nerve impulses, the brain activity are all consistent. But these are only part of the spectrum of conscious phenomena. My idea that I need to take the pen for some purpose, which I experience as activating the will, is also fully correlated with all other perceptions, and is no less valid conscious experience than the others. In fact, from my perspective it is the most important one, because it is what brings into harmony all the separate frames of perception of my arm movement. If scientists observe my action from the outside, they may have very good account of the nerve activity and it will be found to be fully consistent all the way but nowhere will they find the actual idea which meaningfully unites all the observed muscle movements into something whole. So the question is: what gives me the right to try and reduce this manifold conscious experience to arbitrarily chosen subset of phenomena? Nothing really. There's nothing in the given which suggests that I should regard the idea as effect of the perceptions of nerves.

Correlation is mistaken for reduction/causation. The scientist fantasizes that concepts somehow emerge from the mechanical combinations of the fundamentals. So reductionist thinking not only poses a hard problem but is in itself a fractal of hard problems. The only remedy is to observe thinking properly and realize the given fact - that concepts do not proceed as mechanical transformations of one another but are independent meaningful experiences. Only then science can continue safely with what is its real strength - to trace the relations between concepts (which themselves are discovered in our intercourse with perceptions).

[idlecuriosity]

@Ashvin

To be honest, I keep re-reading your question #1 and cannot figure out what it means.

it's difficult for me to explain because I forget my source and am not familiarized with the science but let me try. I've heard of neuroscientists being absolutely sure that they know nothing is affecting the brain beyond matter and causing it diverge from expected cause/effect outcomes, what would this bode for the assertion that there is something to be made of higher domains or that any extra self control can be gleamed from it? Wouldn't those who can access it show up different readings in terms of brainwaves or whatever it is I'm erroneously recalling about their methodology?

Nothing will really make sense with the material reductionist view (or any reductionst view). If you have followed BK's idealist arguments so far, then everything he claims about materialism and its numerous deficiencies is valid. If we abstract ideas into "material stuff" or even "personal concepts in my head" and then expect our own abstractions to explain the living dynamics of essentially transpersonal (shared) ideas, we will always run into insurmountable problems and logical absurdities. These abstractions include the sense-perceptible 'things' in the world, like brains and brainwaves. I really have no idea what readings would show up when someone engages higher cognition, but we should remember that we are always [subconsciously] engaging higher cognitions, we just aren't aware of it and therefore we have no conscious control over it. I refer to another recent Cleric post re: the anti-reductionist idealist perspective:

There's not a single place within our experience where we can give an example of true reduction. If this seems absurd claim to make, it is only because both science and philosophy today are completely blindfolded about the thinking process through which they develop their own subjects.

Reduction does not exist as far as our conscious experience is concerned. There's not a single phenomena which can be reduced to other phenomena. There are countless correlations which we can find between phenomena but not reduction. Even the concept of 'two' can't be reduced to a pair of 'one'-es. Every concept that we use in thinking is discovered independently. A toddler may be looking at a pair of objects but it requires a flash of insight to conceive of the quality of 'two-foldness', which later becomes condensed into a concept of the intellect. No amount of rearranging of the two objects can mechanically produce a new concept. If we don't know the color red, no amount of juggling with our concepts of blue and green, or any other color, will lead us to the concept of red. Here by concept of red I mean the concept that we experience when we behold the quality of red, not some abstract concept of 650 nm EM radiation.

Again - if it seems strange that attention is pointed to these details, it is only because the 'thinkers' of our age do not really observe what they are doing with their thinking. They have completely 'user-experience' of thinking - they only care for the consumer end products. We can only make some progress if we seek also the 'developer-experience', to learn something about the process in the kitchen.
Let's look at simple example. I stretch my arm to take the pen on my desk. There's a whole spectrum of conscious phenomena which are correlated in the most complicated, yet consistent ways. Physically, the motion of my arm, the nerve impulses, the brain activity are all consistent. But these are only part of the spectrum of conscious phenomena. My idea that I need to take the pen for some purpose, which I experience as activating the will, is also fully correlated with all other perceptions, and is no less valid conscious experience than the others. In fact, from my perspective it is the most important one, because it is what brings into harmony all the separate frames of perception of my arm movement. If scientists observe my action from the outside, they may have very good account of the nerve activity and it will be found to be fully consistent all the way but nowhere will they find the actual idea which meaningfully unites all the observed muscle movements into something whole. So the question is: what gives me the right to try and reduce this manifold conscious experience to arbitrarily chosen subset of phenomena? Nothing really. There's nothing in the given which suggests that I should regard the idea as effect of the perceptions of nerves.

Correlation is mistaken for reduction/causation. The scientist fantasizes that concepts somehow emerge from the mechanical combinations of the fundamentals. So reductionist thinking not only poses a hard problem but is in itself a fractal of hard problems. The only remedy is to observe thinking properly and realize the given fact - that concepts do not proceed as mechanical transformations of one another but are independent meaningful experiences. Only then science can continue safely with what is its real strength - to trace the relations between concepts (which themselves are discovered in our intercourse with perceptions).

So perhaps it would be right to suggest that materialistic measurements can't truly determine the effect of consciousness on either our hypothesized free will or it's effect on our mind, for the same reason it finds itself baffled by the hard problem of consciousness?

[ParadoxZone]

@Mr. Paradox Zone,

I'm looking back through his post history but getting to the posts about meditation has been a trek, beyond the few I've read already. Would you recommend I bite the bullet and read them all indiscriminately? I'll listen to Steiner audiobooks and apply that, too. *lastly, I'm going to ease off here for a while to make some real headway on this, yes

Please don't take the below is advice on what SHOULD do. Even if I thought I understood enough to give advice, I'd be very hesitant to do that anyway.

Having said that, I've been trying to get a sense from your various posts of where you're "at". So in that spirit I'll make a few suggestions for your consideration.

You'll probably see suggestions here about reading "Philosophy of Freedom" from Steiner. It might be best to hold off on that for now. Not because it's beyond you - it isn't - but because in the beginning he systematically goes through previous philosophers/thinkers and addresses the things they were "banging on about". It might be confusing as a launching pad.

Similarly, reading your questions again prompted me to find some of Cleric's posts that addressed your concerns. I found some, but there were various things about them that led me to think they might confuse as well.

A suggestion might be to read "Knowledge of Higher Worlds" from Steiner or perhaps "Theosophy". (I haven't read the latter yet). The former can be read as a story told to people at a particular time in a particular social structure. There's no need to take anything literally. Things you have mentioned - like the role of faith at particular times - are addressed. Also, you'll come across references to "Guardians at the Gate" and seeing particular colours - I haven't seen any colours and don't particularly care if I never do. And the "Guardians" might be metaphorical too, I don't know.

I also have the impression that there is an intensity about all this for you right now. That's all perfectly natural and has happened with me too. Maybe be a little careful about who you talk to about what you find along the way? Of course I don't know your circumstances, so what you do or don't say will depend from person to person - although finding someone you can talk to honestly about what engages you might be a consideration.

And have fun too. If you aren't having any of that right now, maybe find something that allows you to. You're still going to need something of an ego to function. Let the subconscious do most of the work - it's what's been at the root of the glorious messes we all find ourselves in from time to time.

I've stayed away from serious, focussed meditation as, from what you've said on this thread and the other one, it may not be productive at all right now. Maybe the opposite.

Have fun - I'm reminding myself about that too.

[Cleric K]

Would higher consciousness enable me more self control and inner strength? I definitely consider the, not only materialistic, but 'typical' way people are taught to conceive of problems to be suboptimal even within the boundaries of what's considered mundane understanding, as if cultural paradigms and zeitgeists work as a sort of prison for our perception.

It absolutely leads to better self control and inner strength. And many other things. But you might first want to learn more. The big question is why do you want this self control and inner strength?

Seeking higher knowledge as means of enhancement of Earthly life is never a good idea. This inevitably leads to the dark arts.

Seek higher knowledge only if you are not afraid that in the light of every step towards self-knowledge (higher knowledge begins first and foremost with self-knowledge), your understanding of what you really are and what goals are worthy or superficial for pursuit, will change accordingly.

Seek higher knowledge only if you are open for the possibility that you'll have to use it for correspondingly higher goals which far transcend our Earthly personal interests.

[pt.vitor]

Hello!

I'm trying to understand what means idealism as Bernardo Kastrup proposal. In a Youtube video named "Consciousness & What it means for the future of humanity", with Jennifer Ramsey, jul 24 2020, if i understood well, he said that's no future for individuality of any kind. So, the answer is different from physicalism, but the consequence seams the same. The self death.

When i listen NDE historys, sometime, who reports them in the first person, say they feel they was the self who was embodied, but in another awareness state. They feel the connection with all that is, but don't loose the sense of being themselves. They only feel themselves in another situation completely different.

I believe that we are always the same consciousness, in various circumstances, that change the way as we see ourselves. Is like a blind that regains sight. Or an amnesic that regains memory. But the connection with all that is, permits that other beings connected can share his memory, if they are in a awareness state that permits.

Our body and ego (the person we believe we are in flesh, in common awareness state) can be a dissociative state of our individual consciousness. We can have many egos (alters). But our consciousness isn't an temporary Global Conscience Alter that dissolves totally later. Must be something greater than that. Or not?

Vitor Santos
Portugal

[idlecuriosity]

Would higher consciousness enable me more self control and inner strength? I definitely consider the, not only materialistic, but 'typical' way people are taught to conceive of problems to be suboptimal even within the boundaries of what's considered mundane understanding, as if cultural paradigms and zeitgeists work as a sort of prison for our perception.

It absolutely leads to better self control and inner strength. And many other things. But you might first want to learn more. The big question is why do you want this self control and inner strength?

Seeking higher knowledge as means of enhancement of Earthly life is never a good idea. This inevitably leads to the dark arts.

Seek higher knowledge only if you are not afraid that in the light of every step towards self-knowledge (higher knowledge begins first and foremost with self-knowledge), your understanding of what you really are and what goals are worthy or superficial for pursuit, will change accordingly.

Seek higher knowledge only if you are open for the possibility that you'll have to use it for correspondingly higher goals which far transcend our Earthly personal interests.

It's mostly so I'm able to make others happy, which is somewhat contingent on having the strength to perform well. That is why I must grow. Of course, the fact it'd help me with my competitive aspirations is a plus but I was already relatively confident in my 'earthly talents' so to speak!

This is why I want this higher knowledge. It's not because I think I'm special, it's because I've learnt I'm far from it and I can't keep promises I've made like this. I do not know if that satisfies your prerequisites but that's my answer. I'm also unafraid of if it will transform my outlook on or propagate an indifference to failure, I simply view that as an extension of someone shedding the earthly arrogance that one can want something with all their heart and be pompous enough to think defeat isn't just another side of that coin. Someone always has to 'lose' and it just so happens it's my turn this time, that's fair

Some parts of me are more at peace than they might immediately seem. The rest... Probably would benefit being excised by these pursuits if the passage of time doesn't do it's job healing them

*adding, if words sufficed to communicate everything then we'd probably have no need of these firsthand experiences you extol the merits of, but hopefully the picture does a job of communicating why this wouldn't be a useless pursuit and that I'm a rare case of someone who's blindspot in earthly functioning isn't their lack of spiritual enlightenment per se but rather needing to heal spiritual injuries. It's simply that those are seldom distinguishable from weakness to what they interact with and some people are inherently more susceptible to them, whether they begin as or grow to be that way