Conjecture: A dissociative process can not understand universal consciousness

[crossvalidator]

Because if such a process could understand (or access) "truth" (universal consciousness) - it can translate that understanding (an experience) into other experiences - thereby creating new dissociative processes.

So if a dissociative process can not give rise to new dissociate processes, it has to mean that it does not have access to universal concsciousness.

[crossvalidator]

Reproduction is not an example of this. We don't control exactly when the sperm and egg fuse to become conscious - when a new dissociative process actually begins.

Another framing for this might be

If you can't create something, you don't yet understand it.

Any thoughts?

[Hedge90]

Access doesn't imply full merger. A psychedelic trip or deep meditation may dissolve your dissociative boundary to an extent that is very impressive to your normal limited consciousness, but that doesn't mean it's actually the full experience. But it's still access. Of course, access to the full universal consciousness would be equal to becoming it, and upon becoming it, you wouldn't be "you" anymore. The very notion of "you" means that you are a dissociative process.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Because if such a process could understand (or access) "truth" (universal consciousness) - it can translate that understanding (an experience) into other experiences - thereby creating new dissociative processes.

So if a dissociative process can not give rise to new dissociate processes, it has to mean that it does not have access to universal concsciousness.

Not sure what you're getting at here. As you likely know, in BK's model, within the corporeal construct, metabolic life forms are representative of an occurrence of the dissociative process (notwithstanding it's unclear that there aren't instances of dissociation that are transcorporeal). The first instance of this within the corporeal construct would be abiogenesis. So I suppose that you're suggesting that since anthropogenic ideation cannot itself recreate abiogenesis, then that's a process that only M@L (UC) can give rise to. However, since it is never other than M@L which, so to speak, partitions itself in this way, then any instance of that partitioned state, in essence, can't be other than M@L engaged in Mind-conceived representation of Mind-conceived Ideation. As has been said, Thou Art That, and there is nothing else anyOne can have access to.

[crossvalidator]

Yes, I am not suggesting that the dissociated process is not in fact a part of the universal consciousness. But postulating that a process like this can never behave like its true source as long as it is dissociated. Trying to understand if a dissociated form can create new dissociated forms at will. I would not consider reproduction as an example of this. Because organisms are subject to the laws of nature to reproduce - they are not able to reproduce at will. ('will' is being used loosely here)

[Eugene I]

Yes, I am not suggesting that the dissociated process is not in fact a part of the universal consciousness. But postulating that a process like this can never behave like its true source as long as it is dissociated. Trying to understand if a dissociated form can create new dissociated forms at will. I would not consider reproduction as an example of this. Because organisms are subject to the laws of nature to reproduce - they are not able to reproduce at will. ('will' is being used loosely here)

Here is an interesting NDE account:

The third NDE experience built upon the other two. I found myself alone in the darkness. I was the one particle of light in the void. I became lonely and bored, so I split myself into two parts. Then I split into four parts, then eight parts, and then sixteen parts. I kept doubling myself, repeatedly, until I became everything and everyone. I came back to consciousness from being passed out in the driveway...

[Jim Cross]

Because if such a process could understand (or access) "truth" (universal consciousness) - it can translate that understanding (an experience) into other experiences - thereby creating new dissociative processes.

So if a dissociative process can not give rise to new dissociate processes, it has to mean that it does not have access to universal consciousness.

Interesting conjecture but I don't know whether it is true. Understanding or accessing universal consciousness wouldn't necessarily imply an ability to create new dissociative processes.

If the dissociative process were a fractal representation of universal consciousness, it would have internally its own representation of universal consciousness.

[Lysander]

Because if such a process could understand (or access) "truth" (universal consciousness) - it can translate that understanding (an experience) into other experiences - thereby creating new dissociative processes.

So if a dissociative process can not give rise to new dissociate processes, it has to mean that it does not have access to universal concsciousness.

Not sure what you're getting at here. As you likely know, in BK's model, within the corporeal construct, metabolic life forms are representative of an occurrence of the dissociative process (notwithstanding it's unclear that there aren't instances of dissociation that are transcorporeal). The first instance of this within the corporeal construct would be abiogenesis. So I suppose that you're suggesting that since anthropogenic ideation cannot itself recreate abiogenesis, then that's a process that only M@L (UC) can give rise to. However, since it is never other than M@L which, so to speak, partitions itself in this way, then any instance of that partitioned state, in essence, can't be other than M@L engaged in Mind-conceived representation of Mind-conceived Ideation. As has been said, Thou Art That, and there is nothing else anyOne can have access to.

The bolded clause is a very interesting thought. What do you mean by this?

[Soul_of_Shu]

As you likely know, in BK's model, within the corporeal construct, metabolic life forms are representative of an occurrence of the dissociative process (notwithstanding it's unclear that there aren't instances of dissociation that are transcorporeal).

The bolded clause is a very interesting thought. What do you mean by this?

Which is just to say that it's unclear that there aren't realms of dissociative experience that are not focused in a corporeal construct, wherein conscious agents are therefore not associated or identified with a corporeal form, but there can still be the apparency of a subject in relation to an objectified world. BK has also conceded that there could be a spectrum of dissociative realms that range between non-dissociated to some most-dissociated construct—which one supposes could correspond to the 'planes' of some esoteric cosmologies.