Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

[Cleric K]

I was simply asking if your reportage was based on your own personal experience?

'Yes' or 'no' will make the report more credible?  Let this question stay open. May these reports stand for what they are. At this point it's enough that one can experience them in thought, free from any external influence. The 'yes'/'no' you can discover only within yourself at the appropriate time.

Respectfully, sympathetically and from my own personal direct experience with mediumship I dispute this statement as not true for all of it's forms. What you say does seem generally true for 'spirit possession' but is not at all true for 'incorporation' or 'irradiation' where the 'I' remains fully present. But, yes, it takes practice and refinement as the body must learn to hold the spirit and the spirit must learn to occupy the more limited space until a disciplined co-creative functioning is attained.

Yes, I agree that there's a whole spectrum. Let me distinguish things in this way: the question is what does one experience while channeling, even if retaining full self-consciousness? Many of these experiences can be called inspired thought. We have in full awareness, streaming within our consciousness, an inspired flow that we recognize as proceeding from a well defined being. The experience in #3 above is one where consciousness itself merges with that of the other being. In other words, we don't experience inspired stream of thoughts and feelings but we merge with the spiritual point of view of the being itself and then go on to describe it in our own words - in the same way that we experience the content of our own consciousness and describe it in our own words.

[Cleric K]

TL,DR ... Suffice to say that Cleric will have no problem in complying with some new rule about all posts having to exceed 280 characters (moderators excepted of course)

As long as there's no limit to the number of 280-character posts, we're good

Joke aside, I really look forward to the times when we'll be able to do that. Short messages rest on the assumption that we all operate under the same "coordinate system". Believe me - I would gladly post a tuple of hyperspace coordinates instead of the torrents above. Then everyone would just transform his state to the coordinates in question and be able to describe out of himself what is written above. Unfortunately we're not there yet. It would be a real challenge for the medieval traveler to describe the route from Rome to Jerusalem in 280 characters.

[Cleric K]

So to summarize, we have at least three categories/versions of the cosmic idealism (there may be more that I missed or not aware of):
1. Non-meta-cognitive MAL that is also a creator of the apparent world. This is the BK's and Schopenhauer's view.
2. Non-personal Cosmic Consciousness Substratum where individuated whirlpools of consciousness emerge and develop and some of them become creators/manifestors (gods) of the reality-looking worlds. This is the view in Hindu, Buddhist, Gnostic and some Greek traditions/philosophies.
3. Meta-cognitive and super-cognitive MAL (=God) who is also the creator of the apparent world. This is the view of the most monotheistic religions and theistic philosophies.

OK. Maybe writing long posts is really counter-productive after all  I thought that I've already given an alternative view.

I'll practically repeat things here, hopefully in shorted form.

The basic idea is that if we've learned one thing from our quest in materialism/reductionism, it should be that we can't create a whole from its parts (David's synergy). In this sense every attempt to present MAL as intrinsically non-self aware, produces a hard problem for the explanation of self-awareness in us. That was the basic symbolism of the two spirals. Self-awareness is irreducible experience of self-caused metamorphosis of state of being.

Another point was that we should not confuse abstract self-reflection (representation) with self-awareness and freedom. The fact that we can verbally label the elements of our experience is not what makes us self-conscious but is a consequence of self-consciousness. Imagine two doors. We are aware of them and experience the freedom to enter any one. If we don't want to exercise our freedom blindly we should know at least to some extent where each door leads. Intellectual cognition amounts to the fact that we can't know this directly but we resort to abstract thinking, where we combine different concepts and ideas through logical relationships and try to predict where each door leads. Then we place a bet on our prediction and choose a door. And this is a wholly human experience. Higher beings don't have intellect through which they abstractly try to predict what lies behind each door. Instead they perceive the time-potential behind each door (again, at least to some length) and choose which potential they want to realize. In this sense they are fully self-conscious and free - they perceive the possibilities and experience in full awareness how they zoom into one domain of experience rather than another.

That's why I said that higher cognition becomes more 'simple', while at the same time it keeps getting more Cosmic in character, becoming more and more aware of the potential states of being available for experience. There's always balance. One thing is always in expense for another. In this sense it is perfectly true that what we experience as human intellect is not something that the gods experience. The high-order picture of our cognition is fully clear to them, it's just that they don't need to fragment their consciousness in this way, they have their higher-order approach to existence (the labyrinth and water metaphor). But here's the important thing: even though the gods perceive the spiritual space that we are probing in abstract thinking, it is nevertheless a unique experience to live through this probing pixel by pixel. This is the important thing. Even though the individual pixels of our experience are contained within the whole, being able to experience these pixels in isolation is unique in itself and can't be experienced from the standpoint of the whole. Thus we gain the ability to think abstractly about the Cosmos but we do that only at the price of losing the holistic picture of the spiritual world. And the opposite - on high we perceive Cosmic potential for worlds of spiritual experience but we don't feel restricted by any of it.

Time experience consists in the transfusion between these two poles - from the fragmented towards the Cosmic. This direction has to do with the fundamental asymmetry of time/integration of consciousness.

[Lou Gold]

I was simply asking if your reportage was based on your own personal experience?

'Yes' or 'no' will make the report more credible?  Let this question stay open. May these reports stand for what they are. At this point it's enough that one can experience them in thought, free from any external influence. The 'yes'/'no' you can discover only within yourself at the appropriate time.

Since I have had such experiences personally within myself, I consider them as personally credible. I was simply curious if you would say the same for yourself? Forgive me if you possibly consider this an invasion of privacy but I do give great credibility to personal experience even though I do not always trust the way the experience is interpreted. Why? Because this is my experience.

Respectfully, sympathetically and from my own personal direct experience with mediumship I dispute this statement as not true for all of it's forms. What you say does seem generally true for 'spirit possession' but is not at all true for 'incorporation' or 'irradiation' where the 'I' remains fully present. But, yes, it takes practice and refinement as the body must learn to hold the spirit and the spirit must learn to occupy the more limited space until a disciplined co-creative functioning is attained.

Yes, I agree that there's a whole spectrum. Let me distinguish things in this way: the question is what does one experience while channeling, even if retaining full self-consciousness? Many of these experiences can be called inspired thought. We have in full awareness, streaming within our consciousness, an inspired flow that we recognize as proceeding from a well defined being. The experience in #3 above is one where consciousness itself merges with that of the other being. In other words, we don't experience inspired stream of thoughts and feelings but we merge with the spiritual point of view of the being itself and then go on to describe it in our own words - in the same way that we experience the content of our own consciousness and describe it in our own words.

I understand and consider this a good example of what I call 'incorporation'.

[Eugene I]

Cleric, these are all good thought, it is indeed likely that there is a hierarchy of spiritual beings with a large variety of cognitive and spiritual abilities. Yet, each of them is an individuated "whirlpool" of consciousness with a unique subjective perspective and field of subjective experiences. But the question that I was pointing to is somewhat different. When we talk about MAL we mean the Cosmic Consciousness as a whole, Consciousness as an ontic fundamental of reality (as per monistic idealism), and the question is: what are the fundamental qualities of such MAL and whether such MAL possesses its own subjective perspective and an ability to meta-consciously think and act. There is a range of possible answers, here are at least three that I'm aware of:
- The MAL is a "fundamental nature" of Consciousness, the ontic fundamental of the reality, a "substratum" of which everything is made of, a pure awareness with fundamental abilities to manifest and experience phenomena. However, it is lacking a unique subjective personal perspective and ability to meta-consciously take actions and make decisions. Therefore, such MAL is not a subject who is the creator of the world. This is the Advaitic/Buddhist view.
- The MAL is a subject of experience and actions, however, its level of cognitive development is very low and it lacks the ability to meta-cognize its ideations and actions. Its actions are purely instinctive. This is BK's/Schopenhauer's view.
- The MAL, in addition to being the ontic fundamental, is also a super-cognitive subject at the highest possible level of the conscious abilities and development, and it is also the creator of the world. This is the theistic view.

From your answer above it's still not clear to me which variant (or may be some alternative one) your view belongs to, although I would suspect that it's the last one.

[Cleric K]

Since I have had such experiences personally within myself, I consider them as personally credible. I was simply curious if you would say the same for yourself?

For me credibility is built somewhat differently. Every experience is valid in its own. If I experience angel communicating with me, this is a valid experience, I can describe it faithfully. Is it credible? For me it's impossible to tell if I take it in isolation. If this is the only experience I know how can I be sure if it's reality or a dream image? Only when I begin to interrelate these experiences between themselves and with practical life, they begin to gain credibility. After all, if I spew nonsense and insist that it's coming from my "higher" perceptions, I'm only worsening my diagnosis, am I not? As it is always in life, things are recognized by their fruits. Ideas don't gain credibility because of their claimed higher origin. It's the other way around - soundness and practical impact of the ideas (if they have it) will give credence also to the higher worlds and corresponding modes of cognition.

[AshvinP]

But here's the important thing: even though the gods perceive the spiritual space that we are probing in abstract thinking, it is nevertheless a unique experience to live through this probing pixel by pixel. This is the important thing. Even though the individual pixels of our experience are contained within the whole, being able to experience these pixels in isolation is unique in itself and can't be experienced from the standpoint of the whole. Thus we gain the ability to think abstractly about the Cosmos but we do that only at the price of losing the holistic picture of the spiritual world. And the opposite - on high we perceive Cosmic potential for worlds of spiritual experience but we don't feel restricted by any of it.

Time experience consists in the transfusion between these two poles - from the fragmented towards the Cosmic. This direction has to do with the fundamental asymmetry of time/integration of consciousness.

Cleric - I am wondering whether we can analogize the above to our experience of 'simple' instinctual drives like hunger, thirst, lust, etc., i.e. do we perceive them in the same way the gods perceive the spiritual space we are probing in abstract thinking, and do the beings which constitute those drives think 'abstractly' about the individual human experience? Or is that just a bad analogy based on your last sentence and/or other reasons?

[Lou Gold]

Since I have had such experiences personally within myself, I consider them as personally credible. I was simply curious if you would say the same for yourself?

For me credibility is built somewhat differently. Every experience is valid in its own. If I experience angel communicating with me, this is a valid experience, I can describe it faithfully. Is it credible? For me it's impossible to tell if I take it in isolation. If this is the only experience I know how can I be sure if it's reality or a dream image? Only when I begin to interrelate these experiences between themselves and with practical life, they begin to gain credibility. After all, if I spew nonsense and insist that it's coming from my "higher" perceptions, I'm only worsening my diagnosis, am I not? As it is always in life, things are recognized by their fruits. Ideas don't gain credibility because of their claimed higher origin. It's the other way around - soundness and practical impact of the ideas (if they have it) will give credence also to the higher worlds and corresponding modes of cognition.

I absolutely agree that the test of credibility is integration with practical life. Yes, "Ideas don't gain credibility because of their claimed higher origin." For myself, it was a dream that changed my life 39 years ago and continues to unfold into my practical life to this very day. Way beyond mere belief, I humbly and gratefully acknowledge it as my faith, as my connection to divinity itself. I was just curious if you had a similar or analogous direct experience?

[Eugene I]

For me credibility is built somewhat differently. Every experience is valid in its own. If I experience angel communicating with me, this is a valid experience, I can describe it faithfully. Is it credible? For me it's impossible to tell if I take it in isolation. If this is the only experience I know how can I be sure if it's reality or a dream image? Only when I begin to interrelate these experiences between themselves and with practical life, they begin to gain credibility. After all, if I spew nonsense and insist that it's coming from my "higher" perceptions, I'm only worsening my diagnosis, am I not? As it is always in life, things are recognized by their fruits. Ideas don't gain credibility because of their claimed higher origin. It's the other way around - soundness and practical impact of the ideas (if they have it) will give credence also to the higher worlds and corresponding modes of cognition.

You are absolutely right, Cleric, and many people practicing in spiritual traditions approach it this way. But here is a problem. Let's say, An Advaitic or Buddhist mystic has an enlightenment experience of the Brahman, Buddha nature or Rigpa state as its own fundamental nature, transcending the limitations of his egoic state of mind, and experiences it as an impersonal Cosmic Consciousness/Awareness. As a result of it his life and his perception of reality is transformed in a very practical way, he becomes a different person and starts living, perceiving the world and dealing with people differently and in much more efficient, satisfying and compassionate way. Similarly, a Christian of Judaic mystic can have a transforming experience of communicating with a spiritual being of high capacity and authority that he perceives as God (for example, when St. Paul met Christ on the way to Damascus), and that experience would also have profound practical consequences on his personality, beliefs and way of living, but his experience would give him a picture and insight very different from the one that Advaitic or Buddhist mystic attained. Another case might be an indigenous person having an experience of communicating with the World Spirit under Ayahuasca with similar practical consequences. Now, in all these cases it was an actual spiritual experience, not merely intellectual exercise, and it led to real personality transformation and practical consequences. Yet, those experiences and insights are still very different from each other and give different perspectives on the nature of reality. So, the experiential and practical criteria are indeed necessary, but not sufficient to give us the undoubtful clues to the nature of reality.

[Lou Gold]

For me credibility is built somewhat differently. Every experience is valid in its own. If I experience angel communicating with me, this is a valid experience, I can describe it faithfully. Is it credible? For me it's impossible to tell if I take it in isolation. If this is the only experience I know how can I be sure if it's reality or a dream image? Only when I begin to interrelate these experiences between themselves and with practical life, they begin to gain credibility. After all, if I spew nonsense and insist that it's coming from my "higher" perceptions, I'm only worsening my diagnosis, am I not? As it is always in life, things are recognized by their fruits. Ideas don't gain credibility because of their claimed higher origin. It's the other way around - soundness and practical impact of the ideas (if they have it) will give credence also to the higher worlds and corresponding modes of cognition.

You are absolutely right, Cleric, and many people practicing in spiritual traditions approach it this way. But here is a problem. Let's say, An Advaitic or Buddhist mystic has an enlightenment experience of the Brahman, Buddha nature or Rigpa state as its own fundamental nature, transcending the limitations of his egoic state of mind, and experiences it as an impersonal Cosmic Consciousness/Awareness. As a result of it his life and his perception of reality is transformed in a very practical way, he becomes a different person and starts living, perceiving the world and dealing with people differently and in much more efficient, satisfying and compassionate way. Similarly, a Christian of Judaic mystic can have a transforming experience of communicating with a spiritual being of high capacity and authority that he perceives as God (for example, when St. Paul met Christ on the way to Damascus), and that experience would also have profound practical consequences on his personality, beliefs and way of living, but his experience would give him a picture and insight very different from the one that Advaitic or Buddhist mystic attained. Another case might be an indigenous person having an experience of communicating with the World Spirit under Ayahuasca with similar practical consequences. Now, in all these cases it was an actual spiritual experience, not merely intellectual exercise, and it led to real personality transformation and practical consequences. Yet, those experiences and insights are still very different from each other and give different perspectives on the nature of reality. So, the experiential and practical criteria are indeed necessary, but not sufficient to give us the undoubtful clues to the nature of reality.

I very much agree Eugene. My question from an Idealist slant is can the fundamental be expressed as a Divinely Integrated Diversity, which seems to me as a perfect antidote for Dissociated Identity Disorder? If one might ask for a practical principle for making this possible, I would suggest mutual respect. I'm aware that this skirts the fundamental issue of physicalism vs idealism but at a practical process level I would simply say that now that physicalism has arrived at the limit called "dogma" that future creativity will unfold in such a way as to more and more privilege idealism. However, I do not believe Idealist models will be forever, at least not under the compelling force of an ever-creating God of 10,000 names (or no name). In brief, everything born dies and leaves traces for the future to stand upon.