the mind at large has no metacognition ?

[Soul_of_Shu]

I prefer cauliflower curry because it doesn't scream so loud.

Meta-metacognition is another order of evolution

[Ben Iscatus]

Cauliflower Curry? Hmm! But I have found a rather tasty spicy vegetable pasty. I feel metacognitive pride when I eat it. Take that, MAL!

[Czinczar]

Poking a cat and seeing the cat's reaction doesn't necessarily mean that the cat is self-aware, it just means that they respond to sensory stimuli.

So, by reading your responses and thinking about it, there are different ways to think about it :

- cosmic consciousness can only become self-aware out of necessity, thus that is why it can become self-aware only through disassociation, when it suddenly realizes that there seems to be "others" than just itself and must have relations with these "others"

- self-awareness is something that happens naturally, or is a given. It reminds me of Alan Watts who is often mentioning that this cosmic consciousness was so bored that it decided to divide itself so it could experience the drama of existence.

Do you have other ways of thinking about it that I could add to this list?

[Ben Iscatus]

Boredom is one possibility, but is probably incompatible with necessity (: fate, according to the Ancient Greeks was even boss over Zeus ).

If MAL were metacognitive, as BK points out, there would be no need to put us all through the mill of suffering (dukkha) and to do so would suggest deliberate cruelty or psychopathic disregard. I say "no need", because it would already know what we are supposed to be showing it by learning to be self-reflective.

Another possibility is that all 8 billion of us are learning to be gods who will one day create our own private universes.

[Ratatoskr]

It is instinctively and intuitively aware of what it likes and doesn't like - so naturally moves towards the light of its desires. As Czincar says, it cannot be self-reflective (metacognitive) because it has nothing outside itself to reflect about.

How can M@L "like" or "dislike" anything (instinctively, intuitively or otherwise) if it has no sense of "self" ? In my understanding, meta-reflection creates distinctiveness and "self". The concept of "self", supported by thought and memory, is possible only in meta-cognitive structures. Before meta-cognition, it's not "it". In the state without realization of "isness" there's nothing but experience.

It is important to clarify that "metacognitive" is a description of a relational perspective, rather than an isolated state of being. We engage in metacognitive abstract thinking because we are finite beings who must use such abstractions (symbols) to think-communicate 'complex' ideal content. A being which did not have any such limitations would not technically be metacognitive, although it could still be self-aware in some manner. That may not be BK's view, but I think he has hinted at it especially in his interview with Vervaeke.

I understand metacognition as "being aware of being" (anything). It's the realization of "I am". If there's no metacognition, there's no distinction between that which is experienced and experiencer, regardless of the available scope/content of experience. It seems that without localized and anchored (in the mirror) consciousness such experience would be either pure chaos or non-differentiated totality, wholeness. For me, the question whether there's an "awareness of being M@L in the M@L" remains.

[Czinczar]

Maybe suffering, tragedy, drama, is exactly what the cosmic consciousness was looking for when it "decided" to divide itself. Suffering in the end is just another experience.

Also this cosmic consciousness, if it was metacognitive, wouldn't already know what we are supposed to be showing it because for that it would need a stage, it would need to forget itself, it would need conflict, tragedy, drama all over the place, sorrow, love etc..

[Jim Cross]

Cauliflower Curry? Hmm! But I have found a rather tasty spicy vegetable pasty. I feel metacognitive pride when I eat it. Take that, MAL!

I usually combine with mushrooms then add some yogurt at the end for a thicker sauce.

Homemade curry powder: cumin, coriander, cayenne, cinnamon, mustard, ginger, salt black pepper in approximate equal portions (add extra cayenne if you like it more spicy). I'm certain there are many variants but that's what I use. Cook 30 sec - 1 min in butter before adding vegetables.

[Czinczar]

How can M@L "like" or "dislike" anything (instinctively, intuitively or otherwise) if it has no sense of "self" ? In my understanding, meta-reflection creates distinctiveness and "self". The concept of "self", supported by thought and memory, is possible only in meta-cognitive structures. Before meta-cognition, it's not "it". In the state without realization of "isness" there's nothing but experience.

It is important to clarify that "metacognitive" is a description of a relational perspective, rather than an isolated state of being. We engage in metacognitive abstract thinking because we are finite beings who must use such abstractions (symbols) to think-communicate 'complex' ideal content. A being which did not have any such limitations would not technically be metacognitive, although it could still be self-aware in some manner. That may not be BK's view, but I think he has hinted at it especially in his interview with Vervaeke.

I understand metacognition as "being aware of being" (anything). It's the realization of "I am". If there's no metacognition, there's no distinction between that which is experienced and experiencer, regardless of the available scope/content of experience. It seems that without localized and anchored (in the mirror) consciousness such experience would be either pure chaos or non-differentiated totality, wholeness. For me, the question whether there's an "awareness of being M@L in the M@L" remains.

I think when my cat sees something, he becomes that thing, a " non-differentiated totality, wholeness" like you said.

[AshvinP]

It is important to clarify that "metacognitive" is a description of a relational perspective, rather than an isolated state of being. We engage in metacognitive abstract thinking because we are finite beings who must use such abstractions (symbols) to think-communicate 'complex' ideal content. A being which did not have any such limitations would not technically be metacognitive, although it could still be self-aware in some manner. That may not be BK's view, but I think he has hinted at it especially in his interview with Vervaeke.

I understand metacognition as "being aware of being" (anything). It's the realization of "I am". If there's no metacognition, there's no distinction between that which is experienced and experiencer, regardless of the available scope/content of experience. It seems that without localized and anchored (in the mirror) consciousness such experience would be either pure chaos or non-differentiated totality, wholeness. For me, the question whether there's an "awareness of being M@L in the M@L" remains.

Yes but, in reality, we are always asking the question from a relational perspective. For us, a plant organism does not appear self-aware in the manner you describe i.e. human consciousness. From the plant organism perspective, we cannot really say unless if we have experienced that perspective. Since MAL is, by definition, whatever encompasses human, plant and all other possible perspectives, then I think we must conclude self-awareness from its human perspective. But what is the point of doing that? That conclusion does not provide any valuable information for further inquiry to relational perspectives. Hence the reason BK continues speaking of MAL as non-metacognitive (I don't know if he does that intentionally, or maybe subconsciously, but that is why I would continue speaking that way, while also including the caveat it is a relational term). FYI - this is also Jung's perspective on the 'collective unconscious', and he was thoroughly within the Christian spiritual perspective.

[Ratatoskr]

Yes but, in reality, we are always asking the question from a relational perspective. For us, a plant organism does not appear self-aware in the manner you describe i.e. human consciousness. From the plant organism perspective, we cannot really say unless if we have experienced that perspective. Since MAL is, by definition, whatever encompasses human, plant and all other possible perspectives, then I think we must conclude self-awareness from its human perspective. But what is the point of doing that? That conclusion does not provide any valuable information for further inquiry to relational perspectives.

I agree, as an evolving and incomplete organisms we can only speak from our incomplete perspective. I might have experiences of relocating the awareness normally anchored to my own being (to the plant organism for example) but can never know whether the experience is "true" or is it a projection of my own mind. However, for me, the answer to the question "Does the Generator understands what it generates ?" is crucial from the moral perspective.

Hence the reason BK continues speaking of MAL as non-metacognitive (I don't know if he does that intentionally, or maybe subconsciously, but that is why I would continue speaking that way, while also including the caveat it is a relational term). FYI - this is also Jung's perspective on the 'collective unconscious', and he was thoroughly within the Christian spiritual perspective.

It's of secondary importance, but I am confused as to why do you recognize Jung's stance as "within Christian spiritual perspective". From Judeo-Christian spiritual perspective, acquisition of meta consciousness is considered to be the fall of humankind, not elevation. Anthroposophy and Jung's work are representatives of Gnostic attitude. Gnosticism is a Luciferian doctrine, not Christian.