Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Transfiguring our Thinking (Part I)

[Simon Adams]

This is much simpler, you don't need to feel any "nothingness" at all. And the awareness of being an "experiencer" is only an idea by the way, you cannot find any "experiencer" no matter how much you search. It's about conscious experiencing itself. The content of what is experienced always changes, but the experiencing itself never changes, "time" does not apply to it.

If you search for the experiencer you will only finally reach the screen of perception itself. That’s a bit like saying I looked at the table as intensely as I could, and I saw my looking. I guess a way to put my point is that you (and most eastern ontologies) have restricted the search to one way of knowing (which is understandable because it is primary to us), and concluded that everything can be explained in terms of that. You don’t have details on how the vertical aspects of reality came to be (and no one really does), but assume that it can all be described in terms of that which is perceived at the root of conscious experience which the sages have transcended.

There is of course another tradition from the west. This has been mostly replaced by the eastern version with phenomenology etc, because the western tradition was fairly primitive in terms of the understanding of consciousness. It’s a bit like what many of the scholastics did when Aristotle was rediscovered, and they dropped Plato (although in reverse in some ways). However it has not taken over completely, and I would suggest that’s because there is good reason to believe that this will never be a description of the whole of reality. For example it could explain the intelligibility of the universe, but not the order that appeared fully formed from the start. It can explain how mental processes represent as matter, but not why it a conscious screen that seems to ‘act’ habitually and deterministically would choose all the perfect settings right at the start for life to eventually be possible. You can do what some cosmologists do and invent trillions of previous attempts, but that is truly wild speculation.

The Platonists and the Kabbalists had good reason to consider more structure to reality than the limits of our perception. There is no enlightened sage that can suddenly tell you the structure of atoms, or why light always travels at the same speed. Modern science has good reasons to believe that there are more dimensions than the four of space and time, but doesn’t have the first clue what they are. Interestingly the maths using our existing theories suggested 10 dimensions from five separate models originally, until they added an 11th that none of our maths pointed to, but which made the other five fit together like different paths up a mountain. So even though M Theory makes no sense because it’s more like a tin of paints than a painting, if we speculate that it at least tells us something about reality, we have three paints for space, then some more that in theory we have access to, and then something we have no access to at all.

I don't claim that it is "fundamental", neither I claim that I have full awareness of all that is in consciousness. But experiencing is definitely a "prerequisite" for any conscious experience because without the experiencing (the ability to have conscious experience) no awareness of any forms would be possible.

I agree, but again your scope of reality assumes we are the same as god, with access to all of reality. This is a very common assumption, but a big assumption that contradicts other accounts.

[Simon Adams]

You are referring to polarities of experience (timelessness-time, absolute-contingent, etc.). They are poles precisely because one cannot exist without the other. Therefore, they can be distinguished (and must be for experience) but never divided ("dualism"). The latter is what I cannot accept. I cannot accept a transcendent "absolute" God who may go on existing without the "contingent" world. Such a God can never be experienced and therefore may as well not exist for all intents and purposes.

I disagree firmly and fundamentally. The contingent world exists within god, something well beyond my understanding but lets just say the one made ‘space’ for ‘other than one’. Because there is really only one, everything in this ‘space’ is stretched between poles. From our perspective (as not one), this is just a fact of existence. To then argue that this absolute ‘one’ does not exist because our experience of oneness is more like a reflection in our deepest self, is as I just said to Eugene, a massive assumption. Yes mine is also an assumption - from a ‘reason’ perspective - but my faith is that this one has spoken to us of these things.

I lost you here. Maybe sarcasm? Either way I would never claim to "fully understand" any such things before experiencing them, and even then not "fully", unlike modern theologians who act as if they understand all such things without experiencing any of them.

Yes sorry, it was meant to be a funny teasing but failed miserably! We keep running into this strange phenomena when each of us quote scripture we think is supporting out point, the other sees it as supporting their point

[Eugene I]

I see we ended up back here at step one

Simon is right, there is no experience without continuity of the "moving now" and ideal content ("we can know [our awareness] intimately/directly") . That knowing is what truly weaves us into our shared Consciousness. I hope this becomes more clear in the final part.

Simon is also wrong, it is not an assumption that Consciousness is fundamental, more like a very informed guess. What is really an assumption is that there is something which "sustains consciousness" external to Consciousness, because that something we do not experience and, by definition, cannot ever experience.

I agree with both.
Yes, it is knowing that weaves us into shared Consciousness. And it is also experiencing and beingness that weaves us into shared Consciousness. Those are the "adverbial qualia" that makes the experiencing of all forms, thinking and willing possible.

There is also an argument for the experiencing being fundamental. We know from the "hard problem" that experiencing cannot be reduced to matter. Similarly, as I argued here, it can not be reduced to anything else, and in that "irreducibility" sense it can be called "fundamental".

[Eugene I]

If you search for the experiencer you will only finally reach the screen of perception itself. That’s a bit like saying I looked at the table as intensely as I could, and I saw my looking. I guess a way to put my point is that you (and most eastern ontologies) have restricted the search to one way of knowing (which is understandable because it is primary to us), and concluded that everything can be explained in terms of that. You don’t have details on how the vertical aspects of reality came to be (and no one really does), but assume that it can all be described in terms of that which is perceived at the root of conscious experience which the sages have transcended.

No, I don't claim that all reality is reduced to and described in terms of the screen of perception. There is definitely "something" beyond this screen. The problem is - we do not know, and what we have regarding that world "beyond the screen" are only guesses and hypotheses. The "experiencer" belongs to this category of "guesses", together with matter, God, MAL, flying spaghetti monster and all other metaphysical assumptions. I'm not saying we can not or should not take assumptions, but we need to be careful not to take them for granted as undisputable facts. So, regarding the "experiencer" - yes, you can make such an assumption that the "experiencer" exists, but it is not a fact, it is only an assumption.

I agree, but again your scope of reality assumes we are the same as god, with access to all of reality. This is a very common assumption, but a big assumption that contradicts other accounts.

No- no, God would definitely have much greater cognitive and creative powers and access to the levels of reality inaccessible to other conscious forms. But I'm just saying that his conscious experiencing and bitingness are still exactly the same as ours, so we share the common aspects of Consciousness. In simple words, we all, God and us and everything, are made of the same "stuff". As BK says: the whole universe is only conscious experiences. But definitely these experiences unfold in forms of very intervened, complicated and powerful cognitive structures.

[AshvinP]

You are referring to polarities of experience (timelessness-time, absolute-contingent, etc.). They are poles precisely because one cannot exist without the other. Therefore, they can be distinguished (and must be for experience) but never divided ("dualism"). The latter is what I cannot accept. I cannot accept a transcendent "absolute" God who may go on existing without the "contingent" world. Such a God can never be experienced and therefore may as well not exist for all intents and purposes.

I disagree firmly and fundamentally. The contingent world exists within god, something well beyond my understanding but lets just say the one made ‘space’ for ‘other than one’. Because there is really only one, everything in this ‘space’ is stretched between poles. From our perspective (as not one), this is just a fact of existence. To then argue that this absolute ‘one’ does not exist because our experience of oneness is more like a reflection in our deepest self, is as I just said to Eugene, a massive assumption. Yes mine is also an assumption - from a ‘reason’ perspective - but my faith is that this one has spoken to us of these things.

Here is my question to you - if there exists a God 'outside' of the unified Consciousness, then how could we ever know about Him? Perhaps we could know some aspect of Him which is included within Consciousness, but the aspects of Him which fully "transcend" Consciousness would never be experienced from within Consciousness. Not in this lifetime, the next lifetime, the "afterlife", etc. Do you see what I mean?

[Eugene I]

Here is my question to you - if there exists a God 'outside' of the unified Consciousness, then how could we ever know about Him? Perhaps we could know some aspect of Him which is included within Consciousness, but the aspects of Him which fully "transcend" Consciousness would never be experienced from within Consciousness. Not in this lifetime, the next lifetime, the "afterlife", etc. Do you see what I mean?

This is a rare case when I entirely agree with Ashvin
And would like to add: if there exists a God 'outside' of the unified Consciousness, is God itself conscious, is he aware of his ideas and actions? If yes, then God is still Consciousness. If no, you are running into the "hard problem" again - how something which by nature is not consciously experiencing can make conscious experience happen?

[Simon Adams]

I’m pleased I brought you both together for a change

I do understand where you both are coming from, but I don’t know how to put the way god is present in consciousness into words. Consciousness is not the right word, but neither is unconscious, or metaconscious, or habitual etc. Yes there should be another version of the hard problem like there would be between mind and matter if they were different ontological substances, but this is different. It’s almost philosophical enquiry proofed, deliberately. The aim is for people to approach god through heart and mind, not just mind, and find him in humility. Sorry Eugene, but a little quote that sums it up better than me;

Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

27“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

28“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

There is a way in which reality is ‘folded out’, and each fold in a way rests on, and shapes, the next fold. We have different ways to perceive some of these folds, and it’s very easy for us to assume that a particular fold is all. But the reality I’ve come to accept is that there is a fundamental element that’s more like stories than metaphysics. Not stories that M@L is telling to itself, but deliberate stories behind that fabric of the universe that are somehow woven into our individual lives.

It’s difficult to explain to someone who hasn’t had it ‘fall on their head’, including many christians, but some of it is touched on in this story that Pageau just posted a link to https://www.firstthings.com/article/202 ... he-machine

[Simon Adams]

PS: I don’t expect either of you to agree with me on this stuff, which is fine.

[Eugene I]

Simon, I resonate with what you are saying, the sense of mystery and sacredness is what I find missing in modern philosophy, as well as in spiritual practices and religions reducing spiritual life to rational cognition and morality. Also, the authentic Christianity, as well as other authentic monotheistic traditions, have a strong component of personal relationship with Divine. Our take of religions typically revolves around our own pragmatic goals, we are doing something to ourselves - attaining salvations, redemption, transformation, enlightenment, metamorphosis etc, and the Divine is here just to help us in the process. The authentic Christianity, as well as really most other authentic traditions (Buddhism included) is more about losing itself in the Divine.

But to me Consciousness itself is an abyss of mystery. How is that there is not just some "stuff" that exists, but this "stuff" is actually consciously experiencing itself? How conscious experience is possible at all? How does it exist, why? My cognitive abilities just melt here, this is the greatest mystery of all, absolutely ineffable. When I meet God this is the first question I'm going to ask, but I doubt he would know the answer either.

[Simon Adams]

I agree Eugene, consciousness is an ocean of mystery by itself. Even at a fairly superficial level of the experience of it, there seem to be folds of a kind as you move into your own consciousness. Like peeling an onion, with some layers having sounds, some light, some colours. You move on, but what is that all about? Even where your sense of “I” is seems to move to different parts of your body at first. And as you say, even when you have perceived something of it, conceptualising what it actually is is no easier (in fact it’s probably harder, or you just realise it’s meaningless to try).

I also agree that a personal letting go to the divine, as best you can find that in truth rather than fact, is always more important than conceptualisation.