Possible objection to the universal mind dissociating

[OofieMCM]

If I remember correctly BK says in his theory of the mind at large dissociating in different alters (we as subjects) that mind at large is not conscious of itself, i.e. meta-conscious. However it is shown that dissociation (Dissociative Identity Disorder, schizophrenia etc.) only occurs within humans, i.e. meta-conscious organisms. It has been researched and to this day there are no accounts of DID, schizophrenia etc. in other organisms than humans. So either mind at large is meta-conscious and somehow dissociates into different alters. Or the theory can't be correct.

[Eugene I]

So either mind at large is meta-conscious and somehow dissociates into different alters. Or the theory can't be correct.

There are no proofs of course, but I also think that MAL is meta-cognitive. BK's objection to meta-cognitive MAL is rather ethical: in BK's view a meta-cognitive MAL with a developed sense of empathy could not create/ideate a universe with so much suffering for conscious alters and expose the alters to suffering without their consent. IMO this problem can be resolved if we assume the possibility of reincarnation, so that we alters in a discarnate form deliberately choose to incarnate into humans knowing that it will involve some amount of suffering but also knowing that suffering will catalyze further spiritual development of our consciousness.

[OofieMCM]

So either mind at large is meta-conscious and somehow dissociates into different alters. Or the theory can't be correct.

There are no proofs of course, but I also think that MAL is meta-cognitive. BK's objection to meta-cognitive MAL is rather ethical: in BK's view a meta-cognitive MAL with a developed sense of empathy could not create/ideate a universe with so much suffering for conscious alters and expose the alters to suffering without their consent. IMO this problem can be resolved if we assume the possibility of reincarnation, so that we alters in a discarnate form deliberately choose to incarnate into humans knowing that it will involve some amount of suffering but also knowing that suffering will catalyze further spiritual development of our consciousness.

So if mind at large is already meta-cognitive, then why did it take so extremely long for organisms to become meta-cognitive as well? Millions of years have passed before this has happened. Wouldn't organisms immediately also be meta-cognitive? Also meta-cognition is formed by experience. This is how young children become conscious of themselves, through interacting with the world. How can mind at large become meta-cognitive if it has nothing to interact with?

[AshvinP]

So either mind at large is meta-conscious and somehow dissociates into different alters. Or the theory can't be correct.

There are no proofs of course, but I also think that MAL is meta-cognitive. BK's objection to meta-cognitive MAL is rather ethical: in BK's view a meta-cognitive MAL with a developed sense of empathy could not create/ideate a universe with so much suffering for conscious alters and expose the alters to suffering without their consent. IMO this problem can be resolved if we assume the possibility of reincarnation, so that we alters in a discarnate form deliberately choose to incarnate into humans knowing that it will involve some amount of suffering but also knowing that suffering will catalyze further spiritual development of our consciousness.

So if mind at large is already meta-cognitive, then why did it take so extremely long for organisms to become meta-cognitive as well? Millions of years have passed before this has happened. Wouldn't organisms immediately also be meta-cognitive? Also meta-cognition is formed by experience. This is how young children become conscious of themselves, through interacting with the world. How can mind at large become meta-cognitive if it has nothing to interact with?

These are key points to consider. BK hints around this sometimes but does not emphasize it nearly enough IMO. "Meta-cognitive" is an inherently relational term - it describes a specific perspective on the world and, as you point out, that perspective metamorphoses from infancy to adulthood in each individual, just as it does for humanity at large and for MAL as well (although here is where "MAL" stops being a very useful term-concept and starts becoming a hindrance). Our infant self is non-metacognitive from our adult perspective, just as many animals and plants. Humanity and MAL's primordial state is also non-metacognitive from that perspective. From MAL's perspective, nothing is metacognitive because everything is always directly experienced in its essence, and therefore there is never any need for metacognitive abstractions (i.e. symbols). When we stop thinking of Time as strictly linear in its essence, this flexibility of perspectives becomes easier to get a hold of. We can instead think of it as circular, spherical, superimposed, etc., but of course these are still abstract intellectual concepts which do not come close to capturing the essential experience of Time. After all, that is only what Time can ever be... a mode of experiencing.

[Eugene I]

So if mind at large is already meta-cognitive, then why did it take so extremely long for organisms to become meta-cognitive as well? Millions of years have passed before this has happened. Wouldn't organisms immediately also be meta-cognitive?

IMO the "real MAL alters" mostly incarnate into organisms that have sufficiently developed consciousness capacity to become meta-cognitive, i.e. into humans and highly-developed animals. They would have little interest in incarnating into primitive non-meta-cognitive organisms because there is little to learn from such experience, but they still may do it just out of curiosity (would not you want to experience what it is like to be a fish?), but of course by incarnating into such organisms they would lose their meta-cognition (temporarily). There are some NDE accounts (if we would consider them as evidences) suggesting that by far not all living organisms, including humans, are inhabited by "souls" (incarnated alters).

As a simple analogy, you can think of the perceived worlds as a virtual reality evolutionary game imagined/ideated by the MAL. It took millions of "virtual" years for organisms to evolve and become cognitive in this VR, but not all of them represent the "real players" in the game. The "players" (alters) typically only get involved in the game through avatars with sufficiently developed cognitive capacities so they can enjoy the game and benefit/learn from it.

Also meta-cognition is formed by experience. This is how young children become conscious of themselves, through interacting with the world. How can mind at large become meta-cognitive if it has nothing to interact with?

There may be different schemes to explain the evolution of MAL. One (traditional theistic) scheme is that MAL/God is highly-metacognitive just by nature, it's just the way it is and always has been. Another scheme is that MAL was initially non-meta-cognitive, but started conscious thinking activity (producing imaginations, thoughts etc) and from that activity gradually learned and developed into the meta-cognitive state, and after it gained such capacity, it then started splitting into alters and ideating the universe.

[AshvinP]

So if mind at large is already meta-cognitive, then why did it take so extremely long for organisms to become meta-cognitive as well? Millions of years have passed before this has happened. Wouldn't organisms immediately also be meta-cognitive?

IMO the "real MAL alters" mostly incarnate into organisms that have sufficiently developed consciousness capacity to become meta-cognitive, i.e. into humans and highly-developed animals. They would have little interest in incarnating into primitive non-meta-cognitive organisms because there is little to learn from such experience, but they still may do it just out of curiosity (would not you want to experience what it is like to be a fish?), but of course by incarnating into such organisms they would lose their meta-cognition (temporarily). There are some NDE accounts (if we would consider them as evidences) suggesting that by far not all living organisms, including humans, are inhabited by "souls" (incarnated alters).

As a simple analogy, you can think of the perceived worlds as a virtual reality evolutionary game imagined/ideated by the MAL. It took millions of "virtual" years for organisms to evolve and become cognitive in this VR, but not all of them represent the "real players" in the game. The "players" (alters) typically only get involved in the game through avatars with sufficiently developed cognitive capacities so they can enjoy the game and benefit/learn from it.

Also meta-cognition is formed by experience. This is how young children become conscious of themselves, through interacting with the world. How can mind at large become meta-cognitive if it has nothing to interact with?

There may be different schemes to explain the evolution of MAL. One (traditional theistic) scheme is that MAL/God is highly-metacognitive just by nature, it's just the way it is and always has been. Another scheme is that MAL was initially non-meta-cognitive, but started conscious thinking activity (producing imaginations, thoughts etc) and from that activity gradually learned and developed into the meta-cognitive state, and after it gained such capacity, it then started splitting into alters and ideating the universe.

Much of this confusion comes from failing to consider the ever-present metamorphic process. There are no static 'alters' in existence, only idea-beings-in-becoming. Related to that, there may not be any more choice over incarnations as there is choice to grow from infant into young child and adolescent. These are natural processes which unfold. However, knowledge, actions and other 'external' influences involved at any stage can greatly effect how the metamorphosis takes place and what results. So our knowledge and choices in current incarnation certainly influence our post-death experience and our reincarnation in next Earthly life. But I don't think the VR analogy is good for those reasons. Again, "metacognitive" simply describes an idea-being-in-becoming's perspective on the world, in which abstract representations must be used to cognize various supersensible relational experiences. If no such representations are necessary, then the idea-being is non-metacognitive, either because they are structured so simple as to not have any representative capacity or because they encompass so many relations within direct experience that the representations are mostly or entirely unnecessary. We can have intent and even intelligence without metacognition.

[Eugene I]

VR analogy is of course a simplification that misses a lot of more subtle facets, but it is still good enough to clarify some simple confusions.

[Starbuck]

If I remember correctly BK says in his theory of the mind at large dissociating in different alters (we as subjects) that mind at large is not conscious of itself, i.e. meta-conscious. However it is shown that dissociation (Dissociative Identity Disorder, schizophrenia etc.) only occurs within humans, i.e. meta-conscious organisms. It has been researched and to this day there are no accounts of DID, schizophrenia etc. in other organisms than humans. So either mind at large is meta-conscious and somehow dissociates into different alters. Or the theory can't be correct.

I think DID is a useful metaphor, but Bernardo is a pains to not over extend it - For instance, the link to disorder or trauma, and applying that to M@l. There are other ancient metaphors such as Indra's Net. Not sure the theory rests epistemologically on any one of them.

[Adur Alkain]

If I remember correctly BK says in his theory of the mind at large dissociating in different alters (we as subjects) that mind at large is not conscious of itself, i.e. meta-conscious. However it is shown that dissociation (Dissociative Identity Disorder, schizophrenia etc.) only occurs within humans, i.e. meta-conscious organisms. It has been researched and to this day there are no accounts of DID, schizophrenia etc. in other organisms than humans. So either mind at large is meta-conscious and somehow dissociates into different alters. Or the theory can't be correct.

Great question!

I personally don't think that Bernardo's theory works. I don't believe there is any kind of dissociation. There is no separation between Cosmic Consciousness (I prefer this term to "mind at large") and our individual consciousness or soul. Cosmic Consciousness needs individual or limited minds to become meta-cognitive. Like you say, meta-cognition is the result of billions of years of evolution.

Nothing gets dissociated. The evolution of consciousness is a slow, gradual movement toward greater insight and self-knowing: toward meta-cognition.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I personally don't think that Bernardo's theory works. I don't believe there is any kind of dissociation. There is no separation between Cosmic Consciousness (I prefer this term to "mind at large") and our individual consciousness or soul. Cosmic Consciousness needs individual or limited minds to become meta-cognitive. Like you say, meta-cognition is the result of billions of years of evolution.

Nothing gets dissociated. The evolution of consciousness is a slow, gradual movement toward greater insight and self-knowing: toward meta-cognition.

What BK intends to convey by referencing a dissociative process, he alludes to with the whirlpool metaphor, making clear that there in never any actual separation between the essence of the whirlpool and the essence of the water-at-large, the former just being a distinct, boundary-defined configuration and activity of the latter, while being of the exact same essence. And so it is with any given locus of consciousness, the 'dissociation' being a reference to the appearance of a relational subject><object dynamic, when M@L, individuating into these subjectified loci of awareness, experiences its immanent configurations of activity as objectified phenomena, which metacognition then becomes a function of. BK also concedes that, while such 'dissociation' is an empirical process, any definitive explication of how this process occurs remains a work in progress.