BK on the unconscious.

[AshvinP]

If I understand correctly, FB is asking the following question - why are we assuming the "train whistle" percept is, in reality, a distinct 'unit' of sound?

I propose that what is being assumed is that the percept would be isomorphic to whatever immanent ideational quality a given transpersonal activity of Mind has, absent any subject><object, spatiotemporal dynamic, and that such quality subliminally affects one's personal metacognitive activity. Certainly this invites the possibility of going much deeper into such experiences, but again that isn't BK's primary objective at this point, however much others may be inclined to feel he should go deeper, whereby, for example, he enters into Steiner mode—in which case he'd be tuned out by the academics he's trying to sway, just like Steiner has been largely tuned out, thus defeating his objective ...or so it seems.

Yes and that is a bad assumption IMO. When we get into matters of essence, i.e. metaphysics and spirituality, such assumptions should not be made. Why do we say the quality of "car" ends where the tires meet the road? It is arbitrary except to the extent it is useful for intellectual thought. There is a real danger in that isomorphic assumption because it reinforces the conception of essential relations as isolated 'things' observed by Mind rather than inter-weaving processes inherent to Mind. Again, it is mostly a matter of resolution for me - BK approach is better than thinking of these percepts as physical things existing external to Mind all altogether, and therefore useful to challenge that view, but that is the beginning and the end of its usefulness.

[findingblanks]

"and that such quality subliminally affects one's personal metacognitive activity."

Yes, nobody seems to be disagreeing with the idea that our current meta-consciousness is directly shaped by our full experiencing.

"Certainly this invites the possibility of going much deeper into such experiences, but again that isn't BK's primary objective at this point..."

I disagree. My hunch is that you wouldn't say Bernardo is 'going to deep' in his introductory videos when he insists the new listener grasp the notion that everything they perceive is really a 'dial' that helps them stay alive rather than being an image of what Nature looks like. He starts there. He starts there in many of his most basic essays to argue for his analytical idealism and he starts there in his new video series that he considers an introduction.

I think he is wise to start there because missing that point misunderstands many of the basics.

Clearly what I am suggesting is no more difficult to grasp and no deeper than his dashboard theory.

In fact, as a loose analogy, I'm simply reapplying the dashboard metaphor to individual experience. Just as the brownish green tree swaying in the wind isn't out there free of your looking at it, there is no independent train whistle being heard until you translate it. This avoids the incoherence and duplications that happen when you imagine an alter broken up into hundreds of different TWE's at each moment. There is the TWE that is reading the book, the TWE that is hearing a train whistle, the TWE feeling the heat in his left big toe, the TWE feeling the pressure of weight in his upper joint of his left hand, ect., we can segment individual experiences into the hundreds of thousands and have to claim these are all individual dissociated experiences being noticed outside of metaconsciousness. It's not as silly as extrapolating the multi-verse but it is unnecessary and doesn't match our phenomenology. And, from a practical point of view, it is confusing for many people who are new to Idealism to here somebody say, "Oh, two seconds ago there was a part of you outside of your meta-consciousness that we distinctly aware of the warmth in your left thigh.

We've all heard when Bernardo begins to make his coherent points in a way that shifts the listener. They get excited and ask more questions and begin to connect the newly forming model. I've yet to observe a listener (one who isn't already fully in the idealist camp) understand or agree that they have all of these separated parts of themselves at all moment noticing endless specific fragments.

So I disagree that I'm making a super deep point. Unless you also feel Bernardo is making a mistake in being clear about everyday perception not being images of what is 'out there.'

Most of the people interviewing Bernardo are familiar with notions of 'fields' in physics and can subscribe to them in various ways. Therefore, I'd say it is less deep and more practical (and even more true to experience) to make his point about the unconscious referring to it as a field that is always impinging on meta-consciousness in various ways.

Thanks for engaging. I'm not trying to change your mind at this point. It is clear to me that you have a strong sense that dissociated, seperated experiences are good enough descriptions. But I know people look at these who don't comment and will down the road so I do feel inclined to keep trying to clarify my point, and I agree with your opinion that much of this is about practical considerations regarding people who may not yet simply agree with everything that comes out of Bernardo's mouth. Thanks again.

[findingblanks]

another side note:

Bernardo's says that any and all so-called 'unconscious experiences' that are influencing our meta-consciousness exist each separately as their own dissociated islands of distinct experience. If somebody reading this agrees with that characterization, I'd want to shift the topic slightly and ask the following.

Your belief that 2+2=4 was most likely not impinging on your meta-consciousness before you read this sentence. But, you certainly already believed it because I didn't have to convince you that it was true in the previous sentence. You simply saw it and already agreed because you believe it.

So, let's quickly talk about all of your unconscious experiences that are within your personal alter but are not actively shaping your current meta-experience, like your belief that 2+2=4. It was not impinging as a dissociated separated experience, but -- assuming we think that our beliefs or memories are dissociated experiences -- your belief was an intact unit.

Do we add it to the list of TWEs that are not in your metaconsciousness but that are distinct and separated units floating in the background? And if you believe that is an accurate way to think about how the unconscious function, would you say that the number 4 'hangs out nearby' all the various mathematical questions that equate to it? Or that 1+1+1+1 is 2+2's long lost twin? I retract my last two hyperbolic questions!

But you do belief you grew up in a specific town. And you do believe you were recently talking to so-and-so. And you probably even belief that you recently remembered the way a certain person looked. Is the dissociated memory of the look "similar" to the dissociated belief that you recently remembered the look? Might those two separated and dissociated TWEs ( keeping in mind that ultimately there is only one TWE but Bernardo wisely often makes a concession and points out the utility of realizing that any distinct experience is being experienced) live a dissociated boundary 'neighborhood' that is distinct from other unconscious 'neighborhoods' of nearly identical experiences? I think we are sometimes seduced by quantitative ways of picturing the nature of reality, and that this habit of thought makes it hard to grasp what Bernardo is trying to say the wholeness of, say, inanimate nature or the inherent wholeness of mind-at-large. This habit of thought is so intent on picturing reality as something made up of distinct little units and it then tries to picture the unconscious along those same lines.

But let's keep things simple: 2 + 2 = 4

[Soul_of_Shu]

Yes and that is a bad assumption IMO. When we get into matters of essence, i.e. metaphysics and spirituality, such assumptions should not be made. Why do we say the quality of "car" ends where the tires meet the road? It is arbitrary except to the extent it is useful for intellectual thought. There is a real danger in that isomorphic assumption because it reinforces the conception of essential relations as isolated 'things' observed by Mind rather than inter-weaving processes inherent to Mind. Again, it is mostly a matter of resolution for me - BK approach is better than thinking of these percepts as physical things existing external to Mind all altogether, and therefore useful to challenge that view, but that is the beginning and the end of its usefulness.

So in the example I give, the more accurate way to frame it, so as to avoid any linguistic distinctions such as 'train whistle', would be that a certain quality of activity in transpersonal Mind is subliminally affecting the metacognitive activity of a personal mind. And yet what about the quality of the transpersonal activity in affecting the personal metacognitive activity gives rise to an anecdote specifically about trains?

[AshvinP]

Yes and that is a bad assumption IMO. When we get into matters of essence, i.e. metaphysics and spirituality, such assumptions should not be made. Why do we say the quality of "car" ends where the tires meet the road? It is arbitrary except to the extent it is useful for intellectual thought. There is a real danger in that isomorphic assumption because it reinforces the conception of essential relations as isolated 'things' observed by Mind rather than inter-weaving processes inherent to Mind. Again, it is mostly a matter of resolution for me - BK approach is better than thinking of these percepts as physical things existing external to Mind all altogether, and therefore useful to challenge that view, but that is the beginning and the end of its usefulness.

So in the example I give, the more accurate way to frame it, so as to avoid any linguistic distinctions such as 'train whistle', would be that a certain quality of activity in transpersonal Mind is subliminally affecting the metacognitive activity of a personal mind. And yet what about the quality of the transpersonal activity in affecting the personal metacognitive activity gives rise to an anecdote specifically about trains?

I imagine that the ideal connection you ask about is going to be unique to each specific case. Maybe the "quality" has nothing to do with the anecdote and is merely connected post hoc, or maybe it is essential to remembering the anecdote, or anything in between. I would say the underlying "qualities" we are speaking of are specific relations between idea-beings working with and through us to create the phenomenal world at all times.

[findingblanks]

It's still a 'train whistle' even if it isn't explicated via meta-consciousness.

Just because it might not be heard as a train whistle by some dissociated part of my alter, it is still a real interaction taking place between mind-at-large and my alter.

Evolution made sure we started carving up the superpositions of transpersonal states that ARE M@L into distinct perceptions. If my meta-consciousness is being shaped right now by a transpersonal state that I've previously translated into 'train whistle', that shaping could have countless effects, one of which would be for me to change the topic of conversation to trains. Or just create a sense of wistfulness that alters the topic. The blood flow in my lips could perceptively change. And I might then notice myself shifting my attention to the whistle itself. If that happens, we can that I translated the condensed qualitative reality that was shaping my meta-consciousness into the explicit sound of 'a train whistle.' No need to posit additional sub-alters of 'me' that were listening to the train whistle as an explicated structure.

This should be kept distinct for what happens when we quickly notice the train whistle and then continue talking. In that case we have two different kinds of qualia implicitly functioning in the shaping of our meta-consciousness:

1) The fact of self-consciously noting "Oh a train whistle" (even if only for a split second) is potentially shaping my meta-consciousness
2) And the ongoing transpersonal (non explicated) reality of the 'train whistle' is still impinging and potentially shaping my meta-consciousness.

This isn't the same as when an unconscious aspect hasn't been meta-consciously noted.

[findingblanks]

The unconscious as a field-experience doesn't seem more abstract or deep to me than claiming that the unconscious in every moment is constituted by nearly countless dissociated parts of me having experiences that are not the part of me having this experience but that could potentially influence by current experience by scooting up next to it.

To think of our current meta-consciousness as being always shaped by the field-experience that is 'unconscious' seems more coherent and persuasive than trying to chop everything up in to hidden, explicated structures experienced by sub-alters.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Suffice to say I'm very curious to behold the look on BK's face if and when he were to ever engage in such a conversation as this.

[findingblanks]

Yeah, I imagine down the road if he continues speaking to people who aren't already in his pocket, so to speak, he'll be asked to clarify what he means with regard to an alters dissociated 'parts' that are always having thousands up distinct experiences. But maybe not. So far, there's just silence when he says it.

[findingblanks]

Putting aside the incoherence that comes with imagining the unconscious as separated and explicit TWEs...

1) My association of states of curiosity with Karen and Susan when they are planning fun surprises for the office can exist as a set of experiences dissociated from my current meta-consciousness.
2) My hearing of them whispering can exist dissociated from my meta-awareness.
3) According to BK dissociated experiences can impinge upon each other


so

4) Doesn't it follow that 2 could associate with 1 which then influences my current meta-consciousness by producing curiosity?

This is such a common type experience, i struggle to see how somebody could deny it. But, then again, I struggle to really believe that some people claim they can conceiver of consciousness as an illusion. I've never yet convinced one of them otherwise!

Even when we put aside the larger problems, I don't understand how somebody could object to curiosity being the result of unconscious influence.

The mind is a strange land, for sure.