The Time-Consciousness Spectrum

[Stranger]

In fact, we should assume we have an observer who is paying very close attention to the entire field of outer-inner experience and is soundly reasoning through that field at all times.

Duality between observer and observed

[AshvinP]

In fact, we should assume we have an observer who is paying very close attention to the entire field of outer-inner experience and is soundly reasoning through that field at all times.

Duality between observer and observed

What does "phenomenology" mean to you, Eugene?

[Stranger]

What does "phenomenology" mean to you, Eugene?

What does "observer" mean to you, Ashvin?

You always ask, I answer, you misinterpret my answers and then switch to personal blames.
Now it's my turn to ask (but I promise I will not be employing your tactics )

[AshvinP]

What does "phenomenology" mean to you, Eugene?

What does "observer" mean to you, Ashvin?

You always ask, I answer, you misinterpret my answers and then switch to personal blames.
Now it's my turn to ask (but I promise I will not be employing your tactics )

From the first-person perspective (not abstract metaphysical postulates), it means a thinking agency experiencing qualitative (meaningful) phenomena transforming in a stream of becoming, some of which appear as "outside me", some which appear as "inside me", and one which is intuited as "me".

[Stranger]

From the first-person perspective (not abstract metaphysical postulates), it means a thinking agency experiencing qualitative (meaningful) phenomena transforming in a stream of becoming, some of which appear as "outside me", some which appear as "inside me", and one which appears as "me".

Does this thinking agency resides "inside you"?

[AshvinP]

From the first-person perspective (not abstract metaphysical postulates), it means a thinking agency experiencing qualitative (meaningful) phenomena transforming in a stream of becoming, some of which appear as "outside me", some which appear as "inside me", and one which appears as "me".

Does this thinking agency resides "inside you"?

From the first-person perspective of normal waking cognition, it does appear to reside "inside me".

The "first person perspective", "normal waking cognition", and "appear" is critical, because otherwise we lapse into abstract metaphysics which asks questions and proposes answers to its questions from a non-existent 3rd person perspective. It asks, 'what is the absolute reality of this thinking agency?' Such a question has no meaning apart from pointing to the patterns of our own intellectual cognition. It can't possibly be helpful in evaluating the concrete, living, evolving nature of our thinking agency.

[Federica]

Federica,

You have a really interesting way of presenting and responding to arguments, I will give you that!

Thank you!

Whenever I challenge your points, it must be because I didn't read them carefully or feel motivated to actually address them Of course that is possible, but then I would expect the response to be more of a measured clarification than a defensive reaction and dismissal of everything written.

Ashvin, of course I want to continue the discussion. The reason why I haven’t taken another round to clarify my points really was to spare you that (and everyone else) and I felt you replied as a politeness. Now, it seems I was wrong, and that you expected a measured clarification. I’m glad to provide that!

Also, my message was not in the least dismissal, and I thought I made it clear I agreed with you. It's not been very difficult, basically in your initial reply you said: that WFT is useful; that the rules of transformation of thinking are under our responsibility; that karma and soul preferences influence our becoming, and that the exact mechanism by which our will is transferred to the body is unconscious. So with the exception of the article you shared, that I suspect you would also disagree with (I have noted now the reason you linked it) we were in agreement.

Now, in your latest reply you are more direct, which is good. I see Cleric also has replied, so I think I will integrate responses to his post and to your latest reply in one post. But before I go, may I try to give back some of the good mood you put me in with the average Joe sixpack I was wondering, why is average Joe supposed to be fit and trained, until google told me it's actually a sixpack of beer

[Stranger]

From the first-person perspective of normal waking cognition, it does appear to reside "inside me".

The "first person perspective" and "appear" is critical, because otherwise we lapse into abstract metaphysics which asks questions and proposes answers to its questions from a non-existent 3rd person perspective. It asks, 'what is the absolute reality of this thinking agency?' Such a question has no meaning apart from pointing to the patterns of our own intellectual cognition. It can't possibly be helpful in evaluating the concrete, living, evolving nature of our thinking agency.

That's right, so let's stick with the phenomenological 1-st person perspective. So, in that case, there "appears" to be phenomena that somehow exists separately "outside" you, and therefore exist separately "outside" the thinking activity. So here we have an "apparent" split of reality into two separate kinds of reality: the thinking activity "inside you" and the phenomena "outside you" that the thinking activity experiences as something separate from itself. That is what duality is.

The truth is that there is noting "outside" of the thinking activity whatsoever, all phenomena are inseparable from the thinking activity no matter whether they appear to be "inside" or "outside, all phenomena are only "forms" that thinking activity takes and inseparably experiences them. If a there is phenomenon of a percept of a "blue sky" appearing "outside", it is actually produced and experienced by the thinking activity "right there" where it appears. In other words, the division of "inside" and "outside" is just another abstract idea incoherent with reality, and the reality of the actual phenomenal 1-st person experience is that every "inside" or "outside" phenomenon happens within the same thinking activity that produces it and experiences it. This truth is actually a 1-st person phenomenological experience, but it is "veiled" by these abstract ideas that the world is split into "inside me" and "outside me" and the thinking activity resides "inside me" and constitutes "me" as something different from the world "outside me". These abstract ideas are in fact incoherent with the actual phenomenological state of the World. They were naively derived from this "appearance" of the "inside-outside" world split and that the thinking activity resides "inside me" some long time ago during our early childhood when we took these ideas for granted as truth. Since then, it resided deep in our subconscious and shaped our perception of the world as divided into "inside" and "outside", "me as thinking inside" and the "outer world outside me". What needs to be done in meditation is investigation of these ideas, where they came from, what are the phenomenological facts to support them, doubting them and taking assumption of "what if they are not true?" etc. In other words, to bring these abstractions from subconscious layers into the light of consciousness, testing them against the actual phenomenological 1-st person experience and realizing that they are incoherent with the actual phenomenological reality.

[AshvinP]

From the first-person perspective of normal waking cognition, it does appear to reside "inside me".

The "first person perspective" and "appear" is critical, because otherwise we lapse into abstract metaphysics which asks questions and proposes answers to its questions from a non-existent 3rd person perspective. It asks, 'what is the absolute reality of this thinking agency?' Such a question has no meaning apart from pointing to the patterns of our own intellectual cognition. It can't possibly be helpful in evaluating the concrete, living, evolving nature of our thinking agency.

That's right, so let's stick with the phenomenological 1-st person perspective. So, in that case, there "appears" to be phenomena that somehow exists separately "outside" you, and therefore exist separately "outside" the thinking activity. So here we have an "apparent" split of reality into two separate kinds of reality: the thinking activity "inside you" and the phenomena "outside you" that the thinking activity experiences as something separate from itself. That is what duality is.

The truth is that there is noting "outside" of the thinking activity whatsoever, all phenomena are inseparable from the thinking activity no matter whether they appear to be "inside" or "outside, all phenomena are only "forms" that thinking activity takes and inseparably experiences them. If a there is phenomenon of a percept of a "blue sky" appearing "outside", it is actually produced and experienced by the thinking activity "right there" where it appears. In other words, the division of "inside" and "outside" is just another abstract idea incoherent with reality, and the reality of the actual phenomenal 1-st person experience is that every "inside" or "outside" phenomenon happens within the same thinking activity that produces it and experiences it. This truth is actually a 1-st person phenomenological experience, but it is "veiled" by these abstract ideas that the world is split into "inside me" and "outside me" and the thinking activity resides "inside me" and constitutes "me" as something different from the world "outside me". These abstract ideas are in fact incoherent with the actual phenomenological state of the World. They were naively derived from this "appearance" of the "inside-outside" world split and that the thinking activity resides "inside me" some long time ago during our early childhood when we took these ideas for granted as truth. Since then, it resided deep in our subconscious and shaped our perception of the world as divided into "inside" and "outside", "me as thinking inside" and the "outer world outside me". What needs to be done in meditation is investigation of these ideas, where they came from, what are the phenomenological facts to support them, doubting them and taking assumption of "what if they are not true?" etc. In other words, to bring these abstractions from subconscious layers into the light of consciousness, testing them against the actual phenomenological 1-st person experience and realizing that they are incoherent with the actual phenomenological reality.

But what about the fact that we can speak of an "outside" in so far as we have no creative responsibility for certain phenomenal appearances, such as the 'blue sky', and an "inside" in so far as we do, such as our own thought-forms, at any given time in our process of intuitive becoming? Once we bring the material reductionist abstractions into the light of consciousness and realize they are incoherent with phenomenological experience, where do we go to investigate the lawful, hierarchical gradient between these domains, thereby bringing them into closer experiential unity (rather than abstractly postulating that they are One, despite gaining no greater creative responsibility for higher-order processes)?

[Stranger]

Cleric, first my applauds to your essay, you mastered your writing style and made it more clear, concrete and accessible for an average Joe like me. I'm kind of reluctant to say that I agree with it (even though I actually do), because I will be again beaten to death by Ashvin for saying that. But I just have a few comments.

Now that we understand the spectrum of Time-Consciousness and the fact that we're being un- or half-consciously carried by great amount of rhythm-waves, the logical question would be: how much of these unconscious rhythms can be brought to awareness? The answer is - there's no limit.

Well, to me this assumption does not seem to be supported by phenomenological facts. There is no doubt that many of the unconscious rhythms can be brought into awareness, and that this process is part of the evolution of our cognition. However, in our human form we experience certain limitation in getting access to certain rhythms and levels of the Global Consciousness. Some of these limitations may indeed be overcome, but we have no ground to claim that all of them can be overcome. This does not mean that we need to claim the opposite - that there is a hard limit for the human form. I think it is better to remain practical and assume that we can just continue the process of "pushing the envelope" as much as we can without making any unsupported claims whether there is or there is no hard limit.

Going further we encounter higher order processes (actual spiritual be-ings) who determine the character of whole nations. Once again, we can only gain cognition of these layers when we differentiate from our identification with race and nation and experience these forces against our liberated spiritual activity - only then they become perceptible spiritual reality for us.

This journey through the rhythms of creation can continue, where we find the grand waves of evolutionary development of humanity and our whole planetary system. In the most real sense, the materialistic civilization of today is conscious only of the mechanical movement of a membrane without understanding that this movement is actually the flattened projection of a sounding symphony with extremely complicated hierarchical composition, where each musical part is imbued with deepest wisdom.

This is a good consideration. So, when we differentiate form identification with race, we are no longer limited by such identification and can move to other countries to contribute to the development of their nations if we consider it appropriate. Or, in our next incarnation, we may decide to incarnate in some other country different from the one of our previous incarnation, because we no longer identify ourselves with that nationality. For example, it may be beneficial not even for a person, but for the evolution of the nation, to move out from a dictatorship (like North Korea or Russia) and influence the further evolution of the nation from outside due to the access to more resources and more freedom from some governmental restrictions. Or one can decide that their talents are more appropriate to contribute to the development of some other nation which would more efficiently utilize these talents.

Similarly, at a certain developmental point we start differentiating ourselves from our identification with human form, we realize that there are many other planetary races in the Universe where we could also incarnate and contribute to their development, and that there is no obligation for us to always incarnate into humans. In fact, many NDE experiencers recalled their previous lives and confirmed that many of these lives were on other planets and even in other realms of the Multiverse. That does not mean we should not continue with human incarnations, it just means that it is up to the soul's discretion to make a conscious choice where to incarnate (providing that this choice is conscious, which may not often be the case).