Help
Sign In
consciousness
June 2009 
What is Reality? Part I
1Vector3
Rev. O.M. Bastet, Ph.D.
Head Minister
This article is provided and presented by "Amplifying Divine Light in All" Church as part of the exercise and practice of our religion.
All rights reserved under the Common Law, which means, please respect our Creatorship.
This is somewhat of an "insider" paper for those who have some familiarity with the Spiral Dynamics descriptions of human consciousness levels, as described by Beck and Cowan, and by Ken Wilber. I strongly hope and expect that other folks can understand enough to get some value from the paper anyway.
I will certainly write more on the topic of reality/real, from other angles, thus I label this article as Part I.
As with everything I write, I regard this as a draft, and actively solicit input from readers. As with everything I write, this is presented as my best take at this time, but as speculation and opinion, not as Truth. As usual, my purpose is to be thought-provoking and useful, not to be correct or to engage in a presentation of The Truth. I am interested in offering new possibilities to those who are shopping for new viewpoints, and in helping some folks recognize their own experiences, and I have no interest in being believed or in persuading/convincing.
I am not quoting Ken Wilber to pull authority on you. I am quoting him because he says what I want to say, better than I could say it.
So let's focus on the question "What is reality? What is "real?"
BEGINNING OF QUOTATIONS FROM KEN WILBER:
A Brief History of Everything, Shambala paperback, 1996
p. 207-208 Chapter 12: Realms of the Superconscious: Part I
The italics are his, the underlining and bolding is my emphasis added:
... the beginnning transcendence of gross-oriented reality, the transcendence of the ordinary body and mind and culture.
Some of the transcendental phenomena include preliminary meditative states; shamanic visions and voyages; arousal of kundalini energy (and disclosure of the whoel psychic anatomy of subtle channels, energies, and essences); overwhelming feelings of the numinous; spontaneous spiritual awakenings; reliving of deep past traumas, even the birth trauma; identification with aspects of nature - plant identification, animal identification - up to an identification with all of nature (cosmic consciousness, nature mysticism, and the World Soul).
Q: How do you know these phenomena actually exist?
K.W.: As the observing Self begins to transcend the centaur [ OM adds: This means Integral, Yellow/Teal] deeper or higher dimensions of consciousness come into being, and a new worldview or worldspace comes into focus. All of the items on that list are objects that can be directly perceived in this new psychic worldspace.Those items are as real in the psychic worldspace as rocks are in the sensorimotor worldspace and concepts are in the mental worldspace.
If cognition awakens or develops to this psychic level, you simply perceive these new objects, as simply as you perceive rocks in the sensory world or images in the mental world. They are simply given to awareness, they simply present themselves, and you don't have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out if they're real or not.
Of course, if you haven't awakened psychic cognition, then you will see none of this, just as a rock [OM says, or better image, an amoeba] cannot see mental images. And you will probably have unpleasant things to say about people who do see them. [OM says : Like "speculation" or "hallucinations" or "figments of imagination."]
Q: So the psychic level is simply a broad space, a worldspace, within which a vast array of different phenomena can occur.
K.W.: Yes, which is true of any worldspace. ....
p. 211-2:
As we said, all depth must be interpreted, and these interpretations are not possible without a whole set of background contexts which provide many of the tools with which the interpretation will proceed. One's own individual background, one's cultural background, and one's social institutions will all have a hand in interpreting this depth-experience. This is unavoidable.
So these higher structures are not like fully formed little treasure chests buried in your psyche, waiting to pop to the surface. The deep structures are given, but the surface structures are not, and the experience itself involves an interpretive component, which cannot proceed without various backgrounds - and those backgrounds do not exist merely in your psyche!
But if we reject that pregiven extreme, it doesn't mean we have to fall into the opposite error of extreme constructivism. The basic reality of this [OM says: From his previous page he is discussing an example here of] subtle experience of interior illumination is not simply or arbitrarily constructed by culture, because these experiences occur cross-culturally, and further, in many cases the cultural background officially denies or prohibits these experiences, and yet they still happen all the time anyway.
So just because these experiences have an interpretive component does not mean they are merely cultural creations. When you watch the sun set, you will bring interpretations to that experience as well-perhaps romantic, perhaps rational, each with a cultural coloring, but that doesn't mean that the sun ceases to exist if your culture disappears!
No, these are ontologically real events. They actually exist. They have real referents. But these referents do not exist in the sensorimotor worldspace, they do not exist in the rational worldspace, they do not exist in the existential [OM: by which he means Integral level] worldspace. So you can find evidence for them in none of these worldspaces! Rather, they exist in the subtle worldspace, and evidence for them can be plentifully found there.
END OF QUOTATIONS, BEGINNING OF MY SPIEL
I believe these matters, better articulated by Ken Wilber there than anyplace else I have seen, form the basis for a schism in discussions among those interested in, aspiring to, or abiding in, Integral level of consciousness-development, a schism amply demonstrated in and plaguing the recent Symposium discussions. http://brucealderman.gaia.com/blog/2008/8/symposium_4_play_sheet Cross-level discussions, across these steps in the development of consciousness expansion, didn't seem to succeed really well IMO -- despite good and great efforts by some folks whose level of awareness included all the earlier steps. How can people have a coherent discussion about phenomena, evolution, etc. when they don't even agree as to what "phenomena" are "real?!!!"
I have been seeing this schism for a long time in many places, the schism about what is real, what is ontologically "given" to various levels of awareness, what phenomena can and do or do not present themselves as perceptions, what the "myth of the given" regards as "given," haha, on various levels.
IMO even many serious students of Ken Wilber's ideas/descriptions don't really "get" this notion of differing "realities," simply because it is a later step than the one they are standing on. I believe being able to encompass or understand differing viewpoints is radically different from being able to encompass or understand the notion or existence of differing realities/dimensions/universes/timelines. This is the schism, and I am now going to attempt to describe it more.
My way of describing it might be that there is a step in expansion/transcendence/inclusion from the opinions/dogma on which one stands in any discussion (First Tier) to the ability to stand on and take and value multiple perspectives and multiple viewpoints (Integral/Yellow/Teal level.) And a step beyond that in expansion/transcendence/inclusion is to be able to stand in multiple experiential worlds (consisting not of opinions or viewpoints, but consisting of what one notices, what is important to one, the color of glasses through which one sees the world.)
And there is IMO yet a step beyond that, into multiple "objective" (inter-subjective) realities. These are composed of differing timelines, parallel universes, different phenomena as real and possible in each one, all tetra-enacted (individual, social, and "objectively existing" as intersubjectively verifiable.)
Opinions to viewpoints to worldviews/experiential worlds to worldspaces/realities. Who takes those leaps, and who rejects the possibility? Those whose lives have prepared them take the steps. Those who are not ready, reject any possibility of anything "real" beyond where they are. There is certainly within a given reality, a clear lack of evidence or proof of anything "more," that is the nature of consciousness, as described above by Ken Wilber. No other "reality" or "worldspace" or "phenomena" can be PROVED to exist in an earlier or prior worldspace. Seeking evidence or proof is not the way to go, as many of us have said many places. Following what KW calls "injunctions" (see below.) is the way to obtain the evidence or proof as the phenomena simply arise in one's worldspace.
Note these worldspace beyond the sensorimotor, beyond the rational, beyond the existential, are nonetheless intersubjective, not solipsistic, not the creations/hallucinations of isolated individuals.
Thus, what appears to be a delusion or speculation, to folks occupying earlier levels, less expanded levels of awareness, is a ho-hum no-big-deal daily intersubjective reality for other folks. Many hotly reject the possibility of phenomena which others simply naturally and with humility abide in, live in.
The best possible attitude for those on the earlier steps is a bit of healthy openness along with healthy skepticism, and an eschewing of ridicule. The best possible attitude for those on the later steps is a good memory (of what it was like,) a bit of healthy patience, and healthy compassion, and an eschewing of attempts to persuade.
That's my say on this subject. What's yours?
An extended P.S. This is what Ken Wilber says on page 219 of the same book, A Brief History of Everything, about "injunctions" to discover what is "real" in a given worldspace. Again the underlining is mine, italics his.
Chapter 13: Realms of the Superconscious: Part 2
Q: You said that .... you are looking into the Face of the Divine, the ... Forms of the Divine. Most modern researchers reject all of that as "mere metaphysics" at best, none which which can be verified.
KW: First, you yourself must perform this experiment and look at the data yourself. Then you can help interpret it. [OM says he means add to the collective inter-subjective pool of existing interpretations.] If you don't perform the experiment-the meditative injunction, the exemplar, the paradigm-then you don't have the data from which to make an interpretation.
If you take somebody from the madic or mythic worldview, and you try to explain to them that the sume of the squares [OM says: of the sides] of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares {sic: square] of the hypotenuse, you won't get very far. What you are doing cannot be seen in the empirical world. It doesn't have a simple location. And yet you are correct. You are performing an experiment in interior awareness, and your mathematical results can be checked by all those who perform the same interior experiment.It's very public, very reproducible, very fallibilist {OM: he means can be proven wrong if wrong] very communal knowledge; its results exist in the rational worldspace and can be readily checked in that space by all who learn the experiment.
Just so with any of the other interior experiments in awareness, of which meditation is one of the oldest, most tested, and most reproduced. So if you're skeptical, that's a healthy attitude, and we invite you to find out for yourself, and perform this interior experiment with us, and get the data, and help us interpret it. But if you won't perform the experiment, please don't ridicule those who do.
And by far the most common interpretation of those who have seen this data is: you are face to face with the Divine.
Note: This essay is not meant to address the pathologies which can arise in various later realities or worldspaces, or in levels of awareness just prior to those later worldspaces from those who engage conceptually but not experientially or ontologically. Some folks in the Symposium were, I believe, attempting to fend off or reject those pathologies, such as rejection of the rational and engagement in individual ego hyper-inflation by a lot of New Agers. I wonder about some babies getting thrown out with those bathwaters, though. I guess this essay is one of my attempts to address the possibility that was happening.
Again, that's my two cents. What's yours????
Access: Public
Thanks for writing this, Om! I really don't have much to add to what you said. I get the sense that our views are quite similar.
One thing I'd point out is the whole experience angle. You suggested that people experiment for themselves before coming to judgment. The problem I see is that people's experience will always be different no matter how open and willing they are to find out for themselves. Predispositions (cultural, biological, genetic, etc) have such a powerful effect, and it may not be a matter of just being open and willing.
In some ways, it seems we have to just accept experience is different and leave it at that. What this comes down is not to limit your understanding of reality just to your personal limits of experience. I think its safe to assume that no matter what your experience is that reality is greater than it. However, what I'm saying is part of the issue. Some people believe we should limit our understanding of reality to our experience of it as is, and consider everything else to be fanciful speculation.
Hmmm. Interesting thoughts. Thank you SO much for stopping by and thinking with me !!!
It's true everyone's experience is going to be different, but the whole thing about intersubjective expanded realities is that there are enough shared phenomena and experiences to call them “realities” and not “experiences.” So I am indeed passionate about asserting that everyone has different experiences, but it is apparent there are also enough similarities. Otherwise we would call these things delusions and not realms or worldspaces or realities. Does that make sense?
“Before coming to judgment,” haha, let's put that off as long as possible, like maybe forever, LOL !!!!!
You said
I think its safe to assume that no matter what your experience is that reality is greater than it.
Yep, very safe assumption, and the understatement of the year, perhaps? ROTFL !!!
Some people believe we should limit our understanding of reality to our experience of it as is, and consider everything else to be fanciful speculation.
Ah, I see a complexity or two here. First, that belief is First Tier. There comes a point in the development of a person's consciousness in which they are willing to entertain the notion that perhaps realities are possible (for them to experience in the future, or for others to experience now or in the past) which they haven't personally experienced yet, and instead of regarding these as fanciful and dismissible speculations, their attitude is one of curiosity or at least agnosticism or openness or tolerance. This is a monumental leap in consciousess, part of the 1st-to-2nd Tier leap, as I understand it.
Second, I am going beyond what you said, about understanding “reality,” Ben, I am saying something even more radical. That there are “realities,” not “reality.”
And of course I know that you know the difference between “experience” of a reality and “understanding” of a reality. Radical difference, but not one relevant to my points in this paper, as far as I can tell.
Thanks again for expanding my understanding !
Blessings, OM
As I see it, there are differences in experiences and similarities in realities. The problem that I see is in finding the similarities amidst the differences, and the differences can seem easier to notice than the similarities. OTOH even the differences can have similarites such as in types.
Another difficulty is that our perceptions aren't always so clear… our physical senses are often mixed with all other kinds of experiences and this is particularly true for thin boundary types. I'm not sure what “experience as is” even means. The more we hold our experience lightly the more our experience opens up to further experiences that we couldn't foresee.
As to your first, the challenge of the symposium and other related discussions is that there wasn't a clear agreement about the whole pre/trans thing which is easier to understand than the 1st/2nd tier thing. I agree with your interpretation of the differences between 1st tier and 2nd tier. But I'm pretty sure the Julians of the world wouldn't. I'd prefer to err on the side of inclusion in terms of being an openminded agnostic. Julian, however, seemed to think it was very important to absolutely exclude certain viewpoints.
As to your second, I'm fine with describing the world as reality or realities. All that I know is that whatever it is its greater than my experience. I can't as of yet say that I fully know what your perspective is. I can say that I've met many people interested in Integralism and I'm in more agreement with you than most.
OM
This is wonderful - thank you!
I'm re-reading A Brief History of Everything at the moment, and am certainly going into it in more depth having had my head opened by the symposium discussions! :-)
I almost feel like I am an experiment in progress right now. I'm watching myself apparently doing this: “There comes a point in the development of a person's consciousness in which they are willing to entertain the notion that perhaps realities are possible (for them to experience in the future, or for others to experience now or in the past) which they haven't personally experienced yet, and instead of regarding these as fanciful and dismissible speculations, their attitude is one of curiosity or at least agnosticism or openness or tolerance. This is a monumental leap in consciousness, part of the 1st-to-2nd Tier leap, as I understand it.”
Fascinating stuff! I realised quite recently (and it has probably been obvious to many readers) that at the moment I simply don't really get, or don't “buy”, the whole idea of what Ken calls the Great Postmodern Revolution (I’m not even close to his writing on the Superconscious yet!). I get the differing worldviews, I get that the modern rationalist worldview didn’t include the mapmaker in it’s maps, I get the Varela style “participatory” evolution whereby as we change our way of seeing the world we also act differently upon it and so change it in ways it couldn’t have been changed unless we had previously changed our worldview, which in turn leads to another growth in worldview and then further “enacting” upon our environment (I notice I use the word “upon” the environment) ….And frankly if that’s all there is to this new paradigm of the Postmodern then my response is “is that it? …is that really such a paradigm shattering realistaion?”.
However, the more I listen to good souls like yourself the more I think, nah of course this can’t be it, this is not what they are all really saying… they are pointing to something much deeper. One problem for me, as you point out, is I can’t get past the language of “world views bringing forth a world”, because I see all too easily how that can lead to the pathologies you mentioned….“if I just sit here and visualize hard enough the Universe will drop a cheque through my door so that I can buy that yellow ferrari “ But I don’t want to throw the bay out with the bathwater, if indeed there is a baby in there at all?!
(There's more, but Gaia doesn't seem to want me to upload it all in one go, so here comes the next part……see, told you there was more) :-)
I also agree with this: “The best possible attitude for those on the earlier steps is a bit of healthy openness along with healthy skepticism, and an eschewing of ridicule. The best possible attitude for those on the later steps is a good memory (of what it was like,) a bit of healthy patience, and healthy compassion, and an eschewing of attempts to persuade.”
This schism you are addressing explains to me the circular nature of many of the symposium and related discussions. As for any future discussion on this subject. does that mean that there is no real effective way to communicate across these “steps”? I’m hoping the answer is no!
As you point out, rather than try to persuade or provide proof, Ken suggests we follow injunctions. Specifically he mentions meditation for example. OM said: “Note these worldspace beyond the sensorimotor, beyond the rational, beyond the existential, are nonetheless intersubjective, not solipsistic, not the creations/hallucinations of isolated individuals.”
What I want to say to that is “ the reason they are intersubjective” is because we have shared biology & neurophysiology, not because when we meditate we experience the Ground Of Being or something, some inherent nature of Reality,.. it’s just a shared sensation, shared because we have the same biology, not because the Truth is In There and one can only find the truth by meditating.
And when Ken says : “And by far the most common interpretation of those who have seen this data is: you are face to face with the Divine.” I want to say, yes that’s because the majority of cultures who have undertaken these “experiments” have already gone into the experiment with the pre-held idea that there is a Divine, a non-physical Godhead, hence their interpretations.
In addition, historically they came to this conclusion without the background of evolutionary science and the understanding of our shared neuro-physiology. I think the reason these internal experiments generate repeatable data regardless of culture is because we have shared biology, not because The Truth Is In There and when we mediate we discover it. These are just neurons firing in non-ordinary brain states…Or at least this is an equally common interpretation :-)
And when Ken brings in his quadrants and makes distinctions like interior and exterior I then see a concretisation of what seem to be his own abstractions – to me it is all “physical” - it’s all matter and energy - distinctions like interior and exterior have no meaning for me right now… ha! ;-)
wow! wait, there's still some more…
..this is the last bit….
{Sighs} So, when the mental starts to ache and seems to be going nowhere, it’s always worth looking elsewhere, for example at the dreamworld… far out! Are you any good at dream interpretations? I’m hopeless at it……
I went to sleep last night with this wonderful image from chapter 5 of BHof E about wolves: “They can hunt an coordinate in packs through a very sophisticated emotional signal system. They share this emotional worldspace… Yet anything outside that worldspace is not registered. I mean, you can read Hamlet to them, but no luck. What you are, wit that book, is basically dinner plus a few things that will have to be spat out…. The point is that a holon responds, and can respond, only to those stimuli that fall within its worldspace, it’s worldview. Everything else is nonexistent…Same with humans.” Sometimes, when I read Ken’s stuff, or yours or Bruce’s or Matt’s or Hokai’s, I feel a bit like that wolf staring at Ken as he reads Hamlet to my wolf-self…. :-)
Anyway, as I was waking I had the following dream: I watched an “essence” of a jumping cat (maybe a large cat like a cougar?) float out of the actual physical body of the cat, rise into the air a little in the form of a smokey wispy outline silhouette of a cat, and hang suspended in the air, and as I watched it I said to myself: “If that “essence”, when it lands, returns to the shape of a solid cat, then I will know that all this stuff about “realities rather than reality” will actually be “Truer” than my current world view, which at the moment seems to be based on “the primacy of the physical”, the sensorimotor - for me last night, the smoky essence didn’t land – it’s still suspended there. Ah I love my subconscious so much!
Onwards and upwards!
James
P.S. Or should that be inwards and outwards?
or onwards and inwards? or… :)
it sounds like your subconscious is strictly true to your not knowing - Schroedinger's cat in the box neither dead nor living but… what?
but then again, I don't know anything about dream interpretation. Bring on the experts! :)
it's all physical! all particles, or all waves or all… wavicles?
OM, I thank you for this blog, because it does get frustrating at times to have these kinds of discussions without agreeing on certain basic assumption. The nature of reality is pretty basic!.
What I want to say to that is “ the reason they are intersubjective” is because we have shared biology & neurophysiology, not because when we meditate we experience the Ground Of Being or something, some inherent nature of Reality,.. it’s just a shared sensation, shared because we have the same biology, not because the Truth is In There and one can only find the truth by meditating.
It is possible that intersubjectivity includes both shared biology and neurophysiology and also being connected to the Ground of Being. If there is such a Ground, which I understand not everyone believes to be the case, it seems to me that it is awareness of the Ground of Being that we perceive through meditation or other inner sensing, not participation, which is always going on because we are, so we are connected to the Ground of Being.
I hope that makes sense.
Hi, OM,
Thank you for raising this important discussion. As I see it, one of the intentions of the Enactivism symposium was to explore this question – to explore the implications of the enactive perspective for our understanding of “reality.” Enactivism does not deny reality, arguing it is only a figment of our imaginations (in any dismissive, subject-privileging sense), but it does challenge the idea of a single, monolithic, given “reality” for one and all. As Wilber suggests, and as you are also suggesting here, it becomes more appropriate to speak in terms of realities or worldspaces. Here, a degree of incommensurability between worldviews is recognized, but ideally without sliding into subjectivistic fragmentation or a relativistic inability to evaluate or distinguish meaningfully between them.
But the incommensurability between worldviews – between views of the “real” – also interferes with our ability to communicate, as the symposium demonstrated. You cannot make one worldspace wholly align with another, nor can you neatly equate them; there will always be a gap. You can leap from one to the other, or you can trace out homeomorphic equivalencies, but you can't really “grasp” one view wholly in the terms of another, without losing (translating away) a lot in the process.
Regarding Wilber's claim that, at the psychic level (noting that he no longer uses this language or classifies vertical stages in this way), new objects simply “show up” there as clearly, in as real a way, as rocks do for sensorimotor cognition, I think this is an important but challenging issue. It could appear to give license to anyone to assert the “reality” of basically anything at all, and to justify this by saying, “Well, you can't see this because you're not at my level.” Just on the level of discourse, of intersubjective communication, this can be problematic – and could result in various abuses of power, as has been the case in previous periods of “religious” government. It is still at work in the culture wars today, where views that are arguably pre-rational are defended on the basis of divine revelation, direct guidance from above, etc.
Do you have any thoughts on this? Are there any safeguards against using this claim about “Psychic level perception” in these ways? What ways do you propose for individuals to be able to intersubjectively and objectively ascertain the validity of claims an individual at a purportedly psychic or subtle level might make?
Best wishes,
Balder
Hey, Bruce, thanks for your so-clear thoughts. I am still writing my response to you, James, as it is more complex, but I think I can respond to Bruce more simply.
Let's see.
I don't classify these things vertically, either, not in any clearcut way, so that's not an essential part of my view. I believe the progression of development can be characterized as expansion of consciousness to include more (of whatever, haha) but I have always been skeptical not only of the linear verticality but of the actual very limited number of levels or spaces or whatever you wanna call them, that Wilber proposes. IMO he is limited by his Buddhism, as I have said before, and leaves out entire realms and levels of “what is” in the less dense “realms” as far as I can tell. But be that as it may,
You raise the exact issue, the power issue, that Ayn Rand raised, and in her case she called them “the mystics of the muscle.” To me, my safeguards are the separation of the use of a claim or experience from the report of it. I don't care what wild and crazy “reality” someone or several someones report, as long as they leave me and others alone.
And if someone claims the “right” from a psychic-level revelation to mess with my rights, then indeed there will be a clash of realities and I will defend myself and others. I guess we can't stop this kind of thing from happening, and indeed there are people who experience directives from the psychic realm that do tell them to harm others. The problem comes from the “fact” (IMO) that dualistic thinking extends into the lower vibrations of the psychic realm, shall I just say, to avoid talking about “evil spirits”.
So I guess I am saying that some discernment is necessary, and I am not about to – for myself, or recommend to others – that we bow to someone else's claim to harm us just because they claim the authority to do that is given from the psychic realm.
But you asked another question which I think is somewhat different,
What ways do you propose for individuals to be able to intersubjectively and objectively ascertain the validity of claims an individual at a purportedly psychic or subtle level might make?
I'm not sure what “intersubjectively AND objectively” means. I guess wrt what I was just saying, I in my reality simply disallow any “validity” to any claim from some other reality that it's right or beneficial to harm me or others. Period paragraph.
If an individual at a purportedly psychic or subtle level makes claims, first of all, I don't care much about “ascertaining the validity” of the claims. What does “validity” mean here anyway? If they tell me how I might experience or verify what they claim, fine, if not, laissez-faire. If they claim something many others also claim, then I take a look, maybe try to grok it, maybe try to “get there” in some way. If it sounds interesting enough !
I think I'm having trouble with the word “claim” actually. It's my impression and experience that folks who hang out in the subtle realms ABOVE the band of frequencies still in dualistic thinking, don't make CLAIMS. They report experiences. Big diff. There seems to be some compassion, some respect for the sovereignty of others along with the Oneness experience, that is a hallmark of those experiences and the resulting reports. My antennae go up when I hear a PURPORTED – good word – “claim.” Especially if it involves impositions, intrusions, harms, to others, demands that others agree or conform. That doesn't smell like truly “high-level” stuff to me.
The problem with Rand is she never seems to have encountered anyone with genuine higher-state experiences as levels or stages (and minus a big shadow), or else she was self-blind to them. I blogged about that awhile back.
I am not saying all this very elegantly or with complex subtleties addressed, but perhaps you get what I mean.
Your first two paragraphs, I totally resonate, beautifully said. I saw that in the symposium, and got somewhat discouraged, but mostly it was the volume, and I am still reading/wading halfway through !!
So within your third paragraph I think I have addressed the latter part.
In the former part, yes, “claims” can make discourse problematic. That is partly inherent in the differences, and partly a matter of the personalities/communication styles and VALUES of the parties involved.
And I think saying stuff shows up as clearly (and universally) as rocks in sensori-motor reality is actually an incorrect oversimplification; people's experiences differ a LOT depending on that cultural context he describes. Constructivism. R.D. Laing's The Politics of Experience. Sometimes one has to do a lot of comparing or go to a meta-level to find out what actually is showing up, with contexts filtered out.
I was thinking about the “myth of the given” this morning wrt James' comment, and realizing yet again that it doesn't mean there is nothing external TO THE GIVEN PSYCHE which that psyche is subject-object with, it just means that not the same Out-There's show up for everyone, that just as enactivism and others say, it's some kind of co-arising process, tetra-enacted if you will. At least from the perspective of the limited mind, which an embodied Being will always have included in its mix, haha.
That's a way oversimplification of hundreds of comments and several blogs, haha, but I wanted to be clear I am not taking either extreme position, and am aligned with the complexity of it all.
So, to recap, you said
It could appear to give license to anyone to assert the “reality” of basically anything at all, and to justify this by saying, “Well, you can't see this because you're not at my level.” Just on the level of discourse, of intersubjective communication, this can be problematic
and I say, yeah, well, that IS the reason “you can't see this.” Not so? And it's true anyone can (“has license to”) assert the reality of anything at all and justify it by their level. That's one reason we are careful to distinguish between individual hallucinations/delusions and shared intersubjective “realities” of the non-gross portions of the spectrum of consciousness, isn't it?
And, as I said, problems in discourse are partly inherent and partly a matter of choice.
(or more precisely, not choosing good ways of communicating.)
The main problem I see which I see no way around is, the inevitable differences in experiences in the subtle bands. But these are probably not much different from the actually vast differences in experiences even within the sensorimotor realm. So we are back to the need for something like enactivism.
I personally am not convinced there is any theory or viewpoint running around on the matter which doesn't boil down to simple unproven assertion that the problem doesn't “really” exist, if you wanna know my view on the theories, all of them. The version which I recently posted somewhere as my (and others) fancy “solution” to the mind-body problem, that the question is nonesense because they are viewpoints on the same thing, is unprovable. I think all attempts to address these issues boil down to unprovable assertions in fancy dresses like “tetra-co-enacted” that make them appear to be statements about “reality” even while asserting that we cannot know reality. It seems as if the only possible or reasonable answer to any (so-deemed by someone) nonesensical question is that the answer is self-evident (to someone anyway….haha.)
Well, that's today's rabbit hole !!!!! That was more than I thought I was going to say. Thanks for your very very sensible comments !!!
Comments on these thoughts cordially invited !!!!
Blessings, OM – James, later gater, I might not be ready to respond til tomorrow.
Hi, OM,
Thank you for your speedily penned, substantial response!
I understand your reservations about the word, claim, I believe. And I agree that, at the level where something like enactivism makes sense (or higher), we become more cognizant of the myth of the given and our language or modes of discourse may be appropriately impacted.
However, there's another issue to look at here – and that is that “making claims” is part of the mode of discourse of the right-hand quadrants, which are not tied to levels per se, but rather which manifest at many different (more or less “encompassing”) levels. In other words, propositional language is right-quadrant, 3p language. So, when we talk about people at a psychic level avoiding making claims and just speaking in terms of experience, I think we need to be clear whether we are discussing stages or quadrants here. Because the appeal to the language of experience is an appropriate mode of discourse for inter/subjective, left-quadrant perspective-dimensions. In other words, is the purportedly psychic-level person avoiding making claims and sticking to the language of experience because they are at a particular developmental level, or because they are primarily discussing UL subjective experiences?
Obviously, from a Wilberian/Integral perspective, both “level” and “quadrant/perspective” are involved in any discussions of experiences or assertions of claims.
But what if someone is a channeler, and they say they are in communication with formless light beings from another world or dimension or star system? Is there any way, intersubjectively, to determine whether they are lying, hallucinating, or telling the truth? Is there any 3p/right quadrant way to investigate this, even for people at a psychic level, in your opinion? Or is it a matter mostly of subjective (UL) experience and intersubjective (LL) respect and trust? Is the claim that there really are light beings from another world even meant to be taken as an objective, 3p claim (e.g., a claim similar to one such as, There is a Nepalese man named Rajesh who lives in Kathmandu)?
I'm not trying to speak definitively from a particular view here; I'm just trying to open up these questions – particularly the “higher-level” reports of experience that you hear mystics and channelers make, for instance – with the help of the Integral lens, hopefully in the interest of greater clarity (of communication, if nothing else!).
Best wishes,
Bruce
P.S. You are probably aware of this, but others may not be, so to clarify: when I said Wilber no longer used the word “psychic” in his classification of vertical stages, this was not to say that he no longer holds to the idea of stages (a la the movement of transcendendence and inclusion/exclusion), because he still does; but just that “psychic” for him now represents a particular state of consciousness, not a stage. As such, it is accessible at any stage – and the experience thereof will be interpreted differently at each level. (Or, to use the language of enactivism, different psychic-type phenomena will be enacted at different stages of development.)
Let's see how much I can do in 15 minutes here.
I differentiate claim from report, statement, pointing, describing. A claim seems to imply truth or fact being asserted. Firm subject-object dichotomy/SEPARATION/duality. One assumes folks at that level know something about the epistemology of “claiming.” One hopes.
The specific I can address easily:
As I have had an experience of being in communication with formless Light Beings from another world, dimension, or star system, AS I INTERPRET THE EXPERIENCE, I now hold it as a distinct possibility that others can, too. Before that, I just had to say OK you claim that, and I will simply evaluate the usefulness of the info you are providing that they say. And I would assess the channeler's general veracity, integrity, level of awareness, sincerity, etc.
Is there any way, intersubjectively, to determine whether they are lying, hallucinating, or telling the truth?
Yes, it's done all the time. By comparisons, usually. Multiple folks for example say they channel the archangel Michael, or someone who calls himself that. The messages, the vibe, can be compared. The skill and integrity of the channels get compared. The channels of Michael compare their experiences to others' experiences of the same named Being. Etc. etc. Done all the time. Lies and hallucinations emerge pretty clear. I would say responsible channels don't claim truth, but there can be consensus about various matters and meanings.
But those are all left quadrant ways. I am not sophisticated enough, haven't thought so much, about how the higher worldspaces appear in the righthand quadrants, maybe it's about time someone really laid that out. Maybe the problem is lack of numbers of folks, but in truth there are many many who have experiences if not abiding in those levels. I suspect the problem is that in the upper realms it is all realized to be “intersubjective” so the actual meaning of the righthand “objective” quadrants radically changes. Radically. But there are TONS of intersubjective consensus experiences. But when “Oneness” is one's REALITY, then perhaps the quadrant thing breaks down, because while there is “out there” in one sense, difference is no longer separation. There are distinctions and distinguishabilities, but “external” has an entirely different ontological status.
Is the claim that there really are light beings from another world even meant to be taken as an objective, 3p claim (e.g., a claim similar to one such as, There is a Nepalese man named Rajesh who lives in Kathmandu)?
No it isn't, not similar, because differing realities (differing bands of the spectrum of consciousness/energy/vibration/whatever. If speaking precisely one would not say “There are…” One would say “I and others experience…..”
In other words, propositional language is right-quadrant, 3p language.
I'm not so sure this is true. Don't I utter propositions about my experiences? I called them reports. I sense what you are trying to get at, but I don't know that these words accomplish it.
Time's up, gotta run. In this dimensional band of the spectrum anyway, LOL !!!!!
Thanks for the dialogue !!!! Pushing into new territory, a nice change for me, LOL !!!
Blessings, OM Bastet
what makes this psychic reality, or the 'higher' levels proposing it, any more or less real, than any other phenomena (that which is perceived through the senses) that has been experienced by mankind over the millenia?…some of it dismissed as illusion; some of it as insanity; others embrace it as truth…still others cry “it's a miracle!”
seems to me that it is only embraced as truth if enough of the 'right' people, whatever that really means, get together and qualify it as truth…but the truth of the matter is what ever can be imagined can be experienced…and become 'real' to the one experiencing it…and that has absolutely nothing to do with 'higher' levels of consciousness, and to fool oneself into thinking otherwise, is foolishness indeed…
that's what i think, and since i was following bruce around cause i was bored, and you asked…i posted…lol
p.s. sometimes i really believe that we are so busy trying to figure out what truth and reality really is, that we miss just being it…or living it…all these tiers and levels remind me of every other religious system that has tried and failed in cutting awareness up in bits and pieces smarter than the other bits and pieces…to obtain a healthy whole…
reminds me of a scripture…
the first shall be last, and the last shall be first…i'm glad i'm a dumb blonde! LOL
Hi, OM,
I know you've got a long letter from James to respond to, so there's no hurry for you to respond to this. He came first!
You wrote: I differentiate claim from report, statement, pointing, describing. A claim seems to imply truth or fact being asserted. Firm subject-object dichotomy/SEPARATION/duality. One assumes folks at that level know something about the epistemology of “claiming.” One hopes.
What about a statement such as, “It's raining outside and water is flowing in streams along the curbs of my street”? Is this a claim or a report? It seems to me that it is both, or it can be legitimately regarded as both. It is a claim or assertion, purporting to report an objective fact (e.g., something you expect is also true for others in your vicinity, or that others can confirm), and it is also a description of a current subjective experience (e.g., seeing and hearing rain).
I fully agree that, at higher levels of cognitive and spiritual development, our sense of subject-object distinctions is transformed in significant ways; we recognize that subject and object are interdependent, not-two. You recognize that sentient beings experience different worldspaces and that there is a degree of incommensurability among them. You recognize “claims” are issued within worldspaces and are dependent on them for their meaning. But does that mean you then no longer make claims? What if someone said that they'd searched everywhere in your kitchen and that you were all out of hot chocolate, but you had put some in the cabinet above the microwave a few minutes ago and you knew it was there? Nondual realizer or not, I think you'd still be justified in making the objective claim, “It's in the cabinet above the microwave!” and the subjective report, “I clearly remember putting it on the second shelf just before I sat down.”
You wrote: As I have had an experience of being in communication with formless Light Beings from another world, dimension, or star system, AS I INTERPRET THE EXPERIENCE, I now hold it as a distinct possibility that others can, too. Before that, I just had to say OK you claim that, and I will simply evaluate the usefulness of the info you are providing that they say. And I would assess the channeler's general veracity, integrity, level of awareness, sincerity, etc.
If this is something you can share, and are willing to, what has led you to adopt the interpretation that you have? What factors, in AQAL terms, support this particular interpretation over others?
Concerning relating to people who make claims about higher level experiences that you yourself have not experienced, I understand. Not having the inter/subjective recognition factor with regard to a certain type of experience, you must assess the veracity of individuals making such claims using other criteria.
I asked: Is there any way, intersubjectively, to determine whether they are lying, hallucinating, or telling the truth?
You replied: Yes, it's done all the time. By comparisons, usually. Multiple folks for example say they channel the archangel Michael, or someone who calls himself that. The messages, the vibe, can be compared. The skill and integrity of the channels get compared. The channels of Michael compare their experiences to others' experiences of the same named Being. Etc. etc. Done all the time. Lies and hallucinations emerge pretty clear. I would say responsible channels don't claim truth, but there can be consensus about various matters and meanings.
Sure. There are a number of different ways we can assess for truthfulness and cultural/intersubjective/interpretive fit. But this does seem to start from the belief that channeling is an authentic phenomenon - that it is what it purports to be, e.g., a form of communication with (or mediation of) beings from other worlds/dimensions. And that's where we come to the “objective” part of the question, to the extent that one holds that there really are “other dimensions” and “spirit beings”…
You wrote: But those are all left quadrant ways. I am not sophisticated enough, haven't thought so much, about how the higher worldspaces appear in the righthand quadrants, maybe it's about time someone really laid that out. Maybe the problem is lack of numbers of folks, but in truth there are many many who have experiences if not abiding in those levels. I suspect the problem is that in the upper realms it is all realized to be “intersubjective” so the actual meaning of the righthand “objective” quadrants radically changes. Radically. But there are TONS of intersubjective consensus experiences. But when “Oneness” is one's REALITY, then perhaps the quadrant thing breaks down, because while there is “out there” in one sense, difference is no longer separation. There are distinctions and distinguishabilities, but “external” has an entirely different ontological status.
Yes, I think more work in this area does need to be done, especially in the spiritual community. I agree that, as we develop, the quadrant thing is transfigured and we begin to see the quadrants, not as entirely separate ontological domains, but as inseparable facets of enacted worldspaces. I also agree that there are TONS of intersubjective consensus experiences. But what does that mean? People throughout history have had all sorts of consensus experiences, all sorts of collective beliefs about the world. Are all beliefs about the world equally “true”? Are we arguing here for a spiritualized cultural relativism?
(There's a lot to explore here, but I'll hold back for now… To be clear, I'm not saying you are endorsing a flatland cultural relativism; I just think it's important to be able to differentiate the Integral/enactive perspective from Green relativism, for instance.)
I wrote: Is the claim that there really are light beings from another world even meant to be taken as an objective, 3p claim (e.g., a claim similar to one such as, There is a Nepalese man named Rajesh who lives in Kathmandu)?
You replied: No it isn't, not similar, because differing realities (differing bands of the spectrum of consciousness/energy/vibration/whatever. If speaking precisely one would not say “There are…” One would say “I and others experience…..”
Would you also prefer to say, “I and others experience a man named Rajesh who lives in Kathmandu” instead of “There is a man named Rajesh who lives in Kathmandu”? If yes, then are they really dissimilar? If not, then what is the difference?
Best wishes,
Balder
Hi James, you are next in line for a response. Wow ! What riches everyone is offering for me and all the readers present and future !!
This response is a two-window -then copy-paste process, let's see if that helps my brain cope, haha.
I want to jump ahead a bit, though, and say that I for one am happy to continue to read Hamlet to you as long as you just stare and don't decide to bite me !!!! LOL !!!!!
OK, with respect to your first comment located here http://adliac.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/what_is_reality_part_i#comment_318877
I hasten to add that I never can remember what those jargon terms refer to, so “postmodern revolution” doesn't convey a meaning to me. The CONTENT would, but I just haven't been able to keep all the labels straight.
I too “get” all the things you described, and that might be all there is to Postmodernism, I dunno since I can't remember, but it is certainly not all I am pointing to, nor that I think KW is pointing to.
Maybe it is most productive right now if I offer my take on this that you called a pathology:
….”if I just sit here and visualize hard enough the Universe will drop a cheque through my door so that I can buy that yellow ferrari ”
There is, to me, a pathological and nonpathological version of that perspective. On the nonpathological side, I know second hand or third hand of people for whom that has literally happened. A lady just last week told me her father (reported) that he was walking on the beach one time, needing money for something, and he felt the urge to reach his hand up in back of his right shoulder, and it came back to the front of him stuffed with money. And I have read other such “materialization of money from thin air” stories as well, more than half a dozen. I simply doubt they are all lying. There is nothing in my personal ontological world which deems that kind of thing “impossible.” But I would at least find the stories interesting to contemplate.
(And then there are the MANY stories of strangers walking up to people with a particular need for money and simply saying “I feel moved to lay a thousand bucks on you right now, is that OK?”)
But the pathological version would be something different, and it's challenging to articulate the differences. In the pathological version there is an egocentrism, a narcissism, a selfishness in the narrowest sense of the term, a megalomania about the human self as the cause. In the other cases, there is at least an understanding if not an abiding experience of the human self as at least an intersection/nexus in a web of existents, if not in Oneness with all of creation. There is a humility in that embeddedness-perspective. There is a realization that what comes to one is part of a Bigger Picture in which one is although fully empowered, still a player among many, and that the money will be used in ways that will benefit the world in a variety of subtle and perhaps unpredictable ways, even while bringing personal joy to the receiver.
And there is an acceptance that Reality in truth is seamless, that all Realities are One in some ultimate way, so the “supernatural” or “transcendental” is merely another place on the spectrum of what IS in which gross physical reality is one place.In the pathological version, the person is open to sitting there and visualizing hard enough, but not open to any inner urge that might say, Well, perhaps you might want to go for a walk along Elm Street in about an hour, that might just turn out to be relevant for you.
In the healthy version, the person holds very lightly the “yellow Ferrari” and knows pretty much what feelings are the real purpose of the desire, and would be open to a red Masterati haha if that were to manifest and bring the desired STATE of wonderful feelings. In the healthy version, the person would be desiring the yellow Ferrari for heart reasons, or deeply personal reasons, not because it would impress his cousin who needs to be impressed.
Well, I have run Intenders Groups for years so I could go on and on. Do you get the flavor? It's not the behavior or the thought that we would evaluate for health or not, but the whole picture of what is going on.
Miracles happen every day. Some say, low probability events happen every day. When a low probability event is related to a desire or intention, or is personally meaningful, it is called a synchronicity (my definition.) When these happen to a person often enough, something shifts in their worldview, or it means something HAS shifted……
I forgot where I am going with this, what point I was addressing or wanting to make, so feel free to remind me.
On to the next installment: http://adliac.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/what_is_reality_part_i#comment_318878
Communication across steps. Yes, there is hope. Not for the wolf, haha, but in most situations. If both parties have the best possible attitude as I outlined, lots of communication can happen, that I have seen.
You said
What I want to say to that is ” the reason they are intersubjective” is because we have shared biology & neurophysiology, not because when we meditate we experience the Ground Of Being or something, some inherent nature of Reality,.. it's just a shared sensation, shared because we have the same biology, not because the Truth is In There and one can only find the truth by meditating.
And that is the crux of it all. Yes we do have a shared biology, but why can't the “true cause” be BOTH that our biology is influential AND there is “something” else too that accounts for the similarities in reports? Not “just” a shared sensation, and not “only” because the Truth is In There.
I myself don't have a really good way of explicating this, greater minds than I have tried and are still trying, but my best present guess is that both are operating. I especially think there is something influencing us beyond our human biology because in my experience, which I know is not hardly plausible let alone evidence to others, Beings who are not human when they use our words, seem to be pointing to something similar to what humans report or point to. But that's neither here nor there for most folks.
So I think your point is well worth considering and pondering, but I am also skeptical of any SINGLE explanation for ANY human experience. On the face of it, matters are more complex than that, whether higher bands of the vibrational spectrum seem “real” or not. Does that make sense? So I would avoid any thoughts like “It's just….” or “It's only…..” Very likely untrue, same as most statements involving Always and Never, haha.
You said
And when Ken says : ”And by far the most common interpretation of those who have seen this data is: you are face to face with the Divine.” I want to say, yes that's because the majority of cultures who have undertaken these “experiments” have already gone into the experiment with the pre-held idea that there is a Divine, a non-physical Godhead, hence their interpretations.
BTW “face to face with the Divine” is a pretty deistic metaphor that I personally don't resonate much with, so his characterization of that as “the most common interpretation” doesn't do much for me, seems too narrow to do justice to whatever might be common among all interpretations.
Your main point there seems highly reasonable assumption, to me, and I can offer no rational arguments against it. Just again the caveat that things might not be so simple in their causality. I do believe there might be folks who came out with the conclusion but didn't have the preconceived notion, but I dunno for sure. I think that's possible anyway, because I do think somehow there is “something” more basic about who we are that we are normally blind/deaf to, but can become aware of. So it's not a “supernatural” realm revealed, it's more just oh, I had forgotten this about myself and now I remember. No big deal.
Again, I would hold lightly “The reason is JUST……”
Ah, delightful, to chew on [ooops maybe the wolf is over here now, :)] your points that all is physical because all matter and energy, and are interior and exterior distinct and meaningful?
Your second major major point so far, I think, and worth a lot of pondering. My ponderings: It IS “all” “matter and energy,” but my understanding of matter and energy is probably different from yours. Matter and energy are two ways of looking at whatever IS is, and there is a third characteristic which is apparent also: Matter and energy can also be seen as information or some call it intelligence [NOT as in “intelligent design” !!!!!] and some call it consciousness, any of those are the same to me.
So to me there is not “JUST” matter and energy, there is this whatever IS and it is made of or consists of or appears as or expresses itself as “something” , Isness, whatever, and as we look at it different times and places we apprehend it as matter, or energy, or consciousness. I can't remember where I amplified on this, probably somewhere amongst the hundreds of comments in the symposium. This is my basic take on whatever enactivism is trying to get at, what the integrators are trying to get at: it's all one thing, namely what IS, and we just describe it differently depending on how we are looking at it, who's looking, what their minds are constrained by, what their purpose for the moment is, etc. etc.
That and a dollar will get you a latte, haha.
I think I don't know enough about why you can't assign meaning to interior and exterior right now, to respond in any meaningful way. I am thinking about those aspects myself, with no firm opinions. I think KW would not argue that interior and exterior are absolutes. Which is which depends on where the observer is “standing” while looking, don't you think?
And I'm not sure how this particular distinction is related to the topic, though I am open about it !!! :)
OK, on to your next comment: http://adliac.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/what_is_reality_part_i#comment_318881
I love your subconscious, too, and it's important IMHO to love one's subconscious. It holds infinite riches…. and it helps to love the one in charge of most of our experiences, haha, gotta love the boss or you're in trouble with him/her, LOL !!!!!
I am not an expert in dream interpretation, and I think I couldn't do better at this one than Nicole did. I am glad you recognize what the dreamworld has to contribute to our psyche, our understandings, our ponderings.
My primary comment about the dream is semi-humorous. You said
then I will know that all this stuff about “realities rather than reality” will actually be “Truer” [emphasis added]
And I am saying, hmmm, somehow I suspect that when wide awake you might find yourself questioning that evidence/proof/ criterion. LOL !!!!!!!!! It's actually quite hilarious that part of you would accept that as some kind of criterion of Truth. Yah????
So, part of you has IMO, in my interpretation, moved into new Truths already, thus your dreamself didn't question the new criterion, despite, as Nicole pointed out, the ”conclusion” is still in abeyance, undecided, the image has not changed one way or the other. [Oooh do keep us posted, haha.] And the whole thing yes is mythical or metaphorical, but in the highest sense, the most useful use of those aspects of the way our minds work. Yah???
Whew. I can't believe I ate the whole thing. And even before breakfast, which is now brunch.
Hey, I so admire your thinking, your questioning, your openness, your complexity of thinking and ability to articulate things. Thanks for your contributions to us all through your sharings. [And I don't mean to leave out all the others here who are excellent thinkers and great contributors !!!]
Namaste, OM Bastet
P.S. In the yellow Ferrari - cheque materialization [ through the door? nah. right on the floor in front of him. LOL !!! ] example, I changed my mind about using the word “pathological.” I don't think that is a correct word here. The stuff I was describing is just developmentally earlier. More immature. Only pathological under certain circumstances too complex to define here.
Blessings, OM
Wow , what a response OM. Thank You. I am sitting here digesting…I'll re-read it all and digest some more!
For now, this comment stood out for me :
“Matter and energy are two ways of looking at whatever IS is, and there is a third characteristic which is apparent also: Matter and energy can also be seen as information or some call it intelligence [NOT as in “intelligent design” !!!!!] and some call it consciousness, any of those are the same to me.”
This made me say “Aha yes, energy / matter can also be seen as information / consciousness. I'd overlooked that. Thanks OM!”
Isn't Gaia great that we can have discussions like this with people on the other side of the world for free!!
Thank You Gaia!
OM, thank you very much for this great subject.
Although I wanted to react several times while reading it, I did not know exactly how. But in your reaction to James you said something that you called “the crux of it all”, and I think I agree with that.
“Yes we do have a shared biology, but why can't the “true cause” be BOTH that our biology is influential AND there is “something” else too that accounts for the similarities in reports? Not “just” a shared sensation, and not “only” because the Truth is In There.”
But in my opinion they are not the same, which looks like you suggest here.
“So to me there is not “JUST” matter and energy, there is this whatever IS and it is made of or consists of or appears as or expresses itself as “something” , Isness, whatever, and as we look at it different times and places we apprehend it as matter, or energy, or consciousness.”
As I see it, it is a different force. This ‘something' is what I would call universal soul. I call it universal to differentiate it from the individual and primordial soul.
And while energy and matter can go over into each other, the same goes for soul and mind. (I call them soul and mind with the risk of using those words here, that mean something different to others. So I certainly realise it is not agreed upon, but I see it as a process and my understanding of soul, mind and spirit might change along the line.)
So as I see it, there are these two forces, that I would call spirit and soul. At that point the energy is the active part and the ‘something' or soul is the passive part.
Then the energy goes over into the passive matter, while the soul can go over into the active mind.
So all in all I really would like to know how you see things at the very core. Do you see them as one or as two. And than I do not mean two as in polarities like good and evil, or two as in complements, like what something needs to get whole again.
I mean as in yin and yang, as two forces, although one of the two can be compressed at a certain time, at the point when the opposite point is reached and the process turnes around again. But they are both just potentials (what I call spirit and soul) that can go into structure (what I call body and mind).
I hope I am not rambling (it feels like I am) and that you understand what I mean.
Thanks,
Annemieke
Hi Annemieke, thanks for stopping by with a comment and sharing your perspectives !! If you like this blog you'll love the Symposium talking about all this kinda stuff at muuuuuuuch greater length [agonizing overwhelming and exciting length, haha] and depth and complexity. Go to Balder's blog for the Symposiumplaylist, I don't have time to generate the link right now.
I have read your comment several times trying to think-feel my way into your views, and I don't think I got there in all respects. So I hope what I say here is relevant:
In spiritual explorations such as those discussed in the Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality Group, [that URl I have memorized, haha] there is a perspective on “what is” called “Not One, not Two.” Most spiritual traditions focus on Not Two, but some call attention to Not One Either !!! It's that kind of paradox I am pointing to here.
By paradox I mean the kind of relationship among matter, energy, and consciousness – and indeed the notion of differing “realities” – I attempted to describe above is beyond what language can deal with, and in fact beyond the ability of human mind or cognition to deal with. Some other human faculty of awareness must be what apprehends or grasps what the language points to. It's like there is a daisy we can have our experience of, and there is the encyclopedia entry about “daisy.” Not hardly adequate, not hardly the same.
Annemieke, I appreciate that you, like me, are doing your own original thinking about these matters – using what others have said but going beyond that – and coming up with your OWN descriptions of how it all looks to you. The other fun comes in then comparing and refining !!
I can't yet relate to what you mean by “active” or “passive,” and the differences among individual soul, universal soul, and primordial soul, which you seemed to be saying were three things.
I especially have not been able to wrap my brain around
I mean as in yin and yang, as two forces, although one of the two can be compressed at a certain time, at the point when the opposite point is reached and the process turnes around again. But they are both just potentials (what I call spirit and soul) that can go into structure (what I call body and mind).
I have what I think are some similiar concepts, like potential and structure, but for me body and mind and spirit and soul, as we experience them, are all what I would call structures, and only potential is without structure. So I think we are using the words differently.
And the process you described in the first sentence sounds intriguing but I can't quite grasp it.
I think possibly your thoughts are more about the relationship between manifest and unmanifest, or the Void/Emptiness/Plenum/Implicate Order/Field of Infinite Possibilities as distinguishable from What Is/Existents/Existence/Beingness/Multiplicity/the Manifest.
That's one of my favorite subjects, but not what I was talking about in this particular blog.
But I might be misunderstanding the relationship of what you were saying to the idea of differing realities with differing ontological phenomena, or maybe you were focused specifically on the matter/energy/consciousness relationship.
Anyway, I hope you will share more !!
Namaste, OM
OM, yes I have been following the Symposium with very much interest, actually I am still reading those blogs every now and then, finding back what I found of much interest. Not always easy, as indeed there is a lot.
About the posts about ‘Not One, not Two' at the Integral Post-Metaphysical Group, I will try to find them as that seems very interesting.
You said:
“I have what I think are some similiar concepts, like potential and structure, but for me body and mind and spirit and soul, as we experience them, are all what I would call structures, and only potential is without structure. So I think we are using the words differently.”
Yes, I think hardly two people are using them in exactly the same way. About structure and potential, maybe I could have better used other words here. But I am surprised that you call the spirit and soul structures. I have very much difficulty doing that, but maybe I must try to find another way of looking at them.
And indeed I was specifically focussed on the matter/energy/consciousness relationship, as that was your description (at least how I read it) of them all being a different manifestation of the same phenonemon, depending on how we apprehend it.
But maybe I should better first read the ‘Not One, not Two' posts, so that I can better understand where you are coming from.
Thank you very much for your comments and indeed the fun comes with the comparing and refining, but also the difficulty. Because difficult it is, trying to express how I see it.
Hi, OM! This is fantastic! I don't have much to say or add specifically, but I really appreciate your clear insights about the transrational worldspace, especially as it relates to lower levels of development. You put into words that which is very difficult to describe using words. It's useful for me, and I hope for others, too!
thanks to all for patience about my keeping up my end of the conversation. I had a fabulously wonderful but totally busy day, and not much time this evening.
Tely, your comment left me feeling nourished, refreshed, relaxed, and smiling. A huge and humble thanks !!!!
Annemieke, thanks for responding back. Yes, I had forgotten, I think I did read some posts from you in the symposium.
Why do I call soul and spirit structure? Because they exist, and to me everything that exists is specific, has a nature. Even if that nature is not matter as we sense it, it is the same energy/matter/consciousness thingy, whatever that is, haha, and whatever is, is structured in some way or we couldn't even say “It exists.” Of course, the “structures” of soul and spirit are very different from our dining room table, hahaha. But to me, something without structure doesn't exist, is not manifest, does not have form. Form is structure. Soul and spirit are very light, undense, high frequency, whatever metaphor one wants to use, forms and structures, to be sure. But they are something specific, can be described, and what we describe is what I call structure.
Maybe that is not at all what you mean by the word “structure,” I wouldn't be surprised. Let me know.
To put it another way, soul and spirit I see as one end of a vibrational spectrum, of matter/energy/consciousness vibrating. Lower vibrational or denser than spirit and then soul might be concepts, then perhaps photons. Then dense negative dark energies, then matter, then maybe black holes energies. Offhand I can't place them all correctly IMO but they are all points along a spectrum of something which vibrates and the vibrations compose or are apprehended as, the world of existents, the Is or Being which is form, to me.
Does that make any sense to you? Could it fit your model?
Bruce, I feel challenged because I am not sure what is the relevance of many of your last bunch of questions, so am re-reading and studying and pondering. Plus you've said so much, I need to contemplate. And other comments await response, too.
But I'm not complaining, Lord, I love all the contributions and interaction !!!!!
Namaste, OM
OM, thank you very much for your description, I can understand better now what you mean. Maybe I can use your examples to show you how I see it.
So we have: spirit - soul - concepts - photons - dark energies - matter - black hole energies.
As you said, not sure about their place, but they are all somewhere along the vibrational spectrum, depending on their frequency. And if I understand you right, they are in essence all the same and just their place on this spectrum makes them different.
Well, if I would use these examples, I would get two lines. The first would be: spirit - photons - matter.
And the second: soul - concepts - dark energies - black hole energies.
So coming back to the matter/energy/consciousness that would mean, as I see it, that matter and energy are on the first line. And that consciousness would be on the second.
If the first would be something like the vibrational spectrum, the second would be the force that makes the spectrum vibrate.
Well, something like that. Like you, I have no idea if the examples are correct, let alone if their place is correct. But I hope you understand what I mean.
About structure you say “form is structure” and I agree. And I also agree with the soul and spirit being what you call “very light, undense, high frequency forms and structures”.
But then I see two differences. The first difference is, what I said before about the two spectrums. So the spirit being in one spectrum and the soul in the other.
And the other difference is the place in the spectrum. Most of the spectrum could be called some kind of form or structure, with at one end an almost unchangeble form like rocks and on the other end only the potential to get a form, maybe like light or energy.
As I see it, that is also the place of the spirit and the soul. But maybe they are not at the very end of the spectrum, and they already have some structure.
But as I see it, even at that very end of the spectrum, at the point of only potential, there still are two different forces (or maybe forces is not the right word, or maybe one is a force and the other is not), something like energy and dark matter or dark energy.
Thank you for making myself express a little bit clearer (I hope) on these very interesting concepts.
Annemieke
Amen Sister!
You exhibit such facility, compassion & skillful means…
Truly an artful wordsmith in transforming the inner to the outer. (In terms of subjective to inter-subjective)
Thank You,
Doug
Wow, Doug. Blush, shy smile, and secret agreement and feeling recognized !!! LOL !!!!!
I have bitten off more than I can chew in terms of folks to respond to here in the community in blogs and emails and pod discussions, so appreciate patience here. Feel free to chat with one another haha while I am trying to catch up !!!!
Hugs to all,
OM