Hi.

Discussion in 'Existentialism' started by Sup3rfly, Jan 17, 2017.

  1. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933

    This is a matter of perspective. If we determine that only the physical exists (which is the general weltanschauung of Modern Man) then we are left with a duality in which the marginalized side is denied. Or if we speak in terms of both mind and body, with physical reality (the body) being dominant then once again we have a duality and the marginalized mind (nonphysical reality) has little to no real significance. If we understand them as two sides to the same thing, then there is no duality.

    But because we are overly obsessed with objective reality, then we are stuck with the physicality of objects—we see only the physicality of existence—and we fall right back into the duality. We can equate this argument with existentialism. On the other hand, if we are overly obsessed with subjective reality with the essence of things being primary reality, then we fall back into the duality. We can equate this latter argument to essentialism. However we need the latter argument to deconstruct the former argument—especially when it becomes extreme as in the case of Modern Man.




    That is true. Our existential reality is one of physicality. But what is physical? Even science has trouble with this when you put it all together. How does the quantum world, for example, represent a reality that is consistent with the mechanical world of Newtonian Physics (i.e. the physical reality that we experience). There is a problem explaining reality with Einstein’s theories and Quantum Mechanics as well. The cosmological model that brings this all together the best is a holographic model of the universe. But if the universe is a hologram, then what does that mean for physicality.

    When you see and touch an object, you may think you are touching a concrete material object—what we define as physical, but how can you really know? What you are actually experiencing is not the object, but the phenomena of the object. The philosopher, Immanuel Kant, suggested that we can never actually experience the physical object as it truly is---the thing-in-itself---all we can experience is the phenomena of that object and how our mind shapes that into the reality that we experience. He wrote this a over a 100 years before Quantum Mechanics actually took shape. If the universe really is a hologram then he is exactly right.

    Physicality as we define it requires that there is always a position in space-time. This presents a problem because Quantum Mechanics tells us that the particles and subatomic particles that each go about collectively creating the position of a physical object in themselves only have a fleeting position and are otherwise super-positioned---in other words they are in a wave-field like state existing simultaneously all over the universe. Scientists argue that the reality of the quantum realm does not bear on the reality of the classical or Newtonian realm because it represents elements of reality that are too small for us to normally perceive, and that it all evens out in the end, because collectively it all combines into the objects we know. In other words, science validates our experience of reality by simply whitewashing the problem and writing it off as too small to be a problem. There is no proof that it even works out that collectively it creates the world we understand. All we really experience is the phenomena and how we perceive that phenomena to represent the physical realm as we know it.

    Objects of the mind are, by definition, nonphysical. If you check any dictionary, you will see numerous definitions for physical, but you will also see that the key definition of material and concrete objects excludes those objects of the mind, and the mind itself. Mind actually has no position either, we can think of it as somewhere within our physical brain, or even somewhere in our physical being, but then there is plenty of evidence of non-locality, of the brain affecting physical states outside of itself (there is a whole bunch of well documented evidence from experiments at MIT), as well as evidence of non-local perceptions outside of the physical body/position.






    As I stated previously, the physical phenomena that we equate with the phenomena of consciousness can be detected. As long as we define consciousness as limited to this, and the dynamics of the physical brain, then you are correct. But if we relate it to the experience of mind, then it is not correct, because, again, mind is nonphysical by definition. One problem (of several problems) of equating consciousness to such physical phenomena is that we can find no physical phenomena behind the non-local experiences outside of the brain. For example, at MIT, they demonstrated that a small group of people could place their intention on changing the coagulation of human blood into a simple oscillator. The oscillator had no output—no speakers, no lights, no antenna, or any other kind of input—it simply generated a continuous internal signal. The impact of this intention on human blood was so strong that the control experiment had to be removed from the room. This was a non-local event because there was no physical connection between the humans and the oscillator (they entered their intention by staring at it and ‘concentrating’ on placing their intention in it, or between the oscillator and the human blood. But there was also no known physical phenomena that transmitted this intention from human to oscillator, or oscillator to blood. Many other experiments were performed in this manner, altering everything from the .ph of water, to how fast the larvae of fruit flies would develop.





    If time is only a human construct, then we can define it as such, only as an object of mind. From the math of the Theory of Relativity, we gather that the speed of objective time is the universal constant—the speed of light. At the speed of light, both time and space have a zero value. One way to look at this is that because light moves with time (e.g. 1 light year is the distance it takes light to travel 1 year), it has no relative relationship in time. For example, no matter how fast you move (and remember your subjective time changes the faster you move) light always approaches you at the same constant. Let me explain that—If a giant light bulb in outer space were approaching you at 20,000 mph and you were standing still, the light from that light bulb would approach you at the speed of light. On the other hand, if you were approaching the light bulb at 10,000 mph, then the relative speed that the light bulb was approaching you would be 30,000 mph (20,000 + 10,000). But the light from that light bulb would still be coming at you at the same speed of light. If you were travelling to that light bulb at near the speed of light, then the light bulb would be approaching you at near the speed of light plus another 10,000 mph in relative speed, but the light from the light bulb would still approach you at the same speed of light. Or if you were moving away from the light bulb at near the speed of light, then relatively speaking, that light bulb would be moving away from you at your speed less 10,000 mph, yet its light would still reach you at the speed of light. Einstein says that even at the speed of light, light reaches you at the speed of light. Because the speed of light is not relative to the speed of any object at any speed, it is moving with time, and its sense of time is therefore zero (in the same way that if you were driving a car next to a train at the same speed as the train, your relative speed between you and the train would be zero).

    In Einstein’s universe, if time is zero, then space is also zero.

    But we can identify a position when and where light is a particle---in fact, we can even slow down the speed of light as a particle (i.e. as a particle we can make the speed become relative)---furthermore, if light is a particle then it has a position, which places it at a certain point of space-time. If it is a particle, then from a physical perspective it is not a wave. If it has a position in space time, then at that specific point, space is not zero, nor is time. Therefore we can argue that as a wave, light has no existence in space-time, or space-time does not exist for light. It only does so for the brief moment (point) that light is a particle. Every subatomic particle demonstrates the same phenomenon of a wave. If there is no space, there can be no material reality—i.e. no position, no material concrete physical reality. Space-time only exists in the present—representing the brief moment when all particles that represent that particular moment are manifesting as particles.

    In this sense, not only does the point exist, but it is all that exists and contains all possible substance within that point. Time does not exist except in the present.




    That is right.

    Except we must add that the present is localized to the positions of manifesting reality.

    Consider a stellar object 400 Million Light Years away. At the point we perceive it, we are seeing exactly how it was 400 Million years ago. In the present it may not even exist anymore. If they both share the same Now (or not if the stellar object no longer exists) then the perceived reality is subject to the localized received phenomena. By the same token, if you were talking to someone in the same room, and what you perceive of each other is after the fact—after the brief moment of your mutual existence—then it still does not change anything. You both experience the same Now. But that Now is perceived locally not only by each of the senses of your bodies, but even by the point at which the brain physically perceives the phenomenon----once again it is localized. It is so localized that the reality perceived by the eyes, is different than the reality perceived in the brain, even in the present moment.

    Jungian psychology tells us that the purpose of the ego is to maintain a consistent personality and to achieve this sense it filters out all nonessential phenomena. If we are focused on physical reality, and the physical experience of another, than we are trapped into experiencing only the physical aspects of such moments, and we cannot experience anything outside of the limits of the physical. The non-local nature of the mind suggests that there could be a potential simultaneous experience of another outside of the limits of physicality.
     
  2. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    But what is it that experiences the same now? Which, by the way is not the same now on the one hand, as Eisenstein's twin paradox illustrates; but is on the other hand if we take into account conscious experience.

    We are only trapped by the physical experience of another if we assume that there is a physical experience of another.
    In other words, if we accept that all physical "objects" are in reality connected and not isolated physical events....how can we be trapped?

    Looking deeply we can see, and know, that physical "objects" are merely projections of our understanding of the nature of ultimate reality.

    To take the example of our individual bodies. We can be trapped into seeing them as existing on their own, or we can realize that no human body can exist on its own wither in the present now, the past, or the future.
    We cannot extract any human body from its environment, that is the universe, and observe it existing on its own. We can't even launch it into astronomical space and have it exist on its "own". It will cease to exist as a living entity and in time cease to exist as a physical human structure.

    What is my body? It doesn't end at the outer surface of my skin. It also needs the Earth's atmospheric gases and pressure, a certain temperature range, gravity, space, etc. to exist. Remove any one and the body falls apart.
    And as my mind is a product of the body, it too needs all of the above.

    Now consciousness could be another matter depending on how we define consciousness.
     
  3. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933

    It is mind that experiences the same Now. In an absolute sense, it is mind/matter that experiences the same Now. In a scientific Modern Age sense, it is the physical particle that experiences the same Now. But most of all, accorsding to Archephenomenalism, because mind transcends physicality, and physicality only lasts for a fleeting, infinitessimal moment of Now, it is more than anything else---Mind.

    But the same Now for any point in the universe is not the same Now for any other point in the universe. Every point is subjective, therefore the Now is always subjectively relative.




    If mind and body are the same thing, which I think we agree upon, then the body is not really the 'other.' We may define it as the other through the deconstruction of the Modern duality that is obsessed with physicality, but in truth the body is merely a physical manifestation of mind.

    On the other hand, it is the experience of the other that creates physicality itself. At the quantum level, a wave collapses into a particle through decoherence---in other words, a quantum wave interacts with another quantum wave such that there mutual positions are determined---suddenly there is a position in space-time, in fact, as I demonstrated in my last post using Einstein's math, suddenly there is space-time.

    A wave representing an electron of a carbon atom interacts with the wave of an electron of another carbon atom (Quantum Information--an intentional object places them against each other), and suddenly they both have a position as electrons in space-time. There is a perception--a mutual position is perceived--quantum information is shared, or transferred, and then a phenomena is generated (Quantum Information returns to the wave-field state as a new intentional object). In this manner, a diamond maintains a consistent hard crystalline shape, or you experience a piece of charcoal in your hand, or whatever the case may be.

    The human mind, being a more complex glob, collection, or point (however you want to describe it), of mind experiences reality at a more complex level, but its physical manifestation (neurons, brain, body, etc.) is subject to the same quantum laws of reality. However, mind doesn't experience reality as atomistic points of present material manifestation--it is continuous.

    But when I say we are trapped in the physical, by that I mean that we are here subject to an ego that hides who we truly are. What use would it be to experience a reality where we can change and shape anything at will? Or if we were to truly understand that, transcending the physical as we do, physical death does not mean the end of our being then why bother going through the motions of physical existence. The trap--our ego--is an intentional object of its own filtering all phenomena to the subconscious that is non-essential to our physical existence, and to our current conscious focus. In this way, our lives have meaning, we are here to experience, and the experience would not be bona fide if we knew we had immense power to shape this reality. We would always avoid pain, only seek pleasure, and in the end it would be a boring meaningless existence, without struggle, or growth, or anything to really live for.



    Precisely---it is all a dance of quantum decoherence---appearing and disappearing in 1 Planck time (the smallest time possible before the laws of quantum mechanics and the Theories of Relativity break down). Every quantum particle manifesting in a given moment because of a decoherent event between its wave and another wave---creating 2 positions in space-time---creating space-time.

    You are presenting the gestalt of existence as the form that gives shape and being to every physical thing. But in the face of quantum randomness, were every particle, in its superpositioned state, covers the whole universe and all of time (though that is from our perspective because time doesn't really exist beyond the present) how is that form maintained from one moment to the next, how does each object maintain a consistent history---it is the quantum information----mind.

    (And of course I am equating mind with consciousness, and not a materialist product of the physical).


    At least----that is as my philosophy suggests.
     
  4. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    I'm going to differ in the use of the word mind.


    I would say that consciousness experiences the same now, as now as consciousness is the now experience. Mind would be the apprehension of that experience by the thought process of the human brain.

    The difference in local now experiences that we talk about in Einsteinian physics is not a result of reality, but a result of the limits of human physical attributes. In other words, humans can only exist in the physical realm by adhering to physical laws even thought those laws are not the true nature of ultimate reality. Time, space, and mass are really only different aspects of the same reality, therefore there is no difference, in ultimate reality. Space, velocity, and mass are the same thing. Ultimately the now moment is the same everywhere, but as we are human it takes us time to get around and we physically experience it differently . (Does that make sense?)

    Agreed.

    Yes, and I would say that this is a basic form of consciousness.
    Yes, but the diamond is also continuous. All consciousness is continuous.

    I call this momentum. The physical realm has momentum. That is direction. Ken Wilber postulates that there is involution, where Ultimate reality hides itself in the physical; and evolution, where the physical evolves into ordinary mind and then physic (or mystic or whatever) modes that transcend ordinary minds.

    The goal of involution is to set up the "game", the goal of evolution is to find the "answer".

    This is where it gets interesting. Form is never maintained from moment to moment, it is constantly changing. What is maintained is our perception of form.

    I would argue that his is accomplished by the memory functions of the physical brain.
    We have an apprehension of reality governed by the limits of our senses. We analyze that experience by using our memory to compare it to past learned responses to other experiences, and we assign a category of learned form to that new experience.

    I suppose something like Plato's shadows:

    (I hope this makes sense I had all kind of trouble with the editor and quotes.)
    ...always interesting discussing this stuff! :)
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    Yes, I saw that you use consciousness in the way I use mind. I use it in the traditional philosophical sense of mind/body duality, which was not always limited to an actual human mind and body, but a metaphor for a physical and nonphysical reality. I also like the fact that mind is nonphysical by dictionary definition. In my usage, I don't limit the mind to a conscious level where we apprehend experience, but also to a subconscious level, and even to a level where perception and memory are so basic, they could barely be called acts of consciousness. But its just a word, and in fact, I use the two fairly interchangeably. In my writing in a broader sense I use 'mind' as a vague term for something beyond just the human concept of consciousness--even to a level of the Absolute---however one would want to interpret that based on their own beliefs or views. Obviously, I see Quantum Information as an element of mind.




    Yes that is right, except that I would add that if every point in the universe is subjective, then it is the same for physical reality everywhere in every physical form. Light travelling from a distant star 400 Million light years away will reach a human being 400 Million years later in physical terms. as well as it will reach a cold lifeless planet 400 Million Light years in a different direction after 400 Million years in physical terms. In a superpositioned state---as a wave in the 4th dimension that light is simultaneously leaving the star, hitting the cold lifeless planet, and hitting the eyes of the human. The mind that is a part of all of these events is of a higher dimension still, maybe multiple higher dimensions.


    Yes we are limited by the physical laws of the universe, that is our existential experience of reality. But our true selves are nonphysical. Therefore when I agree that mind and body are two different sides of the same thing, I am speaking in terms of the 3 physical dimensions, and how those dimensions fit into greater dimensions. This is the reality we are experiencing life from, so everything we empirically perceive is in the context of that physicality. But what about when we are not within this level of reality. What about light, as a wave-field wherein, according to Einstein's math, space and time have a value of zero? Upon our physical deaths, for example, can we not pull back from the 3 physical dimensions?



    In a Lakota yuwipi ceremony, for example, you experience things that are clearly not of this dimension. They create a physical phenomena, assuming that you are still perceiving reality from the 3 physical dimensions (who knows---it is ceremony, maybe you are between dimensions...), but the sources of that phenomena are not completely here in a physical sense. You can feel the physical presence of animals for example, but there is no animals there---in fact, there is no way an animal could enter anyway because you are in a closed room. Or you will feel human hands, but there can be no humans there, because you are against a wall, for example. My wife, in her first yuwipi, was cradled by her mother, who had passed away when she was a child. Such phenomena come from somewhere. Such experiences involve something outside of the context of the physical dimensions.




    I will send the rest of this response to you in an IM. For everyone else, I will share it after I get something published. Sometimes I share more than I should in these forums prior to copywriting...







    Yes, the consciousness is, but the physical presence of each particle of that diamond is not i.e. the diamond does not exist as we perceive it to. In fact, the manifestation is so fast, individually, that each atom may never actually exist in full form---it appears just enough to generate the phenomena of the diamond. Because the uncertainty principle normally leaves a question over position, and since everything is always in motion, even the position we perceive is for an infinitesimal point of time, as if it never happened (Archephenomenalism requires a particle to have a position—the hologram is a structure of positions).


    The question could be asked then does the consciousness of the diamond exist continuously as a whole (like the human mind) or in an atomistic form only within the Quantum Information of each particle. I believe that it is as a whole, though not in the physical dimension---it is in the center---the source of the quantum information. In this manner we have returned to Platonic Form in a sense, but the idea is that at some level there is a coordinated or collective processing or managing of the quantum information.








    I agree. The math of science does not provide a direction—here we are talking about entropy, which is what we perceive as the arrow of time. Mathematically a melting ice cube on a table at room temperature could melt into a puddle of water, or could freeze back into the cube. This may very well reflect the problem that only the present exists in a physical sense. But I resolve the issue of entropy by what I call the phenomenal sequence---that phenomena (we could look at this as a ‘transmitted’ Quantum Information—so to speak) has a direction. This is why, for example, that we cannot see light moving away from us.






    I just simply equate both involution and evolution to intention---which is why quantum information represents an intentional object. It is the flow of nature, the Tao. Entropy has a natural direction. Quantum decoherence happens without a human observer. Physical reality manifests clear across the universe--every manifestation of every particle therefore has meaning, purpose.






    This is an interesting argument—I assume you are referring to the argument of extreme temporality—that things seem to have a history because in each moment they are as we ‘believe’ them to have always been. I disagree. I think that everything has a facticity---it is recorded in the quantum information. If you carve your initials into a tree, they are always there as part of the form of that tree, until they are destroyed or the tree is destroyed or whatever. There is a memory at even the quantum level, and that is not just my supposition, but is a part of Quantum Mechanics.


    This facticity, is part of the intention that is represented in the flow of nature. What you presented as momentum, or involution and evolution. This is why a tree does fall in the woods and makes a sound even when no one is there to hear it.


    But what you are saying about the human brain relates to Husserl’s retention, which I spoke of in my previous post. It is why we experience reality in the context of a continuous flow of time. It is why we believe physical existence is continuous, rather than limited to the present Now.


    I am an essentialist so I do believe that form or essence is the ground of being rather than existence. Anyway, I have already addressed form in part in my response above. But one thing I differ from Plato is that I believe each object has its own unique form. The facticity is part of that unique form. The initials in the tree, for example, became part of that tree's unique form.





    I do enjoy talking about this, and there are no wrong answers----as long as they agree with me (I'M JOKING!!!).
     
    Asmodean likes this.
  6. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    Lot of stuff there....I don't have time right now and hopefully I'm remember to come back to this!

    Meanwhile I would really like your opinion of a book by John Levy called The Nature Of Man According To The Vedanta. The link is the entire text.

    If you have time, it's a short book which can be reread multiple times for new insights, IHMO. (Once you get past the preface)

    Here's an excerpt:

     
  7. tikoo

    tikoo Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    487
    Ther are two mental states : the object to object shifting focus and the steadfast (unblinking) . In
    steadfast mode one can feel the otherness of existence dispassionately . I have tried to extend this ,
    yet cannot . I cannot be of your passion . Just your form . Somehow this is progressive just for trying .
    Otherness tries to be more honest . I listen for it , and wonder , when I enter a room .
     
  8. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    Interesting---I will definitely go through it.
     
  9. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    Actually, I can't make the link work.
     
  10. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    Works for me.....

    Here's the site: https://archive.org/stream/natureofmanaccor033308mbp/natureofmanaccor033308mbp_djvu.txt

    Here's a pdf site, but I didn't try the download. http://aade.ronoms.hol.es/the-nature-of-man-according-to-the-vedanta.pdf

    Here's another with an excerpt:
    THE ILLUSION OF MATERIALITY

    5 . Continuity. The response to sensory stimuli that exceed a certain minimum threshold continues for a brief period after the event. Ultimately this response is cerebral and belongs to the domain of biochemistry. In normal circumstances, distinct groups of sensations and their prolongation, succeed one another with sufficient rapidity to make them appear as though they formed an unbroken line. There will, however, be no difficulty in understanding that objective continuity is an illusion, if what was said regarding the interval between two thoughts be borne in mind. We do not normally take note of this interval because we wrongly assume that when nothing objective is present to consciousness, what subsists is nothingness and no consciousness. The sense of continuity cannot therefore be derived from the objective, physiological side of perception ; it is derived from the single, immutable and non-temporal consciousness in which all perceptions occur, as we shall see in a later chapter.
     
  11. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    I am not drawing a distinction between mind or consciousness and physicality.

    Right, but human awareness of the event only occurs when the human brain enters the equation.

    It would depend of whether you believe the ego as an independent object, such as you and I, exists after death.

    I am not proposing that the physical doesn't exist, just that it is a construct of consciousness.

    In my opinion, if the state of your personal consciousness is altered by whatever means, drugs, chanting, hypnosis....then your perception of physicality is also altered.

    It does exist on one level, the level we experience it on. This is the same for all objects.

    If I understand this correctly, it exists in both forms...but I have to go....
     
  12. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    But the physical only manifests when the human senses interact with the flow.

    MeAgain, on 01 Feb 2017 - 4:18 PM, said:[​IMG]
    If we accept that there is only now, by that I mean no definitive time at all, then there can be no recording as recording implies at least a preservation of the now instant. If I wish to record something, I must do it now and then it remains in a theoretically unchanging state. I must capture the flow.

    No physical object can be retained in an unchanging state. No copy of that object can be retained in an unchanging state...as it would then be another unchanging object.

    Except in our memory of the representation of that object as it resides in the chemical make up of our brains. And the memory itself is not constant, it too must change.

    By momentum, I am referring to the fact that all individual consciousness, or each ego, is merely a part of the all inclusive flow. As the flow contains all the individual ego and its body, they are both part of that flow and must follow the dictates of the flow. The individual egos have been conditioned to interpret that flow in certain ways. To overcome the conditioning is extremely hard, but can be accomplished. So we can "see through" the conditioning by certain means such as drugs, chanting, etc. But to completely overcome the laws of the flow is very hard and some would claim impossible. So we don't normally see people with the ability to fly, live without eating etc. Now, there are reported cases of those things happening, but if we choose to remain in the mind set of most of humanity, we can't accept them as reality. That is what I mean by momentum.
    The conditioning of the overwhelming body of humanity will not allow you to walk on water.

    I don't know, I foget who Husserl is.

    I would argue that form is no different than consciousness.
     
  13. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    As I suggested in our own conversation---we might be coming from many of the same conclusions, just from separate perspectives---mine being that of Kant where there is a side to reality that cannot be perceived, and yours from Hegel where all of reality is reflected in physical reality.


    And that, I argue, is the only way we can perceive it from our existential perspective, that is, our perspective as humans living in a physical world. Our ego limits us to primarily physical phenomena which are mechanically perceived through our physical senses. I argue that human awareness is nonphysical, but that as physical beings it is manifested in a physical sense by such things as electrons passing the gap between neurons, and other physical responses in the brain and the body.


    I responded to this in our private conversation but, for everyone else, when I use the term ego I am using it in a Jungian sense as a filter with the primary focus of maintaining a continuous personality. It filters all nonessential phenomena and information to the subconscious. Therefore it provides the very important function of keeping us present in, and focused upon, physical reality. Our conscious world (as opposed to the subconscious) is the physical world. Therefore the metaphysical sense of ego to me is something that keeps us convinced that only the physical world is real. But yes, I do believe that our individuated selves does continue after death of the physical body. I have had numerous experiences over the past 20 some years, and especially over the past 5 or 10 years, that have convinced me of that.

    Does the physical exist? At a quantum level I say that there is a continuous shifting from nonphysical to physical to nonphysical. Noumenally physicality is a hologram. Philosophically, there is a continuous Derridean dance between a nonphysical absolute reality and an existential physical reality. But the mind transcends that and gives everything meaning and value.


    There is a continuous drum beat and prayer songs in the yuwipi. However in between rounds it is silent while the yuwipi medicine man gives instructions and information from the spirit and while individuals pray and ask for help, and other communication takes place. There is supernatural phenomena all through the ceremony but it does peak during the singing. For the past 60 years all yuwipis have been held in the dark---in fact many believe now that they are supposed to be held in the dark. The truth is they started holding them in the dark in order to hide the ceremonies because they were illegal until the 1970’s. Even on the reservations there were many Natives that were brainwashed by the Christians and that were happy to be rewarded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for turning in their neighbors for holding such ceremonies. So they started holding them in remote locations with the windows covered and all in darkness. But my point here is that there can be no hypnotism from visual sources, and even if one wanted to argue that it is due the pitch black darkness, yet they were once held even in the light of day (and there are a few yuwipi men wanting to being back that practice). The ceremony is a mixture of subjective and collective events, so while everyone experiences their own thing in the ceremony, there are also many shared supernatural phenomena witnessed by everyone.

    Granted, there are many cases of group hypnosis, so we could then question the drumming and the prayer songs. Most of the songs and the drumming are common to many other ceremonies where you do not experience such things, or where such phenomena only occur on a very limited and subjective basis. This is the same songs and drumming in the sweat lodge, for example. The songs are all in Lakota, and even among urban Native communities there are not that many that are fluent in Lakota anymore. In this sense the songs may appear as a repetitive jibberish of vocal tones and words which could again be interpreted as a chant. But then to a non-speaker of Lakota, there would be no difference between the drum and the singing than you would have at a pow wow, and such phenomena certainly do not occur at a pow wow.

    But then you also have to consider what happens after the ceremony. One of the best examples I can think of is the time I took my brother to his first yuwipi about 10 years ago or so. He has a thyroid condition and was told by a helpful doctor that everyone will want to take out his thyroids, but don’t let that happen, and instead get the doctors/insurance to manage it---he will be much healthier. He had been fighting with insurance companies for years, and moving from one job to another, partly to get an insurance that would help him with his condition (he may have actually been between jobs but I don’t remember). On the way there we were talking about it and I said that he could certainly pray for that in the ceremony and I will too, because often people are helped out with the problems they bring to the ceremony even if they are not the ones who asked for help from the yuwipi man. The next day he was driving to my mom and dad’s house and was driving down a frontage road along the highway. Suddenly an eagle swooped down and flew with him over above his car over the hood. This is in a suburb of Denver, and while eagles do live in the area, you certainly don’t seem them very often, and certainly not like that. He drove up to a light and he had to turn right and drive under the overpass to the highway, so he assumed that would be the last of the eagle which flew off at that point. But then after coming out at the other side of the overpass, the eagle flew down again and flew with him until he finally turned off on my mom and dad’s street. The previous week he had submitted a bunch of resumes and it just so happened that Monday he got a call back from one of them, and they wanted to do an interview Tuesday. Sure enough on Tuesday (the 4th day of the yuwipi which is often significant) he went to the interview and impressed everyone enough that he had the job right there. They talked about how great their health insurance, and in fact, they did cover him for maintenance of his thyroid issues—the first ones to do that.

    Now I know this is anecdotal and you don’t know my brother from Adam. And likewise, it could all be written off as a coincidence. But this is not an isolated case, this kind of thing happens all the time at the yuwipi ceremonies----especially for the people who actually asked for help.

    I refer to this as the existential level. But it is the level of our physical reality. But it is a world defined by phenomena, and when we think we are perceiving physical things we are actually perceiving only the phenomena of those physical things.

    I agree.
     
  14. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    But then we are faced with the problem of, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise? I argue that it does, and that a certain level of consciousness is found within every bit of reality, down to the quantum particles.


    That is exactly right—but you are speaking in terms of physicality. I argue that mind transcends physicality. Therefore we are speaking in terms of memory. This is easy to understand in terms of the human mind. But a subatomic particle also has a memory---the quantum information it carries. This quantum information determines how and where it will manifest as a physical particle. Quantum Information cannot be destroyed, but it can be altered shared and transferred. In other words, the quantum information carries the facticity of an object. It shapes the unique essence or form of each object. Therefore, as you state later, essence is consciousness.

    Ok, that is interesting—the collective consciousness is a flow. Because mind is of a higher dimension and actually shapes reality, I argue that we are actually very powerful, and that our existential freedom extends much further into reality than we realize. Therefore we could potentially fly or walk on water. However it is all a matter of belief. The chances of anyone flying or walking on water are in fact very slim, because trapped in physicality as we are by our ego, we rely on empirical evidence as to what the parameters of our abilities are. We could try to believe that we could walk on water, but as long as there is that tiniest bit of doubt, we would never be able to do it.


    Husserl is the father of phenomenology, and if Kierkegaard is the father of existentialism, Husserl is the adulterous lover of his wife who also provided seed to existentialism. Though Husserl was an essentialist. Husserl introduced the concept of retention which I incorporate as Husserlian retention. Earlier in this thread I used music as an example of retention. If you look at a mountain range, you will not see each mountain in the exact same moment. You experience the mountain range in that sense as you run your eyes across it, but you are seeing each individual peak in its own moment. But there is a continuity from peak to peak because you retain the experience of each one, and thereby get the sense of continuity.

    As I pointed out above, I agree with you.
     
  15. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    I agree with you up to here.

    The illusion of Individual consciousness usually manifests inside of the body, mostly in the area seemingly behind the eyes.
    But it can manifest in other parts of the body or even outside of the body.

    However, as I have never died (and by death I mean an irreversible complete destruction of my body) yet......I can't really speak to the absolute certainty of my believe that individual consciousness ends with death. But based on all available evidence, I think it does.

    Your analogy would be one example of how individual (or group) consciousness can be altered.
    It further illustrates that changes in individual consciousness can influence the body both positively and negatively...I don't believe there is any argument to that fact. However, there are limitations, as no one has ever recovered by willing them selves well if the body has sustained a certain level of damage.
     
  16. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    When a tree falls in the forest and no "ear" sense is present, there is a smashing of related fauna as it falls, a rush of wind as the tree travels to the ground, and an explosion of wood fibers when it hits.

    There is no noise unless there is an interaction from a being capable of interpreting the rush of wind as noise, or sound.

    We are using the terms mind and consciousness differently I think.
    I restrict the term mind to the functioning of the brain, consciousness is different from the limited functioning of the mind or brain.
    I would agree that consciousness transcends the physical as it creates the physical. By the mind is a product of the physical brain.
    I would argue that quantum information is a form of consciousness.

    I agree.

     
  17. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    And as you know, I would answer---However, as I have never died (and by death I mean an irreversible complete destruction of my body) yet......I can't really speak to the absolute certainty of my belief that individual consciousness does NOT end with death. But based on my own subjective experiences, and some research and case histories that I am familiar with, I think it does.

    In our own conversation I related examples---I can post them here too if anyone is interested. I have others as well.


    That is true, though I do have a news article somewhere of a man who came back to life after being dead for 8 minutes, if I remember correctly. I have the .pdf of it downloaded somewhere, but once I find it I can probably post the news article. It was from the National Enquirer. (I’m JOKING! It was actually a reputable news source!) I can’t recall offhand how much damage is normally done to the body when it is dead for that period of time---but I believe that normally damage is pretty significant if oxygen does not reach the brain for something like 4 minutes. Anyway I just happened to remember this case. It was a few years back. I will find the .pdf

    Apparently this man went on to become president of the United States, after being voted in back in something like, 2016. (Ok, I’m joking again…)

    It’s hard to refute such a position. It is like the role of the observer in the Double Slit Experiment. Even if no one was there but a microphone was there recording it, it is still going to be observed by a sentient observer. It is the same with phenomenalism---we can argue that we experience reality as it truly is, or that we experience reality only as phenomena---either argument is just as strong. (Though I think quantum Mechanics does give stronger validation to the fact that we can’t ever really experience the object as it is.


    Yes, you can just replace the word mind for consciousness every time I use it. We each have our reasons for differentiating, or not differentiating, between the two.

    Your quote from John Levy’s book is very interesting. Unfortunately I can’t download it on this computer. This is a crappy computer, which is why the link wouldn’t for me. I won’t be able to get to my other one till later. Tell me, when did he write it?
     
  18. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    1956. He died in 1976.

    Levy was a rich artist and musician who gave up his money and went to India to study with Sri Atmananda Krishna Meon.

    I discovered my copy, a 2004 paperback, in bargain store. They were selling new excess copies.

    From the Preface:

     
  19. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    Interesting---well Guenon was a contemporary of Husserl. I had never heard of him. But Husserl could have influenced him, or visa versa. I thought it would have been interesting if Levy was writing long before Husserl.

    Anyway, I was curious----but it shouldn't be surprising that Hinduism would have developed ideas similar to Retention many centuries before Husserl.

    I look forward to downloading that.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice