The geatest myth of all?

[Guest guest]

Attached is the article from 'The New Scientist' archives. Not sure that it

is legal what I do here, but saving you time and getting you to read the

article cannot be too illegal, can it?

You could of course also look it up through:

http://www.newscientist.com/ To find this article, it is easiest to have

access to TNS's archives. They let you take out '7 day free access'.

 

Peter Halligan and David Oakley finish their article as follows:

> Nevertheless, it will be virtually impossible to let go

> of the *myth that self and free will are integral

> functions of consciousness*. The myth is something

> we are strongly adapted to maintain, and almost

> impossible to escape from. Maybe that's not so

> surprising, because, after all, "we" are part of the illusion.

(The asterisks are mine.)

 

It is thus and only at the end of the article, that the writers clearly

spell out what it is they want us to have debunked or demythologized.

But then...they also say that is it "virtually impossible" to have these

insights impact on reality, "because, after all, "we" are part of the

illusion." (No wonder these guys are not enlightened.)

(What is it? Are they paid by the word to write such a useless article?)

 

The quoted paragraph above contains the phrase:

>... the myth that self and free will are

> integral functions of consciousness...

 

The article does attempt to define those mythical terms 'free will' and

'self'. It uses the words "free will" some 5 or 6 times and 'self' by itself

only 9, maybe 10 times. The article does not show that the writers like

definite descriptions of those terms, instead they use some vague

*concepts* about 'self' and 'free will' and they assume that the reader

uses the same. What if that were not the case?

>... the myth that self and free will are

> integral functions of consciousness ...

 

They even describe the myth wrongly. In reality as well as in mythical

reality, self and free will are NOT integral functions OF consciousness.

Free will is a function OF self and one could say the same of consciousness.

(But that is more complicated as you will see.)

 

Responding to some pivotal incident, (hold on, I'll explain later) an

individual may at some point say, "I am conscious..."

I do not want to get into "Conscious of what?" I just want to stay with

"Who is conscious?" The subject of that phrase, "I am conscious..."

is an individual, indivisible, full bodied and physical entity, - I -.

(I am purposely emphasizing the physicality of that being.)

 

At the moment of responding to that pivotal incident (...just wait...),

while saying, "I am conscious..." this individual is being forced to create

a reflective, reactive or non-physical substitute: a - me -, a person that

can be divided, partitioned, divvied up or even multiplied into distinct

psychological entities.

 

The pivotal incident is usually a crucial moment in early childhood when a

child is being interrupted in its play..., taken out of play,

'disillusioned' - the original sense of the word.

('dis' =' away from', 'illusion' = 'in'+'ludere' (Latin) 'in or at play').

In such a moment a child is made self-con-scious. Its being and doing do not

overlap anymore, its integrity is being diffracted. A kind of introspective

astigmatism takes place that produces an internal double vision as in "I am

besides myself."

Instead of playing, such a child will now get into games. Games with rules

that may or may not be followed, rules and game pieces that can be

manipulated.

 

There is more to this of course but to keep this post short and simple, I'll

just 'put' it short and simple: conscious-ness is a symptom of un-ease,

dis-ease, pathology. Instead of getting deeper into the whys and hows,

let me just say that 'consciousness' is symptomatic of a pathology of

individuals who have been fundamentally questioned regarding their

physical past / future existence, masculine / feminine physical

existence and their human / divine integrity.

 

Harsha was quoting some observations by Ramana Maharshi regarding samadhi,

the various kinds. For the fundamentally undisturbed human or the human who

has reclaimed originality, samadhic distinctions are of no consequence.

There is 'sciousness' not consciousness ('scio' Latin= 'I know').

One just is! No questions asked, no answers looked for, no doubt, no faith,

no hope, no desire, no fear. Just 'sat-chit-tapas-ananda', divine energy

that sustains physical existence, supplies the luminescence of knowledge,

empowers unencumbered and creative will and lights up the fire of bliss and

glory. (The tapas/will part I discovered with Aurobindo Ghose and Juan

Mattis)

> ... the myth that self and free will are

> integral functions of consciousness...

 

Such a flawed premise can only lead to conclusions that are illusory.

 

The writers obviously do not live in reality, they do not deal with stuff,

things, tangibles, hardly even with sense perceptions. They deal with the

brain, the mind, consciousness, concepts, thoughts, a data base management

system. An information system is not what it records, tracks or traces. A

picture of a pipe is not a pipe (Magritte).

Illusion (their definition) says nothing about reality.

 

Love,

Wim

 

"Indirect knowledge gathered from books or teachers can never emancipate a

person until its truth is investigated, applied, experimented with and

experienced. Only direct, factual and actual realization does that. Realize

your whole self, reintegrate your mind and body." - Tripura Rahasya, 18: 89

Attachment: (application/msword) Greatest myth of all.doc [not stored]