The greatest myth of all? (Wim's comments)

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

In a follow-up post, you will find a copy of an article,"The greatest myth

of all." from 'The New Scientist' archives. I know that on the K. list we

are

not to do "major quotes", but neither can we have attachments.

So here I shall sin... :-)

 

Not sure even if it is legal what I do here, but saving you time and getting

you to read the article cannot be too illegal, can it?

Anyway, here too I shall trespass... :-)

 

You could of course also look it up at:

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'.

 

It is probably best to read the article first, and then come back here. That

is, if you are interested in my comments. It is BS of course (the article

I mean.) Just so that you know what to expect from me.

(By the way this is rewrite of a previous post. Ah, my verbosity knows no

limits.)

The writers of that New Scientist article come from the school of mentalism

and illusion, (probably rooted in a mis-interpretation of Advaita or

Non-Dualism),

students teaching what they ‘think’ the masters mean.

(Hehehe, that never works, does it?)

 

Anyway, 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.)

 

Wim 's comments:

 

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 seen as myth.

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

insights impact on us, "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 not 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 have some vague

concepts or "notions" about 'self' and 'free will' and they assume that

the reader has 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. (That is, if it is a myth at all!)

In physical 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 about consciousness.

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

 

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,

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

(I am purposely emphasizing the tangible 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 (with internal dialogue and all).

 

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

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

‘disillusioned', in 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 internal double vision (as in "I am

besides myself,") as well as internal dialogue. And...the mind / body split.

This is not good, when this happens too often, the child becomes ‘formally

disturbed’… or let me say it differently: the child becomes normal, like

the rest of us.

This ‘diffractive astigmatism’ takes place in the brain:

illusion (original meaning: ‘in’ + ‘ludere’=‘in or at play’) becomes

delusion (original meaning:‘de’+’ludere’=’out of play’)

(Yes, eye sight is affected as well.)

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

that will and will not be followed, inconsistent rules and game pieces that

can be manipulated.

 

There is more to this of course, but to keep this post somewhat simple,

I'll just put it short and simple:

being conscious of ‘oneself’ and ’pure’ consciousness

are symptoms of un-ease, dis-ease,

pathological.

 

Instead of getting deeper into the whys and hows, let me just say that

these forms of consciousness (consciousness of self and pure

consciousness) are symptomatic of the pathology of individuals

who have been fundamentally questioned regarding their:

physical past / future existence,

masculine / feminine physical viability and their

human / divine reality and integrity.

 

Harsha (on his list) 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 the fire of glorious

bliss

(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.

> Maybe that's not so surprising, because,

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

 

The writers obviously do not live in reality, as they so readily admit in

the quote above. It appears that their only interest is "consciousness" and

eventually "illusion".

I should point out that my use and meaning of the word illusion is different

from theirs or even… yours. It is not uncommon in the history of language

that words, over time, start taking on opposite meanings:

‘karma’ used to mean ‘harmonious work’, now it is almost a burden,

‘maya’ used to mean reality now it means the opposite,

'Unreal!!!' is about something that cannot be denied,

'Out of this world!' happens right here.

 

Currently - in new age, spiritual and yoga circles - consciousness seems to

take precedence over the physical reality that it is supposed to keep track

of.

However, consciousness is secondary to physical reality. There is no reality

to consciousness on its own and of its own, such is neo-platonism, monism,

not holism, not integralism, it is not even advaitism. Consciousness is

supposed to express and reflect knowledge of physicality that is congruous

and synchronous with physical reality in an abstract way. Consciousness is

the image in the mirror, not the object in front of the mirror.

Consciousness

is the knowing of the known, not ‘that’ what it knows nor ‘the one’ that

knows. Consciousness ‘records’ what the senser senses, it is neither this

nor

that. Consciousness by itself has no reality: "Neti, neti and itself also

neti."

’Conscious’ from ‘con’(Latin)=’syn’(Greek)=’together with’+‘sciere’(Latin)

‘chit’(Sanskrit)=’what it knows’.

 

I know, I know, this is against much current trendy thinking. It may even

fly in the face of how we understand Ramana Maharshi.

But did he mean what we understand?

Commentators of old scriptures very often did not understand the original

texts, and their comments over time got included with the original text

thereby clouding the original meanings and portents.

 

As long as a student is with the teacher, s/he is not understood by the

student.

 

When we say in contemporary language, “I am with you”, “I’m with it”,

"I am going with the flow" that is what consciousness in principle means,

by definition! Yes!

 

Consciousness is a recording mechanism, a project management tool

so to say, created by us human divines to keep inventory of the realities of

things and happenings, resources and tasks - project, process and progress

tracking.

 

Consciousness's storage room, playground and desktop are:

the brain, the mind and awareness, respectively.

 

We ‘have’ consciousness, we ‘are not’ consciousness.

We ‘are conscious' but we are 'not consciousness'.

A toy maker is not his toolbox, he may be tooling but is not the tool,

fooling but not the fool…

(OK OK, the fool he is, we shall have fun.)

 

Divine humans, turning their dreams into reality, create and use

consciousness

during the creative process, contra-distinctively from some old and

apparently

contemporary schools of thought that propose that consciousness creates

reality and that such reality remains a dream.That is ludicrous,

consciousness

tracks the unfolding of realized imaginations and creations!

 

The writers of the article seem to propose a watered down, spirited down :-)

physical reality. They seem to prefer a platonic relationship with reality.

They do not seem to deal with stuff, things, tangibles, hardly even with

sense

perceptions. They deal with the brain, the mind, consciousness, concepts,

engrams, notions, thoughts, information.

They deal with the human information management system, they do not

deal with the stuff that the information is about.

This storage system can be as good as a state of the art computerized

merchandize tracking system at Canadian Tire or Home Depot.

But it can also be as flawed. If the system does not show

5 each of 2.5 inch, 90 degree angle ABS plastic elbows, those elbows

do not even exist “as far as the system is concerned”, even if they at some

point physically turn up.

 

It is as strange as the reality of that tree that topples over in the forest

while

there is no human to witness it. Does the tree exist? What of the sound of

one tree toppling? Heck what is the reality of a forest not even being

discovered.

When the brain records anything, it does not know what physical reality or

energetic occurrence it records, it only records sense information relayed

through the information channels of the nervous system.

If you could ask the brain about the reality of an occurrence, the

physicality

of a recorded item, it would only answer in terms of descriptive symbols.

One cannot ask an information system to produce an item, it only records

data, at best as comprehensive but symbolic space/time coordinates.

One cannot say that the brain or mind or consciousness creates what it is

conscious of, it only accepts, holds and provides information.

The mind indeed can only produce what it records: information.

The mind’s conscious contents is indeed illusion. It cannot say anything

about the reality of what is alluded to in the illusion.

(Except if the system contains a linked data table that lists descriptions

of those realities.)

 

An information system IS not what it records, tracks or traces, nor does it

create what it records, tracks or traces. A computer based database

management system records information bit-wise, as magnetic fields,

or dimples that do or don't reflect light, or switches that are either on or

off.

Whatever physical things or occurrences are recorded, they are not composed

of elements that are on or off.

The storage medium and method of storing are not the stored items or

occurrences.

The brain records input from the senses as electrical pulses and stores them

in the fatty acids of the good (I presume :-) cholesterol of our brain.

The brain’s lipid mix of minerals, its phosphorus, fluoride, sulphur,

calcium, etc.

have, say, a luminescence of their own, producing the luminosity of the

illusion, an inner light but…

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

an illusion (the usual meaning of the word) is not ‘das ding an sich’.

 

So the statement:

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

is topsy turvy.

 

That illusion is created by them:

Peter Halligan, David Oakley et al.

 

While we play together,

Engrossed in our mutuality,

Not disturbed nor disrupted,

We play and let play.

 

Caution, do not disturb,

Children at play.

‘illusion’ from ‘in’+‘ludere’(Latin)='in or at play'

Homo ludens,

Divine leela

Deo gratias

:-)

 

Love,

Wim

 

"Indirect knowledge gathered from books or teachers can never set you free

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: 89-90

[Guest guest]

Hi Wim,

 

In this post, are you interspersing text from the article with your own

comments? If so, I have a question - which is the source of statements

like these, you or the authors of the article you are discussing?

 

Love,

 

--Greg

 

Wim wrote or quotes:

>Currently - in new age, spiritual and yoga circles - consciousness seems to

>take precedence over the physical reality that it is supposed to keep track

>of.

 

....

>However, consciousness is secondary to physical reality. There is no reality

>to consciousness on its own and of its own, such is neo-platonism, monism,

>not holism, not integralism, it is not even advaitism. Consciousness is

>supposed to express and reflect knowledge of physicality that is congruous

>and synchronous with physical reality in an abstract way. Consciousness is

>the image in the mirror, not the object in front of the mirror.

 

....

>Consciousness is the knowing of the known, not ‘that’ what it knows nor

>‘the one’ that knows. Consciousness ‘records’ what the senser senses,

>it is neither this nor that. Consciousness by itself has no reality:

>"Neti, neti and itself also neti."

 

....

>I know, I know, this is against much current trendy thinking. It may even

>fly in the face of how we understand Ramana Maharshi.

>But did he mean what we understand?

>Commentators of old scriptures very often did not understand the original

>texts, and their comments over time got included with the original text

>thereby clouding the original meanings and portents.

 

....

>Consciousness is a recording mechanism, a project management tool

>so to say, created by us human divines to keep inventory of the realities of

>things and happenings, resources and tasks - project, process and progress

>tracking.

 

....

>Consciousness's storage room, playground and desktop are:

>the brain, the mind and awareness, respectively.

 

....

>We ‘have’ consciousness, we ‘are not’ consciousness.

>We ‘are conscious' but we are 'not consciousness'.

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg,

 

You wrote:

> In this post, are you interspersing text from the

> article with your own comments? If so, I have a

> question - which is the source of statements

> like these, you or the authors of the article you

> are discussing?

 

 

All that you quoted is mine :-).

 

I will make it more clear in the future, it all probably depends on the

email package one uses.

My email package always adds > to email text I respond to. I always start

quotes with > or I surround quoted words with "..."

I realize that certain packages make a mess of it, especially when the

windows are narrow.

 

Love,

Wim