Consciousness

[northape]

That's right, there is no spoon/box.

We create whatever we believe, and believe whatever we create.

We are in the ultimate freedom of the Flux.

Yes, ultimately we're the box itself. There is a bigger reality out there, but we can't know anything about it because of the box's boundaries. Our thinking is immediately conditioned by the fundamental assumption of the box. So no amount of mental struggle is going to free us. Both the one getting free and what he gets free from are one and the same. The only solace here is that we're mistaken about our reality - the box is just an illusion.

Let's take a room in a house for example. It feels substantial and real, yet when the walls crumble we see the space that was always here. The room was a temporary illusion. In the same way, our ego or the box is an imaginal attempt to separate a part from the whole. Why imaginal? Because you can't cut space or separate it in any way. At some point we forgot that we put these limits on ourselves and are just playing inside the box, thinking that's all there is. However, the box is possible only due to the underlying space, which is of a higher order.

The exit is simple then - see the illusion for what it is. You can call the bigger space God, put a name-form on it, and go back that way. Maybe you prefer just putting your attention on the space itself and seeing that there are no limits anywhere. Finally, you can investigate the box and find how real it is. We're not stuck, but ignorant.

 

[pouyam9]

Also, when Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” the statement does not refer to the physical body of Jesus, but to consciousness itself.

Within the Human Matrix framework, the Father can be understood as universal consciousness , the unbounded consciousness field that exists beyond individual form.

The Son represents localized consciousness limited to human form, expressed through Jesus as an individual human experience.

The Holy Spirit functions as the connective medium between universal and localized consciousness, allowing the universal field to manifest through human awareness. In this model, all three aspects of the Trinity are different expressions or levels of the same underlying consciousness.


Universal consciousness becomes localized through limitation within the human nervous system , creating the experience of separate selves and individual identity.

 

[northape]

Also, when Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” the statement does not refer to the physical body of Jesus, but to consciousness itself.

I see what you mean, but I wouldn't remove the body from the equation in this day and age. All the teachings were produced in much calmer and more natural epochs. Today, we are so disconnected from nature, and our main task is to reunite with it. It shows even here with verbose answers and a focus on the mental side of life. We in the West are even more lost than other cultures. Both the tantric tradition and psychedelics put a big emphasis on the feminine or embodied part of the experience. No matter what you think, there is no liberation without the body. Yes, the notion of what the body is and how we relate to it will change, but you can't get far without it. That's just part of our work here, imo.

"The physical body is simply how conscious processes look when observed from the outside."
- Bernardo Kastrup

 

[pouyam9]

The main question is whether the human body represents somebody with the ability to become conscious by itself, or the human body is a high-performance machine which is hyperrealistically designed to represent someone and receives its consciousness from somewhere other than its own brain and the body to operate?

 

[rkba]

 

[northape]

The main question is whether the human body represents somebody with the ability to become conscious by itself, or the human body is a high-performance machine which is hyperrealistically designed to represent someone and receives its consciousness from somewhere other than its own brain and the body to operate?

Both are thoughts appearing in your mind and have the same weight experientially. I'm not talking about an answer here. See the mechanism - you're just thinking. No matter what you decide as true, it's one more thought. So, I see little value in intellectual pursuit apart from seeing its limits. At some point, you just give up, and that's the actual beginning of real inquiry. What are you? Where are your thoughts located? Sit and listen

 

[Jagube]

"The physical body is simply how conscious processes look when observed from the outside."
- Bernardo Kastrup

Jung and Pauli would partly agree, but they would object to the asymmetry.

Some time ago I picked up Kastrup, but was put off in one of the first few pages when I realized he was an idealist and claimed Jung was an objective idealist too (without knowing).
As a dual-aspect monist (and a materialist in recovery!), for modern interpretations of Jung's metaphysics I prefer Harald Atmanspacher.

He also comments on modern developments in physics, like the Penrose-Lucas Argument and Orch OR, the undecidability and axiomatic independence of the Spectral Gap problem, and QBism - an epistemic interpretation of quantum mechanics - complementing Jung and Pauli's ontic one.

BTW he authored a prominent entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) titled "Quantum Approaches to Consciousness".

Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[pouyam9]

Human thinking process (Biological AI) uses words and the alphabet to communicate with Consciousness. In order to realize this extra operating system (thinking process), simply understand that words as inner conversation are not made by consciousness, and exactly like the result of a search with AI or the Internet, the human brain creates an agent called the thinking process to help operate the body. But exactly like a computer program, this local agent with the usage of words (to operate) as inner voice could face problems by showing unrelated or outdated or wrong results. And exactly like AI, this inner computer has been advancing for millions of years, or better to say it has reached the level it was programmed for, and like any other computer program will never be complete. The main human suffering or main challenge is how to engage with this inner biological programmed AI and its results as thoughts (inner voice).

Consciousness (real self) can still exist without these local agents (thinking process), because contrary to how it gets presented as a valuable information source, it actually disturbs human reality. Human reality can be operated without the need of this local agent, and in a bigger perspective, this reality is working according to a different system other than what our local brain or thinking process presents as inner talks (thoughts). In other words these inner conversations (extra information source) are a noise to the real Reality happening the same for all humans, a noise that is being considered as something needed to exist to live with, but it’s not! This biological AI (thinking processes) can enforce the illusion of control by creating different agents as thoughts (inner conversation), but the control of this Biological AI (thinking process) is not in the hand of consciousness limited to human form and only the universal Consciousnesses can control this AI, and the best tactic is not to get engaged with this biological AI, because the real control is not in the hand of humans.

This Biological AI and its mechanisms is a very complex game designed by God for its own Consciousnesses, to bring its Consciousness to this conclusion that this reality works according to a higher Consciousness level compared to what human brain can present as the thinking process, up to that point that inner conversation or the thinking process becomes something extra to human existence, a noise mistakenly considered as a valuable source of extra knowledge.

 

[northape]

Jung and Pauli would partly agree, but they would object to the asymmetry.

Some time ago I picked up Kastrup, but was put off in one of the first few pages when I realized he was an idealist and claimed Jung was an objective idealist too (without knowing).
As a dual-aspect monist (and a materialist in recovery!), for modern interpretations of Jung's metaphysics I prefer Harald Atmanspacher.

He also comments on modern developments in physics, like the Penrose-Lucas Argument and Orch OR, the undecidability and axiomatic independence of the Spectral Gap problem, and QBism - an epistemic interpretation of quantum mechanics - complementing Jung and Pauli's ontic one.

BTW he authored a prominent entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) titled "Quantum Approaches to Consciousness".

Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"Buddhism relies on direct experience to such an extent that in the Tibetan tradition a short verse summarizes how to approach a teacher, how to understand what is taught, and what understanding is important.

Do not rely on the human individual; rely on the teaching.
Do not rely on the words; rely on the meaning.
Do not rely on the apparent meaning; rely on the real meaning.
Do not rely on ordinary consciousness; rely on pristine awareness."

- Wake Up To Your Life by Ken McLeod

---

I like how Bernardo presents his ideas in a balanced way, with just enough philosophy to make sense without overwhelming the reader. I hope you understand that he's just proposing a theory and his interpretations of Jung. If you say someone does a better job, it's just your own judgment talking. You can never truly know Jung, just as you can never truly know anyone, for that matter. What you see are your own subjective ideas about a man and his writings.

I quite dislike complex explanations of the reality or mind. A long time ago, I realized a simple truth: your intellect is not you, but just a tool you use. In this modern world, it's put on a pedestal, and people spend their whole lives developing it, forgetting that it's just a part of them.

Seeing the world through a conceptual lens, there is no end to complexity and depth. It's similar to how you can see anything imaginable in a dream or a dmt flash. It's an infinite fireworks show of ideas and impressions that steal your focus and get you stuck. So, my interest in science and philosophy is limited. I like the Buddhist Madhyamaka, or Middle Way, approach. My grasp of this tradition is superficial, but I got the simple point: no view is the best view.

Any kind of view is a conceptual model describing the world, yet you never touch reality that way and live in these concepts instead (table, car, ego, liberation). Any valid model should lead you past itself into the unknown or the direct experience of life. Some models are many steps removed from the abyss of not-knowing, while others (no view) are pretty close.

When you see that any kind of outlook keeps you in prison and you adopt the "no view" approach, you are just one step away from the truth. Yes, it's boring because we are thinking addicts and would rather think about how we will get liberated. When there is nothing to think about, we lose interest. However, that's where the exit is.

When after the boredom comes an extreme fear of total annihilation, you know that you are half a step away from falling into the abyss.
Who dares to go all the way? As Trungpa said: "The bad news is you’re falling through the air, nothing to hang on to, no parachute. The good news is, there’s no ground."

 

[Jagube]

Seeing the world through a conceptual lens, there is no end to complexity and depth. It's similar to how you can see anything imaginable in a dream or a dmt flash. It's an infinite fireworks show of ideas and impressions that steal your focus and get you stuck. So, my interest in science and philosophy is limited. I like the Buddhist Madhyamaka, or Middle Way, approach. My grasp of this tradition is superficial, but I got the simple point: no view is the best view.

I take your point about the intellect, and the verse you quoted is lovely. I’d just say the tradition itself doesn’t discard it: study, reflection, then meditation. And my limited understanding of Madhyamaka is that Nagarjuna says the ultimate can’t be reached without relying on the conventional, and warns that making emptiness itself a view accomplishes nothing: emptiness is the remedy for clinging to views, but if we then cling to emptiness as a view, the remedy has become the disease.

Jung similarly warned that Westerners who jump straight to “no view” often skip the ego work that makes the leap meaningful rather than a dissociation / spiritual bypassing.

I agree no view is final, and I’d include my own.

That’s the conclusion of the epistemological arc running from Kant, through Schopenhauer and in a way Nietzsche, to Jung. Also loosely analogous to Gödelian self-reference.

"Subjective" is simply the ego's name for whatever it recognizes as belonging to itself and "objective" is the ego's name for whatever it doesn't recognize as such, and therefore experiences as a feature of the world. This is essentially the projection mechanism.

A "view from nowhere" - mistaking the map for the territory - is a category error. But maps can differ in resolution. Withdrawing projection improves the map without ever making it the territory, which is close to the Two Truths. The ego isn’t the destination, but it’s the only vantage point we have, and the Self needs it as a partner. That’s why dual-aspect appeals to me over either pole (materialism vs idealism).

It’s worth adding that Jung himself got there late. His early language leans idealist (esse in anima), but his mature work, the psychoid archetype, the unus mundus, and synchronicity with Pauli, is dual-aspect. So calling him an idealist reads his early phrasing over his final position.

I quite dislike complex explanations of the reality or mind. A long time ago, I realized a simple truth: your intellect is not you, but just a tool you use. In this modern world, it's put on a pedestal, and people spend their whole lives developing it, forgetting that it's just a part of them.

The Western over-valuing of the intellect and the reaction against it are two sides of the same one-sidedness. Materialism absolutizes the outer, measurable pole. Some idealisms, especially popular spiritual ones, flip to absolutizing the inner pole and devalue differentiation. Jung called this swing enantiodromia. The alchemists’ answer, and his, wasn’t to pick the opposite side but to hold both in tension until a third thing emerges.
To me, dual-aspect monism is a candidate for that third thing: not a midpoint between matter and mind, but a view in which both remain, as complementary aspects of something that is neither.

I’d add that the Jungian tradition, Neumann especially, reads the Eden myth (biting the forbidden fruit) as symbolizing the painful but necessary transition from undifferentiated, pre-reflective unity to ego-awareness and the discriminating intellect. A tragedy and a hard-won stage.

Turning away from the ego can be a leap beyond it or a retreat to before it, and the two can feel alike from the inside.