Is there consciousness independent of a brain?

[enigma]

"Usually you wake up from the deep sleep state and you cannot find a cause for it.
Why can you not assume that you likewise came to the waking state, and heard a
sound? Why do you want a cause for the waking up?"

I don't think it's an issue of wanting a cause, it's the experience of walking up to someone in deep sleep and making a loud noise, followed by him waking up, that leads to the cause/effect conclusion.

I would not try to use a logical argument to counter actual experience.

[michaelsees]

right it can be confusing.
The author is making the point that in deep sleep resides the real you and nothing else. Now there has been some people who are aware of themselves in deep sleep and know that they are there.
It's rare but happens.

Ok need to get ready for dinner my family has made prime rib which I love!

peace
Michael

Dec 25, 2010 15:13:56 GMT -5 enigma said:

"Usually you wake up from the deep sleep state and you cannot find a cause for it.
Why can you not assume that you likewise came to the waking state, and heard a
sound? Why do you want a cause for the waking up?"

I don't think it's an issue of wanting a cause, it's the experience of walking up to someone in deep sleep and making a loud noise, followed by him waking up, that leads to the cause/effect conclusion.

I would not try to use a logical argument to counter actual experience.

[enigma]

Dec 25, 2010 15:31:35 GMT -5 @michaelsees said:

right it can be confusing.
The author is making the point that in deep sleep resides the real you and nothing else. Now there has been some people who are aware of themselves in deep sleep and know that they are there.
It's rare but happens.


Michael

Pointing fingers at the moon is one thing and dressing the ineffable in reasonable looking garb is another. It invites logical engagement and disagreement. From that perspective, Questions' response was reasonable. Reason and logic can only be used up to a certain point, because they are based on knowledge which is bounded, and then must be abandoned in favor of looking and seeing.

[question]

Dec 25, 2010 13:45:28 GMT -5 enigma said:

This is tricky because I'm going to ask you about an experience you couldn't possibly have had, but that's also the point. Have you ever been aware of not being 'aware of' something? Perhaps you've noticed a 'space' between the thoughts or maybe you lost a period of time even though you weren't unconscious, or something else. Some have an awareness of 'being' in deep sleep, when consciousness is absent.

Lost periods of time even though not being unconscious and I might have been aware of not being "aware of" something. But it's all very murky stuff, I wouldn't bet a dime that any of it is what you're referring to. I think I see where you're going with this and I agree that my deep sleep example isn't vey strong. A stronger one would be death, the strongest imo is multisubjectivity (you can't read my thoughts). The point is that awareness is intermittent. And btw: I really don't see an actual difference between conciousness and awareness.



To the main point: I would never say "an object appears to awareness". To me, the subject/object split is operational only within logic and to a limited degree in in psycho-logic, but never in actual experience. The reason is that all apparent parts of the process of peception/awareness are one indivisible event.

The object of awareness has to appear to 'something'. Most folks would say, 'well yeah, it appears to me', and when it's asked just what this 'me' is, what is found is more objects of awareness; a mind, body, thoughts, feelings, whatever.

So the question is, to what do all of these objects appear, and can that be an object?

No, awareness obvioulsy can't be an object. And once we complete this object/subject inquiry we have to say that awareness can't be a subject either, because:
1) there actually aren't any objects to relate to and
2) there never will be a subject that can be found.

I think you're trying to establish some structural genesis to show that awareness isn't an object to anything, which would mean that it's the subject. And since this subject can't be further addressed we take this subject to be ultimate. The huge problem is that the subject is an inference to begin with, an inference based on the unjustified use of the subject/object distinction. The use is unjustified because actually the perception/awareness process is one indivisible whole.

[enigma]

Dec 26, 2010 10:02:49 GMT -5 question said:

Lost periods of time even though not being unconscious and I might have been aware of not being "aware of" something. But it's all very murky stuff, I wouldn't bet a dime that any of it is what you're referring to. I think I see where you're going with this and I agree that my deep sleep example isn't vey strong. A stronger one would be death, the strongest imo is multisubjectivity (you can't read my thoughts). The point is that awareness is intermittent. And btw: I really don't see an actual difference between conciousness and awareness.

I didn't say your argument wasn't strong. (Was referring to mine) I don't see this as a logical debate, which I would have to surrender right up front.

Thoughts are formed through an individuated perspective. Why should I be aware of your thoughts?

To the main point: I would never say "an object appears to awareness". To me, the subject/object split is operational only within logic and to a limited degree in in psycho-logic, but never in actual experience. The reason is that all apparent parts of the process of peception/awareness are one indivisible event.

So you don't see a subject/object split? Great, then you already have the only answer there is.

I think you're trying to establish some structural genesis to show that awareness isn't an object to anything, which would mean that it's the subject. And since this subject can't be further addressed we take this subject to be ultimate. The huge problem is that the subject is an inference to begin with, an inference based on the unjustified use of the subject/object distinction. The use is unjustified because actually the perception/awareness process is one indivisible whole.

Yes, but thanks for playin. Hehe.

[question]

Thoughts are formed through an individuated perspective. Why should I be aware of your thoughts?
The multisubjectivity problem isn't so much about thoughts, as it is about the individuated perspective that you mentioned. How can we be the same (not similar, same!) awareness if you have your inaccessible individuated perspective and I have mine?

So you don't see a subject/object split?
The split seems to be there, but only in its psycho-logical form, I suppose it's maintained unconsciously, I can't do anything about it. But at least I've worked out logically that the whole subject/object thing is a trap.

Great, then you already have the only answer there is.
Yes uhm... *cough*... what's the question again?


To me there is a deeper significance of the Being vs. Awareness debate. Lately I wake up at night and the first thing on my mind is "WHAT IS?" I know that it's right there, here, totally in the open, but somehow it seems to be diluted with awareness. And awareness can't be "what is", because just a moment ago, there was no awareness. It's like awareness is a distraction that constantly pushes itself in front of the seeing of 'what is'. Since awareness is intermittent, it can't be "what is". And yet awareness is still a form of 'what is' and I know that, but somehow I can't unsee/unthink/unfeel awareness and it continues to block the view.

Does that make any sense?

[enigma]

The multisubjectivity problem isn't so much about thoughts, as it is about the individuated perspective that you mentioned. How can we be the same (not similar, same!) awareness if you have your inaccessible individuated perspective and I have mine?

Question and Enigma are not the same. They are the appearance of two different perspectives. Right now, (in the context of individuations) you face your monitor head on. If you stand two feet to the left, you have a second perspective that is different. You can't make those two perspectives the same and you don't have to. They are both, however, your perspectives. To revert back to the dismissed subject/object split, (in the largest context) two objects (perspectives) are appearing to the same subject, and you are that subject (Awareness). The objects are psychic phenomena, the subject is not. The objects are extrusions of a conceptual space-time framework. the subject is not.

The split seems to be there, but only in its psycho-logical form, I suppose it's maintained unconsciously, I can't do anything about it. But at least I've worked out logically that the whole subject/object thing is a trap.

Okay, I'm not sure how you worked that out, so lets talk. Yes, the subject/object split is conceptual. The way this is generally noticed (I think) is that the psychic form is noticed to not be what one is. The psychic form then positions oneself as the observer or witness subject and then tries to identify itself. It may be noticed that no subject can be found which may be talked about as some kind of boundless spaciousness or whatever. Then it may be noticed that the objects appear IN this spaciousness and are not other than that, such that the objects are actually the subject appearing as those objects. At this point, the subject/object differentiation becomes merely conceptual, and loses all meaning. To say everything is the subject loses all meaning without an external object. However, the subject/object concept is still a useful way to talk about it.

Yes uhm... *cough*... what's the question again?

The question is 'What am I"? The answer is, the absence of both subjectivity and objectivity. (In polite company, we call this oneness.)

To me there is a deeper significance of the Being vs. Awareness debate. Lately I wake up at night and the first thing on my mind is "WHAT IS?" I know that it's right there, here, totally in the open, but somehow it seems to be diluted with awareness. And awareness can't be "what is", because just a moment ago, there was no awareness. It's like awareness is a distraction that constantly pushes itself in front of the seeing of 'what is'. Since awareness is intermittent, it can't be "what is". And yet awareness is still a form of 'what is' and I know that, but somehow I can't unsee/unthink/unfeel awareness and it continues to block the view.

Does that make any sense?

Well, sorta kinda. We've been operating with different definitions. What I call Awareness is a noun rather than a verb. It's a concession to language since I don't really mean a thing, but I do mean to differentiate between Awareness as the subject, and that which Awareness is 'aware of' as the object of Awareness. As such, when Awareness is not 'aware of' something, it is still the subject I'm calling Awareness. It does not cease to exist simply because no object is appearing within it.

This is what the sky/clouds metaphor points to. The sky (Awareness/subject) must be present before the cloud (object) can appear, and remains after the cloud disappears. The question "WHAT IS?" appears against the backdrop of WHAT IS. It's an object appearing on the 'sky' of 'what is'. It's a movie appearing on the screen of 'what is'. What is being looked for is where one is looking from, and so no object that is seen can be the subject that is seeing. 'WHAT IS' is already here before the question arises. This is already known prior to the question, (not as an object of mind but as subjectivity) since the question cannot arise without you.

[question]

Dec 26, 2010 15:58:09 GMT -5 enigma said:

Well, sorta kinda. We've been operating with different definitions. What I call Awareness is a noun rather than a verb. It's a concession to language since I don't really mean a thing, but I do mean to differentiate between Awareness as the subject, and that which Awareness is 'aware of' as the object of Awareness. As such, when Awareness is not 'aware of' something, it is still the subject I'm calling Awareness. It does not cease to exist simply because no object is appearing within it.

This is what the sky/clouds metaphor points to. The sky (Awareness/subject) must be present before the cloud (object) can appear, and remains after the cloud disappears. The question "WHAT IS?" appears against the backdrop of WHAT IS. It's an object appearing on the 'sky' of 'what is'. It's a movie appearing on the screen of 'what is'. What is being looked for is where one is looking from, and so no object that is seen can be the subject that is seeing. 'WHAT IS' is already here before the question arises. This is already known prior to the question, (not as an object of mind but as subjectivity) since the question cannot arise without you.

I've just spent two days trying to figure out how what you say might be true, and I just can't see a way. Hopefully if I clarify you will be able to strike more effectively.


I am only able to use awareness as a verb. When you call awareness a noun, the actual noun for me is 'what is'. And awareness is an activity that by the simple virtue of being awareness is already a distinction (aware of x, unaware of the rest).

I understand that "what is" is the ultimate (pseudo)subject (within which an appearance of subject/object can take place) but this subject is unaware, the fact that "what is" is the ultimate subject doesn't mean that it is in any way aware. Awareness must manifest in order to be. What makes awareness be is "what is" and so when we're talking about ultimate subject, awareness is piggybacking on "what is" and it seems like the subject is synonymous with awareness, while in truth the absolute subject is "what is". But when I surrender to awareness I surrender to an image of "what is".


A note on: "What is being looked for is where one is looking from."
Can't accept this. Let's take Harding's headlessness thing -- to me the headlessness is an image (in a logical way, not an image with actual colours and shapes), an idol and nothing else. It's not like there is anything that one is "looking from", there is nothing there. The looker is identical with what is being seen, the seer manifests in what is being seen; whatever it might be: colours, sounds, ideas, even space itself.

[vacant]

Question,
Currently reading WeiWuWei’s “Open Secret” and the author deals with this very subject expansively. Chapters seem to repeat themselves a lot but each manage to reel you in a thoughtless conceptless maybe even understandingless short-circuit about what is but cannot be known, speaking a language uncanningly close to Enigma’s. I gather that's intended. When Enigma says “when Awareness is not 'aware of' something, it is still the subject I'm calling Awareness” WWW says that since there cannot be object without subject, it so goes that subject does not exist without its object (appearance) and so is part and parcel of bondage, subject being unavoidably objectified by this dependence —I am paraphrasing, so very possibly poorly— Awareness IS in the presence or appearance of subject/object, and IS in the absence of either. Oh la la!

Seems to me prior to prior to prior and best left as “can’t go there”. But then what seems is appearance of sorts and that too is nowhere

[m]

Question said:
A note on: "What is being looked for is where one is looking from."
Can't accept this. Let's take Harding's headlessness thing -- to me the headlessness is an image (in a logical way, not an image with actual colours and shapes), an idol and nothing else. It's not like there is anything that one is "looking from", there is nothing there. The looker is identical with what is being seen, the seer manifests in what is being seen; whatever it might be: colours, sounds, ideas, even space itself.

Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=recent#ixzz19RldiIZL


nothing exist for sure, but there IS IT !there IT IS!
Many Harding followers I met or dreamed it to be there or thought it not to be there. Few WERE IT
m

Dec 28, 2010 16:28:07 GMT -5 question said:

Dec 26, 2010 15:58:09 GMT -5 enigma said:

Well, sorta kinda. We've been operating with different definitions. What I call Awareness is a noun rather than a verb. It's a concession to language since I don't really mean a thing, but I do mean to differentiate between Awareness as the subject, and that which Awareness is 'aware of' as the object of Awareness. As such, when Awareness is not 'aware of' something, it is still the subject I'm calling Awareness. It does not cease to exist simply because no object is appearing within it.

This is what the sky/clouds metaphor points to. The sky (Awareness/subject) must be present before the cloud (object) can appear, and remains after the cloud disappears. The question "WHAT IS?" appears against the backdrop of WHAT IS. It's an object appearing on the 'sky' of 'what is'. It's a movie appearing on the screen of 'what is'. What is being looked for is where one is looking from, and so no object that is seen can be the subject that is seeing. 'WHAT IS' is already here before the question arises. This is already known prior to the question, (not as an object of mind but as subjectivity) since the question cannot arise without you.

I've just spent two days trying to figure out how what you say might be true, and I just can't see a way. Hopefully if I clarify you will be able to strike more effectively.


I am only able to use awareness as a verb. When you call awareness a noun, the actual noun for me is 'what is'. And awareness is an activity that by the simple virtue of being awareness is already a distinction (aware of x, unaware of the rest).

I understand that "what is" is the ultimate (pseudo)subject (within which an appearance of subject/object can take place) but this subject is unaware, the fact that "what is" is the ultimate subject doesn't mean that it is in any way aware. Awareness must manifest in order to be. What makes awareness be is "what is" and so when we're talking about ultimate subject, awareness is piggybacking on "what is" and it seems like the subject is synonymous with awareness, while in truth the absolute subject is "what is". But when I surrender to awareness I surrender to an image of "what is".


A note on: "What is being looked for is where one is looking from."
Can't accept this. Let's take Harding's headlessness thing -- to me the headlessness is an image (in a logical way, not an image with actual colours and shapes), an idol and nothing else. It's not like there is anything that one is "looking from", there is nothing there. The looker is identical with what is being seen, the seer manifests in what is being seen; whatever it might be: colours, sounds, ideas, even space itself.

[question]

Dec 26, 2010 15:58:09 GMT -5 enigma said:

The multisubjectivity problem isn't so much about thoughts, as it is about the individuated perspective that you mentioned. How can we be the same (not similar, same!) awareness if you have your inaccessible individuated perspective and I have mine?

Question and Enigma are not the same. They are the appearance of two different perspectives. Right now, (in the context of individuations) you face your monitor head on. If you stand two feet to the left, you have a second perspective that is different. You can't make those two perspectives the same and you don't have to. They are both, however, your perspectives. To revert back to the dismissed subject/object split, (in the largest context) two objects (perspectives) are appearing to the same subject, and you are that subject (Awareness). The objects are psychic phenomena, the subject is not. The objects are extrusions of a conceptual space-time framework. the subject is not.

True, I can't make perspectives that appear within my own awareness the same, but I have witnessed that they both appear to the same continuity/stream of awareness. You however can not witness that my individuated perspective belongs to your subjectivity (absolute or otherwise). There is simply absolutely no link or transfer of information between your perspective and mine, our perspectives can't overlap. I think I get your theory, but if it's to work, the subject can't be awareness, it can only be Being (what is) within which awareness appears, and this appearance of awareness is the same as an individuated perspective, which then has the further option to manifest some subject/object shenanigans.

[zendancer]

Well.....Being IS aware, and that's all there is, so what's left to discuss? Ha ha ha. This thread totally cracks me up! Subject/object? Ha ha ha ha, chortle gasp wheeze snicker yuk yuk yuk.

[enigma]

Dec 28, 2010 16:28:07 GMT -5 question said:

I've just spent two days trying to figure out how what you say might be true, and I just can't see a way. Hopefully if I clarify you will be able to strike more effectively.


I am only able to use awareness as a verb. When you call awareness a noun, the actual noun for me is 'what is'. And awareness is an activity that by the simple virtue of being awareness is already a distinction (aware of x, unaware of the rest).

I don't see how it matters what it's called. I wasn't suggesting that it's true that 'What Is' is called Awareness, I was just trying to clarify how I was using the word. If it doesn't work for you we'll use your words.

I understand that "what is" is the ultimate (pseudo)subject (within which an appearance of subject/object can take place) but this subject is unaware, the fact that "what is" is the ultimate subject doesn't mean that it is in any way aware.

I'm not clear. If it isn't the subject that is aware, what is aware? The object??

A note on: "What is being looked for is where one is looking from."
Can't accept this. Let's take Harding's headlessness thing -- to me the headlessness is an image (in a logical way, not an image with actual colours and shapes), an idol and nothing else. It's not like there is anything that one is "looking from", there is nothing there. The looker is identical with what is being seen, the seer manifests in what is being seen; whatever it might be: colours, sounds, ideas, even space itself.

I didn't mean to imply that the looker is a thing.
The object is not other than the subject appearing as an object, and in this way they are the same, but are you implying that existence is limited to the physical expression?

[enigma]

Dec 28, 2010 16:42:59 GMT -5 vacant said:

Question,
Currently reading WeiWuWei’s “Open Secret” and the author deals with this very subject expansively. Chapters seem to repeat themselves a lot but each manage to reel you in a thoughtless conceptless maybe even understandingless short-circuit about what is but cannot be known, speaking a language uncanningly close to Enigma’s. I gather that's intended.

FWIW, I've never read WWW, but I approve of his choice of words. Hehe.

[enigma]

Dec 28, 2010 17:40:06 GMT -5 question said:

True, I can't make perspectives that appear within my own awareness the same, but I have witnessed that they both appear to the same continuity/stream of awareness. You however can not witness that my individuated perspective belongs to your subjectivity (absolute or otherwise). There is simply absolutely no link or transfer of information between your perspective and mine, our perspectives can't overlap. I think I get your theory, but if it's to work, the subject can't be awareness, it can only be Being (what is) within which awareness appears, and this appearance of awareness is the same as an individuated perspective, which then has the further option to manifest some subject/object shenanigans.

The monitor perspective thingy was intended metaphorically; one 'stream' of awareness, two perspectives. From within an individualized perspective (person), one couldn't be expected to be aware of other perspectives. The perspective that Question or Enigma have is necessary for experience to happen at all. It's a constriction that results in experiencing. There is no experience of 'everything'.

However, it's not really true that there is no link between perspectives. The source of all perspectives is the same, and they are inextricably linked. It wouldn't actually be possible for 'us' to communicate if this were not so.