|
Post by Reefs on Apr 15, 2014 9:17:51 GMT -5
Actually, there's a sense of being in control in flow experience, a sense of doership. That's how flow is distinguished from what non-duality is pointing to. Being self-conscious does not require reflective thoughts. That's not how I experience what I identify as "flow experiences", but I digress. Edit: by reflective I was meaning self-reflective. Perhaps reflexive may have been a clearer word choice. Is the sense that you exist, the sense of "I am" a self-reflective thought?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 15, 2014 11:33:34 GMT -5
That's not how I experience what I identify as "flow experiences", but I digress. Edit: by reflective I was meaning self-reflective. Perhaps reflexive may have been a clearer word choice. Is the sense that you exist, the sense of "I am" a self-reflective thought? I just want to make sure we're using the same language and meaning. All senses, anything which can be plugged in for X in "sense of X", come and go within my experience. No sense is permanent. Existence Exists, regardless of whether or not I am experiencing a "Sense of Existence" The "sense of ' I' exist" is built on top of the "sense of existence" The "sense of I exist" is co-instanced with mental activity, the mind making a distinction between subject/object. As such, the sense of "I exist" is a thought referring to a self, so it is a self-referring/self-reflective/self-reflexive thought.
|
|
|
Post by teetown on Apr 15, 2014 11:59:27 GMT -5
Would you also say the sense of "being aware/I AM" arises with consciousness? To me it seems that "being conscious" includes the sense of being the one who is conscious of things. i.e. self-conscious? Yap. It doesn't seem that self-consciousness is the problem so much as the idea that "someone" is/has conscious/ness?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 12:27:16 GMT -5
The way I understand this is that consciousness is the only thing that can be experienced. It's where all perception takes place, including thoughts (which are just perceptions using the mind organ). But since consciousness comes and goes, as in the case of deep sleep (when it's absent), awareness is talked about as being prior to consciousness (otherwise, how would we know consciousness comes and goes? (goes the question)). But, in effect, there is no experiential difference between awareness and consciousness. The only difference is that awareness is present during deep sleep when consciousness is absent. But since there is no experiential evidence to support this all we can go with is eye-witness accounts from a few aware deep sleepers.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 15, 2014 13:42:05 GMT -5
Yes, that's how I see awareness and consciousness. Awareness is always present. Consciousness, which is the content of appearances, comes and goes on the 'screen' of awareness. It's just a way of talking about it. Things are not really separate from consciousness and consciousness is not separate from awareness. The arising of apparent objects is consciousness, and consciousness is a movement occurring in/as awareness. Awareness, and the movement of awareness, are not two. Would you also say the sense of "being aware/I AM" arises with consciousness? To me it seems that "being conscious" includes the sense of being the one who is conscious of things. Yes, the sense 'I am' comes (and goes) with consciousness. The 'I am' is your sense of existence, and you do exist. The sense 'I am this or that' is an illusion.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 15, 2014 13:57:10 GMT -5
The way I understand this is that consciousness is the only thing that can be experienced. It's where all perception takes place, including thoughts (which are just perceptions using the mind organ). But since consciousness comes and goes, as in the case of deep sleep (when it's absent), awareness is talked about as being prior to consciousness (otherwise, how would we know consciousness comes and goes? (goes the question)). But, in effect, there is no experiential difference between awareness and consciousness. The only difference is that awareness is present during deep sleep when consciousness is absent. But since there is no experiential evidence to support this all we can go with is eye-witness accounts from a few aware deep sleepers. Yap, yap One does not need to experience awareness being present in deep sleep in order to realize it's so. In the larger context, self realization is not an experience.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 16, 2014 1:20:36 GMT -5
Is the sense that you exist, the sense of "I am" a self-reflective thought? I just want to make sure we're using the same language and meaning. All senses, anything which can be plugged in for X in "sense of X", come and go within my experience. No sense is permanent. Existence Exists, regardless of whether or not I am experiencing a "Sense of Existence" The "sense of ' I' exist" is built on top of the "sense of existence" The "sense of I exist" is co-instanced with mental activity, the mind making a distinction between subject/object. As such, the sense of "I exist" is a thought referring to a self, so it is a self-referring/self-reflective/self-reflexive thought. Well, that sounds very much like Andrewism.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 16, 2014 1:24:21 GMT -5
Yap. It doesn't seem that self-consciousness is the problem so much as the idea that "someone" is/has conscious/ness? Yes. That's where the identity poker starts.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 16, 2014 1:30:21 GMT -5
The way I understand this is that consciousness is the only thing that can be experienced. It's where all perception takes place, including thoughts (which are just perceptions using the mind organ). But since consciousness comes and goes, as in the case of deep sleep (when it's absent), awareness is talked about as being prior to consciousness (otherwise, how would we know consciousness comes and goes? (goes the question)). But, in effect, there is no experiential difference between awareness and consciousness. The only difference is that awareness is present during deep sleep when consciousness is absent. But since there is no experiential evidence to support this all we can go with is eye-witness accounts from a few aware deep sleepers. Well, yeah. In higher identity poker circles, where folks tend to smoke extra heavy concept ciggies, awareness is held in much higher esteem than consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 16, 2014 1:32:55 GMT -5
Would you also say the sense of "being aware/I AM" arises with consciousness? To me it seems that "being conscious" includes the sense of being the one who is conscious of things. Yes, the sense 'I am' comes (and goes) with consciousness. The 'I am' is your sense of existence, and you do exist. The sense 'I am this or that' is an illusion. But what about level 3 and parabrahman and non-being?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 16, 2014 1:39:31 GMT -5
Yap. It doesn't seem that self-consciousness is the problem so much as the idea that "someone" is/has conscious/ness? Yes. That's where the identity poker starts. Weelll or maybe that's where it leads as the night gets old. Joe householder's in the game whether he likes it or not, and he sees himself as quite a bit more than just consciousness. Identification with appearance, any appearance, is where it starts. The maturation process is sort of like building a snowman, in that personality is built and layered over one false identification after another. There's two possible directions to go from the sense of being. I don't see Andy's mistake so much as the statement that Top made but rather the failure to drop ideation as useful beyond the statement itself -- the mistake of taking the map for the territory. There is a model available by way of metaphor that jumping the self-referential loop is analogous to the absence of false (really any) identity, but if one takes that literally then the one following the map starts talking about losing the "I Am" (because it's just a thought) and how that the statement that they exist is true but not necessarily true.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 16, 2014 1:40:56 GMT -5
The way I understand this is that consciousness is the only thing that can be experienced. It's where all perception takes place, including thoughts (which are just perceptions using the mind organ). But since consciousness comes and goes, as in the case of deep sleep (when it's absent), awareness is talked about as being prior to consciousness (otherwise, how would we know consciousness comes and goes? (goes the question)). But, in effect, there is no experiential difference between awareness and consciousness. The only difference is that awareness is present during deep sleep when consciousness is absent. But since there is no experiential evidence to support this all we can go with is eye-witness accounts from a few aware deep sleepers. Well, yeah. In higher identity poker circles, where folks tend to smoke extra heavy concept ciggies, awareness is held in much higher esteem than consciousness. (** ciggy snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 16, 2014 2:03:29 GMT -5
Yes. That's where the identity poker starts. Weelll or maybe that's where it leads as the night gets old. Joe householder's in the game whether he likes it or not, and he sees himself as quite a bit more than just consciousness. Identification with appearance, any appearance, is where it starts. The maturation process is sort of like building a snowman, in that personality is built and layered over one false identification after another. There's two possible directions to go from the sense of being. I don't see Andy's mistake so much as the statement that Top made but rather the failure to drop ideation as useful beyond the statement itself -- the mistake of taking the map for the territory. There is a model available by way of metaphor that jumping the self-referential loop is analogous to the absence of false (really any) identity, but if one takes that literally then the one following the map starts talking about losing the "I Am" (because it's just a thought) and how that the statement that they exist is true but not necessarily true.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 16, 2014 2:10:14 GMT -5
Weelll or maybe that's where it leads as the night gets old. Joe householder's in the game whether he likes it or not, and he sees himself as quite a bit more than just consciousness. Identification with appearance, any appearance, is where it starts. The maturation process is sort of like building a snowman, in that personality is built and layered over one false identification after another. There's two possible directions to go from the sense of being. I don't see Andy's mistake so much as the statement that Top made but rather the failure to drop ideation as useful beyond the statement itself -- the mistake of taking the map for the territory. There is a model available by way of metaphor that jumping the self-referential loop is analogous to the absence of false (really any) identity, but if one takes that literally then the one following the map starts talking about losing the "I Am" (because it's just a thought) and how that the statement that they exist is true but not necessarily true. No! no! what I'm talkin' 'bout is a straight line! (until it isn't): 1) goo-goo ga-ga 2) hey, that's mine! 3) Got this job, this Chevy, this mortgage ... 4) Hey! Everything's Consciousness! I'm Consciousness! ... your cyclist veers off from there (#4) ..
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 16, 2014 2:24:25 GMT -5
No! no! what I'm talkin' 'bout is a straight line! (until it isn't): 1) goo-goo ga-ga 2) hey, that's mine! 3) Got this job, this Chevy, this mortgage ... 4) Hey! Everything's Consciousness! I'm Consciousness! ... your cyclist veers off from there (#4) .. Must be the vino tinto.
|
|