a brief overview of consciousness and "self"

[mrdevious]

Before I begin, I'd just like to state that this is the spirituality forum (*gasp*). Today I came to a certain realization that I need never again argue with any person here, over any belief they hold, even if they try to argue it through what I percieve as faulty logic. If you want the honest truth, I'm really no great crusader for logic or adeism/atheism or whatever. Every day I'm in shitloads of pain, and every day I'm on these forums. When I'm in especially large amounts of pain, I lose sight of all my years of psychological training and just get really pissed off and start fighting. Whether it be through argument here, or with my family, or with my friends, or with myself... massive amounts of pain seem to trigger a defence mechanism pushing me to fight whatever annoys me in the slightest.

But, the doc finally got me on some kick-ass painkillers and it's relatively manageable now. So I pledge that, from this day forward, I shall endeaver not to attempt to argue or disuade anybody regarding any belief. We'll surely get more accomplished through sharing ideas, rather than just arguing over who already has things figured out. I encourage everyone else to do the same, but hey that's up to you.

-------------------------------------------------------

My views on these subject mainly come from my training in buddhist meditative practices, as well as my own exploration of self, perception, and life.

I've long suspected that some forms of advanced consciousness are the result of a melding between conscious and subconcious, a single perception entailing the qualities of both. Perception is indeed a fascinating thing. I've been learning to manipulate and guide it to my own betterment, and it's absolutely kept me sane under the pressure of daily physical pain.

Yet I can see there's SO much more to explore, and more to understand regarding the nature of all the bases for perception. The nature of ego is fascinating, considering it seems to be nothing but an illusionary state perpetuated by delusionary thought. But there is definately more to our consciousness than understanding the ego...the whole matter of mental conception is pretty complex.
Personally, I take it a piece at a time until I understand how it relates to everything else. Whether it be matters of ego, perception, emotion, craving, aversion, instinct, mating drives, music, entheogens..... from my experience they all relate to and affect one another.

Speaking from my perspective, the self is indeed real. The ego is even real, as the illusion exists even through it's non-existent state by it's effect on the whole. The reality of something, after all, is only relevant as to it's effect on that which exists around it. The whole, of course, the personal consciousness we think of as "I", doesn't exist. What does exist is the collection of impermanent processes, the billions (perhapse trillions) of active particles and quantum-sized energies that constantly arise and fall, blink in and out of existence. When all these processes constantly blink in and out, but retain a consistant mechanism of action, the illusion of "self" is created as a single, permanent being who's existence we cling to for dear life.

Hmmmmm. Actually I wanted to expand on this more but the painkillers are setting in and I'm starting to feel mighty high. My apologies. I will continue this discussion further with you all at a later time. I would absolutely appreciate any contributions to the discussion, no matter what your philosophy, even if you disagree with me. Lets all just try loving one another.

mrdevious Reviewed by mrdevious on 04-02-2007. a brief overview of consciousness and "self" Before I begin, I'd just like to state that this is the spirituality forum (*gasp*). Today I came to a certain realization that I need never again argue with any person here, over any belief they hold, even if they try to argue it through what I percieve as faulty logic. If you want the honest truth, I'm really no great crusader for logic or adeism/atheism or whatever. Every day I'm in shitloads of pain, and every day I'm on these forums. When I'm in especially large amounts of pain, I lose Rating: 5

[Samwhore]

The self is real. Very real. The self is what makes us different and unique. Some egos are just too fake to be liked. My view on consciousness is similar to yours, completely mental, when you have the perspective to put everything in balance, you can be truely aware of your surroundings and enjoy life.

[PureEvil760]

Spirituality is pretty much based on getting rid of ego, even after becoming a master like Jesus or Budda, you still have maybe 5% ego, so you would still have work to do. People who are not even aware of spiritual matters are running on about 95-99% ego.

[halfassedjediknight]

Spirituality is pretty much based on getting rid of ego, even after becoming a master like Jesus or Budda, you still have maybe 5% ego, so you would still have work to do. People who are not even aware of spiritual matters are running on about 95-99% ego.

dont forget about the id and the super-ego. ego is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Polymirize]

Speaking from my perspective, the self is indeed real. The ego is even real, as the illusion exists even through it's non-existent state by it's effect on the whole. The reality of something, after all, is only relevant as to it's effect on that which exists around it. The whole, of course, the personal consciousness we think of as "I", doesn't exist. What does exist is the collection of impermanent processes, the billions (perhapse trillions) of active particles and quantum-sized energies that constantly arise and fall, blink in and out of existence. When all these processes constantly blink in and out, but retain a consistant mechanism of action, the illusion of "self" is created as a single, permanent being who's existence we cling to for dear life.

see, because of this constant flickering of a collection of processes. Which change, both in function and in terms of the greater collection, I would see that the self definately does not exist. That we're merely applying a label to something which is only a temporary function and that becomes meaningless with the passing of time. It's like taking a picture of the ocean and then naming the individual waves, as if they were landmarks. But you've removed an entire dimension to allow for that understanding...

Doesn't falsify it, it just points out there's a larger picture to be seen, with a different kind of eyes.

[mrdevious]

see, because of this constant flickering of a collection of processes. Which change, both in function and in terms of the greater collection, I would see that the self definately does not exist. That we're merely applying a label to something which is only a temporary function and that becomes meaningless with the passing of time. It's like taking a picture of the ocean and then naming the individual waves, as if they were landmarks. But you've removed an entire dimension to allow for that understanding...

Doesn't falsify it, it just points out there's a larger picture to be seen, with a different kind of eyes.

The waves analogy is a good one Polymerize. But what I'm getting as is pretty much the same thing you're saying. As I said, it's existent in a non-existent state. The self is indeed illusion and there is definately no permanent, singlular, "I". The reason I'm saying it exists in a sense is because the whole complex process has an effect, and that effect is very real. Much like an ion has no actual physical form, but we know it's there by measuring the wavelength effect around it. The illusion of the ion if you will. And so the same goes for the self with no self ever arising, but the effect created from the illusion becomes very real.... and so we develope an ego to solidify the illusion and verify it as real to make it tangible (or maybe just manageable).

[afghooey]

Great thread, mrdevious.

There are a lot of things that we tend to confuse semantically, and I think one of the things that's most often confused (in the western culture that I'm familiar with, at least) is the concept of reality.

Take, for instance, our senses. Now, not even taking into account all the energies that we can't perceive through our senses, they are still quite imperfect -- that is, what we experience is always removed from the apparent 'reality' that we are sensing. By the time the light emanating from your monitor is decoded into symbols that represent words, your senses are already taking in new information. What you're seeing is not 'real' therefore, but a memory, a reflection. No matter how you redefine your idea of what is real and what is not, your definition is flawed because nothing that isn't real in some way can exist.

Reflections can be distorted until unrecognizable -- just like you are a reflection of your parents but may not look much like them, and your dreams are reflections of your perceptions of waking life, though they seem different. Just because they are reflections doesn't mean they aren't real, or any less significant.

Say you look at yourself in a mirror. You think, "I'm real. The reflection is not real." The reflection can't be 'you' because you define yourself by the boundaries that seemingly separate you from the rest of the world. Remove these definitions, and you will realize that both yourself and the image in the mirror are just different reflections of the same information.

[mrdevious]

Great thread, mrdevious.

There are a lot of things that we tend to confuse semantically, and I think one of the things that's most often confused (in the western culture that I'm familiar with, at least) is the concept of reality.

Take, for instance, our senses. Now, not even taking into account all the energies that we can't perceive through our senses, they are still quite imperfect -- that is, what we experience is always removed from the apparent 'reality' that we are sensing. By the time the light emanating from your monitor is decoded into symbols that represent words, your senses are already taking in new information. What you're seeing is not 'real' therefore, but a memory, a reflection. No matter how you redefine your idea of what is real and what is not, your definition is flawed because nothing that isn't real in some way can exist.

Reflections can be distorted until unrecognizable -- just like you are a reflection of your parents but may not look much like them, and your dreams are reflections of your perceptions of waking life, though they seem different. Just because they are reflections doesn't mean they aren't real, or any less significant.

Say you look at yourself in a mirror. You think, "I'm real. The reflection is not real." The reflection can't be 'you' because you define yourself by the boundaries that seemingly separate you from the rest of the world. Remove these definitions, and you will realize that both yourself and the image in the mirror are just different reflections of the same information.

Now that's some interesting shiznat right there afghoohy. I've never thought of self-perception in terms of reflection, but I totally see what you mean (well, I'm super high so for the most part...). You have sort of a different way of looking at the same questions that I have been.

We all have the tendency to separate ourselves from the outer world, to consider one's own perceptions more real than other's. When I was taking psychology they explained how there's a certain part of the brain that developes in cognitive awareness. This part relates to empathy, sympathy, and being able to see another person's point of view. As a person matures this area grows and our brains discover a wonderfully abstract and advanced concept - knowing there's perception outside perception. People who are generally greedy, self-centered etc, have been shown on ECG scan's to have an underdeveloped brain in this region.

The reason I bring this up is because it somewhat relates to what I've come to understand in at least one buddhist explaination for egotism.The tendency to separate the self is a self-limitation on ones own perception. We rely so heavily one our 5 senses that we start to only mentally acknowledge what they can intimately experience through those senses. The most intimate and real view is the one going on right inside you. That being so, one needs to really conceptualize the fact that others are experiencing the same sensations, and creating their own perceptions in their own little world just like you. When you finally realize this, really realize and know it, you realize that your own suffering and desires are no more or less relavent than anybody else's and therefor not warranting the extra consideration.

I'd very much recommend reading some buddhist writings on these subjects, there are some fascinating philosophical viewpoints on all aspects of life and then some. Taoism seems to have some really interesting philosophies on the nature of... well nature, the nature of the universe and how one can achieve enlightenment by learning to completely harmonize with the flow of existence. Very compatible with buddhist thought in my opinion, and I know about 1,500 years ago buddhist, taoist, hindu, bramans, and aryan priests all got together at an anual meeting in India to discuss their philisophical viewpoints. OMG I would love it if I found some transcripts from those talks.