1st personal and transpersonal consciousness

[77rogerino33]

FRANCISCO VARELA è uno dei personaggi della scienza contemporanea che più mi afascina, soppratutto per le sue idee innovatrici nonchè per la sua capacita di congiugare i piu svariati rami del sapere umano, siano essi scientifici che non. Descanza en paz caro Francisco Varela, con ammirazione da Perù.

[Saiaton]

Quantum physics takes it as read that observation affects experiment and this has been shown many times. Recent experiments look as if this even works backward in time!

[lostangel912]

Is there a 'self?

[ApeShallNevaKillApe]

I really don't understand the difference between 1st person and 3rd person science? Anyone care to explain? With a clear and concise answer? Give some examples?

[formless777]

This Francisco Varela doesn't properly understand the philosophy of subjectivity and objectivity. I also haven't heard him say one thing which isn't a misunderstanding of Scientific Method. As to his grasp of Vajrayana Philosophy, even that is dubious. All in all, I am highly critical of what he has to say as it seems founded in an enthusiastic ignorance. Consciousness is just a chemical mechanism btw, albeit a very complex and fascinating one.

[0ThouArtThat0]

@formless777 Who is it that knows that consciousness is a chemical mechanism? Who is fascinated by the complexity of this mechanism? Who is it that properly understands the relation between subject and object? Is there a special kind of consciousness capable of knowing the truth, and other kinds which stray?

[formless777]

@0ThouArtThat0

Consciousness can be totally altered by chemistry to the point where the imaginary seems real. We can link the collapse of elements of consciousness to the failure of specific brain organs. Consciousness is not disembodied, it is a wholly material phenomenon. This has all been discovered by Neuroscience.

The relationship between subject and object which FV gets wrong is that he presupposed that they are opposites, and that science is wrong to discard subjectivity.

contd...

[formless777]

@0ThouArtThat0

As to truth. You say the word as if there is only one truth. No consciousness begins life in a state of knowing anything much, truth like all other matters is a learned process developed over centuries by dedicated and acute minds who seek to know why things are as they are. In this area the scientific method has the best results and is the most tested and reliable of all methods.

[FleshMob]

@0ThouArtThat0

Well, chemical mechanism, man just said it! :)

[divinegod123456]

@0ThouArtThat0

Is the concept of knowledge defined by questions? Who invented "questions"?

We are able to ask questions because we know the answers.

Questions and the concept that questions need to have an answer has been created by brains that could invent words.

Is brain the instrument that will help me understand the universe, I don't know

We have only a few million words to think, to question, to find answers to those questions, to communicate to ourselves. We are poor, believe me!

[sunwalked]

The cat was very good at being a cat.

[KevinSolway]

There's a major flaw in his argument. He argues that there is a "subtle consciousness", which is conscious, and that it's consciousness continues after death. But there is no evidence that this happens. There's no denying that streams of cause and effect find continuation, but it doesn't follow that consciousness continues, or re-arises out of that stream. Therefore, this guy is lost deep in fantasy. All consciousness is "I" consciousness - that's the whole point of consciousness.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Varela wasn't arguing for it, but merely stating the position of a what he believes is a respectable wisdom tradition. I think "consciousness" is a misleading word to use when talking about the subtle form of awareness that might survive death, because it implies intentionality (consc. of some object, ie, a duality). He shouldn't have used it.

I'll post a video response to explain how I interpret reincarnation. That which is aware of all phenomena in us does not die b/c it was never born...

[KevinSolway]

I don't think this particular line of thinking is a respectable wisdom tradition, since it is based on serious flaws. You mention a "subtle awareness that might survive death", but awareness always comes with an "I", which is aware (even though the "I" is only a logical construct). As I understand it, the "subtle mind" refers to the *causes* of mind, and which under-lie mind, and which give rise to mind. These causes are scattering all the time, such as through normal sexual reproduction.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I explain my position in the response I just posted to "Nonsense in Buddhism," but I will repeat here that a type of awareness seems to be possible without "I" or "objects." This pure, empty awareness doesn't exactly "survive" death, because it was never born. Reincarnation just implies that within every body a pure awareness of this sort witnesses both the incarnation and death.

[KevinSolway]

I don't see how awareness can be possible without an "I" or "objects" ("things"). Those things would at least need to be logical constructs. To posit the idea of awareness, without any "things", is to ruin the idea of awareness. You later spoke of pure awareness "witnessing" things, which means that you really know this after all. That which is the cause of mind survives death because it is beyond life and death. But it doesn't follow that it has to give rise to mind, or awareness.

[BlazzingSun]

yes the thing... being (one) thing,

with many componets, of which our brains, are only a part of, continues to change suits of form, within itself.

what the intellect rasionalizes, is sensory shape and form, that by design,

limit and inhibit,

the abolute self.

[BlazzingSun]

ps...inhibit?...well, this is tthe illution, the game of dualistic individuality.

if your one thing and know it... then your what is now called...

a glitch in the matrix.

you ask why...

but see...to the one thing...nothing is lost.

it knows death an illution...

from our view...when we dont feel the connection, we feel like, if we lose this, the game is over. this is no mind in this awareness...so the charactor is lost...

but not the game.

[kasuskasus]

I like his final remarks about open-mindedness and agnosticism.

Anyway, I really think that this so called subtle consciousness (or Clear Light)-theory is just another expression of the human fear of death, not unlike any other theory humans have come up with to console themselves. My view is that in order to realize true peace, you have to accept the fact that you, and every idea you carry around, is nothing but a mental fabrication. Then everything instantaneously becomes Great Perfection.

[OhostelO]

how on earth do you put those spaces in your posts? many thanks.

[silverbackman]

Yeah but this is more geared to what will happen when you die. What do you think will happen? I think the common secular notion of plunging into an eternal nothingness is a much more comforting factor than the idea of unknown incarnations in the future. Any form of eternities when we die seem very unlikely, whether that is eternal nothingness or eternal heaven/hell.

[kasuskasus]

What do you experience when in dreamless deep sleep? I fail to see why death should be any different.

Please realize that death is a fact for you, suffering is a fact for you, impermanence is a fact for you; now, study the words of the buddhas to learn the way to overcome these.

[silverbackman]

What do you experience in deep dreamless sleep? That's a good question....the obvious answer is you experience nothing.....there is nothing to experience because you are completely unconscious.

If you plunge into eternal nothingness like in deep dreamless sleep what is there to worry about? Suffering is irrelevant because when you die you will be free of suffering forever....so there's not a lot of points to the buddha's teachings other than relieving some suffering in this life.

[kasuskasus]

"If you plunge into eternal nothingness like in deep dreamless sleep what is there to worry about?"

Yeah, so why don't you kill yourself then?

No, we want to be free from suffering while living, this is what a buddha teach.

Furthermore, your post indicates ignorance. You do not own suffering, you do not own life. Therefore, ultimately there is no suffering, and there is no death. The self you think possess these things is merely a convenient construct. And so is suffering and death.

[silverbackman]

What does killing yourself have to do with anything? You seem to be quite ignorant yourself so don't try to assume you know what others are saying just because you think you are more "spiritually aware".....it's a type of arrogance. Suffering exists, or suffering doesn't exist, it all depends on how you look at it. Sentient beings do suffer, though this is a result of our many cravings and of course deterministic misfortune.

Do some thinking and reflection before you run your mouth. ;)

[kasuskasus]

Sure, I will.

[silverbackman]

Cool.....because after all where did our awareness come from to begin with....if there is eternal nothingness when we die then there should have been eternal nothingness before we lived......but if that is the case there is no reason to incarnate into our current life as it would interrupt the "eternity" that supposedly existed before.

[kasuskasus]

When the I is seen as a story, a concept, and nothing beyond this - as advocated in this video - all of your reasoning and confusion falls away, and there will be no suffering. May you be free.

[silverbackman]

I don't think you really understand what I'm trying to say. Whether or not "I" is just a pleasant fiction or concept.....which I do believe it is.....the fact remains that the sense of "I" will be with you to a degree throughout your life. We can't stay in a state of egolessness forever otherwise we wouldn't be able to survive. You may think yourself as enlightened and free of suffering....but I bet if I was to kidnap you and torture you that you will definitely be in a state of suffering ;).

[silverbackman]

Suffering, from a buddhist perspective, exists because our ego exists and because we cling to this world....wanting the many pleasures and good without realizing for every up there is a an equally as powerful down. This desire will exist to a degree for as long as we are alive. What's more is that while we can suppress egoic consciousness to a great degree.....it can't totally be extinguished until we die. By the very nature the "I" will still exist as long as your body exists.

[kasuskasus]

"but I bet if I was to kidnap you and torture you that you will definitely be in a state of suffering"

Excruciating and agonizing pain would arise, but there would be no suffering.

[silverbackman]

How so? I have a feeling that this has to do with semantics since according to many definitions pain is the same as suffering. Suffering can be physical or mental, as with pain..if you experiencing excruciating agonizing pain, how is this so different from suffering? Same thing pretty much.

Of course it can be argued that no matter what pain a person is in; it can be seen as the way it is supposed to be..or in another sense a sort of cosmic sado-masochism..this of course depends on perception.

[kasuskasus]

Pain does not equal suffering.

Suffering in this case = pain + avoidence. If there's no avoidence, there is no suffering. All there is is pain - very alive, very direct, very natural.

[silverbackman]

Well again it really comes down to definition....because many definitions equate the two or put both terms on the same level. And obviously even you would avoid pain....ie you would avoid stepping on spikes or being stabbed. Are you saying you wouldn't try to avoid a gunshot if one is headed your way?

Pain is the major cause of suffering. The buddhist method is supposed to tackle both pain and suffering as if they were one. And pain/suffering is common for all sentient beings.

[kasuskasus]

"Are you saying you wouldn't try to avoid a gunshot if one is headed your way?"

No I would avoid it of course. But that avoidence happens naturally. Try sticking your hand into the fire and see what happens. The organism has self-preservation built into it.

"The buddhist method is supposed to tackle both pain and suffering."

If you try to avoid pain all the time, you will find yourself in opposition to reality - and suffering will result, right? If pain arises, it arises. If not - good!

[silverbackman]

I suppose one should try to accept reality no matter how grim it is and rejoice in all the unique happenings.....however if ur stomach is in pain from starving or if ur being beat up and tortured everyday.....it's not so difficult to see how this can all be suffering. It doesn't matter what you may think , it would be self evident if you were in a situation of pain all the time, even if you did not make an attempt to avoid it....although making an attempt can even sometimes be impossible itself.

[kasuskasus]

If you're in a situation where the pain can be avoided, by all means avoid it! But as you know, oftentimes life brings pain. Your girlfriend leaves you, you fall off a ladder, you're about to die from old age, and so forth. This is the way things are. If you try to repress this pain, much suffering will result.

It's very simple.

[silverbackman]

Yes, it's about accepting your fate, as I pointed out earlier....but that doesn't mean the suffering will necessarily go away.

[d1974]

Hope you don't mind me stepping in, but everything Iv'e learned about Buddhism (+a 10 day vipassana course) affirms what kasus is saying.

Perhaps part of the problem is in the original term Dukkha- which has no exact equivalent in any language. It might be closer in meaning to frustration.

[silverbackman]

I'm talking from a more universal perspective, though taking the buddhist method into consideration. The buddha definitely started the opening gambits in conquering suffering.....now it is up to us to take his base and carry it into more insights than the buddha received in his lifetime.

[d1974]

Ok, but you go in the opposite direction of that of the buddha if you are striving for life without pain. Cos that striving alone is and will be your worse agony. Your desire for a world free of suffering is your jail. Your desire for nirvana (liberty from suffering) is leading you in the exact opposite direction.

[silverbackman]

Well I wasn't suggesting that one strives or desires no pain......that would be like desiring not to desire....obviously to be enlightened you need to be free of all desires and strivings.....which includes the desires to reach the goal buddha talked about.

[rickdangerwood]

why not say yes there definitely is a soul?

duh dude

[MaBu888]

Soul is beyond comprehension. It is bliss consciousness light.

[MaBu888]

He seems to live on Mars, jut look out the window. Agree with vid though.

[LimpLoser]

interesting

[tiggxx]

lay off the steroids, meathead.

[MaBu888]

Ok.

[OhostelO]

give tigg a break; obviously hyperbole on the ghandi looking character.

[debswildhoney]

Great - it's good to actually see the man and understand his concepts better. Facial and vocal expressions add nuance to how he relates his ideas. This is good brain food for the gaia symposium. I'm looking forward with great excitement for monday, your essay and contributions in the comments.

[sariputa]

Cool, I just watched this DVD last night.

Are there videos about the "Mind and Life" conferences? I read 3 books from those conferences and saw footage in the DVD, but I wonder if they ever released their discussions on video??

Varela knew how to give context to science. His ideas on the purpose of science and use of wisdom are excellent! I liked the simile he used about the story of the man using his legs when he walks home, but does he have to keep moving the legs when he's in bed at home?

[0ThouArtThat0]

I haven't seen any Mind and Life videos, but I'm sure they exist somewhere.

[3rdWorldCrusader]

He looks like Michel Foucault.

[paultherolls]

Many things can be achieved through gentle persuasion applied relentlessly.

[thedarkener]

I love it when people pretty much nail the true possible structure of our (X)consciousness. It feels good personally to hear people speak of our minds like this. Awesome.

[patternsinchaos]

Varela says "I think" a lot. ;-)

He brings up a very important point about how the possibility of consciousness being discovered to be a mechanism influences the third person empiricism.

(I think) (I might) have something to say about how consciousness may be a mechanism yet the nature of this mechanism demands it be studied and engaged from within the mechanism to fully understand it.

And if the nature of the mechanism is non-local or non-dual then indeed there is no other way.

[danbit5]

i disissed the idea of re-incartion age 8, id loved a teacher like that in class later i could fall asleep and he would understand the philosophy poverty pride,why am i in his class:)

[thomasmatus]

"Just sit there, contemplate the question..." I gladly follow Varela's advice, but I find that many, if not all, participants in scientific academia (teachers and students), have simply risen from their chairs and walked out. The taboo seems inviolable; persons who obey the taboo seem consistently to deny the taboo-nature of the first-person perspective as a way of science. At most they say: "Well and good for your emotional life, but..." Am I too pessimistic?

[jogayot]

"Am I too pessimistic?"

i'd say you are too little pessimistic. non-scientist, common people hardly care about that "stuff". they become cultured adults but hardly ever grow up beyond the third person prescription for the "truth".

[0ThouArtThat0]

Maybe, Thomas. It's not that I don't share your pessimism, I'm just hopeful that the truth of the matter will eventually win out so long as the genuine scientific attitude is not corrupted by materialism. That conscious experience plays a role in ALL our knowledge is all but obvious to me, and to many others. How long it will take academia to acknowledge this is the question...

[3rdWorldCrusader]

Is Matt single?

[0ThouArtThat0]

no.

[3rdWorldCrusader]

='(

[Mork5]

happening and noticing are identical so everything is conscious, ok.

but consciousness of a corpse (a ceased process) ?

how to embody continuity and transfer, why RE-incarnation ?

no, from the probability field that is reality NEW consciousnesses or focus points of the one consciousness emerge with every new holon.

they have similarity, dependency but no continuity to the previous.

only on the molecular level there could be continuity

and the levels don't mix.

[0ThouArtThat0]

check out this video, mork: watch?v=F3PhqGAdy5s

see where that takes you, let me know.

[Mork5]

lol so funny

and the guy is into cold fusion too !

i have no objections to his theory though and do not really see how despite interconnectivity a new holon is a not new holon (incarnation) but a transformed old one (reincarnation).

[Mork5]

i've just rewatched varela and realized that i misunderstood him the first time.

he did not assign the subtle consciousness to the dead rotten brain and he objects to the simple view on reincarnation similar then i do,

so i'm sorry for causing confusion here, actually i agree.

[cardellacole1]

this minds mind has the subtle ability to comunicate with you subconciously, at the speed of dreamthought

[patternsinchaos]

not entirely subconscious to this minds mind ;-)

[cardellacole1]

yes mat an awarenes that is aware of its self as each perceptive organ has the nature of a complex as jung describes an awareness of ITS collective nature all come together to form a coherent whole, which itself is overlooked by a higher mind which deals in energy, a minds mind , it makes sense to me but wether this mind is just another projection of the first mind is probably unknowable, but insights from this mind are subject to SUBTTLE emotions you have to be realy still allert to see them

[0ThouArtThat0]

Jung! good reference. I wish I could go back and read it, but I lost several books, among them Jung's, when I shipped my collection to Cali! argh.

[patternsinchaos]

This is great thinking. The terms "spiritual continuity" and "transcendence" also work in the place of reincarnation. Will science embrace first person consciousness experimentation? Doubtful. Steiner was a pioneer in this and his work has been ignored by canonical western science. Most scientists are so resistant to this because of fear of persecution or complete ignorance of spiritual truths. I guess this is the whole point of integral study. Godspeed! ;-)

[0ThouArtThat0]

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it" Max Planck

[patternsinchaos]

There is another way. Force is sometimes an option. When a new truth enables strategic means and the adoption of those means is vital to competition or survival, the opponent is FORCED to accept the truth. Not always an option, but sometimes is. Great quote, BTW.

[ballyboneman]

Interesting stuff. Of course you realise these ideas will be pissed all over by ardent reductionists.

If consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe then maybe brains are analogue recievers akin to say a TV with the development of the brain being the 'tuning in' to the signal. What you recieve will depend entirely on the 'TV' you have; geniuses gifted with a Pioneer Kuro of a brain :)

[MariborchanX]

"If consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe"

That's a big if.

[ballyboneman]

Agreed

[0ThouArtThat0]

I don't care if I piss them off. It's just surplus glucose in the amygdala anyways, right?