Inmost Core and Ultimate Ground
This is from the YouTube clip at the bottom, at about 0:30.
I suddenly perceive in the core of my being this immortal light. Why is it called uncreated light? This [pointing to a ceiling light] is created light. Even the sunlight is created light. [clip ends abruptly]
I understand core of my being as consciousness and immortal light as the ultimate ground of existence. In an analogy, the universe is like a movie, and the universes ultimate ground is God, an impersonal, immanent God. Brahman, if you like. Or energy, which cannot be created or destroyed. In meditation of the type that stills thoughts, emotions and physical sensations, we enter into our core, i.e., consciousness. Its our core because its central to all the thoughts, emotions, and physical sensations we experience. Consciousness is like the backbone of the human body, or the trunk of a tree. Its core.
So, seeing the eternal ultimate ground shining in the core of my being, is equivalent experiencing God there. Its self-realization because my inner core, my self, is realized as being the same as the universes ultimate ground. Atman is Brahman.
Here's a quote from St. Augustine.
. . . I entered even into my inward self . . . and beheld with the eye of my soul . . . above my mind, the Light Unchangeable. Not this ordinary light, which all flesh may look upon, nor as it were a greater of the same kind . . . It made me; and . . . I was made by It. He that knows the Truth, knows what that Light is; and he that knows It, knows eternity. . . . Thou art my God . . .
One reason I like the above line of thought is that I find it so much more satisfying, intellectually and philosophically, than, to be blank, religions fairy tales. And I think it may even be a true and accurate picture of reality.
The YouTube video:
Anahata (Heart Centre) Experience Sarvapriyananda #shorts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM3_lPPYbnw&list=LL&index=3
I suddenly perceive in the core of my being this immortal light. Why is it called uncreated light? This [pointing to a ceiling light] is created light. Even the sunlight is created light. [clip ends abruptly]
I understand core of my being as consciousness and immortal light as the ultimate ground of existence. In an analogy, the universe is like a movie, and the universes ultimate ground is God, an impersonal, immanent God. Brahman, if you like. Or energy, which cannot be created or destroyed. In meditation of the type that stills thoughts, emotions and physical sensations, we enter into our core, i.e., consciousness. Its our core because its central to all the thoughts, emotions, and physical sensations we experience. Consciousness is like the backbone of the human body, or the trunk of a tree. Its core.
So, seeing the eternal ultimate ground shining in the core of my being, is equivalent experiencing God there. Its self-realization because my inner core, my self, is realized as being the same as the universes ultimate ground. Atman is Brahman.
Here's a quote from St. Augustine.
. . . I entered even into my inward self . . . and beheld with the eye of my soul . . . above my mind, the Light Unchangeable. Not this ordinary light, which all flesh may look upon, nor as it were a greater of the same kind . . . It made me; and . . . I was made by It. He that knows the Truth, knows what that Light is; and he that knows It, knows eternity. . . . Thou art my God . . .
One reason I like the above line of thought is that I find it so much more satisfying, intellectually and philosophically, than, to be blank, religions fairy tales. And I think it may even be a true and accurate picture of reality.
The YouTube video:
Anahata (Heart Centre) Experience Sarvapriyananda #shorts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM3_lPPYbnw&list=LL&index=3
Comments (60)
You will find nearly all these accounts presented in the context of religious cultures. There is a tradition of 'the uncreated light' in Eastern Orthodoxy also, and even in Buddhism there is a reference to the 'luminous mind'. There's an SEP entry on 'divine illumination' referring back to Augustine. So the degree you can disentangle it from 'religious fairy tales' and still keep the gist of it is dubious. Within those traditions, those who seek to encounter the source of the 'uncreated light' are generally ascetics, renunciates and contemplatives. The 'fairy tales' you refer to are mythological and symbolic means to convey religious maxims to a general audience, the vast majority of whom won't be monks or mystics.
(The comparison with 'energy' is misplaced, because, unless it is directed, energy always flows in the direction indicated by the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. to greater and greater disorder. It possesses no intrinsic intelligence.)
As I see it, there's a continuum that runs from what are nakedly fairy tails to an anemic or white mythology with a minimum of images. We never transcend the trading of hieroglyphs. For instance:
Quoting Art48
We have the eye, light, and the 'dry' notion of the unchanging, basically a negation of time. I'm not complaining. This is about as good and subtle as it gets. In my view, the most aggressively critical philosophy can't escape a residue or secret foundation of metaphor.
Quoting Art48
I think this idea is also explored in Husserl as something like the eternal shape of a luminously present plenitude. The picture varies, the screen itself is always there. God is the screen (or the projector) ? I think you've whizzed like an arrow here to the bullseye, to the beating heart of metaphysics.
Some critics though would say that 'Consciousness' takes too much for granted. It's already an interpretation of being there.
Something always is. Is this 'is' 'deeper' than 'consciousness' ?
Consider this interview with philosopher Eric Schwitzgebel ...
... about the unreliability of introspection (like a brain trying to perceive (e.g. feel) itself or an eye seeing itself. :eyes:) esp. @ 25:00, 31:00 & 48:30
:chin:
Has a person who is completely blind from birth ever reported "seeing the uncreated light"? If not, and if such a phenomenon is reported by others, then why hasn't anyone born blind ever "seen the inner light"?
If I was the blind leading the blind, i would speak of the un-touched toucher, or the unfelt feeling, the still small voice, the inner warmth, the beating heart, or some other relation, that we might share in our solitary awarenesses.
:up:
Ultimate ground of existence is a purely secular/philosophical idea as is the idea it can be directly experienced as uncreated light. That the idea occurs in different religions is further proof it is not tied to any one religion (in contrast, say, to the idea of the Trinity). That the basic idea is not tied to any one religion also indicates it is independent of religion.
Quoting Wayfarer
True. The general populace often isn't terribly interested in the truth, much less a direct encounter with it. Many scientists, however, are deeply interested in the truth.
Quoting Wayfarer
Sometimes the stories are just nonsensical. For instance, in the story of the Passover, the OT God repeatedly tampers with the Pharaoh's free will (i.e., "hardens the Pharaoh's heart) and then repeatedly punishes the entire Egyptian nation. It's a sickening the story of the OT God toying with the Egyptian nation like a sick little boy tortures a helpless little animal. And then there's the story of Jesus cursing a fig tree for not having figs when it was not the season for fig trees to be bearing figs. Or the following: This is what the LORD of Hosts says: I witnessed what the Amalekites did to the Israelites when they ambushed them on their way up from Egypt. 3Now go and attack the Amalekites and devote to destructiona all that belongs to them. Do not spare them, but put to death men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.? Of course, that's not to say clever preachers can't invent and superimpose some plausible religious meaning.
Quoting plaque flag
Consciousness seems to be the part of us closest to the ultimate ground of existence, if not actually identical with it.
If so, then how is it that a property as fundamental as "consciousness" is so easily and frequently lost (e.g. sleep, head trauma, coma, blackout, etc) as well as altered by commonplace stressors (e.g. drugs, alcohol, sugar, emotions, violence, sex, illness, video games, porn, gambling, social media, etc) if "consciousness is closest to the ultimate ground of existence"? :chin:
They essentially sought to explore and understand the peak experience without the religious hooey.
Excellent questions. The answer is to think of consciousness as the subject, entirely independent of objects of consciousness. Consciousness is like a mirror which reflects physical, emotional, and mental sensations but is not changed by them. In this view, consciousness doesn't cease in deep sleep but memory does, so on awakening there is no memory of being in deep sleep. Vedanta has this view of consciousness. Here's a reference.
> Consciousness beautifully explained in 200 sec
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n6NvDpcwLM
Quoting Tzeentch
Good point. It worth noting the debt that Christianity owes to Neoplatonism. Neoplatonic ideas were smuggled into Christianity thanks to the the writings of Dionysius the Aeropagite (also called Pseudo-Dionysius). In brief, the story is as follows. St. Paul converted a man named Dionysious who was a member of a ruling counsel of Athens called the Areopagus. About four centuries later, an unknown monk wrote "On the Divine Names" and "Mystical Theology," which were Neoplatonism with a thin veneer of Christianity. The monk used the name Dionysius the Aeropagite, so his writings were credited by later Christians as having an authority just a bit below St. Paul's. For instance, Aquinas repeatedly quotes Pseudo-Dionysius as an authority.
One reference is chapter 6 of Rufus Jones' Studies in Mystical Religion which is about Dionysius.
> https://archive.org/details/studiesinmystica00joneuoft
I would question that. I think the attempt to distill this kind of understanding outside the philosophical-religious frameworks in which it was articulated often amounts to an act of cultural appropriation. It is too easily corrupted into a search for thrills or some form of vicarious self-fulfilment. The milieux in which these understandings are handed down - such as Advaita Vedanta, which your video was from - are highly regulated. Certainly in the 20th C and especially since the 1960's there have been those claiming to bring enlightenment back from the East and produce a domesticated versions of it, but I question how many of them are authentic. There are some, but the better ones have maintained a relationship with their source.
You know what the etymology of 'Upani?ad' is (the source texts of Vedanta)? It means 'sitting closely', indicating an understanding that was developed between guru and chela, often over many years of discipleship. It's true the Advaita often expresses a kind of dismissiveness of orthodox religion and rule-following - but then, so did Jesus. Vedanta is nevertheless pretty strict in terms of ethics, generally stressing vegetarianism, celibacy and abstentation.
Quoting Art48
I would think very few are interested in Capital-T Truth, of the form described in terms of the Sanskrit Satya. Science has exploded into such vast domains of specialised knowledge that arriving at a synoptic vision of the Cosmos as a unified whole seems a distant hope. Most scientists are more interested in getting published (same as, most preachers are interested in getting more congregants.)
Quoting 180 Proof
:up:
This is why 'consciousness' doesn't quite work. Maybe even 'being' doesn't 'work,' doesn't say anything more than cat's meow.
You will recognize the source, but for others it's Wittgenstein.
Here it can be seen that solipsism, when its implications are followed out strictly, coincides with pure realism. The self of solipsism shrinks to a point without extension, and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it.
...
But it is nonsense to say that I wonder at the existence of the world, because I cannot imagine it not existing. I could of course wonder at the world round me being as it is. If for instance I had this experience while looking into the blue sky, I could wonder at the sky being blue as opposed to the case when it's clouded. But that's not what I mean. I am wondering at the sky being whatever it is. One might be tempted to say that what I am wondering at is a tautology, namely at the sky being blue or not blue. But then it's just nonsense to say that one is wondering at a tautology.
Cultural appropriation is a concept for which I have no sympathy. If China uses quantum mechanics, is that cultural appropriation? If someone in India wears Levis and uses an iPhone, is that cultural appropriation? If so, I dont care.
Science takes the truth wherever it finds it. Religion would be better off if it did the same.
Plainly.
Augustine is Neo-Platonist, and "the Light" referred to by him is "the good" of Plato's "Republic". "The good" Plato says is what makes intelligible objects intelligible, just like the sun makes visible objects visible. In the cave allegory, the philosopher escapes the traps of realism, to see that the sensible objects which we perceive as being all around us are really just shadows, silhouettes, or reflections of the Forms which are the cause of their existence, through the projection of the good. Apprehending "the good" in this way became known as "seeing the light".
OK, but I don't believe the idea is that consciousness is like a mirror which reflects physical, emotional, and mental sensations but is unaffected by them is inextricably connected to anything. The idea happens to occur in Vedanta but it's an idea that anyone, East or West, might believe or, at least, find interesting.
Quoting Wayfarer
I believe it's a clear and distinct idea which should stand or fall on its own merits. Vedanta doesn't own it.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
He may have described or thought of his experience in Neo-Platonic terms, but the actual raw experience is arguably the same for anyone. A person in India might have the same experience of uncreated light and equate it with an experience of Krishna. And then there's the Buddhist Clear Light of the Void. Descriptions differ but experiences may be similar or identical.
It seems to me more likely than not that these "experiences" are "similar or identical" cognitive illusions.
Quite possibly. W. T. Stace in his Mysticism and Philosophy points out in chapter 3 "The Problem of Objective Reference" that severe alcoholics commonly see snakes and spiders that aren't real. On the other hand, as Stace notes, there are multiple reasons for accepting the reality of some visions as experiences of an objective reality. Much depends on one's ontology. If it doesn't include God, then obviously experience of God is impossible. If it includes an ultimate ground of existence, then how can we not experience "it", if that is what we are, if we are literally its image?
'Believing is seeing' is known as projection or confirmation bias. "How can" folks who believe that there are angels, unicorns & abducting UFOs "not experience" them? :roll:
Are you now arguing that it is illusory?
:up:
I do find it compelling. I first came across Vedanta when I was about 20, a share house I was in had a pamphlet on the teaching of Ramana Maharishi, who is as well-known Advaitin as you're ever likely to read about. Leafing through that little book, I thought 'wow this is fantastic. Why isn't everyone taught this at school?' It seemed so simple - meditation on the question 'who am I?' leads to a realisation of your real nature as being beyond time, space and suffering. I still think Ramana's teaching ought to be better known in the West. (But I was soon to learn, there was a lot more to it than simply closing your eyes and meditating 'who am I?')
Hypoxia mistaken for ontology.
This is the night in which all cows are black.
Wondering at a tautology might be an expression of love for life, for just being here.
Anemic mythology, the fascination of negation. As poetry, as celebration, it's fine. Lou Reed had a nice song about White light.
As the labor of the concept ? Maybe not.
The Cleveland Clinic page on Hypoxia doesn't mention the experience of white light.
> https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23063-hypoxia
Can you provide a source for your assertion?
Also, can a retina be deprived of oxygen without the entire body being deprived of oxygen?
https://www.livescience.com/11010-death-experiences-linked-oxygen-deprivation.html
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-lack-of-oxygen-cause-me-to-see-stars-in-my-eyes-even-when-theyre-openhttps://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/10/what-s-the-deal-with-the-bright-light-you-see-before-dying.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-near-death-experiences-reveal-about-the-brain/
https://www.salon.com/2017/02/04/a-new-study-explores-some-of-the-most-common-myths-about-this-uncommon-experience_partner/
And so on.
:ok:
sparks, fire ...
light rays, sun ...
waves, ocean ...
ten thousand things, dao ...
natura naturata, natura naturans ...
Tat Tvam Asi. Aham Brahma Asmi. Para Brahman.
Quoting Banno
:clap: Moksha (and yet this truth won't set them free).
:roll:
It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not only ones own essence, but also the essence of the universe. For as one is a part of the universe as is everything else, the basic energies of the universe flow through oneself as they flow through everything else. For that reason it is thought that one can come into contact with the nature of the universe if one comes into substantial contact with ones ultimate inner being.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Arthur Schopenhauer:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/
in the section 4. The World as Will
I've added the bold
OK. People can "see stars," and weird things may occur when someone is dying. But people "see stars" when they are bumped on the head and don't claim the experience was of God. The experience of uncreated light, per Augustine, is "Not this ordinary light, which all flesh may look upon, nor as it were a greater of the same kind". Augustine goes on to call the light, God, and went from being a libertine to a saint. It seems like his experience was something more than "seeing stars."
Accounts like Augustine's seem to be what mysticism is based on. Here's another account.
In 1945, a 42-year-old Jungian psychiatrist raised Protestant, had an unusual experience.
There was light everywhere. . . . [T]he world was flooded with light, the supernal light that so many of the mystics describe . . . [T]he experience was so overwhelmingly good that I couldnt mistrust it. . . . [G]lory blazing all around me. . . . I realized that some of the medieval poems I had been so innocently handling were written to invoke just such an experience as I had had. (That stuff is still alive, I tell you.)
Her experience lasted for five days; the aftereffects lasted longer. At age 82, she wrote her experience was . . . so far from anything that I had thought in the realm of the possible, that it has taken me the rest of my life to come to terms with it.
The quote is from Foster, G. W. (1985). The World Was Flooded with Light; A Mystical Experience Remembered. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, p. 33-34
I'd say the evidence can be interpreted either way. I don't deny that people who have had life-changing encounters with uncreated light may be deluded. I just don't believe they are.
OK, you have much more experience on this forum than I, so I believe you. But I'm puzzled. Why is there no point in discussing a "a perennial philosophical reflection" on a philosophy forum? Can you elaborate?
I had deleted that comment, but now you've picked it up, I will explain what I was getting at.
This forum is a very tolerant and easy-going place, especially compared to a lot of other internet spaces, with a wide range of views being presented. But the general attitude of modern philosophy and secular culture is what I would describe as 'presumptively naturalistic'. To paraphrase a scholar I know, the issue with our usual understanding of secularity is its taken-for-granted-ness, meaning we not aware that it is a worldview. It is an ideology that pretends to be the everyday world we live in, and assumed that it is simply the way the world really is, once superstitious beliefs about it have been removed. In this context, the burden of proof for any ideas of 'the transcendent', whether Christian or from some other source, is on those who propose them, in terms that are either intelligible scientifically, or with respect to the corpus of Western philosophy.
That passage you quote on the SEP article from Schopenhauer is one I myself have also quoted previously. But I'm of the view that Schopenhauer (and the other German idealists) were in some respects the last gasp of philosophy proper. (Now there's a thread topic.) But the point is, the kind of speculative metaphysics you find in Schopenhauer went completely out of fashion in academic philosophy around the time of WW1. Since then the emphasis has been on plain language and analytic philosophy, that demurely cedes the ground to science when it comes to normative claims about the nature of reality. 'Mysticism' is basically a derogatory term for that audience, conveying only vagueness or woolly headed thinking. Another name for woo.
So there are some here who are open to the perspectives offered by Eastern philosophy and indeed the 'perennial tradition' - I'm one of them! - but overall it's a dissident or minority approach.
It is amazing, in this day and age, that we have access to all of these materials via the Internet, which in past times were barely even visible in the West. And I think the opportunity to learn about them, appreciate them and study them is a great thing. But don't underestimate what is involved. That's all I'm saying.
:up:
I appreciate the honesty.
I may have missed it but tell us (again?) why on what basis you "don't believe ... encounters with uncreated light" are delusions.
See my response to Banno, about 7 entries up.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. As Ive mentioned in other threads, Im working on an article. (links below to the current draft version). Id like to explain some points from the article to address your response.
I first define the concept of ultimate ground of existence as that which underlies physical existence. The tables ground of existence is the wood; the woods ground of existence is its atoms; etc., etc., down to the ultimate ground of existence which underlies the entire universe. At this point, its a philosophical concept, not unlike Kant's Thing-in-itself or Schopenhauer's Will. I'd say the concept of ultimate ground is harmonious with science, which is looking for a theory of everything.
Does the concept of ultimate ground of existence refer to something real? It may not. But mystics often describe their experience as experience of ultimate reality, which gives some support for the idea. And others who ascribe their experience to some God may be guilty of what I call gratuitous attribution. For instance, Pascal had an experience of FIRE and attributed it to "the God of Abraham."
I assume in the article that the ultimate ground of existence is an objective reality. At this point, I believe Im still doing philosophy, not theology.
But accepting the testimony of the mystics implies that a human being can have a direct experience of the ultimate ground. How can this be possible? How can a human being have a direct experience of something below quarks? On the other hand, how can a human being NOT experience ultimate ground if that, ultimately, is what a human being is? One answer is evolution has tuned us to pay attention to the physical universe. Contemplate your ultimate ground and you may become some animals lunch. So, various practices may be helpful to unlearn evolutions lesson and have direct experience of the ultimate ground (although the experience seems to sometimes occur spontaneously). Mystics have recommended various practices.
So, a human being is an expression of the universes ultimate ground of existence and can choose to try to directly experience his/her own ultimate ground. At this point, I believe Im still in philosophical territory, although perhaps not within philosophys current scope.
Now comes the link to theology.
How to relate to the ultimate ground? That is up to the individual. Schopenhauer called it blind. Someone else might call it the goddamned stuff that underlies our horrible world of evil, suffering and pain. But because it is that in which we live and move and have our being, someone might regard it religiously as God, not a God who is a person who lives in heaven, but more like Brahman or Tao, i.e., an impersonal God who is immanent in the universe, who in fact IS the universe.
Regarding the ultimate ground religiously or not is a person's choice. When I next revisit the article, one goal will be to make that clearer.
Theres more that could be said, but this, I hope, gives a rough idea of my thought.
P.S. I'd describe Neoplatonism as a philosophy, with optional religious component.
Links to article
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf
I prefer Democritus-Epicurus' Void.
How can promixate beings with proximate perceptual capabilities and frames of reference "experience" "ultimate" anything? This assertion doesn't make sense to me. It's more likely "mystics" are mistaken about their ineluctable cognitive (experiential) limits and confabulate an "ultimate" X-of-the-gaps that transcends them.
Anyway, N?g?rjuna's ??nyat? works for me.
Quoting Art48
I did, and that's why I still want (more) compelling reasons. If that's all you've got, well okay, Art, ... whatever.
I'm not sure there are more compelling reasons other than actually having the experience. Even then, some people interpret mystical experiences as of some person God: Jesus, Krishna, etc. And other people decide they temporarily went nuts.
However, the Tibetan Book of the Dead says the departed awareness naturally approaches the "Clear Light" but most cannot endure the intensity, and fall back through various states until rebirth. If it's accurate, we'll all have the experience then, even if we don't have it sooner.
I told you earlier in the thread, this is a reference to Plato's "the good", which he compared to the light of the sun. What "seeing the light" means is to gain an apprehension of the importance of "the good". This is commonly cited as the reason why one changes from misbehaviour to good behaviour, the person claims to have seen the light (apprehended "the good"). That's why Augustine went from libertine to saint.
Quoting Art48
The ultimate ground of existence is very simple actually. It is "the good". Philosophically "the good" is very significant "The good" answers the question of why there is what there is. The answer is because it is good. This is why monotheists tend to establish an equation between existence and good. Why did God create the universe? Because He saw that it was good.
Quoting Art48
I think it must transcend the subject-object distinction, because it includes both the cognizing subject and the object of cognition. Hence frequent references in the literature to the union of knower and known. Objectivity, as a criterion for what really exists, is very much an artefact of the modern mindset with its emphasis on individuality and empirical validation.
Quoting Art48
I think the idea of union with the supreme, whether that is cast in Christian or Advaita terminology, is not necessarily a similar kind of cognitive understanding to that divulged by experimental physics. There might be poetic or symbolic resonances between them, but they arise from a very different kind of stance or understanding. But,like that passage you quoted from the Schop. essay, there is a sense in which the being of the world also comprises your being (something made obvious in Vedanta.)
Quoting Art48
There are some pitfalls with the comparative approach, in trying to equate the often divergent images and metaphors of different traditions with each other. There are those who do, typically the 'perennial philosophers' and the 'traditionalists' e.g. Frithjoj Schuon, Ananda Coomaraswamy, and Huston Smith, to name a few. Buddhists, for instance, would not use the term 'ultimate ground' at all, in fact their philosophy is built around the absence of it. Taoism is very much interwoven with many other aspects of specifically Chinese culture. But on the whole, I do agree that what the perennial traditions have in common is more important than what divides them - provided one doesn't fall into a kind of a la carte syncretism. The real paths are very specific and definitely have boundaries, I think.
As regards 'which path', that's something I'm still wrestling with, and may never solve. I had a long interest in Buddhism, but I've also come to realise that I owe a lot to my own Western heritage. All deep and difficult questions.
Literally disproving the metaphor.
Next you'll want to demonstrate that rivers do not actually have mouths.
Because, (private language argument) the subjective (private) end of the relation of observer and observed can only be spoken of by means of simile and metaphor. If you see what I mean, it may be that that seeing is conducted via a text to speech synthesiser, because you are blind. But to suggest that the blind cannot see what someone means is ridiculous. Not that folks generally are not prone to take their own experiences literally, and mistake hypoxia for insight, but not all who wander are lost.
The Oracle of Apollo was inspired by psychedelic fumes in the cave. Quakers also sit and wait for their "inner light" to move them to speak wisdom. But --- as a dispassionate thinker --- even when I was immersed in my relatively rational fundamentalist religion, I never experienced an inner light as a message from God. Unless, of course, it refers to the various inspirations of Intuition*1. Apparently, intuitive ideas & imagery may seem to come from outside the person experiencing the feeling*2. But the light of intuition seems to be a common aesthetic -- and perhaps informative -- experience for both religious and non-religious people*3*4, regardless of doctrinal differences.
Regarding comparisons of inspirational human religious experiences to physical energy, it may be more accurately defined as meta-physical energy. In the Enformationism thesis, the universal causal force in the world is labelled EnFormAction, the power to enform : both physical forms (things) & mental forms (ideas). Another way to describe world-creating EnFormy is as energy + direction ( a vector). Those philosophical conjectures presume that Evolution is not completely random, but statistical Chaos (possibility generator) + intentional Selection (probability criteria). For me, those notions are not aesthetically illuminating, but rationally informative (elucidating?)*5. :nerd:
*1. Intuition : a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.
*2. Psychology : Intuition is a form of knowledge that appears in consciousness without obvious deliberation. It is not magical but rather a faculty in which hunches are generated by the unconscious mind rapidly sifting through past experience and cumulative knowledge.
*3. All great achievements of science must start from intuitive knowledge, Einstein once told a friend, according to Psychology Today.
*4. The Inner Light
George Harrison, 1968
[i]Without going out of my door
I can know all things on earth
Without looking out of my window
I could know the ways of heaven
The farther one travels
The less one knows
The less one really knows
Without going out of your door
You can know all things on earth
With out looking out of your window
You can know the ways of heaven
The farther one travels
The less one knows
The less one really knows
Arrive without traveling
See all without looking
Do all without doing[/i]
*5. inspirational intuition - Drivers of innovation :
Visions and imaginations open up options for action beyond the beaten solution paths. This is what we call inspirational intuition.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844021020260
" Intuition has all the dark, mystical energy of the chaotic Feminine and Rationality all of the bright, systematized knowledge of the ..." ___William James. attr.
You might be interested in reading up on Terrence Deacon, Incomplete Nature.
Been there, done that. Completely inspired by the notion of Absential forces (attractors) in Nature. :smile:
I used "objective" to indicate the ultimate ground IS, unlike unicorns. But your point is well-taken. Dionysius the Areopagite (Pseudo-Dionysius) would say that the ultimate ground, because it's the source of all existence, is above and beyond existence. Vedanta makes a similar point.
Is Awareness Experienced as an Object? | Swami Sarvapriyananda
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFOoV47KLEw
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, we do not know the ultimate ground as we know other things. Usually, knowing involves 1) the knower, 2) the object known, and 3) the act of knowing. But in unitive knowledge of the ultimate, there is only knowing (or, if you prefer, only the knower).
Harrison's sanguine song, was probably inspired by his affiliation with Hindu philosophy, which seemed to promise a more peaceful world of introverted navel-gazers, instead of aggressive money-grubbers. Due to my own experience with religious hype though, I tended to be less optimistic about knowing the absolute truth, which will "set you free". :smile:
Aspirational Hyperbole :
"[i]Without going out of my door
I can know all things on earth[/i]"
Know all things :
But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
1 John 2:20-29 King James Version (KJV)
[quote=Think For Yourself (1965)][i]I've got a word or two
To say about the things that you do[/i]
[b]You're telling all those lies
About the good things that we can have
If we close our eyes[/b]
[i]Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you
I left you far behind
The ruins of the life that you had in mind[/i]
[b]And though you still can't see
I know your mind's made up
You're gonna cause more misery[/b]
[i]Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you[/i]
[b]Although your mind's opaque
Try thinking more if just for your own sake[/b]
[i]The future still looks good
And you've got time to rectify
All the things that you should
Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you
Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you[/i][/quote]
https://youtu.be/vtx5NTxebJk
It isn't lost. The self is lost. Content is altered, but not consciousness.
If it's only the recall of being conscious that is either "lost" or "altered" and not "consciousness" itself, then "consciousness" is like embodiment persisting independently of the state of one's awareness, or lack thereof, of one's own bodily condition. Assuming this scenario is the case, 'being conscious' seems redundant to, or synonymous with, 'being embodied', and eliminativists (i.e. physicalists), not mind-body dualists or panpsychists, are the parsimonious and conceptually coherent ones. To paraphrase Witty: bodily movement is the best picture of 'consciousness'. And Spinoza as well: 'being conscious' is the body's idea.
:up:
[ including its marks and noises ]
One problem with "Consciousness" is defining what it is. As an abstract noun, the term seems to imply that "C" is a stable physical object, instead of an impermanent process, function, state, or ability. Likewise, the Soul is often imagined as a timeless object, when in fact it is a temporary subjective imaginary concept, that can be turned-off like a light bulb. The brain is a physical machine, whose primary function is to monitor & control the body's life-support processes. That basic operating system (OS) is generally located in the brain stem (the reptile brain), not in the neo-cortex (mammalian brain), where the "movie" of working memory flows.
So, it's not surprising that, when injured, the brain shuts down non-essential (for life) functions. A computer can do the same thing, when a physical malfunction threatens to destroy the whole system. When the threat is over, the system reboots, and functions resume. The information processing ability wasn't "lost", it just temporarily ceased operation. Recovery from a concussion or coma is one example of a biological reboot.
Likewise, the "inmost core of being" is not a real thing, but an ideal abstract concept, created by the brain to represent the Life & Awareness functions of the body. So that "core" is not an Object to be lost, but a Subject to be aware of, or not. The human body's Operating System is essential for Life processes, but not for Mind processes. Therefore, the OS can "shut down" non-essential processes temporarily, without affecting the fundamental operating functions that we call "Life" : also, not a thing, but a process.
What we humans call "Consciousness" seems to be Awareness of working memory. Again, that awareness is not a physical thing, but something like a sampling of ongoing brain processes. So, it's that Self-Reflective Ability that remains to be explained in physical terms. How does the brain produce Ideal representations of reality, that are knowable by the Self, which is also a mind picture created by the brain to represent the body/brain system as a whole? :smile:
PS__I'm just riffing here. I'm not an expert on such technical & esoteric questions. Merely an interested User of the Awareness function of my biological computing system. If someone prefers to label that self-image poetically as "The Soul", that's OK with me. The various aspects of Consciousness can only be defined metaphorically, by analogies to physical things or processes, such as Breathing. But, like Life, it's a fragile process that can be "lost" permanently when the energy flow is interrupted by a broken circuit. Too bad, we can't just solder the wires, or replace the battery. :joke:
Various Concepts of Consciousness :
The concept of consciousness is notoriously ambiguous. It is important first to make several distinctions and to define related terms. The abstract noun consciousness is not often used in the contemporary literature . . .
https://iep.utm.edu/consciousness/
What Makes a Computer Just Suddenly Power Off? :
A PC shutting down suddenly is usually a sign of a power problem and can be extremely frustrating. This can cause you to lose whatever you're working on, but it may also be a sign of damage to the computer itself. Generally, when a computer powers down on its own it's due to the power supply, malware, overheating or driver issues.
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/computer-just-suddenly-power-off-67117.html
Note -- working memory, what you were working on, is lost after a shut-down
...or a property, like redness, roundness. X is red. X is round. X is conscious.
Yes. Measurable or sensible physical properties are how we identify & distinguish those stable material objects. Unfortunately, physical Properties and metaphysical Qualia are somewhat ambiguous. By definition, a Property is inherent-in or intrinsic-to the thing that "owns" that characteristic*1. A physical property is supposed to be measurable. But sometimes a property is attributed to a thing by the observer, when evidence is unavailable or unclear -- especially subatomic particles. A Quality is a mental abstraction from physical observation. So, we "know" concrete things only by making mental models to represent them.
Before the advent of Quantum physics, people assumed that Redness was a Property of apples. So, our mental images of apples typically include the property/quality of Redness. However, we can make objective measurements of the physical wavelengths of light energy, but we can only make subjective assessments of its color. Color is a Qualia not a Quanta. But, is Consciousness a quantitative Property or merely a qualitative Function*2 of the brain?
Consciousness (or Soul) is obviously not a tangible physical property. So, as a meta-physical quality, it is not measurable in objective units. However, Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory attempts to measure Consciousness indirectly by degree of integration*3. His assumption seems to be that shape-shifting Information is common to both Quanta and Qualia. And my own thesis argues that Energy is merely one form of generic Information, while Matter is another, and Mind is another. Hence the apparent Brain/Mind paradox*4. Can it be explained by Cartesian Dualism or by Russell's Monism*5, or by Enformationism?*6. Is the "Inmost Core" a property or a quality or both? :smile:
*1. Properties are the characteristics that enable us to differentiate one material from another. A physical property is an attribute of matter that is independent of its chemical composition.
https://byjus.com/chemistry/properties-of-matter/
*2. What is a Function? :
A function relates an input to an output. ...
https://www.mathsisfun.com sets function
Note -- A function is a mathematical Ratio, or a mental Relationship between things; not a thing itself.
*3. Sizing Up Consciousness by Its Bits :
Tononi argues that we could, in theory, measure consciousness in bits as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/science/21consciousness.html
*4. The Brain/Mind Paradox :
But how does self-conscious awareness arise from physical operations of a material brain? The meat Brain and the ethereal Mind seem to be two completely different kinds of things. So reconciling meat with mind has been called the hard problem of philosophy. But it becomes easier if we look at the situation from the cosmic perspective of Enformationism. In that world-view, the fundamental element of our universe is immaterial information, best visualized as the completely abstract form of Logic we call Mathematics, along with its structure-defining geometric ratios. Where the physical brain sees real shapes, the meta-physical mind sees ideal geometry. Yet brain & mind are merely different forms of that creative element. So it shouldnt be surprising that energy/information flowing through neurons could generate something like a mind-field.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page31.html
*5. Russellian Monism :
Russellian monism is a theory in the metaphysics of mind, on which a single set of properties underlies both consciousness and the most basic entities posited by physics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russellian-monism/
*6. Brain/Mind Enformation :
"The absence of an empirically identifiable meeting point between the non-physical mind (if there is such a thing) and its physical extension has proven problematic to dualism, and many modern philosophers of mind maintain that the mind is not something separate from the body."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
Why posit an ultimate ground? Is not what is sufficient? Is the world too imperfect for it to exist without it depending on something else? Does being ungrounded cause vertigo? A yawning abyss one is too fearful to approach?
Good question. Refer
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14272/why-monism