Peter 11 March 2016

It was neither neuroscience nor Freud that dethroned 'consciousness', if here defined as a sense of self that has control. A proper understanding of the wisdom traditions of the world reveals it has been known for millennia. Contrary to the false presentation, outward trappings and distortions of much of institutional religion, the deeper understanding of the spiritual traditions has always been the overcoming of the false egocentric self through initiation into the clarity of a timeless, space-less presence that has been deemed to be our true nature. Methods of meditation and initiation have always been used to 'restore' this 'condition', refining and cultivating a clarity and quality of awareness on which 'we' - known to be false - float. This is why such traditions emphasise the necessity for self-surrender or 'dying to one's self' in order to be awakened to our true nature. The critical point has always been that language and its usefulness breaks down here - it is not a place where the intellect functions and can quantify it but what eastern traditions would perhaps describe as 'non-judgmental, ever-present-witnessing-awareness' - no distinction between the sense of self and more refined levels of boundless awareness. It must be directly experiential, according to such traditions. It is not 'anti' intellectual but considered superior, though not exclusive, of intellect.
Interestingly, one must come back to a sense of self in order to think scientifically. This, perhaps, is why scientists struggle to grasp spiritual matters, which demand non-egocentric and timeless presence - the giving up of what scientist's may treasure and value most from a position of personally rewarding satisfaction in pursuit of their interests - a necessarily bitter pill to swallow for some honest enough to consider the ramifications to their careers and ego. (The spiritual definition of ego is not related to Freud’s narrow definition – whereas Freud assumed for it a sense of self that assumes control the wisdom traditions have conversely seen it as the problem to be overcome)
The failure of many scientists to truly grasp the real nature of much of what the world's wisdom traditions have profoundly understood is partly due to an understandable incredulity or aversion to much 'literal' nonsense perpetrated by religious institutions caught up in the power politics of maintaining their existence, like any perhaps initially well-intentioned organisation that loses its principles when its energies become diverted to promoting its threatened survival; and also to deliberate misinformation through the centuries and today for the purposes of maintaining power and control politically. This is a necessarily, and unfairly, over-simplistic and limited overview for lack of time and space here, but alludes to an important point.
Freud, like many intellectuals, failed to grasp the nuances and subtleties and use of metaphor, parable and symbol, etc., in religious scriptures, beyond mere stories, to convey the apprehension and transcendent experience of self-less awareness. He, like many 'intelligent' people, made leaping assumptions about religion, having taken as whole the' literally presented', and made a straw-man of it, which he then proceeded to take apart - much like Richard Dawkins and others today. And so we lost the proverbial baby with the bath water and modern science stepped into the shiny suit as saviour of the world from all that silly nonsense of old and now pronounces to the world as only just discovering what has long been known.
In so far as the brain is concerned, much new knowledge is being discovered but can only be considered as correlative not causative when placed alongside an enlightened awareness as there is a danger that scientists, having collated information experimentally and intellectually, still themselves remain as a 'self' communicating second-hand. There remains much more space yet for humility and a proper appreciation of the subtle difficulties that elude description and direct insight, not to mention problems of definition related to perspective. Many scientists only make far reaching and unfounded claims due to massive ignorance of a wealth of knowledge that has gone before them but in terrains they fear to tread - and often only through fear of what their peers may think and the damage to their careers, promotion and funding. The arguments are not so clear cut.

binra 8 March 2016

Consciousness is term that can obviously mean different things to different perspectives. Consciousness can be said to be the generating of a unique or individualized perspective.
Definition is the act of self-concept in relation to - and as we define ourselves - and our world of 'not self' - so do we generate a polarized, conflicted and spilt consciousness. If self-concept is not willingly yielded to the source of wholeness - it runs a focusing selection and a shadow denial. The dethroning of Source Consciousness is the idea of an independent private capacity to define or create meaning and power to assert such meaning. This is the idea of segregation, a sense of disconnection, deprivation, war, sickness and death. But to have this or any experience, is inherently dependent on Source Consciousness - for want of better words.
The sense of oppositional power reflects its image back to Source and makes a jealous and fearful god - that then comes between its Cause and true effect. Thus runs a false or deceptive lens of definition and interpretation that effectively denies true perspective in favour of survival of the false - and by mutual agreements and reinforcements, makes a false 'reality' of completely believable experience while blind to truth that is in plain sight.
The nature of such definition and belief is that it is invisible while living or acting out from it. In order to regain perspective on it, one has to yield that perspective rather than reinforce its continuity. This does not result in chaos or loss of self - excepting in any transitory confusion. Rather it opens the space and frees the attention for the re-cognition of what was already and always true - but had been forgotten and eclipsed - and in a sense usurped - by the self-belief that had been accepted true but which was out of alignment with who and what you truly feel and know yourself to be. In other words, the thinking operates to deny anything but its current focus.
This 'control' is in fact a limiting and distorting filter.
The 'loss' of control and indeed the loss of privacy - is the breaking down of the structure by which a sense of such capacities had been generated and this can be experienced positively as the opening into fresh insight but also as the fearfully conflicted drama of a sense of loss.
Because no matter what the apparent conditions, the core experience is resulting from the definition we are operating from.
"Forgive them for they know not what they do" has nothing to do with judging what they do. It is simply the state of spiritual blindness of those who know not their own purpose - being deceived in the actor or persona of a surface conscious focus, and unaware - and in active denial of - the initially defined "negative" feeling and thought imprinting that is thus "unconscious" and associated with subconscious automatic routines and habits.
I do see elemts of this in the article above - but as usual with IAI the whole thing is still framed in terms that perpetuate the idea of 'control' even while acknowledging it is not what it seems. Power corrupts - it is said. All power is of God is a safety here - because if the movement of desire feels aligned with your core integrity - it is not trying to rob power from others or mask itself in power to seem to be 'more' or indeed less than it is.
The Idea of God is in some sense implicit in the recognition that we - however we define ourselves to be, do not author or originate, cause or create ourselves to be - though we can clearly focus in such an idea and believe it ... for a while.

Is IAI operating from a pre-judicial identity of wish to control outcome - or is it desiring to open the quality and nature of creative thought from illegitimate or suppressive deceits?

The core issue of our times is that of re-waking a sovereignty of true willing despite and regardless of the usurpation of true individuality by deceits - some of which are incremental drift and some of which are of an opportunistic agenda to exploit such availability.

The loss of Humanity - call that loss of Consciousness or loss of free willingness - the EXPERIENCE is that of a tyrannous will no matter how rationalised or justified it presents itself to be. But once using our own fear and guilt as leverage - we do not even realise we are thus controlled.
And that comes to a core quality of the nature of Mind and Consciousness; what you put out is what you get back. Judge not lest ye be judged. Control not lest ye be controlled - for by the measure as you accepts as defining you - so must you receive. It has no cruelty or vengeance in it - unless of course you make that your devotion and replace your true desire with a demand or dictate for a fixed outcome to validate a self concept that is not the whole true of you.