I think you are right, Slip, we did cover much of this in our conversation of dreams. Vivid dreaming and creative dreaming, I think, allow us to access the most expansive (or deepest, or least differentiated, or formless, more purest spiritual or however we describe them) states of consciousness. In fact, I think this is where we bring these states into being. As you know, most of my dreams are vivid and creative. Rarely do I slip into a dream that is not vivid. When I do, I know that I have an anxiety that needs attention and release. As this became the case for me, my desire for meditation diminished. I no longer need a method to access the states as falling asleep takes me there, and I can consciously and creatively direct myself in these states. Even so, I allow the the dreams more than direct them, as this, I think, allows me greater possibility.
On Sep 13, 5:30 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Molly, I think much of what we covered in the dream threads has > relevancy. I think and believe there are 'interim' states, some can > be disturbing and some not. Before reaching the desired state of > consciousness the duality aspect comes into play during the interim > states and as you say the process is internal thereby accessing all > areas of individual consciousness. I would say that along the journey > less and less of the individual is evident making the end experience > somewhat surreal. Those who have not experienced it cannot understand > it. > > On Sep 13, 12:58 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes, I see what you are saying. But hopefully you can appreciate that > > I am a poet, not a scientist. I have never set myself to the task of > > determining criterion, only writing about my experience. I think that > > it is important that we each make the journey, although understand > > that some do not find the value in it. Because the process is > > internal, and at best all we have is a description of the individual > > process, (other than measurement of body function and environment), it > > would stand to reason that yes, when we look at composite results we > > are left with myriad descriptions of individual processes. Is the > > process different, our ability to describe it different? Does our > > language place limits on our perceptions, or simply our ability to > > relate them? > > > I can speak to you about my experience, and include anecdotal > > information from others I have read ( which is probably more limited > > than some others in the group.) And, I would be glad to do so! > > > If you have not had this experience, you may never accept anyone > > else's description of it. This, I have noticed in talking with other > > people about it. > > > On Sep 13, 1:12 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Molly - Not to trivilaize your response. But it is a little bit like the > > > cliche answer to > > > > coming up with a satisfactory answer to the nature of pornography. "I may > > > not know excatly > > > > how to describe it, but I know it when I see it." > > > > I am inclined to believe that such states of consciousness are indeed > > > identifiable however it is also > > > > quite likely that their meaning and use are subject to a wide vsariance > > > due to individual differences. > > > > For example: as a psychoanalyst I am a change agent. I know that > > > signficant change can and does occur. > > > > I also know that it is incremental and always met with strong > > > resistances. I also know that when significant > > > > changes occur - as lets say when a person experiences a synchronicity - > > > there is always a major shift in > > > > consciousness (expansion?) which can have wide spread ripple effects in > > > the areas you describe. > > > > However the changes are always person specific. I think you probably will > > > substantially agree with what I am describing. No? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Sun, Sep 13, 2009 12:53 pm > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: consciousness > > > > How does one know when the "undifferentiated, ineffable, omniscient > > > ealm of all possibility be experienced in sleep if one is > > > nconscious?" > > > In my experience, vivid dreaming allows the conscious recognition of > > > his state. > > > > And if it is possible to experience such a state when one is > > > nconscious then > > > it reasonable to believe that one can experience when > > > ne is also conscious." > > > Yes, in the awake state, I first accessed this state in meditation, > > > hen contemplation. Now, as I say, I believe it is part of the > > > ackground program in my moment to moment consciousness. > > > > If so by what criterion does one know if and when he or she is > > > xperiencing such a state?" > > > I think this is like someone who has never seen Mt. Rushmore, asking > > > ow they will know when they arrive there. It is unmistakable, and I > > > now this only by experience. > > > > And even if such a state is perceivable what difference does it > > > ake?" > > > It seems to have made a difference to me in my viewpoint, how I see > > > he world; my character, how I respond in my experience; my > > > elationships, how I treat others; my self image, how I maintain my > > > iving self. > > > This is how I understand it. Others may have a different view. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent: Sat, Sep 12, 2009 12:51 pm > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: consciousness > > > > Also, the undifferentiated, ineffable, omniscient, > > > realm of all possibility can be experienced in sleep or deep > > > meditation and contemplation. > > > > The atonement thing - that everything is connected with everything else - > > > ppears to me to be obvious. But > > > > so what? Individuals must still individually reckon with the meaning of > > > that > > > xperience which is differient for > > > > different people.?In reflections about the nature of consciousness I > > > think > > > here is entirely too m > > > uch emphasis > > > > on the unity 'thing' and way too little on differences. Case in point - > > > my > > > ersonal and professional experience > > > > (I am a practicing psychoanalyst for the past 44 years) indicates there > > > is not > > > ust one consciousness (such as > > > > unconscious, sub conscious, pre conscious, but a continuum of > > > consciousness. > > > > ? > > > > Among the states of consciousness along the continuum of consciousness > > > are: > > > aleidoscopic consciousness, > > > > symbiotic consciousness, transcendent consciousness, transitional > > > onsciousness, transformational consciousness, > > > > ego consciouness, unity or syntehtic consciousness, and cosmic > > > consciousness - > > > erhaps more. > > > > ? > > > > Consciousness functions like a filter which enables a person to organize > > > the > > > aw data of their experience. Each state > > > > of consciousness functions as a different filter or set of filters which > > > hanges (interprets) what is perceived with alternative > > > > perspectives. > > > > ? > > > > This way of viewing things is what I think accounts for the stark > > > difference > > > n differing interpretations as to the nature of lets say synchronicities. > > > ung's basic unproven assumption about the collective unconscious as the > > > core of > > > eality enables his mystical magical interpretation of synchronicities to > > > be > > > hat it is -? whereas an assumption of lets say the personal unconscious > > > enerating personal meanings of whatever is perceived would result in a > > > purely > > > aturalistic non mystical non magical interpretation of the nature of > > > ynchronicities. > > > > ? > > > > Viva le differance! > > > > ? > > > > : consciousness > > > > Y > > > es, and I think we generate meaningful connections by the experience > > > of consciousness, not the intellectual speculation of consciousness, > > > as has been suggested in a couple different threads. I believe that > > > states like cosmic consciousness (experience all time and others and > > > all that is) can and are experienced in sleep and deep meditation or > > > contemplation. Also, the undifferentiated, ineffable, omniscient, > > > realm of all possibility can be experienced in sleep or deep > > > meditation and contemplation. Once accessed, it is carried with us > > > like a background program running though all our experience. We all > > > have the potentiality. We recognize and experience when a change in > > > viewpoint allows the possibility to manifest as real in our > > > experience. The intellectual speculation may lead us to a change in > > > viewpoint, or it may not. Our viewpoint manifests the experience. > > > > On Sep 12, 12:03?am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Doesn't everything in the body have a physiological component? But > > > that is > > > ot > > > the point about consciousness. > > > > > Whatever else consciousness is - is that it's essence is the awareness > > > of > > > awareness plus. The plus factor are the > > > > > idiosyncratic meanings we consciously and unconsciously attribute to > > > any of > > > our individual experiences. So that the > > > > > mystery of consciousness I believe is ultimately bound up with > > > understanding > > > the way we individually generate meaningful > > > > > connections. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [email protected] < > > > [email protected]> > > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Fri, Sep 11, 2009 5:09 am > > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: consciousness > > > > > Hey Just, > > > > > Yes that is the idea my claim is that conciousness is held in the > > > > brain, and so it must be a biological mechanism, so yes it does assume > > > > that answer. > > > > > You say: > > > > > ' If you realize (start from the fact that) consciousness is not a > > > > mechanism then the fact that manipulating a mechanism affects it does > > > > not mean its a mechanism or that there is a *mechanical* linkage to > > > > it.' > > > > > Whi > > > ch really is you doing the same thing is it not? > > > > > Of course not all mechaninsims can be said to be objects either. Would > > > > you not call mathamatical formulea mechinisms? ?Lets take Pi for > > > > example, is it not a mechanism by which a carpenter can figure out the > > > > diamater of ?round table that he has been asked to build? > > > > > On 10 Sep, 16:09, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Lee, > > > > > > Thanks for the great post it is very clear. > > > > > > I think there is a flaw however in your argument. Here it is: You > > > > > write: > > > > > > > If we can manipulate our conciousness via the use of electricity > > > and > > > > > > chemicals, then it is safe to assume that our conciousness uses > > > both > > > > > > > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
