|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 47
RESPONDENT No. 31: To me consciousness is not just material, but material and energy. Awareness is when consciousness is in ‘energetic form’ and is consciousness is less dense. Awareness is a special mode of consciousness when there is that ‘attention’. So I would say in the manner of speaking, I am conscious of anger (split), but when there is attention, we would say ‘there is that awareness ‘of’ anger’ (no-split). RESPONDENT: Being conscious has three related meanings. There is conscious in the sense of being awake. There is conscious as the compliment of subconscious or unconscious. And there is conscious in the sense of cognizant, or self-reflective. Consciousness covers all three of these related meanings. Awareness is normally used as a synonym for the third. You are using awareness as the state of perception which is not divided into the observer and observed, unitary perception, or what K calls choiceless awareness. If so, then you are saying that what we normally call being aware, is not ‘really’ aware at all. RESPONDENT No. 31: Yes. I would say, awareness is that immediacy in perception. This is not just perception by way of sense organs alone. It is that immediate presence to consciousness that signifies awareness. RESPONDENT: Immediate presence to consciousness does not clearly state that this is not divided. Observing my thoughts and feelings is immediate, but can be split in that I know that I am observing them. * RESPONDENT: That is a semantic point. But it leads to the important question as to whether we can ever actually ‘know’ that we are really aware. RESPONDENT No. 31: My take on this is we do ‘know’ that we are aware. I don’t subscribe to the K-dogma that something ‘ends’ in that state of awareness. There is direct comprehension, and one ‘knows’ that something is happening. I am not saying that ‘knowing’ is ‘insight’ or understanding. To me ‘knowing’ is something that ‘forms’ in the mind. This is different from knowledge as memory and accumulation. That ‘observer’ is still present. RESPONDENT: This seems to be making the point that awareness can be going on when there is split consciousness. The knowing is the observer that is distinct from what is being observed. Earlier you differentiated conscious from aware in terms of whether or not there is the split. Now you seem to be saying something else. I am interested in which of these you feel is correct. As I said, the ordinary meaning of ‘aware’ is consistent with the split. And for this reason, I am considering a few new words such as holperception or holsight or holprehension, to convey the very special sense of the non-split in awareness. Do you think that a new word is needed? RICHARD: A very descriptive and apt word already exists that neatly circumvents any ‘holism’ However, because of the holistic associations concomitant to the term ‘choiceless awareness’ (a fragmented or split ‘self’ integrated or made whole) it is pertinent to note that the term ‘apperceptive awareness’ does not signify a metaphysical (non-material) awareness ... it simply describes the condition of the brain when the pesky ontological ‘being’ abdicates the throne and the ship steers itself. Although not detailed in the dictionary, it would correspond that ‘apperceptiveness’ (n.) is the condition or quality of being apperceptive, and ‘apperceptively’ (adv.) is the experience of being apperceptive, and ‘apperceptivity’ (n.) is the capacity to be apperceptive. Ain’t life grand!
RESPONDENT: ... the ordinary meaning of ‘aware’ is consistent with the split [in consciousness]. And for this reason, I am considering a few new words such as holperception or holsight or holprehension, to convey the very special sense of the non-split in awareness. Do you think that a new word is needed? RICHARD: A very descriptive and apt word already exists that neatly circumvents any ‘holism’
connotations (the ‘whole being greater than the sum of the parts’ nonsense). Viz.: apperception (n.): the mind’s perception
of itself; also: apperceptive (adj.): of or pertaining to apperception. (Oxford Dictionary). Which literally means (sans ‘self’):
consciousness being aware of being conscious ... as distinct from ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious (the normal ‘self’-conscious
way of perception). However, because of the holistic associations concomitant to the term ‘choiceless awareness’ (a fragmented
or split ‘self’ integrated or made whole) it is pertinent to note that the term ‘apperceptive RESPONDENT: Richard, thank you for your suggestion. I see that you also enjoy the study of words. Apperception means, according to my Webster’s, either: 1: introspective self-consciousness; 2: mental perception; especially: the process of understanding something perceived in terms of previous experience. RICHARD: Yes, the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary I use does give only those two meanings ... the American Heritage Dictionary defines apperception as: 1: conscious perception with full awareness; 2: the process of understanding by which newly observed qualities of an object are related to past experience. The Concise Oxford Dictionary, however, provides three meanings: 1: the mind’s perception of itself; 2: mental perception, recognition; 3: the active mental process of assimilating an idea (especially one newly perceived) to a body of ideas already possessed, and thereby comprehending it. RESPONDENT: You have defined it as: ‘Which literally means (sans ‘self’): consciousness being aware of being conscious ... as distinct from ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious (the normal ‘self’-conscious way of perception)’. RICHARD: Yes, the Oxford Dictionary clearly gives the impersonal meaning (‘the mind’s perception of itself’) as its first meaning, whereas (2) and (3) can imply a personality. RESPONDENT: But as we see above, my dictionary does define it in terms of self-consciousness, and so this can also be understood in terms of the split. RICHARD: Indeed ... dictionaries give more than one sense for most words, leaving one free to choose the signification most apt to that which one wishes to convey. It must be remembered that dictionaries are not prescriptive (like scriptures are) but descriptive inasmuch as they record current treatment of words common to the period they arise in ... and any modifications to those words over eras. Some examples of usage of ‘apperception’ RESPONDENT: I wonder whether even the phrase ‘consciousness being aware of being conscious’, implies a split as well. RICHARD: It depends upon what you mean by ‘split’; in my reading of your latter posts on this topic you did seem to be indicating the subject/object ‘split’ (‘me’ in here vis a vis ‘them’ out there) which is what prompted me to write. To most of the metaphysically-minded people on this Mailing List ‘split’ means ‘separated from source’ and they are thus seeking union (via ‘non-fragmentation’, ‘wholeness’, ‘unitary perception’ and so on) with what Mr. Paul Tillich called the ‘ground of being’ ... by whatever name. RESPONDENT: This phrase uses the tricky term ‘aware’. RICHARD: It could have just as easily been written ‘consciousness being conscious of being conscious’ ... but you had already indicated that that the two words were interchangeable. Viz.: [quote]: ‘being conscious has three related meanings. There is conscious in the sense of being awake. There is conscious as the compliment of subconscious or unconscious. And there is conscious in the sense of cognizant, or self-reflective. Consciousness covers all three of these related meanings. Awareness is normally used as a synonym for the third’. [endquote]. Essentially, in this context, ‘aware’ is the same-same as ‘conscious’ (cognizant) ... but ‘awareness’ is not necessarily the same as what ‘consciousness’ can mean. Generally speaking, ‘consciousness’ is primary (embedded but seen as embodied) and ‘awareness’ is a quality of that ‘embedded consciousness’ somewhat similar to ‘perspicacity’... as in: ‘his/her consciousness has a high/low state of awareness/perspicacity’. RESPONDENT: Is consciousness divided into the subjective and the objective? RICHARD: No. There can be an illusion of division, however ... hence all the misery and mayhem that epitomises the human condition. RESPONDENT: That is divided between consciousness and conscious-ness of that? RICHARD: The use of ‘-ness’ RESPONDENT: You later go on to explain that the ship steers itself, which I take to mean that there is no longer that split. RICHARD: Aye, the ‘split’ vanishes upon the end of ‘being’ and separation ceases to exist ... without the necessity for union. RESPONDENT: So is there any longer a consciousness of consciousness? RICHARD: Oh yes ... apperception is an on-going effortless awareness that happens of its own accord, provided the flesh and blood body is alive (not dead), awake (not asleep) and conscious (not unconscious) ... thinking may or may not be operating (depending upon the circumstance). It (apperceptiveness) is/provides the meaning of life. RESPONDENT: Isn’t there simply consciousness? RICHARD: So the metaphysicalists would like to have us believe! RESPONDENT: I’d like to ask you two questions: when you speak about non-material awareness, are you saying that awareness is the physical brain? In what way is it the brain? RICHARD: Awareness is what a human mind (consciousness) does ... and a human mind is a human brain in action in a human skull. Ergo: it is all a material process ... and what a wonderful, delightful process it is! RESPONDENT: And secondly, is that pesky ontological being (which I believe means ‘self’) real prior to abdication, or just an illusion? RICHARD: First, the word ‘self’ lends itself to numerous descriptions ... a catch-all sort of word. Therefore, it is important to be specific when there is a need to be precise: in this case, the total, complete and utter extinction of any trace of identity whatsoever ... particularly ‘being’ itself. This extinction is an autological event inasmuch as it eliminates the psyche itself. Hence the usage of ‘ontological being’ rather than ‘self’ (which ‘self’ cunningly survives the ‘dissolution of the ego’ in the mystical process and transmogrifies itself into a (mostly capital ‘S’) Supreme Self or a (mostly capital ‘B’) Supreme Being ... Mr. Paul Tillich’s ‘ground of being’ by whatever name). Secondly, this ontological ‘being’, prior to abdication, is real – a times so real as to be true – but it is not actual. To explain this real/ actual distinction: for many years I mistakenly assumed that words carried a definitive meaning that was common to all peoples speaking the same language ... for example ‘real’ and ‘truth’. But, as different person’s told me things like: ‘That is only your truth’, or: ‘God is real’, I realised that unambiguous words are required (to a child, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are ‘real’ and ‘true’). Correspondingly I abandoned ‘real’ and ‘true’ in favour of ‘actual’ and ‘fact’, as experience has demonstrated that no one has been able to tell me that their god is actual or that something is only my fact. Therefore this monitor screen is actual (these finger-tips feeling it substantiate this) and it is a fact that these printed letters are forming words (these eyes seeing it validate this). These things are indisputable and verifiable by any body with the requisite sense-organs. Now, to a person who believes ardently in their god, then for them their god is real ... not actual, mind you, but real. Usually they tell me that their god is more real than we humans are ... that is how real their fervency makes of their belief (it is the same as the child with the Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy example I gave above). So too, is it with regards to this wretched and pernicious ‘self’. The ‘self’, whilst not being actual, is real ... sometimes very, very real. The belief in a real ‘thinker’ (‘I’ as ego) and a real ‘feeler’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – ‘me’ as soul – which is ‘being’ itself) is not just another passing thought. It is emotion-backed feverish imagination at work (calenture). ‘I’ passionately believe in ‘my’ existence ... and will defend ‘myself’ to the death (of ‘my’ body) if it is deemed necessary. All of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – come to the fore when psychologically and psychically threatened, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, confounding ‘my’ survival and the body’s survival. However, ‘my’ survival being paramount could not be further from the truth, for ‘I’ need play no part any more in perpetuating physical existence (which is the primal purpose of the instinctual animal ‘self’). ‘I’ am no longer necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am nowadays a hindrance. With all of ‘my’ beliefs, values, creeds, ethics and other doctrinaire disabilities, ‘I’ am a menace to the body. ‘I’ am ready to die (to allow the body to be killed) for a cause and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a ‘Noble Ideal’ ... and reap ‘my’ post-mortem reward: immortality. That is how real ‘I’ am ... which is why both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul must die a real death (but not physically into the grave) to find out the actuality. RESPONDENT: Yes, life is grand. Thanks for sharing. RICHARD: This business called being alive is such fun, eh?
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
