Susan Blackmore-Ten Zen and Company

[Krull]

"Consciousness is an illusion" is of the latter type, because not only are ordinary illusory experiences illusory, but veridical experiences are illusory too. But as Speedo noted, this dosnt mean 'consciousness dosnt exist', it means that consciousness (or free will) is not how we typically conceive or understand it to be. Saying "X is an illusion" does not entail that one is being an eliminativist regarding X. It involves some sort of realism: consciousness seems to be this way, but in reality it is more this other way. I really dont see a problem with this: afterall, Im sure we can agree that many of our folk concepts and understandings are demonstrated as erroneous illusions by science and philosophy.

Lastly, Im a little reluctant to find claims such as "I am conscious of my consciousness" meaningful; we normally have a term for that anyway, 'self-consciousness'. My reluctance is motivated by trying to avoid a regress:

Consciousness is an illusion.
What is conscious of consciousness?
What is conscious of the consciousness conscious of consciousness?
etc etc

Consciousness is not an object, even though it is realized by object relations. Compare: freedom is not an object, even though it is realized by object relations. It is nonsense to ask "What is conscious of the illusion (consciousness)?" Consciousness is distributed through a system where no part itself is the 'essential' conscious observer. "Consciousness is an illusion" is only a paradox or oxymoron if youre a Cartesian of some descript. Which, as far as I understand it, most (if not all) forms of mysticism are thoroughly opposed to. Which I guess makes your guys question "But what is conscious of the illusion?" rather ironic.

I think Thuse anticipated a response to your post here:

[Dennett's] observations that the contents, structure and nature of consciousness is fleeting and indefinite is reason for him to assume the interesting aspects of it don't exist or need explaining, which I see as kind of missing the point.

I agree with you that we shouldn't be essentialist about experience the way Pl3bs seems to be. One of the strongest points I took away from reading Ten Zen was that experiences depend on a 'thick present'; just as objects must be extended in space, so sensations must be extended in time, meaning we shouldn't be surprised to find consciousness breaking down when we try to find the absolute 'now'. But from here Blackmore (and Dennett) shifts to the stronger claim that there is nothing for neuroscience to explain, or rather that a complete and accurate description of human life (remember Sue is a realist - no 'alternative language games' here) will not include consciousness. Or to give another example - I recognise hills are composed of atoms the same as anything else, but I still recognise the difference between rugged and flat landscapes. I think that's just the distinction Blackmore/Dennett/Churchland(s) want to deny.

[SpeedOfSound]

I think you perhaps misunderstand the point. I don't think anybody bar Naive Realists think consciousness is not an illusion. We can get rid of the observer, but not consciousness. We can realise the notion of an observer is an illusion, but the act of observing is still present. The question "what is conscious of the illusion?" is precisely that, not "who is conscious of...?". It seems apparent there are no observers. But there is still observing. As you say, consciousness is not an object, therefore, reducing it to an object (an observer) is not what we want to do.

You can't get rid of C unless you go to sleep or die. Not surprising is it?

Can you elaborate on your ideas of pre-reflexive-C and C with the 'am i conscious now' experiment?

It would be helpful if you did what Susan has done. Reflect on your consciousness and tell us how that felt and what happens.

[Thuse]

I think you perhaps misunderstand the point. I don't think anybody bar Naive Realists think consciousness is not an illusion. We can get rid of the observer, but not consciousness. We can realise the notion of an observer is an illusion, but the act of observing is still present. The question "what is conscious of the illusion?" is precisely that, not "who is conscious of...?". It seems apparent there are no observers. But there is still observing. As you say, consciousness is not an object, therefore, reducing it to an object (an observer) is not what we want to do.

You can't get rid of C unless you go to sleep or die. Not surprising is it?

Can you elaborate on your ideas of pre-reflexive-C and C with the 'am i conscious now' experiment?

It would be helpful if you did what Susan has done. Reflect on your consciousness and tell us how that felt and what happens.

Okay. This might be a longish post though, if I am to literally to give an account of my thought process. I will try to be succinct as possible, apologies if it is a drag. But if you (or anyone else) do decide to follow the whole thing, I would be grateful, then maybe we could discuss any errors/disagreements in the methodology etc.

"Am I conscious now?" refers to three primary things, an observer or referent of consciousness (I), consciousness itself and the present moment (now/am).

First, it is apparent that there is no "I" that is conscious now, simply because consciousness is of the "I". "I" is itself an Object within consciousness, which is observed by consciousness, but mistakes itself to be an individual observ-er "doing" consciousness. We all agree here it seems, so we needn't expound the argument in full.

So, we can let go, literally subjectively, of the notion of "Self", "I", "experiencer", "observer" or a "me" of any kind. This then is the first "illusion."

Immediately the question becomes "is there consciousness now?" instead.

We know that all Objects in consciousness are themselves subject to a delay, from the time it takes for the senses to send themselves to the brain via the nervous system.

Thus, we can assume, if not know, that what is in consciousness "now" is effectively a kind of memory, a remembering, rather than a literal "present moment". Moreover, simply because of the laws of physics (speed of light/sound etc.) if there was no such delay, we would still only be aware of what was the case at an earlier moment in time.

So again, we can literally subjectively let go of all incoming perceptions. This is then the second illusion.

This notion of letting go is literal - my mind, like I assume all others, clings to experienced things as if they are somehow isolated discreet objects. So, letting go is not just conceptual but experiential, and involves the disintegration of my minds attachment to these experiences as fixed. It is kind of removing the "footing", so to speak.

Letting go of all perceptions obviously leaves nothing in my conscious experience to "cling" to mentally. So the question becomes:

"Is there consciousness?"

This is more difficult, obviously. The flow of experience is obviously still there, I am not asleep or dead, but there is no longer the usual attachment of the mind to these things as non-illusory.

So, as we can agree that consciousness is intentional and that the stream of consciousness is dependent on the Objects in the stream, we can effectively drop consciousness itself. There is nothing fixed that is consciousness, no internal conscious individual, and there is nothing fixed that the consciousness is of.

So, consciousness itself is totally illusory also.

Now, I think up to this point SoS and myself are in total agreement. I think it is this next part that we fundamentally disagree on, but I will have to wait and see.

Okay, so what I am left with in my experience is absolutely nothing that "I" (or whatever) can cling to. The experiencer ("I"), experienced (Objects) and experience (consciousness) are all illusory.

Hence, I can literally "let go" of all these things.

In doing so, however, it becomes apparent, subjectively, that this entire process of illusion arises within awareness. Absolutely all of these things combined are kind of like a bubble of illusion, rising up out of this space which we can call awareness.

Now, the natural thing to do is simple: follow the same methodology and discern whether this awareness can be illusory or not and, if so, drop it like the other aspects.

This is were we reach a fundamental problem - all other things in experience, all perceptions, even the stream of consciousness, has something identifiable about it. My perception of a cup is to the left of my perception of a book, say. Similarly, my stream of consciousness is felt in my head, behind my eyes, while I don't feel it behind my friend's eyes.

So, the process of consciousness and the Objects within consciousness have a location and relative structure, as such, my mind "clings" to them because there is something there that can be clung to. Similarly, following this far, I can let go of these things since there is a clinging present that can be equally released in this way.

It becomes apparent that awareness has no structure, location, shape or form of any kind. There is, then, nothing there to which I can cling to. So, in releasing the mental association with an observer and things observed, I cannot release awareness in the same way, because I was never holding on to it at all.

Unlike all the other illusory things then, I can identify them as illusion and release them from the grip of my cognition. However, in the case of awareness, there is nothing there to grip to and then release.

Thus, I cannot possibly discount this space within which all the illusions arise within, that I call "awareness" or sometimes pre-reflexive consciousness, as itself an illusion. When everything else is removed, it alone remains, unavoidably.

All these things, the illusion of consciousness, thoughts, the individual "I", perceptions, even time etc. arise within this space, but it does not arise within anything.

As far as I can tell, this seems to be in line with Blackmore's conclusions. What I am here calling "awareness", she calls "timeless, placeless emptiness...out of which phenomena appear".

Any thoughts/comments/criticisms would be greatly appreciated.

[Googaw]

Thuse, nice post.

It would be helpful if you did what Susan has done. Reflect on your consciousness and tell us how that felt and what happens.

Okay. This might be a longish post though, if I am to literally to give an account of my thought process. I will try to be succinct as possible, apologies if it is a drag. But if you (or anyone else) do decide to follow the whole thing, I would be grateful, then maybe we could discuss any errors/disagreements in the methodology etc.

"Am I conscious now?" refers to three primary things, an observer or referent of consciousness (I), consciousness itself and the present moment (now/am).

First, it is apparent that there is no "I" that is conscious now, simply because consciousness is of the "I". "I" is itself an Object within consciousness, which is observed by consciousness, but mistakes itself to be an individual observ-er "doing" consciousness. We all agree here it seems, so we needn't expound the argument in full.

Is it true that the "I" is an object of consciousness? I tend to think of it more as a vague yet seemingly unavoidable hunch. When I look for an "I" I never actually find it. This suggests that either it is responsible for consciousness - we can't see it in the same way that we can't see our own face without an available reflection - or that it is a construction, a complete fabrication, in the sense that something heterogeneous, dynamic, discontinuous and incomplete is mistakenly "sensed" as homogenous, stable, continuous and complete. Inherent identity is imputed based on this delusion.

Actual objects of consciousness would, to me, consist of phenomena such as physical objects, sounds, smells, dream images, etc. They are relatively particular, and at least in a naive sense belong to our shared world of space and time (even dream images which are always recapitulations of sensory experience). I don't think of theories, concepts, etc. as objects of passive consciousness, but as fabrications of active consciousness. Though there may in the end be no ontological distinctions to be made here, they are certainly quite different. I think of the sense of possessing (!) an ego, or soul, or inherent identity, as a fabrication of active consciousness, misinterpreted by passive consciousness as belonging to the shared world of space and time. Thus, the "vague feeling", or hunch.

Anyway, it just seems funny to me to see the "I" as an object of consciousness, when I am never aware of it in the same relatively clear way that I am aware of many other varieties of phenomena. Though some phenomena are illusions in an ultimate sense, the "I" seems like an illusion in a much more basic and obvious sense.

...

Hence, I can literally "let go" of all these things.

In doing so, however, it becomes apparent, subjectively, that this entire process of illusion arises within awareness. Absolutely all of these things combined are kind of like a bubble of illusion, rising up out of this space which we can call awareness.

Now, the natural thing to do is simple: follow the same methodology and discern whether this awareness can be illusory or not and, if so, drop it like the other aspects.

This is were we reach a fundamental problem - all other things in experience, all perceptions, even the stream of consciousness, has something identifiable about it. My perception of a cup is to the left of my perception of a book, say. Similarly, my stream of consciousness is felt in my head, behind my eyes, while I don't feel it behind my friend's eyes.

So, the process of consciousness and the Objects within consciousness have a location and relative structure, as such, my mind "clings" to them because there is something there that can be clung to. Similarly, following this far, I can let go of these things since there is a clinging present that can be equally released in this way.

It becomes apparent that awareness has no structure, location, shape or form of any kind. There is, then, nothing there to which I can cling to. So, in releasing the mental association with an observer and things observed, I cannot release awareness in the same way, because I was never holding on to it at all.

Unlike all the other illusory things then, I can identify them as illusion and release them from the grip of my cognition. However, in the case of awareness, there is nothing there to grip to and then release.

Thus, I cannot possibly discount this space within which all the illusions arise within, that I call "awareness" or sometimes pre-reflexive consciousness, as itself an illusion. When everything else is removed, it alone remains, unavoidably.

All these things, the illusion of consciousness, thoughts, the individual "I", perceptions, even time etc. arise within this space, but it does not arise within anything.

As far as I can tell, this seems to be in line with Blackmore's conclusions. What I am here calling "awareness", she calls "timeless, placeless emptiness...out of which phenomena appear".

Any thoughts/comments/criticisms would be greatly appreciated.

But surely your description of the non-illusory nature of awareness is of a purely phenomenological variety? I mean, can we really claim that after one's heart and lungs stop working, awareness "alone remains, unavoidably"? I still haven't read Blackmore's writings for lack of time (I started the paper SoS posted, but I haven't gotten very far yet), but "timeless, placeless emptiness...out of which phenomena appear" doesn't sound like a description of awareness to me, unless you are simply redefining awareness as encompassing reality. But surely just as anyone using the word "God" as an assertion of some universally available anchor in the world is clinging to a complex of subtle or not so subtle ideas, values, beliefs, emotions, etc. as unchanging or absolute, isn't anyone using the word "awareness" likewise clinging to some sort of unchanging absolute, but merely decentralized - abiding individually as opposed to universally? In other words, isn't clinging to awareness in this way in fact giving you away as not truly believing the ego to be illusory? If there is clinging to awareness, there is identification with that awareness as a separate, single, and permanent entity - which would mean that even the "first illusion" was never really let go of - isn't awareness, with clinging, merely a synonym for self, ego, or soul?

Just thinking out loud based on your post.

[Teuton]

Regardless, Blackmore concludes the book claiming that her discoveries are compatible with the now standard eliminativist arguments;

-That consciousness is an illusion (it only 'seems' a certain way),
-That a future neuroscience will fully account for this illusion,
-That consciousness and the self are synonymous.

"Philosophical theories that attribute radical error to us depend on the idea that we are very wrong about how things are, given our experience. But then there must at least be experience. If there is illusion, the occurrence of illusion must itself be real and involve experience. Let us suppose that we are wrong about the nature of the mental in many ways. The fact remains that we can be sure that our existing general concept of conscious experience is, as it stands, correctly applicable to reality."

(Strawson, Galen. Mental Reality. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009. p. 52)

[Teuton]

"Philosophy is so good at breeding doubt that one may need to do an exercise: to look around one, experience what one experiences, and ask oneself 'Could this experience just not exist? Could I be completely wrong about this? Could there be no experience or consciousness at all? Could there really be nothing it is like to be me, experientially speaking, at this moment?' The answer 'No' comes quickly and correctly, as it came to Descartes. What is it to suppose that one might be completely wrong? It is to suppose that although it seems to one that there is experience—for this cannot be denied—there really isn't any experience. But this is an immediate reductio ad absurdum. For this seeming is already experience."

(Strawson, Galen. Mental Reality. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009. p. 51)

[Teuton]

So, there really are no Subjects, nor a single Subject either: there's no-one home.

It is a necessary truth that if there are no subjects of experience, i.e. no experiencing beings that are not experiences themselves, there are no experiences. The notion of subjectless experience is incoherent, since experiences cannot be without being had and being undergone by something or somebody. That is, an experience is always an experience for something or somebody.

[Thuse]

Thuse, nice post.

Cheers for giving it your time.

"I" is itself an Object within consciousness, which is observed by consciousness, but mistakes itself to be an individual observ-er "doing" consciousness. We all agree here it seems, so we needn't expound the argument in full.

Is it true that the "I" is an object of consciousness? I tend to think of it more as a vague yet seemingly unavoidable hunch. When I look for an "I" I never actually find it. This suggests that either it is responsible for consciousness ... or that it is a construction.

[...]

I don't think of theories, concepts, etc. as objects of passive consciousness, but as fabrications of active consciousness.

[...]

Though some phenomena are illusions in an ultimate sense, the "I" seems like an illusion in a much more basic and obvious sense.

[...]

Interesting. I guess I define an Object of awareness as anything objectified - in this sense, thoughts, concepts etc. would be included. Basically, whatever the Subject is not is an Object, by default, whether easily discriminated or not.

As far as I can tell, this seems to be in line with Blackmore's conclusions. What I am here calling "awareness", she calls "timeless, placeless emptiness...out of which phenomena appear".

But surely your description of the non-illusory nature of awareness is of a purely phenomenological variety? I mean, can we really claim that after one's heart and lungs stop working, awareness "alone remains, unavoidably"?

Absolutely. I am not necessarily inferring this at all, and couldn't from the phenomenological description I have given alone, as you note.

I still haven't read Blackmore's writings for lack of time (I started the paper SoS posted, but I haven't gotten very far yet), but "timeless, placeless emptiness...out of which phenomena appear" doesn't sound like a description of awareness to me, unless you are simply redefining awareness as encompassing reality.

The thing is, if a "timeless, placeless emptiness...out of which phenomena appear" did not in some way include awareness, I am not sure how she, or any Zen students, would be able to be aware of it.

I would describe what I am talking about as exactly the same, but aware; if this is not what Blackmore is talking about, then I may misinterpret.

By Emptiness, I assume she literally means Shunyata. That I am, to some extent, essentially equating the two (awareness and Emptiness) is not that unusual within this context, as I am sure you already know.

But surely just as anyone using the word "God" as an assertion of some universally available anchor in the world is clinging to a complex of subtle or not so subtle ideas, values, beliefs, emotions, etc. as unchanging or absolute, isn't anyone using the word "awareness" likewise clinging to some sort of unchanging absolute, but merely decentralized - abiding individually as opposed to universally? In other words, isn't clinging to awareness in this way in fact giving you away as not truly believing the ego to be illusory? If there is clinging to awareness, there is identification with that awareness as a separate, single, and permanent entity - which would mean that even the "first illusion" was never really let go of - isn't awareness, with clinging, merely a synonym for self, ego, or soul?

Absolutely. In fact, I actually think this is what is happening. However, I would argue not in the sense, necessarily, that you mean it (though you certainly may be, and probably are, correct). But it is very difficult for me to explain.

It is almost like having an elastic band in my mind. In my phenomenological discrimination, when I have (apparently/allegedly) done away with the clinging to "I", consciousness, and so on, I get the subjective impression that all of this is arising in this empty space I am calling "awareness", and then suddenly there is this retraction, like the elastic band has snapped back again as soon as I label it as such. As soon as I cognize it, basically "grasp" it anyway, I am back where I started.

It seems I don't know how not to cling to something for any significant period of time (i.e. more than a split second). Yet, it is precisely the absence of clinging that (seems to) bring this about.

So, here is where I find it difficult to accept that I am clinging to it - since as soon as "clinging" occurs, that clinging must apply to something other than this awareness. I am actually trying to cling to it, but can't.

(I do realise, of course, how all this may sound. Nevertheless, I feel that delusion kept to oneself is surely worse than that openly discussed, since in the former case there is no opportunity for correction).

My first reaction then, is to identify with it, which is exactly when it ceases to become apparent.

It's not (just) that I don't want to accept what you are saying, although that may be the case too of course, it is simply that even the notion itself seems almost unthinkable to me - subjectively, everything I know how to talk about meaningfully arises within it, including any concept I have of "me". So, I am not even saying this awareness is unchanging or changing - there really is nothing there I can identify as changing or unchanging in the first place. An as soon as identification takes place, I'm not there anymore. So, if I were to say "this awareness is unchanging/changing", it wouldn't be that awareness anymore. At the same time, my very notions of these words and their meanings arise within it, or so it seems. I really am battling to let go of it, but there doesn't seem to be any aspect of it that is there to be let go of in the first place.

So, there are a few possibilities - first, it may be that I may be succumbing to another kind of illusory experience, one I am unable to realise subjectively due to my own deep-seated cognitive patterns. This is essentially the most probable.

Secondly, in addition or separately, it may be that I am unable to take this further due to my own brains rigorously conditioned ability to always identify with something.

Lastly, it may be something else, or nothing at all, beyond my imagination.

Just thinking out loud based on your post.

No this is good, I very much appreciate you just cutting through the bullshit and getting down to it. I expect nothing less

[Thuse]

So, there really are no Subjects, nor a single Subject either: there's no-one home.

It is a necessary truth that if there are no subjects of experience, i.e. no experiencing beings that are not experiences themselves, there are no experiences. The notion of subjectless experience is incoherent, since experiences cannot be without being had and being undergone by something or somebody. That is, an experience is always an experience for something or somebody.

If it is a necessary truth that an experience requires a Subject, and this Subject is not an experience itself, then it follows that this Subject is itself not an Object, within the field of experience.

If this Subject is not an Object, then this Subject cannot be ontologically equivalent to the conceptual or linguistic notion of a Subject, since such a notion is itself an Object of experience, and therefore, not the Subject.

It follows also then, that this Subject cannot be considered singular nor multiple, since identity, whether as "one" or "many", are attributes of Objects.

Thus, there are neither multiple Subjects, nor a single Subject at all, from the point of view of the Subject.

The only sense in which there could be is from an Objective viewpoint; yet, in this case, all viewpoints are relative to a Subject.

Therefore, there is no meaningful sense in which the Subject could be considered singular or multiple. That which is singular or multiple is an Object, which is no longer the Subject.

[Teuton]

If it is a necessary truth that an experience requires a Subject, and this Subject is not an experience itself, then it follows that this Subject is itself not an Object, within the field of experience.

First of all I should say that I conceptually distinguish between objects_1 and objects_2, i.e. objects of thought or perception, such that there is no contradiction in speaking of objects which never become objects of thought or perception.
Now, all subjects are objects_1 and, being a materialist, I believe that all subjects are material objects—animals, to be precise. I am an individual animal, and the individual animal I am is the subject of my experiences.
Furthermore, I do experience and perceive myself as an animal; that is, the object_1 I am becomes—for itself—an object_2, i.e. an object of my thoughts and perceptions. In the case of higher animals like us there is nothing magical about self-objectification and self-reference.

[Googaw]

Interesting. I guess I define an Object of awareness as anything objectified - in this sense, thoughts, concepts etc. would be included. Basically, whatever the Subject is not is an Object, by default, whether easily discriminated or not.

Ah, I get it now. Ok, this is just a somewhat different approach.

I still haven't read Blackmore's writings for lack of time (I started the paper SoS posted, but I haven't gotten very far yet), but "timeless, placeless emptiness...out of which phenomena appear" doesn't sound like a description of awareness to me, unless you are simply redefining awareness as encompassing reality.

The thing is, if a "timeless, placeless emptiness...out of which phenomena appear" did not in some way include awareness, I am not sure how she, or any Zen students, would be able to be aware of it.

This is certainly true. There's something about it that's bothering me a little though - I'll have to try harder to express what it is. It might come to nothing in the end.

I would describe what I am talking about as exactly the same, but aware; if this is not what Blackmore is talking about, then I may misinterpret.

By Emptiness, I assume she literally means Shunyata. That I am, to some extent, essentially equating the two (awareness and Emptiness) is not that unusual within this context, as I am sure you already know.

Yes, it's not unusual at all. I think the emphasis on awareness is important in that it is more personal, and therefore the realization to be gained is more robust. In a world where our subjective experience is constantly belittled as trivial and fundamentally deluded, it is extremely important to fully and intimately experience mind for what it is. Thrangu Rinpoche for instance says "It is easier to first recognize that the nature of all phenomena is [no different than] the mind; having gained that direct recognition, we realize that mind itself is empty. Presenting the subject in this order facilitates direct recognition, whereas simply learning the Madhyamaka view that phenomena are empty logically makes it difficult to gain understanding."

I do think there are side effects to a purely experiential approach, and I assume you do as well; namely, that without the critical analysis which establishes the empty nature of a thing, we tend to mistakenly place our trust on something or other which is fundamentally untrustworthy. Suffice it to say, distinguishing consciousness from wisdom is the crux of the matter.

Anne Klein for instance puts it nicely: "Open awareness is not a consciousness and does not have an object in relation to which it is a subject. Thus, naturally enough, reality is not an object of wisdom but wisdom itself. Likewise, open awareness is not simply a knower of empty reality but is emptiness and reality... The meaning of the mind of enlightenment not realized by the lower mind can be understood through three signs: clarity, nature, and the nonduality of clarity and emptiness". She then quotes a traditional text: "Because reflexive open awareness lacks holding to any focus, its nature is clear light. Because its essential nature is untouched by extremes of permanence and annhilation, its nature is nondual. Because it is uncontaminated by an attraction to either excluding or including, its nature is blissful".

But surely just as anyone using the word "God" as an assertion of some universally available anchor in the world is clinging to a complex of subtle or not so subtle ideas, values, beliefs, emotions, etc. as unchanging or absolute, isn't anyone using the word "awareness" likewise clinging to some sort of unchanging absolute, but merely decentralized - abiding individually as opposed to universally? In other words, isn't clinging to awareness in this way in fact giving you away as not truly believing the ego to be illusory? If there is clinging to awareness, there is identification with that awareness as a separate, single, and permanent entity - which would mean that even the "first illusion" was never really let go of - isn't awareness, with clinging, merely a synonym for self, ego, or soul?

Absolutely. In fact, I actually think this is what is happening. However, I would argue not in the sense, necessarily, that you mean it (though you certainly may be, and probably are, correct). But it is very difficult for me to explain.

It is almost like having an elastic band in my mind. In my phenomenological discrimination, when I have (apparently/allegedly) done away with the clinging to "I", consciousness, and so on, I get the subjective impression that all of this is arising in this empty space I am calling "awareness", and then suddenly there is this retraction, like the elastic band has snapped back again as soon as I label it as such. As soon as I cognize it, basically "grasp" it anyway, I am back where I started.

It seems I don't know how not to cling to something for any significant period of time (i.e. more than a split second). Yet, it is precisely the absence of clinging that (seems to) bring this about.

So, here is where I find it difficult to accept that I am clinging to it - since as soon as "clinging" occurs, that clinging must apply to something other than this awareness. I am actually trying to cling to it, but can't.

(I do realise, of course, how all this may sound. Nevertheless, I feel that delusion kept to oneself is surely worse than that openly discussed, since in the former case there is no opportunity for correction).

My first reaction then, is to identify with it, which is exactly when it ceases to become apparent.

It's not (just) that I don't want to accept what you are saying, although that may be the case too of course, it is simply that even the notion itself seems almost unthinkable to me - subjectively, everything I know how to talk about meaningfully arises within it, including any concept I have of "me". So, I am not even saying this awareness is unchanging or changing - there really is nothing there I can identify as changing or unchanging in the first place. An as soon as identification takes place, I'm not there anymore. So, if I were to say "this awareness is unchanging/changing", it wouldn't be that awareness anymore. At the same time, my very notions of these words and their meanings arise within it, or so it seems. I really am battling to let go of it, but there doesn't seem to be any aspect of it that is there to be let go of in the first place.

So, there are a few possibilities - first, it may be that I may be succumbing to another kind of illusory experience, one I am unable to realise subjectively due to my own deep-seated cognitive patterns. This is essentially the most probable.

Secondly, in addition or separately, it may be that I am unable to take this further due to my own brains rigorously conditioned ability to always identify with something.

Lastly, it may be something else, or nothing at all, beyond my imagination.

Haha, yeah. Me too. Or something.

Just thinking out loud based on your post.

No this is good, I very much appreciate you just cutting through the bullshit and getting down to it. I expect nothing less

Bullshit or good rich manure?

[SpeedOfSound]

Thus, I cannot possibly discount this space within which all the illusions arise within, that I call "awareness" or sometimes pre-reflexive consciousness, as itself an illusion. When everything else is removed, it alone remains, unavoidably.

The last vestige of the illusions. Consider the child that smashes the prism to get at the rainbow. Neurologists that search for particular kind of NCC are kind of like this child. We will not find this one system.

But the rainbow is really there just like your awareness. It's a beautiful thing that this piece of glass does to white light and it is a beautiful thing that this thing called brain does to a few pounds of matter.

When I ask 'am i conscious now' my mind appears to let go of tight little loops and it fuzzes out and takes in a panorama of soft and varied input. Usually visual but I can allow it to stretch like a balloon and take in many other aspects of my senses and body.

But then I have to ask what the hell this thing is that feels any of this at all. I think this is your base awareness.

I did a brain scan experiment and found that this fuzz out feeling of C is alpha waves and my usual focused feeling is beta. The researcher told me that it was the opposite. That when I felt I was fuzzed out I was actually focusing. I never did figure that out but I was told this was a symptom of my ADHD.

When I do the question and fuzz out I notice that the question kind of wobbles in and out of my consciousness. It has scalp feelings and eye movements associated with it. Of course my mind has to be moving along quite rapidly to even be able to make these observations.

There are perhaps 40 major systems in the brain all working at once. It's like an intricate dance of many things. There is this 'thick time' and memories that seem to flicker in and out. Multiple contexts that guide me to make these observations. All these things.

Like you say I feel that it is happening behind my eyes and I think that is the first clue that we have illusions about what is really going on. That is something we have to learn. Where we are and where others are. We have to learn a sense of volition and I-ness. This I think taints the quest for the bottom of this thing. Taints us irreversibly.

Myself I find the most peace when I let myself imagine my self as part and parcel of a vast and intricate dance of physical universe. Like the rainbow. If we break my head apart we will not find what it is like to be me. Nevertheless cracking some text books about cracking of heads has illuminated some of the details and made it even more fascinating.

[Jacob McAllen]

I read a small amount of the Blackmore stuff, but I just want to comment on the "Am I conscious now?" experiment. She said that initially people are certain they are conscious, but after asking the question for a while they become uncertain. I suggest the reason for this is not the discovery of anything amazing about consciousness, but that it is due to dragging the question into a place where there is no specified answer to it.

What I mean is, in normal use there is an immediate and very clear way of finding out whether someone is conscious; you talk at them and see if they respond (there are other things but I'm just trying to provide an example). In her situation, you turn the question on yourself (which makes about as much sense as referring to yourself as a "you"), and you take the question out of its normal contexts (i.e., you'd ask it when you see someone that looks sleepy, or gets knocked out in a car accident, or something, not when they're having a conversation with you).

It's only natural that when you start to realize the difference between the original use and the philosophical use, you become less and less certain that the answer you'd use for the original question fits the philosophical one.

[Thuse]

Furthermore, I do experience and perceive myself as an animal; that is, the object_1 I am becomes—for itself—an object_2, i.e. an object of my thoughts and perceptions.

All things are exactly equal to themselves.

If the Subject can represent itself in its entirety as an Object, and its experiential structure is not-different nor more than its materialistic structure, then 1. there would no longer be a Subject to experience itself entirely since it would now be more than itself and 2. if its structure was represented as an Object, then that represented Subject would itself have Subjectivity, which could represent itself...ad infinitum.

Therefore, I would argue that whatever is represented is not equal to the Subject. This needn't be incompatible with materialism/physicalism, if fact it is very much in accord with it. It simply means the Subject can never know itself as an Object in its entirety. If you equate the Subject with the Self, which it seems you do, then whatever you can come to know as an Object is not your Self.

[Thuse]

Yes, it's not unusual at all. I think the emphasis on awareness is important in that it is more personal, and therefore the realization to be gained is more robust. In a world where our subjective experience is constantly belittled as trivial and fundamentally deluded, it is extremely important to fully and intimately experience mind for what it is. Thrangu Rinpoche for instance says "It is easier to first recognize that the nature of all phenomena is [no different than] the mind; having gained that direct recognition, we realize that mind itself is empty. Presenting the subject in this order facilitates direct recognition, whereas simply learning the Madhyamaka view that phenomena are empty logically makes it difficult to gain understanding."

I do think there are side effects to a purely experiential approach, and I assume you do as well; namely, that without the critical analysis which establishes the empty nature of a thing, we tend to mistakenly place our trust on something or other which is fundamentally untrustworthy. Suffice it to say, distinguishing consciousness from wisdom is the crux of the matter.

Yes, exactly. Likely this is the problem in my case, I assume. To understand something intellectually, and assimilate it totally, are two different things it seems.

[Thuse]

Thus, I cannot possibly discount this space within which all the illusions arise within, that I call "awareness" or sometimes pre-reflexive consciousness, as itself an illusion. When everything else is removed, it alone remains, unavoidably.

The last vestige of the illusions. Consider the child that smashes the prism to get at the rainbow. Neurologists that search for particular kind of NCC are kind of like this child. We will not find this one system.

But the rainbow is really there just like your awareness. It's a beautiful thing that this piece of glass does to white light and it is a beautiful thing that this thing called brain does to a few pounds of matter.

When I ask 'am i conscious now' my mind appears to let go of tight little loops and it fuzzes out and takes in a panorama of soft and varied input. Usually visual but I can allow it to stretch like a balloon and take in many other aspects of my senses and body.

But then I have to ask what the hell this thing is that feels any of this at all. I think this is your base awareness.

Possibly. I'm not sure. I feel that you would not be able to dismiss it so easily were we talking about the same thing. But maybe.

Probably this word "awareness" is causing problems. You and I have a totally different understanding and set of associations with the notion of awareness as a concept. It might be better to drop it.

In the case of the prism, both the glass, the light and the rainbow exist in space. Take these things away, and the space remains. Now, where is this space? That is more what I am referring to.

There is no notion of a thing that feels anything. There is nothing there to be illusory or feel at all. It is more that the notion of a thing that feels anything arises in it. It seems to me totally impersonal, despite being an aspect of one's own mind.

Did you read Googaw's quote from Anne Klein? "Open awareness is not a consciousness and does not have an object in relation to which it is a subject." Is this what you refer to?

Perhaps it is simply another rainbow within a prism. However, I don't think, nor see how, one can go further than this rainbow, subjectively. Pretty colours though.

[SpeedOfSound]

But then I have to ask what the hell this thing is that feels any of this at all. I think this is your base awareness.

Possibly. I'm not sure. I feel that you would not be able to dismiss it so easily were we talking about the same thing. But maybe.

What keeps you thinking that I am dismissing it?

[Thuse]

But then I have to ask what the hell this thing is that feels any of this at all. I think this is your base awareness.

Possibly. I'm not sure. I feel that you would not be able to dismiss it so easily were we talking about the same thing. But maybe.

What keeps you thinking that I am dismissing it?

The last vestige of the illusions. Consider the child that smashes the prism to get at the rainbow

[...]

But the rainbow is really there just like your awareness.

Here you're dismissing it as an illusion, by equating it with the rainbow in the prism. That may be the case of course, I simply think it cannot be dismissed as easily as this, that is all.

[SpeedOfSound]

But then I have to ask what the hell this thing is that feels any of this at all. I think this is your base awareness.

Possibly. I'm not sure. I feel that you would not be able to dismiss it so easily were we talking about the same thing. But maybe.

What keeps you thinking that I am dismissing it?

The last vestige of the illusions. Consider the child that smashes the prism to get at the rainbow

[...]

But the rainbow is really there just like your awareness.

Here you're dismissing it as an illusion, by equating it with the rainbow in the prism. That may be the case of course, I simply think it cannot be dismissed as easily as this, that is all.

Ah but the rainbow is real. A real illusion. The illusion is that it exists in some way that the child can take it out of the prism.

I would never dismiss a child's rainbow, or Thuse's awareness, in such a manner.

[Googaw]

SoS, I finally read the whole article you posted. It was an excellent read - thank you.

EDIT: Towards the beginning of the article I was kind of skeptical of what she was up to, as she occasionally seemed to be logically negating the immediacy of her own experience in the same way that I tend to think Dennett does. But by the end it didn't seem that way to me any more.

[SpeedOfSound]

SoS, I finally read the whole article you posted. It was an excellent read - thank you.

EDIT: Towards the beginning of the article I was kind of skeptical of what she was up to, as she occasionally seemed to be logically negating the immediacy of her own experience in the same way that I tend to think Dennett does. But by the end it didn't seem that way to me any more.

My struggle with understanding and patching together my own subjective experience with the physical knowledge of the brain has been interesting. I keep coming back to what it is like to be a rock. As we all do in one form or another. In the end I have made peace with myself on this at an emotional and spiritual level and just accepted the whole thing at face value.

A rock is something to be and it does things like tumble and wear and chip and bounce. When I ask what it feels like to be a rock I am being a little silly because one thing that rocks do not do is feel. But I do. To find out what it feels like to be a bat requires two things. First, bat's must feel. Second, you have to be the bat.

When I try and fathom the rock or the bat I am in concept space and I am making a conceptual error. At this moment I am a sort of pulse in the universe that is moving in such a fashion that I feel like me and indeed I am me. Right now anyway.

Then I realize that 'I' in it's most fragile form will always 'be' in several different ways. One is that the past, present, and future are eternal even if it does not feel that way. I will always be as I have been in each moment that I am still a human being. Two is that this 'I' that I feel is of such importance is really very fuzzy and changeable and it too is just in that conceptual space.

When I add it all up and realize deeply that I am physical and I am a pulsing wave in physicality something remarkable comes to me. My self becomes infinitesimally unimportant and the universe becomes far more magical. Physicality becomes as God. Not the other way around.

[SpeedOfSound]

I cannot be the bat or the rock as long as I insist on being me.

The way it is to be a rock is in the same type as the way it is to be me, a feeling being. A bit of physicality that feels and conceptualizes.

This is a bitter pill for some but for I it is absolutely wonderful and takes me full circle back to that first spiritual experience at 15 where this all begin.