• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Can science study consciousness?

I have come to bring all various fields into play and interaction, and found this very helpful. Not one field or school of thought alone, has brought anwers, one needs to be open minded and expand into different areas. To do this, we need to take a step back of what we "know" and without losing it, allow to view new concepts, and if they work, if they make sense and bring results, I am all for it!
Click to expand...

Fuck yeah. This is right on. You should read some Ken Wilber. This quote of yours sounds like a rallying cry for his line of work.

A stabilized ego (which it may need distabilizing), in order to repair what has gone wrong, or it will keep the gates closed.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with this. 'Regression in the service of ego,' that's how the psychologists put it right? A lot of dysfunction on a physical level becomes entrenched (for the lack of a better word) in ego. And yes, the ego will need to loosen its control of things to go back and re-engage and rework the energy at the point were dysfunction began. This continues until the energy can be re-integrated with ego (changing the state of ego) in a healthier manner.

You know what? the more we are writing of this, the more I see we are talking about the same things, we have come to agree on this, except on your ....not accepting the ego having an embodiment as such-but only a mind structure-not rooted in the physical.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think we have agreed on just about everything and this is no exception. Perhaps I gave you the wrong impression earlier. I'm not implying that ego does not have its roots in the physical, I totally see that it does. The physical largely informs the perspectives, the roles and the energies that the ego works through. The ego is not divorced from the physical and it would be very unhealthy to attempt to make it so. I just don't want to reduce the ego to the physical. Just as I would not want to reduce a molecule to its atoms, or an oak to an acorn.

I think the main divergence of our study, experience and understanding is that most of mine has presumed a healthy ego structure and from that platform sought transcendence and then embodiment of the Holy (an aspect we have yet to really dive into). Though, there are many yogic practices that deal precisely with the body and healing its energy. Yours focuses on regression and reintegration with associated peak experiences, but I'm still not sure how the peak experiences are viewed within your system. Would you tell me a bit of how the Rolfers speak of it?
 
Last edited:
Well I guess what I'm asking is, how do people from your knowledge/experience base speak of the internal subjective perspective of transcendental experiences? How do they describe it? How do they understand it? What does it mean to and for the individual?

We've spoken much about how you induce these experiences, but not how it's conceptually and experientially integrated from a subjective perspective afterwards.
 
It can be very difficult to speak of, like catching air with a net.

None the less, i think it can be very valuable to contemplate and integrate into our conceptions. If that isn't done it can slip from our awareness and the immediacy and import of our realization can be lost. For example, personal practice of mine is to try to remain aware of God's presence at all times, through all activity. This is part of the process of moving beyond a healthy integrated ego to a healthy integrated human/god. BTW, this is a good way of understanding why I choose the avatar I do.

I hope all is well with your friend.
 
yeah, it is an effortless practice. choosing words to describe it can be misleading though.
 
Nah, you're reading to much into that line, it wasn't directed at anything you said. I meant my words might have been misleading or rather, given you the wrong impression. Specifically the word 'practice'.

But, to expound a little bit...

Any method of explaining a transcendent experience is inherently inadequate. Like counting to infinity. another simile for you :) Ordinary mind is inherently bound to the finite and the relativistic. But, we're trying to speak of the infinite and the absolute. That's why people like Rumi are so amazing to me, with metaphor and imagery they can short circuit the seeking mind and leave you in a state of grace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top