What I am about to say will probably have me cast as the madman of the forum, but I don't see the brain as the only source of awareness. I am not suggesting that the brain is not central but I believe that there are energy centres, chakras, and meridian points, which are important as well as the brain.

Such ideas are known in some Eastern systems of thought and holistic medicine, as being important, but I don't think that they have ever been thought much about in philosophy, which does seem to think about us as brains, within bodies, somehow connected with the nervous system. For me, this picture appears rather limited for understanding the human being, and it goes back to the Cartesian picture, rather than a fuller understanding of us as living systems.

I think that the mind and consiousness is probably more complex than many believe. I do think it is mysterious but I haven't given up and continue to explore many various perspectives, including phenomenology and nondualistic ways of seeing life. In another thread, I have been looking at Plato's cave. On one hand, it is a useful metaphor for thinking about seeing reality beyond us. However, in some ways it can be a restrictive metaphor because it can be about seeing reality as out there as an external reality, missing the basis in subjectivity. I think that the interface between the subjective and objective is an important point of focus in thinking about consciousness.

Generally, I find discussing ideas on this forum, but I am trying to be a bit reserved and cautious about how much I talk about certain ideas, like reincarnation. I have probably shared more in certain threads than I should have done, and I ended up feeling stressed out with some responses I received. I am just saying that because you are new to the forum, and there are some people who can become fairly hostile. Obviously, it is entirely up to you how much you share. At the moment, I am trying to be a bit more cautious than usual.

I like deep discussions and trying to think of some new threads which don't involve aspects of religion. I do enjoy discussion religious ideas so much, but at the moment, there are so many heated religious arguments going on in some threads. I have been using the forum for about 8 or 9 months and it goes in phases. People come and go, so I hope that you stick around. If I get into threads where it becomes tense, I prefer to keep a low profile. I feel that I learn through interacting and hearing various views, and what is good is that it is from people from all across the world. It is my first forum, and I will probably try to continue to use until a new avenue appears. I do agree that learning often takes place on many levels, and I think that I am in this life with fairly heavy karma...It is probably this that keeps me moving forward with the mysteries of life.

I am probably happier to discuss ideas like reincarnation or extrasensory perception on this thread rather than the one on reincarnation. That is because this is an older thread, so it is quieter and when talking about such ideas I am just trying to vocalise them with a few readers, rather than have to prove that I am right.

I believe that you are making an important point when speaking of the way in which there is a danger in becoming confused about certain topics, including life after death and reincarnation, without the guidance of a teacher. I do engage in such topic discussions on this forum, but it can be difficult in some ways because we are remote from one another and do not know each other. However, it is probably better than us reading and thinking about our ideas completely alone, in isolation.

Strangely, even though I criticised Plato's cave as having possibly contributed to us looking for an understanding in relation to a divine order, I have just discovered in Arthur Versluis' discussion of perennial philosophy, a useful insight into seeing illumination through the use of Plato's cave metaphor. Versluis suggests,'If ordinary life can be likened to a cave, then to awaken is to go outside the cave from the darkness into the light of the sun.' He goes on to say that within perennial philosophy 'illumination includes but also transcends our ordinary discursive consciousness.'

So, in this way, peak experiences can be viewed in the context of the process of waking up, or illumination. I am certainly not wishing to suggest that the peak experiences are just a form of pleasure, but, of seeing ourselves as being part of a bigger picture. I think that the topic just got a bit confusing when it moved into the question of whether consciousness is well-organising, which is more one of phenomenology and metaphysics.

I began my thread with a discussion of Colin Wilson's writing on peak experiences, and this is connected to Maslow's understanding of such experiences. However, it is probably best understood within the context of people seeking greater self awareness, or even those within spiritual traditions, including states of enlightenment. It may take extreme discipline before we can ever reach such states, but it can be seen as a spectrum of potential higher states of awareness. While the peak experiences may be seen as the peaks, it is likely that the process involves obstacles as well. I hope that I am making the point of my thread a little clearer.

I was reading your thread and find it interesting, although I spent some time really thinking about the possibilities of reincarnation and decided it was very difficult to know for certain. I would much prefer the idea to any other form of life after death, and so much could be learned through many lives rather than the restrictions of one body and one set of life experiences.

I originally began wondering about reincarnation as a child because one of my earliest memories was being in a cot, with one of my mother's friends offering me a biscuit. I had the thought 'I am coming round again'. It felt like a distinct waking up, not from sleep, but something more.

I was also compared a lot to my grandfather, who died 6 weeks before I was born and began wondering if I was a reincarnation of him.One particular strange experience which I had was looking for a fairly rare writer on school stories from an earlier time, and my mum telling me that there had been a copy of that book in my grandfather's books which she threw away. I never suggested the idea that I could be a reincarnation of him to anyone in my family because it was not an accepted belief. Of course, I realise that I may have read too much into a coincidence and built up a story in childhood, possibly as a result of my mother's projection of her loss of her father, so shortly before my birth.

One thing which I have wondered about in thinking about reincarnation memories, is if rather than people remembering specific personal memories, they are tapping into the collective unconscious of memories. However, I am aware that many people on this site find Jung's idea of the collective unconscious as rather unsound.

But, I do think that it is possible that we are individual beings of consciousness, interconnected with others in time. Perhaps, we all aspects of an underlying group mind. I am not speaking of consciousness as some abstract force, as the idealists describe, but as permeating nature. It could be that nature and consciousness is like a web.So, we may have some connection with previous lifeforms on some level, with some continuity between the generations.

I like to keep the idea of reincarnation as a matter for contemplation, as a possible way of seeing consciousness existing in other future lives. However, my own understanding is that the Buddha was uncertain about rebirth, so I like to keep an open mind.

I am sorry if my discussion of peak experiences was not clear to you. I have found your comment during the night, but will write a fuller response tomorrow because It may be that the purpose of what I have written is not written clearly, for you and for others too. I am talking more about the processes of creativity and awareness.

Thanks for the link. I realise that your topic of self-organisation of consciousness is probably slightly out of context in this thread, although I don't mind if anyone wishes.

I think that Plato's cave is very interesting in thinking about consciousness, and the grasping for reality. It may be that the cave metaphor has been a key aspect in the way in which we have thought about metaphysical reality as being a remote one beyond us, rather than as being immanent in nature.

Perhaps it is not that Plato's allegory is not useful as a starting point, but it could be that it has been taken a bit too literally.

It may not be that clear though because life is not entirely mechanistic. Some people smoke and live to be in their 90s, while others lead a healthy lifestyle and get sick and die young. Of course, the choices we make play a certain amount of influence, but it is within a whole set of variables.

We could ask to what extent are the variables determined in the first place, taking it right back to genetics and socialisation For example, are criminals born or made? This goes more into the territory of the nature vs nurture debate, which is probably relevant to considering free will in some ways, Howevrr, it still doesn't really get to the issue of whether we as individuals make the specific choices as conscious reflective beings or whether we are more like puppets, enslaved by the combined interplay of nature and nurture.

My interest in Bergson's ideas is mainly in connection with Huxley's ideas about mind at large as a filtering down process of a higher level of mind. However, I do see the questions of whether to see that it is interesting to think about consciousness as self organising. Hopefully, it doesn't lessen the importance of the development of states of consciousness, but just frames it differently.

It seems that you are really saying that we are in pathways of causation arising from our previous choices. In other words, we start out with many choices, but as we go through life we are more restricted. Surely, this is more about restrictions of options rather than free will, and not necessarily the same as free will, which involves the capacity to make the specific choices we make.

But it is interesting to think about how we have limited choices and, this probably also varies as a social and socioeconomic factor in some ways. The people who come from poorer backgrounds don't have the same range of choices as some from wealthier backgrounds. There is probably a whole spectrum of some people having more possible options than others, but, of course, the options do become less as one progresses through life. For example, we may look back and think that we would have been able to choose different career pathways if we had chosen to pursue other studies rather than the ones we chose.

It is probably that certain ideas have been pushed out of the mainstream of philosophy. I have read some but not that much of Bergson on creative evolution, and wondering if he sees consciousness as self -organising, or does he see it as being a reflection of some higher level? I am planning to read him soon, so I can find out, and it may be relevant for this discussion.

It is interesting that ancient philosophers saw it this way and I am not opposed to the idea of self -organisation of consciousness. It is just so different from some ideas within Western metaphysics, which saw it the other way round, as probably stemming from some kind of divine order.

I understand that you are saying that human consciousness is biased in favour of our emotional. So, are you trying to argue that the peak experiences are part of an overall coping process? I can understand that some of the peak experiences of people have occurred to individuals who are struggling. However, I think if the heightened states of creativity, and cosmic consciousness are reduced too much, there is a danger of missing their significance, even on a cultural level.

Or, perhaps, I am misunderstanding the implications of your theory of self -organisation of consciousness. I am not wishing to elevate the ideas of certain creative individuals. I think that the whole area is a complex topic, which includes perspective on phenomenology and states of consciousness.

I think that you have quoted me as @Apollodorus. I don't mind, so I just hope that he doesn't. Generally, I go along with what I believe the Buddha thought, with lack of certainty about reincarnation. I would much rather the possibility of some deeper aspect of myself returning for future lives, and I just keep an open mind. More lives than one seems to offer more scope than just one for the development of consciousness.

I went through a time when I really wondered a lot about reincarnation, but I am not sure that it is possible to know for sure at all. As it is, I agree with your focus on how 'to create myself as a better person.' That is not to say that I don't think reincarnation is an interesting question, in the wider one of life after death. At least, it would not leave us floating around as entities, without bodies.

You have written a very good detailed reply. I have to admit that I struggle with the whole question of qualia. I know that it involves the subjective experience of properties, but it must connect to reality beyond us. Of course, light and darkness are based on the retinal reception, but it is connected to so much more. It makes me think that Bergson was probably right in speaking of the brain as filtering down process.

Okay, I will let you get on with whatever you are doing. It has been good interacting, and I am going to carry on reading Huxley's 'The Perennial Philosophy'.

I believe that you are correct to say that we can only control ourselves, and I think this is particularly important when others almost wish to overwhelm us. Sometimes, it is probably about standing back, and doing nothing. I think that I am better at reflecting after events, rather than in reflection in action. So, sometimes, I just need to slow down rather than act or speak before thinking carefully, and we probably need our quiet peaceful days, rather than being caught up in a constant battle with moment to moment stress. The times of reflection and contemplation are possibly as important as the peaks of transformation.

I think that the personal ego can be a problem. Actually, my own ego has had so many knocks that it is not particularly powerful, but just enough to keep me going. The interpersonal conflicts which we have probably are mostly trivial, but they can so easily be blown out of proportion. Some of my worst ones have been arguments by text, which have ended up seeming like text wars.

Funnily enough though, a lot of my own interpersonal stress is not even really about my own personal issues, but about me feeling bombarded with other people's own problems. So, in a way, perhaps this is about helping others to see things in perspective, and beyond the limits of the personal ego.

I have loads of horrible days, ranging from having disagreements with my housemates, stressful phone conversations and all kinds of other aspects of life, like losing things, such as my bank card, or my phone. They are probably the mundane aspects of life, rather than the biggest stresses. Sometimes the smaller ones can seem almost as difficult as the larger ones. Even when nothing in particular goes wrong, I feel better on some days than others, almost for no apparent reason. I find life to be almost like riding on waves, and trying to remain standing and keeping a balanced position and perspective.

It's rather funny to me that the thread on loving the Lord and one's neighbour keeps popping up next to this one. While I am not conventionally religious, I do see it as having some connection to this discussion, because transformational experience do have some relationship to a sense of appreciation of some higher power beyond us and of our service towards others. But, putting this into practice is not easy.

I do think that you are right to say that many people are not that interested in transformation. I am, but, even then, it may be on my own terms. Today, it's a bank holiday and I have just been lying on my bed, listening to music and being rather lazy. But, I am feeling reasonably okay, but it may be that today or tomorrow I will end up having a horrible day, and feel the need for some kind of transformational experience. So, it is an ongoing process, and I would like to relate it to some kind of higher purpose, but with some amount of fear if I had to make difficult changes in my life.

I think that your comment is a really good one. We certainly shouldn't become peak experience junkies, or even complacent. I think that it would defeat the whole purpose. Perhaps if we do not use any experience for some higher purpose, we will be back to the beginning, although it may sometimes be unclear what this purpose is, depending on our social positions. But, we probably need to try to find the best ways we have of translating experience into something larger than our own pleasure and egos. But, it is quite likely that this may fail, and we will go back to the original need, which may be about the need for some kind of healing experience, to take us beyond suffering, monotony and powerlessness.

I definitely agree that there are reasons why people would not wish to talk about their experiences, especially on a public forum. I am also wary of doing so, because I even have I am not even anonymous and have my a photo of myself showing on the site, and it is actually online to the general public. Apart from this, when we talk about our experiences, we can be discredited or subject to ridicule. It would be awful if that began happening on this thread and I started the thread more as a focus for thinking.

I think that your definition is useful, because it may be that my discussion of Colin Wilson's ideas was a bit too obscure. Also, it focuses on famous creative people, and we don't really see ourselves in comparison with them. So, what you have offered probably brings the focus more in line with us as ordinary individuals and our peak experiences.

The only thing which I wonder about is your remark that you are not sure if yours was a peak experience, because with certain experiences which I had I wondered about this too. The conclusion which I have at present is that I don't think that we should worry too much about whether ours is the real thing. Really, I see it as an entire spectrum of potential experiences which go beyond the mundane. In opening the thread I was really wishing to enable people to explore all the possibilities of this, with a view to thinking about consciousness explorations, and how this can be potentially enhance our lives.

After discussing it, I am about to play 'The Dark Side of the Moon' because I haven't listened to it for such a long while.

Thanks for recommending the book. I will look out for it.

I am glad that someone else is admitting to having some experiences. I had some unusual experiences. In one, I initially thought I had a fever but then I felt like I was opening up to some kind of higher reality and it was very pleasant. I wonder if a lot more people experience some kind of peak experiences, but are a bit cautious, and reserved about talking about these.

It does not that we share similar areas of interest, although coming from different perspectives. I come from a far more esoteric angle. I prefer saying esoteric, because, as you know the use of the word mystic comes with complications. I have started 'The Tao de Ching', although I think that I can relate to 'The I Ching' more. But, it is fun to dig and search...

I do agree that academic understanding of life does not really approach the experience of mysteries fully. However, I do think that reading the ideas of some who had certain insights is useful as some kind of training, because there is a danger of struggling, and feeling perplexed, alone.

I read your ideas about consciousness in the thread on metaphysics. They are interesting from what I read. What I am wondering is do your ideas on self organisation of consciousness have any implications for understanding the experiential level of consciousness and states of awareness?

Yes, it is interesting that the woman in the link saw differently. I do believe that we do all see a bit differently, depending on how we choose to develop our imagination. I have some experience of synthaesia naturally, especially of feeling that when I listen to music I can see sounds. This is meant to be connected to how the ears and eyes develop from the same nodule in the brain. I actually enjoy my bit of synthaesia because it means that I can lie in bed visualising images to music. I am also extremely interested in hypnagogic and hypnopompic dream states because I have many experiences of these, including some which are pleasant and some which are extremely unpleasant.

I do think that certain people, including those who have used or not used drugs, in thinking about the experiences they have in a very literal way. That is probably why they become psychotic. I discovered Jung as a teenager, which enabled me to think about my own borderline sleep experiences in a symbolic way. I sometimes wonder if I had not found Jung at this time whether I would have been unable to see this dimensions as being symbolic.

I think we base certain needs as 'necessity' sometimes by habit. For example, we often care about popularity and care about what others think of us because we are accustomed to do so, and socialised into thinking that this is really important. Our own life narratives are so bound up with the social aspects of existence, that it may be that many do not look for realisation beyond the social. Even though Maslow's theory suggests that we fulfill the scale upwards, I think that it is possible to bypass certain needs to some extent, although certain basics are more or less essential. It is extremely difficult to focus on self actualization and creativity, without food, or somewhere to live, although there have probably been some starving artists.

Generally, I think that self actualization and creativity are left out of the picture a fair amount for plenty of people. However, I am inclined to see it as essential. If I have no time or outlet for any creative expression, I struggle, but I have always found this to be part of life. I think that many see the arts as frivolous, or think of it as entertainment. I know so many people who don't read very much at all, and when I used to run creative art groups, I found that many adults see art as being more for children and, probably have not done any art beyond adolescence.

Your profile pic is the album cover to Pink Floyd's 'The Dark Side of the Moon, a fantastic album, with immense light and dark symbolism.


Light is so powerful physically and symbolically. I know that I find light so glaring that it hurts my eyes, especially when opticians shine a torch in my eyes, and on a bright sunny day.

What I am thinking about in response to what you are both saying is how light seems to be part of many spiritual experiences. We even have the term enlightenment. But, one aspect of this is how people who have near death experiences usually speak of seeing an intense light. Also, the way my religious studies teacher explained Paul's conversion to Christ's teachings, was that he was struck down by a vision of the light, and I do believe that many mystical or cosmic consciousness experiences refer to light. Even the idea of the dark night of the soul, within mysticism, are framed within reference to a journey towards the light.

Thanks for your lengthy, detailed replies, especially about Goethe. I believe that he was familiar with esoteric thought, and the question which I have written probably falls more into esoteric traditions. I understand that Jung, who drew upon light and darkness symbolism, was familiar with Goethe's ideas. I am pleased to see you bringing in Rudolf Steiner's view, because I have read some of his writings and you are the first person who I have seen mention him on this site.

I think that religious imagery draws on symbolism of light and dark in a major way. One aspect of this is in the mythological accounts of the fall within the Christian tradition. Lucifer was an angel of light, who misused the light and incurred his own fall, and the this led to the fall of the angels and the consequent fall of mankind.

Light symbolism is central to church architecture, including the gothic depiction of darkness. In contrast, stained glass windows are designed in such a way as to draw and reflect light.

I do have another aspect which I wish to say, but I am going to incorporate it in joint reply to Manuel, because it is also relevant to a post he wrote a short while ago.

Your statement, 'There is some light. There is a lot of darkness' may well be true, and that it may be that darkness is the background from which light appears, like the Gnostic demiurge, or void.

I was also thinking how Jung's idea of the shadow draws upon the symbolism of light.

Thanks for replying to my question. After I had written the thread, I was rather worried that people would think that I had lost the plot entirely.I am interested in the matter on a physical and metaphysics level, and how these may be possibly interrelated.

The reason why I began thinking of it yesterday was because I was reading a book on states of consciousness by Anthony Peake. He was discussion the role of symbolism of light in peak experiences. He was also speaking about how melatonin in the brain generates our body rhythms, in accordance with light. In particular, this is connected with the patterns of night and day, including sleep. I know some people who take melatonin supplements to help them sleep, especially when this has been disturbed after working night shifts.

I was reflecting on this and the way in which light is essential to life. What would it be like to live in complete darkness? The closest people get to this is in blindness, and from discussion I have had with a few blind people, they do see some light and darkness, in the form of shadows.

It is interesting how there is so much symbolism of light in songs. Also, this features so much in music arising from altered consciousness, including the music of the Beatles and Velvet Underground, eg 'White Light, White Heat.'

I am not getting impatient with your discussions at all. You have made good contributions. I created the thread with the aim of opening up any possible conversations which may arise. I am just extremely pleased that the thread is still going and it is the second longest one I have created so far, and I think that there is probably more mystery to be discussed. Really, I see my question as going back to the whole tradition of Greek mystery schools.

Your link idea looked interesting, but I am not sure if you typed it in properly, because I was not able to access it on my phone. Anyway, thanks for your many contributions to the thread.

I am aware that the question which I raised about light and darkness is probably extremely complex, but I am also asking about how we understand the visible and invisible aspects of life. How do we understand these interconnected aspects of our experience? Of course, I realise that the invisible and visible, light and darkness, are probably a spectrum, rather than a binary split, although we may perceive these as being opposites.

Of course, it is true that the needs of the person in Maslow's hierarchy, cannot be seen in isolation from the social ones. We are interconnected, and are involved in helping others fulfill the needs of others. Hopefully, those who have their basic needs fulfilled will not just be concerned about self in isolation.

However, there is a possible tension between the social aspects of existence and self actualization. It is interesting to think of the role in which the pandemic may have played for many people in this. Even though basic needs have not gone away people have spent more time alone, with more time and space for self actualization. I have never had so much time to myself since summer holidays at school, and wonder how I will ever go back to being part of groups again.