• Art48
    477
    There are two complementary views of who and/or what we are. The first view, which is the common view, is the outer view. The second view, the inner view, is less common.

    In the outer view, we picture ourselves as an individual person, having a body which exists in the external space-time universe. We describe ourselves in terms of our position, activities, and interest in that external universe. “Pete is the spouse of Jane, and the father of two children. Pete went to Harvard and got a degree in finance. He works for XYZ corp. His interest are sports, camping, and playing the drums with local groups.” Here, the big picture, the “frame,” is the exterior world of which we are a part.

    In the inner view, we picture ourselves as an awareness, as a self, which experiences physical, emotional, and mental sensations. The sensations stream into and out of our awareness. Here, the big picture, the “frame,” is our awareness of which the exterior world is a part. Our awareness is not limited to awareness of the external world. Sometimes we experience the exterior world; other times, we experience our inner emotions and thoughts. The sensations of external world are but a part of our stream of sensations. In that sense, the exterior world lives in our awareness and constitutes a part, but not all, of its sensations.

    As a newborn, our sensations are incoherent. Eventually, we learn to make sense of the sensations. We recognize the particular sensations which correlate with a parent, a toy, a chair. “There’s a wooden chair. I see it. I can walk around it and verify it exists in three-dimensions and isn’t merely a picture of a chair. I can touch it. I experience the chair.” In fact, we possess no special sense which detects chairs. All we experience is a stream of sensations: physical (sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell), emotional (happy, sad, etc.), and mental (“What will I have for lunch?”, E=mc2, etc.). The chair is an idea our mind creates to make sense of some of our sensations.

    The ego is a sensation, too. It’s something our mind creates to represent ourselves and our relation to the external world. We come to think of ourselves as an individual ego, as one person among many, i.e., we learn the external view of ourselves.

    The ego is essential for survival; without a sense of self, there would be no reason not to cross a busy highway. But the ego is a burden, too. It is a small thing, one person among billions of other people. And it’s fragile. An unkind word can disturb it. A virus can destroy it (at least, as far as Earthly life is concerned). The ego is a burden, which is why we spend so much time trying to forget it. We read novels, watch TV, surf the Internet, etc.—all in an effort to forget ourselves.

    Under the inner view, the ego is not ourselves. Rather, it’s a mental creation that represents ourselves. It was absent when I was born and for some months afterward. It’s absent when we forget ourselves. But our awareness is never absent when we are conscious. Awareness, more than anything else, deserves to be called our true self.

    A helpful image is to imagine that our sensations exist in awareness as images exist in a mirror. The images come and go, but the mirror remains. Physical, emotional, and mental sensations come and go but our awareness remains. Further, sensations are unable to permanently affect awareness in any way, just as images in a mirror leave the mirror untouched.

    Of the two views, the outer view is more pervasive. We don’t often view ourselves as an awareness experiencing a stream of sensations. Why not? After all, of the two views, the inner view is more certain. It is undeniable I am an awareness experiencing sensations. Based on those sensations, I hypothesize an exterior world. I may be mistaken about the exterior world. In actuality, I could be a “brain in a vat,” much as Neo is in the beginning of the movie The Matrix. Perhaps I exist as a “brain in a vat,” with electrodes stimulating my brain so that I experience people and sky and trees and cars; in short, an imagined external universe. The sensations are objects which exists for a time in the subject, i.e., awareness.

    The inner view is more certain. I am 100% certain of the stream of sensations that exists in my awareness. I am 99.99% certain that the exterior world I believe exists actually does exist, more or less how I picture it, although I admit mistakes and optical illusions are possible. But the inner view may feel uncomfortable. The brain in a vat idea may feel uncomfortable and claustrophobic. And the inner view is of little or no use to someone who is immersed in the exterior world, much occupied with issues of survival and prospering. Perhaps, for these reasons and others, the inner view is the less pervasive view. But if someone is interested in the truth, the inner view should not be ignored.

    We may explain a particular type of meditation in terms of the inner view. Imagine sitting quietly, exploring our inner self. I experience the chair I’m sitting in and any emotions or thoughts I happen to be experiencing. As I sit still, I may become less conscious of my body. If I’m more or less at peace with the world, then my emotions may be quiet instead of demanding my attention. Thoughts arise. I continue to sit still. I sometimes picture myself as sitting on a mountain watching the clouds, which represent thoughts slowly passing by. Of course, that picture is a thought, too.

    Eventually, if my mind stills sufficiently, I have a moment where awareness is aware not of sensation but of itself. Awareness aware of itself.

    As a little boy, I attended a Saturday matinee as a local movie theatre which had a water fountain in an alcove in the wall. The alcove has mirrors front, left, and right. The left-right mirrors reflected each other, giving an appearance of a series of mirrors going off to infinity. The point is that some self-referential processes naturally tend towards infinity. Another example is when a microphone picks up the speaker output, amplifies it, and sends it back out the speaker. The self-referential of the sound systems amplifying its own output naturally goes to infinity. It doesn’t reach infinity, of course, but merely creates the high-pitched feedback whine indicating the electronics are at their limit.

    Awareness aware of itself. Pure awareness in the sense of awareness absent sensation, like a mirror in a dark room.

    Awareness aware of itself. What is that like? For me, my awareness seems to fill all space. It feels effervescent, like sparking bubbles in a soda. I seem to hear a sound something like white noise, something like the Hindu holy word “Om.” The effect is enhanced if I also think the sound. (There’s a Hindu verse about learning to pronounce the holy Om inwardly. Perhaps, this is what is meant?)

    Aware of my own awareness. Pure awareness. My true self aware of itself.

    There’s more, although it’s speculative. In some mystical traditions, it is said that awareness, consciousness, is ultimate reality. In this view, God or Ultimate Reality, is like the sun and our individual awareness is like the sun’s reflection in water. With this view, our awareness is the spark of God with us. (“The kingdom of God is within you,” said Jesus.) With this view, we are ultimately all “one in the spirit, one in the Lord.”

    To sum up, in this note I’ve presented some thoughts and derived a meditative practice. I note that the practice exists independent of theory. Indeed, someone might disagree with everything I say but practice the meditative practice described for their own very different reasons.

    I’d be interested in comments about
    1) the thoughts/theory presented
    2) any experiences while practicing the meditation
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    There is nothing that disconnects us from the universe, fundamentally, other than our assumptions.

    Some assumptions are easy, natural to assume because of how we exist as a body, how we sense an externality verses an internality.

    As the body is discrete, particular, defined, and so everything in relative consideration to that can be assumed until questioned - time, space, different perspectives, different vantage points.

    But underneath it all, we are made of the same singular stuff as all things are. Science claims it. Spirituality claims it too. We are in that sense like a structure emerging, for a finite time, from something we are no less a part of, like a wave which rises from an ocean, views the limited oceanscape visible from its peak, and then crashes down and disassembles back into the ocean itself.

    The wave, and the ocean, are both water when all is said and done.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    We are in that sense like a structure emerging, for a finite time, from something we are no less a part of, like a wave which rises from an ocean, views the limited oceanscape visible from its peak, and then crashes down and disassembles back into the ocean itself.

    The wave, and the ocean, are both water when all is said and done.
    Benj96
    :100: :up: ... à la natura naturata via natura naturans, sub specie durationis (Spinoza).
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    I’d be interested in comments about
    1) the thoughts/theory presented
    2) any experiences while practicing the meditation
    Art48

    tl;ra. Too long, read it anyway. I like this presentation. It's mostly consistent with how I see things. Perhaps you are a bit too definitive, certain, about what goes on in people's minds. A few thoughts:

    Although I acknowledge the distinctions you make between internal and external, I don't really experience them that way, at least not strongly. I can recognize the difference if I look, but normally, they coordinate seamlessly.

    In fact, we possess no special sense which detects chairs.Art48

    This may be true for chairs, although I remember reading somewhere that where we draw the lines to create objects may be structurally determined, at least partially, e.g. a lot of our experience of color is determined by the structure of the eye and the characteristics of the rods and cones. There are probably other things for which there are inborn "knowledge," e.g. it is my understanding even babies can recognize human faces and voices.

    The ego is essential for survival; without a sense of self, there would be no reason not to cross a busy highway.Art48

    I don't think this is necessarily true. I assume animals, at least most of them, survive very well without egos. In some eastern philosophies, there is an understanding that our ego is an illusion. In Taoism there is the idea of "wu wei," action without action. Acting from within without intention or rational consideration. I think it would be reasonable to call that acting without ego.

    Of the two views, the outer view is more pervasive.Art48

    As I noted, this isn't true for me.

    As a little boy, I attended a Saturday matinee as a local movie theatre which had a water fountain in an alcove in the wall. The alcove has mirrors front, left, and right. The left-right mirrors reflected each other, giving an appearance of a series of mirrors going off to infinity. The point is that some self-referential processes naturally tend towards infinity. Another example is when a microphone picks up the speaker output, amplifies it, and sends it back out the speaker. The self-referential of the sound systems amplifying its own output naturally goes to infinity. It doesn’t reach infinity, of course, but merely creates the high-pitched feedback whine indicating the electronics are at their limit.Art48

    I like these images. I think your description says something important about how consciousness works, although I don't have any specific evidence for that.

    Eventually, if my mind stills sufficiently, I have a moment where awareness is aware not of sensation but of itself. Awareness aware of itself...

    ...Awareness aware of itself. Pure awareness in the sense of awareness absent sensation, like a mirror in a dark room.
    Art48

    Seems to me this probably isn't true, although I'm not self-aware enough to be sure. For me, awareness is just awareness. I'm aware of whatever is there to be aware of. I don't think what you call "awareness of awareness" is any different in kind than all the rest.

    As I said, good post and a good idea for a thread.
  • Art48
    477
    Thanks for the comments.

    Acting from within without intention or rational consideration. I think it would be reasonable to call that acting without ego.T Clark
    Reasonable point. But I think if there was any indication of danger, the ego would take over with the intention of survival.

    Seems to me this probably isn't true, although I'm not self-aware enough to be sure. For me, awareness is just awareness. I'm aware of whatever is there to be aware of.T Clark
    Some Eastern traditions say that pure awareness is the goal of meditation. Usually, our awareness is filled with sensations. I'm trying to reach sustained episodes of pure awareness. Not there yet.
  • alan1000
    200
    "As a newborn, our sensations are incoherent"

    This is actually quite a large assertion, requiring considerable argument. The fact that a baby is generally incapable of interacting socially in a meaningful way, whether by speech or action, does not suffice to prove that its sensations are incoherent. It proves only that its physical (and neurological) development are inadequate to express any thoughts it may be capable of articulating.
  • Present awareness
    128
    Although we may make a distinction between inner and outer experiences, ALL experiences take place within the brain. The entire universe and everything in it, arises with our conception and disappears with our death. Prior to your birth, for some 13 plus billion years, nothing existed from your own personal point of view and when you die, you will not know that you are dead. Things will simply be, as they were before your birth. I didn’t miss it when I wasn’t here and I won’t miss it when I’m gone.
  • Art48
    477
    "As a newborn, our sensations are incoherent"
    This is actually quite a large assertion, requiring considerable argument.
    alan1000
    I fail to see how a newborn could make sense of sensory input but the point is not critical to the original post.

    ALL experiences take place within the brain.Present awareness
    All experiences take place in consciousness. The relation between brain and consciousness is an open question. Google "the hard problem of consciousness."
  • Present awareness
    128
    Consciousness itself, is an experience that we are aware of. The hard problem may never be solved!
    Since we must use consciousness to search for the answer, it’s like getting into your car, to go look for your car.
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    I know what you mean, and I would say it is equivalent to an object looking for proof of its own objectivity while using the behavior of said object to do so.

    The hard problem of consciousness cannot be proven objectively as it would require the full exposure and thus objectification of one's mind - which invades the inherent privacy of a mind conferred to the beholder of such.

    Ethics would prevent a machine from reading our minds. Even if it could.

    So the hard problem of consciousness may not neccesarily be unachievable from a technological standpoint, but it certainly is from an ethical/moral one.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.