Elias
Site Admin
Joined: 06 24 04
Posts: 1237
|
 Post subject: The pupil of the eye of experience Posted: 01/27/08, 12:37 am |
  |
|
(This continues the discussion of the thread "The World and the Myopic Despair of Materialism".)
| Quote: | BY: The physical brain is, indeed, a physical mechanism, evolved in most respects to process information in relation to the physical world. It does seem that it can also process information that comes from deeper experience as well, or we wouldn't be able to report visions and meditative experiences at all. What I think needs to be examined is how accurate it is in processing this information, and what kinds of corruption errors enter into that process. Obviously all kinds of people have had legitimate spiritual experiences over the millennia, and just as obviously many have had conflicting interpretations of those experiences. I am of the view that much of that conflict is not merely conceptually based, but is literally based in the structural processing of the brain itself, and how it deals with spiritual phenomena. I think that this could even be described as an evolutionary process, that our brains are adapting to such things, and that not all brains are equally adept at cleanly processing and interpreting these experiences. Add on top of that the cultural interpretations that have been put in place, plus the conceptualizing, cognitive differences in individuals, and you get the general mess that is the current state of affairs in religion.
And this is the problem with mysticism in general. Visions are not merely subject to conceptual interpretation, the mere having of them implies that the physical brain has some capacity to receive and process the raw extra-sensory data of the vision, and thus we have to have some faith in the brain's ability to do that reliably, in such a way that accurately reflects not just the physical world, but the spiritual realms as well, and their relationship to the physical. The materialistic interpretation of visions is that they are merely the product of overactive imagination, or psychosis, or some other process within the brain, but even if we reject that reductionism in favor of the reality of spiritual consciousness, we do have to acknowledge that the physical brain must play a key role in the process, and that it represents a “bottleneck” on many levels that tests the reliability of not just the conclusions, but the raw data itself.
|
The first assumption in BY's overall argument is that visionary experience, being subjective, is filtered (or distorted) by "the structural processing of the brain itself", which can vary widely from individual to individual.
The second assumption he seems to make, by his embrace of the scientific view, is that we ought to develop a consensus understanding of what constitutes spiritual reality apart from the "bottleneck" of the mostly unreliable reports.
These aren't wrong assumptions, but in my opinion they tend to sidestep (or devalue) the central fact of all mystical experience: it is what I say about what I experienced.
In the first assumption, what I say is devalued because it is a "given" that it is "filtered" by an imperfect brain.
In the second assumption, what I say is devalued because it has to prove itself to a consensus standard, or a communal agreement of what constitute reality.
And in that two-pronged view of spiritual experience, the "I" of the experience is seen not only as untrustworthy, but secondary to the experience (or "raw data") itself.
This is a right approach, if one is trying to bring the method of science to mystical experience. But it is also the self-limiting approach of science which places all worth in the object and devalues the subject.
Jung was one scientist who found a way around the rational dead-end of scientific objectification: he used a method he called "amplification" to compare the data presented by the psyche with cultural and religious data going back thousands of years. In this way he was able to open paths toward consensus interpretation. Beyond that you can see, from reading him in depth, that he was also working a spiral around a great unknown -- and that unknown was the Self, the most sacred component of all mystical experience.
It is important to note that the Self can never be pinned down. It cannot be put under a microscope. It cannot be turned into a "set of proofs". And, most of all, it cannot be subjected to a consensus description of reality.
The closest you can get to it, other than to "realize" it, is to contemplate an iconic symbol such as Christ or Buddha. As symbols, Christ and Buddha are profoundly mysterious, and simply allowing oneself to meditate on their mystery is to be drawn beyond the superficial mind of "objective science" into the participatory path of spiritual and meditative experience.
To "realize" the Self, on the other hand, you also have to cease devaluing yourself. You have to begin by "getting it" that society and consensus politics and science are always asking you to give up the most precious thing you have: the "I" of experience.
Now, you can argue about the "ego" vs. "the Self" all day long if you want. But a lot of that kind of discussion is another way that collectives have of discrediting the individual as the central reality -- the very "pupil of the eye" of all experience.
And such attempts to dismiss the "I", as in the case of BY's well-intentioned arguments, often begin by stating that the "I" of a vision cannot be trusted because of "corruption errors" due to the structure of the evolutionary brain, and so forth.
I suppose the fact that consciousness can and does get distorted, neurotic, or even psychotic should give us pause about the report of a vision. In other words, it might seem that because some people are mentally ill, or tell lies, then nobody can be trusted to make an honest and healthy statement!
Again, are we looking for a consensus here? Or are we talking about the "I" of my experience?
I am the judge of my own experience. You are the judge of your own experience. I am the one who dies. You are the one who dies. Or, to use an image, I am the one shooting this arrow into a target. And you are the one shooting that arrow into your target. No "consensus religion" ever shot an arrow into a target. And no "consensus science" ever had a mystical experience.
Do you see how much doubt rises up in the mind when the possibility of self-authentication is considered? That voice you hear is the sound of the crowds running around madly looking for an answer...outside themselves.
Now, if I report my vision to you, and you report your vision to me, there is no expectation of "belief" or "approval". These are simply reports, and we can each make of the other's vision what we will. It would be good if we could be respectful of each other, of course, but even that is not a duty or an expectation.
In my life I've had many many visions. It didn't take me long to learn that there were people who didn't want to hear them, or who reacted in strange ways when they did hear them. Fortunately I was able to find some people who "knew where I was coming from" -- they had visions of their own, and were glad to share them with another visionary.
The most mutual respect, you see, is engendered between those who respect themselves -- those who have refused to devalue the precious "pupil of the eye" of experience. And this singular refusal to compromise self-awareness is what makes them what they are: men and women of real experience.
Eleyeas |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
