This post is intended to be an extended philosophical meditation/discussion on the possibility of grounding Theosophy in non-theoretical, non-metaphysical experiential terms.
The question started as comment no. 8 in the post “sort of perplexing” by Latebrake. I invite my first and only discussion partner Pablo to re-submit his comment, then I’ll do mine, etc. till we are updated.
Govert
Original question:
What are the tools, if any, that we have to settle these metaphysical points about the nature of the (not-)self, consciousness, skandas, etc.?
Even if we extract, in a correct comparitive theosophical way, the congruence between Vedanta, HPB and Trikaya Buddhism (if that’s its proper name), how do we verify these statements for ourselves?
What is our criterion of truth?
Do we fall back on authority (HPB/Buddha says so)? If so, why? Or is it a question of adhering to the most plausible hypothesis? If so, what do we mean by that? Or is it a question of having slipped into a paradigmatic, interpretative framework that somehow seems satisfactory, but can not be tested, because one can not step outside of the framework (or only by converting to another framework)? Or is this speculative metaphysical chatter a reflection of a ‘false’ consciousness that has to be deconstructed through a so-named ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ in the mold of a Marx, Freud or Nietzsche? Or is it an exercise in evading the depravity of the ego, which we are, as per Krishnamurti?
So, in short, the question is about the possibility and nature of an experiential radical zero-point on which we can meet. It’s an old philosophical question with answers galore, but every so now and then we just have to allow ourself to be seized by the question to work out a new answer appropriate to the unique situation we find ourselves in.
How spooky is this Govert, I have been trying to figure out
what is doing ‘the observing of our conditioning’ and your
site pops up.
From what I can gather the personality is a conglomerate
of skandas built up and producing conditioning over past
incarnations, which assimilate and return to the incarnating
monad at the time of rebirth.
I have experienced observing my own thoughts but the
dilemma is in what “I” is doing the observing of the “ME”?
Geoffrey Farthing says that it has something to do with
Antankarana and when this membrane is activated that
we experience our higher “I” self prompting the lower ego
“I” – but to me, whether it is this or not I don’t know. I sometimes regard these continual thought messages springing up in my consciousness as produced by an old
friend or an old stranger depending on what the thought is.
Would love to hear your thoughts on it – I know some scientists are toying with the idea of the evolution of the
reptilian brain (presumably referring to the instinctual brain)which produces this division in ego consciousness.
Dear Cass,
Interesting questions. Can only make sense of the issues involved through phenomenology, which was the intention in the first place for this line of discussion. And where to start? I already have problems with the assumptions connected to the concepts of ‘conditioning’ and ‘observation.’ Both are derivative phenomena based on more originairy modes of consciousness. Conditioning is only possible if there is already a skillful coping with life, which subsequently can be manipulated. Therefore to understand conditioning you have to understand the dynamics and structure of ’skillful coping.’ And observation is also only possible if there is already the same skillful engagement with life, the particulars of which can be subsequently momentarily frozen, lifted out and observed. Therefore, again, to understand observation you have to understand the dynamics and structure of ’skillful coping.’ I’m not sure whether I’m competent enough to transfer to you the insights I garnered on this subject, but there is one philosopher who uses the ‘phenomenology of skill acquisition’ to great use. I’ll give you a link to a paper, which I also used at a class at the TSA to deepen people’s philosophical understanding of phenomenology, skil, moral behavior and a host of other inter-related items which have to do with consciousness, self-consciousness, self-observation, reflection, etc., etc.
See: What is Moral Maturity? A Phenomenological Account of the Development of Ethical Expertise by Prof. Hubert Dreyfus
Dear Cass,
Let’s continue and try anyway, come what may, which is probably little.
When reflection and cognition set in there are subtle transformations occurring in the structure of consciousness as different parts of the unitary process of sentient life come into focus and different senses of self and identity come about. Following is a philosophical interpretation of the stages by which cognition and reflection come to a certain self-interpretation (for the time being and within and for my(our)self), going from 1) skillful coping, to 2) simple cognition, to 3) practical theorizing, to 4) abstract theorizing and to 5) philosophy, where this interpretation reaches its limits of self-clarification.
1) So, first there is life, which is the pre-reflective, pre-thematized, skillful coping with, and through, one’s body, and its environment. It’s instinctual intelligence or embodied, situational understanding (not conditioning). Then there is reflection (self-re-presentation) and thematization (cognition), both of which can be seen as functional within the context of the evolution of coping with life as both help the coping process.
All this coping is happening on a pre-theoretical level and this dynamic structure can be checked by ourselves as most of our own life is conducted at that level when we go about our non-theoretical, simple daily business of brushing hair, shopping, cooking, driving, saying hello, conversing, texting, checking the time, etc. Most of us are experts at most of these tasks and can do these without second thoughts.
2) Reflection, in the sense of self-re-presentation, happens when consciousness reflects back upon its ‘just-past’ and thereby obtains a ‘map’ of its ‘just past’ situation with the reflecting/reflected organism at the center of the map. For example in hunting such a ‘mapping’ will come in handy as it is the basis then for simple abstractions to help strategizing with simple if-then scenarios.
The abstractions are simple cognitions of relevant parts (’self’, prey, weapon, etc.) and the causal inter-connections of the hunting process based on past experiences. Language sets in to stabilize and communicate this coping.
This ‘mapping’ through reflection is understood as the first step in ego-genesis. Initially, and approximately and most of the time, we do not experience a difference between the reflected and reflecting ’self.’ Both are experienced as the same consciousness within our concrete situation: it’s me, here and now, whether reflected or reflecting. At that level it might be as simple and straightforward as when you grab your own arm and you are both the one grabbing and being grabbed and you will not think they are separate entities. Only on higher levels of abstraction a separation might happen and the reflected consciousness gets perceived by the reflecting consciousness as an entity on its own, as a ’self’ relatively separate from its original situatedness, and when valued as undesirable and/or conditioned, this ‘lower self’ will then be perceived as something to be overcome, destroyed, transformed, etc. or, when valued positively, it will be, mostly unconsciously, identified with.
All four components (and there are some more, like situational, informative feelings) of skill, reflection, abstraction and language are so intertwined that they are to be seen as belonging to one unitary process, because it is pre-theoretically ‘lived’ as one process and because, theoretically, it only makes sense as understood as such. It’s only now, at higher (philosophical) levels of reflection and abstraction that we can make these differentiations and see their subtle inter-connections.
3) Practical theorizing sets in when cognition, through reflection upon its own power, becomes a more explicit tool in the coping process. This happens for example when a group of hunters decide to deliberately ‘think out’ a hunting strategy. The focus is still the prey-to-be-caught and all cognitions are subordinate to that project.
4) Abstract, reflective theorizing sets in as as both reflection and cognition start to take themselves as explicit ‘themes.’ First-level reflection and abstraction are within the context of a practical task like hunting. Second-level sets in when we reflect upon the ‘just past’ acts of practical reflection/abstraction when, for example, the first-level runs into a snag of sorts (the hunt fails) and, i.s.o. just pre-thematically adjusting one’s perceptions and cognitions to get at one’s prey, we focus on the mental process itself with the effect that the original goal becomes secondary as it recedes momentarily into the background. Here again, the reflecting/abstracting consciousness might take its own, just past reflected/abstracted, cognizing consciousness as something separate and might name it ‘the mind’ or the ‘mental self’ and come again to a value judgment of this ’self’ as either desirable, because of its practical value, or as undesirable, because it might be perceived as counter-practical. And this valuing consciousness can then itself be separated out and valued as a ‘higher consciousness’ or conscience or Buddhi, etc.
(At the end and top of this process of generating multiple selves is the I AM or Atman, an empty, observing, pure consciousness to which all others are somehow subordinate and to which detached gaze live might seem an ‘observed’ mirage, illusion, maya, lila, etc. And at this point some Advaitees and Krishnamurtians might say that they are identical, that I AM THAT or that the observer is the observed. This might be open for a critique as it is quite possible that in the process of multiple selves-genesis the original, holistic unity of consciousness might be forgotten and that the Atma-Maya polarity is given a more real status than warranted as it still is the product of a very subtle reflection and ideation with the result that one might try to ‘live’ or ‘realize’ this ideation instead of seeing it as a derivative, ideational product. This does not imply that such ideations are mistaken or have no value. They are great tools in clarifying many issues, but still have to be seen as ideations.)
5) Philosophy sets in when this process of reflection/abstraction gets to a level of wonder about itself and just wants the truth of what is actually happening. This happened with the early Greeks and also in other cultures. And now, ca. 2500 years later, this philosophical investigation has gone through quite some revolutions and paradigm shifts (Plato, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Husserl, Heidegger) and the resultant insights of subtle differentiations within original complexes are great devices in sorting out the truth about consciousness, cognition, reflection, ego-genesis, etc., and as tried above.
Ok, now only rests the explication of the difference between life, at whatever level of reflection and abstraction, in a free, creative mode and in a manipulated, conditioned mode. And the difference between self-observation in a mode where the self is taken as relatively separate and substantial and the mode of self-observation based on the understanding of the process of ego-genesis through reflection and ideation. But that’s for another time.
(Also, very important, to be addressed is the relation between the above exercise in phenomenological
philosophy and the insights of occult philosophy, especially in this arena of consciousness, multiple selves and the understanding of original, holistic unity and the ways its own inherent structure is understood.)