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.)

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

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.

1.) There is a difference between a) the Theosophical ‘how to’ of theosophical insights and b) the philosophical ‘how’ of the same.

1.a) The theosophical ‘how to’ would investigate the contingent and sufficient possibility conditions to engender such an insight. Chris indicated that his preliminary work was done through the differing attitudes of belief, skepticism and varying interpretations. Pablo indicated attention and non-reactive awareness as a condition. Personally I would add intensity, questioning and detachment. I would name these, for now, generative possibility conditions. Every spiritual tradition has its own understanding of its own hows and whys of deepening their own metaphysics through such experiences.

1.b.) The philosophical ‘how’ would investigate the necessary intentional structure particular to the experience itself. For such an investigation to start fruitfully one has to have had at least one experience of philosophical insight relatively free from any theological, scientific or mundane overlays or super-impositions.

a.) In phenomenology 101 the entry insight would be the philosophical realization that consciousness is always already structured as ‘consciousness OF …’ In hearing we are conscious OF a sound, in speaking we’re conscious OF the expressed, in mysticism we are conscious OF inclusive unity, etc. This structure is called ‘intentionality’ or in more Heideggerese the property of ‘directing-itself-towards.’

b.) Then phenomenology is interested not in the object of experience itself–that’s for science or metaphysics or other disciplines–but is interested in the object as experienced, or the object as far as it is FOR consciousness. It asks after the essential structure of experiencing, for example, the experience of a material thing in its thinghood.

c.) Thirdly, this structure is always already the correlated belonging-together of a specific object and the how of its being-intended or way of fulfillment. We HEAR a sound, we SEE something visual, we JUDGE a state of affairs, we THINK a thought, etc.

d.) Further, intentionality has 3 phases: it starts with ‘empty intending’ or ‘fore-understanding,’ then goes through ‘fulfillment,’ out of which might arise ‘identity.’ So, one might start with ‘EMPTILY intending’ the claim ‘all is one,’ then ‘FULFILL’ the experience in possibly different manners (intellectual, scientific, intuitive, mystical), after which the content of the experience might abide in different manners as a kind of IDENTITY (echoing from the past, interpreted within one’s paradigm, appropriated through self-transformation, memorized).

These are some of the basic claims of phenomenology, which by necessity are still only emptily intended by most people. To philosophically intuit or ‘fulfill’ these claims is to have a philosophical insight, which, if sufficiently stabilized, will constitute the basis for investigating spiritual experiences philosophically.

2.) So, what I’m calling for is that we work on engendering in each other at least one, and preferably more, spiritual insight, one philosophical insight and one scientific insight, so we can work at their difference, overlap, reciprocal illumination and possible synthesis. This then would be an important part of a deepening self-understanding and updating of Theosophy. for further calrification I will work on a triple-column, triple-row presentation. Stay tuned.

Govert

P.S.: For the class on ‘Existential Intuition’ that Chris and I facilitated a acouple of years ago we used the following two hand-outs to make this structure a little more clear:

Structure of Intentionality

Flow Chart of Intentionality in different Experiences

I also wrote a while ago a little essay with my thoughts regarding the difference, overlap and possible mutual fructification of phenomenology and spirituality.

Phenomenology and Spirituality

(BTW, we will be discussing this text Monday May 5 at our discussion group at the TSA)

Good stuff. And enough there for both a theosophical appreciation and a philosophical deconstruction.

On the appreciative side I’d say that both discourses–and because of the depth, Pablo’s articles in exemplary mode–are great pieces to engender at least one Theosophical insight in others, which might just be the opening necessary for further thinking, contemplation and meditation.

On the deconstructive side–which is not to be equated with destruction or refutation–I’d like to further zoom into this pivotal kind of experience of ‘having a Theosophical insight.’ Here I think Chris is on the right track in trying to philosophically (not Theosophically) elucidate more the ‘how’ of such experience than the ‘what.’

But to bring the structure and dynamics of the ‘how’ of spiritual insights we first need an introduction into philosophy proper through engendering the experience of philosophical insight.

More to come

Govert

First, I’m not sure I would concede that we can escape having a metaphysical theory from which to deduce explanations. Aren’t we always-already in a worldview? We can excavate this view and uncover its various layers, but the very notion that we can suspend our assumptions is itself symptomatic of a worldview that claims such objectivity is possible (I think this is where our personal Husserlian/Heideggerian dispositions reveals themselves).

If we are to take you admonitions seriously, how do we begin? How do we even choose what to examine among the blooming, buzzing confusion of our experiences unless we’re already using a metaphysical assumption to guide our selection?

Still, if I am hearing your call correctly, there is something to be done. And even rendering heretofore undisclosed perspectives transparent is a step in the right direction.

Let’s begin with your quest to find “for those concept-originating experiences that comprise the basis to give terms like “intuition”, “buddhi” and “manas” some kind of experiential anchorage.”

I think the experiences that get labeled ‘buddhi’ are an excellent place to start as they indicate a domain, as understood in theosophical discourse, that is outside of conventional manasic experience.

To provide a starting point:

Intuition is an attainment of knowledge through impersonal means.

I offer this abbreviated description of my personal experience not as a final statement, but as entrance into the hermeneutic circle. Allow me to unpack it.

An expanded articulation would be: there is a class of experiences that are structurally similar to cognitive experiences such as learning, but are distinct in that their defining feature, how that stand forth, is that they present themselves as self-evident and as having an origin outside of myself.

An example. I read in a book that many mystics say “we are all one”. Contemplating this, I refer this claim back to my understanding of material reality, that everything is composed of the same essential matter. Dwelling on this, I agree that “we are all one”. I have arrived at this understanding through a combination of processes with alternating periods of belief and skepticism and varying intellectual interpretations of what the claims means.

Then one day I am walking down the street, and as sunlight reflects off a wave in the river, suddenly I know “all is one”. The experience presents itself to me as a given, requiring no argument, no consent. it doesn’t depend on anything I have read or thought about and transcends any articulation. Later intellectual engagement with the experience may change my relation to it, but doesn’t change the nature of the experience. It is this very inviolability that imbues the experience with a sense of alterity, of impersonal otherness.

This latter experience I label intuition.

Obviously, this raises a host of questions.

Good, we agree to try to go beyond Kant and you propose to look into something you call “intuitive knowledge” based on “intuitive perception,” which is somehow derived from “buddhi-manas”. Of course I recognize that as quite TC (Theosophically Correct), but my quest is for those concept-originating experiences that comprise the basis to give terms like “intuition”, “buddhi” and “manas” some kind of experiential anchorage. I think your question of “how do we obtain an intuitive knowledge?” already assumes too much. Therefore, can you explicate, describe, interpret your own unique personal experiences of “intuitive perception” without using the metaphysical terms that we try to anchor? And if you can not, what kind of problem then do we have?

1) The need of a critical evaluation and appropriation of post-Blavatskyan Western thought, especially phenomenology in its many variations, because with its rich and fruitful insights and methods phenomenology can be important for a deeper understanding of relevant theosophical themes.

2) Phenomenological philosophy can bring to Theosophy a deeper philosophical self-understanding by helping it towards understanding and re-experiencing its own roots and origin of its meaning.

3) Theosophy should present its own spiritualized interpretation of phenomenology. Or, as one Master said: “The crest wave of intellectual advancement must be taken hold of and guided into spirituality.”

4) Phenomenology does explicate, develop and apply a special power, which should be further explored as asked for in the third object of the Theosophical Society. It is the power of having philosophical insights or ‘intuiting essences,’ but now in a way in which ‘having an insight’ has come, within western philosophy, to an unprecedented level of self-evident self-understanding.

5) There are five specific reasons why Phenomenology and Krishnamurti are relevant to each other, and in their relationship are relevant to Theosophy.

6) Western and Asian scholars point out and/or fruitfully use phenomenology as a tool for a deeper understanding of Asian philosophy and religious experiences. As Theosophy intends to make the rich heritage of eastern thought available to the West, phenomenology can be of great help in facilitating that agenda.

“ultimately we have to regroup every once in a while and turn to our own experience of our lives in order to find out what our own truth is – and what ‘theosophy’ means in that lived reality?”

Yes and no. Paraphrasing you I’d say:

It’s high time that a collective effort is mounted by a sub-group of students of Theosophy and turn to the radically new concepts of experience as developed by the phenomenological-existential school of philosophy in order to find a more fundamental grounding of Theosophy as a metaphysical doctrine – and Theosophy as a lived ethical attitude.

In a following comment I will reproduce the six reasons I previously developed why phenomenology is relevant to Theosophy and in another comment I will elaborate additional reasons.

Are you just saying – in plain Krishnamurtian/psychological English – that ultimately we have to regroup every once in a while and turn to our own experience of our lives in order to find out what our own truth is – and what ‘theosophy’ means in that lived reality?

Why limit the field to two options? What’s the operative assumption guiding you here?

Me thinks your guiding assumption is an a priori critical materialist position on perception and experience along the lines of Immanuel Kant with his dichotomy between the thing-as-experienced (phenomenon) and the thing-in-itself (noumenon), and the alleged impossibility of the senses to go beyond the material, for the senses themselves are bound to that realm.

Or will you develop a new position going beyond this one and your Kantian position is just a straw man to be tossed?

Mind you, what I’m asking for is an experiential philosophy of experience that can provide an inter-subjective grounding for the relevant inter-related experiences upon which we could base a more experience-oriented discussion about so-called metaphysical issues. I’m not looking for a scientific or metaphysical theory from which to deduce explanations. I want to break open our interpretation of the nature of experience itself with the possibility to re-integrate theosophy experientially into our lives in a possibly whole new way. For this to occur we will first have to understand and suspend the myriad scientific-materialist and speculative-metaphysical (including theosophical) assumptions regarding the nature of perception, experience, language and evidence, including the very sophisticated Kantian position.