Non Duality and Spiritual Bypassing ?

Originally Posted by Greenslade

If I am both Isness and the Gestalt, what does that mean?

Cannot perceived together at the same moment. Maybe in different moments, but collecting them as same is again an issue of "Time".

When one is there, other is not. And vice versa. "ISNESS" and thought, cannot be perceived hand-in-hand.

But, let it be "Isness"/peace/silence or thoughts/war/etc.. Who am I??

Perceiver of all these perceived is 'I'?? So I can perceive 'Isness' and 'thoughts'??

Then who is this perceiver?? Who am I??

'I am', 'I am??!!' 'I ? I? I?'.........

And so ends there......... What-is or what is not, isness or thoughts, whatever may flow, nothing matters then to cling to as nothing there to affect one.

Let it be whomever I am, whatever is/is not....

Originally Posted by Viswa

Cannot perceived together at the same moment.

But there is a place where there is no time.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Perception/perceptual is the sensory experience we have of the world/universe and is a totally and completly separate/different proccess of the mind thinking subjectively/falsly about the world/universe with it's imagination, which can cause hallucinations.

Then I guess you don't understand how we perceive light through our eyes and how it's processed, and how that flat, curved image then becomes a 3D subjective experience. What you're looking at right now is an hallucination.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

What exactly do you mean when you point out archetypal behaviors as a response to how the brain is related to the collective unconscious?

Not being a neuroscientist....

The collective consciousness has been defined un many ways, one of them being ancestral memories and experiences. So going back to the caveman days as an example, there was a 'traditional' family with well-defined roles. The males would go out hunting because they had the upper-body strength, the females would make clothes out of animal skins because they were more nimble-fingered. To the cave-youngster there were roles playing out that his unconscious was processing. He became conscious of the roles that were passed on from generation to generation up to almost Suffragette days.

Those were common patterns that played out for generations that became part of the unconscious, just the same as any other experience. It's really not that different today. Every waking moment the unconscious is processing vast amounts of data but we're seldom aware of much of it. Cave-youngsters collectively would be seeing the same patterns over and over but not be conscious of it. However, the patterns would play out in how the individual youngster would act and take on roles, or place others into roles.

What we don't know is how those unconscious patterns become collective, because nobody has understood the 'Hard Problem' of conscious yet. It certainly seems to be happening and there are theories as to how it happens, but nothing concrete. Maybe if Chalmers and Hameroff got their heads together, they might have what the other needs. So as yet there's no explanation as to how those repeated patterns become collective, and it may be that they're in a 'feedback loop' of sorts.

I was born psychic and having psychic 'powers' was natural to me, I thought everybody had them. Looking back I suspect that it could have stemmed from the abuse I was suffering as a child. Nowadays I'm clairsentient and I trust my intuition. When I go into that area there's a slight shift in my consciousness, as though it's changing frequency. I can find myself talking normally to someone normally then feel a 'shift' as I sense there Loved One. Similarly with intuition, in moments of intuition and/or inspiration it can feel as though there's a shift.

Obviously what's happening comes via the brain at some point because we become conscious of it the same as we become conscious of everything else. But there's definitely something else going on and that's the mystery. Perhaps Hameroff is right and those quantum-capable microtubules are interacting with the Universal field - also known as the collective consciousness/unconscious, perhaps. Maybe Rupert Sheldrake is right and there are morphogenic fields going on. Maybe we don't understand enough about the brain or consciousness to come up with anything close to an answer.

Personally I think Jung's collective unconscious is different to where I think you're going with this, and if you're sensing something then it's not unconscious any more. Potentially everyone can be a medium and potentially everyone has a 'sixth sense', and somewhere along the line the brain is involved. Sensing and remote viewing are very different to the collective unconscious, but they may well be related.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

But there is a place where there is no time.

So sir you seek that Place? That's what you sincerely whole-heartedly seek? Are you ready to give your full interest on that, so all other place that bounds to time don't matters you anymore?
OR
Is it that you seek that place, so that you might access everything bound to time - anything any moment when you 'want'??

Is it your interest finally to achieve everything bound to time by seeking that place beyond time, or nothing bound to time matters anymore and only that place to really know what it is??

Please let me know what you really want/seek/thirsty/interest. If you are not interested in that place, and only for Time pass you are just trying to know those and whole interest is only on the 'things' bound to time, then please let me know that too, so I might end my conversation...

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Chalmers is something of a panpsychist or close to it. He leans to consciousness being as fundamental as the other four forces. He's almost there.

There seems to be two different perspectives on this, one seems to be that consciousness is fundamental and the other is that it's emergent. Anil Seth seems to be in the emergent camp as our brain hallucinates our conscious reality, that would suggest that there's a process of the information from the senses becoming consciousness. Very simplistically. What if consciousness was both fundamental and emergent?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Then I guess you don't understand how we perceive light through our eyes and how it's processed, and how that flat, curved image then becomes a 3D subjective experience. What you're looking at right now is an hallucination.

If it is true that we perceive light through our eyes, then the light we perceive is not an illusion/hallucination, nor are we.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

What if consciousness was both fundamental and emergent?

From the perspective of Advaita that's fine. Fundamental = Nirguna and emergent = Saguna. Kinda sorta but I'm thinking you get the picture. Unmanifest and manifest. Face and its reflection.

Speaking about Chalmers, consciousness and emergence...

Why is Consciousness so Mysterious? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTIk...=CloserToTruth

Why is Emergence Significant? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjPx...=CloserToTruth

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Then I guess you don't understand how we perceive light through our eyes and how it's processed, and how that flat, curved image then becomes a 3D subjective experience.

This understanding of perception using the eyes and the brain may apply to the physical body, but what about after the physical body has died or in the OBE state?

Perception after death or while out of body is still present without the physical eyes and brain. There are numerous accounts of people experiencing 360 degree vision.

Which suggests that there is more to perception than the standard material explanations.

Peace

Originally Posted by MikeS80

If it is true that we perceive light through our eyes, then the light we perceive is not an illusion/hallucination, nor are we.

What is actually seen is a 2D image projected onto a curved surface, everything after that is processed by the brain. And everything we perceive ourselves to be is as much of an hallucination, that's what the ego/Aahmkara is. It is from the perspective of the ego/Ahamkara that perception happens.