.jpg)
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
The Kosmos Trilogy, Vol. II, Excerpt G: Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Subtle Energies
Posted January 9th, 2010 by Carl Alexander
OH MY GOD. I cannot breathe. I am totally stunned. I have just finished reading Wilber's essay for the first time, and there are simply no words...
"When we use finite words to try to represent ultimate Suchness, the most we get is poetic metaphor (or metaphoric statements), but the absolute is known only by a direct realization involving a transformation in consciousness (satori, sahaj, metanoia), and “what” is seen in satori cannot be stated in ordinary dualistic words, other than metaphors, poetry, and hints (if you want to know God, you must awaken, not merely theorize)."
How can the man make statements like that and remain oblivious to the effect they have in awakening another person's consciousness?
I have so many questions I don't know where to start... would someone out there be willing to discuss Subtle Energies with me?
C.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- show all sub-comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Seeds
Posted January 9th, 2010 by Carl Alexander in response to [Comment Deleted]Ok (and thanks!) to both you and Stacie. Where to start? First of all, let me explain that I had never heard of Ken Wilber or Integral Life before a week or so ago... but I had been ruminating about some things I learned back in basic pyschology classes in college (over a year ago) pertaining to Piaget's theory about Preoperational Thought, so I went online to seek info about the nature of human consciousness and stumbled onto the old Integral Institute site.
What I was trying to make sense out of was... well, see for yourself. This is what I was crafting as a possible paper or article:
A Singular Existence
The human brain does not develop all at once. Like the rest to the body, it does so incrementally. In point of fact, medical science has determined that brain-wave activity does not begin until around the 28th week of gestation. Until this occurs, a fetus is presumably unable to ‘think’ due to its lack of proper physical equipment.
However, consciousness is not defined as the ability to think, but rather as “the awareness of one’s own surroundings and identity.” By this definition, a developing fetus is therefore conscious before it has even begun to fully utilize its still-developing brain.
And this makes perfect sense, as every living thing has awareness of itself and its surroundings, no matter what stage of development may be occurring. Even a single sperm cell or a solitary ovum, prior to the act of conception, is alive and aware of its own existence and being. Consciousness is not contingent upon having a brain - which is a good thing, since brains are relatively new occurrences in the grand scheme of existence. But I digress.
If a developing human being isn’t able to think until its brain has reached a certain stage of development, then what is the consciousness of a fetus doing while it is inside the womb? What is a fetus aware of, and perhaps most importantly, how does it identify itself? If it cannot yet have ‘thoughts’, then does it just have sensations? Or can it conjecture, or even grasp whole concepts, such as IAM?
We know that all the physical senses of a human being function even prior to its birth. We know that infants are able to think even before they learn to use language. Piaget’s studies have shown us that sensation becomes perception, which in turn leads to cognition, and that this process is a circular reaction which begins from the moment we are born. But human beings exist and have consciousness long before birth ever takes place.
Is it so difficult to grasp that a fetus must therefore sense and perceive and even have knowledge while still in the womb?
Life is transient. We live in a world of duality, but that is not where we come from, nor where we return to when our present mortality comes to an end. Our bodies and our brains are merely temporary possessions. We do not get to keep them forever. Objects have no permanence.
As spiritual beings, from a non-dual, non-imaginary reality, we already know this and bring that instinctive knowledge with us, into human existence. Consequently, as human beings we have to un-learn what we already knew in that regard. As infants, we gradually come to learn that objects do have permanence, and that we can expect them to remain ‘real’, even though they may not be within sight.
**
And that's as far as I had gotten before I began investigating Integral Life and started reading a couple of Ken Wilber's essays here online. I have a smattering of knowledge (bits and pieces really) about how the cosmos functions and some personal insight and understanding into the IAM (from Unity church, mainly), but I was completely ignorant about the existence of anything remotely similiar to Integral Living. I am literally reeling after wading through Ken's piece on 'Subtle Energies'... so many, many things that I already half knew are now falling into place... my paltry effort at a research paper is just going to have to wait, I have so much catching uo to do!!!
C.
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted January 10th, 2010 by admin in response to Seeds
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
involution
Posted January 10th, 2010 by Carl Alexander in response to [Comment Deleted]I'm not sure where I was going with it, really, I was still formulating my thinking - without any proper terminology or methodology to hang it on. Which is why Ken's article really blew me away. I finally stumbled into the realization that it isn't necessary for me to re-invent the wheel (especially the Wheel of Life :) because there is a 'systematic approach' to all of these kinds of questions already in place! Duh!
But I guess this topic is as good a place as any to start learning... all of the pieces lead to the same puzzle, anyhow, right? ;)
Ken says:
"If we can represent the major emergent stages in evolution as (A), (A + B), (A + B + C), and so on—where the addition signs mean that something is emerging or being added to manifestation—then we could represent involution as the prior subtraction process: Spirit starts out full and complete, with all of manifestation contained as potential in itself, which we can represent in brackets: [A + B + C + D + E]. Spirit first steps down into manifestation—and begins to “lose” itself in manifestation—by shedding its pure spiritual nature and assuming a manifest, finite, limited form—namely, the soul [A + B + C + D]. The soul has now forgotten “E,” or its radical identity with and as Spirit, and, in the ensuing confusion and angst, the soul flees this terror by stepping down into mind [A + B + C], which has forgotten “D,” its soul radiance; and mind flees into life, forgetting “C,” or its intelligence; and finally life sheds even its vegetative vitality “B” and appears as inert, insentient, lifeless matter, “A”—at which point something like the Big Bang occurs, whereupon matter blows into concrete existence and it appears that in the entire manifest world, there exists nothing but insentient, dead, lifeless matter."
What I was trying to get at with my musings is that, as human beings we have only 'stepped down' part of the way from our "pure spiritual nature" (and in actuality I believe the natural process is a 'stepping up', whereby each evolutionary rung is normally reached step by step, from less complex to more complex, both physically and spiritually. By which I mean that we ordinarily come into this existence as a microbe before we gain the ability to be a rabbit.) (Reincarnation is a different process, as Ken points out later.) That being the case, it seems to me that an embryo must bring an ongoing awareness of the IAM with it, into its incarnation as a human being [A+B+C]. An embryo has already experienced itself as Pure Spirit [A+B+C+D+E] through many past incarnations and is at a level of development to make use of that knowledge - except that the experience of becoming human is so overwhelming and chaotic, and there are so many new things to learn all at once, that its prior knowledge gets 'forgotten' and it gets lost in the process of learning how to use its new complex brain, move its limbs, speak, etc, etc. The problem is, the way our human societies are set up, most people never get beyond just doing that, in one lifetime. They are not taught to remember what they have already learned because most parents, teachers, preachers, professors, psychologists, and physicists do not not even comprehend that there is such a thing as a cycle of spiritual existence.And that's why I am so excited about finding Integral Life!So, (on to bigger and better questions); if every consciousness must have a body, then what is the Body for Pure Spirit (Suchness)? Is it the entire universe (or universes)? Is that even a knowable question?
C.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted January 10th, 2010 by admin in response to involution
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted January 11th, 2010 by admin in response to [Comment Deleted]
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
reflection
Posted January 11th, 2010 by Carl Alexander in response to [Comment Deleted]You said, 'Without Form there is no Spirit and without Spirit there is no Form'.
That sounds remarkably like the 'Steady State' explanation of the universe, Anne. (i.e. there is no beginning or end to Creation, it has always existed and will never end.)
Unfortunately, our current state of scientific understanding seems to contradict that (i.e the 'Big Bang' theory). As best scientists can tell, our material Universe sprang into existence about 13 1/2 billion years ago out of something called a 'Singularity' (which defies explanation) as an immeasurably hot, dense & heavy single point of matter which then expanded over time into the present day cosmos that we see all around us.
What the Universe (Form) came out of is Spirit, of course (whether scientists are willing to admit that, or not). You and I don't have any problem believing that, because we have experienced the IAM and recognize it (and our own self) for what it (we) actually are. [I see what Ken means about the difficulty of using language to try and describe all of this... it's nothing but metaphor after metaphor. :)
But what I am trying to say is that because there was evidently a definite beginning to time, matter & energy then Spirit had to be without Form prior to that Form springing into material existence, OR ELSE nothingness would still pertain. {"And God said, 'Let there be Light'; and there was light." Genesis 1:3}The Bible did get some things right, after all. ;) Spirit WAS before time, space & energy began.
Sorry, gotta run - prior engagement More later.
Carl
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted January 11th, 2010 by admin in response to reflection
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
minute (lol)
Posted January 11th, 2010 by Carl Alexander in response to [Comment Deleted]Well, Anne, old pal old pal, we're all "on shaky ground", aren't we? :) Only, not really... because we're all safe in the arms of Spirit! ;)
You said, "Spirit does not exist without consciousness, because consciousness defines existence." I would simplify that by saying 'Spirit IS consciousness'. Period. When we think/feel/know the IAM, that is what we are experiencing: consciousness.And all consciousness is the same consciousness, it all comes from Spirit, whether we can intellectually grasp the fact, or not. The InefffableOne.
["And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT... I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me {Moses} unto you." Exodus 3:14]
Consciousness is being self-aware, with or without being attached to a physical body. [The 'burning bush' was not consumed because there was no 'bush', that was merely how Moses interpreted what he saw with his mortal senses.]
Here in this world of duality, EVERYTHING is attached to some sort of body (which is one of the points Ken was making in his Subtle Energies theory). But God/Spirit exists in a non-dual world, as well as in this time, space & material universe we are inhabiting. God exists within Himself first & foremost. He is the One & Only IAM.
God is the BIG IAM, we are all little I Am's - 'pieces' of God. Everything that exists within our material universe is a piece of the BIG IAM. Every piece of physical matter (and energy) is connected to an I Am, in one of two ways: if it is ALIVE (animate), it is directly connected with and incorporated into an individual consciousness. If it is DEAD (inanimate), it is still connected to the the BIG IAM, because our whole universe is INSIDE (and a part of) God/Spirit.
Ken refers to these in his article as Holons.
God/Spirit comes from a non-dual reality.A non-dual reality is not some-thing (it is no-'thing' at all) that we can readily comprehend, because we are dual-natured. Our 'self' consists of matter +energy+spirit, that is also limited by Time. The BIG IAM is not limited by anything, it is completely autonomous - God/Spirit is what everything else has arisen out of.
When we say things like "Spirit is Form and Form is Spirit" we are seeing God from a DUAL perspective, not a non-dual point of view. [A non-dual perspective would 'see' Spirit/Form as OneBeing - but it is not possible to see any-thing from a non-dual perspective; there is no time/energy/physical matter without duality.] Because, as mortal beings, we really cannot ever completely envision God correctly & completely. We are inherently limited to metaphors, instead of the whole truth. Spirit is the Whole Truth, and we are only a splinter from Spirit. Our perspective is always too tiny to grasp the Entirety of God. Only God Himself is able to do that...
Personally, I don't believe that there is or can be Nothingness. (Which was exactly what I was trying to get across with my last previous comments.) The Bible refers to it as 'the Void' at one point, but to have 'Nothingness' (in capitol letters) God simply could not Be. Because God is the anti-thesis of 'no-thing'. (It is ALL, or it is Nothing, so to speak.:)God is Being-ness, and we know that God exists because we are a part of His Being. In other words, we can know Him because we know our own I AM - but we can't experience Nothingness, it's a contradiction in terms.
And I think that's where the confusion you're feeling arises... we live inside a universe that is made up of matter+energy+space/time (and a whole lot of vacuum). God also inhabits that universe, plus a whole lot more. God is "outside" of our universe, as well as inside it. God/Spirit is outside of space/time, and also inside of space/time, all at once.Because God/Spirit is really all there is, was or ever will be... only One's individual perspective changes.
There. How's that for being as clear as mud? :)
Carl
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted January 12th, 2010 by admin in response to minute (lol)
This comment has been deleted by the author.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Getting Down and Dirty (the worm's-eye view)
Posted January 12th, 2010 by Carl Alexander in response to [Comment Deleted]Makes 'Perfect' sense to me, Anne! :) And they don't play the same role, do they? The Son (otherwise known as the Word) plays the role of an {enlightened} human being, here on Planet Earth, right?
Take a look at Genesis 1: 1 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Now look at Genesis 2: 4 - "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."
John is merely expounding on the original scriptures in Genesis, trying to explain how the creation came to be. The key phrase in all this is "In the beginning". In the beginning of what?
The physical universe is the answer, of course - and that includes Time itself.
Ask yourself this question, what is the Cosmos made out of? Did it just pop into existence out of nothing, as current science tells us? Without any cause, or rhyme or reason?
Of course it didn't, that's ludicrous. If that's what happened, then the universe would not have any order to it, or make any sense whatsoever. It would exist as pure chaos.
Something made the universe, because it is a construct with a set of rules and an underlying inherent blueprint that is being followed. [It fact, it appears to yet be under construction, as it is still unfolding (growing?), even as we live and breathe.] We label that 'something' as God/Spirit/IAM, mainly for lack of a better way of expressing it.
What John was trying his best to tell people is that God created the universe out of Himself. God turned a piece of His Essence into 'the Word' and built this creation out of that.
Did that transformation lessen God in any way? Of course not, because He's still completely intact, still the ALL, the IndivisibleWhole - part of Him is just in a physical/temporal form inside of this universe. Science realizes that Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed, right? [The 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics] Well, neither can Spirit.
But just like matter and energy, Spirit can be transformed. The christian bible refers to this transformation as the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). And that's what John is trying to illustrate in John 1: 1-5.
Of course the christian perspective is only one way of describing these realities. Ken explains in the Subtle Energies article:
"But there is one item we should perhaps keep in mind as we moderns attempt to assess those ideas: the great metaphysical systems were, in the last analysis, interpretive frameworks that the sages gave to their spiritual experiences. These schemes, such as the Great Chain, were interpretations of living experiences—they were not some sort of fixed, rigid, ontological grids that are true for all eternity. If, in the following, I question the adequacy of some of these interpretations, I am not at all questioning the authenticity of the experiences or realizations of these great sages. I am simply suggesting that, as evolution itself continues to move forward, new horizons can be used to recontextualize and reframe these experiences in interpretive meshworks that are more adequate in the light of modern and postmodern contributions, so that the net result is something of an integration of the very best of premodern, modern, and postmodern forms of Spirit’s own unfolding."
So, we need to have a 'Father' and a 'Son' because human beings now exist through the evolutionary process - otherwise, there wouldn't be any translator to help us grasp what Divinity is up to.
Carl
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
different thread
Posted January 12th, 2010 by Carl Alexander in response to Getting Down and Dirty (the worm's-eye view)I'm going to start a different thread, Anne... this one is getting rather unwieldy. Look for me under LOGOS, the next time.
Carl
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Nice thinking! I am awareness is more than a mere concept.
Posted January 11th, 2010 by Stanley in response to involutionPlease Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
thinking
Posted January 11th, 2010 by Carl Alexander in response to Nice thinking! I am awareness is more than a mere...Thanks, Stanley. That sums it up rather succinctly, on several different levels all at once...
I am
I am awareness
I am awareness is
I am awareness is more. :)
Carl
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Thank you. I appreciate your enthusiasm & insights.
Posted January 12th, 2010 by Stanley in response to thinking- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
involution
Posted January 10th, 2010 by Carl Alexander in response to [Comment Deleted]I'm not sure where I was going with it, really, I was still formulating my thinking - without any proper terminology or methodology to hang it on. Which is why Ken's article really blew me away. I finally stumbled into the realization that it isn't necessary for me to re-invent the wheel (especially the Wheel of Life :) because there is a 'systematic approach' to all of these kinds of questions already in place! Duh!
But I guess this topic is as good a place as any to start learning... all of the pieces lead to the same puzzle, anyhow, right? ;)
Ken says:
"If we can represent the major emergent stages in evolution as (A), (A + B), (A + B + C), and so on—where the addition signs mean that something is emerging or being added to manifestation—then we could represent involution as the prior subtraction process: Spirit starts out full and complete, with all of manifestation contained as potential in itself, which we can represent in brackets: [A + B + C + D + E]. Spirit first steps down into manifestation—and begins to “lose” itself in manifestation—by shedding its pure spiritual nature and assuming a manifest, finite, limited form—namely, the soul [A + B + C + D]. The soul has now forgotten “E,” or its radical identity with and as Spirit, and, in the ensuing confusion and angst, the soul flees this terror by stepping down into mind [A + B + C], which has forgotten “D,” its soul radiance; and mind flees into life, forgetting “C,” or its intelligence; and finally life sheds even its vegetative vitality “B” and appears as inert, insentient, lifeless matter, “A”—at which point something like the Big Bang occurs, whereupon matter blows into concrete existence and it appears that in the entire manifest world, there exists nothing but insentient, dead, lifeless matter."
What I was trying to get at with my musings is that, as human beings we have only 'stepped down' part of the way from our "pure spiritual nature" (and in actuality I believe the natural process is a 'stepping up', whereby each evolutionary rung is normally reached step by step, from less complex to more complex, both physically and spiritually. By which I mean that we ordinarily come into this existence as a microbe before we gain the ability to be a rabbit.) (Reincarnation is a different process, as Ken points out later.) That being the case, it seems to me that an embryo must bring an ongoing awareness of the IAM with it, into its incarnation as a human being [A+B+C]. An embryo has already experienced itself as Pure Spirit [A+B+C+D+E] through many past incarnations and is at a level of development to make use of that knowledge - except that the experience of becoming human is so overwhelming and chaotic, and there are so many new things to learn all at once, that its prior knowledge gets 'forgotten' and it gets lost in the process of learning how to use its new complex brain, move its limbs, speak, etc, etc. The problem is, the way our human societies are set up, most people never get beyond just doing that, in one lifetime. They are not taught to remember what they have already learned because most parents, teachers, preachers, professors, psychologists, and physicists do not not even comprehend that there is such a thing as a cycle of spiritual existence.And that's why I am so excited about finding Integral Life!So, (on to bigger and better questions); if every consciousness must have a body, then what is the Body for Pure Spirit (Suchness)? Is it the entire universe (or universes)? Is that even a knowable question?
C.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Seeds
Posted January 9th, 2010 by Carl Alexander in response to [Comment Deleted]Ok (and thanks!) to both you and Stacie. Where to start? First of all, let me explain that I had never heard of Ken Wilber or Integral Life before a week or so ago... but I had been ruminating about some things I learned back in basic pyschology classes in college (over a year ago) pertaining to Piaget's theory about Preoperational Thought, so I went online to seek info about the nature of human consciousness and stumbled onto the old Integral Institute site.
What I was trying to make sense out of was... well, see for yourself. This is what I was crafting as a possible paper or article:
A Singular Existence
The human brain does not develop all at once. Like the rest to the body, it does so incrementally. In point of fact, medical science has determined that brain-wave activity does not begin until around the 28th week of gestation. Until this occurs, a fetus is presumably unable to ‘think’ due to its lack of proper physical equipment.
However, consciousness is not defined as the ability to think, but rather as “the awareness of one’s own surroundings and identity.” By this definition, a developing fetus is therefore conscious before it has even begun to fully utilize its still-developing brain.
And this makes perfect sense, as every living thing has awareness of itself and its surroundings, no matter what stage of development may be occurring. Even a single sperm cell or a solitary ovum, prior to the act of conception, is alive and aware of its own existence and being. Consciousness is not contingent upon having a brain - which is a good thing, since brains are relatively new occurrences in the grand scheme of existence. But I digress.
If a developing human being isn’t able to think until its brain has reached a certain stage of development, then what is the consciousness of a fetus doing while it is inside the womb? What is a fetus aware of, and perhaps most importantly, how does it identify itself? If it cannot yet have ‘thoughts’, then does it just have sensations? Or can it conjecture, or even grasp whole concepts, such as IAM?
We know that all the physical senses of a human being function even prior to its birth. We know that infants are able to think even before they learn to use language. Piaget’s studies have shown us that sensation becomes perception, which in turn leads to cognition, and that this process is a circular reaction which begins from the moment we are born. But human beings exist and have consciousness long before birth ever takes place.
Is it so difficult to grasp that a fetus must therefore sense and perceive and even have knowledge while still in the womb?
Life is transient. We live in a world of duality, but that is not where we come from, nor where we return to when our present mortality comes to an end. Our bodies and our brains are merely temporary possessions. We do not get to keep them forever. Objects have no permanence.
As spiritual beings, from a non-dual, non-imaginary reality, we already know this and bring that instinctive knowledge with us, into human existence. Consequently, as human beings we have to un-learn what we already knew in that regard. As infants, we gradually come to learn that objects do have permanence, and that we can expect them to remain ‘real’, even though they may not be within sight.
**
And that's as far as I had gotten before I began investigating Integral Life and started reading a couple of Ken Wilber's essays here online. I have a smattering of knowledge (bits and pieces really) about how the cosmos functions and some personal insight and understanding into the IAM (from Unity church, mainly), but I was completely ignorant about the existence of anything remotely similiar to Integral Living. I am literally reeling after wading through Ken's piece on 'Subtle Energies'... so many, many things that I already half knew are now falling into place... my paltry effort at a research paper is just going to have to wait, I have so much catching uo to do!!!
C.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Seeds!
Posted January 9th, 2010 by Stacie Hardison--
Ken's words are but the seeds that when planted in fertile soil can manifest in the awakening. His words are amazing and full of wonder. Why not plant them within the gardens of our souls.
IBWY always-already
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
aalferos
Posted January 9th, 2010 by Carl Alexander in response to Seeds!Seeds
Posted January 10th, 2010 by Carl Alexander in response to Hi Carl
in
-->Ok (and thanks!) to both you and Stacie. Where to start? First of all, let me explain that I had never heard of Ken Wilber or Integral Life before a week or so ago... but I had been ruminating about some things I learned back in basic pyschology classes in college (over a year ago) pertaining to Piaget's theory about Preoperational Thought, so I went online to seek info about the nature of human consciousness and stumbled onto the old Integral Institute site.
What I was trying to make sense out of was... well, see for yourself. This is what I was crafting as a possible paper or article:
A Singular Existence
The human brain does not develop all at once. Like the rest to the body, it does so incrementally. In point of fact, medical science has determined that brain-wave activity does not begin until around the 28th week of gestation. Until this occurs, a fetus is presumably unable to ‘think’ due to its lack of proper physical equipment.
However, consciousness is not defined as the ability to think, but rather as “the awareness of one’s own surroundings and identity.” By this definition, a developing fetus is therefore conscious before it has even begun to fully utilize its still-developing brain.
And this makes perfect sense, as every living thing has awareness of itself and its surroundings, no matter what stage of development may be occurring. Even a single sperm cell or a solitary ovum, prior to the act of conception, is alive and aware of its own existence and being. Consciousness is not contingent upon having a brain - which is a good thing, since brains are relatively new occurrences in the grand scheme of existence. But I digress.
If a developing human being isn’t able to think until its brain has reached a certain stage of development, then what is the consciousness of a fetus doing while it is inside the womb? What is a fetus aware of, and perhaps most importantly, how does it identify itself? If it cannot yet have ‘thoughts’, then does it just have sensations? Or can it conjecture, or even grasp whole concepts, such as IAM?
We know that all the physical senses of a human being function even prior to its birth. We know that infants are able to think even before they learn to use language. Piaget’s studies have shown us that sensation becomes perception, which in turn leads to cognition, and that this process is a circular reaction which begins from the moment we are born. But human beings exist and have consciousness long before birth ever takes place.
Is it so difficult to grasp that a fetus must therefore sense and perceive and even have knowledge while still in the womb?
Life is transient. We live in a world of duality, but that is not where we come from, nor where we return to when our present mortality comes to an end. Our bodies and our brains are merely temporary possessions. We do not get to keep them forever. Objects have no permanence.
As spiritual beings, from a non-dual, non-imaginary reality, we already know this and bring that instinctive knowledge with us, into human existence. Consequently, as human beings we have to un-learn what we already knew in that regard. As infants, we gradually come to learn that objects do have permanence, and that we can expect them to remain ‘real’, even though they may not be within sight.
And that's as far as I had gotten before I began investigating Integral Life and started reading a couple of Ken Wilber's essays here online. I have a smattering of knowledge (bits and pieces really) about how the cosmos functions and some personal insight and understanding into the IAM (from Unity church, mainly), but I was completely ignorant about the existence of anything remotely similiar to Integral Living. I am literally reeling after wading through Ken's piece on 'Subtle Energies'... so many, many things that I already half knew are now falling into place... my paltry effort at a research paper is just going to have to wait, I have so much catching uo to do!!!
C.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Sounds like you are on to something....
Posted January 10th, 2010 by Stacie Hardison in response to aalferos--
Thanks for your input and reflection. I have been thinking a lot about this topic too. For the last few months I have been working on a poem called "Incubating the Light." It is about a woman who is with child and soon to give birth. I also wrote a poem called "Cellular Memory" and I wrote about the sperm and ovum as the original memory that I have of searching and waiting as those are two driving forces in my life right now. Why else would I care to find a life partner. I have also been working on rebirthing myself too. It is hard when the heart opens and hormones take over. It is a miracle I haven't torn down the walls yet and that I still have somewhat of a brain left. My left brain and right brain are at odds most of the time. I am learning to "wait without waiting" an relax in openness and receptivity as the proper time draws near.
Good luck with your project, you are on to something.
Stacie
IBWY always-already
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Seeds
Posted January 11th, 2010 by Carl Alexander in response to Sounds like you are on to something....IAM = a seed, unfolding.
ps: Be happy & have faith, Stacie. Your own true love is moving to meet you, at this very moment. Know that, deep within yourself, and rest assured that it is meant to be.
pps: You be careful about going up to unknown homeless strangers alone, though, you hear me? That is not a wise course of action to be pursuing by yourself.
Carl
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
[Comment Deleted]
Posted January 9th, 2010 by admin