Transformations of Consciousness
Here, I am not looking at understanding how consciousness works, but more about the experiences of it, especially transformational states, or peak experiences. I became interested in this partly through reading the writings of Colin Wilson's, including his first book, 'The Outsider'. Recently, I read his last one, which was written before he died in 2013, 'Superconsciousness: The Quest for the Peak Experience,' in which he spoke of his lifelong searching for peak experiences.
In 'The Outsider', Wilson explores the perspective of many creative artists and writers, including Keats, Van Gogh, Camus and Nietzsche. He suggests that what characterises the outsider is a sense of seeing deeper than most other people. He includes a discussion of Camus's 'The Outsider', about how the character, Mersault went through the motions of his mother's death without emotionally. He also looks at the world without values of the outsider, and attempts to create meaningful romantic ones too.
While Wilson talks about the pain and suffering of the outsider, he is also interested in the visionary dimensions of those who perceived differently from others, including William Blake and Rimbaud.
Throughout his many books, the theme of transformation of consciousness is central to Colin Wilson's thinking, and expressed fully in his final one. Here, he describes how he first became interested in peak experiences, as described by Abraham Maslow, as the top category in the hierarchy of needs. Wilson defines peak experiences as 'that sudden feeling when life is revealed as infinitely wonderful.' He looks at this in the contexts of searching for sexual union, mystical experiences, as well as in heightened states of consciousness within processes of creative expression.
He does also consider the peak experience in relation to philosophy. He mentions Kant, and while not dismissing the idea of the noumenon, he suggests that 'we can never know this reality'. He also argues that Wittgenstein's philosophy is inadequate, stating that, 'The real problem with such a view is that it sets out to impose limits on the world and its meaning.' Wilson argues in preference for William James's emphasis upon 'how human beings can live at much higher levels'.
I have only offered a very brief summary of Colin Wilson's ideas for reflection. However, I will ask to what extent does the idea of an outsider, as a person who sees differently, make sense to you? Also, how might we think about peak experiences, and their value? Do you have any thoughts on the the idea of transforming consciousness?
In 'The Outsider', Wilson explores the perspective of many creative artists and writers, including Keats, Van Gogh, Camus and Nietzsche. He suggests that what characterises the outsider is a sense of seeing deeper than most other people. He includes a discussion of Camus's 'The Outsider', about how the character, Mersault went through the motions of his mother's death without emotionally. He also looks at the world without values of the outsider, and attempts to create meaningful romantic ones too.
While Wilson talks about the pain and suffering of the outsider, he is also interested in the visionary dimensions of those who perceived differently from others, including William Blake and Rimbaud.
Throughout his many books, the theme of transformation of consciousness is central to Colin Wilson's thinking, and expressed fully in his final one. Here, he describes how he first became interested in peak experiences, as described by Abraham Maslow, as the top category in the hierarchy of needs. Wilson defines peak experiences as 'that sudden feeling when life is revealed as infinitely wonderful.' He looks at this in the contexts of searching for sexual union, mystical experiences, as well as in heightened states of consciousness within processes of creative expression.
He does also consider the peak experience in relation to philosophy. He mentions Kant, and while not dismissing the idea of the noumenon, he suggests that 'we can never know this reality'. He also argues that Wittgenstein's philosophy is inadequate, stating that, 'The real problem with such a view is that it sets out to impose limits on the world and its meaning.' Wilson argues in preference for William James's emphasis upon 'how human beings can live at much higher levels'.
I have only offered a very brief summary of Colin Wilson's ideas for reflection. However, I will ask to what extent does the idea of an outsider, as a person who sees differently, make sense to you? Also, how might we think about peak experiences, and their value? Do you have any thoughts on the the idea of transforming consciousness?
Comments (82)
It certainly has been an era of "peak everything."
From my perspective, peak (whatever) can only be found through absolute simplicity (which contains all things).
I appreciate your quote from Schopenhauer, and I have managed to download a copy of his, 'The World as Will and Representation', which is one of my priorities in my reading list. I certainly believe that he had a great mind.
My own thread may be far too obscure to be taken seriously on a philosophy forum, because it is about the development of our own consciousness, and I am not sure that many see this as being of much importance in the climate of our times. It appears to me that we are being seen more as numbers, rather than individuals with ideas, as the spectrum of thinking becomes a mere shadow of science, and, most especially, neuroscience. It all seems to be about reductive explanations, and I may be seen as ridiculous for thinking about peak experiences, as being of any significance.
Actually, it's a refreshing departure from the babbling brook. :cool:
Thanks, that is reassuring because it does seem that in many ways the philosophical questions seem to becoming mere questions of language. It almost appears as if philosophy is like an appendix to what is seen as facts, and the absolute truth, as proclaimed with philosophers who are coming from the domain of the physical sciences.
I like the perspectives of intellectual outsiders. But they often make the mistake of absolutizing their insights, of looking at them monocausally or of hastily setting them as a foundation of a system of thought. At that point, there seems then to be something fanatical or irrational about them, even though they have grasped something brilliant and ingenious perhaps only in a "small" respect, but which gets lost in the public discourse because of their appearing confusion.
It's about survival, comfort, and entertainment and how society mediates these for people. First you're thrown into the world, then you find yourself getting hungry, discomforted, and bored. Then you find justifications for various actions of daily activity in order to meet these broad needs of survival, discomfort, and boredom within your enculturated socioeconomic context. When you try to get good enough at an activity and your interest level is vey high, you might describe that as a "peak" experience.
However Schopenhauer's artistic "genius" is more akin to penetrating the everydayness of an object and seeing it for its form. Music was seen as akin to will itself and not just the form of an object, but the noumenal. So the artist sees peels back the layer of Plato's materiality (the shadows) reveals them in their Forms, and perhaps music is a form, but the Form of the essence of all Forms, the striving of the thing-in-itself.
It may be true that certain outsiders are in danger of presenting their ideas as absolute. This is a big problem as we read the writings of particular writers of importance, and I don't think that there are any easy answers, because individuals may have reached certain degrees of awareness. These degrees of awareness are open to questions, as are the psychologists of a writers, so, we may be left in the position of thinking, in the midst of the critical scrutiny, in mainstream rendition of ideas.
The question of simplicity of truth, or otherwise, arising in meditation and other practices, opens many areas for considering of experience. I am certainly not wishing to point to any as being superior above others. However, I am thinking about states of consciousness as an important, and possibly area which has been a bit neglected in thinking of the wider questions of human experiences and existence.
I certainly hope that peak experiences go beyond entertainment. As much as I love music and the arts, I do hope that this dimension of experience is connected to some source beyond our usual experiencesm
There may not be any outward criteria for thinking about effort put into meditation and other practices. It may be that we are empirical practitioners, who have to wait and see...
Obviously, we lack Shopenhaurer's genius but, perhaps, through greater understanding, we can make a certain headway in penetrating beyond the superficialities of our experiences. it may takes us time, and the results fall far short of the geniuses, towards whose insights we may aspire, but it may count for something, even if only on a subjective level of aspirations and imaginations of touching upon the heights of transcendent experiences.
Of course, there are no shortcuts and we cannot go beyond the limitations of who we are, and what we may become..But, I do believe that it is worth us trying, even though we can probably never touch upon the heights which some of the most enlightened individuals have reached. It would seem like a swindle if we are only able to think of settling for the mundane, and nothing more.
Perhaps, you are forgetting that I am not talking about my own life, which I have not disclosed, because it is a public forum. I am sharing the ideas about peak experiences for others to think about, with no set agenda of my own, but presenting ideas, with openness towards their discussion as an aspect of philosophy discussion.
Acknowledging this helps us to be aware of what these forms actually are; a level or dimension of consciousness that we ourselves create. Our acceptance of these forms determines our reality. These forms develop with age and determine how we perceive our ‘being’.
There exists a perspective continuum within which an individual’s consciousness resides. Our individual perspectives determine our place on the perspective continuum. Where perspectives differ, there is potential to breach the ‘perspective gap’ and reach a mutual understanding (‘perspective gain’). The greater the ‘perspective gap’ the more difficult it is to realise or manifest that ‘perspective gain’. Therefore, it follows that a lesser ‘perspective gap’ is easier to span and reach a shared perspective.
I call the concept of realising ‘perspective gain’ ‘perspective mining’. The interesting thing about ‘perspective mining’ is that it is subject to the ‘observer effect’ in which the view of another perception is tainted by the bias of the observer and may change the interpretation of what is actually being considered or conceived resulting in misunderstanding.
This misunderstanding, particularly where the observer is perceiving a limited view or event, can lead to conflict between opposing views. Conversely, the ‘observer effect’ can seem to reveal great insights where a limited perspective or event informs a broader perspective i.e., something appears to be miraculous or mystical where a finite idea or event aligns with the broader beliefs or concepts of the observer.
The trick with ‘perspective mining’ is to recognise we are all placed somewhere on the perspective continuum and that our own bias will likely affect what we are perceiving. Through this process, we can change the focus from merely recognising differences to seeking ‘perspective gain’ or mutual understanding.
By understanding what our sense of self actually is and where we are placed on the perspective continuum, we can enable ourselves to seek wisdom from other perspectives both outside and within the context of our own.
I believe that this should be a two-step process as how can we understand others if we do not fully understand ourselves first. Accepting that we are physical beings, and that our concepts of self, soul and belief are the outcome of a physical process, we can see past ourselves to reach a higher shared consciousness, 'being' or 'humanity', within each of us.
As it stands, humanity seems to be consumed with idealisations of self, spirit, soul and belief. I acknowledge that these concepts are functions of a physical process but posture that there needs to be a paradigm shift in our perspective before we can see past ourselves to seek understanding and wisdom from the ideas and views of others.
If you are 100% present (or aware), how can any experience be "more peak" than that? IOW, it's not the experience that makes it peak, it is the awareness.
This is why those who have developed great awareness find "miracles" in all things.
I am definitely suggesting that it is possible to see miracles in all things, as Blake spoke of seeing heaven within a grain of sand. I do also believe that it is possible to experience some elements of the miraculous even amidst unpleasant experiences, because it is about states of awareness really. That is probably how artists can transform or transmits suffering into creative work.
I do think that being present can in itself be a peak experiences, but I am also thinking of how meditation can lead to transcendent states. I do think that this relates to what Gopi Krishna, and some others have spoken of, as the awakening of kundalini consciousness. However, that is a process which probably should occur naturally, rather than by conscious effort. Also, it is something which can involve or result in some great imbalances, so it is not something to be thought about, or spoken of, lightly.
I definitely believe that we need to understand our own selves, and perspective, as a starting point for our higher individual and shared consciousness. Of course, how we understand peak experiences, does depend on our underlying perspective or worldview, with some people ranking them of being of more significance. However, I do think that many people do not even think about such matters at all. If anything, I have found that on some people look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but do like really place much emphasis on how he focuses on peak experiences.
There are many different types of meditation, but let's say you were able to achieve near perfect awareness (is this what gives small children such joy in their play?), what more could you possible do?
Perfect sense. A psychotic, a psychopath, a poet, a philosopher, a physicist, a persecuted migrant, a POW, a trafficked slave – in extremis, how can they not "see differently" from the margins of sanity?
I think in terms of what Jaspers says are 'limit-experiences' or Bataille refers to as 'the impossible' (abjection), that is, involuntary psychological or intellectual situations so extreme the impacts of which make comprehending, even articulating, them even to ourselves, in effect, impossible (e.g. traumas of shame / betrayal / violence, psychotic breaks, interminable grieving, involuntary deliriums, crippling disgust, prolonged involuntary isolation, suicidal hope, suicidal despair, murderous starvation, unrelenting terrors, near-fatal withdrawal sickness, orgiastic convulsions, etc). As far as the value of experiencing such "peaks" (limits), the lyric
[i][b]"God is a concept
By which we measure
Our
Pain"[/b][/i]
comes to mind because "values" are more-than-subjective priorities (we) set against – imposed on us by – the 'limit-experiences' (peaks) that involuntarily afflict us, or which starkly call our integrity as persons into question; they function, as it were, at least as ethical and aesthetic parameters. 'Limit-experiences' (peak) don't have value so much as they constitute value-ing (i.e. selecting, interpreting, affirming ... as Nietzsche says) by threatening to undermine us or drive us to undermine ourselves. Is one even a subject – does one have full agency – before one has reflectively undergone such extremis?
I think that you make a good point when speaking of people who have different perceptions being, or viewed as unwell mentally. Obviously, there are those who really do have psychotic ideas and those who are just creative Bohemian. There is a whole spectrum, and many who speak of their peak experiences may be labelled as unwell, even though they are not. I am sure that many of the most creative people of all times, if they had lived in our times may have been detained in hospital and medicated against their will. They may not have created their greatest work at all.
I find that even beyond talking about peak experiences, a lot of people think that philosophy is peculiar. The people who live in the same house as me seem a bit puzzled about how I spend so much time reading and writing. As far as I can see they seem to spend most of the time on practical tasks. I am inclined to be completely minimalist over practical tasks, such as cooking. I probably get my room so untidy because I am spend so little time tidying. I also can't bear sport, playing or watching it. I think most people see me as an arty misfit.
One other matter, is the whole idea of outsider art, and that is about different perceptions, and of art created by people who have not been trained in art school. There is also the perspective of being on the edge in alternative music subcultures, ranging from goth, emo, punk and rap. I do think that music is often an expression of peak states of consciousness. I don't create music, but I do find that listening to it is a way of accessing certain states of consciousness. This may also connect to the shamanic quest. I definitely see John Lennon, whose lyrics you quoted, as well as so many of the great rock stars as being shamanic figures.
The question as to what we would do if we reached higher states of consciousness is interesting. Perhaps, we would create more art and write more, with better quality, as a result of the inspiration. Hopefully, it would generate greater care and compassion for others too.
Another aspect, though, is the opposition between doing and being. In Western society, there is so much emphasis on doing. I know many people who can't cope with not doing. Even if they are on a bus or train, they seem to need to be occupied, even if it by looking at a magazine or crossword. Also, even though it may not be actual 'doing', so many people spend hours watching television, almost to block out just 'being'. Really, I am quite happy to do nothing frequently, as I prefer the being mode, rather than constantly wishing to be 'doing' tasks or activities.
I agree that 'understanding what we are, how our mind works and then seeking how that relates to the broader world and others' is very important. However, I would dispute the idea of euphoria as 'mental masturbation', although there may be some people for whom that may be true. Possibly, many who use drugs to get high would be coming more from that perspective, although I don't make judgements about people using drugs, because the reasons may vary.
I think that people come with different motives. Personally, I would wish for peak experiences as a basis for inspiration for life. But one aspect which comes into the picture is the random nature of the peak experiences, because they cannot be conjured up by choice. In the experiences which I had which border onto peak experiences they came unexpectedly, even though I had read literature on them. Really, I began reading Colin Wilson's books and it was only at some point in my reflection upon them, that I realised that I had an interest in them. Generally, though, my own wish for such experience is connected to often feeling miserable, and wishing to overcome this.
Be aware that a peak experience is not always an extreme experience. The fact that you are posting your perceptions and philosophising at the moment shows that you are self actualsing now.
One of the elements that has always appealed to me with Maslow's approach is the way that the less one becomes driven by what is lacking, the more one has to do something with the sufficiency. The actualization is all mixed up with working with others. Becoming more capable is like love. It hurts.
Of course, it is true that the needs of the person in Maslow's hierarchy, cannot be seen in isolation from the social ones. We are interconnected, and are involved in helping others fulfill the needs of others. Hopefully, those who have their basic needs fulfilled will not just be concerned about self in isolation.
However, there is a possible tension between the social aspects of existence and self actualization. It is interesting to think of the role in which the pandemic may have played for many people in this. Even though basic needs have not gone away people have spent more time alone, with more time and space for self actualization. I have never had so much time to myself since summer holidays at school, and wonder how I will ever go back to being part of groups again.
There is a lot of tension between "social aspects of existence and self actualization." I didn't mean to emphasize the "social" so much as to say that satisfying what a person needs makes one less bound to what one is in the habit of assigning to necessity. The previous struggles may not be good preparation for the new ones since narratives tend to have a life of their own.
Strictly speaking we all see uniquely, the way the world appears to each of us. I would be surprised if someone saw exactly how I saw so it makes total sense to think of people who experience the world very differently, for example:
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-found-a-woman-whose-eyes-have-a-whole-new-type-of-colour-receptor
Not to mention psychedelic experiences, which can be very powerful. But I'd caution taking powerful experiences as means for establishing truth claims of any kind, except the fact that the mind, consciousness, is amazing. But no metaphysical claims can be made from such experiences, I think.
Transforming consciousness can be achieved in many ways, meditation, exercise, music, reading, etc., etc.
Any ideas on what causes these to self organize?
I think we base certain needs as 'necessity' sometimes by habit. For example, we often care about popularity and care about what others think of us because we are accustomed to do so, and socialised into thinking that this is really important. Our own life narratives are so bound up with the social aspects of existence, that it may be that many do not look for realisation beyond the social. Even though Maslow's theory suggests that we fulfill the scale upwards, I think that it is possible to bypass certain needs to some extent, although certain basics are more or less essential. It is extremely difficult to focus on self actualization and creativity, without food, or somewhere to live, although there have probably been some starving artists.
Generally, I think that self actualization and creativity are left out of the picture a fair amount for plenty of people. However, I am inclined to see it as essential. If I have no time or outlet for any creative expression, I struggle, but I have always found this to be part of life. I think that many see the arts as frivolous, or think of it as entertainment. I know so many people who don't read very much at all, and when I used to run creative art groups, I found that many adults see art as being more for children and, probably have not done any art beyond adolescence.
Yes, it is interesting that the woman in the link saw differently. I do believe that we do all see a bit differently, depending on how we choose to develop our imagination. I have some experience of synthaesia naturally, especially of feeling that when I listen to music I can see sounds. This is meant to be connected to how the ears and eyes develop from the same nodule in the brain. I actually enjoy my bit of synthaesia because it means that I can lie in bed visualising images to music. I am also extremely interested in hypnagogic and hypnopompic dream states because I have many experiences of these, including some which are pleasant and some which are extremely unpleasant.
I do think that certain people, including those who have used or not used drugs, in thinking about the experiences they have in a very literal way. That is probably why they become psychotic. I discovered Jung as a teenager, which enabled me to think about my own borderline sleep experiences in a symbolic way. I sometimes wonder if I had not found Jung at this time whether I would have been unable to see this dimensions as being symbolic.
I read your ideas about consciousness in the thread on metaphysics. They are interesting from what I read. What I am wondering is do your ideas on self organisation of consciousness have any implications for understanding the experiential level of consciousness and states of awareness?
One of the most interesting examples of self-organization I've read about was in the context of an experiment to simulate the genesis of life from organic precursor elements (abiogenesis). There are something like 70 constituent elements and in order for the experiment to succeed all 70 elements have to be present in the proto-cell after the cellular membrane is created/formed. Basically the odds of this happening are zero. But what actually happens is that many of the artificial cells have nothing inside the membrane, while a few of the artificial cells have all the necessary ingredients and, against all odds, the experiment works.
Damn, that's quite a cool capacity to have. I mean, yeah, it kind of sucks when the experiences are unpleasant but on the whole, it's different.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Some perhaps. It depends on the person. Most people who do, say, hallucinogenics tend to be fine. Last studies I read reported that something like 2-5% of people tend to react badly to them.
It's strange but, I think certain types of literature simulate experiential states not completely alien to substance use. Of course there are differences, but I've found similarities. It's weird, but seems to have happened to me a few times.
On the other hand, if one happens to belong to the small percentage of people who react badly to such things, it can be a risk and can lead to mental outbreaks. Somewhat rare, but still happens.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I can't say. I've moved away from psychoanalysis just because it stopped being interesting to me. I suspect if not Jung, you might have discovered something else that would have provided some meaning to such experiences.
From what I've seen of your own discussions and you participation in other people's, you and I share an interest in some of the same kinds of issues, although you have a very different perspective and focus than I do. I wanted you to know that I really enjoy your ideas, even though I often don't have much to offer in response, given our differences. It's fun to watch you searching and digging for what you want to understand. Maybe that's the biggest thing you and I have in common.
The strangest ever experience I had was when I was ill, lying in bed.
There, I read 'Autobiography of a Yogi'. The imagery resulted in 2 days writing poetry non-stop.
The words seemed to come from nowhere without any direct input from myself. Scary as hell. While all this was going on, I kept thinking that I must have a fever. Brain delirium.
Who knows...but many have been inspired by this book...including George Harrison :cool:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiography_of_a_Yogi
I haven't read it since and can't imagine it would have the same effect on me now.
I can relate to an extent. Though with me it's been (mostly) with novels.
Not in my case writing so much, it's as if something in my experience shifts, it's almost impossible to describe. It's like the core of my consciousness remains still while the surrounding waves of experience start spinning in place. They go around me and end up coming back to were I was, but I'm slightly different.
It's beyond words.
But yes, when you find stimulating literature it rubs off on your writing, your perspectives and so on.
Quoting Amity
That actually looks like an interesting read. Influencing someone like Harrison can't be too easy.
I'll see if I can check it out - too many books to go through... :sweat:
Quoting Manuel
Well. I want that novel. And I want it NOW !! :cool:
Like many, there are times when reading that words affect me so that I have to stop and savour the moment - other times I get carried away...
I always mean to take a note, perhaps for later quoting, but I never do, so wrapped up in the experience.
And yes, everything we take in makes a difference to us in some way or another...
There are a few novels that have done this to me. I suppose the best for me, which is very philosophical too, is called Novel Explosives by Jim Gauer. It's very long, it's quite difficult, but it's amazing.
After that probably the works of Michael Cisco. Member is one such example, but it's very "out there".
More realistic but still good is A Brief History of Seven Killings by Marlon James.
There are others, but those stand out.
Quoting Amity
:lol:
Yes, exactly the same happens to me. If I take notes, I slow down reading. It's fine for philosophy, but in literature it's a problem.
It does not that we share similar areas of interest, although coming from different perspectives. I come from a far more esoteric angle. I prefer saying esoteric, because, as you know the use of the word mystic comes with complications. I have started 'The Tao de Ching', although I think that I can relate to 'The I Ching' more. But, it is fun to dig and search...
I am glad that someone else is admitting to having some experiences. I had some unusual experiences. In one, I initially thought I had a fever but then I felt like I was opening up to some kind of higher reality and it was very pleasant. I wonder if a lot more people experience some kind of peak experiences, but are a bit cautious, and reserved about talking about these.
Nikola Tesla said, “ If you wish to understand the Universe think of energy, frequency and vibration.
What he didn't explain is why these things self organize! Self organization seems to be fundamental.
Quoting Pantagruel
Thanks, can you provide a link please?
Quoting Jack Cummins
It seems our universe is a self organizing one! This is its fundamental nature. As a consequence of self organization being fundamental, it is present in everything natural, from fundamental particles all the way to and including human consciousness. Indeed the constituent function of consciousness is self organization. How consciousness achieves self organization is varied, but that it must achieve it ( a state of information integration) is constant.
Self organized is the only way the universe could exist, its the only way we could be here. We would not be here having this discussion If our universe was not biased to be just as it is ( self organizing ). Even small shifts in the laws of physics would result in a different universe, and so self organization could not occur ( at least not in its present form ).
So, the universe is biased ( a bias is an emotion) to self organize, by way of integrating information.
Human consciousness is biased ( emotional ) to self organize, by way of integrating information.
Can you see the correlation? If you can, and you agree with the reasoning, then there are interesting consequences. If you also agree with phenomenology then every instance of consciousness is an experience, and every instance of something in our universe is an instance of consciousness. So, it would seem, experience is an unavoidable consequence of being in this universe for all instances of being!
To put it another way, the plants and animals we eat to grow our bodies were having an experience, now they experience being us. When we die they will decompose into something that is also experiential. Given enough time we will experience all there is to experience. :smile: , but not in our present consciousness. People will lament that their present consciousness will not endure, but will be buoyed by the idea of being a part of something greater then what they are - something omnipotent and omniscient - an all creating god like self organization.
I am not certain that what I described was a 'peak experience'. What is a 'peak experience' ?
Quoting Wiki - Peak experienceQuoting Jack Cummins
I only share what I think might be helpful in a given context. It is not a case of 'admitting to'.
At one time, I wouldn't even have done that. There are reasons why people don't talk about certain experiences, especially on a public forum. Understandable. Some give far too much away, leaving them vulnerable...
I definitely agree that there are reasons why people would not wish to talk about their experiences, especially on a public forum. I am also wary of doing so, because I even have I am not even anonymous and have my a photo of myself showing on the site, and it is actually online to the general public. Apart from this, when we talk about our experiences, we can be discredited or subject to ridicule. It would be awful if that began happening on this thread and I started the thread more as a focus for thinking.
I think that your definition is useful, because it may be that my discussion of Colin Wilson's ideas was a bit too obscure. Also, it focuses on famous creative people, and we don't really see ourselves in comparison with them. So, what you have offered probably brings the focus more in line with us as ordinary individuals and our peak experiences.
The only thing which I wonder about is your remark that you are not sure if yours was a peak experience, because with certain experiences which I had I wondered about this too. The conclusion which I have at present is that I don't think that we should worry too much about whether ours is the real thing. Really, I see it as an entire spectrum of potential experiences which go beyond the mundane. In opening the thread I was really wishing to enable people to explore all the possibilities of this, with a view to thinking about consciousness explorations, and how this can be potentially enhance our lives.
It's from a book on systems theory applications I read last year. I'll have to dig a bit.
edit - it is actually from Capra/Luisi The Systems View of Life which I know is one of Jack's favourites. Chapter 10, the synthetic biology approach to life, section 10.5.2 specifically, page 233. The number of cellular components is actually around 90, not 70 as I said.
Yes. I agree that any experience which is out of one's ordinary or usual state is part of a spectrum.
It is how we interpret it that matters. After the initial weirdness, there can be a reflection on whether or not it has changed anything about the way we see the world, and our place in it.
Just as in any 'reading' of texts, music, art...there can be many 'Wow!' and 'Non-Wow' moments.
All with potential importance...for growth and development...fun and batteries included.
One key is that one must be open to transformation. Otherwise, a peak experience is wasted, or worse, becomes a hedonistic trap, and one ends up chasing the dragon. From personal experience, if you become a peak-experience junkie and don't learn the lessons, then a couple of things will happen. First, the pleasure component will consistently decrease. Second, something will happen in your life that will put you face to face with your own need for self-transformation.
:up:
Very much true, in terms of keeping up with peak experiences. It's not uncommon at all to find people who keep up trying to catch up with something that can't really be controlled.
On the other hand, in my case, I don't know if there was a lesson to be learned. It simply was a strong personal experience, with no extra meaning than being able to have such experience.
I think that your comment is a really good one. We certainly shouldn't become peak experience junkies, or even complacent. I think that it would defeat the whole purpose. Perhaps if we do not use any experience for some higher purpose, we will be back to the beginning, although it may sometimes be unclear what this purpose is, depending on our social positions. But, we probably need to try to find the best ways we have of translating experience into something larger than our own pleasure and egos. But, it is quite likely that this may fail, and we will go back to the original need, which may be about the need for some kind of healing experience, to take us beyond suffering, monotony and powerlessness.
Yes, it is relatively easy to climb to the peaks and enjoy the view, but inscribing that in some permanent form in the book of one's life is another matter. A lot of people aren't eager to be transformed. Some are even afraid of the idea. I live for it. Transformation is a species of growth.
It's rather funny to me that the thread on loving the Lord and one's neighbour keeps popping up next to this one. While I am not conventionally religious, I do see it as having some connection to this discussion, because transformational experience do have some relationship to a sense of appreciation of some higher power beyond us and of our service towards others. But, putting this into practice is not easy.
I do think that you are right to say that many people are not that interested in transformation. I am, but, even then, it may be on my own terms. Today, it's a bank holiday and I have just been lying on my bed, listening to music and being rather lazy. But, I am feeling reasonably okay, but it may be that today or tomorrow I will end up having a horrible day, and feel the need for some kind of transformational experience. So, it is an ongoing process, and I would like to relate it to some kind of higher purpose, but with some amount of fear if I had to make difficult changes in my life.
What types of things can make a day horrible?
I have loads of horrible days, ranging from having disagreements with my housemates, stressful phone conversations and all kinds of other aspects of life, like losing things, such as my bank card, or my phone. They are probably the mundane aspects of life, rather than the biggest stresses. Sometimes the smaller ones can seem almost as difficult as the larger ones. Even when nothing in particular goes wrong, I feel better on some days than others, almost for no apparent reason. I find life to be almost like riding on waves, and trying to remain standing and keeping a balanced position and perspective.
Most of the time, eliminating conflict really is the first step towards an optimal solution of almost every problem. It's an art, because you have to be reasonable, but not cold. My second wife is very empathetic and great with people, I have learned a lot from her.
I think that the personal ego can be a problem. Actually, my own ego has had so many knocks that it is not particularly powerful, but just enough to keep me going. The interpersonal conflicts which we have probably are mostly trivial, but they can so easily be blown out of proportion. Some of my worst ones have been arguments by text, which have ended up seeming like text wars.
Funnily enough though, a lot of my own interpersonal stress is not even really about my own personal issues, but about me feeling bombarded with other people's own problems. So, in a way, perhaps this is about helping others to see things in perspective, and beyond the limits of the personal ego.
It is about that, but you can only control you. Trite as it may seem, there's a lot of substance in the Serenity Prayer. I've wandered more than once down the twelve-step path.
I believe that you are correct to say that we can only control ourselves, and I think this is particularly important when others almost wish to overwhelm us. Sometimes, it is probably about standing back, and doing nothing. I think that I am better at reflecting after events, rather than in reflection in action. So, sometimes, I just need to slow down rather than act or speak before thinking carefully, and we probably need our quiet peaceful days, rather than being caught up in a constant battle with moment to moment stress. The times of reflection and contemplation are possibly as important as the peaks of transformation.
:up:
Balance
Okay, I will let you get on with whatever you are doing. It has been good interacting, and I am going to carry on reading Huxley's 'The Perennial Philosophy'.
I understand that you are saying that human consciousness is biased in favour of our emotional. So, are you trying to argue that the peak experiences are part of an overall coping process? I can understand that some of the peak experiences of people have occurred to individuals who are struggling. However, I think if the heightened states of creativity, and cosmic consciousness are reduced too much, there is a danger of missing their significance, even on a cultural level.
Or, perhaps, I am misunderstanding the implications of your theory of self -organisation of consciousness. I am not wishing to elevate the ideas of certain creative individuals. I think that the whole area is a complex topic, which includes perspective on phenomenology and states of consciousness.
Ancient atomists (i.e. C?rv?ka, Abderites, Epicureans-Lucretians) and daoists clearly thought so. This speaks to a philosophical depth – antiquity – of insight, but extrapolating to something like (a) 'causal-intentional agency' (e.g. pantheism, panpsychism) is wholly unwarranted and also, however non-transcendent, question-begging.
It is interesting that ancient philosophers saw it this way and I am not opposed to the idea of self -organisation of consciousness. It is just so different from some ideas within Western metaphysics, which saw it the other way round, as probably stemming from some kind of divine order.
It is probably that certain ideas have been pushed out of the mainstream of philosophy. I have read some but not that much of Bergson on creative evolution, and wondering if he sees consciousness as self -organising, or does he see it as being a reflection of some higher level? I am planning to read him soon, so I can find out, and it may be relevant for this discussion.
My interest in Bergson's ideas is mainly in connection with Huxley's ideas about mind at large as a filtering down process of a higher level of mind. However, I do see the questions of whether to see that it is interesting to think about consciousness as self organising. Hopefully, it doesn't lessen the importance of the development of states of consciousness, but just frames it differently.
I think that Plato's cave is very interesting in thinking about consciousness, and the grasping for reality. It may be that the cave metaphor has been a key aspect in the way in which we have thought about metaphysical reality as being a remote one beyond us, rather than as being immanent in nature.
Perhaps it is not that Plato's allegory is not useful as a starting point, but it could be that it has been taken a bit too literally.
If you are interested in perusing self organization, Neile Theise does a much better job of explaining it then I do.
If you articulate specific questions, I will answer them. No need to beg. :smile:
Thanks for the link. I realise that your topic of self-organisation of consciousness is probably slightly out of context in this thread, although I don't mind if anyone wishes.
I am sorry if my discussion of peak experiences was not clear to you. I have found your comment during the night, but will write a fuller response tomorrow because It may be that the purpose of what I have written is not written clearly, for you and for others too. I am talking more about the processes of creativity and awareness.
Strangely, even though I criticised Plato's cave as having possibly contributed to us looking for an understanding in relation to a divine order, I have just discovered in Arthur Versluis' discussion of perennial philosophy, a useful insight into seeing illumination through the use of Plato's cave metaphor. Versluis suggests,'If ordinary life can be likened to a cave, then to awaken is to go outside the cave from the darkness into the light of the sun.' He goes on to say that within perennial philosophy 'illumination includes but also transcends our ordinary discursive consciousness.'
So, in this way, peak experiences can be viewed in the context of the process of waking up, or illumination. I am certainly not wishing to suggest that the peak experiences are just a form of pleasure, but, of seeing ourselves as being part of a bigger picture. I think that the topic just got a bit confusing when it moved into the question of whether consciousness is well-organising, which is more one of phenomenology and metaphysics.
I began my thread with a discussion of Colin Wilson's writing on peak experiences, and this is connected to Maslow's understanding of such experiences. However, it is probably best understood within the context of people seeking greater self awareness, or even those within spiritual traditions, including states of enlightenment. It may take extreme discipline before we can ever reach such states, but it can be seen as a spectrum of potential higher states of awareness. While the peak experiences may be seen as the peaks, it is likely that the process involves obstacles as well. I hope that I am making the point of my thread a little clearer.