Perspective on Consciousness

[Schuyler]

I don’t know quite how to explain this. I will fumble around it. I hope you will bear with me. I don’t think this is a ‘paranormal’ experience per se, but I suspect it is related. Since I was a small child, ever since I can remember at all, I have had the perception that the universe starts with me. I am at the center of it. I don’t mean this in an egotistical sense in that I think myself more important than anyone else. I mean it in the technical sense. “I” sense the world from somewhere behind my eyes. Everything else in the world is an ‘other.’ I can interact with these ‘others’ whether they be other humans, dogs, plants, carpets, chairs, or houses, but the fact is the center of the universe moves as I move. It can be sitting in an airplane traveling across the globe or sitting on a couch typing this note.

The thing is, if everyone else experiences the universe the same way, if this is simply an ‘artifact of perception and consciousness’ shared by everyone else who perceives they are the center of the universe, not me, why doesn’t anyone else talk about this? No one does. No one seems bothered by it. They seem content to be an ‘other.’ They seem oblivious to the issue.

My life has been no different than anyone else’s. I’ve had some successes and some failures. I’ve had some pain and some pleasure. I don’t consider myself more accomplished than other people and less accomplished than many. I’ve been privileged to be able to see a bit of the world. I’ve been lucky in some respects. I’m comfortable. I don’t think this is a mental illness issue. Other than being somewhat misanthropic I function normally. I’m happily married and my dog loves me.

But this feeling of centered consciousness is extremely strong. There is something different here and I don’t understand what it is. If there’s some sort of ‘mission’ involved, it had better show itself pretty quickly because time is running out. I expect to ‘survive death,’ and from what I have been able to discern about the setup of this whole thing, I don’t like it very much—but that’s another issue.

My real issue is trying to figure out why this perception is so strong and why no one else wants to talk about it. I have never been able to explain this sufficiently well to anyone. They usually say ‘well, gee, that’s interesting, I dunno.’ Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

 

[Bixyboo]

I think I know what you are saying and I believe I have felt that exact phenomenon, myself.

I never talked about it much (on forums) due to being unable to articulate it accurately, I guess.

Glad you have, though and look forward to hearing others' replies!

Bixyboo

 

[Ally]

I have had that feeling a few times but it is not my predominant perception. It also seems to coincide with extreme surrealness to me and I snap out of it. It is also not the EXCEPTED norm, not that I would really care other than I feel I need to have reality checks now and then because of all the weird things I experience.

Maybe others do have this perception all the time too but take it to another level and are then labeled or become mentally ill. They believe they are God or everyone is against them.

 

[Tyger]

But this feeling of centered consciousness is extremely strong. There is something different here and I don’t understand what it is.

[...]

My real issue is trying to figure out why this perception is so strong and why no one else wants to talk about it. I have never been able to explain this sufficiently well to anyone.

[...]

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Schuyler, not at all strange. Don't think yourself strange - in fact, what you are sensing is quite advanced imo.

I am going to spin a story - stay with me - it has a kicker at the end that may be the dime you're looking for.

Have you ever heard of manifesting wealth? You know, visualize what you want and it will come? Well, imagine a continuum, at one end is Dale Carnegie self-improvement leadership training. Move along the continuum and come to Norman Vincent Peale and Positive Thinking. Move further along and come to motivational speakers like Wayne Dyer, with books like 'Change Your Thoughts' and 'Wishes Fulfilled'. Move further along the continuum and come to manifestation work by the likes of David Spangler et al, and how to change circumstances via thought - see Joseph Murphy/New Thought Movement/Christian Science/Divine Science/Religious Science. Move further along and one comes to someone like Neville Goddard who overtly postulated that we can manifest at will because we are, in fact, God. [Neville, because of his place and time, worked with the Bible - if you can get over that hump - if it is a hump for you - his exposition is quite fascinating.] You might find reading Neville enlightening given your native experience of being the center.

However, at the far reaches of the continuum, in eastern and western esoteric thought, there is postulated a point of human development wherein the human being is able to manifest at will. This is a very advanced stage along the path of being human. There are tales of Yogi's and Tibetan monks and others in eastern lore having this capacity - the fabled Christian Rosenkreutz was said to be one who was at this stage of capacity in the west.

Your life-long sensibility is significant - don't ignore it.

Metaphors are very important. Reality is layered - am I a butterfly dreaming I am a human dreaming I am a butterfly. To know you are the center is profound. Work with it. There is a reason why 'The Matrix' has captivated so many. Metaphors.

 

[Randall]

I don’t know quite how to explain this. I will fumble around it. I hope you will bear with me. I don’t think this is a ‘paranormal’ experience per se, but I suspect it is related. Since I was a small child, ever since I can remember at all, I have had the perception that the universe starts with me. I am at the center of it. I don’t mean this in an egotistical sense in that I think myself more important than anyone else. I mean it in the technical sense. “I” sense the world from somewhere behind my eyes. Everything else in the world is an ‘other.’ I can interact with these ‘others’ whether they be other humans, dogs, plants, carpets, chairs, or houses, but the fact is the center of the universe moves as I move. It can be sitting in an airplane traveling across the globe or sitting on a couch typing this note.

The thing is, if everyone else experiences the universe the same way, if this is simply an ‘artifact of perception and consciousness’ shared by everyone else who perceives they are the center of the universe, not me, why doesn’t anyone else talk about this? No one does. No one seems bothered by it. They seem content to be an ‘other.’ They seem oblivious to the issue.

My life has been no different than anyone else’s. I’ve had some successes and some failures. I’ve had some pain and some pleasure. I don’t consider myself more accomplished than other people and less accomplished than many. I’ve been privileged to be able to see a bit of the world. I’ve been lucky in some respects. I’m comfortable. I don’t think this is a mental illness issue. Other than being somewhat misanthropic I function normally. I’m happily married and my dog loves me.

But this feeling of centered consciousness is extremely strong. There is something different here and I don’t understand what it is. If there’s some sort of ‘mission’ involved, it had better show itself pretty quickly because time is running out. I expect to ‘survive death,’ and from what I have been able to discern about the setup of this whole thing, I don’t like it very much—but that’s another issue.

My real issue is trying to figure out why this perception is so strong and why no one else wants to talk about it. I have never been able to explain this sufficiently well to anyone. They usually say ‘well, gee, that’s interesting, I dunno.’ Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

A good analyst might help. They're trained in dealing with issues that begin in childhood, and it's not just about dealing with disorders. It's also a comprehensive theory about human nature, motivation, behavior, development and experience. If it were me, I'd try a session or two.

 

[Tyger]

A good analyst might help. They're trained in dealing with issues that begin in childhood, and it's not just about dealing with disorders. It's also a comprehensive theory about human nature, motivation, behavior, development and experience. If it were me, I'd give it a shot.

If this is an avenue that is preferred, Jungian is good - but there is no one path to understanding self. NLP is fascinating - again if this is one's penchant. As with anything, one must choose carefully.

First and foremost - trust yourself - and don't see through a glass darkly. Explore the possibilities. You sound perfectly okay to me.

 

[Constance]

If this is an avenue that is preferred, Jungian is good - but there is no one path to understanding self. NLP is fascinating - again if this is one's penchant. As with anyhing, one must choose carefully.

First and foremost - trust yourself - and don't see through a glass darkly. Explore the possibilities. You sound perfectly okay to me.

Hi Tyger. What is NLP?

 

[Tyger]

Hi Tyger. What is NLP?

Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Neuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I mentioned it because I'd heard and seen good effects from it but it appears to be seen as a pseudoscience now. Ooops! I wish Freud's sexism had that tag - oh well - the politics of the field of western psychology/psychiatry will make a good film one day.

The problem with most everything these days is the inherent materialism - ufo-ology suffers from that - as well as science itself. At least Jung pushed the envelope. Adler had some good things to say but suffered from a lop-sided culture-specific view, too.

As ufology mentioned there needs to be a theory about human nature. One must choose gingerly between all the theories. I prefer knowledge - and that which leads to self-knowledge.

 

[Constance]

Thanks. I'd never heard of neuro-linguistic programming. You seem to be well read in psychology. I wonder if you've read a recent book entitled Irreducible Mind, authors Kelly and Kelly et al. I think you be interested in it. I bought it a year ago and have read quite a lot of it (hope to read it all eventually, but too much else to do). Here's the amazon link:


I'd like to discuss the original subject raised in this thread but I'm about to fall asleep. Tomorrow is another day.

 

[Constance]

Tyger, if you're still here can you tell me how to access my messages and send messages? Thanks.

 

[Tyger]

Thanks. I'd never heard of neuro-linguistic programming. You seem to be well read in psychology. I wonder if you've read a recent book entitled Irreducible Mind, authors Kelly and Kelly et al. I think you be interested in it. I bought it a year ago and have read quite a lot of it (hope to read it all eventually, but too much else to do). Here's the amazon link:


I'd like to discuss the original subject raised in this thread but I'm about to fall asleep. Tomorrow is another day.

Oh yes, I've heard about sleep! I am trying to get through a 30 hour webinar - great stuff - but between every snippet of lecture I check my new toy - this chat site - and I have been very remiss with my webinar.

Love the book, Constance. I have just read this review: Amazon.com: Dr. Richard G. Petty's review of Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for ...

What is fascinating is one of the first comments for this review says: "I doubt very seriously that Carl Sagan would have been happy with a book promoting what is basically pseudo-science. It's unfalsifiable techno babel. Science doesn't work without materialism, because you can't prove the existence or non-existence of the non-material."

First off, Carl Sagan is on my list of non-scientists. So there! However, my point with quoting this comment is that whenever the other side of the equation gets mentioned, for materialists it becomes "pseudo-science". I think Sagan would be gasping for breath at this point with cutting-edge science were he alive. I'm not sure he would have been able to keep up - and it was always about him. The man's ego trumped his science. I was "present" (in a manner of speaking) when Sagan 'debated' Immanuel Velikovsky. The man was shameless. Okay - rant over.

Just one point - this idea that one cannot prove the existence or non-existence of the non-material - is a point upon which much turns.

Anyway, I think this book sounds outstanding. Did I not have to do reading on Medieval History to prepare for my teaching this coming year, I'd likely have a look at it - but I think the review gives me the flavor. Looks good.

 

[Tyger]

Tyger, if you're still here can you tell me how to access my messages and send messages? Thanks.

I think you got that - but to have answered my post on my wall you should go into my account and you will see the message box where you type your text. See you tomorrow - look forward to our conversation.

 

[Tyger]

First off, Carl Sagan is on my list of non-scientists. So there! However, my point with quoting this comment is that whenever the other side of the equation gets mentioned, for materialists it becomes "pseudo-science". I think Sagan would be gasping for breath at this point with cutting-edge science were he alive. I'm not sure he would have been able to keep up - and it was always about him. The man's ego trumped his science. I was "present" (in a manner of speaking) when Sagan 'debated' Immanuel Velikovsky. The man was shameless. Okay - rant over.

Having mentioned the sainted Carl Sagan - it looks like the truly-sainted Neil deGrasse Tyson is doing/has done a 'remake' of Sagan's legendary 'Cosmos' series - it looks kick-ass.

Watch: Trailer for Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos remake unveiled at Comic-Con

LINK TO ARTICLE: Watch: Trailer for Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos remake unveiled at Comic-Con | The Raw Story

COSMOS: A Spacetime Odyssey with Neil deGrasse Tyson trailer

LINK:

 

[SLVA]

Hi all, on this weeks show the guest, Mack Maloney mentions the "Ong's Hat" internet fable.
I mention it here as it's kind of along similar lines of the discussion running through this thread on the nature of consciousness... in this case fictional but fascinating and still worth a read:
Ong's Hat: Gateway to the Dimensions!

 

[Tyger]

Hi all, on this weeks show the guest, Mack Maloney mentions the "Ong's Hat" internet fable.
I mention it here as it's kind of along similar lines of the discussion running through this thread on the nature of consciousness... in this case fictional but fascinating and still worth a read:
Ong's Hat: Gateway to the Dimensions!

Wish you'd elaborate as I am not getting the link.....seems to be a separate kind of thing.

However, the idea of it reminds me of the John Titor Hoax LINK: John Titor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which I know Art Bell had something to do with but I don't think he shows up in the Wiki article (since I just got the link and only scanned it).

 

[SLVA]

"Wish you'd elaborate as I am not getting the link.....seems to be a separate kind of thing."

Sorry about that, the link works for me, it involves some reading but essentially...

"The story revolves around a group of undergraduates from the University of Texas who produced a series of equations which, they felt certain, contained the seeds of a new science they called "cognitive chaos." Their dimissal from Princeton followed their attempt to submit these theorems, along with a theoretical/philosphical system built upon them, as a joint PhD thesis. On the assumption that brain activity can be modeled as a "fractal universe," an outre' topology interfacing with both random and determined forces, the twins' theorems showed that consciousness itself could be presented as a set of "strange attractors" (or "patterns of chaos") around which specific neuronal activity would organize itself. By a bizzare synthesis of mandelbrot and Cantor, they "solved the problem" of n-dimensional attractors, many of which they were able to generate on Princeton's powerful computers before their hasty departure. While realizing the ultimately indeterminate nature of these "mind maps," they felt that by attaining a thorough (non-intuitive and intuitive) grasp of the actual shapes of the attractors, one could "ride with chaos" somewhat as a "lucid dreamer" learns to contain and direct the process of REM sleep. Their aborted thesis suggested a boggling array of benefits which might accrue from such from such links between cybernetic processes and awareness itself, includiing the exploration of the brain's unused capacities, awareness of the morphogentic field and thus conscious control of autonomic functions, mind-directed repair of tissue at the cellular/genetic level (control over most diseases and the aging process), and even a direct perception of the Heisenbergian behavior of matter (a process they called "surfing the wave function")..."

How's that for starters...?

 

[Constance]

It sounds like pure fantasy, on the basis of which nothing but further fantasy can be expected to develop.

 

[Randall]

Having mentioned the sainted Carl Sagan - it looks like the truly-sainted Neil deGrasse Tyson is doing/has done a 'remake' of Sagan's legendary 'Cosmos' series - it looks kick-ass.

Wow, I want to be mesmerized by special FX so that I'll blindly bow to Tyson as the new icon of scientific skepticism, who will no doubt tell us how all the effects seen in the production are as imaginary as UFOs. I wonder if he'll also have a patented catch phrase like Sagan's "billions and billions"? Seriously though, it looks like it will be a fantastic series. I was a huge fan of the original series. I'd sit there quasi hypnotized by the spacey visuals and ambient music, Sagan's voice echoing into my brain until he could have said that the Moon is billions and billions of curds of Kraft white cheddar and I'd have gone "Wow, so that's where they get it from." Personally I would have preferred that they had recruited Amy Mainzer for the job, but hey ... we'll take what we can get.

​

 

[Tyger]

Ufology, the video is blocked 'in my country.'

 

[SLVA]

It sounds like pure fantasy, on the basis of which nothing but further fantasy can be expected to develop.

Thanks for sharing that.... No really.