Definition of Consciousness

[Tomas]

.



-Kelly Jones-
Mikiel interests me because he's so foreign psychologically. His psychology is something I haven't really met up with much, and so haven't thought much about. So I've been giving it some thought. My notes should be interesting for others.

Evidence to support theory:

- most valued experience is a daily hour-long session of transcendental meditation, when refers to himself in the third person
- strongly dislikes pure reasoning, but refers often to his IQ and other test qualifications as proof of intelligence



-tomas-
Oh, Jezus, you haven't got a clue (not much anyway) about, -or- on that cool cat, Mikiel.

I'd venture (an educated guess) that the only ones here that have him pretty well figured out are Dan, Alex, and me.

Seems Kevin doesn't or won't tangle with that white-haired old guy. Guess they are biding their time - tho David nailed him in a court of law - some time ago...

Haven't read past your rambling mini-bio (melodrama), this should be worth a chuckle. Mikiel is a bit more complex than you give him credit for.




Edited to clear up some clutter.

.

[Kelly Jones]

Thomas,

I'm quite cautious around publishing psychological analyses. It often excites the ego, so that an idea is attacked egotistically, rather than permitted room for contemplation in the mind.

Also, it needs good reason to publish them, based as they are on observations of people who are often transitioning, and (unfortunately also often) pretending.

I think the main benefit of doing so is to give people a slap on the wrist for irrational behaviour. They become more careful about how they influence others, because they know they have been lazy.

In Mikiel's case, the main brunt of the responsibility for taking that action, falls on my strong dislike of people who declare that reason is limited. When people do that, they often become bullying. It is an interesting process to watch.

Mikiel has all the classic signs of being a bully. That bewitches many people, especially when combined with the appearance of charitable work - fighting for the vulnerable with a 'holy anger'. It draws the weak and aimless like moths to a flame, like people were drawn to Hitler.

I noted you warmed to Mikiel early on, Tomas. Maybe something in his loner rebel personality touches something in you. Putting it that way, I might find Mikiel appealing as well. But his arrogance about the beliefs he pushes, and his flakiness with definitions, leaves me cold. If you don't agree with him or even begin to criticise him, he begins to slather you with insults, and make paranoid accusations. He has no sense of humour, or irony.

I'm sure Mikiel will be back to attack me with a compassionate aloofness, all the while disagreeing with everything on psychological rather than rational terms.

That's why I distrust bullies: they never enter into the reasoning, but just keep laying on their code of conduct over and over again. Then, when you start complaining about their abusive treatment, they become slightly ashamed, and present themselves as Messiahs, full of compassion and 'selfless interest'.

It's fascinating to watch the Bible in action: Old Testament ... "Obey, or I'll destroy" .... New Testament .... "Everyone belongs to the kingdom of Heaven, and you are all my brothers and sisters".... Old Testament ... "If you will not accept me and the One Who Sent Me, I will give you 1000 lashings of my poisonous tongue".

Watch and see how Mikiel responds. Is he going to take a psychological attack, and respond with pure ad hominem? Or is he going to focus on the main thrust of the whole issue, which motivated me to publish my notes on his psychology, and from which all these writings continue to burgeon?

Will he go for the root or the branches?

The odds are highly stacked against his making anything but an ad hominem. He can't explore the terms of his ideas. He's a puppet.

It's like you have to facilitate his thinking. He doesn't know how to communicate.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

He very rarely talks of his psychology negatively, which suggests serious suppression. This points to some major traumatic experience in earlier life, probably during childhood, though some brain damage might have occurred (not genetic). It is also possible that he was involved in a war, like Vietnam, and this exacerbated his illness.

If you'd look at his bio then the following events might qualify. First there's the near deadly suffocation before age of 2 after getting under a stack of lumber resulting in a broken sternum and a persistent claustrophobia.

But more disturbing in my view is the deep hypnotic trances his father brought him into at age 5, as "experiments with hypnosis and telepathy" were quite usual in his family. He mentions however how his dad hypnotizes him again and again, letting him perform acts which then were instructed to be erased from his memory. This happened between the age of 5 and 12 when the practice suddenly stopped.

In my opinion it's totally irresponsible to hypnotize and 'experiment' on children in that age range outside a therapeutic or medical (supervised, licensed) context. It's especially cruel to instruct forgetfulness of the events happened during the session. I categorize this as a form of child abuse, even when during the sessions no further harm would have been done.

In my view the child's mind is just too vulnerable, too impressionable to fiddle with in that manner, especially when adding posthypnotic suggestion about forgetting events (so-called posthypnotic amnesia). That could really traumatize the mind, or least induce a strong distrust and rejection of its higher faculties - hence the embrace of a more feminine philosophy and 'oneness', combined with the usual shiploads of magical thought.

[Leyla Shen]

In my opinion it's totally irresponsible to hypnotize and 'experiment' on children in that age range outside a therapeutic or medical (supervised, licensed) context.

And I was just thinking about hypnotism in the other thread, too.

Bloody hell. What shape are we in when we even think hypnotism offers a viable solution to the human mind?

[Alex Jacob]

It is wise to recognize, though I'm sure it makes some uncomfortable---you and Kelly perhaps?---that he is just one loco-bean among a group of loco-beans, and every loco here, the ones who really take themselves seriously (it is the need to present a front and defend it like a junkyard dog that is the red flag), evinces neurotic, distorted behavior and ideas that, in their way, mirror old Micky Eel. He comes here to show y'all this. You forensically cobble together a diagnosis for Mik, but can you do the same for yourselves?

Today was indeed a bit of a breakthrough, but now we have to carry the work forward.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

...that he is just one loco-bean among a group of loco-beans, and every loco here, the ones who really take themselves seriously

Yawn! The only meaningful description of 'loco' would be 'delusional', in the context of enlightenment. Therefore it's a very basic insight to recognize ones own insanity or the insane preposition of the human condition so far.

In the light of all this your regular musings about some healthy or wholesome condition, looking for it in social Christianity, sexuality and intellectual nit-picking are totally off-base, not even hinting at the right direction [that is: truth of the matter]. It seems you have barely started to grasp the hopelessness of the human situation, the pervasive sickness of it.

Many who do come this far tend to 'blow their brains out', if not thoroughly prepared. So in a way it's rather serious stuff, at least to the common mind.

[Alex Jacob]

Definitions of delusion.

My fave so far: "The ability to fool oneself as no one else could."

Diebert writes:

"Therefore it's a very basic insight to recognize ones own insanity or the insane preposition of the human condition so far."

Yes? Could you point me to those here who are doing this? Like, in the first person?

"It seems you have barely started to grasp the hopelessness of the human situation, the pervasive sickness of it."

Yes, Diebert: How does one get better?

[mikiel]

What the hell... having some free time on a lazy Sun afternoon... I'll go another round.

m:"to define" means literally to "make finite"... which consciousness is not"

KJ:

Are you sure consciousness is NOT finite?

In the same post you were claiming "consciousness both transcends and includes all that It is conscious of".

Can you conceive of consciousness without things? I mean, literally. I know you define consciousness as 'empty of content' ...

I am sure, as in knowing gnostically, (a realm foreign to you) that Consciousness is eternal and infinite, transcending all finite forms of manifest creation... the latter of which (again and again) IS consiousness manifesting... Which It does simultaneously as it transcends creation. Both/and... non-dual but with two *aspects.* You simply *can not* get your mind around this, cuz the mind is merely a finite tool while Consciousness is The Infinite Presence and Creator.
On the one hand you criticise me for my references to Merrell-Wolff's work... "quoting authorities"... (A Teacher points the Way but does not walk the walk for you...) and on the other hand you totally ignore these repeated references to his masterpiece "The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object" and just stupidly repeat:

"Can you conceive of consciousness without things? I mean, literally. I know you define consciousness as 'empty of content'

Yet again...Both transcending content (awareness itself transcending *what we are aware of* AND manifesting as all "things" And witnessing them.
This is non-dual awareness, as well known in Eastern Traditions(most famously in Advaita Vedanta) and now central to Western Integral philosophy (see Ken Wilber's extensive publishing on the subject.)
Your ignorance of It does not invalidate It as "Ultimate Reality."

Nuff for now. Until you "get" the above, I am just pissing into the wind here trying to get the "unfathomable" (by the rational mind) across to you.
The latter is the perrennial gap between enlightened teachers and unenlightened seekers... not to mention (grin) know it all "rational only" philosophers without a clue or an interest in the Ultimate Reality known to mystics as gnosis.

[mikiel]

As to the judgement that I suffered child abuse by my father...
You judge falsley... as is the standard of this forum. (See "Judging others" thread.)
Yes, being crushed into the sand by a pile of lumber was nearly fatal and produced traumatic claustrophopia, but I got over it. Shit happens. (I was an avid explorer and climber ASAP. No blame.)

At age 5 *I asked Dad, "How big is God?"* Rather than feeding me bullshit or evading the question, he "took me out of body" for my first Journey as a mystic in a family of mystics. I "saw" Kosmos expanding and then contracting. "I" was at the "center" and became terrified at the prospect of being (again) crushed, this time by the "crunch" half of the cycle. Had a few nightmares... then got over it.
We were a family of explorers of the frontiers of consciousness. It is not a calling for the timid and cautious... especially not finger-shakers ("shame on you!) like Diebert and his ilk.

My father was an excellent parent, a loving dad and a courageous explorer in the realm of the power of consciousness to transcend the supposed limits of the mind and *create.* I remain grateful to him for his guidance and love. Get over it, "judges."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"Therefore it's a very basic insight to recognize ones own insanity or the insane preposition of the human condition so far."

Yes? Could you point me to those here who are doing this? Like, in the first person?

If delusion can mean "the ability to fool oneself [as no one else could]" and enlightenment is understood on this forum as "the unconditioned mind" (as per Quinn: "... perceiving the very Reality before us without any distortion or mental projection"), then delusion equals essentially the lack of [enlightenment]. Anyone who takes this enlightenment seriously here and who doesn't recognize ones own complete enlightenment is affirming a form of in-sanity.

This is possibly not "sophisticated" enough for you. Which is by the way a term you use with an unusual frequency.

"It seems you have barely started to grasp the hopelessness of the human situation, the pervasive sickness of it."

Yes, Diebert: How does one get better?

There's no actual better to become or receive while there can be unbinding nevertheless.

[brokenhead]

At age 5 *I asked Dad, "How big is God?"* Rather than feeding me bullshit or evading the question, he "took me out of body" for my first Journey as a mystic in a family of mystics. I "saw" Kosmos expanding and then contracting. "I" was at the "center" and became terrified at the prospect of being (again) crushed, this time by the "crunch" half of the cycle. Had a few nightmares... then got over it.

At the risk of sounding rational, what's with all the quotation marks? I do try to read your posts, mikiel. When you write something like "took me out of body" and put it in quotes like that, your reader is forced to guess your meaning. Several meanings come to mind:
a.) "beat me sensless"
b.) "held me under water for five minutes"
c.) "shared a joint with me"
d.) "made me swallow blue mushrooms"
e.) "hypnotized me"

You see my problem.

[mikiel]

Broke:

At the risk of sounding rational, what's with all the quotation marks? I do try to read your posts, mikiel. When you write something like "took me out of body" and put it in quotes like that, your reader is forced to guess your meaning.

I notoriously use them like I do salt and pepper... liberally and whimsically....
Almost everyone I know is familiar with the well worn phrase, "out of body experience." In this case it means in trance, beyond my usual awareness of this physical body. I quoted that he "took me out of body" in direct reference to above but not to be taken literally as an actual entity "me" being extracted from or flying out of my body. Rather the individual transcends the illusory limits of "my personal consciousness" and joins into the Greator Whole of cosmic consciousness, Which/Whom is omnipresent.

This answer is serious just in case yours was a serious inquiry.
As for the other quotes:
"How big is God" was literally the question I asked.
"Saw" is obviously not with the physical eyes but spiritual vision in trance.
"I" ...again not an entity which/whom could actually be crushed.
"Center" of the oscillating bang/crunch cycle, but disputed by different cosmologies.
"crunch" quoting the slang for this cosmology as "Bang/Crunch."

All actually quite obvious. I assume you just put on your pedantic school teacher hat here to "correct my paper"* just because you happen to have that particular cob up your ass. Must be very irritating.
(*Oops!, there they go again. Damn! I cant help it... I'm a compulsive quote user. Maybe I need to find the local chapter of QA... Quoters Annonymous.

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert writes:

"If delusion can mean "the ability to fool oneself [as no one else could]" and enlightenment is understood on this forum as "the unconditioned mind" (as per Quinn: "... perceiving the very Reality before us without any distortion or mental projection"), then delusion equals essentially the lack of [enlightenment]. Anyone who takes this enlightenment seriously here and who doesn't recognize ones own complete enlightenment is affirming a form of in-sanity."

[Did I hear a wee bit of 'I affirm my enlightenment therefor I am enlightened?] [That is an interesting formula].

Right. If one sets up the definitions---if one border-patrols them---then you can make your A+B turn out precisely as you wish.

So, "if one recognizes the possibility of self-delusion, and if one agrees that one overcomes delusion by 'perceiving Realty (with capital R) with no distortion or mental projection, then our definition of non-deludedness is exactly the terms we all agree on". Then, you throw in a group-cohesion phrase: 'Anyone who takes this enlightenment seriously...'(et cetera, et cetera) does thus-and-such. The piano drops out of the third floor all over again...

"This is possibly not "sophisticated" enough for you. Which is by the way a term you use with an unusual frequency."

And the reason is to distinguish between what is course and what is refined.

Just as you see through Micky-Eel, I propose that others should see through you (plural). It is not at all that 'enlightenment' is not a possibility, though I seriously doubt that it would be presented in the terms of this forum, and broadcast as Micky-Eel broadcasts his, with a loudspeaker. I assume that 'enlightenment' is mostly a 'quiet doing'. Do you really think enlightenment is like unto Kelly, Ryan, and others who mouth-off here? I might like to get to know the sadhu expounding the dharma on his humble mat were it not for the 7 multi-colored elephants carrying-on in the living room (and I'm not sure the floor will support them).

This is why we will keep returning to Micky and to what he brings to us all, that which we cannot help seeing.

[Kelly Jones]

I think Mikiel's security-blanket "universal consciousness" idea is largely a result of the crushing accident. It's pretty obvious. His father knew about altered states of consciousness, and uses hypnosis on Mikiel for therapeutic purposes. I think that was fair enough. He was around the age where the ego is starting to 'land', and things weren't going well. So his father helped him to experience a different sense of self, not tied to his little fragile body, that gave Mikiel a sense of great peace, power, and otherworldly joy. Problem was - his father encouraged his imagination but not his reason. So he grew up into an adult still holding onto these psychological remedies as ultimate truths.

What his father didn't know, is that these altered states of consciousness, are not as strange and supernatural as they might appear. They have a profound sense of deep familiarity, like returning to one's rightful home. This should start alarm bells ringing.

The connotations of these feelings of great peace, power, safety and joy, need to be examined with a scientific mind. We need to be reasonable, and not fall into explanations like alien abductions, divine visitations, spiritual ecstasies, and the like. We have to look at human psychology and the development of the human mind. What is the most likely explanation, given those feelings?

The most reasonable theory is that mystic experiences trip residual neural pathways leftover from embryonic consciousness. These altered states trigger vague memories of prepartum consciousness, where the fetus' brain is developing. Embryonic consciousness, as far as we might make out, has no clear distinctions, contrasts, memories, or thoughts. It is a world of pure sensation, with primal emotional states, blurry, and timeless. These vague memories are physically laid down in the brain.

When a person experiences somewhat more altered states of consciousness, more out of the than normal range of altered states, after birth, these early quasi-memories kick in. All the strangely familiar characters of those pre-birth experiences colour the new experiences. 99 times out of a 100 the person has no solid love of reasoning, and never questions the striking sense of selflessness and serenity that arises. He just assumes he's tapped-into the veins of the Universe itself.

Mikiel's dad did what all normal parents do for a hysterical, frightened toddler. They wrap them up in a cocoon of psychological safety, helping to heal those very damaged emotions.

I myself went through an early-childhood trauma (I had third-degree burns as a three-year-old).

It is what happens afterwards, when the child is psychologically stable again, that makes the difference. If the parents are sensitive and reasonable, they slowly teach the child about cause and effect, and thus ground the imagination in its true foundation of reason. This probably happens in less than 10% of cases, so we get numerous adults with crazy superstitions. Perhaps some of them see psychologists; I doubt any more than a tiny minority eventually become fully rational.


It is probably too late for Mikiel to begin to question his belief system, but it's certainly possible to stimulate thought in others to avoid the same pitfall.

[Kelly Jones]

Mikiel: m:"to define" means literally to "make finite"... which consciousness is not"

Kelly: Are you sure consciousness is NOT finite? In the same post you were claiming "consciousness both transcends and includes all that It is conscious of". Can you conceive of consciousness without things? I mean, literally. I know you define consciousness as 'empty of content' ...

Mikiel: I am sure, as in knowing gnostically, (a realm foreign to you) that Consciousness is eternal and infinite, transcending all finite forms of manifest creation... the latter of which (again and again) IS consiousness manifesting... Which It does simultaneously as it transcends creation. Both/and... non-dual but with two *aspects.* You simply *can not* get your mind around this, cuz the mind is merely a finite tool while Consciousness is The Infinite Presence and Creator.

Isn't the mind you speak of doing an absolutely terrific job in getting around the concept "Consciousness is The Infinite Presence and Creator" ?

Or is the latter definition false?

Back to an earlier question that remains unanswered: if Consciousness is eternal and infinite, how do you explain differences in consciousness? If you happened to be a rock, would you be more capable of your so-called "knowing gnostically" than being a human? And, why bother with your hourly daily session of transcendental meditation, since you can't get away from consciousness in everything you do and are?

[mikiel]

This is pure whimsy but possibly last play here before another few days' absence... so... re:

Alex:

Just as you Diebert see through Micky-Eel, I propose that others should see through you (plural). It is not at all that 'enlightenment' is not a possibility, though I seriously doubt that it would be presented in the terms of this forum, and broadcast as Micky-Eel broadcasts his, with a loudspeaker. I assume that 'enlightenment' is mostly a 'quiet doing'....
(deletion.... colorful but irrelevant to this reply.)

This is why we will keep returning to Micky and to what he brings to us all, that which we cannot help seeing.

Or hearing... what with his loudspeaker and all...)

Just fishing for specifics here. Generalities (and insults) rule here but real debate/dialogue requires specifics... very seldom used here. As an old debate judge, I notice these things and they make this forum very superficial.

So... How is it that you think Diebert "see(s) through Mikey-Eel?"
I am by intent totally transparent, as in honest, but I suspect that is not what you mean (both senses of "mean" intended.) And why do you use this distorted spelling version of mikIel? He was a strange persona quickly banned for obvious reasons... and now there is a rumor (not clear who started it) that I contracted an assassin to kill Kelly for calling me Mikey-ell. Totally bazarre! A circus of false rumor. I inquired about it. Yet unanswered.

How do you see my "broadcast" as different than true firsthand testimony on enlightenment? It is a negative spin word with no cogent argument behind it as to how i am wrong, in your obviously egocentric opinion?
You "assume"...that 'enlightenment' is mostly a 'quiet doing'."
Why is that?
If (as a very remote possibility any time soon)) you were given the Gift of Enlightenment... would you keep quiet about it? Why? Based on ego's programs about humility? Enlightenment blows away *all ego's programs* (as the illusory identity.) You project from that "humility program" based on egocentricity, onto 'mikiel' who has no such programs and is in fact liberated from the common dilemma of human programing as social robots.
I share this ultimate transformation openly. I Am an individual locus/manifestation of cosmic consciousnesss... 'God, for short.'

Wow! "Blasphemous" egocentrics must declare! "We are humble sinners, not loci of God Consciouness." (You create this reality as unconscious 'creators'!)
WAKE UP from this robotic programing... the slumber of ego's dream (that "I" have an identity separate from the Cosmic One.)
Good night.

[Kelly Jones]

and now there is a rumor (not clear who started it) that I contracted an assassin to kill Kelly for calling me Mikey-ell. Totally bazarre! A circus of false rumor. I inquired about it. Yet unanswered.

Relax, Mikiel.

Among normal, psychologically stable individuals, there's often a light-spirited mood of banter and mild sarcasm. It isn't driven by hate. It's a form of idealism, and an elevated type of humour.

Often such witticisms are abstract, and can apply to everyone. They're intended personally, but they're intended to stimulate thought, not anger.

I have quite a good nose for people with brittle egos: bullies who take themselves very seriously, and cannot express with a literary couplet their dogmatism. They are literally insane, attacking everything to defend their fragile sense of self. It's a hellish life, I don't envy them.

I think your attraction to enjoying life, as expressed in your poetry, is a good remedy, but don't forget the reason.

[Jason]

The connotations of these feelings of great peace, power, safety and joy, need to be examined with a scientific mind. We need to be reasonable, and not fall into explanations like alien abductions, divine visitations, spiritual ecstasies, and the like. We have to look at human psychology and the development of the human mind. What is the most likely explanation, given those feelings?

Ok, then you wrote:

The most reasonable theory is that mystic experiences trip residual neural pathways leftover from embryonic consciousness. These altered states trigger vague memories of prepartum consciousness, where the fetus' brain is developing. Embryonic consciousness, as far as we might make out, has no clear distinctions, contrasts, memories, or thoughts. It is a world of pure sensation, with primal emotional states, blurry, and timeless. These vague memories are physically laid down in the brain.

That's extremely speculative and without experimental backing, and given that you've presented it as "the most reasonable theory", I'd say it's a disservice to the scientific mind.

[Alex Jacob]

The intellect, if you ask me, is only so useful, especially when it comes to core, existential issues and problems, and of course to 'faith', to a 'living relationship' with the creator/creation. I think this is the great, erroneous emphasis of many who express their opinions here, they really seem to believe that 'enlightenment' is an intellectual, a mental state of mind. You get there by 'reasoning'. Always, I suggest that the term is a bad one, and that there is only enlightened activity of persons who act in an enlightened manner. But some here are so invested in the term that it all begins to appear neurotic. So, you have Micky Eel going on and on and on with his 'defense' against the likes of Kelly, but you also have Kelly going on and on and on with her defense of herself (excuse me, I am really suffering under the erroneous idea that Kelly is a woman, this is my own pathology so please excuse me!)

So, if as Diebert indicates you start with the affirmation 'I am enlightened', you can (I suggest) trick yourself into believing it is so, that it MUST be so. From that stance, one can then forever remain engaged in battle with anyone who expresses a contrary opinion. It turns into an endless war of words and elaborate intellectual defenses.

"The ability to fool oneself as no one else could."
_______________________________________________________

"The most reasonable theory is that mystic experiences trip residual neural pathways leftover from embryonic consciousness. These altered states trigger vague memories of prepartum consciousness, where the fetus' brain is developing. Embryonic consciousness, as far as we might make out, has no clear distinctions, contrasts, memories, or thoughts. It is a world of pure sensation, with primal emotional states, blurry, and timeless. These vague memories are physically laid down in the brain."

"When a person experiences somewhat more altered states of consciousness, more out of the than normal range of altered states, after birth, these early quasi-memories kick in. All the strangely familiar characters of those pre-birth experiences colour the new experiences. 99 times out of a 100 the person has no solid love of reasoning, and never questions the striking sense of selflessness and serenity that arises. He just assumes he's tapped-into the veins of the Universe itself."

This is a lovely specimen of the intellectual game at play. Where the 'job' of the intellect is to stand over all aspects of experience and 'reduce' them in such a manner that they are describable to the intellect, controllable by the intellect.

I suggest that, in its own way, this imposition is just as fallacious as any of the semi-hallucinations Micky presents. One will go on and on and on defending a system they have created and invest in, just as the other does. Certainties battle certainties, declarations battle declarations, ad infinitum.

"The ability to fool oneself as no one else could."

[maestro]

If delusion can mean "the ability to fool oneself [as no one else could]" and enlightenment is understood on this forum as "the unconditioned mind" (as per Quinn: "... perceiving the very Reality before us without any distortion or mental projection"), then delusion equals essentially the lack of [enlightenment]. Anyone who takes this enlightenment seriously here and who doesn't recognize ones own complete enlightenment is affirming a form of in-sanity.

Eh? WTF was that supposed to mean?

[mikiel]

Just a quick parting comment before leaving for another few days:

Epistemology (how we know what we know, to oversimplify) has two branches, a- priori and a-posteriori. The former is the realm of gnosis, knowing via direct identity in/with Universal Consciousness. It is not about content known but knowing this One Identity in all forms... the One in the many.

The latter is empirical knowledge about things through info gathering and inductive reasoning to put the details together into a body of knowledge. Deductive reasoning can be in either category, starting with a premise (however it is "known") and going into the specifics which the general contains.

Mystic gnosis is totally ineffable. One knows by direct realization of identity-in-unity, resonance as of the part with the whole (holographic model)... direct recognition "That I Am" (is) the same One in all.
So the logicians here with the strictly "rational" approach to enlightenment spin their wheels but can never "Eff the ineffable" until true Awakening dawns upon them. Transcendence is a false concept to them, and "consciousness" is dependent on its "objects."
Any meditator with a modicum of experience, whether fully enlightened or not knows better.
The subtitle of this forum is total hypocricy.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If delusion can mean "the ability to fool oneself [as no one else could]" and enlightenment is understood on this forum as "the unconditioned mind" (as per Quinn: "... perceiving the very Reality before us without any distortion or mental projection"), then delusion equals essentially the lack of [enlightenment]. Anyone who takes this enlightenment seriously here and who doesn't recognize ones own complete enlightenment is affirming a form of in-sanity.

Eh? WTF was that supposed to mean?

Yes, it was intentionally obscured so that Alex might read it more carefully :) Actually it ended up as a rather condensed paragraph with various errors in style and structure.

The gist is very simple though: if enlightenment is defined as the unconditioned, undistorted mind or its fundamental perception, then any distortion, unconsciousness or conditioning still present can be seen as delusion or insanity. All by definition.

And who amongst you is without trace of a sin? Who calls himself a perfect embodiment of wisdom? Only those can claim real health.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Did I hear a wee bit of 'I affirm my enlightenment therefor I am enlightened? That is an interesting formula.

The question "am I enlightened" does not need to arise nor does it make any sense as topic. The moment however one talks about delusion, sickness, in-sanity, problem, psychosis, including your very own manes and mania, there is this implied backdrop of sanity, health, wholeness that is being issued - squeezed in through a backdoor.

So the moment you, or anyone, is raising the topic of some psychological dysfunction, there's asserted a cure, a wholesomeness to contrast it with. And then you seem here to turn it around and project this on others: they are proclaiming or believing in their sanity. Does it mean a finger is never allowed to point?

Right. If one sets up the definitions---if one border-patrols them---then you can make your A+B turn out precisely as you wish.

Setting up and following through definitions is very important. When done well, it doesn't allow anyone to 'wish away' - when properly surrendering to this logical act all kinds of contradictions come to light, indeed pointing out our own insanities one by one. The whole human condition starts to lie bare: our pre-positioning against Maya.

I assume that 'enlightenment' is mostly a 'quiet doing'. Do you really think enlightenment is like unto Kelly, Ryan, and others who mouth-off here?

It would be quite hard to gauge an 'unfettered' mind over the Internet, now wouldn't it? If one however shows some degree of sanity, or at least a preference for sanity, clarity and demonstrates to some extent emptiness, its realization, then certainly a light is being spread. It's no rocket science really, no smoke, no theater, no sophistication necessarily involved when it comes to this.

[Kelly Jones]

Sure it's speculative, Jason.

My inductions examine the emotions evoked of a strangely and profoundly familiar nature, and that they are uniquely and always associated with mystical experiences. The most likely explanation for that link is a psychological phenomenon.

We could also speculate that the link comes from aliens beaming a pre-recorded psychological phenomenon into human consciousness. But that seems less likely given the lack of evidence of aliens, and extremely likely given the phenomenon of egotism.

Deluded people don't have those particular emotions (not strongly anyway) when they discover something totally new, like how water runs from a tap or over a waterfall in variable surges. Mundane stuff is somewhat exciting, but the ego just finds a pleasure in the surprises. There is no sense of 'coming home' and 'being connected to the Great Spirit'.

It is only when they discover a new world in their own imagination, that takes them out of their usual perspective of the 'outer world', and seems to tie the two together, that they experience these emotions and beliefs. Because the ego is always weak, and afraid of the outer environment, there is a huge emotional reaction to the notion that it might exist in a totally different environment.

So the ego of the deluded person causes a state of shock. A part of the mind is desperately looking for a way to overcome the fear of this tremendous notion. It finds it in submission.

You have heard the saying, 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em' ? That is the source of the belief of universal oneness. The ego submits to this tremendous, vast environment, being overwhelmed by the sense of its power.

People do this all the time when they see a beautiful sunset.

And in that submission, which is a collapse of conscious thought, there is a return to the blurry, timeless, pure sensation world of embryonic consciousness.

People who love trance states, and hate reason, are just burying their head in the sand. They're returning to the womb.

[Kelly Jones]

Just a quick parting comment before leaving for another few days:

Epistemology (how we know what we know, to oversimplify) has two branches, a- priori and a-posteriori. The former is the realm of gnosis, knowing via direct identity in/with Universal Consciousness. It is not about content known but knowing this One Identity in all forms... the One in the many.

The latter is empirical knowledge about things through info gathering and inductive reasoning to put the details together into a body of knowledge. Deductive reasoning can be in either category, starting with a premise (however it is "known") and going into the specifics which the general contains.

Mystic gnosis is totally ineffable. One knows by direct realization of identity-in-unity, resonance as of the part with the whole (holographic model)... direct recognition "That I Am" (is) the same One in all.
So the logicians here with the strictly "rational" approach to enlightenment spin their wheels but can never "Eff the ineffable" until true Awakening dawns upon them. Transcendence is a false concept to them, and "consciousness" is dependent on its "objects."
Any meditator with a modicum of experience, whether fully enlightened or not knows better.
The subtitle of this forum is total hypocricy.

Read this again, Mikiel. You might want to rewrite it, specifically where you equate deductive reasoning with mystical gnosis, and then say mystical gnosis is not strictly rational. (Though you're right, you're not strictly rational).