Sunday, May 18, 2008

The Multi-Dimensional Organ of Human Consciousness (5.19.10)

The supralogical is superior to the logical, the logical to the illogical. --Ananda Coomaraswamy

While I would never base a belief in God on the gaps in our knowledge -- except perhaps as a jumping-in point -- I do know that we are immersed in a universe of irreducible mystery, and that this mystery includes several fundamental conundrums that will never be beaten by science. These mysteries represent limits to our cognition. While we can think about them rationally, we can never arrive at any satisfactory intellectual (in the lower, profane sense) answer as to what they actually are, any more than the hand can grasp itself, for they are the very conditions of our being and knowing.

I guess I'm saying that while I may not know much, at least I know nothing. As Petey never tires of reminding me, I'm just apophatic nobody.

For example, science will never comprehend the mystery of existence -- that is, why there is an ordered something instead of a chaotic nothing. Science simply assumes this a priori order, for without it, science would be impossible. This mystery is so hopelessly insoluble that we generally stop even asking about it after childhood. Science actually provides no sensible answers to this question at all, nor was it intended to. Only esoteric religious metaphysics even begins to touch this dimension, for it is an intellectual form adequate to the majesty and mystery -- not to mention, sanctity -- of the subject.

Another irreducible mystery is life itself. We all act as if we know what it is, but it would be much more accurate to say that we know what lifelessness is, and that life seems to be a bizarre and unexpected violation of this general rule (when it is actually the reverse).

Even more bizarre and problematic is the existence of consciousness. We have this astounding gift of inwardness, and yet, what is it for? Why would the universe evolve into a subjective horizon containing love, beauty, truth, justice, poetry, music....

We can know so much, and yet, we cannot know anything about these fundamental mysteries of existence, life and consciousness -- at least not with reason alone. As the Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace observes, "Despite centuries of modern philosophical and scientific research into the nature of the mind, at present there is no technology that can detect the presence or absence of any kind of consciousness, for scientists to even know what exactly is to be measured. Strictly speaking, at present there is no scientific evidence even for the existence of consciousness." Another way of saying it is that, if consciousness did not exist, science would have no trouble explaining the fact.

That is, the only evidence we have of consciousness consists of direct, first person accounts of being conscious. And yet, not everyone is conscious in the same way or of the same things. Although we don’t know what consciousness is, we do know that there are degrees of it. Every psychologist navigates through the use of a developmental model of some kind, in which consciousness unfolds and develops through time. But why? Other animals don’t have degrees of consciousness within their own species, but the gulf between certain humans is as great as the gulf between a dog and Beethoven, or between Petey and Keith Olbermann.

This is such an important point. Yes, one can easily prove the existence of God. But not to you, jackass. Speaking only for myself, when I read, say, Meister Eckhart or Frithjof Schuon, and compare it with reading, say, Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, they are resonating on entirely different planes of consciousness. It is a physical sensation, albeit a subtle one -- and one which it is the purpose of a spiritual practice to identify, develop, and amplify, as with any other "skill." As such, I can well imagine how it would be possible for someone to arrive at the misosophical or sophophobic nul de slack of atheism if they are blunted to the subtle transactions that constantly flow between the planes of consciousness -- or between the Subject and the subject.

In my view consciousness is an organ, just like any other organ in the body -- heart, lungs, kidneys, etc. But those are material organs that exist in three-dimensional space. Consciousness, however, is an immaterial organ that operates in multidimensional space and time. In short, it is the first hyper-dimensional organ of the cosmos.

What is an organ? Two things, mainly. First of all, it is a differentiated structure. In other words, it is not just a blob or an aggregation, but a definable form that has an identifiable structure. A while back, during my nuclear treadmill, I got a good look at my heart. Even with a material organ such as the heart, no one can draw a sharp line and say "this is where the heart ends and the vascular system begins." And yet, the heart is an obvious structure with valves, chambers, arteries, etc.

The second characteristic of an organ is that it has a purpose; it performs a function through cooperative activity. The heart pumps blood. The lungs exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide. The kidneys filter the blood.

By implication, organs have a third characteristic, that is, pathology. If an organ is defined by a function it is supposed to accomplish, then pathology means failure to accomplish that function.

Although no scientist has ever seen consciousness, it nevertheless has a differentiated structure and a function. Part of its structure is a reflection of the structure of our brains, but not all of it. For example, the brain has an obvious horizontal structure in the form of a left and right brain with very different orientations that, in a healthy individual, will harmonize in a higher dimension, or manifold unity.

Likewise, the brain has a clear vertical structure, in the sense that we have what might be called a reptilian brain, over which there is a mammalian brain, and on top of which is the neocortex: our "human brain."

But this three-dimensional physical structure does not come close to exhausting the structure of consciousness, which is hyper-dimensional, meaning that it exists in a space of more than three (or four) dimensions.

This is a thorny problem, because our normal thinking -- especially scientific thinking, which you might say is "common sense" taken to the extreme -- takes place in three dimensions. We cannot think scientifically or rationally in higher dimensional space. Take, for example, causation. In the three dimensional world, causation is relatively easy to conceptualize: A causes B, B causes, C, C causes D, etc. D cannot cause A, nor can A and D occupy the same space at the same time.

So how does one "think" in higher dimensional space? As a matter of fact, we do it all the time. For example, dreaming is a form of hyper-dimensional thinking freed from the limitations of the outer, three-dimensional world. This is also how we might understand the Wise Crack that "poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." The genuine poet uses language to express realities that transcend the lower-dimensional world.

Think of it this way: the mystery of the dream is that it is the brain’s attempt to represent in three dimensions a space that actually far exceeds three dimensions -- like trying to represent a three-dimensional image on a two-dimensional plane. Imagine, for example, people living on a two dimensional plane -- a sheet of typing paper. They know nothing at all about the three dimensional world.

Now imagine if you could pass your three-dimensional hand through the sheet of paper. What would it look like to the people in 2D? First they would see five separate points grow into circles, as the fingers touch the paper and move through it. But then the five circles would disappear and become one larger circle -- the wrist. Let's say that these people in 2D are very careful scientific observers of empirical phenomena. No matter how much they study the data, they would have no idea that the disparate phenomena are all actually aspects of a higher dimensional object they cannot see.

This is how dream consciousness operates. A dream might be thought of as analogous to that hand passing through the sheet of paper. In dreams, various elements are connected in a hyper-dense manner that violates all notions of linear logic. Time is abolished, in the sense that you can be in two different times in your life, or your adult self can be side by side or "within" your child self (or vice versa). But if you don’t know how to read the dream, you will see merely a linear, if somewhat crazy, narrative. You won’t know how to unpack all of the different dimensions. As a matter of fact, human history is just such a "crazy dream," with a dense network of subterranean connections that will go undetected by the secularized mind.

Just yesterday, I was interpreting one of these crazy secular dreams. For example, Barack Obama is a member of an insane church whose pastor claims that 9-11 was a case of America's "chickens coming home to roost." Hmm, where have we heard that dream before? Ah yes, when Malcolm X said it about the assassination of JFK -- even though JFK was murdered by a man of the left. But now, the relatives of JFK endorse the most far left presidential candidate we have ever had, one whose spiritual mentor no doubt believes that JFK had it coming to him as well (hence his use of the same phrase to describe the 9-11 murders). Yes, it's insane, but that's dream logic for you. Suffice it to say that JFK would not have believed that either his murder or the slaugther of 3000 Americans on 9-11 was his or our fault. He was a waking liberal, not a leftist with sleep crapnea.

As I have labored to point out in the past, religious metaphysics, properly understood, represents objective knowledge of reality. But clearly, in order to understand reality objectively, we cannot limit ourselves to its illusory three or four dimensions. Rather, we must somehow learn to think in a hyper-dimensional manner analogous to the dream.

Authentic scripture must be understood in this manner. There is no language known to man that is more hyper-dimensional and dreamlike than scripture (some parts of scripture much more so than others -- like dreams, scripture waxes and wanes in its dimensional carrying capacity, and it requires a degree of spiritual discernment to appreciate this).

And we might also understand, say, Jesus, in the same way. If we limit ourselves to a naive scientific or "rational" view in trying to understand Jesus, we will simply generate fundamentalist banality or logical absurdity. But if we assume that Jesus is analogous to that multidimensional hand passing through four-dimensional history, now we’re getting somewhere. For where is the “body of Christ?”

I think I saw it pass this way just a moment ago.

The madness that comes of God is superior to the sanity which is of human origin. --Plato

13 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

Fabulous post. More, please.

5/18/2008 08:57:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"As such, I can well imagine how it would be possible for someone to arrive at the misosophical or sophophobic nul de slack of atheism if they are blunted to the subtle transactions that constantly flow between the planes of consciousness -- or between the Subject and the subject."

Cool! A gnu one! Nul de slack. :^)

5/18/2008 09:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Yes, hell is the eternal nul de slack.

5/18/2008 09:55:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"Rather, we must somehow learn to think in a hyper-dimensional manner analogous to the dream."

Dream thinkin'! Or...dreamkin'!

Bravo Zulu on today's post, Bob!

5/18/2008 10:50:00 AM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

The idea of the hand passing through the page is still one of your more brilliant word-pictures (which is another whole area of philological exploration!) and I'm renewed with interest to read it again.

And yes, nul de slack is a keeper!

5/18/2008 11:43:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

"And yes, nul de slack is a keeper!"

Yep, a fine example of hyper-dimensional rewordgitation.

5/18/2008 12:22:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Petey, speaking of running around in circles…

As they all ways say, “You can drench a horse with Petey, but you can’t wake him (drunk).

Bobtender, I’ll have another.

5/18/2008 02:15:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

“I do know that we are immersed in a universe of irreducible mystery, and that this mystery includes several fundamental conundrums that will never be beaten by science.”

Bob, you re-served a joke the other day about a mathematician’s contributions being incalculable. And I say this with great appreciation for all serious branches of study, including comedy. I think you proved that joke will never be not funny.

5/18/2008 02:39:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

“Speaking only for myself, when I read, say, Meister Eckhart or Frithjof Schuon and compare it with reading, say, Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, they are resonating on entirely different planes of consciousness.”

I haven’t read much of Eckhart yet, but when I switch between say books by Schuon or Tomberg or Sri Aurobindo, I can say it takes awhile for me to adapt to the flow. Schuon especially takes me longest to come up to speed by slowing down. Schuon’s is probably the most packed writing. But you can enter it and adapt to it. It flows with practice. Or rather, you do.

But that's different than reading say, an engineering text, which compared to good poetry or better still, the Bible, is not multi-layered…or multi-leveled. Of course, that’s not what an engineering text is supposed to do. But certainly engineering will never show how the other level of writing is possible. Yet we know it is.

5/18/2008 02:54:00 PM  
Blogger Smoov said...

Well I've almost completed the Berlinsky book. I knew that there had to be some "formal" reasoning deomnstrating the incoherence of the Landscape (multiverse) hypothesis, without which the entire Darwininan/materialist/atheist house of cards encounters a gale force wind.

Berlinski deftly and lethally punctures the whole Landscape pseudo-religion. Most satisfying.

And it is true, Bob, that Berlisnki provides nothing positive in place of the positivism he just demolished, but that's what the Coonifesto is for! Berlinski is a wrecking crew. Coons clean up the mess and start dusting off the age-old wisdom found in The Spiritual Ascent, which I have been dipping into, and plan to start reading in earnest next week.

5/18/2008 03:11:00 PM  
Blogger E said...

Just came from Rob Bell's 75 minute DVD called "Everything is Spiritual" to this post. The two forums intersected on multiple planes, including the tale of a three-dimensional hand passing through Flat Land, and what the inhabitants would make of it, depending on their pre-dispositions. I really think One Cosmos-ers would dig this DVD:

http://shop.everythingisspiritual.com/

5/18/2008 03:22:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

"First they would see five separate points grow into circles, as the fingers touch the paper and move through it. But then the five circles would disappear and become one larger circle -- the wrist."

Five fingers plucking the poetic chord of consciousness... this OCathedral has awesome acoustics.

5/18/2008 06:35:00 PM  
Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

Wait a second... if I'm a dweller on the page, so to speak, I would never see circles, even. Circles can only be observed as such by someone in the third dimension. I would only see points and lines, at most. Thus constricted, all logic would be linear and plane-jane.

The wonder is that, to even experience a circle, we have to imagine a Hand.

5/19/2008 04:05:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home