Physical awareness and Spiritual Awareness

[Marcus]

Hi all. I had been considering recently how our awareness is roughly split between physical awareness and spiritual awareness. What is interesting is that 'science' and such materialistic perspectives on the world are actually now starting to mirror the spiritual world. For example Jung spoke about mass consciousness; I feel that the Internet could be viewed as a physical manifestation of this.

I wrote a lot more about this here:

Is the Physical world mirroring the Spiritual world?

[Mark Lapierre]

My view on the topic is here, but in summary, I don't agree that materialistic perspectives are starting to mirror spiritual ones, nor vice-versa. I don't believe there is a physical world and a separate spiritual world. There is just one reality seen from different perspectives. In some ways spiritual perspectives shift to become more agreeable with scientific, and in other ways the opposite happens. It's not a mirroring, but a mutual readjustment.

For example, science comes up with quantum theory, and spiritualists grab the basic concepts and run with it in their own way. Conversely scientists have started to look at concepts previously considered purely spiritual, such as meditation and acupuncture, and to attempt to explain them in concrete terms.

I think balance can only be achieved if both sides (wherever anyone can be said to truly fall on a distinct side) acknowledge that there is only one reality which can be seen from different perspectives.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I think balance can only be achieved if both sides (wherever anyone can be said to truly fall on a distinct side) acknowledge that there is only one reality which can be seen from different perspectives.

Exactly Mark. Hence different perspectives view the same thing in a different way. Materialism mirrors (i.e. sees from the opposite side eg, reversal) the same thing as Spiritualism.

As you say same thing, different perspective.

[Maguru]

Spirituality and physicality are two sides of the same coin. The coin being us, one inner and one outer. There is no separation between the two.
Our spiritual inside contains all thoughts, beliefs, feelings and also includes the subconscious.
Our physical outside is the life experiences based in the spiritual sense of who we are. One promotes the other, hence the 'mirror image.'

Originally Posted by Marcus

Exactly Mark. Hence different perspectives view the same thing in a different way. Materialism mirrors (i.e. sees from the opposite side eg, reversal) the same thing as Spiritualism.

As you say same thing, different perspective.

[Mark Lapierre]

I'm still having difficulty accepting the idea of 'mirroring' because it implies that they are the same thing. They can be the same, but they also have the potential to be unrecognisably different. Not something usually associated with mirrors...

I also disagree with the distinction between inner and outer as a distinction between spiritual and physical, which further promotes the misrepresentation of the reality which they both reflect. To say that, despite there being no separation between the two, the spiritual inside contains all thoughts etc., implies that a physical approach to understanding thoughts is wrong, or at least inferior.

Simply put, to say that one mirrors the other implies that one or the other (or both) is real, instead of showing that both are incomplete, filtered views of something else.

That leads to the alternate, common analogy of filters. Spirituality, materialism, science, etc., all can be thought of as filters through which we could possibly see completely different views of the same thing. For example a spirituality filter may make one particular view completely translucent, while a materialism filter makes the same view completely opaque. Or vice-versa.

What do you think?

[Marcus]

I think it greatly depends on your definitions and word usage.

For example a reflection in a mirror is not the same thing as what it is reflecting. The object is made up of solid matter, where as the reflection is made up from light.

They just appear to be the same thing, which is essentially what I am getting at.

Also, I am not saying that spirituality comes from within and physicality is external. I am just saying that is the manner in which they are generally experienced. We perceive spirit as being within and the physical as being external. That doesn't mean that is their actual state though.

I wrote another piece on this a while ago - which has now gone live on my site. It's a similar sort of subject but looks at it from a slightly different angle. Also if you do read the article, keep in mind what I have already mentioned here...

Physical and Spiritual Reality

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Marcus

I think it greatly depends on your definitions and word usage.

For example a reflection in a mirror is not the same thing as what it is reflecting. The object is made up of solid matter, where as the reflection is made up from light.

They just appear to be the same thing, which is essentially what I am getting at.

But that also implies that one is real, the other is the reflection. That sets up an inequality. That's what I'm getting at.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Also, I am not saying that spirituality comes from within and physicality is external. I am just saying that is the manner in which they are generally experienced. We perceive spirit as being within and the physical as being external. That doesn't mean that is their actual state though.

Maguru said that. Sorry, I should have made it clearer which parts of my post were in reply to whom.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

But that also implies that one is real, the other is the reflection. That sets up an inequality. That's what I'm getting at.

I apologize for taking so long to reply...I don't often get the chance to drop by.

Yep you are right. The terminology I have used, does imply an inequality - but that implication was totally unintended. I will have to think of another way to describe this for the future...

[Maguru]

Spirituality and physicality are two different things belonging to one whole. How can there be inequality? The object and the reflection both exist as a part of each other. Without awareness [reflection] neither can exist.

[QUOTE=Mark Lapierre;111205]But that also implies that one is real, the other is the reflection. That sets up an inequality. That's what I'm getting at.]

[Maguru]

I agree that the internet is a manifestation of a part of the mass consciousness and I think it's a great example you have used. I also believe the internet is showing us what the mass consciousness contains. Huge, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Marcus

Hi all. I had been considering recently how our awareness is roughly split between physical awareness and spiritual awareness. What is interesting is that 'science' and such materialistic perspectives on the world are actually now starting to mirror the spiritual world. For example Jung spoke about mass consciousness; I feel that the Internet could be viewed as a physical manifestation of this.

I wrote a lot more about this here:

Is the Physical world mirroring the Spiritual world?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Spirituality and physicality are two different things belonging to one whole. How can there be inequality? The object and the reflection both exist as a part of each other.

Not quite. The object can exist independent of the reflection. Not so for the reflection, hence inequality.

[Liara Covert]

I sense the physical world on a different plane than the spiritual world. I also agree with Mark Lapierre that its a matter of perspective.

People have expressed difficulty distinguishing between their imaginary vision and conscious awareness at different levels. Experiences in astral travel can help people learn to discern differently than they had previously. I wrote a post about some of the incentives to deepen experience in astral:

7 incentives to learn astral projection - Dream Builders - Dream Builders: Empower more than Motivation & Goal -setting

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Marcus

For example Jung spoke about mass consciousness; I feel that the Internet could be viewed as a physical manifestation of this.

I don't buy it..........a person I'll never know or meet is not only in existance but also shares/has or is conscious........seems to deny the likely possibility of a singular self focus consciousness.

People see lots of other people, so may consider they are not the only conscious being. Denial? fear? maybe both.

Max

[Maguru]

But how would you know you exist without a reflection?

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Not quite. The object can exist independent of the reflection. Not so for the reflection, hence inequality.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Maguru

But how would you know you exist without a reflection?

Who is thinking these thoughts? Who is breathing this air? Whose hands are typing these words? None of this is a reflection.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Who is thinking these thoughts? Who is breathing this air? Whose hands are typing these words? None of this is a reflection.

Duality is perhaps a better word then.

Although there is a "oneness"; physicality and spirituality are perceived to be dual aspects of the whole. That's the yin / yang concept.

[Maguru]

I am not referring to the physical appearance or of physical actions but the true inner self. Your quote below is a fine example of reflection of self. Without your thoughts, how do you know you are breathing and typing? Every post you submit is a reflection of yourself.
Everywhere you look, you will see yourself through your thoughts, even when you are looking at someone else, even when you don't like what you see. It is still a reflection of who you are.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Who is thinking these thoughts? Who is breathing this air? Whose hands are typing these words? None of this is a reflection.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Duality is perhaps a better word then.

Although there is a "oneness"; physicality and spirituality are perceived to be dual aspects of the whole. That's the yin / yang concept.

Hmmm. Is that really what duality/non-duality is about? As I understand it non-duality considers the separation between object and subject, or observer and observed, to be illusion. i.e., there is only the subject, and the experience of perception creates the illusion that there is a separate object being perceived.

If that's the case, the physical perspective becomes inferior, because it is further from the non-dual reality than the spiritual perspective. Of course that only holds true if the non-dualistic account of reality is valid.

Originally Posted by Maguru

I am not referring to the physical appearance or of physical actions but the true inner self. Your quote below is a fine example of reflection of self. Without your thoughts, how do you know you are breathing and typing? Every post you submit is a reflection of yourself.
Everywhere you look, you will see yourself through your thoughts, even when you are looking at someone else, even when you don't like what you see. It is still a reflection of who you are.

Sure, if you define reflection as self-reflection, meaning introspection. But that's not the definition of reflection we started with. And it doesn't address the inequality between the materialistic and spiritual perspectives created by the other uses of the terms mirror and reflection earlier in the thread.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Who is thinking these thoughts? Who is breathing this air? Whose hands are typing these words? None of this is a reflection.

There not reflections, they're projections or more precisely rendered formless energy. Everything in awareness is rendered formless energy. If something isn't in your physical reality yet, it's because you haven't rendered it from the energy yet.

But it exists as everything does as energy, just not defined properly yet.

Max

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Hmmm. Is that really what duality/non-duality is about? As I understand it non-duality considers the separation between object and subject, or observer and observed, to be illusion. i.e., there is only the subject, and the experience of perception creates the illusion that there is a separate object being perceived.

In the end don't we run the risk of making this a discussion on semantics rather than the nature of spirituality / physicality?

Duality would work as a term because of that perceived separation. The Internet and Mass Consciousness are perceived as separate, in reality they are aspects of the same thing.

Perhaps I could have titled the article; "Technology Manifests Spiritual concepts into the Physical World". After all that is the gist of what I was getting at. I agree with all you have said about the term "mirroring"...but it largely depends upon your definition of certain words. And terminology falls into semantics, and ultimately becomes disassociated from the original subject.

Or not...

What do you think (of both subjects; the distraction of semantics - and the idea of technology manifesting spiritual reality into physical objects)?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Marcus

In the end don't we run the risk of making this a discussion on semantics rather than the nature of spirituality / physicality?

Agreed, though I think we can discuss both the semantics as well as the nature of spirituality/physicality.

Semantics are important for effective communication. If we discuss the pitfalls of using certain words, phrases and metaphors, we can get closer to a message which is clearer to a greater number of people.

I'm not so sure duality is the most useful term because the concept of duality itself is not easy to grasp. But I agree that it would work for this discussion for those who are already familiar with the term.

Originally Posted by Marcus

The Internet and Mass Consciousness are perceived as separate, in reality they are aspects of the same thing.

Perhaps I could have titled the article; "Technology Manifests Spiritual concepts into the Physical World".

I'm not familiar with Jung's ideas about mass consciousness. What did he say about it? How do you define mass consciousness?

The Internet is a network of the products of individual consciousnesses. There is no feature of the Internet which equates to consciousness as a single entity (at least none I know of), except a consciousness comprised of many individual entities able to communicate with each other, but not share experiences directly. Conceptually unifiable, but naturally distinct. Just like us. But if that is what you mean by mass consciousness then I agree that the Internet and mass consciousness are comparable, but I don't agree that such a mass consciousness is a spiritual concept.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I'm not familiar with Jung's ideas about mass consciousness. What did he say about it? How do you define mass consciousness?

I define mass consciousness as the "repository" of the collective conscious awareness of humanity. We are all individual conscious components of a larger "oneness" of collective human consciousness. The more we develop spiritually, the greater our experience of that collective awareness and collective consciousness becomes.

Of course, all this depends on your definitions of consciousness, awareness and spirituality.

My definitions:

Consciousness: The experience of existing

Awareness: The interpretation, understanding and knowledge of that experience.

Spirituality: Anything to do with the non-physical side of our awareness and reality.

Those definitions are by no means meant to be the definitive version of those words. But these are the things I mean when I use the terms.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Marcus

My definitions:

Consciousness: The experience of existing

Awareness: The interpretation, understanding and knowledge of that experience.

Spirituality: Anything to do with the non-physical side of our awareness and reality.

Yup, those are the same definitions that I'd use for the first two. But that's a very broad definition of spirituality, depending on your definition of non-physical. Where do personality, thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc. fit in? Depending on how you look at them they could be either non-physical (not necessarily related to or caused by any physical object) or physical (the result of complex interactions of neurotransmitters and electrical activity in the brain)

Originally Posted by Marcus

I define mass consciousness as the "repository" of the collective conscious awareness of humanity. We are all individual conscious components of a larger "oneness" of collective human consciousness. The more we develop spiritually, the greater our experience of that collective awareness and collective consciousness becomes.

If you define spiritual development as the development of empathy, intuition, shared understanding, communication, compassion, etc., then yes, I can see an individual's spiritual development leading to greater experience of collective awareness, though I don't believe it happens through any mystical means, and probably not by any means not yet familiar to most people, spiritual or otherwise. And I'm not so sure about collective consciousness; I haven't heard any convincing stories of shared experiences, let alone in-depth analysis.

We don't fully understand how communication affects all those involved, especially group communication, and even more so the rapid, widespread communication that occurs via the Internet. But I'd be very surprised if the "oneness" you describe is anything more than a concept which people have imagined as a result of observing many forms of communication at a global level.

Do you see the "repository" of mass consciousness as a conceptual construct, or do you see it as something real which people can truly tap into via means other than direct communication with another human (or something created by a human, such as books, paintings, etc.)? You mentioned remote viewing on your blog. Do you believe it's possible, and if so, what lead you to that belief?

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Do you see the "repository" of mass consciousness as a conceptual construct, or do you see it as something real which people can truly tap into via means other than direct communication with another human (or something created by a human, such as books, paintings, etc.)? You mentioned remote viewing on your blog. Do you believe it's possible, and if so, what lead you to that belief?

I believe that we are all a part of a larger consciousness. I also feel that we all unconsciously tap into that consciousness. By developing our spiritual awareness - in the manner you describe and more - we can consciously tap into that consciousness. The work of Rudolf Steiner is a great place to learn about this.

Yes, I do believe remote viewing is possible. Firstly I believe it indirectly, because I feel it is best to be open to all possibilities - until they are conclusively proven impossible. A rather shallow analogy; a blind man cannot know color exists - he only has the assurances of those with eyes, and thus he has to reject those assurances, or accept them on faith (even if everyone is telling him about it).

Secondly I believe remote viewing is possible, because I have had direct experience of premonitions. I do accept that from your point of view this is third hand information which you unfortunately cannot verify. And perhaps that is why so many of these phenomenon are not widely accepted, because they require direct experience - just like any other sense.

Also, I don't believe people fully realize what they are experiencing when these things happen to them. That is due to the fact that the experiences are not at all like what we would imagine them to be. The premonitions I experienced certainly weren't anything like the Hollywood idea of the notion.

I have also had a fair number of other "odd" experiences of other higher-senses.

Empathy (in the literal sense) and telepathy I suspect are experienced by the vast majority of the population. Though these senses in particular can be very subtle.

I don't like to talk in an authoritative manner about these sorts of things though. Aside from the personal experiences I have had - I really don't know a whole lot about these subjects.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Secondly I believe remote viewing is possible, because I have had direct experience of premonitions. I do accept that from your point of view this is third hand information which you unfortunately cannot verify. And perhaps that is why so many of these phenomenon are not widely accepted, because they require direct experience - just like any other sense.

I think it's also because interpretation of those experiences is inherently ambiguous. I'd go into more detail but I think I've taken this thread off topic far enough

[Marcus]

I agree with you, that is true for a lot of cases. The premonitions I had though where very specific and totally unquestionable.

But as with all things - people will either accept or reject this based upon their personal bias and general conditioning. And that is fair enough.

[Billy]

When we meditate we focus on the inner self or mind, this promotes spiritual awareness. There is a meditation that involves tagging every thought and physical action with a thought tag, so as I am writing this in my mind I would be thinking "writing text ,pressing keys while never letting a thought that was out of this very moment intrude on my awareness. There are practitioners of this technique that never have self talk or self doubt because they never have the opening in their minds to permit it and they do it all day every day. Consequently they also open themselves to an amazing esoteric knowledge, such as picking up others self talk, reading anothers state of health by being in their immediate vicinity and abilities that can only be experienced and inferred and not truly described in our language. It is well said when we are told to"Know Thyself"