Transformation of Consciousness?

[Melchior]

This is a follow up to this thread.

Pretty much, the question is: How does consciousness change, move, evolve, stabilize, etc.?
EDIT: For clarification, I'm asking 'in what way' does this happen, what is the observed phenomena and the accompanying explanation, i.e. phenomenology.

If you wish to discuss what consciousness is, please use the previous thread where there was at least some form of consensus reached, namely that consciousness, something fundamental in nature, cannot be created or destroyed only change form, similar to the concept of energy.

Some useful guidelines: an explanation should be accompanied by its related scope (i.e. the range of phenomena to which the explanation applies), otherwise discussion will likely get mixed up and unnecessary conflict might arise. And as for the claims made, as long as the support of the claim matches the strength of the claim, I think we should be all right.

(As in the previous thread, if there's been discussion on this already, whether here or elsewhere, please link it if you get the chance. Thanks. )

[Ariel Bravy]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Pretty much, the question is: How does consciousness change, move, evolve, stabilize, etc.?

Actually it doesn't.

Consciousness itself has only one property: It's conscious. It doesn't change.

Now that which consciousness can be conscious of, the infinite manifestations of consciousness, that does change. We can say that consciousness can be conscious of more and more and more and more, yet pure consciousness itself remains untouched by that which it is conscious of. When consciousness becomes conscious of more content, we call this growth and expansion and learning and so on. When consciousness is focused more upon love and light and all that good stuff, we can say one is raising their level of consciousness or whatever.

Consciousness itself is unchanging. It is permanent, eternal, and ever-present. I know there may be debate over this, ie. what happens when you get knocked out and "lose consciousness," or go into deep sleep or die or before you were born or go into nothingness and so on... where is consciousness then? But that's another topic entirely.

[Cochonette]

Well, technically nothing can be created or destroyed. You may be interested in reading some books by Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh. He talks about exactly this. He says that we cannot be created or destroyed: we are the clouds, we are the sun, the rivers, the minerals, plants, animals, toil, blood, etc. We are everything. We cannot truly die or be born but only change form. Therefore we should not be afraid of death.

And I remember now which book he talks about this in: "No Death, No Fear."

[Melchior]

Ariel Bravy, given what you've said, my question to you would then be how these 'manifestations of consciousness' change. What is the measurement of more content, higher levels of consciousness, the mechanism by which expansion is attained, how learning happens, what love does to raise the manifestation in its level of consciousness? The original scope of your claims (that consciousness doesn't change) seems to be one that of the 'absolute' the totality of everything, and I have no problem with that, so thanks for your answer in that regard. However, being a 'manifestation' of this consciousness as it were, how, and in what way, does change happen from this more 'limited' point of view?

Cochonette, what does 'death' have to do with the question? I'm asking about the changing of form here, as you've mentioned, i.e. what goes on during the changing of form, an explanation of the phenomena. Perhaps the treatment of consciousness at our everyday macro level as a complex, and perhaps even chaotic, pattern might help.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Melchior

This is a follow up to this thread.

Pretty much, the question is: How does consciousness change, move, evolve, stabilize, etc.?
EDIT: For clarification, I'm asking 'in what way' does this happen, what is the observed phenomena and the accompanying explanation, i.e. phenomenology.

If you wish to discuss what consciousness is, please use the previous thread where there was at least some form of consensus reached, namely that consciousness, something fundamental in nature, cannot be created or destroyed only change form, similar to the concept of energy.

Some useful guidelines: an explanation should be accompanied by its related scope (i.e. the range of phenomena to which the explanation applies), otherwise discussion will likely get mixed up and unnecessary conflict might arise. And as for the claims made, as long as the support of the claim matches the strength of the claim, I think we should be all right.

(As in the previous thread, if there's been discussion on this already, whether here or elsewhere, please link it if you get the chance. Thanks. )

In observing my own consciousness, I see the "shape" or "state" of consciousness as being a function of what I choose to place my awareness on. Attention in other words. Though, practically speaking, this "choice" is not necessarily consciously deliberate but just the most convenient or naturally associated thought object. As a new focus (or thought object) is achieved, the prior shape, object, or reality attenuates. The attenuation is necessary for cognitive energy conservation reasons.

It can assume any shape, with the caveat that it is large enough to accommodate said shape. The power, strength, intensity, or size of consciousness seems to be a factor of shape also, albeit a more subtle or subconscious focus. For example, as my consciousness is currently entertaining the shape or "information structure" of a physical brain, it is limited to the preconditions of that shape in much the same way as the expression of a light shining through a blue lens is filtered or conditioned by that shape. The base shape or focus conditions or limits all future shapes.

We might even call these base shapes "identities".

Practically speaking, this means my brain has a certain amount of "RAM" and that limits the scope of what is is possible to be aware of whilst consciousness is "shining" through or "conforming" itself to that particular structure. This would be the cognitive energy limits of the information structure.

In order to conform its shape to something bigger or more complex than the scope of what the physical body is capable of cognizing, it would need to first release that shape before taking on another one. This would be a matter of changing the focus -- not only of the broad or "conscious" level, but the deeper or more fundamental subconscious identity levels as well.

When the consciousness is not entertaining ANY shape, it is not constraining itself to ANY limits, and is an "unbounded essence" as it were. This, from my perspective, would be a state of infinite energy or awareness.

[OlderWiser]

Originally Posted by Ariel Bravy

Consciousness itself has only one property: It's conscious. It doesn't change.

Yup. That's my experience and perception, as well.

Originally Posted by Ariel Bravy

I know there may be debate over this, ie. what happens when you get knocked out and "lose consciousness," or go into deep sleep or die or before you were born or go into nothingness and so on... where is consciousness then?

I considered this point a couple years ago when I had some surgery. I was on the operating table trying to make a feeble joke and I guess it was such a dumb joke that the anesthesiologist was tired of listening to me, because next thing I knew I was waking up in recovery with a mighty pain in my upper abdomen and a mask on my face that I was convinced was keeping me from breathing (actually it was oxygen, but my brain wasn't very well engaged at that point.

So when I was more aware and my pain was under better control and I could think clearly, I thought about where I "went" when my surgeon was doing his thing. The answer eventually became clear. I didn't go anywhere. My brain was just not engaged for a while. It's similar to turning off the computer monitor but leaving the computer on. The computer is still there, operating, doing it's thing, you just can't see what it's up to. (Okay, that's not a perfect analogy, but it's the first reasonable one I could come up with.)

Obviously, the consciousness that thinks of itself as "me" is still present, or when I woke up I wouldn't have had any sense of identity or any understanding of what had happened to me or anything else. And yet the narrative that is "my life" was still there, as soon as my brain was back online to engage it again...

First time I've written all that down, so it may be disjointed. Apologies if it is.

Oh, and, Hi, Ariel!

[Ariel Bravy]

Originally Posted by Melchior

my question to you would then be how these 'manifestations of consciousness' change. What is the measurement of more content, higher levels of consciousness, the mechanism by which expansion is attained, how learning happens, what love does to raise the manifestation in its level of consciousness?

Mechanically I don't yet understand all the inner workings, but if we start with the basic premise that everything is energy and that energy's main defining property is its vibrational frequency, then we can say that this whole expansion thing is nothing more than somehow increasing the vibrational rate of frequency.

Our senses are simply vibrational receivers and perceivers. Our ears detect energetic vibrations roughly from the range of 20Hz to 20Khz and our brains translate that frequency range as sound. Energy that vibrates at the frequency spectrum of visible light (400-790Thz) is detected by the eyes and perceived as visible light. If the wiring between our ears and eyes were switched, we'd "see" sound and "hear" color.

Color isn't really color. It's simply vibrational energy that our brain translates into sound. Sound isn't really sound. It's simply vibrational energy that our brains translate into sound. Heck, your body can even feel the vibration of really low frequencies. What your ears perceive to be a low pitched sound, your body may pick up as a shaking sensation, the very same energy. Different senses perceive things differently.

As the frequency of something rises, the way we perceive it changes. For example, as you raise sound frequency, the pitch goes higher and higher. As you raise the energy of something you can see, the color it emits/reflects changes which is why hotter fire looks blue as opposed to cooler fire which is orange.

Anyways, everything we perceive is simply a collection of energy, somehow perceived by our senses.

Now it doesn't seem to be as simple as saying something vibrates at a single particular frequency. For example, an object may have a number of different vibrational properties such as a color, a sound, a texture, and so on, all of which are somehow part of a multi-variable vibrational equation that the sum total of which creates an object we perceive to be a quarter or whatever.

Every object has certain properties, ie. color, sound, texture, etc. Extrapolating from this, we can say that things like understanding, learning, and loving more are also shifts in particular variables in the complex (?) vibrational equations that make up you and me.

We don't create Love. It seems to be something that "comes from within" and "flows into our hearts." It seems that the more we let go and surrender, the more of this higher vibing energy called love flows into our body/mind/spirit thing and ripples throughout its entire being. I think that people who were depicted with halos and whatnot, their energies were simply so high that the light literally started being emitted from their bodies. Certain people who were sensitive enough could visibly see that, the same way some people can see auras and energy and all. I guess those people were so in tune that more people could see those energies.

Anyways, long story short, it seems that given that everything is energy and that every individual object is simply a collection of many different variables of varying vibrational frequency, the "evolution of consciousness" is nothing more than raising your frequencies in all aspects of your life.

[Cochonette]

I don't understand what you're looking for with your question, but death is a way that consciousness changes form.

[Annemieke]

Originally Posted by Ariel Bravy

Mechanically I don't yet understand all the inner workings, but if we start with the basic premise that everything is energy and that energy's main defining property is its vibrational frequency, then we can say that this whole expansion thing is nothing more than somehow increasing the vibrational rate of frequency.

That was really a very interesting post. Much of what I have been thinking, but could not get into words yet.

But personally I think that the very essence is not energy alone. I think there has to be something else besides that. Like in yin and yang, if energy is yang there also has to be a yin.

I have been thinking and writing a lot about that, although I still can not get it all clear how that should work. In very general I think that when you talk about matter that you can say that all is energy.

But opposed to that, I think that there is also this other 'thing' that is something like consciousness along with subconsciousness.

And I think they are closely connected with energy, they influence each other and can hardly be seen separate maybe, but I do think they are different from energy.

Maybe they also go along with the vibrational frequency or something like that, influence it, raise it, but I think it has to be made of something else than energy.

I hope it all makes a bit sense.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

In observing my own consciousness, I see the "shape" or "state" of consciousness as being a function of what I choose to place my awareness on. Attention in other words. Though, practically speaking, this "choice" is not necessarily consciously deliberate but just the most convenient or naturally associated thought object. As a new focus (or thought object) is achieved, the prior shape, object, or reality attenuates. The attenuation is necessary for cognitive energy conservation reasons.

It's interesting how you use the term attenuate for the moving away from prior focus. By the same token I'm guessing that there must also be a gradual shift to the new focus then too?

It can assume any shape, with the caveat that it is large enough to accommodate said shape. The power, strength, intensity, or size of consciousness seems to be a factor of shape also, albeit a more subtle or subconscious focus. For example, as my consciousness is currently entertaining the shape or "information structure" of a physical brain, it is limited to the preconditions of that shape in much the same way as the expression of a light shining through a blue lens is filtered or conditioned by that shape. The base shape or focus conditions or limits all future shapes.

We might even call these base shapes "identities".

So to go into a higher level of consciousness base shape, you'd have to discard the current one altogether? Perhaps this is what happens when you 'die' and get reborn (reincarnation and such). This was my thought too, as the brain does have it's limits, but that which we may 'build' so to speak might not have as low of a set of limits.

Practically speaking, this means my brain has a certain amount of "RAM" and that limits the scope of what is is possible to be aware of whilst consciousness is "shining" through or "conforming" itself to that particular structure. This would be the cognitive energy limits of the information structure.

In order to conform its shape to something bigger or more complex than the scope of what the physical body is capable of cognizing, it would need to first release that shape before taking on another one. This would be a matter of changing the focus -- not only of the broad or "conscious" level, but the deeper or more fundamental subconscious identity levels as well.

In other words, we can't really transcend our structure while remaining in our structure. Create a new identity. Of course, this would suppose that there were separate focuses in the first place. It's at around our immediate scale of consciousness. From this point of view, my task would probably then be to figure out and construct this more advanced information structure.

When the consciousness is not entertaining ANY shape, it is not constraining itself to ANY limits, and is an "unbounded essence" as it were. This, from my perspective, would be a state of infinite energy or awareness.

In other words, God.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by OlderWiser

Obviously, the consciousness that thinks of itself as "me" is still present, or when I woke up I wouldn't have had any sense of identity or any understanding of what had happened to me or anything else. And yet the narrative that is "my life" was still there, as soon as my brain was back online to engage it again...

Considering the previous post, I'm thinking that this thing we call 'identity' isn't so tied to our 'brains' or body as most people think. Instead, identity is the storage of memories and the personality that goes with it, well, along with the operating mechanism of the body of course, but changes to that aren't as important to the mind in it's sense of self as the previous two, after all, our bodies change all the time. I'm taking some of this from that one book I read, that it's the pattern and function due to the interrelated parts that is important, not what actually does the motion. In other words, the movement of information rather than the actual mediator of information (although the mediator is certainly important as well as it is essentially the same thing as the information itself).

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Ariel Bravy

Mechanically I don't yet understand all the inner workings, but if we start with the basic premise that everything is energy and that energy's main defining property is its vibrational frequency, then we can say that this whole expansion thing is nothing more than somehow increasing the vibrational rate of frequency.

Sounds almost as though you're talking about the membrane in M-Theory.

Color isn't really color. It's simply vibrational energy that our brain translates into sound. Sound isn't really sound. It's simply vibrational energy that our brains translate into sound. Heck, your body can even feel the vibration of really low frequencies. What your ears perceive to be a low pitched sound, your body may pick up as a shaking sensation, the very same energy. Different senses perceive things differently.

As the frequency of something rises, the way we perceive it changes. For example, as you raise sound frequency, the pitch goes higher and higher. As you raise the energy of something you can see, the color it emits/reflects changes which is why hotter fire looks blue as opposed to cooler fire which is orange.

Anyways, everything we perceive is simply a collection of energy, somehow perceived by our senses.

With the 'identities' thing that Anagogy mentioned, I think it's also safe to say that we can only perceive a certain subset of these energies through out filters.

Now it doesn't seem to be as simple as saying something vibrates at a single particular frequency. For example, an object may have a number of different vibrational properties such as a color, a sound, a texture, and so on, all of which are somehow part of a multi-variable vibrational equation that the sum total of which creates an object we perceive to be a quarter or whatever.

Like timbre?

Every object has certain properties, ie. color, sound, texture, etc. Extrapolating from this, we can say that things like understanding, learning, and loving more are also shifts in particular variables in the complex (?) vibrational equations that make up you and me.

We don't create Love. It seems to be something that "comes from within" and "flows into our hearts." It seems that the more we let go and surrender, the more of this higher vibing energy called love flows into our body/mind/spirit thing and ripples throughout its entire being. I think that people who were depicted with halos and whatnot, their energies were simply so high that the light literally started being emitted from their bodies. Certain people who were sensitive enough could visibly see that, the same way some people can see auras and energy and all. I guess those people were so in tune that more people could see those energies.

The way you describe love here is interesting to think about. I wonder if that's why this universe isn't so-called zero-sum, or perhaps it is and I'm just mistaken... Btw, just tried to think in 11-dimensions, it isn't working out too well...

Anyways, long story short, it seems that given that everything is energy and that every individual object is simply a collection of many different variables of varying vibrational frequency, the "evolution of consciousness" is nothing more than raising your frequencies in all aspects of your life.

Raising vibration. Giving 'base shape' structure for this vibration to be contained, or perhaps the structure comes along with the vibration? Perhaps to do one is to do the other, as I had hoped. Thanks for your input.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

I don't understand what you're looking for with your question, but death is a way that consciousness changes form.

Ok then, I think I see what you mean now.

Originally Posted by Annemieke

But personally I think that the very essence is not energy alone. I think there has to be something else besides that. Like in yin and yang, if energy is yang there also has to be a yin.

Sounds like what we were discussing in that other thread, the psyche (or information). But just as what you've said about yin and yang, I think information and energy are also inseparable. With that though, if the energy is unpredictable, the information about it is chaotic. But if there's a pattern to it and this pattern can be influenced, that is the transformation of consciousness I'm getting at.


By the way, going with the 'river' analogy that I've heard so much of might make my intentions of what I wish to discuss in these threads: how do you change the course of a river? That's the transformation of consciousness. How do you get a larger river? Add more water. That's the construction of a new base shape information structure that Anagogy was talking about (right, Anagogy?). Alternatively, instead of rivers, you could think of water currents in an ocean.

[Annemieke]

Originally Posted by Melchior

But if there's a pattern to it and this pattern can be influenced, that is the transformation of consciousness I'm getting at.

I think that indeed there is a pattern. And that consiousness somehow is that pattern. And that pattern is what influences the energy. Or the other way around.

I had been listening to a series of David Bohm lately and he talks about just that. It was a series of 5 videos that I uploaded to my blog, and what I mean was in the third video where he says something like ‘the quantum field is different from the electromagnetic field, it only depends on the form and not on the intensity’ and ‘information contributes fundamentally to the qualities of substance’.

So that gave me very much the idea that one force reacts to intensity and another to form. Or that one is the intensity and the other is the form, or something like that.

About the transformation of consciousness, do you actually see it is a transformation? Or do you think of it more as a development or evolution. There are some interesting theories about the development of consciousness in Integral theory called Altitude and there is also an interesting theory called Spiral Dynamics. Both have interesting things to say although it is not exactly science and apart from that rather controversial.

But by all that I more or less get the feeling of a development or evolution. And not what you say 'changing the course of a river'. That looks more like a transformation.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Annemieke

I think that indeed there is a pattern. And that consiousness somehow is that pattern. And that pattern is what influences the energy. Or the other way around.

It probably is both, to some extent. Although I'm not certain about equivalency just yet. I haven't thought that far yet.

I had been listening to a series of David Bohm lately and he talks about just that. It was a series of 5 videos that I uploaded to my blog, and what I mean was in the third video where he says something like ‘the quantum field is different from the electromagnetic field, it only depends on the form and not on the intensity’ and ‘information contributes fundamentally to the qualities of substance’.

So that gave me very much the idea that one force reacts to intensity and another to form. Or that one is the intensity and the other is the form, or something like that.

I listened to the interview and it was quite interesting. I'm not entirely sure why, but I feel that this 'form' not 'intensity' distinction may very well be important in understanding the differences between information and energy if considering those two to be of the fundamental aspects of our world. As he said, it 'contributes' to the qualities of a substance (i.e. a subatomic particle?) I don't think he said that it defined it entirely. Then again, because these two things are both properties of something, I'm guessing that it may be easier to influence something one way than the other depending on the circumstances.

About the transformation of consciousness, do you actually see it is a transformation? Or do you think of it more as a development or evolution. There are some interesting theories about the development of consciousness in Integral theory called Altitude and there is also an interesting theory called Spiral Dynamics. Both have interesting things to say although it is not exactly science and apart from that rather controversial.

Perhaps both. With development and evolution of consciousness, by the river analogy, that would be adding more water (in the proper way of course) to make a larger stream. (or if we were talking about currents in the ocean, it would be gathering more of the surrounding water to flow along with the existing current. personally, i find the ocean analogy much easier to compare with what may actually be happening).

As for the things you linked, I find spiral dynamics a bit too categorical, and too focused on human consciousness, i.e. the transformation of what Anagogy called the base shape. Still, it may have some uses in that regard, but as for the actual evolution of consciousness stuff, not as much. With the altitude thing, the colors reminded me of the visible spectrum of the electromagnetic radiation, not only because of what Bohm was talking about, or the actual use of colors, but because the way I think human consciousness might actually be in this spectrum might just be what the span of visible light is to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. If you consider what Ariel has said about raising vibration, equating to the raising of our frequency on the consciousness spectrum, then humans may very well reach their upper limit just as our eyes reach their upper limit in determining colors past violet. Imagine, what would something at gamma consciousness be like? Infinite frequency might be all of nature (everything), and zero frequency might be 'nothing', complete unconsciousness.

So, then, by analogy, what do we do to increase frequency of an electromagnetic wave? energy? no, that just increases intensity. Rather, it'd be a change to the source of oscillation. This is where the form, as discussed before becomes important, as even if the intensity of a beam of light dies off, the individual packet of information (the photon) will be at the same frequency (what's interesting here too is that the frequency is measured by the energy as well, albeit with a factor of planck's constant).

Wait a second... I wonder if Planck's constant is the factor of conversion between information and energy just as the speed of light (squared) is the factor of conversion between energy and matter (mass). I wonder where else Planck's constant comes in handy... Uncertainty principle for one. i.e. you can't know less than the smallest unit of information? Sorry, my mind kinda just rambled on a tangent there, but it's interesting to think about... it certainly is interesting to think about... but I'll have to look more into the physics surrounding planck's constant before I continue. By the way, I was also looking at your blog entry on Subconscious or Psyche earlier too, which might have spurred this line of thought as well, concepts as packets of information and all. Well, in the meantime, food for thought.

EDIT: I just love though 'aha' moments that just catch you by surprise
Still, I wonder if this is just old news and I simply haven't read enough on the stuff yet... >.>

[Annemieke]

Originally Posted by Melchior

I'm not entirely sure why, but I feel that this 'form' not 'intensity' distinction may very well be important in understanding the differences between information and energy if considering those two to be of the fundamental aspects of our world.

That is what I think too. I also think this distinction is very important although I have no idea how exactly.

As he said, it 'contributes' to the qualities of a substance (i.e. a subatomic particle?)

That is what I also would like to know.

I don't think he said that it defined it entirely.

That is what I was wondering, does it influence the substance or does it add to the substance. Personally I think it is the former but I am not sure.

Then again, because these two things are both properties of something, I'm guessing that it may be easier to influence something one way than the other depending on the circumstances.

Yes, and again I would really like to know what circumstance makes one influence the other. And in what circumstance it is the other way around. Just thinking out loud here, maybe something like being conscious, the 'form' influences the 'intensity'.

And not being conscious (and my thoughts would be that there is no form then, just a 'passive potential' to use my own model for a lack of another at this moment) means that the 'intensity' influences the ... well what actually.

Well, maybe that would be the existing forms. So your own thoughts that already are transforming but do not have any power (by lack of another word) yet. Maybe just all kind of uncontrolled thoughts that are ruled by the 'intensity' force.

And the moment it becomes conscious, the power (not energy, but somehow a powerful force) is in the 'form' instead of in the 'intensity'. And as a result the conscious controls the energy.

Well, something like that.

I also want to react on the rest of the post, but this was already getting very confusing, so that comes later. Although ...

I just love though 'aha' moments that just catch you by surprise

... my response to this is ME TOO!

[Annemieke]

Originally Posted by Melchior

As for the things you linked, I find spiral dynamics a bit too categorical, and too focused on human consciousness, i.e. the transformation of what Anagogy called the base shape. Still, it may have some uses in that regard, but as for the actual evolution of consciousness stuff, not as much. With the altitude thing, the colors reminded me of the visible spectrum of the electromagnetic radiation, not only because of what Bohm was talking about, or the actual use of colors, but because the way I think human consciousness might actually be in this spectrum might just be what the span of visible light is to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

My main interest in these kind of questions about consciousness is also in Altitude and not so much Spiral Dynamics. But as I understand it all, the Altitude model is mainly based on the Spiral Dynamics model. There has been a lot going on about how to interpret it all by several groups of thought about that, which all have interesting things to say.

So I mainly use the Altitude model because I find it the most interesing. But that said, I think there is a real danger in using this kind of models. I think it is very tempting to identify with a certain phase and catagorise other people in a certain phase.

I think it is much more complicated than that. And people are in several stages at once. Someone might very well ‘be’ in a certain stage at a mental level. But at the same time be at another stage on an emotional level. So as an ethical model it is very dangerous I think.

But as an abstact model I find it really very interesting. And I use it a lot to try to understand things.

If you consider what Ariel has said about raising vibration, equating to the raising of our frequency on the consciousness spectrum, then humans may very well reach their upper limit just as our eyes reach their upper limit in determining colors past violet. Imagine, what would something at gamma consciousness be like? Infinite frequency might be all of nature (everything), and zero frequency might be 'nothing', complete unconsciousness.

What you say here is also very interesting. Personally I think that some people might rather early in life be in that sort of vibration. Maybe even all children are in that sort of vibration if they are born. We might call that complete unconscious, but I am not so sure about that.

I also think our lives are meant to gain more consciousness then what we are born with. And the only way to do that is by personal experiences and gaining knowledge. First within the setting of the family and cultural background, but later on as an autonome individual.

But becoming such an individual is what I would call a transformation instead of a development or evolution. And is what Jung calls the individuation process. This is an important phase, also for the integral theory about Altitude, because it differentiates this sort of gamma consciousness.

There are pre and trans rational states (states are used different from stages as far as I understand it) and rational is what I would combine with individual development.

So both might look a lot like each other (maybe have the same vibration) but the difference is in the person who ‘owns’ it.

So, then, by analogy, what do we do to increase frequency of an electromagnetic wave? energy? no, that just increases intensity.

That would in this line of thought indeed only increase the intensity. But still I would guess it is energy. Personally I think that all consciouss growth happens with a combination of action and knowledge. And translated back to form and intensity that would mean a combination of those.

A combination that needs the other, builds up gradually. Action needs reflection and then again action is needed.

Rather, it'd be a change to the source of oscillation. This is where the form, as discussed before becomes important, as even if the intensity of a beam of light dies off, the individual packet of information (the photon) will be at the same frequency (what's interesting here too is that the frequency is measured by the energy as well, albeit with a factor of planck's constant).

Maybe once it is formed (a piece of subconscious becomes conscious) it can not go back again. Not necessary it has to grow further, but at least it stays in that ‘form’.

It does not have to lead to more evolved action, but that sort of action would be the way to further development I guess.

Still, I wonder if this is just old news and I simply haven't read enough on the stuff yet...

I think this is a fantastic example of what I meant earlier. Personally I think it is all about the individual combining outside and inside knowledge. You can read everything there is to read (well, that would not be actually possible but in a matter of speaking) but it really comes down to combining it with some kind of inner knowledge.

Either you call it intuition, or subconscious (not that they are the same, but then again maybe they are) or soul or self, somehow it has to be a combination between that and the rational 'reading' part (passive potential and active structure) and those have to grow by the action of our physical presence (active potential and passive structure).

Well, still my line of thinking at this moment.

[Orca]

Hi Annemeiki,

I liked your post and it resonates for me in terms of how I view consciousness. It really is about transformation more the evolution, I think. And I agree with the ethical note you said. For whatever reason, people still tend to categorize and get a bit competitive, even in their spiritual endeavors. And it is dangerous, I agree...

It's like a Zen master told me once, "How you do one thing is how you do everything." So if a being's consciousness is still into judging and categorizing other people and their perceived level spirituality, it's rather ironic, is it not? Even if one basic tenet of spirituality is to drop judgement and accept the whole, well, people still bug out on it. It's the old competitive Need To Be Right thing, I think. And it's quite understandable. It's human, and it is seductive because the desire to control or judge other peoples' spirituality can be very strong. If you can control how people should access the Divine, that indeed is alot of power. Just look at history to see examples of this.

I like the word "transformation" more than "evolution" because it is more accepting of the Now, to me. "Evolution" tends to imply that where someone is right now is less-than, or even rather "primitive" or "unevolved". I don't see it that way. People are just healing. I see people as perfectly fine wherever they are. And there is the More. Both are true at the time.

Transformation is more like a catepillar to butterfly model. There's nothing wrong with a catepillar. It doesn't need to apologize for itself or be anywhere else than it is. Certainly it shouldn't be rushed to "evolve". It is just in its own process and time for its transformation. And only it can say how and when that occurs.

And I absolutely agree there must be action and knowledge for more conscious awareness. There must be what I call an active engagement with life. There's no other way to transform. Books on spirituality can be helpful, but the best guide is actual engagement and experience of life.

I think that is because consciousness transforms best when engaged with other consciousness. It needs life forms, like other people, other life events, nature, etc. It doesn't happen if in a vaccuum. (I'm meaning human consciousness here, of course). We were wired to engage with other people as part of the path of life. It's part of our collective light signature, I think. Yes, we could survive just fine as hermits, and the atoms and molecules and organs in our bodies would still function ok. But would that be enough? Would a life of living completely alone and meditating for conscious connection be fulfilling? Perhaps for a few folks. But for many, consciousness might feel a compelling need for more connection with people, for more engagement and inter-action with life.

It's just how we humans are wired. Tree sloths, groundhogs and and hermit crabs might feel differently than us, because they have different consciousness needs. It's what makes them who they are and us who we are.

Just my .02

Orca

[Melchior]

Yeah, it's not like energy evolves or anything. But patterns of it seem to evolve as they become more complex. And actually with energy, most of the time it just 'degrades' as stated in the laws of thermodynamics. Currently, I think comparing consciousness to the 'timbre' of different musical instruments or something of the like would be useful, transformation being a morphing to a different instrument, although I think it would need more or less and 'different' material first, kinda like the caterpillar to butterfly. Anyway, I think this is good enough of a start for me at least, I think I'll check out some of Radin's books while I'm still not too busy. He seems to have done some interesting research at least, the validity of which I've still yet to determine.

In any case, I'm still quite fond of the emergent pattern idea of consciousness, human consciousness that is, even if this pattern isn't strictly localized in the physical body, but rather may be some sort of information field influenced into existence by it, working symbiotically perhaps (with the idea of 'form' and 'intensity' that is), at a more abstract level, that is. The idea of resonation seems as though it might also be of some importance, although I don't want to force connections where there aren't any.

Seeing as the new semester at my university is starting soon though, as much as I enjoy talking with you all, I'll likely be taking a back seat to any further discussion, lurking for the most part, perhaps interjecting here and there, but probably not writing nearly as much as the walls of text that I have been, as I probably should... >.>

[Annemieke]

Originally Posted by Orca

People are just healing. I see people as perfectly fine wherever they are. And there is the More. Both are true at the time.
Transformation is more like a catepillar to butterfly model. There's nothing wrong with a catepillar. It doesn't need to apologize for itself or be anywhere else than it is. Certainly it shouldn't be rushed to "evolve". It is just in its own process and time for its transformation. And only it can say how and when that occurs.

I like how you say ‘People are just healing’. That is how I see it too. I think it is common for people to overdevelop one side of themselve and underdevelop another. I even tend to think that is what it is all about. Because staying safely in the middle does not do so much for consciousness I guess.

And I absolutely agree there must be action and knowledge for more conscious awareness. There must be what I call an active engagement with life. There's no other way to transform. Books on spirituality can be helpful, but the best guide is actual engagement and experience of life.

Engagement seems like a perfect word. It sounds like more than experience of life. Experience is more like things that happen to a person. But engagement is about actually doing something with what life offers.

I think that is because consciousness transforms best when engaged with other consciousness.

I think so too, although it indeed might not be so for everyone. But for most of us it is in interaction with others that we learn. Be who you truly are among others. And for some the first part is the hardest. And for others the last part.

From your post I could not completely understand how you differentiate evolution, development and transformation. I think I must read it again but maybe you can elaborate a bit on how you see the differences. That is, if you do see them essential different.

I would be most interested in your thoughts on that.

[Annemieke]

Originally Posted by Melchior

But patterns of it seem to evolve as they become more complex.

Currently, I think comparing consciousness to the 'timbre' of different musical instruments or something of the like would be useful, transformation being a morphing to a different instrument, although I think it would need more or less and 'different' material first, kinda like the caterpillar to butterfly.

The idea of resonation seems as though it might also be of some importance, although I don't want to force connections where there aren't any.

I think your comparisons with music, timbre and resonance are really interesting. But also the complexity of growth. Like a musical note has to be clear, this growth has to be 'completed' to a certain point to actually 'do' something.

A bit vague, I know, but I have no other way at this moment to explain better what I mean. But in order to resonate well, it has to be at a certain point.

Seeing as the new semester at my university is starting soon though, as much as I enjoy talking with you all, I'll likely be taking a back seat to any further discussion, lurking for the most part, perhaps interjecting here and there, but probably not writing nearly as much as the walls of text that I have been, as I probably should... >.>

Well, in any case you started some very interesting discussions. And you really have a way of understanding several viewpoints at once.

[Orca]

Originally Posted by Annemieke

From your post I could not completely understand how you differentiate evolution, development and transformation. I think I must read it again but maybe you can elaborate a bit on how you see the differences. That is, if you do see them essential different.

I would be most interested in your thoughts on that.

Hi Annemieke,

Actually I don't see a huge difference, it's more about nuance. I like the word "transformation" because it feels just a wee bit less competitive and judgemental than the word "evolution". No one seems to go on about people who are the most "transformed", but people do seem to talk about who is the most "evolved". I think "transformation" is more neutral because it means we do not have ideas of what the end result should be. It seems more a natural mystery, something special to that specific person and not transferable to others.

"Evolution," to me, seems to imply we know how and where people should get to, if that makes sense. The concept of how "evolved" are you means you should be XYZ, right? Well, I understand that pov. But that still means someone has to be the judge of said person, right? To talk about someone's transformation feels more uniquely special to that specific individual than talking about how evolved they are or whatever.

So I understand the idea behind both words, but I just happen to like transformation. That's just me. Make sense?

Orca

[Annemieke]

Originally Posted by Orca

Actually I don't see a huge difference, it's more about nuance.

If I read you correctly in that post, it seems like much more than just a nuance. As I read what you write about it, it comes across as a huge difference. Well, at least to me it does. But maybe I am just reading that because I think they are really different myself, although I can not get into words yet how exactly that I see the difference.

I am trying to get a definition for those words that reflect the perception of others as well. I do not want to use the word evolution in what I write, if that is perceived different from how I mean it (although I can never really avoid that of course). But I use the words development, transformation and evolution a lot, so I am really interested in how others use and perceive those words. Maybe I should start another thread about that.

I like the word "transformation" because it feels just a wee bit less competitive and judgemental than the word "evolution". No one seems to go on about people who are the most "transformed", but people do seem to talk about who is the most "evolved". I think "transformation" is more neutral because it means we do not have ideas of what the end result should be. It seems more a natural mystery, something special to that specific person and not transferable to others.

If I understand you correctly here, I would say that evolving is more of an activity, an achievement, and transformation is more accepting, more reflective.

That would mean that transformation is more of an inner process. Something that can not be seen and as a result not judged by others. And it can also not be compared with the transformation of someone else, because it even might be the opposite of that transformation.

"Evolution," to me, seems to imply we know how and where people should get to, if that makes sense.

Yes, that certainly makes sense, although I am not really aware of that if I use the word evolution. Although I much more use the word development. But somehow I tend to use them for about the same concept, while I use the word transformation rather different.

But the more I read about them, the more I am thinking development and evolution might be rather different too.

The concept of how "evolved" are you means you should be XYZ, right? Well, I understand that pov. But that still means someone has to be the judge of said person, right? To talk about someone's transformation feels more uniquely special to that specific individual than talking about how evolved they are or whatever.

So I understand the idea behind both words, but I just happen to like transformation. That's just me. Make sense?

Again that absolutely makes sense. But as I said, I do not think of it as just a nuance. I think it is really different. Well, maybe it is just me as I find out why and when I use those words. And how I read into it if others use them.

Update: Now I got to think about it further, I think the real difference is in any physical development (actually doing things, is that called craft?) as opposed to any mental development. I have to think about that further, but suddenly it seemed an essential differentiation.

[Orca]

Originally Posted by Annemieke

If I understand you correctly here, I would say that evolving is more of an activity, an achievement, and transformation is more accepting, more reflective.

That would mean that transformation is more of an inner process. Something that can not be seen and as a result not judged by others. And it can also not be compared with the transformation of someone else, because it even might be the opposite of that transformation.

Yes, kind of like that. To me, transformation means we don't know what the result will be. And the end result is unique to that particular person. Evolution seems to sound like we would know what the result should be, and that somehow everyone is supposed to end up in the same place, some day. It does not seem to acknowledge the uniqueness of each soul, but sort of implies that everyone should be "enlightened" at the end of the day, whatever that means.

At least, that is how these words mean to me. It's not that I disagree with the concept of evolution. After all, I do think the soul grows and such.

I wasn't clear what you meant on physical vs. mental development. I think development is a good word, as is growth. I usually use growth, because sometimes, again, I think people get a bit competitive with the whole "how developed am I?" kind of stuff, as if measuring against some sort of arbitrary metaphysical standard. Rather than just noticing "how I've grown", which is, to me, much more useful and real.

Maybe semantics again?

I hope that makes some sense.

Orca

[Annemieke]

Originally Posted by Orca

I wasn't clear what you meant on physical vs. mental development.

It is also not clear to me yet what I meant by that. But somehow it suddenly seemed an important distinction. I wrote a blogpost where I tried to get more clarity about it for myself. I am not sure at this point if it is as I write in that post, so I might just as well change it or expand on it in another post.

The post is here and this is the main part of it:

Development
Act of improving by expanding or enlarging or refining.

Evolution
A process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage.

Transformation
Changing in form or shape or appearance.


Difference

First off it seems that transformation is more radical. Changing into something else. While evolution and development tend to change more over time.

But I think there is another difference. It is just only a thought, but somehow I have the feeling that transformation happens after a certain time of development or evolution. As if evolution and development (at this point I can not see where exactly those two differ) are gradually building to a certain point.

And transformation needs another element to change into something else.

So developing (evolving) is more like building or constructing and transforming is more like collapsing first and grow into something totally new.


Mind and Matter

Somehow I have the feeling developing is 'matter' that grows in complexity. Or 'mind' that grows in complexity.

But at some point they come together and transform into something new.

Maybe this is where the potential side of mind (psyche) and matter (energy) comes in.