The point of fundamental ignorance? (Wilber)

Chris, thanks for the heads up. I'll keep my eyes open for research in this area.

why can't that which some like to call god etc simply be some aspect or combo of aspects of all the materiality listed in an earlier post? that is, if stuff like magic, psychic powers, angels etc exist in any sense, why would they fall outside of the energy, material, particles, biological functions etc of the universe? ie it might be possible to say with appropriate study that when a person experiences an angel, one can document certain brain patterns, bodily reactions, sensations etc that tend to be common among the majority of persons experiencing that, thus an angel is a shothand way of referring to that kind of experience. just a thought.

Jackson, I don't think we disagree. I think we're using terms we're comfortable with and that's making it seem like we disagree. I'm using "biological" in a rigorous, all inclusive way and I think you and Jake are using it in a common parlance kind of way.



-cmarti

I'm not sure. We may have to agree to disagree... on whether we agree or not!

I think you are using the term "biology" in a less rigorous way than Jackson and I, not the reverse, if by rigorous we mean restricted. But it seems that by rigorous... you DON'T mean "restricted". You seem to mean "all inclusive', which I would probably label reductionistic.

To be sure that we are now understanding each other, I can ask a question to further refine my understanding of your notion of rigorous all-inclusivity, which might clarify whether we actually agree or not:

Would it be even more rigorous and all inclusive, according to you Chris, to say that "all events of which we can have knowledge are, in the most rigorous and all inclusive sense of rigorous and all inclusive, physical"? With the definition of physical being whatever is currently the fundamental definition of "matter" in physical science?

In other words, would the most rigorous and all inclusive way of describing things in general be, according to you, in terms of physics? Isn't the brain "just" a bunch of matterial stuff, not even biological stuff, but simply matter? In principle, could everything in Universe be expressed in terms of current or future physics-- including chemistry and biology as well as phenomenology, psychology, sociology, and culture?

And on the QM front: for what it's worth, as I understand it, the whole notion that QM implies that consciousness interacts with matter in some way, a notion derived from the uncertainty principle, is a popular misunderstanding.

The uncertainty principle states that we can't determine the position and velocity of a particle at the same time, and thus, our choice of which we want to measure will condition the behavior of the particle.

As I understand it, this is really simple. In order to measure a particle, we've got to bounce another particle off of it, just as our eyes exploit photons bouncing off of this monitor to see it. But this monitor is really really massive in comparison to all the photons bouncing off of it so they don't move it when they bounce off of it. But when you bounce one little particle off of another little particle, it's gonna actually change that particle's behavior in a significant way. So you have to decide beforehand what aspect you want to measure because your measurement is going to change both the location and the velocity of the particle, just like bouncing a hocky puck off of another hocky puck is gonna change the first puck's location and velocity.

At least, that's how I understand that bit of QM in a layperson's terms.

Can I just point out that just like Wilber's explanation in the beginning of this thread, all these explanations also don't actually matter in terms of our practices?

But much fun to discuss.

you guys were just loving it. it was cute. a giant geek fest.

It goes deeper even than that. The results of certain measurements are actually/apparently determined by what we decide to measure, so if we decide to measure light as if it were a wave we get the result that light is wavelike. Alternatively, if we decide to measure light as if it were comprised of particles, we will get the result that light is made up of particles. Google the "double slit experiment."



-cmarti

Yes, familiar with the double slit experiment, which does show some totally weird stuff happening on a quantum level, for sure!

And on that note, I'll echo Ona's point and wish you all a very lovely night!

AAAARGH okay I couldn't resist



The double slit experiment, to me, seems supportive of my sense that matter is conscious matter and consciousness is material consciousness. So there!!!

Okay, to bed with meself

"So the point was that is the purpose we seem to have -- to pass genetic material on the the next generation. The search for meaning beyond that can be fun and entertaining, yes, but that's probably as far as it goes." - Chris

If you do not see any meaning to human life beyond passing along genetic material, what motivates you to practice? I hope this isn't too personal a question to ask. I am interested to know because meaning and purpose are integral to my practice.

Thanks for sharing. I wasn't sure if you were speaking in purely biological terms or not.

"So the point was that is the purpose we seem to have -- to pass genetic material on the the next generation. The search for meaning beyond that can be fun and entertaining, yes, but that's probably as far as it goes." - Chris
If you do not see any meaning to human life beyond passing along genetic material, what motivates you to practice? I hope this isn't too personal a question to ask. I am interested to know because meaning and purpose are integral to my practice.


-sunyata

If I may stick my nose back in the discussion, I wrote an essay on "things having a point/purpose/meaning" a while ago, which might interest: http://alittledeathblog.com/2011/12/18/pointlessness/

Oh, I didn't see it when I posted.

It is very similar to yours: I want to find out what/who/where I am. I also see it as a way to cultivate myself so that I can help people in a very pinpointed way, in the same way that Motoyama was able to help me, although it is probably very unlikely I will develop such a high capacity. Nonetheless, I strive for it anyway.

"What's the point of fundamental ignorance?"

"If you do not see any meaning to human life... what motivates you to practice? "

I still think these questions didn't really get answered very well, amongst all the tangents on evolution and such.

The first begs the following questions, no?

IS there fundamental ignorance? (Assuming this is typical agreed upon among people who do wisdom practices)

If so, does it have a "reason" "point" etc? Or is it just the way things are, by their own nature?

Does believing it to have a reason or not have a reason benefit your practice - ie can (temporarily or otherwise) holding to such a belief be USEFUL, and if so, how?

"IS there fundamental ignorance?" - ona

Since a vast majority of us are born ignorant of our true nature, it seems to me that there is a fundamental ignorance. However, a few people may be "thrown into" a persistent non-dual awareness at a very young age. Adi Da claimed this.

If so, does it have a "reason" "point" etc? Or is it just the way things are, by their own nature?

I don't know...There seem to be biological, theistic, psychological, philosophical arguments...

"Does believing it to have a reason or not have a reason benefit your practice - ie can (temporarily or otherwise) holding to such a belief be USEFUL, and if so, how?"

For me it is only useful insomuch that the idea of fundamental awareness indicates that there is a experience radically different than my ordinary awareness wherein dualism collapses and that this is a more accurate, "wise" perception of reality. Therefore, it motivates me to practice so I can experience this. The idea of fundamental ignorance also indicates to me that this is a universal human condition and presupposes the idea of buddha-nature. If I was ever to become a teacher, this would be a pivotal notion to maintain (but not attach to... ).

That's my .02, adjusted for inflation.

Thanks for redirecting, Ona They were interesting questions.

"IS there fundamental ignorance?"

I'm not sure if you are asking this in a straightforward way or in a zenny way I'm going to take it in a straightforward way and if you bare with me, I'm going to try to articulate my own experience of what this means in my life and practice, because it seems like a great question, and I'm genuinely curious whether you guys share this experience or have different experiences in this regard. Hopefully I'm not violating any taboo about sharing practice experience, but I see no way to genuinely address this question without doing so. I could quote some books on this but the fact is, my view has been less influenced by the books than my choice in books has been influenced by my intuitions and glimpses.

So from an experiential perspective, to me personally, this notion is very useful as a descriptor of a quality that is more subtle than overt, moving-mind "ignorance". The latter is IME an explicit, formed, mental-emotional reactive interpretation which is experienced as having "weight" (a karmic charge?). The heavier this "moving ignorance" the more push-and-pull it exerts on activity of mind, speech and body. Acting out one of these patterns through proliferating further mind movements, speaking out of the pattern, or physically acting it out reinforces the pattern and perpetuates the "charge".

Bringing mindfulness (clarity, discernment and equanimity) to the formation as it arises decomposes it into elements and shows all the elements to be empty, interdependently arisen and transient. The depth of mindfulness which co-arises with the formation is inversely proportional to the perceived "weight" of it, which means, more mindfulness = more freedom to choose which formations to perpetuate through mental, verbal or physical behavior, and/or in what way to express them. But in my experience, regardless of the intensity of mindfulness, the formation always has some residual "drag" because it is arising as an expression of a deep belief in an imagined mode of existence (of myself, others, everything).

This latter IME reflects this basic ignorance. Basic ignorance isn't an overt movement of mind so much as a very subtle lack of clarity about true nature. Although that way of expressing it is inaccurate because it implies two things, true nature and something else which would either recognize or not recognize it; experientially it's more like true nature has a natural momentum, as it arises as "me" (as in, this unique perspective), to arise in a self-clear way; the wave arising as a unique expression of the ocean, without duality between ocean/wave, wetness/water. And yet (for whatever reason-- your second question, to which I have and currently seek no answer, although in the past I did seek and hold answers to it) the experiential fact is that, for me, the arising of conditioned moments DO NOT simply unfold automatically in self-clarity but rather, there seems to be this more or less sub-optimal, seemingly glitch-prone way of arising as if "I", the wave, were separate from other waves, and additionally am unclear about what is my nature, i.e., "wetness". This is different from the overt mind movements which express this basic ignorance, which I confirm for myself very frequently in meditation and life when these overt mind-movements become still, and there is an experience of peaceful abiding, and yet, there is not this optimal self-clarity of true nature. Stilling overt mind movements, and then allowing that basic ignorance to resolve (as a deeper, more formless relaxation), can result in flashes of self-clarity, which is experientially distinct from even the most rarefied forms of still-slightly unclear stillness.

So from a more mindfulness, vipassana-style approach to practice, the thing to do is to bring mindfulness to all these mind-movements, and to cultivate over time greater (habitual) skill at doing so, thus cultivating more experiential freedom to choose which mind-movements to express and in what way, or even to intentionally cultivate wholesome mindstates. This is IME working with subtle and coarse (derived) ignorances to gradually see them as-they-are, empty and impermanent, rather than as they take themselves to be, a solid and separate self. It's to train in switching mindset from one that buys into content uncritically and one that sees the process and nature of thinking as at least as significant as the content of thought (in the broad sense of thought as mental-emotional stuff). Training my mind to be more flexible in terms of experiencing stillness and clarity, to abide calmly, is supportive of this.

And from a more "basic wisdom" or innate clarity point of view, when that very subtle veil-like unfulfilled self-clarity optimizes into full-blown self-clarity, i.e., when basic ignorance as i experience it dissipates, the self-clarity that is fully present in that moment instantly neutralizes any mind-movements which were or are arising in that moment, by which I mean, they become pure information without any residual compulsion to be acted out or not acted out, and they immediately present as imaginary without any sense that what is being imagined in that moment is anything but imagery, and thus totally no problem without need of being eliminated. They are utterly clear and insubstantial, and even if they retain all the elements which would otherwise coalesce into a moment of overt ignorance (such as all the feelings, words and images), all of this appears as of "one taste" with everything else arising within and around, in a completely decompressed way.

Practicing calm abiding can help me with this to a point insofar as that can be a way to allow self-arising wisdom, self-clarity, to sparkle through. But IME there is a danger here because basic ignorance can be read in both directions, if you will, towards and away from "manifestation" (scare quotes to denote loose meaning of the word). Read towards manifestation, basic ignorance manifests as believed in overt mental-emotional movements-- explicitly samsaric, dualistic ego-ing. But read in reverse, in the direction of the unmanifest, basic ignorance can manifest as a tendency of practice oriented towards transcendence and quiesescence and oneness. This has been an issue for me at various times and no doubt will continue to return to challenge me; perhaps others can relate?

For me so far, anyway, the ultimate expression of innate clarity has no preference for manifest or unmanifest, nirvana or samsara. And thoughts and feelings, words and deeds (and indeed preferences, intentions, likes and dislikes) can arise freely without any need to "control" them in any way, even through subtle mindfulness (while in this self-clarity). When they arise in this state they are exactly the same as they are when arising in basic ignorance, and yet, completely different, in precisely specifiable phenomenological ways. (Though moving, they are utterly still; though apparent, they are insubstantial; though none-existent, they are clearly apparent... and most importantly there is no karmic "charge" to them, yet there is a power or energy that is liberated there).

I really hope this makes some sense as it is of practical significance to me, and is my sincere answer to your question! Thanks for baring with my long windedness. I'm trying to keep it real. I'm kind of uncomfortable sharing practice details with all that can imply, and yet, I'm just tired of bantering on a theoretical level and this does seem like an important, even essential question that is being asked!