Charles T Tart

States of Consciousness
State –Specific Sciences
Prospects
I believe that an examination of human history and our current situation provides the strongest argument for the need to develop state-specific sciences. Throughout history man has been influenced by the spiritual and mystical factors expressed (usually in watered-down form) in the religions that attract the masses. Spiritual and mystical experiences are primary phenomena of various d-ASCs (discrete-altered state of consciousness): because of such experiences, untold numbers of both the noblest and most horrible acts of which men are capable have been committed. Yet in all the time what Western science has existed, no concerted attempt has been made to understand these d-ASC phenomena in scientific terms.
Many hoped that religions were simply a form of superstition that would be left behind in our “rational” age. Not only has this hope failed, but our own understanding of the nature of Reason is a tool, a tool that is wielded in the service of assumptions, beliefs and needs that are not themselves subject to reason. The irrational, or better, the arrational, will not disappear from the human situation. Our immense success in the development of the physical sciences has not been particularly successful in formulating better philosophies of life or increasing our real knowledge of ourselves. The sciences we have developed to date are not very human sciences. They tell us how to do thing, but give us no scientific insights on questions of what to do, what not to do, or why to do things.
The youth of today and mature scientists are turning to meditation, Oriental religions, and personal use of psychedelic drugs in increasing numbers. The phenomena encountered in these d-ASCs, provide more satisfaction and are more relevant to the formulation of philosophies of life and decisions about appropriate ways of living, than “pure reason”.
It is difficult to predict the chances of developing state-specific sciences. Our knowledge is still too diffuse and dependent on the normal d-SoC (discrete-state of consciousness, normal state of consciousness). Yet it is probable that state-specific sciences can be developed for such d-ASCs as auto hypnosis, meditative states, lucid dreaming, marijuana intoxication, LSD intoxication, self-remembering, reverie, and biofeedback-induced states.

i

One of man's important mistakes, one which must be remembered, is his illusion in regard to his I.
Man such as we know him, the "man-machine," the man who cannot "do," and with whom and through whom everything "happens," cannot have a permanent and single I. His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings, and moods, and he makes a profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.
Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says "I." And in each case it seems to be taken for granted that this I belongs to the Whole, to the whole man, and that a thought, a desire, or an aversion is expressed by this Whole. In actual fact there is no foundation whatever for this assumption. Man’s every thought and desire appears and lives quite separately and independently of the Whole. And the Whole never expresses itself, for the simple reason that it exists, as such, only physically as a thing, and in the abstract as a concept. Man has no individual I. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small I’s, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking “I”. And each time his I is different. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man’s name is a legion.

The alternation of I’s, their continual obvious struggle for supremacy, is controlled by accidental external influences. Warmth, sunshine, find weather, immediately call up a whole group of I’s. Cold, fog, rain, call up another group of I’s, other associations, other feelings, other actions. There is nothing in man able to control this change of I’s, chiefly because man does not notice, or know it; he lives always in the last I. Some I’s, of course, are stronger than others. But it is not their own conscious strength; they have been crated by the strength of accidents or mechanical external stimuli. Education, imitation, reading, the hypnotism of religion, caste, and traditions, or the glamour of new slogans, create very strong I’s in man’s personality, which dominate whole series of other, weaker, I’s.

Man has no individuality. He has no single, big I. Man is divided into a multiplicity of small I’s. And each separate small I is able to call itself by the name of the Whole, to act in the name of the Whole, to agree or disagree, to give promises, to make decisions, with which another I or the Whole will have deal. This explains why people so often make decisions and so seldom carry them out. A man decides to get up early beginning from the following day. One I, or a group of I’s decides this. But getting up is the business of another I who entirely disagrees with the decisions and my again go on sleeping in the morning and in the evening he will again decide to get up early. In some cases this may assume very unpleasant consequences for a man. A small accidental I may promise something, not to itself, but to someone else at a certain moment simply out of vanity or for amusement. Then it disappears, but the man, that is, the whole have to pay for it all his life. It is the tragedy of the human being that any small I has the right to sign checks and promissory notes and the man, that is, the Whole has to meet them. People’s whole lives often consist in paying off the promissory notes of small accidental I’s.

George Gurdjieff.

The Layman Diaries

(notes n drafts)


One sees many young minds around in our time where the drive to become more appears operating in the background not satisfied with the social roles given us. Its the same basic inquisitiveness that put us on our way to from hanging from a tree into a convertible. The so called practical life continues on since now we have've had thousands of generations worth of training in it and it comes naturally. They have careers and lifes. But as Thoreau said men live their lives in quite desperation. Where it is not entangled in wanting to meet made believe needs completely, it continues its journey on the thought road of being more.
The science that introduces a mind to a state of consciousness most eligible for the task of thinking - philosophy- sits atop the mountain of language. Apparent complexity of ideas tried to explain through the use of language may not lead everyone to the highest point, but it does takes one off the meadows. It is on these meadows that the cultural drama happens. Religion and dogma has so far only led the mind into the cave. Personal philosophies, so affected by the scriptural thinking have often taken the same prescriptive road.

Active Consciousness

18. Active Consciousness

There are as many theories of what consciousness is as there are minds curious enough to ask the question. One thing we know is that there is that part of mental life that comes forward, that lets itself be pondered upon , thought about. Sometimes it may come in the form of a well cooked idea and sometimes in the form of a question.
A human mind can take in an almost infinite amount of information in the form of written, visual, overheard or just infered and stored away tas a building block of beliefs and convictions that determine our way of being.


to be continued.....

Organ for Knowledge

73. Organ for knowledge.



A human child is born bearing same genetic survival mechanisms as many other animals. The mechanism for imitative behavior for example helps a developing brain lay down neural pathways similar to parents since they have proven useful so far for survival.Acquisition and use of language-as we grow up- draws its symbolic value almost identical to that used in the environment one grows up in. A succesful tradition already has its memes designed to have the maximum hold on the eager learning brain. The individual finds it comforting not to deviate from the norm and risk censure from peers . Even the so called non-conformist ideals of modern age cant help but operate within the sphere of accepted morality as the energy is driven towards giving the illussion of not belonging which works well for both the actor and the audience.



( first summary draft )

the naked ape

As we evolved, as our consciousness evolved, pushed by the mind of the naked ape, not just learning to find patterns but taking those patterns as truths, every truth -or rather every idea, every concept, every action, every thought that we designated as truth- heavily cloaked in self deception, a blind manifestation of social utilitarianism at first. But with time as our created environment, our sorroundings become safer and safer, with time as the ape becomes the master predator and more and more of nervous energy is devoted to our social condition, the ego - the idea of self - narrows. Now we learned to pay more attention to the others around us as we realized that I am not the only one who wishes to keep as much as possible for my own self. Now the primary focus to increase one's fitness narrows from looking out for predators, now we become each other's predators with a new vigour. Now man learns the joys of being idle. Oh how he enjoys it. It was a scary place for the longest time and every moment required a keen eye out so as not to get eaten. Now what went on inside our heads required more and more attention so that it could overcome alot with the smallest of physical effort. Now the age of the mind was begining. Now one's survival and the extent to which one would propagate, genetically, shifted from merely going out looking for food while risking one's territory being taken over to manipulating the social web we were creating. Now man created gods because he realized he could be god himself.

Premises

I will try to outline the foundational thought patterns for understanding the following posts. It is necessary because if you think and believe God created the world 6000 years ago you are not going to understand the argument that is based on our evolutionary history. The concepts are not complete and just give a general idea of the starting point of my thoughts.
Big Bang.
An expanding universe.
Matter and Space.
Clumps of matter.
Emergence of an organic life form.
Evolution of the organic life form.
Many paths of evolution and one resulting in sentient beings called Homo Sapiens.

Emergence of "consciousness" , the sentient beings evolve complex enough to reflect on their own existence. Consciousness as it ponders itself at this time is not objective, can not be objective, as what is reflects upon is bits and pieces of its own body , unable to grasp the whole - sort of like a flash light in a dark room that only sees what it shines on.
Consciousness has in its core imbued - cause and effect, a concept of time, a sense of morality, a sense of finding purpose ( cause and effect in a circle ), creation of gods to provide the explanation for the primer cause , pain and pleasure - avoidance of pain and pursuit of pleasure which are evolutionary mechanisms developed to sustain and enhance survivability in the dangerous environment we evolved in.
Emergence of society, culture, civilizations and imposition of rules and regulations to sustain those structures.




The above mentioned are by no means exhaustive of our history as we understand it and give only a general idea as to our point of departure into our inquiries.