More on Consciousness

In Physical Spirituality I mentioned how the Jungian collective unconscious could be regarded as the processional spirit of our species or of our planet and may even constitute the personification of our Planetary Deity. In describing the psychedelic journey I mentioned that it is not only our personal habits in the form of our egos that need to be overcome in order to maximize the benefit of the drug, but that our Planetary Deity actively endeavours to have our consciousness remain architective. In both these cases, the counter-productive 'dark' or 'shadow' is seen as being both transpersonal and architective.

There is a significant consequence to seeing them in this way. It means that these counter-productive forces are spatially confined since they are architective, meaning specifically that they do not have a cosmic context. That is, the Jungian idea of a 'shadow' is not a universal one and should not be seen as as a fundamental feature of the universe in it's entirety.

*

Jung's archetypes are faces of architectivity.

*

Connectivity is grossly overlooked in our normal consciousness. To see it, one must specifically choose to attend to it.

*

Synaesthesia operates on the connectivity of our perceptions - it is a purely connective phenomenon.

*

When we first perceive connectivity consciously we still have the architective habit of focusing on each perception individually. Indeed, to start with we might still see connectivity with architective eyes as it were. The trick is to realize that we are actually able to take in all our connective perceptions at the same time.

*

Connective perceptions likely have a frequency. I find it helps to start the switch into connective consciousness by focusing on the highest frequency I can perceive, after which all the lower frequencies become perceptible.

*

Musics (frequency) are connective timekeepers, clocks are architective time keepers.

Architective time becomes less relevant when tripping as frequency becomes the dominant timekeeper.

*

Emergence by simple complexification implies that consciousness comes from having a sufficient number of neurons. It also implies that those with more neurons are smarter. But Physical Spirituality suggests that life did not emerge simply as a series of complexifications, but as a result of novel and unexpected fields of serial meanings emerging from architective aggregations. That is, it is only when a complexification delivers a suitable new field of serial meaning that consciousness might emerge.

The fact that we are conscious indicates that fields of meaning amenable to consciousness are possible.

*

Our ability to 'read' organisms and people directly, that is not through an architective language, improves markedly when our connective sentience is conscious.

Such connective 'reading' gives us a bigger but less precise picture than a detailed architective examination.

*

Just because a group of people (or beings) all have the connective mode of sentience conscious does not mean they are necessarily "in tune" with each other. Being "in tune" with another means not only sharing the connective mode of consciousness but sharing the same frequency or harmonic thereof, as well as keeping up with any changes in each other's tunes, so that the "being in tune" persists across changes.

*

Another possible way that psychoactive drugs might work is by altering the paths by which our brain neurons aggregate into networks. By aggregating in non-normal patterns the neurons would generate non-normal fields of meaning. Our minds can play in these new fields, with different drugs making different fields of meaning available to us. Psychedelics tell us that the smallest change in brain chemistry can have a very profound effect.

*

If all our senses enter our brains as vibrations it could mean that at some early point in the process of perception, all our perception is connective and our architective perceptions only arise as a subsequent extract from this primary connective perception. Using Iain McGilchrist's notation, the left hemisphere does not perceive reality directly, but takes snapshots or intermittent samples of the right hemisphere's primary perception, which it subsequently abstracts and analyses. So Iain is right in saying that right hemisphere sentience is primary - BUT this primacy only applies to our human (and perhaps other brain based) perception of reality, not to the ontology of reality.

This extraction mechanism of architective perception could give rise to an architective equivalent of our perceptivity limit (as described in the chapter on psychedelics in Physical Spirituality). While our perceptivity limit would determine the maximum rate at which we can resolve frequential change, an extraction limit would determine the maximum rate at which we can resolve architective configurational events such as processional steps. Our frequential rate vibrates while our extraction rate ticks.

Our extraction limit could be sufficiently regular for us to compare it to every procession we encounter and thereby provide a base by which we sense the passing of time. I do believe that for any organism to experience time it must somehow be ticking.

*

Should these perceptivity and extraction limits, or rather their respective processes, be singular ( that is, be the same across all our perceptions or extractions), they could constitute carriers of our connective and architective sentiences.

As the carrier frequency of our connective sentience, frequencies above our perceptivity limit would not be resolved while any below could be emulated by it (to a very good approximation, at least).

Similarly, as the "carrier rate" of our architective sentience, configurational event rates above our extraction limit would not be resolved while rates below could be emulated by it.

This is why we like to "get high" rather than low. Raising our perceptivity limit expands our connective sentience. Raising our extraction limit expands our architective sentience.

So we "tune up" to cosmic integration by raising our perceptivity limit, then "tune in" to the song of the Cosmic Deity which we are then capabale of 'hearing'.

*

Using the idea of consciousness as being sentient of one's own sentience, I suspect that adding yet another layer of sentience, as in being sentient of one's own consciousness, would also add another layer to one's intelligence. Perhaps the presence of more layers might account for the higher levels of conscious intelligence in humans as compared to other animals.

*

Could it be that each level of sentience has a different perceptivity limit (and extraction limit)?

Such that a consciousness (a sentience of a sentience) becomes 'full' when the observing and observed sentience have the same perceptivity (or extraction) limit.