The Metaphysics of a Third Eye

[Goat Reverend]

"The world is my represenetation: this is a truth valid with reference to every living and knowing being, although man alone can bring it into reflective, abstract consciousness. If he really does so, philosophical discernment has darned on him. It then becomes clear and certain to him that he does not know a sun and an earth, but only an eye that sees a sun, a hand that feels an earth; that the world around him is there only as representation, in other words, only in reference to another thing, namely that which represents, and this is himself."
-Schopenhauer

If you're interested in the metaphysics of a third eye, I would suggest reading Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception (or any of the phenomenologists) and Wittgenstein's Philsophical Investigations... Best of luck... Be patient...

"Life and dreams are leaves of one and the same book."
-Schopenhauer

"Men live only in dreams; the philosopher strives to be awake."
-Plate

"We must not, therefore, wonder whether we really perceive a world, we must instead say: the world is what we perceive."
-Merleau-Ponty

[hoodling1229]

damn. thats good stuff. i'm gonna go check it out. thanks

[Goat Reverend]

Now that I think of it, Kant's ontology may be the best place to start. Here's a solid overview...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm#Kant's%20Copernican%20Revolution:%20M ind%20Making%20Nature

As one of my many brilliant professors put it, "You can philosophize with Kant or you can philosophize against him; but you cannot philosophize without him."

Hopefully the above link can bring to light a crucial distinction between phenomena and noumena, a necessary distinction that Kant believed presupposed a certain sort of direct intuition into the world beyond our perception (a concept synonomous with the third eye). This true world, the "thing-in-itself," the noumena, is identical to Schopenhauer's force called the Will and Carl Jung's collective unconscious (clearly inspired by Schopenhauer's Will of which Jung said he felt sure that Schopenhauer meant God and that God was blind). The noumena contains what Jung termed Achetypes, and its autonomy allows it to impress symbols upon consciousness and hence indirectly upon our perceptions, upon our phenomena. As far as I understand it, the third eye is an intuition that, so to speak, is the glue that bridges the gap between phenomena and noumena, consciousness and unconsciousness. More simply, it is the connecting point between mind and body, it is spirit. Or for the Christian, it is the Holy Spirit, the vessel from the Father to the Son. I believe the third eye is merely a metaphor for a human faculty that transcends our perception and touches a demension beyond causality, that that demension governs this one, and through defining and redefining our motivations we are free to choose our governor. Bill Hicks may have been alluding to these governors as "fear and Love."

I know thats a pretty sketchy gloss over, but I've found it to be some interesting connections. If anyone sees any further links in the chain or some that I've latched together that don't fit, I'd enjoy your feedback.

[Thrakandor]

Verifiability...

[JTCrace]

First of all, a sincere thank you for the thread. A gem amongst a lot of gravel.

I read your initial post about a month ago. I wanted to respond then but did not have the appropriate fuel. Recent cognitions have inspired me...

Yes, I'm familiar with Kant (a little). And by far the most fascinating part of his system is the idea of "things-in-themselves." From what I gather, a person perceives the representation of an object. Kant was correct, in my opinion, by stating that perceiving "things-as-they-are" is impossible. His contention was that it was faith in God that would lead someone to understand the world as it is--the mind can only give us an impression of what the world appears to be.

Lately, I've become very aware of the incessant, sometimes overwhelming flow of perceptives from my environment. Everywhere, all the time, I look and look and look. It can be quite taxing and exhausting.

Siddhartha Gotama (the Buddha) spoke of the "higher viewings." The apex of which was a state called "neither perception nor non-perception." Why did he put this one at the top? Why didn't he put "perception of boundless space" at the top? Or the nothingness realm?

If I may get theoretical, a Being creates a thing. But this thing is a passing thought; a thought that is gone as soon as it arrives. If a Being wants to keep it around so that he may LOOK at it, he has to somehow lie about it. Because knowing the truth of it, knowing the "thing-in-itself," he cannot keep it around--it vanishes (knowing something will always make that something vanish..."and the truth shall set you free"). So, he creates a thing and then lies about it, he says, "I didn't make it...God made it...She made it...He made it...They made it..." Now the created thing is there. It's got some persistance to it, some solidity. Now he can look at it all he wants. Because of the lies surrounding this thing, he is not actually seeing it for what it is, he is seeing a delusion. He doesn't know this though, at least, not yet.

What happens when a Being doesn't want this thing around anymore? Because of the lies surrounding it, he has a little trouble getting rid of it. So he tries to force it out of existence--he goes into denial. Enough of these denials and he might eventually find himself walking a mammalian body around planet earth.

So, how does one go about uncovering the lies that surround the things of the world? It would be tantamount to transcending perception and knowing the "things-in-themselves."

Perception is made up of two structures: the viewpoint and the anchor point. From a viewpoint, a player looks at various anchor points. This is true for both physical and mental space.

Geoff Filbert suggests that one "look without a via." In other words, he's suggesting that one view without a point. This wouldn't really be perception, this would be pervasion. Geoff, on the Scientological "Know to Mystery Scale," places "KNOWINGNESS" above "LOOKINGNESS."

And that's it. Things-in-themselves can be known, through pervasion.

Now we see why Siddhartha Gotama put "neither perception nor non-perception" at the top. To transcend perception, one would have to know everything. Or pervade everything. At that point, everything would vanish. "Never really here/ Wasn't ever..."

[Goat Reverend]

First to Thrakandor: I was hoping you would attempt to verify it yourself. May I suggest "The Essentail Jung" by Anthony Starr. Also I must say that Jung is much more intelligible and much less obscure with a little Schopenhauer under your belt. After all, it has been argued that he was the first to give the subconscious a philosophical expression. As far as my lack of 'verifiability' is concerned, that's what the link is for. And if you need more, read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" on top of the others I recommended.

I had another professor (graduate of Harvard awarded PhD from Cornell), much more of a rationalist than the previously mentioned, very aptly equate Kant with "a gateway drug." No one can give it to you, no one can verify it or prove it to you, you gotta smoke that shit yourself. As the "Chinaman of Konigsburg" himself puts it, "Every philosophical thinker builds his own work on the ruins, so to speak, of another; but nothing has ever been built that could be permanent in all its parts. It is, therefore, impossible to learn philosophy, even for this reason, that IT DOES NOT YET EXIST." If I were to label the seemingly and possibly endless journey a gruelling task, I would be uttering the understatement of my lifetime to this point. Kant's devoted servant, Lumppe, is said to have faithfully read each thing his master published, but when Kant published his "Critique of Pure Reason,” Lumppe began but did not finish it because, he said, if he were to finish it, it would have to be in a mental hospital. But if you want to grow you have to go "down that hole and back again."

Thankandor, maybe I misinterpreted. If you're just telling me that I haven't justified my claim, you're right, its just a gloss. The justification would take several pages; I'll contact you privately. If that was the extent of your post, then the above response is moot.

To JTCrace: I appreciate the kind words. Your insight shows quite a profound conjunction between western philosophy and eastern religion: a spark of light connecting two worlds of darkness. An aim that, I might add, Jung felt accelerated the process of individuation so long as balance was maintained, and, specifically, provided a clearer vision of the Archetypes.

To the thread in general: I would love to expound but this is neither the time (frankly I don't have the knowledge to deconstruct all of this brilliant and beaming man's lyrics and ideas) nor the place (it would take a dissertation...). Hence, check out the books if you're interested.

[Thrakandor]

*blinks* it just seems to me that all we have in the end are our perceptions. The conclusions that we draw from them - whether attempts to delineate causes, or attribute meaning to them, or whatever - are going to be ultimately dubious in the end, I think. Mysticism seems to be a way of coming to terms with the human experience, but I'm not sure that any of the structures it posits have any ontological salience in and of themselves. And once we suppose that they do, we are in danger of letting the ideas at work carry us beyond that for which our perceptions can account.

[JTCrace]

As I watched a film called "Vanilla Sky" I felt such empathy with David Ames (the lead character). He was falling down. But, he did something about it. He had an inner strength, a certainty in himself that wouldn't allow him to accept what they, the world, were telling him was right and true. He screamed at the top of his lungs, "Tech Support!!!! I WANT TO WAKE UP!!!" And when it came time to jump, he did. He chose truth, life, love, and beingness. Waking up is possible. Your perceptions remain what they always were though. As Hubbard so wisely suggested, never try to discover the actuality of an actuality. It's there, so it's there. If I see a red ball, then that's true on that particular level of being. Of course I may at some point perceive to be something else, but for the time being it's a red ball.

[Thrakandor]

As I watched a film called "Vanilla Sky" I felt such empathy with David Ames (the lead character). He was falling down. But, he did something about it. He had an inner strength, a certainty in himself that wouldn't allow him to accept what they, the world, were telling him was right and true. He screamed at the top of his lungs, "Tech Support!!!! I WANT TO WAKE UP!!!" And when it came time to jump, he did. He chose truth, life, love, and beingness. Waking up is possible. Your perceptions remain what they always were though. As Hubbard so wisely suggested, never try to discover the actuality of an actuality. It's there, so it's there. If I see a red ball, then that's true on that particular level of being. Of course I may at some point perceive to be something else, but for the time being it's a red ball.
I would claim, though, that the percept is the actuality. That leaves open the question as to the existence of any independent entity, or the nature of said entity.

[Thrakandor]

I'll give you double post!

*shakes fist*

[Goat Reverend]

*blinks* it just seems to me that all we have in the end are our perceptions. The conclusions that we draw from them - whether attempts to delineate causes, or attribute meaning to them, or whatever - are going to be ultimately dubious in the end, I think.

*finishes chilly cheese fries* You grant the certainty of your perceptions. You assume (correctly) that all experience presupposes perception. So far, all is well and good.

Then you say we cannot draw conclusions from our perceptions...

Putting aside whether or not we can draw conclusions from the CONTENT of our perceptions, let us take up concern with what we can draw from the fact THAT WE HAVE perceptions, that is, what else is a necessary condition for having perceptions...

Let's have a look at SPACE. What would perception be if objects were not situated in different locations, if everything was in one literal spot, and you were necessarily in that spot as well? Perception is therefore dependent on objects being projected or represented in space. And because we, as you intend, only have our subjective perspectives, we cannot (at this point) objectify space with certainty. But we can say a priori (prior to experience) that our perception MUST be experienced in space, whether external space or internal space. And we know this without ANY dubiosity. Not even Karl Popper would refute this. It is DEDUCED from the definition of perception. But here is the interesting part, it tells us something new, i.e. we project space whether it is out in the world or not, it is a necessary faculty of the human mind that must be in place in order for perception to be possible. So this information is also INDUCTIVE. Kant calls this a SYNTHETIC A PRIORI judgement. Also the appearence of time and the appearence of causality fall under this catagory (not that time or causality exist out in the world, he doesn't think they do, but that their appearence is necessary for our perception, i.e. in order for our perception to be at all intelligible, we must see through the eyes of time and causality).

Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" demonstrates the limits of our logical capacity. But whereas Hume found we had no reason other than association, Kant proves the survival of reason, although it does walk away limping. (Since this is a Tool forum, I suppose I can use lyrics as backup... "let the words spill through/ and let them pass right through/ bringing out all HOPE and REASON" what good is reason if all we have are subjective perspectives without any underlying unity? Merely our associations would suffice.)

So yeah, in a limited sense, all we have is our perceptions. But in a broader sense, we have the distinct capacity within our minds to UNDERSTAND our perceptions.

Mysticism seems to be a way of coming to terms with the human experience, but I'm not sure that any of the structures it posits have any ontological salience in and of themselves. And once we suppose that they do, we are in danger of letting the ideas at work carry us beyond that for which our perceptions can account.

'Mysticism' is just a word. Like any of the 'ism's its packed so full to the top with meaning it overflows. Perhaps intead of a way of "coming to terms with the human experience," it could be a method of "coming to UNDERSTAND the human experience." After all, the whole of the human experience is "drawn beyond the lines of reason." 'Mysticism' is just an external reminder that there is an irrational aspect to our experience and that we are more closely connected to it than meets the eye. No particular religion is Right per se, they have to be taken symbolically, there must be a backdrop, a more holistic context, to place them up against.

And once we suppose that they do, we are in danger of letting the ideas at work carry us beyond that for which our perceptions can account.

"Black then white are all I see in my infancy." Either we can know nothing or we can know everything. You've picked nothing (past perception). I once thought everything. But as far as I can tell neither are right. We do have knowledge of appearences and what we can gather from having them. But, so far I think Hegel was wrong, we cannot have absolute knowledge of everything past perception.

"Red and Yellow then came to be." We can FEEL nothing or we can FEEL everything. In so far as you consider Love an "idea," very well, I'm "in danger." But I have a strong feeling, call it intuition if you will, that choosing Love as the manifestation of my Will is the right choice. Not just for me, for all of humanity.

[Goat Reverend]

Just to clear one thing up... I don't think that there is perception past our perception. I'm getting the drift that you guys think I'm arguing that. When I mention a clearer 'vision' of the Archetypes for instance, I'm not speaking literally. Thrakandor, I'm with you a good bit of the way, I hope you see how far. My only contention is that we have some pure intuitions that are necessary for perception. I guess you could say I'm claiming that they are innately potential within the mind.

[lysegicevolution]

Just to clear one thing up... I don't think that there is perception past our perception. I'm getting the drift that you guys think I'm arguing that. When I mention a clearer 'vision' of the Archetypes for instance, I'm not speaking literally. Thrakandor, I'm with you a good bit of the way, I hope you see how far. My only contention is that we have some pure intuitions that are necessary for perception. I guess you could say I'm claiming that they are innately potential within the mind.



first of all i just wanted to say...........great thread..............i'm new to these forums, and was beginning to think anybody with an i.q. above that of a jar of mayioniase was not aloud here, and that i had somehow slipped through the cracks..................
i would like you to elaborate on something you said.............'i don't think that there is perception past our perception'..........................is that to say that you believe we are the end....there is nothing greater than us?..........................or that the current level of perception we are on(most of us anyway) is the only level availableto us in this life?....................or both?........................or am i just way off?

[Goat Reverend]

first of all i just wanted to say...........great thread..............i'm new to these forums, and was beginning to think anybody with an i.q. above that of a jar of mayioniase was not aloud here, and that i had somehow slipped through the cracks..................
i would like you to elaborate on something you said.............'i don't think that there is perception past our perception'..........................is that to say that you believe we are the end....there is nothing greater than us?..........................or that the current level of perception we are on(most of us anyway) is the only level availableto us in this life?....................or both?........................or am i just way off?

I dont know that bad posts have anything to do with a lack of IQ. Maybe unintelligible perception coupled with lackluster articulation, but mostly dull perception. Some people perceive problems in isolation, some as part of a disintegrated whole. My opinion is that those falling in the latter category have a tendency to see more clearly. If everything is interrelated (I have seen enough to confirm this as a truism, if you haven't, call it an assumption), a holistic perception is more beneficial.

So the question is what I mean by "I don't think that there is perception past our perception." I mean a lot of things, a lot of which you should think about yourself. I guess most importantly is that the faculty of our perception is capable of seeing a reality most have never even conceived. Thank God the artists have reminded us. Not everyone has the energy to read Plato and contemplate the Good. The artists have served as accelerators for that sort of process, and at times as the starting gate to it. Today it's being fucked pretty hard in the ass. But I digress.

To answer your second question: Let us say that we are the end. Does that necessarily mean there is nothing greater than us?

[lysegicevolution]

I dont know that bad posts have anything to do with a lack of IQ. Maybe unintelligible perception coupled with lackluster articulation, but mostly dull perception. Some people perceive problems in isolation, some as part of a disintegrated whole. My opinion is that those falling in the latter category have a tendency to see more clearly. If everything is interrelated (I have seen enough to confirm this as a truism, if you haven't, call it an assumption), a holistic perception is more beneficial.

So the question is what I mean by "I don't think that there is perception past our perception." I mean a lot of things, a lot of which you should think about yourself. I guess most importantly is that the faculty of our perception is capable of seeing a reality most have never even conceived. Thank God the artists have reminded us. Not everyone has the energy to read Plato and contemplate the Good. The artists have served as accelerators for that sort of process, and at times as the starting gate to it. Today it's being fucked pretty hard in the ass. But I digress.

To answer your second question: Let us say that we are the end. Does that necessarily mean there is nothing greater than us?





..............you say thank god for the artists, because people don't have time to read plato...................what do you consider plato....................the artist has always been there to inform society of itself, and remind us there are other possibilities, the artist and the philosopher go hand in hand........................the poets of today are musicians..................the last great american poet was ginsberg, the first great american song writer was dylan.....................that's where modern poetry and modern music collide and merge............................................. ....................but yes, music is being fucked in the ass, top 4o radio is what happens when art is being exploited and comprimised for money...

.................................we are god.....................god is us.............................................

[Goat Reverend]

I believe you have misunderstood me. Art and philosophy do go hand in hand. My point was that art can inspire those otherwise uninterested to question and to study the world and their relation to it.

It's not music that I was referring to as getting 'fucked in the ass' (though it is). I think that is an indirect affect of what I meant. I was referencing the process of opening yourself into the world. That is the path to truth and that is what it takes to be an artist/philosopher. We have all the resources at our fingertips and yet today rarely does anyone take the time go through it. Instead most live in a virtual autism of their own choosing; even our society encourages and sometimes impresses solipsism (see The Matrix, maybe the most explicit rejection of solipsism in all of art... or maybe Tool's 'Reflection'). My point was that art usually is the slap in the face that wakes us up, a blinding light that is felt but must be understood to be seen. I think philosophy is the road we walk to see the source of illumination.

.................................we are god.....................god is us.............................................

Well, I suppose you could say that in some remote senses. I believe we are a direct manifestation of God, not a creation. If you think that makes us God, then so be it. I believe that we are creative channels for God. But I do still believe that God is also manifest directly in the form of our perception itself (the Form of the Forms), and that is slightly distinct from 'us'. I don't want to spoil the first leg of the journey so if you want to understand see Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer, Jung, and McDowell.

[lysegicevolution]

Well, I suppose you could say that in some remote senses. I believe we are a direct manifestation of God, not a creation. If you think that makes us God, then so be it. I believe that we are creative channels for God. But I do still believe that God is also manifest directly in the form of our perception itself (the Form of the Forms), and that is slightly distinct from 'us'. I don't want to spoil the first leg of the journey so if you want to understand see Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer, Jung, and McDowell.[/QUOTE]





yes, yes i'm familiar with plato, and a bit of jung.......the archetype of the artist..........
............the artist as the tool of god...............god's pencil............................................ .
and i totally agree that we are creative channels for 'god'..........................as far as this manifestation of god through our perception.............would you consider altered forms of perception(dreams, drug expieriences, visionary/religious expierences) to be like looking through the eyes of 'god', in a way?

[Goat Reverend]

It's called transcendental perception or the view from nowhere. It doesn't take drugs. Is it a God's eye view? In a sense. Is it a literal God's eye view? I don't know. Ask Hegel.

[lysegicevolution]

It's called transcendental perception or the view from nowhere. It doesn't take drugs. Is it a God's eye view? In a sense. Is it a literal God's eye view? I don't know. Ask Hegel.





it dosen't take drugs..............................but not all are dicsiplined enough for transcendental meditation........................................ ....and drugs work........................
as a matter of fact drugs have gotten me alot farther than any state i've ever achieved meditating.....................i'm not advocating drug use..................................
i'm just saying that some substances aid greatly in these endevours.

[Goat Reverend]

it dosen't take drugs..............................but not all are dicsiplined enough for transcendental meditation........................................ ....and drugs work........................
as a matter of fact drugs have gotten me alot farther than any state i've ever achieved meditating.....................i'm not advocating drug use..................................
i'm just saying that some substances aid greatly in these endevours.

I agree. But the objective is to experience it without drugs. Find that 'place' with drugs then kick off those training wheels. Get back there on your own.

[tempest]

I agree. But the objective is to experience it without drugs. Find that 'place' with drugs then kick off those training wheels. Get back there on your own.
Agreed, 100%

[Goat Reverend]

I don't know that anyone is actually reading the books I've recommended, but in the event that someone is, I'd like to modify a thing or two. A few posts back, I was endorsing John McDowell amongst the likes of Kant, Schopenhauer, Plato, and Wittgenstein. Time to take that back. If you're interested in why, read the paper 'Nonconceptual Content and the Space of Reasons' by Richard Heck. McDowell simply cannot explain away these objections.

A further addition: if you have the chance to read anything of all I've mentioned, take the leap into Wittgenstein's Tractatus. If understood it points to the limits of language, the logic of language as identical to the logic of thought, thought as expressed through language, and most importantly it revolutionizes the conception of the way WE really see the world and each other: it crushes the Cartesian Ego, and demonstrates why thought is not something isolated inside individuals but open to the world. This should be a sexy idea and hopefully one that provokes enough interest to read the book. If it's not and yet you're HERE, either (A) you're confused or (B) you're content with beliefs.

After struggling over whether or not to spell all this out, someone helped me see its importance. Idealy, knowledge would be something for which we all thurst. Realistically, it's rare in individuals today. "What became of subtelty?" Active learning has seemingly disappeared; Passive aquisition is now the name of the game. So instead of hoping in vain, I'll make explicit what I think and let you accept or reject its accuracy. I'm going to attempt to tie together a hell of a lot of concepts, so it may be a rather lengthy post; I think being as lucid as I can will be most beneficial to whatever discussion follows.

Wittgenstein’s objective is not to provide theories or a doctrine. What he’s doing is trying to destroy illusion. He starts by demonstrating that the ‘world’ is the totality of facts, not things. (If you understand Kant you know this) When you perceive the world, you do perceive things. ‘I am reading on a computer’. You perceive the computer. “So how is that not a thing?” Well it is a thing, but it is a thing that is the case. It is the case that you see ‘the computer’. “But the computer is there even if I don’t see it.” True, but is the computer there if it weren’t the case that ‘the computer is there’. To say ‘everything is there’ is to say, ‘it is the case that everything is there’ or ‘the fact is that everything is there’. Our world must be expressed in propositions, in language. All of this necessitates that our world cannot be perceived independent of language. Without language everything would appear to us as nonsense. Thought, even stream of conscious thought, is presented in language. Without that, how could we think about ANYTHING? We would have all these passing images and yet be oblivious to our connection with them, and in a certain sense, we wouldn’t be connected at all. We would respond to stimuli and that’s it, we would be nothing different than mere animals. It would be like observing someone’s dream. But once we learn to communicate, we start descending into that dream. Once we learn a language we land and begin to express our individual desires. Some stop there and ‘live’ their entire ‘lives’ there: the “self-indulgent pitiful hole.” (think: David Aimes in Vanilla Sky, Thomas Anderson in The Matrix)

Some move a step up (or step back more literally) and attempt to understand the dream. Some question their placement within it, where they stand in relation to others. “Who am I?” “What am I?” They begin to put words to their questions and to the images they experience. (5.633 of the Tractatus: Where IN the world is a metaphysical subject to be noted? You say that this case is altogether like that of the eye and the field of sight. But you do NOT really see the eye. And from nothing IN THE FIELD OF SIGHT can it be concluded that it is seen from an eye.) For anyone who has read Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation, it should become clear that he was the man from which Wittgenstein’s philosophy blossomed. (5.63 I am the world. (The microcosm.)
5.631 The thinking, presenting subject; there is no such thing. If I wrote a book "The World as I Found It", I should also have therein to report on my body and say which members obey my will and which do not, etc. This then would be a method of isolating the subject or rather of showing that in an important sense there is no subject: that is to say, of it alone in this book mention could NOT be made. 5.632 The subject does not belong to the world but it is a limit of the world.) “But we’re taught that ‘I am me’ or ‘I am my consciousness’ or, I agree with Wittgenstein but still, ‘I am my body’.” Great, but then you also agree that, via our language, ‘I am the world’. “So then what can I say?” Well, as far as the ‘I’ is concerned with the actual ‘self’, nothing. I’ll let Maynard chime in from Parabola. “I am not alone in this body.” (5.64 Here we see that solipsism strictly carried out coincides with pure realism. The I in solipsism shrinks to an extensionless point and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it. 5.641 There is therefore really a sense in which the philosophy we can talk of a non-psychological I. The I occurs in philosophy through the fact that the "world is my world". The philosophical I is not the man, not the human body or the human soul of which psychology treats, but the metaphysical subject, the limit -- not a part of the world.) The world is experienced FROM the perspective of different bodies, not THROUGH them. Because it is from these bodies that we perceive and through them that we communicate. And so it is not through individual minds that we communicate. If it were, then they would be entirely shut off from the world, and words like ‘understand’ and ‘empathy’ would be nonsense. Now, as far as ‘mind’ is concerned, we communicate in a similar way to what we ordinarily think of as ‘internal dialogue’. Here are a couple images that correspond to all this: most obviously, Alex Grey’s Collective Vision and Inter Being, “we are all One Mind,” its being understood is identical to the concept of ‘waking up’, being liberated from The Matrix, ascending to the Christian Kingdom of Heaven, in Plato’s “Republic” it would be seeing the Form of the Good, being one with nature, seeing the reality of Love, and most appropriately for the placement of this post: prying open the third eye. One further note: if the mind was truly isolated to the brain, then to think ‘I’m going to bend my finger’ and then do it, would be to move an external object with your mind!

“So maybe all this is right, maybe we are all One, what is beyond us?” Kant called ‘it’ the things-in-themselves. Schopenhauer called ‘it’ the Will. Carl Jung called ‘it’ the collective unconscious. Theologians call ‘it’ God. Towards the end of The Tractatus, Wittgenstein has you completely convinced that there necessarily is ‘something’. He demonstrates that all logic is circular, rejects natural law, and shows that the world is independent of the individual’s will. “So it’s there, outside of time, past perception, beyond causality, tell me what it is!” The books ends with this: 7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

{Post Continued}

[Goat Reverend]

"Philosophical Investigations" is also well worth the read.