A Work Poem

[Buddy]

So I think I am understanding this better. Am I coming across that way?

To me you are. At least within the limits of my own understanding and a perhaps questionable ability to assess it.

Austin said, "Don’t expect that you can easily comprehend this counter-intuitive concept", and one reason, I think, is because it's the "I" of the ego-centric stream that is trying to understand something that has little or nothing to do with it. Coming from that possibility, my suggestion was to be engaged in some kind of effort where you could sense yourself in a different way.

I think this connects with what Joe also says about the "I" weighing itself and may relate to why the fully allo-centric stream is unconscious: The "I" of the ego-centric stream cannot, in any way, believably claim to "not be there" since this "I" would be claiming to know the experience, which implies its presence. So, we can't take "I am nothing" literally, or as a literal claim. Hope that makes sense.

 

[obyvatel]

Connecting this with the egocentric (more conscious) and allocentric (more unconscious) attitudes, what is sought is a synthesis rather than annihilation of one or the other. The feeling of "nothingness" ( or being dismembered or killed) comes from the unseating of the long-held egocentric attitude from its primary position. If or as the process progresses, this void is filled with new possibilities coming from the hitherto unrecognized (unconscious) contents.

That's what I thought when reading about the allo and egocentric attitudes, that both are necessary to come close to an objective assessment of not only reality, but in determining what reality can be, as in the creative principle. Simply constating "what is it" is only the first step, and not really very creative. The creative side of observation involves imbuing things with meaning, which is by necessity based on our own experience and knowledge. So anyone can determine "what is it" but "what it means" is where the egocentric attitude come in to play. So the extent of the objectivity of an assessment of the meaning or qualities of any given thing by a person is determined by the extent to which the person's egocentric attitude is coherent with the 'rules' of creation.

That makes sense. One must use both to their highest potential to effectively see and understand the world around them. I suppose actions like perspicacity and discernment would not be possible if one was not able to answer "what is it?", "where is it relation to me?" and "what is it's meaning?" - all these questions needing egocentric and allocentric input to develop specific conclusions.

Neuroscience has not reached a stage where it can empirically study the mode of consciousness which has a more dominant allocentric input. Gurdjieff had said our subconscious is our real consciousness . So I suspect that "meaning" from a predominantly egocentric perspective, which is what we are used to, may be different than "meaning" from a more allocentric perspective, which is mostly unknown to us.

As an example, we have a dream or an experience which we cannot properly locate in our conscious experience of space-time memory. Our general tendency is to say that this is a "past life experience". However, it is possible to discern a different meaning out of the same experience depending on perspective. If we interpret the same experience using Jung's theory of unconscious and Sheldrake's field hypothesis, we do not necessarily need to have a "past life" in the sense of a continuity of existence of the individual self (or soul) in the way it is normally taken for granted. If memories are not locally stored in our brain (neuroscience has not been able to pinpoint the exact location of memory at a cellular level as far as I know), and our brains are more like radio receivers tuned to a broad range of signals (Sheldrake's hypothesis) that come from the unconscious (Jung's theory of layers of collective unconscious), then the meaning of such experiences would not fall into the "I-me-mine" axes of interpretation.

In general, the downside of the egocentric perspective seems to be "identification" in the 4th Way context. Identification narrows down our perceptive field. In attention terms, identification may be more closely related to a narrow focus perspective. Neurologically, such a narrow focus attention is driven by the dorsal, bilateral attention network. The other form of attention is a wide ranging open focus type, driven by a lateralized (right brain heavy) ventral attention network. This latter attention is more "unconscious" in nature. It is this attention network that wakes us up if there is an unexpected noise when we are asleep. It is also what can pull us out of states of highly focused concentration on a particular issue.

To put the above in perspective, here is an example. When I watch people walking, most of the time I see that their gaze is downwards with the head slightly angled forward. From a visual processing perspective, they are actually looking at a small area in front of them. I have found that for myself this downward gaze accompanies a mental state of absorbed thought. Think the famous Rodin sculpture of the " the thinker" . This can be quite habitual, as it was for me and as far as I can observe, most people I usually come across.

It was in the context of martial arts that I first came across the term "eagle vision". It is a wide angle gaze in which the eyes and head are more at the level of their normal height, or even slightly looking up. Using this type of gaze, the visual field is much enhanced. It is easy to pick up movement with such a gaze as well as other broad sweeping facets of the environment. The wide focus will not provide detailed information about a particular object though. Also, I have found that if I use this mode of gaze, it is much more difficult to get lost in thoughts. I have used this upward gaze to periodically disengage from whatever activity or thought I tend to be identified with in the moment. Such attention switches are useful imo for people who have a tendency to get lost in their heads. From a linguistic perspective, it is like asking the question "what else is going on". I suspect it engages the ventral attention network and the allocentric processing stream.

 

[Alada]

Connecting this with the egocentric (more conscious) and allocentric (more unconscious) attitudes, what is sought is a synthesis rather than annihilation of one or the other. The feeling of "nothingness" ( or being dismembered or killed) comes from the unseating of the long-held egocentric attitude from its primary position. If or as the process progresses, this void is filled with new possibilities coming from the hitherto unrecognized (unconscious) contents.

That's what I thought when reading about the allo and egocentric attitudes, that both are necessary to come close to an objective assessment of not only reality, but in determining what reality can be, as in the creative principle. Simply constating "what is it" is only the first step, and not really very creative. The creative side of observation involves imbuing things with meaning, which is by necessity based on our own experience and knowledge. So anyone can determine "what is it" but "what it means" is where the egocentric attitude come in to play. So the extent of the objectivity of an assessment of the meaning or qualities of any given thing by a person is determined by the extent to which the person's egocentric attitude is coherent with the 'rules' of creation.

Just a side note on the above. I was pondering this in the shower earlier and wondered if the shift between the egocentric and allocentric point of view, might be the 3d equivalent of variable physicality in 4d. That symbolically the egocentric point of view is 'heavier' or more 'dense' inward looking and contained, whereas holding an allocentric point of view disperses attention outward, could be thought of as 'lighter', less dense, outward looking and expansive.

So I wonder if being able to distinguish and consciously navigate between the two states in that sense might give some clue as to what is meant by variable physicality in 4d.

 

[Joe]

Connecting this with the egocentric (more conscious) and allocentric (more unconscious) attitudes, what is sought is a synthesis rather than annihilation of one or the other. The feeling of "nothingness" ( or being dismembered or killed) comes from the unseating of the long-held egocentric attitude from its primary position. If or as the process progresses, this void is filled with new possibilities coming from the hitherto unrecognized (unconscious) contents.

That's what I thought when reading about the allo and egocentric attitudes, that both are necessary to come close to an objective assessment of not only reality, but in determining what reality can be, as in the creative principle. Simply constating "what is it" is only the first step, and not really very creative. The creative side of observation involves imbuing things with meaning, which is by necessity based on our own experience and knowledge. So anyone can determine "what is it" but "what it means" is where the egocentric attitude come in to play. So the extent of the objectivity of an assessment of the meaning or qualities of any given thing by a person is determined by the extent to which the person's egocentric attitude is coherent with the 'rules' of creation.

Just a side note on the above. I was pondering this in the shower earlier and wondered if the shift between the egocentric and allocentric point of view, might be the 3d equivalent of variable physicality in 4d. That symbolically the egocentric point of view is 'heavier' or more 'dense' inward looking and contained, whereas holding an allocentric point of view disperses attention outward, could be thought of as 'lighter', less dense, outward looking and expansive.

So I wonder if being able to distinguish and consciously navigate between the two states in that sense might give some clue as to what is meant by variable physicality in 4d.

Had a similar thought when writing the above. What I was thinking was the idea that progress to 4D (STO) is dependent on the ability (if only a basic version) to "give everything its due" i.e. to be able to accurately determine the "what it is" without *biased* unconscious projection from the subconscious, and by "biased" I mean a kind of selfish and highly subjective 'needy' projection onto something that limits it. But since there is the 4D STS angle too, I suppose the general-required skill to progress to 4D would be to have mastered certain understandings about the self, our consciousness, and how it works, one example being an understanding of these two aspects to conscious awareness (allo and ego) and the observer and the observed and how they interact.

 

[Alada]

But since there is the 4D STS angle too, I suppose the general-required skill to progress to 4D would be to have mastered certain understandings about the self, our consciousness, and how it works, one example being an understanding of these two aspects to conscious awareness (allo and ego) and the observer and the observed and how they interact.

The 'how it works' part is what stands out there. That both STS and STO orientations would both have conscious awareness of allo / ego perspectives, but it’s what you choose to do with that knowledge which makes the difference. In a way, moving toward greater awareness of an allo centric perspective broadens the field and should liberate one from the narrow confines of ego, STO would seek help others with that knowledge to help free them up, STS would seek to use that knowledge and weaponise it so as to keep others trapped in ego. As seems to be the case here on the BBM.

Isn’t that part of the prison, the 3d illusion, the idea of separation? But, just saying then in a theoretical way 'we’re all one' to counter the idea of separation doesn’t really cut the mustard if the notion itself is coming from ego, it wouldn’t shift the point of view. That seems to be a trap many fall into in 'new-age' land. The reality of stripping away ego would seem to be far harder.

 

[CNS]

Expounding a bit more on this, I Think saying (and really grokking) "I am nothing", would then allow me to really give of myself and not expect anything in return. I would learn that the other person is independent of my experience of them and that they are not just some extension of my ego for gratifying purposes.

Example:

"I am nothing", and not at all in a nihilistic sense but in more of an altruistic sense, would perhaps give me the ability to separate the ego and allo perspectives, seeing them both for the objective truth that they each hold. Kind of interpreting the raw data with the least amount of preconception I can muster. But how, I wonder, would I know beyond any reasonable doubt that I was not misleading myself? I couldn't. Thus bringing me back to "I am nothing" because I would know (I think) that I could never be completely sure of anything that my mind asserts. I cannot trust myself wholly. So, realizing that "I am nothing" thus allows a possibility of humility and possibly greater empathy for others, perhaps even an evolution towards 4d STO candidacy, by stripping away these inherent biases and seeing someone (or something) as they truly are.

And, in that same light, seeing someone else as "nothing", gives them a certain freedom - not feeling bribed, obligated or guilty - in receiving. That they don't have to give back, they can graciously accept.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[obyvatel]

Isn’t that part of the prison, the 3d illusion, the idea of separation? But, just saying then in a theoretical way 'we’re all one' to counter the idea of separation doesn’t really cut the mustard if the notion itself is coming from ego, it wouldn’t shift the point of view. That seems to be a trap many fall into in 'new-age' land. The reality of stripping away ego would seem to be far harder.

Curious how you arrived at "separation and unity" in the context of this discussion? Allocentric perspective does not seem to imply a conception of "we're all one". Neither is it hinted in Daumal's poem.

Is the reasoning something like
- egocentric perspective makes us feel separate
- the opposite of egocentric perspective would therefore be "we're all one" ?

 

[Alada]

Isn’t that part of the prison, the 3d illusion, the idea of separation? But, just saying then in a theoretical way 'we’re all one' to counter the idea of separation doesn’t really cut the mustard if the notion itself is coming from ego, it wouldn’t shift the point of view. That seems to be a trap many fall into in 'new-age' land. The reality of stripping away ego would seem to be far harder.

Curious how you arrived at "separation and unity" in the context of this discussion? Allocentric perspective does not seem to imply a conception of "we're all one". Neither is it hinted in Daumal's poem.

The thought came from trying to describe the perspective of one imagining an allocentric point of view. That ego might imagine it as "we’re all one" and be able to 'create a reality' around that.

Is the reasoning something like
- egocentric perspective makes us feel separate
- the opposite of egocentric perspective would therefore be "we're all one" ?

To the first part yes, at least I fond in myself that the more strongly identified with ego / programs we become, the more separate one can feel.

But I don’t think that allocentric (and here I’m just theorising, I don’t know for a fact) would mean therefore "we’re all one". Might be more accurate to describe it as the realisation "I exist within a far greater field of existence than I was heretofore aware of / attentive to". In that sense you might see / feel a different connection to others and reach a kind of "we’re all in this together - connected" point of view, but that's not quite the same thing as "we’re all one".

Hope that clarifies the thought a bit.

 

[obyvatel]

Is the reasoning something like
- egocentric perspective makes us feel separate
- the opposite of egocentric perspective would therefore be "we're all one" ?

To the first part yes, at least I fond in myself that the more strongly identified with ego / programs we become, the more separate one can feel.

But I don’t think that allocentric (and here I’m just theorising, I don’t know for a fact) would mean therefore "we’re all one". Might be more accurate to describe it as the realisation "I exist within a far greater field of existence than I was heretofore aware of / attentive to". In that sense you might see / feel a different connection to others and reach a kind of "we’re all in this together - connected" point of view, but that's not quite the same thing as "we’re all one".

Hope that clarifies the thought a bit.

I think the allocentric perspective is simpler. It asks "what is this".

The realization "I exist within a far greater field of existence than I was aware of/attentive to" would probably be the result of the combined ego/allocentric processing inputs including higher level cortical processing.