Conscious cells

[anart]

What is consciousness? And how is it related to impressions as food?

Many years ago I noticed how driving could be quite automatic for me at times. That I often daydreamed and was unaware of my surroundings as I drove a one-ton vehicle a mile a minute down the road. Then some movement on the road, another car or an animal, would catch my attention and driving quickly became a different experience.

This is the functioning of the moving center. But that's where awareness begins.

I don't think awareness begins in the moving center. I'd like to understand why you think that is the case.

Thoughts and feelings can be divorced from the body in the sense that both can be someplace else other than in a given moment: fantasy & daydreaming. But awareness, to the extent it is present in the moment, is right there with the form, with the body.

Can impressions be made food without awareness?

Impressions are food - with or without awareness in the way you appear to be defining it - however - it is my understanding that this food can only be utilized efficiently with awareness - it rather goes hand in hand. fwiw.

 

[larsman]

Hi, anart

In my experience, almost all spiritual exercises and methods begin with an entering, if that's the right word, into the body. In the Gurdjieff tradition, what do you have? Sitting, sensing, the ABC's (Orage's Method), all of which entail focusing the attention on the body in one way or another.

The Buddhist sitting meditations, whether shamatha (Tibetans), zazen (Zen), or vipissana (Theravada), all work with the breath as the threshold of awareness. To be sure, the Tibetans use visualizations extensively, such as Chenrezig and the Green Tara meditations, but these are considered advanced exercises, with shamatha providing the basis. Akong Rinpoche used visualizations quite successfully in my experience, but we still sat (shamatha) at the beginning and the end of his teachings.

The Sufis, again, in my experience, laid a great deal of emphasis on the breath in prayers such as zhikrs. Salat, the daily prayers in Islam, is held by the Sufis to provide real physical changes (a normalizing of breath and blood flow) in that kind of prostation. Not entirely dissimilar from the Western traditions of prayer; the kneeling and prostation.

In the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, it can be clearly seen that prayer has gone to our heads, that is, it has become simply an exercise in supplication, in petitioning God for something. The core of prayer, the connection with the physical world via the body, is often lost on supplicants. To keep things in context here, there are real physical benefits (read: changes) to such practices involving the body.

Gurdjieff described consciousness, of which awareness is no small part, as being in an almost constant flux. So that while awareness may begin with the physical center(s), that does not mean it stays there. The experience of awareness is not unlike an octave. Speaking only for myself, in my moments of awareness, it is a single do note. Sometimes it deepens into something more, moving up the scale, sounding another note. But even then, it is one thing to sound a note, and quite another to hold it. It takes practice.

Imho, Joe

 

[Oxajil]

Re: Conscious cells

Oxajil, at the end of the chapters the author(s) cite their sources. The quotes are numbered and the excerps you pulled out were cited, but the citatations in the end of the chapter are not numbered, but here are where they came from, so really I'm sure the full cited books can be read individually... (As I just flipped through I realize that the end of the chapters are recommending further reading and the citations are at the back of the book so both of those excerps are cites as ^1 Peter Tomkins and Christopher Bird, The Secret Life of Plants (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), p. 27, ^2 Ibid., p.22 and ^3 Ibid., pp. 4-5

But there is no citation for his claim that plants are "sensitive instruments for measuring human's emotions" (and I didn't come across this in ''The Secret Life of Plants"). One could say that plants have a consciousness of their own kind, they can feel pain and such in their own way, but the author seems to make his own assumptions based on that. Plants can sense cellular death as mentioned, and they even can communicate with one another and forewarn one another for incoming enemies. However, I don't see how the author goes from this to them being able to ''measure human's emotions''. It's just vague, and I thought, maybe because you read the book, you would have your thoughts as to why and how plants would do that. Not saying that it's impossible, just where is the data that points to this? Just something I was wondering about.

 

[Crystla24]

Oxajil, at the end of the chapters the author(s) cite their sources. The quotes are numbered and the excerps you pulled out were cited, but the citatations in the end of the chapter are not numbered, but here are where they came from, so really I'm sure the full cited books can be read individually... (As I just flipped through I realize that the end of the chapters are recommending further reading and the citations are at the back of the book so both of those excerps are cites as ^1 Peter Tomkins and Christopher Bird, The Secret Life of Plants (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), p. 27, ^2 Ibid., p.22 and ^3 Ibid., pp. 4-5

But there is no citation for his claim that plants are "sensitive instruments for measuring human's emotions" (and I didn't come across this in ''The Secret Life of Plants"). One could say that plants have a consciousness of their own kind, they can feel pain and such in their own way, but the author seems to make his own assumptions based on that. Plants can sense cellular death as mentioned, and they even can communicate with one another and forewarn one another for incoming enemies. However, I don't see how the author goes from this to them being able to ''measure human's emotions''. It's just vague, and I thought, maybe because you read the book, you would have your thoughts as to why and how plants would do that. Not saying that it's impossible, just where is the data that points to this? Just something I was wondering about.

I can see your point. The "measuring human emotions" excert is cited as being on page 22 of "The Secret life of Plants". But I can definately see your point. Even if more can be explained reading "The Secret Life of Plants", the author did choose a rather strange qoute without backing up or adding the additional information to make one see how this claim can be made. Really, the studies that were provided talked about a plant sensing danger to itself by reading a mans mind or thoughts, but it did not say that it did or did not react to different human emotions.
This book, "The Celestine Prophesy: Experiential Guide" may make numerous leaps like this throughout the entire book, but they did do a good job of citing every single qoute they used and offering further reading suggestions, possibly from books that influenced they, themselves on the topics. It would be wise to make sure that some of the jumps aren't too far fetched, manipulating one into a desired direction though.

 

[anart]

Hi, anart

In my experience, almost all spiritual exercises and methods begin with an entering, if that's the right word, into the body. In the Gurdjieff tradition, what do you have? Sitting, sensing, the ABC's (Orage's Method), all of which entail focusing the attention on the body in one way or another.

The Buddhist sitting meditations, whether shamatha (Tibetans), zazen (Zen), or vipissana (Theravada), all work with the breath as the threshold of awareness. To be sure, the Tibetans use visualizations extensively, such as Chenrezig and the Green Tara meditations, but these are considered advanced exercises, with shamatha providing the basis. Akong Rinpoche used visualizations quite successfully in my experience, but we still sat (shamatha) at the beginning and the end of his teachings.

The Sufis, again, in my experience, laid a great deal of emphasis on the breath in prayers such as zhikrs. Salat, the daily prayers in Islam, is held by the Sufis to provide real physical changes (a normalizing of breath and blood flow) in that kind of prostation. Not entirely dissimilar from the Western traditions of prayer; the kneeling and prostation.

In the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, it can be clearly seen that prayer has gone to our heads, that is, it has become simply an exercise in supplication, in petitioning God for something. The core of prayer, the connection with the physical world via the body, is often lost on supplicants. To keep things in context here, there are real physical benefits (read: changes) to such practices involving the body.

Gurdjieff described consciousness, of which awareness is no small part, as being in an almost constant flux. So that while awareness may begin with the physical center(s), that does not mean it stays there. The experience of awareness is not unlike an octave. Speaking only for myself, in my moments of awareness, it is a single do note. Sometimes it deepens into something more, moving up the scale, sounding another note. But even then, it is one thing to sound a note, and quite another to hold it. It takes practice.

Imho, Joe

That's interesting, but it's my understanding that awareness absolutely exists outside the body. In fact, I think awareness utilizes the body at times, but it certainly does not reside nor begin there. The motor center is a tool, not a source. Perhaps the contradiction in my understanding, based on study and personal experience, and your understanding is the definition of the term awareness? I tie awareness directly to essence - that immortal and ceaselessly aware part of ourselves.

 

[larsman]

...it's my understanding that awareness absolutely exists outside the body. In fact, I think awareness utilizes the body at times, but it certainly does not reside nor begin there. The motor center is a tool, not a source. Perhaps the contradiction in my understanding, based on study and personal experience, and your understanding is the definition of the term awareness? I tie awareness directly to essence - that immortal and ceaselessly aware part of ourselves.

As the inimitable Yogi Berra once said, In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

Man, according to Gurdjieff, has no soul. Essence is crusted over. Non-functional. It's probably fair to say that in ordinary conditions, man has no awareness, or it exists only momentarily. But of course, as G warned, any person is going to think he or she already possesses these attributes.

You raise some good points, anart, and perhaps it is only in perspective that we differ. Awareness (subject) always has an object, and it is the form, the physical body, that portrays (and even betrays) one's existence. A handful of paragraphs hardly begins to describe that necessary relationship, and even Gurdjieff indicated that these things can only be hinted at in language.

Thanks, Joe

 

[Alada]

That's interesting, but it's my understanding that awareness absolutely exists outside the body. In fact, I think awareness utilizes the body at times, but it certainly does not reside nor begin there. The motor center is a tool, not a source. Perhaps the contradiction in my understanding, based on study and personal experience, and your understanding is the definition of the term awareness? I tie awareness directly to essence - that immortal and ceaselessly aware part of ourselves.

Yes, I think it's maybe just a terminology thing. Awareness of the body is certainly an important element of work on oneself, but what is being aware? Is that awareness in the body itself? I think not. There is something else that can observe, is separate.

But important to begin observing the body and growing that awareness. Éiriú Eolas has a lot to offer in that regard as you begin to see the inter connection between the body and the stress/tensions stored there, and the those of the mind/emotions.

So I think it's not as if awareness comes from the body and progresses from there, more like it being a good place to work on the problem of developing awareness itself. Enough awareness to use the body more economically perhaps, conserving valuable energy that then contributes to greater awareness. But again, it's not the body itself creating that awareness but something else that begins to function better. That's how I see it at the moment.

 

[anart]

As the inimitable Yogi Berra once said, In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

Man, according to Gurdjieff, has no soul. Essence is crusted over. Non-functional. It's probably fair to say that in ordinary conditions, man has no awareness, or it exists only momentarily. But of course, as G warned, any person is going to think he or she already possesses these attributes.

Of course, Joe, I'm very familiar with Gurdjieff - this forum is based, in part, on his Work. As you probably know, the entire crux of Gurdjieff's Work is developing a singular I, and in doing so connecting directly to essence (Being), as it were - to become Real.

The point being that awareness as I am using the term utilizes the motor center, it does not begin there.

Alada brings some good points up regarding what appears to be your usage of the word awareness, which I think apply directly.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Yes, I think it's maybe just a terminology thing. Awareness of the body is certainly an important element of work on oneself, but what is being aware? Is that awareness in the body itself? I think not. There is something else that can observe, is separate.

But important to begin observing the body and growing that awareness. Éiriú Eolas has a lot to offer in that regard as you begin to see the inter connection between the body and the stress/tensions stored there, and the those of the mind/emotions.

So I think it's not as if awareness comes from the body and progresses from there, more like it being a good place to work on the problem of developing awareness itself. Enough awareness to use the body more economically perhaps, conserving valuable energy that then contributes to greater awareness. But again, it's not the body itself creating that awareness but something else that begins to function better. That's how I see it at the moment.

I think this is a difficult question, and yeah, semantics are a problem. When I think about this problem, a few things come to mind. First of all, some assumptions: consciousness is not a 'material' phenomenon (it is related to 'higher/spiritual/non-material' densities). I think that's inherent in your question: what is being aware? Is that awareness in the body itself?

But another question comes to mind: what is matter? If consciousness is preeminent, then I think matter is an expression of consciousness, perhaps consciousness itself in a 'physical' form. It is 'sleeping' consciousness. But I think in order to have a coherent philosophy, we need to posit that it is to some degree (albeit a low one) conscious - a 'seed' of consciousness. This is what Whitehead and David Ray Griffin write about. [One of the problems with a materialistic philosophy is explaining how awareness can emerge out of something that allegedly has no awareness ('matter'). Kind of like the problems with explaining evolution in terms of abiogenesis and origins of life (i.e. how chemistry switched over to biochemistry). And how can 'consciousness' express itself in something that is inherently without consciousness? The two categories are irreconcilable. It's a logical stumbling block. According to Whitehead and Griffin, these contradictions are avoided by positing that all matter has a very rudimentary form of consciousness - it senses itself and that sensation/awareness forms the basis for all higher forms of consciousness experienced by higher beings - how something with a physical form is able to be 'conscious' in the first place.]

But if we just take raw matter as an example (first density), is its own type of consciousness 'apart' from itself, with its source in something qualitatively different (i.e. higher densities)? Or is it a function of its very structure? Is it top-down or bottom-up? Or both? How do we characterize a 2D mammal's 'awareness' of its bodily sensations and emotions?

If we're talking about awareness as a state that is qualitatively different than everyday consciousness (or 'sleeping consciousness'), then yeah, I don't think it's correct to say that this type of awareness comes from the body - it's a 'higher' state that merges with and utilizes the 'lower'. But there is also the 'awareness' inherent in matter and our evolutionary history to consider. It's the 'raw material' of consciousness that we have to work with, OSIT. And the foundation of that is the awareness of our bodies: external sensations ('reptilian brain') and internal sensations (emotions or 'mammalian brain'). Without that as a substrate, I don't think we'd be able to develop even higher forms of consciousness. (Philosophers like Whitehead and Griffin, and emotion theorists like Izard, think that these sensations are actually the roots of our own consciousness or awareness.)

With all that said, that still leaves the question of the source of the observer as opposed to the observed. I guess we could say the observer is something with its root in higher densities of pure consciousness, the size of the 'eye-hole' being dependent on level of consciousness or density. Even the, I don't think we can develop 'higher' consciousness without also utilizing and developing 'lower' consciousness. I think this is why Gurdjieff focused on sensation of the body. Perhaps by developing and utilizing what we've already got, it opens the 'eyehole' of consciousness a bit wider and lets more in from 'above'? In other words, top-down is balanced with bottom-up?

On a related note, one thing I've noticed in life is how little people seem to be aware of their own bodies. For example, I've always been baffled when observing people with a thick layer of crusty mucus visible in and/or around their nostrils. Do they not feel it? Personally, the sensation drives me crazy. In the book "The Power of Positive Confrontation", the author Barbara Pachter observes how in helping teach people to confront others about things that bother them, she has observed how little some people (or most) are aware of themselves and their bodies. One person would aggressively point his finger at people while talking to them, and this intimidated them and didn't make him too many friends. When this was pointed out to him, he denied it (pointing his finger in the process!). Levine makes similar observations, more related to the lack of awareness of emotion in the body. I think a huge part of self-awareness is the sensation of our own bodies and the emotions we experience in our bodies.

 

[John G]

I tend to think of consciousness/awareness in terms of worldlines like the one in Ark's SOTT article:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/221694-Feeling-the-Future-Premonitions-and-Precognition-Elements-of-Practice-and-of-a-Theory

In this sense being matter can kind of create a veil between our local now in our head and the rest of our wordline including what it's entangled with and its future.

 

[larsman]

"And it begins with the same thing, namely, a certain group of cells gradually becomes conscious; then it attracts to itself other cells, subordinates others, and gradually makes the whole organism serve its aims and not merely eat, drink, and sleep. This is evolution and there can be no other kind of evolution."

So, what are conscious cells? If we take Gurdjieff literally, cells themselves can become conscious. Everything is material according to him. Wouldn't awareness itself be material too?

 

[Buddy]

"And it begins with the same thing, namely, a certain group of cells gradually becomes conscious; then it attracts to itself other cells, subordinates others, and gradually makes the whole organism serve its aims and not merely eat, drink, and sleep. This is evolution and there can be no other kind of evolution."

So, what are conscious cells? If we take Gurdjieff literally, cells themselves can become conscious. Everything is material according to him. Wouldn't awareness itself be material too?

I can answer only generally, but I think the key to understanding G here is understanding symbiosis and interaction. Context is important and the linguistic context of that quote is 396 pages in my book. In material terms, the context is universe wide. The reason I say that is because he's talking about cosmoses and relationships between and within them.

In discussions involving cells, he also mentions goals, the third force and will. I don't recall if he says 'will' but the inference is there in the idea of subordinating other cells.

One important key surely must be reciprocal "interaction" between levels, layers, cells or whatnot because consciousness without something to be conscious of would be a logical contradiction of terms and G wasn't known for careless logic.

My 2 cents, FWIW.