Imagine: a trans-rational consciousness

[Forestluv]

Below is some of my contemplation related to Ken Wilber's concept of pre/trans rational fallacy.

Imagine experiencing a mixture of sensations within your mind-body. This isn't standard emotions. It's more nuanced. Is a sense of wonder an "emotion"? Are intrigue and intuition "emotions"? And how does one describe wonder, curiosity and intuition as a single integrated experience? 

Language is highly evolved for reason, yet poorly evolved for post-rational experiences. When we introspect, we may struggle to make sense of an integrated experience. A person may ponder: "I think I feel intrigue, but not really - it's more like wonder. Yet are those different? There is a sense of innocence, would that make it more like wonder? There may also be some intuition, but I don't really understand what intuition is. Maybe I should just call it an energy". With logic, we can describe gravity and send shuttles into outer space. Yet in spite of our intimate relationship with our personal experience, we are unable to use logic to describe our integrated experience of a few sensations.

How might an integrated sensory event be experienced and expressed within a trans-rational consciousness? A rational person can only reference a pre-rational consciousness, since they have not yet transcended rationality. A rational person may think of a pre-rational child in a candy store - the child has a combination of excitement, urgency and desire. The child does not think about this rationally - the child simply experiences and expresses this combination of sensations. This is easy for a rational person to imagine. Thus, they may assume that a trans-rational expression would simply be the pre-rational child expression. Yet, is this the pre/trans fallacy eloquently described by Ken Wilber? (linked below). For example, a rational thinker misunderstands the trans-rational Buddhist view of emptiness as meaning a pre-rational sense of emptiness. A rational thinker assumes a pre-rational understanding because they have not yet transcended rationality.

As western culture evolves toward a trans-rational consciousness, perhaps we will be more open to learning from other highly-evolved cultures and mystics that have existed throughout history.  Perhaps new words will arise to describe integrated experiences, such as the combination of wonder, intrigue and intuition. Perhaps, a dozen new words for intuition will arise to communicate the various nuances and subtitles of intuition. Or perhaps a trans-rational consciousness will go beyond thoughts and words. This may involve a higher level of awareness and depth than that of a pre-rational child. This could be expressed to others via energy, motion and empathy. Perhaps the receiver will have an empathetic knowing without the need to interpret. To a rational thinker, these ideas are irrational "whoo whoo". Yet in a trans-rational collective consciousness, it is easy to imagine. 

You may say I'm whoo-whoo
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And consciousness will be as One

Imagine there's a trans-rational consciousness.

It's easy if you try. 

 

 

 

[SFRL]

Yeah that's why there are so many idiots on this forum shouting that they are Stage Yellow. 

[Joseph Maynor]

22 minutes ago, SFRL said:

Yeah that's why there are so many idiots on this forum shouting that they are Stage Yellow. 

Care to add reasons, detail, and/or support to your conclusory statement?

Edited October 12, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[SFRL]

9 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Care to add reasons, detail, and/or support to your conclusory statement?

I think anyone with any ability of post-rational and post-verbal thinking/feeling will intuitively understand what I am saying. 

Writing long rational verbalized essays is no sign of highest 'getting it'. 

Edited October 12, 2018 by SFRL

[Jack River]

trans-rational meaning seeing the limitation of thought? Seeing that thought can only go so far. Seeing what limits an ability to be rational. Is that what is meant by trasnsending rationality? Because there is a limit in thought and understanding the limit itself means that thought becomes a lot more rational. I think this would be a first step to consciousness being more united. 

Edited October 12, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

We’re still unable to be rational. To say we as consciousness have even came to a point of rational thinking would be silly. Right dudes?

[Jack River]

What makes us irrational?

[Forestluv]

@Joseph Maynor An Orange level rationalist will assume a that there pre-rational view is higher order understanding - they have not transcended rationalism. I see this on the forum with ideas of nothingness, everything, emptiness, absolute infinity, you were never born etc. Some will believe they are at a Yellow stage. Once a person is Yellow, it becomes obvious. The person is using a handsaw and telling people it’s a chainsaw. Once you know what a chainsaw is, it’s easy to spot handsaws.

@SFRL Rational nonsense can be irritating. Keep in mind that some are genuinely trying to evolve upward and we are here to help them. Calling all rationalists idiots isn’t helpful. And some rationalists aren’t complete idiots. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant geneticist, he’s just an idiot with spirituality. ?

@Jack River One thing that helped me was when Leo challenged my belief of what intelligence is. And he didn’t accept a rational answer. I’d recommend contemplating “what is intelligence”? The rational and trans-rational views are quite different.

[CreamCat]

I'm think I'm kind of aware of enlightenment at the moment. I feel that consciousness is not rational. I feel that it's thoughts that are rational. Consciousness is aware of supposedly rational thoughts.

Something like trans-rational knowledge would make more sense than trans-rational consciousness.

If what I'm experiencing is enlightenment, enlightenment doesn't really change much in the short term.

Edited October 13, 2018 by CreamCat

[Jack River]

28 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

One thing that helped me was when Leo challenged my belief of what intelligence is. And he didn’t accept a rational answer. I’d recommend contemplating “what is intelligence”? The rational and trans-rational views are quite different.

That’s just the thing brah. It’s not a thing “you” contemplate. Intelligence isn’t somthing you come to. Intelligence or truth can work within the field of reality. Intelligence can also make thought run rational. Intelligence is truly rational. Intelligence is not the product of thought. Intelligence is not “ours”. When the me isn’t there is intelligence. Intelligence is holistic seeing. That holistic seeing is truth that comprehends the totality of reality/thought/time.  Pretty groovy my man. ?

Edited October 13, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

Which is why I posted my questions. Pointing at how rationality isn’t rational. And why thought isn’t actually rational. 

[electroBeam]

4 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

 

As we evolve toward a trans-rational consciousness, perhaps new words will arise to describe integrated experiences, such as the combination of wonder, intrigue and intuition. Perhaps, a dozen new words for intuition will arise to communicate the various nuances and subtitles of intuition. Or perhaps a trans-rational consciousness will go beyond thoughts and words. This may involve a higher level of awareness and depth than that of a pre-rational child. This could be expressed to others via energy, motion and empathy. Perhaps the receiver will have an empathetic knowing without the need to interpret. To a rational thinker, these ideas are irrational "whoo whoo". Yet in a trans-rational collective consciousness, it is easy to imagine. 

I challenge your view of 'evolution'. Consider the possibility that living organisms (including humans) don't evolve in a linear, stagewise fashion, but evolve cyclically, more like a spiral. 

To give you a concrete example, the post-rational mind as you refer to has already existed since the beginning of man kind. Ancient siddha/Tamil Nadu tribes, ancient Egypt and South American and Australian shamans already expressed post rational features, not just in minor areas of their traditions, but integrated into the very ecosystem of their cultures. These cultures have existed post rationally since the last 10000 to 20000 years.

Us as a society are moving up and down constantly in periods, like a sine wave. We move from pre rational, rational, to post rational, and back down again. What changes and 'evolves' are the themes in which these periods reside in. These themes are cultural, political or technological adaptations that change depending on the social or physical environment, and as long as the world's social or physical environment keeps changing, so will these adaptations. Examples of adaption range from the industrial revolution, to social movements like feminism, to the first invention of the bronze spade.

You will find highly 'advanced' people and cultures from all walks of the time scale, from 10000 years ago, and there will exist post rational individuals 100000 thousand years from now, yet apart from the themes, I am certain that these individual will be no more advanced or sophisticated than the individuals 10000 years ago. 

 

Maybe the whole idea of linear, evolving progressions gives you a better insight into the cultural and mental beliefs the western society; ones who observed the phenomena, had, rather than the actual phenomena(evolution) they were observing itself. 

Edited October 13, 2018 by electroBeam

[Jack River]

Is there a such thing as psychological evolution? Aren’t we the same as we were back in the days of old? 

Edited October 13, 2018 by Jack River

[Forestluv]

@electroBeam Very nice insight. Thank you. My usage of evolution is more provincial, yours is more holistic. It’s easy to assume that western culture is the most advanced and we are entering uncharted territory. Yet, as you state, pockets of societies may have touched upon high conscious levels . I lived with a tribe in the mountains of Peru for a bit - the community was at a very high conscious level. As mainstream western culture evolves, we can learn from other higher evolved cultures. It would be ignorant and arrogant to assume we are the highest evolved culture and are breaking all new territory.

I will update the post. Thanks for improving it.

[Haumea2018]

Quote

Perhaps new words will arise to describe integrated experiences, such as the combination of wonder, intrigue and intuition.

Cue Barney from "How I Met Your Mother": wintruition. 

[Mu_]

6 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Below is some of my contemplation related to Ken Wilber's concept of pre/trans rational fallacy.

Imagine experiencing a mixture of sensations within your mind-body. This isn't standard emotions. It's more nuanced. Is a sense of wonder an "emotion"? Are intrigue and intuition "emotions"? And how does one describe wonder, curiosity and intuition as a single integrated experience? 

Language is highly evolved for reason, yet poorly evolved for post-rational experiences. When we introspect, we may struggle to make sense of an integrated experience. A person may ponder: "I think I feel intrigue, but not really - it's more like wonder. Yet are those different? There is a sense of innocence, would that make it more like wonder? There may also be some intuition, but I don't really understand what intuition is. Maybe I should just call it an energy". With logic, we can describe gravity and send shuttles into outer space. Yet in spite of our intimate relationship with our personal experience, we are unable to use logic to describe our integrated experience of a few sensations.

How might an integrated sensory event be experienced and expressed within a trans-rational consciousness? A rational person can only reference a pre-rational consciousness, since they have not yet transcended rationality. A rational person may think of a pre-rational child in a candy store - the child has a combination of excitement, urgency and desire. The child does not think about this rationally - the child simply experiences and expresses this combination of sensations. This is easy for a rational person to imagine. Thus, they may assume that a trans-rational expression would simply be the pre-rational child expression. Yet, is this the pre/trans fallacy eloquently described by Ken Wilber? (linked below). For example, a rational thinker misunderstands the trans-rational Buddhist view of emptiness as meaning a pre-rational sense of emptiness. A rational thinker assumes a pre-rational understanding because they have not yet transcended rationality.

As western culture evolves toward a trans-rational consciousness, perhaps we will be more open to learning from other highly-evolved cultures and mystics that have existed throughout history.  Perhaps new words will arise to describe integrated experiences, such as the combination of wonder, intrigue and intuition. Perhaps, a dozen new words for intuition will arise to communicate the various nuances and subtitles of intuition. Or perhaps a trans-rational consciousness will go beyond thoughts and words. This may involve a higher level of awareness and depth than that of a pre-rational child. This could be expressed to others via energy, motion and empathy. Perhaps the receiver will have an empathetic knowing without the need to interpret. To a rational thinker, these ideas are irrational "whoo whoo". Yet in a trans-rational collective consciousness, it is easy to imagine. 

You may say I'm whoo-whoo
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And consciousness will be as One

Imagine there's a trans-rational consciousness.

It's easy if you try. 

 

 

 

I like something about your question but I'm not exactly sure what your asking.  Are you asking how transnational thinking sees certain things?  Or the language that would be used? Or both?

From my own evolving experience I've landed on new words or metaphors that seem to do perhaps better jobs of getting a point across.  For example I just learned the definition of Atonal from a producer friend describing a piece I really didn't like.  It then hit me that Atonal is a great way to describe many things in my life experience I couldn't find better words for.

Perhaps I'm putting my own spin on this word, but my Atonal life is like events and learning story pieces of god happenings that sculpt and mold new functions and perceptions of being and seeing.  They arise without warning sometimes and no context, ending, sometimes but not always, with a understanding of a why.  Free will disappears and happening happens, with moments of free will being felt as a real things sculpting a situation into conscious reality (like being aware of a context to a situation like my wife is upset about something and in that moment a choice appears that can take the situation one way or another, knowing full well that one will have immediate reactions or the other will create understanding hopefully and no conflict....basic things).  Perhaps its rationality returning in spurts, staying linear for unknown periods, wooshing unexpectedly into transnational experience.  As I write this I can see perhaps more into your question and is there a language that is possibly better suited for these types of phases.  So far language has been good enough....hmm have the mull that one some more.

But Atonal is in general a good way I think to describe life, and perhaps it fits into a transpersonal field of thinking (I'm not sure exactly where rational ends and trans begins in kens slicing of reality).  Life is not linear always or often, things plop into existence (a great phrase from Alan Watts), all is one and not everything has a destiny, but some things do, expectations area constantly being shattered, things run smoothly sometimes for years on end, tragedies happen, regression feels like it happens, nothing can make sense..... atonal......... this word feels like a great description for a thing called life. 

Although you could argue that atonal is only from the standpoint of rational thinking, and that transnational recognizes this as the norm and actual, but I'd one up this (jokingly) and say there is no actual experience that is actual and that all experience is just that, one of the infinity possibilities of god/infinity happening and playing out....