Transpersonal Journal

[Anderz]

Is it better from a global evolution perspective to have Biden or Trump as the U.S. President? I don't know! Haha. So I have to wait and see what actually happens. I hope that Trump will win, and now he confirms what former NSA officer WIlliam Binney said that there were many more votes than there were registered voters.

Interesting claim, but it needs to be confirmed in legal proceedings. And that will require really solid evidence to make courts wanting to look into it.

[Anderz]

I propose that the death drive (thanatos) has evolved through billions of years. But that doesn't make it natural. Nor is it unnatural. The death drive is a natural consequence of biological and social evolution, which in turn are natural consequences of the overall process of evolution. But it could be, and I even suggest, that we humans will evolve out of the death drive, and then it will no longer be natural. Then it will be natural to not have a death drive.

When we identify our physical self as being the whole planet, then if we would physically die, it would mean that the whole planet would die. That's a radical recontextualization from a personal to a transpersonal perspective.

 

[Anderz]

Removing the death drive through transhumanism with things like biotech and nanotech seems to me to be to still be to struggle against the death drive. But if that's the only option transhumanism is also natural! Evolution as a whole includes science and technology.

I think that the death drive can be achieved without transhumanism and very soon historically speaking because of exponential accelerating evolution. But of course it's still a very radical idea and I'm of course uncertain about it. From a rational atheistic perspective transhumanism seems a more plausible scenario but it could be that spiritual evolution into eternal life may be the actual scenario.

 

[Anderz]

The fourth density Bentinho Massaro is talking about in the previous video is a concept from the Law of One. That's New Age channeling. The Bible has the same message I believe. It's just that the information from vastly different sources has to be recontextualized and integrated into a unified explanation. For example the Body of Christ means the churchgoers according to some Christians, while I interpret that as the same thing as a collective consciousness (called social memory complex in the Law of One) in fourth and higher densities.

Here are two more videos by Bentinho, the first fairly recent and the other several years old.

 

[Anderz]

In this new video Shunymurti explains what I believe is the root problem of the crystallized ego. The perspective at the personal stage is that the ego is a separate being. In reality there is only one being which is all of reality as a wholeness. So there is a fundamental error in the crystallized ego, which is necessary for developing individuality and a personal self, but we need to move out of the separate self and into the transpersonal stage, or the error will continue and become an obstacle instead of a tool for development.

 

[Anderz]

Hmm... Integral nonduality is too limited! Because I use the term transpersonal to mean a collective consciousness. So it's truly beyond personal consciousness. Integral nonduality can include that too, but it doesn't imply that, so integral nonduality generally still means only a personal consciousness even if it's a spiritually enlightened state.

And who knows, spiritual teachers may be describing a collective consciousness too, such as J. Krishnamurti talking about "thinking together", but they usually keep silent about it because if they give us spiritual concepts about it the risk is that we remain trapped in personal consciousness and get stuck on the level of concepts.

There are many traps in nonduality so one has to be careful. Leo talks about that in this video:

 

[Anderz]

A collective consciousness is that achieved through interacting more with people? No! Because that's social interactions at the personal stage. It doesn't matter how socially active a person is if he or she remains at the personal stage of development.

A collective consciousness is an entirely new level of being. There will not be interaction with other people in the usual sense. It will be interacting as one being! It's like comparing the experience of a single cell to the experience of a human being. The single cell doesn't have the same perspective that the whole human being has.

[Anderz]

I need to stop posting in this journal. Because even if what I post about a collective consciousness is correct, it might be detrimental to write about it since it could easily become a conceptual personal stage trap.

[Anderz]

I realized that I can theorize about a collective consciousness! So that's something I can post about. It's just theories that may or may not be true. And as for a conceptual trap, we are already totally trapped in a conceptual perspective when we are at the personal stage of development.

A collective consciousness is a single organism. So when one person is doing something, then the whole collective is doing it. This is very different from the personal stage. If we try to act as a single being at the personal stage, then that's a double mistake. The first mistake is to believe that the action is done by the separate person, and the second mistake is to try to act in unity which is just more separate action and nothing at all like a collective consciousness.

So the claim by many spiritual teachers that the ego needs to die is correct (even in religion such as Jesus saying that we need to deny ourselves). Because as long as we act from the personal stage it's always based on the false foundation of a separate self.

[Anderz]

Is it a mistake to describe a collective consciousness? It's a mistake if there is no such thing as a collective consciousness. But there could be! Another possible mistake is to aim for a collective consciousness instead of realizing nonduality.

Even with the whole planet as a collective consciousness, that's tiny compared to nonduality. Realization of nonduality is the realization of infinity. But I still find it interesting to explore a collective consciousness as a step into the transpersonal stage.

[Anderz]

Also, exploring a collective consciousness is compatible with nonduality. So I can examine both. I will take a look at Jim Newman's new video and try to interpret it from a collective consciousness perspective.

 

[Anderz]

Aaron Abke talks in this new video about how the mind has evolved to always assume the worst as a strategy for survival. When we always assume the worst, when we always take the most pessimistic view, then we are most likely to avoid danger, Aaron said. Good point. That made me think that a sign of a collective consciousness is that all fear drops away when interacting with other people. Because then those other people are a part of one's own being. So it's a total transformation of that ancient fear-based survival strategy of always expecting dangers, which is what we still have at the personal stage.

 

[Anderz]

Money is a typical personal stage development. Money is the primary means of structuring the crystallized ego into a coherent social structure.

At the transpersonal stage money is transcended since the fluid ego interacts without needing rigid structures such as money and laws. However, there is a transcend and include of things like money and laws. It's impossible to jump from say bartering in ancient times and lawlessness directly into the transpersonal stage. First society needs to be developed enough to form a scaffolding that supports the emergence of the transpersonal stage and that includes things like money, laws and calendar time.

My own guess is that we will still have to deal with money for at least two decades from today. Ray Kurzweil has predicted a technological singularity happening around the year 2045. That's an incredible transformation of society which undoubtedly, if it happens, will lead to a transcend (and include) of money.

Money can still be transcended today by using money as a tool instead of clinging onto it as the crystallized ego does. So a fluid ego and the use of money are compatible.

[Anderz]

The crystallized ego has deficiency cognition and the fluid ego has being cognition. So deficiency cognition is an aspect of the personal stage and being cognition is an aspect of the transpersonal stage. I learned those terms from Leo who got them from Abraham Maslow.

Quote

"being cognition (B-cognition)

1. in the humanistic psychology of Abraham Maslow, an exceptional type of cognition that can be distinguished from one’s everyday perception of reality (deficiency cognition or D-cognition). Being cognition involves a dialectical blending of two ways of experiencing: In the first, a person is aware of the whole universe and the interrelatedness of everything within it, including the perceiver; in the second, a person becomes entirely focused on a single object (e.g., a natural phenomenon, a work of art, or a loved person) to the extent that the rest of the universe, including the perceiver, seems to disappear. According to Maslow, self-actualizers (see self-actualization) frequently experience being cognitions. See also peak experience; timeless moment.

2. awareness of the inner core of one’s existence, that is, one’s self or identity." - APA Dictionary of Psychology

 

[Anderz]

One example of deficiency perception in my opinion is when we shop at a supermarket. It's not enough to be mindful and perceive things to buy with what seems to be being cognition. There is still a deficiency perception!

The reason for the deficiency perception in the above example is that there is a deeper layer of energy drainage going on. As Karl Marx showed, the companies that own the means of production (the supermarket in the example) always receive more value than we as people without means of production receive in return.

The cure is to include the perception of money into the whole picture. And to recognize money as a neutral tool. Then the deficiency perception turns into being perception, and that prevents drainage of our energy.

[Anderz]

Very deep insights presented by Leo in the previous video. And it's much about how we think. Roger Castillo yesterday talked about how the mind makes abstract concepts. That's the same explanation as Leo was talking about. Roger gave the example of an apple. The word 'apple' contains very little of what an actual apple is. Even to say 'red apple' that's still only a label, and the same with all descriptions and thoughts about an apple or any other object or situation.

I will take a look at this video for clues about how to let go of the clinginess to thoughts:

 

[Anderz]

One of the most useful tips I found Leo mentioning in his video about letting go is that it can be practiced, and it can be practiced temporarily! So for example if I have some particular worry, I can practice letting it go with the intent that I can pick up the worry again after the practice. Very interesting. I will experiment with that.

And also, letting go is related to deficiency cognition and being cognition. Letting go is always connected to deficiency cognition, which in turn is centered around thoughts. So it's the thoughts (together with emotions) about things and situations that need to be let go of.

[Anderz]

Wow, I discovered a very powerful practice. Really simple and it's a way of deconstructing the crystallized ego and turning it into a fluid ego. The practice is to let go of thoughts. Not particular thoughts. Instead it's about looking at the structure of thoughts instead of the content.

So for example, it's not about letting go of say thoughts about a health problem, or about a financial or relationship issue. It's about letting go of the whole mechanism of thought! That's a radically simple idea. In practice though it means being able to observe the whole thinking process and to let go of the habitual tendency of keeping the thoughts going. Maybe that's the same as some meditation practices and things like Ramana Maharshi's practice of letting go of the I-thought, but I found it to be a new insight.

Here is Leo's video about content vs structure again:

 

[Anderz]

Here is an example of a traditional meditation practice:

Quote

"The goal of this meditation is not to clear your mind, but to train your mind to notice when you are lost in thought, and then shift your awareness to the present. This helps you throughout the day learn to come out of your negative thoughts, worries about the future, or regrets about the past, so that you can enjoy your life as it's happening now. Each time your mind wanders, you simply return your attention to your breath as an anchor to the present. Your job is not to clear your mind, but to catch your mind wandering. Each time you catch your mind wandering and return to the present, you are strengthening a new neural pathway. You are strengthening the neural pathway that lets you awaken out of your normal thought pattern and connect to the present. You are practicing seeing your thoughts for what they are, just thoughts. You are practicing not reacting to those thoughts, so that you can be free to do what is truly meaningful or important to you instead." - Dr. Kathryn Soule, PhD, LPC

Isn't that the same as my "new" method? No, I think it's different. Traditional meditation and mindfulness practices like that are about still using the thinking mind to guide the practice, such as focusing on the breathing. My method is to let go of the thinking altogether. Here is another similar method:

Quote

"You must exist in order that you may think. You may think these thoughts or other thoughts. The thoughts change but not you. Let go the passing thoughts and hold on to the unchanging Self. The thoughts form your bondage. If they are given up, there is release. The bondage is not external." - Ramana Maharshi, Talk 524

That's very similar to my idea, except my method doesn't involve holding on to the unchanging Self whatever that means. My method is about letting go of the structure of thinking, not about holding on to anything.

[Anderz]

Now I have an even more radical method. Maybe too radical but I want to explore and document it. The practice is to focus on confusion and then let the confusion go.

Sadhguru says that the mind is always confused. And as I see it that's true about the thinking mind. Thought is always limited as J. Krishnamurti said so there will always be confusion when we are stuck in thinking.