Are individual alters never going to experience any other alter other than the one they are now before rejoining the mind-at-large/transpersonal consciousness?

[Scott Hernandez]

Would you say consciousness is uncaused? In that, it needs nothing to generate/sustain it, so it's always been present for itself. Also, the most important set of questions. We're each alters/dissociated complexes say, and if you believe in the multiverse or even just an infinite universe, then there's an infinity of alters. Are, you, personally, going to experience yourself as each alter? Or are individual alters never going to experience any other alter other than the one they are now before rejoining the mind-at-large/transpersonal consciousness? I mean, if it's true that we've experienced an infinity of alters for eternity before this alter and we'll continue to experience an infinity of alters after this alter than this sounds kind of hellish to me. I wish then that I'd simply cease to exist forever when I die. Rather than the horror of having to be every terrible (understatement) alter-experience, inescapably. And probably even repeating alter-experiences infinite times randomly throughout infinite time of existence as consciousness. Hmm, I can't be the only one that feels this way.

[Dana Lomas]

I should think that the span of any given alter is 'self'-contained, and therefore has little or no knowledge of the experience of 'previous' or 'future' alters. This alleviates most associative 'memories', albeit there can seem to be bleed-throughs from alternate time streams. Also, the tendency for strong egoic identity with the phenomenal body-image, creates a powerful illusion of separation and dis-identification from any alternate 'I' sense. And in any case, that which is experiencing itseff as any and all alters, i.e. one's essential being, ultimately  transcends all such subject/object dichotomies, the beginning of all time-bound samsara sufferings ... which ends when 'your' alter ceases to be, and there is nothing else but That which never truly ceases to be.

[David Gabriel]

What you've figured out is what atheist materialists have figured out but don't tell anyone. It's that not existing is the only sure fire way of escaping suffering. But they do a bait and switch on everyone by pretending they're being brave by not believing in life after death. They pretend that no belief in life after death is the brave side of the coin and that the reverse is the coward side of the coin. That is utter garbage.

They could do with having the phrase 'If something's too good to be true, it probably is,' repeated to them one thousand times. One of the issues with this sentiment is that people don't want to admit they would rather not exist. It's the ultimate copout. It's anti-life. It's non-participation. The ultimate truancy. I would rather exist than not exist but I know that is illogical of me.

Your worry that we just experience infinite stuff, both good and bad, is often addressed in spiritual systems. In Steven Norquist's Haunted Universe he claims that if you master true enlightenment you never lose it, even across lives. You will continue to suffer at times but not as much as if you hadn't mastered true enlightenment. This is also claimed by Buddhists but in a slightly different way. They in fact claim absolute escape from suffering. A tall order.

In Biocentrism you can only figure out life and death during a lifetime in one of the universes. When you lose your memory due to biocentric rebooting, you quite probably have to endure another existential crisis due to not knowing what you currently know in this universe about things like idealism etc.

I have a take on this. I am of the opinion that knowing all of this stuff is the reality equivalent of a lucid dream. In a lucid dream you know you are having a dream, so you don't take it so seriously, if at all seriously. When you know all this Biocentrism stuff, you have somewhat of an idea what this is all about, and so you don't take it so seriously. You could call that having a lucid reality or a lucid life. Here's the thing though. Being lucid that you are dreaming – ruins the dream.

In order for a dream to be a legitimate dream, you have to not know it's a dream. Whatever scenario is to play out in a dream, it cannot play out if you are lucid because when you are lucid you just make whatever you want, lose all fear, and may even fly like superman.

Now that I know all this Biocentrism stuff, I can't take reality as seriously as I once did. I used to sit of an evening after going to school and to the gym, eating dominos pizza, watching the comedy channel on cable, and taking all of that almost entirely at face value. Taking it as if it was happening for the very first time and with no known explanation. It was a vivid experience. It was more real than the experience I have now that I know all this metaphysics stuff. It could be that metaphysics destroys an aspect of your reality that can only exist if you are clueless in that specific regard, but not other regards.

How can you be a king on a throne, if you know reality is eternal and in mind? How can you take that scenario seriously? Or any scenario?

My bet is that during some lives we figure out metaphysics extensively and it distorts those lives. During other lives we don't know metaphysics and so we take them smack on the face at face value, bearing the full brunt of their force. This is in line with the experience we have of dreams and lucid dreams. So we have lives and lucid lives. It's like a repeating pattern. That is in line with experience for me.

I'd like to note something else that's interesting in this regard. Even this life on this planet has virtually an infinite number of possible versions. The slightest change in what you know alters the way you experience this world. This means even if you live in this exact same world over and over again, it will be like different worlds due to different knowledge and frames of reference you're using to understand it. You see with your eyes but you perceive with your mind. If your mind is not aware of something, you won't perceive it. That doesn't mean it isn't there however. If this world right now is already infinite all by itself, we cannot even begin to imagine an infinite number of worlds that are each infinite by themselves in this way I've described to do with perception and knowledge.

I've started to consider that some physicists study physics in order to be glad they are going to die and escape this thing. The only thing is, if any of this metaphysics stuff is true, they're not going to escape it at all.

[benjayk]

I can relate, but it's just a projection, right?

Perhaps it's different than what we can project or imagine?
Not much of a stretch, is it? Clearly humans managed to miss a lot important things across history...

[Tony Goodman]

I looked up Steven Norquist and read his "What is enlightenment" essay of Aug 2016. I was left with the impression, as one of his commentators, with a sense that his view of reality was so utterly machine-like, without emotion, bliss etc. that what was the point of seeking any answers? He seems to have lost interest in just about everything other than philosophical abstraction and seemed to be saying that even that was a tremendous effort for him. So l might be wrong but would like to believe existence is a bit more fun.

[SKS]

On Thursday, 19 January 2017 20:10:55 UTC, Tony Goodman wrote:

I looked up Steven Norquist and read his "What is enlightenment" essay of Aug 2016. I was left with the impression, as one of his commentators, with a sense that his view of reality was so utterly machine-like, without emotion, bliss etc. that what was the point of seeking any answers? He seems to have lost interest in just about everything other than philosophical abstraction and seemed to be saying that even that was a tremendous effort for him. So l might be wrong but would like to believe existence is a bit more fun.

I am honestly terrified by that worldview. I can cope with the dark side of materialist existentialism because I'm so used to it. But the thought that the only way to live in alignment with fundamental truth is by constantly living in a serene robot-like state of depersonalisation is, frankly, awful. There needs to be value of some sort.

[Dana Lomas]

For sure Tony, the persona's experiential realm can be wondrous fun, or it can also be hellish suffering, and everything in between -- including 'machine-like' one supposes. There seems no conditions as to how it may be. However, that essential being which is experiencing all of it, as an apparently individuated alter of Consciousness itself, and which remains after all those ever-changing experiences have come and gone, cannot itself conform, or be reduced, to any one finite experiential persona or state -- including so-called 'enlightenment.'  Any such conditions placed upon it do not define or confine 'It' -- or enter whatever preferred name of choice :)

[Douglas]

Norquist sure as hell wasn't describing 'enlightenment', just an existential angst where the bottom has fallen out of his world view - he's completely stuck in the head. He's mistaken this angst for 'enlightenment'. Apparently he's all done. He has now 'awakened' and there's nothing else to do, it's all just happening etc etc. 

This is just rehashed nihilism Tony Parsons style - itself ripped off from the semantic-overload-meister himself, the sex fiend and serial adulterer Balsakar.

He then appears to have had a load of his mates leave 5 star reviews. Thankfully, some non-biased reviewers left some more objective responses.

What he describes is not 'enlightenment', but instead a rather dark,frightening existential cul-de-sac that many westerners find themselves in when misinterpreting this stuff.

To balance things, I think I'll quote Nissagardarta when describing his own enlightenment: 'and above all, a sense of overwhelming Love, quiet and dark, radiating in all directions, embracing all, making all things beautiful and interesting, and auspicious.'

Doesn't sound much like Norquist....

[David Gabriel]

I've listened to Norquist's audiobook a few times. I think it's important to consider him an entertainer primarily. His book is supposed to scare you like a horror movie would. I'm told he even sought the advice of a horror movie writer in order to better achieve that end. In this game, you really can't afford to take every single person seriously. I've studied some of the work of L. Ron Hubbard and despite all the bad stuff people say about him, I've managed to learn a couple of useful things. But if I were to take L. Ron Hubbard completely seriously, I would go mad.

In my experience, a person needs to take what they can from whomever they study and leave what doesn't make sense. As an example, Steven Norquist explains that studying metaphysics can lose you a few friends. This is because many people are actively trying not to think about metaphysics. The last thing they want is a close friend who is deeply studying metaphysics. I'll be more blunt about it. They are trying not to think about the fact they're going to die. They can go as long as 3 months without it entering their mind by focusing on everything that basically isn't that; be it their guitar playing or their movie collection and so on so forth. This is useful information if you're studying spiritual materials.

Norquist has some zen-like communication techniques he uses in certain parts of his audiobook. It's a short audiobook for whatever reason. Perhaps he doesn't have 9 hours worth of things to say. But in that case he could say the same thing in 9 hours worth of different ways.

I'd like to make a clear distinction between two kinds of people:

The first kind is those that assume life is meaningless and ends in nothingness, but make the conscious decision to believe in a fairy tale in order to strike back at that atrocity. This kind gets very angry if you do either of 2 things: 1. Logically attack their fairy tale. 2. Suggest alternative metaphysical speculations in a sincere manner. I will explain why. First of all, they already know their fairy tale isn't true and they're actively trying to believe it as a coping strategy. Your logical dismantling of it is unwelcome to say the least. Second of all, they're under the assumption life is meaningless and ends it nothingness, and so your metaphysical speculations are perceived as a waste of time or a threat to their ability to cope if they sound plausible and involve continued suffering as in the case of reincarnation or parallel worlds etc.

The second kind is those like Bernardo, Robert Lanza, Rupert Sheldrake, etc. This kind of people is sincerely trying to get a rough idea of what this might be all about and what might realistically be in store for them, even if it entails continued suffering infinitely and forever. These people are very different from the first kind. It helps to know these differences among people so you can understand what you're dealing with when you're taking or not taking someone's material on board. There is a group of people that don't like sincere seekers because they assume there is nothing that can be sought. Any talk of someone trying to get answers to big questions, like Bernardo does try to, infuriates them because it undermines their assumption that success in doing so is impossible.

The word enlightened, strictly as a verb, is actually quite applicable to everyone. If you're a chess grandmaster, you are to a large extent enlightened about chess. I am enlightened to a large extent about the nature of people and their motivations. When you start thinking of enlightenment as a spiritual achievement and not a noun referring to a human process of development in understanding of something, you're setting yourself up for frustrating communication situations.

All in all, Steven Norquist is a dark individual but one with something to say that could be of use to some. He is certainly enlightened about some thing or other as a verb. That he is enlightened in a lofty spiritually permanent sense is doubtful. On that subject, Deepak Chopra believes he will retain some of his success enhancing traits into his future lifetimes as different people through reincarnation. What that does is make him more comfortable with reincarnation, which he believes in. Bear in mind that Deepak is rich, healthy, and lives a meaningful life in his current incarnation. Why on Earth would he want to lose all of that through rebirth? It's clear why he would want to think he will retain at least some of the wisdom he has gained in this life and believe he will get to be a big time something, anything, in his future lives.

This idea that we can achieve something during this life that will echo into our future is seductive for a good reason and I've outlined that reason a few different ways above.

The way I look at it is this. During this life I have right now, there have been times when I'm a total and utter loser and times when I'm a winner. The me that I consider me has been so different at different ages that it's almost as if I've been reincarnated while alive in the same life. I don't expect to be able to achieve something in this life that prevents the loser situation from ever happening to me again. I'm destined to be a loser over and over again when it is called for. I'm also destined to be a winner at times. I would love it if there were some Jedi type system that makes me so spiritually powerful that I never have to be a hopeless case ever again in any life. But that just doesn't fit with my experience or the way I think.

I've no doubt someone will chime in with a comment claiming otherwise and also without adequately explaining why. But if anyone has read my post and wants to add to the ideas presented or criticise them, go for it.

David

[Dana Lomas]

So far David, the only powerful spiritual technique I've discovered is the dispelling of the powerful misbelief in a dichotomy of God vs other-than-God.