Spontaneous Thoughts on Robert Anton Wilson's Eightfold Model of Human Consciousness from Prometheus Rising (original) (raw)

Eastern philosophy and western science have convergent and divergent view points for their explanation of consciousness. Convergence is found for the practice of meditation allowing besides a time dependent consciousness, the experience of a timeless consciousness and its beneficial effect on psychological wellbeing and medical improvements, which is confirmed by multiple scientific publications. Theories of quantum mechanics with non-locality and timelessness also show astonishing correlation to eastern philosophy, such as the theory of Penrose-Hameroff (ORC-OR), which explains consciousness by reduction of quantum superposition in the brain. Divergence appears in the interpretation of the subjective experience of timeless consciousness. In eastern philosophy, meditation at a higher level of awareness allows the personal experience of timeless and non-dual consciousness, considered as an empirical proof for the existence of pure consciousness or spirituality existing before the material world and creating it by design. Western science acknowledges the subjective, non-dual experience, and its multiple beneficial effects, however, the interpretation of spirituality designing the material universe is in disagreement with the Darwinian theory of mutation and selection. A design should create an ideal universe without the injustice of 3% congenital birth defects and later genetic health problems. The western viewpoint of selection is more adapted to explain congenital errors. The gap between subjectivity and objectivity, the mind-body problem, is in eastern philosophy reduced to the dominance of subjectivity over objectivity, whereas western science attributes equal values to both. Nevertheless, there remains an astonishing complementarity between eastern and western practices.

The all permeating presence of temporal structure consisting of past, present and future throughout our everyday discourse and communication, often keeps us unaware of its obvious existence in our conceptual structure. In other words, we scarcely become aware of this temporal structure embedded in our conceptual framework with which we continually engage in different activities with others including the world at large. Actually past, present and future are different parameters of time which makes the experience of change intelligible. We experience an event as future, present and past and this gradual experiencing of becoming makes change apparent to us. The terms experiencing and becoming both are significant because these terms indicate the internal as well as the external change that mental states as well as events of the world undergo. Phenomenologically, such an account seems obvious. But is this phenomenological account sufficient to admit temporal passage as real? This question has disturbed philosophers since ages and led them to ponder upon this experience of temporal passage. Till the time we do not seek to analyse our experience of change, it seems adequate to us, but as soon as we try to apply philosophical analysis upon such experience, we come across the temporal structure embedded in our experience of change and we stumble on certain logical inadequacies. The following analysis of St. Augustine reveals this feature of our experience of change in very clear terms. As soon as Augustine starts focusing on this experience of change and thereby temporal passage, he finds it extremely difficult to grasp it. According to him whenever we try to measure the passing time, we fail to grasp any interval or period. In elaborating this claim he used the following chain of argument: If a period in passing time is measured as future, then some period which is non-existing has to be measured, because future is yet to come. Thus, a period in passing time cannot be measured as future. Again, in the absence of any duration or period which is identified as present, because it is merely a juncture between past and future, no period in passing time is measurable as present. Finally, no period in passing time can be measured as past, because being non-existent (as it has already ceased to exist) like future it

Philosophers like Kant and the phenomenologists argue that time is a fundamental determinant of human cognition and that any dysfunction in this determinant will lead to a loss of meaningful experience. The phenomenology and science of psychotic delusions and drug-induced experience supports this idea. At the same time some philosophers and scientists have argued that such radical changes in temporal experience can be revelatory of different ways of thinking about reality and of different meaning structures. In this paper we review the relevant philosophical arguments and scientific evidence for these positions, and examine three issues. The first is whether science is empirically investigating its own rationalist foundations when it studies altered states of consciousness. The second concerns whether experiences of delusions and hallucinations challenge our default conceptions of reality. And third, can altered states of consciousness provide a form of knowledge or put us in a position to acquire knowledge? We argue that whether changes in temporal experience reveal different and productive provinces of meaning or not, they do reveal the limits of our normally ordered meaning, the limits of science and of what we consider a rational world.

The author, based upon fortuitous observations, asserts that your future timeline of reality and the quality of consciousness it offers, is determined by the proverbial saying that “You Reap what you Sow.” This expression is not to be construed as a cliché as it has its root in the quantum mechanics of consciousness and the reality of the quality of your identity’s (signature) consciousness vibration in the future, e.g. as either yet another ‘Soul Aspect,’ or a ‘Soul Expression,’ a ‘Monad,’ or an ‘Avatar’ being, which epitomizes your ‘Future Self,’ depending on your present indulgences. This is governed by the Principle of Quantum Entanglement that it determines how your future reality will be. Accordingly, it is elucidated that should you be fortunate enough as to become ‘entangled’ with the presence of a divine sentient being whose future is blessed with a fine timeline of parallel reality within a higher dimension, it is prudent that you keep your consciousness propinquity raised with respect to such an individual, who no doubt through making proper decisions with utmost acumen with respect to experiencing the sojourns of life even within this low consciousness domain of reality, is bound to propel you to his-her blessed future timeline of parallel reality. In this respect, the prudence of the proverbial saying ‘You Reap what you Sow’ cannot be overemphasized.

A perennial question in the philosophy of time concerns the relation between the objective “physical time” that features in empirical theories of motion and the subjective “human time” in which our own experiences unfold. This article is about one facet of this broader question: whether the phenomenon of conscious- ness allows us to make a principled distinction between the present and other times. A number of authors have argued that, without conscious observers, there would be no distinctions of past, present, and future. This paper defends the opposing thesis that there is no interesting connection between consciousness and presentness.

The observer in physics makes observations and transforms them into fact and physical laws. Observations are based on perceptions and their transformations, which are influenced by biological and psychological functions. As argued by the philosopher Peirce, one might distinguish between extra-mental reality and its mental representation. An observer creates with his mental functions a mental representation of extra-mental reality due to perception based on specific sense organs. Extra-mental reality and its mental representation exist simultaneously, but are not always in direct contact with each other and can therefore diverge. Only during the NOW, the observer is through his sense organs in direct physico-neural contact with extra-mental reality. After interruption of this contact, observations belong to the past and the observer transforms with mental functions regularities of past observations into physical laws, which can be extrapolated into the far past and future. During the NOW, observations have precise time coordinates, but after interruption of the direct contact, memorized observations undergo transformations into abstract and often timeless concepts in classical and in quantum physics. In normal life, time is the perception of duration and its boundaries. In physics, time is reduced to the relation of its boundaries between different systems or can be completely discarded in timelessness. Whereas the NOW is a direct connection between extra-mental reality and its mental representation, past and future represent pure mental representations based on memorized NOWs. After their transformation, mental representation can predict future potentiality, which does not always correspond to extra-mental reality. Due to this reality-potentiality gap, physical laws created in mental representation need verification in a new experimental NOW, which alone assures direct contact to reality.

Building on the work in my two books, The Evolution of Future Consciousness and Contemporary Futurist Thought (Lombardo, 2006a; Lombardo, 2006b), I will present a broad theoretical overview of the evolution, psychological structure, historical development, contempo- rary breadth, and potential future direction of future consciousness. Some of my main hypotheses are: Humanity, from its most prehistoric beginnings, has possessed some rudimentary level of future consciousness; future consciousness has progressively evolved and diversified through human history; all of the basic capacities of human psychology are involved in future consciousness; all the main systems of religious, philosophical, scientific, and social thought have informed future consciousness; and future consciousness should continue to evolve and enrich in the future. In the conclu- sion I will propose that the virtue of wisdom, which I describe at the end of this paper, is the highest evolutionary expression of future consciousness and should be actively cultivated and pursued in our creative journey into the future.

It is wise to be conscious of the future. And reciprocally, if one wishes to enhance one’s future consciousness, one should pursue the development of wisdom. In recent years I have explored the nature of future consciousness: its historical evolution and its future possibilities; its psychological dimensions and its significance in our further evolution; and ways to enhance it through education and self-development practices. During this same period I have also studied thinking and research on the virtue of wisdom, its connection to the ideals and goals of education, it’s impact on quality of life and psychological well-being, and, perhaps most significantly, its relationship to future consciousness. Pulling these two areas of interest together, I have come to the conclusion that wisdom is the highest expression of future consciousness; it is the normative ideal towards which we should aspire in the development of future consciousness. Heightened future consciousness and wisdom go hand-in-hand. In this article I describe the many parallels between wisdom and heightened future consciousness. I explain how the development of one capacity enhances the other capacity. I explain in detail what I mean by the statement that “wisdom is the highest expression of future consciousness.” Finally, I argue that, whether we call it wisdom or heightened future consciousness, this capacity defines a desirable direction for the future psychological evolution.