Energetic Body of God

[Dart Frog]

I just listened to the latest podcast this morning. I was not too happy with the comments that suggested that only the human being, one of many complex and diverse species on this planet, is capable of connecting with god. If God is the source, as Martin claims, than all creations should have an equal significance. Martin also seemed to suggest that only the human animal can really experience consciousness. Human perspectives are unique, but not the only ones. When we start entering a territory of god, anything is possible and if consciousness is indeed someting that is bigger than our biological makeup, I don't see why an iguana could not connect with god as well. The dissapointing humanist approach is why modern organized religion has placed such a disregard on respecting this Earth we are so lucky to be a part of. It is not here just for us. We need to get humble and learn to recognize that we are a small part of a much bigger picture. We are not god, we are jst a part of it. Respect your mother...

[Martin]

It seems pretty clear by your comment that you've really misunderstood what I meant in my podcast. I've never claimed that only humans experience consciousness or that only humans can experience God. What I did say is that humans appear to have unique capacities for self-reflexive consciousness as well as unique abilities for manipulating and interacting with our environment - this is very different than saying only humans have consciousness or that only humans experience God. In fact, I've made it pretty clear elsewhere that I personally believe that all of existence is made out of consciousness, so it would be pretty logically inconsistent of me to claim that other living beings besides humans aren't conscious - I think everything is conscious.

However, humans are different. Do any other species on our planet post on web forums, for example? No. They don't. They don't have the same self-reflexive consciousness that we have and they don't have the physical means to manipulate their environment as we do. In this regard, we are different. It's not a judgment or critique of other beings - it is a statement of fact.

Can other beings experience God? Well, that would be a matter of speculation, and I try and stay away from speculation, especially in regards to spiritual matters or entheogenic experiences. Philosophically, I take a phenomenological approach to things. Given that we will never know what a mystical experience might be like for a frog from a phenomenological perspective, I can't say much about it or even if such a thing is possible.

Given that most other beings don't seem to have self-reflexive consciousness, meaning that they don't seem to ponder over their existence from a perspective of "I," it seems unlikely that their capacity for spiritual experience would be the same as a human's. Can a being that doesn't have a concept of itself as existing think existential thoughts or have transcendental experiences? My intuition is that the answer is no. If you don't experience a sense of "I," how can you ponder its existence, and if you don't experience a sense of "I," how can you transcend it? My understanding of research with animals indicates that perhaps some chimps have a sense of self-reflexive consciousness (they can recognize themselves in a mirror), and perhaps dolphins as well, but other animals don't seem to have this as a feature of their consciousness. This of course doesn't mean that they aren't consciouness - just that they are not self-reflexive in their sense of being.

Also, to get back specifically to the ideas I mentioned in the podcast, I said that the there are different archetypal configurations of energy for different kinds of living beings. If you understand my argument correctly, that all energy is from the same source (God), all energy is conscious (also God), and that all manifestations of energy have an element of free will (or consciousness), then I don't see how so your comment follows from my argument.

So, I'd urge you to listen again, if you care to, and see if you still have the same comment . . .

[Dart Frog]

Given that most other beings don't seem to have self-reflexive consciousness, meaning that they don't seem to ponder over their existence from a perspective of "I," it seems unlikely that their capacity for spiritual experience would be the same as a human's. Can a being that doesn't have a concept of itself as existing think existential thoughts or have transcendental experiences? My intuition is that the answer is no. If you don't experience a sense of "I," how can you ponder its existence, and if you don't experience a sense of "I," how can you transcend it? My understanding of research with animals indicates that perhaps some chimps have a sense of self-reflexive consciousness (they can recognize themselves in a mirror), and perhaps dolphins as well, but other animals don't seem to have this as a feature of their consciousness. This of course doesn't mean that they aren't consciouness - just that they are not self-reflexive in their sense of being.

.

Well thanks for clearing things up Martin. I guess the only thing you are saying here that confuses me is the whole thing about other animals having no sense of "I". Do you mean self? I just don't see that at all. You take even the smallest insect and it has fear and what science calls a "survival instinct". Even though instinct has never been really differentiated from a human's fear of death, pain, etc. I would think twice about the sense of I. Even though a human brain is larger, it is still governed by several instincts of survival. You could call that free will, but I tend to think we are more governed by our instincts than we care to admit. My experience observing animals is that they do make complex choices that sometime baffle scientists and their sense of self has more similarities than differences to us.

Humans are unique. While we have our web forums, the raven has its wings and makes many choices of what it will eat, where it will sleep and what other ravens it will fly with. To me. that is a sense of I. Thanks for the response.

[Hughes DePayne]

I believe the human is the only being on this planet that can self abstract. Sophisticated patterns, multi-level categories and taxonomies, even strategic complexities observed amongst other animals aren't evidence of sentience. Like Olaf Stapledon's character Odd John kept saying, "Even a cat may see a king" - which probably meant something deeper; but - to me - is the same sort of distinction. A cat, say - whilst stalking a mouse, might have scenario's of various kinds flitting around in their little cat heads: "...mouse runs this way, I dash that way, he pauses, I eat him..." kind of thing. But in every act of mental verisimilitude upon the cat's imagined stage, the cat would see through his own eyes, with no "player" upon the stage that represents "cat self". The dumbest human, though dumb indeed, is still an order of magnitude above the smartest animal on any scale of cognizance. Not the least because we can conceive an evaluation of this very ratio in the first place.

Doesn't mean we have to foul everybody's nest, or piss away our resources, or even kill and eat our fellow "lifers" - but it ain't just the thumbs that make us on top.

Just my $0.02 of course!

:D

[Dart Frog]

Doesn't mean we have to foul everybody's nest, or piss away our resources, or even kill and eat our fellow "lifers" - but it ain't just the thumbs that make us on top.

Just my $0.02 of course!

:D

On top? Well being the top of the line does not necessarily mean the most "intelligent" is the most successful. The human mind likes to keep itself in the numb, comfort zone just as much as any other being. Face it, the truth of what we have become is not pretty. We are overpopulated, competing for resources, killing each other over a few dollars bills, (dollars "don't mean shit to a tree" Jefferson Airplane)
. Nothing to be proud of. If there really is such a thing as evolution, than out intel is more of a liability than the declaration of greatness you are suggesting. Perhaps our brains will be selected for a smaller size.

I am not so sure about your speculations about the lowly cat brain. While it is smaller, I think you are grossy underestimating what a cat can choose or think in abstract terms. Perhaps the layers of ego illusion are not as deep, but such intel and percetions happen in specialized terms of different levels. I don't even think there is any scientific literature that really backs up such an opinion.

[Dart Frog]

When I read the opinions that we are somehow closer to God because we have a better, superior scale of cognizance, I find that ironic. Afterall, don't most people seek the entheogenic experience to deconstruct the sense of I? Is not the sense of I a multiple layered coccoon of complex constructed details of the ego? Most people who enter the realm seem to feel these layers are barriers. If indeed, the frog has a small sense of I, is not the frog closer to God to begin with? Perhaps we tend to project our inferiority complexes on those we secretly admire. Perhaps the frog is the Buddha!