Answers from Peter on Consciousness
About: Cheng Hsin Newsletter Winter 2012 pg 25 ssq.
Hi Peter,
Are complete awareness and complete
consciousness the same thing?
Thanks,
Charles
.............................................
Charles,
No, not at all. People confuse awareness "
which is dependent on “experience” or
perception " with consciousness, because very
few of us grasp the nature of consciousness.
They also use cognize, which is dependent on
mind, interchangeably with "becoming
conscious," and therefore confuse the word
consciousness with cognition. This is to be
expected since in our culture we don’t make
fine distinctions between these words. What's
more, we completely misunderstand the true
nature of Consciousness.
When we are aware, we are “conscious” of
something in our experience, even if it is
abstract or completely non-objective. We're
aware of, say, an idea of being thrifty in much
the same way as we're aware of the boss
walking into the room. This is simply being or
becoming aware of something. It is similar to
recognizing and interpreting something within
our experience which I call “cognition.” Being
conscious of these things means we “know” of
them, identify them, and know them as
something. This is really cognition or awareness
" both of which exist within Consciousness.
Consciousness, on the other hand, is what’s
there, and at the same time doesn’t exist in
what’s there. It is the foundation, space, and
possibility for both awareness and cognition to
occur. It is the “mother” of mind, intellect,
intuition, perception, knowing. Consciousness
both doesn’t exist, and is existence. So do you
see where I’m going with this, and the direction
or distinction I’m making? Really grasping it
can only be done directly, to be “one” with
Consciousness, so to speak. And that’s not
common.
So to answer you question: no.
Peter
Are complete awareness and complete
consciousness the same thing?
Thanks,
Charles
.............................................
Charles,
No, not at all. People confuse awareness "
which is dependent on “experience” or
perception " with consciousness, because very
few of us grasp the nature of consciousness.
They also use cognize, which is dependent on
mind, interchangeably with "becoming
conscious," and therefore confuse the word
consciousness with cognition. This is to be
expected since in our culture we don’t make
fine distinctions between these words. What's
more, we completely misunderstand the true
nature of Consciousness.
When we are aware, we are “conscious” of
something in our experience, even if it is
abstract or completely non-objective. We're
aware of, say, an idea of being thrifty in much
the same way as we're aware of the boss
walking into the room. This is simply being or
becoming aware of something. It is similar to
recognizing and interpreting something within
our experience which I call “cognition.” Being
conscious of these things means we “know” of
them, identify them, and know them as
something. This is really cognition or awareness
" both of which exist within Consciousness.
Consciousness, on the other hand, is what’s
there, and at the same time doesn’t exist in
what’s there. It is the foundation, space, and
possibility for both awareness and cognition to
occur. It is the “mother” of mind, intellect,
intuition, perception, knowing. Consciousness
both doesn’t exist, and is existence. So do you
see where I’m going with this, and the direction
or distinction I’m making? Really grasping it
can only be done directly, to be “one” with
Consciousness, so to speak. And that’s not
common.
So to answer you question: no.
Peter
Tags
- item 16414
- consciousness
- conscious
- peter ralston
- bofnk
Comments
Mark de LA says
seth 2013-02-07 09:24:38 16414
Well when you say ...
source: Peter Ralston
"Consciousness, on the other hand, is what’s
there, and at the same time doesn’t exist in
what’s there. It is the foundation, space, and
possibility for both awareness and cognition to
occur. It is the “mother” of mind, intellect,
intuition, perception, knowing. Consciousness
both doesn’t exist, and is existence. So do you
see where I’m going with this, and the direction
or distinction I’m making? Really grasping it
can only be done directly, to be “one” with
Consciousness, so to speak. And that’s not
common."
"Consciousness, on the other hand, is what’s
there, and at the same time doesn’t exist in
what’s there. It is the foundation, space, and
possibility for both awareness and cognition to
occur. It is the “mother” of mind, intellect,
intuition, perception, knowing. Consciousness
both doesn’t exist, and is existence. So do you
see where I’m going with this, and the direction
or distinction I’m making? Really grasping it
can only be done directly, to be “one” with
Consciousness, so to speak. And that’s not
common."
... i answer: Yes, Peter, i think i see where you are going with that. You are equating "consciousness" with all there is. That is an presumption that i, personally, do not choose ... though i am aware that many people do prefer it. I have actually been able to see that Gestalt myself ... i just don't particularly like to keep it. I like the Gestalt where there is a firmament of nature and possibilities of which human consciousness is inadequate to becoming aware. The assumptions in your Gestalt panders to the grandiosity of people's egos ... mine does not ... rather mine acknowledges the inadequacies of our human awareness.
NOPE! All there is exists! You should restrict the last phrase to yourself as .. inadequacies of my human awareness.
Seth says
Well i can revise my interpretation to: Peter is equating "consciousness" with all there is or is not. Which, from my point of view is the same thing with a bit of added Zen cuteness. My problem with it, is equating "consciousness" with that. That is the thrust of Peter's assertions and that also was the thrust of mine, see above.
I tend to look at things from a practical point of view ... a thing (even a concept or a Gestalt) is and means what it does to you and/or what you use it for. Or as Hannibal Lecter famously said "First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?".
... so i observe what you do with this Gestalt of Peter's ... and what you do it use it to enhance your ego relative to mine ... for example you say: "you should restrict the last phrase to yourself as .. inadequacies of my human awareness" ... so that is what you use that concept for ... that is what it means to you. Nathan does the same thing ... many others too. I first encountered and grocked that back in the 70's during a Living Theater event when some groupie couple made me feel like shit because of their obviously greater consciousness. Take that element out of this philosophy and see what is left ... then, perhaps i will listen to it.
MR 2013-02-07 12:59:38 16414
seth 2013-02-07 12:12:00 16414
Of late i have noticed the strange convention of starting a response with "Nope!" or "Yes!" expressing some generalize approval (or denial) of a comment but not specifying exactly what. I have started not doing that myself, because it actually just conveys more confusion than information. In this case you followed your emphatic "NOPE!" with a obviously true sentence which my comment in no way denied. So what was that all about?
Then again in your second sentence you restate an obvious implication of my own comment. Reddening the word "my", referring to me as if you yourself were not in the same predicament ... your attitude being of jocular coolness. Thing is, my brother, that kind of attitude and belief is precisely what i refer to as "panders to the grandiosity of people's egos". So, yes, i can understand just exactly how very much Peter's thought appeals to you. Me, i prefer to get off on the stark reality of my own humility.
MR 2013-02-07 10:32:23 16414
seth 2013-02-07 09:24:38 16414
Well when you say ...
source: Peter Ralston
"Consciousness, on the other hand, is what’s
there, and at the same time doesn’t exist in
what’s there. It is the foundation, space, and
possibility for both awareness and cognition to
occur. It is the “mother” of mind, intellect,
intuition, perception, knowing. Consciousness
both doesn’t exist, and is existence. So do you
see where I’m going with this, and the direction
or distinction I’m making? Really grasping it
can only be done directly, to be “one” with
Consciousness, so to speak. And that’s not
common."
"Consciousness, on the other hand, is what’s
there, and at the same time doesn’t exist in
what’s there. It is the foundation, space, and
possibility for both awareness and cognition to
occur. It is the “mother” of mind, intellect,
intuition, perception, knowing. Consciousness
both doesn’t exist, and is existence. So do you
see where I’m going with this, and the direction
or distinction I’m making? Really grasping it
can only be done directly, to be “one” with
Consciousness, so to speak. And that’s not
common."
... i answer: Yes, Peter, i think i see where you are going with that. You are equating "consciousness" with all there is. That is an presumption that i, personally, do not choose ... though i am aware that many people do prefer it. I have actually been able to see that Gestalt myself ... i just don't particularly like to keep it. I like the Gestalt where there is a firmament of nature and possibilities of which human consciousness is inadequate to becoming aware. The assumptions in your Gestalt panders to the grandiosity of people's egos ... mine does not ... rather mine acknowledges the inadequacies of our human awareness.
NOPE! All there is exists! You should restrict the last phrase to yourself as .. inadequacies of my human awareness.
Of late i have noticed the strange convention of starting a response with "Nope!" or "Yes!" expressing some generalize approval (or denial) of a comment but not specifying exactly what. I have started not doing that myself, because it actually just conveys more confusion than information. In this case you followed your emphatic "NOPE!" with a obviously true sentence which my comment in no way denied. So what was that all about?
Then again in your second sentence you restate an obvious implication of my own comment. Reddening the word "my", referring to me as if you yourself were not in the same predicament ... your attitude being of jocular coolness. Thing is, my brother, that kind of attitude and belief is precisely what i refer to as "panders to the grandiosity of people's egos". So, yes, i can understand just exactly how very much Peter's thought appeals to you. Me, i prefer to get off on the stark reality of my own humility
. NOPE! nobody with humility states he is so. I don't limit myself or propose to limit others. It is fine with me if you limit yourself ONLY! I emphasized what was wrong ... All there is exists ! (your generalization) which contradicts what Peter says which I also emphasized "Consciousness both doesn’t exist, and is existence." That should have been enough to contradict your generalization of what Peter said hence eliciting from me my now famous NOPE! 
Well i can revise my interpretation to: Peter is equating "consciousness" with all there is or is not. Which, from my point of view is the same thing with a bit of added Zen cuteness. My problem with it, is equating "consciousness" with that. That is the thrust of Peter's assertions and that also was the thrust of mine, see above.
I tend to look at things from a practical point of view ... a thing (even a concept or a Gestalt) is and means what it does to you and/or what you use it for. Or as Hannibal Lecter famously said "First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?".
... so i observe what you do with this Gestalt of Peter's ... and what you do it use it to enhance your ego relative to mine ... for example you say: "you should restrict the last phrase to yourself as .. inadequacies of my human awareness" ... so that is what you use that concept for ... that is what it means to you. Nathan does the same thing ... many others too. I first encountered and grocked that back in the 70's during a Living Theater event when some groupie couple made me feel like shit because of their obviously greater consciousness. Take that element out of this philosophy and see what is left ... then, perhaps i will listen to it.
Mark de LA says
Consciousness is like a gravitational field without a gravitron.
Seth says
consciousness is what happens when individual sensitivities become social. it is feedback between a group and its individuals.
Mark de LA says
MR 2013-02-08 13:16:00 16414
MR 2013-02-08 10:44:20 16414
seth 2013-02-08 10:12:52 16414
consciousness is what happens when individual sensitivities become social. it is feedback between a group and its individuals.
... that is more like a tribal consciousness not consciousness per se or even individual consciousness.
actually according to PR's distinction between awareness & consciousness what you describe is more like tribal awareness.
IMHO, the term individual sensitivities is amorphous as is social in this context.
Mark de LA says
What you probably should do is mentograph it because you are still confused. I am not confused.
Your ego problem is not mine. I really don't give a shit if you want to draw a limit as to what you think you can grok or know. It would probably be a lie if you draw that limit for me (or anyone else) because you don't have access to it as another does. If you continue to go down the pathway of ego-snottery as you seem to be going I will lose interest in your input & probably delete it.
See if you can figure out what he is saying rather entering the RWG.
All that exists is not existence. All that exists has properties of existence but is not existence per
se. He's saying something similar to what GW said in P.2621 of the Tai Shu
source: ... Consciousness both doesn’t exist, and is existence
... exists & existence are different & consciousness is not in the first category of things that exist. (maybe it is not a thing, eh?)
Consciousness is existence itself or otherwise.Your ego problem is not mine. I really don't give a shit if you want to draw a limit as to what you think you can grok or know. It would probably be a lie if you draw that limit for me (or anyone else) because you don't have access to it as another does. If you continue to go down the pathway of ego-snottery as you seem to be going I will lose interest in your input & probably delete it.
See if you can figure out what he is saying rather entering the RWG.
All that exists is not existence. All that exists has properties of existence but is not existence per
se. He's saying something similar to what GW said in P.2621 of the Tai Shu
To wit: ...
P.2621 #22,1 83-1-2-12-11-14 WED 28.22 years ago
" ... Pristine Realities evolve to Symbols; Logic Language, Logos emanates from the Father, not from Nothing except as it seems, of Tertulian pee; thus "The Heart girt with a Serpent" has parallels in Ontogeny & Phylogeny. If you want to dunk your doughnut, go ahead & dunk it! "it is a lie, this folly against self" - Awareness, Attention is the function of the Ego; Brightness, Brilliance, Luminosity which is measured by Photons increase with Development.
(2462) CONSCIOUSNESS is awareness of the part which self takes in production of a judgment either as cause or effect - cause when I act on another, effect when I act on myself, when my hand touches my head, e.g., "I am a cause - active consciousness; passive consciousness - I am an effect". Believe a cause exists without an effect or vice versa if you like to be mystifyied. The categories of Reality are: number, space, motion, time & judgment; if it be a thing it must have unity, it must be one, or it does not exist. Also it must have extension, speed, persistence & consciousness; these cats or essentials are independent but concomitant; the thing is its component essentials; there is no "ding an sich". From here we can go to the subject of "Electricity" & what happens to make it positive or negative, the yang & the yin!"
...
Mark de LA says
I moved the body to another item so that I could focus on what was said instead of Bozo's comments & previous arguments.
It was amazing.
It took me about 10 minutes before I got out of a contemplation what was being said.
It may or not be worthless & priceless such is the nature of some ontological discoveries.
The volcano is set to erupt again & again.
It was amazing.
It took me about 10 minutes before I got out of a contemplation what was being said.
It may or not be worthless & priceless such is the nature of some ontological discoveries.
The volcano is set to erupt again & again.
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-03-28 05:21:28 16414
Well i still hold that consciousness is not some mystical nether-land of zen not. Rather it is the be ing of our common interaction. It is us being social. Take that social aspect out of the equation and there would be no consciousness. In other words an individual human who grows up isolated from others (were that he could grow up that way) would not be conscious. Or, said differently, what he developed that he might call consciousness would have nothing to do with what we call consciousness, re Tarzan story. This consciousness thingey is not a fabric born to us by some mysterious and secret ether. No, it is the living breathing reality of our interaction.
.. sad
. & failed to grok it! Just managed to follow the first train back to your normal station & asset something 
Seth says
Well i still hold that consciousness is not some mystical nether-land of zen not. Rather it is the be ing of our common interaction. It is us being social. Take that social aspect out of the equation and there would be no consciousness. In other words an individual human who grows up isolated from others (were that he could grow up that way) would not be conscious. Or, said differently, what he developed that he might call consciousness would have nothing to do with what we call consciousness, re Tarzan story. This consciousness thingey is not a fabric born to us by some mysterious and secret ether. No, it is the living breathing reality of our interaction.
Mark de LA says
Einai 2014-03-28 10:10:49 16414
seth 2014-03-28 05:21:28 16414
Well i still hold that consciousness is not some mystical nether-land of zen not. Rather it is the be ing of our common interaction. It is us being social. Take that social aspect out of the equation and there would be no consciousness. In other words an individual human who grows up isolated from others (were that he could grow up that way) would not be conscious. Or, said differently, what he developed that he might call consciousness would have nothing to do with what we call consciousness, re Tarzan story. This consciousness thingey is not a fabric born to us by some mysterious and secret ether. No, it is the living breathing reality of our interaction.
Yep, that is the way you hold it! I got that.
Master Peter once stated live in class that "there is nothing outside of the way you hold it". Such statement can be understood in more than one way - including the pun.
Master Peter once stated live in class that "there is nothing outside of the way you hold it". Such statement can be understood in more than one way - including the pun.
See Also
- Thought Love - Lying with 283 viewings related by tag "peter ralston".
- Thought Interesting Pages on G+ with 215 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Wht is consciousness? with 172 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought The Behavior Sequences with 172 viewings related by tag "PeterRalston".
- Thought What process creates consciousness? with 136 viewings related by tag "peter ralston".
- Thought Agreements are vunerable to lies with 126 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Example of a misassociation with 125 viewings related by tag "peter ralston".
- Thought Consciousness as "transactional relative relivance" reares it's ugly head for the first time here with 90 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Sequence of Encounter reply in Newsletter with 41 viewings related by tag "peter ralston".
- Thought A recognition ... with 35 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Mark obstructs awareness of The Now with 33 viewings related by tag "bofnk".
- Thought Socrates Cafe July 12 2017 with 28 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought About beliefs with 27 viewings related by tag "PeterRalston".
- Thought Can we feel our humanity? with 25 viewings related by tag "conscious".
- Thought Consciousness Work with 24 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Where does an answer come from? with 20 viewings related by tag "bofnk".
- Thought Conscience with 18 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought A most Fascinating Conversation with 16 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Fascinating Consciousness with 16 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Divided Souls in Consciousness with 15 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought One Person's Idea of Consciousness with 14 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought about: how to use parallel realities - shift into an alternate universe! - youtube with 13 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Don't Lie ! (Christmas Message, eh?) with 10 viewings related by tag "peter ralston".
- Thought Contemplation with 10 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Energy? What is it? with 9 viewings related by tag "peter ralston".
- Thought Beliefs & Upbringing with 8 viewings related by tag "peter ralston".
- Thought Leonardo Principle with 7 viewings related by tag "peter ralston".
- Thought Esoteric Cosmology with 7 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Peter Ralston Podcasts with 4 viewings related by tag "peter ralston".
- Thought Consciousness with 4 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Different types of Facts with 4 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Will of Consciousness with 4 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought about: mark's inquiry on facebook with 4 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Facebook Linguistics with 2 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought about: pursuing consciousness with 2 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Multi Level Consciousnesses with 2 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought IS Consciousness aware of itself? with 2 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought about: REpresentation - comment 57743 - comment 57813 with 2 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Being awake is being conscious with 2 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought infinite nothing with 1 viewings related by tag "bofnk".
- Thought about: The Nature of Light: What are Photons? VI with 1 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Individual meets collective with 1 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Belief with 1 viewings related by tag "bofnk".
- Thought Peter Ralston's attitude twards representations ... with 1 viewings related by tag "peter ralston".
- Thought Consciousness - some presumed Scientific Investigation with 1 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Who is conscious? with 1 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Consciousness with 1 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Arguments are for Lawyers, Philosophers & Politicians with 1 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Reality & Consciousness with 1 viewings related by tag "consciousness".
- Thought Train of Will in the Stream of Consciousness with 1 viewings related by tag "consciousness".