The following needs citations, which I will find and add:
Listening to the podcast, “Mythosophia” and an interview with Jeffrey Kripal. He said some neuroscientists believe consciousness is actually a product of mind. That mind is a by-product of physical activity or phenomenon in the brain. There’s a belief that consciousness does not include choice.
OR… consciousness is filtered through the brain and interpreted by the mind. Greater than the sum of its parts (gestalt?) – the “Greater Consciousness” that filters through to individual consciousness per being, yet is not diminished in totality by the division into individual experiences. It is collecting individual experiences of consciousness to either grow toward something, or to simply have those experiences, or both.
[Using the word] “It” would imply an entity. “It” is having individual experiences, but what if “It” was all of us? “Hive” mentality for the entire universe?
[Using the word] “Hive” – would that mean no individual consciousness? Is a hive without pluralism? That is, is going with the collective thought (consciousness) mean without dissent? Is there choice, free will within the Hive? Maybe I’m thinking too much like the “Borg” (from Star Trek TV series) for understanding this mentality. And it is, in this case, “mentality” which may not be the right description.
Sum Consciousness – has anyone written about it as a sum of all consciousness? Instead of using the word Greater (as in Greater Consciousness), which might imply an entity, Sum used in this context could signify a gestalt. The dictionary defines gestalt as a unified whole, which would mean that the whole has parts. Which does lead back to the idea that there is a collective consciousness that is not a singular entity but is all the entities AND “greater” than individual entities. I’m having a problem with the word “greater” because it can imply superior, which is a judgement of other.
When it all comes down to it, the Universe is always telling us it is about love. This thought returns to me again and again while I’m writing this but also just when I’m thinking; musing; having a thought experiment (thank you, Ursula LeGuin). Love is what is carried on light, filtered for individual entities because it is bigger than what we could take in. So the Sum Consciousness is bigger than what we could take in as well! And encompasses love. It must also encompass the opposite of love because we could not know love without having what is called “foreground/background.” This, I think, is also a Zen principle. Love and not-love. How could you distinguish what is love if there also wasn’t not-love?
I think I need to take some time to see if my ideas hold any weight. So I’m going to stop writing for now. This not only needs citations, but it needs refinement.
One Tree One Forest