Overmind and Supermind

[Kartik Subbarao]

I'd be curious to hear thoughts from folks here about this thread on integrallife.com:

http://integrallife.com/member/kartik-subbarao/blog/indigo-violet-a...

[ Make sure to expand the comments to see the link to Ken's recent audio Q&A ]

Does anyone here experience any of these sta[tg]es firsthand? Is the experience similar?

[3nhufhfmu9ezq]

Wow Kartik, this is some pretty killer stuff, and I love it!  You have obviously had your own experiences.

I answered your questions bellow with your text imbedded.

"Your comments about the dream state are interesting. Do you always experience lucid dreaming, or just sometimes? "

Only sometimes.

"Do you also experience the kind of "pellucid deep sleep" that Ken Wilber describes, where there is a continuation of awareness into the deep sleep state?"

I have at times, and I have had very profound realizations in this state.

"Do you find that subtle/causal body awareness is a prerequisite for experiencing overmind?" 

Yes

"In your comment: "Id rather call non-local, non-dual, in that there is no separation in the experience, when non-local can be misinterpreted as separation from the local" I'd like to clarify this, since the word "nondual" can point to different kinds of things. Take for example a peak or flow experience, like playing music when all of the mental chatter ceases and there is no separation between subject and object. You, the instrument, and the music are all one continuous energy/flow, and it could be described using nondual language."

I experienced this same non-dual relation with surfing for 15 years.  Ill move onto this again.  

 "But that's qualitatively different than, say, nirvikalpa samadhi, where (according to descriptions I've read :-) ) all ignorance is dispelled, all bodies/planes are transcended, and nondual awareness is fully established. I just want to make sure that when you use "nondual", that I understand the context in which it's being used."

Non-dual can relate to multiple state experiences, from causal to Overmind.  Overmind being cognitively active, causal being complete emptiness.  My experiences with surfing and your description of flowing with music are right in the middle of this spectrum.

"With this said, I want to revisit your comment: "Everything that we percieve to be real is a creation of the self-reflective mind, this including the self. Therefore, everything is non-local when we realize that the self is just a creation of the mind, this is the access point to Overmind." My understanding is that the word "mind" can only be used up through the deepest subtle body (Vijnanamaya kosha). Once you get to the causal body (Anandamaya kosha), mind doesn't exist anymore."

I totally agree with this. Casual is the “no-mind” side of the spectrum.

 

"It's just formless awareness that still experiences itself as a separate subject. So it still has an interior and an exterior, even though there are no distinct objects in the exterior."

It is transcending and including mind, but in that space of awareness, Overmind, there is no separate subject nor object. 

 

"Now, project this interior (your causal body) up through your own subtle body (since your subtle body originates wholly from your causal body); project someone else's causal body through their subtle body; and project whatever other causal plane space there is through "common" subtle plane content. My question is, does overmind let you tap into stuff that actually originated from space that was outside of your causal body?

From what I understand in what you've written here, overmind is still conscious of the subject/object split. For example, in describing your overmind experience with the semantics of words above, you're communicating to some other person who is separate from you (hence the need to communicate using words and not, say, telepathy :-) ) Now, given that all minds are ultimately made of the same mindstuff, inquiring into your own mind can likely tell you a lot about others' minds. You dove deeply into the essence of the words you were using, into your own mind -- but not directly into the essence of the other person's mind -- which is still somewhere in your exterior, and to which overmind doesn't grant you access. Do I have that correct?"

I love this experiment.

The nature of mind, either the person I am writing to or my own, is the same in an absolute sense, but not a relative.  Just like the nature of the child, tribe, and life on earth, relatively speaking they are totally different, but the nature of their interiors are the same and this is why we can tap into their “akashic record”

I do not believe in telepathy, in the sense that two separate beings are sharing cognitive thoughts “telepathically.”  I have never experienced this, but I have experiences a sharing of awareness.  This is no different than sharing laughter, or love, or the simplest of agreements. And I think “telepathy” is really just a non-dual experience in the lower left, when beings are in synchronicity with their awareness, and this we all know. But to take a construct such as a word or series of words, and project it to another’s consciousness with unambiguity? I can not confirm this.

To sum up everything that has been discussed here, from your original post, it can be greatly simplified.  I don’t believe we need all the intellectualism to explain these experiences.  Big explanations are for those who either haven’t experienced it or those who are trying to glorify it.  I think it is really very simple.

We as cognitive human beings experience a subjective/objective reality.  In this reality we are either in a state of separation and multiplicity (duality) or a state of “singularity” (non-duality.)  Singularity comes in “ah ha” moments, flowing with music, surfing, making love, Michael Jordan being “in the zone”, and also, meditation, the cognitive flow of Overmind, etc.  This in itself is a duality and it can occur in different degrees, states, experiences whatever.  Wilber talks about 4 different states, I know at least 9 different non-dual states that have been consistent through my life, but I am not going to try to explain them or break them down into finite terminology cause that would never justify them, nor allow anyone to experience them anyways.

I have witnessed too many times “why can’t I experience non-duality” or a frustration because they did and they cannot recall it, and this is because they are trying, or “meditating themselves to death.”  You can meditate walking in New York City, you can meditate while being a waiter in a restaurant!  It can happen anywhere any time and all it takes is presence.  “Chop wood, carry water…”

I feel there is too much romance around concepts of telepathy, non-duality, overmind, spirituality, and all that metaphysical stuff.  We are approaching a time in history when we are either awake or asleep, and being asleep sucks more and more every day.  I think in depth theories like Wilbers are loosing favor because what is really happening is a simple phenomenon…

We are either in a separate state or a singular state, dual or non-dual.

I hope I answered everything you say.  And I love where this dialogue has taken us, so thank you very much!

I am glad to share, but I do wonder, why are you so curious about another persons experiences?  What about your own?  Is there an answer you are looking for?  How did you find, and come to Integral?

Kartik Subbarao said:

Your comments about the dream state are interesting. Do you always experience lucid dreaming, or just sometimes? Do you also experience the kind of "pellucid deep sleep" that Ken Wilber describes, where there is a continuation of awareness into the deep sleep state? Do you find that subtle/causal body awareness is a prerequisite for experiencing overmind?

In your comment: "Id rather call non-local, non-dual, in that there is no separation in the experience, when non-local can be misinterpreted as separation from the local" I'd like to clarify this, since the word "nondual" can point to different kinds of things. Take for example a peak or flow experience, like playing music when all of the mental chatter ceases and there is no separation between subject and object. You, the instrument, and the music are all one continuous energy/flow, and it could be described using nondual language. But that's qualitatively different than, say, nirvikalpa samadhi, where (according to descriptions I've read :-) ) all ignorance is dispelled, all bodies/planes are transcended, and nondual awareness is fully established. I just want to make sure that when you use "nondual", that I understand the context in which it's being used.

With this said, I want to revisit your comment: "Everything that we percieve to be real is a creation of the self-reflective mind, this including the self. Therefore, everything is non-local when we realize that the self is just a creation of the mind, this is the access point to Overmind." My understanding is that the word "mind" can only be used up through the deepest subtle body (Vijnanamaya kosha). Once you get to the causal body (Anandamaya kosha), mind doesn't exist anymore. It's just formless awareness that still experiences itself as a separate subject. So it still has an interior and an exterior, even though there are no distinct objects in the exterior. Now, project this interior (your causal body) up through your own subtle body (since your subtle body originates wholly from your causal body); project someone else's causal body through their subtle body; and project whatever other causal plane space there is through "common" subtle plane content. My question is, does overmind let you tap into stuff that actually originated from space that was outside of your causal body?

From what I understand in what you've written here, overmind is still conscious of the subject/object split. For example, in describing your overmind experience with the semantics of words above, you're communicating to some other person who is separate from you (hence the need to communicate using words and not, say, telepathy :-) ) Now, given that all minds are ultimately made of the same mindstuff, inquiring into your own mind can likely tell you a lot about others' minds. You dove deeply into the essence of the words you were using, into your own mind -- but not directly into the essence of the other person's mind -- which is still somewhere in your exterior, and to which overmind doesn't grant you access. Do I have that correct?

[Kartik Subbarao]

Brian, thank you for taking the time to provide such a thoughtful response to my questions! Your perspective has been helpful to me and I appreciate your willingness to share your learning.

You ask: "I do wonder, why are you so curious about another persons experiences?  What about your own?  Is there an answer you are looking for?  How did you find, and come to Integral?"

I've found that I learn a lot by observing the process of constructive and destructive interference in my mind. When I read about one person's experience, some of it will resonate with me, other parts won't. Then, when I read about another person's experience, there too will be some resonance and dissonance. This tends to form a cumulative impression over time, where some common things jump out as being significant, which helps me target more specific areas of learning. When I have my own firsthand experiences in that space, I can then reinterpret everything I've learned and simplify lots of things for which I previously needed plenty of conceptual scaffolding. But that's okay -- the scaffolding serves its purpose. It helps point me to areas of inquiry with high potential for integrating awareness.

Integrating awareness, knowledge and experience has always been one of my strongest motivations. By my early 20s, I had a solid foundation in Advaita Vedanta as a spiritual map and guidepost on the Big Things in life. But I wasn't very conscious of its implications to mundane, day-to-day stuff -- and to my ego/shadow/personality/temperament. That all changed when I discovered Jung and his wonderful map of the mind. I started to build bridges in my mind between psychology and spirituality. Discovering Ken Wilber/Integral in the late 90s/early 2000s took this bridge-building project to new heights (and depths, and spans :-) ). I now drive across these bridges so much that they're not really bridges anymore, but a continuum of landscape. But I still hit plenty of potholes :-)

My meditation practice has deepened over the years, but I can't point to many situations where I've had a discrete "state experience" in the way that I hear them frequently described. Rather, it's been a more gradual expanding of awareness (with some quantum jumps, to be sure). The term I like to use is "mental space". I have way more mental space to contain things now than I did 15 years ago. The kinds of polarities and paradoxes I can be comfortable with today would have been impossible for me back then. There's also a better recognition of ego attachments in-the-moment, and even when they dominate, they can at least be better identified for future reference.

As an information technologist, I experience flow quite often in working with technology. I enjoy my work a lot, and find it to be a rich source of insight into my personal development.

I've experienced some more lucid dreaming in the last few years, but it's not reliable/consistent. Certainly not any pellucid deep sleep awareness. I don't have any experiences with overmind or anything like that. Those things are largely uncharted territory for me, and I'm eager to see better maps for them. I do have a general trust in this expanding and integrating awareness path that I seem to be on, and am always on the lookout for maps that help me navigate the path more confidently. At the same time, I remind myself to hold my maps as lightly as possible, and to be able to set them aside whenever I want. Therein lies true freedom :-)

[3nhufhfmu9ezq]

Kartik,

  I am learning a lot about your awareness in this discussion.  Your ability to explain your conceptual processes is exceptional, and I totally appreciate you sharing. You have an open view of whats around you, which allows you to recognize the concepts that fit with the areas of need and value in your development.  Very little is getting in the way, and this openness to experience is the perfect recipe for accelerating growth in awareness.

"I can't point to many situations where I've had a discrete "state experience" in the way that I hear them frequently described."

Awareness of relative existence is a state experience, but your own ability to have such a highly developed perspective, especially through other peoples perspectives, makes me believe that you're awareness is more on the side of the spectrum of absolute consciousness.  I prefer to see things in spectrums rather than definable units such as "states." 

I also like your description of expanding your awareness through creating "mental space," a perfect laymen term which has more effect on others.

I can attest to your personal development through your work in information technology.  I graduated with a degree in CS before gravitating towards computer animation.  The shift from linear programming to object-orientated programming, plus the relative significance of objects in 3d space, introduced a nonlinearly worldview, and the ability to see the interconnections of all things. I hadn't really grasped this cognitively before that.  

I have always found it fascinating how technology is creating non-linear, integrative structures within the underlying codes of society.  Especially the Internets capacity to create a decentralized form of organization.  I see Web socialization as eventually forming the underlying self-organizing fabric of society.  I am very curious, with your expertise in IT and consciousness, to how you feel about this?

[Kartik Subbarao]

Brian, this person with exceptional abilities you're talking about sounds pretty impressive -- I should meet him sometime...

Thanks for the very kind words :-)

I'm not good at forecasting the emergence and behavior of self-organizing human structures. I mostly just watch as things emerge and look for patterns that I can connect to other things that I recognize. With that caveat, here is some of my current thinking, focused more on the technology side. How this will all influence human society, I have no idea.

I find the Internet to be endlessly fascinating in its constantly emergent and evolving nature. It has given us an open universal communication framework, and with Web 2.0 we now have the social graph/layer taking shape on a worldwide scale. It looks like developments in Big Data are going to immensely boost the value of current services and usher in entirely new ones. A few areas which I think will help us learn more about ourselves and our infinite potential are Augmented reality and virtual reality, Genome mapping, and Neuroscience. All of these are going to be (if not already) Internet-enabled, will have a social layer, and a Big Data engine.

Some scenarios:

• The cost of full-genome sequencing will soon be down to $1000 per person, and will continue to keep dropping. This is going to have an explosive impact on genomics services like 23andme.com. Tie that into the social layer, crunch on it with big data, and people all over the world will discover all sorts of correlations and connections between each other -- genetic history as well as all kinds of health aspects. Who knows what we'll learn about our origins, our current makeup, and our evolutionary direction?
• The recently launched hypothes.is project is one of the more ambitious efforts to build a peer-review layer for the entire web, where people can comment on a sentence-level basis. It'll include a reputation framework for people to specify trust, etc. Now, incorporate this kind of thing into an augmented-reality projector/camera built into your glasses, and then go anywhere in the world -- and learn anything there is to know about whatever you are seeing. [ And then take the glasses off, look with "beginner's mind", and further recognize the mental "lenses" that shape your picture :-) ]
• Neuroscience is uncovering extensive insights into the UR correlates of UL phenomena. This recent book by Dario Nardi describes impressive progress in mapping regions of the brain that correspond to different psychological functions. There is a Google Talk on this as well.
  The Dalai Lama is collaborating with the Mind and Life Institute on neurological studies of meditators. There are several other related investigations as well. Based on this kind of work, Brainwave entrainment software (e.g. Holosync, Profound Meditation, etc) will become even more effective and targeted.
  With the improving portable multichannel EEG technology, and advances in virtual-reality technology to present the raw data to people in a visually meaningful way, it'll be easier to get real-time feedback on what your brain is doing. These kinds of "quantified self" technologies will dramatically improve the feedback loops that people have about themselves.

I'd envision communities like Integral conducting peer to peer research with these kinds of technologies and coming up with best practices. Hypothetical example: Zone XYZ in the brain shows increased activity in Turquoise-level awareness with a particular genomic/neurological demographic. Try physical activity A, along with nutraceutical supplement B, and meditative practice C, and monitor with your portable EEG/other sensors.

Formal coaching practices will also benefit from all this, but I think that many members of developmentally-advanced communities like Integral will want to dive into this stuff on their own, and share their learnings/experiences with peers as well as the world at large (e.g. with Wiki-type spaces).

Ok -- enough musing for now :-)

[3nhufhfmu9ezq]

Kartik,

Very informative.  The future of technology is something that resonates deeply, for it was a profound experience I had over a decade ago that I realized the unifying potentials of the Web.  Not that I knew what "Unifying" meant back then, but it was an illumination (sure, call it supermind) that left me in an unambiguous belief of the Webs potentials to address humanity's inherent challenges by bringing together its fractured parts.

  I am sure you are familiar with Teilhard de Chardin if you are with Aurobindo.  They shared similar believes in that Autobindo's supermind/overmind relates to Teilhard's noosphere/theosphere (not exactly.)  I see the exponential growth in technology, especially information technology, signifying what Teilhard predicted as the synthesis of the noosphere, a "totality" in which "there will be an essential difference, between the unitary state towards which we are moving and everything we have hitherto known." "the super-evolution of Man, individual and collectively, by the use of refined forms of energy scientifically harnessed and applied in the bosom of the noosphere, thanks to the co-ordinated efforts of all men working reflectively and unanimously upon themselves." -The future of Man p.182-183

It is unfortunate that Ken, and therefore most the Integral community, fail to see the unifying phenomenon of the Internet and how it is creating a life condition like no other.  Prior to Ken most Integral theorist such as Whitehead, Hegel, Teilhard and Aurobindo predicted a grand unification.  Teilhards view of technology leading to a concentration of thought--a global brain--represents the Internet leading us to this unified state.  Theoretically speaking, Integral has no place for how an open information system effects values systems, but provide value systems an open means of exchange and they will naturally self-organize. Theoretically speaking, the self-organization of value systems is what Integral would predict as being a unifying phenomenon for mankind.  But this doesn't fit in Kens Integral model, and neither does the concept of a globally integrated society. 

Kens developmental models go into infinity, there is no point where the model itself changes based upon an eventual social synthesis.  I believe this is a huge limitation that is disallowing Integral from seeing the potentials of Web socialization.  This is why I said before, Ken's worldview does not provide a unifying view of humanity, and therefore his center of gravity cannot be above a unifying/holistic worldview.  And unfortunately, this is why he is lost when it comes to the Singularity, which is what his theory should have already predicted.

Anyway, with your background and history in IT, I am curious if you have ever contemplated this...

What if the Internet could recognize the "autonomy" of every individual throughout every aspect of society in order to form a fully integrated social whole?  What if this "autonomy" was based on authenticity, credibility and social accountability so that the self-organization of people and information naturally acted for the betterment of this whole? (as all self-organizing systems do.)  This would surely represent a social synthesis to a higher order, a techno-economic life condition that would radically effect all levels of development--supporting everything Teilhard predicted over half a decade ago.

[Kartik Subbarao]

Brian, I find your comments (and Teilhard's) on the noosphere to be generally inspiring. They evoke an archetypal response in me that resonates powerfully. The sense of totality, of wholeness, of unification, of a truly Integral experience -- all of that is part and parcel of the journey to Self that we are all on.

That said, the sheer scope and scale of what you are describing isn't something that I can readily envision being implemented. It remains largely as archetype for me.

Maybe when I get access to overmind we can revisit this question :-)

[valli]

I like this thread too. I can get off on the unifying potential of the web. but I wonder if it will be allowed its charge to self organizing/decentralized ways? Can it be denied at all looking at it the other way. After the dust settles, in some big picture, like a big mind that’s not too humpty dumpty. And how critical are proactive archetypes, vis a vis the headiness of a vortex down there on the insides of a global brain.

I’d really like to know what you IT folks think about its vulnerability to monopolistic annexation that so far media and communication has succumbed to in the mainlands ? Is the web unique as an interactive collective that turns the sickly trail from local to social realities? As in a shift in information stripping of an embedded reality correlates to a collective that is expressive down to the bone? Like its creative. Or a shift into core processes, in or with a networked brain – what if that is a solution to obsession with outcomes and trying to manipulate outcomes. any physical interruption like in access to resources become slippery.  

Jeremy Rifkin’s view that in the second generation grid there is already the potential for free energy in place - I think he implies a higher potential for it than information at the center of gravity . in any case it validates the unifying potential. I guess it isn’t too much of a stretch to look at any axial efficacy in turning information from data in store to a different realm for constructs. A little thing like the immediacy of relevance to counter the disinformation of networks, sort of speeding up the labour in evolutionary lengths. So information turns on itself and crosses over to liberate consciousness. when  enough symmetry even if its mostly in the frame of context wraps itself on the flatness of consciousness, that could allow content to presence . something like thinking wholes to feeling wholes. all things can heighten to anarchism in presence, conflict (and eruption) gets benign right? In defence of this wishfulness I can vouch for not being a positivist :)