Other Levels Of Consciousness?

I sometimes wonder why it is that so many people attach so much importance to the significance of dreams. Not everybody does, of course, but for the many that do, there would seem no shortfall in the ‘fad’ (for ’fad’ is what most of it is in reality) for ’dream interpretation’; from the numerous books written about the subject to the numerous interpretations given by mediums and other such ’authorities’ on things esoteric, or who claim to be knowledgeable on the workings of the subconscious mind where – by popular belief – dreams are said to have their origin.

This is a vastly complex subject, and so I would not even attempt to explore it in detail here (or anywhere  else either unless I had cause to be writing another book!). No, my main purpose in raising this question, was to actually question if the common fallacy that dreams derive from the subconscious and must automatically contain some hidden meaning and thereby merit interpretation, or whether indeed many dreams really ‘mean’ anything at all?

Could it be, for example, that this entire fallacy could in itself be erroneous,  and that there is really little difference between dreams and the common process of everyday though?  If there exists any difference at all, could it only be that many people consider that there IS a difference, and that to capture the fleeting images that thought portrays (or projects) during sleep, is to uncover some ’hidden key’ which in turn might reveal some secret meaning? I am just asking here, that’s all – not attempting to express any authoritative opinion on the subject.

But what I am questioning could, I feel, be of essential importance. I am really only asking why it is that many people accept so blindly this notion of three separate levels of consciousness i.e. the conscious mind, a subconscious one and beyond that, the ‘unconscious one’.  In reality, most of us have come to accept this as a matter of ‘fact’; although further examination really reveals (if we are at all truthful) that such a concept is one that we have only acquired in books or have been told by ’experts’; or in turn come down to us by the medium of ‘experts’ who have written books.  Freud is perhaps one such typical example.

Personally, while not claiming to have any definite answer to this, I can not accept that this is indeed the case.  Why for example, have these three basic levels been accepted as fact as so defined in numerous text books? Could there not be other levels of consciousness that exist which could not even ’fit’ into this standard definition?  Indeed, there might exist dozens, if not hundreds, of levels in the human psyche which operate with their own ’intelligence’.  Just because these might be hidden (which they are – at least to conscious thought), should not really suggest these are not ’there’.   The other point is, perhaps, this important question of ’interpretation’ – which is, understanding thought forms during sleep. This is perhaps all very well, but if most of us are not aware of the processes of thinking (thought) when we are awake, how on earth could we expect to understand these when they take place during sleep? For a dream surely, is only another process of thought; albeit that the images projected (dream images) occur with no ‘thinking conscious mind’ to control them. From a very early age (at least from my involvement in things mystic and esoteric), I came to understand that, in reality, thought or ‘everyday thinking’ is only a vehicle that has its origin solely in an invisible consciousness; but, in our human state, only a fractional part of this full consciousness is actually used and the part that actually is, has become so fragmented by being ‘disconnected’ from the rest, that the manifestation of this in the human scene (‘everyday thinking’), has so often resulted in neurosis and chaos. Could it be that, in general, mankind has become a total slave to this universal thinking process. Many would argue, of course, that this is not the case; that our thoughts are our own and we have an ability to direct these or control them. That may well be partially true’ but it leaves the main possibility both unrealized and subsequently unanswered.   For is it ever possible to really ‘control’ thought?  To arrest its cycles when we might choose, or change its attributes from say negative aspects to positive ones?There can be no denying that over the centuries many have tried to attempt just this. But there can also be no denying that human thinking remains mostly in an unchanged state.  You only have to look around in this violent world with all its turmoil, misery and death to realize that far from being able to change the thinking processes,  most people remain totally controlled by them. That is not a question.  That remains a simple fact.

David   

 

  • reply Columbine ,

    Hi David,

    What a fascinating subject. I have long thought that sleep is just another phase of our ‘conscious’ mind, no real difference to our waking state. The only thing, is that during sleep our brains behave differently, but it’s not because we are ‘unconscious.’ Sleep is when a lot of worries and concerns, which would normally be controlled during our wakefulness state, have free rein to express themselves, hence we suffer with nightmares. This is why so many people lie awake at night, because their ‘sleep state’ of mind is uppermost; this creates the cycle of worry and wakefulness, and hence stress. Even so, all of these states of mind can be termed ‘consciousness.’

    One’s subconscious mind – I have never understood that concept. I can understand our minds wandering during a daydream, but that’s still a conscious phase; it has nothing to do with a ‘subconscious.’ I haven’t read Freud or Jung admittedly, but given that Freud invented the ‘ego’ and the ‘id’ to describe a person’s outer self and one’s inner self, I’d be surprised if the concept of the subconscious mind didn’t emanate from a philosopher such as he.

    Do impart more of your thoughts on this subject.

    Columbine.

    • reply David Farrant ,

      Thanks Columbine,

      I’ll go into a little more as I see it on my Blog tomorrow.

      Said I’d answer Cat’s question about ‘do animals have souls’?; although I don’t think anybody can really answer that. Its like saying . . . ‘define God’, and of course nobody can do that. I guess about the closest you could get to it relying solely on human explanation, is to say the most important aspect of Divine Being is love and forgiveness, but even that gets turned into a cliché if not properly understood.

      Its such a complex subject, Columbine. I don’t really want to go into it too deeply again. Look what happened on Randi! 27.000 hits and replies in not so many months, and most of them were ‘hostile’. Not that any of them were ‘bad’ people; just that I shouldn’t really have expected anything else when choosing to plunging head-long into a mass of hardened sceptics!

      Still, I will touch on it a little more tomorrow. But I agree, I find the whole subject of consciousness and sleep (or ‘absence’ of consciousness as it is supposed) really fascinating.

      ‘Till tomorrow,

      David

      • reply Columbine ,

        Hi David,

        You won’t find any hostility from me, when discussing this subject! I am mad keen on things like this, all types of consciousness, human and animal. Some people will never change their attitudes, even if all the evidence was placed before them – they’d have to have their own experiences, I think.

        Animal souls? That’s another interesting topic, much to my pleasure. I believe that the ‘higher’ animals e.g. cats, dogs, horses do have souls, and what’s more, have separate souls. The ‘lower’ animal kingdom e.g. fish, insects, belong to a ‘group soul.’ It’s pretty complicated but worth discussing I think.

        It all proves that every one of us, animal, plant, insect, human – is a divine spark of God.

        Columbine.

        • reply David Farrant ,

          I have a feeling that we’ve both concluded the same thing, Columbine.

          Little chance of being understood on here . . . but anyway.

          But consciousness is not in fact unique to anybody or anything. At the ‘lower end of the scale’ you could describe it as a ‘group consciousness’, or ‘flock consciousness’. Meaning the actual life force itself is not confined to the individual one (except in that they a part of it) but ‘shared’ by the many.

          A shoal of fish, for example (or a flock of birds as another example) are all directly linked together by this life force which animates them all individually. Individual ‘units’ (or material forms) have their own particular characteristics (aggressive, timid, fearful, dominant and so on) but the actual life force behing them is all the same.

          With human beings it is slightly more complex, but the general principle remains the same.

          I think that’s enough for now!

          David

          Leave a comment