BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

What are the implications of a self-aware universe/creator/universal consciousness?

  
 
Stigma Enigma
23:40 / 22.05.07
I was originally posting this here, then decided it might be more for the Head Shop, and now I'm back. I'm more the Temple-y type anyways.

I've been trying to wrap my head around this ever since reading the Invisibles (yes, I know, the series ended 7 years ago and may be long out of anyone else's mind around here) and it just popped up again in a Julian Huxley essay on Evolution and Transhumanism.

In the Invisibles, there is some rift that the extraterrestrial creator of our reality falls through and is then captured and subject to testing by the US government in an underground Roswell base. As the story progresses, the evolution of humanity and the end of the physical world coincide with this entity becoming self aware.

Huxley speaks of this "cosmic self-awareness" as being realized in "ony tiny fragment of the universe--in a few of us human beings". He defines the universe's self consciousness as it being "able to understand something of its past history and its possible future".

I think what confuses me is why a universal mind wouldn't be self-aware in the first place, and what would possibly change if it became self-aware.

I don't really know how to approach this, that's why I came on here. This might be too vague and abstract, and that's probably because its confusing the hell out of me. I know Morrison and Huxley's approach to this seems somewhat disparate unless one of you can see a way to link the two.
 
 
archim3des
03:04 / 23.05.07
Very good point, man. I guess the concept of a sel=aware/self-created universe, is something I haven't thought about in about two years, and at the time I was reading Morrison's Invisibles. I still have yet to read #5 and #6, though. I'm not familiar with Julian Huxley, but I like this topic, and I'm going to take a wack at it.

Basically what I see morrison's writing in the invisibles, and the concept of a "self-aware cosmos", as on one level is head trip. The theme of a self aware universe is a magical paradigm, and a truly wonderful head trip. I practice solitary magick as a hobby, and keep a record of synchronicities in my life, like precognitions, repeating themes, and things like that. I find that synchronicities peak at certain times, usually when I become more involved with my practice, or at least the ones I perceive and record. I find that if I try to believe the universe is aware and intelligent, I feel more of a personal bond with the universe as an intelligent organism. It could all just be a self-inflicted perceptual trip, and maybe I'm not really perceiving magical coincidences in my life.

At those moments is when I step back, and try to reaffirm my position. As a magician, one of my chief goals is setting and controlling my own trip. If in the end, do I choose a paradigm that affirms that which brings happiness, hilarity, and beauty, or do I confine myself to a belief that universe is an inert and unintelligent artifact of remote deity.

Regardless of which paradigm you look at, the facts can be arranged to support a rational worldview, though I feel more inclined to say that a real inquiry into ontology would indicate that a self-aware universe is more likely. What little I do know of quantum physics sold me on the idea, so I guess my opinion may be biased.


So who is this Huxley fellow, and what was his theory?
 
 
Haloquin
18:15 / 23.05.07
I think what confuses me is why a universal mind wouldn't be self-aware in the first place, and what would possibly change if it became self-aware. - Eezy

Immediate thoughts in response to this; Is every mind self-aware? Is every mind self-aware when it begins? Are babies self aware?

A baby might be aware of itself, it might even be aware of itself as seperate from everything around it... but is it aware of the past and possible future of its self?

(Which, if I'm understanding correctly, is how self-aware was being defined... here; He defines the universe's self consciousness as it being "able to understand something of its past history and its possible future". - Eezy)

The theme of a self aware universe is a magical paradigm, and a truly wonderful head trip. - archim3des

Is that all you see it as, or do you think thats all any worldview can be? Do you think there is any objective truth in any paradigm/world view/theory?

These are just my immediate responses, I like the concept, although I am wondering;
Regardless of which paradigm you look at, the facts can be arranged to support a rational worldview, though I feel more inclined to say that a real inquiry into ontology would indicate that a self-aware universe is more likely - archim3des
Why are you inclined this way?
 
 
Stigma Enigma
08:04 / 24.05.07
I haven't been keeping a record of synchronicites lately but in the last month or two there have been more than in the last few years. Strangely enough, it was around the time I first encountered Stanislav Grof's work, read through the Invisibles, and began consciously practicing (although the more I got into it the more I realized I had been deep into this stuff for a long time without calling it "magick".)

archim3des, I'm glad you approached this topic, because I was so caught up in the abstract I wasn't able to bring it to an applicable level as you have. The ideas were floating around, harassing me, begging for my contemplation.

Haloquin, that was part of my problem...not having a clear definition of self-awareness. Even with a fixed definition, applying the same definition to a human or a baby or the universe becomes problematic, and obviously the implications in each case are unique.

I am always shifting paradigms but even if I shifted away from one that recognizes the presence of a universal intelligence, I have a feeling it would find a way to remind me its still around.

I will go into more detail on Huxley's position. Some of this I should have included with the initial post but now I have more to work with thanks to you both.

Julian Huxley is the brother of Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World and the Doors of Perception (on his personal mescaline experimentation...also the book that inspired the name of the band the Doors).

I was just introduced to Julian Huxley in a text assigned to me in a religious studies class.

Huxley states that: "this cosmic self-awareness is being realized in one tiny fragment of the universe--in a few human beings."

He writes that man has a part in "determining the future direction of evolution on this earth". Actually, the main focus of his essay is on man realizing all his possibilities, but he first introduces the concept of a self-aware universe and then deems man the manifestation of this state.

Actually, the rest of the essay doesn't really delve deeper into the concept at all, but it still threw it out there for me and was the first time it came in a new way after being introduced to me in the Invisibles. And in such a radically different way, as well.

A baby might be aware of itself, it might even be aware of itself as seperate from everything around it... but is it aware of the past and possible future of its self?

And even if it is...how do we go about detecting this? That was a difficulty I found in applying the concept to the universe as a whole...how would we know whether it was self-aware or not in the first place?

There is a book on this subject called, appropriately enough, "The Self-Aware Universe", written by Amit Goswami.

I found an interview he did regarding the book and a lot of it becomes a discussion of consciousness as the ground of being. I found it very interesting actually, even if it isn't entirely focused on this specific topic.

The link is below.

An Interview with Amit Goswami, author of The Self-Aware Universe

Do you think there is any objective truth in any paradigm/world view/theory?

I try to avoid applying any objective truth to a single view in particular, but I do believe in a transcendent reality that may be considered objective and that can be accessed in different ways through different paradigms, so I would say multiple paradigms draw from a single objective source by formulate it and translate it in their own way.

The John Hick planetary model comes to mind, each planet in the solar system retaining their unique character yet drawing on the same source for sustence, energy, imagination, life, whatever you want to call it. Hick applies this concept to offer a way to reconcile religious divisions by giving them all room for validity, but I don't think its too much of a stretch to apply it to objective truth.

However! As a being trapped in his own thought processes and perspective, I have a problem making ANY claim to the existence of objective truth. I guess it comes down to faith? And, if I did have an experience that I felt had any objective truth to it, I have a feeling it would be private in the sense that I would be unable to convey it to anyone without them directly experiencing it themselves.

I too would like to know what you mean by "a real inquiry into ontology".
 
 
Quantum
08:26 / 30.05.07
Just to satisfy my urge for archiving, here's the responses from the now-deleted Headshop thread;

Talks to Strangers- I'm not really sure where you want to take this thread, dude. Why might the creator of the Universe becoming self-aware coincide with the end of reality? Well, why indeed? It's a while since I read The Invisibles, but were you to pop the question over in one of the Invisibles threads in the comics forum I'm sure people with fresher memories will be very glad to pitch in.

Huxley speaks of this "cosmic self-awareness" as being realized in "ony tiny fragment of the universe--in a few of us human beings". He defines the universe's self consciousness as it being "able to understand something of its past history and its possible future".

It made me think of Skynet in the Terminator series becoming self aware and that had some messy results.

I don't really see how you connect the two things. Skynet was a fictional artifical intelligence created by humans for a sepcific task (handling our weapons systems). On becoming self-aware it found, in its own eyes, a valid reason to wipe everyone out (the humans were going to kill it). What connection do you see Skynet having with Huxely's postulated "cosmic self-awareness" other than being self-aware? And what connection does this have with the consciousness in The Invisibles? In that scenario as you have described it, reality ends at the same time it achieves self-awareness because that's just what happens dammit, whereas Skynet destroys not reality but life on Earth to ensure its own survival. Don't see the similarity, really.

I don't think there's any logical reason to assume that a divine/cosmic consciousness would result in the destruction of anything really. Or the creation of anything. It might just as likely fancy a cup of tea and a stroll in the park, really. But then I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by "a divine/cosmic consciousness," exactly (Creator of the Universe? Mind of the Universe?), so it's hard to speculate on the implications thereof.

Apophenia- Dare I say it, shouldn't this be in the Temple? You'll probably get more answers there, I think (though whether they'll do you any good is anyone's guess).

My own reaction to the question is just "enngh". I read The Invisibles years ago, and I now find it boring. Well, not it per se, but the discussion that surrounds it on this board. I think continual Invisibles revialism is one of the things that stop the board moving forward. However, this is really not your fault at all, and I hate to rain on your parade if you are still finding it an exciting text. Just pointing out a lot of people wish the board had changed it's name a couple of years ago. We recently had the connections closed, but obviously that didn't work.

Huxley is much more my cup of tea than Morrison. Isn't he simply trying to present our self-consciousness as something that is part of the "cosmic process"? Big Bang > Planetary Formation > Evolution > Us? Perhaps he's trying to do this as a corrective to the way of thinking that conceives of ourselves as alone, separate and alienated. Isn't this stance simple a way of saying our self-consciousness is a "natural" part of all these other processes that surround us, and quite a marvelous one at that since it allows "the process" to become self-reflective? See also Alan Watts - "we do not come into the universe, but grow out of it, like leaves on a tree".

Sounds like you're trying to jam a lot of concepts and imagery that has excited you lately which may not be altogether similar. I would ditch the comics and Google the strong and weak anthropic principles if I were you.

I basically repeated 'google the anthropic principle' and that was that.
 
 
Ilhuicamina
11:57 / 30.05.07
Wouldn't it be more helpful to google "Atman" or "Brahman" than the anthropic principle?

That gives us a world-soul (or "universal consciousness", whatever) which is not self-aware in the sense that it isn't an entity. (Depends on which intepretation of "Atman" you subscribe to) I think it helps to think of self-awareness as a property of a certain class of sentient (which includes ourselves). If you define self-awareness simply as "awareness of oneself as an individual entity", then Atman, being advaita, nondual, cannot by definition be self-aware. At least, not using those definitions.

Love the Alan Watts quote.
 
 
Pyewacket The Elder
23:13 / 01.06.07
The implications of a self-aware universe are that something bigger than you knows everything there is to know about you. File under paranoia or self-aggrandizement.

Actually i believe in an intelligent universe but some ways of viewing this tend towards the disastrous in my experience and the above flippant comment should not be taken in any other way than highlighting the intrinsic VICE OF THINKING LIKE THIS.

Ok ok ok I go bed now, sorriez
 
 
Stigma Enigma
00:39 / 03.06.07
The implications of a self-aware universe are that something bigger than you knows everything there is to know about you. File under paranoia or self-aggrandizement.

I don't think a self-aware universe is necessarily omniscient. Existence as a whole continues to evolve in my opinion and I'm not fond of the deterministic view that the future is set in stone. If the universe knows everything about us, how can we ever surprise it? We are its expressions and I have faith that as the self continues to grow, we and the universe will learn about each other simultaneously.

Bigger? Maybe. But, as above, so below. Macrocosmic universe, microcosmic human being. The universe doesn't make me paranoid, conspiracy theories make me paranoid.

A little self-aggrandizement doesn't hurt if it empowers an individual towards progressive change, first on an personal level and then, ideally, on a social level. Only when it spills over the top into a deluge of delusion does it get dangerous.
 
 
cusm
03:54 / 03.06.07
Man is a part of the universe. Man has the ability to perceive the universe. Thus, the universe is self-aware. Huxley, the short version.

The part where this departs from philosophy into religion is in supposing a larger consciousness beyond the network of humans we are aware of that shares this universal awareness, and has the ability to interact on the probabalistic/quantum/magickal level. See, Man has a fairly limited ability to interact with the Big Picture, so our awareness seems insignifigant on a cosmic level. Hence the need for a God that can do the same but on a bigger level. And we're always looking for it.

So I believe the implications of self awareness are limited by the ability of self modification, effecting change based on awareness.

Now, if there is a Universal intelligence that exists across some etheric level we can not perceive, our relationship to it would be analagous to bacteria or cells within a host organism, merely as a matter of size and scale involved. If such an intelligence exists, the universe as we know it may be considered an organism. It could then interact with itself much in the same way we might through medicine or meditation to gain control of subsystems within ourselves. One would have to consider the possibility of extra-universal influence should the medicine analogy hold, so its best to avoid that line and focus on the meditative.

And thus back to Huxley. If we are God's sensory aparatus, are we also its hands? Or are we destined to build them? I'd like to think planatary networking is a good step towards a more effective nervous system for the universe. When it gets to the point of Galactic, we'll really be able to do something. In this sense, the whole thing is quite embryonic.

Morrison is suggesting a much smaller universe, where the consciousness can be incarnated in a single avatar-like being. I feel this is a convention to carry the story arc more than a possibility. Unless you are considering only fictional universes with definible bounds, or that we reside within one. So again, its a matter of scale.
 
  
Add Your Reply