I’m trying to devote a new thread to a conversation that sprung up between myself and Coppersun (Gene) in the Integral Psychology & Psychotherapy thread. This is mostly to get it out of the way of people who don’t care about our little dialogue.

I had asked whether there were books out there that give information on the phenomenology of various states. Two questions arose out of this.

First is the question of whether one can have genuine knowledge of the phenomenology of the state without experiencing it. Second (and by far less important, but nearly as fun) would such knowledge be Zone 1 or Zone 2.

Gene – do you agree that these are basically the issues at hand?

I think it would be best to just reprint Gene’s last post on the subject (see below), and continue from there. If anyone cares enough to want more background, you can consult Integral Psychology & Psychotherapy Thread!

 

Yotam

 

[for context - I had just cited a description Ken gives of Non Dual realization in BHoE, and claimed it was significantly different from a poining out instruction in EoS. The stuff in << >> is quoting my previous post]

Coppersun:

Actually "new" material:

It might help to note that not all states can be induced by words. Imagine if Ken had, instead of Non Dual realization, given us a description of what it's like to be stoned. (you can find an effort at such description here) Reading it might give you a little buzz, but it wouldn't be nearly the same as experiencing it. But someone who had never been stoned or read a similar description would learn something. You say "understand mentally (symbolically)," I say "know." Here's why we're both right:

-If someone read such a thing, and then was slipped a brownie, he might be able to recognize himself as being stoned because the experience would resonate with the description.

-Someone else who had been stoned could read the description and say "Yeah, that's about right. In fact, this one time..." This is because, again, the experience resonates with the description. The human ability to connect words with experiences is one of our great miracles.

These both are indications that knowing the words - mentally and symbolically understanding the description - is a kind of knowledge of the state. It's just a different kind of knowledge than firsthand experience directly generates.

The same, I think, goes for states that can be induced by words. Because even thought I've tasted hints of non-dual, thanks to Ken's pointing out instructions, I haven't experienced it enough to create my own description. If anyone asked me what non-dual is like, I'd probably find myself paraphrasing the bbg, instead of translating my own experience into words. Perhaps I haven't entirely managed to sync up my two knowledges of non-dual, or I just can't recall the experience well enough when I'm not in it to put words to it.

I'll stop here. I wouldn't want to convince you completely right now, 'cause then there'd be very little point in having started a new thread.

Yotam

 

 

I had asked whether there were books out there that give information on the phenomenology of various states. Two questions arose out of this.

First is the question of whether one can have genuine knowledge of the phenomenology of the state without experiencing it. Second (and by far less important, but nearly as fun) would such knowledge be Zone 1 or Zone 2.

Gene – do you agree that these are basically the issues at hand?

 

 

yes, that's about it.  i think we can distinguish genuine knowledge from "knowledge by description". they are two different things.  i can read a mystic's rapturous descriptions amounting to "i am that."  i can then read ken transforming it into a "you are that" inducement. but my actually inducing the "knowledge by description" in me isn't because the second version says "you" (iow, it's talking to me) while the first one is "only" in first person.  it is my intention to want to empathically undertand another's experience that determines whether i induce the experience. and i can read ken's piece without making an effort to experience it at all.

 

once i thought that if i ever spun out in my car while driving that it would be like an amusement park ride. it happened to me once and, you know what?, it was like an amusement park ride, all bouncy and jerky and stuff. when i read the pot smokers description i am matching patterns that he describes with other similar experiences i've had and trying to put them together coherently. have you heard the one where a researcher showed a native tribesman in borneo a sheet of paper---the tribesman thought it was a leaf from some strange plant he'd never seen.  flat, thin=leaf, in the totality of experience of the tribesman.  is reading about an experience like the real thing?  just as much as a sheet of paper is a leaf, imo.  someone asked ramana maharshi if this world is real. supposedly, he said "it's as real as your dreams".  is reading about an experience like the real thing?  just as much as your dreams are the real thing, imo. (hey, that can be quite realistic.)

 

where are we now? i think that genuine experience is 1st person zone 1. all other descriptive writing, whether it uses "I" or "you" or "it" is zone 2.

 

at some point later on i'd like to ask about UR zone 3 and francisco varela, et al. but let's not leave this until it's wrung clean.

 

later,

gene

Where are we now? You've granted me that the knowledge I'm talking about is partial truth. I'm pleased with that.

As for why it's Zone 1, it's because you can get in on your yoga mat, whereas Zone 2 comes from studying lots and lots of other people. Zone 2 knowledge requires a large LL to study, even though you're then bringing the knowledge down to a single person. This sort of knowledge is based in one person's experience, it just isn't still posessed only by that person.

Consider - Wilber tells us a few times that Zone 2 is the big contribution of the west. The east has the sort of descriptions debated here. So he, at least, seems to think that this is Zone 1 knowledge.

But I want to push the reality of the knowledge a little further, too. It's one thing to have an experience. It's something else to be able to describe the experience in terms that can be comprehensible to another person. This takes an ability to see your experience from the outside a bit, and hence is different knowledge than the experience itself.

Okay. There's a bit more wringing.

Yotam

Consider - Wilber tells us a few times that Zone 2 is the big contribution of the west. The east has the sort of descriptions debated here. So he, at least, seems to think that this is Zone 1 knowledge.

i'll buy it. that's a nice high level view---whatever the source, whether written or personally experienced, if it's related to a view from the inside then it's zone 1.  if you're talking about what it looks like from the outside, then it's zone 2.

the reason i like it is that i've been saying for a long time that a UL view of a cut rose is "i'm thirsty, i'm dying" and have been told that i can't possibly have knowledge of a rose's interior because it's zone 1. (maybe the real reason i can't know isn't because it's zone 1, it's because i'm guessing!)

later,

gene

 

 

 

The best non-dual experience is having an orgasm in phase with your partner. Any split second off (or any thoughts involved) and it is dual.