Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00830)

Richard Ihle writes>>
>> The possibility may exist
>>that you believe that in a certain sense that the image ~is~ itself the
>>state of consciousness. 

Jerry Schueler writes>
>in a sense, yes.

R.I.>
>> However, from my perspective the image is just a potential
>>"product" of the physical brain.

J.S>	You lost me.  Are you saying that all images are related
>to the physical brain?  This cannot be true, because we view
>images in devachan, without a brain.  In fact, viewing images
>is just about all we do in devachan.

R.I.>
I'm afraid you get to trump me in this little side thread--since I do not yet
have enough inner certainty about the "devachan" to even say that it exists,
much less to say anything about what one is able to view or not view there
without a brain.

Perhaps we have been talking about different things, anyway.

Let's say you were hungry and formed an inner picture of a bowl of ice cream:
 you looked at it in your mind's eye and wanted it exactly as pictured--nuts,
chocolate sauce, etc.  Would you be in kama consciousness?  Probably yes.
 Would the image itself ~be~ the state of consciousness?  Well, I suppose in
a certain sense you could think of it that way if you wanted to.  However,
what about if you were sated, just having finished eating five gallons of the
stuff, and then formed the same image?  What "state of consciousness" would
the image be now?  Wouldn't it just be a neutral "epi-phenomenon" or just
plain "phenomenon" produced by the physical brain?   

No, if it were not for the devachan trump card, I would stick to my guns and
say that inner images do not exist independent of, and are not able to be
perceived in the absence of, the physical brain and that particular states of
consciousness are not necessarily associated with any "quality" or "content"
of image. 

(Also, it is hard for me to think that Platonic archetypes--e.g., the
"general picture" of a chair--really qualify as "images" since they do not
have the "particularity" necessary to "view" them in any way.  On second
thought . . . perhaps that is the basis for our seeming disagreement:
 ~viewing~ images vs. ~holding~ archetypes.  Who knows?)

Yes, I might even stick to my guns to the extent of admitting that in some
ways I am not usympathetic with Rudolph Steiner's position that only the
lower order of mystic is communicated with by means of visual forms, while
the higher mystic apprehends Reality without any symbolic disguises whatever.
. . .

But for now, I turn in my guns and thank you, as always, for reading.

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle