|WikiProject Spirituality||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Skepticism||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Neuroscience||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Bring it Back
- 2 Untitled
- 3 Higher consciousness kind, truthful and humble???
- 4 Not in the least bit NPOV
- 5 Gobbledeegook
- 6 Possible article?
- 7 Who screwed up this Wiki page???
- 8 Removal of devotee-published sources
- 9 Too much in too little
- 10 Additions I would like to make for my psychology class
- 11 Collective consciousness
- 12 Completely biased article
- 13 Schleiermacher
Bring it Back
This is one of the worst articles i've come across on wikipedia. i edited the "concept" section, and im not a wiki-expert but i think everything in the article should sound something like that. general, dispassionate(although i am passionate about the subject) and non-specific to any particular philosophy or religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ienjoyapples (talk • contribs) 21:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- The existing explanation is very good. I added the Yeats’ text (from his poem Vacillation) and some references to convey the idea that Higher Consciousness is not something essentially different from normal, everyday consciousness, but is just more chilled-out. In other words, that the difference is one of degree rather than kind. Mr.EofLife 22:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This articleSeems a bit simplistic to me. Various Higher Consciousness 'traditions' (?) are lumped together. Are there levels above normal human levels or just one? Are the states (one or many) in the various traditions and religions equivilent or even comparable? For example, some states appear to be (when described) secular, and others very theistic. Are there phisiological side effects? How do HC compare to mental aberations? More references are needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustAnotherJoe (talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Higher consciousness kind, truthful and humble???
I would say that this sentence
- These faculties are aroused by and developed in conjunction with certain dispositions of character such as patience, kindness, truthfulness, humility and forgiveness towards one's fellow man – qualities without which higher consciousness is not possible.
is POV. "Higher consciousness" is understood differently by different people and I can certainly imagine a higher consciousness without any of these nice traits. A higher consciousness may not label behavioural traits "good" and "bad" in the same way ordinary humans do. I mean look at sci-fi: the borg have supposedly achieved something that can be called a higher consciousness but they are neither kind nor humble... Alex.g 23:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Not in the least bit NPOV
I thought about editing this page back to NPOV but it's much too late for me to start. This article states as fact things that there are differing opinions about and provides few (if any) sources. Needs serious improvement!126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You apparently are confused and I presume an adherent of some religion or other. The text you removed was the essence of NPOV, as it placed the phenomenon in question in an objective perspective. It's removal IS expressive of your point of view, presumably as result of your belief system whatever it is, that that system confers the alleged higher conciousness. As much contention as there is over the term consciousness, this article is more or less pure nonsense and illustrates a complete FAILURE of NPOV as noted by the user above. Lycurgus (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also, if Gurdjieff deserves mention in this context, it would seem that Abraham Maslow, among others would as well. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to produce a dictdef of the term, at wikt:higher_consciousness. It turns out that it's complicated.
The New Agey meaning discussed here is only the last layer of a long path in the history of philosophy.
It seems that the term originates in Hegelianism, for a supposed theory held by Origen, based on Platonism. Shortly after Hegel, but probably unrelated, Coleridge in 1817 comes up with the idea of a higher consciousness as an inaccessible mode beyond human self-awareness. This is one of the predecessors of Freud's concept of the unconscious mind. And sure enough, Carl Gustav Jung goes on to call the unconscious a "higher consciousness", this time referring back to Buddhist ideas.
The article would probably have to introduce Hegelianism, and then discuss the history of theology from Plato to Origen and further Christian mysticism (and hence Gurdjieff and (?) "New Thought") etc. until this train of thought merges with Hindu and Buddhist ideas in the 1960s to devolve into the New Age concept. This is probably via Huxley, who connects western interest in Hindu mysticism with interest in psychedelic drugs, hence the use of the term in drug subculture.
I am not sure I can do this. It's very difficult to research avoiding WP:SYNTH because googling "higher consciousness" gives you all sorts of unrelated result where merely "a higher consciousness of $SOME_FACTOR" is discussed in a mundane context. --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Who screwed up this Wiki page???
The original page on Higher Consciousness was excellent. Now there is hardly anything there. What was there was a very good objective and inclusive summation. Who has taken it upon themselves that they know better and removed all that great content? Too many chefs. To many subjective opinions. The lower consumes the higher, as is evidenced here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave1958 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that the article was reduced to a cipher by a single user User:Dbachmann. He began to undo many months of work on December 13th 2010, seemingly on the grounds that he felt the article was a synthesis. The article prior to that had at least the virtue that it presented its subject from a worldwide comparative point of view. I personally agree with you that the article was pretty good but it was nontheless without references. As it stands it is awful. The best remedy - I humbly venture - would be to restore the article prior to 13/12/10 but add footnotes. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Removal of devotee-published sources
There is nothing in the RSN page you link to that gives you the right to remove referenced text. You are removing valid information from articles acting against consensus. Hoverfish Talk 20:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I linked to two pages. Fifelfoo said on his Talk page: "I'd suggest editing out OR and inappropriately sourced content, citing policy and appropriate discussions, and discussing at length on the talk page." The relevant policy/guideline says that an article "must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if [among other things, it] is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials". Kalchuri fails this test, since he is published by an organisation affiliated with the subject. Simon Kidd (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You can't unilaterally decide that Lord Meher is not a reliable source. You can't unilaterally decide that it is devotional and not a reliable biography. What is "Devotional"? and who decides. Not You, Mr Kidd. Hoverfish Talk 16:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Too much in too little
Although this article seems to have some interesting information, it all seems like jumbled. The type of article intended just cannot fit in the few paragraphs given. This topic should have en entirely different title to begin with. When beginning this article, I thought I would be reading about higher consciousness in terms of neuroscience, but instead got a mismatch of information on religion and higher consciousness. I think its a great topic to get into, but this article is a little too scattered to be relevant.
Neuroscience as a means of explaining consciousness is a view developed in the last decades, which may or may not be enough to explain all there is about it. The topic "higher consciousness", however, has been an issue to mankind for thousands of years. You may not like religion or other metaphysical schools of thought, but they have been there and higher consciousness has been one of their aims. Here we have to look at the topic as a whole. One thing is to correct the article if it looks "scattered" and another is to expect it to reflect only or mainly one (recent) point of view. Hoverfish Talk 20:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Additions I would like to make for my psychology class
The following would be an edit/addition to the main body of the article about higher consciousness:
In the beginning, psychologist James provided theories for the development and definition of higher consciousness. James saw, “That exalted inner experiences were as significant as they appeared, they would represent the pinnacle of human knowledge and aspiration. [He] approached this subject at a crucial historical turning point between philosophical and scientific approaches to psychological processes. He appreciated the rich inheritance of understanding about consciousness and self-knowledge from both Western and Eastern philosophical traditions, but he also appreciated the value of the systematic empirical approach in the emerging science of psychology. When James attempted to develop an empirical classification of inner experiences, he encountered difficulty in bridging the gap between typically fleeting and ineffable nature of these experiential states and the demands of repeatability and experimental rigor in empirical research. He concluded that while such experiences were of great personal and even historic significance, scientific psychology should focus on more readily accessible and quantifiable mental status (Alexander, Alexander, Boyer, p 90). Later, Maslow described a connection of two states, “Self- actualization emphasized the connection between exalted states, which he called peak or transcendental experiences, and higher levels of human growth (Alexander et al, p 90). In modern day, it is still difficult to pinpoint exactly what higher consciousness is, what is achieves, and how to get there. Loevinger explains, “Research psychologists avoided serious consideration of such exceptional inner experiences, largely because of the lack of a sufficiency comprehensive theoretical framework to interpret the significance of the reported experiences, the ;lack of an experimental paradigm to test the verity of the experiences, and the lack of a systematic subjective methodology to replicate the experiences. Although some psychologists have recognized the potential relevance of these subjectives to developmental theory, there has been general agreement with James that these states are very rare, transient, and difficult to investigate experimentally (Loevinger, p 90).
In conclusion, the state of higher consciousness is a transient state that is a higher level of human growth and potential. Although the study of this theory is still growing, it has been proven to coincide with developmental theorists’ views. source: https://www.mum.edu/pdf_msvs/v01/alexander.pdf
The following would be an addition to the article about cosmic consciousness:
The definition of cosmic consciousness is as follows: “According to Vedic Psychology the fifth state of consciousness (cosmic consciousness) is gained when the fourth state (transcendental consciousness) is maintained as a continuous non changing level of awareness along with the changing experiences of waking, dreaming, and sleeping. Initially, transcendental consciousness is not sustained outside of meditation because the nervous system, restricted by accumulated stress, lacks the flexibility and refinement of functioning to maintain inner silence while engaged in dynamic activity (Alexander, Heaton, Chandler, p 46). Yet another definition of the state is, as described by Maharishi, “‘The Self has separated itself completely from the filed of activity’ and stands as a peaceful inner observer or ‘silent witness (Maharishi, 1969, pp 312-313)’” (Alexander et al, p 47). Cosmic consciousness has been seen to have physiological aspects connected to it. The connections are, “Two different levels of organization of the nervous system function simultaneously while maintaining their separate identities. By virtue of this anatomical separation of function, it becomes possible for transcendental consciousness to coexists with the waking state of consciousness and with the dreaming and sleeping states of consciousness (Maharishi, 1969, p 314)” (Alexander at al p 48) source: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8toBloHS5YcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA39&dq=cosmic+consciousness+psychology&ots=Eya9q0jhwK&sig=dGcMPlf1Fna9TAMJnr6jPRGKSLg#v=onepage&q=cosmic%20consciousness%20psychology&f=false Nataliebcraig (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Nataliebcraig, what one writes for a university class may be of value for that class, but here the aim is to build encyclopedic articles. The difference is in the style of writing mainly and in the amount of detail a certain point can contain in relation to the rest of the article. The view of one psychologist or one school of thought or one guru has to be in proportion with what others have stated. Please make sure you understand well these guidelines: WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT#OR. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 20:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the following sentence twice:
- "As an inter-connected group, it is called Collective Consciousness in Philosophy."
- http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1216/1/reality.html Axel Randrup, Idealist Philosophy: What is Real ? - this gives the opinion of one person, Axel Randrup, as published by PhilSci-Archive, which says: "No representation is made by the archive on the accuracy or quality of preprints posted. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and not the archive sponsors. With respect to the documents available from this server, the archive sponsors make no warranty, expressed or implied, including warrants of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement, and the sponsors do not assume any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information or material." Not representative for "philosophy" in general.
- Feuerstein, Georg – The Lost Teachings of Yoga ISBN 1591790093 ISBN 978-1591790099 - this is an audio-book; totally impossible to verify.
Completely biased article
Achieving higher consciousness has nothing to do with whether or not one believes in a deity; to enforce "god" within the definition is a clear endorsement of a religious point of view and not representative of the whole scope of higher consciousness. It is absolutely ridiculous to include "god" in the introductory sentence of the article. That is extremely misinformative & biased. This article is atrocious and asserts OPINIONS and BELIEFS as fact. It does not represent a world-wide, objective perspective of the subject.
- Reverse polish has removed four times the following quote:
- " and the "point of contact with God"."(Bunge 2001, p.341)
- It's a sourced quote, and related to the content of the article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient reason to remove this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is however a valid point. Higher consciousness has been discussed in relation to god, but not exclusively or even predominantly so. If you want to add it to the article, and if you can find enough sources that connect attaining higher consciousness with a belief system, then it belongs in a subsection, not in the lede. Zambelo; talk 05:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- The term has a Christian background, which is mentioned in the opening section of the article, so it's relevant. To leave it out is to favor a modern interpretation, and to cripple the summary of the article. See also WP:LEAD. A better option is to add a sentence about this modern understanding. By the way, I'm an atheist. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, this "modern understanding" is mostly unsourced. The quote on God is sourced. Maybe the editor who thinks that the mention of Schleiermacher's ideas is "biased" could provide some sources, instead of pushing his personal preferences? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It does have a Christian background, but has since been used by various movements - from Jungian psychology, to the Spiritual movement, to New Religious movements such as Transcendental Meditation. The lede needs to be balanced, and so should either incorporate all of these, or none of them. It is cleaner and simpler to include none, and detail the various uses in the article. I've made a few changes to reflect the origins of the phrase and created a section on the spiritual use of the term. Zambelo; talk 06:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The descriptions on Schleiermacher by Bunge are all on Schleiermacher; the second part does not reflect Bunge's understanding, but Schleiermacher's. So, they are one section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)