Quote from the text.
"We are acquainted with nothing except our way of perceiving them in our own M-space, which is peculiar to our mode of consciousness, and which therefore does not necessarily pertain to every being, though it surely pertains to every human being."
I thought this line of the article was particularly apt to the discussion. Particularly as it states ‘our mode of consciousness’ and ‘not necessarily pertain to every being’. Our view as and from a mode of consciousness is changeable through means I’m sure most here are familiar with or will learn.
Lady Eva, I have a theory about this merger you speak of using the articles terms ‘a merger or overlap of M into N space’. One of the things that this article mentions is the ‘render capacity’ of the M-space. I think that this is the key issue. We have been conditioned psychologically and perhaps biologically to view things within a specific range of the N-space.
A way that I could explain my experience if N/M space merger is that the M-space was operating at max capacity, i.e. consciousness was complete with a full multi-sensory input stream to such an extent that the normal modes of thought were also being used. Perhaps similar to a computer analogy… all the cores were maxed… There was little to no ‘me’ left operating on any core, which usually had one or more available.
I think that this render capacity might be increased to some extent to allow at least a trace self some capacity to navigate and guide the manifestations more consciously.
I’m thinking the challenge for me was the loss of ‘an M-space’ along with many benefits, like you talk about. The issue seems to be maintaining a stable M-space when merging.
That is the issue I’m attempting to solve with structured ritual, allowing one to merge into N-space, work intent, and return with an identity intact.
Lady Eva, I think this relates tangentially to another post you made about meditating with seed rather than without, perhaps working towards the same end.
Thanks for the link.
Thomas Campbell’s `My Big Theory of Everything’ trilogy goes into a similar perspective and he pushes it with some references to experiments and how (using the articles vocabulary) cognizance in M-space seems to lock in N-space reality, as if N-space may be somehow both figure and ground. I suppose one of the issues is we have access through M-space only, at least with language and thinking, which we’re limited to in this medium.