Tim Freke
Philosopher Tim Freke explores how he came to see a basic error in his thinking, which led him to change his mind about an idea central to most of his 35 books!
If you’d like to discuss ideas with Tim, you may be interested in his online community: https://timfreke.com/ICU.aspx
For more on Tim’s new ideas see his latest book Soul Story https://timfreke.com/Product/215/Soul-Story
View his TED talk https://youtu.be/YXuDaMkcjvY
Source
Dear friends, thank you for all your comments. If you want to know more about what i am exploring check out this talk last year. https://youtu.be/lxOj5KW2y5E My ideas have moved on since then, but it will give you the basis.
One addition on your point on theory- yes, consciousness is an interpretation, but its an interpretation of 'first person experience' – its can never be an second person or third person interpretation of sensation. Now, yes there can be unconscious experiences, but I don't think there can be any sensations or experiences which Tim Freke can have which are not 'first person' experience – so your theory will have to explain the reason for the 'first person' experience of sensations. Hope my comment makes sense!
Hi Tim, Have you seen the "Ted talk" by "Jill Bolte Taylor", called " My Stroke of Insight", or have you read her book with the same title?
It's fascinating and interesting what she experienced during and after her stroke…. She's an expert on the brains function by profession, and from the stroke she learned a lot more from the left and right halves of the brain….
For me it's been an invaluable watch and read….
From being a little boy, something in me was very aware that I was being conditioned, and I asked myself even as a little boy:- "But what is this "isness" or "amness" (that I am) which is beyond definition or words? Much later in life, I read a book by "Ram Dass (Still here)", and he confirmed what I've always known, that this "isness or "amness" is my natural state…. and not the thought based sense off self that I think I am! Many books and videos later has shown that many are waking up to this realization! I've been living from this still "amness" centre for years know, and am happier then ever before! 😊 Life still happens as before, but now from a still ever present centre!
Whatever this mystery is, I trust it! Thanks Tim, for your interesting talks, and the equally interesting talks with your guests, and I love your enthusiasm exploring this mystery! ❤️
Tim , are you talking about a philosophical principal for us to follow when thinking about our experiences. And that principal is that no matter what experience or whatever experience we have, that whatever we have to say or think about it is an INTERPRETATION? I'm familiar with this from christain theology where we would say that the followers of Jesus may have had an experience of seeing him die on a cross- but then anything we SAY ABOUT that is an Interpretation, like this meant that his dying saved us? Blessings
great insights and thoughtful approach. thanks!
The claim that we need to unite the materialist and idealist interpretation is flawed. The idealist one is actually more sensible and true to experience, however limited words may be. It's not just an interpretation.
5:12 At this point onward I think Tim shows he has simply become more conceptually confused. We have to have a word for the fact that we experience awareness. Now is awareness a "thing"? Or is it more accurate to call awareness an "activity" or "way" of experiencing, as he says. I don't think that resolves anything. Awareness is a principle or fact of our nature. And yes, there is plenty of evidence that awareness transcends the local time, place, and biological limits we presume it to have, including its dependence on a body. Therefore we say awareness exists as a context or irreducible principle, unlike dependent objects of perception.
We all need to re-examine our premises from time to time. Hardly anyone ever does. It has made me happy to see this video.
"Abandon false ideas that is all. There is no need of true ideas……there aren't any" Nisargadatta
Try psilocybin….
Going a bit deeper…
it can be seen that ANY, spoken or thought belief/position, will be flawed and able to be overturned.
Language and thought is relative.
Any idea expressed in language or thought, is relative.
The relative is included within the absolute.
All language is garbage in a sense.
It is the silent existence beneath language that is the only honest voice.
(Smiles)
I have been comfortable rejecting the idea that consciousness is a thing/ultimate substance for some time. It seems far more realistically to be a process or a function within the human experience, the spotlight of noticing I say. But most people adorned in spirituality don't like to go there as they don't like having their sparkles taken away…
Nice video Tim. I'm also happy that you have met with dear old Robert Saltzman.
While it is true to say that sensations appearing in consciousness is a mental concept when explained as such, the actual experience of pure consciousness is devoid of such concepts. It is not necessary to name and explain samadhi to be what it is which is a direct experience. If a thought or perception then appears in that thoughtless consciousness it is not necessary to explain that either for it to be what it is. So trying to explain it as a sensation in consciousness and argue about its validity is neither here nor there because it doesn't change the fundamental experience of what it is. Too much philosophy and not enough spirituality.
Excellent points, Tim. In the Indian philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, "consciousness" is not a final understanding or recognition. This idea is the result of poor translation from Sanskrit and/or a lack of understanding of the original philosophy, which is very common these days. Having said this, I too use the word consciousness simply because it opens a door to many experiences and therefore understandings considered not possible according to many experts. These are important waypoints that contribute to richness and depth. At a certain point, this word "consciousness" too has to be discarded. Thanks for sharing your insights and working toward a more useful story.
Listened again. Tim makes perfect sense. Helps expand my ideas. Wow.
In your revised way of thinking, do you think of consciousness as possibly an observer of an unfolding reality made up of energy and matter? Do you think consciousness develops, through the psychosocial adaptation and development of the human psyche's persona, from being the awareness which a nucleus has of its orbiting electrons, to the awareness which the cellular membrane has for external events, to the complex awareness of organs and nervous systems, to the awareness which eyes gave to animals, to the instinctual awareness of primates, to a human awareness of self in the context of the social status of the self, to human, conscious self-reflection upon an engrained, conditioned concept of self, a human consciousness at the forefront of consciousness development? It seemed that you once did. Have you seen Dr. Clare W. Grave's Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix model of Psycho-Social Development? It describes an emergent field of consciousness with the potential to spiral upward in an ever-widening cone of consciousness, by my interpretation. He describes it from a psychodynamic perspective. Also, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's fundamental Within and Without Energies – the first providing the energy of motivation and purpose, while the second provides energy in the form of structure building, making all the necessary structural arrangements needed to accomplish the goal being worked towards. Like the passionate motivational force of the Id, and the methodical integrating work of the Ego; like Carl Jung's two, Spiritual/Bio-Chemical, aspects of human mind. Anyway, I saw you in It's All the Self, and thank you for understanding and explaining the relationship between the connected feeling of oneness, and the more solitary feeling of individual assertion, both parts of a balanced human individual/social existence. i've written extensively on a psychodynamic view of that seeming paradox, yet with paralogical thinking they are indeed complimentary – Shakyamuni Buddha's Island of the Self, an individual sanctuary – and – Shakyamuni Buddha's Universal Compassion living within a social, collective world of interconnectedness, interdependence, and interbeing.
I love that you ponder and think and seek to re-define your work. It seems you are allowing mind to take you down an endless circular path to nowhere. It sounds like a ramble which means you're not communicating it clearly. Mental masturbation at its finest, which is not a criticism as we all do it well 😉
I like the way you think,the way you questions the assumptions and theories about consciousness and perceptions.It is true that it is self evident that there wont be any experiece without awareness or consciousness. This experience of no thingness is only experiential and cannot be defined by thoughts or perceptions. The question is,have you experienced it or not. If not, you have a right to say its not true.But what if you experienced it?will it satisfy the mind? The answer is a big No. Mind is thinking and consciousness is the cessation of the thinking process. Many people experienced it,and they are saying,you can only experience it when the thinking process stops.So this is really your choice to experience it or not. When you discover what is the origin of thoughts or perceptions,you will know what to believe is the truth for you.
That one is aware is not an interpretation. The story of Mr. Tim that one is aware is an interpretation is an interpretation.
Hi Tim. Very much looking forward to what you will share over the coming months. I have listened to hundreds of hours of Rupert and read his books. I love his clear and articulate explanations, however I have seen the flaw in the ‘self-evident’ approach. You cannot make the statement that something does not exist simply because we can’t experience it in consciousness. Without consciousness we can’t experience – it is the means by which we experience. It is an assumption therefore that consciousness is all there is and a circular argument constructed on this assumption. On the other hand, I have come to ‘theorize’ that consciousness is the basic ‘building block’ of everything. My understanding from study of physics is that matter is simply energy held together by incredible forces (another form of energy). Solid stuff called ‘matter’ has not yet been discovered. Consciousness is made up of invisible and non-quantifiable properties of energy, intelligence, creativity, love, peace and so on. The laws which govern matter are themselves part of this consciousness. I call this consciousness ‘God’. We are made of this God-substance and have have God-life flowing through us. We are all part of this unity and interconnected with the universe.
Hi Folks – I've just released this conference presentation which may help with understanding my new perspective on spiritual awakening – https://youtu.be/tDUaUfqS1Mw 'Individuals evolving into Unividuals'
emptiness is the theory of no-theory