Tag Archives: Berryist

Experiments in Personal Identity

Posted on by
Reply

Experiments in Personal Identity

Personal Identity, Ecsomatics, A Course in Miracles, Buddhism, Science, Philosophy

By Darryl E Berry Jr

Published: 6/13/20 | Updated: 7/14/20

As a kid I began having out-of-body experiences – what were once predominately called “astral travels” or “astral projections”, and what are becoming in fashion to call “ecsomatic experiences”. Most of my experiences early on were spontaneous. And a common occurrence was floating towards the ceiling, and hovering there, my nose inches from the plaster as my physical body slept on the bed below. I was apparently in an amazing nonphysical form that can move through walls and ceilings with an inherent glow that lights my surroundings. It could move about the physical world invisibly – as well as visit various otherworldly or nonphysical dimensions. I could perceive and interact with other people also out of their bodies, as well as various nonhuman entities and otherworldly beings. Amongst my early experiences:

“Multiple Bodied We. One brief but enormous experience was to become conscious hovering in the out-of-body state near the ceiling on the opposite side of my bedroom as a point or field of consciousness. I (as point of consciousness) could see over my bed a nonphysical body floating near the ceiling. On the bed I could see my physical body. I concluded that we travel in (at least) three different forms: 1) integrated into the physical body, 2) as a nonphysical body, and 3) as a point or field of consciousness apart from both the physical and nonphysical bodies. It seems that the consciousness-nonphysical body combo can leave the physical body, and the point or field of consciousness can leave both the physical and nonphysical bodies” (Berry, Travel, 31).

Premise, Question: My experience is that I… “I”… am the point or field of awareness that was hovering in the corner, watching my nonphysical body hovering, and also watching my physical body slumbering, like watching my car in the parking lot, or my bicycle in the living room. So that is my position. Based upon this experience – and others since – I posit that the “I”, the animating, incarnating “I”, is a point or field of consciousness. And here comes the question – in academia is this position considered a philosophical claim or a scientific observation if not hypothesis? When I think if philosophy, or the “love of wisdom” (Hoofard, Intro, 03:00-04:10), I think of pure idea engagement. One might have a philosophy of this or that, and even live by it. But it’s not based upon evidence or experimentation. It may be based upon logic and reason. But what makes a claim philosophical rather than scientific; for instance, Buddha’s claims and position based upon experiences and perceptions through higher states of consciousness (Haecker, 16)?? What I conclude thus far is that the position of the originator is scientific if not simply experiential, e.g., the Buddha’s claims based upon direct experience, and my position based upon direct experience. But generation after generation others add, subtract, embellish, codify, and out comes a philosophy or religion (or both). Or something else??

Another of my experiences:

“The Desert World. I was around 7 years old when I spent a week in The Desert World. I became aware in a world totally unlike the world we physically live in. The entire world was apparently a desert, with sand dunes visible beyond the meagre nearby manmade structures. I worked selling wares and pottery items on an outside table covered by canopy. When not working I lived in a small sand-colored dome and had my own room to one side of the dome, though I don’t remember any adults or parental figures. Initially I was surprised and taken aback at this place. It seemed like a dream I couldn’t awaken from. But after a few days there I thought that this waking physical world was the dream. My waking physical life seemed like some crazy dream so ludicrous to have believed. Things we take for granted, including much of the technology we have, seemed so farfetched and fanciful from my newly acquired perspective of the desert world… After about the seventh night of sleep in the desert world I woke up there, and then I woke up again here. I thought several days had gone by here as well and was frantic to find my parents and let them know I was OK. When I found them, they seemed like nothing happened. School was in an hour. This all happened in one night! But it took several days of living here in this physical waking world to see the desert world as the ‘dream,’ and this world as ‘real'” (Berry, Travel, 27-28).

For instance, I went to school the next morning (in this world), and I knew where I regularly sat, and I remembered everyone’s names and our relationships. I remembered the subjects we covered. All these things came back or were there when I thought of them. But it was like remembering someone else’s life and living it temporarily – like remembering the life of a television character. This world felt strange and remote – like a dream that I couldn’t wake from – for a few days. I can see that when I could no longer remember this reality while living the desert world perspective, I was no longer this person in a very substantial way. This world was a forgotten dream, and that world was reality. I could also say that I was still the same person in another sense, e.g., my attitudes and dispositions and such. Just in a different world, with a different past (both the world and I), and a different lifestyle. But I can/could still recognize the same sense of “I”.

Considering John Locke’s notion that identity is tied with memory (Hoofard, Buddhism (B), 4:30-4:51; 26:00-28:28), from this experience I can see some veracity in that position. Yes, a person born in America would be a different person than if that same person were born in Syria, or Africa, or Spain, or Morocco. Their language would be different, and likely even their likes and dislikes to an exceptionally large extent – informed as we are by those around us. Foods that taste good to us might taste strange to them, with taste buds and eating habits trained to different spices and dishes. Who they think of as family, and country, would be different. Likely also, values and notions of right and wrong, normal and odd, would be quite different. Their religion – something people seem to cherish greatly – would likely be different.

But from the same experience I can see or recognize that there is something endemic to both experiences – both the desert world memory perspective and this world memory perspective. Even having completely forgotten this world, and having identified completely with the desert world, but looking more closely at the state of self I experienced in both, I can still recognize an essence of “I” that was there before the desert world, existed in the desert world, and remains afterwards.

This experience – and others of mine – at the least suggests that there’s some facet or core of identity that remains despite a complete or partial, intentional or accidental, shift or transplant of memory identification or disidentification (CrashCourse, 5:04-8:26), apparently able to access at least some degree of identity or memory even across lifetimes. Could this be the consciousness that I referred to in my first experience, and is it the infamous “soul” or “atman” of various Eastern and Western religions and philosophies (Haecker, 4)? My hypothesis, if I can call it that, is yes. And again, I ask: From the perspective of a professional philosopher, is this a scientific hypothesis or a philosophical claim??

Experience:

“Perhaps the most profound metaphysical experience thus far was experiencing the entire universe disappearing. That’s right. I was applying [A Course in Miracles’] thought system to a cherished idol of mine, and when I really established the unreality of the idol, I must have starkly destabilized an underpinning of my identity. The world disappeared and for a “time” there was only being, and then a discernable “I” re-arose. “I” was able to perceive from afar the individual self that I apparently am now, and I and all the activity around it (the world, the universe) seemed as meaningless activity. And according to [A Course in Miracles] the entire universe is an illusion, projected by one universal mind that in the end doesn’t exist either. The stark fear at realizing that this individual self that seems so real and so “me” is in truth ‘meaningless activity’ along with all the world – along with a quiet recognition that the mind perceiving it all is meaningless too – condensed me back into an experience of being an individualized “me,” in a body, within a seemingly boundless external universe” (Berry, Classes, Introduction).

So, what is to be made of this experience? It seems quite like experiences had by great sages such as Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha (Hoofard, Buddhism (A), 25:15-27:23) – apparently except that instead of maintaining some manner of identification with this universal perspective, whatever level of “I” tucked tail and ran back to individual “I” perspective (and sometimes with greater fervor than before “I” focusedly decided to undo my individual self). So, when Professor Haecker points out that “when, in a deep state of consciousness, Buddha ‘looked’ at himself, he did not see Atman. Instead he saw what he came to call ANATMAN, literally ‘Not-Atman’” (Haecker, 16-17), I can relate. From the perspective of the universal mind that is dreaming the universe, the individual consciousness that seems so real when we’re identified with it is instead recognized as an illusory projection. The atman is not real; the “I” is not real. The incarnating, animating field of consciousness is not real. And so is everything else in and of the universe not real, whatever the frequency or dimension. To me the realization is quite frightening – clearly, I have some growing to do. But this claim doesn’t to me seem to be a philosophical claim, but simply an observable fact – if one can manage to observe from the perspective of universal mind. But again, as a professional philosopher, I ask you: Is that seen as a philosophical claim? Or being that it’s a position based upon direct experience, does it then become a scientific observation if not a scientific hypothesis? My interest is in bringing these things more into a scientific light. Or being that these are all “subjective” observations do they fall outside of the standard scientific definition of an observation – even despite at least some corroboration?

Works Cited

“Arguments Against Personal Identity: Crash Course Philosophy #20”. YouTube upload, CrashCourse, 11 Apr. 2016, https://youtu.be/17WiQ_tNld4

Berry Jr., Darryl E. Classes on A Course in Miracles: Contemporary Pure Non-Dualism, 1st ed., (Version 3 2019), Darryl E Berry Jr / Next Density Center, 2016, p. 27-28, 31.

Berry Jr., Darryl E. Travel Far: A Beginner’s Guide to the Out-of-Body Experience, Including First-Hand Accounts and Comprehensive Theory and Methods, 1st ed., (V4 2020), Darryl E Berry Jr / Next Density, 2015, p. 27-28, 31.

Haecker, Dorothy A. Adventures in Philosophy: A Study of Ideas That Change the World, edited by Peter Van Dusen, 4th ed., Dorothy A. Haecker, 2020, pp. 4, 16, 17.

Hoofard, Nathan Michael. “Buddhism & Personal Identity (A))”. YouTube upload, 10 Jun. 2000, https://youtu.be/hYD4ZHnf2rA.

Hoofard, Nathan Michael. “Buddhism & Personal Identity (B))”. Loom upload, 6 Jun. 2000, https://www.loom.com/share/fd93c79dc0324dc985b670909120261a.

Hoofard, Nathan Michael. “Intro (A)”. YouTube upload, 2 Apr. 2000, https://youtu.be/-FHfayETo2c.

Schucman, Dr. Helen. A Course in Miracles (ACIM), 3rd ed., Foundation for Inner Peace, 2007, Text Chapter 6. Section I. Paragraphs 11 & 13; Text Chapter 21. Introduction. Paragraph 1; Text Chapter 27. Section VIII. Paragraph 9.

Copyright © 2020 Darryl E Berry Jr | www.darryleberryjr.com

This article may be re-posted provided: 1) re-posted in full, 2) full attribution, including active link to this webpage (if on a website), and 3) prior notification of and confirmation from Darryl E Berry Jr. Contact me at debj@darryleberryjr.com.

Economy & Equality: Marxism Vs Berryism

Posted on by
Reply

Economy & Equality: Marxism Vs Berryism

Marx | Modern Communistic Society | Government | Money | Berryism

By Darryl E Berry Jr

July 4, 2020 Updated

I remember a time when I was in great uproar about society, and government, and police, and so forth.

The exploitation, and murder, and infringement of liberty, and slavery by other names. Finally, I realized that it’s apparently just one percent of “them” and ninety-nine percent of “us” – or so the narrative goes.

Perhaps the disparity is even greater nowadays. Perhaps a bit in the other direction counting their henchmen. But it became clear to me that we can simply stop participating. We can make a world free of government and free of money, as I worded it. And we can do this any time we’re ready to – all of us, including “them”.

The people who would frequent my social media page, joining in complaining about government and police and “the elite” and so forth, I began to ask them: ‘Are you ready to unite and make a world free of government, and free of money?’ Surprisingly, some said we need government. It just needs to be tweaked some. Others said they’re not ready, or they don’t want to, and that’s that. Some said “the people” aren’t ready. They have growing to do, awareness to gather. Surely. Others simply didn’t respond. And then I saw the problem of an unjust, tyrant-ruled, population-exploiting society for what it really is. The problem is not the one percent. The problem is the ninety-nine percent.

Professor Hoofard touched upon it in passing, during a hypothetical via a recounting of the Marxist position of revolt: “The 1% can’t hold off the whole 99% all by themselves” (Hoofard, A, 65:25). So, it’s clear then why that hasn’t happened yet. Because the ninety-nine percent don’t want it to. The ‘slaves by other names’ as I call us, we want to be slaves, for whatever reason. Fear. Laziness. I remember years before this, talking to someone about money and such. This person wanted the monetary system to remain in place because they hoped to one day be on the top. They’re at the bottom now, a peon now, ‘but one day.’ They don’t mind the slavery because they hope to be a slave master. I’ve been there before. Insanity.

I’m reminded of what Raghunath Cappo said:

“[I thought] I’m not greedy, I’m not angry. I’m in a band. I have no money. If you’ve ever been in a band it costs money to buy a guitar. Got a guitar, cost money to buy strings. Got strings, cost money to buy an amp. So, it’s just a money pit to be in a band. And you get paid 50 bucks or whatever. So, I’m thinking, not me. But as my band got more successful, I realized man, there is money out there that I want. And I remember I got offered money for the first time being a band. Wow! I can get money. ‘I should get you know; I wrote these songs I should get more of that money.’ You get in a fight with the drummer. ‘No, I should get that money.’ ‘We should split it four ways.’ ‘No way I did so much more I booked everything.’ And I realized wow, I wasn’t not greedy, I just had no money. I’m covered with greed. People hate the greedy, hate the rich, hate the 1%, you got to see what would happen if you were in that position” (Cappo, 37:36-38:28).

Karl Marx makes some good points with what he had. He didn’t have the benefit of thinkers like Jacque Fresco and Larken Rose and Malcolm X or Bashar the Extraterrestrial and Sasha the Pleiadian or works such as A Course in Miracles. I’ll focus on just a few Marxist points herein.

Several core points he gets wrong because of incorrect fundamental premises. If Karl Marx’s position is that “economy determines humanity” (Haecker, 69), then who or what pray tell makes economies? Human beings make economies. But it’s easy to see how he can have this so backwards. He’s a staunch materialist (Haecker, 66-67). So, it stands to reason that he’d put the cart before the horse in other areas as well.

Social systems don’t make people be the way they are. People, due to the way they are, make and abide and tolerate social systems. Otherwise, what social system created or made humanity in the first place? I’ve yet to see any evolutionist show an illustration of first a dollar bill or a coin, and then a monkey, and then a humanoid, and then a human being, in the progression of evolution. And this ‘cart before the horse’ materialist position helps to cement what he thinks the solution must be.

He apparently has this grand image of the people needing to revolt against their rulers and overthrow them (Haecker, 71). But it’s just one percent of the population. There’s virtually no one to overthrow. If we simply stopped participating in government, and stopped participating in money; if we were sane enough to simply stop funneling our efforts and resources into a self-sabotaging system, to instead work together with openness and honesty and respect for liberty and freedom, then the system of exploitation would be over.

Professor Hoofard presents an interesting portrait. There are two people with collective ownership of one hundred thousand dollars, each having their own view of its use, and being unable to use any of it without permission from the other (Hoofard, B, 1:05:35). And in another version, both have divided the money evenly among themselves, but one builds their wealth and the other squanders what they had (Hoofard, B, 1:09:35). In the former scenario they are equal but not free to utilize the money as they wish, and in the latter, they are free but end up unequal – and the supposed difficulty is apparently amplified with more people involved (Hoofard, B, 1:05:44).

In both scenarios both are insane. Like how Marx must view humanity, albeit apparently unconsciously. A monumental fight is imagined between ninety-nine percent of the population and one percent of the population. For some magical reason, in order to be free, the people making all the goods, producing all the products, providing all the services, are imagined to somehow need to overthrow or overcome or convince one percent of the population who are contributing nothing of value to society. It’s so laughable to me. Those producing could simply produce for each other freely, and the one percent can then either join in peace and freedom and liberty and equality or starve.

Given the previous scenarios amplified to a sane society of people, everyone would simply recognize that “money” is just wasted resources – wasted trees/paper and metals, or waster computer space or memory and wasted electricity – and simply discontinue utilizing money altogether and work together to make abundance for everyone. The Berryist recognizes that there’s more wealth than money as it is. Quite literally. We have so much more wealth than money that we must make up money within made-up money so there could even seem to be enough money to buy all the things we have available. Without credit people simply wouldn’t be able to buy things. There’s literally more goods and services than money in existence – and with production and quality increasing exponentially, perhaps even possible to be put into existence.

Credit is not money. It’s just imagined money. Numbers on the screen that we treat as if it’s money. And money isn’t even truly valuable anyway. What’s the difference between a hundred-dollar bill and a one-dollar bill? We decide that one can buy one hundred of those things, but the other can buy only one. It’s completely arbitrary. But in our insanity people believe that money makes the world go around. If you were to airbrush out money and everyone kept doing what they were doing the world goes on fine.

Marx apparently said, “Money plays the largest part in determining the course of history.” That may in fact be how it looks, how it plays out in the world, i.e. how we make it look or play out. But again, who makes the money? Who decides to give it any value or credence whatsoever? We do. And thus, by our belief and psychological investment, who chooses to give value to the tool of exploitation and destruction that the makers of the tool (the 1%) simply make up out of thin air anyway? We do.

The Berryist can see that since we in fact have much more stuff than our money can even keep up with, that we can easily do away with money and have more than enough goods and labor and services and work for everyone. Perhaps everyone will be working only 2 hours a week, or 4 hours a week, if that – in the sense of mundane, upkeep tasks. With full utilization of machinery, we could probably eliminate manual labor entirely. Jacque Fresco saw that. Leaving us with ample time available to learn, and grow, and produce art, and science, and discover, and play. But that’s for people sane enough to see it and make it a reality. Let’s go back to our 40-hour plus work weeks for scraps.

I’ve spoken with people who have lived off the trash thrown away by grocery stores. And that’s not counting all that’s bought, as well as what’s still on the shelves, and in transit. All the food thrown away after big banquets and events. It’s clear that there’s enough wealth for everyone – wealth in the form of resources enough for everyone to have whatever they wanted without money being involved at all if we cooperated and utilized it all wisely.

Mark Blaug shares in his article on economics an image illustrating the flow of goods/services and labor and money in a capitalist economy (Blaug). Productive services are going into businesses, so providers can be paid money by business, just so the services and products can be bought back from businesses, with the money being given back to businesses. It’s hilarious. The entire right side of the equation – the business side and all money – could simply be eliminated, and people could just work together as human beings.

Contrary to Marx (Marx & Equality (B), 44:00-51:00), the worker bee ninety-nine percent can’t be exploited by the one percept but that we choose to be. The so-called one percent are just the insane few of the insane whole who made it to a certain position in society. Be we can look next door, or in our families, or to our schoolmates growing up, or our parents or other family members, and find the same exploiters. They simply aren’t in a position that people think they are “the one percent” and thus funnel almost all their labor to them.

Contrary to Marxism (Marx & Equality (A), 1:05:00-40), neither force nor overthrow is necessary to end the system of exploitation. Simply a cessation of participation and a choice to work together otherwise. But we don’t want to. We’re not sane enough yet; again, we’re just the exploiters who happened to not end up in the big exploiter’s seat. If you must force someone to be free, they’re not sane (Marx & Equality (A), 1:06:00-59). Thus, the majority are greedy slaves for the greedy and immature and selfish few of us who happened into a position to capitalize off the greed and selfishness and immaturity of everyone else. Everyone, enjoy.

  

Works Cited

Blaug, Mark, “Economics”. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 3 Feb 2020, https://www.britannica.com/topic/economics.

Cappo, Raghunath. “Joe Rogan Experience #1430 – Raghunath Cappo”. YouTube upload, 21 Feb 2020, https://youtu.be/UAx1Sq6usRg.

Haecker, Dorothy A. Adventures in Philosophy: A Study of Ideas That Change the World, edited by Peter Van Dusen, 4th ed., Dorothy A. Haecker, 2020.

Hoofard, Nathan Michael. “Marx & Equality (A)”. YouTube upload, 1 Jul 2020, https://youtu.be/QKlkHMq0dps.

Hoofard, Nathan Michael. “Marx & Equality (B)”. YouTube upload, 1 Jul 2020, https://youtu.be/v-Mh6C4z2DQ.

 

Copyright © 2020 Darryl E Berry Jr, Founder of DEBJ-NDC.

www.nextdensity.org

This article may be re-posted provided: 1) re-posted in full, 2) full attribution, including active link to this webpage (if on a website), and 3) prior notification of and confirmation from Darryl E Berry Jr. Contact me at debj@darryleberryjr.com.