S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 8 - 2 Fa l l 2 0 2 2 2 7 Diego Pérez Lasserre in radically distinct manners by different individuals. This is, what the contemporary mystic terms as the “problem of paradigm” (Hawkins 2015, 3952): each person experiences, perceives, and interprets the world and its events in accordance with their own predominant level of consciousness. This is further reinforced by the mind’s proclivity to explain via mentalization and interpretation of perceived data. Thus, each level tends to be self-reinforcing by the circuitry of reification. This process results in what is best described as ‘paradigm allegiance’, or the presumption that the perceived/experienced world represents ‘reality’. There are different paradigms from which we can understand (or interpret) the entities and events that we perceive through our senses. These paradigms, which Hawkins terms as “Levels of Consciousness” [6], produce different “images of the world”. Because of our innate innocence, our mind believes that the image that is being presented to us is an accurate depiction of “the world as such”. This makes us human beings believe that other depictions of reality are false, and, therefore, wrong (in addition to igniting the adolescent vigilante within us who wants to correct others!). That is why we tend to congregate with people who share our level of consciousness and look down on those who don’t, thus reinforcing the validity of the paradigm from which we understand reality. The beforementioned brings into light even with more clarity the drama of human communication. Conflict arises because communication between people and cultures that perceive the world from different levels of consciousness is sometimes quite difficult. Although the topic of communication in hermeneutics and mysticism justifies life-long devoted research, the reference transcribed below is quite enlightening and clarifies the core issue at hand (Hawkins 2013a, 31–32): Each level of human consciousness therefore has its own innate ‘reality’, and conflict is inevitable between people and cultures that are diametrically opposed to each other. What brings praise in one subgroup would result in ridicule in another. For example, is honesty a virtue, or is it a sign of absurd stupidity and weakness? Are women to be devalued and stoned to death or honored? Throughout history, the same patterns recur not only between individuals but also between classes, countries, cultures, and religions that demonize alternate viewpoints. Thus, there are actually two very different, diametrically opposed and polarized human cultures: those above and those below consciousness level 200, and each side sees the other as the enemy. Communication is possible between people who recognize the existence and value of truth (200 is the level of consciousness in which truth starts to emerge). Although the paradigms from people or cultures approach reality may be different, this fundamental commonality allows dialogue and cooperation to emerge. However, communication between individuals that do not assert the existence of truth and those who do is not possible (at least in a fundamental manner) [7]. Now, although there are surprising identities between the hermeneutical and the mystical thematizations of human understanding, Hawkins includes another realm that is to be considered fundamental for spiritual endeavor: that of truth and the proximity or distance of an individual’s projections to it [8]. The premise from which the American mystic starts his problematization of the human relation to truth is that, although it is accurate to affirm that human beings have the possibility of knowing the truth, it is also true that we do not have the innate ability to distinguish truth from falsehood [9]. The mistake we make is, again, that we attribute truth to our perception of reality (the image that is presented to my mind) instead of reality itself. As far as truth is concerned, what Hawkins postulates can be synthesized as follows: it is effective that the human being unveils or interprets the world from different paradigms (levels of consciousness). He agrees with existential hermeneutics regarding the interference of human subjectivity in understanding. However, he also emphasizes that this does not in any way mean that truth is subjective and depends on the paradigm from which reality is understood. Quite the contrary, Hawkins asserts that the level of truth of what is unveiled (interpreted) by a human being depends largely on the level of consciousness from which this is done. That is to say, he returns to the Thomistic idea of truth as adequacy (Aquinas 2017, I, 16, 2) and affirms that there are levels of consciousness that do not provide an accurate depiction of the world (and, in fact, distort it via projection), while others do [10]. Now, it is important to bear in mind that Hawkins proposes different degrees of conformity to truth. That is, the higher the level of consciousness of the subject, the greater the degree of adequacy between his understanding and the world (the degree of participation of his being in absolute truth will increase). Hawkins’s reflection concerning what truth is are also worth mentioning. In Truth vs Falsehood, the American mystic ap-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=