Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

[SanteriSatama]

How do we know reality should obey our concepts?

Dunno about should, but it's empirical fact that magic works, even though mostly in strange and obscure ways. Why and how does reality obey concepts of math, to some extent? Because math is magic. The fact that magic works does not imply that it works always totally mechanically.

Intellectual knowledge (epistemic) is far from the only form of knowing (gnosis).

[Cleric K]

The above fits very nicely with what BK writes about in Decoding Jung's metaphysics when commenting on synchronicity and how Jung and Pauli posited 'ordering' principles of both the psyche and 'physical' world which are 'deeper' than strict causality. He mentions how QM posits a non-zero chance that acausal events are occurring all around us which we normally do not notice due to the complexity of the systems involved, and when we do notice them, we chalk them up to random coincidences or perhaps "supernatural" forces.

Actually this happens all the time in every living cell, right under the noses of scientists and it's still not recognized - simply because it can't be measured yet. QM science makes its tests in highly controlled environments where, for example, single particles can be observed. In this domain probabilities are uniformly distributed - this is confirmed by repeating the experiments over and over again. But it's not yet possible to measure probability distributions of particles within a living cell. The least of problems is that you can't reset the whole cell in the same configuration over and over again, make measurements and graph the probability distributions. So it's an extrapolation to think that every particle in the cellular machinery has perfectly uniform statistical behavior. It is true that practically all isolated biological chemical reactions obey uniform statistics. Yet I can make the following prediction: Let's imagine that in the coming years it becomes possible to make computational simulation of a whole cell (currently even few molecules are challenging) and this simulation implements the known laws of physics based on purely uniform probability distributions. Let's imagine that somehow a whole living cell is scanned and input as data into the simulation. Then the simulation is run and the movement of particles begins to be calculated based on the wave function. My prediction is that the cell will gradually fall more and more into disorder. Chemical reactions will happen but products won't travel where they are needed or they'll get there at the wrong time and so on. Practically the simulated cell will die.

Through all ages, in Initiatic science it's been known that living things have so called life or etheric bodies. In modern terms we can say that the wave function of the cell is such that all particles are entangled so that their individual probability distributions are not exactly uniform. There's a slight bias. This bias is so small that if we test the individual particles we simply can't distinguish it from randomness. Yet on the scale of the cell these small biases make the difference between the cell machinery working in harmony or falling into disarray.

We would be actually misleading ourselves if we imagine that the uniform distribution of the mineral world is the 'base reality' and the life processes are some additional layer that modifies these probabilities in favor of life. There's no need to complicate the picture like that. In the metaphor described we're constantly moving towards states that integrate consciousness - otherwise we can't experience existence. Every next state resonates with a whole universe of other states that define our state (and vice versa). So in this sense it is the progression of our state of being that resonates only with these states of the biological organism that are compatible with life.

Of course there are many other things that should be said here, like why it's needed to have the complicated cellular machinery. Additionally, it is not enough to will the transformation of our state always towards states that resonate only with healthy biological processes (although it can be argued that certain adepts can do that). At some point we are forced into a domain of states of being which resonate more and more with ill biology, finally resulting in death. These are very interesting things and a lot can be said.

PS: For anyone wanting to marvel at the complexity within a cell:

[Lou Gold]

We would be actually misleading ourselves if we imagine that the uniform distribution of the mineral world is the 'base reality' and the life processes are some additional layer that modifies these probabilities in favor of life.

I agree! Probabilities favoring life are fundamental expressions or representations of life in itself. Noticing or becoming aware of these representational regularities is how we experience the thing itself.

[SanteriSatama]

Through all ages, in Initiatic science it's been known that living things have so called life or etheric bodies. In modern terms we can say that the wave function of the cell is such that all particles are entangled so that their individual probability distributions are not exactly uniform. There's a slight bias. This bias is so small that if we test the individual particles we simply can't distinguish it from randomness. Yet on the scale of the cell these small biases make the difference between the cell machinery working in harmony or falling into disarray.

We would be actually misleading ourselves if we imagine that the uniform distribution of the mineral world is the 'base reality' and the life processes are some additional layer that modifies these probabilities in favor of life. There's no need to complicate the picture like that. In the metaphor described we're constantly moving towards states that integrate consciousness - otherwise we can't experience existence. Every next state resonates with a whole universe of other states that define our state (and vice versa). So in this sense it is the progression of our state of being that resonates only with these states of the biological organism that are compatible with life.

Somehow related to iniatic science, the basic number-antinumber scheme is a symmetry, but also asymmetry, as for example positive and negative numbers of integers have different qualities in various contexts.

[Shaibei]

How do we know reality should obey our concepts?

Dunno about should, but it's empirical fact that magic works, even though mostly in strange and obscure ways. Why and how does reality obey concepts of math, to some extent? Because math is magic. The fact that magic works does not imply that it works always totally mechanically.

Intellectual knowledge (epistemic) is far from the only form of knowing (gnosis).

The point is our intellect infers those rules by induction and doesn't have direct access to them and thus "awakens" Kant of his "dogmatic sleep".
and make him elaborate more on this path. As I was saying idealists who came after Kant solved this through various metaphysical speculations proving
nothing.
Of course there are other ways of knowing like prophecy etc and that's where faith comes in. I don't really know what is so attractive in Gnosis but ok

[Lou Gold]

How do we know reality should obey our concepts?

Dunno about should, but it's empirical fact that magic works, even though mostly in strange and obscure ways. Why and how does reality obey concepts of math, to some extent? Because math is magic. The fact that magic works does not imply that it works always totally mechanically.

Intellectual knowledge (epistemic) is far from the only form of knowing (gnosis).

The point is our intellect infers those rules by induction and doesn't have direct access to them and thus "awakens" Kant of his "dogmatic sleep".
and make him elaborate more on this path. As I was saying idealists who came after Kant solved this through various metaphysical speculations proving
nothing.
Of course there are other ways of knowing like prophecy etc and that's where faith comes in. I don't really know what is so attractive in Gnosis but ok

I like to differentiate between faith and belief. Moses has faith born of direct experience. Others without the experience must choose whether or not to believe. In any case, the test seems to be "does it work?"

[Shaibei]

Dunno about should, but it's empirical fact that magic works, even though mostly in strange and obscure ways. Why and how does reality obey concepts of math, to some extent? Because math is magic. The fact that magic works does not imply that it works always totally mechanically.

Intellectual knowledge (epistemic) is far from the only form of knowing (gnosis).

The point is our intellect infers those rules by induction and doesn't have direct access to them and thus "awakens" Kant of his "dogmatic sleep".
and make him elaborate more on this path. As I was saying idealists who came after Kant solved this through various metaphysical speculations proving
nothing.
Of course there are other ways of knowing like prophecy etc and that's where faith comes in. I don't really know what is so attractive in Gnosis but ok

I like to differentiate between faith and belief. Moses has faith born of direct experience. Others without the experience must choose whether or not to believe. In any case, the test seems to be "does it work?"

You're right.You need to believe before you reach faith. The problem is that even after you have "found the way" to faith, you discover very quickly that someone has turned out the light for you. Then you are left with nothing but the memory of faith and need to trust it like a blind man holding a stick. All that of course if God hasn't removed all his condolences from you

[Lou Gold]

The point is our intellect infers those rules by induction and doesn't have direct access to them and thus "awakens" Kant of his "dogmatic sleep".
and make him elaborate more on this path. As I was saying idealists who came after Kant solved this through various metaphysical speculations proving
nothing.
Of course there are other ways of knowing like prophecy etc and that's where faith comes in. I don't really know what is so attractive in Gnosis but ok

I like to differentiate between faith and belief. Moses has faith born of direct experience. Others without the experience must choose whether or not to believe. In any case, the test seems to be "does it work?"

You're right.You need to believe before you reach faith. The problem is that even after you have "found the way" to faith, you discover very quickly that someone has turned out the light for you. Then you are left with nothing but the memory of faith and need to trust it like a blind man holding a stick. All that of course if God hasn't removed all his condolences from you

Not true for me. I was agnostic before and definitely not a believer. And in the 39 years since the experience it has continued to unravel and reveal itself in my life, growing stronger and more certain in ongoing ways. I definitely have not been left with mere memory. To the question, "does it work" I would respond, "it keeps working."

[SanteriSatama]

I don't really know what is so attractive in Gnosis but ok

I was not referring to Gnosticism, but to the most general, indiffentiated Greek term - and Greek has many more terms - for "knowledge. Gnosis as in 'gnothi seauton'. English 'know' is from the same PIE root. Episteme is analytical, metacognitive knowledge, fronesis practical and ethical knowing, theory passive witnessing, etc.

[SanteriSatama]

You're right.You need to believe before you reach faith.

No, it's wrong to believe. Why? Haven't you seen Brian's Life? That's why. Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, all they fucked up by becoming religion, objects of belief and worship.

Spiritual transformations can be pretty hard and difficult, and at the most risky stage many fuck up and get in the guru business in some way or another. Belief is wrong generally, and especially towards those who go through the risky period.

Why not just have an open mind and keep on learning, why the rush to make a blind judgement out of ignorance?