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

[AshvinP]

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?

What you are describing is simply impossible. There will always be something we put our trust in without first thinking it through. Just to get through our day, we must trust that our actions will lead to predictable results, even though there is nothing in the laws of nature which make that a certainty. We must also trust other people around us will behave in rather predictable ways, and that is certainly not guaranteed. We must trust that social/cultural institutions will reward us for our sacrifices, even though they often don't.

The question then becomes how do we decide what/who to trust and to what extent? And I agree there that 'blind faith' in spiritual gurus will mostly be counter-productive. And that presents the most potential for mistrust with deep consequences. But it's a mistake to go from there to the assertion that all spiritual figures and traditions of the past should be equally regarded with skepticism. We need to see what works across all dimensions of our existence, and if we are fortunate enough to experience that first-hand, then we better hold on to that for dear life.

[Shaibei]

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?

Learning is important and critique is important. Still, at least from my personal experience, there are events in life that I find difficult to put under the narrow umbrella of the intellect and this is where faith comes in.
I also agree that internal change is a long and complicated process. I do not identify with what Lou wrote that it "always works". Of course, I also can not rule out her(?) way, because I have no idea what she's (he?) going through.
More than once my impression was that a brief look at the faces of all sorts of gurus was enough for me to understand that "they are not there".
Along with that, I have a certain tendency for esoteric texts of people I feel are "really there".
But while other people define spirituality as knowledge of higher worlds and the like, for me the spiritual core is expressed in essence in the sentence of a chassidic master: "The greatest thing in the world is to do good to someone." In this respect, one can indeed often find people who are not perceived as spiritual and they are "spiritually advanced" than the seemingly religious ones

[Lou Gold]

I do not identify with what Lou wrote that it "always works".

I never said that! My experience is that maintenance of faith is co-creative and way beyond mere belief. I further report that across time the results have grown firmer and stronger for me, much beyond what I imagined long ago. It's been a blessed journey and I feel grateful.

"The greatest thing in the world is to do good to someone." In this respect, one can indeed often find people who are not perceived as spiritual and they are "spiritually advanced" than the seemingly religious ones

This is certainly my experience. On balance, I do not see more goodness performed or enlightenment modelled among the religious or spiritual ones. In Brazil there's a saying, bom é bom, good is good!

[SanteriSatama]

Learning is important and critique is important. Still, at least from my personal experience, there are events in life that I find difficult to put under the narrow umbrella of the intellect and this is where faith comes in.
I also agree that internal change is a long and complicated process. I do not identify with what Lou wrote that it "always works". Of course, I also can not rule out her(?) way, because I have no idea what she's (he?) going through.
More than once my impression was that a brief look at the faces of all sorts of gurus was enough for me to understand that "they are not there".
Along with that, I have a certain tendency for esoteric texts of people I feel are "really there".
But while other people define spirituality as knowledge of higher worlds and the like, for me the spiritual core is expressed in essence in the sentence of a chassidic master: "The greatest thing in the world is to do good to someone." In this respect, one can indeed often find people who are not perceived as spiritual and they are "spiritually advanced" than the seemingly religious ones

It's good to think well enough to find the limits of rational thinking, and if you want to call post-rational or beyond rational 'faith', that's your choice. We have magical ability to mechanize functions to some degree of reliability, but even in terms of quantum physics, mechanizing can't be 100% deterministic. Lou - he's an old guy - didn't say "always works", he was just referring to indigenous practical, goal oriented wisdom of "what ever works".

A common criticism of current math magic of scientism is not that it doesn't work, but that it works too well, it's too potent to use in irresponsible way and gets us hurt in the form of atom bombs, ecocatastrophy etc. It's farmakon, both medicine and poison. Proponent of scientism like Dawkins makes the ethical problem clear when he says: "It works, bitches". The anti-scientific ban of introspection of Euro-centric scientism is at the root of the problem, ban of introspection is ban of Socratic advice of gnothi seauton, so we end up in situation where those wielding very potent magic tend to be least aware of how to use it in responsible way as they are least self-aware.

Somebody once said that Einstein was haunted by the question "Is Universe a benevolent place?", and that stuck in my mind. We have a saying "The Forest responds the way you shout in it", so I decided to have (ie. prefer and learn) benevolent, kind and loving attitude towards universe. That's just most basic science, a hypothesis and empirical test. In my case, at least, this test of part-whole relation has worked beyond all expectations. <3

PS: There was a period when the idea of healing a sick God demanded a lot of attention. Belief and worship would not work in that respect. The really interesting spiritual-philosophical challenge is, how to teach healthy self-confidence?

[Shaibei]

Lou,
Apologies for misidentification of gender. Wishing you many years of development in a spiritual framework that works.

SanteriSatama,
I have a hard time following your chain of arguments and unfortunately I do not have time to follow the conceptual basis of any of the forum members.
As I commented earlier, it was Salomon Maimon who held such a model of M@L that fits into categories of our intellect like causality, math and the like. As a philosopher he was honest enough to admit that there is no way to provide a philosophical justification for this (meaning i'ts a belief). In this context Dawkins is an example of a particularly bad philosopher

[SanteriSatama]

I have a hard time following your chain of arguments

You can't put a whole life into a chain of arguments and I'm not interested in writing a book - anymore. When you speak from post-rational experience as much as from ability to build rational chains of arguments, focusing on reading only the latter is not most rewarding way. A good way is to read all also as poetry, listening to the unsaid behind the impressions of linguistic expressions and just leaving it be. The main intention is not to build chains of arguments that can be rationally internalized and copy pasted. I'm just sharing my opinions and some of the experience they are based on, and if I do my job well, I may succeed in speaking more to the heart and to the (so far) subconscious than to the rational mind, but of course all layers are good and necessary.

[Lou Gold]

Lou,
Apologies for misidentification of gender. Wishing you many years of development in a spiritual framework that works.

Misidentification? Thanks for the good wishes.

[Lou Gold]

Perhaps

Perhaps because a lifetime is short
and because I’ve entered my end zone
Each day seems more and more
a good day to die, meaning to live well

I see the necessity, in this final phase,
to know death as a friend, as an ally toward happiness
Perhaps like a lover urgent with the desire
to birth new life into the world


Perhaps this is why I have such an urge
to create, to be a maker while I can
Does dying arrive this way, at first
as an urgent lover?


Perhaps the desire is for happiness, the real kind
Not the kind that comes from shopping
Like new life, real happiness comes from what is created
A giving more than a getting, offered with joy


Perhaps something better can be created
That possibility always captures my heart
Perhaps the best that happens is made together
Like a work party or a festa of children


Perhaps I and it are meant to be that way, filled by play
I’m not sure but certainty is not necessary
The promise of perhaps
is enough to hold my heart in a happy way

[Brad Walker]

This post intentionally left blank.

[Lou Gold]

This post intentionally left blank.

Thanks for the gift.