Essay: Beyond the Flat M@L

Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns.

Moderator: Soul_of_Shu

User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 699
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Essay: Beyond the Flat M@L

Post by Cleric K »

In our time we're seeing an upsurge of Idealism. Driven by scientific cautiousness and parsimony, we're trying to take small and secure steps. But sometimes cautiousness and parsimony can easily be mistaken for disguised conservatism and resistance for change.

We have a very telling story from the history of humanity. The idea of the flat Earth seems the most parsimonious and down to the facts explanation. It seems that it requires zero assumptions because we see flat ground around us and this makes us feel that we are unjustified to assume curved Earth beyond the horizon - it looks like we are going beyond the facts and only complicating the picture. But the fact is that the flat Earth idea also makes an assumption based on imperfect observation. The solution comes only when we take all facts into consideration and not only the most immediate ones. Of course this requires some mental exertion and this is inconvenient, to say the least.

We find ourselves in a similar situation today with the emerging view, called in modern language Mind at Large (M@L). As we come out of the materialistic conceptions, the most parsimonious and factious view seems to be to assume M@L as the pure awareness, known for millennia in mysticism, in which our individual consciousness emerges only as a kind of a dream picture.

Image

The above illustration shows in a metaphorical way this conception. We have personal consciousnesses emancipating us from the totality of M@L and allowing us to experience relations with other differentiated islands of consciousness. We can also envision other entities within M@L (the globe, which might represent some deity) which may not have physical appearance but still could form relationships with human consciousnesses. In modern metaphors the differentiated islands of M@L are often described as dissociated alters, bubbles separating from the ocean, whirlpools, etc. I'll try to give here few indications showing that this is an overly simplistic view which not only delays our progress but actually leads in the opposite direction.

Just as Earth's surface looks flat only because we are too close to it, so we can imagine that our idea of M@L can be imprecise because of a too shallow perspective. Below we can see a different metaphor.

Image

Enclosing the curvature of M@L is only part of the work. Unless we address the question of the interior, we're still 'in the dark' regarding our inner nature. If we imagine that in some way the interior is illuminated (we'll see how this can happen), the picture would look something like the following:

Image

I'll call the above Deep M@L in contrast to Flat M@L. Even at first glance we already see that this change of perspective leads to very serious repercussions. Before I continue I would like to say that nothing of this is new. These things have been known in one form or another, for millennia by the Initiates but they really began to take the shape that we'll see here in post-Christ time, ever since the Gnostic schools began to explore these Mysteries. This secret knowledge has been carried by a spiritual stream through the centuries and only about a little more than hundred years ago it began to disseminate in the general population - simply because humans are getting ripe for this. I also want to underline that the images presented here are nothing but analogies and metaphors. Nowhere in reality we'll ever be able to discover such geometric structures. What we are interested in is to grasp some ideas through the analogies. When we have the ideas, the visual representation can be discarded. Just as 'high' and 'low' temperature is meaningless in geometric sense, so everything here must be striven for the ideas themselves. The visual aids are only an intellectual scaffold that must be dismantled after it has served its purpose. Also it must be stated that the above illustration is incomplete. It focuses only on something very specific. There are many things missing from it so in no way it should be taken as full model of reality. As an analogy we can have topological, geographical, political, etc. maps - all of them represent only specific aspects of the Earth and can't explain anything in isolation. I beg the reader to withhold any preliminary judgments about the meaning of the layers and the center in the illustration. We'll try to elucidate them only gradually.

Just as globular Earth resolves many enigmas, impossibilities and contradictions existing in the flat Earth model, so does Deep M@L in relation to Flat M@L. What will be given below can be in no way exhaustive, it can be no more than hints that would have to be studied further.

:idea: Probably the most striking difference between the pictures above is that they completely change the way we view our personal consciousness. In Flat M@L every consciousness is an individuated part of M@L. This is the first fact of experience that we habitually extend 'beyond the horizon' and make an assumption. Here we are mislead by our spatial conceptions, derived from the sensory world. Just because our physical bodies are perceived as clearly separate entities in space we extend this idea to M@L and assume that our consciousness is also an enclosed unity. That's why we easily resonate with metaphors like bubbles, whirlpools, etc. Deep M@L, on the other hand, reveals that there's really only one space of consciousness. We can take the faces to represent our Earthly ego consciousness (and not the physical face) while everything 'behind' them represents subconsciousness. Nevertheless, we should imagine that our individual consciousness spans all the way from the One Center to the face - the light cones. Viewed in this way it can be said that different beings within Deep M@L are only different perspectives, points of view of the One Center. Because of the specific stage of evolution we find ourselves in, currently most people are conscious only at the Earthly ego face level, while everything behind is shrouded in sleep. As we'll see, it's possible for modern man, through self-development, to lift that shroud to varying extents. The spheres closer to the center represent archetypal ideas of Macrocosmic nature. As we go towards the periphery they are experienced in more and more complicated interrelationships, ultimately leading to the highly fragmented human condition of today. So the 'interior' of M@L is 'made of' ideas, yet not the rigid and lifeless concepts that we juggle with in our intellect but ideas that are actual living, creative processes. These are neither only intellectual metaphors for some external (to the personal whirlpool) processes in the Flat M@L, nor materialistic metaphors for biological and social functions. They are in the most real sense the creative ideas of Deep M@L, of whose complex interactions we are currently experiencing only a very fragmentary perspective. To distinguish these living processes within M@L from the rigid concepts of our intellect we'll call the former idea-beings.

Intellectual ideas only have meaning in relation to other ideas. For example, what meaning could it have to imagine empty M@L with nothing else but the single idea of a chair? This idea can never be what it is if it's not related to the ideas of human being, floor, gravity, etc. It is similar with the idea-beings. We shouldn't imagine that they are something self-contained that can exist independently. They only exist in relation to other idea-beings. In this sense we can say that idea-beings correspond to specific perspectives within M@L which receive their meaning only in relation to the unique constellation of all the other countless ideas-beings. We can think in the same way about man too. He's an idea-being that experiences the meaning of his perspective only because of his unique and highly complicated relation to the constellation of other idea-beings. For example, our perspective receives its natural 'feel' because M@L experiences (even if they are not conceptualized) the ideas of life, perception, desire, self, Earth, other humans, etc. We are idea-beings that struggle to find their proper relations to other idea-beings.
Seen in this way, we can envision M@L as the infinite and eternal idea-potential, which can be experienced through differentiated relative perspectives.

Compare the above with the view of the personal psyche in Flat M@L. There we have only a personal bubble that builds a mental representation of the supposed reality. Even though we assume we are part of one consciousness we can only envision that through intellectual abstractions (models that live entirely locally to our consciousness) or through mystical experiences, where all cognition ceases and we are left only with feeling and perception. This leads us to the next point.

:idea: The two views of M@L lead to diametrically opposite perspectives on the role of thinking. In Flat M@L thinking is viewed as a secondary effect. This also explains why the mystical meditative method is one for extinguishing all mental activity. From the mystic's point of view, the whole intellectual endeavor, and the whole Earthly life as a matter of fact, is to a great extent captured by the Sisyphus myth - the thinker only inflates his personal bubble but this doesn't at all get him closer to reality. Reality can only be felt and contemplated thoughtlessly when all thinking is abolished.
All this is very different in Deep M@L. Here we recognize that thinking is the actual expression of the primordial creative activity of M@L. At our stage of evolution M@L recognizes its existence through spiritual activity expressed in thoughts. This immediately hints that it is exactly through exploring the constraints of this activity that we come to know better and better what we really are.
In general, human thinking today is very superficial. It often remains at the level of hearing words, arranged in logical and grammatical unities. The first step towards understanding of our spiritual activity, is to exercise livingly experienced thinking. Once we can distinguish our living activity, of which the verbal thought is only the end result, similar to snake skin separated from the living being, we are on our way to understand what the light cone represents and also what is meant with 'behind' the face.
When we think about things like the ones we are describing so far, we are already probing the interior of Deep M@L through our thinking and extracting mineral-like concepts from there. If we think about myths, archetypes, etc., we're still doing that only intellectually, which is in fact an absolutely necessary step. To overcome the mineral-like concepts of the intellect we need the higher forms of cognition that are well known in Spiritual Science.
When we overcome thinking consisting of arranging mineral concepts in logical trains, thinking becomes a living organism, that can reshape itself, grow, shrink, merge with color, sound, feelings, etc. In certain sense our thinking becomes something like the octopus which can sense and repeat the shapes and colors of the environment through mimicry. Our thinking becomes both a metamorphosing activity and a sensing organ - much like the sense of touch depends both on activity and receptivity. Here's the place to dispel any doubts that what we are describing has anything to do wild fantasy. It's the exact opposite of fantasy. In fantasy we impose our will against reality. Here we use our will to touch and feel reality. We are only interested in our activity as far as it can confront something real, in a way similar to how the mathematician is interested only in proper relations of mathematical thoughts. Mathematical thoughts constrain and define each other. Similarly, through our mobile and living spiritual activity we actually explore the constraints that shape our sensing, imagination, ordinary thinking, feeling, willing, etc. In this way we begin to sense how the processes and idea-beings (including other humans) restrict and shape our own perspective. In Spiritual Science this stage of cognition is called Imaginative consciousness. It is no longer dependent on the sensory organs but explores through liberated spiritual activity the inner idea-geometry of Deep M@L and our relations to the idea-beings. Here we no longer have intellectual thoughts about things but we are experiencing the constellation of idea-beings that shape our perspective, by merging our cognitive activity with their dynamic imprints, and thus becoming aware of them. Yet from these experiences, concepts can be condensed, which can be used for communication and intellectual understanding. As long as we always remember that the concepts point to realities and should not turn into an abstract framework, we are safe from illusions.
The other two stages of cognition - Inspirative and Intuitive consciousness - lead to ever deeper experience of Deep M@L. Through Imaginations we become aware of the ways idea-beings restrict and shape our perspective but their inner life still remains somewhat remote from us. It's like having to learn about beings only through their movements and gestures but without any means of language. The next two stages of cognition progressively lead to more and more intimate experiences of the actual inner states that other beings experience.

We already see how radically different the two approaches are. In Flat M@L we are stuck either with abstract models that forever remain as floating structures within our own bubble or we sacrifice cognition in exchange of mystical feeling of oneness with the encompassing M@L. In Deep M@L it is through the evolution of cognition that we actually come to know what we are - an ever evolving perspective of the One Idea. Here we not only don't collapse cognition and succumb into nebulous feelings but cognition is our point of contact with the creative Idea - cognition evolves by feeling its way towards the archetypal forces that support the structure of Deep M@L. We come to know reality not when we dissolve into heartfelt oneness with the whole but when we continually integrate harmoniously the workings of M@L's creative ideas into our perspective.

:idea: Deep M@L allows us to solve the very significant mystery of time. Once we understand the hierarchically interacting idea-beings we come to view time as something completely different. Every idea-being is something holistic that encompasses relations with other idea-beings. An analogy with a symphony can be useful. Closest to the Center we have the archetypal idea of the symphony which exists as something whole, that can be encompassed from a certain M@L perspective as all existing in the 'now'. Yet this holistic idea can be seen also to spread out as a process with a beginning and an end, or exposition, development and recapitulation. This idea-being can be thought of as containing only the most general idea-potential for any conceivable symphony. It acts as a kernel in relation to which more specific ideas can be experienced. In certain sense, more differentiated idea-beings (perspectives) can explore how they can creatively unfold their activity within the context of higher archetypal ideas. When these ideas are differentiated further they become more and more specific, just as a musical idea becomes more and more specific as it goes through musical phrases, bars, notes, sound vibrations. Metaphorically speaking, it can be said that our human condition corresponds to a thus formed composition, experienced in what seems as linear time. But in reality it's all a matter of complicated non-linear interaction of idea-beings within Deep M@L. We explore this non-linear depth through thinking and the higher forms of cognition. It must be kept in mind that in this analogy the symphony should be taken as something living, in the sense that all parts evolve together, and they all contribute creatively. The archetypal form of the symphony doesn't dictate its details but only the general structure. Other idea-perspectives develop the details independently. Furthermore, man is not an isolated 'sound' in this hierarchy but his perspective spans all the way to the Center - there's no principal isolation. The 'man-sound' is not something isolated but, so to speak, represents a holographic perspective of the whole idea-structure - from the most archetypal, to the most detailed. Yet this perspective finds itself in relations to other differentiated holographic ideas. The difference for man lies in how well integrated his perspective is and whether he can identify himself only with the fragmentary 'sounds' or can gain consciousness also of the deeper archetypal ideas.
The illustration of Deep M@L above should be thought of as containing more and more holistic ideas as we move towards the Center, reaching an ideal unity of all-that-can-ever-be as an eternal 'now'. The Center should not be thought of as some special 'entity' but as the One Idea that unities harmoniously all ideas. It's not a question whether such an idea exists - if we can think about it - it exists. The question is how this idea relates to us and all other idea-beings. The movement towards the periphery can be envisioned as 'spectrum analyzing' the unity and experiencing perspectives of idea-beings as they find their relations with all other idea-beings. The metamorphoses of perspectives through these relations are experienced as continual becoming, which entails the experience of time. Even though we can hypothetically envision the One Idea itself as some absolute perspective that integrates within itself everything that can ever be, it's still true that the experience of a differentiated perspective within the whole is something different, experiencing itself as a unique interference of the One Idea and all other differentiated ideas.

:idea: Deep M@L is in full harmony with relativity (not speaking of the mathematical models but the general idea). All we ever experience is a single perspective of M@L. The illustrations above are misleading in this sense. There's no such perspective that can see M@L from such a third person vantage point. Yet through the higher forms of cognition we can know how other perspectives interact with us and even resonate as far as possible with their points of view. In certain sense, solipsism finds its healthy version with this. We are solipsists in the sense that we can never step outside and look on the whole M@L from third person perspective and we accept this. But we also don't need to fall into the Kantian trap and fantasize separate and inaccessible bubbles of consciousness for every being. All we can know about the different being-perspectives of M@L we'll find through the higher forms of consciousness. There are two important characteristics that distinguish healthy solipsism from the pathological. The first is that we should in no way imagine that we are responsible for anything else than our immediate spiritual activity, which is most clearly expressed in thinking. We have no reasons to believe (and it can never be anything more than belief) that our ego consciousness is somehow responsible also for the dynamics of all other beings. In healthy solipsism we fully embrace the autonomy of other beings and we simply acknowledge that we gain nothing by abstractly fantasizing their consciousnesses as some separate and opaque whirlpools, bubbles or brains. We focus on our interaction with the beings which is the only real thing we can experience. As we progress in our spiritual development these inner interactions become much more deeper and comprehensive, and give us much more intimate experience of the states of other beings, compared to just fantasizing their conscious experiences.
The second characteristic we'll address at the end of this discussion.

:idea: The question of evolution is not very clear in Flat M@L. One of the common views imagines that beings gradually coagulate and complexify from the ground M@L's unconscious awareness, which is nothing but idealized materialism. Other views assume more spiritual stance and view the physical realm as an arena for incarnation of souls. The paths of the souls and the world are largely decoupled. The world is seen as going through perpetual cycles, while the souls incarnate and gain experience independently, eventually reaching the non-dual state - their identification with M@L.

Deep M@L draws a different picture of evolution. This is seen directly from the fact that there's no difference between world and individual consciousness - the deeper, and increasingly unified idea-layers of the different perspectives are responsible also for their reflection in the unified outer world that we perceive through the senses. The evolution of the world is at the same time evolution of consciousness and even though different human perspectives can vary in their development, as a whole, humans, animals, plants, etc. evolve as parts of one Cosmic organism. It'll take us too far to go into details so we'll only sketch a very rudimentary picture of this vast topic.

Evolution doesn't proceed monotonically but in a rhythmic fashion. There are several grand iterations or eons through which M@L has passed before it reached its current state. In order to grasp something about the first and most remote from us stage, we have to discard all our perceptions, thoughts, feelings, life. Nothing of this existed at that time. It was a Cosmic state of M@L without any world, objects, etc. In every iteration some of the archetypal ideas differentiate and create from themselves a layer of multiplicity, a kind of multiplied reflection of their essence. The first iteration began with the reflection of what we can call the archetypal idea of will. These archetypes exist in timelessness. Very vague echo of this primordial condition we can find today when we think, for example, mathematically. The mathematical ideas and their relations are timeless but through our willed thinking they are experienced in temporal context. Of course, in these ancient times the ideas were not at all the rigid concepts of today's intellect. The archetypal idea of will, when it became reflected into temporal multiplicity, became the actual reality of will. There was not yet intellect at that time that could reflect in abstract concepts. As said earlier, all ideas exist in relations. There's no such thing as will as a thing in itself. Instead, through the differentiation of the archetypal will idea, it becomes at the same time the reflection of all other timeless ideas, to which the will-idea is related. Now the timeless ideas become related through temporal willed becoming. For this reason we speak of idea-beings - ideas in the process of temporal becoming. They are all willing their becoming towards the One timeless Idea, which is the perfect unity of all ideas.

The perspective of M@L, which through continuous transformations became what we experience today, at these ancient times was such that the One Idea of M@L could not at all recognize its essence in the multiplicity of will-reflections of archetypes. M@L, within man's perspective, was deeply unconscious at that time.
In the timeless, all ideas exist in all possible relations and degrees of integration. As the timeless becomes reflected into the temporal will, we find a whole spectrum of idea-beings at different levels of integration and thus - levels of consciousness. This is another consequence of the mentioned relativity. We should completely abandon the vision that there's some absolute and global state of M@L. Every perspective-being of M@L experiences its relations to all other idea-beings and its own becoming - it looks like the world and its evolution have been created just for its sake. In this sense, as idea-beings are actively working on their integration, they were also integrating man's perspective because the idea of man is part of them.

In the second iteration other archetypal beings reflected their timeless essence into multiplicity which intermingled with the already existing will-reflection. This gave rise to much more manifold relations between the ideas but comes at a price. Now the primordial state becomes as if slightly veiled. As an analogy, we can consider paper and ink as fundamental reality but when the ink is in the form of text, we experience second order ideas. These second order idea-experiences are unique in themselves but they overshadow the archetypal foundations. We gain a new, more convoluted mode of consciousness but at the price of obscuring the archetypal idea-beings.

In the third iteration yet another world of multiplicity is intermingled. Now M@L experiences something similar to today's dream consciousness but still in Cosmic setting. M@L still doesn't recognize itself as self-conscious being but flows together with images - impressions of all other idea-beings. Needless to say, this new consciousness veils even further the fundamental state.

Then we arrive at the fourth iteration in which we find ourselves today. Another archetypal idea becomes reflected in multiplicity - that of form. Now the perspective of M@L becomes sufficiently integrated that it can finally recognize itself as an active causative force within the idea-form of the ego. But at the same time we find ourselves in several levels of reflection which interrelate in the most fantastically complicated ways. The foundational state is covered in several veils. Yet these veils are not some hard boundaries. It is entirely within man's power to consciously integrate his perspective and to recognize how the four layers reflect within each other. Although we described the four iterations as following each other, in certain sense they are as if one into the other. That's the reason we can at all speak of them. Through Imaginative, Inspirative and Intuitive consciousness we can experience respectively how the third, second and first iterations work together. That's how we can explore the convoluted nature of M@L within its depth and trace how the archetypal ideas have metamorphosed through multiple reflections to reach the most abstract state that we experience today.
The journey through the first three iterations up to the middle of the fourth is know as involution. M@L's perspective convolutes into the reflections of archetypal idea-beings, ultimately reaching self-consciousness in the deep world of multiplicity. From M@L's perspective within man, it has always striven for integration. It was other idea-beings that inflate the reflected world, such that M@L can reach its point of awakening in a very complex state. M@L within man is always pointed at the same Central goal but in the period of involution it's integration is being outweighed by the expanding and convoluting forces of other idea-beings. This forces M@L to seek it's integration within more and more fragmentary or microcosmic domains. Finally it reaches its self-reflection within the ego and continues its integration as always. But now this integration begins to outweigh the expanding forces and the perspective begins to deconvolute by finding the harmony of the fragmented idea-reflections within the One timeless Idea. M@L will pass through fifth, sixth and seventh iterations which are like the reverse of the first three. Yet they'll be experienced in completely different way, in full consciousness - this we call evolution. Imaginative, Inspirative and Intuitive consciousness will be the normal states of cognition in the fifth, sixth and seventh iterations. At the end of the seventh iteration M@L will have accomplished its temporal journey and will experience from its own perspective all seven iterations as an integrated grand Cosmic Idea.

As we said, the illustration of Deep M@L above is incomplete. It represents only the deeper layers (which we can take to represent the iterations and the three higher forms of consciousness) but in reality there should be also three layers in front of the faces - the reflected multiplicities which mirror the three inner layers. This already shows the limitations of diagrams like this - there's simply no way to capture the facts in one single drawing. If we add three more outer concentric spheres to the illustration, although the outermost would seem as the furthest from the Center it is actually tightly related to the innermost - the outer is the differentiated reflection of the archetypal inner. The same hold for the other two. The fourth layer of ego consciousness (the faces) unites with its reflection in our eon that's why it's drawn as a single layer - the ego finds its unity in the multiplicity of thoughts. The three outer layers would represent perception (the outermost), life and desire. From these layers, which can be thought of as kingdoms of elemental nature, our bodily sheaths are composed. It should be noted that at our stage of evolution, the outer sheaths are not a product of our thinking ego consciousness. We are only associated with them and live in a kind of symbiosis. In the future iterations man will be spiritually creative in his bodily sheaths, just as today he creates his thoughts. These ideas are illustrated in the following slides (press the Play button). We need to emphasize the importance of the fact that no drawing can ever represent reality. That's why two different renderings are presented, which symbolize the same things in different ways. If we try to understand the illustrations in a literal way we'll be in the position of someone who reads the word 'Love' and doesn't realize that it points to experiential reality, but instead imagines Love as the shapes of the letters.



Just as other beings were active in our development, so we will be, once we evolve beyond the narrowly personal experiences. Man's activity will be such that he'll participate in the creation of conditions where other perspectives of M@L will be able to experience their unique awakening and evolution. So in this relative reality, we can say that there are always many parallel 'pipelines' of development. Those perspective of M@L that are on the evolving path of integration create the conditions for those that are yet to convolute into complexity. In this way M@L continually experiences perspectives that integrate the differentiated and fragmented experiences back into the eternal Cosmic infinite potential.

:?: Whatever we say in few paragraphs can never be anything more than a quite superficial sketch. If there's interest in a deeper dive, I may put together something more detailed about the process of evolution and how it is experienced from the perspective of M@L.

:idea: Our particular evolutionary scenario is very peculiar in that a certain expansion of possibilities within multiplicity has been achieved. This is tightly related with the question of evil. Here we'll mention only something very general. In our fourth iteration M@L awakens to its own self-reflective, creative potential as a thinking ego. Yet this self-reflection is in a certain sense distorted, it's off-center and this prevents M@L to recognize itself as a Cosmic being. Instead M@L self-identifies within a limited context of perceptions and ideas which leads to the most varied kinds of incomplete self-images. In the most general sense this results in M@L being drawn either too much towards the fragmentary reflections or towards free-floating ideas. This is illustrated below:

Image

In the first case M@L experiences fragmentary existence within the world of reflection and is thus forced to build its self-image out of these fragments. This condition corresponds to the general materialistic state where M@L identifies with the sensory perceptions of the body, thoughts and desires. It's not strictly necessary that this outlook should be materialistic. It can be completely spiritual but still M@L could see itself as amalgamation of spiritual elements (like in some versions of Flat M@L). This condition can be described as premature intellectualization. M@L has not yet reached the higher order ideas that bring unity to the perspective and feels compelled to build picture of itself and the world out of what is available at hand - sensory perceptions and fleeting spiritual life. In this way M@L misses its real center and tries to find its true nature entirely within the reflections.

In the second case M@L is drawn towards ideas freed from the conditioning of perceptions. This finds expression in arts, religion, spirituality. Here M@L sees the world of reflection as a hinderance for the expression of its true nature. Yet the center is missed again - thinking is viewed only as a marginal and inherently imperfect capability of consciousness. All forms of spiritual life that proceed from this off-center condition have something in common - there's always a sense of expectation. Thinking cognition is considered incapable of penetrating into the mysteries of existence, yet at the same time there are no other alternatives. Thus M@L resorts to religious and mystical feelings. These in themselves are not proper forms of cognition - thinking must find its peace with them. This produces a fundamental dichotomy which is also the cause for the mentioned sense for expectation. There's always something that is to be expected, some future event - Second Coming, First Contact - or most commonly, simply death. M@L feels locked in a state that it believes is beyond its own power to overcome. Thus it expects the experience of its true nature only by virtue of such an external event. This condition can be called premature spiritualization. M@L yearns for the life in higher order ideas but refuses to find how they reflect in the perceptions available at hand. These potential perceptions are expected at some future point.

M@L can't find its Macrocosmic nature within the reflections because there it finds only local unities. It can't find it in free-floating ideas either, because thinking is assumed incapable of penetrating in them and thus the resolution is expected at a future point. It should be noted that these two tendencies are always intermingled together - when one grows it creates the other as a mirror image and vice versa. When we combine the fragmentary perceptions with abstract thinking and theories we arrive at the physical Maya (illusion). When we build spiritual ideas as expectation supported by belief we arrive at spiritual Maya. Both these aspects inflate a whole sphere of phantom ideas that we are currently entangled with and which shape our lives. It should be noted that the phantom ideas of Maya are not in themselves evil. Evil issues because the ideas are one-sided, and when they are insistently pursued, we're ignorant of their disbalancing repercussions.

When M@L finds its balanced condition it experiences itself midway between ideas and perceptions (reflections). From this state can begin proper integration of the perspective. As this integration progresses, the higher forms of cognition are unveiled as the spiritual forces hidden behind ordinary thinking. In this way Macrocosmic ideas elucidate the world of reflections and through this M@L also recognizes itself in its Macrocosmic nature.

:idea: We can also mention that Deep M@L is in perfect accord with Quantum Mechanics. We can take the wave function as a symbol for the unique hierarchical constellation of idea-beings that constitute our perspective. Out of this constellation we decohere our thoughts. This is an important distinction compared to the commonly assumed view that consciousness collapses the wave function in the physical world. Obviously it's true that our activity affects the outer world but we can't claim that we experience this in any direct way. It's pure fantasy to imagine that our thoughts somehow further reduce to become the neurons and atoms of the brain. The physical structure has different origin which can be investigated only through the higher forms of cognition. Only in this way we can observe the perspectives of idea-beings from which the elemental kingdoms are reflected, in a similar way that our thoughts are reflected from our ideas through thinking.

:idea: The question of hierarchy is also problematic in Flat M@L, since it can only be conceived as external associations of beings. For example, in the first image there's a sphere that symbolizes a highly evolved being - deity - which can form relations with human beings. In this view it is completely a matter of choice to form such relations and it can even be seen as a hinderance if a being wants to find it's real grounds in M@L instead of looking for meaning in external relations.
In Deep M@L the whole idea of hierarchy has completely different meaning. It has nothing to do external hierarchical associations of beings but it's the actual structure of M@L itself. As far as our normal thinking is concerned, ideas clearly form hierarchical relationships. In Flat M@L these ideas are seen as representations of reality, existing only within the individual being's consciousness. In Deep M@L the ideas that we probe and experience in intellectual thoughts are the very same beings that can be revealed through higher cognition as living idea-beings. For example, the idea of Capitalism is actually an idea-being in the deeper layers of M@L. We shouldn't imagine that this being is only that. As an analogy, it would be incorrect to say that if someone pushes me, he is wholly a push-being. By saying that that there's an idea-being of Capitalism we refer only to the way this being Inspires our perspective. It's very difficult (especially from our limited human condition) to form a proper image of the actual experience of these beings. Even through Intuitive cognition, where we practically merge in resonance with the other being's perspective, we can understand only as much as this perspective has in common with ours. Anyway, this being of Capitalism has found its way into the evolution of humanity and individual humans structure their physical relations by expressing that idea-being in their thoughts and actions. This is a clear example of the way that our so called consensus reality is not some external agreement but is the result of the common layers of ideas that shape our individual perspectives and relate them together.
Here one may ask: "What's the practical value of such a view? In the end run it's quite irrelevant if we believe that ideas are just in our heads or are part of collective M@L." This is only true if we never leave the limited materialistic world conception. Otherwise there can be very significant differences. Let's take a global conflict as World War II. In the naïve view, this conflict issued because of a long chain of cause and effect relationships, which similar to domino pieces affected each other and finally culminated in the war. Yet within Deep M@L the picture is quite different. Before there's a conflict in the sensory realm, there's already a conflict between idea-beings in the deeper layers of M@L. These beings are in various relations with the national idea-beings, ultimately leading to specific attitudes between the populations of countries. Ultimately those in power can express these hidden forces and realize the ideal conflict into the physical plane. This already shows that humans are practically blindly following the processes in the deeper layers of M@L, imagining that they express their own national moods, their own ideas, etc., while in fact they are only becoming outlets for the hidden layers of M@L. And it's here that we touch upon the question of freedom and the task of humanity. It is up to us seek deeper understanding, through living thinking and the forms of higher cognition. When we understand the deeper structure of M@L we are also free to express the ideas that match our highest aspirations.
Interestingly, if we allow ourselves to go 'meta' about it, even this whole discussion already points to one such conflict between idea-beings. The ideas of Flat and Deep M@L are only abstractions of some deeper processes in M@L. According to individual Karma one may be drawn more towards one or the other. Irrelevant to which we sympathize, as long as we act out of feeling, we're unfree. What we say here about Deep M@L has no value if it's simply sympathized with or even worse - blindly believed. The only thing that counts is if it can be fully and livingly understood. Only then it can become healthy feeling and we can perceive the practical consequences of such a view.

:idea: The concept of Karma is not very straightforward in Flat M@L. Usually it's accepted that we need to be compassionate and free from desires that attach us to the sensory world if we want to reach the non-dual state but when it's a question about destiny, Karma between souls, etc., things become more obscure. There's no clear mechanism how the individual souls are related together. Some background mechanism is needed within M@L but without a method of its investigation it remains an object of belief.
In Deep M@L Karma is a very clear concept - it is the relations between idea-beings. Destinies are intertwined because we share a common idea world. If I do wrong to somebody we entangle with an elemental idea-process which, to put it into a metaphor, in my perspective is experienced as 'convex', while the other experiences as 'concave'. This process persists and affects both our perspectives until the entanglement is resolved.

:idea: Reincarnation is clearly comprehensible in Deep M@L. The loss of the physical body is only a detachment from the elemental beings of the physical sheath. Practically we don't go in some 'other' world but simply shift our focus of attention to phenomena in which we live all the time anyway but are outweighed by the intensity of the sensory perceptions (unless we consciously develop our sensitivity). After death we lose the physical basis of the senses and intellect and we are forced successively into Imaginative, Inspirative and Intuitive consciousness (which everyone experiences as far as they are developed). In our Earthly life we are not conscious of our relations with idea-beings (unless we work for it) but this is what we live in after the loss of the body. The whole reincarnation cycle is like a sub-rhythm of the grand iterations of M@L (as is also the sleep-waking rhythm). Every time we incarnate we go through an involutionary descent into the more convoluted states of consciousness, where we once again experience the acquisition of the ego and then, after death, we continue in Imaginative, Inspirative and finally Intuitive consciousness. When we reach this highest point we know that we are still an incomplete being, we don't feel as a stable self there but we are carried on the waves of the idea-beings. As we strive to acquire the unity of our Cosmic perspective, more and more the imperfections in that perspective begin to protrude and as we try to sort them out, they begin to transform into the seed-idea of what is to become our next incarnation, or descent into convolution of consciousness. As we become freer from personal entanglements, we become in position to work for the good of the whole humanity. We can't do otherwise because the layers of humanity are also part of our perspective. We can never reach perfection as long as the Cosmic organism as a whole is imperfect.
There's nothing extraordinary about the incarnational rhythm of convolution and deconvolution of consciousness. In a more balanced situation that rhythm wouldn't be perceived to be much different than a higher order of breathing. Today the gate of death is such a mystery only because humans have invested too much in the sphere of Maya at expense of the real picture. The greatest hinderance for the integration of reality into the sensory consciousness is not so much lack of knowledge, but much rather a mixture of feelings - fear, shame, guilt, pride and so on.

:idea: Deep M@L throws light on the historical development of religions. In ancient times man was still emerging out of his dreamy consciousness, slowly moving toward clear self-consciousness. At the time of ancient India, the perspective of humans, even though not yet lucidly self-aware, could experience as atavistic Imaginations the realities of the deeper layers of M@L. These Imaginations were not experienced as we can experience them today - as a mode of cognition - but as revelations, instinctive visions of deeper Cosmic realities. That's how the grand wisdom of the ancient Hindus has taken form. As time progressed, consciousness contracted more and more into the physical body and the Imaginations were slowly fading away. This gradually diminished the great Cosmic vistas to pantheism and mythology. Men could still feel the spiritual aspect within the elements, plants and animals. Higher truths were dressed in myths.
Buddhism marks an important evolutionary impulse which gives the important methods of self-discipline of mind, feeling and will, such that man can differentiate his spiritual being from the bodily sheaths. On the other hand the exploration of cognition through thinking exploded in ancient Greece.
We should mention the important mission of the Hebrew people. This is rarely taken into consideration but it was result of highest wisdom that they were commanded not to make an image of their God. We should really try to feel how different this was in the face of all other forms of spirituality which still had their idols or worshipped the elements. The Hebrews took a radical turn in the development of humanity. Whenever they had to address their God they had to turn inwards. They could only worship their God within the soul. In our discussion it should already be clear that this was a slow preparation for human consciousness to conceive of the Center of M@L. Man had to turn his gaze away from the revealed visions and idolatry perceptions and turn inwards to seek the one God.
The Christ event marks the culmination of this long preparatory work when, so to speak, the curvature of the Flat M@L was enclosed. Now for the first time in a physical body it was possible for a M@L perspective to experience itself in full self-consciousness. Of course this was only the turning point, the general perspectives of humans integrate at wildly different rates. For two thousand years this realization of Deep M@L was achievable only within the Mystery schools by the Initiates but now these deep secrets are gradually making their way in the general population. The Christ impulse is the impulse of Love. We see that Love receives a much deeper meaning than it is generally the case. 'Love your neighbor as yourself' finds a completely new meaning. It's one thing to love and have compassion for other beings in Flat M@L but it's a whole new level of Love to be able to find all beings within our own consciousness. Love is not some external law but the inner necessary condition if we're to reveal of our own deep structure. Without Love we insist on staying unconscious about reality and experience our being only within a very limited domain of ideas.
In Flat M@L the world religions are viewed as different paths supposedly leading to the same goal. Yet we'll never be able to comprehend these differences unless we put them into an evolutionary context. Without this we are simply forced to accept their peculiar natures, even though they are completely contradictory at times. All such contradictions are completely resolved in Deep M@L. Once we see the religions as evolutionary impulses that serve to develop certain faculties of humanity and ultimately lead to the integration of the deep perspective, everything becomes clear and fully comprehensible.

:idea: Dissociation boundaries are not an issue in Deep M@L. There's only one Central Idea and infinite possible perspectives. The reason that other perspectives seem to be isolated from ours is the same as the reason why someone who is mathematically illiterate is isolated from mathematical ideas and their symbolic perceptions. It's all a matter of development and integration of the perspective. Our physical bodies are clearly distinct in space and most certainly the perspective of M@L that we experience within these bodies is tightly related with them. Yet anyone who has experienced true empathy knows that soul life can imprint itself between different perspectives. In our ordinary state this takes form only of feeling but in the higher forms of consciousness it is real cognition of the way soul and spirit interact directly.

This question is so notoriously difficult only for the simple reason that we try to employ the wrong kind of cognition for it - that of the intellect. When we try to understand how different perspectives can experience each other, we almost inevitably assume the mentioned non-existent third-person point of view. The different perspectives are now only abstract symbol-thoughts in our mind which we struggle to imagine how to convert into actual first-person experience. Practically we're trying to accomplish the same impossible task that we call the hard problem of consciousness. We can't build from abstract thoughts our own experience, let alone the experience of several beings. All this is resolved when we realize in humility that it's only through the expansion and integration of our own and only perspective that we'll ever approach also the inner experiences of other beings. We can never understand anything about another being's perspective through abstract thinking alone. We need actual Love for this.

We spoke about resonating with the perspectives of other beings but didn't say anything about the transformation of our perspective, which leads us to higher levels of self. This is a very deep topic that deserves it's own separate essay. We'll only mention few words at the end of this discussion.

:idea: The question of morality is also completely clear in Deep M@L. Morality is not some arbitrary rules decreed by a Divinity for humans to follow. Instead, it's the measure for our spiritual activity and whether it leads to greater harmonization and integration of the Cosmic perspective or the opposite. Since the Cosmos is one and the same thing with our deeper strata of consciousness, while we work on the integration of our perspective we are at the same time working for the moral development of the whole world. Here we shouldn't imagine that we turn away from the outer world and manipulate reality only from the spiritual depths. No - we draw the moral impulses from the spiritual depths and then manifest them through our own activity in the outer world.

~~~

After all this an objection may be raised: "What if Flat M@L is the true reality and all the above exists only in the mind, in the individual bubble of consciousness?" We can answer this in two parts.

First, anyone how has experienced even the smallest glimpse of cognition deeper within M@L already knows the answer for certain. Why the certainty? Mystical, visionary, psychedelic, dream states, etc. have something in common - they are experienced as exceptional states that confront the intellect as a riddle. The intellectual self must decide what to do with these experiences, how they should be interpreted. This is very different in the higher stages of cognition. Just as our thinking is the only self-evidently certain thing in the ordinary state, so the higher forms of cognition are experienced in the same self-evident and certain way. They are even far more certain than the intellect because the intellect is only a more limited and rigid form of the higher forms of spiritual activity.

Of course the above can't be convincing for anyone who dismisses such things. This leads us to the second part which consists of the simple fact that everything above can be perfectly well understood by normal thinking. It's the logical relations between the concepts and their ability to elucidate the deepest mysteries of existence that gradually give us confidence that we're dealing with something serious. But the ideas must really be lived through. We can compare this with a description of a gymnastic exercise. One level of understanding is to build a mental picture of it. But we only gain real, experiential understanding if we perform the exercise. In our discussion we don't need to assume a physical posture but only a cognitive one, to experience the ideas in their proper relations. This doesn't require that anything should be believed - beliefs serve no purpose here - all that is needed is to livingly think the ideas through. Alas, such a living experience of ideas is often resisted. Usually there's an irrational fear that if the ideas are considered too up close, we can become deluded as the same person that speaks the ideas forth. But such a fear is unjustified. It's a matter of cognitive maturity. If we resist thinking some ideas through, just because we are afraid that they may shaken our understanding, this only speaks of the hidden uncertainty in our current foundations.
As it is always the case "Ye shall know them by their fruits" - if ideas like these bring lucidity, clarity, breadth, inspiration and most importantly - real soul force, then they'll prove their worth in practice.

Finally we'll address the second characteristic of what we called healthy solipsism. We should always be conscious that there are other levels of self behind our ego. We fall into a dangerous illusion if we imagine that our ego consciousness is 'top level' and everything we do is the product of free creativity issuing directly from the Center. We should never forget that all our thoughts, feelings, acts are experienced only as a limited perspective of M@L and it's our task to find our relation with the deeper layers. Even if we gain access to higher perspectives, and thus a glimpse of our higher self's point of view, our ego consciousness is still our primary mode of existence on Earth.
Similarly to the way our ego thinks the thoughts, so the higher Self Imaginatively dreams our ego and its desires - a higher dream that will become more and more lucid as we evolve. In our normal consciousness we feel our face as a kind of a mask standing in front of the ego, in higher cognition the ego itself stands as a mask in front of the higher Self. No matter how many university degrees, how much life experience, how much achievements we have, our ordinary self is still only a child in the eyes of the higher Self. We can't build the higher Self from our thoughts. We can only awaken in it through humility, sacrifice and prayer-like openness towards what is greater than us. The higher perspectives can't fit in our skull, so to speak. It's the other way around - they reveal how the skull and the ego living in it come to be. For this reason we need complete openness because the higher worlds are in everything, we can't locate them only here or there.
We are always in the middle - as the Hermetic principle says "As above, so below". But there's a radical difference in the way we address both of these worlds. In the below we employ our perception together with thinking, feeling and willing. But for the above we must reverse our attitude. We can approach that which doesn't yet fit in our conceptions only in the deepest humility. We need the missing science of prayer which leads us to the knowledge of the above through Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition. What is today commonly called prayer is a caricature. Without this prayer-like openness for the world of the Spirit we're like a body that is conscious only of its exhalation and imagines that it creates the air out of itself. Only when we find ourselves as a middle point that breathes in what comes from the higher realms, and then employs all the gifts thus received in the outer world, we find our upright stance within the Deep M@L.

When we speak of integration of perspective, it's too easy to imagine that as some kind of inflation, as sucking in the contents of the Cosmos into our consciousness. But in reality it's the opposite. In our Earthly state we have already sucked in the whole Cosmos in ourselves. Our 'face' consciousness is already at the tip of the convoluted Deep M@L iceberg. The actual integration is achieved through sacrifice. As long as we insistently identify with forms and patterns within our consciousness, we're not letting go of our self-image. That's also why the unity of perspectives is such a stumbling stone for the intellect. The thinking ego always reaches the point to ask "but what will happen with me?" As said earlier, here we are touching upon a whole science. We can't do much more than give hints. As Wisdom speaks "Oh lose yourself to find yourself anew."

User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2918
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Essay: Beyond the Flat M@L

Post by AshvinP »

Wow, Cleric. Just wow. This was well worth the wait! It presents such a beautifully hopeful message that is sorely lacking in modern discourse, philosophical included (especially). And it's also the first rigorous philosophical essay I have come across with a video presentation. I will have to read it again more carefully before I can comment or ask questions. Thank you!
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
User avatar
Eugene I
Posts: 1444
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: Essay: Beyond the Flat M@L

Post by Eugene I »

Thanks, Cleric, fascinating. IMO I also find the "flat" model too primitive to reflect the complexity of the world of consciousness. Yet I would offer an alternative model of a multi-center consciousness as opposed to the single-center. Let's take geometry as an analogy. For millennia mathematicians thought that there is only one "core" geometric idea - the one of the Euclidian geometry, based on a small set of core ideas - axioms. All theorems, geometrical forms and practical implementations of this core geometry were thought to encompass the whole world of all possible geometrical forms, both of the mathematics and of the perceived world. However, later after Lobachevsky's discovery it turned out that there is an infinite variety of non-Euclidian geometries based on different sets of axioms, neither of them being any "truer" than the others, and each having their own realm of possible geometrical forms. The final nail to the paradigm of the single-centered mathematical world was the Godel's theorem suggesting that the space of the world of possible mathematical ideas and forms is infinite in variety and not having any common "core" or center. No matter how "complete" a mathematical structure may seem, there is always some ideas that can be formulated but can not be reduced to the core axioms and can be added to extend it. So the world of mathematics is a fractal rather than a concentric structure. Similarly, over millennia astronomers thought that the universe revolves around the single center, which was Earth first in geocentric astronomy, replaced by Sun in Copernicus one. It was only the discovery of the special relativity that posed the absence of the absolute frame of reference in the universe and the absence of the single center in the physical universe whatsoever.

Similarly, the multi-core model of the universe of consciousness is not a chaos or flat universe, it is a highly structured and hierarchical construct, yet lacking any absolute and single core/center. In a way, it can be pictured as a fractal analogous to the physical universe with large multiplicity of star planet systems and galaxies, none of them representing the universal center. In this universe the world of consciousness is full of ideas, meanings and values, some of them representing certain sets of core ideas, but there is a variety of the core sets of ideas and none of them are absolute. Each local core set of ideas bears its own structure, hierarchy, meanings, values, telos, yet each of them is different and offer different perspectives, spiritual states and experiences.

Of course, we are in the areas of metaphysics and religion where nothing can be proven and our views are a matter of inference and beliefs, with the choice of beliefs more often motivated by psychological and spiritual predispositions. We can not prove or disprove the single-core vs. multi-core models, and the choice between them remains a matter of personal belief. It is understandable that for many people such diversified multi-center paradigm is psychologically and spiritually uncomfortable, they find it too "relativistic", lacking any solid universal spiritual ground within the world of ideas, and lacking any absolute spiritual references, meanings or values. For others it is the opposite: they find the multi-core paradigm opening the gate to freedom, creativity and fascinating exploration of the infinite world of ideas, meanings, values and forms with a large variety of paths each leading to its own core but never restricted to always converge to a certain absolute core and becoming stuck along the way to it. As Hoffman said, it's an infinite "Godel's candy store".
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kanzas anymore" Dorothy
User avatar
Eugene I
Posts: 1444
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: Essay: Beyond the Flat M@L

Post by Eugene I »

Another point to consider is the impression of "flatness". A shallow view on the non-dual paradigm of the Eastern traditions may seem to picture them as presenting such "flat" view of the world. However, the "flatness" there has a different meaning. We will use the analogy of a multi-dimensional fractal. There is a rich fabric in the structures of a fractal with complex hierarchies and local centers of such hierarchies. The fractal is not flat, it is multi-dimensional and hierarchical, and if we move our observation point across the fractal, the patterns and structures always change, converging towards local centers. However, there are certain constant and non-variable aspects of reality pertinent to all forms and structures, which are their Existence (because there is no such thing as non-existing form in the fractal) and Experiencing (because in the fractal of Consciousness every form is consciously experienced). There are even empty spaces in the fractal with no forms yet with the Existence-Experiencing still present there. Also, the Existence-Experiencing is never affected and conditioned by forms in any way, while forms condition each other and depend on each other in their patterns of unfolding. That does not mean that the forms of the fractal have any lower "ontic" status compared to the non-variable aspects, or that they "appear" in (or out of) the non-variable aspects. Yet, from such perspective, there are these dimensions of Existence and Experiencing that are "flat" across the fractal simply because they never change.
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kanzas anymore" Dorothy
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 1585
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm

Re: Essay: Beyond the Flat M@L

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

@ Cleric ... I generally resonate with what you've expressed here, and find it not incompatible with BK's Jung-inspired model, with its underlying collective and archetypal realms, with some empyrean realms added as further elaboration. Might even be worth a try to submit it to the Essentia site for consideration, for even if it isn't published there, it would at least come to Bernardo's attention, and perhaps warrant some feedback.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 699
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Essay: Beyond the Flat M@L

Post by Cleric K »

Eugene I wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:03 pm Thanks, Cleric, fascinating. IMO I also find the "flat" model too primitive to reflect the complexity of the world of consciousness. Yet I would offer an alternative model of a multi-center consciousness as opposed to the single-center.
Thank you, Eugene!

We won't go very far through intellectual wrestling. I think that we've already laid down our positions as clearly as possible. I'm in harmony with your fractal exploration picture. At the core of the differing views is the question of death. That's the great point of bifurcation. As far as we discuss the here side, we're in general agreement. We're undoubtedly entangled with the idea-hierarchies. We can't extricate ourselves neither from our bodies, nor the Earth, Sun and planets. So the big difference is based on the view of what happens after death. The 'democratic' view claims that unless we are entangled with sensory desires, we are lifted above any constraints and can float above the fractal forms as pure Existence. This view can be supported only through the expectation that I spoke about. Driven by our desire for independence and not-having-anything-to-do with the general evolution of humanity's Cosmic organism, we are willing to forsake a real and verifiable path of experience, just because of general antipathy for the results coming from that path's direction. We should mark this well - we're not rejecting these results because we have explored the path and found them to be incorrect but because we don't want at all to approach that path. We should be perfectly clear here. It's not a symmetric situation. One one hand we have a belief about a certain resolution that we expect after death and we base our Earthly life on it. On the other hand we don't have a belief but a practical path of experience that can be explored while still in the body. And even if we don't walk the path in its full details, the results themselves build a picture that is fully coherent and throws light on the deepest questions. The only inconvenience is that these results reveal that the individual human being is entangled with the evolution of the Cosmic organism and these deep layers don't go completely away after death. It'll take eons of evolution until everything is brought into harmony and we find our free state as Spirit hovering over the face of the waters. Until then it is our responsibility to work consciously on our own development and subsequently on the development of the Whole.

We just need to be clear with ourselves here. Just because of a desire for independence (which we don't even understand the sources of) we are forsaking any possibility for higher knowledge. We prefer to leave all the deep questions of existence shrouded in mystery, believing that they'll be resolved after death, just because we dislike that answers that are arrived at through sound thinking and direct higher cognition while still in the body.
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 699
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Essay: Beyond the Flat M@L

Post by Cleric K »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:04 pm @ Cleric ... I generally resonate with what you've expressed here, and find it not incompatible with BK's Jung-inspired model, with its underlying collective and archetypal realms, with some empyrean realms added as further elaboration. Might even be worth a try to submit it to the Essentia site for consideration, for even if it isn't published there, it would at least come to Bernardo's attention, and perhaps warrant some feedback.
Thanks Shu. Maybe I'll just drop him a PM to take a quick look if he has time and consider if it's of any interest.
User avatar
Eugene I
Posts: 1444
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: Essay: Beyond the Flat M@L

Post by Eugene I »

A few comments, Cleric
So the big difference is based on the view of what happens after death. The 'democratic' view claims that unless we are entangled with sensory desires, we are lifted above any constraints and can float above the fractal forms as pure Existence. This view can be supported only through the expectation that I spoke about. Driven by our desire for independence and not-having-anything-to-do with the general evolution of humanity's Cosmic organism, we are willing to forsake a real and verifiable path of experience, just because of general antipathy for the results coming from that path's direction. We should mark this well - we're not rejecting these results because we have explored the path and found them to be incorrect but because we don't want at all to approach that path.
Well, as I said before that there are schools in the non-dual traditions aimed at total disengagement from forms, but by far not all of them. The consensus, at least in most Mahayana schools, is that the engagement with forms and development path continues, but in a "liberated" way. One of the results of such liberation, paired with the view that there is a variety of paths, is that we gain the freedom to choose and change the paths, and the reason to change may not have anything to do with any antipathy to any paths, but simply because other paths may open to us more opportunities for further development of our consciousness. On the other hand, being a "path jumper" would not do any good either, because one needs to travel along certain paths far enough to learn what there is in them to learn. In a way, travelling along the paths deepens our perspective, and changing the paths broadens it, and both are beneficial.
It'll take eons of evolution until everything is brought into harmony and we find our free state as Spirit hovering over the face of the waters. Until then it is our responsibility to work consciously on our own development and subsequently on the development of the Whole.
Attaining the highest harmony may be the telos of this particular spiritual path of humanity defined by Christ, but that's not the only possible telos in the infinite universe of paths. Other paths may be shaped with very different kinds of telos. I would think that the state of the complete ultimate harmony is pretty boring :), but if this is something one wants to attain, then sure, why not?
Just because of a desire for independence (which we don't even understand the sources of) we are forsaking any possibility for higher knowledge.
I think it's the other way around: attaining independence (including independence from being stuck with a particular path converging to a particular center) opens a possibility to higher knowledge that is not limited to the pool of knowledge and ideas at the core of each particular center. But of course, there is higher knowledge to be discovered along each path, and we have to travel far enough along each path do discover it (if we really want to gain such knowledge). It's like getting an education: to gain deep enough knowledge in one area we have to study each discipline long enough without dropping prematurely. And if we like a particular discipline, we can stay with it for life, but if we find ourselves attracted to a different one for a certain reason, we always have freedom to change our specialization and gain education in a different area. This will only broaden our knowledge and perspective on the world, as long as we stayed long enough studying each discipline.
Last edited by Eugene I on Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kanzas anymore" Dorothy
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2918
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Essay: Beyond the Flat M@L

Post by AshvinP »

Cleric K wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:56 pm
Soul_of_Shu wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:04 pm @ Cleric ... I generally resonate with what you've expressed here, and find it not incompatible with BK's Jung-inspired model, with its underlying collective and archetypal realms, with some empyrean realms added as further elaboration. Might even be worth a try to submit it to the Essentia site for consideration, for even if it isn't published there, it would at least come to Bernardo's attention, and perhaps warrant some feedback.
Thanks Shu. Maybe I'll just drop him a PM to take a quick look if he has time and consider if it's of any interest.
That's a great idea and I agree - there is nothing truly incompatible with BK-Schopenhauer-Jung. It is an expansion of their models for sure, but not incompatible.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
ScottRoberts
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:22 pm

Re: Essay: Beyond the Flat M@L

Post by ScottRoberts »

Eugene I wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:03 pm Thanks, Cleric, fascinating. IMO I also find the "flat" model too primitive to reflect the complexity of the world of consciousness. Yet I would offer an alternative model of a multi-center consciousness as opposed to the single-center. ...

Similarly, the multi-core model of the universe of consciousness is not a chaos or flat universe, it is a highly structured and hierarchical construct, yet lacking any absolute and single core/center. In a way, it can be pictured as a fractal analogous to the physical universe with large multiplicity of star planet systems and galaxies, none of them representing the universal center. In this universe the world of consciousness is full of ideas, meanings and values, some of them representing certain sets of core ideas, but there is a variety of the core sets of ideas and none of them are absolute. Each local core set of ideas bears its own structure, hierarchy, meanings, values, telos, yet each of them is different and offer different perspectives, spiritual states and experiences.
This passage from Merrell-Wolff is what the phrase "core idea-beings" brings to my mind:
Merrell-Wolff wrote:At the deepest level of discernible thought there is a thinking that flows of itself. In its purity it employs none of the concepts that could be captured in definable words. It is fluidic rather than granular. It never isolates a definitive divided part, but everlastingly interblends them all. Every thought includes the whole of Eternity, and yet there are distinguishable thoughts. The unbroken Eternal flows before the mind, yet is endlessly colored anew with unlimited possibility. There is no labor in this thought. It simply is. It is unrelated to all desiring, all images, and all symbols.
If this is the case then there couldn't be multiple cores (or if there are, one core could not be aware of other cores, making their existence moot). Of course, this is just one revelation, but I would think it follows from the principle of nondualism.
Post Reply