Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Breaking Bad Habits

[AshvinP]

One thing I would add, is the reason I mention that the new ideas are dangerous, is that although Buddhism is very different to Christianity, it clearly encourages people away from violence, towards compassion etc. I don’t know the history of the east as well, but presumably that tradition has done something similar to quell some of the natural instincts of man (and of course likewise you will always have exceptions). I’m of course not suggesting that is the raison d’etre for good religion, but it’s worth saying in this context.

Simon - I didn't quite follow your comment. Which "new ideas" are you referring to?

The ideas focussed on power and breaking down all the natural hierarchies in society. I’m all for a more equal society, and against the obscene wealth and obscene poverty, but you don’t fix that by turning things upside down. It’s verging onto politics however so that’s not my point - which was more in the context of healthy philosophy versus unhealthy philosophy…

I see. So basically you are saying we cannot abolish traditional religion in Western culture because it will take out the foundations for our ethical conduct which tames our instinctive passions? That is definitely correct to some extent, but as Apanthropinist mentioned, Nietzsche declared God had died in the late 19th century and he was pretty much correct at that time. Not only that, but God died at the hands of the Church through the latter's ongoing intellectualization (rationalism) of spirituality as earliest reflected in the Protestant Reformation. So we are 120+ years later from God's death and we are confronted with the question, 'do we restore what has already died in its same form?' or instead 'do we move forward into a transfigured mode of being which reconciles authentic spirituality with the developments of modernity and post-modernity?' I say we choose the latter or, rather, we choose to participate in the latter metamorphosis, which will occur regardless.

[Ed Konderla]

I'm willing to make a wager that everyone that thinks "philosophical thought" has a tangible importance would have one heck of a time explaining how or why. It's only entertainment. It's an intellectual video game. Even with all of this big thinking human nature always wins out especially when reacting to life threatening conditions or starvation. Now I'll agree that philosophical thought is obviously important to individuals especially individuals on this blog and at one point in my life was important to me. I since have taken the training wheels off of my bike and ride and hope I don't fall and get an intellectual bobo. I think for many it is a way to try to give meaning, validation and shape to a life that is governed by fear. Only people with plenty to eat and physical security have the time and energy to apply such emotional prophylactics. I think Idealism has a lot of potential in helping shape a more effective value system for humanity providing it has the leadership to effectively use the tools it provides. Anybody that points to it and says, "See I told you, holding hands and singing Kum Ba Ya is the answer." I think are out of their minds. But it is going to have to a value system with simple rules that isn't about non stop quoting of one's favorite philosopher or religion. It needs to have something like a 10 commandments and maybe those original 10 commandments will work but will require a new validating "God" other than Judeo Christianity.

[Cleric K]

It does answer my question regarding your understanding of "spiritual sensing". Thank you. I deeply appreciate how practical and replicable the account of your experience is. Is there more of similar writings available ?

What exactly are you interested in?

[Simon Adams]

I see. So basically you are saying we cannot abolish traditional religion in Western culture because it will take out the foundations for our ethical conduct which tames our instinctive passions? That is definitely correct to some extent, but as Apanthropinist mentioned, Nietzsche declared God had died in the late 19th century and he was pretty much correct at that time. Not only that, but God died at the hands of the Church through the latter's ongoing intellectualization (rationalism) of spirituality as earliest reflected in the Protestant Reformation. So we are 120+ years later from God's death and we are confronted with the question, 'do we restore what has already died in its same form?' or instead 'do we move forward into a transfigured mode of being which reconciles authentic spirituality with the developments of modernity and post-modernity?' I say we choose the latter or, rather, we choose to participate in the latter metamorphosis, which will occur regardless.

I suspect that if I lived in the US, with all the ‘testosterone christianity’ you have there, I may well agree with your desire for something detached from all of that. Religion is relegated as a kind of personal hobby from the perspective of popular culture in most of europe now, which has maybe done us a favour. As it is, I’m interested in learning all that gives us hints about reality from modern science, and from good philosophy, but I’ve crossed the precipice. I’ve found the pearl hidden in the field, have come ‘back’ to what I fully rejected in my own culture, and seen it with new eyes. So for me god is not dead in any sense. If anything, I think aspects of the wider cultural psyche seem to be heading towards a kind of death.

We only know anything through relationship, as both quantum physics and relativity show. Kant said we can’t know the “thing in itself”, but of course we get to know much about the “thing in itself” of much in the world, through relationship. That’s also a lesson I’ve learnt about god, who you can only really know through relationship. It’s that relationship, the quiet voice that doesn’t speak, which is more important to me now than anything I can learn. So for me the intellectual/philosophy side is always going to be limited, and the limits are well expressed in this article I came across earlier this week. That’s of course far away from the realms our current science etc, and so analytic idealism helps fill in some of the more down to earth gaps…

[AshvinP]

I see. So basically you are saying we cannot abolish traditional religion in Western culture because it will take out the foundations for our ethical conduct which tames our instinctive passions? That is definitely correct to some extent, but as Apanthropinist mentioned, Nietzsche declared God had died in the late 19th century and he was pretty much correct at that time. Not only that, but God died at the hands of the Church through the latter's ongoing intellectualization (rationalism) of spirituality as earliest reflected in the Protestant Reformation. So we are 120+ years later from God's death and we are confronted with the question, 'do we restore what has already died in its same form?' or instead 'do we move forward into a transfigured mode of being which reconciles authentic spirituality with the developments of modernity and post-modernity?' I say we choose the latter or, rather, we choose to participate in the latter metamorphosis, which will occur regardless.

I suspect that if I lived in the US, with all the ‘testosterone christianity’ you have there, I may well agree with your desire for something detached from all of that. Religion is relegated as a kind of personal hobby from the perspective of popular culture in most of europe now, which has maybe done us a favour. As it is, I’m interested in learning all that gives us hints about reality from modern science, and from good philosophy, but I’ve crossed the precipice. I’ve found the pearl hidden in the field, have come ‘back’ to what I fully rejected in my own culture, and seen it with new eyes. So for me god is not dead in any sense. If anything, I think aspects of the wider cultural psyche seem to be heading towards a kind of death.

We only know anything through relationship, as both quantum physics and relativity show. Kant said we can’t know the “thing in itself”, but of course we get to know much about the “thing in itself” of much in the world, through relationship. That’s also a lesson I’ve learnt about god, who you can only really know through relationship. It’s that relationship, the quiet voice that doesn’t speak, which is more important to me now than anything I can learn. So for me the intellectual/philosophy side is always going to be limited, and the limits are well expressed in this article I came across earlier this week. That’s of course far away from the realms our current science etc, and so analytic idealism helps fill in some of the more down to earth gaps…

I really desire that you will recognize, after considering the 3rd part of my essay, that what I am desiring, or eagerly waiting to see manifested (in myself first of all), is not at all detached from authentic Christian tradition. Certainly not the pre-Reformation tradition. It is, as you say, a rediscovery of that tradition under the light of a new consciousness which has not previously existed. It is a new consciousness which should refuse to accept the awkward tension in your bolded statements above. The philosophical-scientific side is precisely the side of experiential relationship, which is also the spiritual side - they are becoming one and the same side. Intellectual inquiry is obviously involved, but it is always performed in service of the relational experience, as the left brain must exist to serve the right brain. That is how we address the 'meaning crisis' of the present in a way which actually penetrates the culture, because it is fundamentally True. I hope you will agree it is foundational to the Gospels that we should trust that seeking and expressing the Truth is always the best way forward, even if it does not seem to be at any given time.

[Simon Adams]

I really desire that you will recognize, after considering the 3rd part of my essay, that what I am desiring, or eagerly waiting to see manifested (in myself first of all), is not at all detached from authentic Christian tradition. Certainly not the pre-Reformation tradition. It is, as you say, a rediscovery of that tradition under the light of a new consciousness which has not previously existed. It is a new consciousness which should refuse to accept the awkward tension in your bolded statements above. The philosophical-scientific side is precisely the side of experiential relationship, which is also the spiritual side - they are becoming one and the same side. Intellectual inquiry is obviously involved, but it is always performed in service of the relational experience, as the left brain must exist to serve the right brain.

I actually see no tension in my statements in bold. For me the philosophy/science aspect is what Bernardo would call the re-representation. I think someone could read all the books available on science and philosophy, but if they don’t do any meditation, ritual, prayer etc, then they have no spiritual legs. They are completely stuck in the real spiritual world, and can only move in the world of re-representation.

I’m not at all saying that the philosophy/science are not important, they must inform and balance. Truth must always be a guide, that undefinable out of reach idea that keeps us honest. Equally many (if not most) people don’t have the inclination or even ability to follow the science or philosophy, and they can still have very ‘plugged in’ spiritual journeys without the philosophy and science. It’s arguably important they are part of a community / tradition that does have people who value and understand these things, but I don’t accept that they are “one and the same”. I will caveat that however, as there is a sense in which someone who learns some of these things through the relationship, will also know something of the reality to which the philosophy points, even if they have no idea what terms to use etc. However I don’t think the reverse is ever really true.

That is how we address the 'meaning crisis' of the present in a way which actually penetrates the culture, because it is fundamentally True.

It’s probably a sign of me being close to the half century mark, but popular culture seems to want instagram, TikTok, short bursts of ‘mind-candy’, celebrity gossip, “love island” etc. Of course in reality that’s only a portion, and there are many who are interested in “what’s real”, “what’s it all about” questions, and surely for some of them a more scientific and philosophical approach can better break the bonds to naive materialism. However to go back to Bernardo’s analogy, there is the map and there is the terrain. If you keep getting people excited about going hiking, and then just give them maps to read, they’ll soon be back on the Playstation…

I hope you will agree it is foundational to the Gospels that we should trust that seeking and expressing the Truth is always the best way forward, even if it does not seem to be at any given time.

On that I can agree 100% . I hope you understand that it’s not really what you are saying that I disagree with, much of it is far better informed than me on these things. It just feels a bit like when someone cuts a flower off to bring it inside so that everyone can see it and appreciate it, which is very logical, but without those deep roots in the actual ground it grew from, it won’t get the nutrients it needs.

[AshvinP]

I really desire that you will recognize, after considering the 3rd part of my essay, that what I am desiring, or eagerly waiting to see manifested (in myself first of all), is not at all detached from authentic Christian tradition. Certainly not the pre-Reformation tradition. It is, as you say, a rediscovery of that tradition under the light of a new consciousness which has not previously existed. It is a new consciousness which should refuse to accept the awkward tension in your bolded statements above. The philosophical-scientific side is precisely the side of experiential relationship, which is also the spiritual side - they are becoming one and the same side. Intellectual inquiry is obviously involved, but it is always performed in service of the relational experience, as the left brain must exist to serve the right brain.

I actually see no tension in my statements in bold. For me the philosophy/science aspect is what Bernardo would call the re-representation. I think someone could read all the books available on science and philosophy, but if they don’t do any meditation, ritual, prayer etc, then they have no spiritual legs. They are completely stuck in the real spiritual world, and can only move in the world of re-representation.

I’m not at all saying that the philosophy/science are not important, they must inform and balance. Truth must always be a guide, that undefinable out of reach idea that keeps us honest. Equally many (if not most) people don’t have the inclination or even ability to follow the science or philosophy, and they can still have very ‘plugged in’ spiritual journeys without the philosophy and science. It’s arguably important they are part of a community / tradition that does have people who value and understand these things, but I don’t accept that they are “one and the same”. I will caveat that however, as there is a sense in which someone who learns some of these things through the relationship, will also know something of the reality to which the philosophy points, even if they have no idea what terms to use etc. However I don’t think the reverse is ever really true.

BK may actually gain something from Vervaeke in this regard re: "participatory" consciousness. Not really, because BK says he is familiar with Barfield and Gebser's writings so he probably knows much more about it than I do, but has chosen not to include it in his rigorous philosophical persona at this time. Anyway, the main point being, and as Scott just mentioned on the Incarnating the Christ thread, participatory consciousness does not need to represent and re-represent noumena to itself, at least not at the most direct layer of concepts 'above' us that we can only explore abstractly. What we explore with abstractions those beings explore with direct perception. That is why the "metacognition" concept is misleading, because it is a statement of relational perspective on phenomenon rather than an absolute state of a being.

Again, this can all be derived from the metamorphic argument and its implications as long as we abandon all other philosophical assumptions we [unconsciously] bring to the table. The big difference from ancient participatory consciousness is, of course, the hard-won capacity of modern humans to also scientifically explore such ideal relations with great resolution and specificity. We must stop thinking of our thinking as a completely separate capacity from our perceptual organs, because, in reality, it is not. We can perceive ideas with our thinking as we perceive colors with our eyes and sounds with our ears. Now if there are legitimate philosophical, scientific or even theological arguments against that assertion, I am definitely willing to entertain them. So far, I have not come across any, and, in contrast, I have only come across increasingly more evidence in favor of that assertion the more thinkers I explore, although I have not personally experienced it yet.

I say "hard-won" above because it came at a great spiritual cost, but in reality that rigorous scientific mode of consciousness is a gift from God. How do we show our gratitude to God for that gift, which as you point out, very few people have it at their fingertips like we do? Most people will spend a better part of a lifetime trying to develop such a skill, yet probably everyone on this forum can employ it right away without even much effort. That is truly what Christ has brought into the world through His Incarnation into human history. Not just metaphorically, but literally. We give thanks to God for His grace by freely aligning our will with His through our spiritual activity, and that is not other than what we are discussing right now.

[Eugene I]

Well, knowing the Eastern Christianity from inside, I'm sure they would claim that the spiritual science reduction of God and the whole world to ideas and the claim that it all can be exhaustively known by cognition is 100% heresy and a result of Aquinas's influence on the Western spirituality, theology and philosophy. And as Simon rightly noted, it is quite opposite to the Eastern Orthodoxy understanding of the ineffability of God's nature that started fron pseudo-Dionysius and culminated in the theology of Palamism. In the West it was also shared by many mystics such as the author of "The Cloud of Unknowing" and by Meister Eckhart, but on the most part it was ignored.

[AshvinP]

Well, knowing the Eastern Christianity from inside, I'm sure they would claim that the spiritual science reduction of God and the whole world to ideas and the claim that it all can be exhaustively known by cognition is 100% heresy and a result of Aquinas's influence on the Western spirituality, theology and philosophy. And as Simon rightly noted, it is quite opposite to the Eastern Orthodoxy understanding of the ineffability of God's nature that started fron pseudo-Dionysius and culminated in the theology of Palamism. In the West it was also shared by many mystics such as the author of "The Cloud of Unknowing" and by Meister Eckhart, but on the most part it was ignored.

I am discussing this very aspect more in the 3rd part, but I will say now that your entire view of Western theology is an artifact of ignoring the metamorphic process, as most modern scholars do. You say that you take it seriously, but it is not seriously influencing your view of Western philosophy from Plato to Aquinas. For example, as mentioned before, the "reduction" to ideas in Plato is not at all what you are envisioning it to be, because ideas were experienced as sense-perceptible content. They could be clearly distinguished but were not separated from perceptions in any abstract manner that we do today. That is the clear unavoidable implication of the metamorphic view of the Spirit. Therefore, Western idealism is actually the redeemer of Eastern Orthodox participatory theology from the clutches of the Cartesian-Kantian divides. That was not something lost on Meister Eckhart or any other Christian mystics.

[Eugene I]

For example, as mentioned before, the "reduction" to ideas in Plato is not at all what you are envisioning it to be, because ideas were experienced as sense-perceptible content.

Fine, but even within the Plato's framework, what is this experiencing of ideas as sense-perceptible content? Is this experiencing also an idea?

Also, can any idea exist without experiencing? Even if you claim that it can exist without experiencing, how can you ever prove it? To prove it, you need to be able to experience such idea existing in such non-experienced state. This makes such view non-verifiable, and as such, also unnecessary and non-parsimonious, because the ontology of Consciousness can be formulated without such proposition.

Ashvin, by the way, you have an amazing ability to write profound replies that eloquently avoid addressing the questions asked or the issues pointed