Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Incarnating the Christ

[Apanthropinist]

Simple question, not a trap, 'That is my understanding of Kastrup's analytical idealism. Would you agree?'

What part of it? You made a lot of assertions in that post. But for sake of simplicity, I will say yes that is BK's idealism. What next?

Ashvin, I think it is time for me to lay my cards fully and openly on the table, after which you may decide that I have little to offer you. I have sat and contemplated what I am doing here and where would it be best and most beneficial for me to place my attention and energy. I'm trying to learn to programme and keep being drawn away from it.

If you'll forgive me I would just like to state my understanding of Analytic Idealism in the simplest terms one more time for the sake of completeness and even though we agree that this is Kastrup's idealism:

If the premise of analytical idealism is valid and its conclusion reveals a sound argument that there is one consciousness as the irreducible ontic reality (Mind At Large), which is to say an unambiguous unity of which 7,500,000 distinct by dissociation alters are experiences of that unambiguous unity.

Then, 7,500,000 appearances of distinct by dissociation alters can be nothing other than the experiences of the ontic unity termed Mind At Large.

A dissociated alter is not separate from the ground of what it is, ie, M@L. In the same way that the whirlpool (Kastrup's analogy) is in any way separated from the water, the whirlpool is nothing other than the water. There is nothing to unify, as such, simply M@L experiencing itself as dissociated alter. If the whirlpool ceases the water does not disappear.

There is no 'I' except M@L, our identity, you and I, are an illusion.

Kastrup is savvy enough, and knows well enough I suspect, to leave it at that. He knows that he need not, in point of fact can not, extend his reach beyond the capacity and competence of the method which brought him to its' necessary conclusion. He may speculate about the consequences and implications of what his argument may mean but he does not add them to his argument because he fully understands that whatever he says is not necessary for his argument to succeed, it's already made. Whatever comes after that boundary is revelatory through beholding and this is a similar point to one Simon Adams made to me in a post.

But perhaps rather than simply arguing over the theoretical aspects of analytical idealism, I can also offer you a view of how I see its implications and what I am beginning to discover are its pragmatic applications for me. So long as it remains theory I will remain Nietzsche's 'Big Ear' in Thus Spoke Zarathustra with too little of living and too much of thinking. If it is made too complicated and becomes adorned with esoteric mind practices then neither I nor any other common man or woman will ever apply it and if we do that we may entirely miss a nascent and urgent opportunity to straighten ourselves out as a species.

That is what I intend to do first before I try to venture beyond that boundary, for me there are things here and now which need my attention before anywhere else.

I am beginning to uncover the unconscious fear I have had which has possessed me all my life towards feeling vulnerable. I walled myself off from the richer and deeper and a more open expression of love towards those closest to me. I have isolated myself and hid in my mind and the world of thoughts believing I could think my way out of facing my fear when in fact it was embodied unconsciously within me. When I look at my wife and our two young daughters now, from the context of M@L, I don't feel the power of that same fear because I am them and they are me. To love them is an act of loving myself and, strange as it may sound but perhaps not, to love Mind At Large. I am grateful for the beginning of this liberation and rightly humbled by my own foolishness and cowardice.

I am also beginning to understand that once I settle into a more embodied experience of M@L that it can naturally lead me to extend this love, and compassion and kindness and understanding and thoughtfulness to others outside my direct family. I can enter into a more full communion with others because I am them and they are me. I can also begin to integrate the contraries of all the opposites to those because they can and do exist, think of Jung's Archetypes and how they relate to M@L and us. I can do this because of the framework M@L provides and the context in which I can now place myself where I simply could not previously do so. Much as I searched and searched I could not find a meta-narrative that made sense to me. Now I have and it does, I have context.

There is no longer a divide between the atheist and theist with M@L. It permits both and excludes neither. Can we all say hallelujah now?! Imagine if the premise of M@L was accepted widely and there is no reason it could not be because at its base, and in essence, it is a simple and elegant premise. It just requires a not so big shift in perception that with some effort we could present to anyone, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Jedi (it's recognised as a religion in the UK). Because I am them and they are me.

We can finally develop sciences that are not based on a nihilistic materialism and this in itself could, almost inevitably would, shift our world view/cosmic view because it must, and can only, follow a shift in ontological view.

Spiritual/existential exploration would have an almost entirely new lease of life and can you imagine the power of all those minds who would have a common view as their ground of being?

There is no longer any meaning to skin pigmentation to argue about with M@L. Because I am them and they are me
There are no longer any nations to fight each other with M@L. Because I am them and they are me
We cannot abuse our living planet because it also, along with all the cosmos we think we know, is part of M@L

These are just a handful of implications and pragmatic applications that I am beginning to contemplate and I am starting to realise more fully that this is where it starts for me. It starts with me, for me, for my family, for my community, for everything I can think of. By straightening myself out because I am not, by any reasonable metric, living in a way that acknowledges the implications and pragmatic everyday applications, and ethics and morality, which arise out of analytical idealism.

So I'll forget Schopenhauer for the moment and not try and figure out that which I could never clearly explain even if it were revealed to me, how M@L learns to know what it wills and why it wills it. As Eugene has suggested, there is no single way, the purpose is to explore many.

For as long as I can remember I have felt and yearning and a longing within me and over the years as I've grown older I've come to see this as a yearning and a longing in all human beings. I came to a tenuous conclusion that life yearns for and is longing for, itself, always and ever, and that in all aspects of our lives and everything we do, we are looking for ourselves. Now, with M@L, I have finally begun to understand why.

I'm just Nietzsche's 'Big Ear' in Thus Spoke Zarathustra with too little of living and too much of thinking. So I'll take the advice from the allegory of the Christ in Matthew 18:3 and make an effort to ensure that it becomes 'More Than Allegory'.

So when I said to you:

My game Ashvin, is to understand my opponent so I can come to know their weaknesses, and then help them to defeat themselves.

The thing is, in analytical idealism as in Jungian psychology, there can only ever truly be one opponent. So I owe you my thanks and gratitude for helping me to overcome some of my weaknesses in more fully thinking through and understanding analytical idealism and what the deeper implications are that arise out of it. My weakness is to think that I know more than I actually do and having that challenged allows me to defeat that inner opponent and reveal what I can more clearly know and understand. To just live as best I can, that's the biggest favour I can do for M@L and myself and everyone because I am nothing other than that.

What you are doing and Cleric and everyone else on the forum is valuable, genuinely valuable because only you can do what you are doing as and for M@L. Which really, is God/Tao/Brahman by any other name. Just not the one we thought it was.

Kastrup isn't a Messiah or Saviour nor infallible. Just a decent man to whom, if I were to ever meet him, I could offer my hand and say, 'In Lak'ech Ala K'in' , Mayan for 'I am another You, You are another Me. We are all One.' and then say, simply, 'Thank you.'

As I am doing to you now as I step away from this.

[AshvinP]

Simple question, not a trap, 'That is my understanding of Kastrup's analytical idealism. Would you agree?'

What part of it? You made a lot of assertions in that post. But for sake of simplicity, I will say yes that is BK's idealism. What next?

Ashvin, I think it is time for me to lay my cards fully and openly on the table, after which you may decide that I have little to offer you. I have sat and contemplated what I am doing here and where would it be best and most beneficial for me to place my attention and energy. I'm trying to learn to programme and keep being drawn away from it.

I really appreciate your thoughtful post and the thanks you gave. It is a truly classy and upright thing to do. You are welcome for whatever tiny part I played in your journey. I will never be the one to say someone should stick around and argue philosophy or spirituality when they do not feel that they are being impelled to do so. I wish you and your family the best of luck in all of your endeavors!

[Lou Gold]

Simple question, not a trap, 'That is my understanding of Kastrup's analytical idealism. Would you agree?'

What part of it? You made a lot of assertions in that post. But for sake of simplicity, I will say yes that is BK's idealism. What next?

Ashvin, I think it is time for me to lay my cards fully and openly on the table, after which you may decide that I have little to offer you. I have sat and contemplated what I am doing here and where would it be best and most beneficial for me to place my attention and energy. I'm trying to learn to programme and keep being drawn away from it.

If you'll forgive me I would just like to state my understanding of Analytic Idealism in the simplest terms one more time for the sake of completeness and even though we agree that this is Kastrup's idealism:

If the premise of analytical idealism is valid and its conclusion reveals a sound argument that there is one consciousness as the irreducible ontic reality (Mind At Large), which is to say an unambiguous unity of which 7,500,000 distinct by dissociation alters are experiences of that unambiguous unity.

Then, 7,500,000 appearances of distinct by dissociation alters can be nothing other than the experiences of the ontic unity termed Mind At Large.

A dissociated alter is not separate from the ground of what it is, ie, M@L. In the same way that the whirlpool (Kastrup's analogy) is in any way separated from the water, the whirlpool is nothing other than the water. There is nothing to unify, as such, simply M@L experiencing itself as dissociated alter. If the whirlpool ceases the water does not disappear.

There is no 'I' except M@L, our identity, you and I, are an illusion.

Kastrup is savvy enough, and knows well enough I suspect, to leave it at that. He knows that he need not, in point of fact can not, extend his reach beyond the capacity and competence of the method which brought him to its' necessary conclusion. He may speculate about the consequences and implications of what his argument may mean but he does not add them to his argument because he fully understands that whatever he says is not necessary for his argument to succeed, it's already made. Whatever comes after that boundary is revelatory through beholding and this is a similar point to one Simon Adams made to me in a post.

But perhaps rather than simply arguing over the theoretical aspects of analytical idealism, I can also offer you a view of how I see its implications and what I am beginning to discover are its pragmatic applications for me. So long as it remains theory I will remain Nietzsche's 'Big Ear' in Thus Spoke Zarathustra with too little of living and too much of thinking. If it is made too complicated and becomes adorned with esoteric mind practices then neither I nor any other common man or woman will ever apply it and if we do that we may entirely miss a nascent and urgent opportunity to straighten ourselves out as a species.

That is what I intend to do first before I try to venture beyond that boundary, for me there are things here and now which need my attention before anywhere else.

I am beginning to uncover the unconscious fear I have had which has possessed me all my life towards feeling vulnerable. I walled myself off from the richer and deeper and a more open expression of love towards those closest to me. I have isolated myself and hid in my mind and the world of thoughts believing I could think my way out of facing my fear when in fact it was embodied unconsciously within me. When I look at my wife and our two young daughters now, from the context of M@L, I don't feel the power of that same fear because I am them and they are me. To love them is an act of loving myself and, strange as it may sound but perhaps not, to love Mind At Large. I am grateful for the beginning of this liberation and rightly humbled by my own foolishness and cowardice.

I am also beginning to understand that once I settle into a more embodied experience of M@L that it can naturally lead me to extend this love, and compassion and kindness and understanding and thoughtfulness to others outside my direct family. I can enter into a more full communion with others because I am them and they are me. I can also begin to integrate the contraries of all the opposites to those because they can and do exist, think of Jung's Archetypes and how they relate to M@L and us. I can do this because of the framework M@L provides and the context in which I can now place myself where I simply could not previously do so. Much as I searched and searched I could not find a meta-narrative that made sense to me. Now I have and it does, I have context.

There is no longer a divide between the atheist and theist with M@L. It permits both and excludes neither. Can we all say hallelujah now?! Imagine if the premise of M@L was accepted widely and there is no reason it could not be because at its base, and in essence, it is a simple and elegant premise. It just requires a not so big shift in perception that with some effort we could present to anyone, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Jedi (it's recognised as a religion in the UK). Because I am them and they are me.

We can finally develop sciences that are not based on a nihilistic materialism and this in itself could, almost inevitably would, shift our world view/cosmic view because it must, and can only, follow a shift in ontological view.

Spiritual/existential exploration would have an almost entirely new lease of life and can you imagine the power of all those minds who would have a common view as their ground of being?

There is no longer any meaning to skin pigmentation to argue about with M@L. Because I am them and they are me
There are no longer any nations to fight each other with M@L. Because I am them and they are me
We cannot abuse our living planet because it also, along with all the cosmos we think we know, is part of M@L

These are just a handful of implications and pragmatic applications that I am beginning to contemplate and I am starting to realise more fully that this is where it starts for me. It starts with me, for me, for my family, for my community, for everything I can think of. By straightening myself out because I am not, by any reasonable metric, living in a way that acknowledges the implications and pragmatic everyday applications, and ethics and morality, which arise out of analytical idealism.

So I'll forget Schopenhauer for the moment and not try and figure out that which I could never clearly explain even if it were revealed to me, how M@L learns to know what it wills and why it wills it. As Eugene has suggested, there is no single way, the purpose is to explore many.

For as long as I can remember I have felt and yearning and a longing within me and over the years as I've grown older I've come to see this as a yearning and a longing in all human beings. I came to a tenuous conclusion that life yearns for and is longing for, itself, always and ever, and that in all aspects of our lives and everything we do, we are looking for ourselves. Now, with M@L, I have finally begun to understand why.

I'm just Nietzsche's 'Big Ear' in Thus Spoke Zarathustra with too little of living and too much of thinking. So I'll take the advice from the allegory of the Christ in Matthew 18:3 and make an effort to ensure that it becomes 'More Than Allegory'.

So when I said to you:

My game Ashvin, is to understand my opponent so I can come to know their weaknesses, and then help them to defeat themselves.

The thing is, in analytical idealism as in Jungian psychology, there can only ever truly be one opponent. So I owe you my thanks and gratitude for helping me to overcome some of my weaknesses in more fully thinking through and understanding analytical idealism and what the deeper implications are that arise out of it. My weakness is to think that I know more than I actually do and having that challenged allows me to defeat that inner opponent and reveal what I can more clearly know and understand. To just live as best I can, that's the biggest favour I can do for M@L and myself and everyone because I am nothing other than that.

What you are doing and Cleric and everyone else on the forum is valuable, genuinely valuable because only you can do what you are doing as and for M@L. Which really, is God/Tao/Brahman by any other name. Just not the one we thought it was.

Kastrup isn't a Messiah or Saviour nor infallible. Just a decent man to whom, if I were to ever meet him, I could offer my hand and say, 'In Lak'ech Ala K'in' , Mayan for 'I am another You, You are another Me. We are all One.' and then say, simply, 'Thank you.'

As I am doing to you now as I step away from this.

Lovely indeed! Thank you.

[Soul_of_Shu]

... I could offer my hand and say, 'In Lak'ech Ala K'in' , Mayan for 'I am another You, You are another Me. We are all One.' and then say, simply, 'Thank you.'

And thus anyOne knows It when it is realized that it is, without exception, everyOne, however much it may appear otherwise while under the spell that it is somehow otherwise.

Best regards in being It in relationship with It.

[Eugene I]

Kastrup isn't a Messiah or Saviour nor infallible. Just a decent man to whom, if I were to ever meet him, I could offer my hand and say, 'In Lak'ech Ala K'in' , Mayan for 'I am another You, You are another Me. We are all One.' and then say, simply, 'Thank you.'

Thank you, another Me for this beautiful treatise on non-duality!