Addiction to Time as a Super-Structure

[electricshephard]

I've noticed that even some of the most enlightened thinkers and idealists still sometimes get caught in the trap of thinking about time as a super-structure that envelops consciousness, rather than consciousness enveloping time.

It has been said that as the eternal Self, you can either be on top of the mountain, where you can see everything but there's not that much to do (i.e non-duality), or you can go down and get lost in the forest, where you can see very little but there's plenty of things to do (i.e the Maya).

In one of his talks, Alan Watts talks about God periodically getting bored of non-dualistic infinite bliss and voluntarily coming down into a localised and ignorant finite-form for the purposes of temporal excitement and adventure. Now and again, it would seem that the Mind at Large goes on vacation from being God and gets well and truly lost in the woods.

It's a very seductive idea that to me certainly feels very close to the truth, and yet also seems to be fundamentally problematic: In order for "God to become bored" it would have to be subordinate to a higher super-structure of time, that allowed sufficient animation and process for boredom to manifest.

But surely this cannot be possible, as the structure of time is contained within consciousness, not the other way around. Time is a subordinate structure, not a super-structure. The non-dualistic experience is an experience without time - quite literally eternal.

But nonetheless it would seem, self-evidently and paradoxically, that consciousness appears to "cycle" through various states. It seems that there is an addictive temptation to try to make sense of it within the context of a higher transcendental timeline. For example mystics often speak about God's big descent into the Maya as "The Great Fall" - a time-based metaphor with "the falling" implying a process.

Are we addicted to time as a super-structure? And if so, how do we account for the apparent cycles and oscillations between Universal Mind and disassociated mind?

[Robert Arvay]

While I disagree with your model of reality (but then, who am I to do so?),
I would think that if this "god-like" super-consciousness decided to create a forest
and go into it, it must have a very good reason to do so (other than boredom, as you seem to agree).

It would then behoove us to accept the forest, and play the game, since there is a good reason for it.

However, as I said, I do not agree with the model. I would however, expect that any
model we "make" or construe, be self-consistent.

IMO, we can never achieve such a model correctly, and must rely on revealed wisdom to
set us on the right path, and only then, reason, to follow it.

IMHO.
-

[Cleric K]

I've noticed that even some of the most enlightened thinkers and idealists still sometimes get caught in the trap of thinking about time as a super-structure that envelops consciousness, rather than consciousness enveloping time.

It has been said that as the eternal Self, you can either be on top of the mountain, where you can see everything but there's not that much to do (i.e non-duality), or you can go down and get lost in the forest, where you can see very little but there's plenty of things to do (i.e the Maya).

In one of his talks, Alan Watts talks about God periodically getting bored of non-dualistic infinite bliss and voluntarily coming down into a localised and ignorant finite-form for the purposes of temporal excitement and adventure. Now and again, it would seem that the Mind at Large goes on vacation from being God and gets well and truly lost in the woods.

It's a very seductive idea that to me certainly feels very close to the truth, and yet also seems to be fundamentally problematic: In order for "God to become bored" it would have to be subordinate to a higher super-structure of time, that allowed sufficient animation and process for boredom to manifest.

But surely this cannot be possible, as the structure of time is contained within consciousness, not the other way around. Time is a subordinate structure, not a super-structure. The non-dualistic experience is an experience without time - quite literally eternal.

But nonetheless it would seem, self-evidently and paradoxically, that consciousness appears to "cycle" through various states. It seems that there is an addictive temptation to try to make sense of it within the context of a higher transcendental timeline. For example mystics often speak about God's big descent into the Maya as "The Great Fall" - a time-based metaphor with "the falling" implying a process.

Are we addicted to time as a super-structure? And if so, how do we account for the apparent cycles and oscillations between Universal Mind and disassociated mind?

We are addicted to time - big time. This is another of the bad mental habits that we'll need to overcome and it's quite serious. It's the one called anthropomorphism. And it will become more serious as time goes by if people refuse to learn something about the higher worlds and the needed stages of consciousness. Otherwise, we project - out of a mixture of ignorance and arrogance - our Earthly nature into the higher worlds.

Things like 'God became bored and split into parts' are simply false. As a matter of fact there's no such perspective of MAL which decides to 'split into parts'. Ashvin's latest essays already lay the foundation for this. The metamorphic view not only changes but integrates. I've mentioned this several times - conscious experience as we know it, is the result of continuous integration which in the most general sense we call memory. Of course this shouldn't be confused with the memory we understand from information technology, as a structure for data storage. Neither it is the simple ability to remember things. It's something much more deeper and that's why it is yet another thing that so easily falls into a blind spot of consciousness. It's actually very simple - we would never have the experience of a stream of consciousness if we couldn't feel our current state as building upon the previous states. In certain sense every next state should embed, resonate with all previous states. This build up doesn't need to be strictly monotonical - it's rhythmical, as it can be seen from our waking/sleeping cycle, but still, there's overall integration. We are not conscious about our falling asleep but on the next morning we know that this is what happened and now we've reemerged again at a higher level of integration.

I've already hinted about these things in this metaphor. This simple realization moves external reasons for the direction of time to ourselves. This is another consequence of the Kantian divide. As long as we imagine that there's a world-in-itself outside consciousness we can fantasize as much as we want about it and search for laws (like the second law of thermodynamics) which explain the direction of time. The reason is much more intimate. We could never speak about time without the integrative process of memory. We can imagine that this is not some 'law' of the universe but a simple necessity. It might as well be the case that our next state of being could be anything, but only those states which form a gradient in relation to our current state can lead to experience of a stream of consciousness.

Practically all be-ings experience integration towards eternity which encompasses all potential as a whole. No be-ing can consciously split into parts. This would mean that every 'next' state of that being should be less conscious than the previous, this would be like reversed time. Every next state should lose memory since the limited state can't remember the higher state, and thus it can't be experienced as a stream of consciousness. This 'splitting' action is experienced somewhat differently. I've mentioned that in the Deep M@L essay. It can be said that there are constantly infinitely many streams of being that integrate from the periphery towards the center of eternity. Each stream is a metamorphic view experiencing its own awakening from the deep cosmic sleep, acquiring self-consciousness and continuing to work consciously on its integration. Those beings which are well ahead in this process in certain sense form 'resistance', an opposite flow from the center towards the periphery. This is the principle of world creation. Without this resistance all peripheral flow towards the center would immediately implode into eternity. Through the resistance, the peripheral flow must find creative solutions for its integration, which is the basis for exploration of be-ing in time.

Another aspect of the above is that this integration is not an 'improvement in time', like some skill getting better and better while time flows as it ever has. The more integrated the metamorphic view, the more we encompass idea-beings whose activity spans time. I tried to give an analogy of this in the Deep M@L essay through the symphony. For example, the states of being of our whole incarnation can be encompassed as something holistic from higher perspective. This is the origin of all 'life flashing before one's eyes' experiences. Ultimately this is the direction of all evolution - approaching a perspective before whose eyes the whole infinite Cosmic potential 'flashes' as something holistic. The great difficulty (effect of anthropomorphism) is that we don't gain proper understanding of this if we simply imagine ourselves becoming well integrated while forgetting to account for the way the experience of time changes. It's only when things like these are neglected that the nonsense about 'becoming bored' can emerge. If we say that, we simply don't really try to overcome our linear time habits. This is also related to the possible objection: 'But I don't want to integrate into eternity and all existence to end. I want to keep experiencing things as much as I want'. This again can only be a product of complete misunderstanding of the nature of the higher worlds. Only the Earthly ego can make such demands. In reality, the more we move towards the eternal, the more we integrate all potential - past and future - and it is like we've lived through all that. If the center of eternity could be experienced it would be like feeling every conceivable state of being as a kind of memory - as something that we know from direct experience. If this is understood it will also explain why all existence flows through the periphery towards the center. The center of eternity can't get bored and decide to fragment into sequential time fragments for a change. This is precisely the fallacy electricshephard points out - through the act of the blind spot we project our anthropomorphic time experience into eternity. Yet the metamorphic view can be experienced as gradually evolving from complete unconsciousness, through sleep consciousness, through dream consciousness, reaching awakening - this is our stage. From here on the conscious integration continues. And this has very direct practical aspects. One of the many that can be mentioned is the overcoming of envy. Within the higher states of consciousness we can relate to the perspectives of other human beings and experience livingly something of their states. This makes it clear that it's not at all necessary that one being should experience everything for itself. At some point all experiences are accessible as a shared pool in Akasha. When this is understood, even if we don't have such experiences at the moment, the understanding itself becomes a living soul force which gives us the strength to transform envy. (this has relation to Paul's words "But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.". In other words, the only thing that deserves to be envied is the integration of our being, which is up to us to work on through Love).

So in summary, there are always waves after waves of be-ing, travelling from infinity at the periphery towards eternity at the center (in Deep M@L this should be clear but I'll mention it just in case - there's only one center - the same center of our metamorphic view). Against these waves flows the activity of higher beings, which create the means for complicated experiences. For example, if there were no resisting force to our metamorphic process, there would never be a reason for our mineral bodies to take form. Our evolutionary scenario is an example of finding the wholeness of our metamorphic view even amidst of severe decoherence. The human bodies are the result of collective effort of beings, which allow for the human "I" to experience the integrative memory process even in these difficult conditions.

[Robert Arvay]

I think of time as a brick, in which past, present and future already exist --

except--

the brick is not solid. It is a gel. It does not flow, but it does quiver.
We are what makes it quiver.

Thus, while the future is likely to unfold in predictable ways,
it is not inalterable. Unexpected things can happen, unpredicted and unpredictable.
This may have some parallels in quantum theory,
but not precisely. (Randomness exists, but only within non-random parameters.)

Likewise, the past is not entirely inalterable.

Time has two dimensions, mathematical and experiential.
Thus, the universe began about 13 billion years ago mathematically,
but only about 6,000 years ago experientially, when Adam first perceived.

Because we cannot conceive of timelessness, we can never fully understand time.
As one reaches old age, as I have, he begins to get hints of eternity, but only hints.

Time, or at least some aspects of it, are beyond our comprehension.
-

[electricshephard]

We are addicted to time - big time. This is another of the bad mental habits that we'll need to overcome and it's quite serious. It's the one called anthropomorphism. And it will become more serious as time goes by if people refuse to learn something about the higher worlds and the needed stages of consciousness. Otherwise, we project - out of a mixture of ignorance and arrogance - our Earthly nature into the higher worlds.

Things like 'God became bored and split into parts' are simply false. As a matter of fact there's no such perspective of MAL which decides to 'split into parts'. Ashvin's latest essays already lay the foundation for this. The metamorphic view not only changes but integrates. I've mentioned this several times - conscious experience as we know it, is the result of continuous integration which in the most general sense we call memory. Of course this shouldn't be confused with the memory we understand from information technology, as a structure for data storage. Neither it is the simple ability to remember things. It's something much more deeper and that's why it is yet another thing that so easily falls into a blind spot of consciousness. It's actually very simple - we would never have the experience of a stream of consciousness if we couldn't feel our current state as building upon the previous states. In certain sense every next state should embed, resonate with all previous states. This build up doesn't need to be strictly monotonical - it's rhythmical, as it can be seen from our waking/sleeping cycle, but still, there's overall integration. We are not conscious about our falling asleep but on the next morning we know that this is what happened and now we've reemerged again at a higher level of integration.

I've already hinted about these things in this metaphor. This simple realization moves external reasons for the direction of time to ourselves. This is another consequence of the Kantian divide. As long as we imagine that there's a world-in-itself outside consciousness we can fantasize as much as we want about it and search for laws (like the second law of thermodynamics) which explain the direction of time. The reason is much more intimate. We could never speak about time without the integrative process of memory. We can imagine that this is not some 'law' of the universe but a simple necessity. It might as well be the case that our next state of being could be anything, but only those states which form a gradient in relation to our current state can lead to experience of a stream of consciousness.

Practically all be-ings experience integration towards eternity which encompasses all potential as a whole. No be-ing can consciously split into parts. This would mean that every 'next' state of that being should be less conscious than the previous, this would be like reversed time. Every next state should lose memory since the limited state can't remember the higher state, and thus it can't be experienced as a stream of consciousness. This 'splitting' action is experienced somewhat differently. I've mentioned that in the Deep M@L essay. It can be said that there are constantly infinitely many streams of being that integrate from the periphery towards the center of eternity. Each stream is a metamorphic view experiencing its own awakening from the deep cosmic sleep, acquiring self-consciousness and continuing to work consciously on its integration. Those beings which are well ahead in this process in certain sense form 'resistance', an opposite flow from the center towards the periphery. This is the principle of world creation. Without this resistance all peripheral flow towards the center would immediately implode into eternity. Through the resistance, the peripheral flow must find creative solutions for its integration, which is the basis for exploration of be-ing in time.

Another aspect of the above is that this integration is not an 'improvement in time', like some skill getting better and better while time flows as it ever has. The more integrated the metamorphic view, the more we encompass idea-beings whose activity spans time. I tried to give an analogy of this in the Deep M@L essay through the symphony. For example, the states of being of our whole incarnation can be encompassed as something holistic from higher perspective. This is the origin of all 'life flashing before one's eyes' experiences. Ultimately this is the direction of all evolution - approaching a perspective before whose eyes the whole infinite Cosmic potential 'flashes' as something holistic. The great difficulty (effect of anthropomorphism) is that we don't gain proper understanding of this if we simply imagine ourselves becoming well integrated while forgetting to account for the way the experience of time changes. It's only when things like these are neglected that the nonsense about 'becoming bored' can emerge. If we say that, we simply don't really try to overcome our linear time habits. This is also related to the possible objection: 'But I don't want to integrate into eternity and all existence to end. I want to keep experiencing things as much as I want'. This again can only be a product of complete misunderstanding of the nature of the higher worlds. Only the Earthly ego can make such demands. In reality, the more we move towards the eternal, the more we integrate all potential - past and future - and it is like we've lived through all that. If the center of eternity could be experienced it would be like feeling every conceivable state of being as a kind of memory - as something that we know from direct experience. If this is understood it will also explain why all existence flows through the periphery towards the center. The center of eternity can't get bored and decide to fragment into sequential time fragments for a change. This is precisely the fallacy electricshephard points out - through the act of the blind spot we project our anthropomorphic time experience into eternity. Yet the metamorphic view can be experienced as gradually evolving from complete unconsciousness, through sleep consciousness, through dream consciousness, reaching awakening - this is our stage. From here on the conscious integration continues. And this has very direct practical aspects. One of the many that can be mentioned is the overcoming of envy. Within the higher states of consciousness we can relate to the perspectives of other human beings and experience livingly something of their states. This makes it clear that it's not at all necessary that one being should experience everything for itself. At some point all experiences are accessible as a shared pool in Akasha. When this is understood, even if we don't have such experiences at the moment, the understanding itself becomes a living soul force which gives us the strength to transform envy. (this has relation to Paul's words "But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.". In other words, the only thing that deserves to be envied is the integration of our being, which is up to us to work on through Love).

So in summary, there are always waves after waves of be-ing, travelling from infinity at the periphery towards eternity at the center (in Deep M@L this should be clear but I'll mention it just in case - there's only one center - the same center of our metamorphic view). Against these waves flows the activity of higher beings, which create the means for complicated experiences. For example, if there were no resisting force to our metamorphic process, there would never be a reason for our mineral bodies to take form. Our evolutionary scenario is an example of finding the wholeness of our metamorphic view even amidst of severe decoherence. The human bodies are the result of collective effort of beings, which allow for the human "I" to experience the integrative memory process even in these difficult conditions.

Fantastic response. I'm going to have to take some time to think about some of the ideas raised and follow-up on the references you mentioned.

Thank-you for taking the time to write this.

[Adur Alkain]

Fascinating question!

In one of his talks, Alan Watts talks about God periodically getting bored of non-dualistic infinite bliss and voluntarily coming down into a localised and ignorant finite-form for the purposes of temporal excitement and adventure. Now and again, it would seem that the Mind at Large goes on vacation from being God and gets well and truly lost in the woods.

It's a very seductive idea that to me certainly feels very close to the truth, and yet also seems to be fundamentally problematic: In order for "God to become bored" it would have to be subordinate to a higher super-structure of time, that allowed sufficient animation and process for boredom to manifest.

But surely this cannot be possible, as the structure of time is contained within consciousness, not the other way around. Time is a subordinate structure, not a super-structure. The non-dualistic experience is an experience without time - quite literally eternal.

But nonetheless it would seem, self-evidently and paradoxically, that consciousness appears to "cycle" through various states. It seems that there is an addictive temptation to try to make sense of it within the context of a higher transcendental timeline. For example mystics often speak about God's big descent into the Maya as "The Great Fall" - a time-based metaphor with "the falling" implying a process.

Are we addicted to time as a super-structure? And if so, how do we account for the apparent cycles and oscillations between Universal Mind and disassociated mind?

I think the key here is the notion, predominant in Eastern philosophies (Hinduism, Buddhism), and Western philosophies influenced by Eastern thought (Gnosticism), that the world we live in is fundamentally bad, or illusory (or both). That's what is behind Alan Watt's idea of God getting bored, etc. But of course, like you say, it doesn't ultimately make sense. How could God, who is absolute perfection, get bored?

Gnostics would explain this by saying tat the god who created this world was a false god, a blind god, not the true God. And so on.

From that kind of world-negating perspective, it makes sense to think that time is an illusion, and that we are addicted to it, etc. Note the negative connotations implied in the notion of "addiction".

But there is another option, which I personally prefer. This is the idea, central in Western traditions like Judaism and Christianity, that this world is good. That it didn't rise out of boredom or some mistake, but out of God's infinite creativity. And that it has a purpose.

In this world-affirming view, human existence acquires a profound meaning: God is waking up in us, through us. God is waking up to her own nature, every time a human being wakes up to their divine nature. This is the idea of incarnation, of God becoming a human being, as exemplified in the story of Jesus.

Human suffering is a necessary part of this awakening. Instead of rejecting human suffering and trying to end or bypass it (like some Eastern philosophies do), this view embraces it as a portal into awakening and freedom.

I personally believe this is closer to the truth than other views. For example, I don't like the expression "Mind at Large", because I don't believe there is a "Universal Mind" comparable to the human mind. I prefer to talk of Cosmic Consciousness, or just Consciousness. I don't believe God could think the way we do before we (or other complex organisms like us) came into being. The human mind is the result of God's (or Consciousness's) exploration of all possible forms of experience (the evolution of life). Only through the human mind (and the minds of other living organisms) can God think.

From this perspective, it doesn't make sense either to talk of "dissociation". We are God waking up. The evolution of Consciousness is clearly going in the direction of integration, of reunion: if humanity doesn't destroy itself, eventually all humans will wake up to their fundamental unity and oneness as manifestations of the one Consciousness or God.

In this view, time makes perfect sense, and there is nothing wrong with it... although from a fundamental perspective we can recognize that Consciousness, God, Reality, is fundamentally nonlocal, existing in the eternal now.

[AshvinP]

Fascinating question!

In one of his talks, Alan Watts talks about God periodically getting bored of non-dualistic infinite bliss and voluntarily coming down into a localised and ignorant finite-form for the purposes of temporal excitement and adventure. Now and again, it would seem that the Mind at Large goes on vacation from being God and gets well and truly lost in the woods.

It's a very seductive idea that to me certainly feels very close to the truth, and yet also seems to be fundamentally problematic: In order for "God to become bored" it would have to be subordinate to a higher super-structure of time, that allowed sufficient animation and process for boredom to manifest.

But surely this cannot be possible, as the structure of time is contained within consciousness, not the other way around. Time is a subordinate structure, not a super-structure. The non-dualistic experience is an experience without time - quite literally eternal.

But nonetheless it would seem, self-evidently and paradoxically, that consciousness appears to "cycle" through various states. It seems that there is an addictive temptation to try to make sense of it within the context of a higher transcendental timeline. For example mystics often speak about God's big descent into the Maya as "The Great Fall" - a time-based metaphor with "the falling" implying a process.

Are we addicted to time as a super-structure? And if so, how do we account for the apparent cycles and oscillations between Universal Mind and disassociated mind?

I think the key here is the notion, predominant in Eastern philosophies (Hinduism, Buddhism), and Western philosophies influenced by Eastern thought (Gnosticism), that the world we live in is fundamentally bad, or illusory (or both). That's what is behind Alan Watt's idea of God getting bored, etc. But of course, like you say, it doesn't ultimately make sense. How could God, who is absolute perfection, get bored?

Gnostics would explain this by saying tat the god who created this world was a false god, a blind god, not the true God. And so on.

From that kind of world-negating perspective, it makes sense to think that time is an illusion, and that we are addicted to it, etc. Note the negative connotations implied in the notion of "addiction".

But there is another option, which I personally prefer. This is the idea, central in Western traditions like Judaism and Christianity, that this world is good. That it didn't rise out of boredom or some mistake, but out of God's infinite creativity. And that it has a purpose.

In this world-affirming view, human existence acquires a profound meaning: God is waking up in us, through us. God is waking up to her own nature, every time a human being wakes up to their divine nature. This is the idea of incarnation, of God becoming a human being, as exemplified in the story of Jesus.

Human suffering is a necessary part of this awakening. Instead of rejecting human suffering and trying to end or bypass it (like some Eastern philosophies do), this view embraces it as a portal into awakening and freedom.

I personally believe this is closer to the truth than other views. For example, I don't like the expression "Mind at Large", because I don't believe there is a "Universal Mind" comparable to the human mind. I prefer to talk of Cosmic Consciousness, or just Consciousness. I don't believe God could think the way we do before we (or other complex organisms like us) came into being. The human mind is the result of God's (or Consciousness's) exploration of all possible forms of experience (the evolution of life). Only through the human mind (and the minds of other living organisms) can God think.

From this perspective, it doesn't make sense either to talk of "dissociation". We are God waking up. The evolution of Consciousness is clearly going in the direction of integration, of reunion: if humanity doesn't destroy itself, eventually all humans will wake up to their fundamental unity and oneness as manifestations of the one Consciousness or God.

In this view, time makes perfect sense, and there is nothing wrong with it... although from a fundamental perspective we can recognize that Consciousness, God, Reality, is fundamentally nonlocal, existing in the eternal now.

Good insights, Adur. The bolded statement should be considered fully. I am sure this will sound as a nitpick, but nevertheless I believe it is important and helpful. We must dwell in these metamorphic thoughts fully for them to begin growing in power and luminosity. So when we speak of the Gnostics, or even some ancient Eastern philosophers-mystics, we should try to be more precise about where they went astray, so to speak. We cannot speak of truly "wrong" or even "astray", because we are in no position to judge the integral metamorphic process you reference. I would go further and say we must approach it with gratitude for where it has brought us despite all, if for no other reason than, as Cleric mentioned on another thread, the alternatives could be much worse.

But that's not my nitpick - rather it is identifying why the Gnostics were dealing in such conceptions of God. If we imagine they were experiencing the world as we do now, then we will claim they had surveyed the world and intellectually decided that a "good God" could not have been responsible for all the suffering and malevolence, so therefore God must be "evil". I do not believe that does them justice. Rather I would say they were asking a fundamentally different question than we are now, and it is one which we must re-member to ask, because if we stick with the usual questions we end up with the "God got bored" answer and many other equally wrong-headed ones. Their question was how capable is the Spirit of God who we know exists (it would never occur to them to question such existence), the Spirit which gives us knowledge of the word, in lifting the increasingly partitioned world back into its essential Unity.

Their answer to that question was that it is supremely capable of such a feat, which began to set them apart from the overall metamorphic progression in the West going towards "not capable at all". There is deep continuity then between their answer and the answer of someone like Aquinas, who was one of the last great pre-Rationalist thinkers to still appreciate Reason's capacity to lift us very close to essential Unity. In that context, I would say their interpretation of the world-creating demiurge is not as "evil" as moderns make it out to be, in the sense that moderns usually mean it. Which is to say we should not dismiss the wisdom of their spiritual thought and tradition for any such reasons. I am not sure you are even doing that, and mostly wanted to discuss the metamorphic progression some more , but in the event you were, the above is more food for thought.

[Adur Alkain]

Good insights, Adur. The bolded statement should be considered fully. I am sure this will sound as a nitpick, but nevertheless I believe it is important and helpful. We must dwell in these metamorphic thoughts fully for them to begin growing in power and luminosity. So when we speak of the Gnostics, or even some ancient Eastern philosophers-mystics, we should try to be more precise about where they went astray, so to speak. We cannot speak of truly "wrong" or even "astray", because we are in no position to judge the integral metamorphic process you reference. I would go further and say we must approach it with gratitude for where it has brought us despite all, if for no other reason than, as Cleric mentioned on another thread, the alternatives could be much worse.

But that's not my nitpick - rather it is identifying why the Gnostics were dealing in such conceptions of God. If we imagine they were experiencing the world as we do now, then we will claim they had surveyed the world and intellectually decided that a "good God" could not have been responsible for all the suffering and malevolence, so therefore God must be "evil". I do not believe that does them justice. Rather I would say they were asking a fundamentally different question than we are now, and it is one which we must re-member to ask, because if we stick with the usual questions we end up with the "God got bored" answer and many other equally wrong-headed ones. Their question was how capable is the Spirit of God who we know exists (it would never occur to them to question such existence), the Spirit which gives us knowledge of the word, in lifting the increasingly partitioned world back into its essential Unity.

Their answer to that question was that it is supremely capable of such a feat, which began to set them apart from the overall metamorphic progression in the West going towards "not capable at all". There is deep continuity then between their answer and the answer of someone like Aquinas, who was one of the last great pre-Rationalist thinkers to still appreciate Reason's capacity to lift us very close to essential Unity. In that context, I would say their interpretation of the world-creating demiurge is not as "evil" as moderns make it out to be, in the sense that moderns usually mean it. Which is to say we should not dismiss the wisdom of their spiritual thought and tradition for any such reasons. I am not sure you are even doing that, and mostly wanted to discuss the metamorphic progression some more , but in the event you were, the above is more food for thought.

Thanks for your comments, Ashvin!

I wasn't trying to dismiss Gnosticism in any way. I'm very influenced by Gnosticism myself. I was simplifying a lot to make my point, which was a rather superficial one.

I guess at this point in the history of humanity we have the privilege of looking at all these wisdom traditions and coming up with a new synthesis that integrates the multi-faceted truths that lie within each of them. For example, we can value the life-affirming appreciation of Creation that characterizes most forms of Christianity, while at the same time acknowledging the fundamental divinity of the human soul, and the intrinsic movement of the soul towards awakening and liberation, so central in Gnosticism. Both are not incompatible at all.

[Eugene I]

Practically all be-ings experience integration towards eternity which encompasses all potential as a whole. No be-ing can consciously split into parts. This would mean that every 'next' state of that being should be less conscious than the previous, this would be like reversed time. Every next state should lose memory since the limited state can't remember the higher state, and thus it can't be experienced as a stream of consciousness. This 'splitting' action is experienced somewhat differently. I've mentioned that in the Deep M@L essay. It can be said that there are constantly infinitely many streams of being that integrate from the periphery towards the center of eternity. Each stream is a metamorphic view experiencing its own awakening from the deep cosmic sleep, acquiring self-consciousness and continuing to work consciously on its integration. Those beings which are well ahead in this process in certain sense form 'resistance', an opposite flow from the center towards the periphery. This is the principle of world creation. Without this resistance all peripheral flow towards the center would immediately implode into eternity. Through the resistance, the peripheral flow must find creative solutions for its integration, which is the basis for exploration of be-ing in time.

Cleric, it is still not clear to me from your explanations how and why the splitting of MAL into alters occurred in the first place. If MAL is and has always been meta-cognitive, and if "No be-ing can consciously split into parts", then how and why the splitting actually happened?

[AshvinP]

Good insights, Adur. The bolded statement should be considered fully. I am sure this will sound as a nitpick, but nevertheless I believe it is important and helpful. We must dwell in these metamorphic thoughts fully for them to begin growing in power and luminosity. So when we speak of the Gnostics, or even some ancient Eastern philosophers-mystics, we should try to be more precise about where they went astray, so to speak. We cannot speak of truly "wrong" or even "astray", because we are in no position to judge the integral metamorphic process you reference. I would go further and say we must approach it with gratitude for where it has brought us despite all, if for no other reason than, as Cleric mentioned on another thread, the alternatives could be much worse.

But that's not my nitpick - rather it is identifying why the Gnostics were dealing in such conceptions of God. If we imagine they were experiencing the world as we do now, then we will claim they had surveyed the world and intellectually decided that a "good God" could not have been responsible for all the suffering and malevolence, so therefore God must be "evil". I do not believe that does them justice. Rather I would say they were asking a fundamentally different question than we are now, and it is one which we must re-member to ask, because if we stick with the usual questions we end up with the "God got bored" answer and many other equally wrong-headed ones. Their question was how capable is the Spirit of God who we know exists (it would never occur to them to question such existence), the Spirit which gives us knowledge of the word, in lifting the increasingly partitioned world back into its essential Unity.

Their answer to that question was that it is supremely capable of such a feat, which began to set them apart from the overall metamorphic progression in the West going towards "not capable at all". There is deep continuity then between their answer and the answer of someone like Aquinas, who was one of the last great pre-Rationalist thinkers to still appreciate Reason's capacity to lift us very close to essential Unity. In that context, I would say their interpretation of the world-creating demiurge is not as "evil" as moderns make it out to be, in the sense that moderns usually mean it. Which is to say we should not dismiss the wisdom of their spiritual thought and tradition for any such reasons. I am not sure you are even doing that, and mostly wanted to discuss the metamorphic progression some more , but in the event you were, the above is more food for thought.

Thanks for your comments, Ashvin!

I wasn't trying to dismiss Gnosticism in any way. I'm very influenced by Gnosticism myself. I was simplifying a lot to make my point, which was a rather superficial one.

I guess at this point in the history of humanity we have the privilege of looking at all these wisdom traditions and coming up with a new synthesis that integrates the multi-faceted truths that lie within each of them. For example, we can value the life-affirming appreciation of Creation that characterizes most forms of Christianity, while at the same time acknowledging the fundamental divinity of the human soul, and the intrinsic movement of the soul towards awakening and liberation, so central in Gnosticism. Both are not incompatible at all.

Right I sort of suspected that after writing out the comment, and I agree. Although, I find it hard to say any modern forms of Christianity are "life-affirming", and in fact I side with Nietzsche in saying most of them are decidedly not. They may provide superficial sense of community, compassion, charity, etc., but when life circumstances take a turn for the worse, as they always do, I do not think they are able to hold up the shared value of life above tribalism and war. I think we saw plenty of that in the 20th century throughout places which are supposedly Christian in their orientation.