Bernardo's latest essay

[AshvinP]

I don't get what the desire is to always categorize these things with labels, other than to write them off without considering them in more detail. Steiner's phenomenological philosophy would be closest to Hegel, but his "spiritual science" is something completely new and only became possible in the last 150 years or so. Jung considered these spiritual issues deeply to, and recounted his own visionary experiences in the Red Book, but did not systematically discuss them in any higher resolution. The only "pantheism" involved is not arbitrarily separating off the natural world from the spiritual world by a hard boundary, which is nothing other than the result of Cartesian-Kantian dualisms.

I don't have a desire to use labels, it just happens to be the closest one to one of the main areas where I don't agree with you. That doesn't matter, we don't need to agree. We each have our own journey, and all we can do is to be true to ourselves.

I am not sure exactly what you mean, but my position is that 1) perception-cognition is inseparable (there is no possible state in Reality where we only perceive without ideal content) and 2) there is no fundamental limit to how much of the noumenal Reality we can perceive-cognize. That #2 claim is evidenced by everything from the history of spiritual metamorphic progression (and corresponding developments in art, mythology, philosophy, science, etc.) to the phenomenology of our own thinking activity. The latter is what Steiner discusses in detail in The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. In fact, almost everything slightly related to these core metaphysical-ethical-spiritual questions are dealt with in that book slightly over 200 pages. No "spiritual science" is referenced there. Yet people avoid reading and contending with it with such fervor... I have my suspicions why, but it's very unfortunate because it is extremely clear and relevant to all of these discussions.

... and to me, your "noumenal reality" doesn't contain it's source. You think it's the changeless source of itself, to me it's the very opposite, it's a movement between poles. Let's shake hands and agree to disagree, as we're wearing a circle in the carpet

Just to be clear, if I ever express frustration on here, like I am sure there has been in some of my recent comments, it's not because someone is disagreeing with me... it's because they don't seem to be taking the time to even understand the position I am supporting. On the other hand, I know where that consistent blind spot comes from... it is the Cartesian-Kantian dualisms operating in the background, which occasionally influence my own thinking as well. When I write essays or comment here, I just make sure to bring that out of my blind spot before evaluating the issues.

That being said, this does not compute with me - "your noumenal reality doesn't contain its source". The "noumenal reality" is, by definition, the Source of all existence. I am just using that term so it's clear that I am referring to the Source of all existence. I hold that there is no hard limit to our knowledge of that Source which cannot be overcome with effort and persistence. Of course this does not sit well for the transcendental idealist for a variety of reasons, but most importantly because he holds we cannot be "saved" by our own "works". I say that is a very superficial understanding of what is being discussed in scripture, and the Cartesian-Kantian dualisms have reinforced that superficial understanding in the most unhealthy way.

[SanteriSatama]

Not ground of ideal content, the Ground is ideal content along with will and feelings in Tri-Unity (more accurately the activity of willing-feeling-thinking). No experience exists without that Tri-Unity.

I think that it's more coherent language to say that relation is the content and the conteinar. But it's also good that we express language in our unique ways and perspectives.

[SanteriSatama]

If it can "never be fully spoken", i.e. spoken in a way that makes it coherent and representative of my actual position on meaning, then why are you speaking of it?

The simple fact that all of language can't fit in a sentence or a paragraph does not mean that a linguistic expression can't convey holographic meaning, be felt and embodied.

Like I said to Simon before, my metamorphic view leads to inevitable conclusion that ancient people and modern indigenous cultures have a better implicit understanding of spiritual Reality than we do, because they experience the meaning of that Reality in very concrete form, like people in most modern cultures experience physical objects in concrete form. If that still sounds "hurtful" or whatever is triggering your sensitivity in this regard, then so be it, because I am not going to try and decode your criticism when I suspect it fails to even understand my position.

I do understand your position, that's the whole point. In this perspective there's no hard separation. A language speaking with language and in language. The language that speaks through your hands and fingers typing on a keyboard still speaks of us and them, telling that idealized objectification of "them" remains a separation-relation. You want to learn from "them" without losing yourself, your unique perspective. That's fine, so let's keep on moving and learning also as we.

[AshvinP]

If it can "never be fully spoken", i.e. spoken in a way that makes it coherent and representative of my actual position on meaning, then why are you speaking of it?

The simple fact that all of language can't fit in a sentence or a paragraph does not mean that a linguistic expression can't convey holographic meaning, be felt and embodied.

Like I said to Simon before, my metamorphic view leads to inevitable conclusion that ancient people and modern indigenous cultures have a better implicit understanding of spiritual Reality than we do, because they experience the meaning of that Reality in very concrete form, like people in most modern cultures experience physical objects in concrete form. If that still sounds "hurtful" or whatever is triggering your sensitivity in this regard, then so be it, because I am not going to try and decode your criticism when I suspect it fails to even understand my position.

I do understand your position, that's the whole point. In this perspective there's no hard separation. A language speaking with language and in language. The language that speaks through your hands and fingers typing on a keyboard still speaks of us and them, telling that idealized objectification of "them" remains a separation-relation. You want to learn from "them" without losing yourself, your unique perspective. That's fine, so let's keep on moving and learning also as we.

If you're suggesting that I should stop using language of distinctions between myself and others, ancient and modern, past and present and future, etc., then that is neither possible nor desirable. That is where I completely part company with the language policing of "post-structural" philosophy and find it outright dangerous when it is not outright silly.

"[Perspective] police, arrest this man
He talks in maths, he buzzes like a fridge
He's like a detuned radio
[Perspective] police, arrest this girl
Her Hitler hairdo is making me feel ill
And we have crashed her party.
...
For a minute there
I lost myself, I lost myself"

[Simon Adams]

Just to be clear, if I ever express frustration on here, like I am sure there has been in some of my recent comments, it's not because someone is disagreeing with me... it's because they don't seem to be taking the time to even understand the position I am supporting.

I’m absolutely fine with you getting frustrated if you are. To be honest I would probably get frustrated if I had your views and was debating with me . You may have noticed I spent quite a while trying to bite my tongue a bit because you and Cleric have clearly put a lot of effort and thought into your position. It’s also not as if I disagree with everything. I have tried to be open minded, but at some point we have to just say where we stand.

On the other hand, I know where that consistent blind spot comes from... it is the Cartesian-Kantian dualisms operating in the background, which occasionally influence my own thinking as well. When I write essays or comment here, I just make sure to bring that out of my blind spot before evaluating the issues.

That being said, this does not compute with me - "your noumenal reality doesn't contain its source". The "noumenal reality" is, by definition, the Source of all existence.

Yes and when Paul was taken to the ‘third heaven’, that’s just all the same ‘noumenal reality’ to you. Jacobs Ladder just passes from one part of ‘noumenal reality’ to another. I get how you see it, I just don’t agree

I am just using that term so it's clear that I am referring to the Source of all existence. I hold that there is no hard limit to our knowledge of that Source which cannot be overcome with effort and persistence. Of course this does not sit well for the transcendental idealist for a variety of reasons, but most importantly because he holds we cannot be "saved" by our own "works". I say that is a very superficial understanding of what is being discussed in scripture, and the Cartesian-Kantian dualisms have reinforced that superficial understanding in the most unhealthy way.

Of course our works are necessary, that’s straight from Christ: “For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me”. The ‘sola fide’ stuff is just nonsense. So one of the things we agree on

[AshvinP]

Just to be clear, if I ever express frustration on here, like I am sure there has been in some of my recent comments, it's not because someone is disagreeing with me... it's because they don't seem to be taking the time to even understand the position I am supporting.

I’m absolutely fine with you getting frustrated if you are. To be honest I would probably get frustrated if I had your views and was debating with me . You may have noticed I spent quite a while trying to bite my tongue a bit because you and Cleric have clearly put a lot of effort and thought into your position. It’s also not as if I disagree with everything. I have tried to be open minded, but at some point we have to just say where we stand.

On the other hand, I know where that consistent blind spot comes from... it is the Cartesian-Kantian dualisms operating in the background, which occasionally influence my own thinking as well. When I write essays or comment here, I just make sure to bring that out of my blind spot before evaluating the issues.

That being said, this does not compute with me - "your noumenal reality doesn't contain its source". The "noumenal reality" is, by definition, the Source of all existence.

Yes and when Paul was taken to the ‘third heaven’, that’s just all the same ‘noumenal reality’ to you. Jacobs Ladder just passes from one part of ‘noumenal reality’ to another. I get how you see it, I just don’t agree

I did notice and I appreciate that, and I also recognize that I have of a bad tendency of assuming people understand my writing as well as I do when I am writing it

I am not sure if that bolded phrase is accurate of our view (presuming to speak a bit for Cleric and Scott here). We see no discontinuity between the "natural realm" of phenomenal appearances and the noumenal relations of the "spiritual realm". If we imagine it in very crude spatial terms, then there is no gap between the block of natural realm which runs up into Earth's visible atmosphere and the mostly invisible spiritual realm which exists above in space. Instead there is a shared permeable 'membrane'. With that in mind, the difference between mere intellectual perception-cognition in the natural realm and full blown spiritual sight and higher cognition in spiritual realm is enormous. We could even say it is a qualitative difference and trying to derive the fullness of its experience from mere intellectual concepts in the natural realm is impossible. The death and rebirth of mere ego-intellect into higher Spirit is a literal necessity to penetrate into that noumenal Reality. Our normal cognition is the most dull echo of the baptism made possible by Christ incarnate (also remembering that nothing is isolated in space and time - so these processes occur on all scales to varying degrees). So all of these images which speak of third heaven, transfiguration, rebirth, baptism, etc. are to be taken as very serious and major metamorphoses, no less starkly than the change from a caterpillar metamorphosing into a butterfly.

I am just using that term so it's clear that I am referring to the Source of all existence. I hold that there is no hard limit to our knowledge of that Source which cannot be overcome with effort and persistence. Of course this does not sit well for the transcendental idealist for a variety of reasons, but most importantly because he holds we cannot be "saved" by our own "works". I say that is a very superficial understanding of what is being discussed in scripture, and the Cartesian-Kantian dualisms have reinforced that superficial understanding in the most unhealthy way.

Of course our works are necessary, that’s straight from Christ: “For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me”. The ‘sola fide’ stuff is just nonsense. So one of the things we agree on

Right, I forgot you were Catholic At least we agree on that! And that's a major one which, in my experience, shuts the believer down to anything else you might say after questioning sola fide. It is the most deceptively nihilistic dogma which is deeply ingrained by Kantian dualism.

[AshvinP]

Just to be clear, if I ever express frustration on here, like I am sure there has been in some of my recent comments, it's not because someone is disagreeing with me... it's because they don't seem to be taking the time to even understand the position I am supporting.

I’m absolutely fine with you getting frustrated if you are. To be honest I would probably get frustrated if I had your views and was debating with me . You may have noticed I spent quite a while trying to bite my tongue a bit because you and Cleric have clearly put a lot of effort and thought into your position. It’s also not as if I disagree with everything. I have tried to be open minded, but at some point we have to just say where we stand.

On the other hand, I know where that consistent blind spot comes from... it is the Cartesian-Kantian dualisms operating in the background, which occasionally influence my own thinking as well. When I write essays or comment here, I just make sure to bring that out of my blind spot before evaluating the issues.

That being said, this does not compute with me - "your noumenal reality doesn't contain its source". The "noumenal reality" is, by definition, the Source of all existence.

Yes and when Paul was taken to the ‘third heaven’, that’s just all the same ‘noumenal reality’ to you. Jacobs Ladder just passes from one part of ‘noumenal reality’ to another. I get how you see it, I just don’t agree

I did notice and I appreciate that, and I also recognize that I have of a bad tendency of assuming people understand my writing as well as I do when I am writing it

I am not sure if that bolded phrase is accurate of our view (presuming to speak a bit for Cleric and Scott here). We see no discontinuity between the "natural realm" of phenomenal appearances and the noumenal relations of the "spiritual realm". If we imagine it in very crude spatial terms, then there is no gap between the block of natural realm which runs up into Earth's visible atmosphere and the mostly invisible spiritual realm which exists above in space. Instead there is a shared permeable 'membrane'. With that in mind, the difference between mere intellectual perception-cognition in the natural realm and full blown spiritual sight and higher cognition in spiritual realm is enormous. We could even say it is a qualitative difference and trying to derive the fullness of its experience from mere intellectual concepts in the natural realm is impossible. The death and rebirth of mere ego-intellect into higher Spirit is a literal necessity to penetrate into that noumenal Reality. Our normal cognition is the most dull echo of the baptism made possible by Christ incarnate (also remembering that nothing is isolated in space and time - so these processes occur on all scales to varying degrees). So all of these images which speak of third heaven, transfiguration, rebirth, baptism, etc. are to be taken as very serious and major metamorphoses, no less starkly than the change from a caterpillar metamorphosing into a butterfly.

I realized my crude comparison above may give the wrong impression, so to clarify - there are not two spatial realms existing side by side with a shared membrane, of course. In reality, everything we perceive-think in the natural realm is activity of the spiritual realm, which is the only realm that exists (for ex., our inner physiology is activity of 'elemental' beings). The comparison was simply to point out the stark difference between mere intellectual cognition and imaginative and intuitive cognition while also emphasizing the continuity between them. What we perceive in normal intellectual cognition are faint contours i.e. exterior surfaces of spiritual reality without any interiority and rendered in physical form, and even that should not be taken literally because the physical surfaces we see do not actually correspond to spiritual 'boundaries'. And I am obviously describing this from my own intellectual understanding, so I would recommend searching for Cleric's various posts to get a much better sense of what is being spoken of.

[DandelionSoul]

... contentlessness seems to me indistinguishable from absence ....

This is surely one way to write the story. Another way might be to say that the unmanifest offers maximum potential. Perhaps the story is the difference making the difference.

I think I agree with you, but would you be willing to elaborate?

[DandelionSoul]

Ponder this - if anyone was satisfied with such a low resolution understanding of the ultimate Ground, then why would they still be inquiring to it? Why would you or anyone else be on this forum trying to discuss metaphysical issues which are surely trivial compared to the essence of our Ground? Our lack of satisfaction is Nature's way of telling us there is much more finer resolution of the Ground to be gained from thoughtful contemplation.

You're right, of course. There's always more to be explored, and the "resolution" is ultimately inexhaustible. Metaphysics isn't a game I play to win, anymore than lovemaking or pyrography or any other creative endeavor. I play it because I love playing it. The point I was making is not so much that we should pack up and go home because metaphysics has bottomed out. Rather, it's another move in the game: drawing out what seems to me to be an implication of nonduality -- namely, that the distinction between "There is a Ground" and "There is no Ground" itself strikes me as just a more subtle duality.

[Lou Gold]

... contentlessness seems to me indistinguishable from absence ....

This is surely one way to write the story. Another way might be to say that the unmanifest offers maximum potential. Perhaps the story is the difference making the difference.

I think I agree with you, but would you be willing to elaborate?

No story means no content.
Interdependent co-arising is a story.
Form is emptiness and emptiness is not other than form.