May existence be a kind of "maturation" process for MAL?

[Hedge90]

This question was among the first that came up in me when I was first introduced to BK's ideas. This, of course, is entirely speculative, but I can't help but think, if MAL "does things" (i.e. engages in creative process), even if just instinctively, by its nature, there should probably be a goal for this - some teleological purpose TOWARDS which these instinctive creative urges drive it.
Now, if BK is right (and I'd say he probably is) in that MAL has no metacognition to begin with, then WE (and any other beings capable of metacognition) ARE its metacognition. That is to say, it's not MAL that has a plan for us, it's we who are tasked with finding a purpose for MAL. It is us who bear the responsibility of justifying existence itself, and to develop further, learning about MAl (and thus, ourselves) everything it cannot know of itself without us.
May it be that at the end of the line is a state where the instinctively creative MAL, through an unimaginably long and vast process of parsing information through ever more developed alters, becomes an intelligent, metacognitive MAL, one that mostly fits our image of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God?
Wouldn't it fit our notion of Heaven if, after experiencing the myriad variations and possible permutations of reality, learning about what evokes joy, love and peace, and now looking at our own creation through the lens of not just the instinctive creative drive, but also all the insights we've gathered empirically, we've imagined the best possible world of all worlds into being, to lay to rest therein?

[Ben Iscatus]

Seems good reasoning, Hedge90. A niggling doubt is: in this scenario, we are placing a whole lot of importance on ourselves (considering how big the Universe is and how short a time we're likely to be here), which smacks of hubris and anthropocentrism.

[Hedge90]

Yes and no. You, as "avatar" of MAL, act in the world, and how you act in the world reflects back upon it. What you do here speaks of what MAL is.
But then also, you as an individual are an infinitesimally tiny fragment within Creation. It's not you or humanity that bears this task, it's all civilisations in the universe or multiverse, each adding their own experiences and insights to the whole of experience.
That being said (i.e. it is not personally you upon whom the fate of God will hang), whether you can conduct your life in a manner that adds love and complexity to the world, or whether you are a force of destruction and nihilism, speaks about the very nature of MAL, and in that sense, you would have more responsibility than you'd think.
At least, that's my entirely speculative take on it.

[Eugene I]

Hedge, what you said is pretty much in line with my views. And even if MAL is meta-cognitive (and IMO it likely is), that does not change the overall picture: we are still on the very front of the MAL's creative exploration of the multiverse of consciousness regardless whether the MAL is doing it cognitively or instinctively. Imagine you have a mental power to create a virtual reality (whether in your powerful mind or in some kind of computational system). However, the only way to explore and know this reality is to experience it from a first person perspective and to become part of it as a player/experiencer. So, even a meta-cognitive MAL with powerful cognitive abilities can not know the universe of all conscious states without "becoming" the actual experiencer of these states.

[Hedge90]

I'd expand my position on meta-cognition with that I deem it entirely plausible (likely, even) that MAL is BECOMING meta-conscious. As I said, as new experience is accumulated in it from its alters (the metacognitive realisations of whom merge back into MAL after the end of dissociation), MAL's capacity to reflect and think grows. It probably has started out as nothing but a creative force / potential, blindly manifesting ideas and learning about what brought joy to it, and what made it felt uneasy. But as its experience grew, the capacity to reflect must have developed in it through the alters capable of the same.
Btw, I have a girl friend who "sees things", and it's interesting how her experiences comply with what I imagine MAL's very primitive state to have experienced. Her hallucinations are not elaborate, she simply sees various moving-changing geometric shapes. What's interesting is, even though the shapes don't do anything antrophomorphic, they just float around, she can clearly make a distinction between the "nice" shapes that delight her, and the "bad" shapes that make her scared. She said she can't really put into words why they evoke these feelings, they just do.

[Eugene I]

Hedge, that's all possible. There are actually regression therapy cases described in M. Newton's books describing similar experiences of geometrical structures when he asked his clients to penetrate into the "ground of being". But I suspect the structure of the universe of consciousness is likely more complex and multi-layered then just two-layered structure of instinctive MAL and us humans and living creatures in the material world. There is probably hierarchies of beings, some more metacognitive and more developed then us, some other less developed. It's likely a multidimensional/multilayered/multidomain interconnected fractal of ever-evolving and ever-expanding Consciousness.

[AshvinP]

This question was among the first that came up in me when I was first introduced to BK's ideas. This, of course, is entirely speculative, but I can't help but think, if MAL "does things" (i.e. engages in creative process), even if just instinctively, by its nature, there should probably be a goal for this - some teleological purpose TOWARDS which these instinctive creative urges drive it.
Now, if BK is right (and I'd say he probably is) in that MAL has no metacognition to begin with, then WE (and any other beings capable of metacognition) ARE its metacognition. That is to say, it's not MAL that has a plan for us, it's we who are tasked with finding a purpose for MAL. It is us who bear the responsibility of justifying existence itself, and to develop further, learning about MAl (and thus, ourselves) everything it cannot know of itself without us.
May it be that at the end of the line is a state where the instinctively creative MAL, through an unimaginably long and vast process of parsing information through ever more developed alters, becomes an intelligent, metacognitive MAL, one that mostly fits our image of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God?
Wouldn't it fit our notion of Heaven if, after experiencing the myriad variations and possible permutations of reality, learning about what evokes joy, love and peace, and now looking at our own creation through the lens of not just the instinctive creative drive, but also all the insights we've gathered empirically, we've imagined the best possible world of all worlds into being, to lay to rest therein?

I think that bold part is a pretty good way of putting it. We should not get too caught up in the rigid linear temporal thinking, because that does not reflect the eternal spiritual essence which is unfolding. Related to that, we should not start thinking there is any "end of the line" or final "state", because, even if there is, which I find somewhat doubtful, we have no way of knowing about it now. Our knowledge cannot now encompass what has transcended Time altogether. Other than that, we are on the same page, and the following quote from Steiner's Philosophy of Spiritual Activity also reflects this idealist understanding.

Monism (idealism) rejects the concept of purpose in all areas with the sole exception of human action. It seeks laws of nature, but not purposes of nature. Purposes of nature are arbitrary assumptions just as unperceivable forces are (see page 109f). But also purposes of life which man does not give himself, are unjustified assumptions from the standpoint of monism. Only that is purposeful which man has first made to be so, for only through the realization of an idea does purposefulness rise. The idea however, becomes operative in the realistic sense only within man. Therefore human life has only the purpose and determination which man gives to it. To the question: What kind of task does man have in life?, monism can only answer: the one which he sets himself. My mission in the world is no predetermined one, but rather it is, at any given moment, the one I choose for myself. I do not enter upon my life's path with fixed marching orders.

Ideas are realized purposefully only through human beings. It is therefore inadmissible to speak of history as the embodiment of ideas. All such expressions as: “History is the development of man toward freedom,” or the realization of the moral world order, and so on, are untenable from the monistic point of view.

[Hedge90]

"My mission in the world is no predetermined one, but rather it is, at any given moment, the one I choose for myself. I do not enter upon my life's path with fixed marching orders."

I only partly agree with this. As Schopenhauer said, "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills." I'd say the archetypal drives set our purpose in life. Of course how that purpose is manifest in a given life may differ greatly.
Further, I also think that agapic love is the highest kind of "emotion" (I'd rather argue it's merely the lack of any emotion, the base-state of MAL), and the "best" world is where this kind of love can be manifest to its fullest extent.
But I'm still just dabbling in spiritual philosophy, so these are just the thoughts of a curious newbie.

[AshvinP]

"My mission in the world is no predetermined one, but rather it is, at any given moment, the one I choose for myself. I do not enter upon my life's path with fixed marching orders."

I only partly agree with this. As Schopenhauer said, "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills." I'd say the archetypal drives set our purpose in life. Of course how that purpose is manifest in a given life may differ greatly.
Further, I also think that agapic love is the highest kind of "emotion" (I'd rather argue it's merely the lack of any emotion, the base-state of MAL), and the "best" world is where this kind of love can be manifest to its fullest extent.
But I'm still just dabbling in spiritual philosophy, so these are just the thoughts of a curious newbie.

It is important to keep in mind Steiner is speaking about the current spiritual disposition of man, which has evolved over time. In the ancient past, it is true that "man could not will what he wills", but with the transition to inner thought life which informs what is willed, that became increasingly less true. Like many philosophers of the modern age, Schopenhauer simply did not notice this evolution of spiritual (conscious) activity at its most fundamental level. That is what we are really speaking of in terms of "free will" - the knowledge which gives us the capacity to experience all that we freely will to experience. Clearly this capacity is a major work in progress and we have much further to go, but we are also now in a significantly different disposition than our spiritual ancestors.

When Steiner speaks of the "state" in the quote, that can just as easily be applied to all that which is currently seen as 'external' to our own activity, including "archetypal drives". We are not abolishing the state or archetypes or anything similar, but rather we are fulfilling them from within ourselves. That is when we come to realize that our imaginations, inspirations, and intuitions are one and the same with those which power all that has proved useful and productive within the 'external' forces throughout the millennia, both natural and "man-made" forces. Under monist idealism, it could not really be any other way, because we exist in a shared realm of ideational activity, but there is also no value in simply positing that without discovering it for ourselves.

re: Love - yes I agree (although I am not sure what is meant by "lack of emotion"), but again the fullest expression of Love is that which is freely desired and meaningfully enriched by our highest thoughts. It is not love out of naïve sentiment of connectedness with others, but Love born in the full clarity of consciousness which freely desires to be connected with all others.

[Hedge90]

re: Love - yes I agree (although I am not sure what is meant by "lack of emotion"), but again the fullest expression of Love is that which is freely desired and meaningfully enriched by our highest thoughts. It is not love out of naïve sentiment of connectedness with others, but Love born in the full clarity of consciousness which freely desires to be connected with all others.

I meant that I think love is the natural state of consciousness. It stems from freedom and unity, and thus the less hindrances and obstructions there are in the form of emotions obscuring it (anxiety, desire, fear, etc.), the less one can be connected to it. Maybe "the lack of any other emotion" would be a better way to put it.