Intuitive Idealism vs. Analytic Idealism (Part II): An alternative formulation of idealism

[Soul_of_Shu]

"you want the Truth?? you can't handle the Truth!".

Objection your Honor! Heresay!!

I must confess that there are times when I find all this wordiness to be, at best, truthiness.

[AshvinP]

"you want the Truth?? you can't handle the Truth!".

Objection your Honor! Heresay!!

I must confess that there are times when I find all this wordiness to be, at best, truthiness.

I think you meant hearsay, or maybe heresy, or both

All I am saying is, we don't need to be forever confused about why the 'wordiness' strikes us as 'truthiness' at best. It's because the words are only dead abstract concepts for us, the empty husks of meaning, not images rich with meaning. They have not yet been transfigured by our own spiritual activity. To highlight this dynamic is precisely the purpose of the mythology essays in the first place. Allow me to admit my own quote into evidence here:

"A critical aspect of the Imaginative thinking process is to resist the urge to fragment pockets of knowledge here from pockets of knowledge there. Instead, every attempt must be made to keep the Whole of previously learned relations at hand when exploring new territory."

[Soul_of_Shu]

"you want the Truth?? you can't handle the Truth!".

Objection your Honor! Heresay!!

I must confess that there are times when I find all this wordiness to be, at best, truthiness.

I think you meant hearsay, or maybe heresy, or both

All I am saying is, we don't need to be forever confused about why the 'wordiness' strikes us as 'truthiness' at best. It's because the words are only dead abstract concepts for us, the empty husks of meaning, not images rich with meaning. They have not yet been transfigured by our own spiritual activity. To highlight this dynamic is precisely the purpose of the mythology essays in the first place. Allow me to admit my own quote into evidence here:

"A critical aspect of the Imaginative thinking process is to resist the urge to fragment pockets of knowledge here from pockets of knowledge there. Instead, every attempt must be made to keep the Whole of previously learned relations at hand when exploring new territory."

Indeed, even the spellcheck AI was smart enough to correct me on that, and I totally ignored its red-lining of it.

I concur, and is no doubt why poetry speaks to us of a much deeper gnosis (a word which oddly enough the spellcheck AI also red-lines, what is up with that?)

Is it possible that mere words,
as ideas that bestir the spirit,
can transcend inherent limits,
and somehow come to intend
the numinous wonder of nature —
despite what is said, or not said,
about the ineffability of the Tao.
Could it also be that perchance,
upon some mystical occasions,
a unexpected exception is made,
and out of some wordless depths
of fertile silence and stillness,
a wormlike sentence is born,
and crawls across the page,
voraciously devouring the leaf,
whereupon it spins a lyrical cocoon,
emerging after a cryptic spell,
as if by divine grace or magic,
as an intricately transfigured
metamorphosed metaphor ...
an utterance taking wing,
that in a flight of imagining,
like Eros bewitched by Logos,
sings words to awaken by.

[AshvinP]

Indeed, even the spellcheck AI was smart enough to correct me on that, and I totally ignored its red-lining of it.

I concur, and is no doubt why poetry speaks to us of a much deeper gnosis (a word which oddly enough the spellcheck AI also red-lines, what is up with that?)

Is it possible that mere words,
as ideas that bestir the spirit,
can transcend inherent limits,
and somehow come to intend
the numinous wonder of nature —
despite what is said, or not said,
about the ineffability of the Tao.
Could it also be that perchance,
upon some mystical occasions,
a unexpected exception is made,
and out of some wordless depths
of fertile silence and stillness,
a wormlike sentence is born,
and crawls across the page,
voraciously devouring the leaf,
whereupon it spins a lyrical cocoon,
emerging after a cryptic spell,
as if by divine grace or magic,
as an intricately transfigured
metamorphosed metaphor ...
an utterance taking wing,
that in a flight of imagining,
like Eros bewitched by Logos,
sings words to awaken by.

I notice that too sometimes, where the most significant words related to something spiritual are red-lined. I'm sure some of that is our own paranoia mixed in.

Excellent poem! Is that yours?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Is that yours?

Yes ... or maybe I channelled it

[Lou Gold]

Seriously though, you are of course right. But my approach now is, whenever I look for an "Earthly" explanation for these things, even matters of psychology or social interaction, I try to remind myself the explanation goes deeper. It cannot be found in the physical realm because it is not born of that realm (generally everything outside of questions about basic interactions in the mineral kingdom are not). And if nothing else, that motivates us to keep asking questions about everything we experience, and maybe figure out why our Earthly explanations our correct. Maybe I will someday figure out what in my past lives and in the spiritual forces at work through them made me so stubbornly unwilling to let a point rest until it's settled or the other person gives up : )

Ashvin, When I experience something like your bolded statement in myself it's a sign of something unresolved in myself.

Lou, I agree, the "past lives and spiritual forces at work through them" are unresolved. And we only re-solve anything by way of thinking-knowing.

The pattern of argument I perceive is that some would say, "And we only re-solve anything by way of silence." How to move into dialog about it if it truly transcends words? Your thoughts?

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, When I experience something like your bolded statement in myself it's a sign of something unresolved in myself.

Lou, I agree, the "past lives and spiritual forces at work through them" are unresolved. And we only re-solve anything by way of thinking-knowing.

The pattern of argument I perceive is that some would say, "And we only re-solve anything by way of silence." How to move into dialog about it if it truly transcends words? Your thoughts?

Lou,

My thoughts are simply to try Cleric's imaginative exercises in this regard. Inner silence is a key step, one that I have difficulty with and need to develop, but it does not need to end there. We can move beyond that threshold into the truly Imaginal realm, which, according to my understanding, is self-evidently shared ideational space. Proper training should be in place to avoid the potential pitfalls which Cleric is describing in last comment on the Anthroposophy thread. Apart from that, the principle that spiritual forces at work in our own experience are only known via focused Thinking just seems the only even remotely plausible conclusion, and likewise that we only resolve our subconscious spiritual influences by way of that knowledge.

[Lou Gold]

Lou, I agree, the "past lives and spiritual forces at work through them" are unresolved. And we only re-solve anything by way of thinking-knowing.

The pattern of argument I perceive is that some would say, "And we only re-solve anything by way of silence." How to move into dialog about it if it truly transcends words? Your thoughts?

Lou,

My thoughts are simply to try Cleric's imaginative exercises in this regard. Inner silence is a key step, one that I have difficulty with and need to develop, but it does not need to end there. We can move beyond that threshold into the truly Imaginal realm, which, according to my understanding, is self-evidently shared ideational space. Proper training should be in place to avoid the potential pitfalls which Cleric is describing in last comment on the Anthroposophy thread. Apart from that, the principle that spiritual forces at work in our own experience are only known via focused Thinking just seems the only even remotely plausible conclusion, and likewise that we only resolve our subconscious spiritual influences by way of that knowledge.

Ashvin,

Please excuse my limitations as a non-philosopher old guy with little energy for jumping into new (to me) lines of imaginative exercises. In a light-hearted and perhaps lazy way , just let me say, "I don't go to the gym anymore." But, I do love to contemplate images. This one really evokes higher/lower, light/shadow, ascending/descending, etc. Hope you enjoy it...

[Adur Alkain]

I don't think that is what is happening. This is my reasoned conclusion and not simply something I am repeating from Steiner or Cleric, although their Thinking also pointed me in the right direction. The problem is that we don't sense our true Thinking anymore, it just happens in the background without us being aware. It is like our breathing but even harder for modern intellect to bring into full conscious awareness. You are never simply "feeling" Cleric's words without Thinking - if we really reflect on it (and this is where PoF is invaluable), that makes very little sense. Words are products of Thinking and Thinking is essentially shared activity. There are not multiple realms of isolated thoughts for each individual "alter". So you are subconsciously intuiting the deep truth and authenticity of Cleric's words, and since it is subconscious Thinking, you incorrectly attribute it all to your feeling "heart".

Ashvin,

This kind of response makes any dialogue impossible. If you deny or re-interpret my experience, simply because it is different to your own experience, or (even worse) because it doesn't fit into your idea of reality, then there is nothing you can gain from this conversation. We may as well stop here.

Please don't take this as a personal criticism. Most people engaged in a spiritual path are not open to alternative views. This is understandable. When you discover some deep spiritual truth, it is difficult to accept that there may be other people discovering a "different" truth that seems incompatible with yours. In the end, the apparent incompatibility is just a matter of our limited perspectives. But then again, it's not easy to realize or accept that our perspective may be limited.

I'm not trying to convince you (or anybody else) of anything. What I enjoy about these conversations is that it's possible to "compare notes" and see where our experiences and our views differ, and where they resonate. From sharing these "notes" I learn a lot: I open my mind to other possibilites, other spiritual paths that are as truthful as my own, and I also gain a more clear understanding of the unique orientation of my own path.

Also, from the point of view of the Heart, all these conceptual differences are unimportant. My heart simply enjoys the recognition of the authentic human spirit in the other, the one spiritual nature that we all share.

Anyway. I will continue reading your posts and learning from you. And I will continue listening with my heart!

Adur,

There must be some confusion here and I should have been more clear in my response. I am not denying anything you experienced or that you experienced it in the way you described. I am questioning the interpretation of that experience. We actually do this all of the time when we are debating things. Your "intuitive idealism" approach is questioning the interpretation of BK's experiences with psychedelics and/or mystical states as well, from what I understand. Suffice to say, my point in the above comment is actually one of the core points emphasized by Steiner in PoF. We are never observing our current 'layer' of Thinking activity (at least not until there is intuitive Thinking within first-person perspective of those beings which give rise to our current thoughts). Here is a quote from PoF which should clarify. It is the very nature of Thinking activity which conceals its current 'layer' from observation. Yet if we are not aware of that nature and this resulting consequence, we will assume it simply was non-existent when we reach profound knowledge by way of the feeling heart. This sort of disagreement cannot be the result of simply "my spiritual perspective" vs. "your spiritual perspective" viewing the same truth from different angles, as it is foundational to the entire Philosophy of Spiritual Activity (another title for PoF).

Ashvin,

Again, sorry for taking so long to respond! I don't think there is any confusion on my part. But I can see you don't understand what I meant. I'll try to explain again.

First of all, you didn't hurt my feelings or anything like that. It's fine with me if you question the way I interpret my experiences. Like I said, I wasn't trying to convince you of anything.

I think the misunderstanding comes from a lack of clarity on my part. Without being completely clear about it, I was making a distinction between the sort of philosophical debate I engage in when I criticize Bernardo's theory, for example, and the sort of conversation about spirituality I'm having with you and Cleric. For me these two realms (science/philosophy and spirituality) are ultimately connected (how could it be otherwise?), but still, I approach them in different ways. When I discuss science and philosophy, I do try to convince others (materialists, or "analytic idealists", for example) that my view is closer to the truth than theirs. And there I can go into subtle intellectual arguments, and I enjoy it a lot.

But the conversation I was having with you about feeling vs. thinking, the spiritual evolution of humanity, etc., was more (in my view) a friendly conversation about different spiritual perspectives. When it comes to science, I think there is only one reality. But when it comes to spirituality, I think there are many different realities, many ways of experiencing the ultimate spiritual truth. The realm of spirit is much vaster and richer than the realm of matter. So, I don't see the point of going into debates about spiritual reality.

From this perspective, it doesn't make sense to interpret somebody else's spiritual experience in your own terms. Going back to the actual conversation we were having: many spiritual traditions, like Christian mysticism and Sufism, highlight the human heart. It is central in their understanding of spiritual reality. Other traditions, like Buddhism, focus more on the thinking mind. This is how it is. Both approaches work, and both are true. It's a waste of time to try to translate one spiritual view in terms of another. The experiences of a Christian mystic and a Buddhist monk are simply different.

I find Steiner's view quite interesting, and I plan to read his PoF. But I can see that his view is different from mine (which is the view I've learned as a student of the Diamond Approach). And I see no need to somehow translate one view into the other. Even if that were possible (which I doubt), many things would be lost in that translation.

I don't have any reason to doubt that if I started practicing Steiner's path, I would come to that sort of experience he is describing: dicovering the underlying layer of Thinking, or whatever. But I don't have any reason to follow that path, because the "path of the Heart" (if we want to call it that) works perfectly for me. You can tell me that the direct knowing I find in my heart is actually the result of the underlying Thinking, or something along those lines. Well, that's not the way we see it in the Diamond Approach. Is that a problem for you? I don't see any problem here.

I'm sure (or at least I hope) we will have many more interesting conversations, so everything is fine with me.

One last point: the "path of the Heart" I'm in makes me open to other possibilities, other spiritual views. It literally opens my mind. And it allows me to feel and enjoy the Truth in other people's perspectives, without the need to completely understand them intellectually (like I said talking about Cleric).
I think this is a good thing. I don't feel the need to argue with others who have different spiritual views. I find this very liberating.

What about you? Don't you sometimes get tired of trying to convince others that their spiritual views are wrong, or maybe incomplete?

[AshvinP]

Adur,

There must be some confusion here and I should have been more clear in my response. I am not denying anything you experienced or that you experienced it in the way you described. I am questioning the interpretation of that experience. We actually do this all of the time when we are debating things. Your "intuitive idealism" approach is questioning the interpretation of BK's experiences with psychedelics and/or mystical states as well, from what I understand. Suffice to say, my point in the above comment is actually one of the core points emphasized by Steiner in PoF. We are never observing our current 'layer' of Thinking activity (at least not until there is intuitive Thinking within first-person perspective of those beings which give rise to our current thoughts). Here is a quote from PoF which should clarify. It is the very nature of Thinking activity which conceals its current 'layer' from observation. Yet if we are not aware of that nature and this resulting consequence, we will assume it simply was non-existent when we reach profound knowledge by way of the feeling heart. This sort of disagreement cannot be the result of simply "my spiritual perspective" vs. "your spiritual perspective" viewing the same truth from different angles, as it is foundational to the entire Philosophy of Spiritual Activity (another title for PoF).

Ashvin,

Again, sorry for taking so long to respond! I don't think there is any confusion on my part. But I can see you don't understand what I meant. I'll try to explain again.

First of all, you didn't hurt my feelings or anything like that. It's fine with me if you question the way I interpret my experiences. Like I said, I wasn't trying to convince you of anything.

I think the misunderstanding comes from a lack of clarity on my part. Without being completely clear about it, I was making a distinction between the sort of philosophical debate I engage in when I criticize Bernardo's theory, for example, and the sort of conversation about spirituality I'm having with you and Cleric. For me these two realms (science/philosophy and spirituality) are ultimately connected (how could it be otherwise?), but still, I approach them in different ways. When I discuss science and philosophy, I do try to convince others (materialists, or "analytic idealists", for example) that my view is closer to the truth than theirs. And there I can go into subtle intellectual arguments, and I enjoy it a lot.

But the conversation I was having with you about feeling vs. thinking, the spiritual evolution of humanity, etc., was more (in my view) a friendly conversation about different spiritual perspectives. When it comes to science, I think there is only one reality. But when it comes to spirituality, I think there are many different realities, many ways of experiencing the ultimate spiritual truth. The realm of spirit is much vaster and richer than the realm of matter. So, I don't see the point of going into debates about spiritual reality.

From this perspective, it doesn't make sense to interpret somebody else's spiritual experience in your own terms. Going back to the actual conversation we were having: many spiritual traditions, like Christian mysticism and Sufism, highlight the human heart. It is central in their understanding of spiritual reality. Other traditions, like Buddhism, focus more on the thinking mind. This is how it is. Both approaches work, and both are true. It's a waste of time to try to translate one spiritual view in terms of another. The experiences of a Christian mystic and a Buddhist monk are simply different.

I find Steiner's view quite interesting, and I plan to read his PoF. But I can see that his view is different from mine (which is the view I've learned as a student of the Diamond Approach). And I see no need to somehow translate one view into the other. Even if that were possible (which I doubt), many things would be lost in that translation.

I don't have any reason to doubt that if I started practicing Steiner's path, I would come to that sort of experience he is describing: dicovering the underlying layer of Thinking, or whatever. But I don't have any reason to follow that path, because the "path of the Heart" (if we want to call it that) works perfectly for me. You can tell me that the direct knowing I find in my heart is actually the result of the underlying Thinking, or something along those lines. Well, that's not the way we see it in the Diamond Approach. Is that a problem for you? I don't see any problem here.

I'm sure (or at least I hope) we will have many more interesting conversations, so everything is fine with me.

One last point: the "path of the Heart" I'm in makes me open to other possibilities, other spiritual views. It literally opens my mind. And it allows me to feel and enjoy the Truth in other people's perspectives, without the need to completely understand them intellectually (like I said talking about Cleric).
I think this is a good thing. I don't feel the need to argue with others who have different spiritual views. I find this very liberating.

What about you? Don't you sometimes get tired of trying to convince others that their spiritual views are wrong, or maybe incomplete?

Adur,

I know you don't take it personally and that was not my argument. Maybe it would be easier to ask if you agree with Steiner's dispassionate observation of Thinking in relation to other soul activities, as expressed by the quote provided, where he concludes Thinking is always present in experience and current Thinking cannot be perceived? As soon as "current" Thinking is perceived, another unperceived 'layer' manifests as the "current" Thinking. Do you agree?

I may need to coin a phrase here - the "but still" argument in this case, it was "I know science and spirituality are ultimately connected, but still I choose to treat them differently." Notice you are not treating them differently as an initial approach with the goal of discovering the ultimate connections between them, but you are treating them differently because it is your preference to always treat them differently. Now consider which approach completely forecloses on the possibility of ever seriously considering another's approach.

There is nothing which inherently prevents me from considering the DA and integrating those insights which may be accurate and therefore useful for my own approach. Your approach, as long as the preferential feelings remain in control, rather than the thought-full desire to find the "ultimate connections" between fragmented fields of inquiry, will be unable to genuinely consider another approach. I am really asking, do you see the logic of that argument or not? I am happy to clarify the argument further and consider any logical responses to the argument. But if it's really matter of "I don't feel a logical counter-argument is needed to deal with it", then that's support for the argument, if you see what I mean.

I am glad you have chosen to read PoF. Again, I hope you are able to put aside personal antipathy and consider the phenomenology of Thinking. For me, I had to put aside all my preferred conceptions of "thinking" and "freedom". When I finally did, it was a profound experience. It will require genuine sacrifice from us. If these things were simple decisions, entire spiritual traditions would not have evolved around this need for loving sacrifice to be united with the Divine in experience and knowledge, which themselves are not two but one. "What God has put together, let no man tear asunder."