How the Mind Meets the Body

[ParadoxZone]

Shu,

Thank you for your gracious response.

As for addressing the deeper factors - well, you've just answered your own question as to what brings me to this forum. I don't know precisely what the deeper factors are, but I am perfectly willing to put in the effort to attempt to find out. Hence, here I am.

There is even a discussion on another thread about what the final factor is, and the desirability of there even being a final factor, and the implications thereof. A sort of Horganesque "not knowing should be celebrated" discussion. Or should it?

Whatever the factor(s) is/are, that the rest is acting out should be obvious. I know that's not a unique insight. These discussions get heady, or to use Ashvin's materialistic metaphor "left-brained". When someone asks something practical, as Justin did, I consider it a very relevant contribution and one that needs to be answered. Not only for the questioner, as you yourself remarked, but for the audience.

The bit about Ashvin being President was my contribution to that practical side of things. I would love to see an answer to Justin's question. It would contextualise a lot, for me.

And the bit about people "forgetting" the spiritual - I don't believe that to be true at all. JP was praised on this site for offering practical advice to young men in particular. I think it's eminently fair to ask Ashvin what his practical policy prescription is for indigenous cultures, or for cultures that are not Western enough. I may not like or agree with his answer, but at least I'll have it to chew over.

As for the new dream administration, I've changed my voting preference since earlier. I want Bernardo as president (of everywhere), Lou as chief of staff. I'd have Ashvin and Eugene jobsharing as Spiritual advisor to the president.

You've seen and commented on how this thread so quickly became a discussion on who is interpreting Barfield "correctly". To go back to Lou's opening post (can't say OP now as that may be taken to refer to original participation), my first thought was that this explains/accounts for DID. And other traumatically induced conditions. I'm not going to say disorders, because they're not that. Adaptations mainly. And I say that as a "disordered" one.

So I'm going to listen to it. Job done Lou and thank you.

[ParadoxZone]

Ashvin,

Crikey, I am now the very embodiment of the modern age. Feel free to add more. I meant it when I said I'm not taking it personally. Just as I meant it when I said I'd read more of Cleric's postings. Just as I meant it when I said in the previous post (posted before I saw your recent offering, obviously) that I would listen to Lou's suggested podcast. I would not have said it if I didn't mean it. OK? Maybe you don't believe these assertions either. I can't help that.

You take my assertion that I'm not taking this personally at face value, and take that as licence to plough ahead. Yet you don't believe it when I say that I will read more of Cleric, and use that as an excuse to ..... plough ahead anyway. That is odd.

Where to begin with the substance of your post? There's even a "no true Scotsman" fallacy in there. "No reasonable person can question"?

Also, if you're going to put something in quotation marks that I've allegedly said, please make sure it's something I actually said. That seems only fair.

I'm also trying to recognise myself in the remainder of your contribution. Maybe there's a log in my eye, maybe there's a log in yours. A log or two definitely features. You know me from my contributions here, I know you from yours. That is all. But you comprehend all of this, surely?

Now, please do one thing for me. Go back and read my contributions in this thread and find the place where I want to talk about global warming and BLM. Read it "carefully" and then come back and tell me I want to keep talking about these things. Do I? Or do I think some things are just self-evident and can we please move on? I know the answer to that, and I think a careful reading will give you the answer too.

You asked if I saw a connection between certain things. Here's a straight answer, which is a mark of my respect for you. Yes, I do. I am blessed/cursed with seeing connections between things that are "there" or "not there". Telling the difference is a skill I am still working on. It's a work in progress, maybe not just for me?

Then you preempt a response by anticipating it. Preemption isn't exemption, it's more of a tactic. Yes, I think there's a whole lot of projection going on. You seem to get a piece of news about climate change, BLM, trans rights, you don't like the messenger's attitude and then project onto humanity as a whole whatever it is you've already concluded. I think I have more respect for people and their individual processes.

My spirituality bar is low? C'mon now.

And I don't take individualism seriously (paraphrasing). Again go back and read my (comparatively very brief) posts in this thread. The paragraph about the conversation with my ex-wife. Now do you still think the same?

It's hard for me to read anything you've posted since my intervention as anything other than deflection. That might be totally unfair, but it's what I think right now. The effort put into responding to me, yet not to Justin's eminently reasonable question?

Apologies in advance if there has been any further cross-posting. I have limited technology available to me (for which I am appropriately grateful). I don't want to screw up this post by experimenting.

I'm on late schedule today and now need to prepare dinner, including veg. And I have no sweets. What to do?

Apologies to Shu. This feels very contentious. It really needn't be.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

Crikey, I am now the very embodiment of the modern age. Feel free to add more. I meant it when I said I'm not taking it personally. Just as I meant it when I said I'd read more of Cleric's postings. Just as I meant it when I said in the previous post (posted before I saw your recent offering, obviously) that I would listen to Lou's suggested podcast. I would not have said it if I didn't mean it. OK? Maybe you don't believe these assertions either. I can't help that.

You take my assertion that I'm not taking this personally at face value, and take that as licence to plough ahead. Yet you don't believe it when I say that I will read more of Cleric, and use that as an excuse to ..... plough ahead anyway. That is odd.

Where to begin with the substance of your post? There's even a "no true Scotsman" fallacy in there. "No reasonable person can question"?

Also, if you're going to put something in quotation marks that I've allegedly said, please make sure it's something I actually said. That seems only fair.

I'm also trying to recognise myself in the remainder of your contribution. Maybe there's a log in my eye, maybe there's a log in yours. A log or two definitely features. You know me from my contributions here, I know you from yours. That is all. But you comprehend all of this, surely?

Now, please do one thing for me. Go back and read my contributions in this thread and find the place where I want to talk about global warming and BLM. Read it "carefully" and then come back and tell me I want to keep talking about these things. Do I? Or do I think some things are just self-evident and can we please move on? I know the answer to that, and I think a careful reading will give you the answer too.

You asked if I saw a connection between certain things. Here's a straight answer, which is a mark of my respect for you. Yes, I do. I am blessed/cursed with seeing connections between things that are "there" or "not there". Telling the difference is a skill I am still working on. It's a work in progress, maybe not just for me?

Then you preempt a response by anticipating it. Preemption isn't exemption, it's more of a tactic. Yes, I think there's a whole lot of projection going on. You seem to get a piece of news about climate change, BLM, trans rights, you don't like the messenger's attitude and then project onto humanity as a whole whatever it is you've already concluded. I think I have more respect for people and their individual processes.

My spirituality bar is low? C'mon now.

And I don't take individualism seriously (paraphrasing). Again go back and read my (comparatively very brief) posts in this thread. The paragraph about the conversation with my ex-wife. Now do you still think the same?

It's hard for me to read anything you've posted since my intervention as anything other than deflection. That might be totally unfair, but it's what I think right now. The effort put into responding to me, yet not to Justin's eminently reasonable question?

Apologies in advance if there has been any further cross-posting. I have limited technology available to me (for which I am appropriately grateful). I don't want to screw up this post by experimenting.

I'm on late schedule today and now need to prepare dinner, including veg. And I have no sweets. What to do?

Apologies to Shu. This feels very contentious. It really needn't be.

Sure, PZ, I will provide you everything you ask for. I have no problem with answering questions which are relevant to something I wrote and are somewhat specified. And I will admit you caught a lot of frustration that was pent up from few other people doing very similar things for some time now, but that doesn't make my points any less valid. I have been thinking about these forum dynamics for awhile now and the patterned responses to any talk of spiritual science all seem to boil down to a few identifiable prejudices. Cleric has also pointed these things out in his posts, which really made them stand out for me. I don't think there is any reasonable argument against all major mythic-spiritual traditions positing Self-knowledge as the foundation and we need to be receptive to criticism for that quest to bear fruit. That doesn't mean we have to agree with the criticism - clearly I do not agree with many of the ones leveled against me - but I actually consider them before dismissing them. (your comments in italics below, mine in bold)

Also, if you're going to put something in quotation marks that I've allegedly said, please make sure it's something I actually said. That seems only fair.

I suppose you are referencing to - "yet, still... I want to talk about politics and global warming, BLM, etc." and "here is issue X, here is issue Y, issue Z, and then there is spirituality over there" and "if we don't address global warming with great political action, there won't be anyone left to grow spiritually, because we will all be dead". I think it is clear from the context that I was not attributing those word for word to you, but that is my way of summarizing a lot of different things you wrote, such as:

"And I know that you might recoil at the notion of the practical and spiritual being distinct things. I agree with that. Yet, still ......"

"I've spoken to some trans people, both before and since that thread, and they are as frustrated as anyone that their "issue" has been bandwagoned by politickers, whether it be a small group of neo-marxists or a crusade of anti-pomo-neo-marxist anti-woke "warriors". Of course trans people should have rights. What's to discuss really? Can we move on now? (Same goes for BLM activists - I don't claim to speak for trans people or BLM supporters, but that's the strong impression I get from carefully listening to grassroots organisers.)" - you even kept writing about it after asking, "can we move on now?"
|
|
v
"Since I mentioned Trump above (I should have said an actual soul and a little bit of follow-through) and seem to have gotten away with it, let me briefly mention Bernie. At a higher level than those mentioned above, he was one who felt the need to be seen to be catering for the "trans issue". And it grates with many people that the issue came to such prominence because of a well-funded initiative around trans issues in the military. But it's eminently possible to see past all of this."

"So I haven't given up on politics and I wish you wouldn't either - like economics, it's too important to be left to the "experts". I'd still love to read your inaugural address." (this insistence to keep hearing my "inaugural address" and policy platform for dealing with "indigenous cultures", GW, etc., which continued into your last post to Shu, is what makes me certain you did not understand Cleric's post or my several explications, which made clear that I reject the entire premise any of those things can be addressed meaningfully by top-down political policies, and my position that they will actually be made worse by them, because the spiritual crisis is at the root, which is really the only sensible conclusion if one takes seriously that we are always living within a fundamentally spiritual Reality, complete with living spiritual beings whose activities give rise to the phenomenal world, but this Reality is simply obscured from our normal perception-cognition)

" FWIW, my view is to progress the spiritual, one must first stay alive and do so in a way that gives sustenance to spiritual development"

"Bernardo has written an essay on his view of what needs to be done to combat climate change. I thought it was a topic worth consideration here and how a solution might suit those of various political persuasions. I considered that worth mentioning - something "practical", to keep some sustenance going for further evolution in this earthly plane." (these two comments speak to my paraphrase, 'if we don't address GW, there won't be anyone left to grow spiritually', which makes me confident your view of "spirituality" is very shallow, because you think our Spirit-Soul somehow depends on our physical existence rather than the other way around)

"A point I was making, clumsily (maybe?), is that most haven't forgotten at all about spirituality (or whatever term other people might use, in the way they deem appropriate."

Read it "carefully" and then come back and tell me I want to keep talking about these things. Do I? Or do I think some things are just self-evident and can we please move on?

Clearly, as we see above, it was not about "moving on", but rather you really wanted to use these things as arguments in the spiritual discussion. In fact, after re-reading, it seems 99% of the content in your comments so far have been centered around sociopolitical and environmental issues.

And I don't take individualism seriously (paraphrasing). Again go back and read my (comparatively very brief) posts in this thread. The paragraph about the conversation with my ex-wife. Now do you still think the same?

Yes, I still think the same. Obviously people are "yearning" for deep meaning in their lives - that's my entire point. The spiritual meaning has been stripped away over the last few centuries and it has become so obscured that they do not even remember that is where the meaning used to come from, so they find it in various sociopolitical causes, among other things, such as the ones you keep mentioning despite wanting to "move on". As you yourself pointed out - "We both knew of which we spoke, although of course we didn't know what the "it" was that we were trying to get". It does no good to know their is a gaping hole of meaning in one's life but having no idea what to fill it with and, moreover, not seriously considering anyone else's considered spiritual advice. We are not "on our own" in that sense, because we have millennia of spiritual Wisdom which is now accessible at our fingertips. We are "on our own" because no one is going to choose to abandon the materialist and sociopolitical pursuits for us (in fact most will do everything they can to keep us within those pursuits), so we must make that choice for ourselves, and then we must do the most heavy lifting which comes after. We cannot rely on our family, friends, the State, or God to make us see any spiritual truth we ourselves do not deeply desire to see.

[JustinG]

Hi PZ,

If you are interested in a take on idealism which is strongly focused on environmental and sociopolitical issues, you might like the thread on Gramsci and Idealism: viewtopic.php?p=5661#p5661

[ParadoxZone]

Ashvin,

Ok, we're being candid, yet polite. I can do that.

The bulk of your last post is lawyerly sophistry, in my opinion. You are again reading things that are just not there. Here's why I think that.

99% of my postings are about socioeconomic or environmental issues and you're making a huge inference out of that? Firstly, I have rarely posted here. My life doesn't revolve around posting here. When I have done so, it's because my interest was unusually piqued or I was triggered. In the latter case, yes it's a failure of the self-discipline you often speak of. Of course you don't know about the times I was tempted to, but didn't. How could you? But what you could do is consider this possibility and build that into the database from which you draw your inferences.

Secondly, you draw a massive conclusion from the fact that I hadn't "moved on" in what - two or three posts on the same thread, within hours (or minutes) of each other? That is some leap. Guilty as charged. But a light sentence might be appropriate. I'll probably have moved on again by tomorrow or the day after.

Thirdly (and I promise, this is the final "personal" point), you know almost nothing about me and my habits. Would it surprise you to know that people used to avoid me because all I wanted to talk about was "deep" stuff? That I have been quietly, almost subversively, promoting Bernardo's work over the phone and latterly in person. Why? Because I sensed that certain close relatives were in a place that seemed familiar to me. Post religious, yet not letting go of it, sort of materialism-indoctrinated but not really there either. Signs of cognitive dissonance, while also dealing with very real earthly troubles - not trifling ones. These are not unspiritual people. They are exceedingly kind and caring, doing the best they can. If I can judiciously point out the intellectual freedom that Bernardo's work can bestow, that "permission" to look a little deeper, isn't that a positive thing for all?

When I say judiciously, I mean it. Previous, more direct approaches were met with something approaching, but not quite, hostility. Wrong time, wrong place. Which is not to say that I think I have "arrived" anywhere. Maybe they will look deeper (I think this is happening) and re-contextualise some life experiences and help me some of the rest of the way. Wouldn't that be a thing? So do you see, telling them to read your or Cleric's posts and then saying, well if you can't understand that then it's all your individual problem wouldn't be productive in any sense of the word?

OK, that's more than enough about where I am at. Some few further points -

1. Cleric's posts are (relatively) long and dense. That's to say nothing about their value. It's very understandable that Shu recently asked if he published anywhere else, or considered writing a book. His answer was instructive and I'd invite you to read it again and pause before responding (if you intend to respond to this). There may come a time when I'll re-read his posts and consider them light and airy. That's a nice thought.

2. You constantly berate people for being where they are. That people realise that there's "a gaping hole" in them is obvious. What they should do about it is less obvious. They might have to kiss a few frogs before meeting the Prince. I think Cleric knows this. I'm not sure you've quite internalised it. Maybe people need a cause, political and environmental or some such thing. You say you're not judging, but your posts reek of judgement to me. That might not be fair.

3. Saying people are on their own to figure it out is not the same as saying people should ignore everyone else, history, spiritual traditions, books, podcasts etc. There was a contributor on the old forum called George, who came up with the "georgeverse". The last I read from him was on Reddit, where he was a mod on a "dimensional" jumping thread. Now you might consider this to be "spiritual bypassing" and not doing the "work" and I might even partially agree with you. But reading some of the posts there led me to believe that some were having a sort of eye-opening experience, and were open to other possibilities. For people who didn't "believe in" the book "The Secret" it seemed to be a gateway to something, using different and better metaphors. There's also a Christian based version, which you've probably heard of. And if people try it and get what they "want" and still feel that "gaping hole", isn't that progress of a sort? Again, telling people to read Cleric is probably not going to be productive. See point 2. Did you "get it" at the first, second or third attempt?

That's quite enough from me. I believe I've covered everything I felt compelled to cover.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

Ok, we're being candid, yet polite. I can do that.

The bulk of your last post is lawyerly sophistry, in my opinion. You are again reading things that are just not there. Here's why I think that.

99% of my postings are about socioeconomic or environmental issues and you're making a huge inference out of that? Firstly, I have rarely posted here. My life doesn't revolve around posting here. When I have done so, it's because my interest was unusually piqued or I was triggered. In the latter case, yes it's a failure of the self-discipline you often speak of. Of course you don't know about the times I was tempted to, but didn't. How could you? But what you could do is consider this possibility and build that into the database from which you draw your inferences.

Secondly, you draw a massive conclusion from the fact that I hadn't "moved on" in what - two or three posts on the same thread, within hours (or minutes) of each other? That is some leap. Guilty as charged. But a light sentence might be appropriate. I'll probably have moved on again by tomorrow or the day after.

Thirdly (and I promise, this is the final "personal" point), you know almost nothing about me and my habits. Would it surprise you to know that people used to avoid me because all I wanted to talk about was "deep" stuff? That I have been quietly, almost subversively, promoting Bernardo's work over the phone and latterly in person. Why? Because I sensed that certain close relatives were in a place that seemed familiar to me. Post religious, yet not letting go of it, sort of materialism-indoctrinated but not really there either. Signs of cognitive dissonance, while also dealing with very real earthly troubles - not trifling ones. These are not unspiritual people. They are exceedingly kind and caring, doing the best they can. If I can judiciously point out the intellectual freedom that Bernardo's work can bestow, that "permission" to look a little deeper, isn't that a positive thing for all?

When I say judiciously, I mean it. Previous, more direct approaches were met with something approaching, but not quite, hostility. Wrong time, wrong place. Which is not to say that I think I have "arrived" anywhere. Maybe they will look deeper (I think this is happening) and re-contextualise some life experiences and help me some of the rest of the way. Wouldn't that be a thing? So do you see, telling them to read your or Cleric's posts and then saying, well if you can't understand that then it's all your individual problem wouldn't be productive in any sense of the word?

OK, that's more than enough about where I am at. Some few further points -

1. Cleric's posts are (relatively) long and dense. That's to say nothing about their value. It's very understandable that Shu recently asked if he published anywhere else, or considered writing a book. His answer was instructive and I'd invite you to read it again and pause before responding (if you intend to respond to this). There may come a time when I'll re-read his posts and consider them light and airy. That's a nice thought.

2. You constantly berate people for being where they are. That people realise that there's "a gaping hole" in them is obvious. What they should do about it is less obvious. They might have to kiss a few frogs before meeting the Prince. I think Cleric knows this. I'm not sure you've quite internalised it. Maybe people need a cause, political and environmental or some such thing. You say you're not judging, but your posts reek of judgement to me. That might not be fair.

3. Saying people are on their own to figure it out is not the same as saying people should ignore everyone else, history, spiritual traditions, books, podcasts etc. There was a contributor on the old forum called George, who came up with the "georgeverse". The last I read from him was on Reddit, where he was a mod on a "dimensional" jumping thread. Now you might consider this to be "spiritual bypassing" and not doing the "work" and I might even partially agree with you. But reading some of the posts there led me to believe that some were having a sort of eye-opening experience, and were open to other possibilities. For people who didn't "believe in" the book "The Secret" it seemed to be a gateway to something, using different and better metaphors. There's also a Christian based version, which you've probably heard of. And if people try it and get what they "want" and still feel that "gaping hole", isn't that progress of a sort? Again, telling people to read Cleric is probably not going to be productive. See point 2. Did you "get it" at the first, second or third attempt?

That's quite enough from me. I believe I've covered everything I felt compelled to cover.

Look, the only reason I brought all of that up is because I am trying to highlight the modern prejudices which rule over our mental habits and the abstract intellect - you, me, everyone. It isn't all or nothing - people express these prejudices in their thinking to different degrees. There are some here, including you, who are so prejudiced that they are actually convinced they understand the spiritual framework Cleric and I are putting forward when they clearly do not. When we try to correct the misunderstandings, our corrections are completely ignored. Then they continue to comment as if they understand the points we are making and no correctives were offered. That is why your post above has nothing to do with the points I was making. You invoke your "subversive promotion" of BK, which is actually support for the point I was making. We are the most critical of BK specifically due to his lack of anything resembling genuine spiritual connection within his idealist framework. In fact, that idealist framework derived mostly from Schopenhauer, is quite hostile to anything resembling the sort of concrete and thoughtful spirituality we are pointing to. I am saying this just to point out that you are still not understanding our spiritual conception, which is not a metaphysical hobby or a thing to pursue separately of all 'worldly' affairs. Anyway, all of this has been laid out at great length in essays and posts, so I am not going to type it out yet again when I still sense it will go in one ear and out the other. I may just create a bullet point document listing everything I hold to in this regard, and simply post that and bold the relevant bullet whenever that view is misrepresented, which I am sure will occur again very soon.

[ParadoxZone]

Justin,

Thanks for the reference. I'll check it out.

Ashvin,

Your last post made a very salient point. I do not know whether there is a "metamorphical progression" of consciousness or not. I will, as stated, read more from Cleric. In my own time.

Now I'm out. In spite of promising what I asked for, you haven't replied to Justin's direct question. If you do, I promise not to respond/react at all. I would like to read it though. Which is what brought me here. Yesterday.

Goodnight/morning and God bless.

[Soul_of_Shu]

For what it's worth, I still feel the disconnect here is that PZ and others are very much focused on symptomatic sociopolitical issues, and a foundering system, for which there seems to be no known cure (notwithstanding Ashvin, Cleric and others will beg to differ, in that there is a known cure, but it is being ignored), and in the meantime, validly enough, they want offerings of practical ways to deal with the ever-ongoing symptoms—rather than what is deemed impenetrable esoterica—even as despite all the 'practical' treatments on offer, the symptoms just keep cropping up in some other variation, with side-effects from one treatment now needing even more practical solutions, and on and on it goes, while the deeper, underlying factors remain unaddressed. Again, however esoteric it may seem to some, the intended primary focus of this forum is to address those deeper factors, and not about offering and arguing over what countless other online arenas, which remain pretty much entirely focused on the symptoms, are going on about. So I get why both sides of this disconnect are clearly frustrated, and continue to talk past each other, as their focus is on entirely different priorities. Nonetheless, as the mod in this forum, I'm going to continue to insist on maintaining the intended primary focus of this forum, and suggest that these kind of arguments based in the disconnect of different priorities are actually counterproductive to any truly meaningful dialogos regarding the forum's intended primary focus. So for those who can't stay in keeping with that intended primary focus, who don't feel that it is sufficient to satisfy their need for practical treatments, I can only suggest that this forum won't be of much help.

[AshvinP]

Justin,

Thanks for the reference. I'll check it out.

Ashvin,

Your last post made a very salient point. I do not know whether there is a "metamorphical progression" of consciousness or not. I will, as stated, read more from Cleric. In my own time.

Now I'm out. In spite of promising what I asked for, you haven't replied to Justin's direct question. If you do, I promise not to respond/react at all. I would like to read it though. Which is what brought me here. Yesterday.

Goodnight/morning and God bless.

PZ - I think once you read Cleric and also come to understand the metamorphic progression of Spirit (consciousness), you will realize why this "direct question" from Justin has already been answered. If it makes it easier, and we must under all circumstances speak of it in political terms of a politician making policies for some reason, then just imagine I go up to the podium and recite Cleric's post that I provided you, some other relevant verses from the Gospels, a few quotes from Steiner, and then tell everyone no widescale policies will be enacted, and therefore no taxpayer money will be funneled to various interest groups for their non-spiritual agendas (including fundamentalist religious interest groups), and I will be conducting weekly prayer sessions-meditations over the radio if anyone chooses to tune in and follow along. Then I will likely catch a magic bullet from a 'lone gunman' on the drive out of D.C., and we will be back to business as usual!

[Soul_of_Shu]

Then I will likely catch a magic bullet from a 'lone gunman' on the drive out of D.C., and we will be back to business as usual!

And as per my previous comment, it may well be a disgruntled, triggered former forum participant