Number of posts per day limits - a suggestion

[AshvinP]

It is. There are layers of the dream, there are levels of the higher Self. I was just keeping things simple. But every higher level brings us closer to the perspective of the Eternal Eye of the One, revealing more and more of what the World is in its reality (and together with this our previous enchanted selves).

But the key difference is that once we realize our 'vertical' nature, we no longer see it like a mere dream because now at all times we know that we live along a gradient of consciousness, levels of selves, nested like Russian dolls, and we know how to relate to these levels and harmonize them. Today people are dreaming because they don't know and don't want to know that they have higher self that they can awaken to. Instead they prefer to hijack and squeeze as much as possible from the dream. YOLO!

Well, if I'm dreaming a dream in a dream and then wake up from a dream in a dream into a dream, I don't see how it's a Russian doll dream. It's simply a dream all the way through, which just appears to be a transition from a dream-in-a-dream into awakening from a dream-in-a-dream into a dream.

And I also can have a dream in which I see how my dream is generated by higher level structures of higher cognition. But then, isn't it just another dream about how the dream in a dream is dreamt?

I have a feeling Cleric is himself asleep by this time and dreaming about this forum nightmare he just awakened from. But I really don't understand your objection here - Cleric is saying each 'awakening' from a dream layer provides more expansive cognition and therefore understanding of what was being experienced in the lower dream layers. As I referenced before, these things have also been imaginatively answered in Nolan's movie Inception. It is by consciously 'descending' into the subconscious dream layers further and further that the primal Idea is incepted and the entire Idea-Organism is awakened. And whether there is any "final" state of awakening is besides the point (and thinking in rigid linear temporal terms of the intellect we are trying to awaken from) - the point is we cannot understand anything or make any real practical progress unless we go through the process of awakening from within the dreams within dreams.

[Eugene I]

It is by consciously 'descending' into the subconscious dream layers further and further that the primal Idea is incepted and the entire Idea-Organism is awakened.

It is by consciously 'descending' in a dream into the subconscious dream layers further and further that the primal Idea is incepted/dreamed in a dream and the entire Idea-Organism is awakened into a so-called higher level dream without realizing that it is still a dream, an all those subconscious dream layers were just dreamt about.

[AshvinP]

It is by consciously 'descending' into the subconscious dream layers further and further that the primal Idea is incepted and the entire Idea-Organism is awakened.

It is by consciously 'descending' in a dream into the subconscious dream layers further and further that the primal Idea is incepted/dreamed in a dream and the entire Idea-Organism is awakened into a so-called higher level dream without realizing that it is still a dream, an all those subconscious dream layers were just dreamt about.

You responded before my edit which addresses this response:

I have a feeling Cleric is himself asleep by this time and dreaming about this forum nightmare he just awakened from. But I really don't understand your objection here - Cleric is saying each 'awakening' from a dream layer provides more expansive cognition and therefore understanding of what was being experienced in the lower dream layers. As I referenced before, these things have also been imaginatively answered in Nolan's movie Inception. It is by consciously 'descending' into the subconscious dream layers further and further that the primal Idea is incepted and the entire Idea-Organism is awakened. And whether there is any "final" state of awakening is besides the point (and thinking in rigid linear temporal terms of the intellect we are trying to awaken from) - the point is we cannot understand anything or make any real practical progress unless we go through the process of awakening from within the dreams within dreams.

[Soul_of_Shu]

PS - Dana, I just included you because of your response to Steve. I have no idea whether you understand Cleric's approach or not, since you play those cards pretty close to your chest

My response to Justin on page 4 about my take on Steiner superseding BK also stands for my take on whatever insight I may glean from Cleric.

[Eugene I]

the point is we cannot understand anything or make any real practical progress unless we go through the process of awakening from within the dreams within dreams.

The understanding from multiple awakenings from dreams within dreams is that you can not awaken from a dream because everything you ever experience is a dream, no matter how many times you awakened from a dream within a dram. You can only become dreaming lucidly, I mean - absolutely lucidly, realizing that everything you ever experience is a dream. But there is something that is irrelevant to the dream content - and it is seeing the dream. Seeing the dream cannot itself be part of the dream, but everything else is.

[Cleric K]

Well, if I'm dreaming a dream in a dream and then wake up from a dream in a dream into a dream, I don't see how it's a Russian doll dream. It's simply a dream all the way through, which just appears to be a transition from a dream-in-a-dream into awakening from a dream-in-a-dream into a dream.

And I also can have a dream in which I see how my dream is generated by higher level structures of higher cognition. But then, isn't it just another dream about how the dream in a dream is dreamt?

As I said, the great difference is that only in our fragmented egos it seems that the levels are like completely independent dreams. For example, we know that the conditions of our physical body can stimulate the dream imagery. If we have fever, this might summon a scene where we try to escape a burning building.

The important thing about lucid dreams (and yes, there are degrees of lucidity) is that prior to lucidity the dream was the one and only World for us. After awakening in the dream (if lucid enough) we already know that we have a physical body and that processes in it and the physical environment are shaping factors of the dream imagery (of course dreams are shaped also from the astral and higher worlds but let's keep it simple). In other words, we become aware that there are now levels of reality which are not completely isolated but play into each other.

This process continues when in meditation we transfigure our spiritual activity into the higher form of consciousness. Then a third level of reality becomes accessible to us which is also not isolated from the others but plays into them. We can never understand the reasons for the dreams within the dream itself (it will be foolish if we begin to analyze the dream into dead atoms and imagine that the dream imagery is the result of their interactions. Imagine trying to explain the burning building through chain of purely mechanical cause and effects that have led to the fire - yet this is exactly what materialism does). We only understand the dreams when we become conscious how other worlds play into them. Similarly we can never understand the physical world only through itself. Just as we can't understand the causes of the burning building we try to escape in the dream through the dream itself, so we can't understand why we are born in a particular family, why we have met with this or that person, why we have been stricken by this or that disease. These things becomes comprehensible only when elucidated by consciousness that accesses the living processes in the higher world, where destiny is being weaved.

The key is that the levels of consciousness are not like endless dreams within dreams. The lower we are in consciousness the more our perceptions confront us as a great mystery that we can only think about. The higher we go in consciousness the more we find within that consciousness the spiritual processes that lie behind the lower levels. Ultimately, at the highest levels the whole Cosmos is a magnificent yet general Idea within Divine Consciousness that spreads as Time and is further worked upon by beings that creatively fill the details of the Time Wave.

Becoming lost in the dream within a dream within a dream, as you say, implicitly assumes that at all levels we're the same feeble ego that confronts perceptions with its intellect and can never know their true sources. Once we step on the path of development, these layers are not isolated and indistinguishable dreams but now we live in hierarchy of Consciousness that works through its fractal levels, even to the strata where the spirit becomes lost in the fragments.

Seriously Eugene, if after all these explanations you still go around and avoid the core, it only means that you don't want to question the fort of the intellectual ego. You simply don't tolerate that there could be anything between your thoughts and the highest One Consciousness (which strangely, even though it's One, somehow can only know itself as irreconcilable groups with no chance of higher unity. Go figure how it even knows that it is One).

Now I'm really going to bed. Good night/day to everyone according to their meridian

[Steve Petermann]

Yet theology can't cross into the divine transcendent depths, it can only feel them.

If by "cross" you are suggesting some demarcation or divide, I would disagree. As I have said many times, the divine transcendent depth is present everywhere in this reality. There is nothing to cross but there are depths to be probed. How do we probe those depths? I think we do it both with our explications (theology), our intuitions and within each moment of experienced life.

Explications can help us get our bearings in a spiritual journey. They aren't some inert abstractions. While they are abstractions and the words associated with them, they also contain power, just as depicted in Genesis, "Let there be light.". Accordingly, theology can tap into the power of transcendent depths. However, while metaphysical formulations may inform our journey, they aren't the be-all-end-all. Remarkable exemplars in history weren't necessarily well versed in theology or religious philosophy and still offered remarkable examples of love, compassion, and all the other noble traits I've mentioned before. People are different in their cognitive/intuitive/thinking/feeling makeup. I think there is a step that any theology or metaphysical system has to take. For all the detailed work on formulations, if it can't be distilled in a way that at least well-educated people can make sense of, it will fall flat and be of no use except for the few that are able to understand it.

So, here's the issue as I see it. I've read several of your posts. I can grasp some of it but much of it remains elusive to me. This reminds me of my introduction to the theology of Paul Tillich in my theology studies. At first, his theology seemed beyond reach because it offered a very different approach and language than I was used to. (Novices in process philosophy say the same thing.) However, I sensed there was something profound in it so I kept reading. I put in the work. Eventually, I became familiar with his language and concepts. Then it made sense to me but it required becoming embedded in his thought. Over time I found things I take issue with and other things that are profound.

You and AshvinP are obviously well versed in the resources for your approach. Most of us are not. For instance, capitalizing Thinking means nothing to me because I don't know what that means. There are other concepts that have, I think, special meaning within the broad system. Both you and he have complained many times about being misunderstood. I think you may be right in some cases but that would be normal for those not embedded in the full gamut of the approach. Suggesting people read PoF or some other important text so they'll understand is a big ask unless they can be convinced that somehow something important is to be had. In order to do that you or AshvinP may need to "dumb it down" to a level where those who are not embedded in the approach can decide if they want to put in the work. These could be short distilled texts or YouTube-like videos. Typically, I think, there are two ways metaphysical systems become mainstream or have a large following. One is to have prominent scholars or knowledgeable influencers recommend it. Another is that it goes viral because of word of mouth. Both are very difficult to achieve.

[Eugene I]

Becoming lost in the dream within a dream within a dream, as you say, implicitly assumes that at all levels we're the same feeble ego that confronts perceptions with its intellect and can never know their true sources. Once we step on the path of development, these layers are not isolated and indistinguishable dreams but now we live in hierarchy of Consciousness that works through its fractal levels, even to the strata where the spirit becomes lost in the fragments.

Seriously Eugene, if after all these explanations you still go around and avoid the core, it only means that you don't want to question the fort of the intellectual ego. You simply don't tolerate that there could be anything between your thoughts and the highest One Consciousness (which strangely, even though it's One, somehow can only know itself as irreconcilable groups with no chance of higher unity. Go figure how it even knows that it is One).

Now I'm really going to bed. Good night/day to everyone according to their meridian

OK, so, when you arrive a the highest level of the dream, you should be able to clearly see how the lower levels are manifested, including the physical dream, which means you should be able to experience how the sense perceptions in the physical dream-reality are generated exactly according to the Schrodinger equations. So, I asked you many times to explain in words understandable for us lower-level beings how exactly such manifestation happens.

Also, when you arrive at the "highest level", what makes you think that it is indeed the highest level and if some day you will not awaken into even higher level of the dream in which the "highest level" that you were just in is dreamt? May be you will simply awaken into an alien virtual reality simulation room and realize "oh, so I'm actually a Andromedian playing a virtual reality dream-game on a quantum computer?" And may be even that level is just another dream or another virtual reality run by even higher-level advanced civilization?

You can never be sure that all the content you are experiencing is not part of a dream or a virtual reality simulation or some level of reality manifested from some higher level. The only thing you can be sure that it is not part of the content of a dream is seeing the dream, that is because the content of a dream can not see itself.

[JustinG]

PS: Justin, it sounds like you are a Marxist. I was raised in USSR and studied Marxism at University (I would rather not, but it was a mandatory course). I would be interested in discussing it (philosophical and social aspects of it, not political). You might want to open a thread about it (if it's ok with moderators). My question about Marxism is: why is that it may sound so convincing and compelling and make a lot of sense to people, but for some reason whenever it has been practically tested as a social system, is has so far always collapsed into some sort of dictatorship and socio-economic disaster?

Since it mainly seems to be mostly of interest to you and Justin, why not take it into PM mode so I won't have to follow it?

Eugene

I won't say much on this, as I don't want to burden Dana with any extra work (BTW Dana, thank you for the work you do in your near impossible role). It would also take too long to answer the specific question you pose, so I'll just say the following:

Yes, I am a Marxist. However, I am not a Leninist and do not believe a violent transition away from capitalism is necessary (as explained here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/hardca ... ot_may.htm). My interpretation of Marx is based on the work of Moishe Postone, Alfred Sohn-Rethel, Antonio Gramsci and Graham Priest. Priest is also well-versed in Nagarjuna, and has a book coming out soon which you might be interested in https://www.routledge.com/Capitalism-- ... 1032049106.

[AshvinP]

Yet theology can't cross into the divine transcendent depths, it can only feel them.

If by "cross" you are suggesting some demarcation or divide, I would disagree. As I have said many times, the divine transcendent depth is present everywhere in this reality. There is nothing to cross but there are depths to be probed. How do we probe those depths? I think we do it both with our explications (theology), our intuitions and within each moment of experienced life.

Explications can help us get our bearings in a spiritual journey. They aren't some inert abstractions. While they are abstractions and the words associated with them, they also contain power, just as depicted in Genesis, "Let there be light.". Accordingly, theology can tap into the power of transcendent depths. However, while metaphysical formulations may inform our journey, they aren't the be-all-end-all. Remarkable exemplars in history weren't necessarily well versed in theology or religious philosophy and still offered remarkable examples of love, compassion, and all the other noble traits I've mentioned before. People are different in their cognitive/intuitive/thinking/feeling makeup. I think there is a step that any theology or metaphysical system has to take. For all the detailed work on formulations, if it can't be distilled in a way that at least well-educated people can make sense of, it will fall flat and be of no use except for the few that are able to understand it.

So, here's the issue as I see it. I've read several of your posts. I can grasp some of it but much of it remains elusive to me. This reminds me of my introduction to the theology of Paul Tillich in my theology studies. At first, his theology seemed beyond reach because it offered a very different approach and language than I was used to. (Novices in process philosophy say the same thing.) However, I sensed there was something profound in it so I kept reading. I put in the work. Eventually, I became familiar with his language and concepts. Then it made sense to me but it required becoming embedded in his thought. Over time I found things I take issue with and other things that are profound.

You and AshvinP are obviously well versed in the resources for your approach. Most of us are not. For instance, capitalizing Thinking means nothing to me because I don't know what that means. There are other concepts that have, I think, special meaning within the broad system. Both you and he have complained many times about being misunderstood. I think you may be right in some cases but that would be normal for those not embedded in the full gamut of the approach. Asking people to read PoF or some other important text so they'll understand is a big ask unless you can convince them somehow that you are really onto something. In order to do that you may need to "dumb it down" to a level where those who are not embedded in the approach can decide if they want to put in the work. These could be short distilled texts or YouTube-like videos. Typically, I think, there are two ways metaphysical systems become mainstream or have a large following. One is to have prominent scholars or knowledgeable influencers recommend it. Another is that it goes viral because of word of mouth. Both are very difficult to achieve.

Steve,

Since Cleric is asleep, I am going to offer some responses here, and I am sure he can correct or elaborate as necessary.

Please note that any previous frustration from us (mostly me) is not due to anyone who has been commenting on these things for less than a month, or even less than three months, such as yourself (there was an exception with ParadoxZone, which I now feel bad about, because she definitely was not commenting much) . I think my current frustration threshold is 3-6 months of answering the same questions and dealing with the same misrepresentations. I hope to expand that out further as I spiritually mature. Your post above is exactly what Cleric and I are looking for. You are reading the material and you coming up with thoughtful issues and questions. Speaking for myself, I do not write essays and posts so they can lie there inert, or simply draw a few comments of agreement and "good work". I am very passionate to delve deeper into these spiritual issues with other people, because obviously those opportunities are virtually non-existent apart from the online sphere.

Anyway, back to your post. It is correct that Steiner has addressed all of these issues, and so have we via essays on this forum. For ex., I am writing essays on integral mythology which I think directly address your points about the Biblical imagery and what it means in a holistic and evolutionary context. I don't think we can isolate any one aspect of that imagery without considering its relation to the Whole Biblical Organism (and I even go beyond into ancient Indian and Greek mythology, hopefully ancient Persian and Egyptian as well). You have expressed doubts about the "spiritual evolution" before and that will be a major sticking point, as very little can make sense without that context (which we also refer to as "metamorphic" progression sometimes). But I am not going to refer to you those right now, because I want to address the points directly.

If by "cross" you are suggesting some demarcation or divide, I would disagree. As I have said many times, the divine transcendent depth is present everywhere in this reality. There is nothing to cross but there are depths to be probed. How do we probe those depths? I think we do it both with our explications (theology), our intuitions and within each moment of experienced life.

We are in complete agreement here on most of that. The spiritual reality is omnipresent and there are no hard demarcations or boundaries. It is only our perspective on the spiritual which is obscured by complex and fragmented relations. So if ever we talk about "crossing", "ascending", "transitioning", or any similar terms, to the spiritual realms, it should be taken as physical imagery for unveiling the omnipresent spiritual within our own perspective (or as Gebser would say, transcending "perspective" altogether to 'aperspectival' consciousness). The bolded part is a problem because "theology" essentially means chains of abstract intellectual concepts about the spiritual. I have never heard someone speak of "theology" which is carried out by higher cognition. So that intellectual theology is pure horizontal thinking, like musical melodies without any depth and verticality of harmonies.

When we say "Thinking" with capital "T", it is to emphasize the vertical aspect of cognition, which is intellect transfigured into imaginative thinking (also inspired and intuitive, but we can leave those aside for now). That is how the Spirit reaches back to itself through us and makes mere flattened picture-concepts into full and rich images; adds thought-harmony to thought-melody; makes prosaic language into poetic language. It is correct that this sort of transfiguration occurs all the time through the aesthetic fields, but mostly it occurs subconsciously, i.e. not with conscious awareness of what is occurring. It can also occur within intellectual philosophy, science, and theology, but that is much more rare and it is even more subconscious at that level of abstraction. There is no consistency to it and it cannot be willed consciously by the intellect. Most importantly, the intellect fails to perceive the need to go beyond itself - rather it is perfectly comfortable convincing itself that nothing further is needed to deepen experience and knowledge. I think we see clear examples of that on this forum all the time.

For all the detailed work on formulations, if it can't be distilled in a way that at least well-educated people can make sense of, it will fall flat and be of no use except for the few that are able to understand it.

Related to what I said above about the intellect wanting to always remain in control, the key is this - we need to recognize it is our own perceptive-cognitive limitation which makes these things "fall flat". In fact, that is a great image of what the intellect does - it takes rich and meaningful images and flattens them out, and then it smugly discards its own flattened images as "useless" because they can no longer be meaningfully connected back to their sources. It is the quintessential example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, or simply creating artificial "problems" for oneself that cannot be solved so as to avoid the responsibility of solving the real problems.

I think you may be right in some cases but that would be normal for those not embedded in the full gamut of the approach. Asking people to read PoF or some other important text so they'll understand is a big ask unless you can convince them somehow that you are really onto something. In order to do that you may need to "dumb it down" to a level where those who are not embedded in the approach can decide if they want to put in the work.

Well there are a lot of issues with this approach you suggest. First, the reason we recommend Steiner's PoF is because it is 200 or so pages, not super abstract analytical philosophy, and it lays the entire phenomenological foundation by which people can easily ascend to the higher spiritual concepts, so that nothing needs to be "dumbed down". Again, that is the intellectual ego asking for everything to be formulated on its own flattened terms. Then it will look at those inert concepts and conclude there is nothing of value in the spiritual approach. That "ascension" approach is the spiritual image of every human endeavor where someone says "it is just too difficult for me" and, if ever they happen to push harder, almost without fail, they find strength within themselves that they didn't even know existed, and they would never know existed until they actually made the attempt to push harder in good faith. It is the image of "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."

In this case, the "push harder" is simply to read PoF, or one of Cleric's numerous essays, so it's actually not even that much of a push. No physical exertion is required, no massive time commitment, no financial resources. There is no deadline to complete reading - take as much time as you want. And continue asking questions here as you go along, because I think it should be clear that both of us are very willing to answer them and continue a dialogue in good will. Again, I only get frustrated when misrepresentations occur for months on end, because it shows people are actively trying to dismiss the arguments without considering them. I don't think that is the case with you at all, so I hope we can all continue a productive discussion from here.