A clean room for a specific exploration

Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns.

Moderator: Soul_of_Shu

findingblanks
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

A clean room for a specific exploration

Post by findingblanks »

AshivinP, let's talk here! So we don't have to clutter up other threads. Who knows how long anybody in this forum can stay and chat. Most of us, including you obviously, have lives that somewhat randomly allow us to enjoy forums like this and then snatch us away for months at a time. That's fair and fine and kind of fun.

But while I am able to come to this forum and talk to people who enjoy talking to me, I will. And I've already found a batch of new people who seem to get along.

But with you the dance is much more complex and entertaining. The content is always fine but we so quickly start to learn from you what I'm doing that is bad or wrong or deception. That said, now and then you are sweet and charitable and frame me in a better light!


If you want to have a response from me, I'd humbly request you plop it in here and just remind me of the thread it comes from. In this context, I'm more likely to be able to understand the possibility of us chatting.

Thanks for maybe considering this request. And I understand that even this request could be subsumed by the worst aspects of how you see me, in which case, I'd imagine you may need to point out the more nefarious intentions in my hoping we can chat here instead of in other threads. Supposedly in thirty-three years you will grasp that I really do appreciate you.
findingblanks
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: A clean room for a specific exploration

Post by findingblanks »

My friend created a fun podcast that sort of exploded two years ago. It's a very sweet and funny exploration of how we all deal so differently with failures and embarrassments.

He and I are always surprised by the way people on line feel an inclination to rush in and tell another person that their art is horrible or that their ideas clearly represent ignorance or an inability to blah blah blah. Yet, those very same people in real life would either speak with respect or just not bother with conversations and folks they don't find reliable/pleasant/informative.

So my friend will sometimes come across somebody on line making fun of him and his podcast. He now and then responds to the person and just says something like, "Sorry you didn't like it. It's definitely not for everybody." And 94% of the time, the person comes back and owns their shadow and makes a nice connection. I love that. Makes remember how much our conversations would benefit simply by being out of the arms what some people might refer to as Old Ahri. Man, that guy!
findingblanks
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: A clean room for a specific exploration

Post by findingblanks »

AshvinP, you wrote:

"In all my time commenting on public forums, I have only come across one other person who does this ignoring routine (FB). He purports to do it because he doesn't like the way I try to "pin him down" in my responses and 'speculate' on his personal motives after hundreds of intentionally vague and cryptic 'shadow dancing' comments..."

I hear you and I can see why my approach probably isn't to your taste. I actually like to be pinned down, so I think we had a communication failure on that. Okay if I take 65% of blame for that?

I think you'll see that in the Monkey thread I won't be responding to anybody but Monkey. That's just how I want to focus in that context. If somebody else (other than you obviously addresses me) I'll probably just privately message them and let them know we can discuss that particular thread in their DMs.

I haven't found a way to really satisfy you in typical threads. I'm not done trying but right now my trying is happening on other levels and maybe in here. Sure, there could be some strong notions that you'll refuse to chat in here for a similar kind of reason. Fair. But I don't buy that it is a guarantee.

So while I wouldn't bet on it, I can imagine a possibility of you chatting with me here.
findingblanks
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: A clean room for a specific exploration

Post by findingblanks »

Hey AshvinP, to Monkey you said:

"Again, I am wondering because I just find it very odd for two different people to carry on what appears to be a 100% personal dialogue between themselves about Steiner, Jung, BK and their spiritual ideas (or potentially spiritual for BK) on a public thread."

I can't speak for Monkey, obviously.

I think you are right that it is 'odd' that I don't share the conventional notion of rules and norms related to 'threads.' But it is the same for me with much of online communication. When I was first getting to know you, you made some comments when I wouldn't respond in timely way or when I wouldn't respond to the details you were hoping I would. It was the tone that struck me. And it's common. You see it all the time online.

But when somebody doesn't get back to me online or responds not to the exact content that I was hoping, I treat it very differently than in person, in a building, via email. I have different moral intuitions about those contexts, as well, but I'm just saying that I've found that online anonymous groups seem to provide a whole new set of opportunities and challenges.

That's why I didn't ever take you to task for the elements of my responses you didn't get to. But in those early days, before I saw how you really thought about me, I'd try to hang in and get back to you on your terms and just couldn't keep up with your beliefs about conversation and how we talk about each other and all of that.

Again, I'm okay if for the sake of discussion we say I'm at least 62% for any genuine misunderstandings we've had.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2899
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: A clean room for a specific exploration

Post by AshvinP »

findingblanks wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:35 pm Hey AshvinP, to Monkey you said:

"Again, I am wondering because I just find it very odd for two different people to carry on what appears to be a 100% personal dialogue between themselves about Steiner, Jung, BK and their spiritual ideas (or potentially spiritual for BK) on a public thread."

I can't speak for Monkey, obviously.

I think you are right that it is 'odd' that I don't share the conventional notion of rules and norms related to 'threads.' But it is the same for me with much of online communication. When I was first getting to know you, you made some comments when I wouldn't respond in timely way or when I wouldn't respond to the details you were hoping I would. It was the tone that struck me. And it's common. You see it all the time online.

But when somebody doesn't get back to me online or responds not to the exact content that I was hoping, I treat it very differently than in person, in a building, via email. I have different moral intuitions about those contexts, as well, but I'm just saying that I've found that online anonymous groups seem to provide a whole new set of opportunities and challenges.

That's why I didn't ever take you to task for the elements of my responses you didn't get to. But in those early days, before I saw how you really thought about me, I'd try to hang in and get back to you on your terms and just couldn't keep up with your beliefs about conversation and how we talk about each other and all of that.

Again, I'm okay if for the sake of discussion we say I'm at least 62% for any genuine misunderstandings we've had.

FB,

Thanks for starting this thread. Here are my basic thoughts in response to your comments (but I do also want to move on to the substantive issues):

The problem I have is that this entire approach feels counter-productive for me. When we end up with 10 comments about the various intricate dynamics of 'shadow dancing' to every 1 comment on the philosophical-metaphysical-spiritual substance of some great thinker's thought-system, I see a problematic ratio developing. The very concept of "shadow dancing" seems to me like an approach fixated on viewing all these things from the sense-world perspective, i.e. modern abstract intellect, and you know my spiritual evolutionary view now seeks to view these things from the noumenal spiritual perspective. It seeks to turn more towards the Light producing the shadows, i.e. to make the shadow conscious. That can only be done with direct, clear, precise, logical approach in my view. Our intellect already has a difficult enough time navigating the shadow-world to perceive the spiritual within it and persistently cryptic dialogue makes the quest near impossible.

You are clearly familiar with the work of Goethe, Steiner, and Barfield (perhaps to a lesser extent). Between them, there is no shortage of profound issues which can be explored in all of those categories above. It seems to me that you feel the very act of exploring those issues on this forum quickly becomes a problematic cult-like following for you which needs to be balanced out by mentioning materialism, dualism, ancient Eastern spirituality, animism, and any other non-esoteric Western spiritual tradition one can think of. You seem to feel they are all important and need to be advocated for more on this forum. The question is... why? I don't find the arguments you have presented to Dana convincing. I think a precisely logical case needs to be made for each and every worldview and why it should be considered. It's good to be familiar with these other worldviews, but that doesn't mean they are all of equal importance to discuss and it certainly doesn't mean they are saying the same things in different ways. They are perceiving the same Reality but from different perspectives, some of which are much more holistically integrated than others.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
findingblanks
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: A clean room for a specific exploration

Post by findingblanks »

In the thread you created with your essay, we've declared water under the bridge. So this will be my first step in responding to you with a pure blank slate, the way I started back long long ago :) And, at least for a decent duration, even if I perceive what I think are unnecessary shadow jabs from you, I'll refrain from dancing and just speak in a literal manner and style. Perhaps that approach will correct course in a way that is more sustainable.

Believe it or not, there are people who grasp what I'm saying about shadow-dancing. I do not say that to suggest either

1) I am making a clear point
2) My point is legitimate
or
3) That you are anybody else should either grasp or agree with it.

I only say that to reassure myself that

1) I'm not simply speaking nonsense (but there is certainly some nonesense in everything I've ever said!)
2) Hopefully to show you that I don't think your lack of agreeing with or even fully understanding me has all that much to do with you.

So, I'm going to leave aside all the 'shadow-dancing' conversation or attempts to justify or explain it. At least for now. I fully understand that it is perceived as a tedious distraction to you. And that's definitely fair.

In terms of your other comments:

"It seems to me that you feel the very act of exploring those issues on this forum quickly becomes a problematic cult-like following for you which needs to be balanced out by mentioning materialism, dualism, ancient Eastern spirituality, animism, and any other non-esoteric Western spiritual tradition one can think of. You seem to feel they are all important and need to be advocated for more on this forum. The question is... why? I don't find the arguments you have presented to Dana convincing."

I think we may even have to hold this aside for the time being. Much of what you are expressing above comes from how you have perceived my comments/behavior after I began to incorporate what I saw as unnecessary jabs and personal commentary. As I said above, this means that to a significant extent, you are being objective when you point to ways my comments didn't help fully address the conversation. But outside of that context, I think my comments in this group and the topics I bring up are rather wide and varied, sometimes dealing with aspects of Kastrup's model that I love and want to purely celebrate, sometimes bringing up aspects I value but don't really understand, sometimes bringing up aspects of his commentaries that I find troubling or one-sided or wrong. I notice that it is mainly in the latter category that a conversation is more likely to leave the realm of charitble conversation (even if contentious) and sneaily slide into comments on personality or lacks or ill-will and such. I say all of this to merely suggest that when my comments are taken in their proper context, I don't think it is accurate to characerizes as above. But, again, I stress that even that characterizations carries accuracy and truth in in, especially in naming the less-than-helpful aspects of my conversation from your point of view.

Anyway, seems like we can put most of that aside as well and just play it by ear.

Outside of my serious differences of opinion when it comes to percepts and concepts, there is still much fascinating ground to cover when it comes to Barfield and Steiner. I'd propose we could still use this space to explore any of those topics that come up naturally. I like the free-ranging approach and I also appreciate that you draw from a wide range of data-points when it comes to either of those discussions. My hunch is that your attention should and will be more occupied with the responses you'll be receiving for you long essay. That is as it should be! Take care.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2899
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: A clean room for a specific exploration

Post by AshvinP »

findingblanks wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:36 pm Anyway, seems like we can put most of that aside as well and just play it by ear.

Outside of my serious differences of opinion when it comes to percepts and concepts, there is still much fascinating ground to cover when it comes to Barfield and Steiner. I'd propose we could still use this space to explore any of those topics that come up naturally. I like the free-ranging approach and I also appreciate that you draw from a wide range of data-points when it comes to either of those discussions. My hunch is that your attention should and will be more occupied with the responses you'll be receiving for you long essay. That is as it should be! Take care.

Generally, I am curious as to your views on spiritual reality. For instance, what do you make of this diagram from Barfield? Based on your past comments, it seems like you just feel these things are unknowable in principle, but perhaps I am wrong about that.


Image
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
findingblanks
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: A clean room for a specific exploration

Post by findingblanks »

Hi there,

"Based on your past comments, it seems like you just feel these things are unknowable in principle, but perhaps I am wrong about that."

I have to be brief due to context. I believe that there is one reality that can be perceived in much wider and deeper ways than human on the whole perceive it. While I would have all sorts of questions and concerns with how literally the various 'bodies' are imagined and conceptualized, I believe the chart above points to a real cosmic process. I believe there is an evolution of consciousness and that Steiner and Barfield are two people that did solid research on it.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2899
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: A clean room for a specific exploration

Post by AshvinP »

findingblanks wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:04 am Hi there,

"Based on your past comments, it seems like you just feel these things are unknowable in principle, but perhaps I am wrong about that."

I have to be brief due to context. I believe that there is one reality that can be perceived in much wider and deeper ways than human on the whole perceive it. While I would have all sorts of questions and concerns with how literally the various 'bodies' are imagined and conceptualized, I believe the chart above points to a real cosmic process. I believe there is an evolution of consciousness and that Steiner and Barfield are two people that did solid research on it.

Alright, so the next question is, are there are humans you are aware of (including yourself) who perceived the one reality in "wider and deeper ways", rather than simply conceiving of it in abstract terms like we find in the diagram above? And if so, do we have any reliable accounts of what was perceived? I understand the richness of these spiritual-ideal realities cannot be adequately conveyed by way of abstract concepts, but for now I am just wondering if you think there are any such accounts we can point to and have confidence in?
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
findingblanks
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: A clean room for a specific exploration

Post by findingblanks »

Yes, off the top of my head these are people who I think have given us material to ponder that is engaging with related even if their interpretation aren't perfect:

Steiner
Barfield
Talbott
Holdrege
Spira
Wilber
Klocek
etc

And I think many many other people have done great work in helping us experience shifts in consciousness. They all won't share the same theory, of course. I think Barfield and Steiner and, indirectly, Coleridge, have done the most unique work in helping us see the inherent union between 'nature' and human consciousness within the context of evolution.

When it comes to people describing changes in the quality of consciousness through time, I find that even some materialists (mainly phenomenologists) often are very perceptive despite the various ways their theories then force them to accurately characterize their findings.
Post Reply