Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

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

User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2982
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by AshvinP »

AshvinP wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 1:05 am
Cleric K wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:23 pm In this sense there's no actual veil between worlds but it is entirely up to the development of consciousness to grow into the relations of all the planes. Our physical body is in the physical plane ('spectral band' of Divine Consciousness, so to speak), our feelings are of the same 'substance' as the astral world - they are part of the astral world, our thoughts are 'made of' intuition and they belong to the higher spiritual world.

We must be quite clear that it is because of our physical habits of mind that we are inclined to imagine things in the simple way. Because of our physical body, we're used to imagine our consciousness as packaged around it and belonging to the physical world. Similarly we imagine, for example, extraterrestrials as belonging with their complete body/consciousness package to other plane/dimension, and eventually they pierce the veil and visit us. It's one of those things that we can overcome only when we investigate ourselves and find out that we imagine things in this way entirely out of convenience. We simply take our understandings as developed through the interaction with the sensory spectrum and abstractly copy-paste them multiple times in different planes/dimensions.


Brilliant. And let me be the first to say, I have been reading and thinking about spiritual science daily for many months now, and I always first envision the veil 'entities' between physical, etheric, astral, etc. I can repeat "there is only One reality, there is only One reality, there is only One reality" as many times as I want, but that initial perceiving-and-conceiving process of various 'veils' structuring the spiritual does not simply go away. It is only after a fair amount of thoughtful reflection, or a post like Cleric's above, when it sinks in and helps me make sense of all that I had been thinking about in that context. So this modern habit of mind is no trivial thing to (a) recognize and (b) overcome, whatsoever. If I were to approach an evangelical Christian today and explain how scripture is really referring to this prejudice throughout, they would feel I am completely trivializing the scripture, but that's precisely because they have never reflected on how deeply it influences all that we perceive and conceive in the world, which in turn influences all relationships and treatment of others.

This one simple prejudice of division, segregation, fragmentation, abstract copy-and-pasting, etc. makes sense of nearly all shortcomings in modern philosophy and science, as well as our own daily experiences. And this is nothing new - anyone reading who is familiar with Jungian depth psychology has already encountered this idea many times over. But, because of the very same prejudice, this abstract knowledge is not integrated with other fields of knowledge and our own immanent experience. It is all held flatly and abstractly and seems like just another "theory" in a long list of theories out there to consider and speculate over. Honestly confronting the prejudice and reflecting on how it functions within our immanent experience, even with mere intellectual reasoning, will automatically add living depth to the idea. That is a core aspect of PoF, for those who are currently reading it or plan on doing so - one can never add depth and thereby improve the life of ideals without first knowing what needs to be added to and how.

What does it mean to add "depth" to an idea? Well, for one thing, we suddenly realize why all the criticisms of "higher" cognition, "higher" spiritual realms, "higher" this or that, which try to pin the use of that language on some sort of Western spiritual superiority complex, is so far off the mark. It is quite literally higher in the same way that climbing to a higher-elevation mountain peak gives one a more comprehensive perspective on the range. Those flattened ideas of "projecton", "compensation", "shadow", "unconscious", etc. actually die and resurrect back to a fuller and more richly meaningful life in our own mind. Apart from myself, I think some like PZ can already testify to that spiritual rebirth occurring for much of the ideal content she was merely familiar with but never actually knew. Yet we can also understand that we are still climbing one of the lowest peaks in the range, and that is what is so exciting and enlivening about it.


"Your visions will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes." -Jung

One more thing I woke up thinking about this morning and would be remiss not to mention, especially in the spirit of this thread. How fortunate are we to have a personality and imagination such as Cleric's on this forum? Someone cannot keep illustrating these ideas in the most varied ways and angles without the living depth mentioned above. The perpetual cynic will say that it is an active fantasizing imagination, whose logic just happens to hold together (because his fantasy is hyper-logical?). Others may say our values of inspiration and admiration are reflections of weakness and gullibility. The uber cynic might add Cleric has created another profile and is now flattering himself :). Meanwhile, the most simple and obvious explanation is dismissed out of hand - what he is approaching from many angles is the actual structure of Reality and so his Spirit cannot help but hold it together logically. The flattening intellect does not only miss the immanent value to be gained in these ideas with depth, it frequently turns it upside-down. "God and I are one in the act of knowing" becomes "The act of knowing can never perceive how God and I are one". There is no room for less extreme position because there is no depth to freely move in. And that all this depth is thanks to the Spirit working through personality of Cleric does not diminish his own role, because each soul is in fact One with the Spirit. Not abstractly One, concretely One. An easy way to tell the difference - what is abstract cannot be meaningfully expanded upon, what is concrete can always be fleshed out into higher resolution, as Cleric beautifully illustrates so often.

So, that is my slightly pedagogical way of saying, thank you Cleric!
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 1639
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

AshvinP wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 1:06 pm The uber cynic might add Cleric has created another profile and is now flattering himself :).
Or we could go with the alter ego hypothesis; or maybe the crime-busting action figure/mild-mannered cyber-geek split-persona scenario. I have to say though if it is the same person pulling off two profiles, it's brilliantly done, with this constant switching between the aggressive cross-examining lawyer act, and the oh-so-patient-speaker-on-behalf of Angels act. I am also curious, does Bulgaria factor into this in any way, or is that part of the con? ;)
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Ben Iscatus
Posts: 320
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:15 pm

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by Ben Iscatus »

Or we could go with the alter ego hypothesis; or maybe the crime-busting action figure/mild-mannered cyber-geek split-persona scenario. I have to say though if it is the same person pulling off two profiles, it's brilliantly done, with this constant switching between the aggressive cross-examining lawyer act, and the oh-so-patient-speaker-on-behalf of Angels act. I am also curious, does Bulgaria factor into this in any way, or is that part of the con? ;)
Thinking about it objectively, what are the chances of two anthropo-whatsits with the same style and highfalutin ideas joining the forum at more or less the same time, reinforcing each other? I'd say almost none. From the outset, as you know Dana, I've suspected this to be a set-up. But then I'm an uber-cynic (definition: a disappointed idealist).

Alternatively, the Larger Consciousness System sanctioned this amazing synchronicity in order to defeat the forum's mystical tendencies...
happens all the time , more or less...
Multiple discovery
Ah yes - a third possibility - morphic resonance.
Last edited by Ben Iscatus on Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Martin_
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:54 pm

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by Martin_ »

Ben Iscatus wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 4:31 pm Thinking about it objectively, what are the chances of two anthropo-whatsits with the same style and highfalutin ideas joining the forum at more or less the same time, reinforcing each other?
happens all the time , more or less...
Multiple discovery
"I don't understand." /Unknown
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 1639
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

Ben Iscatus wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 4:31 pmThinking about it objectively, what are the chances of two anthropo-whatsits with the same style and highfalutin ideas joining the forum at more or less the same time, reinforcing each other? I'd say almost none. From the outset, as you know Dana, I've suspected this to be a set-up. But then I'm an uber-cynic (definition: a disappointed idealist).
Given their participation dates back to the old MS forum, while I've no way of knowing when the profiles were actually activated, Cleric started posting several months prior to inventing the Jordan Peterson-obsessed Ashvin. Could it be they're both actually Jordan Peterson?
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Ben Iscatus
Posts: 320
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:15 pm

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by Ben Iscatus »

Could it be they're both actually Jordan Peterson?
Even I wouldn't go that far! One of him's too busy.
User avatar
Eugene I
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by Eugene I »

Looks to me like two different persons but their activity is definitely coordinated here. There are so many philosophies, theories of everything, spiritual teachings and spiritual gurus these days in high competition with each other and it is hard for them to reach to people and attract them to their teachings. Creating own platform in a vast ocean of internet, like Scott of Steve did, will hardly attract many people. So the clever ones become proactive and invade other already existing forums and platforms and start preaching their teachings there to already existing audience.

And of course someone else just did it here
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kanzas anymore" Dorothy
Ben Iscatus
Posts: 320
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:15 pm

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by Ben Iscatus »

Ha! Well Consciousness does like to deceive itself, Eugene!
User avatar
Eugene I
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by Eugene I »

Right :)
Hopefully, if they see that people are not subscribing to their preaching, they will eventually leave to other places.
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kanzas anymore" Dorothy
ParadoxZone
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:59 pm

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by ParadoxZone »

Hi all,

If there's shilling going on, that would make me the mark, wouldn't it? Also, you'd need to include Eugene and his role. At this stage I can't tell if it was Ashvin's posts that led me to take a closer look at Cleric's, the other way round, or whether Eugene's arguments seemed so bad at times (to me) that I concluded there must be something substantial to the Ashvin/Cleric position. So much gratitude from me to all three (and others who have contributed).

At this stage, it doesn't make much difference to me if neither Ashvin or Cleric never make another post (although I hope they do). I'd be interested to read Cleric's essay around the Schrödinger equations, though I don't need this at all right now. And that's because I'm not feeling any need anymore to figure it all out in a technical sense, to add this new piece of knowledge to all the other bits in order for something to finally cohere. There's more than enough for me, for now at least, in what's already been written, to delve into or to study more seriously, as the mood, motivation or need arises.

So yes, Ashvin and Cleric's (unconscious, to begin with anyway, I believe) good cop/bad routine has been successful here. This suspect has confessed. To everything. But as the suspect is also the judge and jury, there's not much to worry about.

Just one brief, undramatic example. Last night I settled in to watch the show "Billions", having given up on it a long time ago. I surprised myself by laughing all the through it. So what was going on? I was watching it through a completely different lens. As soul-caricatures constantly organising and re-organising against the newly discovered "real" baddie. The dramatic parts were hilarious. The attempts at tender parts were even more hilarious. I was mentally telling the know it all-HR-psychologist woman to "get some depth, lady!"

None of the above paragraph is a sign of disengagement. Quite the reverse.

Also, I have resolved to visit one of the churches in the city centre, next time I visit. Not to hear anyone talk. But to, in my own time, to contemplatively do a tour of the Stations of the Cross. Accompanied by my own thoughts and feelings, with nobody in my ear saying "look what you did to Jesus".

I haven't visited a church, other than out of respect for the life events if others, for about thirty years. If there are flashes of lightening or other Damien-type scenes, I'll report it here. I reckon it'll be fine.

So onwards with the Christian Supremacist agenda! (I have to say in joking, in case anyone is still taking that stuff seriously.)
Post Reply