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

[Martin_]

<a bunch off sweeping generalizations about other's peoples motivations for why they do what they do, followed by pidgeonholeing some specific individuals>

Judge alot?

[Soul_of_Shu]

I used to be into theosophy forty years ago, but eventually realised it was a mishmash of ideas, much of it Blavatsky's invention. It's not impossible you might eventually convince me that Steiner is not rigid, elitist and old fashioned. By all means, please keep trying! Henceforth, I'll try to minimise my ironic responses.

Now that you mention it, in the journey of this highly eclectic approach, I can't recall even opening a book of Theosophy or Blavatsky—which seems odd given how many countless books must have met my gaze while spending hours leafing through them at Banyan Books in Vancouver, libraries, and used book shops everywhere, deciding what to buy, and buy into. Clearly, to some extent, Steiner didn't fully buy in, feeling the need to revision it. And as it happens, that is mostly what I'm resonantly attracted to in Ashvin's and Cleric's offerings here: as however much that may be based in Steiner's revisioning, it's their revisioning in turn that I'm most interested in, in the ever-evolving eclectic journey. As mentioned, much of what I've been listening to in the vast online content of Steiner's lectures I'm just not inspired by, although there's enough that does inspire that I keep investigating it for more. The rest might as well be the absence of snow in summer.

[AshvinP]

It's simple. Everyone agrees we are in a deep "meaning crisis" in Western civilization, including BK. So, naturally, metaphysical idea-lism, if one has any desire to get down into the philosophical roots of Western culture, is probably a good bet for finding some meaning-full answers. If they happen upon BK and then this forum, that is what most people are expecting to find, but they have no idea what form to expect it in. As Dana pointed out, many of the people will just tune out after a little awhile if what they wanted and expected to find is not what they actually find (aside: this actually happened to me the first time I read PoF... what I was expecting to read was not at all what Steiner was engaged in, so I just stopped reading, and it tooks Cleric's eminently logical and imaginative postings to prompt me towards another look). We know this happens in real life all the time and is mostly a reflection of our short attentive spans and our desire not to get "deep truth" without equally deep commitment and effort.

So the rest of who stick around for awhile are of two sorts. First, what I presume is the minority - Cleric, Scott, PZ, Dana, Anthony, Shajan, myself, and maybe a few others (sorry if I left you out, I am just making a broad point here). We feel forums such as these can be a great place for serious and deep dialogues about the "meaning crisis", i.e. where it comes from, how it manifests, where it is going, what we can do about it as individuals without our own spheres of action, etc. Then, there is what appears to be the majority - Eugene, Ben... (that's enough for now, again I am making a broad point). These people look upon the forum as they look upon a cow... it is a place to express endlessly speculative opinions, garner attention for one's speculative opinions, get some personal ego-boost from that, and nothing else. These people, despite frequently saying they want "freedom", actually abhor the idea that this forum is a free marketplace for ideas and people will naturally gravitate to those ideas which are actually expressed logically, imaginatively (in the case of Cleric), and seem to be highly relevant to the meaning crisis.

Such people, instead of ignoring the approach they claim to have no interest in, and writing their own essays, posts, and generally trying to spark up enthusiasm for their approach, jump in on the threads of the other approach whenever they seem to be picking up steam, because, after all, it is all about feeling that other people are reading what you are writing and has little to do with what is "true" or actually relevant to the meaning crisis. That is why you (Eugene) assume we must think like you - "if they see that people are not subscribing to their preaching, they will eventually leave to other places." You assume it must be all about our ego's need for attention like it is for your own. After all, what else could it be about in this flattened 2-dimensional speculative thought-world? You cannot even imagine another possibility, such as the one expressed by PZ in her comment (thanks PZ, as it was again heartening to read and also saves me some typing here). That is the possibility that what we desire, feel, think, and do actually matters in the overall Cosmic story of our lives, and that the living depth we rediscover in our own Thinking is more than enough to satisfy our soul for many lifetimes over, even if another single soul never reads what we write.

Well, to be fair, I feel that most who keep hanging in here through thick and thin do crave some meaningful dialogue, although clearly there's a disconnect as to how that should look. Yet we're all still prone to some habitual egoic drives, and still dealing with subconscious shadow issues, which plays into us-vs-them mode thinking, undermining our very attempts at truly integral/aperspectival stage interaction, falling short of walking the talk, so to speak. Surely this too can, indeed must change, but only insofar as each of our thinking is transfigured beyond just talking about it. Be the change.

I am not looking to "be fair", Dana, only honest. Self-honesty which in turn enlivens honesty to others and vice versa. When Cleric and I stop commenting for a day, all we come back to on this thread is a string of one sentence comments which have nothing to do with philosophy, metaphysics, sprituality, only egoistic insinuations and accusations. That's expected from the people mentioned before, so I'm not feigning surprise or even complaining. But it needs to be said these things do not come from those who "crave meaningful dialogue". One can go an entire lifetime in self-deception of this sort without serious reflection, but actions speak louder than words. Even my harsh criticisms here are always connected back to the underlying philosophical worldview I am speaking from and drawing attention to. Steve chipped in a more meaty comment here and my response was completely relevant to his points, logical, not hard to follow, and philosophically oriented, good soil for further discussion if anyone had an interest. I know you try in your own way to promote healthy discussion as well, so thank you for that. If those things don't lead anywhere all too often on this forum, then maybe some people need to be more honest with themselves about what they are actually interested in. I perform this self-evaluation on myself regularly and it's the only reason I can discern those same egoic forces working in others. Accusations of "preaching", with zero further context or substance, is not meaningful dialogue. Neither are wild theories that Cleric and I are the same person. Likewise repetitive intentional misrepresentations on topics one claims to be uninterested in are not meaningful dialogue. Neither is posting one sentence comments on those threads back and forth to clutter up all previous discussion from others who were proceeding in good faith. Apparently these basics of good faith dialogue need to be pointed out once in awhile.

[Eugene I]

Just wanted to clarify my position again hoping to clear any misunderstandings. I've been on the spiritual and philosophical search for decades. The way I see it now is than none of the existing spiritual traditions and philosophies encompass the fullness of Reality. They all represent certain perspectives and bring valid and important insights on Reality, emphasizing some aspects and facets and de-emphasizing or neglecting others, so in a way they are all insightful and limited at the same time.

It is true for Eastern and traditions: yes, their vision is "flat" for the most part and neglecting hierarchical structures of the astral and physical realms (because for Buddhism and Advaita these structures are part of samsaric realms and are not worth much attention). It is true for modern non-dual traditions: they are neglecting the realms of discarnate existence altogether. It is true for most Western traditions and philosophies (including Anthroposophy): they are focused on the specifics and dynamics of life in the Earth, astral and spiritual realms (which are certainly important for us because we are still living in these realms), yet for the most part missing the formless aspects of Reality an non-dual perspective on it. The same applies to all other traditions, as well as for modern science. And most of the above are missing important insights about the beyond-physical reality that the latest NDE accounts revealed to us.

So, I've been drifting toward a wholistic view integrating valid insights and adopting practices from all of these perspectives but not being religiously locked into any particular one. I found this open way as the only way I can approach the Great Mysteriousness.

Unfortunately this means that I can never fully subscribe to any of the particular philosophies or traditions anymore, which means that I will always be a heretic and an outsider for people who cling and fully subscribe to one of those.

[Lou Gold]

Lou,

I have no problem whatsoever with your "down-to-earth" view. I do see it as Utopian, which for me is seeking of perfection-redemption from external authorities (state, external God, "nature", parents, spouse, peers on TikTok, etc.), but I also see you are being honest, and, actually, that is what matters the most. You are not a philosoper or scientist interested in highly logical reasoning, and you say that here honestly and openly. Others here do not want to be so honest, because they are not only interested in pursuing their own path as they claim. They are also interested in convincing everyone else not to pursue the paths they do not like, and they feel they can only do so by retaining an image of logically reasoning through all the arguments. That is where the problems arise with them, but not so with you.

Ashvin,

Thank you for your kind words. In honesty I must confess, however, that I feel weird being contextualized in ways that put down others. Perhaps I'm just too old to feel comfortable in anyone's war.

[Lou Gold]

Lou,

I have no problem whatsoever with your "down-to-earth" view. I do see it as Utopian, which for me is seeking of perfection-redemption from external authorities (state, external God, "nature", parents, spouse, peers on TikTok, etc.), but I also see you are being honest, and, actually, that is what matters the most. You are not a philosoper or scientist interested in highly logical reasoning, and you say that here honestly and openly. Others here do not want to be so honest, because they are not only interested in pursuing their own path as they claim. They are also interested in convincing everyone else not to pursue the paths they do not like, and they feel they can only do so by retaining an image of logically reasoning through all the arguments. That is where the problems arise with them, but not so with you.

Ashvin,

Thank you for your kind words. In honesty I must confess, however, that I feel weird being contextualized in ways that put down others. Perhaps I'm just too old to feel comfortable in anyone's war.

PS: I'm still trying to grok your usage of the term "Utopian". It doesn't seem to fit my experience with indigenous/shamanic ways, which generally seem quite pragmatic -- not perfect, still flawed with ego traps and tricks but not (in my view) as Utopian.

[Soul_of_Shu]

But it needs to be said these things do not come from those who "crave meaningful dialogue".

I being no exception, not always measuring up to meaningful dialogue, and even just missing the meaning, doesn't mean one doesn't crave it, or is incapable of it. So I feel some forbearance in that regard. Ben has been around a while in the previous incarnation of this forum, and I've certainly had meaningful discussions with him before you arrived. Perhaps those past discussions would also have been meaningful to you back then as well, or maybe not, notwithstanding I too have moved on, such that not all I was focused on then, still holds the same interest. Nor do I feel inclined to write the longer posts I did back then, or even the long narrative poems I once wrote. For some that may never be their forte. I'm reminded of when as a child I was drawing highly realistic depictions of animals, while others were drawing stick figures, I wondered why they didn't draw like I did, later realizing that they just didn't have that proclivity, albeit they were quite brilliant in other ways that I was not. In any case, as stated, we are all here still prone to habitual egoic factors and subconscious shadow issues, that can undermine our best efforts at integral/aperspectival interaction. Let he who is without at least some remnant of S.I.N cast the first stone

[Lou Gold]

So, I've been drifting toward a wholistic view integrating valid insights and adopting practices from all of these perspectives but not being religiously locked into any particular one. I found this open way as the only way I can approach the Great Mysteriousness.

Unfortunately this means that I can never fully subscribe to any of the particular philosophies or traditions anymore, which means that I will always be a heretic and an outsider for people who cling and fully subscribe to one of those.

Eugene, I also know this feeling of not being to "fully subscribe" if I feel that I'm being asked to do so. However, this feeling generally is not there for me when contemplating a great Scripture (Buddhist, Christian, Taoist, whatever). There's a resonnant radiance to it -- a Great Mysteriousness -- that draws me toward just holding it with appreciation. However, as I'm drawn toward intellectual grasping and analysis I seem to start losing the magic. I like the way Buffy Sainte-Marie puts it:

[Eugene I]

Eugene, I also know this feeling of not being to "fully subscribe" if I feel that I'm being asked to do so. However, this feeling generally is not there for me when contemplating a great Scripture (Buddhist, Christian, Taoist, whatever). There's a resonnant radiance to it -- a Great Mysteriousness -- that draws me toward just holding it with appreciation. However, as I'm drawn toward intellectual grasping and analysis I seem to start losing the magic.

Right. The challenge of an open approach is to take each available perspective seriously and actually look at the reality through its "lens" and experience it this way, and not just consider it intellectually. That is the only way to discover the insights and experience Reality from that particular perspective. But at the same time not get locked into it and loose the wider perspective that includes the insights and experiences of other perspectives. But by doing it this way you will inevitably see the shortcomings of every particular perspective, while also seeing and valuing its unique insights.

[AshvinP]

But it needs to be said these things do not come from those who "crave meaningful dialogue".

I being no exception, not always measuring up to meaningful dialogue, and even just missing the meaning, doesn't mean one doesn't crave it, or is incapable of it, So I feel some forbearance in that regard. Ben has been around a while in the previous incarnation of this forum, and I've certainly had meaningful discussions with him long before you arrived. Perhaps those past discussions would also have been meaningful to you back then as well, or maybe not, notwithstanding I too have moved on, such that not all I was focused on then, still holds the same interest. Nor do I feel inclined to write the longer posts I did back then, or even the long narrative poems I once wrote. For some that may never be their forte. I'm reminded of when as a child I was drawing highly realistic depictions of animals, while others were drawing stick figures, I wondered why they didn't draw like I did, later realizing that they just didn't have that proclivity, albeit they were quire brilliant in other ways that I was not. In any case, as stated, we are all here still prone to habitual egoic factors and subconscious shadow issues, that can undermine our best efforts at integral/aperspectival interaction. Let he who is without at least some remnant of S.I.N cast the first stone

Yes and that's an important point. First, I highly doubt you had any meaningful discussions with Ben when he was lazily accusing you of being someone else and coordinating to promote some hidden agenda. if you can show me that meaningful thread on the old forum I am open to being corrected.

But to the point in bold, yes there was time in recent memory when very short quips about this speculation or that speculation, which philosopher said this or that, without much fleshing out the concrete implications of those things, if not by long posts at least by links to other articles or resources with a summary, interested me. Your approach seems to be, "all these devlopments naturally unfold and bringing another's attention to a new sort of interest with more depth is besides the point, because either their soul is ready for it or it is not". And there is truth in that, but like the concept of "MAL", for me it is truth with almost zero utility in my experience. My approach is to assume that I have an active responsibility for providing myself with the impulses needed to evolve the interests which motivate me towards what I can already sense is necessary. If I can go back in time and tell my shallowly interested self what routes of thought may add depth to my thinking, I would do that. And that's actually what I feel we are doing when trying to teach or learn about anything from others in these domains of inquiry, assuming we are doing it in good will. We are actively participating through the essential "I" (Sprit) in the shared goal of quickening spiritual evolution towards unencumbered Self-knowing.