Criticism

[Eugene I]

My question is: can we actually study and practice the PoF in a healthy way without being harassed for critical and sober approach, for questioning the assumptions and without being forced to adopt a system unquestionable beliefs? Can we practice Anthroposophy without forming a sect around it?

[Cleric K]

No, the pragmatic approach is to actually try to lift it without assuming any beliefs whether it is possible or not, but assuming a working hypothesis that it can be lifted until it is experimentally proven that it can not be lifted. Such approach is pragmatic and active but does not require any religious unwarranted beliefs, it only needs working hypotheses until they become proven facts, or become disproven. It is exactly the path of experience.

Eugene,
I've stated it clearly that I'm not asking for any assumptions, let alone beliefs. I wanted to make a simple point. I'll use the example I gave in the post to Martin.

Take your working hypotheses and imagine that it fits very well. You align the test against reality, circle the answers and it's all good. The whole point is that you're still operating in the same intellectual mode of cognition. You're still building a mental model of reality. You've just came to the conviction that this model is quite good and probably even 'true'. The fact remains that the intellect is still within the phantom layer. We live intellectually within the web of thoughts, that are being related through various ideas and we align that web against the world-in-itself. Even though we have the intellectual understanding that makes sense of how perceptions move, the inner essence of the world-in-itself still remains something foreign to us. We don't experience the world from the perspective of the Divine, where each phenomenon is the reflection of meaning (in the way our thoughts are reflections of meaning), but we see the Divine inside-out and we have built a model to make sense of its gesticulations. It's like building a perfect biological model that explains the behavior of another human being without having any clue that behind the movements there are thoughts and feelings.

The whole point of my post was to say that IF we're to look for the creative perspective behind every phenomenon, then trying to look for that perspective through working hypotheses simply defeats the very thing we're claiming we want to achieve. I'm no longer sure if you really understand what we're talking about.

I actually do admit them, but only contingently on all of these above IFs. I admit them contingently and pragmatically with a principal possibility that all those IFs may be wrong. So, to me, this approach is a pragmatic spiritual practice and spiritual science. Basically, I pragmatically and contingently assume that "there are no processes in the Cosmos for which no conscious perspective can account" until I come to encountering certain facts proving that "there are processes in the Cosmos for which no conscious perspective can account" (and so I remain open to such possibility in principle). This assumption is my pragmatic working hypothesis, not a religious belief.

The above simply shows that you're interested in the question whether there're creative perspectives behind phenomena, in the same way a scientist is interested if information is lost or not within a black hole. In other words, you're seeking working hypothesis that should satisfy the intellect in the phantom layer. You don't conceive of any possible way that these things have direct repercussions for what our own first person perspective is.

I stated this clearly: if we really subscribe to non-dualism and we don't dismiss that behind phenomena there's meaningful spiritual activity, then logically it should be possible to find these same shapes of meaning within our own consciousness - since there's only one consciousness after all. Above you make it quite clear that you're not eager to find these shapes of meaning which are the creative Macrocosmic curvature within which reality unfolds. You prefer to build a working hypothesis entirely within the phantom layer of the intellect and align the web of thoughts against the perceptions.

My question is: is this only an intermediate step for you? In other words, do you simply want to feel complete intellectual security about your hypothesis and only then step into its living experience. Or in still other words, you want to have very strong experimental evidence that it's possible that the pencil can be lifted and only then the intellect will be convinced to stretch its hand? This is one variant. The other is that you don't foresee as possible to expand our consciousness and live together with the meaningful processes which shape the Macrocosmic curvature of reality?

If it is the second, then we agree that the Kantian divide is unavoidable and we're done.

If it is the first (that is, you assume that it is possible for consciousness to expand into the Macrocosmic processes), my other question is: do you believe that SS specifically is unlikely to provide the methods allowing for consciousness to grow into the Macrocosm? Or you would be skeptical of any philosophy/teaching/methodology which speaks of this, as long as it is not capable of fully convincing your intellect? I'm asking this because you make it perfectly clear that SS is dishonest by not stating up front that it provides only a working hypothesis. In other words you are certain that SS can't be anything else but an intellectual hypothesis which only pretends to draw its inspiration from modes of consciousness that grow into the Macrocosm. I'm fine if this is your view, the question is if it is specifically towards SS or your attitude would be the same for any teaching that tries to evolve human consciousness towards the depths of reality?

[Cleric K]

Does this ocean of living meaning have Structure?
Because if it does, I have a hard time envisoning this structure without it bringing (due to the Nature of Structure) various modes of dualities. (Or maybe Polarities is a better word)

But then again, maybe my question is of the same nature as "How many sides does a Moeibus strip have?"

Yes, there is structure and there are polarities. All existence flows between polarities. Time flows between a polarity.

Polarity should not be equated with evil, nor with ego/dissociation/etc. Polarities are the poles between which creative potential unfolds. The Mandelbrot fractal is the boundary between the areas where the iterations diverge and where they converge. All the extraordinary complexity emerges in the interplay of the two poles.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Sorry for writing too much again. The point of the above is recognize that abstract ideas are found only in the human intellect. In other places we have meaningful be-ing. The interference of these beings we perceive only in the flattened experience of our Earthly state. We attain do the depth of reality by reaching not only for the flattened sensations but also the shapes of meaning that are active behind phenomena. The idea of dissociation loosens its grip when we begin to realize that we're swimming in a ocean of living meaning.

Is it fair to say that the key to understanding the liberation of Thinking is in the revelation that the soul-being's Thinking is not of necessity confined and circumscribed by the spatiotemporal corporeal construct, such that, when as a child, I was Thinking outside that 'container', a container constructed by way of indoctrination into the dominant paradigm, and thus prior to that was able to be interactively, inextricably informed by the Thinking of one's Oversoul, for lack of a better term .. and so 'Lest ye Think like a child again' etc, etc. Picasso said much the same when he said: "It took me four years to paint like a Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child"

[Ben Iscatus]

"at all other levels we have ideas in the process of being", "biological life is only a decohered shadow of more fundamental forms of growth", "Inspirative realm", "a small bacterium is the interference of countless beings", "in other places we have meaningful being", "the interference of these beings we perceive only in the flattened experience of our Earthly state".

In these statements, you are appealing to areas quite outside my experience, so without an unjustified leap of faith, I couldn't personally construct a worldview out of them. Beings in other realms are no more real to me than Yogananda's enjoyable romp, "Autobiography of a Yogi". (Nice, but, you know...imaginative fiction).

The idea of a Cosmic Mind, however, is something I can relate to, because, when I empty my mind, I experience an unbounded, expansive awareness.

So I guess our minds cannot meet at present, Cleric. I hope you are well.

[Eugene I]

The above simply shows that you're interested in the question whether there're creative perspectives behind phenomena, in the same way a scientist is interested if information is lost or not within a black hole. In other words, you're seeking working hypothesis that should satisfy the intellect in the phantom layer. You don't conceive of any possible way that these things have direct repercussions for what our own first person perspective is.

I stated this clearly: if we really subscribe to non-dualism and we don't dismiss that behind phenomena there's meaningful spiritual activity, then logically it should be possible to find these same shapes of meaning within our own consciousness - since there's only one consciousness after all. Above you make it quite clear that you're not eager to find these shapes of meaning which are the creative Macrocosmic curvature within which reality unfolds. You prefer to build a working hypothesis entirely within the phantom layer of the intellect and align the web of thoughts against the perceptions.

No, I'm not just an intellectual thinker, I am a practitioner, and I take working hypotheses not to speculate about them intellectually, but to actually implement them in practice. But what you are saying that I can not implement them unless I accept them as unquestionable/unconditional truths. But that is simply not true. Moreover, it's a dangerous proposition typically used in numerous religious sects and should be a red flag for any serious spiritual practitioner.

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

[Martin_]

Does this ocean of living meaning have Structure?
Because if it does, I have a hard time envisoning this structure without it bringing (due to the Nature of Structure) various modes of dualities. (Or maybe Polarities is a better word)

But then again, maybe my question is of the same nature as "How many sides does a Moeibus strip have?"

Yes, there is structure and there are polarities. All existence flows between polarities. Time flows between a polarity.

Polarity should not be equated with evil, nor with ego/dissociation/etc. Polarities are the poles between which creative potential unfolds. The Mandelbrot fractal is the boundary between the areas where the iterations diverge and where they converge. All the extraordinary complexity emerges in the interplay of the two poles.

would it be prudent to say that Structure and Polarities are two different ways of speaking of the same thing? Without polarities , no structure. Without Structure, no polarities?

Mandelbrot fractal is the boundary between the areas where the iterations diverge and where they converge.

That is the exact definition of the Mandelbrot set. Specfically for (recursive) iterations of the complex function f_c(z) = z²+c. Where f_c() is the complex function which we check for convergence / divergence.

I have had thoughts myself that some of the foundation of which we experience is fractal in nature, so i'm curious.

What "iterations"? are we iterating in other dimensions than time? is there an ongoing (i know, temporal word.) iteration between all poles?

All the extraordinary complexity emerges in the interplay of the two poles.

in the poles of concergence and divergence? That feels right.

Furthermore, are there Poles that are more fundamental than others? As an example, the polarity btw. convergence and divergence fels like it would be a polarity which drives almost everything. Much more fundamental in a sense than let's say the mind/matter polarity.

[Cleric K]

My question is: can we actually study and practice the PoF in a healthy way without being harassed for critical and sober approach, for questioning the assumptions and without being forced to adopt a system unquestionable beliefs? Can we practice Anthroposophy without forming a sect around it?

The 'harassment' is only to help point attention to something which stands on the way of deeper understanding. You remember, I suppose, your post from some days ago when you said that you've found for yourself that it's impossible to separate the meaningful dimension of awareness. You even quite aptly used the term "I've been programmed to see things in this way". There are a lot of things that can be extracted from experience as this. We shouldn't in the least stop at some thoughts of the kind of "how could I haven't seen this earlier". Nothing can be gained in this way. We can only learn from them.

One of the most valuable extract that we can take from one such experience is to appreciate that this understanding is not really something that is added on top of other intellectual ideas. It's actually the opposite. It's as if we've been caught into some corner case. Leaving this corner actually feels as if we gain an inner degree of freedom. If we use QM analogy, it's like previously we experienced a collapsed state of meaning, which made it that we see only a certain perspective, while now we see the superposition. That's why we feel we've gained a degree of freedom. It's a completely spiritual experience - previously we were locked into some cognitive pattern, now we feel how we can zoom in and out of it at will. This zooming out of the pattern is the inner experiences which we imaginatively describe as "I've been programmed". This is simply to say "I was phase-locked with that cognitive pattern". But now we're free.

Please note that the above is not always the case. Sometimes a person may simply assume or believe that there's inherent meaning in every state of being, without really understanding it. In this case the idea is simply patched upon the intellectual being of the person but it doesn't fit very well there. The act of understanding the ideas coincides with its coherent embedding into the totality of the thinking organism. Only then it really becomes an inner degree of freedom. This is the distinguishing factor. When ideas are taken up in purely mechanical way, they are experienced as weight. Every such idea simply makes our state more difficult to bear. On the contrary, when ideas are understood in the real sense, they become degrees of freedom for our spiritual activity. If we use again the no-arm-movement analogy, if we simply take up in purely abstract way the ideas about the various ways the hand can move, we're weighed down by dry facts. It feels as if we're forced to memorize a long list of random dates and numbers, they don't fit organically with anything. But if the idea is internalized, then it unlocks degrees of freedom. Now the idea doesn't weigh us down but opens up new potential. Our wave function becomes much more richer, we can unfold our activity from a richer palette. Previously we've been locked in specific colors of the palette, now we move freely between them.

So the 'harassment' is really to point attention to one such prejudice - it's the conviction that working with abstract mental models of reality is somehow more secure, more fundamental. Actually, it will be found that this thinking in models is related to very specific polarity in the head organ - the two-petal lotus flower. Thinking becomes polarized within the head and tries to hold onto comfortable intellectual model. The balancing of this polarity seems threatening because it feels as if one loses the ability to hold on to rigid concepts. Instead, thinking must learn to live in constant motion, it must create itself anew in every instant. Now this is seen as harassment but when this state is reached, it will be found that it is actually felt to be extraordinarily freer. Thinking begins to flow, it finds the certainty and stability of existence within its own forms. Formerly thinking was polarized in the two-petal organ. One part was sitting quietly in the blind spot, the other was incarnated in the relatively stable thought-concepts. This polar structure serves as walker. We learn to think through it. But then when thinking finds the center of stability within itself, it puts the walked aside. Then thinking begins to use the two-petal organ in a different way. It can distinguish itself from the organ and instead use it as a tool through which it integrates the conceptual hierarchy of the mind.

No, I'm not just an intellectual thinker, I am a practitioner, and I take working hypotheses not to speculate about them intellectually, but to actually implement them in practice. But what you are saying that I can not implement them unless I accept them as unquestionable/unconditional truths. But that is simply not true. Moreover, it's a dangerous proposition typically used in numerous religious sects and should be a red flag for any serious spiritual practitioner.

The whole point is that, as Ashvin reminded of the no-arm-movement, there are things that we can verify only by stepping into the experience. You, as an engineer should be able to appreciate that mathematics is one such example. In the light of the above you'll see how inappropriate your objections are. You gain nothing if you simply accept the Pythagorean theorem as unquestionable truth. You must live through it with your thoughts. If you stand outside and want to prove its truthiness through non-mathematical means, in order to avoid falling in the trap of a math-sect, you'll forever remain outside the reality of mathematical thinking. It's the same with PoF. The thoughts are not to be assumed, accepted or believed. This will simply turn them into weight that will crush us down. They are to be experienced. Then if they are true, they will be understood and will turn into inner degrees of freedom.

[Cleric K]

"at all other levels we have ideas in the process of being", "biological life is only a decohered shadow of more fundamental forms of growth", "Inspirative realm", "a small bacterium is the interference of countless beings", "in other places we have meaningful being", "the interference of these beings we perceive only in the flattened experience of our Earthly state".

In these statements, you are appealing to areas quite outside my experience, so without an unjustified leap of faith, I couldn't personally construct a worldview out of them. Beings in other realms are no more real to me than Yogananda's enjoyable romp, "Autobiography of a Yogi". (Nice, but, you know...imaginative fiction).

The idea of a Cosmic Mind, however, is something I can relate to, because, when I empty my mind, I experience an unbounded, expansive awareness.

So I guess our minds cannot meet at present, Cleric. I hope you are well.

I understand that Ben, I can clearly see why our minds can't meet. In fact, if you expand in the Cosmic Mind and find there only emptiness, it's clear that you can't find not only my mind by anyone else's mind - human or otherwise. I would be suspicious about beings in other realms, just as you are. But if you are really expanding in the Cosmic Mind, why shouldn't it be possible to find there the ideating activity of beings? Not in other realms but in the same realm of the Cosmic Mind that you expand into. Or probably you conceive of activity to be found only within opaque spheres of consciousness, while the Cosmic Mind serves only as the cold vacuum within which the spheres flow?

[Ben Iscatus]

But if you are really expanding in the Cosmic Mind, why shouldn't it be possible to find there the ideating activity of beings? Not in other realms but in the same realm of the Cosmic Mind that you expand into.

Currently, I see it like this:
It's not an ideating activity, but it does enable inspiration to come in. I don't identify any beings sending the inspiring ideas. I assume that all beings (apart from the transpersonal mind) have dissociative boundaries, or we'd all be telepathically and empathetically connected and have no privacy or self-identity - and self-identity enables metacognition. Of course, if someone were to give me a message, telling me what I had been thinking, I'd be impressed!