What we Learned from JW's Monism

[Soul_of_Shu]

Yes, the spirit is One, yet the thinking that we experience in our intellect is not the same kind of spiritual activity which creates worlds.



This Divine Thinking has been 'folded' on itself several time. Each fold produces a fractal I-ness which feels increasingly differentiated (but not necessarily separated) and experiences the most manifold interactions with other fractals of the One. What has been folded becomes environment for the "I". Thus what we call race, culture, nation, body, are the folds within which the fractal I-ness experiences itself. It is the task of evolution that we unfold this Cosmic structure.

I love that depiction and the rainbow-coloured heart-like toroidal thingy ... it should be the emblematic badge one gets as a member of the cult of Clerrrric the Grrrreat ... or can I just buy the merch online for 499.99 pesos?

[AshvinP]

AshvinP wrote:
So if we must look to immanent experience for this "prior to", the only conceivable place to look, quite literally, is our own Thinking.

Berdyaev wrote:
The problem is in this, that the way of Steiner and the way of the Steinerians have little in common between them. The way of Steiner is a way of gnosis, the way however of the Steinerians is a way of faith.

AshvinP wrote:
Ok, what you bolded may be true... so what is the point? Do you really think people like Cleric writing amazingly detailed imaginative posts, without ever referencing Steiner, God, scripture, or anything similar, is doing so out of his "authoritarian faith"? Such an argument is so absurd that it hardly warrants any further consideration.

You've answered your own question. Steinerians do not look to their own Thinking, but to the pre-conceived map provided by Steiner.

In addition to what Cleric said, the reason I included the underlined is to make clear how it's obvious Cleric is working with his own concrete Thinking experience to provide all of these posts to us and not simply reiterating a map provided by Steiner, as you are doing with your googled then copied-and-pasted quotes of other thinkers you are not even familiar with. It is failure to perceive our own Thinking in this manner which keeps the unexamined dualism firmly in place and makes us project what we ourselves are doing onto everyone else around us who we dislike or disagree with.

The following is a list of 12 clear signs that we are still thinking dualistically and therefore failing to move towards a cease-fire treaty in our inner civil war. Each sign is accompanied by an illustrative quote, which can aid us in understanding the deeper significance of these signs. The quotes are aids to the ceaseless evolution of our Thinking organism and should by no means be confused for a final destination. They come from about nine different philosophical thinkers, but I am intentionally choosing not to attribute the quotes (but will provide references to any specific requests), because that is a critical aspect of overcoming dualistic thinking. The primary way in which this dualism reasserts itself is through our own unexamined sympathies or antipathies for this or that philosopher, scientist, economic system, political party, spiritual tradition, etc. Our subconscious antipathies especially take possession of our intellect, and then we can hardly understand what has been written in any objective, dispassionate manner. Instead, we begin projecting everything we deeply dislike, without knowing it, into whatever sentences we are reading. Then, before we know it (quite literally), our desires, feelings, and thoughts are right back at war with each other. Our subconscious has once again been fortified and militarized.

[Martin_]

It is the task of evolution that we unfold this Cosmic structure.

If evolution is unfolding, where does the "original" foldedness come from? it all "started" with a folded mess? Or are we talking about a more local context such as in "we created this folded mess ourselves back around Plato's time." (If this has been discussed before : apologies) @Ashvin; sorry if i'm derailing the thread.

[Cleric]

It is the task of evolution that we unfold this Cosmic structure.

If evolution is unfolding, where does the "original" foldedness come from? it all "started" with a folded mess? Or are we talking about a more local context such as in "we created this folded mess ourselves back around Plato's time." (If this has been discussed before : apologies) @Ashvin; sorry if i'm derailing the thread.

In esoteric traditions which recognize the evolutionary dynamics of the Cosmos, the folding is called involution, the unfolding - evolution. It's important to note that from our current perspective the involutionary process coincides pretty much with the way Schop sees it - as gradual awakening from the Cosmic sleep. But unlike Schop, this awakening continues further and gradually encompasses the time spectrum of the past but now as higher consciousness (from which new waves of creation involute new perspectives of awakening).

The most challenging obstacle for the proper understanding of this is that linear (Newtonian) time as not the 'master clock' of the Universe.
You may take a look at viewtopic.php?p=10498#p10498

[Martin_]

It is the task of evolution that we unfold this Cosmic structure.

If evolution is unfolding, where does the "original" foldedness come from? it all "started" with a folded mess? Or are we talking about a more local context such as in "we created this folded mess ourselves back around Plato's time." (If this has been discussed before : apologies) @Ashvin; sorry if i'm derailing the thread.

In esoteric traditions which recognize the evolutionary dynamics of the Cosmos, the folding is called involution, the unfolding - evolution. It's important to note that from our current perspective the involutionary process coincides pretty much with the way Schop sees it - as gradual awakening from the Cosmic sleep. But unlike Schop, this awakening continues further and gradually encompasses the time spectrum of the past but now as higher consciousness (from which new waves of creation involute new perspectives of awakening).

The most challenging obstacle for the proper understanding of this is that linear (Newtonian) time as not the 'master clock' of the Universe.
You may take a look at viewtopic.php?p=10498#p10498

got it. thanks.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Note: This has been moved over from Mark's topic-specific thread.

Dana, may I address something that seems contradictory. There is a common held belief that "direct aquaintance" is the only thing that can seal the deal, bringing someone from pure speculation to knowing. It has seemed to me in the past like you are one of the most convinced idealists in this forum, simply because you had that direct aquaintance. Yet you are saying you have to "come to terms" with your experiences.

Also, whatever is missing in BKs offerings, I would think, can potentially be found elsewhere. Where else did you search for it and why did you not find it yet and what could it possibly be?

Mark ... When I say that I had to come to 'terms' with certain experiences, and that I'm deeply grateful to BK in that regard, I mean that he was one who offered a cogent model and terminological framework within which I could explicate those experiences in the context of this forum's discussions, using some shared language that some others here could also grok. However, as mentioned, I haven't found that sufficient to speak to a deeper understanding of those experiences. And yet starting from that baseline, I didn't go elsewhere to find the next 'stepping stone', but found that it evolved from within this psyche, right here in this forum, by way of interacting and co-creating with the other participants—not unlike nature also evolves. As such, while I've taken from BK's ideas what I found useful, and carry them forward, I've also had to move on from some of it that I found was no longer serving me well. This is not to denigrate BK in any way, but I just see it as a natural process of one's stage-specific spiritual journey. And I expect as it continues, I will once more eventually have to move on yet again, and which may well be a never-ending, inter-being, ever-evolving, feedback-looping, co-creating, expressing/exploring dynamic process into an infinitude of novelty ... How excitational!

[Mark Tetzner]

Note: This has been moved over from Mark's topic-specific thread.

Dana, may I address something that seems contradictory. There is a common held belief that "direct aquaintance" is the only thing that can seal the deal, bringing someone from pure speculation to knowing. It has seemed to me in the past like you are one of the most convinced idealists in this forum, simply because you had that direct aquaintance. Yet you are saying you have to "come to terms" with your experiences.

Also, whatever is missing in BKs offerings, I would think, can potentially be found elsewhere. Where else did you search for it and why did you not find it yet and what could it possibly be?

Mark ... When I say that I had to come to 'terms' with certain experiences, and that I'm deeply grateful to BK in that regard, I mean that he was one who offered a cogent model and terminological framework within which I could explicate those experiences in the context of this forum's discussions, using some shared language that some others here could also grok. However, as mentioned, I haven't found that sufficient to speak to a deeper understanding of those experiences. And yet starting from that baseline, I didn't go elsewhere to find the next 'stepping stone', but found that it evolved from within this psyche, right here in this forum, by way of interacting and co-creating with the other participants—not unlike nature also evolves. As such, while I've taken from BK's ideas what I found useful, and carry them forward, I've also had to move on from some of it that I found was no longer serving me well. This is not to denigrate BK in any way, but I just see it as a natural process of one's stage-specific spiritual journey. And I expect as it continues, I will once more eventually have to move on yet again, and which may well be a never-ending, inter-being, ever-evolving, feedback-looping, co-creating, expressing/exploring dynamic process into an infinitude of novelty ... How excitational!

Ok, does that mean that you are still 100 percent convinced of idealism or do you think you are only 90% there, I am asking because you mentioned this percentage yourself yesterday or so.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Ok, does that mean that you are still 100 percent convinced of idealism or do you think you are only 90% there, I am asking because you mentioned this percentage yourself yesterday or so.

Let's put it this way, I've found nothing that even comes close to usurping the indelible experience. But I suppose one should keep an open Mind.

[Dave casarino]

I must also ask what is the actual relevance of all of those germans JW was going on about without getting into much depth upon? Did heidegger and kriekgard and husserl and the like (however their long names are spelt) really somehow make metaphysics utterly irrelevant? he kept stating this yet never gave an in depth answer as to why, does anyone here know why he would think that?

[Mark Tetzner]

Ok, does that mean that you are still 100 percent convinced of idealism or do you think you are only 90% there, I am asking because you mentioned this percentage yourself yesterday or so.

Let's put it this way, I've found nothing that even comes close to usurping the indelible experience. But I suppose one should keep an open Mind.

thank you.