Is it just me who is going through a lot of existential angst about idealism?

[Hedge90]

Honestly, even though at first idealism simply seemed like an interesting yet surprisingly logical ontology, the more I thought about it the more existential anxiety welled up in me. I'm at the point where I'd happily "convert" back to physicalism if I could still believe it to be true, which I cannot.
Do you experience any similar issues? If so, how do you cope?

For me annihilation was the most horrifying prospect leading to panic attacks and terrible anxiety. All loss of meaning. The realization that I'm not an individual and consciousness is not being created by my brain brought some relief. In the end it's just awakening to your true nature so there is nothing to fear.

I suggest you immerse yourself in the experiential, NDEs. mystic experiences, etc. The more of those you absorb the better you will probably feel.

For me, annihiliation was something that at least had the promise of not suffering. Eternal existence is synonimous with the potential prospect of eternal suffering. But even a non-suffering eternal existence is terrifying to me - no final rest, no end, just striving and striving again and again, running around in circles... Unless of course there are states of transcendence that involve a kind of "checking out", like with Nirvana or Moksha.

As to your last point, well, there's no shortage of terrifying mystical and NDE experiences either. We just tend to screen for the positive ones. St. John of the Cross spent 45 years in his own personal hell before he made it to the other side.

[Ben Iscatus]

Come back as a golden artefact -a deathless golden bird singing to eternity, as Yeats said he would. Much prized and unable to suffer. This was apparently inspired by his disagreement with Rilke's image of a poet's death as annihilation - wood consumed by flame.

[lorenzop]

Ashwin,

Yours and Clerics essays are filled with layers of beliefs and parables-can’t either of you simply state your positions?
For example, Eugene in one sentence gave me a foundation to begin to understand your views, which you couldn’t do in walls of text. Or you wrap your ideas in mystical enclosures like ‘hidden meaning’ or ‘World Content’

[AshvinP]

Ashwin,

Yours and Clerics essays are filled with layers of beliefs and parables-can’t either of you simply state your positions?
For example, Eugene in one sentence gave me a foundation to begin to understand your views, which you couldn’t do in walls of text. Or you wrap your ideas in mystical enclosures like ‘hidden meaning’ or ‘World Content’

First, if you expect spiritual knowledge will be fed to you like an infant is given formula, or a pacifier, nothing will happen. The entire point here is NOT to convince you of our "positions", but to help you start thinking for yourself.

''To be free is to be capable of thinking one's own thoughts - not the thoughts merely of the body, or of society, but thoughts generated by one's deepest, most original, most essential and spiritual self, one's individuality.''
~ Rudolf Steiner.

Second, and related to that, is nothing will happen if you approach spiritual knowledge like it's a hostile enemy, or a slave you own who is obligated to impart Wisdom to you. Arrogance will not get very far at all. We are freely offering you our insights on this path of knowledge, and if you are genuinely interested in learning more about it, then stop thinking it is our duty to make everything immediately comprehensible to you and start taking responsibility for your own shortcomings.

Third, if you are relying on Eugene's characterizations of our spiritual outlook, then you are surely misunderstanding it. No one here has more consistently failed to understand what we are speaking of than he.

Finally, if you think "world content", as in all the stuff in the world you perceive around you, is a "mystical enclosure", like you also felt about the concept of "meaning" in natural forms, then I am afraid nothing we write could possibly illuminate it for you at this time.

[tjssailor]

Honestly, even though at first idealism simply seemed like an interesting yet surprisingly logical ontology, the more I thought about it the more existential anxiety welled up in me. I'm at the point where I'd happily "convert" back to physicalism if I could still believe it to be true, which I cannot.
Do you experience any similar issues? If so, how do you cope?

For me annihilation was the most horrifying prospect leading to panic attacks and terrible anxiety. All loss of meaning. The realization that I'm not an individual and consciousness is not being created by my brain brought some relief. In the end it's just awakening to your true nature so there is nothing to fear.

I suggest you immerse yourself in the experiential, NDEs. mystic experiences, etc. The more of those you absorb the better you will probably feel.

For me, annihiliation was something that at least had the promise of not suffering. Eternal existence is synonimous with the potential prospect of eternal suffering. But even a non-suffering eternal existence is terrifying to me - no final rest, no end, just striving and striving again and again, running around in circles... Unless of course there are states of transcendence that involve a kind of "checking out", like with Nirvana or Moksha.

As to your last point, well, there's no shortage of terrifying mystical and NDE experiences either. We just tend to screen for the positive ones. St. John of the Cross spent 45 years in his own personal hell before he made it to the other side.

Annihilation means no suffering and no joy either. As far as no final rest and striving again and again - forgetting is the obvious antidote.

Since you are all that is are you going to send yourself to hell for eternity? If so you'd be there now. A huge majority of mystical experiences are positive. Even those that were negative to begin with generally turn positive once the experiencer changes his mind.

If you really want to alleviate angst then the only course is to focus on the positive. Focusing on the negative gains you nothing.

[lorenzop]

Ashwin,

Yours and Clerics essays are filled with layers of beliefs and parables-can’t either of you simply state your positions?
For example, Eugene in one sentence gave me a foundation to begin to understand your views, which you couldn’t do in walls of text. Or you wrap your ideas in mystical enclosures like ‘hidden meaning’ or ‘World Content’

First, if you expect spiritual knowledge will be fed to you like an infant is given formula, or a pacifier, nothing will happen. The entire point here is NOT to convince you of our "positions", but to help you start thinking for yourself.

''To be free is to be capable of thinking one's own thoughts - not the thoughts merely of the body, or of society, but thoughts generated by one's deepest, most original, most essential and spiritual self, one's individuality.''
~ Rudolf Steiner.

Second, and related to that, is nothing will happen if you approach spiritual knowledge like it's a hostile enemy, or a slave you own who is obligated to impart Wisdom to you. Arrogance will not get very far at all. We are freely offering you our insights on this path of knowledge, and if you are genuinely interested in learning more about it, then stop thinking it is our duty to make everything immediately comprehensible to you and start taking responsibility for your own shortcomings.

Third, if you are relying on Eugene's characterizations of our spiritual outlook, then you are surely misunderstanding it. No one here has more consistently failed to understand what we are speaking of than he.

Finally, if you think "world content", as in all the stuff in the world you perceive around you, is a "mystical enclosure", like you also felt about the concept of "meaning" in natural forms, then I am afraid nothing we write could possibly illuminate it for you at this time.

I admit it was a huge ask on my part, and I agree I don’t get the ‘world content’ at all so there’s no reason for us to continue.
Re spiritual growth and spirituality in general being hard to describe or a challenge-I disagree with you there.

[AshvinP]

Ashwin,

Yours and Clerics essays are filled with layers of beliefs and parables-can’t either of you simply state your positions?
For example, Eugene in one sentence gave me a foundation to begin to understand your views, which you couldn’t do in walls of text. Or you wrap your ideas in mystical enclosures like ‘hidden meaning’ or ‘World Content’

First, if you expect spiritual knowledge will be fed to you like an infant is given formula, or a pacifier, nothing will happen. The entire point here is NOT to convince you of our "positions", but to help you start thinking for yourself.

''To be free is to be capable of thinking one's own thoughts - not the thoughts merely of the body, or of society, but thoughts generated by one's deepest, most original, most essential and spiritual self, one's individuality.''
~ Rudolf Steiner.

Second, and related to that, is nothing will happen if you approach spiritual knowledge like it's a hostile enemy, or a slave you own who is obligated to impart Wisdom to you. Arrogance will not get very far at all. We are freely offering you our insights on this path of knowledge, and if you are genuinely interested in learning more about it, then stop thinking it is our duty to make everything immediately comprehensible to you and start taking responsibility for your own shortcomings.

Third, if you are relying on Eugene's characterizations of our spiritual outlook, then you are surely misunderstanding it. No one here has more consistently failed to understand what we are speaking of than he.

Finally, if you think "world content", as in all the stuff in the world you perceive around you, is a "mystical enclosure", like you also felt about the concept of "meaning" in natural forms, then I am afraid nothing we write could possibly illuminate it for you at this time.

I admit it was a huge ask on my part, and I agree I don’t get the ‘world content’ at all so there’s no reason for us to continue.
Re spiritual growth and spirituality in general being hard to describe or a challenge-I disagree with you there.

I just came across this passage, which I think should be helpful to further elaborate where we are coming from.

You can see, particularly in people’s everyday lives, what happens if they are being influenced at a subconscious level.

You can hypnotize an individual person, so that once he is hypnotized he is in your power, and you can make him do things he would never even consider doing in a waking state.

You can hypnotize him, which means putting him into a state of consciousness belonging to ages long past, and you may have all sorts of intentions for doing so.

In the same way it is possible to hypnotize whole communities.

An individual person is stronger in the physical world than is a group, and it is therefore necessary to lower his consciousness considerably more in order to work through him while he is in this other consciousness.

In the case of a community or group of people the lowering of consciousness need not even be noticeable, for it can be far more slight. Yet certain things would not be achieved by continuing to speak, for instance, in the way we speak with one another.

Therefore I must stress again and again: I shall never consider speaking other than in difficult concepts which require intellectual understanding, so that each person is forced to follow the line of thought and form concepts of what is being said.

If we take the fifth post-Atlantean period and its requirements seriously, there can be no question of wishing to bring about any kind of intoxication, or of intending to work on anything other than the intellect.

Even someone who knows nothing of Spiritual Science, but has a certain awareness of what it means to be in the fifth post-Atlantean period, will respect the inner freedom of the human being and speak in a way which does not dupe the feelings or create disturbances in the soul.

With the consciousness of the fifth post-Atlantean period we stand in isolation on the earth.

[lorenzop]

HeHe you just to bring up Atlantis.
I’m not enthralled by intellectual arguments. As a rule I don’t find them compelling.
Now if during the Sermon on the Mount Jesus had said “Follow Me now. First grok the Kant, for he will be harbinger.”

[AshvinP]

HeHe you just to bring up Atlantis.
I’m not enthralled by intellectual arguments. As a rule I don’t find them compelling.
Now if during the Sermon on the Mount Jesus had said “Follow Me now. First grok the Kant, for he will be harbinger.”

Who says anything about Kant? BK will tell you to "grok Kant" (and Schopenhauer), not us. This idea of free thinking seems to be a real put-off for you. It's like you can't even imagine thinking without being given the ideas, in their most complete and final form, by other people first. Wouldn't you rather be a free spirit?

"Truly, truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. Now the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son sets you free, you really will be free."

[lorenzop]

Freedom is our true nature and is not conveyed within this or that thought. We don’t have to reason it out, or convince ourselves via logic.
BTW if anyone wants to pursue Christian mysticism, or Shamanism, Hinduism, etc. I am totally supportive (sigh or relief everyone)
Also I don’t click with BK’s AI, it reads like he took the physicalist playbook and did a search and replace, replaced matter and mathematics with consciousness/MAL