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

[Lou Gold]

Sorry Cleric. You don't remember correctly. I never said that.

OK, I don't insist. It is simply my general impression that you don't feel good about descent-ascent narratives (you have protested many times about the usage of the word 'higher'), which is related with the dislike of the idea of ascent/spiritual development/evolution (which is blamed to be concealed elitism).

Yes, because what I'm objecting to is a kind of linear logic that does not see (as McGilchrist wonderfully explained) that a string must be anchored at both ends to produce a sound or propel an arrow. In this sense the lower is as important as the higher and a directional bias can be distortive, such as focusing on the light and ignoring the shadow. However, I'm not reducing it just to connectivity-in-duality but also to the fact that important truths are discovered from the depths of the sea as well as from the celestial heights. I don't blame the ascent bias for concealed elitism (although that can be one of its problems). More important in my view is that important truths are discovered in many directions. I like stories that reveal truths no matter what direction they come from. For example, animism contains much wisdom and it offers countless stories that are "child-level" simple. I also tend to see a process in which the yin-yang symbol is super rich. I do not deny the existence of hierarchies. I see many of them as in the Merkaba.

PS: One of the dilemmas in my view is that there seem to be wars going on as well at the so-called "higher levels". Yes, this tension can force another new horizon of transcendence beyond each peeling of the onion. Beyond, beyond, beyond ....

[Lou Gold]

No, Lou, understanding is not the same as accepting and concluding. I can work towards understanding many different 'symbolic universes' without concluding they are accurate or complete. The only reason I can make specified comparisons with philosophical and spiritual systems other than my own is because I do work towards that understanding. A fair evaluation of a conceptual worldview always presupposes understanding that worldview, but not accepting it.

As Cleric said, if there is no interest in fairly evaluating the outlook, because logically evaluating any outlook is itself seen as a mostly worthless pursuit, then that's all that needs to be said here. The claims of "incomprehensibility" don't need to be mentioned, because we have already established why that manifests - because there is no attempt to 'stand under' our symbolic universe when reading about it in our posts.

No, Lou, understanding is not the same as accepting and concluding. I said, to embrace (understand, stand under) will lead you to similar conclusions. The problem (perhaps not reconcilable) is that I am by nature a bridge person whereas you seem as an advocate for one side or the other. I'm looking for similarities, you for difference. In my view, this is the difference making the difference. Viva diversity!

This is the great delusion people place themselves under here re: philosophy/phenomenology of Thinking, especially you, Eugene, and Ben, and it really occurs for practically everything you evaluate intellectually. What you are actually doing is changing our outlook to resemble your own and then finding similarities between your outlook and your slightly modified other outlook, projected onto and confused for ours. Then you feel like you are being charitable and virtuous, while I am being "divisive" by trying to make clear what the arguments actually are. Do you want to know how I can tell?

Because, in the many months of posting that outlook here, and corresponding with Eugene and yourself and sometimes Ben, you guys have never, not once, responded for clarification of the points we are making. Eugene will say "I agree" and then write something diametrically opposed to our outlook. You will use it as a basis for highlighting your own views and experience with spirituality, etc. Ben will simply write one sentence dismissing it and pretend he understood it well enough to dismiss. Yet other times you guys claim it is impossible to understand, which contradicts all your previous posts implying you understood it.

These are all mechanisms, mostly subconscious IMO, through which the dualism of non-dualism is maintained and the core insights of monist idea-lism are avoided. Cleric posted an illustrative post with the air-filter analogy. I posted 7 bullet points to summarize the basics of the position. Cleric responded with another Fall-Redemption illustration. Ben outright refused to consider what was written. You have been responding but not mentioning any of those things or asking questions about them, only trying to relate it back to your own views. Lorenzo made an attempt to restate Cleric's understanding in his own words, so I will give him credit for that. That is a perfectly legitimate way of actually discussing the substance.

Ashvin,

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle back so I won't respond in terms of how you seem to mischaracterize my view. I've watched you and Eugene run those circles long enough to say "no thanks" to the ride. I agree that I do not respond to your philosophical argumentation because I'm not a philosopher. With regard to the story of the fall/redemption, I find it rich and worth contemplating over and over. Contemplating stories is a way to mine meanings for me -- important meanings as, for example contemplating the Stations of the Cross for the period of Lent. I know it sounds trite but the New Age trope says, "We are not humans seeking to be spiritual. We are spiritual beings trying to be human." I find the Passion of Christ as for me a penultimate story of that challenge and Way showing. How to hold balance and not separate from our divine connection in the craziness of this world is an ongoing work of practice. I appreciate that there are many routes of practice and seek to not get caught up in East vs West, higher vs lower, form vs emptiness, this vs that. I'm eclectic and appreciate whatever works in large and small ways. To work a way one must believe in it. Like Shabei, I do not argue belief systems.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle back so I won't respond in terms of how you seem to mischaracterize my view. I've watched you and Eugene run those circles long enough to say "no thanks" to the ride. I agree that I do not respond to your philosophical argumentation because I'm not a philosopher. With regard to the story of the fall/redemption, I find it rich and worth contemplating over and over. Contemplating stories is a way to mine meanings for me -- important meanings as, for example contemplating the Stations of the Cross for the period of Lent. I know it sounds trite but the New Age trope says, "We are not humans seeking to be spiritual. We are spiritual beings trying to be human." I find the Passion of Christ as for me a penultimate story of that challenge and Way showing. How to hold balance and not separate from our divine connection in the craziness of this world is an ongoing work of practice. I appreciate that there are many routes of practice and seek to not get caught up in East vs West, higher vs lower, form vs emptiness, this vs that. I'm eclectic and appreciate whatever works in large and small ways. To work a way one must believe in it. Like Shabei, I do not argue belief systems.

Lou, we know your position. Our philosophy is not walled off from spirituality. In fact, the former is only useful to the extent it can contribute to our proper orientation towards the latter. We fundamentally disagree that Christ incarnated to balance the physical and spiritual in the way you are suggesting. He was not showing us how to continue existing with one foot in each realm, to "serve two masters". Remember the nested seesaw analogy Cleric commented to you many months ago? Half of my entire last essay was basically a criticism of the balancing approach, which is born from turning a polar relationship into a duality. We have been over this so many times Cleric can anticipate you simply won't like the story he is telling, no matter how simple and child-like it is. It is a spirtual story anathema to animism and practically all other modern religious reformulations of ancient Wisdom. Anyway, it's not about persuading you to accept our story or even follow the logic of it anymore. It has become entirely about pointing out why the story is not understood and will continue to be caricatured into something it is not. Because you don't like what it implies and therefore don't want to understand it.

[Lou Gold]

Ashvin,

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle back so I won't respond in terms of how you seem to mischaracterize my view. I've watched you and Eugene run those circles long enough to say "no thanks" to the ride. I agree that I do not respond to your philosophical argumentation because I'm not a philosopher. With regard to the story of the fall/redemption, I find it rich and worth contemplating over and over. Contemplating stories is a way to mine meanings for me -- important meanings as, for example contemplating the Stations of the Cross for the period of Lent. I know it sounds trite but the New Age trope says, "We are not humans seeking to be spiritual. We are spiritual beings trying to be human." I find the Passion of Christ as for me a penultimate story of that challenge and Way showing. How to hold balance and not separate from our divine connection in the craziness of this world is an ongoing work of practice. I appreciate that there are many routes of practice and seek to not get caught up in East vs West, higher vs lower, form vs emptiness, this vs that. I'm eclectic and appreciate whatever works in large and small ways. To work a way one must believe in it. Like Shabei, I do not argue belief systems.

Lou, we know your position. Our philosophy is not walled off from spirituality. In fact, the former is only useful to the extent it can contribute to our proper orientation towards the latter. We fundamentally disagree that Christ incarnated to balance the physical and spiritual in the way you are suggesting. He was not showing us how to continue existing with one foot in each realm, to "serve two masters". Remember the nested seesaw analogy Cleric commented to you many months ago? Half of my entire last essay was basically a criticism of the balancing approach, which is born from turning a polar relationship into a duality. We have been over this so many times Cleric can anticipate you simply won't like the story he is telling, no matter how simple and child-like it is. It is a spirtual story anathema to animism and practically all other modern religious reformulations of ancient Wisdom. Anyway, it's not about persuading you to accept our story or even follow the logic of it anymore. It has become entirely about pointing out why the story is not understood and will continue to be caricatured into something it is not. Because you don't like what it implies and therefore don't want to understand it.

The balancing I refer to is not a compromise or adulteration of one with the other but a process through the mechanisms of forgiveness and repair. The so-called Franciscan "peace prayer" gives an example of the work. I would never suggest, as you do, that Because you don't like what it implies and therefore don't want to understand it.

[JustinG]

Ashvin,

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle back so I won't respond in terms of how you seem to mischaracterize my view. I've watched you and Eugene run those circles long enough to say "no thanks" to the ride. I agree that I do not respond to your philosophical argumentation because I'm not a philosopher. With regard to the story of the fall/redemption, I find it rich and worth contemplating over and over. Contemplating stories is a way to mine meanings for me -- important meanings as, for example contemplating the Stations of the Cross for the period of Lent. I know it sounds trite but the New Age trope says, "We are not humans seeking to be spiritual. We are spiritual beings trying to be human." I find the Passion of Christ as for me a penultimate story of that challenge and Way showing. How to hold balance and not separate from our divine connection in the craziness of this world is an ongoing work of practice. I appreciate that there are many routes of practice and seek to not get caught up in East vs West, higher vs lower, form vs emptiness, this vs that. I'm eclectic and appreciate whatever works in large and small ways. To work a way one must believe in it. Like Shabei, I do not argue belief systems.

Lou, we know your position. Our philosophy is not walled off from spirituality. In fact, the former is only useful to the extent it can contribute to our proper orientation towards the latter. We fundamentally disagree that Christ incarnated to balance the physical and spiritual in the way you are suggesting. He was not showing us how to continue existing with one foot in each realm, to "serve two masters". Remember the nested seesaw analogy Cleric commented to you many months ago? Half of my entire last essay was basically a criticism of the balancing approach, which is born from turning a polar relationship into a duality. We have been over this so many times Cleric can anticipate you simply won't like the story he is telling, no matter how simple and child-like it is. It is a spirtual story anathema to animism and practically all other modern religious reformulations of ancient Wisdom. Anyway, it's not about persuading you to accept our story or even follow the logic of it anymore. It has become entirely about pointing out why the story is not understood and will continue to be caricatured into something it is not. Because you don't like what it implies and therefore don't want to understand it.

The balancing I refer to is not a compromise or adulteration of one with the other but a process through the mechanisms of forgiveness and repair. The so-called Franciscan "peace prayer" gives an example of the work. I would never suggest, as you do, that Because you don't like what it implies and therefore don't want to understand it.

Lou you're better off just ignoring this site.

It'll eventually fizzle out to nothing and that's better for one's own peace of mind

[Anthony66]

1. There is only One World (not one "dream world" existing 'next to' another "real world").

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the parenthetical statement. My understanding is that the world "out there" is a result of the mentation of structured conscious perspectives or beings that could be conceptualized as a dream world. We perceive this and then represent it through our thinking activity. The typical representation is a "flattened" panorama of shapes and sounds and colors. Through the development of our thinking, this representation comprises ever richer depths of meaning. How far off the mark is that?

Anthony,

It is off the mark because of the subtle distinction that is missed, and, if I have learned anything recently, our intellect is always missing this distinction when thinking of the world and its own role in it. You are implying in bold that the One World out there already exists prior to our thinking activity, and then we come along to represent it with that activity after perceiving it. The reality is that the thinking activity comes first and then precipitates meaning into the currently flattened perceptions. Perceiving can be thought of as the outwardly projective aspect of inner Thinking. Our clarity of perception has come at the expense of our consciousness and correct understanding of this inseperable relationship.

With our current cognition, it appears if many things simply exist prior to our thinking in that way, because we are not conscious of the 'path' that our thinking-flow travels before arriving as perceptions which seem to exist independently of it. This was actually necessary for human beings to become self-aware with inner thought-life. The thinking "I" must be set apart from the perceptual world, which is actually a reflection of its own activity, to behold itself. The process of restoring the actual relationship, without sacrificing the self-awareness, is becoming more conscious of the flow from which the perceptual world precipitates; consciously tracing it back to its Origin, so to speak. We use the inner and outer perceptual reflective world as the tool it was always meant to be for our own Self-awakening. Eventually, obviously with much effort, this translates into a 'sense-free' living thinking, i.e. thinking which is not reliant on perceptual reflections for its own Self-awareness. This thinking consciously moves and 'touches' the countours of imperceptible meaning directly.

When we realize this reversal of the meaning-perception relationship applies not only to objects we perceive around us, but also the forms we perceive within us - thoughts, feelings, desires - and the cultural/temporal forms of human institutions, worldviews, epochs, etc, it is easier to also understand how confused modern man has become in philosophy and science (systematic thinking in general, of the sort we are all engaging right now on the forum). The intellectual ego has been inflated to feel it is reponsible for all of these things (over-materialized), but clearly our rich spectrum of inner experience and entire epochs of time are not structured by intellectual thinking activity. Alternatively, it is inflated to feel it has understood its own absolute limitations (over-spiritualized), walling it off from any further Self-knowledge, and then practically goes about thinking through the world content just like the over-materialized ego. This latter one is analytic idealism, in a nutshell. As Cleric said, the "I"-World dualism is maintained under the intellectual concept of 'non-dualism'.

Ashvin,

Serious question...why do you think it is so hard for us to understand you? Cleric and yourself write well with rich language. You try to explain yourself from many angles. You write extensively. And yet I (and it appears others) continue to struggle to nail your views as evidenced here. I'm PhD educated, from the STEM side of the house. Admittedly I only have a superficial level of reading in all things philosophy. I read all that you guys post, sometimes a number of times over. I've read PoF. I've tried asking clarifying question. I practice the red dot meditation daily. I try to be more attentive to the world around me. But it just hasn't fully clicked yet. BK, on the other hand is very easy to understand.

I sense there is something deep and transformative here that brings various threads of inquiry together. I will continue to strive. But it is a real struggle.

If I ever get it, I plan to be your PR rep, dumbing it down for the masses. I suspect it is a rare individual that understands ASS easily

[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?

Hedge, so your succinct query has generated the usual wall of words. Real question is, has it been helpful?

[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?

Hedge, so your succinct query has generated the usual wall of words. Real question is, has it been helpful?

Some of it. I'm not hostile to Ashvin and his views, I just don't understand him very well. The way I see the problem is that he is promoting a type of thinking that is not nested in concepts that can be fully expressed in words. That's why he cannot give specific descriptions of the concepts whenever we ask him to. And I can appreciate that language is a limited vessel for communicating meaning, since it forces your thinking into a network of railways, from which it is very difficult to break away, especially due to the fact that most of the time we are not even aware of these restricting rails. But then it mostly comes down to whether you have the affinity to grasp intuitively what he's trying to say, and I mostly don't.

[Ben Iscatus]

This may be relevant: The urban dictionary defines lawyerese as "the idea that lawyers frequently speak and write in such a way that is difficult, if not impossible, for laypeople to interpret".
Ash is a lawyer.

[AshvinP]

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the parenthetical statement. My understanding is that the world "out there" is a result of the mentation of structured conscious perspectives or beings that could be conceptualized as a dream world. We perceive this and then represent it through our thinking activity. The typical representation is a "flattened" panorama of shapes and sounds and colors. Through the development of our thinking, this representation comprises ever richer depths of meaning. How far off the mark is that?

Anthony,

It is off the mark because of the subtle distinction that is missed, and, if I have learned anything recently, our intellect is always missing this distinction when thinking of the world and its own role in it. You are implying in bold that the One World out there already exists prior to our thinking activity, and then we come along to represent it with that activity after perceiving it. The reality is that the thinking activity comes first and then precipitates meaning into the currently flattened perceptions. Perceiving can be thought of as the outwardly projective aspect of inner Thinking. Our clarity of perception has come at the expense of our consciousness and correct understanding of this inseperable relationship.

With our current cognition, it appears if many things simply exist prior to our thinking in that way, because we are not conscious of the 'path' that our thinking-flow travels before arriving as perceptions which seem to exist independently of it. This was actually necessary for human beings to become self-aware with inner thought-life. The thinking "I" must be set apart from the perceptual world, which is actually a reflection of its own activity, to behold itself. The process of restoring the actual relationship, without sacrificing the self-awareness, is becoming more conscious of the flow from which the perceptual world precipitates; consciously tracing it back to its Origin, so to speak. We use the inner and outer perceptual reflective world as the tool it was always meant to be for our own Self-awakening. Eventually, obviously with much effort, this translates into a 'sense-free' living thinking, i.e. thinking which is not reliant on perceptual reflections for its own Self-awareness. This thinking consciously moves and 'touches' the countours of imperceptible meaning directly.

When we realize this reversal of the meaning-perception relationship applies not only to objects we perceive around us, but also the forms we perceive within us - thoughts, feelings, desires - and the cultural/temporal forms of human institutions, worldviews, epochs, etc, it is easier to also understand how confused modern man has become in philosophy and science (systematic thinking in general, of the sort we are all engaging right now on the forum). The intellectual ego has been inflated to feel it is reponsible for all of these things (over-materialized), but clearly our rich spectrum of inner experience and entire epochs of time are not structured by intellectual thinking activity. Alternatively, it is inflated to feel it has understood its own absolute limitations (over-spiritualized), walling it off from any further Self-knowledge, and then practically goes about thinking through the world content just like the over-materialized ego. This latter one is analytic idealism, in a nutshell. As Cleric said, the "I"-World dualism is maintained under the intellectual concept of 'non-dualism'.

Ashvin,

Serious question...why do you think it is so hard for us to understand you? Cleric and yourself write well with rich language. You try to explain yourself from many angles. You write extensively. And yet I (and it appears others) continue to struggle to nail your views as evidenced here. I'm PhD educated, from the STEM side of the house. Admittedly I only have a superficial level of reading in all things philosophy. I read all that you guys post, sometimes a number of times over. I've read PoF. I've tried asking clarifying question. I practice the red dot meditation daily. I try to be more attentive to the world around me. But it just hasn't fully clicked yet. BK, on the other hand is very easy to understand.

I sense there is something deep and transformative here that brings various threads of inquiry together. I will continue to strive. But it is a real struggle.

If I ever get it, I plan to be your PR rep, dumbing it down for the masses. I suspect it is a rare individual that understands ASS easily

Anthony,

I have no clue. As Cleric so often illustrates in a new and fascinating ways, like his latest post re: infernal loops, we are not talking about an intellectual theory. That would be my first guess - you seem to be speaking of it above as an intellectual theory, but it's really a new way of perceiving reality. I am sure my own intelletual habits contribute to that misunderstanding when responding to you - there is only so much life I can bring to my descriptions at this stage of my knowing path. The reasons for these things often lie within our souls, not our thinking intellect, so each individual must do an honest Self-inquiry to reveal the twisted currents within which kill the life of the ideas, make them into thought-fragments, before arriving to the conscious intellect.

Consider the idolatry of space, which Cleric metaphorically untangled for us in the latest post. How many go about their understanding concretely that their inner world is a shared medium of W-F-T activity just like the spatial world around them, and, moreover, the latter is an outward reflective manifestation of the former? How many take that seriously and let it influence the way they perceive all phenomena in their experience? It's immediately obvious that a significant inner effort is required to translate "inner world is a shared medium of WFT activity like spatial world" into a concrete living experience of reality. So maybe that's the issue - you can sense the deep underlying logical coherence of what is written but it also remains only dry intellectual theory.

The first step is to realize this is our shortcoming - mine and yours - not the flaw of Reality itself or Steiner, Cleric, or anyone else with spiritual sight. We must first take the beam out of our own eyes before criticizing the speck in our brother's eyes. A certain soul mood of humility, devotion, patience, gratitude will go a long, long way when approaching the concretization of these concepts. The power of that mood in our experience really cannot be overstated. Remember, if what we are saying is accurate, then the inner world has even more causal efficacy than the material world which most people consider pre-existing and "concrete" to their senses. Our feelings and intentions really matter! We could start by simply being more appreciative that we are on this treasure trove of a forum. It is clear that some people here, who I don't even need to name, are resentful of that fact, and that is also why they will never realize the underlying potential. By denying the concrete efficacy of reasoning, feeling, willing, they have blocked their own access to that potential.