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

[lorenzop]

If a tradition/religion wishes to add a layer of morality, or sentiment, form/ideas, personality, etc. to reality; that’s fine. Some people do benefit from structure and definable goals. This layer of sentiment and symbols is not necessary or mandatory.

[AshvinP]

If a tradition/religion wishes to add a layer of morality, or sentiment, form/ideas, personality, etc. to reality; that’s fine. Some people do benefit from structure and definable goals. This layer of sentiment and symbols is not necessary or mandatory.

I am simply asking you to differentiate between when someone is expressing merely what they wish and when someone is presenting a logical and reasoned argument for the structure of Reality. This is exactly the blind spot Cleric keeps talking about. It's so much in the blind spot that people are not even differentiating between the two anymore. How can you look at Cleric's video game metaphor, not to mention his hundreds of other reasoned posts on this forum, and conclude this is merely some preconceived religious system expressing itself through a human being, imposing its own wishes on top of "reality"? This makes no sense and doesn't stand to reason. It's not about whether we are "right" or not, but about the very sort of activity we are engaged in here. But if the immanent reality and efficacy of human reason is denied by keeping it in the blind spot, i.e. our own reason that is presupposed in every single utterance we make and every perception we are aware of, then obviously we won't be able to reason out what I just wrote. Everything anyone writes that we dislike, for whatever reason unknown to us, will sound to us like "their wishes" vs. "our reality". If that's what you really believe, then I don't understand why you are trying to "understand" Cleric's position by asking him questions? You have already decided anything that could potentially be written falls into the category of "religion imposing wishes on reality".

[Anthony66]

Cleric,

Thanks for your detail response, it makes perfect sense. I have to disagree with: "We don't care what's 'behind' that stream. " Answering what is "behind" the stream is the motivation for my diagram and a question I've been grappling with for months.

Yes, indeed we care about the behind! The goal of the above post was to point attention to the way in which we seek the depth of the stream. The psychological inertia is immense! It is not from today or yesterday. These are centuries old, well trodden cognitive circuits which work in our thinking quite autonomously. If we simply try to make an intellectual model of the behind, to postulate some spiritual 'atoms' that make up reality, we're still locked in the old consciousness.

The new science requires from us to have direct, field knowledge of reality. Whatever we speculate about the 'behind' with our intellect, is bound to remain with us 'in front'. Instead, the depth is achieved by gradual investigation of the way our inputs work upon reality and more importantly, how we should awaken to degrees of freedom of our spiritual activity, which were previously unknown. If we imagine our spiritual activity as a very versatile, flexible fluidic first-person willed force field, in our intellectual life it fills and activates the rigid shapes of thoughts, as water fills glass vessels. These are the inputs. The 'behind' is not revealed by adding ever more and more glass shapes but by becoming conscious within the fluidic force field. Even though we use the words 'force field' we shouldn't try to imagine this in the way we imagine electric field. It is just an imaginative expression for our first person thinking will. We are that force. Then we have not merely intellectual theory of the behind but direct cognitive experience of the spiritual world. Our thinking is liberated and begins to move like a fluid, touching from the inside, the geometry of a world that was hitherto unknown, because all our cognition was previously forced to jump from rigid shape to rigid shape.

The liberated spiritual activity is of thought-nature. It is the precursor of the intellect, even though in the course of evolution we discover it as something new. Our intellect is crystalized Imagination. For this reason, just like our ordinary thoughts are meaningful understanding, so the liberated Imaginative spiritual activity is in itself also meaningful understanding of a much broader character.

When our spirit moves from glass vessel to glass vessel (for example, verbal thoughts), the totality of this experience we call simply 'the mind'. When we gain consciousness of our higher degrees of freedom of our fluidic cognitive force (which otherwise fills the glass vessels), the totality of this experience we can call 'Imaginative consciousness'. It is not some additional shapes and colors that we simply behold in the perceptual stream and think about them with the intellect. It's the nature, the 'geometry' of our liberated cognitive activity which in itself, gives us the consciousness of a higher world, just like ordinary thoughts give us consciousness of 'mind'. So the Imaginative world is really something like a higher mind, which overflows the boundary of our skin and is an arena where activity of many beings superimpose.

If this is understood, then it should be clear, that evolving consciousness doesn't seek answers in the form of abstract arrangements of intellectual forms. Instead it seeks first-person experience of the spiritual activity which has been lifted from the rigid inputs and weaves in a higher stratum. This we do not in order to escape the physical world but only because in this way we can add depth to the physical world. In this way we can understand how human behavior works, from whence desires come, how we should guide our individual and collective life in the light of this deeper lawfulness and so on.

Cleric,

What confidence can we have in our logical reasoning faculty? If I am currently in an "unliberated" state, unaware of the nature of the forces pulling my cognitive strings, is not my thinking to be viewed with great suspicion (by my thinking )?

[AshvinP]

Cleric,

Thanks for your detail response, it makes perfect sense. I have to disagree with: "We don't care what's 'behind' that stream. " Answering what is "behind" the stream is the motivation for my diagram and a question I've been grappling with for months.

Yes, indeed we care about the behind! The goal of the above post was to point attention to the way in which we seek the depth of the stream. The psychological inertia is immense! It is not from today or yesterday. These are centuries old, well trodden cognitive circuits which work in our thinking quite autonomously. If we simply try to make an intellectual model of the behind, to postulate some spiritual 'atoms' that make up reality, we're still locked in the old consciousness.

The new science requires from us to have direct, field knowledge of reality. Whatever we speculate about the 'behind' with our intellect, is bound to remain with us 'in front'. Instead, the depth is achieved by gradual investigation of the way our inputs work upon reality and more importantly, how we should awaken to degrees of freedom of our spiritual activity, which were previously unknown. If we imagine our spiritual activity as a very versatile, flexible fluidic first-person willed force field, in our intellectual life it fills and activates the rigid shapes of thoughts, as water fills glass vessels. These are the inputs. The 'behind' is not revealed by adding ever more and more glass shapes but by becoming conscious within the fluidic force field. Even though we use the words 'force field' we shouldn't try to imagine this in the way we imagine electric field. It is just an imaginative expression for our first person thinking will. We are that force. Then we have not merely intellectual theory of the behind but direct cognitive experience of the spiritual world. Our thinking is liberated and begins to move like a fluid, touching from the inside, the geometry of a world that was hitherto unknown, because all our cognition was previously forced to jump from rigid shape to rigid shape.

The liberated spiritual activity is of thought-nature. It is the precursor of the intellect, even though in the course of evolution we discover it as something new. Our intellect is crystalized Imagination. For this reason, just like our ordinary thoughts are meaningful understanding, so the liberated Imaginative spiritual activity is in itself also meaningful understanding of a much broader character.

When our spirit moves from glass vessel to glass vessel (for example, verbal thoughts), the totality of this experience we call simply 'the mind'. When we gain consciousness of our higher degrees of freedom of our fluidic cognitive force (which otherwise fills the glass vessels), the totality of this experience we can call 'Imaginative consciousness'. It is not some additional shapes and colors that we simply behold in the perceptual stream and think about them with the intellect. It's the nature, the 'geometry' of our liberated cognitive activity which in itself, gives us the consciousness of a higher world, just like ordinary thoughts give us consciousness of 'mind'. So the Imaginative world is really something like a higher mind, which overflows the boundary of our skin and is an arena where activity of many beings superimpose.

If this is understood, then it should be clear, that evolving consciousness doesn't seek answers in the form of abstract arrangements of intellectual forms. Instead it seeks first-person experience of the spiritual activity which has been lifted from the rigid inputs and weaves in a higher stratum. This we do not in order to escape the physical world but only because in this way we can add depth to the physical world. In this way we can understand how human behavior works, from whence desires come, how we should guide our individual and collective life in the light of this deeper lawfulness and so on.

Cleric,

What confidence can we have in our logical reasoning faculty? If I am currently in an "unliberated" state, unaware of the nature of the forces pulling my cognitive strings, is not my thinking to be viewed with great suspicion (by my thinking )?

Anthony,

I am quoting an excerpt of upcoming essay here for consideration in addition to what Cleric will respond.

Next time you are in the shower, or wherever you spend time to think alone without too much sensory stimulation, try to observe how your thoughts were arising and fluttering about over the last few minutes, jumping from one topic to another in an erratic manner. When it even occurs for us to reflect in this manner, which, as a rule, it doesn't occur unless someone has recently suggested it to us, we will get a sense of how little control we had over our thoughts.

Modern intellectuals have argued this subconscious steering of the rationalizing intellect then exposes humanity's fundamentally mechanical nature, since we can only think in deterministic loops which are imposed on us by external forces. Humans assume they are making "free" choices because they remain unaware of how 'oppressive' forces are always compelling their thoughts. We are like tiny men riding on the shoulder of a blind giant. Whether those forces are conceived as purely material, ideal, or some combination of both, most who overcame basic rationalism fell right into this other polarized conception of human thinking. Because they cannot personally imagine how humanity may come to reassert its reasonable and creative thinking in the world of material perceptions, they declare it is fundamentally impossible. Their localized limitations become fetters around the spiritual 'feet' of humanity as a whole. Spinoza famously attempted to illustrate this conclusion in the 17th century by analogizing the thinking human being to a stone which has become conscious of its own movement:

"Now, please, suppose that this stone during its motion thinks and knows that it is striving to the best of its ability to continue in motion. This stone, which is conscious only of its striving and is by no means indifferent, will believe that it is absolutely free, and that it continues in motion for no other reason than its own will to continue. But this is just the human freedom that everybody claims to possess and which consists in nothing but this, that men are conscious of their desires, but ignorant of the causes by which they are determined. Thus the child believes that he desires milk of his own free will, the angry boy regards his desire for vengeance as free, and the coward his desire for flight." - Baruch Spinoza

In this argument, the rational intellect has spread itself over the entire Cosmos and reasoned from there. Its own state of incomplete knowledge is assumed to be the highest possible capacity of human reasoning, for all people and for all time. That assumption arises because the modern intellectual philosopher feels that he can stand apart from the phenomenon of "human thinking", as with all other phenomena, and analyze it as a neutral observer. He has objectified "thinking" into a thing of study, like a tree in his backyard, and discarded the subject who is thinking - himself - from his inquiry. Not even a tree could be understood this way, let alone the most complex phenomenon in the Cosmos. This philosopher refuses to enter into the living reality of thinking as its flows forth from the wellspring of its Being through the external and internal forms perceived by our own conscious intellect. Those forms, which are only dead husks of meaning after thinking has traveled a path which extinguishes its own life, are idolized into the full and final essence of our thinking experience. It never occurs that there lives something behind those forms, which come to its expression through his own activity...

"Do not stop on any step, no matter how high, or it will become a snare."

Through modern idolatry of outer forms, the intellect flattens out the spectrum of knowledge which a human being could attain. We can, in reality, become aware of, not only our own actions at any given time, but also reason our way to the underlying causes for those actions. We can figure out some significant portion of the reasons why those motives exist and compel us. Does a motive for an action which I am unaware of exert the exact same compulsion on me as the motive I have become aware of? Is the child who compulsively desires milk the exact same as the adult who has perceived why he compulsively desires alcohol, such as an unexamined resentment or trauma? The flaw in this conception is easily discerned. It's not a flaw in the logic so much as a flaw in the lack of logic. Spinoza, like practically all modern philosophers after him, simply stopped logically reasoning when he reached his intellect's desired conclusion that man is unfree by virtue of Reality's mechanistic structure. The preprogrammed computer code terminated once arriving to the only conclusion it was ever designed to reach. Ironically, then, it is the mechanistic intellect which keeps itself imprisoned, self-satisfied with the cell, cot, and the gruel it is given, pretending it has perfectly understood its own limitations. That alleviates a lot of thinking-responsibility for the guilty conscience, does it not? A person who is decreed unfree by Reality itself will not feel so burdened when failing to account for his own "unfree" actions (or lack of actions), although he will surely still demand everyone else account for theirs.

[lorenzop]

If a tradition/religion wishes to add a layer of morality, or sentiment, form/ideas, personality, etc. to reality; that’s fine. Some people do benefit from structure and definable goals. This layer of sentiment and symbols is not necessary or mandatory.

I am simply asking you to differentiate between when someone is expressing merely what they wish and when someone is presenting a logical and reasoned argument for the structure of Reality. This is exactly the blind spot Cleric keeps talking about. It's so much in the blind spot that people are not even differentiating between the two anymore. How can you look at Cleric's video game metaphor, not to mention his hundreds of other reasoned posts on this forum, and conclude this is merely some preconceived religious system expressing itself through a human being, imposing its own wishes on top of "reality"? This makes no sense and doesn't stand to reason. It's not about whether we are "right" or not, but about the very sort of activity we are engaged in here. But if the immanent reality and efficacy of human reason is denied by keeping it in the blind spot, i.e. our own reason that is presupposed in every single utterance we make and every perception we are aware of, then obviously we won't be able to reason out what I just wrote. Everything anyone writes that we dislike, for whatever reason unknown to us, will sound to us like "their wishes" vs. "our reality". If that's what you really believe, then I don't understand why you are trying to "understand" Cleric's position by asking him questions? You have already decided anything that could potentially be written falls into the category of "religion imposing wishes on reality".

I have only very recently began to understand what you and Cleric are proposing - much less grasp any intellectual argument, and even less so, finding an intellectual argument convincing.
I am a bit of a 'commoner' - not inclined towards intellectual arguments, especially regarding Reality, where direct experience is possible.
IOW, I am more likely to find direct experience/perception, even a glimpse, of any morality, sentiments, architypes, ideas/forms baked into Reality, more compelling than an intellectual argument.
When I contemplate/meditate upon Reality, I don't find any feminine/masculine sentiments, I don't find the notion of a Fall/Redemption, I don't detect any hidden messages or moods . . .
I don't deny the existence of enhanced perception, nor deny the appreciation of Divine nature of Reality - and perhaps you and I are not that far apart - maybe you are simply adding 'personality' to the Divine. Adding personality to the Divine is a key characteristic of religions - and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just not for everyone.

[Hedge90]

If a tradition/religion wishes to add a layer of morality, or sentiment, form/ideas, personality, etc. to reality; that’s fine. Some people do benefit from structure and definable goals. This layer of sentiment and symbols is not necessary or mandatory.

I am simply asking you to differentiate between when someone is expressing merely what they wish and when someone is presenting a logical and reasoned argument for the structure of Reality. This is exactly the blind spot Cleric keeps talking about. It's so much in the blind spot that people are not even differentiating between the two anymore. How can you look at Cleric's video game metaphor, not to mention his hundreds of other reasoned posts on this forum, and conclude this is merely some preconceived religious system expressing itself through a human being, imposing its own wishes on top of "reality"? This makes no sense and doesn't stand to reason. It's not about whether we are "right" or not, but about the very sort of activity we are engaged in here. But if the immanent reality and efficacy of human reason is denied by keeping it in the blind spot, i.e. our own reason that is presupposed in every single utterance we make and every perception we are aware of, then obviously we won't be able to reason out what I just wrote. Everything anyone writes that we dislike, for whatever reason unknown to us, will sound to us like "their wishes" vs. "our reality". If that's what you really believe, then I don't understand why you are trying to "understand" Cleric's position by asking him questions? You have already decided anything that could potentially be written falls into the category of "religion imposing wishes on reality".

I have only very recently began to understand what you and Cleric are proposing - much less grasp any intellectual argument, and even less so, finding an intellectual argument convincing.
I am a bit of a 'commoner' - not inclined towards intellectual arguments, especially regarding Reality, where direct experience is possible.
IOW, I am more likely to find direct experience/perception, even a glimpse, of any morality, sentiments, architypes, ideas/forms baked into Reality, more compelling than an intellectual argument.
When I contemplate/meditate upon Reality, I don't find any feminine/masculine sentiments, I don't find the notion of a Fall/Redemption, I don't detect any hidden messages or moods . . .
I don't deny the existence of enhanced perception, nor deny the appreciation of Divine nature of Reality - and perhaps you and I are not that far apart - maybe you are simply adding 'personality' to the Divine. Adding personality to the Divine is a key characteristic of religions - and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just not for everyone.

Lorenzop,
I don't know what kind of spiritual method or tradition you are following, but even non-religious ones, like Advaita Vedanta, emphasise that it's nigh impossible to approach Truth without a master to teach you the methods. Of course any meditation is better than no meditation, but metaphysical realisation, i.e. knowledge of the mysteries (and the intuitive understanding of the concepts you are mentioning belongs to the mysteries), is not something most people can achieve by themselves. So the fact that you haven't found these things while meditating does not mean anything as concerning the reality of these things.
Also, in all metaphysics worthy of the name, there is both personal and impersonal Divine. The impersonal Divine is the Absolute, while the personal Divine is the relative Divine. Your preference/attraction can guide you on one path or another (jnana/knowledge or bhakti/devotion), but the end is the same.

[lorenzop]

I am simply asking you to differentiate between when someone is expressing merely what they wish and when someone is presenting a logical and reasoned argument for the structure of Reality. This is exactly the blind spot Cleric keeps talking about. It's so much in the blind spot that people are not even differentiating between the two anymore. How can you look at Cleric's video game metaphor, not to mention his hundreds of other reasoned posts on this forum, and conclude this is merely some preconceived religious system expressing itself through a human being, imposing its own wishes on top of "reality"? This makes no sense and doesn't stand to reason. It's not about whether we are "right" or not, but about the very sort of activity we are engaged in here. But if the immanent reality and efficacy of human reason is denied by keeping it in the blind spot, i.e. our own reason that is presupposed in every single utterance we make and every perception we are aware of, then obviously we won't be able to reason out what I just wrote. Everything anyone writes that we dislike, for whatever reason unknown to us, will sound to us like "their wishes" vs. "our reality". If that's what you really believe, then I don't understand why you are trying to "understand" Cleric's position by asking him questions? You have already decided anything that could potentially be written falls into the category of "religion imposing wishes on reality".

I have only very recently began to understand what you and Cleric are proposing - much less grasp any intellectual argument, and even less so, finding an intellectual argument convincing.
I am a bit of a 'commoner' - not inclined towards intellectual arguments, especially regarding Reality, where direct experience is possible.
IOW, I am more likely to find direct experience/perception, even a glimpse, of any morality, sentiments, architypes, ideas/forms baked into Reality, more compelling than an intellectual argument.
When I contemplate/meditate upon Reality, I don't find any feminine/masculine sentiments, I don't find the notion of a Fall/Redemption, I don't detect any hidden messages or moods . . .
I don't deny the existence of enhanced perception, nor deny the appreciation of Divine nature of Reality - and perhaps you and I are not that far apart - maybe you are simply adding 'personality' to the Divine. Adding personality to the Divine is a key characteristic of religions - and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just not for everyone.

Lorenzop,
I don't know what kind of spiritual method or tradition you are following, but even non-religious ones, like Advaita Vedanta, emphasise that it's nigh impossible to approach Truth without a master to teach you the methods. Of course any meditation is better than no meditation, but metaphysical realisation, i.e. knowledge of the mysteries (and the intuitive understanding of the concepts you are mentioning belongs to the mysteries), is not something most people can achieve by themselves. So the fact that you haven't found these things while meditating does not mean anything as concerning the reality of these things.
Also, in all metaphysics worthy of the name, there is both personal and impersonal Divine. The impersonal Divine is the Absolute, while the personal Divine is the relative Divine. Your preference/attraction can guide you on one path or another (jnana/knowledge or bhakti/devotion), but the end is the same.

Yes, a teacher/master is often necessary and almost always helpful for guidance - my point is there are no mysteries. We don't need priests to dole out favors or reveal hidden meanings - only teachers to guide us in what we already know, but need a gentle reminder(s).
For what it's worth, I began TM (Transcendental Meditation) in 1972, and taught meditation for many years. Continue to meditate each day since.

[Hedge90]

I have only very recently began to understand what you and Cleric are proposing - much less grasp any intellectual argument, and even less so, finding an intellectual argument convincing.
I am a bit of a 'commoner' - not inclined towards intellectual arguments, especially regarding Reality, where direct experience is possible.
IOW, I am more likely to find direct experience/perception, even a glimpse, of any morality, sentiments, architypes, ideas/forms baked into Reality, more compelling than an intellectual argument.
When I contemplate/meditate upon Reality, I don't find any feminine/masculine sentiments, I don't find the notion of a Fall/Redemption, I don't detect any hidden messages or moods . . .
I don't deny the existence of enhanced perception, nor deny the appreciation of Divine nature of Reality - and perhaps you and I are not that far apart - maybe you are simply adding 'personality' to the Divine. Adding personality to the Divine is a key characteristic of religions - and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just not for everyone.

Lorenzop,
I don't know what kind of spiritual method or tradition you are following, but even non-religious ones, like Advaita Vedanta, emphasise that it's nigh impossible to approach Truth without a master to teach you the methods. Of course any meditation is better than no meditation, but metaphysical realisation, i.e. knowledge of the mysteries (and the intuitive understanding of the concepts you are mentioning belongs to the mysteries), is not something most people can achieve by themselves. So the fact that you haven't found these things while meditating does not mean anything as concerning the reality of these things.
Also, in all metaphysics worthy of the name, there is both personal and impersonal Divine. The impersonal Divine is the Absolute, while the personal Divine is the relative Divine. Your preference/attraction can guide you on one path or another (jnana/knowledge or bhakti/devotion), but the end is the same.

Having no firsthand experience about any mystery, I will not state to the contrary. But unless you know EVERYTHING about the entirety of reality, how sure can you be about that there are no mysteries? To me this seems like an overconfident statement.


Yes, a teacher/master is often necessary and almost always helpful for guidance - my point is there are no mysteries. We don't need priests to dole out favors or reveal hidden meanings - only teachers to guide us in what we already know, but need a gentle reminder(s).
For what it's worth, I began TM (Transcendental Meditation) in 1972, and taught meditation for many years. Continue to meditate each day since.

[Hedge90]

I have only very recently began to understand what you and Cleric are proposing - much less grasp any intellectual argument, and even less so, finding an intellectual argument convincing.
I am a bit of a 'commoner' - not inclined towards intellectual arguments, especially regarding Reality, where direct experience is possible.
IOW, I am more likely to find direct experience/perception, even a glimpse, of any morality, sentiments, architypes, ideas/forms baked into Reality, more compelling than an intellectual argument.
When I contemplate/meditate upon Reality, I don't find any feminine/masculine sentiments, I don't find the notion of a Fall/Redemption, I don't detect any hidden messages or moods . . .
I don't deny the existence of enhanced perception, nor deny the appreciation of Divine nature of Reality - and perhaps you and I are not that far apart - maybe you are simply adding 'personality' to the Divine. Adding personality to the Divine is a key characteristic of religions - and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just not for everyone.

Lorenzop,
I don't know what kind of spiritual method or tradition you are following, but even non-religious ones, like Advaita Vedanta, emphasise that it's nigh impossible to approach Truth without a master to teach you the methods. Of course any meditation is better than no meditation, but metaphysical realisation, i.e. knowledge of the mysteries (and the intuitive understanding of the concepts you are mentioning belongs to the mysteries), is not something most people can achieve by themselves. So the fact that you haven't found these things while meditating does not mean anything as concerning the reality of these things.
Also, in all metaphysics worthy of the name, there is both personal and impersonal Divine. The impersonal Divine is the Absolute, while the personal Divine is the relative Divine. Your preference/attraction can guide you on one path or another (jnana/knowledge or bhakti/devotion), but the end is the same.

Yes, a teacher/master is often necessary and almost always helpful for guidance - my point is there are no mysteries. We don't need priests to dole out favors or reveal hidden meanings - only teachers to guide us in what we already know, but need a gentle reminder(s).
For what it's worth, I began TM (Transcendental Meditation) in 1972, and taught meditation for many years. Continue to meditate each day since.

Having no firsthand experience about any mystery, I will not state to the contrary. But unless you know EVERYTHING about the entirety of reality, how sure can you be about that there are no mysteries? To me this seems like an overconfident statement.

[lorenzop]

Having no firsthand experience about any mystery, I will not state to the contrary. But unless you know EVERYTHING about the entirety of reality, how sure can you be about that there are no mysteries? To me this seems like an overconfident statement.

I suppose it depends on how one defines 'mystery' - if mystery means or implies 'having an inherent barrier to knowing, or requiring a preist or intermediary, or intentionally hidden/concealed by reality', then no, I don't believe there are any mysteries.
If 'mystery' simply means not known (but knowable), then yes, there are many things I (we) don't know.
So, is there a layer of cosmic sentiments, morality, ideas/forms, etc? I don't see a compelling reason to believe so.