Why I believe Analytic Idealism is flawed

[Lou Gold]

"Intuitive thinking begins with the humble realization that in our spiritual activity we've never been apart from the archetypal world."

Cleric,

I like your bolded statement and I've been contemplating it...

"Intuitive thinking begins with the humble realization that in our spiritual activity we've never been apart from the archetypal world."

It strikes me that, if this is true (and I think it is), then why do we need a story or model or representation to explain it? Why not just live it and breathe it into every move we make? Might this be the secret of why engaged mindfulness has become so popular and so able to spread across the boundaries created by identifying with different stories?

How might this work in practice? The life and work of Thich Nhat Hanh offers a model of the process in action. Please note that I'm not a Buddhist so I'm not arguing for "my way". I'm a Judeo-Christian-shamanic-eclectic and quite identified with telling stories, so this perception is not born of confirmation bias. What do you think of it?

[AshvinP]

YIKES! Cleric, you've done it again, taking a particular personal approach and projecting it as a general truth.

I have a personal path that allows me to consciously explore and learn from intuitive, imaginative and inspirative awareness that I've practiced for 25 years with continued satisfaction that consistently leads me deeper into the heart of the matter. Your speculative projection "maybe it was not your intent at all to get closer to the heart" is quite contrary to my personal intention and practice, which works for me and includes aspects like communing with non-corporeal entities, understanding from where symbols come and more. In my way, there is no proselytizing. If someone is called to it, it will happen. My way also increases my appreciation of ways other than my primary way. It gives me a non-judgemental non-comparative generosity toward other sincere seekers and their ways. If your way or Ashvin's give you the experiences you seek, I rejoice in your experiential satisfaction and praise the Divine generosity that produces such blessings. The only question I ask is, "Does it do it for you?"

Cleric was also explaining how "yes/no" questions and answers presuppose the higher worlds function exactly like the world we perceive and investigate with abstract intellectual cognition. So, whatever higher realities you have experienced, clearly you are still interpreting their meaning with that same intellectual cognition when asking these questions and expecting answers in that mechanical way. We aren't seeking what makes us feel personally happy, at peace, 'enlightened', satiated, etc., although those things may result along the way with humility, sacrifice, pain, sorrow, anguish, etc. experienced at certain times as well, but we are seeking what is objectively true about this gradient from lower to higher Consciousness. These objective truths are first-person and relational, and cannot be captured in yes/no binary of the intellect - I can't say the higher world amenable to imagination starts at point X and ends at point Y, and the world amenable to inspiration starts at Y and ends at Z, and I am at a certain point between X and Y. That sort of answer simply can't be given. But the nature of the relational gradient of Consciousness is still objective, can be explored, and can be communicated with conceptual symbols expressed through analogical reasoning. That is what Cleric has done endlessly here with his essays/posts and I can't remember a single time you have actually asked a question to seek deeper understanding of what he is writing rather than to express your own opinion and declare, "I've been there and done all that!".

C'mon Ashvin,

I accept your statement that "These objective truths are first-person and relational, and cannot be captured in yes/no binary of the intellect ". I did not expect a capture or description and I'm not leading into it. I am simply asking if you have had, according to your own understanding, these first-person and relational experiences, which defy the intellect? If you say "no" I will respond "I hope you do" and if you say "yes" I will say "I'm happy you were so blessed."

I am not saying that Cleric does not have a conceptual way that he has endlessly expressed nor am I judging it as false or inferior to what I do. I celebrate the diversity of ways. When I say that I'm satisfied with my way, I'm not asserting that it always or generally brings comfort and happiness. Sometimes it's quite the opposite. I'm also not saying "been there done that" to Cleric's way. Why don't I ask about it and seek to probe more deeply? Because I have my own path of heart. And it gives me many experiences beyond the mere intelect. I am comfortable and satisfied in saying "YES" to my own question.

As Cleric said, why are we answering questions from someone who clearly has no interest in understanding the answers we give, as you yourself say above. And why are you even responding to our posts if that's how you feel? There is nowhere to go from that sentiment in bold - it's the end of the discussion. We aren't forcing anyone to take an interest in what we are speaking of, only offering our insights to those who actually want to figure out how "It's possible for our spiritual being itself to grow into higher (soul and archetypal) orders of reality and experience directly how the inner dreamscape crystalizes from these realms and how the spirit moving within the crystallizations evolves into a new archetypal being." If you don't want to figure it out, or are convinced you already figured it out and nothing we can provide will elevate your consciousness further, then the logical thing to do is to refrain from interacting with our posts.

[Lou Gold]

Cleric was also explaining how "yes/no" questions and answers presuppose the higher worlds function exactly like the world we perceive and investigate with abstract intellectual cognition. So, whatever higher realities you have experienced, clearly you are still interpreting their meaning with that same intellectual cognition when asking these questions and expecting answers in that mechanical way. We aren't seeking what makes us feel personally happy, at peace, 'enlightened', satiated, etc., although those things may result along the way with humility, sacrifice, pain, sorrow, anguish, etc. experienced at certain times as well, but we are seeking what is objectively true about this gradient from lower to higher Consciousness. These objective truths are first-person and relational, and cannot be captured in yes/no binary of the intellect - I can't say the higher world amenable to imagination starts at point X and ends at point Y, and the world amenable to inspiration starts at Y and ends at Z, and I am at a certain point between X and Y. That sort of answer simply can't be given. But the nature of the relational gradient of Consciousness is still objective, can be explored, and can be communicated with conceptual symbols expressed through analogical reasoning. That is what Cleric has done endlessly here with his essays/posts and I can't remember a single time you have actually asked a question to seek deeper understanding of what he is writing rather than to express your own opinion and declare, "I've been there and done all that!".

C'mon Ashvin,

I accept your statement that "These objective truths are first-person and relational, and cannot be captured in yes/no binary of the intellect ". I did not expect a capture or description and I'm not leading into it. I am simply asking if you have had, according to your own understanding, these first-person and relational experiences, which defy the intellect? If you say "no" I will respond "I hope you do" and if you say "yes" I will say "I'm happy you were so blessed."

I am not saying that Cleric does not have a conceptual way that he has endlessly expressed nor am I judging it as false or inferior to what I do. I celebrate the diversity of ways. When I say that I'm satisfied with my way, I'm not asserting that it always or generally brings comfort and happiness. Sometimes it's quite the opposite. I'm also not saying "been there done that" to Cleric's way. Why don't I ask about it and seek to probe more deeply? Because I have my own path of heart. And it gives me many experiences beyond the mere intelect. I am comfortable and satisfied in saying "YES" to my own question.

As Cleric said, why are we answering questions from someone who clearly has no interest in understanding the answers we give, as you yourself say above. And why are you even responding to our posts if that's how you feel? There is nowhere to go from that sentiment in bold - it's the end of the discussion. We aren't forcing anyone to take an interest in what we are speaking of, only offering our insights to those who actually want to figure out how "It's possible for our spiritual being itself to grow into higher (soul and archetypal) orders of reality and experience directly how the inner dreamscape crystalizes from these realms and how the spirit moving within the crystallizations evolves into a new archetypal being." If you don't want to figure it out, or are convinced you already figured it out and nothing we can provide will elevate your consciousness further, then the logical thing to do is to refrain from interacting with our posts.

Fair enough Ashvin except that it appears that you chose to engage with my comment, which was directed more generally and to Dana. But thanks for clarifying why you are here as you are.

[AshvinP]

C'mon Ashvin,

I accept your statement that "These objective truths are first-person and relational, and cannot be captured in yes/no binary of the intellect ". I did not expect a capture or description and I'm not leading into it. I am simply asking if you have had, according to your own understanding, these first-person and relational experiences, which defy the intellect? If you say "no" I will respond "I hope you do" and if you say "yes" I will say "I'm happy you were so blessed."

I am not saying that Cleric does not have a conceptual way that he has endlessly expressed nor am I judging it as false or inferior to what I do. I celebrate the diversity of ways. When I say that I'm satisfied with my way, I'm not asserting that it always or generally brings comfort and happiness. Sometimes it's quite the opposite. I'm also not saying "been there done that" to Cleric's way. Why don't I ask about it and seek to probe more deeply? Because I have my own path of heart. And it gives me many experiences beyond the mere intelect. I am comfortable and satisfied in saying "YES" to my own question.

As Cleric said, why are we answering questions from someone who clearly has no interest in understanding the answers we give, as you yourself say above. And why are you even responding to our posts if that's how you feel? There is nowhere to go from that sentiment in bold - it's the end of the discussion. We aren't forcing anyone to take an interest in what we are speaking of, only offering our insights to those who actually want to figure out how "It's possible for our spiritual being itself to grow into higher (soul and archetypal) orders of reality and experience directly how the inner dreamscape crystalizes from these realms and how the spirit moving within the crystallizations evolves into a new archetypal being." If you don't want to figure it out, or are convinced you already figured it out and nothing we can provide will elevate your consciousness further, then the logical thing to do is to refrain from interacting with our posts.

Fair enough Ashvin except that it appears that you chose to engage with my comment, which was directed more generally and to Dana. But thanks for clarifying why you are here as you are.

You're right, I was actually trying to respond more to Dana's previous comment in that post, but I quoted you. It seemed like you were addressing your comment to both of us, but perhaps I was mistaken. By the way, I have no problem if you want to interact with our comments to share your insights, but if your responses are critical of our arguments, that's when it no longer makes sense to me.

[Lou Gold]

Actually, I make an effort not to be critical because a philosophical debate would be above my pay grade and because I'm not really familiar with your tradition. You often critique something or someone as offering intellectual thoughts. BK surely does and even describes himself as an "intellectual gladiator." I don't know how you would self describe but since you were criticizing intellectual ways, I was genuinely curious as to whether your assertions were intellectual or based on your personal experience of getting beyond the intellectual. I thought it was a reasonable question.

[Cleric K]

"Intuitive thinking begins with the humble realization that in our spiritual activity we've never been apart from the archetypal world."

Cleric,

I like your bolded statement and I've been contemplating it...

"Intuitive thinking begins with the humble realization that in our spiritual activity we've never been apart from the archetypal world."

It strikes me that, if this is true (and I think it is), then why do we need a story or model or representation to explain it? Why not just live it and breathe it into every move we make? Might this be the secret of why engaged mindfulness has become so popular and so able to spread across the boundaries created by identifying with different stories?

How might this work in practice? The life and work of Thich Nhat Hanh offers a model of the process in action. Please note that I'm not a Buddhist so I'm not arguing for "my way". I'm a Judeo-Christian-shamanic-eclectic and quite identified with telling stories, so this perception is not born of confirmation bias. What do you think of it?

Hi Lou,

let's first look at what a 'story' really is. Your life is a story, isn't it? This story would be non-existent in consciousness if there wasn't the mystery of memory. After all, if our existence consisted of disconnected frames, without memory building up, there could be no story, right? Our story is something much more than the logistic history of a lump of meat on its way from breeding to the slaughterhouse. What we remember is the inner states of thinking, feeling, willing and perception. These form a stream of metamorphosis which leads to our current state. Seen in this way, our story is not simply a list of dry facts but actual inner experience of continual transformation. Our past is not simply things that have happened to us but the temporal unfolding of our bodily nature, understandings, goals, aspirations, dreams. So even though we conceive of the past as something that has gone away from us, from another perspective we can see it as if the past has grown into us. What we are now is what the metamorphosis process has grown into. Similarly, the beautiful blossoms that you often send, do not exist in isolation but they are what the whole plant has been metamorphosing towards. I've tried to present this different way of thinking about memory here.

I'll return to the story but let's look at the second question first: "Why not just live it and breathe it into every move we make?" Everyone is doing this even if they don't know it. The thing is that this world of potential is differentiated, there are various currents, winds, seasons. It is through our spiritual activity that we align with one or another. We have talked a lot about this before. Everyone of us works under a specific constellation of the archetypal forces. You suggest to simply breathe the potential and ask no questions. But this is also what the colonialist does. This is what the technocrat does. In their inner world they live and breath a very specific constellation of archetypal ideas. They see the Earth as the arena where these ideas can be manifested.

Yet you find the way of the 'younger brother' disagreeable. This in itself should be the living indication that it is not enough to simply breathe and live the potential whatever that might be. In a similar way we don't just swallow anything we get our hands on. We use discrimination. We understand the benefits or dangers of the various things we ingest. It's exactly the same in our inner world. We live in world of spiritual 'foodstuff' - ideas, desires. We need certain way to distinguish the qualities of these foods and ingest in our soul only those which align with our high ideal. What this high ideal is, is something that everyone should determine for themselves in complete freedom. If our ideal is Love, brotherhood, harmonious unfoldment of our shared dream, them we'll seek the ideas, feelings and actions that resonate with these archetypal forces. If our ideal is to feel as a sole dictator over the Earthly kingdom, then we'll seek the forces that align with it.

Of course, seeking to become a conductor for our high ideal requires knowledge, wisdom. We're in constant interaction with a living reality, which is not simply random noise but exhibits certain rhythmic lawfulness. We need to know when to sow the plants and when to harvest them. If we ignore the seasonal rhythms it's not Nature's fault that we're left hungry. And this brings us back to the need of a story.

As said, the story is not simply a dry narrative to satisfy our intellectual curiosity by filling some gaps. The crucial thing is that the story should be the temporal dimension of the living being that we are. Imagine that someone says to you: "Your life story is irrelevant. It is just an intellectual fairy tale to boost your ego. It's all the same what narrative you attach to your persona. The important thing is here and now." While it's true that the story should in no way be used as a booster for the ego, it is simply not true that the story is unimportant.

Our life circumstances in the here and now only make sense when they are seen as the blossom of continual metamorphosis. If the life processes have been different, if our past ideals were different, our blossom today could have different color, different fragrance or maybe it would be shriveled, eaten away by bugs. It's nonsensical to say that only the here and now matters (I'm not speaking of the deeper truth that ultimately all eternity exists in the now but about ignoring the temporal thickness of the now). If till yesterday I've been only eating, drinking, smoking, fornicating, stealing, lying and today I decide to start clean, is it enough to say "All that matters is the here and now"? What about the all the toxins that have accumulated and ruined my body? What about all the damage I've done to those around me? All the memory images that continue to haunt me? All the addictive habits?

While it is true that our innermost essential being is none of these things, they are our living environment now and we have to live with them. If we want a better environment it's of no use to close our eyes and fantasize that our body is healthy, that our heart is pure and all the damage to the world is non-existent. The only reasonable thing is to make all these things our high ideal and from now on begin to direct all our thinking, feelings and actions in alignment with it. If we do this, then in future time, when we look upon the blossom here and now, we'll see that it is what it is because we've been slowly and wisely nourishing it.

But as said, simply yearning for something is not enough. This primes our thoughts and feelings but in order for all this to reach the domain of will, of actions, of deeper transformation of the dream, we need also skills, we need understanding of the rhythmic laws of the dreamscape. And this is where we return to the importance of the story. Through the story we can encompass the rhythmic laws that extend in time. There's no music in the infinitesimal thin now. Our consciousness should spread in time if we are to grasp rhythm, melody, song structure. If we focus only on the here and now, we're like a leaf blown by the winds. We don't know from whence we come and where we're going. We assume that as long as we live and breath the inexplicable life stream it is all good. But doesn't the drunkard do the same thing? Doesn't he live for the sip here and now, living and breathing the moment, without thought about where he comes from and where he's going?

It is for this reason that the story is something much more than prose to make our mind feel more gapless. When we understand the story in its inner essence, our being consciously expands into the temporal structure of the dreamscape we call reality. This is also why it is not enough to know only our personal story. Our personal story is embedded in the story of the Cosmic organism. Our blossom is not independent of the soil, water, air, sunlight. The story of the ancient Hebrews didn't aim to boost their egos and simply make them feel chosen by God above all other tribes. The story of the OT is not simply a historical account but the inner metamorphosis of the spiritual being of humanity. It shouldn't be taken neither as a dry list of names and events, nor as a bed time myth for the children. Today we're in position to find that story within ourselves, as the organic structure of our time being, which goes much further than our present lifetime.

There are only two main and intertwined thoughts in all the above:
1/ The soul and spiritual world that we live and breath and continually precipitates as perception/memory, contains forces of the most varied kinds. It is up to our freedom to determine what our ideal for becoming is and seek to manifest the corresponding forces.
2/ We can't manifest these forces when we have consciousness only of the the indeterminate now. Or rather, we can manifest many things but we have no clue how these forces will play out in time. That's why we need also consciousness which encompasses time - we also need the story. Not as dry sum of historical facts imparted onto us but as living understanding of the forces of soul and spirit which govern the lawful unfolding of the dreamscape. Put in other words, the story is our living understanding of the Cosmic forces that art the structure of the dream, just like the on-the-surface story of our life is the living understanding of our own thinking, feeling and willing and the way they have unfolded in time and have led us to where we are now.

[Lou Gold]

Well, that was quite a discourse about story.

I was thinking more of the Archetype creating the story, for example Jesus breathing love into his every step or Thich Nhat Hanh breathing peace into his and thereby demonstrating what others can do by acting mindfully (consciously).

PS: I'm always struck by the etymology of the word 'humble' which comes from the Greek humus and would mean being simple and grounded in immediate reality.

I do agree with the drift of your final point. The story is already in us. There is no separation from the Archetype. Being aware of this in the moment brings us to breathing it into every step.

[Cleric K]

I was thinking more of the Archetype creating the story, for example Jesus breathing love into his every step or Thich Nhat Hanh breathing peace into his and thereby demonstrating what others can do by acting mindfully (consciously).

This is important as it is the aspect that we can humanly relate to. But think also of the following. Our dream flow has many aspects and human conduct, although central to us, is still embedded within a wider context. So think of the first lines of Genesis. The Elohim go through the process which lays down the architecture of the dream flow. This is our Cosmic and planetary dream context which unfolds according to inner lawfulness which the Elohim macrocosmically Think. There's no doubt we should incorporate the human examples of Jesus and Thich Nhat Hanh into our personal story but do you conceive that this is not an end in itself but that it should bring us closer to living experience of the greater story, to understanding something of the inner life of the Elohim and how they art the dream architecture? And most importantly, do you see it as a necessity that we align our Earthly conduct with the Cosmic? Or what the Elohim do is their own business (even though we flow within their living dream-architecture) while we should simply stand on the 'user side' of the dream and enjoy the ride? Is it conceivable to you that maybe human affairs degenerate because we don't try to enter into living relations with the dream architects, such that we can work together and add constructively to the great work, instead of, because of our ignorance, at times working against the dream flow?

[AshvinP]

Actually, I make an effort not to be critical because a philosophical debate would be above my pay grade and because I'm not really familiar with your tradition. You often critique something or someone as offering intellectual thoughts. BK surely does and even describes himself as an "intellectual gladiator." I don't know how you would self describe but since you were criticizing intellectual ways, I was genuinely curious as to whether your assertions were intellectual or based on your personal experience of getting beyond the intellectual. I thought it was a reasonable question.

It is very useful to understand the intellect as a mediator between the spiritual and physical worlds. Let's consider an analogy to water. First, water begins its journey as pure ice and snow on the mountain tops. It meditates there like an ascetic, enjoying the here and now, remaining innocent and pure. It dwells amongst the Gods on the mountain peaks. But through the Wisdom of creation, it is also warmed by the Sun and decides to flow downstream into the valleys, picking up impurities along the way, but bringing life to all kingdoms of the Earth. It sacrifices and condescends itself into a lesser form of Being for the benefit of the planet and all its inhabitants.

No kingdom contributes to the dirtying of the waters as much as humans do - while we live off the water in our homes and factories and malls etc., we also consume material goods and throw our rubbish into the oceans and rivers and streams with little thought - the arteries and capillaries and veins of the Earth being become impure. Eventually the water must be cleansed again - it must expose itself to the warming Fire of the Sun and evaporate back to its spiritual home, before incarnating again on the mountaintops in another cycle. In this process, Water is the archetypal image of the human soul.

The soul also sacrifices its pure spiritual state to incarnate in corporeal form. It travels through the 'valley of the shadow of death' (the shadowy world of physical forms) in its Earthly life and picks up all sorts of impurities along the way. It must expose itself to all manner of trials and tribulations, evil and suffering. It is also warmed by the Fire within - the Spirit - so that it may eventually return to its spiritual home and be purified. Those souls on the spirtual path who attain higher modes of consciousness, oriented towards the Light and Warmth of the spiritual Sun, do not simply evaporate from Earthy life, but sacrifice their lofty status on the mountain peaks to vivify those souls still residing down in the valleys.

They must translate their lofty spiritual knowledge into Earthly conceptual forms through the intellectual soul. All the great founders of world religions did this - the Initiates - as we see especially with the Buddha and the Christ incarnate. They perfected the archetypal soul cycle of ideal birth, death, and resurrection for the redemption of humankind, as an ideal for us to exemplify. To raise up those souls still stained and dirty, it is not enough to only exist in the ascetic purity of the here and now. We must condescend ourselves in the example of the great spiritual Masters. Of course, I am not equating myself to any such Master - my soul is no doubt stained and dirty as much as anyone else's. I am only speaking of the archetypal process involved here - the high ideal to which we can strive and make progress.

None of our criticisms here are about eradicating this mediating capacity of the intellectual soul, but quite the opposite. We must work on its purification through the spirit of Fire (higher thinking) so that it may better mediate between the spiritual and physical, so that the rising tide of spiritual evolution lifts all boats. So that humanity as such evolves the continuity of Consciousness to fulfill its Karma and liberate the human soul from the birth-death cycle. These aren't simply metaphors - through purifying the Waters of the human soul by spiritual Fire, there is the potential for humans to stop dirtying the actual waters of Earth by consuming less materially and producing more spiritually for the benefit of the whole Cosmic organism.

The spiritual and the physical actually spiral together in this manner, feeding back into each other more perfectly until they are once again United in full consciousness and freedom. It also isn't simply enough to acquire textbook knowledge with the intellect and dispense it to others. Strictly abstract thinking of this sort is content to remain in the valleys, consuming information but not creatively producing. Instead, we can also become conscious of what we are doing with our soul and spirit activity to participate in the redemptive cycle. This is how we add depth of soul to our horizontal thinking, thrusting it vertically as well. That is what Cleric is pointing attention to with his posts, old and recent. We aren't trying to hand out teachings to simply assent with the intellect and follow, but point to a path where one can spiral together Spirit and Soul, Thinking and Willing/Perceiving, Heaven and Earth, through the strength of their own inner activity which is oriented by the high ideals of our shared human existence.

[Lou Gold]

Your use of the metaphor of water might be stronger based on the standard model of the hydrological cycle, which begins with condensation precipitating from above (higher realms).

You might also portray the essential humility as the integrated soil (humus) into which the doctrine or consciousness precipitates and grows plants which feedback their evolutionary development into higher realms in a continuous process of interdependent co-arising.

In such a model (or metaphor or story), intellectual lingo might be associated with the corporeal soil-planting, fruit-bearing, life-giving phase of the cycle.