New topic split from 'concise criticism of analytic idealism' thread.

[AshvinP]

Firstly, let me say that I REALLY enjoyed your exchange with BK, which struck me as informed, intelligent, respectful, considered and genuinely dialogic. I'd love for it to continue in the same tone. Yes, there was much to consider on both sides.

Here, in your unpacking, I'm especially confused by your last paragraph. As idealists we know the consciousness never dies. What dies are the forms or appearances that constrain it. Forcing consciousness into a tiny body is surely a birth trauma resulting in dissociation. Bodily death releases consciousness into the next level of forms resulting in its expanded awareness and being and thusly continues into more evolved states with the death of each container. YES (!) this cannot be reconciled with any physicalist philosophy or science. Why would you (or we idealists) expect it to?

Looked at from a spiritual perspective the closing line of the so-called "Peace Prayer of Saint Francis" makes sense to me: "It is by dying that we are born to eternal life" and it's easy to grok it as an ongoing process of hierarchical expansion in all directions well beyond our earthly limited bodily view of appearances.

Thanks, Lou.

Let's firstly make clear BK certainly desires to reconcile all philosophical conclusions with modern scientific results (not theories). That's why he emphasizes he's a "naturalist" and not a "supernaturalist" - the latter would take your position here, that we shouldn't expect essential philosophy and spirituality to be reconciled with science, because they are studying two entirely separate domains of experience. BK and I wholly disagree with that duality and, while he's a bit hesitant here, I say the higher spiritual reality is 100% permeating our experience between birth and death and we can't make any sense of that experience without factoring these higher domains of supersensible activity in, just like we can't make sense of the rainbow colors without also factoring in supersensible bands of the Light spectrum.

In that sense, every human since the dawn of reason has been studying the higher worlds, but in the modern era, mostly without knowing that's what they are doing. All the laws of nature, mathematical systems, principles, archetypes, etc. are nothing other than symbols for what goes on in the higher worlds. This is where BK veers off the trail for no logical reason. He says Goethe "didnt know how to do science" and his study of colors with first-person phenomenology is not what science does. According to him, science is taking inner concepts to model outer perceptions in nature - this is the Kantian dualism we always mention here. On the contrary, I say no scientist, materialist or otherwise, has ever done that when developing and verifying their theories. They have been doing the exact same thing Goethe was doing except they weren't conscious of it, while he was. Because he was conscious of what he was doing, he didn't abstract his own observation out from the science of colors, but tried to account for it (and very successfully IMO, based on what was available to him at the time). Newton abstracted out his participation because he wasn't conscious of it's influence on the experiment, while Goethe was, so Newton ended up with flawed Light-in-itself conclusion like Schop ended up with Will-in-itself conclusion.

We must admit, going down Goethe's more conscious path is messy - now we have to account for a dynamic variable of human observation-thinking along with the transforming outer perceptions. But as BK also hinted, QM has practically verified that abstracting out is no longer an option if we want to discover any essential relations behind the appearances. So the biggest divergence is whether we should simply give up because of the messiness or whether we can find new, creative thinking skills to factor ourselves into what we are studying. Steiner shows it is perfectly possible to do the latter in PoSA. The video host put a link to it in the show notes, so maybe BK will decide to give it a read with an open mind. Just maybe.

As regards evolutionary theory, the above also applies. We can't simply chuck the most fundamentally sound and verified scientific principle out the window for our preferred form of spirituality. Again, things would be much less messy if we could simply die and then fall back into higher levels of cognition somehow. The birth-death rhythm is actually taking place all the time between what we call "birth" and "death". Every day we sleep and wake up, for ex. What we experience during dreams and deep sleep seeds the archetypal structure for the next day, which feeds back into what is experienced the next night during dreams and sleep. It's the same with birth, death, and rebirth. These are continuous states of Being throughout, only alternating perspectives. If we don't do anything during the day, we will have no ideal seeds to plant during sleep for the next day. We simply won't evolve if we remain entirely passive each day, barely conscious of what we're doing. Likewise if we don't actively seek the higher worlds during our current incarnation, we won't remain conscious to do the work of evolution during the period between death and rebirth.

Cleric also discussed a similar topic with Dana recently, which you may want to look at - viewtopic.php?p=17527#p17527

The deathlessness of the human psyche is not guaranteed. I guess I'm sounding as a broken record already but we create a world of hard problems for ourselves when we imagine some spiritual space and atomic deathless and eternal psyches floating there. Things are readily comprehensible when we gain insight into Time and Memory. Alas this proves to be difficult.

If instead of imagining that every being has individual immortal bubble of consciousness which preserves its atomic identity even after the Solar system has perished, we conceive of the One Spirit which manifests simultaneously through all states of being, then we can understand that the feeling for identity is really a function of the integration of the states of being as memory. It is this implosion of states, that seem to trace an individual evolutionary story, which at the same time is the feeling for the particular identity of that story.

Yet it is perfectly possible that this story can degenerate and dissolve.

Seems that you are pushing for a debate here. I avoided the "naturalist vs supernaturalist" dichotomy because I also don't believe in it (note: I used the word "physicalist"). Nor am I committed to "death" being limited to corporeal death. Less prejudice and more truth, less dream and more awake, less old paradigm and more new, etc, etc. And surely there are practices allowing more awareness in the living now. There are also traps as your signature statement warns, "Do not stop on any step, no matter how high, or it will become a snare.”

I thought BK handled the Newton vs Goethe question in a nuanced way.

I'm curious, do you think BK has not read PoSA?

I am almost certain he hasn't read PoSA, especially after his responses here. If he reads it with an open mind, bringing no prejudice to it, then he will surely abandon Schopenhauer epistemology. His reasoning capacity is clearly excellent and familiarity with German idealism should make it easy to place Steiner's arguments.

The Newton vs. Goethe question (and he actually brought up Goethe first!) is a great example of the some of the stakes involved here. It's not just a debate about terminology or a few concepts here and there. BK's rejection of phenomenology as a valid means of approaching essential relations leads him to settle for a materialistic theory of colors which says they are contained in mindless light, completely independent of human consciousness. A theory which all logic and modern science tells him is wrong! And this is when there is another perfectly viable scientific understanding of colors as the interplay of archetypal light and darkness through human consciousness (which is greatly expanded by Steiner). We will find this same thing applies to science across the board - the analytic idealist must settle for materialistic science simply because he deems human reason to be fundamentally limited to intellectual concepts and nothing else.

I really don't understand what you mean, "pushing for a debate". You critiqued my comment about evolution into the higher hierarchies of angelic beings and I responded it's an interesting point you raise about death, though. When these things are physicalized, i.e. we practically adopt the materialist perspective on life and death, then we make us what is true inwardly into an outer physical reality. Death is certainly required for cognitive evolution - inward spiritual death! Death of the intellectual ego. Notice the inversion - Bernardo says physical death is what leads us to ascend the hierarchies, with no effort of our own. But if we understand this dynamic spiritually (ideally), then it becomes clear inward sacrifices are necessary and that is a very active endeavor, which requires great responsibility and effort on our part. We don't need to do anything to die physically - just sit on the couch, stop eating, drinking water, and soon you will be dead. Spiritual death which leads to new life, on the contrary, is the polar opposite - it only comes by being active through creative thinking. Without that, we can physically die but remain completely dissociated, or even devolve as Cleric pointed out.

"No one should deny the danger of the descent, but it can be risked. No one need risk it, but it is certain that someone will. And let those who go down the sunset way do so with open eyes, for it is a sacrifice which daunts even the gods. Yet every descent is followed by an ascent; the vanishing shapes are shaped anew, and a truth is valid in the end only if it suffers change and bears new witness in new images, in new tongues, like a new wine that is put into new bottles."
- Carl Jung, Symbols of Transformation

[Lou Gold]

Thanks, Lou.

Let's firstly make clear BK certainly desires to reconcile all philosophical conclusions with modern scientific results (not theories). That's why he emphasizes he's a "naturalist" and not a "supernaturalist" - the latter would take your position here, that we shouldn't expect essential philosophy and spirituality to be reconciled with science, because they are studying two entirely separate domains of experience. BK and I wholly disagree with that duality and, while he's a bit hesitant here, I say the higher spiritual reality is 100% permeating our experience between birth and death and we can't make any sense of that experience without factoring these higher domains of supersensible activity in, just like we can't make sense of the rainbow colors without also factoring in supersensible bands of the Light spectrum.

In that sense, every human since the dawn of reason has been studying the higher worlds, but in the modern era, mostly without knowing that's what they are doing. All the laws of nature, mathematical systems, principles, archetypes, etc. are nothing other than symbols for what goes on in the higher worlds. This is where BK veers off the trail for no logical reason. He says Goethe "didnt know how to do science" and his study of colors with first-person phenomenology is not what science does. According to him, science is taking inner concepts to model outer perceptions in nature - this is the Kantian dualism we always mention here. On the contrary, I say no scientist, materialist or otherwise, has ever done that when developing and verifying their theories. They have been doing the exact same thing Goethe was doing except they weren't conscious of it, while he was. Because he was conscious of what he was doing, he didn't abstract his own observation out from the science of colors, but tried to account for it (and very successfully IMO, based on what was available to him at the time). Newton abstracted out his participation because he wasn't conscious of it's influence on the experiment, while Goethe was, so Newton ended up with flawed Light-in-itself conclusion like Schop ended up with Will-in-itself conclusion.

We must admit, going down Goethe's more conscious path is messy - now we have to account for a dynamic variable of human observation-thinking along with the transforming outer perceptions. But as BK also hinted, QM has practically verified that abstracting out is no longer an option if we want to discover any essential relations behind the appearances. So the biggest divergence is whether we should simply give up because of the messiness or whether we can find new, creative thinking skills to factor ourselves into what we are studying. Steiner shows it is perfectly possible to do the latter in PoSA. The video host put a link to it in the show notes, so maybe BK will decide to give it a read with an open mind. Just maybe.

As regards evolutionary theory, the above also applies. We can't simply chuck the most fundamentally sound and verified scientific principle out the window for our preferred form of spirituality. Again, things would be much less messy if we could simply die and then fall back into higher levels of cognition somehow. The birth-death rhythm is actually taking place all the time between what we call "birth" and "death". Every day we sleep and wake up, for ex. What we experience during dreams and deep sleep seeds the archetypal structure for the next day, which feeds back into what is experienced the next night during dreams and sleep. It's the same with birth, death, and rebirth. These are continuous states of Being throughout, only alternating perspectives. If we don't do anything during the day, we will have no ideal seeds to plant during sleep for the next day. We simply won't evolve if we remain entirely passive each day, barely conscious of what we're doing. Likewise if we don't actively seek the higher worlds during our current incarnation, we won't remain conscious to do the work of evolution during the period between death and rebirth.

Cleric also discussed a similar topic with Dana recently, which you may want to look at - viewtopic.php?p=17527#p17527

Seems that you are pushing for a debate here. I avoided the "naturalist vs supernaturalist" dichotomy because I also don't believe in it (note: I used the word "physicalist"). Nor am I committed to "death" being limited to corporeal death. Less prejudice and more truth, less dream and more awake, less old paradigm and more new, etc, etc. And surely there are practices allowing more awareness in the living now. There are also traps as your signature statement warns, "Do not stop on any step, no matter how high, or it will become a snare.”

I thought BK handled the Newton vs Goethe question in a nuanced way.

I'm curious, do you think BK has not read PoSA?

I am almost certain he hasn't read PoSA, especially after his responses here. If he reads it with an open mind, bringing no prejudice to it, then he will surely abandon Schopenhauer epistemology. His reasoning capacity is clearly excellent and familiarity with German idealism should make it easy to place Steiner's arguments.

The Newton vs. Goethe question (and he actually brought up Goethe first!) is a great example of the some of the stakes involved here. It's not just a debate about terminology or a few concepts here and there. BK's rejection of phenomenology as a valid means of approaching essential relations leads him to settle for a materialistic theory of colors which says they are contained in mindless light, completely independent of human consciousness. A theory which all logic and modern science tells him is wrong! And this is when there is another perfectly viable scientific understanding of colors as the interplay of archetypal light and darkness through human consciousness (which is greatly expanded by Steiner). We will find this same thing applies to science across the board - the analytic idealist must settle for materialistic science simply because he deems human reason to be fundamentally limited to intellectual concepts and nothing else.

I really don't understand what you mean, "pushing for a debate". You critiqued my comment about evolution into the higher hierarchies of angelic beings and I responded it's an interesting point you raise about death, though. When these things are physicalized, i.e. we practically adopt the materialist perspective on life and death, then we make us what is true inwardly into an outer physical reality. Death is certainly required for cognitive evolution - inward spiritual death! Death of the intellectual ego. Notice the inversion - Bernardo says physical death is what leads us to ascend the hierarchies, with no effort of our own. But if we understand this dynamic spiritually (ideally), then it becomes clear inward sacrifices are necessary and that is a very active endeavor, which requires great responsibility and effort on our part. We don't need to do anything to die physically - just sit on the couch, stop eating, drinking water, and soon you will be dead. Spiritual death which leads to new life, on the contrary, is the polar opposite - it only comes by being active through creative thinking. Without that, we can physically die but remain completely dissociated, or even devolve as Cleric pointed out.

"No one should deny the danger of the descent, but it can be risked. No one need risk it, but it is certain that someone will. And let those who go down the sunset way do so with open eyes, for it is a sacrifice which daunts even the gods. Yet every descent is followed by an ascent; the vanishing shapes are shaped anew, and a truth is valid in the end only if it suffers change and bears new witness in new images, in new tongues, like a new wine that is put into new bottles."
- Carl Jung, Symbols of Transformation

OK. The complex philosophy is above my paygrade. My point is simple. Dying is an ongoing process that supports new life. This applies to everything from cells to steps to thoughts. The new arises as the old falls away. Transcend and include.

[AshvinP]

OK. The complex philosophy is above my paygrade. My point is simple. Dying is an ongoing process that supports new life. This applies to everything from steps to thoughts. The new arises as the old falls away. Transcend and include.

Think of it this way - if everything simply died, where would the energy come for new and higher orders of life? Matter, perceptions, feelings, thoughts, don't organize themselves. Without constant infusion of active energy, everything decays and devolves into an 'entropic soup'. No complex philosophy required. Again, this is my critique of BK's comment on how we become the higher hierarchies, not necessarily of your position, because I'm not sure what that is.

As we keep saying here, we cannot leave out an entire pole of reality and expect things to work themselves out. This is where the "die and re-associate into higher order Being, ad infinitum" comes from - similar to materialism, it simply ignores the Spirit pole of reality which actively orders all that which becomes potential energy through death, physical or spiritual. The materialist could make a similar case - this 'dissociation' from Universal Matter/Energy, this thing we call "sentient life", leads to all sorts of suffering and evil and misery. Then the highest goal is to simply die, after extracting as much pleasure from life as possible, and be done with it. Dying physically, or eliminating materialistic impulses, desires, thoughts, habits, etc., is not enough for any evolution - we will never attain Angelic consciousness in this way. Something must come in to take the place of those lower aspects and transmute them to a higher plane! Some active organizing energy must be infused. This is spiritual alchemy, turning the 'lead' within us into gold through the High Ideal which spiritualizes that which is always dying away.  

Make up your minds to dedicate all your efforts to a divine ideal; then the sacrifices you make for this ideal will be transformed into gold, light and love. This is the secret. The great secret lies in the idea, the ideal for which you are working. If you work for yourself, if you are only interested in satisfying your own ambitions, appetites and passions, then whatever sacrifices you may make in pursuit of your goal will simply turn into ashes, not into light. A great many people make tremendous sacrifices in terms of money and of their own health, but as their goal is a worldly one their sacrifices are not very fruitful. This is what people fail to realize: the importance of the idea behind each and every one of their undertakings. The idea is the magical aspect, the philosopher’s stone which turns every undertaking to gold.
-Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov

[Lou Gold]

OK. The complex philosophy is above my paygrade. My point is simple. Dying is an ongoing process that supports new life. This applies to everything from steps to thoughts. The new arises as the old falls away. Transcend and include.

Think of it this way - if everything simply died, where would the energy come for new and higher orders of life? Matter, perceptions, feelings, thoughts, don't organize themselves. Without constant infusion of active energy, everything decays and devolves into an 'entropic soup'. No complex philosophy required. Again, this is my critique of BK's comment on how we become the higher hierarchies, not necessarily of your position, because I'm not sure what that is.

As we keep saying here, we cannot leave out an entire pole of reality and expect things to work themselves out. This is where the "die and re-associate into higher order Being, ad infinitum" comes from - similar to materialism, it simply ignores the Spirit pole of reality which actively orders all that which becomes potential energy through death, physical or spiritual. The materialist could make a similar case - this 'dissociation' from Universal Matter/Energy, this thing we call "sentient life", leads to all sorts of suffering and evil and misery. Then the highest goal is to simply die, after extracting as much pleasure from life as possible, and be done with it. Dying physically, or eliminating materialistic impulses, desires, thoughts, habits, etc., is not enough for any evolution - we will never attain Angelic consciousness in this way. Something must come in to take the place of those lower aspects and transmute them to a higher plane! Some active organizing energy must be infused. This is spiritual alchemy, turning the 'lead' within us into gold through the High Ideal which spiritualizes that which is always dying away.  

Make up your minds to dedicate all your efforts to a divine ideal; then the sacrifices you make for this ideal will be transformed into gold, light and love. This is the secret. The great secret lies in the idea, the ideal for which you are working. If you work for yourself, if you are only interested in satisfying your own ambitions, appetites and passions, then whatever sacrifices you may make in pursuit of your goal will simply turn into ashes, not into light. A great many people make tremendous sacrifices in terms of money and of their own health, but as their goal is a worldly one their sacrifices are not very fruitful. This is what people fail to realize: the importance of the idea behind each and every one of their undertakings. The idea is the magical aspect, the philosopher’s stone which turns every undertaking to gold.
-Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov

Yes, I know that you are arguing with BK rather than responding to me. For clarification, I feel aligned with Goethe's aphorism: "The spectacle of Nature is always new, for she is always renewing the spectators. Life is her most exquisite invention; and death is her expert contrivance to get plenty of life." It's an ongoing process and the process is systemic. We help by clearing the old and useless, freeing up life's drive toward more life. This is not passive, nor is it individualistically separate. It is relational and engaged -- participative. "Wherever two are gathered in my name."

[AshvinP]

OK. The complex philosophy is above my paygrade. My point is simple. Dying is an ongoing process that supports new life. This applies to everything from steps to thoughts. The new arises as the old falls away. Transcend and include.

Think of it this way - if everything simply died, where would the energy come for new and higher orders of life? Matter, perceptions, feelings, thoughts, don't organize themselves. Without constant infusion of active energy, everything decays and devolves into an 'entropic soup'. No complex philosophy required. Again, this is my critique of BK's comment on how we become the higher hierarchies, not necessarily of your position, because I'm not sure what that is.

As we keep saying here, we cannot leave out an entire pole of reality and expect things to work themselves out. This is where the "die and re-associate into higher order Being, ad infinitum" comes from - similar to materialism, it simply ignores the Spirit pole of reality which actively orders all that which becomes potential energy through death, physical or spiritual. The materialist could make a similar case - this 'dissociation' from Universal Matter/Energy, this thing we call "sentient life", leads to all sorts of suffering and evil and misery. Then the highest goal is to simply die, after extracting as much pleasure from life as possible, and be done with it. Dying physically, or eliminating materialistic impulses, desires, thoughts, habits, etc., is not enough for any evolution - we will never attain Angelic consciousness in this way. Something must come in to take the place of those lower aspects and transmute them to a higher plane! Some active organizing energy must be infused. This is spiritual alchemy, turning the 'lead' within us into gold through the High Ideal which spiritualizes that which is always dying away.  

Make up your minds to dedicate all your efforts to a divine ideal; then the sacrifices you make for this ideal will be transformed into gold, light and love. This is the secret. The great secret lies in the idea, the ideal for which you are working. If you work for yourself, if you are only interested in satisfying your own ambitions, appetites and passions, then whatever sacrifices you may make in pursuit of your goal will simply turn into ashes, not into light. A great many people make tremendous sacrifices in terms of money and of their own health, but as their goal is a worldly one their sacrifices are not very fruitful. This is what people fail to realize: the importance of the idea behind each and every one of their undertakings. The idea is the magical aspect, the philosopher’s stone which turns every undertaking to gold.
-Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov

Yes, I know that you are arguing with BK rather than responding to me. For clarification, I feel aligned with Goethe's aphorism: "The spectacle of Nature is always new, for she is always renewing the spectators. Life is her most exquisite invention; and death is her expert contrivance to get plenty of life." It's an ongoing process and the process is systemic. We help by clearing the old and useless, freeing up life's drive toward more life. This is not passive, nor is it individualistically separate. It is relational and engaged -- participative. "Wherever two are gathered in my name."

Ok, Lou. I was simply addressing why the below is only half the story, the other half being our conscious and active effort to grow into Angelic consciousness. If we feel that we will be gifted this higher consciousness by default, simply by existing as eternal souls, we are mistaken. Escaping each 'container' does not automatically lead to more evolved states. We are concluding that based on half-incomplete knowledge and that half makes all the practical difference. Which is especially relevant for man in this modern age of resignation and passivity.

Here, in your unpacking, I'm especially confused by your last paragraph. As idealists we know the consciousness never dies. What dies are the forms or appearances that constrain it. Forcing consciousness into a tiny body is surely a birth trauma resulting in dissociation. Bodily death releases consciousness into the next level of forms resulting in its expanded awareness and being and thusly continues into more evolved states with the death of each container.

[AshvinP]

...

Thank you Ashvin for bringing here part of that discussion and raising its connections to the threads. It’s very helpful, even without the knowledge to relate to Hegel, western esotericism, and all the other references to literature.

Hi Federica,

I was wondering if you noticed BK answered your question about bodily boundaries and what your thoughts were on his answer? As I'm sure you know by now, I have my own thoughts on it but it would be nice to hear yours first, whenever you have a chance.

[Lou Gold]

Think of it this way - if everything simply died, where would the energy come for new and higher orders of life? Matter, perceptions, feelings, thoughts, don't organize themselves. Without constant infusion of active energy, everything decays and devolves into an 'entropic soup'. No complex philosophy required. Again, this is my critique of BK's comment on how we become the higher hierarchies, not necessarily of your position, because I'm not sure what that is.

As we keep saying here, we cannot leave out an entire pole of reality and expect things to work themselves out. This is where the "die and re-associate into higher order Being, ad infinitum" comes from - similar to materialism, it simply ignores the Spirit pole of reality which actively orders all that which becomes potential energy through death, physical or spiritual. The materialist could make a similar case - this 'dissociation' from Universal Matter/Energy, this thing we call "sentient life", leads to all sorts of suffering and evil and misery. Then the highest goal is to simply die, after extracting as much pleasure from life as possible, and be done with it. Dying physically, or eliminating materialistic impulses, desires, thoughts, habits, etc., is not enough for any evolution - we will never attain Angelic consciousness in this way. Something must come in to take the place of those lower aspects and transmute them to a higher plane! Some active organizing energy must be infused. This is spiritual alchemy, turning the 'lead' within us into gold through the High Ideal which spiritualizes that which is always dying away.  

Yes, I know that you are arguing with BK rather than responding to me. For clarification, I feel aligned with Goethe's aphorism: "The spectacle of Nature is always new, for she is always renewing the spectators. Life is her most exquisite invention; and death is her expert contrivance to get plenty of life." It's an ongoing process and the process is systemic. We help by clearing the old and useless, freeing up life's drive toward more life. This is not passive, nor is it individualistically separate. It is relational and engaged -- participative. "Wherever two are gathered in my name."

Ok, Lou. I was simply addressing why the below is only half the story, the other half being our conscious and active effort to grow into Angelic consciousness. If we feel that we will be gifted this higher consciousness by default, simply by existing as eternal souls, we are mistaken. Escaping each 'container' does not automatically lead to more evolved states. We are concluding that based on half-incomplete knowledge and that half makes all the practical difference. Which is especially relevant for man in this modern age of resignation and passivity.

Here, in your unpacking, I'm especially confused by your last paragraph. As idealists we know the consciousness never dies. What dies are the forms or appearances that constrain it. Forcing consciousness into a tiny body is surely a birth trauma resulting in dissociation. Bodily death releases consciousness into the next level of forms resulting in its expanded awareness and being and thusly continues into more evolved states with the death of each container.

OK. I think I get your pov. Speculatively, I think it may shed light on perhaps(!) why we often have a very different takes after viewing one of Bernardo's youtube dialogs. Maybe it's about the karmic location of the viewer? In my impression, BK's relevant philosophy constellation or audience is full of highly motivated, high achiever, hard working scientists and engineers who one would not expect to move forward through successive hierarchical levels without the strong lawful intentions that are already part of their character. I don't believe BK is describing a will-less "stumbling progressively into enlightenment." OTOH, I speculatively imagine your constellation of significant others in bankruptcy proceedings is full of folks who are not aware of the rules and responsible behaviors necessary for success. OK, I don't want to push it too far into speculation -- perhaps you can appreciate my drift.

Also, I find that the single BK book that I've read fully and very much enjoyed is "More Than Allegory", which he has described as his most important work. He says that he wrote it to further communication with his "significant other" girlfriend who is a highly intuitive artist and is not particularly impressed by the analytic approach. He also says that he does not generally employ this approach because because he believes he has a much higher probability of success in "making baloney of materialism" with his target audience in the role of an "intellectual gladiator".

So, is this flawed? Of course, it is. I personally prefer Leonard Cohen's poetic response:

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in

[AshvinP]

Yes, I know that you are arguing with BK rather than responding to me. For clarification, I feel aligned with Goethe's aphorism: "The spectacle of Nature is always new, for she is always renewing the spectators. Life is her most exquisite invention; and death is her expert contrivance to get plenty of life." It's an ongoing process and the process is systemic. We help by clearing the old and useless, freeing up life's drive toward more life. This is not passive, nor is it individualistically separate. It is relational and engaged -- participative. "Wherever two are gathered in my name."

Ok, Lou. I was simply addressing why the below is only half the story, the other half being our conscious and active effort to grow into Angelic consciousness. If we feel that we will be gifted this higher consciousness by default, simply by existing as eternal souls, we are mistaken. Escaping each 'container' does not automatically lead to more evolved states. We are concluding that based on half-incomplete knowledge and that half makes all the practical difference. Which is especially relevant for man in this modern age of resignation and passivity.

Here, in your unpacking, I'm especially confused by your last paragraph. As idealists we know the consciousness never dies. What dies are the forms or appearances that constrain it. Forcing consciousness into a tiny body is surely a birth trauma resulting in dissociation. Bodily death releases consciousness into the next level of forms resulting in its expanded awareness and being and thusly continues into more evolved states with the death of each container.

OK. I think I get your pov. Speculatively, I think it may shed light on perhaps(!) why we often have a very different takes after viewing one of Bernardo's youtube dialogs. Maybe it's about the karmic location of the viewer? In my impression, BK's relevant philosophy constellation or audience is full of highly motivated, high achiever, hard working scientists and engineers who one would not expect to move forward through successive hierarchical levels without the strong lawful intentions that are already part of their character. I don't believe BK is describing a will-less "stumbling progressively into enlightenment." OTOH, I speculatively imagine your constellation of significant others in bankruptcy proceedings is full of folks who are not aware of the rules and responsible behaviors necessary for success. OK, I don't want to push it too far into speculation -- perhaps you can appreciate my drift.

Also, I find that the single BK book that I've read fully and very much enjoyed is "More Than Allegory", which he has described as his most important work. He says that he wrote it to further communication with his "significant other" girlfriend who is a highly intuitive artist and is not particularly impressed by the analytic approach. He also says that he does not generally employ this approach because because he believes he has a much higher probability of success in "making baloney of materialism" with his target audience in the role of an "intellectual gladiator".

So, is this flawed? Of course, it is. I personally prefer Leonard Cohen's poetic response:

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in

Lou,

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

What you are speaking of is the wisdom and strength of men. These people in academia, as well as lawyers in my own field, are motivated, hard working, and high-achieving for all the outer worldly ways! They seek most of the same things anyone else seeks, whether they are materialist, idealist, or anything else - reputation, status, money, influence, power, adoration of others, etc. They are not at all actively motivated for inner sacrifice and transformation, for free service to what Beings live high above them and what they can scarcely even imagine now. And why should they be? If they will become these Beings simply by existing and working hard for worldly pleasures, then it's hardly worth the sacrifice for inner change. I tried to indicate this in the OMA quote about the spiritual alchemy. It is the 'inversion horizon' which Cleric has brought up often here and it's quite clear BK and his audience have not inverted from the geocentric to Heliocentric orientation yet.

[Lou Gold]

Ok, Lou. I was simply addressing why the below is only half the story, the other half being our conscious and active effort to grow into Angelic consciousness. If we feel that we will be gifted this higher consciousness by default, simply by existing as eternal souls, we are mistaken. Escaping each 'container' does not automatically lead to more evolved states. We are concluding that based on half-incomplete knowledge and that half makes all the practical difference. Which is especially relevant for man in this modern age of resignation and passivity.

OK. I think I get your pov. Speculatively, I think it may shed light on perhaps(!) why we often have a very different takes after viewing one of Bernardo's youtube dialogs. Maybe it's about the karmic location of the viewer? In my impression, BK's relevant philosophy constellation or audience is full of highly motivated, high achiever, hard working scientists and engineers who one would not expect to move forward through successive hierarchical levels without the strong lawful intentions that are already part of their character. I don't believe BK is describing a will-less "stumbling progressively into enlightenment." OTOH, I speculatively imagine your constellation of significant others in bankruptcy proceedings is full of folks who are not aware of the rules and responsible behaviors necessary for success. OK, I don't want to push it too far into speculation -- perhaps you can appreciate my drift.

Also, I find that the single BK book that I've read fully and very much enjoyed is "More Than Allegory", which he has described as his most important work. He says that he wrote it to further communication with his "significant other" girlfriend who is a highly intuitive artist and is not particularly impressed by the analytic approach. He also says that he does not generally employ this approach because because he believes he has a much higher probability of success in "making baloney of materialism" with his target audience in the role of an "intellectual gladiator".

So, is this flawed? Of course, it is. I personally prefer Leonard Cohen's poetic response:

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in

Lou,

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

What you are speaking of is the wisdom and strength of men. These people in academia, as well as lawyers in my own field, are motivated, hard working, and high-achieving for all the outer worldly ways! They seek most of the same things anyone else seeks, whether they are materialist, idealist, or anything else - reputation, status, money, influence, power, adoration of others, etc. They are not at all actively motivated for inner sacrifice and transformation, for free service to what Beings live high above them and what they can scarcely even imagine now. And why should they be? If they will become these Beings simply by existing and working hard for worldly pleasures, then it's hardly worth the sacrifice for inner change. I tried to indicate this in the OMA quote about the spiritual alchemy. It is the 'inversion horizon' which Cleric has brought up often here and it's quite clear BK and his audience have not inverted from the geocentric to Heliocentric orientation yet.

Hehe, silly me for speculating on the processes of others. I know what you mean about academia. 49 years ago I abandoned it after teaching for 8 years at an excellent college and then a fine university and I've never regretted it. Indeed, each time I dropped or lost a containing identity it opened me to much broader horizons continuing to this day when I'm in the late stage of my corporeal end zone. Looking back on it all, I can report having known many fine generous service-oriented souls among whom only some claimed to be on a spiritual path. All were mostly just showing up and doing their work according to their best understanding. The true, good and beautiful take on and move through many forms. Viva! diversity.

[AshvinP]

OK. I think I get your pov. Speculatively, I think it may shed light on perhaps(!) why we often have a very different takes after viewing one of Bernardo's youtube dialogs. Maybe it's about the karmic location of the viewer? In my impression, BK's relevant philosophy constellation or audience is full of highly motivated, high achiever, hard working scientists and engineers who one would not expect to move forward through successive hierarchical levels without the strong lawful intentions that are already part of their character. I don't believe BK is describing a will-less "stumbling progressively into enlightenment." OTOH, I speculatively imagine your constellation of significant others in bankruptcy proceedings is full of folks who are not aware of the rules and responsible behaviors necessary for success. OK, I don't want to push it too far into speculation -- perhaps you can appreciate my drift.

Also, I find that the single BK book that I've read fully and very much enjoyed is "More Than Allegory", which he has described as his most important work. He says that he wrote it to further communication with his "significant other" girlfriend who is a highly intuitive artist and is not particularly impressed by the analytic approach. He also says that he does not generally employ this approach because because he believes he has a much higher probability of success in "making baloney of materialism" with his target audience in the role of an "intellectual gladiator".

So, is this flawed? Of course, it is. I personally prefer Leonard Cohen's poetic response:

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in

Lou,

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

What you are speaking of is the wisdom and strength of men. These people in academia, as well as lawyers in my own field, are motivated, hard working, and high-achieving for all the outer worldly ways! They seek most of the same things anyone else seeks, whether they are materialist, idealist, or anything else - reputation, status, money, influence, power, adoration of others, etc. They are not at all actively motivated for inner sacrifice and transformation, for free service to what Beings live high above them and what they can scarcely even imagine now. And why should they be? If they will become these Beings simply by existing and working hard for worldly pleasures, then it's hardly worth the sacrifice for inner change. I tried to indicate this in the OMA quote about the spiritual alchemy. It is the 'inversion horizon' which Cleric has brought up often here and it's quite clear BK and his audience have not inverted from the geocentric to Heliocentric orientation yet.

Hehe, silly me for speculating on the processes of others. I know what you mean about academia. 49 years ago I abandoned it after teaching for 8 years at an excellent college and then a fine university and I've never regretted it. Indeed, each time I dropped or lost a containing identity it opened me to much broader horizons continuing to this day when I'm in the late stage of my corporeal end zone. Looking back on it all, I can report having known many fine generous service-oriented souls among whom only some claimed to be on a spiritual path. All were mostly just showing up and doing their work according to their best understanding. The true, good and beautiful take on and move through many forms. Viva! diversity.

Sure, Lou, there is no problem with hard working blue collar man. But the guy who becomes convinced through visionary experience and/or logical reasoning that there are higher hierarchies of spiritual Beings who permeate our experience and whom he can know through inner conscious development, which he has the time and capacity for, yet chooses instead to ignore them completely or endlessly speculate on their existence in academic circles... that's where the problems arise.