This forum

[AshvinP]

This is why I asked about what you are now doing spiritually, regardless of the 'forum phase'. I use the forum, ideally, to only point others towards an inner experiential path that I am on, and in the process of doing that pointing, exercise my imaginative thinking which feeds back into my participatory consciousness during meditation and interactions with Nature and others. So that's what I am asking about, irrespective of the forum.

Do you take any initiative to try the numerous focused thinking meditations which have been shared here, like Federica has been doing? I know you gave up PoF and Steiner's lectures some time ago, so that's fine, we can leave all that aside. (although, that you feel creative thinking through the lofty spiritual ideas in speech or writing is not also spiritual activity of a high order ... ) is a reflection of failing to internalize the PoF idea). If not meditations, then what are you doing to further metamorphose your inner thinking life and activity beyond what has already been attained? Or are you simply waiting for some more inspiration to come in a dream or while you are sitting around the house which then takes you to the next metamorphic stage?

As a writer of mostly spiritually inspired/infused poetry for a few decades, such distortions are laughable ...

Well, as we discussed also with Lou recently, we are speaking of precise logical, scientific thinking here. Although aesthetic thinking clearly has great value, it is proving completely insufficient to grasp higher spiritual realities when remaining on the plane of normal waking cognition. Not only that, people within the idealistic community seem to have forgotten the difference between the more casual thinking and scientific thinking. It's like the latter doesn't exist for them anymore or is completely irrelevant to the Truth.

Be that as it may, I'm no longer doing any writing (that too left behind by the transition), but now spend most waking hours meditating upon and creating visual art forms, literally working with light and colour, to revision the world as the Divine Dream that it truly is—which involves being out and immersed in the natural world by 5:30am, so as to catch the ideal light for this endeavour; and then often out again in the evening hours. When not tending to the garden, or playing the role of house chef, the rest of the day is spent doing editing and post-processing of a few select images, all this before spending a couple of hours with the spouse watching a movie, then usually in bed and asleep by 10—wherein, of course, one is inspired by dreamtime journeys. So no, there's currently little initiative for much else ... not to say that Cleric's meditations aren't worthy of effort for those who may find some resonance therein.

As for your offer to take on the cost and tasks of maintaining the site, I'll let Simon know.

Now that seems more reasonable of an assertion, as opposed to this:

It has been this way for this lifetime so far, having gone through a few other metamorphic phases/stages, as per Ecclesiastes 3:1-8, which one can't resist, no more than the caterpillar can resist spinning its chrysalis ... as will be the eventual destiny for others here as well, when the time for a phase-transition arrives.

The former locates the lack of initiative more directly within your own sphere of personal interests (or lack of interests), while the latter implies that everyone here is destined to remain at whatever spiritual stage they are at until they are visited by Manna from Heaven, completely apart from any conscious spiritual thinking initiatives they decide to engage 'in the meantime', and only then they will be practically forced into a spiritual transformation whether they like it or not. There's a huge difference between those. That's all I wanted to clear up with my questions.

[AshvinP]

I don't respond in this forum consistently because I don't read the posts . . . actually I can't read them, they are in a language I do not understand and I have no dictionary\translator.
IOW, I am no further along in understanding Cleric or Ashwin then I was when this forum began. For example phrases such as 'meaning', 'world content', 'thinking' . . . I suspect they are using these terms outside of the conventional, but I have no idea how they are using these phrases. I'm not sure if I want to invest 2-3 months in trying to figure out what they are saying.
It would be 'nice' if they could express their main thoughts in 100-200 plain English words - but they seem unable to do so.

(...)
Perhaps our numerous posts on reinhabiting the first-person perspective have not been adequate. The very format of presentation and the spatiotemporal language we must use generally works to reinforce the dissociated 3rd-person view from nowhere. That's why we keep presenting it again and again from different angles. (...) Here is yet another angle on this from Steiner with regards to our core spiritual activity of Willing-Feeling-Thinking. I ask you that read it and really try to follow it from the first-person perspective, engaging in the various examples he gives. See if that perhaps stirs an unsuspected shift in perspective.


https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/DimSpa_index.html

The things I shall have to explain to-day may be apparently a little far removed from our more concrete studies of Anthroposophy. They are however a necessary foundation for many other perceptions which we need — a foundation on which we shall afterwards have to build in our more intimate considerations.

There is a certain inherent difficulty for our human power of knowledge and understanding when we speak of the physical bodily nature of man on the one hand, and the soul-and-spirit on the other. Man can gain ideas about the physical and bodily with comparative ease, for it is given to him through the senses. It comes out to meet him, as it were, from his environment on all sides, without his having to do very much for it himself — at any rate so far as his consciousness is concerned. But it is very different when we come to speak of the soul-and-spirit. True, if he is open-minded enough, man is distinctly aware of the fact that such a thing exists. Men have always received into their language designations, words and phrases referring to the soul-and-spirit. The very existence of such words and phrases shews after all, for an open-minded consciousness, that something does exist to draw man's attention to the reality of soul-and-spirit.

But the difficulties begin at once when man endeavours to relate the world of things physical and bodily with the world of soul and spirit. Indeed for those who try to grapple with such questions philosophically, shall we say, the search for this relationship gives rise to the greatest imaginable difficulties. They know that the physical and bodily is extended in space. They can even represent it spatially. Man forms his ideas of it comparatively easily. He can use all that space with its three dimensions gives to him, in forming his ideas about things physical and bodily. But the spiritual as such is nowhere to be found in space.

Some people, who imagine they are not materialistically minded — though in reality they are all the more so — try to conceive the things of the soul and spirit in the world of space. Thus they are led to the well-known spiritualistic aberrations. These aberrations are in reality materialistic, for they are an effort to bring the soul and spirit perforce into space.

But quite apart from all that, the fact is that man is conscious of his own soul-and-spirit. He is well aware of how it works, for he is aware that when he resolves to move about in space his thought is translated into movement through his will. The movement is in space, but of the thought no open-minded, unbiased thinking person can assert that it is in space. In this way the greatest difficulties have arisen, especially for philosophic thinking.

[continued at link]

If not Lorenzo, I have found this lecture quite helpful, as I have been battling with the first part of PoF Chapter 9, The idea of freedom. In both the lecture and the chapter, the experience of willing-feeling-thinking is considered in relation to the human organization, and I am struggling to gain an overall vision and a sense of the relation of the three with each other. Here comes the lecture to help with the geometrical parallel, where willing is seen as tridimensional, feeling as bidimensional, thinking as unidimensional, and the ego as a spaceless point.

Not that I am really understanding the illustration of, for example, feeling as projections on a bidimensional plane, that only can be experienced by virtue of the symmetry of the body. Still, I realize this way of putting it is more favorable to intuition. It’s as if the meaning is made more mobile through such an illustration, and/or the latter is more conducive to meaning compared to the train of thoughts as exposed in PoF. The meaning is gently pushing, so to speak, to get integrated, and while I am still unable to experience it, I do realize the presence of a more immediate explanatory power in the lecture, compared to PoF. More generally, I perceive in later lectures a slightly more benevolent, compassionate, seeking out voice, compared to the younger, more summary voice of PoF.

The way I would characterize PoF is like an engagement of that logical thinking force which will allow us to discover ideas like those expressed in the linked lecture, on our own. The fact is, without that force, there is literally no conceiving or speaking of feeling or willing. I know much of what follows is not news to you, but it always bears repeating. Although PoF made a very strong impression on me, I certainly didn't penetrate to its deeper layers of meaning at the start - it took quite a few reads and re-reads. It helped that I was quoting it so often to people here and elsewhere. And I still don't imagine I have penetrated the very depths of its meaning yet.

Thinking is always the gateway from the personal to the transpersonal. A child who has not developed higher thinking will only act as a personal being, to reach its own self-interested desires and feelings. It doesn't seek shared understanding with others, to empathize with other desires and feelings, until it develops thinking. There is no division of W-F-T here, only a recognition of the asymmetry which has developed through natural evolution. It reflects the fact that our inner meaning (thinking) is so out of phase, out of harmony, with our sympathies (feeling) and outer perceptions (willing). It is that lack of harmony between various Time-rhythms which leads to the inner/outer duality of experience. It's the same reason we experience part of day in waking (thinking), part in dreaming (feeling), and part in dreamless sleeping (willing).

Ultimately, at an ontological level, we can say Willing (Perceiving), Feeling, and Thinking are fundamental and universal - this is the emanation of the Holy Trinity, the highest level of Body-Soul-Spirit, respectively. But it makes a huge difference to everything we understand about reality and its dynamics if we simply start there and treat them exactly the same at all levels, or we rediscover them from the 'ground up', which for modern humans always begins consciously in our precise logical thinking activity. It is in that activity we discover how these metamorphose into one another and relate back to each other. Note that I am not saying we simply need to think about inner experience more carefully, like Steiner does in that lecture (which is a very helpful preparatory stage), but we to think about our own thinking activity more carefully, logically and scientifically and creatively. That is what one can do simply by reading through PoF a few times.

We can imagine having a thought without an act of will/perception or feeling, maybe if your senses were deprived, physical organism paralyzed, and emotional register turned way down or off. Yet we can't imagine an act of will or a feeling without also having thought-thinking. The very act of imagining something is thinking. This is very trivial stuff Steiner points to and sometimes we confuse ourselves by expecting something more complex and high-brow. When we make thinking the object of our thinking investigation, the activity and the product of that activity coincide in our consciousness. Willing (perceiving) and Thinking spiral together, since we are perceiving our own thought-activity. Although this is most effectively done through imaginative meditation, it also applies to PoF's phenomenology of cognition. Likewise it applies to spiritual scientific investigations, even at the conceptual level, because the spiritual worlds are thought-worlds, populated with thinking-beings in whom our own thinking is nested. That logical thinking force is what establishes the accessible gradient of consciousness through the whole Cosmic spectrum of activity.

With all that said, PoF certainly takes a more philosophical and scientific approach than other various lectures. It is definitely intended to engage people familiar with modern philosophy, such as the various materialist thinkers and German idealists. Not only those people, but extended sections are devoted to discussing where their thinking goes astray. I think that has to be done in a certain 'summary tone', as you called it. It's always a bit surprising to me how many people who come here are enamored with BK's idealism yet have hardly heard of, let alone read, the earlier philosophers on which all his ideas rest. Anyway, that's not necessary to mine the deepest value from PoF, but it could make it more of a 'dry' read for some. The most important takeaway is that it prompts us to go thoroughly into the depths of our own thinking activity, which is of a very high spiritual order, as far as we can go with normal waking consciousness.

There are two fundamental questions in the life of the human soul towards which everything to be discussed in this book is directed. One is: Is it possible to find a view of the essential nature of man such as will give us a foundation for everything else that comes to meet us — whether through life experience or through science — which we feel is otherwise not self-supporting and therefore liable to be driven by doubt and criticism into the realm of uncertainty? The other question is this: Is man entitled to claim for himself freedom of will, or is freedom a mere illusion begotten of his inability to recognize the threads of necessity on which his will, like any natural event, depends?
...
This is how I thought about the content of this book when I first wrote it down twenty-five years ago. Today, once again, I have to set down similar sentences if I am to characterize the main ideas of the book. At the original writing I limited myself to saying no more than was in the strictest sense connected with the two fundamental questions which I have outlined. If anyone should be astonished at not finding in this book any reference to that region of the world of spiritual experience described in my later writings, I would ask him to bear in mind that it was not my purpose at that time to set down the results of spiritual research, but first to lay the foundations on which such results can rest.

The Philosophy of Freedom does not contain any results of this sort, any more than it contains special results of the natural sciences. But what it does contain is in my judgment absolutely necessary for anyone who seeks a secure foundation for such knowledge. What I have said in this book may be acceptable even to some who, for reasons of their own, refuse to have anything to do with the results of my researches into the spiritual realm. But anyone who feels drawn towards the results of these spiritual researches may well appreciate the importance of what I was here trying to do. It is this: to show that open-minded consideration simply of the two questions I have indicated and which are fundamental for every kind of knowledge, leads to the view that man lives in the midst of a genuine spiritual world.

[Soul_of_Shu]

The former locates the lack of initiative more directly within your own sphere of personal interests (or lack of interests), while the latter implies that everyone here is destined to remain at whatever spiritual stage they are at until they are visited by Manna from Heaven, completely apart from any conscious spiritual thinking initiatives they decide to engage 'in the meantime', and only then they will be practically forced into a spiritual transformation whether they like it or not. There's a huge difference between those. That's all I wanted to clear up with my questions.

Well of course precise, logical scientific thinking can be spiritually inspired/infused, as the most transformative examples of it surely are. To this mind, the inspired, imaginative thinking that went into General Relativity is no less spiritual than "Eternity is in love with productions of time." In fact, there is what could be called 'spiritual science' involved in one's new creative endeavours, given how light and colour are involved.

To your last point, my point is that I neither anticipated, initiated, or decided upon this latest life transition, which indeed seems to have come from some oversoul directive that one is irresistibly compelled to follow—as has been the case with all previous transitions, pretty much occurring on cue every 7 years. So had someone suggested even just a few months ago, that this is what I should be doing with my life, I would not have taken it seriously, and thus not made any effort to make it come to fruition ... least of all getting up at 4am to drive off into the wilderness, given that I was looking forward to sleeping in late in the autumn of life. So likewise your suggestions that one should be making the effort to do this or that exercise, if serious about spiritual development, simply does not have that same factor that irresistibly moves one to act. Thus if the transition were instead to involve delving into Cleric's meditations, then that is what this vessel would be doing, having neither anticipated or initiated its origin, without need of any urging from others.

[AshvinP]

The former locates the lack of initiative more directly within your own sphere of personal interests (or lack of interests), while the latter implies that everyone here is destined to remain at whatever spiritual stage they are at until they are visited by Manna from Heaven, completely apart from any conscious spiritual thinking initiatives they decide to engage 'in the meantime', and only then they will be practically forced into a spiritual transformation whether they like it or not. There's a huge difference between those. That's all I wanted to clear up with my questions.

Well of course precise, logical scientific thinking can be spiritually inspired/infused, as the most transformative examples of it surely are. To this mind, the inspired, imaginative thinking that went into General Relativity is no less spiritual than "Eternity is in love with productions of time." In fact, there is what could be called 'spiritual science' involved in one's new creative endeavours, given how light and colour are involved.

To your last point, my point is that I neither anticipated, initiated, or decided upon this latest life transition, which indeed seems to have come from some oversoul directive that one is irresistibly compelled to follow—as has been the case with all previous transitions, pretty much occurring on cue every 7 years. So had someone suggested even just a few months ago, that this is what I should be doing with my life, I would not have taken it seriously, and thus not made any effort to make it come to fruition ... least of all getting up at 4am to drive off into the wilderness, given that I was looking forward to sleeping in late in the autumn of life. So likewise your suggestions that one should be making the effort to do this or that exercise, if serious about spiritual development, simply does not have that same factor that irresistibly moves one to act. Thus if the transition were instead to involve delving into Cleric's meditations, then that is what this vessel would be doing, having neither anticipated or initiated its origin, without need of any urging from others.

Dana,

I really would appreciate if people would be more candid here. Federica, for ex., doesn't automatically agree with what we present to her. She finds many things written by us or Steiner objectionable and in need of pushback. True, she runs through the thinking gestures and clearly outlines how and why there is a divergence for her, but she is perfectly candid about it. And, through that process, we have reached shared understanding on a variety of topics, and in process of doing so on others, while we can't really say the same with a single other person here who has engaged. (I also notice a few people who chimed in were asked simple questions by her and have yet to respond).

If you visited PoF in any format whatsoever, and remember it, then you would know that what you suggest above is in diametric opposition to intuitive thinking as a path to spiritual freedom. It is about overcoming, through the deepest and actively sought Self-knowledege, the routine 7 year shifts which occur independently of our intentions and thinking agency. There couldn't be anything more fundamental to the spiritual path we are speaking of than that. When you feel this wait and see approach yields great results and therefore shouldn't be questioned, that's when we feel it is the most dangerous.

Likewise with spritual scientific teachings. Every science has precise terminology and this one is no different. Imagination, inspiration, intuition refer to fully conscious modes of thinking, in which we not only derive content frol higher worlds, but know exactly how that content arrives. The higher modes of cognition are quite literally experiencing the inner perspectives of those higher beings who art, not great paintings, poems, literature and scientific theories like GR, but the kingdoms of Nature and spheres of Culture we live and breathe in. We are not talking about doing regular secular science with a spiritual disposition, but doing a science of the spirit, of the supersensible worlds.

Now if you completely disagree that this is possible, that it's been done to some major extent already, and/or you think it's fantastical thinking and superiority complex run amok, then I wish you and others would just say so. I will give Jim credit for that, at least. We have more shared understanding of where we all stand with him in relation to these ideas than with you, Lou, Eugene (when he was here) and others. You guys keep acting like we are mostly talking about the same thing, just inclining slightly to one degree of spirit or another, traveling our various paths up the spiritual evolutionary mountain, finding our way to the great Cosmic truths at our appointed seasons. Again, there is nothing which could be more opposed to the spirit of what we are speaking of here. And we would make some progress in more discussions here if we could at least establish a shared understanding of that much.

[Federica]

Personally i'm not interrested by the Steiner cult. I thought the forum would be more ecclectic and stopped visiting after noticing it's just Steiner spammed everywhere.

Papanca, as a heads-up, if you are not interested in Steiner you can definitely spam your own questions, as long as the house rules are respected. I'm sure you know that already, even if we're all full of bias. Anyone can actually spam any cults they like and make the forum more eclectic, etc. etc., always respecting the rules, shall we say. Scrolling the old posts I noticed you actually did that, for example with the Gabor Maté cult that you started liking, which is fine, don't get me wrong. So iow, imho, any type of spamming is OK. It really is, if done correctly. Just saying, in case you want to start your own.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, contrary to what you might think, I do recognize that at the core of our beings we are exactly the same and I greet this unchanging principle within you through the riot of planets of the solar system colliding in some nebulous projection of multiplicity. I displayed my lack of enthusiasm for luciferian doctrine purely because, since you are on this forum, you must realise that what you see on planet Earth is in fact a mental pollution. Whence might it be coming from ?

If we take this idea of participatory consciousness in a living and pratical way, then the mental pollution must be our own creation at any given time. Certainly we are nested within much higher spiritual forces who contribute to that oscillating rhythm of over-physicalized and over-spiritualized perspective on reality, but we have now evolved the logical thinking faculty which can harmonize the rhythm and spiritualize the mentally polluted appearances in a gradual, healthy way. When that logical thinking faculty is imbued with devotional feeling, it metamorphoses to Imagination. There is nothing which destines any given individual today to continue experiencing the world around them as deadened, fixed forms with little connection to our own souls. There is no reason to be trapped in some prison planet except for the obstacles we secretly desire to put in our own way. It is spiritual Stockholm syndrone - we have come to love our prison because it's easier to be given two hots and a cot every day than to go foraging for it in the real world, even if it means our freedom.

"When that logical thinking faculty is imbued with devotional feeling, it metamorphoses to Imagination."

In Alchemy, that stage is called Albedo. In Albedo, you ignite your heart to produce new consciousness (with the faculties you mention). Then it becomes even more inetresting when Vishuddhi grows horns on your head - just like Moses. After that, the Judgement comes and you are put in front of Ma'at to face what you have sung into existence with your hearts desire. Ever wondered why men cannot leave this plane without being judged first in the Underworld ? It's because of the psychic pollution. It's because our hearts harmonics became an entropic, unsustainable pattern which cannot embedd into harmonious infinity.

The problem with logical thinking is that it lifts the veil of Da'at - a gate between Sefirot and Qliphoth. That's why The Fall is called The Fall not The Elevation - it results in Yetzer Hara.

This is not some "prison planet". This is Your Planet. Your People.

I was curious whether you were going to respond to Cleric's questions. Perhaps you missed them - viewtopic.php?p=18132#p18132

In short, how do you view the role of your own thinking activity in this intricate spiritual architecture you have laid out for us? Not the thinking which beholds the spiritual model in concepts and tries to make sense of it or get something deeply meaningful out of it, but the thinking behind that thinking. Here is a simple exercise you can follow to verify that this thinking does, in fact, exist within you. It is not an abstract postulate we are making for purposes of our spiritual outlook, but something anyone can verify within themselves after a few minutes of inward contemplation.

The reason why we do not observe the thinking that goes on in our ordinary life is none other than this, that it is due to our own activity. Whatever I do not myself produce, appears in my field of observation as an object; I find myself confronted by it as something that has come about independently of me. It comes to meet me. I must accept it as something that precedes my thinking process, as a premise. While I am reflecting upon the object, I am occupied with it, my attention is focussed upon it. To be thus occupied is precisely to contemplate by thinking. I attend, not to my activity, but to the object of this activity. In other words, while I am thinking I pay no heed to my thinking, which is of my own making, but only to the object of my thinking, which is not of my making.

I am, moreover, in the same position when I enter into the exceptional state and reflect on my own thinking. I can never observe my present thinking; I can only subsequently take my experiences of my thinking process as the object of fresh thinking. If I wanted to watch my present thinking, I should have to split myself into two persons, one to think, the other to observe this thinking. But this I cannot do. I can only accomplish it in two separate acts. The thinking to be observed is never that in which I am actually engaged, but another one.

Do you agree about this 'present thinking' within us and, if so, where does it fit in with the evolution of your grand spiritual architecture, specifically post-Fall?

[lorenzop]

In short, how do you view the role of your own thinking activity in this intricate spiritual architecture you have laid out for us? Not the thinking which beholds the spiritual model in concepts and tries to make sense of it or get something deeply meaningful out of it, but the thinking behind that thinking. Here is a simple exercise you can follow to verify that this thinking does, in fact, exist within you. It is not an abstract postulate we are making for purposes of our spiritual outlook, but something anyone can verify within themselves after a few minutes of inward contemplation.

The reason why we do not observe the thinking that goes on in our ordinary life is none other than this, that it is due to our own activity. Whatever I do not myself produce, appears in my field of observation as an object; I find myself confronted by it as something that has come about independently of me. It comes to meet me. I must accept it as something that precedes my thinking process, as a premise. While I am reflecting upon the object, I am occupied with it, my attention is focussed upon it. To be thus occupied is precisely to contemplate by thinking. I attend, not to my activity, but to the object of this activity. In other words, while I am thinking I pay no heed to my thinking, which is of my own making, but only to the object of my thinking, which is not of my making.

I am, moreover, in the same position when I enter into the exceptional state and reflect on my own thinking. I can never observe my present thinking; I can only subsequently take my experiences of my thinking process as the object of fresh thinking. If I wanted to watch my present thinking, I should have to split myself into two persons, one to think, the other to observe this thinking. But this I cannot do. I can only accomplish it in two separate acts. The thinking to be observed is never that in which I am actually engaged, but another one.

Do you agree about this 'present thinking' within us and, if so, where does it fit in with the evolution of your grand spiritual architecture, specifically post-Fall?

I do not agree re the existence of this 'present thinking', but admitedly I can't say I understand what you are speaking about here.
For example, I'm in a field looking at a tree . . . are you suggesting the tree does not really exist except a a pre-thinking process that occurs within my individual mind? And, I can inspect this pre-thinking, extend\develop this capacity, and perhaps perceive an object other than a tree; or, percieve the tree, but a richer tree which conveys a 'meaning' or mood?

[Starbuck]

Personally i'm not interrested by the Steiner cult. I thought the forum would be more ecclectic and stopped visiting after noticing it's just Steiner spammed everywhere.

If I was Bernardo I'd be a bit pissed at having my name on this forum, as he is either dismissed, misrepresented or ignored. Methinks certain people want to evangelise and make people think like they do. Which is one indication they are not secure in their beliefs.

[Federica]

Personally i'm not interrested by the Steiner cult. I thought the forum would be more ecclectic and stopped visiting after noticing it's just Steiner spammed everywhere.

If I was Bernardo I'd be a bit pissed at having my name on this forum, as he is either dismissed, misrepresented or ignored. Methinks certain people want to evangelise and make people think like they do. Which is one indication they are not secure in their beliefs.

Unless you look at what "meta" means. It means "beyond", "after".
So one can go beyond Kastrup here, and still stay true to the domain name, for those who are that hairsplitting.
Also, I recommend you look at what "evangelize" means and contrast it with what happens in the threads of this forum.
Lastly, if you want to see more of this or that here - some Kastrup-proselytism perhaps? - by all means, make it happen!

[Martin_]

This forum used to be about many things. It is now only about one thing.
One thing which has been repeated ad nauseum. Cleric outlined the central thesis of Structured Idealism very coherently and clearly a long time ago. For some reason we haven't - from a scientific perspective - been able to move further than that. (Granted, the last months, I've merely been skimming the posts. Maybe there's a nugget or two in there that i've missed).

Add to that the "I get it. No you don't!" dynamic, and the fact that any attempt to bring something new to the table, runs a high risk of being accused of dualism. (Which, apparently , has ben proven to be the biggest Sin of All in this forum).

This is my perspective. As an example I've been thinking about posting about the merits of Pirsigs MOQ for a while, but can't be bothered because it feels like it would be pointless to do so.