Why Man Creates Art: Kanye West as an Archetypal Artist

[AshvinP]

Indeed, our sensory concepts drown out our inner soul activity. We must learn that our inner soul is awakened in communion with activities outside our own waking conscious thoughts and concepts. The only way we can grab a conscious hold on the cosmic forces that influence our impulses, thoughts, emotions etc is by silencing them.

So I have to ask, since you are aware of this need to 'silence them', have you tried any focused thinking meditations or similar exercises? I would recommend looking at Cleric's recent comment on another thread for a clear outline of the difference between this focused thinking approach, generally associated with Western spiritual practice, and the common 'silencing' approach, sometimes called the 'mystical' approach, generally from the East, but known to most people in the world these days.

viewtopic.php?p=18403#p18403

[Federica]

(...)

My reason for using the over inflated ego as a central element in my theory is due to its correlation with empirical “truths” about artists which, perhaps seemingly, should not be correlated, and which should thereby broaden our considerations when forming a comprehensive theory of why we create art. My reasoning for using the over inflated ego as a central part of the theory is not, however, because I consider the “over inflated ego” to be of utmost necessity in order for man to create art.

From here I get the impression that this whole vision, or theory for how art is created, came about as a reflection aimed at rationalizing your appreciation for KW’s art - I don’t know if this is accurate. If it is, could you share more about what you appreciate in him? What makes you feel he is an archetypal artist, what does this mean? I have now listened to the Sunday Service video and I did find it unexpected. Overall, based on a few other things, I must confess I am not hugely impressed. I found other American rappers of his generation way more inspired, but maybe if you share more of your thoughts around what makes him unique, others could better understand your interest, and also your theory of artistic creation.

Hmm, yeah I didn’t define art did I. How about “reaching beyond familiar sensation into the divine and framing the divine into familiar sensation”. So the formation of an idea expressed through a sensory medium. This could either include the moment Picasso formed an idea for a painting, or the execution of that vision. After all, every brush stroke is intentional. The idea evolves throughout the execution of the idea. It is not but the mechanical replication of the original idea. However, I suppose you could argue this in the case for writing music, where rhythms and melodic notes are definitive, and could be definitively captured by the original idea.
“Again, for me the answer lies in a continuum between action and art, a continuum between free and compelled artistic impulse, a continuum between expression and potential. But I suspect you see things differently?” I can’t say I quite understand what you mean here. Can you clarify this for me?

Sorry for the unclear phrasing. What I was trying to say about the nature of art is this. I don’t see any essential difference between everyday action/creation, and artistic creation. It’s only a matter of degree. Basically we are all constantly immersed in a creative process that may or may not result in a sensory form. Beyond a certain degree of dexterity with form-making, and universality of the idea called for by the creator, we usually qualify the creation as art. That is what I meant by “continuum between action and art”. And there’s also a continuum in the degree of freedom vs. necessity that we express in our creations or deeds, including artistic, and how much of “the artist’s individual element” is conveyed. Lastly, there is a continuum in how much of the ideal creation is transformed into perceptible creation. Usually we call an artist someone who has converted ideas into perceptible expressions. Your definition expresses a similar view. In a sense, your definition is a generic description of what we all constantly do, without particular reference to art. We are all constantly “reaching beyond familiar sensation (or object of perception) into the divine (into ideas)”. In this sense I said “You are as artistic in your constantly unfolding relation to the world as your own description of an artist is. You are, in your own definition, a supreme artist of every moment”. So I think there is a continuum between constantly unfolding creative understanding of the world and artistic creation.

The act of the artist reaching out to the divine is also him seeing beauty in the divine from his individual element. It is akin to communicating with the divine with a single action that has two directions of flow.It is not akin to communicating with the divine through multiple actions with a single “direction” of flow, whereby we reach out to the divine, bring the divine back to us, and then give it back in an altered form.

I think I understand, but how can the divine remain unchanging if there are these two directions of flow?

Yes, every man forms ideas, for ideas are the essence of the soul. The difference is simply that the artist is better at forming ideas than the common man. That’s all. To be clear, I suspect that the artist ingrains within himself the processes of nature which he gives new or altered life to (and again, this is a single action with two directions of flow, not multiple actions with one direction of flow). And if I am to be more thorough in my reasoning, it is not that the truth seeker acts in a fundamentally different way from the artist in this respect, but that they are differentiated by how large of a role the ego plays in interpreting the divine spirit. So I am not really attempting to propose a duality between the artist and the truth seeker. All thoughts, ideas etc originate from nature.

If I am understanding you correctly: the truth-seeker connects with nature to get in touch with ideas that he takes ‘literally’ from it, without any major creative alteration, while the artist engages in a fundamentally similar activity, but through a stronger ego, he brings alterations and new life to those ideas. I think there must be an underlying worldview (unexpressed in this thread) that forces you to default back to ego as the explanatory factor that differentiates truth-seeker from artist.

Three questions come to mind:

1. Is nature in your conception the same thing as the divine?

2. In this view, how to understand those great artists who don’t have an inflated ego? Do they have to exert themselves much more than the inflated artists, in order to create great art?

3. What do we do with these alterations that the artist brings back into nature through creative interpretation of ideas in a two-way flow? Can nature remain unchanged in that process?

[GrantHenderson]

I have not really, no. I have formed my own beginner exercises from trial and error. What I more often do seems to be more in line with western meditation — focussed thinking, whereby I rest within a centre of my being, disengaging from my sensory perceptions, and bridging an awareness towards what is allowing thoughts to arise within me.

I’ll check out Clerics post, for I’m sure his exercises are much more effective than what I have formed from trial and error.

[GrantHenderson]

(...)

From here I get the impression that this whole vision, or theory for how art is created, came about as a reflection aimed at rationalizing your appreciation for KW’s art - I don’t know if this is accurate. If it is, could you share more about what you appreciate in him? What makes you feel he is an archetypal artist, what does this mean? I have now listened to the Sunday Service video and I did find it unexpected. Overall, based on a few other things, I must confess I am not hugely impressed. I found other American rappers of his generation way more inspired, but maybe if you share more of your thoughts around what makes him unique, others could better understand your interest, and also your theory of artistic creation.

That may be true. I suspect the inverse is also probably true, then; that I am rationalizing why man creates art out of my appreciation for Kanye West's art.

I think that, in order to develop a proper appreciation for his art, one must delve into his entire discography, and even his unreleased discography. I admire his art for a few main reasons:

1) He is able to create simple, yet unique and engaging melodic ideas like it's a reflex. This is the most difficult task of the artist.
2) He never sticks to a proven formula for success, all in terms of genres, approaches to melody/harmony/rhythm, songwriting methods, etc. He is always pushing his own boundaries.

But of course, you do not have to love his music. If you find enjoyment out of other music instead, then that’s all that really matters. Personally, I struggle to find another hip-hop artist who has a similar level of musical ability. Perhaps Kendrick Lamar, Tyler the Creator, or Little Sims come relatively close. I find that there are other artists outside of the hip-hop community who are closer in talent (such as Radiohead). However, the point is more that we should not consider it a fluke that beautiful music could come from an “ugly personality” as we may be tempted to consider. But that there is in fact a correlation between these characteristics (see more on that in a bit).

Sorry for the unclear phrasing. What I was trying to say about the nature of art is this. I don’t see any essential difference between everyday action/creation, and artistic creation. It’s only a matter of degree. Basically we are all constantly immersed in a creative process that may or may not result in a sensory form. Beyond a certain degree of dexterity with form-making, and universality of the idea called for by the creator, we usually qualify the creation as art. That is what I meant by “continuum between action and art”. And there’s also a continuum in the degree of freedom vs. necessity that we express in our creations or deeds, including artistic, and how much of “the artist’s individual element” is conveyed. Lastly, there is a continuum in how much of the ideal creation is transformed into perceptible creation. Usually we call an artist someone who has converted ideas into perceptible expressions. Your definition expresses a similar view. In a sense, your definition is a generic description of what we all constantly do, without particular reference to art. We are all constantly “reaching beyond familiar sensation (or object of perception) into the divine (into ideas)”. In this sense I said “You are as artistic in your constantly unfolding relation to the world as your own description of an artist is. You are, in your own definition, a supreme artist of every moment”. So I think there is a continuum between constantly unfolding creative understanding of the world and artistic creation.

Yes I agree with this. There is an art to every pursuit, for a pursuit is an idea that pushes ourselves beyond the objects of our past in the mission of seeking perfection out of them, or beyond them, which were not satisfied by said objects as they stand. We can draw parallels to art in everything we do. There is an art in conversation, for the goal of conversation is to strive for agreement and unity of the conversation topic. There is an art to walking, for to walk is to pursue a destination without losing our sense of balance. Etc

I think I understand, but how can the divine remain unchanging if there are these two directions of flow?

There is the divine, and that which connects us with the divine (Our Etheric body). I am referring to the latter. Our creations inspired by the divine do not give anything back to it, they just help us understand it. We only give back to nature as it pertains to the physical.

1. Is nature in your conception the same thing as the divine?

I consider the divine as the essence of nature. All that is essential and unchanging in nature. But nature itself could also include that which is temporary. I consider this to be what is borrowed from the divine. We cannot reconstruct what is essential in nature from the ground up, but we can borrow that which is essential to nature, and form a human replication thereof.

2. In this view, how to understand those great artists who don’t have an inflated ego? Do they have to exert themselves much more than the inflated artists, in order to create great art?

Rather, a healthy ego is most important. The size of his ego should be to some degree proportional to the strength of his connection with the divine. If he has a very large ego, he should also have a very strong connection to the divine, or else the inspiration he develops from his own ego will not as stongly capture the divine spirit. The archetypal artist has a large ego, but also a strong connection with the divine, and thus we cannot call such an ego “overinflated”. However, such a person may be more at risk of an “over-inflated ego”, for if his connection with the divine spirit is ever blocked, he becomes more reliant on his own ego for inspiration, which could quickly turn to arrogance. All of this is evident in the behaviors of Kanye West, for example.

[AshvinP]

I have not really, no. I have formed my own beginner exercises from trial and error. What I more often do seems to be more in line with western meditation — focussed thinking, whereby I rest within a centre of my being, disengaging from my sensory perceptions, and bridging an awareness towards what is allowing thoughts to arise within me.

I’ll check out Clerics post, for I’m sure his exercises are much more effective than what I have formed from trial and error.

The post doesn't include specific exercises, but rather some of the reasoning why the focused sense-free thinking can actually work to navigate the concentric centers of our Be-ing and reveal the hierarchical depth of spiritual activity which culminates in our surface-level thoughts.

There are many exercises shared on the forum, however. I think last time we dialogued, I pointed you towards his TCT essays. Did you come across the 'vowel exercise'? I'm sure a few different people would be interested in hearing your experiences with such things if you try them and when you have a chance to share!

[GrantHenderson]

Indeed, our sensory concepts drown out our inner soul activity. We must learn that our inner soul is awakened in communion with activities outside our own waking conscious thoughts and concepts. The only way we can grab a conscious hold on the cosmic forces that influence our impulses, thoughts, emotions etc is by silencing them.

So I have to ask, since you are aware of this need to 'silence them', have you tried any focused thinking meditations or similar exercises? I would recommend looking at Cleric's recent comment on another thread for a clear outline of the difference between this focused thinking approach, generally associated with Western spiritual practice, and the common 'silencing' approach, sometimes called the 'mystical' approach, generally from the East, but known to most people in the world these days.

viewtopic.php?p=18403#p18403

This passage was very illuminating, thank you. I do have a small contention however.

Cleric mentioned with the first form of meditation that our awareness can expand into the entire field of consciousness, resulting in a pure stillness devoid of thinking. While I appreciate the way Cleric has explained how we can achieve this sort of meditative state, and while I think that we can strive for and accomplish it to some degree, I have trouble seeing the logic in how we could have a “pure stillness devoid of thinking” within our waking consciousness. Insofar as I understand, as long as we are awake, we are in waking consciousness, and are also self-conscious. Our energy is being forced in some direction or another, even if in minute quantities. The only time I think we sacrifice our self consciousness is in sleep -- whereby our ego is pulled out of our physical body and is dispersed evenly throughout the cosmos.

But as a whole, I think this is a brilliantly written passage.

It reminds me a bit of something I wrote on a discord server not too long ago. It's not as detailed or evocative as what Cleric has written, but could marginally expand on what he is saying in a specific direction:

“Our only freedom of will is freedom from thinking itself. Freedom from our own thinking, emotions and impulses, to peer into the celestial forces that influence our thoughts, emotions and impulses. It should be obvious that when we free ourselves from thinking through meditation, that it is done "willingly", for all the forces of influence upon our thinking -- the contents of our environment, our conceptual systems, and our predispositions -- couldn’t possibly have a null influence, or else they wouldn’t be “forces of influence” at all. This is even more apparent when we demonstrate the ability to silence our own thinking even if our environment or conceptual systems become more active or stimulating.

Of course, we cannot free ourselves from thinking altogether, for we cannot free our ego from the influence of celestial forces altogether. However, as we free ourselves more from thinking, we free ourselves from the influence of local celestial forces, and open ourselves up directly to the influence of more salient celestial forces, which naturally encompass those more local celestial forces and the influences they entail. As such, our thoughts, which might normally arise within us across multiple interactions from local celestial forces, would instead arise within us in a single fractal containing the hierarchy of interactions from salient celestial forces, illuminating how they flow together into our experience. We thereby become more able to comprehend that which the universe has planned for us moment by moment. Our conscious thinking becomes more united with the will of god”.

[Federica]

That may be true. I suspect the inverse is also probably true, then; that I am rationalizing why man creates art out of my appreciation for Kanye West's art.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say!

I think that, in order to develop a proper appreciation for his art, one must delve into his entire discography, and even his unreleased discography. I admire his art for a few main reasons:

1) He is able to create simple, yet unique and engaging melodic ideas like it's a reflex. This is the most difficult task of the artist.
2) He never sticks to a proven formula for success, all in terms of genres, approaches to melody/harmony/rhythm, songwriting methods, etc. He is always pushing his own boundaries.

These two points seem to be great markers of independence. I would say independence is the common element between 1) and 2). And I often find simplicity to be a great indicator of rightness. I have come to appreciate simplicity much more since I live in the country of simplicity (Sweden). So I understand your appreciation for an artist who is able to create/live by these principles.

But of course, you do not have to love his music. If you find enjoyment out of other music instead, then that’s all that really matters. Personally, I struggle to find another hip-hop artist who has a similar level of musical ability. Perhaps Kendrick Lamar, Tyler the Creator, or Little Sims come relatively close. I find that there are other artists outside of the hip-hop community who are closer in talent (such as Radiohead). However, the point is more that we should not consider it a fluke that beautiful music could come from an “ugly personality” as we may be tempted to consider. But that there is in fact a correlation between these characteristics (see more on that in a bit).

This is a slippery slope, in the sense that it's near to impossible to separate objective artistic quality from personal preference. Who really knows why we like some great artists better than other great ones...

Yes I agree with this. There is an art to every pursuit, for a pursuit is an idea that pushes ourselves beyond the objects of our past in the mission of seeking perfection out of them, or beyond them, which were not satisfied by said objects as they stand. We can draw parallels to art in everything we do. There is an art in conversation, for the goal of conversation is to strive for agreement and unity of the conversation topic. There is an art to walking, for to walk is to pursue a destination without losing our sense of balance. Etc

Nice examples. Quite subjective still. For example I tend to agree with you on the goal of conversation, but clearly a majority of people wouldn't. And I wouldn't be honest if I said that I always stick to such an intention in practice!

There is the divine, and that which connects us with the divine (Our Etheric body). I am referring to the latter. Our creations inspired by the divine do not give anything back to it, they just help us understand it. We only give back to nature as it pertains to the physical.

I consider the divine as the essence of nature. All that is essential and unchanging in nature. But nature itself could also include that which is temporary. I consider this to be what is borrowed from the divine. We cannot reconstruct what is essential in nature from the ground up, but we can borrow that which is essential to nature, and form a human replication thereof.

I don't have at this point a comprehensive idea of the etheric body (but I am reading about it). I suspect I am quite sure I will not agree with such a compartimentation. But I have to put this on hold for now.

Rather, a healthy ego is most important. The size of his ego should be to some degree proportional to the strength of his connection with the divine. If he has a very large ego, he should also have a very strong connection to the divine, or else the inspiration he develops from his own ego will not as stongly capture the divine spirit. The archetypal artist has a large ego, but also a strong connection with the divine, and thus we cannot call such an ego “overinflated”. However, such a person may be more at risk of an “over-inflated ego”, for if his connection with the divine spirit is ever blocked, he becomes more reliant on his own ego for inspiration, which could quickly turn to arrogance. All of this is evident in the behaviors of Kanye West, for example.

So you mean a large ego is offset, or condoned, by a stronger connection with the divine. If it's not offset, then we can call it overinflated, and then it's unjustified. I think this doesn't sound right to me. Maybe it's about what we mean by ego. But if it's referred to personality traits of the sort that make people say "KW has an over-inflated ego", then I don't see any correlation between those traits and connection to the divine, and no correlation with artistic creation either. To me those traits are folklore, drama, construct, most of the time shallow construct, that compensate for stuff. I just think we might agree in essence, but we are using the word ego in different ways.

[AshvinP]

Indeed, our sensory concepts drown out our inner soul activity. We must learn that our inner soul is awakened in communion with activities outside our own waking conscious thoughts and concepts. The only way we can grab a conscious hold on the cosmic forces that influence our impulses, thoughts, emotions etc is by silencing them.

So I have to ask, since you are aware of this need to 'silence them', have you tried any focused thinking meditations or similar exercises? I would recommend looking at Cleric's recent comment on another thread for a clear outline of the difference between this focused thinking approach, generally associated with Western spiritual practice, and the common 'silencing' approach, sometimes called the 'mystical' approach, generally from the East, but known to most people in the world these days.

viewtopic.php?p=18403#p18403

This passage was very illuminating, thank you. I do have a small contention however.

Cleric mentioned with the first form of meditation that our awareness can expand into the entire field of consciousness, resulting in a pure stillness devoid of thinking. While I appreciate the way Cleric has explained how we can achieve this sort of meditative state, and while I think that we can strive for and accomplish it to some degree, I have trouble seeing the logic in how we could have a “pure stillness devoid of thinking” within our waking consciousness. Insofar as I understand, as long as we are awake, we are in waking consciousness, and are also self-conscious. Our energy is being forced in some direction or another, even if in minute quantities. The only time I think we sacrifice our self consciousness is in sleep -- whereby our ego is pulled out of our physical body and is dispersed evenly throughout the cosmos.

But as a whole, I think this is a brilliantly written passage.

It reminds me a bit of something I wrote on a discord server not too long ago. It's not as detailed or evocative as what Cleric has written, but could marginally expand on what he is saying in a specific direction:

“Our only freedom of will is freedom from thinking itself. Freedom from our own thinking, emotions and impulses, to peer into the celestial forces that influence our thoughts, emotions and impulses. It should be obvious that when we free ourselves from thinking through meditation, that it is done "willingly", for all the forces of influence upon our thinking -- the contents of our environment, our conceptual systems, and our predispositions -- couldn’t possibly have a null influence, or else they wouldn’t be “forces of influence” at all. This is even more apparent when we demonstrate the ability to silence our own thinking even if our environment or conceptual systems become more active or stimulating.

Of course, we cannot free ourselves from thinking altogether, for we cannot free our ego from the influence of celestial forces altogether. However, as we free ourselves more from thinking, we free ourselves from the influence of local celestial forces, and open ourselves up directly to the influence of more salient celestial forces, which naturally encompass those more local celestial forces and the influences they entail. As such, our thoughts, which might normally arise within us across multiple interactions from local celestial forces, would instead arise within us in a single fractal containing the hierarchy of interactions from salient celestial forces, illuminating how they flow together into our experience. We thereby become more able to comprehend that which the universe has planned for us moment by moment. Our conscious thinking becomes more united with the will of god”.

Grant,

Cleric was really showing how there is no such state that is absolutely "devoid of thinking", only one in which it was desired/willed to dissociate from one's own will and thinking-thoughts, with the result that the higher level activity becomes obscured. Then we are as passive witnesses of inexplicable phenomena. We don't experience how our own willing-feeling-thinking is involved with the inner phenomena in a lawful way, inspired from deeper concentric layers of our Being.

It sounds like you are saying something similar. Thanks for the quote you shared. When you refer to "thinking" there, I assume you mean reflective intellectual thinking which is generally absorbed by the sensory world or purely abstract thought. I am wondering whether you intuited some of these concepts on your own, for ex. how the ego withdraws from the physical body during sleep, or did you come across them in some teachings first?

[GrantHenderson]

"Cleric was really showing how there is no such state that is absolutely "devoid of thinking", only one in which it was desired/willed to dissociate from one's own will and thinking-thoughts, with the result that the higher level activity becomes obscured. Then we are as passive witnesses of inexplicable phenomena. We don't experience how our own willing-feeling-thinking is involved with the inner phenomena in a lawful way, inspired from deeper concentric layers of our Being."

I see that now, thanks.

"It sounds like you are saying something similar. Thanks for the quote you shared. When you refer to "thinking" there, I assume you mean reflective intellectual thinking which is generally absorbed by the sensory world or purely abstract thought. I am wondering whether you intuited some of these concepts on your own, for ex. how the ego withdraws from the physical body during sleep, or did you come across them in some teachings first?"

Most of it is intuited, including the sleep idea. If our ego isn't being used by “us” then it doesn't belong to “us”, but instead belongs to the universe. Contrarily, If our ego is used excessively, it becomes more contained within itself, and loses its connection with the universe. Our outer observations of the universe are what remains of that which our inner awareness has failed to expand into.

I suspect sleep serves to centralize our thoughts and ideas so they do not become obscured from one another as our conceptual systems progress and become more spread apart in waking consciousness.

I would read more about these things but I am a horrendous reader unfortunately. I read occasionally but only in periods of my life where I have lots of spare time, which does not happen often. So if there is anything I say on the matter of spirituality that does not line up with spiritual teachings, then please let me know.

[AshvinP]

Most of it is intuited, including the sleep idea. If our ego isn't being used by “us” then it doesn't belong to “us”, but instead belongs to the universe. Contrarily, If our ego is used excessively, it becomes more contained within itself, and loses its connection with the universe. Our outer observations of the universe are what remains of that which our inner awareness has failed to expand into.

I suspect sleep serves to centralize our thoughts and ideas so they do not become obscured from one another as our conceptual systems progress and become more spread apart in waking consciousness.

I would read more about these things but I am a horrendous reader unfortunately. I read occasionally but only in periods of my life where I have lots of spare time, which does not happen often. So if there is anything I say on the matter of spirituality that does not line up with spiritual teachings, then please let me know.

Grant,

I only ask because my concepts about these things certainly weren't as clear as yours appear to be until I came across them in other teachings. This shows a strong intuition for spiritual realities.

It's not really about lining up our ideas with the teachings, but discerning how these shared ideas - intuitions, inspirations, imaginations, concepts - have been further fleshed out through other thinkers and thereby reveal a means of understanding the dynamics scientifically. For ex., we can further differentiate what we commonly think of as the 'physical' body into the higher members of etheric (life) and astral (desire) body, respectively. When we sleep, the Ego-Astral complex withdraws its forces from the physical-etheric complex (actually I notice you mentioned the etheric body in a comment to Federica as well). We could think of the former as the seat of ideas-thoughts while the latter serves as a reflecting structure for them during waking consciousness. This polar dynamic is the means through which the thinking Spirit 'consumes' matter and allows for self-consciousness. Normally we are only awake to thoughts which are reflected by the physical sensory organism, while those which are reflected by the etheric organism remain as subconscious imaginations until we develop higher senses which normally lay dormant.

When you speak of the 'centralizing' of ideas-thoughts during sleep, which are otherwise 'spread apart' during waking consciousness, we can begin to discern the reasons why and how this occurs. For ex., consider the following:

Consciousness arises when the astral body and ego destroy the physical and etheric bodies during the day. When the astral body and ego become aware of their physical surroundings it's as if the nerves were being torn to pieces.

Corporeal tiredness arises from the destructive, deadly effect of the astral body and ego on the etheric and physical bodies. The streaming of the physical world into man's organism has a poisonous, destructive effect.

At night the ego and astral body take in the forces of the spiritual world and stream them into the physical and etheric bodies. They surround the physical body with pictures that have a healing effect on it. The first thing a man sees when the spiritual world opens before him for the first time is his physical body. This picture of the physical body has a healing effect on him. Likewise the astral body and ego work upon the rest of man in a strengthening, healing way at night through true pictures out of the spiritual world. They stream into the ripped nerve strands and destroyed organism. Thereby forces from the spiritual world stream in at night that eliminate tiredness from the body.

As you can imagine, a much more precise science lays behind all these concepts. This brings us back to the original discussion of the current tension between 'truth-seeking' and more intuitive, inspired, imaginative thinking through spiritual (inner) realities. When we come across teachings such as the above, we can wonder how such precise dynamics, which are generally aligned with our own intuitions and broad concepts, came to be discerned. Is it pure fanciful thinking (or delusions/lies), or something else? If the latter, then we can ask whether it is incumbent upon modern thinking humans to investigate what this something else might be. I think a lot of people lack the motivation to pursue this something else because we assume it must be an abstract theory like the ones we are accustomed to, and therefore it feels like yet another chore to put on our 'reading list' when we already stretched thin with time. But I also think honest reflection reveals that the above quote speaks us to from beyond the realm of abstract theories and models. If the Divine thinking Spirit is real and worth pursuing, then perhaps it deserves this more living spiritual scientific investigation.