A Phenomenology of Cognition (Max Leyf)

[Cleric]

Yes, makes perfect sense. I always feel that the spiritual development goes towards more "refined" forms of cognition. and the spiritual potential unfolds not simply into manifesting a variety of mental forms of all kinds, but its development flows towards more and more refined levels of cognition and creation of more refined forms. "Refined" does not mean more complex, but rather of higher spiritual quality so to speak.

Alright. Then we have everything in place. We can now understand the whole idea of modern meditation/initiation, without resorting to any metaphysics but from the immediate logic of our phenomenological experience.

It is easiest if we continue with the example of the primitive man. In actuality, the evolutionary curvature of our development has ensured that we reach the awakening of the ego but let’s assume for a moment that this was somehow up to the primitive man to do. Imagine that he would instinctively assume that he’s already one with the contents of his soul (the world) and tried to fuse with color, sound, feelings and so on. This however would never lead to the awakening of the ego. Let’s represent this with the following picture that I’ve used before:



This represents allegorically how the potential of the One turns within itself and finds its Macrocosmic being as an environment of spiritual phenomena. Yet if the primitive man tries to find his unity with phenomena, he’s practically doing it from the ‘wrong end’. Remember – the goal is to gain consciousness within the manifesting potential, to awaken to the creative possibilities of the One. In other words, we become One with the potential when we evolve towards its creative perspectives, not by fusing with the already manifested world of spiritual phenomena.

This holds true also at our present stage. For example, in the psychedelic ego death, people believe that they become one with the Cosmos but this oneness is like sensual pressing of the blue arrow into the wavy screen. The intellectual ego loses its coherency and leaks over the perceptual world, being completely carried on its waves. Something similar happens in the mystical union, although usually in a more serene way.

As we have already figured out however, this leads nowhere. No matter how much we rub ourselves into the panorama of spiritual phenomena, it still remains as a wall of mystery. Instead, we gain consciousness of the potential of the One when it manifests through our perspective. This is symbolized with the purple arrow. It is the deeper being, having its consciousness at a deeper level, yet manifesting itself through the intellectual mask, whose structure formats the higher spiritual activity into its mineral forms.

We must make absolutely sure that we understand this polarity. In both cases we seek the Unity of all existence but in the first case we have to be clear that we can never achieve it in that way. Even if initially we’re enthusiastic, we soon realize that we reach a plateau. We keep rubbing in the perceptual phenomena but don’t become anymore one with them, let alone have some cognitive experience of their lawful unfolding. On the other hand, by overcoming the hardened shells of our being we awaken to a ‘softer’ inner being which manifests the Cosmic potential in greater freedom. Thus we once again reach our unity with the world, yet not by mechanically pressing into its manifestations but by finding the creative perspectives from which the world is thought.

This is the whole reason why in our age, meditation that seeks the true Unity of existence can only find it by making the paths straight for the subtler being that speaks through the intellectual mask. We should clearly feel how this presents an inner conflict. For example, for someone with an ‘all inclusive’ philosophy, the only way forward seems to be expansion towards the richness of spiritual phenomena. In meditation we leak ourselves over the totality of our soul contents and imagine that we have sacrificed our ego, that we’re now one with the Cosmic flow (the blue arrow expanding and rubbing against the wavy interior). Such a person will see as a heresy the idea that we have to actually temporarily shrink back to a point in our head. This seems absurd, it’s like locking ourselves in our ego. Yet this seems so only if we don’t realize that it is through the ego that the true spiritual potential of the One manifests, that the ego is only its rigid mask.

It is for this reason that our thinking is the gold vein that grows as a living gradient between the intellectual and the spiritual being. In practice this is achieved through forms of meditative concentration. It is as if we try to stabilize a thought-image, which basically stabilizes the form of the blue arrow. Yes, this seems restrictive, it seems we’re missing the whole richness of our soul contents. But things become different when we have clear understanding of why we do this. The reason is that we seek to find self-consciousness within the purple current. This current exists even in our most prosaic daily thinking in the blue but we’re conscious only of the most superficial manifestations of that current, which are similar to sensory perceptions, for example, verbal thought which is like hearing a sensory voice. By stabilizing our thinking on a thought-image, we gradually begin to intuit the cognitive currents that energize it. This was compared before with the waterfall. It seems like a stationary structure but is continually being replenished. Within this living flow of the purple arrow we seek to awaken.

Now the greatest obstacle here is that we are used to feel as the top authority of our inner world. Thus we simply don’t give up our blue form that easily. Or if we do give it up, we do so by leaking it over our soul phenomena. Even if we meditate and stabilize it, we often remain stiff. That’s why we need this inverted attitude towards our higher being, we need this mood of prayer, to be open for something higher than us to awaken within us.

Here someone may ask: “But what if that higher being has already awakened in me? What if I’m already it?” This is a very common position. The simple answer is that we’re always in the middle of the flow (think of the turning torus). Thus there’s always higher potential that has not yet manifested, there's an even deeper arrow within the one that we experience as our self-conscious being.

[Stranger]

I don’t see in which sense you have come to consider this one “another issue”? This issue is exactly the one that presents itself to us when we carefully and thoughtfully follow the phenomenological unfolding. It’s not a standalone point that we can optionally discuss, then put on the shelf for possible further use, if applicable. This is our crucial issue, at the point we have moved with the discussion, like there’s no way around! We need to turn just this point inside out, if we want to make progress in our journey through cognition-becoming.

Moreover you say that you agree with me that “percepts are actually the result of the ideations of Thinking”
But that’s not what I said. It’s thinking with small t, not capital T. The percepts are the result of the ideational flow through the filter of human cognition. So I am not sure what you are doing here... I am pausing the comment of the rest of your paragraph, because there you set off for a whole reasoning based on this misunderstanding.
.

OK, good, then let's expand on this. Can you explain exactly what is the problem with this filter of human cognition, and what and how exactly it needs to be fixed and what needs to be changed or sacrificed/recycled. And also how and why it leads to duality.

Eugene, I’m not sure how useful it’d be to enter in this discussion, while the preceding points are not streamlined, clarified, and continuous in shared understanding. Reading the above, it seems to me that the phenomenological approach is suddenly abandoned, and preference is given to a statement (the claim) which is driven by what follows (“when that happens it unroots the very root cause of the egoic complex”) as a desirable outcome that is posited there, becoming an attractor of your target statement, rather than as a realization implied by careful phenomenological (experiential) inquiry of cognitive process.

In other words, you are willing to follow and agree/disagree up to a point, but then, just at the moment when your own unfolding reasoning would lead you to seriously review some of your staples, you snap back to a discontinuous point, when arguments become “separate issues”, the focus moves to “practical matters like in engineering” and you default back to the wish of “dismantling egoic structures”. At this point of the reasoning, this unrooting of egoic structures really comes in from nowhere. It’s a new entry in the reasoning, which, by virtue of some pre-existing right of residence in your mental organization, suddenly becomes entitled to drive the desired conclusion that “we can function without dualistic steps”. This is how the logic of what is happening looks from my perspective.

As I said, it would take a totally different topic to expand on how this process of development of egoic complex unfolds from the dualistic perception, but I assure you that I practically investigated this process exactly by careful phenomenological experiential inquiry of cognitive process.

There’s this unlawful 'insider' that lives within the borders of your own domain, but you don’t dare to submit it to ID control. For some reason, it has permanent residence, and can even decrete what your cognition is supposed to be able to do or not do (it decreets that it can fully function without dualistic steps), rather than let the experiential test show how it functions in practice. This Resident Wish also theorizes that evolutionary dualism used to be necessary, but now we‘re at a stage where it’s not any longer the case, etc. etc.

Well, what I have just illustrated describes exactly how you are harboring and nurturing such abstractions.

Then the last sketches you offer seem to me like you are furnishing the home of your Resident Wish. The historical perspective of Advaita, the conceptual context provided by the mathematical concept of number, look like ways to plump the spot for the Resident Wish to settle down even more comfortably, and feel even more entitled in its unjustifiably privileged position.

Ultimately, the requirement you state and restate at practically every turn of your sentences, that the content of experience is “always inseparable from Consciousness that experiences it” really seems to come in, rather than as a phenomenological realization (as you have yourself shared) as a requirement dictated from downhill, by the postulated necessity to dismantle the ego. Basically it’s like the mantra of the Resident Wish.

The fact that any content of experience is always inseparable from the conscious experience of it (and therefore the Consciousness that experiences it) is a simple and straightforward FACT of direct first-person inner experience here and now. Our cognitive process has only two options here: to recognize and accept it as a brute fact of reality, or ignore it and remain in the dualistic mode (which is interpreting content as separate from Consciousness that experiences it). It has nothing to do with any "Resident Wish" or anything else for that matter. It is also not a requirement, it is a free choice to remain in the state of ignoring this fact, there are no expectations whatsoever. But there is a lawful connection between the realization of Oneness and the persistence of egoic and dualistic state of consciousness - they are mutually exclusive in the existential sense (and for those who care about such lawful connection, I would think it is important to understand it from phenomenological and experiential perspective). Staying with the realization of Oneness is not a preference, it's just staying with the truth. choosing to ignore it is a preference and a free choice which needs to be respected.

[Stranger]

Here someone may ask: “But what if that higher being has already awakened in me? What if I’m already it?” This is a very common position. The simple answer is that we’re always in the middle of the flow (think of the turning torus). Thus there’s always higher potential that has not yet manifested, there's an even deeper arrow within the one that we experience as our self-conscious being.

Yes, this is all true and I get that. I still do not see any conflict between realizing the fundamental Oneness of Reality and simultaneously allowing the unleashing of the creative potential flowing from the higher levels of our being. You are correct about criticizing some nondual practices that hold the belief that just achieving the static experience of "unity with everything" is all that needs to be done, and I agree that it is a serious practical and cognitive mistake. I am saying that both needs to be done - while achieving the experiential state of Oneness (realization of being already IT ontologically), continue with the flow of unleashing the creative potential of the higher being dynamically (becoming IT actively-creatively). And the reason that the realization of the ontological Oneness is crucial here is that it exactly removes one of the major obstacles of such unleashing of the creative potential, because it is our egoic sense of separate self (spanning from dualistic erroneous perception of reality) that blocks this creative flow. Moreover, it is exactly the curvature of the creative flow of our higher being that bends us toward the realization of the state of Oneness, simply because the higher being is already in the state of Oneness (and never been otherwise), so it is its creative potential calling this realization to unleash through our lower-level soul structures.

I'm thinking now is that there is something you guys are probably missing here, and I see it from the Federica's response above as well. You don't seem to connect the dots between the realization (or non-realization) of the fundamental "unity of the content and its conscious experience" and the development and persistence of the human egoic complex. And so you believe that the solution for the problem of the underdeveloped human mode of existence enclosed in the egoic bubble can be solved by just expanding the cognition to higher levels and reaching to higher-order beings and their shared ideal content. This should of course be done by all means, but unless the egoic bubble is busted and illusion of separation removed by realizing the fundamental Oneness, the process of such expansion will only continue through dualistic venues by just "stretching" the egoic bubble into more subtle and higher layers of consciousness.

[Cleric]

I'm thinking now is that there is something you guys are probably missing here, and I see it from the Federica's response above as well. You don't seem to connect the dots between the realization (or non-realization) of the fundamental "unity of the content and its conscious experience" and the development and persistence of the human egoic complex. And so you believe that the solution for the problem of the underdeveloped human mode of existence enclosed in the egoic bubble can be solved by just expanding the cognition to higher levels and reaching to higher-order beings and their shared ideal content. This should of course be done by all means, but unless the egoic bubble is busted and illusion of separation removed by realizing the fundamental Oneness, the process of such expansion will only continue through dualistic venues by just "stretching" the egoic bubble into more subtle and higher layers of consciousness.

Sigh... Even though you say you 'got it', what you write indicates quite the opposite. Take the following: what do you consider to lead to deeper experience of oneness: hearing voices in your head and feeling that you are one with them because of the "fundamental unity of the content and its conscious experience" OR hearing your own thinking voice and feeling intimately active in its temporal unfolding? Are you more 'one' with the random voices in the head OR with your thinking voice? I'm not speaking of ontological or theoretical oneness. We have agreed thousand times that no one disputes that and it is accepted by default. We're speaking about the practical realization of oneness. What of the above do you feel to lead in the direction where the oneness is not only generally acknowledged but realized in living experience?

[Stranger]

What of the above do you feel to lead in the direction where the oneness is not only generally acknowledged but realized in living experience?

It is both and only both the living experience of the fundamental oneness of Being-Awareness of the Self together with the living experience of the "feeling intimately active in its temporal unfolding of your own thinking voice". If we miss one of these inseparable aspects of reality, then we are in an incoherent mode that is not aligned with the state of the higher Self which is timelessly Being One and simultaneously being intimately active through unfolding its Thinking creative potential in time. And if you accept the salvific mission of Christ, then that is precisely and exactly what he told us to do:

I pray that they may all be one. Father! May they be in us, just as you are in me and I am in you. (John 17:21)

But now I invite you to think for yourself: why you are rejecting the fundamental existential oneness of the Self and only looking at one side - "feeling intimately active in its temporal unfolding of your own thinking voice"? What is it that is resisting to open yourself to the simple truth of the existential Oneness of the Self?

[AshvinP]

Well we're still circling around the core point of sacrificial inner transformation as the means through which the nondual intuitive core can discover more leeway in its expressions within our intellectual-sensory life. I suppose Cleric may be posting a response to your last comment soon, which continues that discussion. Let's wait and see. I was simply trying to reinforce the point a bit, because it is still falling by the wayside.

The exercises are all there for gradually strengthening our will, our feeling, and our thinking - dozens and dozens of them. But as long as we approach them with incorrect understanding of what they are doing within us and unreasonable expectations of what we gain from them, there is no point even trying them. They don't simply transport us into some spiritual experience of archetypal processes which crystallize perceptions from holistic Ideas. Again, if we are expecting something like this, then we haven't yet understood the first-person process of sacrificial transformation which is being spoken of.

Ashvin, to be honest, I have difficulty in understanding all these long and vague esoteric statements. I have a practical down to earth personality with minimalistic engineering approach, I need to understand the practical steps and details of how the cognition process works step-by-step, how and what exactly needs to be sacrificed, how and what exactly needs to be developed and so on without being overwhelmed with all these vague analogies and esoteric expositions using unclear and vague language. May be for people like me Cleric or you could just make a concise list with descriptions or links to practical exercises and steps with clear instructions. You probably already have topics on the forum that discussed these practical steps and I apologize if I missed them.

But thanks for clarifying that "They don't simply transport us into some spiritual experience of archetypal processes which crystallize perceptions from holistic Ideas.", because that is how I understood (or misunderstood) the expansion of consciousness into the ideational process of Cosmic Thinking.

From the perspective of my nondual practice, I know what exactly needs to be sacrificed in the first-person process, and those are:
- The dualistic step in the perception process that I described.
- All the dualistic content developed from that cognitive mistake of dualistic perception, including all its derived content of egoic cognitive-behavioral patterns (egoic thoughts, desires and so on)

But I assume that this is not enough to be sacrificed and would loke to know if I am missing anything here.

Ok, Eugene, but this is exactly what we have been trying to convey to you, this entire time.Yes, you are missing something here. You can't make progress with the exercises while simultaneously remaining the same inwardly. That is why you do not see any progress. You are actively resisting the very direction the exercises are meant to gradually steer you towards.

You say:

I am an engineer.
I am down to Earth.
I am minimalist.
I follow step by step instructions.
I think best with lists.
I can't understand esoteric analogies and metaphors.
Etc.

The perspective which is making all of these rigid identifications is exactly what needs to be sacrificed in the process of doing the exercises. There are simply no two ways about it. The inner world, the Spirit world, is the polar opposite of the physical plane. So naturally the approach will be quite different. Especially if we are used to line of work like engineering. Such work thrives on keeping our 'subjective' life strictly separate from the objects of our study. The exact opposite is needed for this inner depth investigation, the science of the spirit. The subjective life must become the object of our study in real-time as we rhythmically transform ourselves through it.

Furthermore, it is not a mechanical approach in the least - we are dealing with the forces of life and soul and spirit, of aesthetics and morality, of Beauty and Goodness. Can we imagine unveiling the secrets of artistic and moral creation in any mechanical, list-based approach? Of course not. So we really need to wonder what is the purpose of this lower perspective which demands an approach that it knows, at least subconsciously, cannot possibly work? You keep giving us the answer to that question implicitly in your posts, like the latest response to Cleric, where you say that the focused thinking concentration exercises only 'stretch the egoic bubble into higher layers of consciousness'. Of course Cleric anticipated that was exactly your underlying resistance to the imaginative exercises the entire time, hence the reason for the illustrations.

It makes little sense to say you are having difficulties with the exercises, you have 'no access to the flow' in your phenomenal experience, to ask what the issue is, and then to ignore the answers from three different people, saying "no that can't be the solution because it doesn't fit with my preferred nondual approach... just tell me a way that I can have the nondual cake and eat it too, otherwise I'm tuning out". If we were selling you a spiritual program here, then we would placate you with what you want to hear and say, 'yes Eugene, you can continue your nondual approach and, as a side hobby, here is a list of exercises which will give you the keys to experiencing the lawful mechanisms of cognition and perception'. But that's not our aim, so we're not going to promise you can move a couch by pushing it and pulling it at the same time with equal force. 

Ironically, as we saw above, the insistence on merging into the Oneness and resisting anything which works through the ego with humble thought-images, only pushes you down further into separate self identifications. That is the deeper meaning of many verses such as, "He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it." This applies equally to the materialistic and the mystical reductionist. It's all right there in the open for you to see now, Eugene. We're not arbitrarily making things difficult for you or 'gaslighting' you, as some are fond of saying. We're not trying to rope you into some hierarchical cult. There is no game being played here. It's just straightforward phenomenological investigation of our first-person cognitive becoming which is being offered. Federica and I tend to quote Steiner as well, because we aren't yet confident enough in our own ability to illustrate the dynamics at play without some support. But clearly Cleric is and, not only does he refrain from quoting Steiner or anyone else, he isn't even using language adopted from any of those sources either. It's completely original phenomenology and illustrations, offered with a sincere hope that, through it, your spirit will manage to find resonance with its own deeper reality. 

[Stranger]

You say:

I am an engineer.
I am down to Earth.
I am minimalist.
I follow step by step instructions.
I think best with lists.
I can't understand esoteric analogies and metaphors.
Etc.

The perspective which is making all of these rigid identifications is exactly what needs to be sacrificed in the process of doing the exercises.

got it

“Where we”, who is this we?
“Image for ourselves”, who is ourselves?
“Our boundaries”, who is our?
“We creatively”, who is we?
“Our boundless first-person perspective”, who is our, and who is first-person?
“Our private property”, who is our?

[AshvinP]

You say:

I am an engineer.
I am down to Earth.
I am minimalist.
I follow step by step instructions.
I think best with lists.
I can't understand esoteric analogies and metaphors.
Etc.

The perspective which is making all of these rigid identifications is exactly what needs to be sacrificed in the process of doing the exercises.

got it

“Where we”, who is this we?
“Image for ourselves”, who is ourselves?
“Our boundaries”, who is our?
“We creatively”, who is we?
“Our boundless first-person perspective”, who is our, and who is first-person?
“Our private property”, who is our?

What Mike was saying is basically, "there's no point even speaking of this stuff, because as soon we open our mouth we have permanently lost connection to nondual consciousness".

That perspective, which says such things to avoid the inner effort of carefully working through the first-person phenomenology of its cognitive becoming, should be sacrificed. It is the perspective which refuses to patiently and humbly find the expression of its higher Self within the lower ego. It ascends to Oneness and then refuses to wash the feet of its lower self.

"After that, He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.
...
Do you know what I have done to you? You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them."

[Stranger]

The perspective which is making all of these rigid identifications is exactly what needs to be sacrificed in the process of doing the exercises.

I am a bankruptcy attorney by profession
I personally have found it very helpful
I like Schelling's quote
I feel very lucky

[AshvinP]

The perspective which is making all of these rigid identifications is exactly what needs to be sacrificed in the process of doing the exercises.

I am a bankruptcy attorney by profession
I personally have found it very helpful
I like Schelling's quote

Eugene,

Please try to follow what I am writing carefully. I am really not trying to insult you. Don't let this become about emotional reactions.

When we refuse to outwardly speak in terms of our "I"-ness, its because we inwardly identify with the rigid categories that we don't want to give up. We would rather have no discussion at all then make the inward sacrifices. The mystical declarations that we shouldn't even try to have a discussion about nondual consciousness, because that reinforces the separate self, are compensation for an inward attachement to our separate self and its preferences, interests, desires, etc. What we say is then completely split from what we do. We say everything is One, we refuse to even have discussions about the path through the ego, and we don't lift a finger to gradually reveal the precise avenues through which the One Spirit becomes conscious of itself within individuals, communities, nations, species, and the Earth organism as a whole.

(btw you started quoting Anthony for some reason)