Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

[Shaibei]

Praying is a universal practice and at least from personal experience a daily prayer can help. From an idealistic point of view one can ask how prayer works and one can also answer, the main point is that it helps. Does it always help? probably not

I also pray on a daily basis. I believe it helps because it expresses my intention or will. However, the mystery of prayer is not just to pray but to practice communion with the Divine, which involves introspection and deep inner work or occasionally pure grace.

I agree

[Lou Gold]

When talking about God you always stumble with the question what is god. If you say he/it obeys certain laws then you take the will from him. If you say he has wiil, then he's lacking. So he's above all predications and is all predications? Ok...

Not the way I would put it but language is tricky. I am defining God as Lawful meaning that God and the Law are One. There is no option of exercising or not exercising will which is a consideration/perception of separation. I'm saying the One is what it is it without metacognition. "I AM THAT I AM" No more-or-less, this-or-that, subject-or-object.

My understanding is that you can't fathom how God's thought works. I never tried to think like I was two people. My thought is limited to only one processor, let alone trying to understand an entity that thinks the thoughts of all mankind. Can God choose not to create a world? for me the human intellect can not tell God what to do. In the Hebrew source the verse says "I will be what i will be" so it's not it is what it is. Maybe in the future we'll know what it is. Maybe

Yup. I don't even have a conception of a thinking God. Since God is One, there is no separate God-thought of "To be or not to be." Creation is creation. I understand my alignment with God, which I seek via prayer and introspection and experience, more like finding the way in the Now. Beyond time in the Eternal, "I am that I am" and in the temporal, "I will be what I will be."

[Cleric]

Joining little late but here're some thoughts on the issue.

TL;DR version: I don't know what everyone implies with the term "meta-cognition". If it's expected that the Cosmos can think abstractly intellectually, it should be noted this is not supported the by facts of higher cognition. Even the closest stage of higher consciousness available for contemporary man already leaves intellectual thinking behind. So if this is what it's implied by "meta-cognition", the answer would be "no, the Cosmos doesn't have intellectual meta-cognition". But we should be aware that "meta-cognition" (in the above sense) is not at all the same as "self-consciousness". Again, even the nearest stage of higher cognition shows that not only self-consciousness is not lost but it becomes even more lucid and encompassing. Cosmic Beings are perfectly self-aware, it's just that the forms of consciousness they live in are different from ours. Not only are they self-aware but they are also much more aware of what we are, than we ourselves.

Extended version: Unfortunately, this topic is so fundamental that if we want not only to state an opinion but to support our view, we would have to write a whole book on esoteric science. I'll just throw few ideas which by their very nature can never give convincing or even barely complete answer, yet can become seed points for further elucidations.

First we need to be aware that there are two different reasons for being inclined towards one or the other view - thinking and feeling. Very often our philosophy does not pursue truth but is used to justify our unconscious sympathies and antipathies. Also very often we are not quite aware of this and turn things around, assuming that we are holding a logical and concise philosophy and that's why we feel sympathetic about it. Assuming that we can hold both views with impartiality and equanimity, we can focus on the actual technical details.

There are many purely philosophical reasons why higher meta-cognition seems implausible. One of them is that many idealistic philosophies are still heavily influenced by materialism (or at least reductionism). Even when it's spoken about Mind at Large, very often quite implicitly it is taken that the fundamental state of that MAL represents energy/physical space. Then the evolution of MAL is envisioned by mirroring physical evolution (borrowed from physicalism). The end result is that emergence of self-reflective consciousness is considered to be dependent on reaching a certain threshold of complexity. It's assumed that the primordial state of MAL is too homogenous and simple to allow for any self-reflective experience.

Our modern human experience is still heavily rooted in Kantian mood - we feel we live in inner representations, models of the 'things in themselves'. When proper science of higher cognition is lacking, we are prone to imagine higher consciousness as some kind of expansion of our own cognition. In other words, we imagine the consciousness of divine beings as somewhat similar to ours but with additional perceptions and probably 'smarter'. In other words, Cosmic consciousness is envisioned as some kind of super intellect. In this sense, it makes very little sense to suppose that the Cosmos at large can be meta-cognitive. Such super intellect will require its corresponding super representations and these would require super complex structures in MAL. Our intuition is correct to assess this view as implausible. Higher cognition confirms that there's no Cosmic super intellect.

Yet nothing forces us to consider cognition solely as the result of complexity. This is a strictly bottom-up approach. If we are not emotionally biased, feeling for intellectual balance always suggests that all dualities are resolved by having the proper place of both poles and not by taking one as fundamental and explaining the other away. The difficulty in the current situation is that we are not dealing with 'horizontal' dualities, which can be encompassed by the intellect (like for example passivity vs. activity) but with a 'vertical' duality which puts the intellect itself in a situation which it doesn't know how to address. Our waking consciousness understands the lower states (dreaming, sleeping). The reason is that they are in a certain sense contained within the waking state. For example, we can picture the dream state by imagining our lucidity being diminished and becoming entranced in the world of imagery. In other words, we can comprehend the lower states by removing something from our waking state. But the opposite is not that easy. We don't know how to add something in order to produce a higher state of consciousness. For example, in our dream state, the waking state simply doesn't exist. No amount of combining dream images can produce the higher state. Only if we move in a direction 'perpendicular' to the dream images we can 'awaken' to it - we 'zoom out' of the lower state and find ourselves in a higher state of consciousness (like in a lucid dream) which contains within itself the former state. That's the difficulty of the situation. Our intellectual state has achieved a kind of hegemony. Through the last few centuries of rigorous philosophical and scientific exploration, we've developed dependence on intellectual thought. This is not only a thinking problem but the bigger trouble is that we've atrophied a very important soul quality - humility, openness and reverence for what stands higher than us. That's one of the main reasons why we can only envision higher states as the intellect expanding 'horizontally', increasing the density of perceptions, becoming smarter, faster, etc. In other words, we imagine higher consciousness only through things that we can comprehend from our current state and simply stuff more of them. We are lacking the science of how to address in our soul life the states of being that can't yet fit in our current state. Not speaking of blind faith here. We can see this even in ordinary life. There's a lot that a child's consciousness does not yet contain. Here we see how this science would have practical implications if a child could develop reverence and love for its educator. This allows for transfer of soul forces quite apart from simple relay of knowledge-information. A child that has grown in such a mood of soul can have very natural progress towards higher stages of cognition later in life. On the contrary, our current education rigidifies the child's ego way too early, inspiring it for premature independence, which closes it off for any acquisition of higher soul forces that the educator may transfuse (not to mention higher development later). In other words, the child will continue throughout life with whatever soul forces it happens to already posses by whatever reasons. Any further education consists only of 'horizontal' accumulation of data.

So that's one thing. Our contemporary culture is quite literally psychologically damaged and sees the 'vertical' duality only one-sidedly by looking 'down' on what's lower than it and tries to build the higher through combinations of the lower. But we can't build the higher state by rearranging the puzzle pieces within the lower (what David hinted at in his post about synergy). The intellect itself is not the problem. The problem is that it's been one-sidedly educated. If that wasn't the case we could perfectly well think and comprehend the nature of the higher states, even if we only approach them asymptotically in this way. As a matter of fact this is the proper way to prepare for the actual crossing of the threshold. We can achieve quite detailed understanding of the higher states and then the actual transition to higher cognition is experienced as a deserved consequence of long and patient preparation. All the concepts that we've been slowly developing (even if still lacking the actual perceptions) find their corresponding experiences in the higher realm.

Because of this intellectual challenge of our times, we have to work much harder. Not only that we have to acquire higher knowledge, which is a difficult task in its own right but we must constantly fight our unhealthy habits of soul life. Let's approach again the fundamental being of man. We reach within our foundations as a cognizing being when we delve into the essence of thinking - as this is what makes us a cognizing being. We've spoken many times already how in relation to thinking the world content is recognized in two distinguishable domains - world of perceptions and world of ideas. Thinking itself is the self-caused process which unites both domains - in thinking, idea and perception are fused. All other categories as mind/matter, subject/object, god/soul, etc. are already the result of philosophical thought that attaches concepts/ideas to different perceptions and thus further analyzes the world content.



Above we have two alternative views of the same thing. Both should be understood in wholly metaphorical sense - that is, we shouldn't expect that we'll ever see visually somewhere both worlds as 'spirals'. The first represents the integration of both worlds from our human centric perspective. The degree to which we have integrated them can be taken to represent different degrees of consciousness. The second aims to illustrate how our state of being is only one of the possible states when the Absolute Idea becomes decomposed. All such states represent valid first-person experiences of beings, existing simultaneously and interacting.

The pole of perception, if taken 'in isolation', can be considered to symbolize absolute unconsciousness, Cosmic sleep, perception with no idea. The other pole can be taken as absolute awareness, the absolute idea filling the whole world content as the blinding light of universal and complete meaning. In certain sense these two can be considered to be one and the same (hence, the circle). I believe this was what Scott meant in his post in the beginning. As states at infinity, both poles are equally incomprehensible from our standpoint. We, as beings that experience existence through time, can only comprehend a stream of metamorphoses of states of being - mixtures of ideas and perceptions. Now there's one fundamental asymmetry in this stream - we can ever experience it only in the direction of integration of consciousness. This problem is projected in physics as the problem of the arrow of time - why time flows in one direction, while the equations of physics work equally well in both? There are the most ingenious attempts to explain this asymmetry, for example the second law of thermodynamics and so on. Since we take a starting position that considers existence before the world has been artificially split by thinking in outer real and inner experienced, we don't need to look for external causes for the direction of time. Our experience contains the answer in itself. It's the simple fact that we can't conceive a stream of consciousness in any other way. We can have consciousness of existence only if every next state somehow embeds within itself the imprint of previous (experienced as the phenomenon of memory). In other words, the idea corresponding to our current state of being can only be followed by an idea that encompasses it (the current one) within itself. And we don't need at all to postulate this as some kind of a law. We can assume that any transition between states is possible and does happen all the time. But it's a simple fact of necessity that only those states that find themselves in harmonic relationships with the previous state can be experienced as the next state. If the next state doesn't include the imprint of the previous, the experience of a stream would simply not arise. This integration of perceptions and idea doesn't need to be monotonically increasing. We can see that it constantly oscillates - for example in the sleep-waking cycle. But as long as when we awaken in the morning we experience a state that embeds within itself the imprint of yesterday's waking experience and the night's diminished consciousness, the stream continues. That's how we arrive at the realization that our stream of existence leads to overall increase of integration of both worlds. We repeat that we don't need to postulate this as a law - this is a simple fact of observation. It's only that we realize that this fact is in itself already explanation - we don't need to postulate some additional external reason for this. In the spirit of BK we can say that we are most parsimonious when we don't invent artificial reasons for the direction of time. We can assume that consciousness can and does transition to any conceivable state of being, yet only these states that embed the previous and are more or less similar to it, can be experienced as 'next'.

The solution to the complexity of meta-cognition is that as we rise towards higher states, cognition becomes actually simpler, not more complex. This can already be felt for example from the descriptions in my post here. In our ordinary state we oppose our thinking life to our perceptions. We create models, we can fantasize. As we cross the threshold we lose that ability. Now our inner life has reached a higher level of integration and the perceptual and imaginative screen are flowing together with meaning (living mobile idea). We no longer separate ourselves and oppose our thinking self to the perceptual screen but we experience the world of perception pressing into our being and forming our experience and how we reciprocally influence it and infuse it with ideas, resulting into an integrated flow. This state is higher because at any point we feel embedded within our higher experience the state of consciousness of our ordinary self. It's only when we begin to break down this integrated flow into fragments and begin to live by juggling with the isolated abstract concepts of these fragments that we find ourselves back into the ordinary abstractly intellectual state. So in a very real sense the higher state of consciousness is more simple, in the sense of more harmonically integrated, not in the sense of 'stupid'. At the same time our consciousness of self and the environment grows even further. We can encompass whole domains of our ordinary soul life (which are normally experienced as very complex) as lawful streamlines within a higher-order flow of mobile and metamorphosing perceptions and ideas. The complexity of our ordinary life results from the inability to perceive the context of processes and beings that unite the otherwise fragmentary experiences into a lawful whole. We can approach this with an analogy. If we have to escape a labyrinth we might need to get really clever about it. For example we might need to leave markers, to sketch a map and so on. What happens if we pump water at the entrance of the labyrinth? It begins to fill the tunnels and as it follows the pressure gradient it finally finds the exit. We can imagine higher forms of cognition in a somewhat similar sense (of course this is a grossly simplified picture). In higher cognition it's much more about perceiving the gradient of potential and steering the transformation of our state of being towards our goal. So that's how beings become more and more Cosmically conscious while at the same time the form of cognition actually becomes more and more integrated and simpler. It can be said that the complexity is always there but the degree of integration determines 'from which side' we're experiencing that complexity. The higher the being, the more it is free from entanglement and it experiences a cosmic panorama of possible states of being which it can shape. On the other hand, beings like us experience a state where the potential has been "spectrum analyzed" (in the sense how white light can be split into colors with a prism) and we experience the fragmentary states and transitions between them in seemingly obscure ways. This leads us to the question of time.

Many times already I've alluded that we can never comprehend higher cognition unless we solve the mystery of time. Integration of consciousness is not simply integration of intellectual understanding, simply as abstract ideas coming together. In reality ideas are living and metamorphosing beings. What are we except a living and constantly metamorphosing idea? At any point we experience an idea - the total meaning of what we are aware of as a whole. This is not the usual way we're used to comprehend ideas - we're used to think of ideas and concepts as abstract elements that we attach words to. But at any point, our state of being is experienced as unique general idea. Through the stream of time we experience constant transformation of this idea. The fact that we experience only limited ways to transform that idea, we recognize as certain resistance - instead of being able to transform our state in any random way, we experience certain constraints and part of these constraints we recognize as 'world of perceptions'. We can approach the deeper mystery of time through an analogy. Let's imagine the idea of a movie. It is very general, it only contains the most general structure as introduction, culmination and resolution. Now this idea contains within itself all conceivable lesser ideas that are in harmony with this general plan. Then the general plan begins to be "spectrum analyzed" and from all the infinite possibilities only some begin to be filtered. Then they in turn continue to be further specified and so on. Finally we arrive at the concrete ideas of each frame of the movie which when arranged in sequence comprise the experience of the movie in linear time.



Now this is a very limited analogy and shouldn't be taken too far as a model of reality but nevertheless, it gives us some direction. The most important observation is that the general movie idea exists as something holistic - it is it's own 'now'. It spreads out and creates the potential time out of itself. There are many other things that should be mentioned if this analogy is not to become misleading. One of them is that nowhere in the higher realm we'll ever find such a tree-like branching structure. Such things we can find in the sensory world but there's nothing of this sort in the higher worlds. We'll be having somewhat more realistic image if we picture that each of these idea-beings is quite independent and all are actually one within the other, as spheres of experience sharing common center. Then every being experiences its state as kind of 'interference' with the states of the other beings, resulting in a complex interaction of nested idea-rhythms (something like this was described in this post). This also means that these levels of idea are not static but are all flexible and transforming at the same time. The hierarchical relation of beings is not something determined by metaphysical 'strings' that tie beings together but by the simple fact that in the interference of beings, they filter each other's potential in different ways. Some beings (the grand cycles) have greater potential filtering impact on all other beings. As an analogy, the rotation of the Earth is one physical rhythm which clearly modulates the possible states of being that a great number of beings can experience. We only need to understand this not only as a physical image but as actual interference with grand idea-beings that modulate the palette of the possible states that we can experience as our 'next'. Another thing missing from this movie analogy is the actual integration of consciousness. Every arc is not only a sequence but also an integrative process. Furthermore there are some beings whose integration is experienced in such a way that they reach self-consciousness only at a point where time has been already decomposed into very complex rhythmical processes (the linear movie strip level). Such is the case for the human being. If we consider the diagram with the spirals, we can imagine that for the longest time ideas were 'out of phase' with perceptions resulting first in deep unconscious sleep then, as ideas were getting 'remotely' correlated, a kind of dream-like, instinctive consciousness develops. Finally, when the tips of the spirals 'lock in phase' we come to the experience of causative idea finding its own reflection in perception. This is the moment of awakening of self-conscious thinking. From this point of implosion continue the further integration of the both worlds. Thus we have roughly traced the processes of involution and evolution. This was the general point of Ashvin's post in the beginning of the thread. The idea is that it's not at all the case that all beings should experience the same level of self-awareness at the same time. While we were going through unconscious integration there were all other kinds of beings that were in full consciousness guiding this process.
As consciousness continues to integrate, we not only experience our higher being but this at the same time elucidates the past states that we've gone through unconsciously. This is possible because the higher idea-beings span the whole time potential from themselves as something whole, thus as we integrate with these beings, we become conscious of whole time arcs. In this way we arrive at an intellectual understanding of the so called Akashic Chronicles that have been known to the ancients. This idea has always drawn suspicion in modern thinking because it can't be imagined without some special universal structure (created by god or who knows what) that has the sole purpose of making copies and recording everything. Here we arrive at a much closer to reality conception, which reveals that the 'records' are actually the non-linear structure of time-idea-being itself.

Let's consider a little contrived example in order to throw some additional light on the matters. Let's imagine that we want to build a building. We have strong faith in idealism and think that we'll be assisting humanity's evolution if we build a hall where conferences can be held and ideas exchanged. Yet we are no construction engineer so don't know how to build it. Let's now consider a being living on a higher stage of consciousness than we. Such beings actually exist. The higher beings closest to man are called Angels in Christian Esoterism. The name is not that important. We can encounter these beings even if we don't know how they are called in different traditions. When we cross the threshold of higher cognition, we already find ourselves in the lowest of three higher stages of consciousness that are available to modern man through the appropriate training. This first stage is the normal state of consciousness for these beings, just as our ordinary intellectual consciousness is the normal state for contemporary man. The Angels don't have physical structure. Their 'coarsest' structure reaches to the life (etheric) processes in Nature. This doesn't mean that they feel limited or unaware of the physical world. On the contrary, they have more understanding of it but need not to be entangled in it and consider the details. As an analogy, we can say that they experience the 'quantum mechanical wave function' of the physical world without the need to decohere/collapse it. Human soul life is an open book for these beings. The soul (astral structure) of men is part of their environment, just as plants and animals are part of our environment. A noble thought, as our idea to build the hall, lives in our astral body and is perceptible to the Angel. We can speak only in metaphorical pictures here. Let's say that it looks like a luminous structure living in our soul. When the Angel investigates it it can trace as light rays its relations to other ideas and beings (for example the soul of BK which we enthusiastically expect to visit our hall). It can experience our idea in the context of the overall evolution of humanity. The Angel has its own idea of world development, it is conducting its life according to its ideal. If it considers that our idea aligns well with the overall evolution it may decide to help with its realization. When it investigates further our soul organism it can see that we're unable to build the hall ourselves. There're different ways it can know this but let's say that it simply perceives our own realization that we can't do it. It then expands its consciousness in search for solution. In the spiritual world geometric distances make no sense. It's like asking what's the distance between the concept of tree and the concept of light. The 'distance' in the spiritual world results from the degree of affinity between idea-beings. Beings that have common modes of 'vibration' recognize each other. Beings that are very dissimilar simply don't perceive each other. So when the Angel expands its consciousness in this way, it is searching for idea-being that will complement our idea-being. Then the perception of another soul stands out, which might happen to be of someone involved in construction and is Karmically suitable for the task. Then the Angel may begin to work directly or with the assistance of another Angel that might be more closely related with the constructor. In either case, the Angels begin to influence both ours and the constructor's soul life. They do that through gently inspiring certain ideas and feelings. In our ordinary state we simply have thoughts and impulses, just like we do all the time. One day we find ourselves in the company of the constructor, we get acquainted, we start talking, we share our idea, he becomes enthusiastic and offers his help. Now this meeting between us in the physical world seems the result of chance but through all the time our freedom has been slightly influenced such that it may be slightly more probable for us to decide to go in this way rather than that way, that we may travel somewhere on this date rather than that date and so on. All this was possible because of the constant work the higher beings were doing. This is only possible for them because they experience time in very different way. Their moment 'now' can encompass whole years of our life and they perceive the most various ways Karma may lay out for us.
This is a really made up example, intentionally made more human-like and accessible but higher perception reveals that things like this happen all the time. It should be noted that we, as humans investigating the higher realms, are only visitors there and we can't encompass the totality of consciousness of an Angel or any other higher being. Yet we can experience certain points where our consciousness and theirs intersect. Then we glimpse at the wonderous ways these beings constantly work. Such experiences are not only curiosities of higher existence but can become actual practical knowledge. We understand that we can do a lot to help these beings by taking conscious stance towards them. Not only that but it is actually our duty to enter into fully conscious relationships with them - if we want to work with them. The last part is very important. Because not all beings work for the same ideal. Just as the Angels where trying to inspire in us the correct idea that would lead to the acquaintance, so could beings of completely different character see the construction of such a hall as a threat for their own goals. Then these latter beings can try to inspire different ideas in us - for example, the can inspire the brilliant idea to go to the pub instead of the place where we might eventually meet the constructor. Traditionally, the beings that take as their ideal to dedicate all their activity in the direction of integration of consciousness are collectively called in occultism the White Lodge. It's not some 'club' based on metaphysical membership but it's a union in a common idea that beings pursue freely. Things work in such a way that we can't integrate our consciousness only for ourselves. The reason is that the contents of our consciousness are the imprint of the life of all other beings. Thus if we want to integrate our own experience we must also help actively for the integration of all other beings. This is the fundamental characteristic that brings these beings into a whole. It's the only path where self-interest or egoism is naturally transformed in altruism. We can only achieve our highest aspirations if we enter brotherly relations and are ready to make sacrifices in the name of the overall integration of experience. This is how Love becomes for us the fundamental essence of reality. Conversely, beings that follow their own goals, that can be achieved only by arresting the integration of some other beings, are collectively called the Black Lodge. As a rule, these beings have no idea of the overall integrative process of Cosmic consciousness and as such they are not trying to deviate other beings because of some pure evilness but simply because they need something from other beings in order to achieve their own goals - which the beings may actually conceive as noble and much more correct than the goals that the integrative beings are following. So these beings (not always but in many cases) sincerely follow what they believe to be the best but because of their limited perspective, they can't trace its full consequences for the general life. And of course, there are also such beings whose perspectives are so limited that they simply have no consideration whatsoever about anything else than their own impulses. These are the beings who in their self-indulgence are the inspirers of the most horrific acts. Man experiences a very fortunate position where he can find his own center amid the forces that inspire him in very different directions and he may choose in freedom with which idea-beings he would like to integrate his stream of experience.

Since I see that the moral side of the story has become an important line in the discussion here, we can say that all the above offers a very natural answer to all these dilemmas. Difficulties arise only when we artificially separate beings and assign them roles. Another big prejudice is that the beings are somewhat atomic entities, each with strictly own Karma and independent evolutionary paths. It is true that some of the conditions of life have much more personal effects. If for example I happen to have some inborn disease, obviously this has the most direct consequences for the perspective of my being. But there are no sharp boundaries of Karma. Everything we do affects everything else, everything that happens outside of us affects us. In that case, when we see a suffering child, we're wasting our time to speculate how could God allow for this. God is within each one of us. We should ask "how have we, collectively, allowed for this?" Everything that we do, feel and think affects not only us but becomes conditions for other beings to experience suffering or joy. So it's empty talk to philosophize how can the Universe be so cruel but to realize that it's through collective ignorance (not only human but other beings' too) that we have allowed the conditions for pain and suffering to proliferate. Yet even this is part of the freedom of exploring the world of ideas and perceptions. A high benevolent being doesn't solve the problem by sending someone else in the world to suffer but says: "I'll do it. I have allowed for the conditions for freedom because I wanted to experience it. I could have kept the living idea within the bounds of the perfectly harmonious but I wanted to know existence in other ways. Through this I've created Karma - I'm directly co-responsible for every act of freedom that has been performed and its consequences. That's why I go into the world and share in the Karma of humanity. I experienced the collective pain and suffering of the past on myself and will continue to experience the pain and suffering of every man because I've united with them - I live together with them and experience what they experience. And that's how I give man also the means to find their true being. I have the strength and Love to overcome pain and death and as long as everyone finds me in themselves, through me they also have that strength and Love. If man doesn't find me, he can transform his state only within a very limited palette of potential, he can only explore the 'horizontal' world of forms. Finally he dries up and finds death. I'm the Living idea containing the beginning and end of Life. Within me all potential exists abundantly. When man taps into this potential he becomes free. His horizons widen, he can solve his tasks because he draws upon the infinite potential that I contain. It is when man finds within himself this potential, as the possibilities of Cosmic Life, that he finds the 'vertical' direction that leads him to Macrocosmic Being. Then he lives in me and I in him."

[Lou Gold]

As a personal side-comment, it often amazes me when I see people around who are able to choose a belief or worldview and stick with it for their entire life. I was never able to do that. I was with many philosophies, religions and spiritual traditions, and usually taking and practicing them very seriously and existentially deep to the heart when I was with them. But eventually I would discover their limitations and inconsistencies and find that I can no longer belong to them and maintain these worldviews with their very specific attitudes, views and practices. I kept discovering new facts, layers and facets of reality and perspectives on life that would not fit into the known traditions, philosophies or beliefs. I can't decide if it's a good thing on not, may be I'm missing something by not following certain paths for long enough, but I don't think I can do anything about that.

Personally, I didn't have much of a worldview except perhaps an uneducated sophism until I was in my 40's and received a life-altering dream revelation that connected me with the Divine. But it was the Divine without dogmatic Doctrine. I also "kept discovering new facts, layers and facets of reality and perspectives on life that would not fit into the known traditions, philosophies or beliefs" and therefore chose a syncretic evolving path that would support continuous ongoing contemplation and elaboration of my understandings, which unexpectedly included participation in this forum where I have learned a great deal.

[Lou Gold]

Cleric,

TL;DR version: I don't know what everyone implies with the term "meta-cognition". If it's expected that the Cosmos can think abstractly intellectually, it should be noted this is not supported the by facts of higher cognition. Even the closest stage of higher consciousness available for contemporary man already leaves intellectual thinking behind. So if this is what it's implied by "meta-cognition", the answer would be "no, the Cosmos doesn't have intellectual meta-cognition". But we should be aware that "meta-cognition" (in the above sense) is not at all the same as "self-consciousness". Again, even the nearest stage of higher cognition shows that not only self-consciousness is not lost but it becomes even more lucid and encompassing. Cosmic Beings are perfectly self-aware, it's just that the forms of consciousness they live in are different from ours. Not only are they self-aware but they are also much more aware of what we are, than we ourselves.

I don't know what "TL;DR" means. My understanding of metacognition is that it simply means "aware of being aware" whether that is with the common human senses or at a hypothetical 18th level of cosmic being awareness.

Out of curiosity may I ask, "When you say Cosmic Beings are perfectly self-aware (etc), how do you know this?" Were you told? Did you have direct revelatory experience? Did you read about it? I don't mean this as a challenge. I'm just curious about your process.

[Cleric]

I don't know what "TL;DR" means.

Modern abbreviature meaning "Too long; didn't read"

Out of curiosity may I ask, "When you say Cosmic Beings are perfectly self-aware (etc), how do you know this?" Were you told? Did you have direct revelatory experience? Did you read about it? I don't mean this as a challenge. I'm just curious about your process.

These are direct experiences that are available to anyone willing to go through the needed development. "How do you know this?" - there are few stages of higher cognition.
1. Here the process is similar to the way humans know/suppose that other humans have similar consciousness as us. In a similar sense, through inner development we attain to higher states of consciousness which are Cosmic in nature (that is, no longer strictly enclosed by the physical body). There we experience the doings of beings that seem to operate from the same level of consciousness as us so it wouldn't be fair to think that we can be self-conscious at this level but other beings can't.
2. Other beings reveal their inner activity within ourselves. As an analogy consider another human being expressing his thoughts in speech. Think of how much more this reveals about his/her inner experience than only body gestures. In this second stage of cognition the inner state of a being "resounds" through our own.
3. We practically merge for periods of time with other beings. Think of two tuning forks. If one vibrates it may induce oscillations in the other. The third stage is the most difficult because it requires the highest level of self mastery. We should be able to fully voluntarily extinguish all our own inner life except for one "atom". Then we allow a higher being to set our entire being in motion, practically merging its state with ours, thus we can understand a lot of its perspective. It can be said that for a moment we experience what that being experiences when looking 'through' us. Please note that this has nothing to do with mediumism. In mediumism we lose our "I" and become temporary tool of other beings (we're in a trance). Here we never lose our own self-consciousness - that's what the "atom" metaphorically represents. It's a fully free act. We can't offer our being if we don't possess it. That's why this third stage requires the greatest self mastery. We can only offer the arena of our being to become a resonant mirror for a higher being, in full consciousness, if we have full mastery over this arena. If we don't, our consciousness gets diminished and we no longer know what beings are making use of us. This is the great difference with mediumism. Here at any point we are in full control. No thought, feeling or act can pass through us if we don't fully consciously let it through.

[Eugene I]

Wow, Cleric, this is quite a write-up, lots of insights!

My understanding of metacognition is that it simply means "aware of being aware" whether that is with the common human senses or at a hypothetical 18th level of cosmic being awareness.

Right. And I think BK even uses this term simply to mean to be aware of thoughts and actions. Being aware of being aware is the next level of meta-cognition, I would call it meta-meta-cognition. In other words, a lizard may be aware of a prey and have a thought "I will eat the prey", but it can not have a thought "I know that I have a thought that I will eat the prey". So, the behavior of non-meta cognitive creatures is purely instinctive. As a consequence, non-meta-cognitive creatures cannot exercise a free will, because in order to do that they need to be aware of the different choices represented by different thoughts of actions, which inevitably requires a capacity of being aware of thoughts. And as a consequence, the non-meta-cognitive creatures do not "know" what they are doing, they can not control their behavior and actions according to the guidance of meta-cognitive ideations. Therefore, they can not be held responsible for their actions.

So, the question is whether M@L is meta-cognitive or not, whether it "dreams" or creates the apparent reality only as a result of instinctual and natural "will" without any meta-cognitive reflection of what and why it is doing it, or whether it possesses the ability to meta-cognitively reflect its will, thoughts and actions and make cognitive and voluntary decisions and choices on how to act, and specifically how to create the world.

The answer to this questions also defines our role and place in the world. If the MAL is non-meta-cognitive and instinctive, then we (humans and possibly other individuated conscious beings) are more advanced in the development of consciousness compared to the MAL itself. We are on the leading edge of the developmental front line of global consciousness, and we find and define the meanings, life goals and values for ourselves. On the other hand, if the MAL is meta-cognitive, it is also usually assumed that it is super-cognitive God-like being with the level of consciousness development by far (and possibly infinitely) exceeding ours, and in such scenario our role is the role of children who are lovingly led and directed by a father-like MAL that defined for us our telos, meanings and values and teaches us through the life's lessons.

Notice that both alternatives mentioned above assume that MAL at the same time is the creator of the apparent world that we experience, but that is not the only option. In many traditions and philosophies, such as Greeks, Vedic and Buddhists, the god-creators are themselves creatures (Brahma, Shiva, Demiurge), powerful but not necessarily most-highly developed in the spiritual sense. In the Buddhist and Gnostic traditions the creator gods are even considered to be lacking in their spiritual qualities and being "non-enlightened". In these views the MAL by itself is not creating any worlds, and possibly does not even have a subjective perspective of its own, but it's rather a "Consciousness Substratum", the Cosmic Beingness-Awareness of the universe where the creative activities of individuated conscious beings unfold, including the god-like creators of the virtual realities.

So to summarize, we have at least three categories/versions of the cosmic idealism (there may be more that I missed or not aware of):
1. Non-meta-cognitive MAL that is also a creator of the apparent world. This is the BK's and Schopenhauer's view.
2. Non-personal Cosmic Consciousness Substratum where individuated whirlpools of consciousness emerge and develop and some of them become creators/manifestors (gods) of the reality-looking worlds. This is the view in Hindu, Buddhist, Gnostic and some Greek traditions/philosophies.
3. Meta-cognitive and super-cognitive MAL (=God) who is also the creator of the apparent world. This is the view of the most monotheistic religions and theistic philosophies.

Finally I just wanted to comment that idealism can not be reduced to only one of those variants. No group of believers or adepts of one of those versions can "privatize" idealism and claim that "only our version of idealism is true", unless they are able to undoubtedly prove that the other versions are false.

[Soul_of_Shu]

TL,DR ... Suffice to say that Cleric will have no problem in complying with some new rule about all posts having to exceed 280 characters (moderators excepted of course)

[Brad Walker]

I've yet to see anyone who doesn't think this is the best possible physical world, or even a good one, demonstrate the superiority of another in the string landscape.

[Lou Gold]

Cleric,

These are direct experiences that are available to anyone willing to go through the needed development. "How do you know this?" - there are few stages of higher cognition.

I was simply asking if your reportage was based on your own personal experience? I am aware of what you call "stages of higher cognition." I am familiar with mediumship or channeling or intuitive vibing or whatever a particular tradition might call it. I agree that there are stages of refinement.

Please note that this has nothing to do with mediumism. In mediumism we lose our "I" and become temporary tool of other beings (we're in a trance). Here we never lose our own self-consciousness - that's what the "atom" metaphorically represents. It's a fully free act. We can't offer our being if we don't possess it. That's why this third stage requires the greatest self mastery. We can only offer the arena of our being to become a resonant mirror for a higher being, in full consciousness, if we have full mastery over this arena. If we don't, our consciousness gets diminished and we no longer know what beings are making use of us. This is the great difference with mediumism. Here at any point we are in full control. No thought, feeling or act can pass through us if we don't fully consciously let it through.

Respectfully, sympathetically and from my own personal direct experience with mediumship I dispute this statement as not true for all of it's forms. What you say does seem generally true for 'spirit possession' but is not at all true for 'incorporation' or 'irradiation' where the 'I' remains fully present. But, yes, it takes practice and refinement as the body must learn to hold the spirit and the spirit must learn to occupy the more limited space until a disciplined co-creative functioning is attained.