Anthroposophy as Fascio

[AshvinP]

In response to the last few posts here, I think it has become clear both you and Lou are thinking through issues of Divine manifestation with a specific tendency which Cleric has already explained. So Cleric asked the bear question to further hone in on this tendency. Lou offered an answer which further confirmed the tendency and then decided to stop discussing it further. What about you? You spoke of the willingness to learn before. Do you have the thirst to learn more of how we can loosen the intellectual constraints which lead us to project our current experience of consciousness (even in higher states) across the entire Cosmic gradient and gradually accustom ourselves to new habits of thinking?

I do, but I will continue doing it on my own and no longer will be discussing it in these interrogation-style conversations.

I didn't realize questions about manifesting bears, in response to your own posts on the topic, were an "interrogation"

The attitude here is exactly that of Ms. Newman - 'what gives you the right to ask me questions if it makes me feel like I am not the wisest and most clever person in the room?' It is amazing to me that people feel they can penetrate into any depths of reality with such an attitude.

[Federica]

In response to the last few posts here, I think it has become clear both you and Lou are thinking through issues of Divine manifestation with a specific tendency which Cleric has already explained. So Cleric asked the bear question to further hone in on this tendency. Lou offered an answer which further confirmed the tendency and then decided to stop discussing it further. What about you? You spoke of the willingness to learn before. Do you have the thirst to learn more of how we can loosen the intellectual constraints which lead us to project our current experience of consciousness (even in higher states) across the entire Cosmic gradient and gradually accustom ourselves to new habits of thinking?

I do, but I will continue doing it on my own and no longer will be discussing it in these interrogation-style conversations.

The 'interrogation-style' in itself never seemed to be a problem for you, as evident, for example, here:

Federica, you summarized the essential points of SS eloquently, but let me comment a bit and ask some questions.

So the reason why, in this context of the bear question, the approach is perceived as 'interrogation-style' is that one feels 'threatened' by the risk of being taken aback by someone who is implicitly recognized as having reached a higher level of cognition than oneself. Then it becomes a battle between one's ego and one's thirst for knowledge.
Your ego knows it will have to give way if you stay. Your thirst for knowledge knows it will have to give way, if you go.
You have both in good measure, Eugene, but which principle will win is hard to tell...

[Lou Gold]

In response to the last few posts here, I think it has become clear both you and Lou are thinking through issues of Divine manifestation with a specific tendency which Cleric has already explained. So Cleric asked the bear question to further hone in on this tendency. Lou offered an answer which further confirmed the tendency and then decided to stop discussing it further. What about you? You spoke of the willingness to learn before. Do you have the thirst to learn more of how we can loosen the intellectual constraints which lead us to project our current experience of consciousness (even in higher states) across the entire Cosmic gradient and gradually accustom ourselves to new habits of thinking?

I do, but I will continue doing it on my own and no longer will be discussing it in these interrogation-style conversations.

The 'interrogation-style' in itself never seemed to be a problem for you, as evident, for example, here:

Federica, you summarized the essential points of SS eloquently, but let me comment a bit and ask some questions.

So the reason why, in this context of the bear question, the approach is perceived as 'interrogation-style' is that one feels 'threatened' by the risk of being taken aback by someone who is implicitly recognized as having reached a higher level of cognition than oneself. Then it becomes a battle between one's ego and one's thirst for knowledge.
Your ego knows it will have to give way if you stay. Your thirst for knowledge knows it will have to give way, if you go.
You have both in good measure, Eugene, but which principle will win is hard to tell...

Ashvin,

I'm curious. Do you feel that you have let go of your ego by participating in this forum?

[Lou Gold]

MYSTERIES, YES

Truly, we live with mysteries too marvelous
to be understood.

How grass can be nourishing in the
mouths of the lambs.
How rivers and stones are forever
in allegiance with gravity
while we ourselves dream of rising.
How two hands touch and the bonds
will never be broken.
How people come, from delight or the
scars of damage,
to the comfort of a poem.

Let me keep my distance, always, from those
who think they have the answers.

Let me keep company always with those who say
"Look!" and laugh in astonishment,
and bow their heads.

~ Mary Oliver ~
(Evidence)

[AshvinP]

Yes, that's how it works, it is a collective manifestation, and the higher is the dimensional level of the body structure, the more it is shaped by our individual manifestation. Manifestation is a skill that we need to learn as we develop.

As mentioned before, it is super easy to reach agreement at this level of abstraction. We can read into the terms we are using practically anything and convince ourselves others mean the same thing because they use the same or similar terms. That's why we need to energetically exercise our living thinking force if we want to penetrate to the deeper spheres of meaning and locate the current flaws in our understanding of what consciousness is, which we all have. It is quite possible to locate these flaws and work on refining our understanding if we simply admit this possibility to become more self-aware with lucid thinking. You probably have a lot of familiarity with mathematical thinking in your line of work, and that's what I mean by "lucid" (not the mathematical content, but the clarity of the thought-procedure). This can be done with our inner soul-spirit life as well, except in a way much more imbued with imaginative life.

In response to the last few posts here, I think it has become clear both you and Lou are thinking through issues of Divine manifestation with a specific tendency which Cleric has already explained. So Cleric asked the bear question to further hone in on this tendency. Lou offered an answer which further confirmed the tendency and then decided to stop discussing it further. What about you? You spoke of the willingness to learn before. Do you have the thirst to learn more of how we can loosen the intellectual constraints which lead us to project our current experience of consciousness (even in higher states) across the entire Cosmic gradient and gradually accustom ourselves to new habits of thinking?

Aloha Ashvin,

Lou offered an answer which further confirmed the tendency and then decided to stop discussing it further.

Hmmm. I thought I might best communicate by showing the results of my process. I was seeking to transcend the conflicts that plague human verbal representations. Maybe, it didn't work.

Lou, I get your approach.

We are simply talking about two very different sorts of "discussion" here. I see our current task of knowledge as one in which we should depersonalize the pursuit as much as possible. The modern age of scientific consciousness was a critical preparation for this task. Most people cannot imagine such a philosophical or scientific pursuit which is not dry, abstract, and boring, but rather filled with life, creativity, and yet still remaining depersonalized (although Cleric offers plenty of examples here to kindle our imagination). We want more life in our thinking, for very understandable reasons, so most people seek for it in earlier conditions where the thought-life was tied more to the instinctive sensuous life. But then we are not evolving cognition and when we want to direct our thought-force upwards towards unknown spiritual realities which have not yet manifested on the physical plane, we are forced to conceive the latter in only the physical-sensory concepts we are already familiar with. There is not much even wrong with this for most people IF they become self-aware of the tendency and don't convince themselves they are perceiving pure spiritual realities.

The other problem is that our age of abstraction has become so dense that we can 'agree' with everything I just wrote above, but nevertheless continue to functionally think through spiritual issues in exactly the same way. We won't even notice the discrepancy between what we are 'agreeing' to and how we keep practically exercising our thinking in the process of reaching various conclusions about spiritual reality. If we want to deal with this problem, then we need to be open to others who can view the results of our thinking more objectively than we can and provide us feedback on where and how it is going astray. As I mentioned before, it is a real sign of progress when we feel enthusiastic about this possibility of getting vital feedback. We are never the best judges of our own habits and tendencies. Of course we can evaluate the feedback and see if it makes sense or if it is prejudiced in some way, but we need to remain open long enough to actually carry out that evaluation. And if we are not at all interested in any such evaluation, we should be honest with ourselves about that fact as well.

[Lou Gold]

As mentioned before, it is super easy to reach agreement at this level of abstraction. We can read into the terms we are using practically anything and convince ourselves others mean the same thing because they use the same or similar terms. That's why we need to energetically exercise our living thinking force if we want to penetrate to the deeper spheres of meaning and locate the current flaws in our understanding of what consciousness is, which we all have. It is quite possible to locate these flaws and work on refining our understanding if we simply admit this possibility to become more self-aware with lucid thinking. You probably have a lot of familiarity with mathematical thinking in your line of work, and that's what I mean by "lucid" (not the mathematical content, but the clarity of the thought-procedure). This can be done with our inner soul-spirit life as well, except in a way much more imbued with imaginative life.

In response to the last few posts here, I think it has become clear both you and Lou are thinking through issues of Divine manifestation with a specific tendency which Cleric has already explained. So Cleric asked the bear question to further hone in on this tendency. Lou offered an answer which further confirmed the tendency and then decided to stop discussing it further. What about you? You spoke of the willingness to learn before. Do you have the thirst to learn more of how we can loosen the intellectual constraints which lead us to project our current experience of consciousness (even in higher states) across the entire Cosmic gradient and gradually accustom ourselves to new habits of thinking?

Aloha Ashvin,

Lou offered an answer which further confirmed the tendency and then decided to stop discussing it further.

Hmmm. I thought I might best communicate by showing the results of my process. I was seeking to transcend the conflicts that plague human verbal representations. Maybe, it didn't work.

Lou, I get your approach.

We are simply talking about two very different sorts of "discussion" here. I see our current task of knowledge as one in which we should depersonalize the pursuit as much as possible. The modern age of scientific consciousness was a critical preparation for this task. Most people cannot imagine such a philosophical or scientific pursuit which is not dry, abstract, and boring, but rather filled with life, creativity, and yet still remaining depersonalized (although Cleric offers plenty of examples here to kindle our imagination). We want more life in our thinking, for very understandable reasons, so most people seek for it in earlier conditions where the thought-life was tied more to the instinctive sensuous life. But then we are not evolving cognition and when we want to direct our thought-force upwards towards unknown spiritual realities which have not yet manifested on the physical plane, we are forced to conceive the latter in only the physical-sensory concepts we are already familiar with. There is not much even wrong with this for most people IF they become self-aware of the tendency and don't convince themselves they are perceiving pure spiritual realities.

The other problem is that our age of abstraction has become so dense that we can 'agree' with everything I just wrote above, but nevertheless continue to functionally think through spiritual issues in exactly the same way. We won't even notice the discrepancy between what we are 'agreeing' to and how we keep practically exercising our thinking in the process of reaching various conclusions about spiritual reality. If we want to deal with this problem, then we need to be open to others who can view the results of our thinking more objectively than we can and provide us feedback on where and how it is going astray. As I mentioned before, it is a real sign of progress when we feel enthusiastic about this possibility of getting vital feedback. We are never the best judges of our own habits and tendencies. Of course we can evaluate the feedback and see if it makes sense or if it is prejudiced in some way, but we need to remain open long enough to actually carry out that evaluation. And if we are not at all interested in any such evaluation, we should be honest with ourselves about that fact as well.

OK, now I get your reason for depersonalization. But I don't get how judgements might be made about an individual without offering concrete evidence about the individual. That's why I reveal stuff about myself so people might judge. And, of course, as a performing artist, "show-and-tell" can be an ego trip so I work (rising and falling) to find a good balance. Am I missing something?

[Stranger]

woah, what a psychic attack! Don't you guys realize that you actually look funny?

[AshvinP]

Aloha Ashvin,



Hmmm. I thought I might best communicate by showing the results of my process. I was seeking to transcend the conflicts that plague human verbal representations. Maybe, it didn't work.

Lou, I get your approach.

We are simply talking about two very different sorts of "discussion" here. I see our current task of knowledge as one in which we should depersonalize the pursuit as much as possible. The modern age of scientific consciousness was a critical preparation for this task. Most people cannot imagine such a philosophical or scientific pursuit which is not dry, abstract, and boring, but rather filled with life, creativity, and yet still remaining depersonalized (although Cleric offers plenty of examples here to kindle our imagination). We want more life in our thinking, for very understandable reasons, so most people seek for it in earlier conditions where the thought-life was tied more to the instinctive sensuous life. But then we are not evolving cognition and when we want to direct our thought-force upwards towards unknown spiritual realities which have not yet manifested on the physical plane, we are forced to conceive the latter in only the physical-sensory concepts we are already familiar with. There is not much even wrong with this for most people IF they become self-aware of the tendency and don't convince themselves they are perceiving pure spiritual realities.

The other problem is that our age of abstraction has become so dense that we can 'agree' with everything I just wrote above, but nevertheless continue to functionally think through spiritual issues in exactly the same way. We won't even notice the discrepancy between what we are 'agreeing' to and how we keep practically exercising our thinking in the process of reaching various conclusions about spiritual reality. If we want to deal with this problem, then we need to be open to others who can view the results of our thinking more objectively than we can and provide us feedback on where and how it is going astray. As I mentioned before, it is a real sign of progress when we feel enthusiastic about this possibility of getting vital feedback. We are never the best judges of our own habits and tendencies. Of course we can evaluate the feedback and see if it makes sense or if it is prejudiced in some way, but we need to remain open long enough to actually carry out that evaluation. And if we are not at all interested in any such evaluation, we should be honest with ourselves about that fact as well.

OK, now I get your reason for depersonalization. But I don't get how judgements might be made about an individual without offering concrete evidence about the individual. That's why I reveal stuff about myself so people might judge. And, of course, as a performing artist, "show-and-tell" can be an ego trip so I work (rising and falling) to find a good balance. Am I missing something?

We are not making judgments about the individual personality, but about the transpersonal thought-process. We can only communicate with each other through concepts because our thought-life is shared. That life is animated by certain archetypal soul-tendencies which can be logically discerned. For ex., you and I discussed the victimized 'cancel culture' mentality before. Clearly there are shared soul-tendencies which lead people to feel this way which then conditions their thinking about politics, economics, religion, etc. This mentality feels that any penetrating examination of our shared soul-life and thinking structure is an 'attack' on their core individuality, because they identify that core individuality with their current personality, which includes gender, race, nationality, etc. and also their intellectual thinking mask which formats their concepts.

When I say "depersonalize", I don't mean we should leave the inner perspective of this personality out of account - actually the best way to depersonalize is to investigate that perspective thoroughly and objectively. If we run away from such an investigation and convince ourselves we have transcended personality via mystical experience, then we remain more personalized in our thinking than ever. On the esoteric path of Self-knowledge everyone needs to confront this perspective openly and honestly if any advance is to be made. It has to be continuously confronted. A good test of whether we are running away or confronting is whether, when something befalls us, ranging from the worst possible illness to a 'negative' comment on this forum, we instinctively lay the blame on some external factor (like the 'false hierarchy') or whether we are instead open to finding the causes for these qualities and events within ourselves.

We will proceed in rather a curious way. As an experiment, we will imagine that we ourselves have willed whatever may have happened to us. Suppose a loose tile from the roof of a house happened to crash down on us. We will picture, purely by way of experiment, that this did not happen by chance, and we will deliberately imagine that we ourselves climbed on that roof, loosened the tile and then ran down so quickly that we arrived just in time to be hit by it! Or, let us say, we caught a chill without any apparent cause; how would it be though, if we had given it to ourselves? Like the unfortunate lady who, being discontented with her lot, exposed herself to a chill, and died of it! In this way, therefore, we will imagine that things otherwise attributable to chance have been deliberately and carefully planned by ourselves. And we will also apply the same procedure to matters which are obviously dependent upon the faculties and qualities we happen to possess. Say some arrangement does not work out as planned. If we miss a train, for example, we shall not blame external circumstances but picture to ourselves that it was due to our own slackness. If we think of it in this way, as an experiment, we shall gradually succeed in creating a kind of being in our imagination, a very extraordinary being, who was responsible for all these things — for a stone having crashed upon us, for some illness, and so forth. We shall realise, of course, that this being is not ourselves; we simply picture such a being vividly and distinctly. And then, after a time, we will have a strange experience with regard to this being. We shall realise that though it is a creature we have only conjured up, yet we cannot free ourselves from him nor from the thought of him, and strange to say he does not stay as he is; he becomes alive and transforms himself within us. And then, when he has gone through this transformation, we get the impression that he really is there within us. And then we become more and more certain that we ourselves have had something to do with the things thus built up in imagination. There is no suggestion whatever that we once actually did them; but such thoughts do, nevertheless, correspond in a certain way with something we have done. We shall tell ourselves: ‘I have done this and that, and I am now having to suffer the consequences.’ This is a very good exercise for unfolding in the life of feeling a kind of memory of earlier incarnations. The soul seems to feel: I myself was there and prepared these things myself.

[ScottRoberts]

Scott,

I'm NOT sure that Eugene would agree with your portrayal of his position because he must speak for himself but I'd like to comment from my own perspective. I have had a so-called "mystical blast" -- a dream encounter with the Queen of the Forest (Sovereign Mother over all that lives and dies) whose single gaze seeming less than a nanosecond in length totally transformed my life at the practical level on the material plane and opened my process to this day to much more. That blast had an overwhelming Mitakue Oyasin or Oneness or Union with all. Having had that experience, I do not see duality as blamable. I see it as choice-giving and I watch to see how it is being used. Is its use militarized or peaceful, separation promoting or facilitating union, leading toward Oneness or Dividedness, blah, blah, blah? I ask where to find my best balance, which is first usually at the calm, clear, unmoving fulcrum point that is still like where the inhale and exhale reverse. From this location I see the best way to reenter the duality if I choose to do so. I do not know for sure if a person never having had such "blast" whether calling it mystical or not can grok what I'm describing. So let me just ask, do you recognize what I'm talking about?

I think so. What I am saying is that anyone has this ability (the bolded bit) who can ask "What am I thinking", and "Why am I thinking it". In short, anyone who can reflect on their own thinking, and indeed can doubt the veracity of the contents of their thinking. This ability, I should note, is a new thing (since about the 15th century), generally speaking, and has come about because of our acquired spirit/matter duality.

[ScottRoberts]

There is a big difference in that I said "I am the awareness of....". I am not some concept called Awareness.

Awareness is not a concept. Aren't you aware that you are aware (unless you are an AI)?

It is if one ignores the "of". Perhaps "abstraction" is a better term.

That is not something I agreed to, as far as I can recall. My preference for capitalization is to use it to emphasize that some property or activity of the Divine can be referred to by some property or activity that I have, but in a much, much more grand way that I can't even imagine. So, for example, Thinking and Love. Now one can note that the Divine is aware of so much more than I could possibly be, but there is that 'of' again. Take what it and I are aware of out, then we are simply both aware.

Exactly, both aware and in the same way. /quote]

How is this different from just saying "I am an idealist"? Which we all are here, so why make a big deal out of it?

Fine, no capital letters anymore Now, how about not using capitals in the word "Thinking" that people do on this forum all the time? I haven't seen you complaining about that

Umm, didn't I say that I'm ok with Thinking and Love being capitalized, to indicate that vast difference between human and divine thinking and love?

Exactly, there are different kinds of dualism (self-other, spirit-matter, and I would add more subtle subject-object one), and just knowing that "I am awareness" does nothing to eliminate them. It indeed requires years of persistent practice to dismantle these dualistic mental patterns, but without that knowledge you cannot even start that practice, it is the first and necessary step, a prerequisite for getting out of the dualistic state of mind.

Regarding the "mystical blast of experiencing Oneness", many people indeed experience it that way, and it usually happens spontaneously and not as a result of a "need". But it also happens that many people have just a quiet "aha" moment like "oh, I'm not a human self, I am awareness of the conscious stream" with nothing particularly "mystical" about it. So no, "mystical blast" is not needed, but is still happens sometimes.

So would you now agree that one doesn't need a "pursuit of Oneness" focus in addition to an "explore one's thinking" focus?