Federica wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2023 6:28 pm
But this doesn't change the fact that you have consistently referred to RB and LB with consistent reference to McGilchrist's research, not to etheric polarities (as a rapid review of this thread would confirm) and consistently dismissed my repeated, very explicit questions to clarify. Naturally when one uses the word "brain" instead of
thinking activity, or etheric polarities or else, moreover with direct connection to neuroscientific research, one wants to purposely isolate the
locus of the physical organ, I would deem? Of which I became even more convinced, when you said that the research had to be taken in its observations, and not in its materialistic conclusions, which is an impossible endeavor, as I have tried to show using Max Leyfs words, since I know you would probably agree with those (though you have remained silent in that respect too).
Anyway, okay, I understand that - in one way or another that I don't have the ability to understand at this moment - it was a misunderstand on my part, and you have not intended to refer to the difference in nature of the physical lobes, like one is the portal to spiritual heights, and the other isn't. That Steiner and Cleric,
on ground of concentration experience, speak of the polar differentiation of soul-spiritual activity and that this polarization is reflected in the brain organ doesn't upset me. But this is different from what I mis-understood from your RB-LB remarks
grounded in IMcG's research.
I asked you whether personal experience rather than scientific research was the ground for your comments, in which case I said would have accepted them, but you didn't clarify that point either.
Ok, Federica, I clearly didn't do enough to clarify what I was speaking of in my initial comments and in response to your questions. Given the clarifications that are available at this point, do you now have a sense of why these in bold are one and the same, viewed from different sides? This is very important to gain a concrete orientation towards because it practically applies to
all phenomena on the physical plane in relation to the concentric layers of our thinking activity (intellect, imagination, inspiration, intuition). As a very simple metaphor, consider the following:
蛇吃自己的尾巴
Let's say the above script is analogous to a physical structure like the brain. At the level of physical sensory consciousness, we notice it has certain regular shapes and quantitative properties, but we don't know what it means or that it actually means anything - it could simply be interesting patterns of pixels. At the level of imaginative consciousness, we discern these shapes have some meaning - they are the manifestations of some intelligence, but we still don't know the precise meaning that is intended. At the level of inspired consciousness, we resonate with the thinking-gestures that formed this script and can discern its meaning (Chinese for "the snake eats its own tail") and relate that meaning to other ideas. At the level of intuitive consciousness, we identify with the perspective of the Chinese 'folk-spirit' who intended the logic of the entire script in which this particular manifestation finds its meaning within a holistic context.
The metaphor is only used to direct attention towards the principle that the original script structure,
as we perceived it, embedded all of these layers of meaning and higher ideational perspectives from the beginning, only
we are not awake to those layers until we develop our thinking-gestures to resonate with the deeper spiritual processes that structure the script. The perceptual script has a higher meaningful potential that we have not yet awakened to because we haven't learned Chinese. The limitation of the metaphor is that we don't actually transform the meaningful structure of the language as we learn it. In contrast, the process of awakening into the higher cognitive layers that structure our bodily organism is also a gradual process of transforming the structures and rhythmic relations of those layers. We know, for ex., that the physical pathways of the brain can actually be re-fashioned through our spiritual activity.
So I did intend to refer to a difference in the physical structure of the brain because there is a very concrete relation between the polar differentiation of our thinking activity and that physical structure, just as there is a concrete relation between our thinking activity (in its widest sense) and all the cultural and natural domains of the manifest World around us. IM's research directed towards the physical structures is
actually probing the higher layers of its own thinking (which he is semi-conscious of), and that's why we can gain insights from that research and all other natural scientific research. This process doesn't require either clairvoyance or profound familiarity with the scientific research. We can establish a broad intuitive orientation to these things just as we did above and through other similar posts on this forum, within the overarching context of spiritual evolution, i.e. the process by which the 'torus' continually turns inside-out through the layers of our "I"-activity.
Our thinking consciousness is always in the middle and normally our gaze is fixed downwards towards what is already manifest and known, i.e. ordinary experience of perceptions, thoughts, feelings, desires. There is a continual process of the higher structured potential folding in on itself, concretizing into manifest reality, and the latter turning inside-out, feeding back into the structured potential (the inner is always becoming the outer and vice versa in an integrative fashion). Our "I" perspective is always in the middle of the torus. When we are Angels, Archangels, Archai, and so forth, our "I" perspective will still be in the middle (although it will clearly be experienced as more universal, interwoven with other perspectives, and part of a symphonic effort to creatively manifest reality). The huge difference is that the higher perspectives always
remain aware they are in the middle of this torus process, while the current Earthly human "I" perspective has externalized the whole process and imagines itself to be standing outside, so it can abstractly speculate on the 'torus-in-itself' from a safe distance. It comes up with many logically coherent models of the torus but always finds a way to keep imagining its thinking perspective on the outside (when in reality it is within the torus being steered by the subconscious desire to imagine itself outside).
These are all the logically coherent scientific models of physics, neuroscience, etc. At any time their externalized results are redeemed by our "I"-consciousness becoming fully present in its dynamic participation, through the balancing of the head polarity (which indeed can be traced to the physical brain structure). I remind here of Cleric's 'reverse kinematics' metaphor, which I think is very helpful for our intuitive orientation. By modulating the dynamic balance of our 'zoomed in' thinking consciousness and our more 'zoomed out' awareness of the periphery at the weightless point, we set an intention to attract the higher concentric layers of our thinking into a more 'in-phase' relationship with our current thinking experience, so the deeper meaning of that experience is unveiled. As you know, this is not a one-time thing and involves the whole ideal atmosphere of our concentration, which is cultivated also by our relations with the outer world through ordinary cognition.