KASTRUP AND SHELDRAKE ON THE COSMIC MIND

[Lou Gold]

I can't respond to the story because I can't respond to Steiner's particular explanation as a 'truth'. Re your questions I don't see any issues with 'non-local' and etc. in an infinite field of consciousness.
However, I fail to see how the addition of archetypical beings answers your questions - even if true it simply gives the 'mystery' a name but doesn't explain anything. For example, we could assign romantic love as the result of the 'slings and arrows of Cupid' . . . but that's neither an answer or an explanation.

Sure, Lorenzop, it's a story and there are many stories. Reductionist science is also a story with lots of holes in it. Stories require faith that they are true in order to offer and attain their benefits. Names are intimate with stories. "In the beginning was the word" AND "The spoken tao is not the eternal Tao." And, nevertheless, something very real and commonplace is out there. We need better science than denying the existence of the mysterious. Check out the recent Sheldrake/Vernon dialogue.

[Cleric K]

I can't respond to the story because I can't respond to Steiner's particular explanation as a 'truth'. Re your questions I don't see any issues with 'non-local' and etc. in an infinite field of consciousness.
However, I fail to see how the addition of archetypical beings answers your questions - even if true it simply gives the 'mystery' a name but doesn't explain anything. For example, we could assign romantic love as the result of the 'slings and arrows of Cupid' . . . but that's neither an answer or an explanation.

As said, we can put aside archetypal beings for now. The question is whether we can speak sensibly about things like karma/destiny if they are meaningful/real only in human minds (outside human minds there's only mechanical MAL processing). Why would a mechanical MAL (for which a bullet passing through an orange or a human body makes no difference) somehow mindlessly shape the fate of a human being such that a past immoral deed is transformed into a life situation that gives the opportunity to rectify the moral flaw? If morality, which obviously is something with which human minds are concerned, has no reality within MAL, why would a mechanical MAL try to rectify moral flaws in humans (which do not even exist from its mindless perspective)?

[Lou Gold]

I can't respond to the story because I can't respond to Steiner's particular explanation as a 'truth'. Re your questions I don't see any issues with 'non-local' and etc. in an infinite field of consciousness.
However, I fail to see how the addition of archetypical beings answers your questions - even if true it simply gives the 'mystery' a name but doesn't explain anything. For example, we could assign romantic love as the result of the 'slings and arrows of Cupid' . . . but that's neither an answer or an explanation.

As said, we can put aside archetypal beings for now. The question is whether we can speak sensibly about things like karma/destiny if they are meaningful/real only in human minds (outside human minds there's only mechanical MAL processing). Why would a mechanical MAL (for which a bullet passing through an orange or a human body makes no difference) somehow mindlessly shape the fate of a human being such that a past immoral deed is transformed into a life situation that gives the opportunity to rectify the moral flaw? If morality, which obviously is something with which human minds are concerned, has no reality within MAL, why would a mechanical MAL try to rectify moral flaws in humans (which do not even exist from its mindless perspective)?

Cleric,

What if the so-called 'moral flaws' are also represented by archetypal beings such as Satan? Do you feel the 'moral flaws' are peculiarly mortal?

[Cleric K]

Cleric,

What if the so-called 'moral flaws' are also represented by archetypal beings such as Satan? Do you feel the 'moral flaws' are peculiarly mortal?

Of course - morality and moral flaws are not unique to mortal humans. But I'm not even trying to go in this direction at this time. The question is simply whether karma/destiny makes any sense in reality which is mechanical/mindless at its foundations. It's such a simple question: why would such a thing as karma/destiny even exist in a mechanical and mindless MAL? What part of this mindless MAL would 'care' to 'enforce' such fate on men?

[Lou Gold]

Cleric,

What if the so-called 'moral flaws' are also represented by archetypal beings such as Satan? Do you feel the 'moral flaws' are peculiarly mortal?

Of course - morality and moral flaws are not unique to mortal humans. But I'm not even trying to go in this direction at this time. The question is simply whether karma/destiny makes any sense in reality which is mechanical/mindless at its foundations. It's such a simple question: why would such a thing as karma/destiny even exist in a mechanical and mindless MAL? What part of this mindless MAL would 'care' to 'enforce' such fate on men?

What part of this mindless MAL would 'care' to 'enforce' such fate on men?

The part that made it comfortable in its mindless nature?

[Lou Gold]

Cleric,

What if the so-called 'moral flaws' are also represented by archetypal beings such as Satan? Do you feel the 'moral flaws' are peculiarly mortal?

Of course - morality and moral flaws are not unique to mortal humans. But I'm not even trying to go in this direction at this time. The question is simply whether karma/destiny makes any sense in reality which is mechanical/mindless at its foundations. It's such a simple question: why would such a thing as karma/destiny even exist in a mechanical and mindless MAL? What part of this mindless MAL would 'care' to 'enforce' such fate on men?

What part of this mindless MAL would 'care' to 'enforce' such fate on men?

The part that made it comfortable in its mindless nature?

A very evolved friend of mine used to advise that we should not speak of things we do not know. I do not know the mind of God, MAL-like or not. I do know my mostly mindless instinctual homeostatic relationship to the approximately 37.2 trillion individual cells in my body, knowing only that none are permanent and that some will always be living or dying causing me comfort or distress. I project that this is plausible for MAL but do not advocate that it is the only possible reality. I believe in karma but not if I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama. All I can say is, "Thy will be done."

[lorenzop]

I can't respond to the story because I can't respond to Steiner's particular explanation as a 'truth'. Re your questions I don't see any issues with 'non-local' and etc. in an infinite field of consciousness.
However, I fail to see how the addition of archetypical beings answers your questions - even if true it simply gives the 'mystery' a name but doesn't explain anything. For example, we could assign romantic love as the result of the 'slings and arrows of Cupid' . . . but that's neither an answer or an explanation.

As said, we can put aside archetypal beings for now. The question is whether we can speak sensibly about things like karma/destiny if they are meaningful/real only in human minds (outside human minds there's only mechanical MAL processing). Why would a mechanical MAL (for which a bullet passing through an orange or a human body makes no difference) somehow mindlessly shape the fate of a human being such that a past immoral deed is transformed into a life situation that gives the opportunity to rectify the moral flaw? If morality, which obviously is something with which human minds are concerned, has no reality within MAL, why would a mechanical MAL try to rectify moral flaws in humans (which do not even exist from its mindless perspective)?

I have no qualms regarding karma as a force, sufficiently confusing and complex enough without adding archetypal beings as managers. MAL has nothing to do with karma or morality -karma and morality lie within the field of action.

[Cleric K]

I have no qualms regarding karma as a force, sufficiently confusing and complex enough without adding archetypal beings as managers. MAL has nothing to do with karma or morality -karma and morality lie within the field of action.

Yes, Lorenzo, your position is quite established and you have affirmed it many times, but we continue to lead these dialogs in the hope that you may notice how it is nothing else than blurred-out materialism.

What you have written above can be paraphrased like: "The brain is complex enough even without adding some spooky 'consciousness' as a thing-in-itself. The physical world has nothing to do with ideas, morals, and so on - they lie completely within the purely mechanistic quantum fields of the brain."

Why so many thinkers today still hold on to physicalism? Because the whole topic is like a cloud of confusion for which they say "These things are so confusing and complex that it is too early to dismiss a purely mechanistic explanation of the inner experience. From what we see so far, every inner phenomenon corresponds to some completely mechanistic pattern of neural firing, hormonal waves, and so on. We have no reason to assume that consciousness is anything different than exactly these purely physical activities."

What you say is of the same character, only on the next level. Why should we overcomplicate things by assuming some Cosmic meaningful intents? Things are so hazy that it's too soon to dismiss a completely mechanistic explanation.

Already several times I've tried to lead the conversation into more concrete examples of karma, which you skillfully avoid. For example, how could immoral life lead to a certain physical ailment in another, without any direct genetic link between the two? And we know how you would respond if you were really pressed into the corner about these things (since you have already responded in such ways previously). You simply say: "Well, in fact, I don't know (or care) whether there's such thing as karma, destiny, soul, reincarnation, etc. What I care about is that I've found this meditative trick through which I feel like stepping out of the movie and temporarily feeling above it. All else is a quest for the golden calf." That's why it's preferable to keep these questions behind the door of confusion, lock it, and place a sign "Whoever goes beyond that door has contracted the gold fever."

I'm not writing any of this with negative feelings. I'm just trying to place things on a clear foundation and explain why you can't see any value of the [unimpressive] things that are discussed here:
1. You see ideas and meaningful intents (in the sense of intrinsic Cosmic phenomena, not simply epiphenomena in human heads) as unnecessary over-complication.
2. You assume that mechanistic laws are quite capable of explaining any apparent spiritual order.
3. You prefer to keep the things that need explanation in a cloud of confusion. This is necessary because if you try to enter into the details of this cloud it will become more and more apparent that mechanistic explanations are completely ad-hoc. It becomes paradoxical: mechanistic laws should govern moral happenings that do not even exist from the fundamental perspective.
4. If somehow you are forced into the details, you would rather recoil into a physicalistic/panpsychic perspective, eliminating concepts like karma, reincarnation, morality, good, evil, etc., one by one, until you remain with the crude mechanistic universe which somehow can be conscious of itself within disconnected bubbles.

[Cleric K]

I believe in karma but not if I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama. All I can say is, "Thy will be done."

I don't understand your logic here, Lou. To me it reads like:
"I believe that the universe is not pure noise, there are some lawful connections, but I don't believe that human beings have any conscious or subconscious role in this. All I can say is, whatever happens, happens."

Can you explain more about "but not if I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama"?

[lorenzop]

I have no qualms regarding karma as a force, sufficiently confusing and complex enough without adding archetypal beings as managers. MAL has nothing to do with karma or morality -karma and morality lie within the field of action.

Yes, Lorenzo, your position is quite established and you have affirmed it many times, but we continue to lead these dialogs in the hope that you may notice how it is nothing else than blurred-out materialism.

What you have written above can be paraphrased like: "The brain is complex enough even without adding some spooky 'consciousness' as a thing-in-itself. The physical world has nothing to do with ideas, morals, and so on - they lie completely within the purely mechanistic quantum fields of the brain."

Why so many thinkers today still hold on to physicalism? Because the whole topic is like a cloud of confusion for which they say "These things are so confusing and complex that it is too early to dismiss a purely mechanistic explanation of the inner experience. From what we see so far, every inner phenomenon corresponds to some completely mechanistic pattern of neural firing, hormonal waves, and so on. We have no reason to assume that consciousness is anything different than exactly these purely physical activities."

What you say is of the same character, only on the next level. Why should we overcomplicate things by assuming some Cosmic meaningful intents? Things are so hazy that it's too soon to dismiss a completely mechanistic explanation.

Already several times I've tried to lead the conversation into more concrete examples of karma, which you skillfully avoid. For example, how could immoral life lead to a certain physical ailment in another, without any direct genetic link between the two? And we know how you would respond if you were really pressed into the corner about these things (since you have already responded in such ways previously). You simply say: "Well, in fact, I don't know (or care) whether there's such thing as karma, destiny, soul, reincarnation, etc. What I care about is that I've found this meditative trick through which I feel like stepping out of the movie and temporarily feeling above it. All else is a quest for the golden calf." That's why it's preferable to keep these questions behind the door of confusion, lock it, and place a sign "Whoever goes beyond that door has contracted the gold fever."

I'm not writing any of this with negative feelings. I'm just trying to place things on a clear foundation and explain why you can't see any value of the [unimpressive] things that are discussed here:
1. You see ideas and meaningful intents (in the sense of intrinsic Cosmic phenomena, not simply epiphenomena in human heads) as unnecessary over-complication.
2. You assume that mechanistic laws are quite capable of explaining any apparent spiritual order.
3. You prefer to keep the things that need explanation in a cloud of confusion. This is necessary because if you try to enter into the details of this cloud it will become more and more apparent that mechanistic explanations are completely ad-hoc. It becomes paradoxical: mechanistic laws should govern moral happenings that do not even exist from the fundamental perspective.
4. If somehow you are forced into the details, you would rather recoil into a physicalistic/panpsychic perspective, eliminating concepts like karma, reincarnation, morality, good, evil, etc., one by one, until you remain with the crude mechanistic universe which somehow can be conscious of itself within disconnected bubbles.

When we speak of karma, our speech and writing will sound like materialism . . . whether we speak of karma as a force, or as a principle governed by spiritual beings. This is because we have to allow errors to enter our speech in order to have a conversation.
My description of karma may sound like duality or materialism because a conversation of karma requires a dose of ignorance - pure non-duality or unity does not allow for karma.
Our only other alternative is to chant OM and sit in silence. The trick is being consistent with the concessions we allow in our speech.
Re specific phrases you use above, like 'intrinsic Cosmic phenomena', 'spiritual order' . . . I don't use such phrases and don't know what you are referring to.