Retracing Spiritual Activity (Part VI)

[AshvinP]

I would maintain Max's essay, in this case, focuses on the theoretical fictions built up around sensory reality to 'explain' it away via modern scientific habits of thinking that ignore the real-time intentionality of the perceiver. He had a recent conversation about the theory of evolution as well, which I recommend.

To a repeated absolute statement of opinion with no argumentation or response to what I've indicated, there's not much one can say, other than: okay, Ashvin

Yeah, I kept it brief because it hardly matters what Max is speaking about in that essay, unless the only purpose of bringing it up and discussing it is to win an argument And, I was responding to a PS

Let's just say I didn't find your reasoning convincing. I don't think the "model of abstract representations" refers to normal sensory experiences. The latter would not be "husks" of themselves. As long as the inner activity implicit in all sensory experience is kept in sight, the latter discloses the Divine and prompts us toward unveiling its relations further.

[Federica]

I would maintain Max's essay, in this case, focuses on the theoretical fictions built up around sensory reality to 'explain' it away via modern scientific habits of thinking that ignore the real-time intentionality of the perceiver. He had a recent conversation about the theory of evolution as well, which I recommend.

To a repeated absolute statement of opinion with no argumentation or response to what I've indicated, there's not much one can say, other than: okay, Ashvin

Yeah, I kept it brief because it hardly matters what Max is speaking about in that essay, unless the only purpose of bringing it up and discussing it is to win an argument And, I was responding to a PS

Let's just say I didn't find your reasoning convincing. I don't think the "model of abstract representations" refers to normal sensory experiences. The latter would not be "husks" of themselves. As long as the inner activity implicit in all sensory experience is kept in sight, the latter discloses the Divine and prompts us toward unveiling its relations further.

It was not to win the argument, but to reestablish a rightful balance, after you unduly tried to kill my wisecrack
with an unelaborated and unjustified (not grounded in the text) opinion, moreover suggesting ("he would say") that you know better because of your personal relationship with the author - while this is a published essay, evidently meant to be understandable by all readers. And now adding an extra dose of condescendance to the mix

[AshvinP]

To a repeated absolute statement of opinion with no argumentation or response to what I've indicated, there's not much one can say, other than: okay, Ashvin

Yeah, I kept it brief because it hardly matters what Max is speaking about in that essay, unless the only purpose of bringing it up and discussing it is to win an argument And, I was responding to a PS

Let's just say I didn't find your reasoning convincing. I don't think the "model of abstract representations" refers to normal sensory experiences. The latter would not be "husks" of themselves. As long as the inner activity implicit in all sensory experience is kept in sight, the latter discloses the Divine and prompts us toward unveiling its relations further.

It was not to win the argument, but to reestablish a rightful balance, after you unduly tried to kill my wisecrack
with an unelaborated and unjustified (not grounded in the text) opinion, moreover suggesting ("he would say") that you know better because of your personal relationship with the author - while this is a published essay, evidently meant to be understandable by all readers. And now adding an extra dose of condescendance to the mix

Federica, why did you bring up the PS (squared) and get so attached to defending your interpretation of it, if it was just a "wisecrack"?

Yes, if I have a broader context for the author's intended meaning, namely the numerous other comments he has made to me (and in published essays) about the phenomenal world, then I will bring that up.

Your original wasteland post referred to "Looking at a lush natural scenery, teeming with life, or at an admirable man-made panorama, teeming with life..."

That this is not what Max's essay is referring to, is obvious. But even if it was referring to that, I would then argue Max is characterizing it in a misleading way. His essay should simply be a springboard for us to orient toward the evolving inner relations at work in our normal perceptual experience. I have already explained the potential traps if the 'wasteland' metaphor for perceptual-memory experience is taken too rigidly. I never said you are falling into these rigid traps, but it's just a common thinking habit in spiritual pursuits for everyone to keep vigilant about.

[Federica]

Yeah, I kept it brief because it hardly matters what Max is speaking about in that essay, unless the only purpose of bringing it up and discussing it is to win an argument And, I was responding to a PS

Let's just say I didn't find your reasoning convincing. I don't think the "model of abstract representations" refers to normal sensory experiences. The latter would not be "husks" of themselves. As long as the inner activity implicit in all sensory experience is kept in sight, the latter discloses the Divine and prompts us toward unveiling its relations further.

It was not to win the argument, but to reestablish a rightful balance, after you unduly tried to kill my wisecrack
with an unelaborated and unjustified (not grounded in the text) opinion, moreover suggesting ("he would say") that you know better because of your personal relationship with the author - while this is a published essay, evidently meant to be understandable by all readers. And now adding an extra dose of condescendance to the mix

Federica, why did you bring up the PS (squared) and get so attached to defending your interpretation of it, if it was just a "wisecrack"?

Yes, if I have a broader context for the author's intended meaning, namely the numerous other comments he has made to me (and in published essays) about the phenomenal world, then I will bring that up.

Your original wasteland post referred to "Looking at a lush natural scenery, teeming with life, or at an admirable man-made panorama, teeming with life..."

That this is not what Max's essay is referring to, is obvious. But even if it was referring to that, I would then argue Max is characterizing it in a misleading way. His essay should simply be a springboard for us to orient toward the evolving inner relations at work in our normal perceptual experience. I have already explained the potential traps if the 'wasteland' metaphor for perceptual-memory experience is taken too rigidly. I never said you are falling into these rigid traps, but it's just a common thinking habit in spiritual pursuits for everyone to keep vigilant about.

Why I brought up the PS: first, because the language in the essay is so resolute, and you liked it, so I wanted to make a note about that. And because, when you express sensations like:

I sensed that you were placing too much emphasis on the perceptual landscape as a 'wasteland'.

(only one of various recent examples I could quote, but let's keep it light) what I sense is, you are under the impression of a past-oriented memory picture of what you thought my soul constitution is, that is not very accurate. And I believe that, if I dared to qualify anyhting as "Lucifer's lie" - qualia, memory pictures, scientific models, whatever - you would immediately jump at me with something like: "if we think that we can quickly dismiss the sensory spectrum... etc. etc.".
Then you can state that it's not about terminology, and not about me in particular, but you will admit that quotes like the above don't support that.

[Federica]

It was not to win the argument, but to reestablish a rightful balance, after you unduly tried to kill my wisecrack
with an unelaborated and unjustified (not grounded in the text) opinion, moreover suggesting ("he would say") that you know better because of your personal relationship with the author - while this is a published essay, evidently meant to be understandable by all readers. And now adding an extra dose of condescendance to the mix

Federica, why did you bring up the PS (squared) and get so attached to defending your interpretation of it, if it was just a "wisecrack"?

Yes, if I have a broader context for the author's intended meaning, namely the numerous other comments he has made to me (and in published essays) about the phenomenal world, then I will bring that up.

Your original wasteland post referred to "Looking at a lush natural scenery, teeming with life, or at an admirable man-made panorama, teeming with life..."

That this is not what Max's essay is referring to, is obvious. But even if it was referring to that, I would then argue Max is characterizing it in a misleading way. His essay should simply be a springboard for us to orient toward the evolving inner relations at work in our normal perceptual experience. I have already explained the potential traps if the 'wasteland' metaphor for perceptual-memory experience is taken too rigidly. I never said you are falling into these rigid traps, but it's just a common thinking habit in spiritual pursuits for everyone to keep vigilant about.

Why I brought up the PS: first, because the language in the essay is so resolute, and you liked it, so I wanted to make a note about that. And because, when you express sensations like:

I sensed that you were placing too much emphasis on the perceptual landscape as a 'wasteland'.

(only one of various recent examples I could quote, but let's keep it light) what I sense is, you are under the impression of a past-oriented memory picture of what you thought my soul constitution is, that is not very accurate. And I believe that, if I dared to qualify anyhting as "Lucifer's lie" - qualia, memory pictures, scientific models, whatever - you would immediately jump at me with something like: "if we think that we can quickly dismiss the sensory spectrum... etc. etc.".
Then you can state that it's not about terminology, and not about me in particular, but you will admit that quotes like the above don't support that.

But anyway, these are all secondary and distracting things.
What I wanted to primarily raise is, it's very interesting to consider ML's approach versus yours and Cleric's. They are both phenomenological, but the quality (the nature) of the conceptual approach differs greatly. Not that the essence of the pursued Truth is different, but the presentation of the phenomenological necessity in concepts is, which is very interesting. I believe there is more to elucidate from this observation. In one case the physical world is leveraged more, through metaphors, while in the other the conceptual-linguistic layer relies more on itself...

[AshvinP]

Federica, why did you bring up the PS (squared) and get so attached to defending your interpretation of it, if it was just a "wisecrack"?

Yes, if I have a broader context for the author's intended meaning, namely the numerous other comments he has made to me (and in published essays) about the phenomenal world, then I will bring that up.

Your original wasteland post referred to "Looking at a lush natural scenery, teeming with life, or at an admirable man-made panorama, teeming with life..."

That this is not what Max's essay is referring to, is obvious. But even if it was referring to that, I would then argue Max is characterizing it in a misleading way. His essay should simply be a springboard for us to orient toward the evolving inner relations at work in our normal perceptual experience. I have already explained the potential traps if the 'wasteland' metaphor for perceptual-memory experience is taken too rigidly. I never said you are falling into these rigid traps, but it's just a common thinking habit in spiritual pursuits for everyone to keep vigilant about.

Why I brought up the PS: first, because the language in the essay is so resolute, and you liked it, so I wanted to make a note about that. And because, when you express sensations like:

I sensed that you were placing too much emphasis on the perceptual landscape as a 'wasteland'.

(only one of various recent examples I could quote, but let's keep it light) what I sense is, you are under the impression of a past-oriented memory picture of what you thought my soul constitution is, that is not very accurate. And I believe that, if I dared to qualify anyhting as "Lucifer's lie" - qualia, memory pictures, scientific models, whatever - you would immediately jump at me with something like: "if we think that we can quickly dismiss the sensory spectrum... etc. etc.".
Then you can state that it's not about terminology, and not about me in particular, but you will admit that quotes like the above don't support that.

But anyway, these are all secondary and distracting things.
What I wanted to primarily raise is, it's very interesting to consider ML's approach versus yours and Cleric's. They are both phenomenological, but the quality (the nature) of the conceptual approach differs greatly. Not that the essence of the pursued Truth is different, but the presentation of the phenomenological necessity in concepts is, which is very interesting. I believe there is more to elucidate from this observation. In one case the physical world is leveraged more, through metaphors, while in the other the conceptual-linguistic layer relies more on itself...

Alright, well, I also prefaced that comment by saying - "Everything you wrote in the ghost town post, for example, is accurate and follows the threads of the convolutions closely, but just as we discussed on the Occult Science thread, it can become too rigid or formulaic if we don't also allow our thinking activity to fluidly explore the future potential it is retracing into."

As stated at that time, it didn't draw my attention (in a critical way) until we spoke of the convolutions and the brain, and there was a discrepancy in how we understood the latter, where I was suggesting it can not only be used as a metaphor for the combined convolutions compressed into a spatial structure, but is quite literally the point where the spirit has impregnated the physical world and can begin working to spiritualize the latter from the inside-out.

I don't see why my mere attempt to try and locate a reason for that discrepancy should be felt as boxing you into a past memory picture, condescending, or demeaning in any way. I assume you are interested in figuring out why the discrepancy is there too. If you feel the points I raise are completely irrelevant to it, then perhaps there are other potential paths that can be explored that are more relevant.

re: ML's approach - that makes sense. I have always felt that Barfield's philological approach, what could be called a phenomenology of spiritual activity as encoded in linguistic transformations, was one of the most powerful ways of understanding spiritual evolution at the conceptual level, short of a more direct PoF-style approach. Especially when one has devoted their vocation to teaching philosophy, as Max has, there are endless opportunities to leverage that to reveal the evolution of consciousness and expose flaws in the standard 'explanatory' philosophies and sciences. I'm not sure how far that can take us in focusing intuition of the higher states into conceptual form, however, if that is our aim. It can certainly address the past instinctive clairvoyance to some extent, by investigating ancient philosophy, mythology, art, etc., but I still feel the more scientific-technical metaphors will be the most effective at addressing the stages of modern initiation. But who knows, the human spirit is capable of making practically anything into an imaginative portal under the right circumstances, so I always remain open and enthusiastic for new ways of triangulating higher intuitions.

I'm not sure if that is exactly what you had in mind, though. If not, maybe you can provide another example (apart from the one you quoted) of the phenomenological approach you are referring to.

[Federica]

Why I brought up the PS: first, because the language in the essay is so resolute, and you liked it, so I wanted to make a note about that. And because, when you express sensations like:



(only one of various recent examples I could quote, but let's keep it light) what I sense is, you are under the impression of a past-oriented memory picture of what you thought my soul constitution is, that is not very accurate. And I believe that, if I dared to qualify anyhting as "Lucifer's lie" - qualia, memory pictures, scientific models, whatever - you would immediately jump at me with something like: "if we think that we can quickly dismiss the sensory spectrum... etc. etc.".
Then you can state that it's not about terminology, and not about me in particular, but you will admit that quotes like the above don't support that.

But anyway, these are all secondary and distracting things.
What I wanted to primarily raise is, it's very interesting to consider ML's approach versus yours and Cleric's. They are both phenomenological, but the quality (the nature) of the conceptual approach differs greatly. Not that the essence of the pursued Truth is different, but the presentation of the phenomenological necessity in concepts is, which is very interesting. I believe there is more to elucidate from this observation. In one case the physical world is leveraged more, through metaphors, while in the other the conceptual-linguistic layer relies more on itself...

Alright, well, I also prefaced that comment by saying - "Everything you wrote in the ghost town post, for example, is accurate and follows the threads of the convolutions closely, but just as we discussed on the Occult Science thread, it can become too rigid or formulaic if we don't also allow our thinking activity to fluidly explore the future potential it is retracing into."

As stated at that time, it didn't draw my attention (in a critical way) until we spoke of the convolutions and the brain, and there was a discrepancy in how we understood the latter, where I was suggesting it can not only be used as a metaphor for the combined convolutions compressed into a spatial structure, but is quite literally the point where the spirit has impregnated the physical world and can begin working to spiritualize the latter from the inside-out.

I don't see why my mere attempt to try and locate a reason for that discrepancy should be felt as boxing you into a past memory picture, condescending, or demeaning in any way. I assume you are interested in figuring out why the discrepancy is there too. If you feel the points I raise are completely irrelevant to it, then perhaps there are other potential paths that can be explored that are more relevant.

re: ML's approach - that makes sense. I have always felt that Barfield's philological approach, what could be called a phenomenology of spiritual activity as encoded in linguistic transformations, was one of the most powerful ways of understanding spiritual evolution at the conceptual level, short of a more direct PoF-style approach. Especially when one has devoted their vocation to teaching philosophy, as Max has, there are endless opportunities to leverage that to reveal the evolution of consciousness and expose flaws in the standard 'explanatory' philosophies and sciences. I'm not sure how far that can take us in focusing intuition of the higher states into conceptual form, however, if that is our aim. It can certainly address the past instinctive clairvoyance to some extent, by investigating ancient philosophy, mythology, art, etc., but I still feel the more scientific-technical metaphors will be the most effective at addressing the stages of modern initiation. But who knows, the human spirit is capable of making practically anything into an imaginative portal under the right circumstances, so I always remain open and enthusiastic for new ways of triangulating higher intuitions.

I'm not sure if that is exactly what you had in mind, though. If not, maybe you can provide another example (apart from the one you quoted) of the phenomenological approach you are referring to.

Hey Ashvin,

Look, I've never said I felt boxed or demeaned. I believe it's in "What Barfield thought" that I read about different types of adjectives, and in that sense, there is a big difference in saying "the comment is not very accurate" versus saying "I feel demeaned and boxed". I admit the former, but I never said (or felt) the latter. It looks like you want to make me way more liberal than I actually am (friendly smile).

Regarding the brain, honestly I was far from imagining the big deal I was about to create. I won't remind again of all the caveats I added to that post. In any case, I thought I was expressing quite common thoughts, when I mentioned the slight disgust and sense of strangeness coming from 'brain quality' compared to other organs. Let me try to explain this again, and sorry if it gets a little gloomy. Imagine you are a Kay Scarpetta, or a coroner let's say, and you are doing a post mortem. After all prep is done, you are supposed to lift the organs from the dead body and put each of them in refrigerated boxes. What would you feel more comfortable seizing with your hands: the heart or the brain?

Regarding language as a conceptual approach to phenomenology, I'm interested in it also for the possibilities it offers to present phenomenology to others. And I know, as we already discussed, that one shouldn't think about that before one is familiar enough with these realities, and advanced enough on the path, but it's also sometimes inevitable to speak about that. For my part, I have found myself multiple times in the position of trying to articulate what I'm doing with this path, for family members, for instance, and having difficulties. So it's not that I'm trying to actively explain things to others, but, when your life changes questions may come, and it's kind of inevitable to deal with these questions. For example, I have a little sister who is showing interest in all these things, and every time we speak I wish I could be better at conveying some basic ideas. In this sense, I am interested in all conceptual approaches to the true nature of reality.
Speaking of how language itself can be used to facilitate understanding (as ML does) I had in mind this from Cleric also:

I'm sure that the whole field of linguistics will be one of the first areas to be spiritualized, that is, we'll need to become clairvoyantly conscious of the whole process of thinking-language formation. Today we still think magically. We wish to express something, and the words simply arrange themselves.

[AshvinP]

Regarding the brain, honestly I was far from imagining the big deal I was about to create. I won't remind again of all the caveats I added to that post. In any case, I thought I was expressing quite common thoughts, when I mentioned the slight disgust and sense of strangeness coming from 'brain quality' compared to other organs. Let me try to explain this again, and sorry if it gets a little gloomy. Imagine you are a Kay Scarpetta, or a coroner let's say, and you are doing a post mortem. After all prep is done, you are supposed to lift the organs from the dead body and put each of them in refrigerated boxes. What would you feel more comfortable seizing with your hands: the heart or the brain?

I understood that : )

But, perhaps you agree, this approach won"t be helpful for a spiritual understanding of physical phenomena, like the brain structure and activity. Perhaps you see it as a way to feel the way into deeper intuitions, but for me it seems as a quite unnecessary detour that will only keep things obscure. It's trying to gain a spritual understanding through only the wasteland pole of perceptual reality.

The discrepancy for me was more in your comment that you couldnt see the brain as a symbol for the convolutions of spiritual activity. Perhaps the two are related, I dont know. In any case, we dont give ourselves much a chance to understand the following, for ex., if we approach in that way.

This, you see, leads us more deeply into the constitution of the human being. As we shall see in the next few days, this marvelous structure of the human brain is not an isolated formation. Through Imagination we behold a world, a super-sensible world, and it is as though a part of this world had become real in a lower world; in the human brain we behold a world of Imagination in concrete fact. I do not believe that anyone can speak adequately about the human brain unless he sees in its structure an Imaginative replica of the life of soul. It is just this that leads us into a dilemma when we take our start from ordinary neurophysiology and try to pass to an understanding of the life of soul. If we confine ourselves to the brain itself, a life of soul over and above this does not seem necessary. The only individuals with a right to speak of a life of soul over and above the structure of the human brain are those who have knowledge of it other than what is acquired by customary methods in this world. For when we come to know this life of soul in the spiritual world, we realize that it has its complete reflection in the structure of the human brain, and that the brain, moreover, can do everything that the super-sensible organ of soul can do by way of conceptual activity. Down to its very function the brain is a mirror-image.

Here is also an interesting retro post from Cleric on that connection:

We can't decode the folds of the Cosmic sense substance, contracted in the bounds of our body, only with the intellect - the latter operates on a very high level of abstraction. We need precisely the ability to read the direct experiences, yet not by simply merging unintelligibly with the folds of perceptions (which mysticism suggests). The folds of consciousness become intelligible only when elucidated by the Cosmic Thoughts which produce the folds in the first place. And in order to find these Cosmic Thoughts we need to go outside our head. In the head the Thoughts become formatted by the brain to microcosmic thoughts (the intellectual phantom reality). To grasp Cosmic Thoughts we need to perceive through the folds of the brain (Magic Eye), which we innerly experience as the manifold structure of (parts of) consciousness. Just as we materialistically imagine that we have neural activity constrained by the physical structure of the brain, so we have ordinary thoughts constrained by Cosmic Thoughts (which give the general blueprint for the brain). If we are to ascend to Cosmic Thoughts we need to Think not only with our brain but with every part of the body. And not only with the body but with the whole spiritual environment.

[Federica]

Regarding the brain, honestly I was far from imagining the big deal I was about to create. I won't remind again of all the caveats I added to that post. In any case, I thought I was expressing quite common thoughts, when I mentioned the slight disgust and sense of strangeness coming from 'brain quality' compared to other organs. Let me try to explain this again, and sorry if it gets a little gloomy. Imagine you are a Kay Scarpetta, or a coroner let's say, and you are doing a post mortem. After all prep is done, you are supposed to lift the organs from the dead body and put each of them in refrigerated boxes. What would you feel more comfortable seizing with your hands: the heart or the brain?

I understood that : )

But, perhaps you agree, this approach won"t be helpful for a spiritual understanding of physical phenomena, like the brain structure and activity. Perhaps you see it as a way to feel the way into deeper intuitions, but for me it seems as a quite unnecessary detour that will only keep things obscure. It's trying to gain a spritual understanding through only the wasteland pole of perceptual reality.

The discrepancy for me was more in your comment that you couldnt see the brain as a symbol for the convolutions of spiritual activity. Perhaps the two are related, I dont know. In any case, we dont give ourselves much a chance to understand the following, for ex., if we approach in that way.

This, you see, leads us more deeply into the constitution of the human being. As we shall see in the next few days, this marvelous structure of the human brain is not an isolated formation. Through Imagination we behold a world, a super-sensible world, and it is as though a part of this world had become real in a lower world; in the human brain we behold a world of Imagination in concrete fact. I do not believe that anyone can speak adequately about the human brain unless he sees in its structure an Imaginative replica of the life of soul. It is just this that leads us into a dilemma when we take our start from ordinary neurophysiology and try to pass to an understanding of the life of soul. If we confine ourselves to the brain itself, a life of soul over and above this does not seem necessary. The only individuals with a right to speak of a life of soul over and above the structure of the human brain are those who have knowledge of it other than what is acquired by customary methods in this world. For when we come to know this life of soul in the spiritual world, we realize that it has its complete reflection in the structure of the human brain, and that the brain, moreover, can do everything that the super-sensible organ of soul can do by way of conceptual activity. Down to its very function the brain is a mirror-image.

Here is also an interesting retro post from Cleric on that connection:

We can't decode the folds of the Cosmic sense substance, contracted in the bounds of our body, only with the intellect - the latter operates on a very high level of abstraction. We need precisely the ability to read the direct experiences, yet not by simply merging unintelligibly with the folds of perceptions (which mysticism suggests). The folds of consciousness become intelligible only when elucidated by the Cosmic Thoughts which produce the folds in the first place. And in order to find these Cosmic Thoughts we need to go outside our head. In the head the Thoughts become formatted by the brain to microcosmic thoughts (the intellectual phantom reality). To grasp Cosmic Thoughts we need to perceive through the folds of the brain (Magic Eye), which we innerly experience as the manifold structure of (parts of) consciousness. Just as we materialistically imagine that we have neural activity constrained by the physical structure of the brain, so we have ordinary thoughts constrained by Cosmic Thoughts (which give the general blueprint for the brain). If we are to ascend to Cosmic Thoughts we need to Think not only with our brain but with every part of the body. And not only with the body but with the whole spiritual environment.

I agree with your first point. On the second - what the structure of the brain symbolizes - I don't think there was a major discrepancy. What I reacted to initially is the search for supposedly four separated parts in the brain which would evoke the four convolutions. I don't see how this could be stated other than arbitrarily. Now, that the brain structure reflects the extreme complication of our life of soul, yes, that appears much more sensible to me. It's not that different from what I previously expressed, that it reflects the complication of our flow of becoming, which you logically reconnected to the convolutions. So where is the true discrepancy here? Do you literally see four identifiable sub-sections in the physical brain that can each be mapped to one specific convolution? If you do, then, maybe yes, there is a discrepancy. Then I would be curious to hear which is which.
And even if it feels very arbitrary to me (these supposed four convolutions of the physical brain) I am still taking this opinion as preliminary, since I don't have the higher cognition to go and visit the spiritual reality on demand, fact-check the idea, and come back to the intellect with conceptualized certainties.

[Federica]

I agree with your first point. On the second - what the structure of the brain symbolizes - I don't think there was a major discrepancy. What I reacted to initially is the search for supposedly four separated parts in the brain which would evoke the four convolutions. I don't see how this could be stated other than arbitrarily. Now, that the brain structure reflects the extreme complication of our life of soul, yes, that appears much more sensible to me. It's not that different from what I previously expressed, that it reflects the complication of our flow of becoming, which you logically reconnected to the convolutions. So where is the true discrepancy here? Do you literally see four identifiable sub-sections in the physical brain that can each be mapped to one specific convolution? If you do, then, maybe yes, there is a discrepancy. Then I would be curious to hear which is which.
And even if it feels very arbitrary to me (these supposed four convolutions of the physical brain) I am still taking this opinion as preliminary, since I don't have the higher cognition to go and visit the spiritual reality on demand, fact-check the idea, and come back to the intellect with conceptualized certainties.

This morning, in the moment of awakening, there was a picture of the brain. It was like a square, or rhomboid, with every vertex having one symmetrical feature in common with each of the two adjacent ones. It was very simple. But I couldn't retain the idea. As I tried to pin it down in words it slipped through my fingers.