The purpose after full comprehension of itself?

[Starbuck]

The Buddhists have a nice description of the ‘person’ who has merged with consciousness. Tathagata “he who has this gone”. Completely unqualifiable, but seemingly hardwired into the desires of all sentient beings.

[Cleric K]

Nonetheless, there is an understanding in the East that self-reflection is created when there is a separation between the thinker and the thought, and this understanding can advance us beyond Hegel's reason and Steiner's thinking.

Advance us in what sense?
What is usually called advancement in this way is the cessation of all conscious activity and merging with the unconscious flow.

[Shaibei]

Nonetheless, there is an understanding in the East that self-reflection is created when there is a separation between the thinker and the thought, and this understanding can advance us beyond Hegel's reason and Steiner's thinking.

Advance us in what sense?
What is usually called advancement in this way is the cessation of all conscious activity and merging with the unconscious flow.

Anyone affected by Steiner will probably not like my choice of words. Along with this, I find a flaw in Hegel's monism of reason that is later reflected in the "thinking" of Steiner.
I'm not debating with the idea of ​​the development of reality and consciousness, after all it is a biblical,
Talmudic and Kabbalistic idea. But from this idea that the unconscious becomes conscious I understand that there is always a vague and
dark part of consciousness. It is therefore impossible to really identify the root of reality with reason.
I hinted at this in the past when I noted that the idealism of Maimon is a moderate monism of reason. Maimon claims there are irrational elements in reality not perceived by reason. For example, if I ask why the water boils at 100 degrees and not at any other number? Reason has
no answer to what appears to be a voluntary or arbitrary determination. Why there is "Being" and not "Nothingness"?
Even if we ascend to higher worlds of knowledge, a new horizon will be revealed to us that we did not know and is not transparent to our
knowledge. In an analogy with a Godel theorom we will be exposed to problems that only a higher system of reality can solve.
Our mind is inherently limited, you cannot know the knower. I have no desire to eradicate cognition or reality, but in my opinion one must recognize the limitations of thinking and reason and in certain situations recognize the superiority of so-called-instinct or faith that are not expressed or defined, and along with Humility that not everything can be known, can provide unmediated relation with reality not abstracted by concepts

[Lou Gold]

Awareness is simple presence. One needs trust or faith to re-member or re-cognize or re-connect but not if one has never separated. No before or after for God. Only an Eternal Now. "How does something come from nothing?" makes sense only from a position of dissociation.

“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I’ll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase “each other”
doesn’t make any sense.
The breeze at dawn has secrets to tell you.
Don’t go back to sleep.
You must ask for what you really want.
Don’t go back to sleep.
People are going back and forth across the doorsill
where the two worlds touch.
The door is round and open.
Don’t go back to sleep.”

~ Rumi

[Cleric K]

But from this idea that the unconscious becomes conscious I understand that there is always a vague and
dark part of consciousness. It is therefore impossible to really identify the root of reality with reason.

The latter is beyond any doubt for anyone who has at least some inner experience beyond mere juggling with words. The former has one part right - that there's always something unknown. And this is very understandable. After all, any philosophical judgment is a specific form of spiritual experience - one of infinitely many - so there's an infinity hidden from view. But the other part - 'unconscious becomes conscious' - carries a lot of presuppositions. It seems to be a fact of experience, because we can only describe the experience of awakening, of becoming more conscious. The opposite we can't describe - our asleep self can't describe the 'falling asleep', because the asleep self no longer has the consciousness of the awake state from whence it came. We can speak of falling asleep only on the next day when in retrospect we reflect on the way how we sank into unconsciousness and reemerged again. So that's why today's thinking has a fundamental bias - we have experiential preference on describing how awake consciousness emerges from the darkness. The other experience is apparently non-existent for us. Even if our waking consciousness is a more asleep version of another more awake form, we can't say anything about it, just as asleep consciousness can't tell anything about a waking one. Only when we emerge from our current waking state into a more awake state, from whose standpoint our waking one looks like somewhat diminished consciousness, we can see for a fact why the ordinary waking state doesn't detect any trace of the more awake one.

The point is that it is because of one-sided observation that we give preference to the more conscious somehow emerging from the less conscious. Clearly we've learnt nothing from the reductionist hard problem in materialism and we continue to proliferate it into idealism. Consciousness doesn't emerge from combinations of unconsciousness, just as light doesn't emerge from combinations of darkness. These are the two Great Poles of Cosmic existence. Every state of being can be seen in a dual way - either as the darkness of unconsciousness partially illuminated by the light of consciousness or as the light of consciousness partially diminished by the darkness of unconsciousness. Today this one-sidedness proceeds from the hidden (or not so hidden) antipathy towards the possibility of forms of consciousness that are more conscious, more awake than our intellectual.

To repeat - yes, the abstract intellect can never go beyond itself through itself. This is where humility and mood of prayer play their indispensable role! But we are simply being prejudiced if we insist that conscious spiritual activity (hidden behind thinking) itself can't be experienced in more awake (higher) states of being. As you say "if we ascend to higher worlds of knowledge, a new horizon will be revealed to us that we did not know and is not transparent to our knowledge". This is what we are talking about. The critical thing is that when we enter the higher worlds we live in a different 'self' than the intellectual self (as a limited analogy we can say that our dreaming self at night is not aware of the broader (and thus somewhat different) waking self). Nevertheless, the intellectual self also co-experiences and can extract concepts from these higher worlds. The intellect can't build the higher worlds from these concepts but can use them to orient itself and make more informed decisions about the way it conducts its activity on Earth. The reason that this is possible is because what we call 'logic' exists on all levels. Not in the sense of abstract, formal logic but as feeling for the harmony of the facts of experience.

[AshvinP]

But from this idea that the unconscious becomes conscious I understand that there is always a vague and
dark part of consciousness. It is therefore impossible to really identify the root of reality with reason.

The latter is beyond any doubt for anyone who has at least some inner experience beyond mere juggling with words. The former has one part right - that there's always something unknown. And this is very understandable. After all, any philosophical judgment is a specific form of spiritual experience - one of infinitely many - so there's an infinity hidden from view. But the other part - 'unconscious becomes conscious' - carries a lot of presuppositions. It seems to be a fact of experience, because we can only describe the experience of awakening, of becoming more conscious. The opposite we can't describe - our asleep self can't describe the 'falling asleep', because the asleep self no longer has the consciousness of the awake state from whence it came. We can speak of falling asleep only on the next day when in retrospect we reflect on the way how we sank into unconsciousness and reemerged again. So that's why today's thinking has a fundamental bias - we have experiential preference on describing how awake consciousness emerges from the darkness. The other experience is apparently non-existent for us. Even if our waking consciousness is a more asleep version of another more awake form, we can't say anything about it, just as asleep consciousness can't tell anything about a waking one. Only when we emerge from our current waking state into a more awake state, from whose standpoint our waking one looks like somewhat diminished consciousness, we can see for a fact why the ordinary waking state doesn't detect any trace of the more awake one.

The point is that it is because of one-sided observation that we give preference to the more conscious somehow emerging from the less conscious. Clearly we've learnt nothing from the reductionist hard problem in materialism and we continue to proliferate it into idealism. Consciousness doesn't emerge from combinations of unconsciousness, just as light doesn't emerge from combinations of darkness. These are the two Great Poles of Cosmic existence. Every state of being can be seen in a dual way - either as the darkness of unconsciousness partially illuminated by the light of consciousness or as the light of consciousness partially diminished by the darkness of unconsciousness. Today this one-sidedness proceeds from the hidden (or not so hidden) antipathy towards the possibility of forms of consciousness that are more conscious, more awake than our intellectual.

To repeat - yes, the abstract intellect can never go beyond itself through itself. This is where humility and mood of prayer play their indispensable role! But we are simply being prejudiced if we insist that conscious spiritual activity (hidden behind thinking) itself can't be experienced in more awake (higher) states of being. As you say "if we ascend to higher worlds of knowledge, a new horizon will be revealed to us that we did not know and is not transparent to our knowledge". This is what we are talking about. The critical thing is that when we enter the higher worlds we live in a different 'self' than the intellectual self (as a limited analogy we can say that our dreaming self at night is not aware of the broader (and thus somewhat different) waking self). Nevertheless, the intellectual self also co-experiences and can extract concepts from these higher worlds. The intellect can't build the higher worlds from these concepts but can use them to orient itself and make more informed decisions about the way it conducts its activity on Earth. The reason that this is possible is because what we call 'logic' exists on all levels. Not in the sense of abstract, formal logic but as feeling for the harmony of the facts of experience.

Wow, thank you for that enlightening presentation That way of putting it really brings a lot of clarity to an often muddled set of concepts which raise seemingly "intractable" problems.

[SanteriSatama]

My thought is that Divinely Integrated Diversity co-arises interdependently with creativity, change and checks-and-balances and this requires only that God love God, which may be entirely instinctual. An entity at any level need not be metacognitive to will continuing creativity or to respond to a tummy ache. Subjective sentience called Love is all that is required. God is Love. Hate is not the opposite of Love, Fear is. God does not fear.

The difference between diversity and differentiation is that the form describes a state, the latter is process. We experience differences, not states.

I agree that sentience is more fundamental than metacognitive sapience. Fear and hate are forms of love, arising from attached love. Neither is outside or independent of the integrated process. Fear is an excellent guide in some ways, going towards your fears you can face and overcome them and learn something new.

[Eugene I]

Nonetheless, there is an understanding in the East that self-reflection is created when there is a separation between the thinker and the thought, and this understanding can advance us beyond Hegel's reason and Steiner's thinking.

Advance us in what sense?
What is usually called advancement in this way is the cessation of all conscious activity and merging with the unconscious flow.

Eastern traditions are very diverse and not all Eastern schools would subscribe to such view. In many Advaitic/Hindu and Buddhists schools the liberation/moksha is understood not as cessation of conscious activity, but as a continuation of conscious activity in a "liberated mode" (usually termed Sahaja Samadhi). Sahaja Samadhi is a liberated and highly-metacognitive way of conscious activity not conditioned by distorted dualistic views and perceptions of the world and by unconscious desires and motivations. In this way the potential of consciousness to be spiritually free and unconditioned by circumstances and wrong views if fully unleashed while continuing to be creatively involved in the world of forms and to enjoy its beauty.

[Shaibei]

But from this idea that the unconscious becomes conscious I understand that there is always a vague and
dark part of consciousness. It is therefore impossible to really identify the root of reality with reason.

The latter is beyond any doubt for anyone who has at least some inner experience beyond mere juggling with words. The former has one part right - that there's always something unknown. And this is very understandable. After all, any philosophical judgment is a specific form of spiritual experience - one of infinitely many - so there's an infinity hidden from view. But the other part - 'unconscious becomes conscious' - carries a lot of presuppositions. It seems to be a fact of experience, because we can only describe the experience of awakening, of becoming more conscious. The opposite we can't describe - our asleep self can't describe the 'falling asleep', because the asleep self no longer has the consciousness of the awake state from whence it came. We can speak of falling asleep only on the next day when in retrospect we reflect on the way how we sank into unconsciousness and reemerged again. So that's why today's thinking has a fundamental bias - we have experiential preference on describing how awake consciousness emerges from the darkness. The other experience is apparently non-existent for us. Even if our waking consciousness is a more asleep version of another more awake form, we can't say anything about it, just as asleep consciousness can't tell anything about a waking one. Only when we emerge from our current waking state into a more awake state, from whose standpoint our waking one looks like somewhat diminished consciousness, we can see for a fact why the ordinary waking state doesn't detect any trace of the more awake one.

The point is that it is because of one-sided observation that we give preference to the more conscious somehow emerging from the less conscious. Clearly we've learnt nothing from the reductionist hard problem in materialism and we continue to proliferate it into idealism. Consciousness doesn't emerge from combinations of unconsciousness, just as light doesn't emerge from combinations of darkness. These are the two Great Poles of Cosmic existence. Every state of being can be seen in a dual way - either as the darkness of unconsciousness partially illuminated by the light of consciousness or as the light of consciousness partially diminished by the darkness of unconsciousness. Today this one-sidedness proceeds from the hidden (or not so hidden) antipathy towards the possibility of forms of consciousness that are more conscious, more awake than our intellectual.

To repeat - yes, the abstract intellect can never go beyond itself through itself. This is where humility and mood of prayer play their indispensable role! But we are simply being prejudiced if we insist that conscious spiritual activity (hidden behind thinking) itself can't be experienced in more awake (higher) states of being. As you say "if we ascend to higher worlds of knowledge, a new horizon will be revealed to us that we did not know and is not transparent to our knowledge". This is what we are talking about. The critical thing is that when we enter the higher worlds we live in a different 'self' than the intellectual self (as a limited analogy we can say that our dreaming self at night is not aware of the broader (and thus somewhat different) waking self). Nevertheless, the intellectual self also co-experiences and can extract concepts from these higher worlds. The intellect can't build the higher worlds from these concepts but can use them to orient itself and make more informed decisions about the way it conducts its activity on Earth. The reason that this is possible is because what we call 'logic' exists on all levels. Not in the sense of abstract, formal logic but as feeling for the harmony of the facts of experience.

Certainly, concepts and notions can be a springboard for higher spiritual spheres. In what sense do they really elevate the soul? When you hear from them the spirit and will of the one who wrote them. This includes means like poetry, rhetoric and the like and not mere concepts. I was not convinced by the "philosophy of freedom" that Steiner had really solved the problem with Kant. He simply divides reality into concepts and sensory perception like Maimon. Only that unlike the latter he assumes it is the bottom line.
This perception is also reflected in what Steiner calls "clairvoyance." You probably know what claims Steiner made that I can not agree with and that history has proven to be nothing but mere imagination not "concepts" reflecting the world of senses. And this is exactly the problem

[SanteriSatama]

Consciousness doesn't emerge from combinations of unconsciousness, just as light doesn't emerge from combinations of darkness.

The ancient wisdom of the stars in the first gaze of a newborn, coming out of mother's womb into this world and seeing this very first time. My deepest gratitude for having seen that gaze, the greatest wonder.