The purpose after full comprehension of itself?

[Cleric]

Both and neither. Metacognition as such - as they say, light of consciousness - is light. It's also a layer on top of ground, a finite duration. Interpersonal peer-to-peer dialogue increases the strength of metacognitive durations. It has empirically verifiable combinatory and cumulative aspect.

OK. This evades the point again I'm in no way for moving into one-sidedness.
I asked the question in completely practical aspect - scale of consciousness moving from purely self-enclosed life, seeking reflexive satisfaction of desires with no concern of long term consequences for own life or that of the environment, to consciousness living in unity with the dynamics of all worlds, their intricate interrelations and as such, able to make much better informed choices, that potentially benefit the whole.
This is a real 'axis' I think anyone will agree. Ok, so light and dark, just as high and low, are clearly uncomfortable terms, then what do we call the poles of this scale? And more importantly, are we being one-sidedly sociolinguistically programmed if we suggest that the problems of humanity today, just maybe, have something to do with the fact that this axis is seriously tipped towards the first pole described, and if we propose that we should balance that out by 'one-sidedly' moving towards the second pole?

[Lou Gold]

... a darkness that Shu once attempted to describe as 'dazzling'

Just to clarify, the descriptor 'dazzling' was borrowed from a piece written by John Wren Lewis attempting to recount his NDE, available here ... https://www.nonduality.com/dazdark.htm

But I don't feel that the essence of awareness can actually be understood in any observational subject><object way, as in observing a dazzling darkness as the progenitor of it, since being uncaused, irreducible primal awareness has no source.

Thanks for the source of "dazzling darkness" Shu. Actually, I recognized it as a descriptive effort but not a concept really satisfying to me. However, I loved LWL's description of his process. I agree that the "irreducible primal awareness has no source" and say that when seen one can only surrender to it. In its presence, there is no choice other than to accept a lot of process to come. In my case, I'm still unpacking it with angst and gratitude.

[Cleric]

Thus I ask you to tell me what's wrong with just surrendering to the Will of God by doing as God does and simply loving?

I'm all in for doing the Will of God. But 'simply loving' is what David would call, a quite Pollyanna way to approach the issue.
Why? Because this view rests on a very serious assumption. It is that once one surrenders to the choiceless-choice, this guarantees that everything will be good. But this completely ignores the possibility that there are beings that compete for the human resource and inspire their own goals in them. Now if you tell me "It doesn't matter, these beings are just as valid part of God, as anything else, so in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter from which direction the choiceless inspirations come" and if you tell me that it's all fine to be inspired through choiceless-choice by one of them and commit a murder - I'll have nothing else to say. It's a valid philosophy and anyone deciding to adopt it accepts its consequences.

[Lou Gold]

Thus I ask you to tell me what's wrong with just surrendering to the Will of God by doing as God does and simply loving?

I'm all in for doing the Will of God. But 'simply loving' is what David would call, a quite Pollyanna way to approach the issue.
Why? Because this view rests on a very serious assumption. It is that once one surrenders to the choiceless-choice, this guarantees that everything will be good. But this completely ignores the possibility that there are beings that compete for the human resource and inspire their own goals in them. Now if you tell me "It doesn't matter, these beings are just as valid part of God, as anything else, so in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter from which direction the choiceless inspirations come" and if you tell me that it's all fine to be inspired through choiceless-choice by one of them and commit a murder - I'll have nothing else to say. It's a valid philosophy and anyone deciding to adopt it accepts its consequences.

Not at all. Very much like David you are projecting a strawman onto my words. I am saying one enters the great mysteriousness with courage and fear and thus learns from it how to trust the God/light/love already in one's self by virtue of being a Child of God. The Fire and the Rose become One. The Passion becomes Compassion. At this point on the annual calendar we are preparing for and contemplating one of the greatest (for some THE GREATEST) story ever told about it. And yes, seeing the Way, it becomes a choiceless-choice. The Son does as the Father commands.

[Cleric]

I may not have explained myself well enough. I will repeat what I have written in other comments. Kant separates the senses from thinking.
To this Maimon responds that the senses are nothing but a vague thought that our mind can penetrate and conclude its concepts. Thinking and perception are not really different domains.
At the same time, Maimon believes that reality is not only rational, since there is always a dimension that is not conceivable. Everything we explain, we explain through other things (e.g atoms by electrons), but as our explanation goes down more and more to the details we are left with the answer "it's just the way it is". Science can define general laws, but why the world appears in this way and not in another, science has no answer.
The limit of thinking is also expressed in Godel's theorem. In order to make a determination in language S1 we must go higher to language S2 and so on indefinitely, something our limit thinking - this is its nature - is incapable of.
Science strives to define the world objectively and to free itself from the subject, But even if we were to find all the equations that describe the world science would not be able to explain the subject itself since the subject does not perceive itself objectively by thinking, it simply exists.

That's clear. It's what I said that we can never go beyond thinking through thinking, no matter how finely we divide it.

You talked about higher worlds (that exist of course objectively independent of us). There are various spiritual traditions that describe higher worlds. Of course we have to believe in their existence and we have no way other than "personal experience" to prove it. What should we do with different
traditions giving different descriptions of these higher worlds? We must choose whom to believe.
Even if we all use the same concepts the way we experience things will be subjective. We can discuss very complex matters, but regarding the question "Is what I call sweet the same as what you call sweet" - we have no answer.
To me it is relevant to talk about Steiner since he saw himself as a "seer". And since he also expressed his views on the public and political plain, I can observe his ability to create concepts that fit or don't fit reality.
We return again to the problem that our mind is trying to grasp the sensory reality and miss it due to the gap between thinking and senses. In science at least we can conduct experiments that will disprove our assumptions, but in spiritual matters like "higher worlds" we have no such possibility. Also in matters of morality. I think a different method is needed here and this is where faith comes in

You've again ignored what I said. Knowledge of higher worlds has direct consequences for practical life and as such all we need is common sense to orient ourselves through the messages. Imagine a society eating both food and stones, having no knowledge of the human biological organs and suffering from different kinds of pain. Then someone with 'higher' knowledge of anatomy says "My investigations show that the inner bodily structure is not adapted for digesting stones." Then people ask "Can we believe this? Our culture has been eating stones for ages!". It's not about believing, its about thinking it through - all we need is common sense, and if it sounds reasonable we put it to the test.

As far as the 'faith' conclusion - what you objected against the descriptions of higher worlds, I would say holds precisely for faith (assuming agnosticism). As said, descriptions of the higher worlds can at least be tested against practical life and common sense. On the other hand it is exactly for religious faith (excluding gnosis) that we can say "We must choose whom to believe". And it is really about belief here because things cannot be verified by definition. It is exactly here that the choice is really random, unless we simply accept the religion we were raised into, which is a choiceless-choice.

[Cleric]

Not at all. Very much like David you are projecting a strawman onto my words. I am saying one enters the great mysteriousness with courage and fear and thus learns from it how to trust the God/light/love already in one's self by virtue of being a Child of God. The Fire and the Rose become One. The Passion becomes Compassion. At this point on the annual calendar we are preparing for and contemplating one of the greatest (for some THE GREATEST) story ever told about it. And yes, seeing the Way, it becomes a choiceless-choice.

OK. I still don't understand
So you mean that once The Fire and The Rose become One then we become deaf to the whisperings of the adversary beings and we follow choicelessly only the Will of God?

[Lou Gold]

Not at all. Very much like David you are projecting a strawman onto my words. I am saying one enters the great mysteriousness with courage and fear and thus learns from it how to trust the God/light/love already in one's self by virtue of being a Child of God. The Fire and the Rose become One. The Passion becomes Compassion. At this point on the annual calendar we are preparing for and contemplating one of the greatest (for some THE GREATEST) story ever told about it. And yes, seeing the Way, it becomes a choiceless-choice.

OK. I still don't understand
So you mean that once The Fire and The Rose become One then we become deaf to the whisperings of the adversary beings and we follow choicelessly only the Will of God?

I am saying that, once the transformation occurs, there are no longer any adversary beings. The whispers and screams are your own dissociated projections. On the other hand, for the pleas emerging from the real world, you do your best to deal with them within the limits and opportunities already given to you by God. Life is a dance of work and play, of movement and rest.

[Shaibei]

You've again ignored what I said. Knowledge of higher worlds has direct consequences for practical life and as such all we need is common sense to orient ourselves through the messages. Imagine a society eating both food and stones, having no knowledge of the human biological organs and suffering from different kinds of pain. Then someone with 'higher' knowledge of anatomy says "My investigations show that the inner bodily structure is not adapted for digesting stones." Then people ask "Can we believe this? Our culture has been eating stones for ages!". It's not about believing, its about thinking it through - all we need is common sense, and if it sounds reasonable we put it to the test.

As far as the 'faith' conclusion - what you objected against the descriptions of higher worlds, I would say holds precisely for faith (assuming agnosticism). As said, descriptions of the higher worlds can at least be tested against practical life and common sense. On the other hand it is exactly for religious faith (excluding gnosis) that we can say "We must choose whom to believe". And it is really about belief here because things cannot be verified by definition. It is exactly here that the choice is really random, unless we simply accept the religion we were raised into, which is a choiceless-choice.

There is a simpler example than knowledge about higher worlds. Belief in the objective existence of values ​​and meanings has a crucial impact on our world, including the technical world of science.
Specifically I would reply to what you wrote in an examination of Steiner's statements, but since you are not interested in dealing with Steiner I will respect this decision

[SanteriSatama]

Both and neither. Metacognition as such - as they say, light of consciousness - is light. It's also a layer on top of ground, a finite duration. Interpersonal peer-to-peer dialogue increases the strength of metacognitive durations. It has empirically verifiable combinatory and cumulative aspect.

OK. This evades the point again I'm in no way for moving into one-sidedness.
I asked the question in completely practical aspect - scale of consciousness moving from purely self-enclosed life, seeking reflexive satisfaction of desires with no concern of long term consequences for own life or that of the environment, to consciousness living in unity with the dynamics of all worlds, their intricate interrelations and as such, able to make much better informed choices, that potentially benefit the whole.
This is a real 'axis' I think anyone will agree. Ok, so light and dark, just as high and low, are clearly uncomfortable terms, then what do we call the poles of this scale? And more importantly, are we being one-sidedly sociolinguistically programmed if we suggest that the problems of humanity today, just maybe, have something to do with the fact that this axis is seriously tipped towards the first pole described, and if we propose that we should balance that out by 'one-sidedly' moving towards the second pole?

Point is just an end of a line, and a wave center...

I'm not trying to evade the question, I'm trying to show that the frame of the question - geometry of a linear axis - is as such too limited, and the situation does not change however we name the axis. A line is a part of a plane. Aufhebung/sublation of linearity is to see that we are the plane/surface that observes a line as it's observable part. And a surface of a sphere has outside, inside and the middle of the surface itself. And so on, there is no limit to geometric imagination, the task is to comprehend and embody geometry in continuous learning process, as long as we want to play with deep geometric metaphors and not to get stuck on a particular one.

The most advanced clearly communicable vision of idea of poles I've reached so far is the poles of a sphere, and the complementary relation of poles both sending and receiving the wave-fronts that travel the along surface of the sphere. What goes around, comes around. Attention to how and what we attend, especially emotionally, and call forth the actualize in our experience. Attention is raw energy and potentially highly causal force.

Here comes the important part of the spherical metaphor. Imagine in the restful location of your minds eye being the Event (like dropping a stone on a surface of still lake) that sets forth wave fronts expanding outwards from the wave center of the Event. Traveling the surface of the sphere with a wave front, you eventually reach the opposite pole of the Event, where waves flow inwards from all sides. We've covered so far an unilinear notion of time/process, and that's a very sticky one, which most of our everyday life attends and stays focused on. How could the waves flow both ways simultaneously? That's impossible! If waves would travel both ways, they would cancel each other!

Well, not impossible, it's easy when you know how. Let's continue the meditation from the point we reached, and imagine that the incoming waves create another polar Event, that sets forth another round of outgoing waves. Now the waves travel along the inner surface of the sphere, while the previous waves of the previous round continue to travel the outer surface of the sphere. We can add as many layers to surface as we like, without breaking their continuity of same surface, we can let waves flowing in opposite directions at any and all spots of the sphere, forming new wave centers and their polar opposites in every location of the sphere. We can imagine that the surfaces are air balloons that can be stretched and tied in multitude of forms. Etc. etc. etc.

We can also think of this visual meditation as a version of Plato's Cave in the light of metacognitive geometric imagination with very high degree of consensus of the start and the general principle. And in the dark of the imbedding space of imagination, where we not only see, but can also feel if the visualization speaks to us and how, how we are also the dark matter and energy of gravity, emotion and non-local communication, which are much more and beyond the finity of light, fall into the black holes where the white rabbit goes, etc. wonderlands.

And we should not forget the real question you are asking. How could this consensus reality we share be better? There is no need to make the question and will of "better?" any more complex than it is. Geometries of spheres and their polarities, waves, directions etc. does not answer the question, it can only help to think and feel it more clearly and comprehensively, more aware.

[Cleric]

I am saying that, once the transformation occurs, there are no longer any adversary beings.

Well, all I can say is - good for you
Unfortunately what you got doesn't work that well for all 'transformed' souls.

It's for them that Goethe wrote:

Mephistopheles: (To Faust.)
These folk wouldn’t feel the devil, even
If he’d got them dangling by the neck.

And it's not like we don't have plenty of examples. Most cult leaders are pretty convinced that they are doing God's will, they are 'in the flow' - so are their followers.