Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Breaking Bad Habits

[Soul_of_Shu]

But to name this kind of metaphysical or esoteric speculation a "science" or "philosophy" is a misnomer, they really do not belong there.

Well as that statement is also provisional, one might add ... 'until they do.'

[Apanthropinist]

But to name this kind of metaphysical or esoteric speculation a "science" or "philosophy" is a misnomer, they really do not belong there.

Well as that statement is also provisional, one might add ... 'until they do.'

Well as that statement is also provisional, one would more correctly say....'unless evidence is provided or a valid argument that they do'

[Soul_of_Shu]

But to name this kind of metaphysical or esoteric speculation a "science" or "philosophy" is a misnomer, they really do not belong there.

Well as that statement is also provisional, one might add ... 'until they do.'

Well as that statement is also provisional, one would more correctly say....'unless evidence is provided or a valid argument that they do'

In which case, one can imagine Eugene's statement being made when heliocentrism was considered to be in the highly speculative category, and even after evidence and valid argument was provided ... Cleric can at least take heart that his speculation won't result in his head ending up in a basket.

[Cleric]

Now, if the spiritual science is committed to use the same verification method based on verifiable and reproducible experiences, then you should confirm that and then we can move ahead and scrutinize the claims of the spiritual science against such verifiable and reproducible experiences. If you can not confirm that, then please explain what other kinds of experiences the spiritual science accepts as verification criteria.

Eugene, plenty of information has been given here so anyone who had interest would have already grasped everything that you ask about. I'm sure it will be no different this time but for the sake of anyone else who may be reading, let me repeat why it's justified to speak of spiritual science.

First we need to return some centuries back and remember natural science before it became the abstract discipline of today. Think of botany, zoology, geology, astronomy, meteorology, etc. Here we have activity of the human spirit which describes forms, recognizes patterns and laws and forms concepts. The quest for a mathematical theory of everything appeared relatively recently. Natural sciences deal with the spectrum of our spiritual life the encompasses the senses. As it's mentioned in previous posts, the spectrum of inner life that corresponds to thinking, feeling and willing is considered unreliable - it's too volatile. Here we should be clear with one thing - the fact that the inner life is so dynamic doesn't mean that it can't be investigated. There are plenty of things in the sensory world that are highly complex (for example weather) but this doesn't stop scientists to keep perfecting their methods and understanding. The argument that inner life is subjective and agreement can never by reached is also untrue. We can agree about the existence of thoughts, feelings, sensations, will. We can agree to some basic laws that these inner elements conform to. What the 'subjectivity' excuse really secretly says is "I can't handle my own inner life, let alone draw some lawful observations from it." Claiming that inner life is too turbulent in order to become subject of rigorous study is quite selective dismission. The real problem is that people simply don't have any desire to go in that direction. In today's culture if one doesn't see how they can profit from certain endeavor, they lose interest immediately. We'll return to this. Yet not all souls operate under such paradigm. There have always been individuals who were willing to take the pains and develop the methods for investigation of the invisible part of the spectrum. This is today known as spiritual science.

Spiritual science is continuation of the same method of the natural sciences. Note that I say the natural sciences. This is important. Today, almost by reflex, when it's spoken about science it's understood some theory that tries to explain the workings of reality. Here also come all the talks about falsification and so on. The natural sciences are much more immediate - you have perceptions and discover concepts for the forms and their transformations. We can grasp spiritual science only if we don't mix it with the modern fascination with abstract theories. What the natural sciences do, spiritual science does too - it deals with supersensible perceptions and describes in concepts their characteristics, relations and transformations.

It is the part with the supersensible perceptions that is really the thorn in the flesh. There are many reasons for this. One has already been mentioned above. I'm not going to go in too many details - I've done that in other places. The key thing to understand is that spiritual science begins with self-knowledge and self-mastery. This answers the question about the volatility of our inner life. It's not very common today for people to be able to control their thought stream at will. To stop it on command, to concentrate it in a point and hold it for some time. Similarly it's not very 'trendy' to have mastery over passions and desires. In fact many parts of modern culture advocate unleashing of desires as the ultimate expression of freedom. It's not very popular also to have full control on the will - to be conscious of every movement of the body, the expressions of the face, etc. Yet these are the things that are needed in order for one to achieve the stability of inner life that is required for reliable inner perception. And this is only the preparation (which never ends). Then we must work with our spiritual activity, to concentrate it. As long as our inner life proceeds in semi-automatic way, we can't know much about ourselves. In a similar way a child doesn't have consciousness about what it takes to have bread on the table until it's old enough. Before that it accepts the bread for granted. Once it begins to provide for its bread a whole new spectrum of experiences are added to the metamorphic view. It's similar with the work on ourselves. As long as our inner life flows 'on its own' we don't have consciousness of the driving forces. Through self-mastery we gain more intimate control of inner life. Normally thinking, feeling and willing are very intimately connected. For example if someone says something wrong to me and I haven't done any work on my inner life, the heard words (which are thoughts for me) activate a whole cascade of processes - the feelings of insult and anger are aroused and I may even give him, completely instinctually, a blow. Things are very different when work on self-mastery has been performed. We reach a point of development where thinking, feeling and willing are under the control of the "I". Then when I hear the insult I take it with my tweezers and begin to examine it as a scientific object. My feeling and will are activated only if I allow it and in the way I decide.

The above may sound trivial and someone may say "Well, it's just like normal inner life but with more control!" But it's not the same. The thing is that the forces that give us this control are of higher order. In other words, we not only make our inner life more orderly and harmonious but in this process we awaken forms of spiritual activity which are slumbering as long as we are dragged along the semi-controlled life - they simply don't exist for us! The stability of the inner life is not achieved in an on-off manner - it's an endless gradient of perfection of the metamorphic view. It's like slow and patient cleaning of the lenses, adjusting, reordering, which transforms the chaotic innerly turbulent flow into laminar but infinitely detailed flow where we begin to recognize our deeper spiritual structure - the organs of the astral body, the etheric streams that animate the physical body. Together with these we discover entire corresponding realms. As I've said many times, the transition to these higher forms of consciousness passes through the concentration of our spiritual activity (which is thinking in the ordinary state). When we achieve fine control over this concentration our thought becomes sensitive. We no longer assert our thoughts everywhere but we become perceptive of how our thinking is being shaped and modified by the environment. A good preparation for this is if we simply practice to listen when somebody speaks, to suppress all inner judgement and simply allow the words of our correspondent to speak for themselves. When we are trained in this way, in meditation our spiritual activity becomes a two-way organ - we need intense will but also receptivity. We're not fantasizing anything. Our spiritual activity touches the living constraints within which it flows, and the impressions of the processes and beings that are these constraints become perceptible to us - they are imprinted into the 'substance' of our spiritual activity as what is called Imaginations. As it can be seen, this type of meditation is not what is commonly popularized today as the achieving of some calm state and letting thoughts drift into oblivion. It's precisely that we take and focus our spiritual activity, that becomes the portal through which we approach the supersensory perceptions. Although we call them perceptions they are completely cognitive perceptions in the same way as our thought perceptions (verbal, symbolic, etc.) are. It's just that we are not concerned only with what we do with our activity but also use it as a feeler in order to experience how the environment shapes the 'channels' through which our activity flows. In ordinary life we're not concerned with this - we simply think whatever comes without questioning why we think exactly these thoughts. It's precisely these questions that concern us in spiritual investigation. We don't speculate or intellectually interpret visions but go directly for our most intimate spiritual activity and explore not only how we can drive it with our will but also how the environment is reflected in it. In the beginning this environment is primarily our own being - everything which so far has been subconscious - our opinions, prejudices, inclinations, desires - begins to be perceptible as living elementary processes which constitute what we are in our normal life. The further we go the more we perceive how the souls around us, the nation, the Earthly environment shape our metamorphic view. This view is a hologram of the whole Cosmos. It's through the gradual refinement of our own role within it that we begin to recognize how the Earth projects into our view, how Venus, Saturn, Sun and so on project. Not through some sensory means but through their inner spiritual and living nature. The sensory perceptible planets are only mineral condensation of spiritual processes and beings.

I won't go any further. I just wanted to give a taste for the kind of work that is needed in order to develop and open the spiritual organs. Words like the above already make 97% of the audience to immediately lose interest. Of course it's not necessary that everyone should become spiritual investigator. What is thus discovered can be communicated as the facts of spiritual science and when livingly experienced through thinking they can become powerful inner impulses for transformation. Everything can be comprehended through normal unprejudiced thinking. The harmony of facts is something which we find on all levels, irrelevant of the form of cognition. I've explained in the Deep M@L essay that with thinking we are probing the very same space which becomes organized and perceptible for the seer. That's why thinking is so tremendously effective.

So there you have it. I did my best to describe at least in general lines the method of spiritual investigation. I explained how the problem of the unreliability is solved - through painstaking work on self-mastery. I showed why it's justified to call this type of investigation science - it's based on rigorous supersensible perception and forming concepts that can be communicated. Everything that is found in this investigation has practical consequences because it's taken directly from reality. The most pressing issues for today's humanity stem from the astral body - both the individual and the host of beings in the corresponding realm. All of these influence human affairs from the subconscious (from the point of view of normal consciousness) strata.

And that's the ungrateful position of spiritual science (and other spiritual streams that are inspired from these depths). Man of today simply doesn't want to hear about these things. The direction is too intimate and uncomfortable. It's much more preferable to seek the answers in the outer perceptions, abstract theorizing and accept our own being as a 'thing-in-itself', a work of Nature, God, that it's an illusion, and so on, and so on - anything else but to penetrate its reality.

I'm quite certain that all the above will be dismissed. But if it's at least comprehended why spiritual science is seen as so antipathetic, that's already a lot. Unfortunately people rarely will admit this. It's simply much more comfortable for the conscience if there's some 'good' reasons to stay as far as possible from these things. For example "I don't like Steiner, what good can ever come out of someone like him?". Or "I don't like that spiritual science speaks of the Christ. It looks like some conspiratory Christian agenda." The examples are endless. The common thing is that it's never the depth of the matter that is addressed but something at the periphery which 'proves' that it's worthless to even consider such nonsense. If the depths were addressed it would be found that we discover there the true sources of moral life worthy for free individuals acting out of Love and Wisdom. Life of responsibility and sacrifice. Yet also life of the deepest meaningfulness and fulfillment.

[AshvinP]

Well that's certainly a personal opinion but the fallacy Cleric employed, remains, philosophically. Perhaps there's a forum somewhere called 'Spiritual Science' where you don't have to employ the philosophical method at all but I doubt Kastrup, after whom this forum takes its name, would put his name to it. I'm not for one moment suggesting it wouldn't be interesting, I think it would, but it would likely be chock full of any number of Spaghetti Monsters which would only say something about the believer rather than the 'thing' being discussed.



So I'll be able to verify those arguments and more through my own direct experience? Meaning, effectively, I am simply verifying my own experience......but then that's circular. Or maybe I can verify yours because it will be the same experience, right? That's what the scientific method aims for isn't it? Testable, verifiable, repeatable experiments which produce consistent results and can make predictions and are falsifiable......



....and then you'd be engaging in a form of solipsism wouldn't you? Because you'd have no other metric to reference other than your own experience. That's not science in any way that I understand. Not that I'm a fan of materialist science, I'm not, but it is useful at what it does when it stays within its domain of competence.



You then introduce and answer your own argument here, rather than one I have explicitly or implicitly made. It's called 'So you're saying....' However I can answer it for you by saying that it is discontinuous with the philosophical method we have employed for two millennia. Premises, conclusion, logic, valid and sound argument etc.



Well that's a good example of an ambiguous assertion.

There is no proper philosophy or science which does not start from experience and test results against experience. It's really a simple concept. Implicit in your statements above is that everyone's inner experience must be isolated to their own personal bubbles. But such an assumption is not coherent under idealism and only superficially reflective of our experience. It falls apart when we reflect more deeply on how it is that our ideal content is shared with others to make everything from communication to empathy possible. Western metaphysics has taken several turns for the "worse" in the last 2500 years, especially with the rise of nominalism, rationalism and materialism-dualism. Idealists like to assume they stand apart from those major detours, and that somehow they have managed to avoid being influenced by them, but nothing could be further from the truth. That is the bad habit which needs to be broken and soon. It is the habit of mind which convinces us we are only developing linearly without paradigmatic shifts, yet Thomas Kuhn has shown clearly why that is not the case. As Barfield says, "the obvious is the hardest thing of all to point out to those who have genuinely lost sight of it." Do we want to take the metamorphoses of consciousness seriously or only pay it lip service?

OK, I can see you don't want to address any of my specific objections, fair enough. Instead you have offered 'special pleading' (Using arguments that appear to support your position, but ignoring or somehow disallowing the arguments against) and 'argument ad nauseam' (If you say something often enough, some people will begin to believe it.) and then end up with your piece de résistance 'argument by rhetorical question' (Asking a question in a way that leads to a particular answer). There are a couple more fallacies in there but we can leave it at that because you're playing your own game and are at liberty to do so.

I'm familiar with Kuhn's idea and as soon as you or Cleric come up with a coherent, logically argued paradigm changing philosophy which can stand up to scrutiny, any form of scrutiny will do as a start, then please let me know and I'd be happy to read it. That's not sarcasm, it's genuine because I am interested in ways that could help us to move out of an increasingly nihilistic materialism/consumerism. But it isn't going to happen by endless rounds of sophistry employing linguistic and semantic gymnastics. That's not where the rubber meets the road for the common man like me and as the Americans would say 'That dog just won't hunt'.

As Jung once noted "Not nature, but the "genius of mankind," has knotted the hangman's noose with which it can execute itself at any moment."

Why is it our burden to put in the effort for you? Go read Jean Gebser's The Ever-Present Origin and Barfield's Saving the Appearances and Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom and his lectures on the Inner Impulses of Evolution, and then get back to us with specific questions or challenges about the aspects of their arguments you did not understand or agree with. I will be posting a second part to this essay soon with relevant excerpts, but, given the a priori judgments I am seeing from you and Eugene in the posts here, I doubt that will do anything to change your mind. We will see.

The paradigmatic shift of the 20th century is quite obvious in science-technology, art-entertainment, psychology, philosophy, etc. In fact, it would be easier for me to state what major developments of that century did not reflect the metamorphic process we are describing. Right now I cannot even think of any. Take Donald Hoffman for example - none of what he is doing in challenging physicalism and scientifically exploring the dynamics of conscious agents would be possible without the philosophy, science and technology which came before him and gave him the concepts, language, math, etc. to pursue such lines of inquiry.

Better yet, just go read Cleric's essay on Deep M@L posted on this forum and see what questions/challenges you want to pursue with him.

[Apanthropinist]

In which case, one can imagine Eugene's statement being made when heliocentrism was considered to be in the highly speculative category, and even after evidence and valid argument was provided ... Cleric can at least take heart that his speculation won't result in his head ending up in a basket.

You are free to imagine whatever you choose but it would be wise never to include an 'Argument From Adverse Consequences' (Saying an opponent must be wrong, because if he is right, then bad things have/will/would ensue.) in an argument because it would be a logical fallacy..... Fortunately we don't chop peoples heads off (unless you are ISIS) or burn them at the stake (as with Bruno) like the religious folk used to if their worldview was challenged. Progress hey

[AshvinP]

When professional-level science and philosophy leaves its academic circles and tries to reach to masses in order to make people more aware of its recent discoveries, it is often confronted by a massive amount of amateur-level pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy. People without philosophical or scientific background who are not properly trained in these areas are often not able to differentiate between good quality professional level science or philosophy and the pseudo-one. We have seen an abundant amount of such pseudo-philosophies on Bernardo's older forum, and are also seeing them on this one. Any attempts to demonstrate the fallacies of these pseudo-philosophies to their inventors are rather useless and futile as they are typically not able to even understand the arguments that challenge them. Often these people have read quite a few books in the area, are familiar with basic concepts and seem to be able to speak in scientific and philosophical language, however that does not qualify them as scientists or philosophers. There was a guy on an older forum claiming to refute the Einstein relativity theory and presenting mathematical proofs for that, and it turned out that the guy did not even know how to add two vectors.

On another note, we are seeing the modern science and philosophy pushing beyond the reductionist limits of materialism. We are seeing significant developments in non-materialistic philosophy (idealism, panpsychism, neutral monism explored by many professional philosophers etc), and we are similarly seeing significant scientific research and developments in the areas of paranormal studies, NDE, reincarnation studies etc that are being done by properly trained and professional researchers. If we really want to challenge materialism and move the society away from it, a solid philosophical and scientific foundation needs to be developed to support that. Pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy will actually be counter-productive and work against that movement, as it will make an impression that idealism is just another religion or pseudo-science/philosophy. This is why Bernardo (even though many of his views are still questionable) is trying hard to maintain high standards of professional philosophy in his works, and so far I can only applaud him in succeeding with that. And the best we can do as amateurs (and most of us here are amateurs in philosophy) if we really want to contribute to this movement is to stay away from pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy.

No, that sentiment is holdover from rationalism. What is needed is a solid spiritual foundation because we are spiritual beings. Philosophy and science, like everything else, serve our spiritual nature. People seek meaning and values first and foremost ahead of any sort of intellectual arguments. The meaning and values can only come from the Spirit which connects us with the Divine, because that is Reality. So if your bone to pick is with any discussion of spirituality, because you think it does not belong in the same place as metaphysical discussion, then just state that clearly. I have a feeling you won't, though, because down that road is inevitably rationalism-dualism and most people here already know that is sorely outdated and lacking.

[Cleric]

The above is a fantastic example of a fallacy known as inflation of conflict. Arguing a certain point that the entire field of knowledge (philosophy) is "in crisis". It's a great way of avoiding any scrutiny and criticism of your claims but somewhat bizarre and beyond ironic to try it on a philosophy forum.

As Shu has pointed out, this forum was called 'Metaphysical speculations'. I wouldn't call it philosophical but thinking forum. After all every act of knowing begins with thinking. Even before we know that there's such thing as philosophy we must first have thought about that. So thinking, our most immediate spiritual activity at the contemporary stage of development, precedes all formal systems of thought. In this sense, selecting one such system and deciding that it's only within its rules that the answers for the riddle of existence will be sought, is already a subset of thinking. If this is grasped, then we also recognize that it might be important to investigate the unconsciously accumulated layers which shape how and what we think.

So if you wish your claims to be taken seriously, philosophically, on a philosophy forum, then it may be wise to consider the audience you are attempting to address. Otherwise you're presenting another narrative of spiritual ideation. Which is fine and it is interesting, but please don't blow smoke when legitimately challenged.

If you are really interested in legitimate consideration of questions like the above, I invite you to take a look at The Philosophy of Freedom. But if you have well defined and undisputable boundaries for what knowing is, what philosophy can and can't know, and so on, then this work simply won't be understood. It's a thinking quest, reaching in for our innermost thinking core and peeling layer by layer the accumulated thought patterns that think instead of our real being.

[Eugene I]

You guys did not address the questions we raised at all, particularly questions of verification and truthfulness criteria here and here
You are free to hold any beliefs and do any practices you want, no problem with that. I would still say that to to call it "science" is a significant distortion. It's a spiritual practice, it's a religion, but not science. But as a spiritual practice it is pretty good. I was going to say, Cleric, that this first part of your description fit pretty close to the Buddhist practice of mindfulness and mastery of thoughts and feelings (even though Buddhist never claim that to be a science), until the point where you started describing your spiritual intuitive imaginations of planets and stuff and claiming them to reflect the real structures of the astral world, which immediately calls for the same question: how to you verify them and prove (even to yourself) that they are not your mere fantasies but true representations of reality?

[Apanthropinist]

Why is it our burden to put in the effort for you?

What I expect is for you to put the effort into an actual argument that contains premises and conclusion that can be examined to determine if they are valid and sound. Then I will put the effort into reading it.

"Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot[/i] "

but, given the a priori judgments I am seeing from you and Eugene in the posts here, I doubt that will do anything to change your mind. We will see.

You are confused Ashvin. A philosophical argument will potentially change my mind, not your posturing or your morality. You are now just reaching into Ad Hominem territory, try a coherent argument, one that can be challenged, then 'We will see.'......

The paradigmatic shift of the 20th century is quite obvious in science-technology, art-entertainment, psychology, philosophy, etc. In fact, it would be easier for me to state what major developments of that century did not reflect the metamorphic process we are describing. Right now I cannot even think of any.

For a start you could try thinking of something that does not involve a 'Bad Analogy' (Claiming that situations are highly similar, when they aren't.) Your belief system has no similarities to the invention of the jet engine, or nuclear weapons, or computers, or 3D movies etc etc or in fact anything to do with human history. You must establish, by argument, why your premises and conclusions are valid and sound. There is no other way to succeed in a philosophical argument.

Take Donald Hoffman for example - none of what he is doing in challenging physicalism and scientifically exploring the dynamics of conscious agents would be possible without the philosophy, science and technology which came before him and gave him the concepts, language, math, etc. to pursue such lines of inquiry.

Unfortunately you are simply describing a lineage of development here which does precisely nothing to support your particular and actual claims. Iain McGilchrist could use the same argument, or Richard Dawkins, or Philip Goff, etc etc.....would all their claims be correct because they described a lineage? No, of course not, they would have to rely on the content of their particular claim like anyone else.

Better yet, just go read Cleric's essay on Deep M@L posted on this forum and see what questions/challenges you want to pursue with him.

I have read about a third of it but then had to give up because I ran out of paper on which to note the number of fallacies, assumptions, mischaracterisation of Kastrups work etc and I'd rather be persuaded by a good argument, like Kastrups, who actually does know how to put together and defend a philosophical claim.

Try not to let it get to you Ashvin, it's just philosophy....and I enjoyed your 1st essay with no real criticisms....and look forward to the others.