Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Breaking Bad Habits

[Soul_of_Shu]

It does seem somewhat incongruous how this all went from "Ashvin, I really enjoyed reading this. Is there more to come?" to seemingly being dissed as a poorly argued pseudo-philosophy. What brought this on, I'm not sure, but it's now degenerating into the kind of exchange that is not in keeping with rules of engagement on forum conduct. Let's get the focus back on metaphysics.

[Ratatoskr]

Yes, they are. In our inner life we have a whole spectrum of perceptual phenomena - color, tone, smell, but also feelings, thinking, willing, memories. We speak of body, soul and spirit by recognizing three major domains of this spectrum. Sensory perceptions are related to physical bodily life. When we speak of soul, attention goes to the part of the spectrum that is related with our life as a human being that lifts above the purely physical survival. Here we find our goals, likes, dislikes, relations with other beings, which are primarily of the nature of feeling and desire. When we speak of spirit we understand the innermost spiritual activity, which today is most clearly experienced in thinking (the spectrum of thought perceptions). In thinking we experience ourselves lifted above both the physical and the soul life. That's why we can think about them objectively. It's the spirit that is concerned with knowledge and understanding. Through thinking we discover the ideas which relate all perceptions (including thought perceptions themselves) into harmonious unity.

When it's said that the body exists only as qualia in awareness we shouldn't imagine that the body is only a floating image in awareness. Actually the body is the most remote and shrouded in mystery part of reality for us. We know the body only as far as we experience the qualia of the senses. Here we should be very clear of something. Man of today is actually quite mistaken when he thinks that he knows the physical body, just because he has studied the corpse. The things that we really know are color, tone, smell, touch, warmth, etc. - the pure experiences of the senses. The gradations and combinations of the sensory experiences are already worked upon by our thinking. The visual picture of our body is only a specific shape within our color perceptions. It is only a one-sided idea when we look at the mirror and say "this is my body". This is how the body imprints into my visual system, but the reality of the body I don't know at all. Although we know from anatomy that we have liver, heart, kidneys and so on, normally we don't have inner perceptions of them (except when in pain). This changes when we develop the higher forms of cognition. Then just as we normally feel our thinking to be in the head, we can perceive how different aspects of our soul life are related with different organs. For example, if we have persistent negative relations with somebody, in our normal consciousness we feel, say, anger and related thoughts in the head. When higher cognition is developed we can perceive that these feelings actually exist as active forces in the liver. Many diseases can be traced to their spiritual origins in this way.

So the body is not mere picture in awareness - it's multilayered spiritual reality which shapes and restricts our activity. In our soul life we may be entangled in very complicated relationships with other souls. Through our bodily life we are entangled with different kinds of beings which constitute our physical life. So spiritual development doesn't extricate us from the physical life but in fact throws light on our physical body from within. We experience in our normal state the senses and the images in the brain. We already need to develop the soul organs in order experience how the soul/astral body (where the soul organs have their forms) relates to the major organs like heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, etc. At this point we don't yet experience their biological reality from the inside but primarily how they are related with our soul life (like the example with the liver). We need even higher forms of consciousness to reach the inner reality of the metabolic system, bones and muscles.

I'm saying all this just to point attention that it isn't at all enough to focus on "it's all qualia in awareness". Yes, this is a general truth but what we experience in our normal state is only the tip of the iceberg so to speak. The qualia of our senses, thoughts, feelings in our everyday consciousness are only shadowy experiences which can become part of the full picture when they are complemented with everything which is still hidden from view and will be revealed in the course of evolution.

Thank you for explaining further Cleric. It's very helpful. The only question that remains is what do you consider to be a proper self-development in this context.

Spiritual seeing consists of proper cognitive perception of our own being, recognizing the forces that shape our evolving metamorphic view. When the mirror is clean and free of bumps, the forces of the Cosmos can also be clearly recognized. All of this is taken care of with proper self-development with the most serious scrutiny.

I understand that what is meant by "Spiritual seeing" in the passage above is "Conscious intellectual perception". Correct ?

[Apanthropinist]

I had no idea what you are talking about anymore.

I suspect you might if you paid more attention to what it is that I might be doing. But in order to do that you would need to drop your assumptions and beliefs and just follow what I am actually doing. I also suspect that you are quite capable of doing so. I don't doubt your intelligence.

I did not make an argument for "Deities" or "Theological entities" in the Kant essay or this essay.

Quotes from your "Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Incarnating the Christ"

"Steiner is easily the most prolific and profound commentator on the metamorphoses of Spirit."

"Perhaps a series of events when the sovereign individual consciousness became the most important locus of the Spirit."

"Specifically, they highlight the individual ego becoming responsible for its own progressive reintegration within the Divine."

"Christ in Jesus also speaks of fulfilling the law and the prophets rather than abolishing them."

"As maddening as it may be for militant skeptics, what Christ revealed is not much different from what modern science has also revealed."

"The only difference between sound Christian theology and sound assessment of theoretical physics stems from the latter's refusal to acknowledge that what is standing 'behind' the appearances of the world is psychic in nature."

"What illuminates the shadows dancing in front of us on the cave wall is not more shadowy stuff, but the true Source of Light."

"...therefore, we are striving to become Christ-like in the most real and concrete sense we can possibly imagine for ourselves."

"Here is when the dualist Christian chimes in to say, "it is not only seemingly impossible, but actually impossible, and that is why we remain forever dependent on God's grace". Yet, if our broad overview through the metamorphoses of Spirit has revealed to us anything so far, it is that our cross is only ours to bear right now."

"The third and final part of this essay will explore the reason why our spiritual activity, as it has metamorphosed over the centuries, is connected to the Divine. We will see how anyone reading these words right now can begin exploring these connective relationships of the Spirit at any given time they choose. We all have a choice to make and let us remain honest with ourselves when doing so, because the stakes remain very high. Only then can we begin contemplating how it is that Saint Paul remarked so many centuries ago, "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me."

Then can we also begin taking seriously what Jesus prayed to his disciples at the Last Supper:

"You, Father, are in me, and I am in you. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one - I in them and You in me - that they may be perfectly united..."
- John 17:21-23."

Maybe I am just too dull to follow your logic, or maybe you are not, in fact, talking about anything of substance. Until you provide more clarity, I am happy to leave this as it is.

I doubt anyone, dull or smart, could support the logic of your assertion that you are not making an argument for Theological entities/Divinity (as I quoted from your essay above)...or maybe you are not, in fact, talking about anything of analytical idealism. Until you cease being disingenuous, I am happy to continue.

So you failed to notice I said "in the Kant essay or this essay", or you noticed and intentionally ignored it. Either way I have grown tired of holding your hand like an unruly child so I am done until you make a substantive contribution on this forum. (you started off well mentioning Julian Jaynes and went quickly downhill from there).

So you failed to appreciate that no one might anticipate what was coming in your subsequent essay (improper cognition?). Then, when it did come in your subsequent essay and you did make arguments with Deities and Theological entities and you were challenged about it by quoting that essay.......you intentionally ignored it because you cannot defend it in case it exposes your disingenuous attempt to 'poison the well' of philosophical analytic idealism by an attempt to conflate it a Gnostic-Christian-Anthroposophy.

It is quite a puerile tactic to Ad Hominem, as I have encouraged you to consider, as a way of trying to insulate and immunise yourself from legitimate philosophical challenge. If you can't bear legitimate philosophical challenges I can only suggest you find someone to hold your hand. Fortunately, contrary to your insulting remark, I wear adult trousers and so I can see it for what it is because I am not blinded by Theological ideation and the need to demean anyone who doesn't agree with me. I am interested in attacking a persons argument, not the person, and I can only encourage you to adopt that mature principal.

I'll offer you a simple piece of guidance. You fail, as do many, to get your logic lined up first because you are far too wrapped up in the substance of what you may feel is a glorious idea. It is probably the most common mistake of any undergraduate. They devour Kant and Hegel and Hume and Nietzsche etc etc and become so fuelled with ideas and in such a headlong footrace to present their fabulous argument to the world, that they entirely forget one simple but absolutely crucial thing: A false premise exposes an unsound argument.

Then, when they get their essay marked down, they get all moody because no one is recognising the substance of their fabulous argument and complain about it, only to be told by a tutor that, yes, it does sound interesting, but it isn't a successful argument because there are fallacies and flaws in the logic of it and so it cannot succeed.

After a few times repeating the same things, they either finally get it and do much better, or they don't get it and go off and do Theology instead.

Philosophy lacks the mercy of the Christ you quoted in your essay, it is unforgiving towards unsound arguments.

I sincerely wish you well with your theological Gnostic-Christian-Anthroposophy beliefs and hope they bring you comfort, spirituality can and does do that as I have my own privately held spiritual beliefs. But please don't try and pass it off as rational philosophy on a forum closely associated with the rational philosophy of Kastrup's analytic idealism.

[JustinG]

I suspect you might if you paid more attention to what it is that I might be doing. But in order to do that you would need to drop your assumptions and beliefs and just follow what I am actually doing. I also suspect that you are quite capable of doing so. I don't doubt your intelligence.



Quotes from your "Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Incarnating the Christ"

"Steiner is easily the most prolific and profound commentator on the metamorphoses of Spirit."

"Perhaps a series of events when the sovereign individual consciousness became the most important locus of the Spirit."

"Specifically, they highlight the individual ego becoming responsible for its own progressive reintegration within the Divine."

"Christ in Jesus also speaks of fulfilling the law and the prophets rather than abolishing them."

"As maddening as it may be for militant skeptics, what Christ revealed is not much different from what modern science has also revealed."

"The only difference between sound Christian theology and sound assessment of theoretical physics stems from the latter's refusal to acknowledge that what is standing 'behind' the appearances of the world is psychic in nature."

"What illuminates the shadows dancing in front of us on the cave wall is not more shadowy stuff, but the true Source of Light."

"...therefore, we are striving to become Christ-like in the most real and concrete sense we can possibly imagine for ourselves."

"Here is when the dualist Christian chimes in to say, "it is not only seemingly impossible, but actually impossible, and that is why we remain forever dependent on God's grace". Yet, if our broad overview through the metamorphoses of Spirit has revealed to us anything so far, it is that our cross is only ours to bear right now."

"The third and final part of this essay will explore the reason why our spiritual activity, as it has metamorphosed over the centuries, is connected to the Divine. We will see how anyone reading these words right now can begin exploring these connective relationships of the Spirit at any given time they choose. We all have a choice to make and let us remain honest with ourselves when doing so, because the stakes remain very high. Only then can we begin contemplating how it is that Saint Paul remarked so many centuries ago, "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me."

Then can we also begin taking seriously what Jesus prayed to his disciples at the Last Supper:

"You, Father, are in me, and I am in you. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one - I in them and You in me - that they may be perfectly united..."
- John 17:21-23."



I doubt anyone, dull or smart, could support the logic of your assertion that you are not making an argument for Theological entities/Divinity (as I quoted from your essay above)...or maybe you are not, in fact, talking about anything of analytical idealism. Until you cease being disingenuous, I am happy to continue.

So you failed to notice I said "in the Kant essay or this essay", or you noticed and intentionally ignored it. Either way I have grown tired of holding your hand like an unruly child so I am done until you make a substantive contribution on this forum. (you started off well mentioning Julian Jaynes and went quickly downhill from there).

So you failed to appreciate that no one might anticipate what was coming in your subsequent essay (improper cognition?). Then, when it did come in your subsequent essay and you did make arguments with Deities and Theological entities and you were challenged about it by quoting that essay.......you intentionally ignored it because you cannot defend it in case it exposes your disingenuous attempt to 'poison the well' of philosophical analytic idealism by an attempt to conflate it a Gnostic-Christian-Anthroposophy.

It is quite a puerile tactic to Ad Hominem, as I have encouraged you to consider, as a way of trying to insulate and immunise yourself from legitimate philosophical challenge. If you can't bear legitimate philosophical challenges I can only suggest you find someone to hold your hand. Fortunately, contrary to your insulting remark, I wear adult trousers and so I can see it for what it is because I am not blinded by Theological ideation and the need to demean anyone who doesn't agree with me. I am interested in attacking a persons argument, not the person, and I can only encourage you to adopt that mature principal.

I'll offer you a simple piece of guidance. You fail, as do many, to get your logic lined up first because you are far too wrapped up in the substance of what you may feel is a glorious idea. It is probably the most common mistake of any undergraduate. They devour Kant and Hegel and Hume and Nietzsche etc etc and become so fuelled with ideas and in such a headlong footrace to present their fabulous argument to the world, that they entirely forget one simple but absolutely crucial thing: A false premise exposes an unsound argument.

Then, when they get their essay marked down, they get all moody because no one is recognising the substance of their fabulous argument and complain about it, only to be told by a tutor that, yes, it does sound interesting, but it isn't a successful argument because there are fallacies and flaws in the logic of it and so it cannot succeed.

After a few times repeating the same things, they either finally get it and do much better, or they don't get it and go off and do Theology instead.

Philosophy lacks the mercy of the Christ you quoted in your essay, it is unforgiving towards unsound arguments.

I sincerely wish you well with your theological Gnostic-Christian-Anthroposophy beliefs and hope they bring you comfort, spirituality can and does do that as I have my own privately held spiritual beliefs. But please don't try and pass it off as rational philosophy on a forum closely associated with the rational philosophy of Kastrup's analytic idealism.

1. Philosophy is what is practiced in philosophy departments.

2. Your conception of philosophy would exclude half of what is practiced in philosophy departments (ie continental philosophy).

3. Therefore, your conception of philosophy is false.

[AshvinP]

It does seem somewhat incongruous how this all went from "Ashvin, I really enjoyed reading this. Is there more to come?" to seemingly being dissed as a poorly argued pseudo-philosophy. What brought this on, I'm not sure, but it's now degenerating into the kind of exchange that is not in keeping with rules of engagement on forum conduct. Let's get the focus back on metaphysics.

I have noticed this always comes from people who have a problem with spirituality, especially Western spirituality. And to be a little bit fair to him, I am fundamentally questioning in these essays whether we can divide philosophy-science from spirituality-theology of some sort. My answer is a firm NO. That is where he and many others who hold to Cartesian-Kantian divides are 100% wrong-headed. They see a hard boundary between these realms of experience and empirical thought. They do not even realize this boundary is an artifice of those bad mental habits.

Again I find it fascinating these views are most forcefully and unconsciously expressed on an essay questioning them. Some even think they are refuting Descartes-Kant when they are actually embracing the divides and their implications wholesale. For me, that is further evidence that we are dealing with a higher spiritual realm here - there are powerful and intentional forces at work, because such stubborn adherence is not explicable by merely rationalist formulations of psychology. That is also what Jung recognized and what set him so far apart of others in the field when discussing archetypal "autonomous" forces.

I am heartened to see BK's view is evolving on this (or he is gradually revealing more of what he has always thought just as Jung did). When discussing with Vervaeke the ontology of MAL, he said MAL is "experiencing from both sides, i.e. the instinctive side of nature and the meta-cognitive side of humans, because we are after all a part of nature". I had not heard that particular phrasing from him before. It is critical because it dispels the notion that he refers to "meta-cognition" (higher order thinking) as objectively epiphenomenal - rather, he is only invoking it as a relational perspective to differentiate from other relational perspectives.

[Cleric K]

I understand that what is meant by "Spiritual seeing" in the passage above is "Conscious intellectual perception". Correct ?

Please see this post and if it'll answer your question. If not, ask again and we'll clarify further.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I am heartened to see BK's view is evolving on this (or he is gradually revealing more of what he has always thought just as Jung did).

Yes, and if what you're offering here is being dismissed as pseudo-philosophy, then that would surely apply to Jung as well. And yet BK, who's being praised here for his rational philosophical rigour, clearly argues in DJM that Jung was entirely compatible with his analytical idealism ~ not to mention the broad spectrum of themes that BK covers in his body of work, starting with, appropriately enough, Rationalist Spirituality.

[Apanthropinist]

It does seem somewhat incongruous how this all went from "Ashvin, I really enjoyed reading this. Is there more to come?" to seemingly being dissed as a poorly argued pseudo-philosophy. What brought this on, I'm not sure, but it's now degenerating into the kind of exchange that is not in keeping with rules of engagement on forum conduct. Let's get the focus back on metaphysics.

Shu I'm happy to clear this up as best I can, with your help and input.

"Ashvin, I really enjoyed reading this. Is there more to come?" Remains true and a genuine comment about that specific essay.

"to seemingly being dissed as a poorly argued pseudo-philosophy." As I have tried to express,theology and philosophy are different domains. Not my opinion but from the disciplines themselves. I have tried to point out that philosophy is about valid and sound arguments, again not my opinion, just a statement of fact. I'd be happy to read a philosophy essay here on this forum, just as I would be equally happy to read a theological discourse elsewhere.

"Let's get the focus back on metaphysics." It would be helpful if you could clarify the distinction for me as this is my understanding:.

"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality...."

Theology "There is a relationship between theological doctrines and philosophical reflection in the philosophy of a religion (such as Christian philosophy), philosophical reflections are strictly rational. On this way of seeing the two disciplines, if at least one of the premises of an argument is derived from revelation (such as 'Jesus said'...my words), the argument falls in the domain of theology; otherwise it falls into philosophy's domain."

I'm not trying to be deliberately awkward but I came to this forum from a link on Kastrup's website believing that as it is a forum closely associated with Kastrup, and bears his name, it would be discussion relating to the rational philosophy of analytic idealism rather than a conflation with theology. Just let me know your rules hey...

[Apanthropinist]

So you failed to notice I said "in the Kant essay or this essay", or you noticed and intentionally ignored it. Either way I have grown tired of holding your hand like an unruly child so I am done until you make a substantive contribution on this forum. (you started off well mentioning Julian Jaynes and went quickly downhill from there).

So you failed to appreciate that no one might anticipate what was coming in your subsequent essay (improper cognition?). Then, when it did come in your subsequent essay and you did make arguments with Deities and Theological entities and you were challenged about it by quoting that essay.......you intentionally ignored it because you cannot defend it in case it exposes your disingenuous attempt to 'poison the well' of philosophical analytic idealism by an attempt to conflate it a Gnostic-Christian-Anthroposophy.

It is quite a puerile tactic to Ad Hominem, as I have encouraged you to consider, as a way of trying to insulate and immunise yourself from legitimate philosophical challenge. If you can't bear legitimate philosophical challenges I can only suggest you find someone to hold your hand. Fortunately, contrary to your insulting remark, I wear adult trousers and so I can see it for what it is because I am not blinded by Theological ideation and the need to demean anyone who doesn't agree with me. I am interested in attacking a persons argument, not the person, and I can only encourage you to adopt that mature principal.

I'll offer you a simple piece of guidance. You fail, as do many, to get your logic lined up first because you are far too wrapped up in the substance of what you may feel is a glorious idea. It is probably the most common mistake of any undergraduate. They devour Kant and Hegel and Hume and Nietzsche etc etc and become so fuelled with ideas and in such a headlong footrace to present their fabulous argument to the world, that they entirely forget one simple but absolutely crucial thing: A false premise exposes an unsound argument.

Then, when they get their essay marked down, they get all moody because no one is recognising the substance of their fabulous argument and complain about it, only to be told by a tutor that, yes, it does sound interesting, but it isn't a successful argument because there are fallacies and flaws in the logic of it and so it cannot succeed.

After a few times repeating the same things, they either finally get it and do much better, or they don't get it and go off and do Theology instead.

Philosophy lacks the mercy of the Christ you quoted in your essay, it is unforgiving towards unsound arguments.

I sincerely wish you well with your theological Gnostic-Christian-Anthroposophy beliefs and hope they bring you comfort, spirituality can and does do that as I have my own privately held spiritual beliefs. But please don't try and pass it off as rational philosophy on a forum closely associated with the rational philosophy of Kastrup's analytic idealism.

1. Philosophy is what is practiced in philosophy departments.

2. Your conception of philosophy would exclude half of what is practiced in philosophy departments (ie continental philosophy).

3. Therefore, your conception of philosophy is false.

1. Philosophy is what is practiced by Bernado Kastrup.

2. You are posting an argument (philosophical) on Kastrup's forum.

3. Therefore, you are engaged in the practice of philosophy

[Ratatoskr]

I understand that what is meant by "Spiritual seeing" in the passage above is "Conscious intellectual perception". Correct ?

Please see this post and if it'll answer your question. If not, ask again and we'll clarify further.

It does answer my question regarding your understanding of "spiritual sensing". Thank you. I deeply appreciate how practical and replicable the account of your experience is. Is there more of similar writings available ?