Philosophical Speculations

Stranger wrote: ↑Tue Apr 11, 2023 9:17 pm

Cleric K wrote: ↑Tue Apr 11, 2023 8:46 pm I hope in this way we can better understand the source of disagreements. It would be useful if next time we argue about Oneness or the multitude of paths that all lead to successful dying in their own ways, we ask ourselves "Do I at all want to know? Do I have the faith that it is possible to know? Or I'm completely satisfied with the storyboard on my soul's inner wall?"

Right, the answer is "I do want to know". But that is why it is important to know the difference between two kinds of oneness (see my answer to Scott above). If a mystic says "I know Oneness in Eternity, and so there is nothing there left for me to know" they will put a stop to the further evolution of their cognition and stagnate in the mystical reductionism. If a spiritual scientist says: "I'm on the path to oneness through merging with all the ideal content relevant to the Immanent World, and this will be all for me to know and there is nothing else beyond that which I need to know", then they will also limit their evolution of cognition because, if they disregard the gnosis of Eternity-Oneness, their knowledge will be one-sided, limited and distorted. So, again, it is important to understand that we are dealing here with two kinds of oneness and that both of them need to be embraced.

I feel it is helpful to revisit the Bergson quote here. 

How much more instructive would be a truly intuitive metaphysics, which would follow the undulations of the real! True, it would not embrace in a single sweep the totality of things; but for each thing it would give an explanation which would fit it exactly, and it alone. It would not begin by defining or describing the systematic unity of the world: who knows if the world is actually one?

Experience alone can say, and unity, if it exists, will appear at the end of the search as a result; it is impossible to posit it at the start as a principle. Furthermore, it will be a rich, full unity, the unity of a continuity, the unity of our reality, and not that abstract and empty unity, which has come from one supreme generalization, and which could just as well be that of any possible world whatsoever. It is true that philosophy then will demand a new effort for each new problem. No solution will be geometrically deduced from another. No important truth will be achieved by the prolongation of an already acquired truth. We shall have to give up crowding universal science potentially into one principle.

- Henri Bergson, The Creative Mind

Of course we can abstractly say that it makes no logical sense that the World would be other than One (or One-Many polarity), which is fine and valid. But that should be the end of it. We should then say, 'ok now I need to see whether this logic I value so much on the physical plane can actually be verified through observation of my thinking activity and of the World-State that it continually shapes.' As Scott mentioned, it can be so verified even without higher cognition proper, at least in a preliminary way which is still more enlivening that all the abstract metaphysics combined. That is the inner disposition which Cleric is speaking of - the dread that all our conceptual reasoning might fail us as soon as we step across the threshold, which then gives birth to our thirst to begin approaching and eventually step across the threshold during the incarnate state, with our discerning cognition intact. If we already feel that our understanding of the highest Unity is complete, unchangeable, and cannot possibly be modified through our own cognitive development, then we simply lack that thirst for concrete knowledge across the threshold. 

In response to this quote previously, you wrote:

I fully agree with what Bergson said. On the other hand, if we say that this unity is so far away distant from us that we should not even think of it at our current stage, or even worse, deny even a possibility of it altogether, that would be equally bad. We should still keep it on the map, on the plan of our evolutionary travel, without taking it as an abstract philosophical principle, but as an evolutionary and experiential gate along the way, just as a compass to keep a sense of direction and not to deviate from the path. 

Which I would say is much closer to what we are also saying than your recent remarks, which arbitrarily posit "two kinds of oneness" - the 'oneness' you speak of is an experiential gate which leads across the threshold where we discern unsuspected higher-order perspectives who help us unveil cognitive degrees of freedom, shape our stream of becoming and that of the Earth as a whole. Perhaps the main factor which drives people towards adopting and maintaining materialist habits of thinking and acting is their desire to have some lasting presence in the world, to creatively structure it and build a legacy of some sort. They don't feel that inner work on purifying and enlivening the soul-life and cognitive life could have any relevance beyond their personal sphere, if even that, so they turn to all sorts of outer selfish endeavors to make their mark on society whether through work, family, art and technology, etc. The mystic reductionist views all of that with skepticism and figures he will be able to make his mark and establish his legacy after death, and all the outer striving can be safely ignored. It is through these impulses that the separation between life on this side of the threshold and life on the other side, and therefore duality, is maintained. As Cleric said, that separation at the threshold is the root of all modern dualities, materialist and mystical/religious. It is not a semantic/linguistic debate that we are focusing on here, even if it sounds like that at times. 

In ancient times, it was known the soul continues its journey after death with the same certainty that one knew there were trees in the world. Although the cognitive clarity we can now attain was not possible. For a certain period, it became necessary for the 'mystical blast' to attain this certainty, as Scott said. But now we have to confront the fact that evolution continues, our cognitive force has become the immanent point of contact with the Divine, and we therefore must unveil our existence across the threshold in definite cognitive stages. This work reveals to us exactly how our inner work feeds back into the World Process and structures it presently and for ages to come. As Federica highlighted in the quote of Eugene, it is admitted that the mystical blast no longer gives one any concrete insight into what unfolds across the threshold and how that feeds back onto the physical plane. One can only blame the sense of having no control over one's Earthly destiny on external deceptive powers, and hold a vague hope that these powers subside after death. This leads to inner resentment and cynicism even if we are unaware of it. There is simply no way to hold such theoretical views without them influencing our emotional states and dispositions - that is not in keeping with anything we know of the evolved human nature. If we protest to the contrary, then it again means we have not carefully and objectively examined the depths of our soul-life. If we are at all inclined to continue blaming our current deficiencies on something beyond ourselves, then it means we still lack faith in the possibility of knowing.

Our dialog went around this circle for about hundred times already:

me: - I agree that we must unveil our existence across the threshold in definite cognitive stages, but we also need to realize Oneness-Manyness
you guys: - But when you said "realize Oneness-Manyness", you reject that we must unveil our existence across the threshold in definite cognitive stages and so you get into the reductionist mysticism
me: - No, I don't, I fully accept that, the only thing I'm saying is that it has to go together with the realization of Oneness-Manyness
you guys: - No you do because you are not saying anything assertive about unveiling our existence across the threshold in definite cognitive stages

I think it's time to put this circle to rest, it's not funny anymore

Stranger wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 5:14 pm Our dialog went around this circle for about hundred times already:

me: - I agree that we must unveil our existence across the threshold in definite cognitive stages, but we also need to realize Oneness-Manyness
you guys: - But when you said "realize Oneness-Manyness", you reject that we must unveil our existence across the threshold in definite cognitive stages and so you get into the reductionist mysticism
me: - No, I don't, I fully accept that, the only thing I'm saying is that it has to go together with the realization of Oneness-Manyness
you guys: - No you do because you are not saying anything assertive about unveiling our existence across the threshold in definite cognitive stages

I think it's time to put this circle to rest, it's not funny anymore

No, we don't say you accept or reject anything - we say the very fact you think this discussion is about "accepting" or "rejecting" means you have missed the entire point and we are trying to help you see the point. The point is that every attempt to begin exploring the definite cognitive stages is met with an inner resistance which defaults into abstract claims about realizing absolute 'oneness' and how anyone who seeks the living exploration has (a) not realized the oneness or is otherwise diminishing the oneness and (b) tyrannizing you with Anthroposophical methods. I agree, it's time to put to rest (a) once and for all, because it doesn't even mean anything. It is just you quoting others and preaching to us, and when we ask for further experiential details which inform our Earthly existence, these can't be provided. The "realization of Oneness-Manyness" has no usable content at this point - it means nothing of practical value that can be concretely discussed on this forum.

As for (b), we are not prescribing any methods other than sincerely observing one's own thinking activity and soul-life. You say there are many other paths which lead us into higher cognition and we shouldn't presume you aren't already pursuing it. So what are they? What are some examples? What kind of concrete results across the threshold have they unveiled that we can discuss here? I think we would all be elated if you could answer these questions and we could move into such discussions, instead of circling around the vague "realization of oneness" and reading your same quote of John 17 for another 10 pages.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 5:51 pm The "realization of Oneness-Manyness" has no usable content at this point - it means nothing of practical value that can be concretely discussed on this forum.

Excellent, that's what I wanted to know.

Federica wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 3:13 pm

Lou Gold wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 1:39 pm

Federica wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 7:21 am

Yes, Lou, exactly, that's clear enough. It's an endless process of going from a particular decorative product of own making to the next.

Federica,

Do you think my ongoing process is a random scattering of decorative productions at an unchanging level of awareness or is there also an evolution of consciousness taking place? Does one of my image productions or 'makings' mean the same to me (or others) as it did a few years ago? For example, might my past few years in the school of dying have changed my consciousness about the so-called line or veil of life/death? Am I now located differently? Perhaps in a more liminal way? Might it take an observer who has made similar changes to recognize changes in myself? So many questions in the relative world of conversation. What are your thoughts about it?

Lou,
My one liner was intended as nothing more than a reformulation of your preceding post, and I tried to employ the same words you employed. No intention to speculate on how your evolution has unfolded through the continuous process of decorative productions. I am not in a position to do such speculations, nor do I see any good reasons to attempt them. I simply stated that your approach (independent of where exactly it has taken your subjective perspective) shows that you are happy with the storyboard on your soul's inner wall, as per Cleric's description of it.

Federica,

I've reread Cleric's statement several times. For clarification, I am in a liminal living/dying process. Writing now from this location does not feel to me as a stopping with before death storyboard pictures but more like enlarging my understanding of the greater-than-me forces that generated and shaped the images and are continuing to do so. I hope it is "this continuing to do so process" that is understood to be what I'm satisfied with. If it is, no problem. If not, please poke more.

Lou Gold wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 6:22 pm

Federica wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 3:13 pm

Lou Gold wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 1:39 pm

Federica,

Do you think my ongoing process is a random scattering of decorative productions at an unchanging level of awareness or is there also an evolution of consciousness taking place? Does one of my image productions or 'makings' mean the same to me (or others) as it did a few years ago? For example, might my past few years in the school of dying have changed my consciousness about the so-called line or veil of life/death? Am I now located differently? Perhaps in a more liminal way? Might it take an observer who has made similar changes to recognize changes in myself? So many questions in the relative world of conversation. What are your thoughts about it?

Lou,
My one liner was intended as nothing more than a reformulation of your preceding post, and I tried to employ the same words you employed. No intention to speculate on how your evolution has unfolded through the continuous process of decorative productions. I am not in a position to do such speculations, nor do I see any good reasons to attempt them. I simply stated that your approach (independent of where exactly it has taken your subjective perspective) shows that you are happy with the storyboard on your soul's inner wall, as per Cleric's description of it.

Federica,

I've reread Cleric's statement several times. For clarification, I am in a liminal living/dying process. Writing now from this location does not feel to me as a stopping with before death storyboard pictures but more like enlarging my understanding of the greater-than-me forces that generated and shaped the images and are continuing to do so. I hope it is "this continuing to do so process" that is understood to be what I'm satisfied with. If it is, no problem. If not, please poke more.

Lou,
I don't have other ways to understand what your soul feels satisfied with than from your words, no problem with it!

Stranger wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 6:04 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 5:51 pm The "realization of Oneness-Manyness" has no usable content at this point - it means nothing of practical value that can be concretely discussed on this forum.

Excellent, that's what I wanted to know.

I didn't say it has no experiential value, but that it self-evidently doesn't lead to any concrete discussions on this forum. It only leads to your quotes of scripture and preaching to us about the traditions of Buddha and Christ. Is that really what we want to spend our time doing on this forum? Preaching to each other about traditions and our personal experiences of Divine bliss?

So are you once again declining to answer any questions related to your living exploration of soul-spirit processes across the threshold? Please don't say the mere asking and exploring of such questions denies or diminishes Oneness - we have already established many times that is not the case. We don't need to hear about the necessity of accompanying higher cognitive pursuit with realization of Oneness anymore - we get it.

Here I will give you an example and maybe you can share whether you have come across anything similar in your research. We should be clear that everything described below happens every time we go to sleep even if we are unaware of it - higher cognitive research simply makes these ever-present processes more conscious, as Steiner also indicates below. We are all here expressing a desire to relate the fragmented philosophies and religious conceptions to the Divine Unity, and the following gives us a deeper sense of why we are here doing that. It is this kind of exploration which actually takes us into the depths of our Be-ing.

When we have gone to sleep, and the sense-perceptions have been gradually paralysed and the will-impulses have ceased to work, we experience in the first place an undifferentiated condition of soul. In this undefined experience a strong sense of time is present, but all feeling of space is almost completely wiped out. It is an experience that is comparable with swimming; we are, so to speak, moving about in a general, indefinite world-substance.
...
But now this experience is united with another, namely, an experience of being forsaken and alone. It is like sinking into an abyss. If a man were to experience consciously this first stage of sleep without right preparation, he would in truth be exposed to great risk, for he would find it quite unbearable to lose in this way almost all sense of space and live merely in a general, universal feeling of time, to feel himself in this vague way merely a part of a universal sea of substance, where scarcely anything is distinguishable — where indeed the only thing one can distinguish is that one is a self within a universal world-existence. If consciousness were present, one would actually have the sensation of hovering over an abyss.
...
To repeat once more, I am describing it to you as if the soul experienced it consciously. It does not do so; but let me remind you that when you experience something consciously in waking life, a great deal is going on at the same time unconsciously in your organism. This is a simple fact. Let us say, for example, you feel joy. When you feel joy, your blood beats differently from the way it beats when you are sad. You experience the joy or sorrow in your consciousness, but not the difference in the pulsation of the blood. The pulsation of the blood is, notwithstanding, a fact. And it is the same here too. What I describe as swimming in an undifferentiated world-substance, and again what I describe as a need of God — there is a reality in the life of soul answering to each one of these descriptions. And Imaginative Knowledge does nothing else than lift this reality into consciousness, just as ordinary waking consciousness can lift into consciousness the pulsation of the blood which lies behind joy or sorrow. The facts are there, and they work on into our life of day; so that when we wake in the morning our whole organism is refreshed. The refreshment is due to the experience we have undergone during the night in our life of soul.
...
The question may well be asked: Why is man not content merely to place the several objects of the world side by side? Why is he not content to go through the world accepting the existence of plants, animals, etc., without question? Why does he want to try to philosophize about it all? For the very simplest people do so; and incidentally, I may say they do it with far more understanding than the philosophers themselves! Why does man want to build up a philosophy of how the things hang together? Why does he relate the single example that meets his eye to a universal whole, and ask how the individual is rooted and grounded in the cosmos? He would not do so, if it were not that during sleep he enters in an intensely real and living way into the undefined existence I have described; nor would he ever in the waking state come to a feeling of God, were it not that he has experienced the corresponding fact in the first stage of sleep. We owe to sleep something that has untold significance for our deep inner nature as human beings.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 7:02 pm Here I will give you an example and maybe you can share whether you have come across anything similar in your research. We should be clear that everything described below happens every time we go to sleep even if we are unaware of it - higher cognitive research simply makes these ever-present processes more conscious, as Steiner also indicates below. We are all here expressing a desire to relate the fragmented philosophies and religious conceptions to the Divine Unity, and the following gives us a deeper sense of why we are here doing that. It is this kind of exploration which actually takes us into the depths of our Be-ing.

When we have gone to sleep, and the sense-perceptions have been gradually paralysed and the will-impulses have ceased to work, we experience in the first place an undifferentiated condition of soul. In this undefined experience a strong sense of time is present, but all feeling of space is almost completely wiped out. It is an experience that is comparable with swimming; we are, so to speak, moving about in a general, indefinite world-substance.
...
But now this experience is united with another, namely, an experience of being forsaken and alone. It is like sinking into an abyss. If a man were to experience consciously this first stage of sleep without right preparation, he would in truth be exposed to great risk, for he would find it quite unbearable to lose in this way almost all sense of space and live merely in a general, universal feeling of time, to feel himself in this vague way merely a part of a universal sea of substance, where scarcely anything is distinguishable — where indeed the only thing one can distinguish is that one is a self within a universal world-existence. If consciousness were present, one would actually have the sensation of hovering over an abyss.

I actually practiced lucid dreaming (it is called dream yoga in Buddhism), it is indeed a useful practice and I had an experience of lucid deep sleep (I wrote here about it before), but it was even deeper than what Steiner described, there was also no sense of time or space, no self or substance, no feeling of loneliness or any other feeling, no thoughts, nothing except for awareness of awareness-presence. It was quite revealing. Another important lesson from lucid dreaming and OBE (I've done that too) is that the reality beyond physical realm is fluid and can be shaped by our intentions.

Lou Gold wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 6:49 am

We can watch our thoughts, not just have them. And if we do (watch them) deeply, note how they are conditioned by desires and dubious beliefs.

Yes, indeed! And this has happened for the shaman and mystic as well as for the artist and the scientist.

My point is that we no longer need shamanistic or mystical trappings (or be an artist or scientist) to get on with spiritual development. Which is not to say they have nothing interesting to say (I quoted a mystic yesterday).

Stranger wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 7:30 pm Another important lesson from lucid dreaming and OBE (I've done that too) is that the reality beyond physical realm is fluid and can be shaped by our intentions.

This is a perfect example where we need to question "how do I know?" When we conceive OBEs and lucid dreams as 'reality beyond the physical realm' we open wide the door for fantastic illusions. We step from one Maya (of the senses) into another. It is the same with all kinds of visionary states, achieved in one way or another. The mode of cognition remains effectively the same as our waking intellectual. We're still confronted with a tableau of soul phenomena and our thinking self interprets it.

So once again we see that the only way out is to know the higher being whose activity decoheres as it contacts the soul imagery and feels itself as a thinking self. No matter how incredible and seismic our OBE or NDE, or whatever is, the question still remains - what is the nature of these perceptions? How my cognition of these images takes shape. If we go through an OBE or lucid dream and believe ourselves to be a pure spirit that exercises its unquestionable intentions, we simply remain blind about the way the higher spiritual being manifests. We have outgrown naive realism in respect to the sensory world but fall for the same trap in the states where we feel not to have any body and thus believe that whatever we perceive is finally reality 'as it is' (because we believe that the physical senses alone are the source of illusions). This image needs to be understood.

As far as the nature of the images, when we begin to know the deeper activity of our being we also begin to recognize that the images form with our intercourse with the etheric body/spectrum. In our waking life the latter is opened towards the sense organs, as if sucked into them and they impress their patterns (in the brain there's greater leeway). At night this connection is slightly loosened and for the etheric body becomes possible to reflect in images influences which are not so concretely localized in the sense organs. Thus deeper states of our physical organs (for example our liver, guts, etc.) or something of our soul body (which is far more loosened and expanded) can stimulate images. But in all cases, these visionary experiences, especially when they are comparable to sensory environments, in fact happen in the etheric body and our intentions work in the images there, just like we can work in our imagination while awake. The fact that it seems we explore worlds in this way is no more miraculous than VR. As said, this doesn't mean that the images can't reflect influences beyond our body - with our expanded astral body we indeed live int the spheres - but in any case we should be aware that the images are always only impressions. Reality can only be found in the spiritual beings themselves, when we come to know their inner nature and activity.