Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Breaking Bad Habits

[Apanthropinist]

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though, because down that road is inevitably rationalism-dualism and most people here already know that is sorely outdated and lacking.

Go tell that to Richard Dawkins.....or Joe Biden.....or Boris Johnson......or the CEO of Exxon Mobil......or in fact anyone who will listen.....and then try not to be disappointed when they do absolutely feck all about it because you don't know how to play their game. Because that is how you win Ashvin, not by demanding that your worldview is the correct one, my two year old and seven year old daughters try that with me all the time. Nor do you win the game by telling others what their morality should be. You have to be smarter and much more savvy than that and understand the game that is being played.

You play the game of the current paradigm and win by playing the hand of the methods they employ to defeat them. Not by waving your arms and virtue signalling. You have precisely zero idea what 'my bone to pick' is or with whom because you're too busy pontificating about who you think I am and what I think.

It would be much simpler, and more effective, to just ask me.

[Apanthropinist]

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.

Like I said, inflation of conflict, a great way to avoid scrutiny.

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.

It's called depth or analytical psychology. I have some familiarity with it but thanks for asking. I'm interested in many things, preferably things that make sense and that can be challenged and questioned. I'm probably the wrong person to whom you could mention well defined and undisputable boundaries for what knowing is......I've taken way too many psychedelics for that nonsense.

[Cleric K]

how to you verify them and prove (even to yourself) that they are not your mere fantasies but true representations of reality?

I won't address the planetary spheres here, since we can't even settle on the more accessible things.
Let me say that errors are possible in spiritual investigation and large part of the methodology is concerned with precisely this. In the same way in science we have chapters dealing with methodological, instrumental, etc. errors. As long as our highest ideal is Truth we have all the means to overcome the sources of mistakes. The most dangerous sources of errors are our own unexamined sympathies and antipathies, that is, when we're not looking for the objective facts (even if they are hard to swallow) but looking only for what pleases us. That's why self-knowledge is primary. Any form of emotional bias must be overcome.

The proof has several aspects. If you're questioning whether supersensible perceptions in general are real or fantasies, this completely misses the fact that we're speaking of cognition. It would be like asking "How can you be sure that thinking really exists and not that you only think that it exists?" Such a question doesn't make sense. The very fact that we think is in itself the proof. This holds also for the higher forms of cognition. There we experience the spiritual activity which shapes on a lower level the intellectual thinking. Obviously this is not proof for anyone who hasn't experienced a higher state of cognition, but for those who have, the facts are self-evident, just like thinking is self-evident in the ordinary state. The most persistent hindrance for proper understanding of higher cognition is the, almost reflex-like, idea that it's all about having some visionary perceptions which confront the thinking ego and must be interpreted (divined). This is fully justifiable if we're dealing with visionary states like NDEs, OBEs, psychedelics, holotropic breathing, etc. but it doesn't make sense in the higher forms of cognition. It would be like saying that when we think we first behold our thoughts only as perceptions and only then we interpret their meaning. It's clear that when we think thought-perceptions and ideas (meaning) come in inseparable unity. It's the same in the higher forms of cognition. As said, it is possible to apply cognition in incorrect way but to ask if a thought or a higher form of spiritual activity is in itself fantasy, is simply nonsensical.
The other aspect of proof is purely practical. Like all things, discoveries only prove they worth against practical life. This can be verified even by those who have not trodden the path of self-development.

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.

Maybe you should simply explain what your criteria for 'science' are?
As I said spiritual science can be compared to the natural sciences and not to those that build abstract theories and then map them to perceptions. A botanist can investigate his sensory perceptions of some plant species, connect the appropriate concepts (even develop new ones if needed) and share his results. He must also provide way for verification - for example, describe in details the path to the biome where the species can be found.
Spiritual science covers all these criteria. It investigates supersensible perceptions to which concepts are connected by the intellect. The results can be communicated. And the exact path which led to these perceptions can be described for those who want to explore them for themselves.

The only 'significant distortion' I can see here is that spiritual science is not restricted only to the sensory but investigates the whole spectrum of spiritual life.

[Cleric K]

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.

Like I said, inflation of conflict, a great way to avoid scrutiny.

I'm genuinely interested what exactly you found objectable in the above?

[Eugene I]

Maybe you should simply explain what your criteria for 'science' are?
As I said spiritual science can be compared to the natural sciences and not to those that build abstract theories and then map them to perceptions. A botanist can investigate his sensory perceptions of some plant species, connect the appropriate concepts (even develop new ones if needed) and share his results. He must also provide way for verification - for example, describe in details the path to the biome where the species can be found.
Spiritual science covers all these criteria. It investigates supersensible perceptions to which concepts are connected by the intellect. The results can be communicated. And the exact path which led to these perceptions can be described for those who want to explore them for themselves.

Cleric, I already said that before, it is the criteria of consistency and reproducibility of the sensual experiences in this post But note that we are not talking about reproducibility of imaginations and ideas. Of course I can reproduce the same idea or imagination if you communicate them to me and I follow the same exact path which led to these imaginations. I can imagine the "astral planets" that you imagined. If I have difficulty imagining them, I can always smoke some grass and will be able to imagine them very vividly. In the scientific method other ideas are used as arguments to support the idea under test, but they can not be used to verify it. It's the facts of the sense perceptions that are needed for verification, and not just any random facts, but only of reproducible consistency. But what you are claiming is that we can "extend" the scientific method to include the experiences of our spiritual imaginations as experimental facts for verification of knowledge (theories). Fine, let's test such method on the notorious Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) theory. Let's say I claim that FSM exists. My argument for its existence is that it is impossible to prove that it does not exist, therefore it can exist, and therefore it does exist. OK, but then how about verification? I say that I can imagine it very well with all the tiny details of its flying spaghettis and experience my imagination so vividly that if feels like a fact of perception. But is it reproducible and consistent? Of course! If I describe my imagination to you and you follow the same steps that I took, you will be able to imagine it, vividly experience such imagination and understand the same idea of the FSM exactly the way I did. So we are also done with verification. Congratulations, the theory of the FSM is proven, and your new well-tested and proven to work scientific method can now be successfully applied to the spiritual science and much new knowledge about the hidden structures of the universe can be obtained by using the power of our imagination by far exceeding all the knowledge obtained so far by natural sciences.

[AshvinP]

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.

You already read my argument, i.e. the essay of this post. What exactly do you take issue with? You are asking me to present an argument but I have absolutely no idea what points of my essay you are disputing, if any. And if you are not disputing the points made in my essay, but rather "spiritual science" approach to these questions in general, then Cleric has more than answered all of your criticisms to my satisfaction, and I suspect to everyone else's except yours and Eugene's. When I engage you seriously, you respond with:

"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 course you did. Not because of the "paper" but because you are desperately trying to avoid confronting anything of substance behind his claims. You want to play the poor innocent victim of sophistry, fallacies, etc. because any intellectually honest approach would lead you to truths which you want to avoid at almost any cost.

Go tell that to Richard Dawkins.....or Joe Biden.....or Boris Johnson......or the CEO of Exxon Mobil......or in fact anyone who will listen.....and then try not to be disappointed when they do absolutely feck all about it because you don't know how to play their game. Because that is how you win Ashvin, not by demanding that your worldview is the correct one, my two year old and seven year old daughters try that with me all the time. Nor do you win the game by telling others what their morality should be. You have to be smarter and much more savvy than that and understand the game that is being played.

You play the game of the current paradigm and win by playing the hand of the methods they employ to defeat them. Not by waving your arms and virtue signalling. You have precisely zero idea what 'my bone to pick' is or with whom because you're too busy pontificating about who you think I am and what I think.

It would be much simpler, and more effective, to just ask me

I couldn't care less about playing their game or yours. Those games are running on nothing more than fumes and borrowed time. I am inviting people to join the ranks of a new game, a meta-game which does not only allow for endings of totalitarianism and nihilism. I am not demanding anything from anyone - if a person's belief in something is compelled it is worthless. Just as it is worthless when it is derived from unexamined assumptions. And what's that saying about casting our pearls or something before swine? Oh, right.

[AshvinP]

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?

Eugene - at a certain point you just need to state plainly whether you think idealism is anything more than a guess about what is true; a guess without any serious ramifications for the orientation of our being in the world. If you accept it as most likely true, then it makes absolutely no sense to claim supersensible ideal-stuff is not amenable to empirical observation and testing just as sensible ideal-stuff is. Let me make it even simpler for you (and apanthropinist) to figure out where your quarrels lie:

1) Supersensible considers the Spirit (thinking activity) as a potential means of perception - do you agree or disagree?

2) As argued in the essay, thinking-perceiving are inextricably linked to each other today - agree or disagree?

3) Thinking-perceiving were practically unified with each other in very early stages of human consciousness - agree or disagree?

4) All long-lasting spiritual traditions contemplate a reunification of all that which was originally undivided and is now divided - agree or disagree?

As I have pointed out several times on this thread alone, the burden is on you guys to explain why thinking (let's call it "spiritual imagination" if you do not like the t-word) cannot be another mode of perceiving in realms of higher cognition. Because our experience shows, in normal cognition and after reflecting on that activity just a bit, that we cannot form any sort of coherent narrative of perceptual relations without such operations of the spiritual imagination. So what is your evidence to the contrary?

[Apanthropinist]

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.

Like I said, inflation of conflict, a great way to avoid scrutiny.

I'm genuinely interested what exactly you found objectable in the above?

Well you suggest you are interested but given that you appear uninterested with the philosophical method and principals, and furthermore don't feel subject to them, on a philosophy forum of all things, I suspect you would likely either employ another Argumentum ab auctoritate falsum or would simply avoid the answer. To paraphrase you from a previous post ... "then this work simply won't be understood."

Jung would have likely encouraged a person not to try to wall themselves off with solipsistic sophistry in an attempt to immunise their spiritual beliefs from any legitimate scrutiny and criticism. As he wisely observed "You don't possess an idea; an idea possess you."

[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.

You already read my argument, i.e. the essay of this post. What exactly do you take issue with? You are asking me to present an argument but I have absolutely no idea what points of my essay you are disputing, if any. And if you are not disputing the points made in my essay, but rather "spiritual science" approach to these questions in general, then Cleric has more than answered all of your criticisms to my satisfaction, and I suspect to everyone else's except yours and Eugene's.

Once again I will remind you that I do not have a burden, you do, the burden of proof as I clearly expressed, ""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 have not disputed nor criticised your particular essay, allow me to remind you that I said "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."

If Cleric has answered all of my criticisms to your satisfaction then you are simply taking refuge in a 'walled garden'. You can't speak for anyone else nor can you know what they think. Unfortunately Cleric hasn't 'answered' anything of substance at all, in any way shape or form a philosopher would recognise but then that isn't what you are doing here is it, you're proselytising.

Of course you did. Not because of the "paper" but because you are desperately trying to avoid confronting anything of substance behind his claims. You want to play the poor innocent victim of sophistry, fallacies, etc. because any intellectually honest approach would lead you to truths which you want to avoid at almost any cost.

Now you are really into Ad Hominem territory which, as ever, is the full and final refuge of a person with no answer and no argument. It's disappointing that you resort to a puerile tactic such as this. Your attempt at reverse psychology to disguise and project your sense of victimhood and intellectual dishonesty on to me is also disappointing and does not serve your position in any way.

I couldn't care less about playing their game or yours. Those games are running on nothing more than fumes and borrowed time. I am inviting people to join the ranks of a new game, a meta-game which does not only allow for endings of totalitarianism and nihilism. I am not demanding anything from anyone - if a person's belief in something is compelled it is worthless. Just as it is worthless when it is derived from unexamined assumptions. And what's that saying about casting our pearls or something before swine? Oh, right.

Now you have just lost your composure completely.

My game Ashvin, is to understand my opponent so I can come to know their weaknesses, and then help them to defeat themselves. It is much more considerate and a form of Aikido, rather than trying to hammer them over the head with zealous rhetoric.

Please be careful with your spiritual zealousness, I understand the power of that fire but it will not only possess you, it will also blind you, and deny others their dignity, especially those who disagree with you. It is likely that years from now, as you mature, you will hopefully understand this.

[Ben Iscatus]

Apanthropinist, you come across as very wise.