Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Breaking Bad Habits

[Cleric K]

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."

I was about to address this but then I saw your later post:

First of all you are assuming a Spirit, it's not a given, so your term is loaded with an assumption that a Spirit exists. We can't know that with certainty because it is unfalsifiable.

It seems that the word Spirit is loaded for you with some preconceived meaning (probably heavily religious). Actually it doesn't presuppose anything - it's the only certain thing as far as the given is concerned - it's our spiritual thinking activity, as the only certain and immediate fact of our existence. Why spiritual? Because this is the true meaning of the word since ancient times. Moderns began to speculate about what Spirit is and if it exists only because they imperceptibly decided that what was formerly called Spirit is actually 'brain'. And they set out to ridicule how naïve the men of old were to speak of some 'Spirit'.

So I hope this is cleared. When we speak of spiritual activity it's meant the most intimate and self-evident activity that today we recognize as thinking - expression of what we are - whatever we are. The word doesn't presuppose any substance, energy, God or whatever to explain itself. It's a concept that thinking attaches to its self-perception, without any speculation of what lies behind it. To say that "We can't know that [Spirit exists] with certainty because it is unfalsifiable" is the same as saying "We can't know that thinking exists with certainty because it is unfalsifiable". Actually it is the only certain thing. The conclusions of thinking we can doubt but that thinking exists is a certain fact that becomes confirmed the moment we try to doubt the existence of thinking (which is already an act of thinking).

If the above is rectified we can start all over without the prejudice about 'spiritual' in spiritual science and see how things go.

[Eugene I]

This would be the same as saying that we can, not imagine, but truly experience whatever kind of soul life we want, not only sensing, thinking, feeling, willing but with any number and combination of other imagined soul principles.

If you can't accept at least as possibility that there's difference between fantasy and supersensible perception in the above sense, there's simply no need to continue any further.

I can not disprove the claim that you have a "supersensible perception" that normal people like us do not. It's possible, why not, good for you. But you just added a "supersensible perception" to that same list of "sensing, thinking, feeling, willing" of the soul principles. What makes you think that the list will stop at "supersensible perception" and not go any further?

Another question: as I said, there have been gazillions of supersensible perception visions over the history of civilization described in gazillions of religious texts. All those authors claimed that they perceived the higher-order reality through supersensible perception. Yet, they all contradict each other. And more to it, there are many people in mental hospitals that claim to have supersensible perception and see things that other people do not see. Yet, the things they see differ from person to person a lot. And there are also people who take visionary drugs and claim to experience supersensible perception in such state and see realities "beyond" our world of mundane perception. And interesting thing - all those people (well, except may be from sane drug trippers) are absolutely convinced that they are experiencing the actual super-realities. So, what do we make of it?

[Cleric K]

I can not disprove the claim that you have a "supersensible perception" that normal people like us do not. It's possible, why not, good for you. But you just added a "supersensible perception" to that same list of "sensing, thinking, feeling, willing" of the soul principles. What makes you think that the list will stop at "supersensible perception" and not go any further?

Another question: as I said, there have been gazillions of supersensible perception visions over the history of civilization described in gazillions of religious texts. All those authors claimed that they perceived the higher-order reality through supersensible perception. Yet, they all contradict each other. And more to it, there are many people in mental hospitals that claim to have supersensible perception and see things that other people do not see. Yet, the things they see differ from person to person a lot. And there are also people who take visionary drugs and claim to experience supersensible perception in such state and see realities "beyond" our world of mundane perception. And interesting thing - all those people (well, except may be from sane drug trippers) are absolutely convinced that they are experiencing the actual super-realities. So, what do we make of it?

I've already addressed this:

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.

Your question about why people see different things is also completely clear when it's considered what I've said numerous times - first of all we confront our own hidden soul life. When there's resistance of confronting our true nature all kinds of distortions issue. Our sympathies, antipathies, desires and fears filter some things and bring disproportionate significance to others. This should be clear already. In physical sensing we find the body already ready-made with the sensing organs that we use. 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 think I'm done here, Eugene. It's clear that you simply don't have interest in such penetration into the inner being. You have stated your reasons and I'm OK with that. I can compare this with a ball that is slightly deflated - it has a dimple. No matter how hard we try to straighten it out it simply appears somewhere else. It's the same in our discussion. I've described in great detail everything needed to understand the nature of higher cognition but I can't provide from myself to someone else the good will to at least understand these things. This missing good will is the dimple.

[Eugene I]

I've already addressed this:

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.

Your question about why people see different things is also completely clear when it's considered what I've said numerous times - first of all we confront our own hidden soul life. When there's resistance of confronting our true nature all kinds of distortions issue. Our sympathies, antipathies, desires and fears filter some things and bring disproportionate significance to others. This should be clear already. In physical sensing we find the body already ready-made with the sensing organs that we use. 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 think I'm done here, Eugene. It's clear that you simply don't have interest in such penetration into the inner being. You have stated your reasons and I'm OK with that. I can compare this with a ball that is slightly deflated - it has a dimple. No matter how hard we try to straighten it out it simply appears somewhere else. It's the same in our discussion. I've described in great detail everything needed to understand the nature of higher cognition but I can't provide from myself to someone else the good will to at least understand these things. This missing good will is the dimple.

I do have an interest and I'm doing exactly this, but using different approaches and practices, and I also have some of my own extra-mundane experiences (about "non-self" and what's not), which you also mentioned above. But now you claim that we all: me, tens of thousands of the NDE experiencers, mystics and visionaries of other traditions and religions, only experience their fantasies or sensory-distorted perceptions and interpret them "improperly" because their "mirror" of perception and cognition is unclean. But you developed the real supersensory and proper cognitive perception and cleaned your mirror so that you can perceive and understand thing properly. You feel very confident that you do not need any further evidence or proof that your perception and cognition is non-distorted and you dismiss any possibility that it still may be distorted and you might be fooling yourself. Well, ok, I get it, good for you. As long as you are happy with it.

PS: thousands of mystics of non-dual traditions also say exactly that: that they cleaned their mirror of perception form "sympathies, antipathies, desires and fears" and are able to experience our "true nature" without distortions. Yet, they perceive the reality in a very different way from yours, and you stated many times that this is because "they are doing it wrong" and you are doing it right.

[Apanthropinist]

I will grant you that I have not been treating this as a formal philosophical debate that I would engage in with someone who knew nothing of idealism. I am presupposing a lot of shared ideal conceptions, including a deep appreciation for the Truth and Wisdom of spiritual traditions. Cleric, on the other hand, has responded to you without any such presuppositions as far as I can tell, as he usually does.

To your bolded question, I am asking about claims made in my essay and/or Cleric's. Either one. Whatever claim anyone has made here that you find hard to swallow. I should have the next part of the essay up later today, so maybe you can wait for that before responding, since it will also address the "thinking-perceiving" unification (although I mean that 'literally' i.e. exactly how it sounds). Whatever you want to do is fine.

It appears to me that it eludes you, for whatever reason, that it doesn't matter what you assume I know or don't know, it doesn't matter what exoteric/esoteric traditions you assume I know or don't know or value or don't value, it doesn't matter about the 'truth and wisdom' of spiritual traditions in philosophy. Philosophy makes no appeal to truth or tradition or anyone's knowledge, it makes no appeal to whether a person is deemed worthy or not. Philosophy relies on rational arguments whose claims must stand in their own right and whose success is based solely on whether they are logically valid and sound.

Please be mindful Ashvin because the moment you start any Ad Hominem attack is the moment you start to dismiss and demean a person for simply disagreeing with you. It is a warning sign that your beliefs are possessing you and are creating 'enemies' out there when in fact the belief itself has become your enemy. A challenge towards a claim is not a challenge towards the person, if we conflate the two it can feel like a loss of dignity and that makes it almost inevitable that we will take it from others.

[AshvinP]

I will grant you that I have not been treating this as a formal philosophical debate that I would engage in with someone who knew nothing of idealism. I am presupposing a lot of shared ideal conceptions, including a deep appreciation for the Truth and Wisdom of spiritual traditions. Cleric, on the other hand, has responded to you without any such presuppositions as far as I can tell, as he usually does.

To your bolded question, I am asking about claims made in my essay and/or Cleric's. Either one. Whatever claim anyone has made here that you find hard to swallow. I should have the next part of the essay up later today, so maybe you can wait for that before responding, since it will also address the "thinking-perceiving" unification (although I mean that 'literally' i.e. exactly how it sounds). Whatever you want to do is fine.

It appears to me that it eludes you, for whatever reason, that it doesn't matter what you assume I know or don't know, it doesn't matter what exoteric/esoteric traditions you assume I know or don't know or value or don't value, it doesn't matter about the 'truth and wisdom' of spiritual traditions in philosophy. Philosophy makes no appeal to truth or tradition or anyone's knowledge, it makes no appeal to whether a person is deemed worthy or not. Philosophy relies on rational arguments whose claims must stand in their own right and whose success is based solely on whether they are logically valid and sound.

Please be mindful Ashvin because the moment you start any Ad Hominem attack is the moment you start to dismiss and demean a person for simply disagreeing with you. It is a warning sign that your beliefs are possessing you and are creating 'enemies' out there when in fact the belief itself has become your enemy. A challenge towards a claim is not a challenge towards the person, if we conflate the two it can feel like a loss of dignity and that makes it almost inevitable that we will take it from others.

I was actually saying mea culpa there, which apparently you took in the opposite sense of what was intended. Anyway, second part will be posted soon and I hope to continue a reasonable philosophical discussion of its contents.

[Ratatoskr]

Your question about why people see different things is also completely clear when it's considered what I've said numerous times - first of all we confront our own hidden soul life. When there's resistance of confronting our true nature all kinds of distortions issue. Our sympathies, antipathies, desires and fears filter some things and bring disproportionate significance to others. This should be clear already. In physical sensing we find the body already ready-made with the sensing organs that we use. 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.

That's a very strange statement. I am not sure I understood it correctly. Are you suggesting that people who do not agree with you/do not see reality (of whichever order) as you do have improper cognitive perception ? In short, people who disagree with you are not developed enough to see the truth ?

[Apanthropinist]

It seems that the word Spirit is loaded for you with some preconceived meaning (probably heavily religious).

It's a wee bit tedious to have Ashvin and then you assume you can read my mind, your assumption is from your mind not mine, can we just establish that? If you want to know, just ask and I'll tell you but stop making assumptions just because I am applying rules of logic. It's entirely possible to hold contradictory positions and is in fact encouraged in philosophy in order to learn how not to engage in fallacious logic because your opponents will be all over it like a cheap dress.

Actually it doesn't presuppose anything - it's the only certain thing as far as the given is concerned

A 'Spirit' is unfalsifiable and so is logically impossible to prove. But you can always consult the Holy Thought Spirit?

So I hope this is cleared.

Yes, I just cleared it up for you using the rules of philosophy. If you want to do theology, I'm sure there are plenty of places.

To say that "We can't know that [Spirit exists] with certainty because it is unfalsifiable" is the same as saying "We can't know that thinking exists with certainty because it is unfalsifiable".

You are one of the most genius persons I've met for using logical fallacies, it's quite beautiful actually and I commend you for your unwavering commitment and discipline towards it. This latest one here 'Because this is the true meaning of the word since ancient times.' is called Argument From Age or Wisdom of the Ancients, in other words 'Oh well they called it that, so it must be true'....in other words also a Non Sequitur...in other words it does not logically follow that simply because it was called something, it makes it valid. You have to demonstrate what makes it logically valid....in other words it cannot be anything else....but if it is unfalsifiable then you cannot prove that it is something in the first place, let alone something else....so logically, you're buggered, philosophically.

If the above is rectified we can start all over without the prejudice about 'spiritual' in spiritual science and see how things go.

Apparently not then.

[Apanthropinist]

I will grant you that I have not been treating this as a formal philosophical debate that I would engage in with someone who knew nothing of idealism. I am presupposing a lot of shared ideal conceptions, including a deep appreciation for the Truth and Wisdom of spiritual traditions. Cleric, on the other hand, has responded to you without any such presuppositions as far as I can tell, as he usually does.

To your bolded question, I am asking about claims made in my essay and/or Cleric's. Either one. Whatever claim anyone has made here that you find hard to swallow. I should have the next part of the essay up later today, so maybe you can wait for that before responding, since it will also address the "thinking-perceiving" unification (although I mean that 'literally' i.e. exactly how it sounds). Whatever you want to do is fine.

It appears to me that it eludes you, for whatever reason, that it doesn't matter what you assume I know or don't know, it doesn't matter what exoteric/esoteric traditions you assume I know or don't know or value or don't value, it doesn't matter about the 'truth and wisdom' of spiritual traditions in philosophy. Philosophy makes no appeal to truth or tradition or anyone's knowledge, it makes no appeal to whether a person is deemed worthy or not. Philosophy relies on rational arguments whose claims must stand in their own right and whose success is based solely on whether they are logically valid and sound.

Please be mindful Ashvin because the moment you start any Ad Hominem attack is the moment you start to dismiss and demean a person for simply disagreeing with you. It is a warning sign that your beliefs are possessing you and are creating 'enemies' out there when in fact the belief itself has become your enemy. A challenge towards a claim is not a challenge towards the person, if we conflate the two it can feel like a loss of dignity and that makes it almost inevitable that we will take it from others.

I was actually saying mea culpa there, which apparently you took in the opposite sense of what was intended. Anyway, second part will be posted soon and I hope to continue a reasonable philosophical discussion of its contents.

OK, in that case I acknowledge it and thank you. Decent of you.

You will see why I responded if you make one change to your comment to highlight the opposite: "I have not been treating this as a formal philosophical debate that I would engage in with someone who knew something of idealism.'

Edit: That's not very clear from me either really is it? If it were 'I have not been treating this as a formal debate with someone who knew nothing of idealism' I think I would have got it but there you go, my confusion. Apologies.

[Cleric K]

I do have an interest and I'm doing exactly this, but using different approaches and practices, and I also have some of my own extra-mundane experiences (about "non-self" and what's not), which you also mentioned above. But now you claim that we all: me, tens of thousands of the NDE experiencers, mystics and visionaries of other traditions and religions, only experience their fantasies or sensory-distorted perceptions and interpret them "improperly" because their "mirror" of perception and cognition is unclean. But you developed the real supersensory and proper cognitive perception and cleaned your mirror so that you can perceive and understand thing properly.

I haven't developed anything that anyone else isn't capable of. I simply report what is being found in this direction. I'm not claiming God-given powers. In fact all that I speak of is really the a,b,c of things when this direction is trodden. I'm not in anyway trying to look superior. If that was my goal I would withhold any knowledge of the methods I use so that I can 'enjoy them for myself'.

The simple fact is that I describe a path of inner experiences which not only has never been investigated but there's resistance to even understand it intellectually - which by the way would be more than sufficient in order to understand everything else. I hope the great asymmetry is visible here. I don't dismiss the nondual method out of ignorance. I understand it very well, I have practiced and I can report first-hand the experiences that you report. But the reverse is not true. And this is not a judgement. It's pretty clear why this is so. The focused spiritual activity is simply not being considered (or it's considered only as an intermediate step for quieting down the mind). Many times I have spoken of this - we ascend to the higher/deeper strata of being when we pass through the pinhole of the focused spiritual (cognitive) activity.

So it's a door. And it's there in every moment of existence. But it's simply not being considered. I'm fine with this, I'm not saying that everyone should do this. But does this mean that reports of observations beyond the gate should not be stated? The things about the mirror are simple facts of observation. What do you expect me to say, that someone who eats, drinks and watches TV all day should have the same NDE as a saint would have? Or a drunken criminal would behold on shrooms the same things that a learned, lucid thinker would? It's everyone's experience that in our normal life we have to work hard for every intellectual, artistic and physical skill. I'm sure that in your profession you've met a whole spectrum of people with very different degrees of comprehension on electrical engineering, for example. It's true that some people are more talented than others but most of it is simply hard work. So we understand and accept this for our everyday's life but somehow all this doesn't hold anymore when it's a matter of the deepest mysteries of existence? I'm not saying any of this as "look how advanced I am". Not at all. I'm sure that there are many in this forum that could tread the path better than me if they attempted it. But it's simply not serious when I say "Here's the gate, here are the tools, here are the methods. Now some work is needed on adjustment and perfecting the spiritually-'optical' system." to be objected with "So you claim that there's something beyond that gate that we don't already know and that we need to improve something within our spiritual apparatus to behold it? How arrogant is that?!"

You feel very confident that you do not need any further evidence or proof that your perception and cognition is non-distorted and you dismiss any possibility that it still may be distorted and you might be fooling yourself. Well, ok, I get it, good for you. As long as you are happy with it.

Think about your life experience again. How did you gain confidence in electronics (I think this is (one of) your field, excuse me if I got it wrong). What was your evidence that your perception and cognition was not distorted and you were not fooling yourself? It's quite simple. All these questions would only make sense if your knowledge is some purely mind-thing with no contact with the full spectrum of reality. It's exactly the relations of the ideas of electronics with the perceptual spectrum that prove their worth. You understand that you are on the right track because your knowledge grows and becomes more coherent, encompassing, logical. Well, it's similar with any genuine spiritual development. Our inner experiences don't simply stand in the black box of our fantasies. Everything is revealed and must be tested against the full spectrum of reality. If my awareness expands, if I see clearly the ways in which I sabotage myself, my unhealthy habits, my flaws of character, then if I find the strength and methods within my research to rectify all these, I clearly have a practical knowledge. If everything around me becomes more and more comprehensible and logical - even amidst the outer chaos, if I find the inner courage and force to face and overcome the trials of life, then I'm on to something. To be able to assess if things are getting more or less distorted we need to have experienced at least two different degrees of distortion. If we only know one we have no reference for comparison what's more and what less distorted. If I can look back and see my soul as laid down in front of me and see how I have been struggling within the labyrinths of my own ignorance and twisted desires, I have direct experience of what it means to have less distorted view. Now I don't delude myself that I'm already done with my work. Quite the opposite - I'm fully aware that just as I can now see through the shaping forces of my former self, which were completely unconscious for me back then, so there are also now such forces which shape my current life and which I'll be able to behold in the future if I continue on my path. Just as I can see my former unconsciously entangled self in the past, so I can look towards the future and see prophetically a potential self which looks back on me in much higher understanding. It is my task to always aim towards this future self. The future will come in one way or another but there's no guarantee that I'll see more clearly. I can even fall back into more entanglement. That's why I need constant vigilance and effort.
So this is in a nutshell how I know whether I'm moving towards more or less distorted state. It takes just a glance on my life to see as a fact how the ideas that I've been exploring have played out.

The possibility for self-development, even in the more secular sense, is something completely understandable. So am I reasonable if I declare that the deepest truths can be revealed completely independently of the state of my mirror? If we refuse to consider spiritual development as something real we face a world of mysteries. Why different people, traditions, religions have different NDEs? If I consider that everyone's mirror is perfect as it is, I have to assume that there's no real structure and laws in the higher worlds and everyone is 'right'. Those who think that there's God are right, so are those who think that there isn't. Those who think that there's reincarnation and karma are right, so are those who see only one lifetime and eternal heaven or hell afterwards. We just have to take an unprejudiced look and acknowledge the price we pay in order to maintain our idea that there's no such thing as ever-evolving perfection of the mirror. Just because it's too much trouble for us to consider that we are responsible for our own spiritual evolutionary development, we prefer to accept all the paradoxes and illogicalities of the flat picture.