BK's 'Phantom World' Hypothesis for NDEs

[AshvinP]

But perhaps you may take a shot at it and share the results with us! Regardless of how BK responds (or, most likely, ignores), we can always find spiritual value in exploring these topics like we are doing now.

OK I've done that. I'm not seeing it in the list yet. Maybe it's moderated first.

PS - do you know if your copy of What Barfield Thinks ever made it to his vicinity?

Is this a to OB or a genuine mistake?
The answer is I don't know. But I don't monitor his FB page, and I have noticed that's where he reports these kind of things - what he's reading, what he's doing etc.

That was a genuine mistake - I doubt OB is still thinking at this point, rather imagining, inspiring, and intuiting

I see your post is up now, perhaps he will respond. Ben also had an interesting post on the article:

Yes, this is all very interesting Bernardo, particularly your idea that in the out of body state we can only perceive what has previously been experienced. Some of the more profound NDEs do talk about travelling through starfields, past nebulae and galaxies: perhaps MAL’s own experiences?

Some might look instead to a hierarchy of dissociation: dimensions more subtle than ours; that we have a subtler “vehicle” – i.e. a subtler representation- which, after death, can be released from its ties to these grosser dimensions we normally inhabit. If so, then after death here, we would still have our subtle senses intact with our subtle “vehicle”.

But if that were true, one might argue, we might expect the subtler senses to only perceive the subtler world, not also the grosser world we normally experience. Otherwise, as you say, why the evolution of eardrum and retina? The answer could be that what really evolved here were only the grosser “representations” of eardrum and retina as we now experience them on the screen of perception: partial, dumbed-down imitations of the deeper, subtler sensorial apparatus beneath (for instance, some NDEs indicate that our subtler self has all-round vision).

If subtler dimensional representations are true, we would then also have to answer the significant questions of how and why our subtler selves are normally shackled to (or imprisoned by) our grosser ones (the very thought is gross).

That's very spiritual scientific of you, Ben

Cleric's last comment also provides an interesting angle of approach. The fact that BK is instinctively probing the etheric death spectrum with his logical reasoning through NDE accounts, perhaps without ever hearing about this spectrum before, means that thinking already lives across the threshold, if he simply takes the real-time thinking out of the blind spot. He is already reaching some intuitions of the after-death etheric states, not drawn from the NDEs themselves, through his own independent reasoning.

The question is, how to bring this to his attention? In a certain sense, we have to show him his 'speculative hypothesis' should be taken as a symbol for something much less speculative and more serious. We could simply quote Steiner and show how he reached a similar idea consciously through supersensible research, but I imagine that will instinctively raise defense mechanisms that cause him to avoid the underlying idea, as it usually does. But if we just start talking about the 'etheric death spectrum' on the article, he will probably feel we are just weaving abstract theories. Maybe such a comment would fit quite naturally under Ben's

[AshvinP]

The question is, how to bring this to his attention? In a certain sense, we have to show him his 'speculative hypothesis' should be taken as a symbol for something much less speculative and more serious. We could simply quote Steiner and show how he reached a similar idea consciously through supersensible research, but I imagine that will instinctively raise defense mechanisms that cause him to avoid the underlying idea, as it usually does. But if we just start talking about the 'etheric death spectrum' on the article, he will probably feel we are just weaving abstract theories. Maybe such a comment would fit quite naturally under Ben's

I went ahead and submitted the following as a comment:

These are very interesting intuitions, Bernardo. I wonder if you know how close your 'phantom world' hypothesis aligns with supersensible research of the stages after death. If not, it is definitely something worth looking into.

As a crude summary, at death the subtle bodies (that Ben mentioned above) loosen from the physical body (this is why the latter naturally decays). The most proximate sheath to the physical is the etheric or vital/life body, so now our core consciousness stops reflecting its existence through the physical senses and begins to reflect its existence through the etheric organization. This body is also responsible for 'storing' our life of memories that were gained through sensory experience. Everything that looks like a sensory-like world in dreams, OBEs, NDEs, etc. takes shape through the etheric body. It is all reverberations of the impressions within the etheric (which could be creatively molded) that have been imprinted through the physical organs. So your intuition that the OBE states are not some magical eyeless perceptions of the physical world is correct - we would not need physical eyes if the exact same thing could be seen without them.

Now that these impressions are loosened from the physical form, they expand toward the ideal Cosmos and become a vivid panorama of holistic life experience. This expansion indeed makes it possible to experience something like remembrances that are inspired by the spiritual environment, yet the more the etheric body expands, the less it resembles the physical, and thus the perceptual experiences become less and less similar to Earthly seeing, hearing, etc. Eventually, the souls are no longer within a 'phantom world' but experiencing a world of objective spiritual relations (which, of course, is not ontologically divided from the sensory or phantom worlds, only the latter are known from a higher supersensible vantage point).

Of course, these details are not to be taken as a mere speculative model, neither should they be taken as true upon mere belief. The key takeaway is that, with our reasoned thinking, we are already resonating with the experiences across the threshold of death. That is how someone who has never heard of these details before, who has never even heard of the subtle bodies, could still reach a conceptualization of their realities by reasoning through NDE accounts and so forth from the proper idealistic foundation (without extraneous materialistic assumptions). When our thinking is enlivened and strengthened further through concentration exercises, the inner dimension of these realities can also be cognitively experienced. That is the method of modern spiritual science.

[AshvinP]

The question is, how to bring this to his attention? In a certain sense, we have to show him his 'speculative hypothesis' should be taken as a symbol for something much less speculative and more serious. We could simply quote Steiner and show how he reached a similar idea consciously through supersensible research, but I imagine that will instinctively raise defense mechanisms that cause him to avoid the underlying idea, as it usually does. But if we just start talking about the 'etheric death spectrum' on the article, he will probably feel we are just weaving abstract theories. Maybe such a comment would fit quite naturally under Ben's

I went ahead and submitted the following as a comment:

Bernardo replied to this comment almost immediately

BK: The thing about 'subtle bodies,' 'etheric realm,' etc., is that, it seems to me, they are just words. _What_ is this subtle body? How does it come into the causal nexus? That is, what does it do? Did it evolve too? What is this etheric realm? How does it relate to the so-called physical? What causal role does it play? How does it interface with the known laws of physics? And so on. Until there are answer to these basic questions, these are just words; they don't mean anything. We just give labels to something worse than ill-defined and pretend that we are saying something. Don't take it as a criticism of you; it's a general issue I have with these 'occult' or 'esoteric' accounts of anything. They strike me as utterly empty, word games.

To which I responded:

Right, the words are not so important, but the *intuition* that we are seeking to focus through them. Every tradition has different labels for the etheric spectrum of experience (the ancient Hindus referred to it as prana life force, tattvas, and so forth). But it's also possible to speak about these aspects of experience without any such esoteric labels. They are entirely pragmatic in the sense that we cannot adequately understand our physical-sensory existence without accounting for them. 

For example, we know that the 'laws of nature' as we currently know them lead to decay and death. This is why we cannot use these laws to successfully produce a stable living cell through abiogenesis. When the physical body is given over to these laws as a corpse, it decays and its elements return to the mineral domain. What is that prevents this from happening before death? Similarly, we know the mineral structure of a stone is much different than the mineral structure of a plant - the latter is shaped and animated in a very characteristic way. Our intuition of whatever is responsible for these facts of experience can be focused through a label like 'etheric body', but any other label could be used. It can also be misleading if we take 'body' in any spatial sensory way. So perhaps it is better to proceed without any such labels.

If we reason through the NDE accounts like you did, we also discover there is some aspect of our experience that is independent of the physical senses and the brain, but still 'encodes' the impressions we gain during life. We access this layer of experience dimly during life whenever we remember or picture something, perhaps with our eyes closed as you pointed out, but these memories are still formatted by the brain-sensory organism. When they loosen from that organism, they expand into a panoramic vision (not sensory vision) which can be experienced as a vivid world with sense-like qualities. So now we have the intuition that consciousness can perceive sense-like qualities independently of the sensory organism - that could be focused into the label 'etheric spectrum' (or whatever else we want to call it). 

Does that make more sense of the labels? We can indeed investigate the causal nexus of these interwoven yet irreducible layers of experience in much more detail, tracing how we can only make sense of one layer (such as sensory) in the light of another (such as etheric) and vice versa. Often the etheric forces are associated with the force of 'levity' as the polar opposite to the force of gravity, and with sustenance/life in polar opposition to decay/death, as we saw before. They are 'peripheral' forces that work in the living cell in polar opposition to 'central' forces. I agree that all of these terms can become quite abstract and schematic if we don't seek out the properly reasoned intuitions first, always rooted in the flow of living experience. 

[Federica]

.
I have to admit it I still (still = despite the soul work I'm doing) feel a burning point of irritation seeing that, when I said the phantom world idea “opens a whole new area of intuition for BK, in terms of connection with the dead” and that if he does “A + B based on his own new speculations, one conclusion would be a possibility for living humans to commune with the dead”, you were like: nääääääääääääää, not promising at all, he is worsening his stance, ego-inflated, etcetera.
And, you changed your mind about commenting on his blog - it was actually not worth your time anymore. But "you may take a shot at it", Federica.

However, after Cleric later commented that what Bernardo calls phantom world is really the etheric death-spectrum, and at least his logic is correct, all of a sudden you're like: “He is already reaching some intuitions of the after-death etheric states through his own independent reasoning” (!!!) and you even changed your mind - again! - and finally did comment: “These are very interesting intuitions, Bernardo,...”

Anyway, as you said, the question is how to bring the deep meaning of his hypothesis to his attention. I see that your comment on his blog is flawless, coming from great clarity of thinking, and in itself perfectly written. It's impressive how you are able to express these concepts. However, I don’t think this is the way to go with Bernardo. We have unambiguous confirmation of this in his response. You are smiling about that immediate response, but to me it's rather disappointing. I am afraid, comments like this risk solidifying Bernardo's aversion for what he calls "esoteric empty words".

What he would rather need, is something along the ground-breaking lines that Cleric is marking with his new essays - a different approach. Not different in ultimate substance, of course, but in form. Your approach is also ground-breaking, in a parallel clef. Nontheless, I believe that in our times the needed form to open the way to the inner path to minds like Bernardo's is free from the words of esotericism. An entirely phenomenological form is needed. In minds like BKs, this is what has the highest likelihood to elicit the inner shift that could lead them to the one needed epiphany.

[Cleric K]

I also attempted to write to BK in response to his objection, but it seems the replies are not easily approved

Bernardo, maybe these questions can be approached by realizing that MAL *already contains* these subtle aspects, except that we explore only their flattened conceptual projections on the intellectual plane. MAL must necessarily have depth. Otherwise, someone can object in the same way: they can say that “the body is what consciousness looks like” are also empty words. And indeed, nothing in our ordinary phenomenological experience seems to correspond to a nail or cell division. Our statement can only hold water if complemented with “... but most of this consciousness manifesting as bodily structure and life processes, is in fact sub/unconsciousness from our perspective.” So if we reason consistently, we need to conclude that there are depth aspects of MAL – there are some unknown from our waking perspective, MAL mental processes that manifest as life processes.

The fact that our human consciousness has contextual depth, in itself hints that MAL is contextual (after all, we’re a slice of MAL). Just like an idea acts like an ordering principle for the thinking-words through which we explicate it, so the life processes can be considered to flow within higher-order ideal curvature. This is all very similar to Michael Levin’s nested morphic spaces, except that we need to conceive them *from within*, as ideal activity at different *inner* scales.

If we reject this ideal contextuality, and we’re consistent with our decision, we inevitably reach some form of flattened reductionism, leading us back to physicalism with a panpsychic flavor. Then we indeed need to use empty words to explain why our thinking ego seems to be nested within the contexts of soul life, biological life, and physicality. If it all was on the same level, we should be able to think a new physical limb, not only its mental picture. Thus, when we explore this inner contextuality within which our waking ego is embedded, we arrive from a purely phenomenological perspective at what the ancients pictorially presented as subtle bodies. When we explore these contextual constraints (resulting from the deeper activity of MAL) within which our waking spiritual activity is embedded, we deal with phenomenological realities.

[Federica]

I also attempted to write to BK in response to his objection, but it seems the replies are not easily approved

Great! Your reply is up now. I would have posted it as standalone comment, though. For sure.

[AshvinP]

.
I have to admit it I still (still = despite the soul work I'm doing) feel a burning point of irritation seeing that, when I said the phantom world idea “opens a whole new area of intuition for BK, in terms of connection with the dead” and that if he does “A + B based on his own new speculations, one conclusion would be a possibility for living humans to commune with the dead”, you were like: nääääääääääääää, not promising at all, he is worsening his stance, ego-inflated, etcetera.
And, you changed your mind about commenting on his blog - it was actually not worth your time anymore. But "you may take a shot at it", Federica.

However, after Cleric later commented that what Bernardo calls phantom world is really the etheric death-spectrum, and at least his logic is correct, all of a sudden you're like: “He is already reaching some intuitions of the after-death etheric states through his own independent reasoning” (!!!) and you even changed your mind - again! - and finally did comment: “These are very interesting intuitions, Bernardo,...”

Anyway, as you said, the question is how to bring the deep meaning of his hypothesis to his attention. I see that your comment on his blog is flawless, coming from great clarity of thinking, and in itself perfectly written. It's impressive how you are able to express these concepts. However, I don’t think this is the way to go with Bernardo. We have unambiguous confirmation of this in his response. You are smiling about that immediate response, but to me it's rather disappointing. I am afraid, comments like this risk solidifying Bernardo's aversion for what he calls "esoteric empty words".

What he would rather need, is something along the ground-breaking lines that Cleric is marking with his new essays - a different approach. Not different in ultimate substance, of course, but in form. Your approach is also ground-breaking, in a parallel clef. Nontheless, I believe that in our times the needed form to open the way to the inner path to minds like Bernardo's is free from the words of esotericism. An entirely phenomenological form is needed. In minds like BKs, this is what has the highest likelihood to elicit the inner shift that could lead them to the one needed epiphany.

Federica,

I think you are missing the central point here which is, in all likelihood, I was correct. Just look at his immediate response (within a few minutes). There is no attempt to even think through the comparison that was being made, simply because an "abstract esoteric word" was used. That was the beginning and end of contemplation for him. Everything about the 'alter' experience is flattened on the sensory screen, where 'physical laws' are practically sufficient to account for everything except the nebulous experience of consciousness. I remember hearing BK still holds out hope for abiogenesis by manipulating the physical laws.

Cleric's comment stimulated a line of reasoning that I hadn't thought of before, and since I was copying a lot of that comment, it didn't take much time either. I certainly didn't feel that mentioning the possibility of consciously communing with the dead would get him engaged or lead to any epiphanies. That is about as occult and esoteric as it gets. As we see, it is exactly the possibility of taking his speculative concepts more deeply and seriously that produces the most resistance.

Of course, Cleric's comment on the article is more on point and presents it in a way that is more resonant with BK's own language. Nevertheless, it is exactly the fact that things are being made more concrete and intimate that causes his reflexive urge to avoid it. BK is well aware of phenomenology as a philosophical method, but he chose to invest his life in analytic philosophy instead. He still has the rigid empirical-positivist mindset that only knowledge that is mediated by the senses can be pursued objectively and scientifically.

We don't lose anything by giving it a shot with these brief comments. We'll see if he responds any further. But I still have the feeling it is going nowhere, and the closer we get to phenomenology of spiritual activity, the more defense shields will be put up.

[Federica]

.
I have to admit it I still (still = despite the soul work I'm doing) feel a burning point of irritation seeing that, when I said the phantom world idea “opens a whole new area of intuition for BK, in terms of connection with the dead” and that if he does “A + B based on his own new speculations, one conclusion would be a possibility for living humans to commune with the dead”, you were like: nääääääääääääää, not promising at all, he is worsening his stance, ego-inflated, etcetera.
And, you changed your mind about commenting on his blog - it was actually not worth your time anymore. But "you may take a shot at it", Federica.

However, after Cleric later commented that what Bernardo calls phantom world is really the etheric death-spectrum, and at least his logic is correct, all of a sudden you're like: “He is already reaching some intuitions of the after-death etheric states through his own independent reasoning” (!!!) and you even changed your mind - again! - and finally did comment: “These are very interesting intuitions, Bernardo,...”

Anyway, as you said, the question is how to bring the deep meaning of his hypothesis to his attention. I see that your comment on his blog is flawless, coming from great clarity of thinking, and in itself perfectly written. It's impressive how you are able to express these concepts. However, I don’t think this is the way to go with Bernardo. We have unambiguous confirmation of this in his response. You are smiling about that immediate response, but to me it's rather disappointing. I am afraid, comments like this risk solidifying Bernardo's aversion for what he calls "esoteric empty words".

What he would rather need, is something along the ground-breaking lines that Cleric is marking with his new essays - a different approach. Not different in ultimate substance, of course, but in form. Your approach is also ground-breaking, in a parallel clef. Nontheless, I believe that in our times the needed form to open the way to the inner path to minds like Bernardo's is free from the words of esotericism. An entirely phenomenological form is needed. In minds like BKs, this is what has the highest likelihood to elicit the inner shift that could lead them to the one needed epiphany.

Federica,

I think you are missing the central point here which is, in all likelihood, I was correct. Just look at his immediate response (within a few minutes). There is no attempt to even think through the comparison that was being made, simply because an "abstract esoteric word" was used. That was the beginning and end of contemplation for him. Everything about the 'alter' experience is flattened on the sensory screen, where 'physical laws' are practically sufficient to account for everything except the nebulous experience of consciousness. I remember hearing BK still holds out hope for abiogenesis by manipulating the physical laws.

Cleric's comment stimulated a line of reasoning that I hadn't thought of before, and since I was copying a lot of that comment, it didn't take much time either. I certainly didn't feel that mentioning the possibility of consciously communing with the dead would get him engaged or lead to any epiphanies. That is about as occult and esoteric as it gets. As we see, it is exactly the possibility of taking his speculative concepts more deeply and seriously that produces the most resistance.

Of course, Cleric's comment on the article is more on point and presents it in a way that is more resonant with BK's own language. Nevertheless, it is exactly the fact that things are being made more concrete and intimate that causes his reflexive urge to avoid it. BK is well aware of phenomenology as a philosophical method, but he chose to invest his life in analytic philosophy instead. He still has the rigid empirical-positivist mindset that only knowledge that is mediated by the senses can be pursued objectively and scientifically.

We don't lose anything by giving it a shot with these brief comments. We'll see if he responds any further. But I still have the feeling it is going nowhere, and the closer we get to phenomenology of spiritual activity, the more defense shields will be put up.

Ashvin, please be careful.

I did NOT say that the way to go was to speak to BK about "communion with the dead". Not only my words above, but also, my own comment to BK are the indisputable proofs this is NOT what I recommended. Your statement therefore is at best, careless reading, and at worst, wish to be right, and defensiveness.

I said VERY CLEARLY that the way to go with Bernardo is Clerics way.

The fact that he reacted negatively and without the least understanding is NOT in anyway a proof you were correct. YOU are the one who were endeavoring to facilitate a different and new understanding for him, and it was UP TO YOU to make the meaning as accessible to his personality as possible. It's not a good idea to push his lack of understanding for the inner path, entirely on him. It's just as much OUR inability to pierce the boundary of understanding of an intelligent thinker.

And when I say OUR, I am talking about me and you. Cleric is NOT included here. His reply is not at all a "comment to the article", as you call it. He has sacrificed his comment to the article, preferring to come in the thread of YOUR comment instead, and try to repair the (fully foreseeable) effect of esoteric words on BKs current perspective.

[AshvinP]

.
I have to admit it I still (still = despite the soul work I'm doing) feel a burning point of irritation seeing that, when I said the phantom world idea “opens a whole new area of intuition for BK, in terms of connection with the dead” and that if he does “A + B based on his own new speculations, one conclusion would be a possibility for living humans to commune with the dead”, you were like: nääääääääääääää, not promising at all, he is worsening his stance, ego-inflated, etcetera.
And, you changed your mind about commenting on his blog - it was actually not worth your time anymore. But "you may take a shot at it", Federica.

However, after Cleric later commented that what Bernardo calls phantom world is really the etheric death-spectrum, and at least his logic is correct, all of a sudden you're like: “He is already reaching some intuitions of the after-death etheric states through his own independent reasoning” (!!!) and you even changed your mind - again! - and finally did comment: “These are very interesting intuitions, Bernardo,...”

Anyway, as you said, the question is how to bring the deep meaning of his hypothesis to his attention. I see that your comment on his blog is flawless, coming from great clarity of thinking, and in itself perfectly written. It's impressive how you are able to express these concepts. However, I don’t think this is the way to go with Bernardo. We have unambiguous confirmation of this in his response. You are smiling about that immediate response, but to me it's rather disappointing. I am afraid, comments like this risk solidifying Bernardo's aversion for what he calls "esoteric empty words".

What he would rather need, is something along the ground-breaking lines that Cleric is marking with his new essays - a different approach. Not different in ultimate substance, of course, but in form. Your approach is also ground-breaking, in a parallel clef. Nontheless, I believe that in our times the needed form to open the way to the inner path to minds like Bernardo's is free from the words of esotericism. An entirely phenomenological form is needed. In minds like BKs, this is what has the highest likelihood to elicit the inner shift that could lead them to the one needed epiphany.

Federica,

I think you are missing the central point here which is, in all likelihood, I was correct. Just look at his immediate response (within a few minutes). There is no attempt to even think through the comparison that was being made, simply because an "abstract esoteric word" was used. That was the beginning and end of contemplation for him. Everything about the 'alter' experience is flattened on the sensory screen, where 'physical laws' are practically sufficient to account for everything except the nebulous experience of consciousness. I remember hearing BK still holds out hope for abiogenesis by manipulating the physical laws.

Cleric's comment stimulated a line of reasoning that I hadn't thought of before, and since I was copying a lot of that comment, it didn't take much time either. I certainly didn't feel that mentioning the possibility of consciously communing with the dead would get him engaged or lead to any epiphanies. That is about as occult and esoteric as it gets. As we see, it is exactly the possibility of taking his speculative concepts more deeply and seriously that produces the most resistance.

Of course, Cleric's comment on the article is more on point and presents it in a way that is more resonant with BK's own language. Nevertheless, it is exactly the fact that things are being made more concrete and intimate that causes his reflexive urge to avoid it. BK is well aware of phenomenology as a philosophical method, but he chose to invest his life in analytic philosophy instead. He still has the rigid empirical-positivist mindset that only knowledge that is mediated by the senses can be pursued objectively and scientifically.

We don't lose anything by giving it a shot with these brief comments. We'll see if he responds any further. But I still have the feeling it is going nowhere, and the closer we get to phenomenology of spiritual activity, the more defense shields will be put up.

Ashvin, please be careful.

I did NOT say that the way to go was to speak to BK about "communion with the dead". Not only my words above, but also, my own comment to BK are the indisputable proofs this is NOT what I recommended. Your statement therefore is at best, careless reading, and at worst, wish to be right, and defensiveness.

I said VERY CLEARLY that the way to go with Bernardo is Clerics way.

The fact that he reacted negatively and without the least understanding is NOT in anyway a proof you were correct. YOU are the one who were endeavoring to facilitate a different and new understanding for him, and it was UP TO YOU to make the meaning as accessible to his personality as possible. It's not a good idea to push his lack of understanding for the inner path, entirely on him. It's just as much OUR inability to pierce the boundary of understanding of an intelligent thinker.

And when I say OUR, I am talking about me and you. Cleric is NOT included here. His reply is not at all a "comment to the article", as you call it. He has sacrificed his comment to the article, preferring to come in the thread of your comment instead, and try to undo the (fully foreseeable) effect of esoteric words on BKs current perspective.

You are misreading my comment - I said the 'communion with the dead' comparison didn't seem a promising path of engagement, which is why I said (in your words) - "nääääääääääääää, not promising at all, he is worsening his stance, ego-inflated, etcetera." I didn't say anything about you suggesting that was the 'way to go' with BK - you simply read that into my comment through the prism of antipathy.

I hope you at least see how the etheric death spectrum comparison is much different than communion with the dead based on there only being one 'dissociative boundary' instead of two. It's a completely different thing.

I'm sorry, Federica, I'm not going down this rabbit hole of your personal antipathies anymore. The result is entirely predictable from past experience and it will have nothing to do with calmly discussing the important spiritual ideas.

As long as you are still doing the soul work, there is no need to address it further. I think you will make a huge step in this soul work if, the next time you feel so irritated by something I do in the comments, you resist the urge to condense it into a post on the forum. That is the soul work which makes a difference. I know the potent effectiveness of this strategy entirely from experience.

[Federica]

Federica,

I think you are missing the central point here which is, in all likelihood, I was correct. Just look at his immediate response (within a few minutes). There is no attempt to even think through the comparison that was being made, simply because an "abstract esoteric word" was used. That was the beginning and end of contemplation for him. Everything about the 'alter' experience is flattened on the sensory screen, where 'physical laws' are practically sufficient to account for everything except the nebulous experience of consciousness. I remember hearing BK still holds out hope for abiogenesis by manipulating the physical laws.

Cleric's comment stimulated a line of reasoning that I hadn't thought of before, and since I was copying a lot of that comment, it didn't take much time either. I certainly didn't feel that mentioning the possibility of consciously communing with the dead would get him engaged or lead to any epiphanies. That is about as occult and esoteric as it gets. As we see, it is exactly the possibility of taking his speculative concepts more deeply and seriously that produces the most resistance.

Of course, Cleric's comment on the article is more on point and presents it in a way that is more resonant with BK's own language. Nevertheless, it is exactly the fact that things are being made more concrete and intimate that causes his reflexive urge to avoid it. BK is well aware of phenomenology as a philosophical method, but he chose to invest his life in analytic philosophy instead. He still has the rigid empirical-positivist mindset that only knowledge that is mediated by the senses can be pursued objectively and scientifically.

We don't lose anything by giving it a shot with these brief comments. We'll see if he responds any further. But I still have the feeling it is going nowhere, and the closer we get to phenomenology of spiritual activity, the more defense shields will be put up.

Ashvin, please be careful.

I did NOT say that the way to go was to speak to BK about "communion with the dead". Not only my words above, but also, my own comment to BK are the indisputable proofs this is NOT what I recommended. Your statement therefore is at best, careless reading, and at worst, wish to be right, and defensiveness.

I said VERY CLEARLY that the way to go with Bernardo is Clerics way.

The fact that he reacted negatively and without the least understanding is NOT in anyway a proof you were correct. YOU are the one who were endeavoring to facilitate a different and new understanding for him, and it was UP TO YOU to make the meaning as accessible to his personality as possible. It's not a good idea to push his lack of understanding for the inner path, entirely on him. It's just as much OUR inability to pierce the boundary of understanding of an intelligent thinker.

And when I say OUR, I am talking about me and you. Cleric is NOT included here. His reply is not at all a "comment to the article", as you call it. He has sacrificed his comment to the article, preferring to come in the thread of your comment instead, and try to undo the (fully foreseeable) effect of esoteric words on BKs current perspective.

You are misreading my comment - I said the 'communion with the dead' comparison didn't seem a promising path of engagement, which is why I said (in your words) - "nääääääääääääää, not promising at all, he is worsening his stance, ego-inflated, etcetera." I didn't say anything about you suggesting that was the 'way to go' with BK - you simply read that into my comment through the prism of antipathy.

I hope you at least see how the etheric death spectrum comparison is much different than communion with the dead based on there only being one 'dissociative boundary' instead of two. It's a completely different thing.

I'm sorry, Federica, I'm not going down this rabbit hole of your personal antipathies anymore. The result is entirely predictable from past experience and it will have nothing to do with calmly discussing the important spiritual ideas.

As long as you are still doing the soul work, there is no need to address it further. I think you will make a huge step in this soul work if, the next time you feel so irritated by something I do in the comments, you resist the urge to condense it into a post on the forum. That is the soul work which makes a difference. I know the potent effectiveness of this strategy entirely from experience.

Right, I may have misinterpreted that particular point - sorry about that. But this does not change the objective situation as it appears from the posts and the blog comments. Of course my irritation is real, but also anecdotal. What's way more important is that you don't accept even the possibility that your esoteric comment might be part of the reason why BK has reacted as he did, and his intellectual stance, ego inflation, etc are not the only reasons. For my part, I have surely much more soul work to do, but I definitely don't see that you have completed yours. You have to control your patronizing instinct.

And by the way, of course Owen Barfield still thinks. He does it through us, who think his ideas, read his books, and have new intiatives about them, making them into new ideas and new books, new deeds.