Essay: Retracing Spiritual Activity (Part V)

[AshvinP]

I wanted to add, on this image of 'convolutions', we could make a comparison with the major 'lobes' of the brain with their convolutions, which I briefly referenced in the essay. The functions of these may not be exact correspondences with the 'rungs' or aeons, but nevertheless, I think it gives a helpful visual image of how layers of spiritual activity gets enfolded one within the other and, by the fourth rung, these layers are all merged and flattened together in complicated ways. (it is the same principle as elucidated with the cake metaphor that you referenced from Segall recently or the sock metaphor used by Cleric).





On the 'carrier wave' idea, we can think about the physical, biological, and emotional spaces the spirit instinctively develops through before fully awakening to itself as a thinking agency, clearly experiencing itself in the reflection of thoughts. These spaces are reflections of the spiritual rungs, impressed by higher-order spiritual activity (intuition, inspiration, imagination). It is pretty clear how these spaces serve as the overarching context in which our daily thoughts unfold. The capacity to reflect thoughts and the sort of thoughts we can reflect are entirely dependent on the healthy structure of the brain. Disturbances in the life processes can greatly influence the harmony of soul life. If we are swamped in negative emotions, our thoughts will keep iterating over those. It is in that sense the previous rungs which are convoluted or enfolded serve as the carrier waves for the next ones, and they all now form the carrier context for our conceptual activity within the fourth rung.

Thanks, Ashvin, for this and the previous additions. I guess there's not much more you can do to make it even clearer, now it's up to me to keep working with these ideas. About the brain lobes mentioned in the essay, I actually had a 'critical' comment that I finally didn't include in my post, since I haven't clarified my thoughts well enough to support what I tentatively mean. But basically I believe the brain lobes are not four - other than in rather arbitrary anatomical classifications (yes I know the functions differ to some extent but...) and I also doubt about the metaphorical power of the brain convolutions to reflect the four planetary incarnations or convolutions. At this point I feel more like they reflect the level of extreme complication of our flow of becoming.

I would say the bold is exactly a reflection of the 4 interwoven planetary incarnations (recapitulated on Earth). If we use the triple pendulum image, consider how the 3rd rung of oscillations only gets so complicated because the previous 2 rungs of movements are 'convoluted' within the 3rd. If nothing else, I think that's the key factor to keep in mind from all this discussion - that our current experience of objective consciousness within the 4th aeon is a merged-together image of all the previous aeons and their higher-order spiritual activity. We can always find something of the latter structuring our body-soul-spirit experience by retracing the phenomenal processes with our living thinking.

Many facts of spiritual science are elucidated by this principle. For example, the fact that the physical body of a human perspective is quite unique from the physical body of animals, plants, and rocks. Or why we experience particular rhythms of discontinuity of consciousness. Or why our normal thinking-thoughts embed the activity of the spiritual Cosmos. Etc. So if we keep this reality in sight as much as possible, many results from spiritual scientific research will also take on meaning for us in a more experiential way. The physical brain and body as a whole is an objectified image of the spiritual Cosmic depth. Many different metaphors, like the IK metaphor, or this one based on the Fourier transform, are pointing to this same reality of the interwoven convolutions and their mutual modulations. Relating it back to the brain image, we could focus less on the physical image and more on the functions of the lobes and how they all modulate one another in very complicated ways.

However, as I said, I don't take these as conclusive thoughts. It's only a gross approaching thought to an area of inquiry that, I'm sure, can be experienced in infinitely bigger depth. Another initial thought that perhaps is an alternative entry point to make sense of the brain is the slight disgust (I don't know if it's only me) that is felt for these brain convolutions - that actually look similar to the convolutions in the bowels - a discomfort that we don't have for the central organs of the body: the heart, the lungs, the stomach, from which the moving and acting power of the limbs is felt to take its origin, also. There's a feeling of bigger proximity, I would say, to the region of the heart - and to the face, which expresses these core organs. But the brain is more like we know it must be there, but don't want to have too intimate of an experience of its inside. It's too strange
Anyway, I'm digressing. Next thing I'll do is to go back to the last posts from Cleric.

I'm not sure why that would be the 'point of entry to make sense of the brain', but OK. If you mean we can take that initial feeling of disgust and desire to avoid intimacy to do exactly the opposite, to become more intimate, then that makes sense. We should remember the spiritual retracing begins precisely from the head-region where the brain is located. From where we are starting, if we are out of the blind spot, thinking activity should be felt as the most intimate moving and acting power of not only our thoughts, but also our body. We don't voluntarily do anything until we have the idea to do it (even if most of these ideas have become routinized).

[Federica]

I wanted to add, on this image of 'convolutions', we could make a comparison with the major 'lobes' of the brain with their convolutions, which I briefly referenced in the essay. The functions of these may not be exact correspondences with the 'rungs' or aeons, but nevertheless, I think it gives a helpful visual image of how layers of spiritual activity gets enfolded one within the other and, by the fourth rung, these layers are all merged and flattened together in complicated ways. (it is the same principle as elucidated with the cake metaphor that you referenced from Segall recently or the sock metaphor used by Cleric).

...
However, as I said, I don't take these as conclusive thoughts. It's only a gross approaching thought to an area of inquiry that, I'm sure, can be experienced in infinitely bigger depth. Another initial thought that perhaps is an alternative entry point to make sense of the brain is the slight disgust (I don't know if it's only me) that is felt for these brain convolutions - that actually look similar to the convolutions in the bowels - a discomfort that we don't have for the central organs of the body: the heart, the lungs, the stomach, from which the moving and acting power of the limbs is felt to take its origin, also. There's a feeling of bigger proximity, I would say, to the region of the heart - and to the face, which expresses these core organs. But the brain is more like we know it must be there, but don't want to have too intimate of an experience of its inside. It's too strange
Anyway, I'm digressing. Next thing I'll do is to go back to the last posts from Cleric.

...
I'm not sure why that would be the 'point of entry to make sense of the brain', but OK. If you mean we can take that initial feeling of disgust and desire to avoid intimacy to do exactly the opposite, to become more intimate, then that makes sense. We should remember the spiritual retracing begins precisely from the head-region where the brain is located. From where we are starting, if we are out of the blind spot, thinking activity should be felt as the most intimate moving and acting power of not only our thoughts, but also our body. We don't voluntarily do anything until we have the idea to do it (even if most of these ideas have become routinized).

ooooh I suspected this would come
The third eye is in "the head region" but not in the convolutions of the brain.

[Federica]

Thanks, Ashvin, for this and the previous additions. I guess there's not much more you can do to make it even clearer, now it's up to me to keep working with these ideas. About the brain lobes mentioned in the essay, I actually had a 'critical' comment that I finally didn't include in my post, since I haven't clarified my thoughts well enough to support what I tentatively mean. But basically I believe the brain lobes are not four - other than in rather arbitrary anatomical classifications (yes I know the functions differ to some extent but...) and I also doubt about the metaphorical power of the brain convolutions to reflect the four planetary incarnations or convolutions. At this point I feel more like they reflect the level of extreme complication of our flow of becoming.

I would say the bold is exactly a reflection of the 4 interwoven planetary incarnations (recapitulated on Earth). If we use the triple pendulum image, consider how the 3rd rung of oscillations only gets so complicated because the previous 2 rungs of movements are 'convoluted' within the 3rd. If nothing else, I think that's the key factor to keep in mind from all this discussion - that our current experience of objective consciousness within the 4th aeon is a merged-together image of all the previous aeons and their higher-order spiritual activity. We can always find something of the latter structuring our body-soul-spirit experience by retracing the phenomenal processes with our living thinking.

Many facts of spiritual science are elucidated by this principle. For example, the fact that the physical body of a human perspective is quite unique from the physical body of animals, plants, and rocks. Or why we experience particular rhythms of discontinuity of consciousness. Or why our normal thinking-thoughts embed the activity of the spiritual Cosmos. Etc. So if we keep this reality in sight as much as possible, many results from spiritual scientific research will also take on meaning for us in a more experiential way. The physical brain and body as a whole is an objectified image of the spiritual Cosmic depth. Many different metaphors, like the IK metaphor, or this one based on the Fourier transform, are pointing to this same reality of the interwoven convolutions and their mutual modulations. Relating it back to the brain image, we could focus less on the physical image and more on the functions of the lobes and how they all modulate one another in very complicated ways.

Yes, this is clear. Incidentally, I wonder if this is not somewhat deviating from the way you referred to the convolutions in the physical brain in the essay. In any case, I do remember the IK metaphor, the Fourier transform metaphor well, they are (especially the latter) my go-to conceptual support for picturing the fundamental nature of thinking in the Earthly sphere. It's just the word "convolution" that I need to get used to as a summary of these metaphors, or the triple pendulum's.

[AshvinP]

ooooh I suspected this would come
The third eye is in "the head region" but not in the convolutions of the brain.

There is actually a connection here with the pineal gland. The only point here is that we will struggle to understand these facts of spiritual research if we prematurely decide the brain must be mostly unrelated to the spiritual convolutions, or is an area of the body we need to avoid intimacy with for some reason. All of these physical phenomena and their functions (not necessarily their physical shapes and quantitative properties, although even those will find their place) should be retraced to higher-order spiritual activity that has folded in on itself and been objectified through the convolutions. Everything should stand as a part of an open-ended riddle that will find its place in the holistic spiritual tapestry through our living thinking.

What is the dream? It is an activity which has survived from prehistoric times. To understand it by analogy, let us consider certain phenomena which do not any longer belong, properly speaking, to physical life—organs which have now become useless, rudimentary organisms of which the naturalist can make nothing. Such are the motor organs of the ear and eye which function no longer, the appendix and,—notably, the pineal gland in the brain which has the form of a tiny pine cone. Naturalists explain it as a product of degeneration, as a parasitic growth in the brain. This is not correct. In the lasting creations of Nature, nothing is without its use. The pineal gland is the surviving remnant of an organ of great significance in primitive man, an organ of perception which served simultaneously as antenna, eye and ear. This organ existed in man during his rudimentary period of development, in days when the semi-fluid, semi-vaporous Earth was still united with the Moon. Man moved through the semi-fluid, semi-gaseous element like a fish, guiding his way by means of this organ. His perceptions were of a visionary, allegoric nature. Currents of warmth evoked in him the impression of dazzling red and of powerful sound. Currents of cold evoked the impression of shades of green and blue, silvery, rippling sounds.

The rôle played by the pineal gland was thus of great significance. But with the mineralisation of the Earth, other organs of sense made their appearance, and with us the pineal gland has no apparent purpose.
...
The pineal gland has a certain physiological relation with the lymphatic system. In olden times this gland was the organ of perception of the outer world and it is still to be seen near the top of the head of newly-born babes where the soft matter recalls the nature of man's body in olden times.

In our life of intellect, the dream plays a rôle similar to that of the pineal gland in the physiology of the human body.

[Federica]

if we prematurely decide the brain must be

Ashvin, I thought I'd been especially explicit about that: I do the opposite of prematurely deciding.
I know well there is inevitably a connection, etc. etc. I wonder, what makes you lean towards such interpretations? (I've seen this before)

[AshvinP]

if we prematurely decide the brain must be

Ashvin, I thought I'd been especially explicit about that: I do the opposite of prematurely deciding.
I know well there is inevitably a connection, etc. etc. I wonder, what makes you lean towards such interpretations? (I've seen this before)

Because despite the standard disclaimers, you keep making those sorts of comments. I have to assume you are making them for some reason, not just as random thoughts that are popping into your head for no reason and which you decide to publish.

The only other [subconscious] reason I can surmise for doing so is because you suspect you can push my buttons with your phraseology and lure out some kind of argument like we seem to be entering now

But instead of that, maybe you can just clarify what was meant with - "Another initial thought that perhaps is an alternative entry point to make sense of the brain is the slight disgust..." How is this helping us make sense of the brain?

[Federica]

if we prematurely decide the brain must be

Ashvin, I thought I'd been especially explicit about that: I do the opposite of prematurely deciding.
I know well there is inevitably a connection, etc. etc. I wonder, what makes you lean towards such interpretations? (I've seen this before)

Because despite the standard disclaimers, you keep making those sorts of comments. I have to assume you are making them for some reason, not just as random thoughts that are popping into your head for no reason and which you decide to publish.

The only other [subconscious] reason I can surmise for doing so is because you suspect you can push my buttons with your phraseology and lure out some kind of argument like we seem to be entering now

But instead of that, maybe you can just clarify what was meant with - "Another initial thought that perhaps is an alternative entry point to make sense of the brain is the slight disgust..." How is this helping us make sense of the brain?

It seem necessary to make it pedantically precise. In my initial post, I prefaced the thoughts about the brain like so:


"I haven't clarified my thoughts well enough to support what I tentatively mean"
and:
"At this point I feel more like ... However, as I said, I don't take these as conclusive thoughts. It's only a gross approaching thought"


Nevertheless, for some reason that you have not clarified, you feel you can characterize what I wrote with:

if we prematurely decide the brain must be

Am I authorized to still be wondering why? Without being attributed unconscious motives?

To clarify what I was trying to reason out speaking of the brain - please don't omit to notice the "perhaps" in the sentence, as well as the bolded texts which just preceded that thought, in the post: I mean that I utilize, or at least ponder, all the cues that come from an attempt to experience things in first-person - in this case, the brain - rather than only from looking at a colorful diagram of it. And from this diligent introspection, some images have come to mind, some feelings, and similarities, and so on. It's the same process that led me to the reflections about gravity, to the various comments to your essays, to the sci-fi picture of abandoned ghost town, etcetera, etcetera.

As for your potential subconscious reason, it is equally imaginable to apply it to you, when you send such replies that simply skip the question (in blue).

[AshvinP]

It seem necessary to make it pedantically precise. In my initial post, I prefaced the thoughts about the brain like so:


"I haven't clarified my thoughts well enough to support what I tentatively mean"
and:
"At this point I feel more like ... However, as I said, I don't take these as conclusive thoughts. It's only a gross approaching thought"


Nevertheless, for some reason that you have not clarified, you feel you can characterize what I wrote with:

if we prematurely decide the brain must be

Am I authorized to still be wondering why? without being attributed unconscious motives?

To clarify what I was trying to reason out speaking of the brain - please don't omit to notice the "perhaps" in the sentence, as well as the bolded texts which just preceded that thought, in the post: I mean that I utilize, or at least ponder, all the cues that come from an attempt to experience things in first-person - in this case, the brain - rather than only from looking at a colorful diagram of it. And from this diligent introspection, some images have come to mind, some feelings, and similarities, ect. It's the same process that's led me to the reflections about gravity, to the various comments to your essays, to the sci-fi picture of abandoned ghost town, etcetera, etcetera.

As for your potential subconscious reason, it is equally imaginable to apply it to you, when you send such replies that simply skip the question.

Alright, thanks for elaborating.

Everything you wrote in the ghost town post, for example, is accurate and follows the threads of the convolutions closely, but just as we discussed on the Occult Science thread, it can become too rigid or formulaic if we don't also allow our thinking activity to fluidly explore the future potential it is retracing into. I think that will naturally cause a disconnect when it comes to the first-person spiritual nature of the convolutions, which is exactly what we are retracing into. Although we speak about the instinctive human perspective going through Saturn, Sun, and Moon, there actually is no such perspective that can be experienced. It is kind of a 'likely story' that we must use to make sense of our current perspective, surrounded by the complex perceptual environment and its kingdoms, but the only way we can experience that story is through fully conscious spiritual activity. In that sense, Jupiter, Venus, and Vulcan are the realities of this story that we can experience now to some extent through retracing via Imagination, Inspiration, and Intuition.

I mention that because if the spiritual nature of the previous convolutions seems abstract, it may be because we are thinking of them too much in terms of the functions they served in our instinctive development, which can never be experienced, instead of the functions they will serve in our future development, which is the only reality that can be lucidly experienced. For example, I sensed that you were placing too much emphasis on the perceptual landscape as a 'wasteland', rather than what Cleric pointed to:

I remember how some years ago I couldn't really understand why Steiner often says that in our thoughts we are dying.

I was thinking about commenting on this before but it didn't seem particularly important at the time. Yes, the perceptual landscape (including our bodies, brains, etc.) has become a wasteland through our dead thoughts. It was much less of a wasteland in ancient epochs when thinking was more alive (yet imposed on souls as an instinctive force). Hence there was much greater veneration for the physical body. It will again be much less of a wasteland in the epochs to come, for those who continue actively working with the intentional ideal streamlines of evolution. What makes this transition from wasteland to not wasteland possible? It can only be the exceptional point that is now found at the tip of thinking which is felt to be located in the head region. If we don't want to identify this tip with the brain in any way, that is fine for now, but nevertheless, there is a very important connection (which we also explored in the right-left brain thread).

Now I am perfectly willing to consider the possibility that all of the above is not quite applicable to your situation and the reason for the difficulties with the inner nature of the convolutions resides somewhere else. Like you, I am just expressing the preliminary results of my considered contemplation of your comments and questions. I think this brings us back to Cleric's last post to you which discussed precisely this inner nature of the convolutions.

Man's existence is folded in three more convolutions in relation to that pure Cosmic Time-existence. Now this 'snowman' process is reflected several times and is nested in one another. The most proximate to our lucid consciousness is that of our thinking. In its essence, our thoughts appear as snowmen. As a matter of fact, we gain intuition of the Saturn stage precisely when we are able to purify this fact and experience the thought process in this way.

The way I see it, as long as we feel a need to maintain some distance between our thinking and the 'wasteland' of the perceptual spectrum, it will be difficult to orient toward how the higher stages project into our current thinking process. It is not a 'need' that is very explicit in our consciousness, of course, but can express itself in all kinds of varied thoughts. Again, if my assessment is off on this issue, then it's no big deal and perhaps someone else can benefit from the discussion. It shouldn't be taken as some personal accusation that I am trying to impose solely on you, as if you are the only person who 'prematurely decides' anything. Anthony prematurely decided Cleric and I are the same person (or at least 30% so) just yesterday But I hope it's clear why thinking through these types of issues are valuable even if we don't see how it immediately applies to us.

With that said, in addition to any other response, I am interested to hear how you understood Cleric's post quoted above or whether there was anything unclear.

[Federica]

It seem necessary to make it pedantically precise. In my initial post, I prefaced the thoughts about the brain like so:


"I haven't clarified my thoughts well enough to support what I tentatively mean"
and:
"At this point I feel more like ... However, as I said, I don't take these as conclusive thoughts. It's only a gross approaching thought"


Nevertheless, for some reason that you have not clarified, you feel you can characterize what I wrote with:

if we prematurely decide the brain must be

Am I authorized to still be wondering why? without being attributed unconscious motives?

To clarify what I was trying to reason out speaking of the brain - please don't omit to notice the "perhaps" in the sentence, as well as the bolded texts which just preceded that thought, in the post: I mean that I utilize, or at least ponder, all the cues that come from an attempt to experience things in first-person - in this case, the brain - rather than only from looking at a colorful diagram of it. And from this diligent introspection, some images have come to mind, some feelings, and similarities, ect. It's the same process that's led me to the reflections about gravity, to the various comments to your essays, to the sci-fi picture of abandoned ghost town, etcetera, etcetera.

As for your potential subconscious reason, it is equally imaginable to apply it to you, when you send such replies that simply skip the question.

Alright, thanks for elaborating.

Everything you wrote in the ghost town post, for example, is accurate and follows the threads of the convolutions closely, but just as we discussed on the Occult Science thread, it can become too rigid or formulaic if we don't also allow our thinking activity to fluidly explore the future potential it is retracing into. I think that will naturally cause a disconnect when it comes to the first-person spiritual nature of the convolutions, which is exactly what we are retracing into. Although we speak about the instinctive human perspective going through Saturn, Sun, and Moon, there actually is no such perspective that can be experienced. It is kind of a 'likely story' that we must use to make sense of our current perspective, surrounded by the complex perceptual environment and its kingdoms, but the only way we can experience that story is through fully conscious spiritual activity. In that sense, Jupiter, Venus, and Vulcan are the realities of this story that we can experience now to some extent through retracing via Imagination, Inspiration, and Intuition.

I mention that because if the spiritual nature of the previous convolutions seems abstract, it may be because we are thinking of them too much in terms of the functions they served in our instinctive development, which can never be experienced, instead of the functions they will serve in our future development, which is the only reality that can be lucidly experienced. For example, I sensed that you were placing too much emphasis on the perceptual landscape as a 'wasteland', rather than what Cleric pointed to:

I remember how some years ago I couldn't really understand why Steiner often says that in our thoughts we are dying.

I was thinking about commenting on this before but it didn't seem particularly important at the time. Yes, the perceptual landscape (including our bodies, brains, etc.) has become a wasteland through our dead thoughts. It was much less of a wasteland in ancient epochs when thinking was more alive (yet imposed on souls as an instinctive force). Hence there was much greater veneration for the physical body. It will again be much less of a wasteland in the epochs to come, for those who continue actively working with the intentional ideal streamlines of evolution. What makes this transition from wasteland to not wasteland possible? It can only be the exceptional point that is now found at the tip of thinking which is felt to be located in the head region. If we don't want to identify this tip with the brain in any way, that is fine for now, but nevertheless, there is a very important connection (which we also explored in the right-left brain thread).

Now I am perfectly willing to consider the possibility that all of the above is not quite applicable to your situation and the reason for the difficulties with the inner nature of the convolutions resides somewhere else. Like you, I am just expressing the preliminary results of my considered contemplation of your comments and questions. I think this brings us back to Cleric's last post to you which discussed precisely this inner nature of the convolutions.

Man's existence is folded in three more convolutions in relation to that pure Cosmic Time-existence. Now this 'snowman' process is reflected several times and is nested in one another. The most proximate to our lucid consciousness is that of our thinking. In its essence, our thoughts appear as snowmen. As a matter of fact, we gain intuition of the Saturn stage precisely when we are able to purify this fact and experience the thought process in this way.

The way I see it, as long as we feel a need to maintain some distance between our thinking and the 'wasteland' of the perceptual spectrum, it will be difficult to orient toward how the higher stages project into our current thinking process. It is not a 'need' that is very explicit in our consciousness, of course, but can express itself in all kinds of varied thoughts. Again, if my assessment is off on this issue, then it's no big deal and perhaps someone else can benefit from the discussion. It shouldn't be taken as some personal accusation that I am trying to impose solely on you, as if you are the only person who 'prematurely decides' anything. Anthony prematurely decided Cleric and I are the same person (or at least 30% so) just yesterday But I hope it's clear why thinking through these types of issues are valuable even if we don't see how it immediately applies to us.

With that said, in addition to any other response, I am interested to hear how you understood Cleric's post quoted above or whether there was anything unclear.

Thanks Ashvin. Absolutely, there's no need to make any big deal, and thinking through possibilities as you describe can definitely be of value for all of us reading here.

Briefly about "the wasteland of peception": I was pretty sure you wouldn't like the word "wasteland", just like last year you didn't like the word "by-product". But I like them I hear them as good conceptual wraps. And for me, Cleric's reference to be dying in our thoughts expresses the same idea as the wasteland, or the mirror fragments (the very first metaphor I read here about the nature of our thoughts). My understanding is that Cleric mentioned that as a confirmation, not to pinpoint anything excessive in the "wasteland", or to redirect what I was thinking.

The way I see it, as long as we feel a need to maintain some distance between our thinking and the 'wasteland' of the perceptual spectrum, it will be difficult to...

I believe I have already made it clear - that I don't attempt to maintain distance:

From another side, gravity as an outward force is also an energy of love. We are given a chance to harmonize our flow with the Earth’s life body, and to thrive in that alignment - a language through which we can connect with each other too, down to our physical interactions. All gestures of bodily movement, and those of creating, bearing, carrying, giving, taking, are all structured by gravity. And the inner gravity that drags the weavy field of ideal potential down into fixed configurations of thoughts is also a loving force, because it provides us with the favorable context in which the retracing work can begin, back towards the waves of living potential. So in this sense, the wasteland of perception, the sequence of perceived frames that make up our flow of becoming, which we have called “dead”, can be resurrected. The collapsed wasteland, pinned down by gravity, is also the solid foundation on which we can stand and educate ourselves on how to initiate the way back.

in addition to any other response, I am interested to hear how you understood Cleric's post quoted above or whether there was anything unclear

Yeah, coming to it
I am writing a comment on that post. As I've said this morning:

Next thing I'll do is to go back to the last posts from Cleric.

[Cleric]

With that said, I spent some time last Saturday pondering one of Cleric's latest posts at:
viewtopic.php?p=24783#p24783
and a few lights turned on in me where I finally grokked what is being talking about regarding concentration, hysteresis, the immediacy of thinking, and freedom. That has propelled my meditation over the last few nights and I feel like I now have a keener sense of what I'm trying to achieve. As I generate various mental images, I have a greater awareness of how I'm losing control of their form and how I have to strengthen my thinking to maintain synchronization between gesture and form. The feedback I get from the "distorted images" is guiding me in powerful ways.

This has flowed through to better understanding much of what is being spoken of here. I read through your latest essay and I broadly understood what was being spoken of. I have to admit that I found some sections of your previous essays impenetrable. I must go back and have another read now.

That's good to hear, Anthony. As simple as it is, the "man on the couch" metaphor points very precisely at this central experience:

Imagine a person sitting on a couch in a dark room and holding a tablet. He sees only the screen and instinctively touches it, navigating through apps, the internet, etc. The person says: "These movements on the screen just appear. There's no force that I can know, which is responsible for them." The man on the couch is our spirit which is completely unconscious of itself. He only observes the movements on the screen and half-consciously slides his finger around. When asked, he types in the chat with his fingers (which he doesn't see) "The words just appear, there's no one typing them". Yes, we can never see the hands typing but we can experience the will which is reflected in the appearing symbols on the screen. That's why I said that the agent can only be known from within. When the man begins to pay attention to his willing he gradually discovers a whole new volume of inner movements orthogonal to the screen. The man comes to know himself through the inner experience of the degrees of freedom of his will, just as a blind man can know his body and its degrees of freedom from within, even though he doesn't see it.

The trouble is that people simple don't take it seriously. They don't even remotely conceive that this might apply to them. Instead, they simply swipe through the words on the screen and read out "That's nonsense". The finger remains unknown and the movie flow continues through its groove of necessity.



However, the whole secret lies in this ability to concentrate the thought ripples and gradually gain consciousness of our inner gestures. It is from this point of contact between the screen and our spiritual 'finger' that reality grows (or alternatively, around this point reality musically integrates).





It is at this point of contact, as we touch the inner mirror, that the dream contents and the intuitive force steering the dream, begin to unite.