The purpose after full comprehension of itself?

[Eugene I]

The second stage concerns direct experience. It is directly related to the first. The more we come to terms with our thinking, the more we see clearly. When we unlearn this parasitic habit of fantasizing how things are produced from one another, we no longer fall in for the hard traps. It's very simple - don't fantasize that which you can never observe.

+1

[SanteriSatama]

1. We must first realize something that is specific to thinking. That is that we can never produce concepts through combination of other concepts. Let's take the simplest example. The concepts of 'one' and 'two'. We are so used to think about 1 + 1 = 2 that we very easily mistake that if we think of two 'one' concepts together this somehow produces the concept of two. But this is not the case. Every concept is discovered independently. For example, let's imagine that we have no concepts of any numbers. We look at an apple and experience the concept of apple. Then someone adds one more next to it. Now we look at the one, look at the other, but we need a jump of insight to discover the concept of 'twofoldness'. Then we can experience this idea in relation to all things that come in pairs - two arms, two legs, etc. We should really appreciate the fact that there's an insight. If we are not very bright we might be looking at the apples separately or together but we might never come to the idea of twofoldness. We may never conceive that there's something in common between two apples and two hands. The concept of 'two' does not consist of two concepts of 'one', neither of the concept of 'three' from which we subtract the concept of 'one'.

(...)

Interestingly, mathematics in itself in no way 'claims' that numbers or whatever mathematical objects are 'produced' from one another. We only explore their relations. The idea of causality does not exist there. Does the left side of the equation cause the right or vice versa?

Thanks for the pass, I'll do my best to keep the ball going towards the goal and try not to stumble too badly.

Linguistic and semantic archeology of the phenomenon of quantification is not easy, but I think we can strongly suggest some generalizations. The attribute like ordinality seems deeper and more general than the noun like cardinality. The roots of smallest ordinals are often different from their corresponding cardinals. In English 'first' instead of 'oneth'. Latin 'second' instead of 'twoth' is very curious and could be used as counter evidence of this generalization.

Also in Finnish 1st and 2nd are different roots from the cardinals, ensimmäinen vs. yksi; toinen vs. kaksi.. A modern etymological hypothesis constructs ancient pronoun morphems denoting 'this' and 'that' as deep structure for Finnish 1st and 2nd. Ancient adjective 'enä' meaning big/much is phonetically close to 'ensi', suggesting possibility of some sort of processes of analogy having been involved. Word for more, 'enemmän', comes from that root.

Even though the linguistic analysis is very tentative and superficial, it already reveals my main argument. Conceptually and phenomenologically, the more-less relation is necessary precondition for both ordinals and cardinals.

Nominal concepts are secondary to verbs and attributes, and don't exist in independent isolation from more primary linguistic strata. Piraha has concept relation little and much, possibly also less and more (but not quite sure), but any case they seem to actively resist learning and adopting discrete quantification, even though they are aware that this is a handicap when they trade with Portuguese speakers. If they think and feel that is a small loss compared to becoming possessed by God of Number theory, they may well be right to refuse to eat that fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.

Greek mathematics was much more about measuring and correlating areas and lengths against each other than arithmetic and algebra of discrete numbers. Mathematics started to focus more on relations of cardinal numbers only after introduction of positional Hindu-Arabic number system and Cartesian co-ordinate system. In Pythagorean and Neo-Platonic philosophies cardinal numbers had mainly numerological metaphysical and spiritual meanings.

Nominal concepts don't emerge independently from vacuum. They evolve as results of complex semantic processes.

The case of palindromic symmetries is very deep and interesting. Old way of reading and writing was Boustrofedon, left-to-right and right-to-left in turns, direction changing at each row. Name of the writing-reading style comes from the concrete metaphor of ox and plough, the order familiar from permanent field cultivation leaving its mark in the soil.

As with pro-nouns this and that, first and second, me and other, a string or relation that remains same regardless if we read from left to right or right to left, causal relation is not excluded from palindromes. The causal relation of co-dependence; as Buddha responded to the question about cause and effect: If this arises, that arises, if this ceases, that ceases.

The nominal concept of 'set', as common to all cardinalities, can be useful in the finite domain. It fails in the domains of unbounded and transfinite, which characterize processes, it's purely static and can't handle process, verbs and attributes. Nominal concepts are just short hand referrals to deep and complex processes, they have no independent existence and meaning.

If the above was properly understood there would never be any hard problems in philosophy and science. Why are there hard problems? Because people have no sense that they fantasize how they combine concepts and produce other concepts.

Exactly. Atoms don't combine to form concepts, attributes, verbs, experiences. It works the other way around.

A caveat: Ancient atomism was radically different from atomism of reductionist-mechanistic scientism. In scientism every atom (the philosphical concept of identical building blocks) is identical exact same. In ancient atomism each atom could be unique in form, like snowflake. In that sense ancient atomism resembled more the notions of fonemes, morphemes, sememes etc. memes of structuralist semantics than modern scientism.

What really is behind the modern idea of 'atom' is the metaphysical idea of existential quantifier. Not 'one' or any other genuine number that can be written, but a combination of two very questionable concepts: 1) Empty set; 2) Point. Both are totally arbitrarily postulated as undefined primitive notions and nobody can tell what the hell they are supposed to mean. They are not even concepts. They don't really exist, they are just empty and dishonest sophistry of very bad philosophy.

[Cleric K]

Let me presume that you are not denying my experience and subtly (or directly) suggesting that my perceptions were merely projections of my thoughts. My questions to you merely asks whether you are reporting your direct experience or your logical analysis/speculation, the latter which appears to me as ascent-and-light biased. I also value the light and hold it lovingly along with the dark in communion with each other. Is your direct experience other than this, perhaps a top-down enlightenment?

What I described was intended exactly in the opposite direction of analysis, that is - to distinguish coloring added by abstract thoughts, from the given (direct) experience. This leads us to the Great Poles of light and dark and that we can't derive one from the other. Yet this doesn't prevent us to objectively recognize the different qualities of both. And this is troublesome for some. For example polarity like left-right is somewhat symmetric - it's the same geometric 'quality' but mirrored. But the vertical polarity has different qualities at both poles. This is in no way should be confused with good and bad. It's only that we have to understand the poles and now how to use them.

Previously I said that in the higher worlds it doesn't make sense to speak of primary and secondary beings but this should be understood rightly. It is still the case that some beings have much more pronounced influence on other beings than other more 'local' beings.

Simple example: when you go out through the beautiful landscapes that you occasionally send photos of, you can appreciate something. Think how you can appreciate the harmony of water, earth, plants, air, animals because it is all illuminated by the Sun. In certain sense you can perceive the unity of life because there's a Sun being that reflects in everything you see. If it's meditated deeply on this we'll discover the qualitative differences between the tow poles. The pole of darkness is what separates the beings so that they can experience themselves into manifold relationships, while the pole of light is what reveals the unity. Now if you say that you can see the unity of everything in complete darkness, without any light, I'll ask you to observe more closely. You'll discover that you don't notice the light because you are the light when you think about unity. Your thoughts floods that separated elements of darkness with their light - this is why you see the hidden unity in darkness, even though it doesn't become externally shining light.

The forest is mostly dark, its ways
to be made anew day after day, the dark
richer than the light and more blessed,
provided we stay brave
enough to keep on going in.

What does this mean to you (if anything) in the context of your experience?

It tells me that everyone goes through rhythms of day and night.

[Lou Gold]

Let me presume that you are not denying my experience and subtly (or directly) suggesting that my perceptions were merely projections of my thoughts. My questions to you merely asks whether you are reporting your direct experience or your logical analysis/speculation, the latter which appears to me as ascent-and-light biased. I also value the light and hold it lovingly along with the dark in communion with each other. Is your direct experience other than this, perhaps a top-down enlightenment?

What I described was intended exactly in the opposite direction of analysis, that is - to distinguish coloring added by abstract thoughts, from the given (direct) experience. This leads us to the Great Poles of light and dark and that we can't derive one from the other. Yet this doesn't prevent us to objectively recognize the different qualities of both. And this is troublesome for some. For example polarity like left-right is somewhat symmetric - it's the same geometric 'quality' but mirrored. But the vertical polarity has different qualities at both poles. This is in no way should be confused with good and bad. It's only that we have to understand the poles and now how to use them.

Previously I said that in the higher worlds it doesn't make sense to speak of primary and secondary beings but this should be understood rightly. It is still the case that some beings have much more pronounced influence on other beings than other more 'local' beings.

Simple example: when you go out through the beautiful landscapes that you occasionally send photos of, you can appreciate something. Think how you can appreciate the harmony of water, earth, plants, air, animals because it is all illuminated by the Sun. In certain sense you can perceive the unity of life because there's a Sun being that reflects in everything you see. If it's meditated deeply on this we'll discover the qualitative differences between the tow poles. The pole of darkness is what separates the beings so that they can experience themselves into manifold relationships, while the pole of light is what reveals the unity. Now if you say that you can see the unity of everything in complete darkness, without any light, I'll ask you to observe more closely. You'll discover that you don't notice the light because you are the light when you think about unity. Your thoughts floods that separated elements of darkness with their light - this is why you see the hidden unity in darkness, even though it doesn't become externally shining light.

The forest is mostly dark, its ways
to be made anew day after day, the dark
richer than the light and more blessed,
provided we stay brave
enough to keep on going in.

What does this mean to you (if anything) in the context of your experience?

It tells me that everyone goes through rhythms of day and night.

And this tells what?

Every Night & every Morn
Some to Misery are Born
Every Morn and every Night
Some are Born to sweet delight
Some are Born to sweet delight
Some are Born to Endless Night
We are led to Believe a Lie
When we see not Thro the Eye
Which was Born in a Night to perish in a Night
When the Soul Slept in Beams of Light
God Appears & God is Light
To those poor Souls who dwell in Night
But does a Human Form Display
To those who Dwell in Realms of day

Ramana Maharshi says, "I see God in the tree because I see the tree as a tree." Switching back to Blake, "To see the world in a grain of sand," see the grain of sand as a grain of sand. Berry says, "...the dark richer than the light and more blessed, provided we stay brave enough to keep on going in." Yes, this is because we are the light. So stop depending on higher beings and transcendent views. Just be here now.

[Cleric K]

Thanks Santeri! Great stuff!

Nominal concepts don't emerge independently from vacuum. They evolve as results of complex semantic processes.

Yes. Probably bad wording on my part. My point was that the complex process doesn't produce the concepts but leads us to them. Evolution is a path of experience that gradually leads us through domains where new living relations are revealed, throwing light on everything so far explored. In certain sense everything that can possibly exist already exists with no relation to time. Time experience consist in gradual coming together of the timeless.

1) Empty set; 2) Point. Both are totally arbitrarily postulated as undefined primitive notions and nobody can tell what the hell they are supposed to mean. They are not even concepts. They don't really exist, they are just empty and dishonest sophistry of very bad philosophy.

Here we should make distinction again between pure mathematical thought and relating math thoughts to other domains of experience. The thoughts/concepts of 'empty set' and 'point' most certainly exist - otherwise we wouldn't be able to think about them let alone give them names. We can explore their relationships with all other abstract math thoughts/concepts. 'They don't really exist' is already something else. I understand very well what you mean but just for the sake of clarity I'm saying that we should be precise when we say what exactly doesn't exist. We can also have an abstract concept of 'non-existence', even though we can never find actual perception/experience of this. If we have certain experience and say "now this is what I call non-existence" this defeats itself. It's a Gödel problem. You can hold the abstract thought of it but if you find experiential path to it, it crumbles. I perfectly agree about this being the source of bad philosophy. It is also at the root of Kant's self-imposed limits to what can be known.

The distinctions between objects and transformations (nouns/verbs) is very important. As we discussed with Eugene previously, it's very difficult to experience them properly within language. The reason is that every verb can be seen also as a noun. For example when we say 'process' we think of something being transformed in time. But still, linguistically, 'process' is a noun and we do grasp the process as some 'thing' in our mind. This is what you pointed out "Nominal concepts are just short hand referrals to deep and complex processes, they have no independent existence and meaning."

The real challenge is how to attain to the living experience of the deep processes instead of becoming lost in juggling with the words that point to them. In esoteric training there's a very powerful exercise. We imagine a planted seed. Then we imagine how the seed sprouts, shoots upwards, the roots downwards, begins to unfold leaf by leaf, flowers and forms seeds. This may seem as very simple exercise but it is tremendously important and effective. It prepares us for the higher cognitive experiences. How does a scientist approach plant growth? He sees the disconnected frames of growth and postulates the laws of nature that animate the physical state from frame to frame. When we do the above exercise, it's not so much about the visual presentation of the plant but about what makes the plant grow. What is it? It is our own activity. We experience as idea the whole process from beginning till end and through our willed activity we unfold the imaginary life of the plant in time. This willed unfoldment of idea is the essential thing. This is what prepares us for higher perception.

If we imagine the perception of the etheric world as something akin to physical seeing, only with overlaid 'finer', more ethereal 'colors', we're still in the domain of fantasy (or at best - atavistic, visionary clairvoyance). Etheric perception reveals the life forces not as additional finer layer of sensory perceptions but as something of the character of what we are doing when we make the imaginary plant grow. In other words, we perceive Imaginative-willing element in Nature with the clear awareness that it's not of our own making. Historically, Goethe advanced this idea into wider circles with his Urpflanze (Archetypal plant), although in his time this was simply not understood.

To be sure, in order to perceive these life forces we need to bring our own imagination into resonance with them. This is a major factor of concern for anyone who hasn't looked deeply into the matters. How can we be sure that we are perceiving something real and not our own fantasy? It is possible to make the distinction and large part of spiritual training consist exactly in this. It'll take us too far to get in details here. I'll only mention that the means for the distinction are there - it depends on the person to use them. To put it into a very crude analogy, it can be said that we can distinguish our resonant activity from that of the beings' in similar way to how we can recognize the subtitles in a movie from our thoughts when we read them. Just as we have the means to recognize if we are inventing our own words and disregarding the subtitles, so we have the means to recognize fantasy from real resonance with the life forces, which we experience in Imaginations propelled by the will of beings. The will is there, outside of us streaming from the beings and it is our part to resonantly follow it with our will and imagination which results in the stage of consciousness called Imaginative. When our mind grasps a process thus experienced, it can attach a short hand referral to it and call it for example, a life process or etheric process. What botany discovers in plants as saps moving from the roots towards the leaves and in the opposite direction is not merely some mechanical osmotic gradient but is clearly perceptible as two opposite etheric processes. They are closely related to the 'vertical' axis that we discuss with Lou. It can be traced how these archetypal opposite streams have passed through several iterations until they have reached their form as it's seen in plants.

[Cleric K]

Yes, this is because we are the light. So stop depending on higher beings and transcendent views. Just be here now.

Yes you are light and as such you can make the choice to continue casting more and more light on everything. Not only out of some vain curiosity but because it is only in this way you can trace the complicated interconnectedness of everything. This in turn can be used to channel our energies in the most productive way for the benefit of all. Otherwise we might as well be trying to fill a bucket with a hole in the bottom which we don't see in the dark.

The important thing is that it's a choice everyone makes for themselves. We can also stay where we are and be content with the spotlight around us.

[SanteriSatama]

The pole of darkness is what separates the beings so that they can experience themselves into manifold relationships, while the pole of light is what reveals the unity. Now if you say that you can see the unity of everything in complete darkness, without any light, I'll ask you to observe more closely. You'll discover that you don't notice the light because you are the light when you think about unity. Your thoughts floods that separated elements of darkness with their light - this is why you see the hidden unity in darkness, even though it doesn't become externally shining light.

Dark, invisible, non-reflecting... you could also say that reflection is a form of separation and each source of light illuminates and sees in its own way. And sight is just one sense among many.

Dark gravitates, dark feels, dark is. Imposing light and sight and thought of "unity", distracts a finite and edgy 'w' from the whole of the self, this bodily awareness, from the pure and undivided sense of being.

[SanteriSatama]

Time experience consist in gradual coming together of the timeless.

Hmm... really?

1) Empty set; 2) Point. Both are totally arbitrarily postulated as undefined primitive notions and nobody can tell what the hell they are supposed to mean. They are not even concepts. They don't really exist, they are just empty and dishonest sophistry of very bad philosophy.

Here we should make distinction again between pure mathematical thought and relating math thoughts to other domains of experience. The thoughts/concepts of 'empty set' and 'point' most certainly exist - otherwise we wouldn't be able to think about them let alone give them names. We can explore their relationships with all other abstract math thoughts/concepts. 'They don't really exist' is already something else. I understand very well what you mean but just for the sake of clarity I'm saying that we should be precise when we say what exactly doesn't exist.

Yes, exactly. The exact way that 'empty set' in the context of axiomatic set theory and 'point' in the context of Hilbert's axioms of theory is that in the purely mathematical meaning they are not concepts, they are the opposite of concepts. Mathematical concept should be and is definable in very exact and lucid way, and empty set and and point are undefinable in the contexts mentioned because those theories are wrong-playing, attempt to define and conceptualize those primitive notions self-destructs the wrong playing theories. The deep structure of Gödel's criticism of wrong playing of logicism and formalism is that their attempts to self-reflect self-destructs the whole construction.

In other contexts 'set' and 'point' are definable (finite set, point as end of line) and hence can be said to exist in other contexts. The test of coherence of a theory is definability of its concepts. Theory is the communicable, social aspect of mathematics, and 'concept' means literally 'grasping together'.
The wrong playing is Hilbert's use of "There exists..." when he can't define what exists, because what he wants to postulate by wrong-playing cannot be defined, demonstrated, constructed and communicated even in a form of a generative algorithm. Axiom of Choice is not and cannot be part of mathematics, because purely arbitrary violates the essential beauty of mathematics, the non-arbitrary clarity which stays coherent with mathematical intuition..

When we start mathematics from sound foundation and don't engage in wrong-playing, there is no need for any arbitrary metaphysical declaration "There exists...", and all concepts become definable, intuitive and natural. Gödelian problematics go away.

We can also have an abstract concept of 'non-existence', even though we can never find actual perception/experience of this. If we have certain experience and say "now this is what I call non-existence" this defeats itself. It's a Gödel problem. You can hold the abstract thought of it but if you find experiential path to it, it crumbles. I perfectly agree about this being the source of bad philosophy. It is also at the root of Kant's self-imposed limits to what can be known.

Etymologically 'existence' has roughly same meaning as phenomenal and sensible, which is part of the more holistic category and context of being and non-being. I've already mentioned Plato's discussion of being and non-being in Sophist many times, and just make a reference to those discussions. Another aspect of the same theme is the Bohmian dialectic of explicate and implicate orders. Notion of grades of a continuum is important also here, instead of just structuralist opposition based on presupposition of LEM, which denies the grades in-between. We have experiences of living and being more and less fully.

The real challenge is how to attain to the living experience of the deep processes instead of becoming lost in juggling with the words that point to them. In esoteric training there's a very powerful exercise. We imagine a planted seed. Then we imagine how the seed sprouts, shoots upwards, the roots downwards, begins to unfold leaf by leaf, flowers and forms seeds. This may seem as very simple exercise but it is tremendously important and effective. It prepares us for the higher cognitive experiences. How does a scientist approach plant growth? He sees the disconnected frames of growth and postulates the laws of nature that animate the physical state from frame to frame. When we do the above exercise, it's not so much about the visual presentation of the plant but about what makes the plant grow.

Yes, and we imagine the processes of growth and decay instinctively. That instinctive imagination is what Sheldrakes Morphic fields seem to be about. Sheldrake is a good empirical scientist and experimentalist, who does not try to force a static metaphysical dogma over phenomenal reality, like scientism does.

If we imagine the perception of the etheric world as something akin to physical seeing, only with overlaid 'finer', more ethereal 'colors', we're still in the domain of fantasy (or at best - atavistic, visionary clairvoyance). Etheric perception reveals the life forces not as additional finer layer of sensory perceptions but as something of the character of what we are doing when we make the imaginary plant grow. In other words, we perceive Imaginative-willing element in Nature with the clear awareness that it's not of our own making. Historically, Goethe advanced this idea into wider circles with his Urpflanze (Archetypal plant), although in his time this was simply not understood.

I'm not sure of the origin or exact meaning of your concept of ether, but recent experimental evidence as well as revaluation of older experiments points again towards ether theories. Measurements of very small but real ether inertia take us back to Michelson-Morley starting point and falsify the whole Einstein-paradigm, what was left of it after falsification by QM.

How can we be sure that we are perceiving something real and not our own fantasy?

Very simply, by dropping the presupposition of objective reality, by drawing the carpet from under the whole question frame implied by the term and concept 'perception'. The modes and methods of comparative valuations of experiences and their degrees of meaningfulness change radically. Responsible and creative awareness of our projection and reflection mechanisms becomes a very real thing. Also notion of responsibility changes radically, accepting full responsibility does not mean that you should be a busybody activist worrying and intervening in everything, on the contrary. It means just being and happening as happens, just more aware.

What botany discovers in plants as saps moving from the roots towards the leaves and in the opposite direction is not merely some mechanical osmotic gradient but is clearly perceptible as two opposite etheric processes. They are closely related to the 'vertical' axis that we discuss with Lou. It can be traced how these archetypal opposite streams have passed through several iterations until they have reached their form as it's seen in plants.

Speaking of trees, interesting fact is that the sugars from photosynthesis flow down along the bark, water and minerals go up in the core. I don't know what the correct English term is, we call starving the roots by cutting off a section of bark 'necking' (kaulaaminen).

[Lou Gold]

Yes, this is because we are the light. So stop depending on higher beings and transcendent views. Just be here now.

Yes you are light and as such you can make the choice to continue casting more and more light on everything. Not only out of some vain curiosity but because it is only in this way you can trace the complicated interconnectedness of everything. This in turn can be used to channel our energies in the most productive way for the benefit of all. Otherwise we might as well be trying to fill a bucket with a hole in the bottom which we don't see in the dark.

The important thing is that it's a choice everyone makes for themselves. We can also stay where we are and be content with the spotlight around us.

Of course, who else would make your choice? I don't know how this is for you and therefore I will not use the phrases "you will be" or "you will see" or "at a higher level you will _____" but for me this is a choiceless-choice. All I can do is ask, "having seen the way, why would you not take it?" This is why, out of respect, I ask "have you seen it or are you offering speculations?" I am also asking, respectfully, not if you can see in the dark but if you have seen the palpable darkness that defies description, a darkness that Shu once attempted to describe as 'dazzling'?

[Cleric K]

Imposing light and sight and thought of "unity", distracts a finite and edgy 'w' from the whole of the self, this bodily awareness, from the pure and undivided sense of being.

I agree that sensory light and the superficial thought of unity can be distractions from the essential. But so can be the fixation on the pure and undivided sense of being. Especially in the way the so called 'nondual' practices are popularized today. What is called nondual state is in most cases an undivided experience of the local self - no thoughts, no problem. This 'undivided unity' can only be measured against practical life. Otherwise we don't know if we really reach something more fundamental or we simply close our eyes and assume the world no longer exists and we are free from it.

Here's an example of what I mean by light. If I eat in dark room and throw the scraps on the floor, at the moment I turn on the light I see that I've messed up my own home. The same thing happens on a higher level on ecological scale. I need more awareness, to connect the dots and see that the waste I produce makes a circle and ends on my plate, water and air I breathe. I need even more awareness to pass from the physical to the soul world and perceive the workings of Karma, to be conscious that all beings are communicating vessels and whatever I do it reverberates through everything else and ultimately affects me. I need still more awareness to pass from the soul to the spirit world and perceive that the whole humanity and all kingdoms of Nature evolve as a one organism, passing through various stages of development.

Thus we have described a scale of consciousness. From the purely selfish, which is so engrossed in the pursuit of pleasure that it doesn't notice how it destroys its own life, let alone the life of the environment, to the cosmically aware, which understands the interplay of all worlds and their holomovement. Now what feels more natural - to compare this rising in consciousness, with increase of light or with darkness?