The purpose after full comprehension of itself?

[SanteriSatama]

Just a quick aside here - but, as you know, this particular argument really bugs me. What is it about the word "must" in the context Cleric used it that necessitates controlling, authoritarian mechanism? To me, that automatic association assumes the concept of "necessary" can be exhaustively explained in terms of human power dynamics. But we all know it is more than that one-dimensional framing. That water is necessary for a person to survive, i.e. the person must drink water, does not mean the water has become a despotic force ruling over the person.

OK. But in this case, giving a geometric meditation certain kind of spiritual interpretation is not a necessity. Difference between necessities and possibilities is important.

To continue, 'potentiality' means both possibility and power. The meanings seem inseparable. There's continuum of intensity of potentiality. Necessity, ie. the only possibility, is on one end of the continuum.

[Cleric K]

You invent hypotheticals that are not mine. Actually-factually I know good kind highly evolved people who are dedicated materialists. Their lives seem as rich and enriching as my own and I do not see myself as more evolved. The only thing I wish is that I might convince them that it is not necessary to believe in God or Divinity to be an Idealist. Why? Because, then, we'd have even more interesting stuff to talk about?

What Santeri said about the simultaneous existence of grumpy and wise Lou is of tremendous importance but I don't even dare to bring that up. It would be like talking about reading and writing poetry while we're still arguing if we are not being dangerously biased by learning the letters.

My grumpy example was very superficial, no hidden agendas. Clearly, not very well taken, so to avoid working with out own persona, we can externalize it, make it more comfortable. Let's imagine the hypothetical person Luigi, coming in the same two versions.

Here I would like to also agree to the fact that we should be extremely careful not to pass judgment about more and less evolved individuals. There are materialists doing much more for the whole than those who primarily talk (I include myself in the latter group).

With this cleared out, not speaking of any superiority, let's imagine that the two Luigis meet on the Hawaiian shore and start talking. Now let's consider fully impartially the following. Who can better understand the other? Is the state of being of grumpy Luigi comprehensible from wise Luigi's perspective? In other words, is it possible for the wise to step into grumpy's shoes and compassionately co-experience his state of consciousness? Now contrast this with the opposite. Can grumpy step into the wise's shoes, can he - not simply intellectually but livingly - experience the state of the wise? Does grumpy understand what it is for consciousness to be experienced as flowing through each cell of the body and beyond the body. Can he understand the feeling of trust and security of being embraced by the Great Mysteriousness? And here by 'can he understand' I don't mean 'does he have the potential to understand' - no, everyone has this potential. The question is does grumpy experience side by side his closed off, discontent state of being and that of the wise, and simply give preference to his own state? Or the latter is something completely unknown, non-existing within his state? And after we answer this, the next question would be, is the wise in some way biased, one-sidedly developed compared to grumpy?

[Lou Gold]

You invent hypotheticals that are not mine. Actually-factually I know good kind highly evolved people who are dedicated materialists. Their lives seem as rich and enriching as my own and I do not see myself as more evolved. The only thing I wish is that I might convince them that it is not necessary to believe in God or Divinity to be an Idealist. Why? Because, then, we'd have even more interesting stuff to talk about?

What Santeri said about the simultaneous existence of grumpy and wise Lou is of tremendous importance but I don't even dare to bring that up. It would be like talking about reading and writing poetry while we're still arguing if we are not being dangerously biased by learning the letters.

My grumpy example was very superficial, no hidden agendas. Clearly, not very well taken, so to avoid working with out own persona, we can externalize it, make it more comfortable. Let's imagine the hypothetical person Luigi, coming in the same two versions.

Here I would like to also agree to the fact that we should be extremely careful not to pass judgment about more and less evolved individuals. There are materialists doing much more for the whole than those who primarily talk (I include myself in the latter group).

With this cleared out, not speaking of any superiority, let's imagine that the two Luigis meet on the Hawaiian shore and start talking. Now let's consider fully impartially the following. Who can better understand the other? Is the state of being of grumpy Luigi comprehensible from wise Luigi's perspective? In other words, is it possible for the wise to step into grumpy's shoes and compassionately co-experience his state of consciousness? Now contrast this with the opposite. Can grumpy step into the wise's shoes, can he - not simply intellectually but livingly - experience the state of the wise? Does grumpy understand what it is for consciousness to be experienced as flowing through each cell of the body and beyond the body. Can he understand the feeling of trust and security of being embraced by the Great Mysteriousness? And here by 'can he understand' I don't mean 'does he have the potential to understand' - no, everyone has this potential. The question is does grumpy experience side by side his closed off, discontent state of being and that of the wise, and simply give preference to his own state? Or the latter is something completely unknown, non-existing within his state? And after we answer this, the next question would be, is the wise in some way biased, one-sidedly developed compared to grumpy?

I'm sorry brother, I do not imagine or experience your way. I recall years ago walking into a friend's kitchen and seeing their 3 year-old with a strong scowl on her face. I asked, "What's wrong?" She screamed back, "ME GRUMPY!" I could not but love her authenticity and just let her work it out. The path to wisdom is trial (often known as the scientific method). It happens quite naturally. I'm not worried about going personal . There was no ad hominem insult intended by you. I'm actually happily impressed that Santeri intuitively grokked my 'grumpy Lou" because it contributed to my flow in our dialog. By Great Mysteriousness I do not mean "can't be understood." My experience teaches me that, held lovingly, it will work itself out quite naturally and that there is a season for all under heaven. The learning is not how to be sweet and cordial but how to not overreact or cling to the emotion. Like a hammer building a house, pick it up and put it down. Done deal. In the folktale of having a mean and kind wolf in one's heart, feed them both and let the balance arise naturally.

As the essay by ML-W says, "First, beware of philosophies that put spiritual concerns into a framework of growth or evolution, which I believe are the great modern idols. Both are important phenomena of eternity’s time theater, but as paradigms they’re old hat, hangovers from the age of empire-building and the work ethic."

[Soul_of_Shu]

I don't know about grumpy Lou, but loving-to-argue Lou is clearly still in his element here.

[Lou Gold]

I don't know about grumpy Lou, but loving-to-argue Lou is clearly still in his element here.

Absolutely! When my mom used to get upset with me arguing with my grandpa, he would tell her, "it's ok ... this is how the boy learns." 75 years later it still works.

[SanteriSatama]

To bring math dimension back to this discussion, my observation is deeply linked with increasing realization of how rich and full and deeply meaningful chords (such that you stumble on and can inspire to compose a whole song based on that chord) contain sub-chords of great variety of complexity, moods and tonalities, and the Song of the Chord plays with and expresses it's substructures in the chord progression.

[Soul_of_Shu]

To bring math dimension back to this discussion, my observation is deeply linked with increasing realization of how rich and full and deeply meaningful chords (such that you stumble on and can inspire to compose a whole song based on that chord) contain sub-chords of great variety of complexity, moods and tonalities, and the Song of the Chord plays with and expresses it's substructures in the chord progression.

So what do we make of infinitely descending chord progressions?

[Soul_of_Shu]

And the so-called 'infinite' mobius chord loop also shows remarkable correlation to the notion of spiritual 'ascension.'

[Lou Gold]

To bring math dimension back to this discussion, my observation is deeply linked with increasing realization of how rich and full and deeply meaningful chords (such that you stumble on and can inspire to compose a whole song based on that chord) contain sub-chords of great variety of complexity, moods and tonalities, and the Song of the Chord plays with and expresses it's substructures in the chord progression.

I believe this is the point that has caused so many musicians to be blown away by the imagination of Jacob Collier. It's above my paygrade but there's talk that he actually created/discovered/received a "new chord" near the end of "Moon River" and this is the reason that the MIT Media Lab documentary was titled "Imagination Off the Charts."





I'm also convinced intuitively that this how certain songs of the shamanhood work their healing magic. Again, it's totally beyond my paygrade, but I hope the musically skilled folks might contemplate the possibilities. JC has in some interviews mentioned that his realization that 'bad' or 'discordant' sounds can stimulate new harmonic arrangements has become his forte and the reason that he was able to create music with literal lavatory sounds, one of which has been nominated for a grammy.

[Lou Gold]

And the so-called 'infinite' mobius chord loop also shows remarkable correlation to the notion of spiritual 'ascension.'

I believe that what you call Divinely Integrated Differentiation works in multitudinous directions (ascent and decent for starters) waiting to be realized and is what Cleric refers to as 'higher' perception but I resist as lingo carrying too much one-sided cultural baggage. It further interests me personally that I can hear the inner voice of these harmonies even though I'm a musical idiot at the solo performance level. I can barely carry a simple tune without having someone to with whom to sing along. It's also why the collective musical process of Santo Daime may have been so meaningful for me.