Cleric K wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:24 pm
I don't know how you arrived at the
bold text The One Idea that I speak about captures precisely the
underlined text. Probably you still conceive 'idea' in the purely intellectual sense, as a concept within the local mind. By 'One Idea' I don't imply a cherry-picked idea from infinitely many but the one that encompasses the infinity of ideas as a wholeness. That's the harmony of ideas. In your language this is the One Consciousness within which any conceivable experience can exist. The reason I use the word 'idea' is to emphasize that this Consciousness experiences meaning. Every state of the Macrocosmic Consciousness is an experience of a Cosmic-scale Idea - this is what gives the cognitive essence of the state. The fact that this Consciousness can be conscious of the different paths of experience, in itself shows that it cognizes a higher-order idea which encompasses the paths in a whole. Without this higher-order idea it would be impossible for the Consciousness to know that the different idea-paths in fact exist within One Consciousness (Scott's remark) - as soon as the Consciousness experiences one of the paths it would be completely impossible to know that alternatives exist. Since the Consciousness understands that the idea-path it experiences is only one of infinitely many, this already shows that this one infinity is being cognized at least asymptotically.
I hope that we've cleared that out. The One Idea at the Center of Deep M@L is not a
single limited set of ideas but the the total infinity of ideas (corresponding to your
underlined text). Here we simply hit upon the limitations of any geometrical representation. Just because the Center is presented as a point on the illustration, this doesn't mean that it is only one of infinitely many points. In reality this 'center' should be thought to permeate everything. Everything is a differentiated potential of this One infinity, which is everywhere at once.
I suppose that we agree on this one. The Center of Deep M@L points to the same potential that you refer to in the
underlined text. Now where our views deviate is on the actual details of this differentiation and integration of potential.
OK, good, we cleared this point of confusion and we both agree that we are speaking about the unlimited potential and the infinity of all possible ideas. In the traditional Christian theology the set of divine logoses was limited to only "good" ones, God would not have "bad" logoses like those of evil or wrong or distorted ideas, that is why I assumed you meant some limited set of living ideas (until you clarified that, thanks).
There is still another difference between our views (which we already discussed before): it is whether we pose that in Cosnicousness there is such thing as all-encompassing and unlimited subjective perspective. We know that we experience the existence from our subjective perspectives, and also that we are conscious. Every conscious experience that we know of is always experienced from a certain subjective perspective. We also find that we can exercise the acts of volition form our subjective perspectives. Therefore we project this scenario to the wholeness of Consciousness and assume that there would be a subjective perspective encompassing such infinite wholeness of all experiences and ideas that would also possess the volitional abilities to act (and that is along description of a global subject of consciousness that we call "God"). However, we have no proof or "confirmation" that such perspective even exists, and there are arguments (that we already discussed elsewhere) that such proposition would run into certain philosophical problems, namely:
- Such proposition would imply that the global subjective perspective is simultaneously experiencing the actual infinity of all ideas and conscious experiences. But we have no experiential confirmation that the experiencing of the actual infinity is ever possible, this is only a theoretical hypothesis.
- Such proposition would assume that the global subjective perspective is encompassing and simultaneously experiencing all our subjective experiences, but such proposition runs into the famous subject combination problem. Ashvin denies that this problem is even relevant, but most modern philosophers from all camps agree that it is very much relevant and valid problem.
But of course these two problems are not sufficient to refute the hypothesis of the existence of all-encompassing subjective perspective, they only pose some challenges to it. The alternative centered-less paradigm is based on the view that there is no such subjective perspective encompassing the infinity of Consciousness, and that Consciousness, being infinite in its potential to manifest and experience any forms, always exists as a multitude of finite subjective perspectives. Such view does not face the above two problems.
In your view the threshold of death marks the demarcation between the free potential and the manifest incarnate existence. What I say is that there's a whole gradient of forms of consciousness/existence - from the most free at the Center to the most rigidly manifested at the periphery. Death is only a change of consciousness but we are still within the spiritual context of the planetary Spheres. In other words, this spiritual path that we are treading will take much much longer until it reaches the state of the free potential.
Not if you consider many NDE, regression therapy and non-dual spiritual experiences suggesting the possibility and actual occurrence of changing one's path to very different courses. Many NDE and regression accounts suggest that we, along our long chain of incarnations, incarnate into very different races and in some cases can traverse into entirely different realms and forms of existence (Michael Newton's book on regression therapy data has many accounts of this). Human form of existence is by far not the only one in the Universe. Most of us are still travelling along the common path of humanity, but we are never locked to it, and sometimes radical changes in one's spiritual state and perspective occur at some point (called "enlightenment" in the Eastern traditions) that allows to change the direction and the path. There are a plenty of evidences in the mystical experiences of the Eastern traditions that the enlightenment opens the state of liberation and free potential much earlier than it would be reached through the common gradual path of humanity. That does not necessarily mean that such enlightened souls would abandon humanity and switch to an entirely different realm or spiritual center, they still may (or may not) remain travelling along with humanity, but in a different state of consciousness.
I'm repeating myself. It's undeniable that while incarnated we are within the telos of the body, humanity, Earth, Solar system. The conjecture that after death (again, assuming we've resolved our sensory attachments) we are free to switch paths (that is, we're free from the happenings within humanity and the Cosmic surroundings) rests entirely upon an assumption which by its very character can only be verified after death. This produces the dichotomy that I've spoken about and which Ashvin noted. Because of our impatience for spiritual freedom we are forced to reject any possibility of reaching truths through development of cognition, and instead we have no choice but to invent completely different rules of existence beyond the threshold of death. Yet we can only do this through the phantom ideas that we support by belief.
As I said above, it's not death but enlightenment that allows to attain the spiritual freedom, and it has nothing to do with "impatience". The death of the body does open broader perspectives (as suggested by NDE experiences), but does not radically change one's state of consciousness defined by the subconscious cognitive and behavioral patterns and limited views and beliefs (called "karma" in the Easter traditions). In fact, no one can achieve the enlightenment just because one feels "impatient" to attain it, or feel too unhappy with their ordinary human state. It happens when the time comes and when one is ready, and when it happens one will know it.
We should try and grasp the seriousness of the situation. It's pretty clear that while incarnated we have to live through every single moment of our development from child till old age. Even if we think in purely abstract way it is only logical that our perspective will develop through multiple such nested rhythms on its way towards the integration of the Cosmic potential. This is confirmed by higher cognition. There's a great difference between attaching and subduing to a deity and understanding the reality of the situation. There's difference between worshipping winter and having clear understanding that we should prepare wood and warm clothes for it. Not only that we hold on to fantastic ideas when we imagine that we'll be freed from the spirals of evolution after death, but this has harmful and paralyzing effect for development. Every thing has its appropriate time. If a child doesn't learn to speak at the right time it only becomes more and more difficult afterwards. It's similar with evolution in general. Now it is up to us to investigate what's needed for our proper development. Some children prepare their homework for the next day. Other children imagine that there's no need to do so because when they fall to sleep they'll be teleported in other worlds where there's no more homeworks. As trivial as it sounds, this is the state of affairs for modern humanity. Today we not only don't yet tackle the interesting and creative question of how to do our homework but we are arguing if this homework is at all needed or is just an act of submissive worship to some deity. It's time to reckon that in our age it's no longer a matter of spare time philosophizing, while the 'real' life happens out there. Our collective future depends in the most real sense on our proper understanding of the human being and its deep structure. And within Deep M@L this structure is only at a 'one thought distance'. There are no obstacles for the exploration of this structure except ourselves.
Most of it is true, yet, along with the gradual growth and the "quantitative" development of our human consciousness, there have been, there are and will be certain "qualitive" changes of a radical nature of our cognitive level and perspective. One of those changes was when humans attained meta-cognition, and it did not happen with the humanity overnight, but every individual soul attained it at some point along their own path. Similarly, the other qualitative step is the so-called "enlightenment", it's been slowly happening over the last few millennia only to a limited number of individuals, and it still keeps happening and will be happening. And just like meta-cognition, it is not the "final" or "ultimate" state in any way, but only a developmental gate and qualitative "ascension" to another cognitive level opening the access to previously unknown levels and paths of consciousness development.