Consciousness is all there is

[Eugene I]

To continue the discussion, Cleric, you seem to present a particular view on the world of ideas which very much aligns with the traditional Christianity, and which is: the world of Divine Logoses (ideas) has originated in the Divine mind and there is nothing men can do to contribute anything to it. The only role of men is to prepare themselves as “altars” and reach to the higher levels of cognition to be able to receive these ideas and reunite with the world of Logoses. Divine is the only creator of Logoses and men are mere receivers and participants/partakers of them.

Bernardo’s view is exactly the opposite where the MAL is a “savage genius” able to create the universe with his ideations but at the same time so dumb that not even being able to be meta-cognitive. In this scenario men have a leading role in the development of consciousness to become meta-cognitive and bring this higher level of cognition back to the MAL. In this case we men are on the “leading edge” of the development consciousness and of the world of ideas.

IMO in reality it is more likely something in between: the Creator is highly cognitive and intelligent (and definitely meta-cognitive) creature, yet he cannot possibly create all possible ideas (hello Godel!). This is because to create new ideas, one needs to be “in a situation” and to have a specific perspective that is a prerequisite for creation of such idea. For example (from my profession), for an idea of a novel electronic circuit topology to be invented, there needs to be a situation and personal perspective that requires this topology to come into being, a specific “need” for it determined by practical circumstances. If there would be no such practical circumstances, such idea would never emerge. So, the Source cannot create such ideas exactly because he is not able to actually be in such situations and experience them. The source could never compose the Bach’s Chaconne, because only Bach with his limited but specific perspective and situation, with his genius mixed with his anxiety, at the moment of an extreme grief caused by the death of his wife, could compose the Chaconne.

So, could it be that we are not just passive partakers of the ideas communicated to us by the Source, but actually co-creators of them? Could it be that our goal is not simply find our way back to the Source and reach to the highest spiritual realms of ideas in order to re-unite with the Source and his pool of Logoses, but actually walk along our unique paths (no matter how limited their perspectives may be) in order to be able to enhance the world of ideas and experiences and co-create new ideas and new experiences from our unique, albeit limited, perspectives? And then, once all this creative work is done, we can bring it back to the Source and to the collective pool of created ideas? Or it may be that this work can never be completed, because the amount of possible ideas is (fortunately!) infinite and inexhaustible? Which is great, because imagine how boring would it be when a moment comes when all ideas are already known and exhausted and there are no more to create of find? The only way to escape from such idealistic-entropy death state would be then to erase all these ideas from memory and start the whole process from scratch again.

What if there is no single universal goal and telos in Consciousness, but infinite variety of them? What if the flow of universal Consciousness is not aimed to converge and to "collapse" into a single ultimate and final state (singularity such as the complete union with the Source, or Nirvana/Samadhi or else), but rather to expand into and explore the infinite space of states and ideas in all possible directions in never-ending exploration?

PS: with all my sympathy to Buddhism and Advaita I have to agree that most of the Eastern spiritual traditions are pretty much non-interested in the creative aspect of Consciousness. The art and poetry of Chan and Zen traditions were rather exceptions in this respect. And this is something I find lacking in the Eastern traditions and that do not agree with.

[Shaibei]

It seems, as Schopenhauer has already pointed out, that German idealism is imbued with Spinoza. So at least philosophically, one can find a connecting line that goes from Spinoza to Hegel, and from there to Steiner.

This is generally the case. With Hegel philosophy reaches its final frontier - thinking reaches its own foundations. Further than this, intellectual thinking can't penetrate. Beyond the intellect we already need a higher form of cognition, the first of which is Imaginative or picture consciousness. This has been known in the esoteric streams. As far as the philosophical disciplines, Goethe instinctively explored the Imaginative cognition but could not yet encompass it in full clarity. This was the task of Steiner. On one hand he had to continue beyond the threshold that Hegel reached. On the other he integrated the genius of Goethe, now in a lucid way. But Steiner integrated a third stream. He was initiated in the Rosicrucian stream. Little is known about this because he didn't speak much of it. He only referred to 'The Master' without any details. In certain sense it was Steiner's mission to unite the secret esoteric stream with the stream of the more exoterically developing science and purely intellectual philosophy.

Rosicrucianism itself is the stream of esoteric Christianity where much of the developments of what is known today as the contents of spiritual science, took place. The stages of higher cognition have been already well known to them. What was the true merit of Steiner was the actual bridge the he built between philosophical and the esoteric cognition. The Philosophy of Freedom (PoF) embodies this bridge. This was Steiner's most important contribution to evolving humanity. In previous times, in order for one to become an esoteric student, quite specific soul qualities were needed, which only those karmically prepared had. Through PoF there's a path that requires nothing but unprejudiced and sound thinking. Whoever has penetrated into the depth of PoF can find the transition to the higher forms of conscious in a completely natural way, as a lawful evolution of thinking. Of course this doesn't mean that we become some completely 'mental' types through this. No, by saying that it's a thinking path it's meant that we can develop gradually through the metamorphosis of thinking cognition without the need for blind belief. Otherwise, the very essence of any genuine spiritual path is the harmonization and development of thinking, feeling and will. Unless the 'three horses' are tamed, it's impossible to have clear experience of the higher realms.

There's another important stream of Esoteric Christianity that runs parallel to Anthroposophy. It is more oriented towards the practical application of the higher knowledge and is related with the future mission of the Slavonic people. It's more appropriate for those souls who are already instinctively united with the impulse of Love but need the practical aspects. Spiritual science is approachable by the Western mind, which first need to understand and only then to apply in practice. In any case, both streams will unite and complement each other in the not too distant future.

You see in Steiner's esoteric theories the peak of spiritual development.

The peak is always relative. As I said above, spiritual development proceeds in quite complicated ways. There are different streams that develop different aspects and are united at certain points. To souls with different constitution I would speak quite differently than here. But in a forum like this, where thinking souls are gathered, the path that goes through development of the spiritual activity concealed in thinking is the most appropriate. As it is seen, this is not easy. The habits of the intellectual age are that thinking is used only for the contents of thinking. In order for thinking to become a spiritual path a shift of focus is needed. Thinking becomes an organ of perception for spiritual reality. As long as the focus is on the contents of thinking itself, we live in the phantom world of abstract thoughts which Kant recognized. When thinking is experienced as actual spiritual activity within the One world, it is no longer a 'copy' of some supposed world outside our personal bubble but a lawful reality that touches and feels its way through the One spiritual world.
Anyway. About the peaks - it's all about what each individual soul needs regarding its stage of development. What we need to learn today is different from what will be needed few centuries from now. In Steiner's words:

It would be well, if especially from our Anthroposophical standpoint, as I have often told you, if it were recognised consciously and thoroughly, that even what is said now, even what we acquire as ever such advanced knowledge about Spiritual things, that must not be grasped as a sum of absolute dogmas. We must be quite clear that those who come after us, in future times, will see greater than we ourselves can. On this rests the true Spiritual evolution of mankind, and everything of a hindering nature in the Spiritual progress of mankind rests finally on the fact that human beings will not admit this. They like to have truths presented to them, not as the truths for one definite epoch of time, but as absolute timeless dogmas.

But at least as for what goes on in the Middle East, it does not seem to me that you are deeply familiar with Kabbalah for example. You may have a vague idea of ​​what Kabbalah means, but you will agree with me that vague concepts do not build theories.

You are correct. I have very general idea of Kabbalah. I can say that I've learned enough to see how in its depths it is in complete harmony with what we can experience today through the higher stages of consciousness. I emphasize on the depths because unfortunately the Kabbalah is very misused today. Just as Astrology, in the wider circles, it is largely reduced to purely intellectual framework for divination. One can read whole books on Kabbalah today that speak in purely psychological manner without a single word of the fact the Sephiroth are actual domains of the Spiritual World.

For me it is enough to feel the deep reverence for this ancient knowledge of the Hebrew sages and see how they developed it as prophetic science of what today can be experienced in full consciousness. My diagrams in the Deep M@L post practically contain hidden in themselves the Tree of Life. It's the same Depth structure.



The four eons correspond to the four Worlds, which are connected with 9 hierarchies (man being the tenth) of spiritual beings.
Yesod is related to the Astral world, the world of Imaginative consciousness, the Moon sphere (mentioned here). Tiphereth is the Sun sphere, the Spiritual World, Devachan - world of Inspirative consciousness. Kether encompasses the outer spheres, world of Intuitive consciousness.

I've absorbed from the Kabbalah just enough for myself. As said, especially the modern treatments easily become lost in intellectual abstractions. It's very difficult to make transition to higher consciousness in meditation while holding these dead structures. It's still possible to meditate deeply on the Sephiroth because they point at spiritual realities. But the truth is that most of what we see in our age as Kabbalah is the product of entirely intellectual fabrications.

Thanks for the detailed answer. The truth is I do not know where else to take this discussion. For me as soon as we discuss the supersensible we
have entered a non-scientific arena.
As you have correctly noted, major currents in Kabbalah discuss prophecy. The Prophet can be verified. One can test his prophecy in
relation to external reality.
It is no novelty that Kabbalah discusses higher worlds and spiritual aspects of reality. In the last hundred years of research much has been written on the subject. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with explaining the Sefirot on a psychological level. As you must have noticed the sefirot are not only a matter for the expansion of cognition, but carries ethical significance. There is no such thing in Kabbalah to acquire spiritual knowledge without ethical development. In any case, Judaism is not just esoteric. Indeed, from the point of view of Judaism deeds are of great importance even if there is no identification with their inner value. A person does not have to be a Kabbalist and acquainted with higher worlds. Internal identification is an ideal that is not a precondition for actions.

[Cleric K]

To continue the discussion, Cleric, you seem to present a particular view on the world of ideas which very much aligns with the traditional Christianity, and which is: the world of Divine Logoses (ideas) has originated in the Divine mind and there is nothing men can do to contribute anything to it. The only role of men is to prepare themselves as “altars” and reach to the higher levels of cognition to be able to receive these ideas and reunite with the world of Logoses. Divine is the only creator of Logoses and men are mere receivers and participants/partakers of them.

The first thing is to get rid of the rigid separation between the Logoses and men. We are the Logos experiencing itself in a more limited context. And the Logos is itself a more differentiated perspective of the Infinite. So man is also the Infinite. Nothing is taken away from your intuition about non-dualism. Nothing stands in between you and the Infinite. It's only that our perspective represents several 'iterations', spheres within spheres of the Infinite, which form a contextual system. Man is at the center of this Mandala. He will feel himself at the same Center even if he completely 'undresses' the mandalic spheres. So it's not a question how many centers are there. We know only One center. The question is how in the course of evolution the mandalic spheres will be navigated out of the labyrinth that they form.

The Cosmic Mandala is not a static structure. It would be incorrect to say that the Logos has created a rigid labyrinth and seeded the human there, which will then explore his way out from something completely predefined. No, the labyrinth is something living. It will be more appropriate if we think about it in the following way. The whole involutionary process so far can likened to the creation of a seed. Man as he exists today is practically a seed from which the Infinite can grow. And this growth process is not in the least predefined. Yes, the general blueprint if already formed. At the physical scale man has a head, arms, legs, torso and it's inevitable that he passes through childhood, puberty, adulthood and old age, but these things are only the context within which uniquely creative activity unfolds. Part of man is heredity but another part is what we create ourselves with our spiritual activity. For example, in the future, more and more the face of man will be expression of his soul qualities. Today the form of the face is to a large extent determined from heredity and man can only modulate that face through facial expressions and grimaces, which themselves are expressions of our soul life. In the future the face itself will be much more an imprint of what we can make out of it. And this we make not through some mechanical means (like today people want to sculpt themselves through plastic surgery) but through the soul qualities that we have developed in previous incarnations. A soul that have achieved mastery over its passions, which has developed a high ideal and Love will imprint the corresponding 'grimaces' early from the embryonic phase, which will form a face that mirrors these qualities.

My point is that evolution is entirely creative process. Involution has provided the seed conditions and the general blueprint but it is up to us (the Logos and the Infinite in us) to unfold this process in a healthy manner.

IMO in reality it is more likely something in between: the Creator is highly cognitive and intelligent (and definitely meta-cognitive) creature, yet he cannot possibly create all possible ideas (hello Godel!). This is because to create new ideas, one needs to be “in a situation” and to have a specific perspective that is a prerequisite for creation of such idea. For example (from my profession), for an idea of a novel electronic circuit topology to be invented, there needs to be a situation and personal perspective that requires this topology to come into being, a specific “need” for it determined by practical circumstances. If there would be no such practical circumstances, such idea would never emerge. So, the Source cannot create such ideas exactly because he is not able to actually be in such situations and experience them. The source could never compose the Bach’s Chaconne, because only Bach with his limited but specific perspective and situation, with his genius mixed with his anxiety, at the moment of an extreme grief caused by the death of his wife, could compose the Chaconne.

Very good example. My example in the essay with the single idea of a 'chair' was given for the same reason. Personally I don't think of ideas as being created. I prefer the word 'discovered'. I know that you don't like this direction because it smells of Platonism but as I've said many times, it in no way forces us to postulate some 'world-in-itself' that contains the ideas. I can think of a triangle today and tomorrow - the idea is the same, irrelevant if I fantasize about 'where' it has existed in the meantime. Also, is there really a reason to imagine that just because I have experienced a given idea in thought for the first time, it hasn't existed before? What if someone else has already thought about it and even wrote a book on it? The solution to this is hidden in the proper understanding of time. I tried to give on several occasions hints about this but I'm not sure how well it was understood. We reach to the uncreatedness of ideas if we penetrate in depth into the idea of timelessness or eternity. If we take that seriously - not as something abstract but as reality - we inevitably reach the conclusion that any conceivable state of being already exists as eternal potential. If we insist that the ideas and states of being that we experience are created for the first time in this instant, we require that linear time is fundamental. These ideas are brain racking for the intellect because it is dependent on thinking by linear chains of thoughts. That's why things like Zeno's paradox are seen really as paradoxes. If we engage our right brain we can completely well think about holistic concepts as infinity and eternity in their spiritual reality. I understand your motivation. It seems that if everything already exists and there's nothing new, this somehow makes everything pointless. The solution here is exactly in what you said above. There's a great difference to experience the unity of ideal potential and a relative perspective within that potential. So in certain sense it's completely true that our every next state of being that we experience is new. Within infinite potential there's infinitesimal chance to experience the same state of being twice. The higher perspectives, which experience much more integrated ideal potential can comprehend the states that we experience, yet paradoxically as it may sound, even though the higher perspectives can encompass the more differentiated ones, they don't encompass one thing - what it is to experience these differentiated perspectives individually. This is a deep topic for meditation.

So we should make clear distinction here. When we speak of the infinite potential of ideas we speak of the Infinite, that which you called the Divine, beyond the Logoses. In my Deep M@L picture this is represented with the Center, which as I clarified should be thought to be everywhere. Then we should make another distinction. We shouldn't imagine that, for example, the Sun Logos represents a limited set of ideas and then the perspectives within its context are forced to experience only these ideas. This is one of the downsides of the naïve fractal analogy, which we commented with Ashvin some time ago. In our physical state we experience the light not only from the Sun but from every other star in the Cosmos. In other words, the Sun Logos creates the archetypal prism (a more convoluted mandala) through which the Infinite experiences not only the mandala but how the infinity is projected through the prism of that mandala. It's true that the mandala of the Solar system is the primary factor (after all, you can't grow tomatoes on the light of Sirius) but we shouldn't view this as applying some hard boundaries that separate us from the Infinite. As said, it's more fruitful if we think of the Solar mandala as the kaleidoscopic optical system through which the Infinite experiences itself.

To summarize, we should in no way imagine that the spheres represent limited sets of ideas that we are locked into. They create the seed condition from which the Infinite will grow to its unlimited potential. It is true that our perspective is within the Logoses - they are the depth of M@L but this doesn't mean that what we experience is a simple subset of the Logoses. There's something in man that is new and unknown for the Logoses themselves. That's the goal of the whole endeavor. The way that the Logoses will grow out of the microcosmic state is not predefined - it must be invented. The general macrocosmic blueprint of this growth has been laid down in the process of involution but evolution is by no means a simple reversal of this process. It's a completely new creative experience. Higher cognition doesn't reveal that the Logoses force us (themselves) to exist in some predefined way. It's more like the knowledge of the seasons or that after childhood comes adulthood and old age. These things can be seen as restrictions only when we are under illusion that they don't apply to us. If we understand them, not only that they are not really restrictions but they point in the direction where our truly creative potential can be unfolded. For example, the future social structure can be seen even today as an archetypal form but it's not something that will happen by itself. We must invent the details through our own effort. Just as in your example for the electronic circuit, so it is here. It is one thing to know what the end product should be able to do as a general idea, it's quite another thing to incarnate this idea into its fullest details. So it is with our Stellar evolution. The fact that it is already known that man's perspective will deconvolute through the spheres and approach the Infinite doesn't at all make life boring, as if we have been told the end of the movie and now we lose interest. Everyone knows that our current incarnation ends with the separation of the physical body but this is no reason to consider life to be boring. We should also be aware that this evolution is actually quite challenging. Especially in our decisive times. Nothing is written in stone. We should be clear of something: the spheres will complete their rhythmic unfoldment no matter what. But this is not certain about our human perspectives. It is possible that the mandala will deconvolute with man dissolving back into Cosmic sleep. From the higher perspectives of the Infinite, man's perspective would be like a failed evolutionary attempt, a Cosmic abortion. So it's not simply about being creative for the sake of creativity.

Here we should clear out something. A common objection is "Why should I, the Infinite, be forced to evolve back to my infinite potential. What if I want to explore my potential endlessly?". This is a very touchy subject. I can give no more than hints here. The fact is that the above question is pronounced by the ego. The more we approach the infinite potential, the more such questions become meaningless. The Infinite speaks to the ego "But this is precisely what happens everywhere in the temporal existence! There's nothing but parallel exploration of infinite creative paths". Then if we answer "That's understandable but I want that I experience all these paths" we should really investigate who's speaking in us. These are very deep topics. Even in Anthroposophy they are not much touched upon. Not because it's impossible to talk of them but because they are hard to swallow at our stage. As it is written "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."

If people could glimpse at the grandiose work that should be accomplished if we are to evolve integratively, they would be awestruck. Neither atomic energy, nor space flight compare with the level of ingenuity that we'll have to pull off if we are to solve these Cosmic riddles. Not speaking of merely intellectual cleverness, of course. As with every engineering project the real challenges begin only when we begin to implement our ideas. Then we need to solve many problems. So it is in our evolution. When I spoke about man becoming an altar I didn't at all meant that everything is predefined and we should simply stop our efforts and open up and expect the ready made ideas. No, my example was simply for the healthy attitude towards what is outside our control.
The Logoses didn't create something that they know the solution of beforehand. This is hinted in a beautiful way in Genesis. The Elohim first create and only then they see that it was good. Even though we contemplate a whole created Cosmos, in certain sense this is only the supporting structure in which man exists only as seed. Now the Infinite awakens in man and confronts the riddle. The only certain thing is there's a solution. How come? By virtue of the fact that we are self-conscious. If there's a path for the Light of the Infinite to reach and illuminate our microcosmic perspective with self-consciousness it means that... well there's a path. But how our perspective should be transformed in order to increase that Light is not a simple question. The general direction is clear but the details are up to us to be created. We need this prayer-like openness for all the potential that we can possibly tap into. And even then we'll have to make choices. Especially in our convoluted stage of evolution where there are no perfect solutions. There'll be resistance and friction at every step.
We, the perspective of the Logoses and the Infinite, within the riddle, can investigate the general blueprint of the mandalic spheres, which gives us the direction, but the solution consists in the most fantastic creative endeavor imaginable.

[Eugene I]

Cleric, thanks for your insights, I overall agree. Just one thought: we as humanity are definitely going in some direction, even though individual paths may vary, and we may have a sense that such direction is aimed at a certain "goal" that represents the intention of the Source for the telos and Logos of the humanity. However, with that being true, it may only represent the "scenario" for the the development of humanity, but not the actual purpose of the whole "project" of creation. As some NDE account suggested (Nanci Danison and others), the goal of the Source to create the universe and the multiplicity of alters was to actually gain the variety of conscious experiences from multiple limited perspectives in a variety of scenarios, including the experiences of developing from more primitive states to more advanced states of consciousness. In that way the Source, as well as all of us the alters, would be able to learn, mature and acquire more experiential knowledge than we would ever be able to acquire in any "sterile" purely spiritual and discarnate states. In simple words, the key purpose might be the very process of experiencing life from limited perspectives and the very process of creativity within those perspectives, and not specifically to achieve a certain goal. Or if you ask any creative person about the goal of their creative work, most would say - the process itself of the creative work IS the goal, plus there may be other goal too, such as aiming at creation of certain products, but those are usually secondary.

[AshvinP]

Cleric, thanks for your insights, I overall agree. Just one thought: we as humanity are definitely going in some direction, even though individual paths may vary, and we may have a sense that such direction is aimed at a certain "goal" that represents the intention of the Source for the telos and Logos of the humanity. However, with that being true, it may only represent the "scenario" for the the development of humanity, but not the actual purpose of the whole "project" of creation. As some NDE account suggested (Nanci Danison and others), the goal of the Source to create the universe and the multiplicity of alters was to actually gain the variety of conscious experiences from multiple limited perspectives in a variety of scenarios, including the experiences of developing from more primitive states to more advanced states of consciousness. In that way the Source, as well as all of us the alters, would be able to learn, mature and acquire more experiential knowledge than we would ever be able to acquire in any "sterile" purely spiritual and discarnate states. In simple words, the key purpose might be the very process of experiencing life from limited perspectives and the very process of creativity within those perspectives, and not specifically to achieve a certain goal. Or if you ask any creative person about the goal of their creative work, most would say - the process itself of the creative work IS the goal, plus there may be other goal too, such as aiming at creation of certain products, but those are usually secondary.

Eugene - I don't want to distract from your discussion with Cleric too much, but your comment immediately reminded me of a passage from Steiner's PoF.

https://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/En ... 4_c13.html

Therefore, if the pessimists believe that by showing pain to be present in greater quantity than pleasure they are preparing the ground for unselfish devotion to the work of civilization, they forget that the human will, by its very nature, does not allow itself to be influenced by this knowledge. Human striving is directed towards the measure of satisfaction that is possible after all difficulties are overcome. Hope of such satisfaction is the foundation of all human activity. The work of every individual and of the whole of civilization springs from this hope. Pessimistic ethics believes that it must present the pursuit of happiness as an impossibility for man in order that he may devote himself to his proper moral tasks. But these moral tasks are nothing but the concrete natural and spiritual instincts; and man strives to satisfy them in spite of the incidental pain. The pursuit of happiness which the pessimist would eradicate is therefore nowhere to be found. But the tasks which man has to fulfill, he does fulfill, because from the very nature of his being he wants to fulfill them, once he has properly recognized their nature. Pessimistic ethics declares that only when a man has given up the quest for pleasure can he devote himself to what he recognizes as his task in life. But no system of ethics can ever invent any life tasks other than the realization of the satisfactions that human desires demand and the fulfillment of man's moral ideals. No ethics can deprive man of the pleasure he experiences in the fulfillment of his desires. When the pessimist says, “Do not strive for pleasure, for you can never attain it; strive rather for what you recognize to be your task,” we must reply, “But this is just what man does, and the notion that he strives merely for happiness is no more than the invention of an errant philosophy.” He aims at the satisfaction of what he himself desires, and he has in view the concrete objects of his striving, not “happiness” in the abstract; and fulfillment is for him a pleasure. When pessimistic ethics demands, “Strive not for pleasure, but for the attainment of what you see as your life's task,” it hits on the very thing that man, in his own being, wants. Man does not need to be turned inside out by philosophy, he does not need to discard his human nature, before he can be moral. Morality lies in striving for a goal that one recognizes as justified; it is human nature to pursue it as long as the pain incurred does not inhibit the desire for it altogether. This is the essence of all genuine will. Ethical behaviour is not based upon the eradication of all striving for pleasure to the end that bloodless abstract ideas may establish their dominion unopposed by any strong yearnings for the enjoyment of life, but rather upon a strong will sustained by ideal intuitions, a will that reaches its goal even though the path be thorny.

Steiner goes on to make the point that a true ethics can only be derived from within humanity and within the human individual. Each individual must use the yardstick internal to their own being to see if they "measure up". The process of creation is definitely a motivating force which continues indefinitely, yet it cannot be divided from the process of achieving our specific goals as well. I have a found a useful heuristic to be as follows - if what we conceptualize as our purpose seems to diminish our need to adopt responsibility, then there is a good chance we are moving in the wrong direction.

[Eugene I]

Steiner goes on to make the point that a true ethics can only be derived from within humanity and within the human individual. Each individual must use the yardstick internal to their own being to see if they "measure up". The process of creation is definitely a motivating force which continues indefinitely, yet it cannot be divided from the process of achieving our specific goals as well. I have a found a useful heuristic to be as follows - if what we conceptualize as our purpose seems to diminish our need to adopt responsibility, then there is a good chance we are moving in the wrong direction.

Ashvin, without denying the value of the goal-orientation, I would offer a different perspective on it, since you are open to the evolutionary-process-based view. Most of our basic human psychology (arguable not all of it, but still most) was shaped by evolution in such a way that the most adaptive psychological mechanisms for survival were rewarded by natural selection. When humanoids developed cognition, their every-day survival began to include tasks beyond simple one-minute tasks (like eating, wandering around and sleeping) - such tasks as making tools, planning hunting strategies, building homes etc. Performing such longer-term tasks necessarily required to have a goal and plan in mind, so over time humans became very goal-oriented, and that is how they were able to advance and develop civilization, specialize in various skills etc. This goal orientation became very efficient survival and development mechanism for humans. Another part of this mechanism is finding the reasons and rationales to choose and complete certain tasks, because from natural selection perspective it would be a waste of time and resources to accomplish useless tasks. So this is how our goal-oriented psychology works: we live according to our short and long term goals and we always need to find justifications and reasons for our goals. And not surprisingly, we project this goal-orientation onto the whole society and unto the world around us and believe that the humanity as a whole and the world as a whole has certain goals. This does not means that it is a delusion and in reality there are no global goals, but it makes one wonder - how much of such belief it actually true, and how much is simply shaped by our evolutionary-developed human psychology.

One of the NDE experiencers asked the divine being during his NDE: "what is the plan for the creation?". The answer was: "there is no plan".
Similarly, Nanci Danison in her encounter with the Source experienced his personality as being "like a child", and as "loving, creative and curious", and saw that he created the world and conscious beings for the purpose of simply gaining experiences, which may be also a part of his learning and development process, just like children play motivated by an impulse to learn. Traditionally we think of the Divinity as extremely wise, mature and omniscient, but what if it is actually more like a child - playful, curious, creative?

[AshvinP]

Steiner goes on to make the point that a true ethics can only be derived from within humanity and within the human individual. Each individual must use the yardstick internal to their own being to see if they "measure up". The process of creation is definitely a motivating force which continues indefinitely, yet it cannot be divided from the process of achieving our specific goals as well. I have a found a useful heuristic to be as follows - if what we conceptualize as our purpose seems to diminish our need to adopt responsibility, then there is a good chance we are moving in the wrong direction.

Ashvin, without denying the value of the goal-orientation, I would offer a different perspective on it, since you are open to the evolutionary-process-based view. Most of our basic human psychology (arguable not all of it, but still most) was shaped by evolution in such a way that the most adaptive psychological mechanisms for survival were rewarded by natural selection. When humanoids developed cognition, their every-day survival began to include tasks beyond simple one-minute tasks (like eating, wandering around and sleeping) - such tasks as making tools, planning hunting strategies, building homes etc. Performing such longer-term tasks necessarily required to have a goal and plan in mind, so over time humans became very goal-oriented, and that is how they were able to advance and develop civilization, specialize in various skills etc. This goal orientation became very efficient survival and development mechanism for humans. Another part of this mechanism is finding the reasons and rationales to choose and complete certain tasks, because from natural selection perspective it would be a waste of time and resources to accomplish useless tasks. So this is how our goal-oriented psychology works: we live according to our short and long term goals and we always need to find justifications and reasons for our goals. And not surprisingly, we project this goal-orientation onto the whole society and unto the world around us and believe that the humanity as a whole and the world as a whole has certain goals. This does not means that it is a delusion and in reality there are no global goals, but it makes one wonder - how much of such belief it actually true, and how much is simply shaped by our evolutionary-developed human psychology.

One of the NDE experiencers asked the divine being during his NDE: "what is the plan for the creation?". The answer was: "there is no plan".
Similarly, Nanci Danison in her encounter with the Source experienced his personality as being "like a child", and as "loving, creative and curious", and saw that he created the world and conscious beings for the purpose of simply gaining experiences, which may be also a part of his learning and development process, just like children play motivated by an impulse to learn. Traditionally we think of the Divinity as extremely wise, mature and omniscient, but what if it is actually more like a child - playful, curious, creative?

Eugene - I agree with what you are saying until the bolded part. We can use the word "projection" if you want, but what we are talking about is insight into the real goal-oriented aspects of humanity. We could say those natural instincts we all have are not merely psychological, or we could recognize there is no fundamental difference between "psychological" (spiritual) and real under idealism. Evolution is the appearance of a real process in which natural laws produce later forms out of earlier forms. That which selects for the later forms is Reality-in-itself. It could not be any other way under idealism. So the goal-oriented nature of later forms (humans) is fundamental to who we are and how we mature as spiritual beings.

[Cleric K]

Cleric, thanks for your insights, I overall agree. Just one thought: we as humanity are definitely going in some direction, even though individual paths may vary, and we may have a sense that such direction is aimed at a certain "goal" that represents the intention of the Source for the telos and Logos of the humanity. However, with that being true, it may only represent the "scenario" for the the development of humanity, but not the actual purpose of the whole "project" of creation. As some NDE account suggested (Nanci Danison and others), the goal of the Source to create the universe and the multiplicity of alters was to actually gain the variety of conscious experiences from multiple limited perspectives in a variety of scenarios, including the experiences of developing from more primitive states to more advanced states of consciousness. In that way the Source, as well as all of us the alters, would be able to learn, mature and acquire more experiential knowledge than we would ever be able to acquire in any "sterile" purely spiritual and discarnate states. In simple words, the key purpose might be the very process of experiencing life from limited perspectives and the very process of creativity within those perspectives, and not specifically to achieve a certain goal.

Well, we reach again the same point where I don't think I can add something more. I must say that I understand quite well your point of view. I feel very precisely why the free creativity perspective seems more general. I also feel very well the inner rebellion 'to play by someone else's rules'. The quote that 'there is no plan' is correct but in a very specific sense. Maybe it's better to quote PoF again (Chapter XI: World Purpose and Life Purpose):

Monism rejects the concept of purpose in all areas with the sole exception of human action. It seeks laws of nature, but not purposes of nature. Purposes of nature are arbitrary assumptions just as unperceivable forces are (see page 109f). But also purposes of life which man does not give himself, are unjustified assumptions from the standpoint of monism. Only that is purposeful which man has first made to be so, for only through the realization of an idea does purposefulness rise. The idea however, becomes operative in the realistic sense only within man. Therefore human life has only the purpose and determination which man gives to it. To the question: What kind of task does man have in life?, monism can only answer: the one which he sets himself. My mission in the world is no predetermined one, but rather it is, at any given moment, the one I choose for myself. I do not enter upon my life's path with fixed marching orders.

So I hope that's cleared. The higher beings do not implant purposes to man. They have their own purposes. What we experience is how the activities of the beings impress in our perspective. In relation to these we must find our own purposes. As radical as it sounds, man may decide to destroy all life on Earth, including himself. Why not - it's free expression of his activity.

If the above is the case why do we speak about telos and development of humanity? As said, the fact that there's no externally instilled purpose to man doesn't mean that other beings don't embody their ideas in what they do. This is what forms our Cosmic context. What we can do is to investigate the workings of the beings and choose for ourselves our own purposes within that context. In the previous post I said that the beings of the spheres will unfold their activities irrelevant of what man decides to do with his destiny. So it really boils down to what we, as free beings, want to experience.

At this point we need spiritual science in order to understand the context of our existence. Spiritual science doesn't tell what the purpose of man should be either. It only states facts. It's up to every individual to decide what to do with them. In a similar sense it's a fact that man passes through childhood, adulthood and old age. It is entirely up to him to use this knowledge and unfold his activity in the best way he decides in accordance to these phases of life.

It is here that we should consider in the utmost seriousness the idea like that of free exploration of existence. This leads us to the subtle dichotomy that we've addressed many times. If I focus on free creativity, in a quite elusive way my whole incarnational mood is modulated. There's a certain feeling for segregation of responsibilities. The Source, the One Consciousness or whatever is responsible for my general environment, my only job is to explore the perspective that I happen to inhabit. In certain sense, everything else that happens around me is not strictly any of my business. Of course, this doesn't mean that I have to be immoral but still, I look on the social and planetary arena only as the unique conditions that the One Consciousness has specifically decided to explore. This view necessarily leads me to a certain dark zone between my incarnate perspective and that of the higher perspectives which support my environment. Although I know that they lie on a gradient, I don't consider it necessary to explore that gradient while in a body.

This is different if I'm open that the gradient can be investigated even while incarnated. Then I can explore the dark zone (behind the face in the Deep M@L picture). It is there that I discover the reality of the social organism. In the free exploration mode, society is more or less only an external association of free perspectives. Family, nation, race are only external circumstances for the free perspective to explore. But if the gradient is investigated I find a hierarchy of layers within Deep M@L which are responsible for the existence of race, nation and the stream of heredity. Only from this point of view I can ever make any sense of the social organism. This shifts the burden of responsibility on my shoulders. I understand that if we neglect the deep structure of the social organism we're not in the least capable of addressing the pressing problems of humanity. In free exploration mode we can only say "Maybe this is what M@L wanted to explore? It wanted to experience wars and poverty." The real question is what we want to experience. If we want to experience peace and unfoldment of the human potential no one else can do this but we ourselves, as responsible individuals. The idea that M@L is like a playful child is sweet but this doesn't change the fact that if M@L, in our human perspectives, neglects to understand the physical and spiritual context and its rhythmic transformation, the play will most certainly end up in disaster.

Or if you ask any creative person about the goal of their creative work, most would say - the process itself of the creative work IS the goal, plus there may be other goal too, such as aiming at creation of certain products, but those are usually secondary.

The creative work is without doubt what gives the satisfaction. But I'm sure that you and almost all creative persons have noticed something else too. This satisfaction rises exponentially if the things that we create have significance not only for ourselves but for other beings too. This is something that can be reflected on. It alludes to the fact that when we extend our interests and creative efforts beyond our personal affairs, our life receives intensity and meaning that can never be achieved when we explore only for ourselves.

[Eugene I]

Therefore human life has only the purpose and determination which man gives to it. To the question: What kind of task does man have in life?, monism can only answer: the one which he sets himself. My mission in the world is no predetermined one, but rather it is, at any given moment, the one I choose for myself.

Steiner is spot on, I totally agree.

And I agree in general with the rest that you said, Cleric. Of course we can not reduce all our lives to mere exploration or creativity, there are hierarchies and larger-scale gradients, there are involvements on all levels, and if we exercise love and empathy, there is work to do to help others in different ways. So, it's again the question of the right balance - not "either this or that", but all of it is relevant to certain extent. And in reality any creative work, even when if is done solely for the sake of satisfaction with the creative process, is always structured in a goal-oriented way. Even if I create just for the sake of creating with no use in mind for the product of creativity, I still need to set up a goal and a plan in order to get the creative process moving anywhere and to be meaningful.

[lorenzop]

Here is even a shorter essay . . .

Point to something/anything outside consciousness.