Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Breaking Bad Habits

[Cleric K]

...or plasma. But your examples are ones of how you need imperfection in order for anything to move/act/progress/regress etc. It is that very asymmetry (potential difference) that gives motive force to movement. Perfection, if that's the end game of Man, would be a symmetric state, in which nothing further could happen without breaking the symmetry, thus breaking the 'perfection'. This is the issue, as I see it, with any notion of perfection, whether it be physics or spirituality, it is a state of stasis, it 'holds' itself in a state out of which it cannot 'move' without breaking. Life is dynamic is it not, all life I suspect, and for that you need imperfection and asymmetry. It's the same with DNA, where adaptivity happens through genetic imperfection that gives a new advantage.
...
It may be wise to be cautious about what is now an explainable, observable and repeatable natural phenomena but it does highlight how readily we can create narratives of spiritual ideation, even if innocently because we lacked knowledge.

I agree. The dynamics and variety of life only takes place between the polarities/singularities of the darkest point of nothingness and the brightest point of the absolute perfection. Both of those singularities are the points of stagnation. But when we are in the dynamic state, there is an "impression" of a gradient of the common flow from darkness to perfection. Yet, in fact, the perfection mat not be something to ever reach, but rather one of the moving forces of the dynamics of the world.

Of course, perfection is point at infinity.
There's one import asymmetry in the flow between the poles which is more than 'impression'. The stream of consciousness can exist only from less conscious towards more conscious. Or in other words - only in direction of integration, implosion of states of being or what we call - memory. If our every next state is less conscious than the previous and doesn't contain the imprint of the previous, there could never emerge conscious experience of temporal becoming. This gives us a more practical understanding of perfection. It's the harmonic integration, the vorticial implosion of the metamorphic view.

Of course to this will be objected "I don't like this philosophy. I much prefer to bounce eternally between the poles, I don't want to grow towards Macrocosmic being." Well, some things are not a matter of what we like or dislike but of what is true. Currently our memories integrate towards the inevitable telos of the loss of the physical body. So it is the destiny of our metamorphic view on Cosmic scale. And this can be verified.

[Eugene I]

Of course, perfection is point at infinity.
There's one import asymmetry in the flow between the poles which is more than 'impression'. The stream of consciousness can exist only from less conscious towards more conscious. Or in other words - only in direction of integration, implosion of states of being or what we call - memory. If our every next state is less conscious than the previous and doesn't contain the imprint of the previous, there could never emerge conscious experience of temporal becoming. This gives us a more practical understanding of perfection. It's the harmonic integration, the vorticial implosion of the metamorphic view.

Of course to this will be objected "I don't like this philosophy. I much prefer to bounce eternally between the poles, I don't want to grow towards Macrocosmic being." Well, some things are not a matter of what we like or dislike but of what is true. Currently our memories integrate towards the inevitable telos of the loss of the physical body. So it is the destiny of our metamorphic view on Cosmic scale. And this can be verified.

Well, its a good and optimistic belief, it gives you a meaning and a spiritual goal in life, so I have nothing against that. But still, how do you know that is it the ultimate truth of the universal telos? "And this can be verified." - how do you verify that exactly?

It may be true but may be not. The part of the universe of consciousness where we currently live may indeed be on a swing to integration. Or may be it only seems to be on such path, but the actual intention of the creators was different and the movement to integration is only a scene where bunch of other possibly no less important processes are going on. But still, in any case this does not necessarily mean that the whole universe is going in that direction. When you drift along the Gulfstream, it may seem that the whole ocean is flowing that way. But in fact it is only a local flow in only one possible directions among many others.

I remember studying Marxism at University, and we were taught that the whole human civilization is developing towards the integration into the global communism. The process led by the comrad Stalin was quite simple: those who wanted to participate in such global integration were welcomed, those who opposed were sent to hell Gulag concentration camps. Fortunately that communism never happened. Hopefully the metamorphic flow of Cosmic Integration is not heading towards the Global Spiritual Communism.

[Marco Masi]

James said that in relation to a hypothetical human being who had never thought but only perceived. In reality, there can be no such human being. A newborn experiences perceiving-thinking as unified process of the world with no exterior-interior distinction.

But, as far as I can see in babies, they don't understand a thing when looking around. There is the seeing, and the exterior-interior distinction is lacking precisely because they can make no sense of these inner-outer concepts. As adults we still can have experience suggestive of this as well. Think of certain Gestalt figures. First one doesn't see anything but, after a while, suddenly a meaning emerges and one "sees" a semantic object. First there is the perceiving, then the thinking.

Right, you are referring to meta-cognitive thinking (or at least partially meta-cognitive), which is necessary for a being to "understand a thing". That is only a later form of thinking which has unfolded from earlier non-meta-cognitive forms of thinking. Barfield calls the former mode of thinking "alpha-thinking". Newborns do not have alpha-thinking but they do have thinking which can structure perceptions to some degree. The fact that they can even pay attention to some aspect of their experience for a little while is evidence of thinking.

Hmm... paying attention is not an indication of "thinking". It is "attention", "intentionality", "aware absorption", "concentration" or whatever we might name it. But I'm afraid that labeling this as "thought" is something which can lead to severe misunderstandings. Because you mean something with that word to which others will associate something else.

[Apanthropinist]

If we were to adopt this view then would we not also be inevitably creating a seat at the table for the aphorism "le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" (The best (perfect) is the enemy of the good)? Moreover, the notion of perfect, as I think you mean it here but could be wrong, seems to me to be logically impossible to defend.

I understand your concern and I would support it both hands if it was a matter of humans walking the Earth as perfect beings. But I have something completely different in mind. I don't know if you have taken a look at this essay. Unless the idea of evolution and the gradual development of the microcosmic metamorphic view into Macrocosmic is considered, the idea of perfection can never be grasped in the proper sense.

It isn't actually a concern Cleric, it's the beginning of my argument (philosophical) rather than another narrative which you have provided here. A narrative that contains argument from adverse consequences and also ambiguous assertion.

You haven't answered the problem of perfection, instead you moved into a nebulous undefined domain with 'something different in mind'. But that's OK, you're under no obligation. You have an interesting narrative but, from what I can tell, a flawed argument.

[AshvinP]

But, as far as I can see in babies, they don't understand a thing when looking around. There is the seeing, and the exterior-interior distinction is lacking precisely because they can make no sense of these inner-outer concepts. As adults we still can have experience suggestive of this as well. Think of certain Gestalt figures. First one doesn't see anything but, after a while, suddenly a meaning emerges and one "sees" a semantic object. First there is the perceiving, then the thinking.

Right, you are referring to meta-cognitive thinking (or at least partially meta-cognitive), which is necessary for a being to "understand a thing". That is only a later form of thinking which has unfolded from earlier non-meta-cognitive forms of thinking. Barfield calls the former mode of thinking "alpha-thinking". Newborns do not have alpha-thinking but they do have thinking which can structure perceptions to some degree. The fact that they can even pay attention to some aspect of their experience for a little while is evidence of thinking.

Hmm... paying attention is not an indication of "thinking". It is "attention", "intentionality", "aware absorption", "concentration" or whatever we might name it. But I'm afraid that labeling this as "thought" is something which can lead to severe misunderstandings. Because you mean something with that word to which others will associate something else.

I think you are right that "attention" is better placed in the "willing" category of experience. However, there is always some aspect of mental activity which allows humans to learn, i.e. to connect experiences in some useful manner for their own development. Coleridge may call it "primary imagination". Whatever we call it, it best fits into the "thinking" category. And the main point here is that all of those four categories - willing, sensing, feeling, thinking - are fundamental and do not ever exist in isolation from the others.

[Apanthropinist]

Of course, perfection is point at infinity.
There's one import asymmetry in the flow between the poles which is more than 'impression'. The stream of consciousness can exist only from less conscious towards more conscious.

So sleeping without dreams doesn't count? Mind At Large becoming dissociated alter doesn't count?

Or in other words - only in direction of integration, implosion of states of being or what we call - memory. If our every next state is less conscious than the previous and doesn't contain the imprint of the previous.....

So dementia doesn't count?

This gives us a more practical understanding of perfection.

What it gives us is the fallacy of argument by selective observation.

Of course to this will be objected "I don't like this philosophy. I much prefer to bounce eternally between the poles, I don't want to grow towards Macrocosmic being." Well, some things are not a matter of what we like or dislike but of what is true. Currently our memories integrate towards the inevitable telos of the loss of the physical body. So it is the destiny of our metamorphic view on Cosmic scale. And this can be verified.

You're quite right, it isn't a matter of what we like or dislike, it is what we can prove by argument. I kept this from when I was at University:

Philosophy is not not about the world. Philosophy is not about ideas or theories. Philosophy is not about books, or individual men and women.

Philosophy is about arguments.

True, arguments are often about the world. And arguments usually involve ideas or theories. And arguments can normally be found in books. And books, to our knowledge, are all written by men and women. But the subject-matter, the métier, of philosophy, is arguments. More particularly, philosophy is about arguments concerning the most general claims to be made about anything.

Argument is meant to reveal the truth, not to create it.

[Marco Masi]

And the main point here is that all of those four categories - willing, sensing, feeling, thinking - are fundamental and do not ever exist in isolation from the others.

I don't know... For me sensing an feeling are very different than thinking and can exist in isolation. But never mind... it is probably a matter of semantics.
But then a question arises: Does an insect think? A plant? A paramecium?

[AshvinP]

And the main point here is that all of those four categories - willing, sensing, feeling, thinking - are fundamental and do not ever exist in isolation from the others.

I don't know... For me sensing an feeling are very different than thinking and can exist in isolation. But never mind... it is probably a matter of semantics.
But then a question arises: Does an insect think? A plant? A paramecium?

How do they exist in isolation? As said in the essay and mentioned to Eugene, the burden is on those who deny inseparability of thinking from the other categories. Because we all experience them as inseparable. Then we escape that conclusion of our experience by adding an assumption like "babies don't appear to think" or "simpler life forms don't appear to think". This topic is definitely not a matter of semantics under idealism, because idealism (at least of the Western variety) posits ideational activity as an irreducible aspect of Reality. So we need to be very clear on this topic of thinking as inseparable from sensing, willing and feeling.

[JustinG]

Of course, perfection is point at infinity.
There's one import asymmetry in the flow between the poles which is more than 'impression'. The stream of consciousness can exist only from less conscious towards more conscious. Or in other words - only in direction of integration, implosion of states of being or what we call - memory. If our every next state is less conscious than the previous and doesn't contain the imprint of the previous, there could never emerge conscious experience of temporal becoming. This gives us a more practical understanding of perfection. It's the harmonic integration, the vorticial implosion of the metamorphic view.

Of course to this will be objected "I don't like this philosophy. I much prefer to bounce eternally between the poles, I don't want to grow towards Macrocosmic being." Well, some things are not a matter of what we like or dislike but of what is true. Currently our memories integrate towards the inevitable telos of the loss of the physical body. So it is the destiny of our metamorphic view on Cosmic scale. And this can be verified.

Well, its a good and optimistic belief, it gives you a meaning and a spiritual goal in life, so I have nothing against that. But still, how do you know that is it the ultimate truth of the universal telos? "And this can be verified." - how do you verify that exactly?

It may be true but may be not. The part of the universe of consciousness where we currently live may indeed be on a swing to integration. Or may be it only seems to be on such path, but the actual intention of the creators was different and the movement to integration is only a scene where bunch of other possibly no less important processes are going on. But still, in any case this does not necessarily mean that the whole universe is going in that direction. When you drift along the Gulfstream, it may seem that the whole ocean is flowing that way. But in fact it is only a local flow in only one possible directions among many others.

I remember studying Marxism at University, and we were taught that the whole human civilization is developing towards the integration into the global communism. The process led by the comrad Stalin was quite simple: those who wanted to participate in such global integration were welcomed, those who opposed were sent to hell Gulag concentration camps. Fortunately that communism never happened. Hopefully the metamorphic flow of Cosmic Integration is not heading towards the Global Spiritual Communism.

From a different angle, other Marxists, such as Moishe Postone, argue that the idea of a telos or directional dynamic to human becoming (whether based on religious notions or the state capitalism of Stalinist states) is itself an outcome of the growth dynamic and expansionary nature of capitalism. Overcoming the growth dynamic of capitalism would therefore also entail the eventual overcoming of the goal oriented notion of becoming, and the transformation of life into play.

[Marco Masi]

How do they exist in isolation? As said in the essay and mentioned to Eugene, the burden is on those who deny inseparability of thinking from the other categories. Because we all experience them as inseparable. Then we escape that conclusion of our experience by adding an assumption like "babies don't appear to think" or "simpler life forms don't appear to think". This topic is definitely not a matter of semantics under idealism, because idealism (at least of the Western variety) posits ideational activity as an irreducible aspect of Reality. So we need to be very clear on this topic of thinking as inseparable from sensing, willing and feeling.

We experience this daily. Just think how you can experience a feeling while sleeping. One feels the urge to go to toilet, or feels cold because the environment is getting cold, or you are in half-sleep and hear a sound, etc. Of course, these experiences in sleep can express itself also in form of dreams (one dreams of going to toilet, walking in a snowy landscape, or visualizes someone beating a drum, etc.) but there are also states of consciousness (try to recall this) where one does not think on the perceived phenomena at all and only feels without adding to the experience whatsoever thought. It is only when one wakes up that one thinks "oh... I must pee", "oh... I need another blanket", "oh... my neighbor is a noisy guy", etc. If you take the first-person approach to these philosophical issues you see that lots of things we take for granted are not that obvious at all.