Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Incarnating the Christ

[Apanthropinist]

How do you make your argument, in the sense you and I would both understand, yet at the same time acknowledge "You are actually correct to say that we cannot fundamentally investigate beyond the "boundary" of the alter."

Completely agreed again. As to that last question, I am arguing that the metamorphic progression of Spirit has provided us the tools to expand that threshold to encompass increasingly more ideal relations in very fine detail. It is not much different from the common cultural view of science, except that the investigation must start from within because, as you also agreed, we are microcosm of the macrocosm and therefore our "boundary", in principle, is the same boundary as the macrocosm. With a slight shift in philosophical assumptions, a whole vista of potentially explorable territory is opened up to our Spiritual Imagination.

OK, let's unpack this: " I am arguing that the metamorphic progression of Spirit has provided us the tools to expand that threshold to encompass increasingly more ideal relations in very fine detail." Let's do this in a way that employs the 'very fine detail' of dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness that are words by definition, (very fine detail), I think we both agree that this is what words are. So I can see if I understand you correctly.

'I am providing a chain of related premises that will naturally lead to the conclusion (arguing) that the progressive change in form or structure (metamorphic) of consciousness (Spirit) has provided us with means and method (tools) by which we can dissolve the threshold boundary of the dissociative, delineative, descriptive distinctiveness of the 'alter' such that the re-associative, less-delineated, more indefinite, more ambiguous, experience of beholding (encompass increasingly more) what this 'looks like' (ideal relations) by employing dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness (words; very fine detail).'

In other words, you seem to be arguing that we can explain less fine detail (expansion) by employing more (very) fine detail (reduction)? Or, put another way, describing less distinction by employing more distinction? Given that less distinction would seem to be a natural consequence of crossing the dissociated boundary and the arrow of increasing association until we arrive at M@L, the unity.

Individual consciousness appears to be distinct (a dissociated alter) but when you look behind that distinction (across a dissociated boundary) it becomes less distinct (more associated) and so trying to apply more distinction to less distinction results in a reductive collapse back to distinction. We can't capture less distinctiveness (association) with more distinctiveness (dissociation) it's logically and practicably absurd.

[AshvinP]

How do you make your argument, in the sense you and I would both understand, yet at the same time acknowledge "You are actually correct to say that we cannot fundamentally investigate beyond the "boundary" of the alter."

Completely agreed again. As to that last question, I am arguing that the metamorphic progression of Spirit has provided us the tools to expand that threshold to encompass increasingly more ideal relations in very fine detail. It is not much different from the common cultural view of science, except that the investigation must start from within because, as you also agreed, we are microcosm of the macrocosm and therefore our "boundary", in principle, is the same boundary as the macrocosm. With a slight shift in philosophical assumptions, a whole vista of potentially explorable territory is opened up to our Spiritual Imagination.

OK, let's unpack this: " I am arguing that the metamorphic progression of Spirit has provided us the tools to expand that threshold to encompass increasingly more ideal relations in very fine detail." Let's do this in a way that employs the 'very fine detail' of dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness that are words by definition, (very fine detail), I think we both agree that this is what words are. So I can see if I understand you correctly.

'I am providing a chain of related premises that will naturally lead to the conclusion (arguing) that the progressive change in form or structure (metamorphic) of consciousness (Spirit) has provided us with means and method (tools) by which we can dissolve the threshold boundary of the dissociative, delineative, descriptive distinctiveness of the 'alter' such that the re-associative, less-delineated, more indefinite, more ambiguous, experience of beholding (encompass increasingly more) what this 'looks like' (ideal relations) by employing dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness (words; very fine detail).'

In other words, you seem to be arguing that we can explain less fine detail (expansion) by employing more (very) fine detail (reduction)? Or, put another way, describing less distinction by employing more distinction? Given that less distinction would seem to be a natural consequence of crossing the dissociated boundary and the arrow of increasing association until we arrive at M@L, the unity.

Individual consciousness appears to be distinct (a dissociated alter) but when you look behind that distinction (across a dissociated boundary) it becomes less distinct (more associated) and so trying to apply more distinction to less distinction results in a reductive collapse back to distinction. We can't capture less distinctiveness (association) with more distinctiveness (dissociation) it's logically and practicably absurd.

It sounds like you are simply assuming that more association means less distinction. That is the "Flat M@L" view in Cleric's essay - the view that re-association means a smearing out of ideal-perceptive contents. That is not the spiritual scientific view. While higher cognition will reveal more unities of relations, it does not necessarily do so by revealing 100 different things to be only 50 different things, to be only 10 different things, to be only 1 thing. There is a qualitative unification but not necessarily quantitative unification. Of course, I am just speculating from what I have read from Steiner and Cleric, and what seems to make the most intellectual sense (without any philosophical assumptions), so I could be wrong in the way I am phrasing it, but the key point I am making is that we are adding assumptions when saying more association means less distinctiveness.

From Cleric's essay:

Intellectual ideas only have meaning in relation to other ideas. For example, what meaning could it have to imagine empty M@L with nothing else but the single idea of a chair? This idea can never be what it is if it's not related to the ideas of human being, floor, gravity, etc. It is similar with the idea-beings. We shouldn't imagine that they are something self-contained that can exist independently. They only exist in relation to other idea-beings. In this sense we can say that idea-beings correspond to specific perspectives within M@L which receive their meaning only in relation to the unique constellation of all the other countless ideas-beings. We can think in the same way about man too. He's an idea-being that experiences the meaning of his perspective only because of his unique and highly complicated relation to the constellation of other idea-beings. For example, our perspective receives its natural 'feel' because M@L experiences (even if they are not conceptualized) the ideas of life, perception, desire, self, Earth, other humans, etc. We are idea-beings that struggle to find their proper relations to other idea-beings. Seen in this way, we can envision M@L as the infinite and eternal idea-potential, which can be experienced through differentiated relative perspectives.
...
We already see how radically different the two approaches are. In Flat M@L we are stuck either with abstract models that forever remain as floating structures within our own bubble or we sacrifice cognition in exchange of mystical feeling of oneness with the encompassing M@L. In Deep M@L it is through the evolution of cognition that we actually come to know what we are - an ever evolving perspective of the One Idea. Here we not only don't collapse cognition and succumb into nebulous feelings but cognition is our point of contact with the creative Idea - cognition evolves by feeling its way towards the archetypal forces that support the structure of Deep M@L. We come to know reality not when we dissolve into heartfelt oneness with the whole but when we continually integrate harmoniously the workings of M@L's creative ideas into our perspective.

[Soul_of_Shu]

OK, let's unpack this: " I am arguing that the metamorphic progression of Spirit has provided us the tools to expand that threshold to encompass increasingly more ideal relations in very fine detail." Let's do this in a way that employs the 'very fine detail' of dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness that are words by definition, (very fine detail), I think we both agree that this is what words are. So I can see if I understand you correctly.

'I am providing a chain of related premises that will naturally lead to the conclusion (arguing) that the progressive change in form or structure (metamorphic) of consciousness (Spirit) has provided us with means and method (tools) by which we can dissolve the threshold boundary of the dissociative, delineative, descriptive distinctiveness of the 'alter' such that the re-associative, less-delineated, more indefinite, more ambiguous, experience of beholding (encompass increasingly more) what this 'looks like' (ideal relations) by employing dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness (words; very fine detail).'

In other words, you seem to be arguing that we can explain less fine detail (expansion) by employing more (very) fine detail (reduction)? Or, put another way, describing less distinction by employing more distinction? Given that less distinction would seem to be a natural consequence of crossing the dissociated boundary and the arrow of increasing association until we arrive at M@L, the unity.

Individual consciousness appears to be distinct (a dissociated alter) but when you look behind that distinction (across a dissociated boundary) it becomes less distinct (more associated) and so trying to apply more distinction to less distinction results in a reductive collapse back to distinction. We can't capture less distinctiveness (association) with more distinctiveness (dissociation) it's logically and practicably absurd.

Having a highly active dreamtime life with such vivid detail as to be at least as rich as the consensus 'dream', if not more so, I'm wondering if this too entails the dissolution of the dissociative boundary, or conversely more permeability, allowing access to the psyche-at-large, normally obfuscated by the fixated focus within the consensus construct. And then how would so-called lucid dreaming, in which one can cognitively deconstruct the dreaming while it's occurring, relate to the above? Also, is much the same happening with the DMT induced state? And what of 5-Me0-DMT induced state, in which breaking through the boundary and all veils of dissociation, apparently does entail being reduced to a singular state absent all discrete, detailed experiential content whatsoever, so that what remains is only Awareness aware of being Awareness?

[AshvinP]

Completely agreed again. As to that last question, I am arguing that the metamorphic progression of Spirit has provided us the tools to expand that threshold to encompass increasingly more ideal relations in very fine detail. It is not much different from the common cultural view of science, except that the investigation must start from within because, as you also agreed, we are microcosm of the macrocosm and therefore our "boundary", in principle, is the same boundary as the macrocosm. With a slight shift in philosophical assumptions, a whole vista of potentially explorable territory is opened up to our Spiritual Imagination.

OK, let's unpack this: " I am arguing that the metamorphic progression of Spirit has provided us the tools to expand that threshold to encompass increasingly more ideal relations in very fine detail." Let's do this in a way that employs the 'very fine detail' of dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness that are words by definition, (very fine detail), I think we both agree that this is what words are. So I can see if I understand you correctly.

'I am providing a chain of related premises that will naturally lead to the conclusion (arguing) that the progressive change in form or structure (metamorphic) of consciousness (Spirit) has provided us with means and method (tools) by which we can dissolve the threshold boundary of the dissociative, delineative, descriptive distinctiveness of the 'alter' such that the re-associative, less-delineated, more indefinite, more ambiguous, experience of beholding (encompass increasingly more) what this 'looks like' (ideal relations) by employing dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness (words; very fine detail).'

In other words, you seem to be arguing that we can explain less fine detail (expansion) by employing more (very) fine detail (reduction)? Or, put another way, describing less distinction by employing more distinction? Given that less distinction would seem to be a natural consequence of crossing the dissociated boundary and the arrow of increasing association until we arrive at M@L, the unity.

Individual consciousness appears to be distinct (a dissociated alter) but when you look behind that distinction (across a dissociated boundary) it becomes less distinct (more associated) and so trying to apply more distinction to less distinction results in a reductive collapse back to distinction. We can't capture less distinctiveness (association) with more distinctiveness (dissociation) it's logically and practicably absurd.

It sounds like you are simply assuming that more association means less distinction. That is the "Flat M@L" view in Cleric's essay - the view that re-association means a smearing out of ideal-perceptive contents. That is not the spiritual scientific view. While higher cognition will reveal more unities of relations, it does not necessarily do so by revealing 100 different things to be only 50 different things, to be only 10 different things, to be only 1 thing. There is a qualitative unification but not necessarily quantitative unification. Of course, I am just speculating from what I have read from Steiner and Cleric, and what seems to make the most intellectual sense (without any philosophical assumptions), so I could be wrong in the way I am phrasing it, but the key point I am making is that we are adding assumptions when saying more association means less distinctiveness.

From Cleric's essay:

Intellectual ideas only have meaning in relation to other ideas. For example, what meaning could it have to imagine empty M@L with nothing else but the single idea of a chair? This idea can never be what it is if it's not related to the ideas of human being, floor, gravity, etc. It is similar with the idea-beings. We shouldn't imagine that they are something self-contained that can exist independently. They only exist in relation to other idea-beings. In this sense we can say that idea-beings correspond to specific perspectives within M@L which receive their meaning only in relation to the unique constellation of all the other countless ideas-beings. We can think in the same way about man too. He's an idea-being that experiences the meaning of his perspective only because of his unique and highly complicated relation to the constellation of other idea-beings. For example, our perspective receives its natural 'feel' because M@L experiences (even if they are not conceptualized) the ideas of life, perception, desire, self, Earth, other humans, etc. We are idea-beings that struggle to find their proper relations to other idea-beings. Seen in this way, we can envision M@L as the infinite and eternal idea-potential, which can be experienced through differentiated relative perspectives.
...
We already see how radically different the two approaches are. In Flat M@L we are stuck either with abstract models that forever remain as floating structures within our own bubble or we sacrifice cognition in exchange of mystical feeling of oneness with the encompassing M@L. In Deep M@L it is through the evolution of cognition that we actually come to know what we are - an ever evolving perspective of the One Idea. Here we not only don't collapse cognition and succumb into nebulous feelings but cognition is our point of contact with the creative Idea - cognition evolves by feeling its way towards the archetypal forces that support the structure of Deep M@L. We come to know reality not when we dissolve into heartfelt oneness with the whole but when we continually integrate harmoniously the workings of M@L's creative ideas into our perspective.

Another point - we have already gone astray if we imagine everyone with their own personal dissociative boundaries which are then dissolved once we reach higher cognition. We must take seriously that we are already existing in the One shared Consciousness, influencing and being influenced by the constellations of idea-beings within this One space.

[Apanthropinist]

Completely agreed again. As to that last question, I am arguing that the metamorphic progression of Spirit has provided us the tools to expand that threshold to encompass increasingly more ideal relations in very fine detail. It is not much different from the common cultural view of science, except that the investigation must start from within because, as you also agreed, we are microcosm of the macrocosm and therefore our "boundary", in principle, is the same boundary as the macrocosm. With a slight shift in philosophical assumptions, a whole vista of potentially explorable territory is opened up to our Spiritual Imagination.

OK, let's unpack this: " I am arguing that the metamorphic progression of Spirit has provided us the tools to expand that threshold to encompass increasingly more ideal relations in very fine detail." Let's do this in a way that employs the 'very fine detail' of dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness that are words by definition, (very fine detail), I think we both agree that this is what words are. So I can see if I understand you correctly.

'I am providing a chain of related premises that will naturally lead to the conclusion (arguing) that the progressive change in form or structure (metamorphic) of consciousness (Spirit) has provided us with means and method (tools) by which we can dissolve the threshold boundary of the dissociative, delineative, descriptive distinctiveness of the 'alter' such that the re-associative, less-delineated, more indefinite, more ambiguous, experience of beholding (encompass increasingly more) what this 'looks like' (ideal relations) by employing dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness (words; very fine detail).'

In other words, you seem to be arguing that we can explain less fine detail (expansion) by employing more (very) fine detail (reduction)? Or, put another way, describing less distinction by employing more distinction? Given that less distinction would seem to be a natural consequence of crossing the dissociated boundary and the arrow of increasing association until we arrive at M@L, the unity.

Individual consciousness appears to be distinct (a dissociated alter) but when you look behind that distinction (across a dissociated boundary) it becomes less distinct (more associated) and so trying to apply more distinction to less distinction results in a reductive collapse back to distinction. We can't capture less distinctiveness (association) with more distinctiveness (dissociation) it's logically and practicably absurd.

It sounds like you are simply assuming that more association means less distinction. That is the "Flat M@L" view in Cleric's essay - the view that re-association means a smearing out of ideal-perceptive contents. That is not the spiritual scientific view. While higher cognition will reveal more unities of relations, it does not necessarily do so by revealing 100 different things to be only 50 different things, to be only 10 different things, to be only 1 thing. There is a qualitative unification but not necessarily quantitative unification. Of course, I am just speculating from what I have read from Steiner and Cleric, and what seems to make the most intellectual sense (without any philosophical assumptions), so I could be wrong in the way I am phrasing it, but the key point I am making is that we are adding assumptions when saying more association means less distinctiveness.

If I were making an assumption then I could do nothing other than agree with you. But the English language (the 'very fine detail' of dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness that words are by definition and which we both agree on) prevents this and I have argued the limits of it's capacity and competence......

.....directly related to that of logic and science, which we also agree:

You are actually correct to say that we cannot fundamentally investigate beyond the "boundary" of the alter.

All the above being said:

1. More association means exactly and explicitly, by definition, less dissociation.

2. So more dissociation means exactly and explicitly, by definition, less association.

2. More distinction means exactly and explicitly, by definition, the opposite of less distinction (or ambiguity).

3. So less distinction (or ambiguity) means exactly and explicitly, by definition, the opposite of more distinction.

If the premise of analytical idealism is valid and its conclusion reveals a sound argument that there is one consciousness as the irreducible ontic reality (Mind At Large), which is to say an unambiguous unity of which 7,500,000 distinct by dissociation alters are experiences of that unambiguous unity.

Then, 7,500,000 appearances of distinct by dissociation alters can be nothing other than the experiences of the ontic unity termed Mind At Large.

it does not necessarily do so by revealing 100 different things to be only 50 different things, to be only 10 different things, to be only 1 thing.

Ashvin I believe you know well enough that you (& Cleric) must demonstrate what it necessarily does do, rather than what it necessarily doesn't do, otherwise you leave a wide open door to the objection "Well if it doesn't necessarily do so then it possibly could do so..." Then that's your argument in serious jeopardy right there and then. This problem is also related to, and compounded by, this below:

There is a qualitative unification but not necessarily quantitative unification.

There is a disguised dualism being introduced here. Here's how I see that:

A dissociated alter is not separate from the ground of what it is, ie, M@L. In the same way that the whirlpool (Kastrup's analogy) is in any way separated from the water, the whirlpool is nothing other than the water. There is nothing to unify as such simply M@L experiencing itself as dissociated alter. If the whirlpool ceases the water does not disappear.

A quantitative unification is neither necessary nor unnecessary, it simply does not exist and introduces a dualism. There is no 'I' except M@L, our identity, you and I, are an illusion. That is my understanding of Kastrup's analytical idealism. Would you agree?

[AshvinP]

OK, let's unpack this: " I am arguing that the metamorphic progression of Spirit has provided us the tools to expand that threshold to encompass increasingly more ideal relations in very fine detail." Let's do this in a way that employs the 'very fine detail' of dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness that are words by definition, (very fine detail), I think we both agree that this is what words are. So I can see if I understand you correctly.

'I am providing a chain of related premises that will naturally lead to the conclusion (arguing) that the progressive change in form or structure (metamorphic) of consciousness (Spirit) has provided us with means and method (tools) by which we can dissolve the threshold boundary of the dissociative, delineative, descriptive distinctiveness of the 'alter' such that the re-associative, less-delineated, more indefinite, more ambiguous, experience of beholding (encompass increasingly more) what this 'looks like' (ideal relations) by employing dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness (words; very fine detail).'

In other words, you seem to be arguing that we can explain less fine detail (expansion) by employing more (very) fine detail (reduction)? Or, put another way, describing less distinction by employing more distinction? Given that less distinction would seem to be a natural consequence of crossing the dissociated boundary and the arrow of increasing association until we arrive at M@L, the unity.

Individual consciousness appears to be distinct (a dissociated alter) but when you look behind that distinction (across a dissociated boundary) it becomes less distinct (more associated) and so trying to apply more distinction to less distinction results in a reductive collapse back to distinction. We can't capture less distinctiveness (association) with more distinctiveness (dissociation) it's logically and practicably absurd.

It sounds like you are simply assuming that more association means less distinction. That is the "Flat M@L" view in Cleric's essay - the view that re-association means a smearing out of ideal-perceptive contents. That is not the spiritual scientific view. While higher cognition will reveal more unities of relations, it does not necessarily do so by revealing 100 different things to be only 50 different things, to be only 10 different things, to be only 1 thing. There is a qualitative unification but not necessarily quantitative unification. Of course, I am just speculating from what I have read from Steiner and Cleric, and what seems to make the most intellectual sense (without any philosophical assumptions), so I could be wrong in the way I am phrasing it, but the key point I am making is that we are adding assumptions when saying more association means less distinctiveness.

If I were making an assumption then I could do nothing other than agree with you. But the English language (the 'very fine detail' of dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness that words are by definition and which we both agree on) prevents this and I have argued the limits of it's capacity and competence......

.....directly related to that of logic and science, which we also agree:

You are actually correct to say that we cannot fundamentally investigate beyond the "boundary" of the alter.

All the above being said:

1. More association means exactly and explicitly, by definition, less dissociation.

2. So more dissociation means exactly and explicitly, by definition, less association.

2. More distinction means exactly and explicitly, by definition, the opposite of less distinction (or ambiguity).

3. So less distinction (or ambiguity) means exactly and explicitly, by definition, the opposite of more distinction.

If the premise of analytical idealism is valid and its conclusion reveals a sound argument that there is one consciousness as the irreducible ontic reality (Mind At Large), which is to say an unambiguous unity of which 7,500,000 distinct by dissociation alters are experiences of that unambiguous unity.

Then, 7,500,000 appearances of distinct by dissociation alters can be nothing other than the experiences of the ontic unity termed Mind At Large.

it does not necessarily do so by revealing 100 different things to be only 50 different things, to be only 10 different things, to be only 1 thing.

Ashvin I believe you know well enough that you (& Cleric) must demonstrate what it necessarily does do, rather than what it necessarily doesn't do, otherwise you leave a wide open door to the objection "Well if it doesn't necessarily do so then it possibly could do so..." Then that's your argument in serious jeopardy right there and then. This problem is also related to, and compounded by, this below:

There is a qualitative unification but not necessarily quantitative unification.

There is a disguised dualism being introduced here. Here's how I see that:

A dissociated alter is not separate from the ground of what it is, ie, M@L. In the same way that the whirlpool (Kastrup's analogy) is in any way separated from the water, the whirlpool is nothing other than the water. There is nothing to unify as such simply M@L experiencing itself as dissociated alter. If the whirlpool ceases the water does not disappear.

A quantitative unification is neither necessary nor unnecessary, it simply does not exist and introduces a dualism. There is no 'I' except M@L, our identity, you and I, are an illusion. That is my understanding of Kastrup's analytical idealism. Would you agree?

I don't have time for more complete response now. So just a few things.

- We don't need to use BK analytical idealism as the standard by which everything is judged just bc we are on his forum. Particularly, he has not done a great job distinguishing Flat MAL from Deep MAL, as those analogies are employed by Cleric in his essay.

- I don't get how you are going from association-disassociation to less distinct and more distinct. Why does reassociation entail loss of distinction between ideal relations? That is the general Eastern mystic view but is not at all Western idealist view.

- We already agreed every human alter is microcosm of macrocosm rather than a fragment which, when pieced together with 7.5 billion alters, adds up to 1 MAL. That is simply not the correct way to envision it. We are truly unified with MAL who is truly diversified through the perspectives of idea-beings.

As for specifying what Deep MAL does do, again read Clerics essay as it is chock full of those details.

[Apanthropinist]

It sounds like you are simply assuming that more association means less distinction. That is the "Flat M@L" view in Cleric's essay - the view that re-association means a smearing out of ideal-perceptive contents. That is not the spiritual scientific view. While higher cognition will reveal more unities of relations, it does not necessarily do so by revealing 100 different things to be only 50 different things, to be only 10 different things, to be only 1 thing. There is a qualitative unification but not necessarily quantitative unification. Of course, I am just speculating from what I have read from Steiner and Cleric, and what seems to make the most intellectual sense (without any philosophical assumptions), so I could be wrong in the way I am phrasing it, but the key point I am making is that we are adding assumptions when saying more association means less distinctiveness.

If I were making an assumption then I could do nothing other than agree with you. But the English language (the 'very fine detail' of dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness that words are by definition and which we both agree on) prevents this and I have argued the limits of it's capacity and competence......

.....directly related to that of logic and science, which we also agree:

You are actually correct to say that we cannot fundamentally investigate beyond the "boundary" of the alter.

All the above being said:

1. More association means exactly and explicitly, by definition, less dissociation.

2. So more dissociation means exactly and explicitly, by definition, less association.

2. More distinction means exactly and explicitly, by definition, the opposite of less distinction (or ambiguity).

3. So less distinction (or ambiguity) means exactly and explicitly, by definition, the opposite of more distinction.

If the premise of analytical idealism is valid and its conclusion reveals a sound argument that there is one consciousness as the irreducible ontic reality (Mind At Large), which is to say an unambiguous unity of which 7,500,000 distinct by dissociation alters are experiences of that unambiguous unity.

Then, 7,500,000 appearances of distinct by dissociation alters can be nothing other than the experiences of the ontic unity termed Mind At Large.

it does not necessarily do so by revealing 100 different things to be only 50 different things, to be only 10 different things, to be only 1 thing.

Ashvin I believe you know well enough that you (& Cleric) must demonstrate what it necessarily does do, rather than what it necessarily doesn't do, otherwise you leave a wide open door to the objection "Well if it doesn't necessarily do so then it possibly could do so..." Then that's your argument in serious jeopardy right there and then. This problem is also related to, and compounded by, this below:

There is a qualitative unification but not necessarily quantitative unification.

There is a disguised dualism being introduced here. Here's how I see that:

A dissociated alter is not separate from the ground of what it is, ie, M@L. In the same way that the whirlpool (Kastrup's analogy) is in any way separated from the water, the whirlpool is nothing other than the water. There is nothing to unify as such simply M@L experiencing itself as dissociated alter. If the whirlpool ceases the water does not disappear.

A quantitative unification is neither necessary nor unnecessary, it simply does not exist and introduces a dualism. There is no 'I' except M@L, our identity, you and I, are an illusion. That is my understanding of Kastrup's analytical idealism. Would you agree?

I don't have time for more complete response now. So just a few things.

- We don't need to use BK analytical idealism as the standard by which everything is judged just bc we are on his forum. Particularly, he has not done a great job distinguishing Flat MAL from Deep MAL, as those analogies are employed by Cleric in his essay.

- I don't get how you are going from association-disassociation to less distinct and more distinct. Why does reassociation entail loss of distinction between ideal relations? That is the general Eastern mystic view but is not at all Western idealist view.

- We already agreed every human alter is microcosm of macrocosm rather than a fragment which, when pieced together with 7.5 billion alters, adds up to 1 MAL. That is simply not the correct way to envision it. We are truly unified with MAL who is truly diversified through the perspectives of idea-beings.

As for specifying what Deep MAL does do, again read Clerics essay as it is chock full of those details.

Simple question, not a trap, 'That is my understanding of Kastrup's analytical idealism. Would you agree?'

[Eugene I]

- I don't get how you are going from association-disassociation to less distinct and more distinct. Why does reassociation entail loss of distinction between ideal relations? That is the general Eastern mystic view but is not at all Western idealist view.
...Particularly, he has not done a great job distinguishing Flat MAL from Deep MAL, as those analogies are employed by Cleric in his essay.

Because you guys keep trashing the Eastern views, I have to make corrections. Most Vedic and Buddhist schools, especially those that absorbed yogic practices, are fully aware of no-flat deep layered structures (astral, ethereal etc bodies). Most Buddhist traditions (except for a few schools may be) never entail in a loss of any distinctions in the discarnate form, but rather a continuation of distinctions in a different (non-dual) mode of perception.

[AshvinP]

Simple question, not a trap, 'That is my understanding of Kastrup's analytical idealism. Would you agree?'

What part of it? You made a lot of assertions in that post. But for sake of simplicity, I will say yes that is BK's idealism. What next?

[AshvinP]

- I don't get how you are going from association-disassociation to less distinct and more distinct. Why does reassociation entail loss of distinction between ideal relations? That is the general Eastern mystic view but is not at all Western idealist view.
...Particularly, he has not done a great job distinguishing Flat MAL from Deep MAL, as those analogies are employed by Cleric in his essay.

Because you guys keep trashing the Eastern views, I have to make corrections. Most Vedic and Buddhist schools, especially those that absorbed yogic practices, are fully aware of no-flat deep layered structures (astral, ethereal etc bodies). Most Buddhist traditions (except for a few schools may be) never entail in a loss of any distinctions in the discarnate form, but rather a continuation of distinctions in a different (non-dual) mode of perception.

Ok I will retract the statement on Eastern mystic view. But if the above is accurate, then I am even more confused as to why you push back on Western idealism so often, and go to pains to point out we alters are all "creating" ideal narratives which veil the "pure experience" of MAL.