the mind at large has no metacognition ?

[AshvinP]

Yes but, in reality, we are always asking the question from a relational perspective. For us, a plant organism does not appear self-aware in the manner you describe i.e. human consciousness. From the plant organism perspective, we cannot really say unless if we have experienced that perspective. Since MAL is, by definition, whatever encompasses human, plant and all other possible perspectives, then I think we must conclude self-awareness from its human perspective. But what is the point of doing that? That conclusion does not provide any valuable information for further inquiry to relational perspectives.

I agree, as an evolving and incomplete organisms we can only speak from our incomplete perspective. I might have experiences of relocating the awareness normally anchored to my own being (to the plant organism for example) but can never know whether the experience is "true" or is it a projection of my own mind. However, for me, the answer to the question "Does the Generator understands what it generates ?" is crucial from the moral perspective.

It depends on what you mean by "moral perspective". To me, the concept of morality fits in the context for free human spirits. None of us are completely free in that sense, and most of us have not even started on the path of spiritual freedom. We are only acting morally if we are acting from within our own moral imagination, rather than following any sort of external dictates or cultural norms, religious or secular. That is what I am currently exploring through the Metamorphoses of the Spirit essays which you can find on the forum (the final part not yet posted will be particularly relevant to this issue). I say that I am exploring it because I am very much writing those to organize and expand on my own thoughts to myself. For relevance to this discussion, spiritual freedom, and therefore authentic morality, is itself a relational human perspective. We cannot speak of any "morality" which exists independent of that human perspective. From that perspective, we are what brings to MAL self-awareness which allows for Self-determined moral behavior.

Hence the reason BK continues speaking of MAL as non-metacognitive (I don't know if he does that intentionally, or maybe subconsciously, but that is why I would continue speaking that way, while also including the caveat it is a relational term). FYI - this is also Jung's perspective on the 'collective unconscious', and he was thoroughly within the Christian spiritual perspective.

It's of secondary importance, but I am confused as to why do you recognize Jung's stance as "within Christian spiritual perspective". From Judeo-Christian spiritual perspective, acquisition of meta consciousness is considered to be the fall of humankind, not elevation. Anthroposophy and Jung's work are representatives of Gnostic attitude. Gnosticism is a Luciferian doctrine, not Christian.

I disagree strongly, and this is also clarified is the Metamorphoses essays, particularly part on Incarnating the Christ. I believe the authentic Christian tradition encompasses a view that the spiritual progression of humanity is very much an ongoing work. Yes the Fall is intimately tied in with self-awareness, but so is the redemption of man as exemplified in Christ incarnate. It is only through Self-knowledge (knowledge of the higher Self within) that we can start on path of theosis, i.e. reintegration with the Divine. That is found within Jung's concept of "individuation" and most other aspects of his psychology relate to that process. Lucifer is indeed tied into the story of man's Fall into self-awareness, i.e. the bringing of Light (or Fire - Prometheus) to mankind, but he is not the whole story. That story is only brought into completion through Christ.