Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Transfiguring our Thinking (Part I)

[Simon Adams]

Simon - thanks for your comment. Please indulge me some more here and see if the following helps. If you, as an adult now, were to look upon your infant self right after birth, and then take a portal into the consciousness of your infant self, would you feel as though the two different modes of experience leave "too big of a gap" for you to claim both modes as belonging to the same Self? Similarly, ask the same question if you were to take a portal into the consciousness of ancient humans 'painting' on a cave wall tens of thousands of years ago. Of course the problem here is that we cannot simply do that in any normal cognitive state, but can we really doubt the massive qualitative gap exists?

Here is another angle - my final part will go into Steiner's PoF re: spiritual activity of thinking. I hope it will show clearly how we, as humans right now, at this very moment, are taking part in the co-creation of the phenomenal world around us. Now if we acknowledge that is what is occurring and take it seriously, we also must ask ourselves what it means to be fully conscious of that co-creation as it occurs. Ultimately, for most of us who accept Christ as savior and His revelation in scripture, the seeming "unbridgeable gap" likely comes down to the Creator-creature duality. We simply cannot imagine how we are participating in the literal creation of the world. I hope this point will become more clear from the next part.

For me personally, coming at the same claim of theosis as literal (not just metaphorical or analogical) reintegration with the Divine from many different angles is what helped. Idealism was a great framework to start with but it simply was not satisfying re: deeper spiritual questions. Further, when contemplating the perspective of various philosophers, theologians, mystics, many of whom are referenced in these essays and quoted above, I was not satisfied with the idea that they are merely speaking of union with God as in a husband with his wife, at least not in the normal way we think about what such a marriage truly entails.

So, yes, there is a huge gap between where we are now and where we could potentially be, but is that not the case with every aspect of our metamorphic progression? Within our daily progression from sleeping to awaking, from infancy to adulthood, from archaic to modern, etc.? Such progressions are marked by 'punctuated equilibriums' which also make them seem discontinuous from each other. Christianity asks us to take seriously the seeming discontinuity between being born and born again in the Spirit, while also asking us to take seriously that, with God, all things are possible and that we must have faith in that simple fact. I do not take Paul's words below as anything less than literal:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Yes I take them literally, but you’ve got to take into account that he is writing to a community of Christians in what is now Turkey. Paul makes it very clear that to be ‘one in Christ’, you need to follow his commands (love god, love your neighbour), eat his body, drink his blood. It’s very much a becoming rather than a realising - as he says in 1 Corinthians 10;

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

Jesus was very clear that this is an active choice, rather than the natural state of things. For example;

“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. Whoever does not love Me does not keep My words.

[AshvinP]

That's a very good way of asking the question. It forces us to consider why we think we are not worthy of the actual reunion.

It has to be a function of why we've come to think that there is ever any actual disunion. It is never the case, except that thinking makes it so. And since, as metacognitive expressions of this immanent, ever-evolving, metamorphic Idea construction, the forsaking of Thinking is not an option, then, as the essay's title bespeaks, its transfiguration is paramount.

It depends on what we mean by "disunion". I think everyone here agrees the world is fundamentally qualitative, and even what we now call "quantities" are in essence qualitative. So if that is the only 'stuff' of the world, and we are at a qualitatively different stage than God, there then there is a real disunion. As much as I push back on Simon's view that there is some hard impermeable boundary between us and That which created us, I would also push back on anyone who claims it is only a matter of thinking about ourselves differently (which is not to say that is what you are claiming). I would also add that the process of reincarnation is the only way that I can envision anyone fully realizing the path of theosis they start in their current lifetime. We are talking about a long drawn out process here. But, of course, we must start on the quest somewhere and sometime and those first baby steps are what I am trying to capture in this part about transfiguring our thinking, as you also recognize when saying "forsaking of Thinking is not an option".

[AshvinP]

That's a very good way of asking the question. It forces us to consider why we think we are not worthy of the actual reunion. Why we assume Augustine's concepts of "total depravity" and "predestination", which found their way into the much of Reformed tradition, must be the accurate view of our relation to God. We will find that the reason is ultimately not much different than the reason materialists-dualists cannot accept the subject plays any role in the reality of the object, that our consciousness plays any role in the reality of the 'unconscious' world around us.

There may be many possible perspective on this topic of dissociation-reunion, neither of which may be entirely correct, and all of which may be partially true. But another perspective (supported by many NDE accounts) is that it has nothing to do with any "fall", of being "worthy" or "not worthy". Dissociation and incarnation is a way for the MAL to explore the reality of its own consciousness from many possible perspectives, both expanded/integrated and contracted/fragmented. Neither of them are "truer" than any others, "higher" or "lower", they are all valuable experiences and ways to explore the infinite space of conscious states and ideas. But dissociated and fragmented states typically involve confusion, memory loss and suffering, and when alters live through their fragmented phases, they suffer, get confused and seek the ways back into integration, and this is completely natural and expected. Yet, the telos of this whole adventure might not not be specifically to integrate from fragmentation, but actually to experience the fragmentation in order to perceive the reality from different perspectives, and then integrate those perspectives into the wholeness of the MAL knowledge, including the experiential knowledge about the aspects of the reality of consciousness that MAL can not experience in the integrated state. Here is an interesting NDE account about this":

If such were the case, i.e. all equally valid perspectives simply being explored and then integrated or not as the case may be for each localized consciousness, then we would also have to admit our speculation here is a complete waste of time. It also seems to me your bolded statement is at odds with the earlier points in the comment. If integration is not "higher" than non-integration, then we have no reason to say anyone should be striving towards integration. Moreover, we have no answer to the question of evil and suffering, because we are claiming the integration which relieves such evil and suffering is no more desirable than the fragmented perspective which necessitates it.

[AshvinP]

Yes I take them literally, but you’ve got to take into account that he is writing to a community of Christians in what is now Turkey. Paul makes it very clear that to be ‘one in Christ’, you need to follow his commands (love god, love your neighbour), eat his body, drink his blood. It’s very much a becoming rather than a realising - as he says in 1 Corinthians 10;

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

Jesus was very clear that this is an active choice, rather than the natural state of things. For example;

“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. Whoever does not love Me does not keep My words.

As you said before, I think the difference between us is very subtle. Because what you quote above and what you have quoted before seems exactly aligned with the perspective I am arguing for. I am not saying anything other than theosis is a becoming. Yes, precisely participation in the blood and body of Christ. Not metaphorical participation but literal participation. It is definitely an active choice - if we do nothing towards that aim of becoming One in Christ, then nothing will happen except further fragmentation. Every individual is responsible for their own spiritual destiny in this regard, no one can lay blame on anything external to themselves, whether it God, Nature, Culture, or anything else.

[Soul_of_Shu]

It depends on what we mean by "disunion". I think everyone here agrees the world is fundamentally qualitative, and even what we now call "quantities" are in essence qualitative. So if that is the only 'stuff' of the world, and we are at a qualitatively different stage than God, then there is a real disunion.

Not seeing any stage-specific disunity ... as in the analogy of root, leaf, blossom, fruit and seed being integral to their shared unicity, and by extension each iota of the entire relational ecology of the Cosmos as idea construction, however ephemeral.

[Eugene I]

If such were the case, i.e. all equally valid perspectives simply being explored and then integrated or not as the case may be for each localized consciousness, then we would also have to admit our speculation here is a complete waste of time. It also seems to me your bolded statement is at odds with the earlier points in the comment. If integration is not "higher" than non-integration, then we have no reason to say anyone should be striving towards integration. Moreover, we have no answer to the question of evil and suffering, because we are claiming the integration which relieves such evil and suffering is no more desirable than the fragmented perspective which necessitates it.

No, integration is not a waste of time. It is part of the process of consciousness exploring itself though various flows and perspectives. Every flow, every path and every part of this process has its own value.

But you don't have to believe me, it is OK if some alters perceive their particular path (such as the path towards integration) as the central theme or the universal telos, because this is also part of the whole process. It's like MAL wondering "what would it be like to disintegrate and then seek to integrate again and believe that such integration is the universal telos?". There is a unique perspective and unique experience in such position that can only be realized if you really have unshakeable faith in you particular beliefs.

[AshvinP]

If such were the case, i.e. all equally valid perspectives simply being explored and then integrated or not as the case may be for each localized consciousness, then we would also have to admit our speculation here is a complete waste of time. It also seems to me your bolded statement is at odds with the earlier points in the comment. If integration is not "higher" than non-integration, then we have no reason to say anyone should be striving towards integration. Moreover, we have no answer to the question of evil and suffering, because we are claiming the integration which relieves such evil and suffering is no more desirable than the fragmented perspective which necessitates it.

No, integration is not a waste of time. It is part of the process of consciousness exploring itself though various flows and perspectives. Every flow, every path and every part of this process has its own value.

But you don't have to believe me, it is OK if some alters perceive their particular path (such as the path towards integration) as the central theme or the universal telos, because this is also part of the whole process. It's like MAL wondering "what would it be like to disintegrate and then seek to integrate again and believe that such integration is the universal telos?". There is a unique perspective and unique experience in such position that can only be realized if you really have unshakeable faith in you particular beliefs.

What is the value right now of us arguing over the details of the "various flows and perspectives" (infinite in number) under your view? What are we gaining from it? Why should we take on blind faith that such a process is valuable even if we have no idea why or how?

[Eugene I]

What is the value right now of us arguing over the details of the "various flows and perspectives" (infinite in number) under your view? What are we gaining from it? Why should we take on blind faith that such a process is valuable even if we have no idea why or how?

We are doing "metaphysical speculations" on this forum exploring different possibilities of what reality might be and how it might be structured. And there is a value of such exploration, because this is how both natural and spiritual sciences work and how they develop. Science does not lock itself into a single theory and paradigm and then stars believing that it is the only true and possible one. Instead, it keeps the "open mind" approach and explores all possibilities, unless it would arrive at some final truth that would be undeniably, ultimately and exhaustibly true (which obviously has not happen yet). But until that happens (if it ever happens), the only way to keep the exploration and scientific process going is to keep the "open mind" approach.

[Simon Adams]

As you said before, I think the difference between us is very subtle. Because what you quote above and what you have quoted before seems exactly aligned with the perspective I am arguing for. I am not saying anything other than theosis is a becoming. Yes, precisely participation in the blood and body of Christ. Not metaphorical participation but literal participation. It is definitely an active choice - if we do nothing towards that aim of becoming One in Christ, then nothing will happen except further fragmentation. Every individual is responsible for their own spiritual destiny in this regard, no one can lay blame on anything external to themselves, whether it God, Nature, Culture, or anything else.

Yes I do see that there are many quotes from scripture where it will mean one thing to you, and another thing to me, but nonetheless the meaning we both take will often be very similar. You say the “literal participation”, I say the “literal participation”, but my version requires an act where the symbolic becomes manifest, where earth mirrors heaven and they touch. However I do see something important in what you say, as even though I believe in the real presence in the eucharist, I’m completely against the protestant idea that this is somehow the end of the story (which is even more bizarre considering that they don’t believe in the real presence). I do think the outward ritual act is important, but without the ‘inward’ reality it means nothing. As to your main point, the idea that they are separate is a ‘new’ idea.

As I see it there is plenty of overlap in our understandings, but although I suspect you won’t agree, I think the big difference is at it’s foundation around the distinction between the self realisation of the east, and theosis. If MaL is the same as god, then these are indeed the same thing. Self realisation is like a falling away, a ‘rising’ ‘out of yourself’ to see clearly that which was always there. The mystical is similarly a ‘lifting out of yourself’, but it’s very much an encounter. You can of course argue that different cultural backgrounds shape the appearance of the experience, but I think the idea that these are the same has had a big influence on philosophy for the past few centuries.

[AshvinP]

What is the value right now of us arguing over the details of the "various flows and perspectives" (infinite in number) under your view? What are we gaining from it? Why should we take on blind faith that such a process is valuable even if we have no idea why or how?

We are doing "metaphysical speculations" on this forum exploring different possibilities of what reality might be and how it might be structured. And there is a value of such exploration, because this is how both natural and spiritual sciences work and how they develop. Science does not lock itself into a single theory and paradigm and then stars believing that it is the only true and possible one. Instead, it keeps the "open mind" approach and explores all possibilities, unless it would arrive at some final truth that would be undeniably, ultimately and exhaustibly true (which obviously has not happen yet). But until that happens (if it ever happens), the only way to keep the exploration and scientific process going is to keep the "open mind" approach.

Sure I agree with all of that. My point is that reality is, in fact, structured a certain way, even if we are continually exploring and shedding more light on how it is structured. And, as we explore its structure, lighting up more dark areas, we are generally narrowing down the "various flows and perspectives" which are useful in that exploration. What we find the more useful is considered "higher" than what we find less useful.