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

[AshvinP]

I’m pleased I brought you both together for a change

I do understand where you both are coming from, but I don’t know how to put the way god is present in consciousness into words. Consciousness is not the right word, but neither is unconscious, or metaconscious, or habitual etc. Yes there should be another version of the hard problem like there would be between mind and matter if they were different ontological substances, but this is different. It’s almost philosophical enquiry proofed, deliberately. The aim is for people to approach god through heart and mind, not just mind, and find him in humility. Sorry Eugene, but a little quote that sums it up better than me;

Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

27“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

28“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

There is a way in which reality is ‘folded out’, and each fold in a way rests on, and shapes, the next fold. We have different ways to perceive some of these folds, and it’s very easy for us to assume that a particular fold is all. But the reality I’ve come to accept is that there is a fundamental element that’s more like stories than metaphysics. Not stories that M@L is telling to itself, but deliberate stories behind that fabric of the universe that are somehow woven into our individual lives.

It’s difficult to explain to someone who hasn’t had it ‘fall on their head’, including many christians, but some of it is touched on in this story that Pageau just posted a link to https://www.firstthings.com/article/202 ... he-machine

Simon,

I honestly think you are describing an 'esoteric', "mystical", etc. view of Christianity (I think Pageau's view leans into that as well). Such an approach realizes first and foremost the labels do not matter, and many times are counter-productive to the understanding we are seeking. Another aspect is that there are many 'folds' of perceiving-knowing and there is no reason for us to claim the particular fold we are experiencing now encompasses all of the folds. There is an ideal reality of relations woven into our individual existence which indeed present as archetypal stories and therefore they are best captured by mythopoetic narratives until they can be directly experienced. So none of what you said above is at odds with that esoteric approach, at least as far as I can tell in my own limited understanding of such approaches.

The bolded part is the only issue, and even that is not at odds, but rather, to me, it's an odd phrase which is out of place in the rest of your comment. It's like you are considering the esoteric view as only about mere intellectual arguments and not about willing, feeling, intuition, imagination, etc. Why is that? Is it only the fact that we are discussing it here with mere intellectual concepts for the time being? Because I am not aware of anything I have written, Cleric has written, Steiner has written, etc. that endorses the "mere intellectual" view of higher cognition, spiritual sight, and theosis. Sometimes clear articulation of a philosophical-spiritual view is mistaken for mere intellectual approach, but then it seems to me it is the responsibility of the person making the mistake to clear it up.

[Simon Adams]

Simon,

I honestly think you are describing an 'esoteric', "mystical", etc. view of Christianity (I think Pageau's view leans into that as well). Such an approach realizes first and foremost the labels do not matter, and many times are counter-productive to the understanding we are seeking. Another aspect is that there are many 'folds' of perceiving-knowing and there is no reason for us to claim the particular fold we are experiencing now encompasses all of the folds. There is an ideal reality of relations woven into our individual existence which indeed present as archetypal stories and therefore they are best captured by mythopoetic narratives until they can be directly experienced. So none of what you said above is at odds with that esoteric approach, at least as far as I can tell in my own limited understanding of such approaches.

The bolded part is the only issue, and even that is not at odds, but rather, to me, it's an odd phrase which is out of place in the rest of your comment. It's like you are considering the esoteric view as only about mere intellectual arguments and not about willing, feeling, intuition, imagination, etc. Why is that? Is it only the fact that we are discussing it here with mere intellectual concepts for the time being? Because I am not aware of anything I have written, Cleric has written, Steiner has written, etc. that endorses the "mere intellectual" view of higher cognition, spiritual sight, and theosis. Sometimes clear articulation of a philosophical-spiritual view is mistaken for mere intellectual approach, but then it seems to me it is the responsibility of the person making the mistake to clear it up.

Hi Ashvin. I think the esoteric and exoteric form the whole, and you should have a balance between the two. Maybe the only way to explain my comment is by looking at the reality of the two peaks that go beyond metaphysical description. In the catholic tradition for example (and Orthodox), there is the mass and there is eucharistic adoration. The mass is a coming together, an external ritual that connects heaven with our internal world, often mostly beyond our direct perception. It is the pinnacle of the exoteric, although the reality of what’s happening is internal. It’s a gradual aligning internally, by doing something externally.

Eucharistic adoration on the other hand is individual, silent and more within perception. Unlike meditation where you silence the mind and transcend your ego on the horizontal, in adoration, the mind usually naturally goes silent after the first 30 minutes or so, but it is very much a filling rather than an emptying. This is the pinnacle of the esoteric. There is nothing that can really be said of it, no concepts that can define it or explain it. It’s just creature and creator, sharing each others presence. The ‘place’ is mind, but the presence is ‘being’.

In the christian tradition there has always been a concept of mysterium fidei, mysteries of faith. These are very explicitly not things which we haven’t explained yet, they are things which it is not possible to explain - they can only be revealed directly by god, because they are beyond the human ability to conceptualise.

[Soul_of_Shu]

In the christian tradition there has always been a concept of mysterium fidei, mysteries of faith. These are very explicitly not things which we haven’t explained yet, they are things which it is not possible to explain - they can only be revealed directly by god, because they are beyond the human ability to conceptualise.

And yet, if one is going with the monism of an aware prime Entity, which in its self-partitioning into a multiplicity of relational, subjectified loci, allowing for the obfuscation of the grand scheme/picture, so to speak, such that while experiencing a partitioned mode some aspect remains impossible to explain, then any revelation by that Entity can only be in the opening up of its subjectified partitioned mode into some realization of its unicity. How else?

[AshvinP]

Simon, Eugene, Dana (and anyone else following along),

I have posted a response on Part II thread and hope we can continue the discussion there. I know Part II is really long and therefore people have not had a chance to read it, but I also think it could help clear up a lot of issues surrounding what we can or cannot know through thinking!