Interesting response-movement. The previous thought was dancing as actual dancing etc. Dionysian movement in and by the spirit. You shifted the Dionysian a notch to the passive wittness position, "theoretical" in the original Greek meaning of watching/audience.Cleric K wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:02 amAs long as we realize that when 'the will chooses to be conscious of the spiritual', we can no longer afford to express in this way. To be conscious of the spiritual in its essence means that we have the mentioned in my previous post, point of overlap. To dance with the spiritual one can simply recede and watch a movie by allowing himself to be carried by it. To be conscious of the spiritual means that in Thinking we are the very will of the movie. We can no longer speak that 'some will' decides to experience the spiritual within us, while we quietly observe this fact as a third person merged with the background.SanteriSatama wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 5:09 am If the will so wants, it can choose to be consciouss of the spiritual. If the will so wants, it can just dance the spiritual. And any mix.
Could this pass for a summary of Schop and Stein?
In terms of person pronoun systems, we have different backgrounds and deep structures. By "will chooses to be conscious", I thnk we at least agree that it's obvious that the will can't be separate from the consciousness making the consciouss choise, and there's no a priori reason to assume external and separate will in this context.
The most interesting movement was the shift from "passive wittness", which maintains some degree of exteriority, to "mind's eye" or analogical sphere of experiencing, where movements and choises are more fully interior. But not under the will of consciousness, which maintains a participatory and dialectic role instead of solipsist control.
Does this make any sense?