Number of posts per day limits - a suggestion

[AshvinP]

IMO, utilizing his attorney skills, Ashvin is doing the best job to make people disagree with him

It is an intriguing dynamic, since both Ashvin and Cleric are expressing much the same ideas, often referencing each other in support of their views, and yet, while Cleric certainly gets some push back here and there, especially from you, he doesn't seem to attract the same ire that Ashvin has directed his way, so it seems it has to do with more than just the ideas. This is not intended as a knock against Ashvin, as I really don't have a problem with his persona, finding it quite entertaining, just an observation that there are factors playing into this dynamic that warrant a deeper examination.

Oh this is easy to explain - it is the hyper-abstract approach which I am trying to overcome and also recommending others try to do as well, which is very difficult because it is our most prized possession and we sense that we are losing something central to our current identity, because we really are - our abstract intellectual ego. When spiritual concepts are brought down into abstractions, as even the trained mystic must do once returning to normal cognition, there is a lot of room for disagreement and misunderstanding. They are so vague and fuzzy that people can project all sorts of things into them which are not really there. Cleric himself points this out in various ways. In the terms of Dr. Iain McGilchrist neuroscience, it is the left brain refusing to reassume its proper role as emissary to the right brain who is Master.

As you point out, I joined this forum last year. Dana - I assume you have been around as long as anyone. What were the core metaphysical questions being asked when it just started compared to the ones being asked now, apart from any spiritual science topics Cleric or I have been writing about? I think I can already guess the answers... we have been banging our abstract intellect against a brick wall for decades now, and our questions are the exact same as they were before, and probably the "answers" too. I wasn't on this forum but was doing the same thing on other forums in my own way. The truth is, we like banging the head against a wall. It's a nice comfortable routine for us to dull the nihilism of the modern age. It's a hardcore addiction. So is it any wonder we get very irritated when someone says to put down the crack pipe?

But with more imaginative Thinking of the sort Cleric employs, which is more living and full of qualitative essence, there really is not much if any room for logical disagreement. If anyone else's experience is like mine, everything flows more smoothly than the screeching chalk-concepts on the blackboard of mere intellect. Even the irritation at his conclusions, which are diametrically opposed to some Eastern mystical views people cherish highly here, and not much different than my own as you point out, is probably dampened by the undeniable truth and power of the imaginative reasoning. Until we start factoring in these realities to everything we perceive and think, it will all just be super abstract speculation which leads nowhere.

Cleric tries to point this out often but I feel it is simply glossed over by most here - there is major practical difference in the way we perceive things that manifests relatively quickly, almost immediately, with a genuine turn towards spiritual science. Every phenomenon, including the metamorphosing dynamics of online forum discussion, becomes more interesting to consider and easier to make sense of at the same time, as they manifest as organic aspects of a living Whole. No experience feels lost or wasted, not even the most frustratingly "repetitive" ones. Of course I am still in a position where I can get easily frustrated by such things, which I am sure reflects in my responses to people here, but I also see some of the deep reasons why this occurs and, armed with that knowledge, I can at least chart a course to move beyond them.

[Steve Petermann]

Online discussions groups are interesting from a psychological perspective. Participants have a wide range of personality types and motivations. If the primary goal is the pursuit of knowledge and truth, that necessarily requires having one's own ideas challenged. However, at times that pursuit can be thwarted by the antics of certain individuals who, for whatever reason, are more interested in argumentation itself as the end instead of the means. When that is the case, all sorts of tactics are employed to keep the arguments going irrespective of whether or not they are productive. Typical examples are baiting, nonsequitur, and ad hominem. The list is long for these psychological tactics. However, these tactics are only effective if interlocutors are sensitive to them and feel the strong need to defend themselves or their positions. For those who are secure enough in their sense of self, this need not be the case.

This reminds me of the earlier version of the movie "War Games". In that movie, a powerful AI computer is given broad powers to defend the US. To learn how to deal with threats, it plays war games. A teenager hacks into the system to play some games and inadvertently gets the computer to start a war game called "Thermo Nuclear War" which turns out to be real. Eventually, the teenager gets the computer to play tick-tack-toe. In playing that game it shuts down the nuclear game and says: "Apparently, the only winning move is not to play".

These unproductive tactics are unfortunate because sometimes those employing them have something interesting to add to the dialog. What they may not realize is that sound arguments without the need for baiting can maintain a dialog. However, to counter those tactics, if people feel secure enough to not take the bait, perhaps discussions won't get swamped with sidetracks, repetition, and infinite ramblings. "The only winning move is not to play."

[Soul_of_Shu]

As you point out, I joined this forum last year. Dana - I assume you have been around as long as anyone. What were the core metaphysical questions being asked when it just started compared to the ones being asked now, apart from any spiritual science topics Cleric or I have been writing about?

Well anyone can still do a search of the old MS forum archive dating back to its origins, and find for themselves what was being discussed back then. Interestingly, if one searches for 'Jean Gebser' there are 50 discussions dating back to August 2014, such as this one, most involving many participants who have since moved on (although Don Salmon, a big Aurobindo booster back then, has made a brief reappearance), so one can see that there was some incipient verging upon the themes now being discussed in this forum, albeit clearly not yet being fully elaborated upon. As far as I can tell, Cleric didn't start commenting until 2020, so it indeed took quite a while for those themes to become more prevalent, as well as more thoroughly explicated.

[JustinG]

Looks like the nays have it. Fair enough, but let's keep in mind that a lot of people come here wanting to learn more about BK's philosophy, not Steiner. Perhaps a separate Steiner/Barfield sub-forum would be an idea.

Also, limits are not always a bad thing, or part of a sinister social justice warrior conspiracy. They can inculcate virtues such as patience, respect and tolerance. Monastic communities are laden with limits.

[AshvinP]

Looks like the nays have it. Fair enough, but let's keep in mind that a lot of people come here wanting to learn more about BK's philosophy, not Steiner. Perhaps a separate Steiner/Barfield sub-forum would be an idea.

Also, limits are not always a bad thing, or part of a sinister social justice warrior conspiracy. They can inculcate virtues such as patience, respect and tolerance. Monastic communities are laden with limits.

Justin,

You don't seem to be aware that we are fundamentally disagreeing with you, your metaphysics, your form of spirituality, your outlook, and your proposed "solutions". It is not about BK vs. Steiner, or any thinker vs. any other thinker - it is about nihilism vs. spiritual freedom in our view. Case in point - we argue "virtues" will never be inculcated by way of forced or coerced limits, because the person adhering to those limits will always feel as they are externally imposed and not internally desired. That person is neither virtuous nor free. Of course, if you view human spiritual history as static and fixed, then it makes some sense that what worked to discipline the mind millennia ago will still work now, but you know we hold the exact opposite of the static and fixed view.

We are constantly asking people to engage with these arguments - to read them (yes, surprisingly that must be done), to ask questions about them if clarification is needed, to make arguments against them, to reformulate them, or whatever the case may be. But this rarely if ever happens - rather they are misrepresented, ignored, and avoided in all sorts of ways by a very predictable set of people with very predictable beliefs. I asked you for a simple logical argument backing up your attempted character assassination of Barfield (about 3 different times in the last few days), and you can't even provide that.

And now you want to take this forum to a whole new level of censorship. When logical and reasoned expressions of these sorts of disagreements - the very important and not trivial sort - cannot even be tolerated without censorship or some kind of segregated partitioning (which is not only incidentally related to the spiritual fragmentation we are interested in avoiding), you are manifesting the "sinister" authoritarian model in real time right before our eyes. (and am I imagining things, or is it you who first mentioned Barfield on two different threads as support for your position, and now are saying we need a "sub-forum" for him?). You are validating Barfield's prediction from the 1950s, which I have posted here no less than 3 or 4 times and seems to become more relevant with each passing week (just substitute "logical positivist" with "mystical materialist" and all the same points apply):

In the nineteenth century, belief in imagination proved itself to be clearly allied with belief in individual freedom; necessarily so, because the act of imagination is the individual mind exercising its sovereign unity. In the twentieth century we are gradually learning that the converse is equally true. There is a curiously aggressive note, often degenerating into a sneer, in the style of those who expound the principles of linguistic analysis. Before he even begins to write, the Logical Positivist has taken the step from 'I prefer not to interest myself in propositions which cannot be empirically verified' to 'all propositions which cannot be empirically verified are meaningless'. The next step to 'I shall legislate to prevent anyone else wasting his time on meaningless propositions' is unlikely to appear either illogical or negative to his successor in title. Those who mistake efficiency for meaning inevitably end by loving compulsion...

[JustinG]

Case in point - we argue "virtues" will never be inculcated by way of forced or coerced limits, because the person adhering to those limits will always feel as they are externally imposed and not internally desired. That person is neither virtuous nor free.

That sounds a lot like anarchism, which I also agree with. If you knew anything about Marxism (and yes, like other things, it can be complicated), you would know that anarchism is perfectly compatible with Marx. So quit with the baseless bloviating.

Like many others here, I am interested in the promotion of idealism. The fact that 70% of members of this forum never make more than 5 posts suggests to me that the forum could do better in this area.

If there was a separate Steiner sub-forum, new members might feel more comfortable discussing the basics of BK's philosophy in the General Discussions section. Once they were more knowledgeable with the basics of idealism, they may then feel inclined to move on and discuss Spirit with other Advanced Souls in the Steiner sub-forum.

.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Ok guys, suffice to say that post limits aren't likely to be helpful in resolving anything. I'll consider the possibility of creating some topic-specific sub-forums, if I get feedback here that enough members feel that would be a preferred option. But it's not a decision that I'm going to make without giving it a lot more thought. Meanwhile, there is the option of posting topics in the formal discussions section, if anyone wants to keep the discussion focused on a specific line of inquiry, without it being diverted into what someone else would prefer to be discussing.

[AshvinP]

Case in point - we argue "virtues" will never be inculcated by way of forced or coerced limits, because the person adhering to those limits will always feel as they are externally imposed and not internally desired. That person is neither virtuous nor free.

That sounds a lot like anarchism, which I also agree with. If you knew anything about Marxism (and yes, like other things, it can be complicated), you would know that anarchism is perfectly compatible with Marx. So quit with the baseless bloviating.

Like many others here, I am interested in the promotion of idealism. The fact that 70% of members of this forum never make more than 5 posts suggests to me that the forum could do better in this area.

If there was a separate Steiner sub-forum, new members might feel more comfortable discussing the basics of BK's philosophy in the General Discussions section. Once they were more knowledgeable with the basics of idealism, they may then feel inclined to move on and discuss Spirit with other Advanced Souls in the Steiner sub-forum.

Another case in point - people like you are very comfortable with "sounds a lot like", which means "I don't have to actually read The Philosophy of Freedom to know what it's about". Even under any rationalist understanding that would be considered completely worthy of critique, not "bloviating". Under our view, it's really spiritual stagnation of the worst sort - it values certainty instead of curiosity, vague abstractions instead of practical experience. It's willing to restrict free thought-speech for the amorphous goal of "promotion of idealism", which has no meaning unless it is related to some practical aims. Who wants to promote idealism simply for the sake of creating more people who say, "I think the Universe is made of mental stuff" instead of "I think the Universe is made of material stuff"? Or more people who ask, "is the image of a cell in my body an 'alter' or is it not an 'alter'", and continue asking that for the next 50 years? What exactly is the practical purpose of that?

Dana already addressed your "sub-forum" point - there is nothing stopping anyone from discussing anything except their own lack of curiosity or enthusiasm for the topics. Your notion that we need to rearrange the entire structure of the forum to coerce people into talking about BK's philosophy is silly and will also be counter-productive. No one is refraining from asking about BK's idealism simply because they see my comments. Dana also recognized that this "promotion of idealism" is nowhere close to your real motivation here - it's very transparent, Justin. But if you want me to stop responding on the "what is an alter?" threads, then sure I will stop. I don't have much interest in addressing those questions anymore, even if it is to simply point people away from the need to ask such non-practical questions.

Since it is somewhat unfair for me to just say we completely disagree with your view without further detail, let me expand. Your view is not just Marxian but also Freudian or "neo-Freudian". I will use myself as a case study. Many times when I was reading Cleric's essays, I would come upon the various simple and basic imaginative exercises he outlines. My first reaction was always, "mental note: come back to this in a few days after reading up some more and psyching myself up to try it". Of course those few days became a few weeks and a few months. Which is not to say there are not legitimate reasons to put off those things, but there are also completely artificial excuses and lies we tell ourselves to avoid them. I find that, after some serious reflection, it is much more often the latter than the former. The same thing applies to simply refusing to read someone's argument or ask questions.

So the Freudian says, "this fear of trying new things must be due to some repressed childhood trauma, probably something related to sexuality, but in any case it has nothing to do with all those archetypal Hero myths which are just fairy tales we invent when we can't face the truth of our personal traumas". The Marxian may chime in, "this is a natural fear of colonialist capitalist mentality which invents spiritual mumbo jumbo to keep people from realizing they are chained by the socioeconomic relations." We say, "this has everything to do with the archetypal Hero myths like that of Oedipus, which we can only make sense of if they are pointing to the practical steps we must take to approach the actual spiritual Reality". We need courage in the face of self-doubts and endless excuses and procrastination. We need to venture out beyond familiar territory to face the unknown. We need to seek first the Kingdom in righteousness before turning to all abstract worldly explanations for our experience.

Yeah, I know, you call all of the above "bloviation" and that's exactly my point. It is the degenerating sneering attitude Barfield mentioned that develops when confronted by actual concrete experience which questions your rationalist world-conception. Simply transplanting Marx and Freud onto metaphysical idealism does not change that. You are retaining the very core essence of their worldviews which trivializes spiritual reality and promotes the world of appearances as the one calling the shots and therefore deserving all of our attention. Everything we hold to as spiritual truth is flipped and inverted under the guise of "compassion", "fairness", "equality", "promotion of idealism", whatever. Either take a hard look at yourself and your own motivations or don't, that's up to you - but this "bloviation" will continue.

[Eugene I]

I would support fragmenting into subforums so that people could more easily navigate and also it would be less confusing for newcomers. Right now IMO the topics here are a mess of different flavors of idealism which can be very confusing for newbies. Discussions of the BK books and metaphysics should definitely be separated into its own subfoum. I also agree that there should be a separate subforum for the Steiner's lineage of idealism. Other subforums may spin-off when needed.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I'll also again point out that there is a reason why this forum is called metakastrup. And as I recall pandaproducts did start a subreddit dedicated to discussing analytical idealism inspired by BK's body of work, which I haven't really investigated so I don't know if it generated much activity, but perhaps it might be more exclusively focused. I still feel that the one who really needs to debate those who feel that Steiner, and by extension Ashvin and Cleric, renders BK's idealism elementary and lacking in depth and/or greater heights is BK himself, if anyone can figure out how to address him on that topic, since he's the one whose reputation is most at stake. After all, unless he can counter the critical scrutiny, who else standing in for him really counts for much?