Number of posts per day limits - a suggestion

[AshvinP]

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?

I'm not sure his "reputation" is at stake, but yes it would nice to hear his thoughts on Cleric's essays especially, such as Deep MAL: Beyond Flat MAL.

In the meantime, I have a new working title for my next essay series, "Fragmented Modern Mythology: Mystical Materialism". Justin and Eugene will be featured with their quotes quite literally calling for fragmentation of ideas into little splinters, so there is a total of one person following each idea I could also call it "mystical idealism", but I refuse to denigrate the integral vision of so many profound idealists in the past.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I'm not sure his "reputation" is at stake, but yes it would nice to hear his thoughts on Cleric's essays especially, such as Deep MAL: Beyond Flat MAL.

In the meantime, I have a new working title for my next essay series, "Fragmented Modern Mythology: Mystical Materialism". Justin and Eugene will be featured with their quotes quite literally calling for fragmentation of ideas into little splinters, so there is a total of one person following each idea I could also call it "mystical idealism", but I refuse to denigrate the integral vision of so many profound idealists in the past.

If BK is included in the category of someone who denigrates the integral vision of so many profound idealists of the past then, within the confines of this forum at least, it would seem his reputation, tied to his conclusion that Schopenhauer was perhaps the most profound idealist, is at stake. Granted, unless that discussion, and the essays, are taken outside the confines of this forum, and garner significant attention in a much broader arena of discourse, I doubt he'll give that notion, or the essays, much serious consideration as a challenge to that reputation.

[AshvinP]

I'm not sure his "reputation" is at stake, but yes it would nice to hear his thoughts on Cleric's essays especially, such as Deep MAL: Beyond Flat MAL.

In the meantime, I have a new working title for my next essay series, "Fragmented Modern Mythology: Mystical Materialism". Justin and Eugene will be featured with their quotes quite literally calling for fragmentation of ideas into little splinters, so there is a total of one person following each idea I could also call it "mystical idealism", but I refuse to denigrate the integral vision of so many profound idealists in the past.

If BK is included in the category of someone who denigrates the integral vision of so many profound idealists of the past then, within the confines of this forum at least, it would seem his reputation, tied to his conclusion that Schopenhauer was perhaps the most profound idealist, is at stake. Granted, unless that discussion, and the essays, are taken outside the confines of this forum, and garner significant attention in a much broader arena of discourse, I doubt he'll give that notion, or the essays, much serious consideration as a challenge to that reputation.

I would like to think his reputation will rest on how he chooses to react once provided this "new" idealist perspective. It seems to me unlikely he has even read PoF yet. If he can openly consider and engage with it, then that's enough in my book. I don't expect anyone to simply adopt philosophy of Thinking and spiritual science in a week or month or even year, in fact it's better if gradually worked out for oneself over as much time as needed, since then it is really internalized and verified within one's own experience. He really should be super critical of it, but of course that's only possible once he seriously considers it. Not all past idealist frameworks needs to be completely abandoned... Schopenhaur contains a lot of wisdom. Even Kant for that matter. But one needs to become much more discerning of separating the wheat from the chaff.

Yeah, that's the main obstacle in general... finding a way to garner more serious consideration of these things in the age of fragmented attention via social media. I think its very unlikely to happen anytime soon, given the state of hyper fragmentation we are in. While we "wait" for BK to weigh in, we really need to take it upon ourselves to explore, understand, test, and verify these spiritual truths. That is actually what will make the most difference in both our lives and the world at large. It's hard for the intellect to understand the latter, again bc of the fragmented state, but to the Imagination it is practically self-evident.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I would like to think his reputation will rest on how he chooses to react once provided this "new" idealist perspective. It seems to me unlikely he has even read PoF yet. If he can openly consider and engage with it, then that's enough in my book. I don't expect anyone to simply adopt philosophy of Thinking and spiritual science in a week or month or even year, in fact it's better if gradually worked out for oneself over as much time as needed, since then it is really internalized and verified within one's own experience. He really should be super critical of it, but of course that's only possible once he seriously considers it. Not all past idealist frameworks needs to be completely abandoned... Schopenhaur contains a lot of wisdom. Even Kant for that matter. But one needs to become much more discerning of separating the wheat from the chaff.

Who knows what BK thinks of Steiner, if anything at all, since as far as I recall he has not so much as mentioned Steiner's name, let alone offered any extensive commentary, which seems only likely to happen if he is somehow compelled into doing so. It may well be that if he were presented with your take on it, he could be receptive, or he may well tend to denigrate Steiner as the guy who didn't make the World Cup of Philosophy allstar team.

[JustinG]

I'm not sure his "reputation" is at stake, but yes it would nice to hear his thoughts on Cleric's essays especially, such as Deep MAL: Beyond Flat MAL.

In the meantime, I have a new working title for my next essay series, "Fragmented Modern Mythology: Mystical Materialism". Justin and Eugene will be featured with their quotes quite literally calling for fragmentation of ideas into little splinters, so there is a total of one person following each idea I could also call it "mystical idealism", but I refuse to denigrate the integral vision of so many profound idealists in the past.

If BK is included in the category of someone who denigrates the integral vision of so many profound idealists of the past then, within the confines of this forum at least, it would seem his reputation, tied to his conclusion that Schopenhauer was perhaps the most profound idealist, is at stake. Granted, unless that discussion, and the essays, are taken outside the confines of this forum, and garner significant attention in a much broader arena of discourse, I doubt he'll give that notion, or the essays, much serious consideration as a challenge to that reputation.

I would like to think his reputation will rest on how he chooses to react once provided this "new" idealist perspective. It seems to me unlikely he has even read PoF yet. If he can openly consider and engage with it, then that's enough in my book. I don't expect anyone to simply adopt philosophy of Thinking and spiritual science in a week or month or even year, in fact it's better if gradually worked out for oneself over as much time as needed, since then it is really internalized and verified within one's own experience. He really should be super critical of it, but of course that's only possible once he seriously considers it. Not all past idealist frameworks needs to be completely abandoned... Schopenhaur contains a lot of wisdom. Even Kant for that matter. But one needs to become much more discerning of separating the wheat from the chaff.

Yeah, that's the main obstacle in general... finding a way to garner more serious consideration of these things in the age of fragmented attention via social media. I think its very unlikely to happen anytime soon, given the state of hyper fragmentation we are in. While we "wait" for BK to weigh in, we really need to take it upon ourselves to explore, understand, test, and verify these spiritual truths. That is actually what will make the most difference in both our lives and the world at large. It's hard for the intellect to understand the latter, again bc of the fragmented state, but to the Imagination it is practically self-evident.

This is getting confusing !

Dana, could you clarify whether you are agreeing with Ashvin that this "new" idealist perspective he refers to supersedes BK's idealism?

[Eugene I]

Dana, could you clarify whether you are agreeing with Ashvin that this "new" idealist perspective he refers to supersedes BK's idealism?

"We need to integrate a fragmented Afghanistan into a unified country. Of course this can only be done under our rule, because our rule is obviously superior to any other." (c) Taliban leaders

PS: Justin, it sounds like you are a Marxist. I was raised in USSR and studied Marxism at University (I would rather not, but it was a mandatory course). I would be interested in discussing it (philosophical and social aspects of it, not political). You might want to open a thread about it (if it's ok with moderators). My question about Marxism is: why is that it may sound so convincing and compelling and make a lot of sense to people, but for some reason whenever it has been practically tested as a social system, is has so far always collapsed into some sort of dictatorship and socio-economic disaster?

[Jim Cross]

Dana, could you clarify whether you are agreeing with Ashvin that this "new" idealist perspective he refers to supersedes BK's idealism?

"We need to integrate a fragmented Afghanistan into a unified country. Of course this can only be done under our rule, because our rule is obviously superior to any other." (c) Taliban leaders

One Metaphysics with correct Thinking to rule them all .

[AshvinP]

Dana, could you clarify whether you are agreeing with Ashvin that this "new" idealist perspective he refers to supersedes BK's idealism?

"We need to integrate a fragmented Afghanistan into a unified country. Of course this can only be done under our rule, because our rule is obviously superior to any other." (c) Taliban leaders

It's really a matter of common sense, Eugene. People will only live in peace with each other when they think things through and freely find the shared values which are absolutely necessary for social cohesion. Except those values will be adopted voluntarily instead of imposed like we see in the theocracy such as Taliban. It is no surprise to me that you are blatantly projecting your own unconscious desire to coerce on others. When you fragment the world of ideas into one sub-idea here, one sub-idea there, ad infinitum, that common ground will never be found, because no one is even exploring the same ideas so they can reason through them together freely. You are trying to coerce this forum into doing what your own intellect does - keeps everything partitioned so you never have a holistic understanding of how the ideas from philosophy, science, and spirituality fit together. There is no need for you to impose that fragmentation on the forum at large - just consider for one moment working on yourself before dictating what is best for others. As Cleric and I have said many times, we are never telling you or anyone else what to think - just to give it a chance at almost zero cost to yourself and see if anything registers. Have you even tried any of the imaginative exercises Cleric has provided? (please don't respond that you have been doing them for years now, unless you can describe them in detail and what the results were). I would think it would be somewhat easier for you given past meditative experience, although now instead of clearing your mind of all thoughts you are focusing on one specific idea and your own active relation to its deepest meaning. What do you lose by trying it? And if you do try it, and give it a chance, it's quite possible all of these apparently useless postings back and forth will cease altogether.

[Eugene I]

It's really a matter of common sense, Eugene. People will only live in peace with each other when they think things through and freely find the shared values which are absolutely necessary for social cohesion. Except those values will be adopted voluntarily instead of imposed like we see in the theocracy such as Taliban. It is no surprise to me that you are blatantly projecting your own unconscious desire to coerce on others. When you fragment the world of ideas into one sub-idea here, one sub-idea there, ad infinitum, that common ground will never be found, because no one is even exploring the same ideas so they can reason through them together freely. You are trying to coerce this forum into doing what your own intellect does - keeps everything partitioned so you never have a holistic understanding of how the ideas from philosophy, science, and spirituality fit together. There is no need for you to impose that fragmentation on the forum at large - just consider for one moment working on yourself before dictating what is best for others. As Cleric and I have said many times, we are never telling you or anyone else what to think - just to give it a chance at almost zero cost to yourself and see if anything registers. Have you even tried any of the imaginative exercises Cleric has provided? (please don't respond that you have been doing them for years now, unless you can describe them in detail and what the results were). I would think it would be somewhat easier for you given past meditative experience, although now instead of clearing your mind of all thoughts you are focusing on one specific idea and your own active relation to its deepest meaning. What do you lose by trying it? And if you do try it, and give it a chance, it's quite possible all of these apparently useless postings back and forth will cease altogether.

I would suggest the same to you: why do you have a subconscious rejection and fear of the idea of diversity (of views, values, structures and meanings) and nostalgia for bringing the world under a tyranny of a cognitive and behavioral unification under a singular set of ideas, values and meanings where everyone always thinks and does things in the same way?

It is true that individual egotism strives in the environment of freedom and diversity and ends up in chaotic confrontational fragmentation. But it is a false idea that once the limitations of egotism are transcended, people will naturally converge into unification and any diversity of views, values and meanings will disappear. At the post-egoic stage the diversity continues but it is non-confrontational and non-exclusive, it allows for a diversity of structures, views and values to peacefully co-exist (except that it does not support tyrannical, confrontational and exclusive ones).

[AshvinP]

It's really a matter of common sense, Eugene. People will only live in peace with each other when they think things through and freely find the shared values which are absolutely necessary for social cohesion. Except those values will be adopted voluntarily instead of imposed like we see in the theocracy such as Taliban. It is no surprise to me that you are blatantly projecting your own unconscious desire to coerce on others. When you fragment the world of ideas into one sub-idea here, one sub-idea there, ad infinitum, that common ground will never be found, because no one is even exploring the same ideas so they can reason through them together freely. You are trying to coerce this forum into doing what your own intellect does - keeps everything partitioned so you never have a holistic understanding of how the ideas from philosophy, science, and spirituality fit together. There is no need for you to impose that fragmentation on the forum at large - just consider for one moment working on yourself before dictating what is best for others. As Cleric and I have said many times, we are never telling you or anyone else what to think - just to give it a chance at almost zero cost to yourself and see if anything registers. Have you even tried any of the imaginative exercises Cleric has provided? (please don't respond that you have been doing them for years now, unless you can describe them in detail and what the results were). I would think it would be somewhat easier for you given past meditative experience, although now instead of clearing your mind of all thoughts you are focusing on one specific idea and your own active relation to its deepest meaning. What do you lose by trying it? And if you do try it, and give it a chance, it's quite possible all of these apparently useless postings back and forth will cease altogether.

I would suggest the same to you: why do you have a subconscious rejection and fear of the idea of diversity (of views, values and meaning) and nostalgia for bringing the world under a tyranny of a cognitive and behavioral unification under a singular set of ideas, values and meanings where everyone always thinks and does things in the same way?

It is true that individual egotism strives in the environment of freedom and diversity and ends up in chaotic fragmentation. But it is a false idea that once the limitations of egotism are transcended, people will naturally converge into unification and any diversity of views, values and meanings will disappear. At the post-egoic stage the diversity is non-confrontational and non-exclusive, it allows for other views and values peacefully co-exist (except that it does not support confrontational and exclusive ones).

I don't. Cleric and I are practically pleading and begging for you guys to present those ideas, values, and meanings, instead of repeating the same misrepresentations of our position without any substantive or direct interaction with the actual arguments. If you have an alternative viewpoint to offer, then offer it! Put some effort and enthusiasm into it like we do. Write a post, or two, or an essay, or whatever, and let people decide for themselves. But if you continue throwing around irrelevant and vague accusations of "dictatorship", the "Taliban", "diversity", "equality", "exclusivity", etc. without making any serious argument about the logic underlying our philosophical position, then you can't be surprised when we point that out to others. We put a great amount of time and effort into carefully constructing our philosophical-spiritual arguments for others to consider, so when you try to blow them all up into tiny fragments by way of misrepresentations - careless at best and intentional at worst - without even understanding what our arguments are or reading our clarifications to you, so that you can clog up the threads with enough useless distractions that everyone forgets what the initial arguments were, then we will naturally point that out. Actually Justin's "post limit" suggestion would probably benefit our arguments by curtailing those useless distractions from our essays, but I still would never try to coerce that outcome because coerced outcomes are spiritually useless ones.