Phenomenology and Praxis: Philosophical Questions Not Asked Enough

In this forum both posters and comments will be restricted to topic-specific argumentation. Comments that are deemed to be too digressive or off-topic, may be deleted by a moderator.

Moderator: Soul_of_Shu

User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2893
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Phenomenology and Praxis: Philosophical Questions Not Asked Enough

Post by AshvinP »

These are a few of the questions I feel are not asked enough by people within philosophy. They all relate to the givens of our experience and nothing else - no metaphysical assumptions are necessary to be made in answering the questions. A few introductory points:

- These questions do not presuppose any philosophical or spiritual worldview.

- They should not be approached with sympathy or antipathy for the subject matter, one way or the other. If that is done, then the reasoned analysis is compromised from the outset for obvious reasons.

- If one holds to the view that the sources of our given experience are veiled behind an impenetrable barrier (Kant), or only accessible to deep mystical states and not any form of cognition (Schopenhauer), and/or only knowable after physical death, then really these and all similar questions should be irrelevant and not entertained or commented on. There is no point endlessly speculating about something which is fundamentally unknowable with any degree of confidence. It will only cause confusion and distraction from the goal of "eating, drinking, and being merry, for tomorrow we die".

- That being said, if someone actually wants to defend the Kantian or Schopenhauer epistemology with logical argument, then feel free to do so.

- These are only the questions - the answers, if anyone is interested, are explored elsewhere and can be discussed again here if anyone wants to. That is not to say the answers are 100% certain - they can be imaginatively explored, clarified, reformulated, modified, extended, etc.


1) What is the relationship of perception (sense-impression) to cognition (meaning)? Are they dependent on each other and, if so, in what specific ways? Has that relationship remained static or changed over human history?

2) What is the nature of experienced time? Is it simply a linear flow of events that carries everyone along with it, totally outside of our control, or something else?

3) What is the nature of experienced spatial dimensions? Fixed arena in which we act out events or something else?

4) How do perceptions and cognitions arrive to us? Do they point to a subconscious 'layer' of experience which we can explore? If so, does each personality have their own subconscious layer, is it a collective subconscious layer, or both?

5) What, if anything, can our collective mythology, philosophy, and spiritual tradition tell us about the the nature, sources, and/or changing relationship of our perceptions and cognitions?


There are quite a few more which could be added or branched out from the above, but I will leave it here for now.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2893
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Phenomenology and Praxis: Philosophical Questions Not Asked Enough

Post by AshvinP »

Response to Eugene from other locked thread:

Sectarians don't answer your questions honestly like we have been doing for months. They avoid answering all questions like you have been doing for months. Let me ask again and see if you ignore them completely again, even though we all know you are reading the thread and will jump on the opportunity to respond to anything else.


Did you try any imaginative exercises Cleric proposed?

Have you ever experienced imaginative consciousness of the spiritual? If so, describe in detail the experience as best you can. Use analogies or whatever if necessary.

Did you read passage on Goethe's color experiments? Did you understand it? Do you think white light is a substance containing all colored light within itself, which are brought out by a prism?

Do you think scientific measurements of 'things' in isolated time-frames reflects back any objectively true knowledge of the noumenal source of those phenomena? If so, what do those measurements tell us?


There isn't any point typing out more questions because I doubt even one will be answered, but let's see...
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
User avatar
Eugene I
Posts: 1421
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: Phenomenology and Praxis: Philosophical Questions Not Asked Enough

Post by Eugene I »

AshvinP wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:56 am Did you read passage on Goethe's color experiments? Did you understand it? Do you think white light is a substance containing all colored light within itself, which are brought out by a prism?
Goethe's theory of the constitution of colours of the spectrum has not proved to be an unsatisfactory theory, rather it really isn't a theory at all. Nothing can be predicted with it. It is, rather a vague schematic outline of the sort we find in James's psychology. Nor is there any experimentum crucis which could decide for or against the theory.

— Ludwig Wittgenstein, Remarks on Colour
Goethe's contribution through his "theory of colors" was directing attention to the psychological perception of colors. He was right that the perception of colors is not only about the physical properties of light, but also about studying how the physical properties are related to the psychological perception of colors.
Do you think scientific measurements of 'things' in isolated time-frames reflects back any objectively true knowledge of the noumenal source of those phenomena? If so, what do those measurements tell us?
No, I don't think so. Scientific measurements only reveal to us consistent patterns of sense-perceptional phenomena in time-space framework. The theoretical area of natural sciences finds mathematical equations that model and approximate the observed patterns with mathematical expressions. These models are very useful for practical purposes because they can predict the behavior of natural systems. However, I do not believe that these math models have anything to do with the "noumenal" source of those phenomena. They only give us approximate math models of how the phenomena behave, but do not explain what they "noumenally" are and what their noumenal source is.
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kanzas anymore" Dorothy
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2893
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Phenomenology and Praxis: Philosophical Questions Not Asked Enough

Post by AshvinP »

Eugene I wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:35 pm
AshvinP wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:56 am Did you read passage on Goethe's color experiments? Did you understand it? Do you think white light is a substance containing all colored light within itself, which are brought out by a prism?
Goethe's theory of the constitution of colours of the spectrum has not proved to be an unsatisfactory theory, rather it really isn't a theory at all. Nothing can be predicted with it. It is, rather a vague schematic outline of the sort we find in James's psychology. Nor is there any experimentum crucis which could decide for or against the theory.

— Ludwig Wittgenstein, Remarks on Colour
Goethe's contribution through his "theory of colors" was directing attention to the psychological perception of colors. He was right that the perception of colors is not only about the physical properties of light, but also about studying how the physical properties are related to the psychological perception of colors.

Ok so I will assume you haven't tried imaginative meditation or experienced imaginative consciousness until told otherwise.

I didn't ask for a quote from Wittgenstein, the king of abstract intellect, about Goethe. I asked if you read the experimental results he obtained, what you make of them, and also whether you agree with Newton's scientific theory of colors?

Now you say the science of colors should factor in "psychological perception", so what exactly is your scientific theory which explains the regular manifestations of colors in our experience?

Ashvin wrote: Do you think scientific measurements of 'things' in isolated time-frames reflects back any objectively true knowledge of the noumenal source of those phenomena? If so, what do those measurements tell us?
No, I don't think so. Scientific measurements only reveal to us consistent patterns of sense-perceptional phenomena in time-space framework. The theoretical area of natural sciences finds mathematical equations that model and approximate the observed patterns with mathematical expressions. These models are very useful for practical purposes because they can predict the behavior of natural systems. However, I do not believe that these math models have anything to do with the "noumenal" source of those phenomena. They only give us approximate math models of how the phenomena behave, but do not explain what they "noumenally" are and what their noumenal source is.

Ok thanks, we agree here. Of course the next question is if you think we can ever discover more about the noumenal sources in this lifetime with empirical methods of any sort?
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2893
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Phenomenology and Praxis: Philosophical Questions Not Asked Enough

Post by AshvinP »

AshvinP wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:09 pm
Eugene I wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:35 pm
AshvinP wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:56 am Did you read passage on Goethe's color experiments? Did you understand it? Do you think white light is a substance containing all colored light within itself, which are brought out by a prism?
Goethe's theory of the constitution of colours of the spectrum has not proved to be an unsatisfactory theory, rather it really isn't a theory at all. Nothing can be predicted with it. It is, rather a vague schematic outline of the sort we find in James's psychology. Nor is there any experimentum crucis which could decide for or against the theory.

— Ludwig Wittgenstein, Remarks on Colour
Goethe's contribution through his "theory of colors" was directing attention to the psychological perception of colors. He was right that the perception of colors is not only about the physical properties of light, but also about studying how the physical properties are related to the psychological perception of colors.

Ok so I will assume you haven't tried imaginative meditation or experienced imaginative consciousness until told otherwise.

I didn't ask for a quote from Wittgenstein, the king of abstract intellect, about Goethe. I asked if you read the experimental results he obtained, what you make of them, and also whether you agree with Newton's scientific theory of colors?

Now you say the science of colors should factor in "psychological perception", so what exactly is your scientific theory which explains the regular manifestations of colors in our experience?

Ashvin wrote: Do you think scientific measurements of 'things' in isolated time-frames reflects back any objectively true knowledge of the noumenal source of those phenomena? If so, what do those measurements tell us?
No, I don't think so. Scientific measurements only reveal to us consistent patterns of sense-perceptional phenomena in time-space framework. The theoretical area of natural sciences finds mathematical equations that model and approximate the observed patterns with mathematical expressions. These models are very useful for practical purposes because they can predict the behavior of natural systems. However, I do not believe that these math models have anything to do with the "noumenal" source of those phenomena. They only give us approximate math models of how the phenomena behave, but do not explain what they "noumenally" are and what their noumenal source is.

Ok thanks, we agree here. Of course the next question is if you think we can ever discover more about the noumenal sources in this lifetime with empirical methods of any sort?

Also re Goethe natural science - it is centered around the polarities of our experience. We are not claiming it was the most thoroughgoing of scientific approaches (that's where Steiner comes in and picks up where Goethe left off), after all the guy was an artist and still considered the best German poet in history. But you have previously acknowledged fundamental reality is polar in its essence. Does it not stand to reason that any scientific theory which completely ignores polar forces working in nature is inferior to one which does and manages to explain a wide range of phenomenal manifestations through them? Apart from very limited fields, scientists today do not even recognize polar forces in nature or factor them in. Certainly not Newton's color theory which you referenced to begin with.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
User avatar
Eugene I
Posts: 1421
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: Phenomenology and Praxis: Philosophical Questions Not Asked Enough

Post by Eugene I »

AshvinP wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:56 am Did you try any imaginative exercises Cleric proposed?

Have you ever experienced imaginative consciousness of the spiritual? If so, describe in detail the experience as best you can. Use analogies or whatever if necessary.
Yes I did. I have a long-time experience with all sorts of meditations and meditative techniques. Most of the healthy meditative practices is also done on the levels of subtle intuitive cognition often employing imaginative abilities. I can vaguely sort them into two types: healthy and unhealthy techniques. Meditation can be useful for spiritual and psychological well-being, but can easily become harmful if done wrong. There is a vast number of examples of harmful meditative techniques offered by all sorts of quasi-spiritual sects. If we do consistent meditation practice we will have a wide variety of experiences, at times pretty wild and unusual. Typically the majority of such experiences is a result of self hypnosis and subconscious imagination. The difference is how you deal with them.

Healthy meditation practices take a cautious and sober approach and by default treat all such experiences as products of our own subconscious imagination, or a product of collective subconscious structures. Still, there may be some facets of noumenal depths in those experiences that should not be dismissed as "throwing the baby with the water". But these phenomena should be carefully examined considering how likely they indeed represent deep truths rather than just being products of subconscious imagination and self-hypnosis. It is also useful to compare your experiences and the intuitions into the deep truths with other people's ones, but it is important not to have any confirmation bias when doing that (accepting the confirming evidences and dismissing evidences that do not give such confirmation, just like Cleric rejects the evidences from NDE and other clairvoyant experiencers etc). Also, what healthy meditation techniques teach is a mastery in self-awareness and in gaining conscious (meta-cognitive) understanding and control of our thoughts, reactions and emotions and their inter-connectedness.

Unhealthy approaches take such experiences as plain "spiritual truths" without questioning, especially when they are encouraged and confirmed by the spiritual teacher and/or the group of people sharing similar beliefs. This is a typical practice in sects that seek to confirm their set of beliefs with their self-hypnotic "direct spiritual experiences". Pentecostals is a good example of this.
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kanzas anymore" Dorothy
User avatar
Eugene I
Posts: 1421
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: Phenomenology and Praxis: Philosophical Questions Not Asked Enough

Post by Eugene I »

AshvinP wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:09 pm I didn't ask for a quote from Wittgenstein, the king of abstract intellect, about Goethe. I asked if you read the experimental results he obtained, what you make of them, and also whether you agree with Newton's scientific theory of colors?

Now you say the science of colors should factor in "psychological perception", so what exactly is your scientific theory which explains the regular manifestations of colors in our experience?
I'm not an expert in psychophysiology of color perceptions and do not have any theory about that. Newton's theory was an approximate model that did not account for the quantum and wave-related behavior of light, but it was accurate enough to explain the refraction effects. As Wittgenstein said, Goethe's one is not a theory at all and does not explain anything, it's just a set of poetic elaborations about colors and their possible psychophysiological patterns.
Ok thanks, we agree here. Of course the next question is if you think we can ever discover more about the noumenal sources in this lifetime with empirical methods of any sort?
We can have hypothetical (metaphysical) inferences about the noumenal sources. But we also have the sets of empirical observations. So any metaphysics or spiritual worldview is ought to explain the causal connection of how these empirical facts and the consistent patterns of phenomena that we observe emerge (or caused) by the noumenal reality that we assume to exist. Every metaphysics has this explanatory challenge, which usually remains as uncrossed explanatory gap for most of the variants of metaphysics. That is why I asked many times how the CPP explains the empirical facts, such as quantum behavior always exactly following the Schrodinger equation observed in physical experiments, or just simply why we see planets in the sky always following paths exactly according to the Kepler's mathematical laws? Billions of people look at the sky and see the planets always following the exactly predictable orbits according to the Kepler's laws. How exactly the noumenal reality (that CPP claims to directly experientially know) makes this happen?

We can also have "spiritual" (meditative) experiences regarding the noumenal sources, but the problem is how to distinguish them from the products of our self-hypnosis and manifestations of our unconscious beliefs and imaginations. I addressed this in the post above.
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kanzas anymore" Dorothy
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2893
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Phenomenology and Praxis: Philosophical Questions Not Asked Enough

Post by AshvinP »

Eugene I wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:57 pm
AshvinP wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:56 am Did you try any imaginative exercises Cleric proposed?

Have you ever experienced imaginative consciousness of the spiritual? If so, describe in detail the experience as best you can. Use analogies or whatever if necessary.
Yes I did. I have a long-time experience with all sorts of meditations and meditative techniques. Most of the healthy meditative practices is also done on the levels of subtle intuitive cognition often employing imaginative abilities. I can vaguely sort them into two types: healthy and unhealthy techniques. Meditation can be useful for spiritual and psychological well-being, but can easily become harmful if done wrong. There is a vast number of examples of harmful meditative techniques offered by all sorts of quasi-spiritual sects. If we do consistent meditation practice we will have a wide variety of experiences, at times pretty wild and unusual. Typically the majority of such experiences is a result of self hypnosis and subconscious imagination. The difference is how you deal with them.

Healthy meditation practices take a cautious and sober approach and by default treat all such experiences as products of our own subconscious imagination, or a product of collective subconscious structures. Still, there may be some facets of noumenal depths in those experiences that should not be dismissed as "throwing the baby with the water". But these phenomena should be carefully examined considering how likely they indeed represent deep truths rather than just being products of subconscious imagination and self-hypnosis. It is also useful to compare your experiences and the intuitions into the deep truths with other people's ones, but it is important not to have any confirmation bias when doing that (accepting the confirming evidences and dismissing evidences that do not give such confirmation, just like Cleric rejects the evidences from NDE and other clairvoyant experiencers etc). Also, what healthy meditation techniques teach is a mastery in self-awareness and in gaining conscious (meta-cognitive) understanding and control of our thoughts, reactions and emotions and their inter-connectedness.

Unhealthy approaches take such experiences as plain "spiritual truths" without questioning, especially when they are encouraged and confirmed by the spiritual teacher and/or the group of people sharing similar beliefs. This is a typical practice in sects that seek to confirm their set of beliefs with their self-hypnotic "direct spiritual experiences". Pentecostals is a good example of this.


Sorry, I can't accept this "answer" because it is clearly avoiding the question. I asked for details precisely to avoid your attempts to circumvent the question with vague speculations about what is "healthy" and "unhealthy". You determine the conclusion you want to reach from the outset - Western spiritual tradition is "unhealthy" - and then you find ways to justify that conclusion in your own intellect. They are not creative ways, but simply the same two or three ways you keep recycling over and over, apparently ignoring the dozens of responses to those we have given you. I don't think you are lying either. Rather, I think you honestly believe your meditation has been of the Imaginative sort when it most definitely wasn't. You simply cannot conceive of the Imaginative approach due to your antipathy for Thinking as a spiritual tool.

Therefore you assume whatever Cleric is talking about must also be what you and other Eastern mystics are talking about, but it is clearly is not the same based on his descriptions and your complete lack of them. His essential "I" remains intact when crossing the threshold so knowledge can be brought back to the intellect, and yours does not. That also explains your inability to understand the qualitative approach of spiritual science, because that requires some clear concept of what the Imagination is and does in our daily perception-cognition. It is the same reason why you will never put any weight on the consistent and cross-cultural progression of mythic imagery over the epochs which clearly indicates a move towards Thinking as the spiritual tool for Divine redemption - that also requires deference to the Imagination. It further explains your dismissal of "dreams" as isolated realms of illusory fanciful images which are personal to each individual.

I remember quoting Barfield, another champion of the Imagination as spiritual Thinking tool, before when he spoke of intellectual idolatry as unconscious "sin" that we feel guilty about, but we don't know why we feel guilty (since it is unconscious). You had a strong negative reaction to that, because you don't like the concept of "sin" and "guilt", and that is not a coincidence. The intellectual ego assumes there is nothing to feel guilty about it, because it is already doing everything it can do to bring meaning back into the world of appearances. It represses its egoic sin in the subconscious and then cuts off access to the subconscious so the sin is never confronted. I know your standard responses of theistic "tyranny", "shaming", "guilt trips", etc. so you don't need to waste time typing that out. Sorry but there is no other way with you at this point but to be very blunt.

The intellect will never understand Goethe's approach, and will always prefer Newton's approach, even though the latter contradicts idealism, non-dualism, polar essence of Reality, qualitative experience of phenomenal meaning, such as that when we observe colors, and many other related things. Goethe recognized all color manifestations can be explained through the polar interaction of Lightness with darkness, but you see no value in that and call it "poetic elaborations", like that is something completely personal and irrelevant to Truth, another clear sign of your distaste for Imagination. There is a reason why your intellect must fragment spirituality from science from art from everything else - if it didn't do that, it would be living in a mess of non-stop contradictions between your metaphysics, spirituality, art vs. your engineering science.

Of course you will not take it this way, but I am seriously trying to just be frank with you and point out the clear subconscious patterns which have manifested over the last 6-9 months in our discussions. But since there are other things to write and other people who will actually consider what is written without a priori dismissing it, I don't think there is any point continuing for now. Especially since I have no idea whether anyone is still following the thread.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
User avatar
Martin_
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:54 pm

Re: Phenomenology and Praxis: Philosophical Questions Not Asked Enough

Post by Martin_ »

AshvinP wrote: Rather, I think you honestly believe your meditation has been of the Imaginative sort when it most definitely wasn't.
How does one tell the difference?
"I don't understand." /Unknown
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2893
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Phenomenology and Praxis: Philosophical Questions Not Asked Enough

Post by AshvinP »

Martin_ wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:08 pm
AshvinP wrote: Rather, I think you honestly believe your meditation has been of the Imaginative sort when it most definitely wasn't.
How does one tell the difference?

One can read Cleric's essays/posts and see the Imaginative cognition pretty clearly illustrated. He is obviously not usually in meditative state while he writes, but actually he did do that one time in response to, go figure, Eugene. I am pasting the entire below. The reason I keep asking Eugene is because I am confident there is really no way to "fake" the experiences which come from the imaginal realm, especially when there is someone like Cleric around to call it out. Eugene can say that he has "been there, done that" all he wants, but he will not be able to back that claim up.


viewtopic.php?p=5888#p5888
Cleric, Tue May 04, 2021 1:31 am wrote:Eugene, I don't know if you make this on purpose or you really haven't grasped it. Almost every post where I need to get to the epistemological foundations I speak of perceptions and ideas. Scott and Ashvin have also done that. The only reason you see ideas as lacking balance is because you insist on viewing them only when they are experienced as abstract thoughts. If we speak of the abstract intellect and its concepts this is understandable. But all attempts have been made to explain that ideas find their unity only when they become united with the corresponding perceptions. We can speak about string theory as being lost in ideal relations but it's not justified to say the same for botany, for example. When I describe the number of petals, the shape of the leaves, etc. I connect ideas with perceptions, I'm not floating in the sky, it's precisely the balance you speak of. I made an attempt to explain how spiritual science continues in the same way - we have supersensible perceptions to which the intellect can unite corresponding concepts.

What you call direct experiences correspond to perceptions in the above terminology. I hope it's clear that perceptions don't include only the physical senses. In the most general sense, a perception is anything that can become the object of thinking. So let's synchronize the terminology - what you call direct experiences are perceptions because, I hope you would agree, it's possible to think about these experiences.

The reason that you try to distinguish direct experiences from intellectual ideas is justified. But it's untrue that Western esoterism doesn't understand this - it is precisely the opposite because Occidental Wisdom recognizes the different gradations of ideas, of which intellectual concepts are only one. Perceiving without intellectual thoughts, which you call direct experiences, has something to do with the highest stage of cognition called Intuitive knowledge. I've tried to give a rudimentary sketch on the connection between the evolutionary iterations and the degrees of cognition, in the Deep M@L essay (the slides). This can be experienced very nicely in meditation. I'll do some first-person descriptions in vivo.

I stop any thought activity and simply observe the objects in front of me in inner silence. In this state it can be said that my spiritual activity can be best described as focusing of attention on perceptions. For example, now I contemplate my cup of tea on the desk with no thought activity (obviously I take breaks in order to type). There's complete inner tranquility, all my activity is simply supporting my visual focus on the cup. There are no thoughts, words, relations, yet I'm perfectly aware of what I'm seeing. I don't think it, there are no moving forms, yet I experience certain meaning as I'm focused at the cup. I don't feel confusion, vagueness, I simply know what I'm seeing. It's very interesting to do this exercise while remaining in the same tranquil and thoughtless mode while shifting the focus of my vision. All I experience is how I move and nail my gaze at different objects one at a time. Now I see an Arduino board, now my soldering station, now the keyboard and so on. Again - there's absolutely no vibration of thought activity, only movement and fixation of attention in perfect stillness of the inner waters. Yet it's very interesting to experience how the meaning of what I experience changes as I shift my gaze. Even though there are no words, there's perfect clarity of what I see - I know what I see. Now I return to the cup. From this state I can very slowly produce the verbal thought 'cup' and observe the experience. It feels like the thought lifts like a perturbated form from the sea of tranquility. This is a new element within my consciousness - it's a different perception, it's a verbal perception, I practically hear a word (although I literally see it as it forms in my larynx soul organ). But when I observe very closely (that's why it helps to form the thought very slowly) I see that the meaningful content of my tranquil thoughtless observation doesn't really change. In fact the verbal thought becomes only a symbol for the meaning. It's like saying: "Now I make a gesture with my larynx soul organ, I inwardly see and hear this gesture and for me this gesture will from now on remind me of the meaning that I experience when I thoughtlessly observe the cup." Now I turn my gaze away, assume the tranquil state again and make the same gesture with my larynx - that is, I slowly produce the verbal thought 'cup'. Even though I no longer have the visual impression of a cup, I experience a reverberation of the same meaning.

These are very pleasant and valuable exercises. Since you are experienced with meditation I think it won't be a problem to try them out. If you do, I think we'll be able to come to terms about what is called idea in the fundamental sense. If you are able to discern the meaning implicit in the tranquil contemplation of an object, even though there are no thoughts produced through the larynx, you'll know what is meant by idea in the widest sense. By the way the larynx soul organ produces not only verbal but any thought forms. A very handy analogy is cymatics. Of course here it's not physical sound which creates the forms but spiritual activity that is being shaped within the larynx organ and produces the forms within the astral substance, which to varying degrees imprints in the etheric. Normally this impression occurs most readily in the etheric brain, that's why most people experience their thoughts roughly in that area. But I have no problem in this moment to produce forms in any part of the body and even outside the body. The latter gives us the experience of what is called the aura in popular language. Anyway, I digress. My point is that the thoughtless mode already points to what is called Intuitive consciousness and which is actually the highest form of cognition achievable, allowing to explore the most ancient eon of evolution.

If the above is understood correctly it'll be reckoned that spiritual science doesn't deal with abstractly chaining concepts together but seeks the direct experiences that you speak of. In non-dual traditions one also attains to the tranquil thoughtless state but the focus is on the wholeness. In this sense I can now continue my exercise and expand my visual field, include also all other senses and feelings. I do this with eyes open and I behold the totality of awareness without any movement of the larynx organ. If I close my eyes the state becomes what most non-dualists seek. I experience a total unified meaning of this state, similarly to the way I experience a more specific meaning of the cup when I'm focused on it. It is at this point where Occidental esoterism continues further. I simply need to make an observation - even though I'm in thoughtless state with no inner perturbations, yet I'm still in the body. Even though I'm in perfect stillness, I know what I experience - I experience the tranquil state of my head organ (the two-leaf lotus), unperturbed by movements of the larynx. At this moment I talk about the soul organs intuitively, similarly to the way I would find my way to the bathroom in pitch-black night - I can do it because I've done it countless times and I know where the wall is, where the door is, etc. Yet if I want to really encompass the picture I need to leave the body. Not in the naïve way that OBEs describe as going flying somewhere but by simply becoming free of the physical processes that otherwise restrict my activity. The physical body is within and outside me, but now I experience how my loosened astral body interacts with it. Now the soul organs become almost as hubs of potential where I can see not only what I can otherwise think inside the body thought by thought but how the rays of the organs interfere and create a panorama of possibilities. Right now the heart organ interferes lovingly with the living presence of all of you, friends. Something wants to flow out, it passes through the larynx, clothes itself in a form out of the panorama of possibilities that harmonize with the heart impulse, takes concrete shape in the head and flows through the hands all the way to the fingertips and the keys.
...

I didn't intend the above paragraph but with the cup exercises I entered deeper meditative state and Imaginations started to flow so I decided to simply describe them as an on-air example of the kinds of experiences that spiritual science describes. As it can be seen it's all perceptions with corresponding meaning and they are all related. But it has nothing to do with relating floating abstract ideas in the head. The expressed ideas are related through the perceptions and not through random and mechanical connections between concepts. In a similar way the botanist can describe the relations between the stem, leaves, buds, flowers and so on. These are not free floating ideas that we fantasize in some made up relation - we read out the relations directly from the perceptions. In this sense spiritual investigation is really about reaching reliably certain states (which themselves are unique constellations of the bodies and the soul organs) where the supersensible perceptions and their relations can be described.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
Post Reply