Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

[AshvinP]

I don't think it's right that PoF starts from idealism. It may be that Steiner knew where he was going before writing it, but you'd expect that of someone writing a book.

And phenomenology is my only "way in". Others might have a different entry point. Just as Bernardo's work and persistence with analytic idealism was the only way I was going to "get" to idealism. (Without getting sucked back in to materialistic accounts, as has happened so often.) That's why I'm so grateful to Bernardo.

Having "got there", I now want to be a good and consistent idealist! There are other threads going in here with lots of videos being posted, and others are getting good value from that. More power to them. I'm kind of done with that for now. All of these things that the videos are about are not foreign to me. These thoughts have been rattling around here too, often chaotically.

Exactly right, PZ. It's heartening to know others are reading PoF and actually understanding it deeply. There is no assumption of idealism involved. It seems to me Eugene is mistaking the conclusions of this phenomenology, which are what we most often post about here, with the actual process of reasoning through our immanent perception-cognition as it manifests directly in our experience to reach those conclusions. A lot of people in the modern age simply don't get the difference, or why there is much greater value in this approach than simply starting with metaphysical conclusions, which is pretty much how every other philosophy in the world had proceeded prior to Steiner (except for a select few I have often mentioned). I really like Bergson's thoughts on this topic expressed in his last work, The Creative Mind.

These conclusions on the subject of duration were, as it seemed to me, decisive. Step by step they led me to raise intuition to the level of a philosophical method. “Intuition,” however, is a word whose use caused me some degree of hesitation. Of all the terms which designate a mode of knowing, it is still the most appropriate; and yet it leads to a certain confusion. Because a Schelling, a Schopenhauer and others have already called upon intuition, because they have more or less set up intuition in opposition to intelligence, one might think that I was using the same method. But of course, their intuition was an immediate search for the eternal! Whereas, on the contrary, for me it was a question, above all, of finding true duration. Numerous are the philosophers who have felt how powerless conceptual thought is to reach the core of the mind. Numerous, consequently, are those who have spoken of a supra-intellectual faculty of intuition.

But as they believed that the intelligence worked within time, they have concluded that to go beyond the intelligence consisted in getting outside of time. They did not see that intellectualized time is space, that the intelligence works upon the phantom of duration, not on duration itself, that the elimination of time is the habitual, normal, commonplace act of our understanding, that the relativity of our knowledge of the mind is a direct result of this fact, and that hence, to pass from intellection to vision, from the relative to the absolute, is not a question of getting outside of time (we are already there); on the contrary, one must get back into duration and recapture reality in the very mobility which is its essence. An intuition, which claims to project itself with one bound into the eternal, limits itself to the intellectual. For the concepts which the intelligence furnishes, the intuition simply substitutes one single concept which includes them all and which consequently is always the same, by whatever name it is called: Substance, Ego, Idea, Will.

Philosophy, thus understood, necessarily pantheistic, will have no difficulty in explaining everything deductively, since it will have been given beforehand, in a principle which is the concept of concepts, all the real and all the possible. But this explanation will be vague and hypothetical, this unity will be artificial, and this philosophy would apply equally well to a very different world from our own. How much more instructive would be a truly intuitive metaphysics, which would follow the undulations of the real! True, it would not embrace in a single sweep the totality of things; but for each thing it would give an explanation which would fit it exactly, and it alone. It would not begin by defining or describing the systematic unity of the world: who knows if the world is actually one?

Experience alone can say, and unity, if it exists, will appear at the end of the search as a result; it is impossible to posit it at the start as a principle. Furthermore, it will be a rich, full unity, the unity of a continuity, the unity of our reality, and not that abstract and empty unity, which has come from one supreme generalization, and which could just as well be that of any possible world whatsoever. It is true that philosophy then will demand a new effort for each new problem. No solution will be geometrically deduced from another. No important truth will be achieved by the prolongation of an already acquired truth. We shall have to give up crowding universal science potentially into one principle.

- Henri Bergson, The Creative Mind: An Introduction to Metaphysics (1946)

[Cleric K]

Exactly right, PZ. It's heartening to know others are reading PoF and actually understanding it deeply.

It is indeed heartening! Thank you PZ, for sharing your story! Contrary to what others may imagine, this heartening feeling has nothing to do with some personal satisfaction of the sort of "Finally, someone who adopts our beliefs!" The only way I can describe this heartening feeling is as if one witnesses a bird that finds its way out of a cage and flies freely. Neither I nor Ashvin take credit for this. Every individual frees himself when he finds the Spirit within - or rather the Spirit frees itself and emerges from the cage of our intellectual self as a butterfly from the cocoon. What peer human beings can do is simply give assurance that the Spirit can be found. There's nothing more beautiful than beholding a soul awakening to its reality and becoming independent of any outer authorities. The one who has some tiny contribution in helping a soul see where the cage door is, doesn't benefit in any personal way when the spirit soars free. Yet the certain knowledge that something good and beneficial for the Whole has happened is what gives us joy like no other. I think both PZ and Ashvin can testify that once we begin to experience in freedom our true spiritual being, no outer personality, authority, guru, philosophy stands in between. Our thoughts are no longer repetitions of some religious tenets but the immediate readout of our own spiritual reality.

But here is the thing: all spiritual traditions or teachings (Anthroposophy included) are based on certain metaphysical schemes, assumptions and beliefs that are conceptual by nature, and many of these practices do attempt to internalize them. This is what differentiates them from pure theologies or philosophies that stay away from internalization. But it often happens that some teachings take these assumptions implicitly and unconsciously without critically examining them (so they become unrecognized beliefs), and by doing that people lock themselves into rigid beliefs that they take for granted. I always want to be honest with myself when I adopt any paradigm or worldview or belief system (internalized or not), I want to be conscious about exactly what my beliefs and assumptions are. This is not skepticism, this is just being sober and honest about my beliefs.
...
I just feel that whenever I attempt to verbalize my internalized spiritual experiences, they get so much distorted that I just feel like stepping on a flower, so I tend to avoid it.
...
I would question that. It is true that it takes phenomenological approach (just like the Buddhist practice and other traditions), but it also employs a lot of preconceptions and beliefs that Cleric and Ashvin are so reluctant to admit. That is why I try to poke them with various "what if" alternatives, not because I believe that they are truer than the Anthroposophical views, but because I want to show that their paradigm is based on certain assumptions and beliefs that they adopt implicitly without being honest about it. If Cleric would say: I perceive the Zodiacs and my belief is that they represent spiritual realities that control the physical reality, than I would have no problem with that. Or if he would say: I believe that the Self of all was incarnated as Jesus, than that would be fine too. I have nothing against beliefs, but I see a problem when implicit beliefs are presented as unquestionable truths.

For those who have noticed, in the last few posts I've been trying to spiral down the conversation towards a certain core point. Granted that none of it was addresses, I take it that it is either not understood or consciously avoided. My latest attempt was in my previous post with the thinking hand analogy.

This analogy was the most explicit and minimal image that I could come up with. Eugene, my question is do you understand what that analogy implies? I'm not asking in order to tease or mock you. It's because to this day I don't know if you really understand what we're talking about but simply don't want to follow it to its natural conclusions or you truly don't grasp the whole idea. From the way you respond it sounds it's the latter. And I really hope this is the case because that would mean that you haven't consciously or unconsciously denied to yourself the possibility to experience your inner being, but simply haven't found the path to it yet.

Let me put some of the common objections in the language of the analogy.

When you say that the Western method is "simply" uncovering of the unconscious layers, in the terms of the analogy that would mean that the hand continues to write more and more thoughts that pile up an exceedingly complicated thought-model of the hand. The hand can indeed attempt to draw itself but as long as it is conscious only of the drawing it still doesn't know itself directly. This is what I implied when I say that this approach reduces spirituality to Freudian psychoanalysis which piles up intellectual thoughts but the reality of the hand forever remains unexperienced in the shadows of the subconsciousness.

When you say that all spiritual traditions are based on certain metaphysical assumptions, this only shows that the only reality for you is the writings of the hand. You dismiss the possibility that the hand can be experienced as purely phenomenological spiritual activity. Actually this hand analogy, when fully understood through direct experience, can be considered as the most basic and readily accessible true Imagination. I'm not speaking of understanding the analogy through some superficial intellectual treatment, by dissecting it on the petri dish and covering it with even more thoughts. To understand the hand analogy/Imagination in the true sense, means that we must really experience ourselves as active spiritual force which draws the intellectual thoughts. From this perspective the hand analogy is a concrete pictorial description of our inner cognitive experience. If one feels that the reality of the spiritual hand that draws the thoughts is nothing but metaphysical assumption, on top of which all other things are built, it simply means that one doesn't allow himself to experience the spiritual state from which this analogy is seen as immediate reality. It's similar, for example, to someone who doesn't allow himself to dance because he feels uncomfortable, as he'll have to experience himself in life situation he's not comfortable with. He says "I'm not the kind of guy who dances, I can't bear the view of myself dancing". Similarly, there could be something like this which stands on our way of experiencing our intimate spiritual activity that animates the written thoughts. We implicitly say "I'm a serious man. I deal with hard-written thoughts only. I'm not the kind of guy who can bear the view of myself being consciously active within some inner spiritual process out of which the written thoughts proceed."

I can translate almost any of the common objections we hear here in the language of this analogy.

So the question is: is the meaning of the analogy at least intellectually grasped? Is it understood that it points towards a real domain of experience in which we feel actively weaving in the though process and in this weaving we discover ourselves in a different light, as a different kind of being, reflected within a type of activity we're normally not used to see ourselves engaged in?
Is it understood that there's fundamental difference of what knowing is considered to be on both sides of this experience? That in the intellectual soul we simply assess the logical relations of written thoughts which can never be anything more than a map of the 'reality-in-itself', while in the consciousness or spiritual soul it is the very shapes and dynamics of our spiritual activity that are being (directly) known, and this in itself speaks about how this activity is related to the spiritual environment? And that from that perspective the written thoughts that precipitate from the thus consciously experienced hand movements are no longer metaphysical assumptions but testimonies for those innerly experienced shapes and movements?
If all this is understood, why is the living experience of this spiritual activity, in which we increasingly find our true being, so stubbornly resisted?

I understand that this probably has to do with the Buddhist schooling where the goal is to deidentify with any content and activity of consciousness. But speaking of metaphysical assumptions, isn't this precisely such an assumption, that lightly discards a real phenomenon of reality because the intellect simply declares it to be illusionary and unworthy of investigation? Why declare something illusionary if we can't recreate it in any other way?

There's no need to involve Atlantis and the Zodiac at this point. These things become reality only when the above described process is continued waaay further. If even the experience that is at 'a thought's distance' at any point of our life, is misconceived and avoided, it's only natural that everything which can be found further down that road will be avoided and ridiculed even more fiercely.

[Ben Iscatus]

"Finally, someone who adopts our beliefs!" The only way I can describe this heartening feeling is as if one witnesses a bird that finds its way out of a cage and flies freely. Neither I nor Ashvin take credit for this.

An interesting statement- that you can speak for Ashvin. Similar writing styles, similar views - I wonder if you are alters of the same mind?

[Cleric K]

"Finally, someone who adopts our beliefs!" The only way I can describe this heartening feeling is as if one witnesses a bird that finds its way out of a cage and flies freely. Neither I nor Ashvin take credit for this.

An interesting statement- that you can speak for Ashvin. I wonder if you are alters of the same mind?

Yes Ben, you absolutely got me. Your thoughtful observation has spotted the Achilles' heel in my agenda and now my whole house of cards has crumbled into dust.

[Soul_of_Shu]

If all this is understood, why is the living experience of this spiritual activity, in which we increasingly find our true being, so stubbornly resisted?

I understand that this probably has to do with the Buddhist schooling where the goal is to deidentify with any content and activity of consciousness. But speaking of metaphysical assumptions, isn't this precisely such an assumption, that lightly discards a real phenomenon of reality because the intellect simply declares it to be illusionary and unworthy of investigation? Why declare something illusionary if we can't recreate it in any other way?

There's no need to involve Atlantis and the Zodiac at this point. These things become reality only when the above described process is continued waaay further. If even the experience that is at 'a thought's distance' at any point of our life, is misconceived and avoided, it's only natural that everything which can be found further down that road will be avoided and ridiculed even more fiercely.

It's not strictly true that all Buddhism disidentifies with all activity of consciousness, for in the Tibetan version—the only one I've been inspired to delve into—the explorers of transcorporeal realms who authored the Bardo Thodol were certainly aware that that exploration is an activity of consciousness, which is not understood to be illusory in the sense of being 'unreal' in contrast to some state that is really 'real'. In the video shared in the Anna Brown thread, I feel that Spira and Vernon do a good job of addressing and disabusing the misconceived notion of "It's all illusory, and thus can be dispensed with", by making clear what is actually meant by 'illusory' as opposed to 'ignorance.' Ramana, echoing Shankara, also summed it up thusly ...

The world is illusory
Brahman alone is real
Brahman is the world

And I'm inspired to throw in another question here. As mentioned, I listened to an audio version of PoF, and resonantly intuited that it is not out of sync with what I've been able to glean from an inspired eclectic approach—albeit, I hadn't gleaned it in any systematic way, and certainly was not about to write a book about it, being more poetically inclined. Yet, what is often implied here is that regardless of inspiration, anyone who is not too lazy has only to make the effort to read PoF, and ipso facto they have the only method they need. So while I respect that PoF may well be what works best for some, if not being a surefire way for everyone who may be otherwise inspired, what is to preclude anyone who for whatever reason is not inspired to read PoF from gleaning the same knowing, and attaining 'transfigured' ideation, by way of another approach? Why would no other approach not get it?

[Eugene I]

You say that your path is an open one and I accept that at face value. So again, I will be fascinated to read your critique of PoF after you've read it.

PZ, good, I think we found a lot in common.

[AshvinP]

"Finally, someone who adopts our beliefs!" The only way I can describe this heartening feeling is as if one witnesses a bird that finds its way out of a cage and flies freely. Neither I nor Ashvin take credit for this.

An interesting statement- that you can speak for Ashvin. Similar writing styles, similar views - I wonder if you are alters of the same mind?

Actually, yes... we share the same Spirit, as do you. Sometimes I wonder whether you guys find anything about idealism or nondual tradition valid, or actually your views are similar to physicalist Jim except less honest than he is about them.

He can speak for me because I am beginning to tread the same path of the Spirit that he has treaded and continues to tread and counteless others before him. He knows the fruits of the Spirit and the deepest feelings it manifests in the human soul. (that you say our "writing styles" are similar actually goes to show how little attention you are paying to the posts you are commenting on, because his reflects a much-expanded mode of spiritual knowing than my own right now). There are not multiple realities, with multiple realms of ideation, multiple sorts of imaginations, inspirations, and intuitions, etc. which point people into infinitely fragmented little corners of their own Reality, even though that is what we frequently desire for ourselves. Everyone can practically verify what Cleric wrote above for themselves, starting today, and eventually all the talk of "synchronicity", "deja vu", "spiritual freedom", and other similar cliches will become concrete realities which are no longer inexplicable but perfectly natural. It is literally "at a thought's distance", as Cleric said.

[Eugene I]

This analogy was the most explicit and minimal image that I could come up with. Eugene, my question is do you understand what that analogy implies? I'm not asking in order to tease or mock you. It's because to this day I don't know if you really understand what we're talking about but simply don't want to follow it to its natural conclusions or you truly don't grasp the whole idea. From the way you respond it sounds it's the latter. And I really hope this is the case because that would mean that you haven't consciously or unconsciously denied to yourself the possibility to experience your inner being, but simply haven't found the path to it yet.

When you say that the Western method is "simply" uncovering of the unconscious layers, in the terms of the analogy that would mean that the hand continues to write more and more thoughts that pile up an exceedingly complicated thought-model of the hand. The hand can indeed attempt to draw itself but as long as it is conscious only of the drawing it still doesn't know itself directly. This is what I implied when I say that this approach reduces spirituality to Freudian psychoanalysis which piles up intellectual thoughts but the reality of the hand forever remains unexperienced in the shadows of the subconsciousness.

Cleric, you might have noticed (or not) that all "good" non-dual teachings, from traditional Advaita and Buddhism to modern (Spira etc) are exactly about the experiencing of the inner Being. They are exactly aimed to turn around from what it written and discover and recognize the existence of what is "writing" (experiencing, willing etc)

When you say that all spiritual traditions are based on certain metaphysical assumptions, this only shows that the only reality for you is the writings of the hand. You dismiss the possibility that the hand can be experienced as purely phenomenological spiritual activity. Actually this hand analogy, when fully understood through direct experience, can be considered as the most basic and readily accessible true Imagination. I'm not speaking of understanding the analogy through some superficial intellectual treatment, by dissecting it on the petri dish and covering it with even more thoughts. To understand the hand analogy/Imagination in the true sense, means that we must really experience ourselves as active spiritual force which draws the intellectual thoughts. From this perspective the hand analogy is a concrete pictorial description of our inner cognitive experience. If one feels that the reality of the spiritual hand that draws the thoughts is nothing but metaphysical assumption, on top of which all other things are built, it simply means that one doesn't allow himself to experience the spiritual state from which this analogy is seen as immediate reality. It's similar, for example, to someone who doesn't allow himself to dance because he feels uncomfortable, as he'll have to experience himself in life situation he's not comfortable with. He says "I'm not the kind of guy who dances, I can't bear the view of myself dancing". Similarly, there could be something like this which stands on our way of experiencing our intimate spiritual activity that animates the written thoughts. We implicitly say "I'm a serious man. I deal with hard-written thoughts only. I'm not the kind of guy who can bear the view of myself being consciously active within some inner spiritual process out of which the written thoughts proceed."

Absolutely, this is the foundation of any phenomenological philosophy and spiritual tradition (non-dual included - see above). But no matter how advanced you are in the knowing of your phenomenological activity, this knowledge can not be a proof that nothing else exists beyond the limits of such activity. But idealism makes an assumption that this is the case, and there is nothing wrong with such assumption, as long as it is accepted as assumption as opposed to an unquestionable truth.

And that from that perspective the written thoughts that precipitate from the thus consciously experienced hand movements are no longer metaphysical assumptions but testimonies for those innerly experienced shapes and movements?
If all this is understood, why is the living experience of this spiritual activity, in which we increasingly find our true being, so stubbornly resisted?

Yes, they are definitely testimonies, no questions about that, but testimonies of existence of "something" are not proofs that "something else" does not exist.

I understand that this probably has to do with the Buddhist schooling where the goal is to deidentify with any content and activity of consciousness. But speaking of metaphysical assumptions, isn't this precisely such an assumption, that lightly discards a real phenomenon of reality because the intellect simply declares it to be illusionary and unworthy of investigation? Why declare something illusionary if we can't recreate it in any other way?

Buddhism is based on the premise of direct experiential (phenomenological) knowledge of the inner consciousness and awareness. And the practical/meditative methodology to do that is exactly to turn away from "what is written" to "what is writing and experiencing" the written content (and that is why they call the content "illusory" in an attempt to detach the person from too strong attachment to this content and redirect the focus on what is producing and experiencing the content). So, again, your criticism is simply based on gross misunderstanding of Eastern traditions.

But overall, basically there are two types of worldviews: rigorously formulated philosophical systems based on explicit metaphysical assumptions, and amateur "theories of everything" (TOE) that are usually taken religiously without understanding their implicit unprovable metaphysical assumptions. The TOEs often become the paradigms of sectarian views which have certain other features:
- Taking their views as undeniable truths and reluctance to admit that their views are based on unprovable beliefs
- Intolerance to and rejection of any possible other alternative assumptions and views
- Tendency to explain everything, which is rooted in the fear of unknown and of uncertainty

My personal approach is different, and it's not that I'm trying to force anyone into it, but I assume I still have right to express it. I call it "possibilianism":
- I understand that any worldview and philosophy is based on certain unprovable assumptions, and for any worldview that I consider I want to know exactly what those assumptions are. I don't want to fool myself into taking assumptions as truths and, by doing that, limit my exploration of reality to only the views based on such implicit assumptions (what if they are actually wrong?).
- I have no fear of uncertainty and of unknown, on the opposite, I find it quite exciting and stimulating.
- Because I see all worldviews as based on unprovable assumptions, I select and weight them on the basis of merits. The "figure of merit" includes the logical consistency (which is actually a questionable and limited merit, but still has some validity), parsimony, absence of "brutal" explanatory gaps, spiritual and phychological benefits for the development of individuals and the society, and other similar criteria. So, to me idealism has a higher overall figure of merit compared to materialism or solipsism or other metaphysics, but that figure of merit is not a proof that materialism or solipsism is wrong.

[Eugene I]

This makes no sense, Eugene. How do you claim to know what PoF is assuming when you have not read it yet? Am I going crazy, are we in the twilight zone, and/or is this beyond absurd? I even brought attention to this fact very recently on this thread, yet you keep making assertions about PoF which you have no basis to make (because you haven't read it), and also which are incorrect. But let's play this game for a bit... you just asserted PoF has three assumptions which Steiner relies on in his reasoning (which you also deny is "phenomenological" approach, when it clearly is).


1) "PoF is a version of idealism, and any version of idealism is based on certain unprovable metaphysical assumptions."

2) "But PoF is also a version of subjective-objective idealism in a sense that it is internalized view based on the fact of the given reality of conscious experience (and that is the way any "good" version idealism should be)"

3) "Another assumption specific to PoF is that all of the reality is cognizable by thinking and reason."

And we can add this catch-all 4th assertion - "but it also employs a lot of preconceptions and beliefs that Cleric and Ashvin are so reluctant to admit"


Now let's ignore the fact that you claim to be an idealist (or nondualist), this is an idealist forum, that BK has been makiing arguments from the idealist assumptions for many years now. Do you think BK's philosophy is a mere 'belief' with equal truth value to all other metaphysical 'beliefs'? Of course not. But you are trying to apply that standard to philosophy of Thinking. It's almost as if you think science is the only field in human existence which can deal with "objective" knowledge, which of course is generally associated with "materialism" and specifically called "scientism". But we can ignore that hypocrisy.

All you need to do is copy and paste the text from PoF where those three assumptions are made. You have the link to the full text now. Just to be clear, I take #2 to mean Steiner assumes conscious experience must be the ontic ground of Reality. If instead you mean he assumes we are actually beings who have conscious experience, then I think it goes without saying why ALL fields of inquiry, including your own engineering field, grants that "assumption", if it can even be called that.

I havent rad PoF and I'm only through half of its abridged version. So,

1) From what I 've read, I haven't seen any explicit ontological idealist statements by Steiner, so it looks like the original PoF is not specifically idealism. But you always described it as ideaism, that's why I assumed that it is. So, may be your interpretation of PoF and the original Steiner's formulation of it are actually different. I haven't figure that out yet.

2) Isn't is exactly what Cleric tell us all the time?: "the consciousness or spiritual soul it is the very shapes and dynamics of our spiritual activity that are being (directly) known". And notice that I fully agree with it

2) This is based on your statements that the totality of reality is equivalent to its ideal content, and therefore, in principle all cognizable by thinking activity. But here is the quote from the abridged PoF confirming that:
"There are no universal limits to knowledge, only individual ones"

[Cleric K]

And I'm inspired to throw in another question here. As mentioned, I listened to an audio version of PoF, and resonantly intuited that it is not out of sync with what I've been able to glean from my inspired eclectic approach—albeit, I hadn't gleaned it in any systematic way, and certainly was not about to write a book about it, being more poetically inclined. Yet, what is often implied here is that regardless of inspiration, anyone who is not too lazy has only to make the effort to read PoF, and ipso facto they have the only method they need. So while I respect that PoF may well be what works best for some, if not being a surefire way for everyone who may be otherwise inspired, what is to preclude anyone who for whatever reason is not inspired to read PoF from gleaning the same knowing, and attaining transfigured' ideation, by way of another approach? Why would no other approach not get it?

If one doesn't read PoF and nevertheless decides to follow the way spiritual activity works in us, how it precipitates into thoughts, he'll inevitably write a book very similar to PoF. Similarly, if people on different sides on the planet independently decide to dissect the human body, they'll inevitable write similar books describing the heart, the brain, etc. They may coin different words but the concepts will be the same.

PoF is a book on 'spiritual anatomy'. We experience the 'anatomy' of our spiritual being not by seeing it from the outside or building abstract theory about it but by exploring its 'geometry' from within with our spiritual activity. Concretely, PoF leads us by the hand across the transition between the intellectual and the consciousness soul.

I can't do otherwise but point again to the hand analogy. Transfigured ideation is not simply to increase the quantity and colorfulness of conscious content (as in heightened fantasy). All of this is still only writings on the screen, while the hand remains in the shadows. Impressions of the astral world can be perceived on the screen in visionary states. The Tibetan Buddhist can also reach visionary experiences of the astral but you can be quite certain that they are viewed in the impartial perspective of dependent arising, which must not interfere with the anatman principle. There's movement, there's activity but the Buddhist doesn't try to experience any of this activity as proceeding from the "I". This runs counter to the whole doctrine. It's quite the opposite - the more detached one is from any "I"-willed activity, the more objective the perceptions are considered to be. There's a lot of activity going on in these states but it's seen as dependent arising within the field of the completely impersonal consciousness.

None of the above, however, really seeks deeper reality that shapes the activity of our ego (for obvious reasons in Buddhism). If we're to investigate what it is in us that thinks (that is, what is our true being), and not only live with the meaning of the written thoughts, we have no choice but seek consciousness within the thinking process itself, such that from there we begin to experience how our spirit moves and weaves - that is we begin to discover new consciousness within the structure of the hand and its degrees of freedom.