Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2021 12:23 pm
Now that you mention it, in the journey of this highly eclectic approach, I can't recall even opening a book of Theosophy or Blavatsky—which seems odd given how many countless books must have met my gaze while spending hours leafing through them at Banyan Books in Vancouver, libraries, and used book shops everywhere, deciding what to buy, and buy into. Clearly, to some extent, Steiner didn't fully buy in, feeling the need to revision it. And as it happens, that is mostly what I'm resonantly attracted to in Ashvin's and Cleric's offerings here: as however much that may be based in Steiner's revisioning, it's their revisioning in turn that I'm most interested in, in the ever-evolving eclectic journey. As mentioned, much of what I've been listening to in the vast online content of Steiner's lectures I'm just not inspired by, although there's enough that does inspire that I keep investigating it for more. The rest might as well be the absence of snow in summer.Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:18 amI used to be into theosophy forty years ago, but eventually realised it was a mishmash of ideas, much of it Blavatsky's invention. It's not impossible you might eventually convince me that Steiner is not rigid, elitist and old fashioned. By all means, please keep trying! Henceforth, I'll try to minimise my ironic responses.
Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:03 amWell, to be fair, I feel that most who keep hanging in here through thick and thin do crave some meaningful dialogue, although clearly there's a disconnect as to how that should look. Yet we're all still prone to some habitual egoic drives, and still dealing with subconscious shadow issues, which plays into us-vs-them mode thinking, undermining our very attempts at truly integral/aperspectival stage interaction, falling short of walking the talk, so to speak. Surely this too can, indeed must change, but only insofar as each of our thinking is transfigured beyond just talking about it. Be the change.AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:22 amIt's simple. Everyone agrees we are in a deep "meaning crisis" in Western civilization, including BK. So, naturally, metaphysical idea-lism, if one has any desire to get down into the philosophical roots of Western culture, is probably a good bet for finding some meaning-full answers. If they happen upon BK and then this forum, that is what most people are expecting to find, but they have no idea what form to expect it in. As Dana pointed out, many of the people will just tune out after a little awhile if what they wanted and expected to find is not what they actually find (aside: this actually happened to me the first time I read PoF... what I was expecting to read was not at all what Steiner was engaged in, so I just stopped reading, and it tooks Cleric's eminently logical and imaginative postings to prompt me towards another look). We know this happens in real life all the time and is mostly a reflection of our short attentive spans and our desire not to get "deep truth" without equally deep commitment and effort.
So the rest of who stick around for awhile are of two sorts. First, what I presume is the minority - Cleric, Scott, PZ, Dana, Anthony, Shajan, myself, and maybe a few others (sorry if I left you out, I am just making a broad point here). We feel forums such as these can be a great place for serious and deep dialogues about the "meaning crisis", i.e. where it comes from, how it manifests, where it is going, what we can do about it as individuals without our own spheres of action, etc. Then, there is what appears to be the majority - Eugene, Ben... (that's enough for now, again I am making a broad point). These people look upon the forum as they look upon a cow... it is a place to express endlessly speculative opinions, garner attention for one's speculative opinions, get some personal ego-boost from that, and nothing else. These people, despite frequently saying they want "freedom", actually abhor the idea that this forum is a free marketplace for ideas and people will naturally gravitate to those ideas which are actually expressed logically, imaginatively (in the case of Cleric), and seem to be highly relevant to the meaning crisis.
Such people, instead of ignoring the approach they claim to have no interest in, and writing their own essays, posts, and generally trying to spark up enthusiasm for their approach, jump in on the threads of the other approach whenever they seem to be picking up steam, because, after all, it is all about feeling that other people are reading what you are writing and has little to do with what is "true" or actually relevant to the meaning crisis. That is why you (Eugene) assume we must think like you - "if they see that people are not subscribing to their preaching, they will eventually leave to other places." You assume it must be all about our ego's need for attention like it is for your own. After all, what else could it be about in this flattened 2-dimensional speculative thought-world? You cannot even imagine another possibility, such as the one expressed by PZ in her comment (thanks PZ, as it was again heartening to read and also saves me some typing here). That is the possibility that what we desire, feel, think, and do actually matters in the overall Cosmic story of our lives, and that the living depth we rediscover in our own Thinking is more than enough to satisfy our soul for many lifetimes over, even if another single soul never reads what we write.
Ashvin,AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:38 pm
Lou,
I have no problem whatsoever with your "down-to-earth" view. I do see it as Utopian, which for me is seeking of perfection-redemption from external authorities (state, external God, "nature", parents, spouse, peers on TikTok, etc.), but I also see you are being honest, and, actually, that is what matters the most. You are not a philosoper or scientist interested in highly logical reasoning, and you say that here honestly and openly. Others here do not want to be so honest, because they are not only interested in pursuing their own path as they claim. They are also interested in convincing everyone else not to pursue the paths they do not like, and they feel they can only do so by retaining an image of logically reasoning through all the arguments. That is where the problems arise with them, but not so with you.
Lou Gold wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:43 pmAshvin,AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:38 pm
Lou,
I have no problem whatsoever with your "down-to-earth" view. I do see it as Utopian, which for me is seeking of perfection-redemption from external authorities (state, external God, "nature", parents, spouse, peers on TikTok, etc.), but I also see you are being honest, and, actually, that is what matters the most. You are not a philosoper or scientist interested in highly logical reasoning, and you say that here honestly and openly. Others here do not want to be so honest, because they are not only interested in pursuing their own path as they claim. They are also interested in convincing everyone else not to pursue the paths they do not like, and they feel they can only do so by retaining an image of logically reasoning through all the arguments. That is where the problems arise with them, but not so with you.
Thank you for your kind words. In honesty I must confess, however, that I feel weird being contextualized in ways that put down others. Perhaps I'm just too old to feel comfortable in anyone's war.
PS: I'm still trying to grok your usage of the term "Utopian". It doesn't seem to fit my experience with indigenous/shamanic ways, which generally seem quite pragmatic -- not perfect, still flawed with ego traps and tricks but not (in my view) as Utopian.
I being no exception, not always measuring up to meaningful dialogue, and even just missing the meaning, doesn't mean one doesn't crave it, or is incapable of it. So I feel some forbearance in that regard. Ben has been around a while in the previous incarnation of this forum, and I've certainly had meaningful discussions with him before you arrived. Perhaps those past discussions would also have been meaningful to you back then as well, or maybe not, notwithstanding I too have moved on, such that not all I was focused on then, still holds the same interest. Nor do I feel inclined to write the longer posts I did back then, or even the long narrative poems I once wrote. For some that may never be their forte. I'm reminded of when as a child I was drawing highly realistic depictions of animals, while others were drawing stick figures, I wondered why they didn't draw like I did, later realizing that they just didn't have that proclivity, albeit they were quite brilliant in other ways that I was not. In any case, as stated, we are all here still prone to habitual egoic factors and subconscious shadow issues, that can undermine our best efforts at integral/aperspectival interaction. Let he who is without at least some remnant of S.I.N cast the first stone
Eugene, I also know this feeling of not being to "fully subscribe" if I feel that I'm being asked to do so. However, this feeling generally is not there for me when contemplating a great Scripture (Buddhist, Christian, Taoist, whatever). There's a resonnant radiance to it -- a Great Mysteriousness -- that draws me toward just holding it with appreciation. However, as I'm drawn toward intellectual grasping and analysis I seem to start losing the magic. I like the way Buffy Sainte-Marie puts it:Eugene I wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 1:14 pm
So, I've been drifting toward a wholistic view integrating valid insights and adopting practices from all of these perspectives but not being religiously locked into any particular one. I found this open way as the only way I can approach the Great Mysteriousness.
Unfortunately this means that I can never fully subscribe to any of the particular philosophies or traditions anymore, which means that I will always be a heretic and an outsider for people who cling and fully subscribe to one of those.
Right. The challenge of an open approach is to take each available perspective seriously and actually look at the reality through its "lens" and experience it this way, and not just consider it intellectually. That is the only way to discover the insights and experience Reality from that particular perspective. But at the same time not get locked into it and loose the wider perspective that includes the insights and experiences of other perspectives. But by doing it this way you will inevitably see the shortcomings of every particular perspective, while also seeing and valuing its unique insights.Lou Gold wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:39 pm Eugene, I also know this feeling of not being to "fully subscribe" if I feel that I'm being asked to do so. However, this feeling generally is not there for me when contemplating a great Scripture (Buddhist, Christian, Taoist, whatever). There's a resonnant radiance to it -- a Great Mysteriousness -- that draws me toward just holding it with appreciation. However, as I'm drawn toward intellectual grasping and analysis I seem to start losing the magic.
Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 25, 2021 2:29 pmI being no exception, not always measuring up to meaningful dialogue, and even just missing the meaning, doesn't mean one doesn't crave it, or is incapable of it, So I feel some forbearance in that regard. Ben has been around a while in the previous incarnation of this forum, and I've certainly had meaningful discussions with him long before you arrived. Perhaps those past discussions would also have been meaningful to you back then as well, or maybe not, notwithstanding I too have moved on, such that not all I was focused on then, still holds the same interest. Nor do I feel inclined to write the longer posts I did back then, or even the long narrative poems I once wrote. For some that may never be their forte. I'm reminded of when as a child I was drawing highly realistic depictions of animals, while others were drawing stick figures, I wondered why they didn't draw like I did, later realizing that they just didn't have that proclivity, albeit they were quire brilliant in other ways that I was not. In any case, as stated, we are all here still prone to habitual egoic factors and subconscious shadow issues, that can undermine our best efforts at integral/aperspectival interaction. Let he who is without at least some remnant of S.I.N cast the first stone