A clean room for a specific exploration

[AshvinP]

Yes, off the top of my head these are people who I think have given us material to ponder that is engaging with related even if their interpretation aren't perfect:

Steiner
Barfield
Talbott
Holdrege
Spira
Wilber
Klocek
etc

And I think many many other people have done great work in helping us experience shifts in consciousness. They all won't share the same theory, of course. I think Barfield and Steiner and, indirectly, Coleridge, have done the most unique work in helping us see the inherent union between 'nature' and human consciousness within the context of evolution.

When it comes to people describing changes in the quality of consciousness through time, I find that even some materialists (mainly phenomenologists) often are very perceptive despite the various ways their theories then force them to accurately characterize their findings.

Sorry my question probably wasn't clear. I know a whole lot of people have perceived and described the evolution of consciousness through human history, and some in great detail. I agree, there are many great theoretical explorations of that process. I am talking about the accounts of what was directly perceived after those 'higher' modes of consciousness were attained. Has anyone gone beyond theoretical explanation to direct perception of the "collective subconscious" and developed detailed accounts of what was perceived? Do such accounts exist and, if so, can you link to one of them (or just provide the name, work, etc.)?

[findingblanks]

Hi there,

"I know a whole lot of people have perceived and described the evolution of consciousness..."

You added:

"I am talking about the accounts of what was directly perceived after those 'higher' modes of consciousness were attained."

and then:

"Has anyone gone beyond theoretical explanation to direct perception of the "collective subconscious" and developed detailed accounts of what was perceived?"

Yeah, so in my opinion each of the people I listed (and many more) have directly perceived the phenomena and pulled out details that are uniquely helpful. Gebser, Steiner, Wilber, and Barfield have nice wide frames and each have, in my opinion, directly perceived the phenomena in their own way. And that means that they both captured aspects 'more' objectively and some less objectively because of their standpoint, in my view. But those other people have pulled out 'smaller' elements that contribute to a better recalibration of what Steiner, Gebser, et. al, found in a wider way. For instance Gendlin's phenomenological exploration of instance-of-itself, allows for really deep work in the future by other researchers.

Anyway, so that we don't get bogged down I'll say that I think 'intuition' can be used to describe when we directly perceive/become the phenomena and then we must translate those objective perceptions via our filters. That is the sense in which I give all of those folks credit for direction perception.





"

[AshvinP]

Hi there,

"I know a whole lot of people have perceived and described the evolution of consciousness..."

You added:

"I am talking about the accounts of what was directly perceived after those 'higher' modes of consciousness were attained."

and then:

"Has anyone gone beyond theoretical explanation to direct perception of the "collective subconscious" and developed detailed accounts of what was perceived?"

Yeah, so in my opinion each of the people I listed (and many more) have directly perceived the phenomena and pulled out details that are uniquely helpful. Gebser, Steiner, Wilber, and Barfield have nice wide frames and each have, in my opinion, directly perceived the phenomena in their own way. And that means that they both captured aspects 'more' objectively and some less objectively because of their standpoint, in my view. But those other people have pulled out 'smaller' elements that contribute to a better recalibration of what Steiner, Gebser, et. al, found in a wider way. For instance Gendlin's phenomenological exploration of instance-of-itself, allows for really deep work in the future by other researchers.

Anyway, so that we don't get bogged down I'll say that I think 'intuition' can be used to describe when we directly perceive/become the phenomena and then we must translate those objective perceptions via our filters. That is the sense in which I give all of those folks credit for direction perception.

We still have some confusion here. For me, the "phenomenon" is the outer manifestation of the inner ideal dynamics, the latter being the "noumenon". The phenomenon is the "visible creation" in this quote by Emerson - "A Fact is the end or last issue of spirit. The visible creation is the terminus or the circumference of the invisible world." As far as I can tell, Barfield and Gebser have studied the phenomenon of higher cognition in great detail, but never claimed to have directly perceived the noumenon or incorporated such accounts into their writings (I don't know much about Wilber, but I will assume that holds true for him as well unless told differently). I also doubt Spira has, but I am not too familiar with his writings either.

So I am asking about the noumenon here. On the list you provided, I only know of Steiner's accounts of the noumenon. Can you provide examples of the other ones on that list (as mentioned above, I know Barfield and Gebser cannot be included)? We all have subconscious intuitions, inspirations, and imaginations, and sometimes the end result of that higher Thinking activity is also reflected upon by our intellect so that we can differentiate them from normal intellectual thoughts. Clearly all of those people you mention were doing that to some degree or another. But Steiner is the only one I am aware of on that list who perceived-cognized the actual noumenal activity which gives rise to those higher cognitions, and provided detailed accounts of that activity.

So put yet another way, are you aware of anyone else who has directly claimed to perceive that noumenal activity in the way Steiner does? If so, do you think such accounts are reliable guides and can you provide examples of them? If not, then my question is whether you think Steiner did perceive this activity directly and, if not, why not?

[findingblanks]

I do think those other people we mentioned experienced what you are calling the noumenon. I do not believe that a person has to have already a linguistic or conceptual framework about the noumenon in order to participate any aspect of it. I think there are advantages and disadvantages to having any kind of conscious framework in this regard.

I believe that Barfield 'went into' the noumenon with a different kind of 'filtering system' than Steiner. And that goes for all of them. I can see why for some people Steiner's would be their preference. I can see why for some people his word be valued but maybe not the preference.

"So put yet another way, are you aware of anyone else who has directly claimed to perceive that noumenal activity in the way Steiner does? If so, do you think such accounts are reliable guides and can you provide examples of them?"

I don't know anybody who articulates Steiner's system better than Steiner. And that goes for each of them. I don't yet know of anybody who is doing better work than any of these people from within their frame. I don't think Steiner gave as rich and phenomenological accounts of modern shifts in the evolution of consciousness as Barfield. I don't think Barfield gave us any so-called clairvoyant Imaginations of such an evolution. I don't think either is as clear as Gendlin with direct 'perception' of some of the core process. But I think all of them contribute valuably. From my study of Wilber, he directly perceives some of the broader outlines in very helpful ways but doesn't even try to dive into the details.

When speaking to a mainstream Anthroposophist, I'd say that it would primarily be karma that would determine which avenue of the truth will require their attention. And all of them will of course be updated as more people join the studies.

Regarding your last question:

"If not, then my question is whether you think Steiner did perceive this activity directly and, if not, why not?"

For me 'direct' means that rather than merely having logically understood somebody else's model or conceptualization, you 'become' the phenomena intuitively. Steiner (and other's in their own contexts) sometimes described this intuitive union and made clear that unlike Imaginations and Inspirations it wasn't the perception 'of' something outside as other. This moment is shaped by one's unique being and this determines how the direct knowing is then translated to the ego via concepts and representations. If somebody has not taken up Theosophical images (at some level or life or context), the intuition will not 'fall out' as angels or specific system of auras, etc.. In other words, two people can have a directly knowing of Michael and depending on their llving context, it might translate into a western esoteric tradition, math problems (Some Initiates have given details about how Michael would inspire the math in our time, I believe Steiner was one of them), new insights into animal morphology, etc.,

Of course, this kind of claim is not going to be shared by anybody who takes their own schema/experience as ground-floor. To them, the other people might be doing commendable work but it will obviously not be coming from 'direct experience'.

Needless to say, I believe Steiner went very very deep. And just because I don't believe his higher knowledge was 'exact', that doesn't imply I think he wasn't having objective interactions with reality. But I'm hoping we don't jump into that exact conversation just now. I'd rather we stay more general regarding your desire to know if I believe these people are doing objective work. I absolutely do.

[AshvinP]

I do think those other people we mentioned experienced what you are calling the noumenon. I do not believe that a person has to have already a linguistic or conceptual framework about the noumenon in order to participate any aspect of it. I think there are advantages and disadvantages to having any kind of conscious framework in this regard.

I believe that Barfield 'went into' the noumenon with a different kind of 'filtering system' than Steiner. And that goes for all of them. I can see why for some people Steiner's would be their preference. I can see why for some people his word be valued but maybe not the preference.

"So put yet another way, are you aware of anyone else who has directly claimed to perceive that noumenal activity in the way Steiner does? If so, do you think such accounts are reliable guides and can you provide examples of them?"

I don't know anybody who articulates Steiner's system better than Steiner. And that goes for each of them. I don't yet know of anybody who is doing better work than any of these people from within their frame. I don't think Steiner gave as rich and phenomenological accounts of modern shifts in the evolution of consciousness as Barfield. I don't think Barfield gave us any so-called clairvoyant Imaginations of such an evolution. I don't think either is as clear as Gendlin with direct 'perception' of some of the core process. But I think all of them contribute valuably. From my study of Wilber, he directly perceives some of the broader outlines in very helpful ways but doesn't even try to dive into the details.

When speaking to a mainstream Anthroposophist, I'd say that it would primarily be karma that would determine which avenue of the truth will require their attention. And all of them will of course be updated as more people join the studies.

Regarding your last question:

"If not, then my question is whether you think Steiner did perceive this activity directly and, if not, why not?"

For me 'direct' means that rather than merely having logically understood somebody else's model or conceptualization, you 'become' the phenomena intuitively. Steiner (and other's in their own contexts) sometimes described this intuitive union and made clear that unlike Imaginations and Inspirations it wasn't the perception 'of' something outside as other. This moment is shaped by one's unique being and this determines how the direct knowing is then translated to the ego via concepts and representations. If somebody has not taken up Theosophical images (at some level or life or context), the intuition will not 'fall out' as angels or specific system of auras, etc.. In other words, two people can have a directly knowing of Michael and depending on their llving context, it might translate into a western esoteric tradition, math problems (Some Initiates have given details about how Michael would inspire the math in our time, I believe Steiner was one of them), new insights into animal morphology, etc.,

Of course, this kind of claim is not going to be shared by anybody who takes their own schema/experience as ground-floor. To them, the other people might be doing commendable work but it will obviously not be coming from 'direct experience'.

Needless to say, I believe Steiner went very very deep. And just because I don't believe his higher knowledge was 'exact', that doesn't imply I think he wasn't having objective interactions with reality. But I'm hoping we don't jump into that exact conversation just now. I'd rather we stay more general regarding your desire to know if I believe these people are doing objective work. I absolutely do.

FB,

Thanks for providing this elaboration. I hope it is clear why the last sentence is not what I am looking to discuss, especially since you created a thread for "specific exploration", presumably as a separate space from the more "general exploration" taken up on other threads you are currently involved in. There is no question at all about whether anyone is doing "objective" and "good" work. We both agree that, not only are all those people doing such work, but they must be under our monist spiritual view. There is no possible way they can't be if they are experiencing the same phenomena we are and soundly reasoning through them. I think Cleric, you, and myself have all made clear on multiple occasions and in many different ways that we are all experiencing the totality of the World Content (mostly subconsciously) our entire existence. All is Spirit. All is higher ideational activity. You and I are always experiencing all.

So there is no question about that. The only question is to what extent and in what manner can the subconscious be made conscious in this current incarnation of ours (or lifetime if you don't accept reincarnation, which I would say raises many more issues with monism, but we can leave that aside for now). All philosophy, science, art, etc. over the last few millennia (and perhaps longer) is about going from more general understanding of world phenomena to more specific and precise. That is not the only purpose they can serve in our experience, but probably the most critical in our current age. That is why you and I are pulling in opposite directions on that last sentence. I am pulling to go deep instead of wide on the phenomena (although I also widely survey thinkers in my essays). So that was just an intro before responding further to the substance, which I will try to do later tonight.

[findingblanks]

"The only question is to what extent and in what manner can the subconscious be made conscious..."

In general, I'd say there is no limit.

"All philosophy, science, art, etc. over the last few millennia (and perhaps longer) is about going from more general understanding of world phenomena to more specific and precise."

My first reading of this, I don't agree. But I'd need to ask many questions about it and I'm not sure it is the main thrust of where we are at.

In terms of the notion of going 'wide' and going 'deep,' that will be a fun but I imagine very tricky thing to specify. But abstractly I have no problem with those distinctions being applied in different ways to different context. Thanks!

[AshvinP]

I do think those other people we mentioned experienced what you are calling the noumenon. I do not believe that a person has to have already a linguistic or conceptual framework about the noumenon in order to participate any aspect of it. I think there are advantages and disadvantages to having any kind of conscious framework in this regard.

I believe that Barfield 'went into' the noumenon with a different kind of 'filtering system' than Steiner. And that goes for all of them. I can see why for some people Steiner's would be their preference. I can see why for some people his word be valued but maybe not the preference.

"So put yet another way, are you aware of anyone else who has directly claimed to perceive that noumenal activity in the way Steiner does? If so, do you think such accounts are reliable guides and can you provide examples of them?"

I don't know anybody who articulates Steiner's system better than Steiner. And that goes for each of them. I don't yet know of anybody who is doing better work than any of these people from within their frame. I don't think Steiner gave as rich and phenomenological accounts of modern shifts in the evolution of consciousness as Barfield. I don't think Barfield gave us any so-called clairvoyant Imaginations of such an evolution. I don't think either is as clear as Gendlin with direct 'perception' of some of the core process. But I think all of them contribute valuably. From my study of Wilber, he directly perceives some of the broader outlines in very helpful ways but doesn't even try to dive into the details.

When speaking to a mainstream Anthroposophist, I'd say that it would primarily be karma that would determine which avenue of the truth will require their attention. And all of them will of course be updated as more people join the studies.

Regarding your last question:

"If not, then my question is whether you think Steiner did perceive this activity directly and, if not, why not?"

For me 'direct' means that rather than merely having logically understood somebody else's model or conceptualization, you 'become' the phenomena intuitively. Steiner (and other's in their own contexts) sometimes described this intuitive union and made clear that unlike Imaginations and Inspirations it wasn't the perception 'of' something outside as other. This moment is shaped by one's unique being and this determines how the direct knowing is then translated to the ego via concepts and representations. If somebody has not taken up Theosophical images (at some level or life or context), the intuition will not 'fall out' as angels or specific system of auras, etc.. In other words, two people can have a directly knowing of Michael and depending on their llving context, it might translate into a western esoteric tradition, math problems (Some Initiates have given details about how Michael would inspire the math in our time, I believe Steiner was one of them), new insights into animal morphology, etc.,

Of course, this kind of claim is not going to be shared by anybody who takes their own schema/experience as ground-floor. To them, the other people might be doing commendable work but it will obviously not be coming from 'direct experience'.

Needless to say, I believe Steiner went very very deep. And just because I don't believe his higher knowledge was 'exact', that doesn't imply I think he wasn't having objective interactions with reality. But I'm hoping we don't jump into that exact conversation just now. I'd rather we stay more general regarding your desire to know if I believe these people are doing objective work. I absolutely do.

FB,

Thanks for providing this elaboration. I hope it is clear why the last sentence is not what I am looking to discuss, especially since you created a thread for "specific exploration", presumably as a separate space from the more "general exploration" taken up on other threads you are currently involved in. There is no question at all about whether anyone is doing "objective" and "good" work. We both agree that, not only are all those people doing such work, but they must be under our monist spiritual view. There is no possible way they can't be if they are experiencing the same phenomena we are and soundly reasoning through them. I think Cleric, you, and myself have all made clear on multiple occasions and in many different ways that we are all experiencing the totality of the World Content (mostly subconsciously) our entire existence. All is Spirit. All is higher ideational activity. You and I are always experiencing all.

So there is no question about that. The only question is to what extent and in what manner can the subconscious be made conscious in this current incarnation of ours (or lifetime if you don't accept reincarnation, which I would say raises many more issues with monism, but we can leave that aside for now). All philosophy, science, art, etc. over the last few millennia (and perhaps longer) is about going from more general understanding of world phenomena to more specific and precise. That is not the only purpose they can serve in our experience, but probably the most critical in our current age. That is why you and I are pulling in opposite directions on that last sentence. I am pulling to go deep instead of wide on the phenomena (although I also widely survey thinkers in my essays). So that was just an intro before responding further to the substance, which I will try to do later tonight.

Here is where I would like to go with the discussion, and you can tell me if you feel we can go there. You are absolutely correct that all of these thinkers are exploring the same ideal 'space'. Not just them, but even the materialists you refer to on the Anil Seth thread. I agree. Let's consider aesthetics - there is nothing which makes a materialist telling a story via books, music, movies, etc. less archetypal than the idealist. Every story that is told contains variations on the same deep archetypal imagery and themes. I think we both agree that these archetypes point us towards a shared spiritual Reality underlying humanity's collective experience, and perhaps even broader than human experience. I saw the new "Halloween" movie recently... it was downright terrible in terms of characters, acting, believability of character choices, overall plot, etc. But the people who made that movie still could not fail to touch on deep archetypal realities in the character of Michael Myers, no matter how hard they tried to, even if completely subconsciously, just due to the general ideal content they are exploring. So I would analogize that to the materialist coming up with all sorts of speculative theories about the world phenomena - no matter how absurd they get, some aspects of what they are putting out there will be genuinely thought-provoking for that reason.

So where I want to go here is to the question - why? How do we explain this archetypal universal aspect of storytelling, myth-making, philosophizing, scientific theorizing, etc. Some will be satisfied saying it is genetic, cultural, social inheritance (materialists). Others will only be satisfied by a "collective unconscious" realm which we all draw inspiration from, but we really don't know why, how, or to what extent (secular depth psychologists). Yet others will not rest comfortable until they discover that the entire Cosmos is ideal in its essence, and that makes great sense of why archetypal ideas are universal (BK idealist). But, for all of those views, what exactly have we explained about our immanent experience of meaningful archetypal patterns across all these different activities? What difference does any of that abstract knowledge make in our lives? I think here we agree yet again - it makes almost no difference which abstract set of concepts one adheres to above. But what does make a huge difference, for me, is being satisfied with those abstract conceptual systems or instead yearning for something more concrete, precise, and practical, and then following that natural yearning wherever it leads. Can we make that transition when it comes to the archetypal phenomena and, if so, how? What do you think?

[findingblanks]

"So I would analogize that to the materialist coming up with all sorts of speculative theories about the world phenomena - no matter how absurd they get, some aspects of what they are putting out there will be genuinely thought-provoking for that reason."

Well put. Great example of the horror movie. When I find myself overly judging some pop cultural event I'm observing or participating, I do find it so helpful to remember that closer observation will reveal contact with very living and deep and important themes.

"But what does make a huge difference, for me, is being satisfied with those abstract conceptual systems or instead yearning for something more concrete, precise, and practical, and then following that natural yearning wherever it leads."

Again, well put! To the extent that I am following you, i share this desire.

From our conversations so far, my sense is that what makes this exploration both tricky and worthwhile for us is that - because of our different filters and frames and ways of knowing, etc. - we have different 'understandings' of when a given individual might be moving into 'more concrete, precise, and practical,' and, along with that, we have different understandings of what it might mean to follow that natural yearning. So, before, I try to say anything about these first building blocks of our conversation, I do want to strongly underline how much I appreciate the way you framed that; a 'natural yearning' that wants to move beyond any already required concepts is a wonderful place to start.

I think that as long as we include a good, smart, hard working Anthroposophist in our grouping of those people who have helpful intellectual structures that they refer to as they get through their days, we are at a good starting point. What I might worry about is that we'd make an exception for a good person who works within Anthroposophy. I know that isn't your intention. And from how you framed it, I think you'd quickly agree that we have to start with all these folks representing the same very human tendency of perhaps over-stressing their preferred conceptual understandings for the yearning within them that is ready to push free from those systems. It's a very inspiring starting point.

[AshvinP]

"So I would analogize that to the materialist coming up with all sorts of speculative theories about the world phenomena - no matter how absurd they get, some aspects of what they are putting out there will be genuinely thought-provoking for that reason."

Well put. Great example of the horror movie. When I find myself overly judging some pop cultural event I'm observing or participating, I do find it so helpful to remember that closer observation will reveal contact with very living and deep and important themes.

"But what does make a huge difference, for me, is being satisfied with those abstract conceptual systems or instead yearning for something more concrete, precise, and practical, and then following that natural yearning wherever it leads."

Again, well put! To the extent that I am following you, i share this desire.

From our conversations so far, my sense is that what makes this exploration both tricky and worthwhile for us is that - because of our different filters and frames and ways of knowing, etc. - we have different 'understandings' of when a given individual might be moving into 'more concrete, precise, and practical,' and, along with that, we have different understandings of what it might mean to follow that natural yearning. So, before, I try to say anything about these first building blocks of our conversation, I do want to strongly underline how much I appreciate the way you framed that; a 'natural yearning' that wants to move beyond any already required concepts is a wonderful place to start.

I think that as long as we include a good, smart, hard working Anthroposophist in our grouping of those people who have helpful intellectual structures that they refer to as they get through their days, we are at a good starting point. What I might worry about is that we'd make an exception for a good person who works within Anthroposophy. I know that isn't your intention. And from how you framed it, I think you'd quickly agree that we have to start with all these folks representing the same very human tendency of perhaps over-stressing their preferred conceptual understandings for the yearning within them that is ready to push free from those systems. It's a very inspiring starting point.

I am not clear on the bold part, can you elaborate?

So what are the archetypal phenomenon we can perceive in all story structures, for ex., pointing us towards in your view?

[findingblanks]

Okay, I'll respond ASAP.