A clean room for a specific exploration

[findingblanks]

"FB, What is so hard to understand about the plain English I am using? I don't care about the lectures. I am asking you to have some intellectual integrity..."

Ah, this is about my integrity now.

JS and MR, you were right. That is exactly where he went.

But notice that I can easily keep pointing out that in my post I can do a decent job of staying on the topic. Yes, other trails can be fascinating. But in that thread, I'm being 'boring' and more interested in how people handle moments when a smart person clearly gets something (or much of something) wrong.

As a side, we get to watch how he moves away from that and, yep, my integrity is the real issue. Oh no. But I think I'll continue regraining from his invitation to switch over into pure dance mode.

[findingblanks]

And then Ashvin said:

"No, it's relevant here, because here is where you made all the assertions without spiritual evolutionary context. I won't be responding on the other thread, so please just provide that context here. Explain the spiritual evolutionary progression so that people can at least know what you are even referring to by "absorption of the Christ". Do you think that is self-evident for anyone not familiar with Steiner? Of course not. So spare us the drama and just put forth some actual helpful informaton."

We see a clear expression of how you can blend some core moves with a specialty. Do you think he knows what presuppositions he making. I think he's at least aware of 72% of them. Carol I know you think otherwise

[findingblanks]

LL, okay sure:

Yes, it is very important to notice when a person is willing to have a conversation with that "ABABCDCD" structure and when they suddenly insist that a conversation can only have 'integrity' if it becomes a lecture that has no bounds (because we all know that if you 'explain' something like why non-white skin can't integrate with the Christ, you will then have to explain a slew of other terms that require other lectures)....

But why do you think Ashivin makes that switch sometimes and not others? Do you remember that comments about Steiner that Cleric made which Ashvin did not demand more context from? There is a pattern.

But remember: In my personal opinion, he is trying his best and being sincere. True, I can't prove it.

[findingblanks]

B.T.H. has pointed out that Ashvin has quoted at least three philosophers, commented on his opinion on those passages without giving a long explaination about the philosopher's entire body of thought related to the context.

Yeah, do you know why Ashvin has done that? Because it's normal and rational and reasonable. Guess what, BTH? If you are genuinely interested in what Ashvin says about his opinions, you simply can ask. He is under no obligation to follow your odd and strange rule about 'full explanations of Schopenhauer's entire understanding of issue X."

There's only a 33% chance that Ashvin will ever comment in this section. But it just went up to 37%!

[AshvinP]

B.T.H. has pointed out that Ashvin has quoted at least three philosophers, commented on his opinion on those passages without giving a long explaination about the philosopher's entire body of thought related to the context.

Yeah, do you know why Ashvin has done that? Because it's normal and rational and reasonable. Guess what, BTH? If you are genuinely interested in what Ashvin says about his opinions, you simply can ask. He is under no obligation to follow your odd and strange rule about 'full explanations of Schopenhauer's entire understanding of issue X."

There's only a 33% chance that Ashvin will ever comment in this section. But it just went up to 37%!

No, I have never quoted a philosopher who people are not familiar with, speaking of spiritual concepts people are not familiar with, gave my opinion on those quotes, and refused to provide any more necessary context for the people to understand the concepts being spoken of when it has been requested multiple times, instead choosing to "shadow dance" and ignore the requests entirely. If you can show one single instance of that, then I will back off and acknowledge you are right and apologize. But I know you won't, because it has never happened.

[JustinG]

Oh dear, what a dilemma. Ashvin is being forced to think for himself.

[AshvinP]

Oh dear, what a dilemma. Ashvin is being forced to think for himself.

I may as well paste this comment here, too...

Cleric shows in precise, easy to follow, clear detail why the above is projection onto what we don't yet understand in his latest brilliant post on The Central Topic. The physicalist looks at the Cosmos and finds the abstractions 'speed of light', 'gravity', 'space' floating as thought-contents in his mind container, so he combines them together in various ways and posits the existence of a 'black hole' beyond which there is no knowledge. And indeed he finds what he himself has projected onto the unknown canvas of outer space. He has then reified and idolized the speed of his own abstract thought-system (light) into a fixed law of the Cosmos, denying himself the opportunity of ever knowing anything beyond the currently visible world, i.e. the realms of meaning underlying it. That is how "superiority", "arrogance", "shadow dance", etc. are functioning in your mind containers right now.

But like I said before, you are not hurting anyone but yourselves through this assumption of God-like status. There are a million things about Anthroposophy that I think about and want to speculate about, but resist the urge to out of caution and humility. So I end up writing about one or two topics in a bunch of different ways. That is why you feel like I am so sure of myself when it comes to these things - because I am limiting myself to the one or two things I actually am sure that I understand very well. You guys feel it is OK to endlessly speculate by rearranging abstract thought-concepts in front of you, which is how pretty much everyone thinks these days, but then you shouldn't feel so shocked when a bunch of the speculations are challenged and revealed to be devoid of substance or logical coherence.

This will be the last post I respond to on this thread. Carry on if you want, but I strongly urge anyone who still has an open mind to follow the link above and seriously consider what Cleric wrote.

This is something to which every modern person should have no problem to relate. Within the intellectual state we feel more or less as mind-container and within this container we experience the thoughts, perceptions, essentially - the contents of consciousness. We feel certain singularity within this consciousness which is the reason we can speak of an "I" or ego. Essentially all conscious phenomena are relatable to that singularity. Different people can give different names to that singularity. For some it's simply the human ego, for others its transpersonal One Consciousness but in all cases there's this one container of experience. This is symbolized on the figure as the apex of the cone. It's the vantage point which embraces conscious phenomena. We feel this apex as the top-level observation tower below which everything happens - everything which we're conscious of happens before the eye of consciousness. What's outside this consciousness cone (the thing-in-itself) is another story.

Practically all branches of modern human life utilize this mode of cognition which really consists of ordering thoughts in logical arrangements. Ever since the exploration of propositional logic, formal systems, universal computation (Turing machines, Lambda calculus, etc.) and things like that, the intellect has reached it's grounds so to speak. From this point onwards anything that may be discovered can be immediately shown to be equivalent to some of the axiomatic systems of thinking. For this reason, as far as the logical grounds of the intellect are concerned, the ceiling has been hit, so to speak. From now on it's all about refinement and filtration of the correct intellectual thoughts which supposedly should represent the laws of Nature. The state of philosophy is even more sorry because it is completely lost in abstractions which can hardly be related to anything of practical significance.
...
Everything that I've tried to write about, practically has this single goal in mind. To bring to attention the extreme one-sidedness of the modern intellectual consciousness. This is the dualism that Ashvin speaks about - we recede quietly at the apex which turns into our blind spot and from there, as some God-like authority we rearrange our mental representations. This one-sidedness is overcome when we awaken to the fact that with our thinking we're inserted midway in the spectrum of reality. That not only we can scientifically work with mental content but we can be fully conscious also of the living time-context within which our thinking unfolds. The most important characteristic of this time-context is that it is concrete. It's not about fantasizing some hypothetical mind and its hypothetical time-context. All of this snaps back to the old habits and we arrange thoughts in the mind cone. Instead, we must seek our current time-context. This means that we must make our current thinking the object of investigation. This is the current World Process and not some imagined mental representation of supposed world process.

[findingblanks]

Hi Justino,

Ashvin likes to respond to you! Yippee! Maybe you can ask him what he would glean from the fact that the vast majority of people on this list who have read Cleric's "precise, easy to follow, clear details" do not find them precise, easy to follow, nor very detailed...?

My hunch is that Ashvin would take that to mean that people either had ill-will towards Cleric or just were not ready to understand his incredible clarity.

There is a tiny tiny tiny chance that something would begin to dawn in Ashvin's mind. Anyway, good to meet you.

[AshvinP]

Hi Justino,

Ashvin likes to respond to you! Yippee! Maybe you can ask him what he would glean from the fact that the vast majority of people on this list who have read Cleric's "precise, easy to follow, clear details" do not find them precise, easy to follow, nor very detailed...?

My hunch is that Ashvin would take that to mean that people either had ill-will towards Cleric or just were not ready to understand his incredible clarity.

There is a tiny tiny tiny chance that something would begin to dawn in Ashvin's mind. Anyway, good to meet you.

I was just responding to the last comment posted. Life is too short to spend 50 posts shadow dancing for every 1 post of actual dialogue, FB, so let's just talk plainly to each other if you want to...

1) Are you presuming to know what the "vast majority of people on this list" can find easy to follow before most of them have even read it?

(if people do find it hard to follow, but are genuinely interested in understanding the content, they can always ask questions, and it is more than clear that Cleric will be gracious enough to answer them)

2) How did you find Cleric's post and what did you take away from it?

[JustinG]

Hi FB. Good to meet you to. I didn't intend to stay long in this room so I'm popping out of it now.. Cheers