Cleric K wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:36 pm
This is the real question. It's very simple.
If the Cosmos is non-dual,
if consciousness is a Mobius strip,
if meaning is intrinsic aspect of reality,
then the natural consequence of all this is that there should be such perspectives (clearly of higher order beings) from which the Cosmos looks like an act of spiritual activity, which reflects meaning, similarly to the way we, on our microcosmic scale, reflect meaning into thought-perceptions.
I exactly agree with you. IF these assumptions are correct, then yes, we arrive at these natural consequences. And there are actually more of those IFs that you did not list.
So the question is do you admit the above as a possibility. If not - we have Kantian divide because ultimately there are processes in the Cosmos for which no conscious perspective can account. They will forever remain an enigmatic behavior of the world-in-itself, both for men and gods.
I
actually do admit them, but only contingently on all of these above
IFs. I admit them contingently and pragmatically with a principal possibility that all those IFs
may be wrong. So, to me, this approach is a pragmatic spiritual practice and spiritual science. Basically, I pragmatically and contingently assume that "there
are no processes in the Cosmos for which no conscious perspective can account" until I come to encountering certain facts proving that "there
are processes in the Cosmos for which no conscious perspective can account" (and so I remain open to such possibility in principle). This assumption is my pragmatic working hypothesis, not a religious belief.
If you do admit, it should be logical that the only way we can approach higher states of consciousness would be through transfiguration of thinking. Thinking is the only place where we find a microcosmic image of the creative principle of the Divine, where meaning becomes phenomena. If we don't seek the higher states by starting from that point where we already have some overlap with the creative principle, where do you expect to find it?
If you admit that within thinking we have this overlap, why do you envision that we can never know anything more than a intellectual worldview of the thing-in-itself? Of what essence is the boundary which strictly separates the human thinking word from the Divine Word? It's clear that as long as thinking remains purely intellectual discipline, it can only make frameworks of abstract concepts, and thus only asymptotically approach the facts but never know the thing-in-itself from its creative perspective. The question is why should it be impossible to liberate the higher forces concealed in ordinary thinking and through them experience the higher order spiritual activity of the beings which support the Cosmos?
I agree with all of the above, but again as I said, only contingently. For me this is a pragmatic spiritual practice and a spiritual science, not a religion. Science does not rely on any views religiously, but only contingently adopt them with openness to adapt to different views if the current views turn out to be not accurate.
What I'm saying that in between the narrow-viewed and reductionist intellectual science and a religious worldview based on a locked set of beliefs there is a third possibility of a living and evolving pragmatic knowledge-practice that goes beyond limitations of reductionism and intellectualism, as well as beyond limitations of locked sets of religious beliefs.
This is a pragmatic position that I adopted from my life-long engineering and spiritual practice. In engineering we are not so much concerned with what scientific of philosophical theory is true, we are concerned with what practically works and what theory helps us to make things that practically work. Mechanical engineers still use Newtonian mechanics even though everyone knows that it is inaccurate and wrong on the quantum level. For them Newtonian mechanics is not a religion to believe, but simply a set of pragmatic recipes.