Eugene I wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 3:06 pm
No, the pragmatic approach is to actually
try to lift it without assuming any beliefs whether it is possible or not, but assuming a
working hypothesis that it can be lifted until it is experimentally proven that it can not be lifted. Such approach is pragmatic and active but does not require any religious unwarranted beliefs, it only needs working hypotheses until they become proven facts, or become disproven. It is exactly the path of experience.
Eugene,
I've stated it clearly that I'm not asking for any assumptions, let alone beliefs. I wanted to make a simple point. I'll use the example I gave in the post to Martin.
Take your working hypotheses and imagine that it fits very well. You align the test against reality, circle the answers and it's all good. The whole point is that you're still operating in the
same intellectual mode of cognition. You're still building a mental model of reality. You've just came to the conviction that this model is quite good and probably even 'true'. The fact remains that the intellect is still within the phantom layer. We live intellectually within the web of thoughts, that are being related through various ideas and we align that web against the world-in-itself. Even though we have the intellectual understanding that makes sense of how perceptions move, the inner essence of the world-in-itself still remains something foreign to us. We don't experience the world from the perspective of the Divine, where each phenomenon is the reflection of meaning (in the way our thoughts are reflections of meaning), but we see the Divine inside-out and we have built a model to make sense of its gesticulations. It's like building a perfect biological model that explains the behavior of another human being without having any clue that behind the movements there are thoughts and feelings.
The whole point of my post was to say that IF we're to look for the creative perspective behind every phenomenon, then trying to look for that perspective through working hypotheses simply defeats the very thing we're claiming we want to achieve. I'm no longer sure if you really understand what we're talking about.
Eugene I wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 10:05 pm
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.
The above simply shows that you're interested in the question whether there're creative perspectives behind phenomena, in the same way a scientist is interested if information is lost or not within a black hole. In other words, you're seeking working hypothesis that should satisfy the intellect in the phantom layer. You don't conceive of any possible way that these things have direct repercussions for what our own first person perspective is.
I stated this clearly: if we really subscribe to non-dualism and we don't dismiss that behind phenomena there's meaningful spiritual activity, then logically it should be possible to find these same shapes of meaning within our own consciousness - since there's only one consciousness after all. Above you make it quite clear that you're not eager to find these shapes of meaning which are the creative Macrocosmic curvature within which reality unfolds. You prefer to build a working hypothesis entirely within the phantom layer of the intellect and align the web of thoughts against the perceptions.
My question is: is this only an
intermediate step for you? In other words, do you simply want to feel complete intellectual security about your hypothesis and
only then step into its living experience. Or in still other words, you want to have very strong experimental evidence that it's possible that the pencil can be lifted and only then the intellect will be convinced to stretch its hand? This is one variant. The other is that you don't foresee as possible to expand our consciousness and live together with the meaningful processes which shape the Macrocosmic curvature of reality?
If it is the second, then we agree that the Kantian divide is unavoidable and we're done.
If it is the first (that is, you assume that it is possible for consciousness to expand into the Macrocosmic processes), my other question is: do you believe that SS
specifically is unlikely to provide the methods allowing for consciousness to grow into the Macrocosm? Or you would be skeptical of
any philosophy/teaching/methodology which speaks of this, as long as it is not capable of fully convincing your intellect? I'm asking this because you make it perfectly clear that SS is dishonest by not stating up front that it provides only a working hypothesis. In other words you are
certain that SS
can't be anything else but an intellectual hypothesis which only
pretends to draw its inspiration from modes of consciousness that grow into the Macrocosm. I'm fine if this is your view, the question is if it is specifically towards SS or your attitude would be the same for any teaching that tries to evolve human consciousness towards the depths of reality?