Phenomenological idealism: definitions of common terms

[Cleric K]

I suppose that this once again implicates BK's take on idealism. At the very least BK is endeavouring to overcome the materialist subject/object segregated divide. If anything, for BK it's really more an apparency of a relational subject><object feedback-loop dynamic, which is the very driver of ideational evolution, whereby the sole absolute Mind and its expressing/experiencing/exploring as an infinitude of inter-being minds are not-two—just as in the analogy of a whirlpool and an ocean having no impenetrable boundary between them, with any apparent boundary actually being the nexus of interchange. In which case how can even the so-called Kantian divide apply, as the 'whirlpool' can only ever be informed by the 'ocean'? I'm not even sure how the ideating Mind and its expressing/experiencing/exploring as an infinitude of inter-being minds are not pretty much synonomous.

The Kantian divide operates through the fact that if you strip away the thoughts about everything you've listed above, the consciousness remains effectively the same as that of any materialist operating with the senses and the intellect. The question is not to have a theory within the intellect that smears the concepts of black and white into grey, and says "There, it's all One now". The question is how can this be experienced as reality. Unless the spirit can find its way beyond the sensory-intellectual spectrum, and really live within the meaningful curvature of the ocean, the mode of cognition effectively remains sensory-intellectual, irrelevant of the conceptual glasses through which we organize the world content. This should be clearly understood. It is one thing to have a theory of reality which, however, will be practically verified only after death. It's another thing to have living knowledge which doesn't simply sit as a theory but becomes impulse for actual inner metamorphosis leading beyond the so called dissociative boundary. The Kantian wall is ultimately the threshold of death. Unless the problem of death is resolved while in the body, the divide can be solved only 'on paper' but in practice we remain on our side of the wall, thus our idealism remains a philosophical belief about the beyond of dissociation.

[Soul_of_Shu]

The Kantian divide operates through the fact that if you strip away the thoughts about everything you've listed above, the consciousness remains effectively the same as that of any materialist operating with the senses and the intellect. The question is not to have a theory within the intellect that smears the concepts of black and white into grey, and says "There, it's all One now". The question is how can this be experienced as reality. Unless the spirit can find its way beyond the sensory-intellectual spectrum, and really live within the meaningful curvature of the ocean, the mode of cognition effectively remains sensory-intellectual, irrelevant of the conceptual glasses through which we organize the world content. This should be clearly understood. It is one thing to have a theory of reality which, however, will be practically verified only after death. It's another thing to have living knowledge which doesn't simply sit as a theory but becomes impulse for actual inner metamorphosis leading beyond the so called dissociative boundary. The Kantian wall is ultimately the threshold of death. Unless the problem of death is resolved while in the body, the divide can be solved only 'on paper' but in practice we remain on our side of the wall, thus our idealism remains a philosophical belief about the beyond of dissociation.

Well said, for sure unless this becomes the lived experience and praxis of our everyday life, and only remains as a conceptual theory of how it might conceivably be doable under ideal circumstances, with no real efficacy in our understanding of how to traverse the nexus of interchange, leaving only a confused attempt, fraught with fearful uncertainty while lying on the death bed, then it may not offer a lot more than what most are currently stuck with. And I feel BK fully concedes that this remains a work in progress for him ... it surely is for this psyche, albeit you are helping in that regard.

[Eugene I]

The question is not to have a theory within the intellect that smears the concepts of black and white into grey, and says "There, it's all One now". The question is how can this be experienced as reality.

That is exactly the key, but at the same the most challenging part of the transition that takes most of the work. It's like a difference between studying a book on the guitar playing and learning to actually play it well. The former one takes a week, the latter takes years of work but at the same time is the most rewarding part for those who have enough motivation to actually do the work. It involves literally re-programing the deep-level patterns of perception and habitual interpretation of the world and of the habitual behavioral patterns. At least that's what I know from my experience with non-dual practices, and I don't expect it to be any easier with integrating them with the esoteric ones.

[AshvinP]

The Kantian divide operates through the fact that if you strip away the thoughts about everything you've listed above, the consciousness remains effectively the same as that of any materialist operating with the senses and the intellect. The question is not to have a theory within the intellect that smears the concepts of black and white into grey, and says "There, it's all One now". The question is how can this be experienced as reality. Unless the spirit can find its way beyond the sensory-intellectual spectrum, and really live within the meaningful curvature of the ocean, the mode of cognition effectively remains sensory-intellectual, irrelevant of the conceptual glasses through which we organize the world content. This should be clearly understood. It is one thing to have a theory of reality which, however, will be practically verified only after death. It's another thing to have living knowledge which doesn't simply sit as a theory but becomes impulse for actual inner metamorphosis leading beyond the so called dissociative boundary. The Kantian wall is ultimately the threshold of death. Unless the problem of death is resolved while in the body, the divide can be solved only 'on paper' but in practice we remain on our side of the wall, thus our idealism remains a philosophical belief about the beyond of dissociation.

Well said, for sure unless this becomes the lived experience and praxis of our everyday life, and only remains as a conceptual theory of how it might conceivably be doable under ideal circumstances, with no real efficacy in our understanding of how to traverse the nexus of interchange, leaving only a confused attempt, fraught with fearful uncertainty while lying on the death bed, then it may not offer a lot more than what most are currently stuck with. And I feel BK fully concedes that this remains a work in progress for him ... it surely is for this psyche, albeit you are helping in that regard.

And the other thing to note is that it gets worse and worse over time, in terms of digging a deeper hole and entrenching within the Kantian divide. When the intellect cannot overcome itself, it is forced to work ever-faster at abstracting out from concrete experience in order to add to its horizontal chains of conceptual meaning. It feels like it must become more 'efficient' at processing meaning (which is another way of saying, more mechanistic), instead of looking to deepen the quality of thinking-meaning. IMO this is why BK is quickly moving away from a more living and holistic understanding of idealist philosophy to something that barely distinguishes itself from the materialist understanding anymore. It's not just BK, but Western culture as a whole. As Barfield said, "those who mistake efficiency for meaning inevitably end by loving compulsion... even if it takes them the better part of a lifetime to get there." That was 70 years ago and the trend is exponentially more palpable now.

[Soul_of_Shu]

And the other thing to note is that it gets worse and worse over time, in terms of digging a deeper hole and entrenching within the Kantian divide. When the intellect cannot overcome itself, it is forced to work ever-faster at abstracting out from concrete experience in order to add to its horizontal chains of conceptual meaning. It feels like it must become more 'efficient' at processing meaning (which is another way of saying, more mechanistic), instead of looking to deepen the quality of thinking-meaning. IMO this is why BK is quickly moving away from a more living and holistic understanding of idealist philosophy to something that barely distinguishes itself from the materialist understanding anymore. It's not just BK, but Western culture as a whole. As Barfield said, "those who mistake efficiency for meaning inevitably end by loving compulsion... even if it takes them the better part of a lifetime to get there." That was 70 years ago and the trend is exponentially more palpable now.

Yeah, surely I've reached a point where I'm impelled toward taking it seriously. Certainly BK isn't pretending to be offering any practices in that regard, no doubt still in need of some that work for him, never mind what might work for others. I think he would admit that at best what he currently offers is a conceptual framework, however limited, with which to introduce this to those who've been indoctrinated into the prevailing paradigm, but are now having doubts about it, and no longer tolerant of its spiritual deprivation, and within which to have some intellectual discourse around idealism, e.g. in a forum such as this—since he feels that in this day and age, in his words, 'the intellect is the bouncer of the heart'. In any case, if it's an actual praxis one is in need of, then they'd best be moving on from that ... and thus into the vacuum enter the masters of 'shamanhood', for lack of a better term.

[Ben Iscatus]

I think he would admit that at best what he currently offers is a conceptual framework, however limited, with which to introduce this to those who've been indoctrinated into the prevailing paradigm, but are now having doubts about it, and no longer tolerant of its spiritual deprivation, and within which to have some intellectual discourse around idealism, e.g. in a forum such as this—since he feels that in this day and age 'the intellect is the bounce of the heart'. In any case, if it's an actual praxis one is in need of, then they'd best be moving on from that ... and thus into the vacuum enter the masters of 'shamanhood', for lack of a better term.

So I guess, Dana, that you're not happy with Rupert Spira as the spiritual wing of the Analytic Idealist party?

[Soul_of_Shu]

I guess, Dana, that you're not happy with Rupert Spira as the spiritual wing of the Analytic Idealist party?

Well, I'd suggest that since there are psyches at different stages of seeking and healing, then there's a need for stage-specific teachings and practices, RS offering a good teaching/practice for a specific stage, from which one may eventually also need to move on, with none being able to claim that their version suits all.

[Cleric K]

My comment: you are definitely right when talking about implicit and explicit order and our participation etc. However, the "implicit order" is not what I meant by "formless". I'm approaching it from my experience of being immersed in non-dual practices. In these practices the "formless" is an inseparable aspect of Thinking, which is simply that the Thinking "IS" and that it is "Aware" (i.e. it consciously experiences all its ideas), this is not what brings the order, but what makes Thinking possible. This may seem obvious: duhh, or course Thinking "is" and is "aware", how could it be otherwise, what's the point of even talking about it? Well, the point is: is brings the awareness of the dimension of unity - all Thinking is unified in its (formless) aspects of Being and Awareness, and the spiritual benefit of such realization was realized in the non-dual traditions, and also by such philosophers as Fichte and Heidegger in the West. But in addition to that, Thinking is also unified in its shared ideal content and order. These two aspects of unity go together with each other, not against each other. We don't need to confront them and claim that one kind of unity is more important or more true than the other, they are both true and realizing both helps to dismantle dualism.

I'm little hazy once again on the exact use of formless here but I hope I'm getting it right. Some time ago, still on the old forum, I posted same pictures of different spiritual outlooks. I presented the Eastern mystical in this way:


We should be clear that Buddhist meditators actually reach the highest Intuition in their meditations. In the Deep MAL picture this would correspond to experiencing the vicinity of the Center.

In the context of the previous post, to live in Intuition would mean to live completely in the meaningful dimension of awareness, without the need to project that meaning into symbols of lower order thinking. So in a sense, Buddhism indeed reaches the Ground Being, which I believe you want to include with your usage of formless.

The peculiar thing is that this Intuition is experienced in a very specific way. The reason is that, as we already spoke, it is reached by completely renouncing any kind of spiritual activity, except that of the willful renouncing itself. In the spiritual world (the implicit order) we can perceive only what is similar to us (to our consciousness, that is), we can experience the consciousness of a being if we can resonate with it. If that being is active, we need to act together with it, to resonate with its meaningful willing. Only in this way we can know it. On the contrary, if we enter the highest regions in complete passivity, we experience the crystalized Intuition of the spiritual world. What is this like? It's precisely the Indra's net. Of course the net itself is really the Intuition clothed in Imagination but the essence is experienced in the highest Intuition. We practically experience there the secret of the one and the many. Yet we experience this as Cosmic crystal lattice. I've spoken about this before - we can find the true nature of the physical world only in Intuition. We need the highest consciousness in order to grasp the lowest world. They belong together, like two poles. Yet when we say 'physical world' we shouldn't imagine the crude physical matter. This will take too long to explain now. We can just assume that the highest consciousness is also responsible for the ground world (which is really Schop's World Will) which after several iterative 'foldings' reaches today's state (so we see, Schop is partially right because what he sees is the aspect of involution. Yet he doesn't recognize the other aspect of Escher's painting, from which everything can be seen as diminished meaning). So the Buddhist truly reaches these depths but in completely crystalized manner. The beings at these stages are creative beings, they are active. They consciously renounce from themselves the World Will which becomes the raw arena of evolution. We can experience this in Intuition only if we align with the active World Will, thus we must experience the Cosmic scale activity of beings. If we approach these heights with the ideal of absolute objectivity (that is, completely detached observer), we can experience the spiritual world as Cosmic crystal lattice where consciousness reflects infinitely between the nodes in dependent arising. This is the mineralized experience of the spiritual world. We see it in this way because we practically see ourselves. We have become crystalized observer, who doesn't dare to move in order not to disturb the perfect objectivity of the Cosmos, and for this reason we see the Cosmos as made of elements similar to us - we see a Cosmos of frozen observers in mathematically precise relations - the Indra's net, the Cosmic crystal lattice. To experience the metamorphosis of this world we need to know metamorphosis in ourselves. As said many times, the first place where we can know something which extends in time is our livingly experienced thinking.

So with all this in mind, we can appreciate that Buddhism, through rigorous discipline reaches actually to the highest regions, to the foundations of reality. Yet without knowing ourselves as spiritually active being, we can't find spiritual activity anywhere. We don't have the organ that gives us consciousness of spiritual activity. We have that organ only if we have consciousness of spiritual activity within ourselves. If we can be conscious of it in ourselves, we'll be able to find it also in the Cosmos. The fact that we objectively observe transformation of phenomena doesn't yet mean that we experience spiritual activity. The scientist also observes transformation of phenomena but analyzes them as frozen time frames related by abstract laws. If the abstract law is to be grasped as resulting from spiritual activity, we need to find that perspective from which the transformation can be experienced as thinking/willing process of a being. Only in this way we can know the real inner motive power of the law from within and not only as a sequence of frames from without.

I hope this puts things in the proper perspective. Things are really complicated. We can't simply place them on a linear scale. As we see, we can reach the highest Intuition yet experience it only in its mineral aspect. So if I have understood your comment properly, this should give the answer why you feel that there's something truly fundamental in your Buddhist practice. It is really there. But must be animated, such that we can begin to explore the implicit order which can't be captured through the mineral element. Our spiritual activity must become at least fluidic in order to perceive in Imaginations, the beings and processes in the etheric and astral worlds. If we don't develop these forms of activity, the higher worlds pass through us (as they do at any point of time) without having an organ that can resonate with their nature.

[Eugene I]

I hope this puts things in the proper perspective. Things are really complicated. We can't simply place them on a linear scale. As we see, we can reach the highest Intuition yet experience it only in its mineral aspect. So if I have understood your comment properly, this should give the answer why you feel that there's something truly fundamental in your Buddhist practice. It is really there. But must be animated, such that we can begin to explore the implicit order which can't be captured through the mineral element. Our spiritual activity must become at least fluidic in order to perceive in Imaginations, the beings and processes in the etheric and astral worlds. If we don't develop these forms of activity, the higher worlds pass through us (as they do at any point of time) without having an organ that can resonate with their nature.

I agree with you, Cleric. It's like in life when someone can be super-focused on some specific activity and develop super-skills in it, but in other areas of life may remain very underdeveloped. Buddhist are like people who came to a movie and realized that all that happens in the movie is only pictures on the screen, and so they become so absorbed with only seeing "one screen everywhere" that they lose interest and involvement with the movie. On the other hand, when people watching the movie forget or don't realize that really the whole movie is simply images on the screen, they get too absorbed with the movie, they become perceiving the movie as some kind or reality "out there" with real people/subjects, objects, interpret it in a naive-realistic way and get too much passionately involved in it (which ironically becomes very counter-productive). So what is really needed is a good balance of both - you know that it's all happening on one screen, you see and experience the oneness all the time, yet you also see, experience and stay involved in the movie, there is still a lot of value in what is going on there. And you can be involved in it in a more efficient way if you don't misinterpret it in a naive-realistic way and don't overlook the presence of the screen. I don't know if it's a good analogy, don't take it literally.

So, my take is that non-dual practices and realization are indeed important and useful, but they are just insufficient on their own for a wholistic spiritual development.

[ScottRoberts]

Yeah, exactly. I was merely pointing out that if Scott was suggesting that Steiner wanted his core philosophical texts not to be read as epistemology, this would be off.

Yes, which is why I didn't suggest it.