Hierarchies of Dissociation

[Ben Iscatus]

Why does Analytic Idealism go straight from the personal mind to the transpersonal mind? Can it not account for other layers of reality which people sometimes experience - for instance, souls of the deceased and angelic beings?

Here' s an answer in line with Analytic Idealism as I understand it:

Hierarchies of dissociation are not ruled out by Analytic idealism. However, they do not seem to be necessary to account for reality. In the end, all must be part of (i.e. within) the Transpersonal Mind. The problem arises partly at our own level of dissociation, because evolution has not given us, as metabolising creatures in a planetary environment, access to anywhere other than the layer of reality we need to survive. If there are nonbiological realms, we cannot reliably visit them, catalogue them, describe their function or freely interact with them. If they are significant for the structure of the world we know, rather than by-blows of the dissociation process, then they would need to be stable, definable and consensual. There is nothing like this we know of. Analytic Idealism requires a high level of rigour for its metaphysical arguments. Visionary experiences of other realms do not produce enough heft or data to mark them out from hallucinatory experiences occurring inside our own minds. In the absence of recurrent, validating evidence, experiences relating to nonbiological beings and realms can only be regarded as significant for the individuals concerned.

[Martin_]

Why does Analytic Idealism go straight from the personal mind to the transpersonal mind? Can it not account for other layers of reality which people sometimes experience - for instance, souls of the deceased and angelic beings?

Here' s an answer in line with Analytic Idealism as I understand it:

Hierarchies of dissociation are not ruled out by Analytic idealism. However, they do not seem to be necessary to account for reality. In the end, all must be part of (i.e. within) the Transpersonal Mind. The problem arises partly at our own level of dissociation, because evolution has not given us, as metabolising creatures in a planetary environment, access to anywhere other than the layer of reality we need to survive. If there are nonbiological realms, we cannot reliably visit them, catalogue them, describe their function or freely interact with them. If they are significant for the structure of the world we know, rather than by-blows of the dissociation process, then they would need to be stable, definable and consensual. There is nothing like this we know of. Analytic Idealism requires a high level of rigour for its metaphysical arguments. Visionary experiences of other realms do not produce enough heft or data to mark them out from hallucinatory experiences occurring inside our own minds. In the absence of recurrent, validating evidence, experiences relating to nonbiological beings and realms can only be regarded as significant for the individuals concerned.

Pretty good, although I have a beef with the "hallucinatory" term since it implies "not real" in a sense.

How about "Visionary experiences of other realms do not produce enought heft or data to mark them out as a veridical in a context larger than the individual having the experience ."

[Soul_of_Shu]

Why does Analytic Idealism go straight from the personal mind to the transpersonal mind? Can it not account for other layers of reality which people sometimes experience - for instance, souls of the deceased and angelic beings?

Here' s an answer in line with Analytic Idealism as I understand it:

Hierarchies of dissociation are not ruled out by Analytic idealism. However, they do not seem to be necessary to account for reality. In the end, all must be part of (i.e. within) the Transpersonal Mind. The problem arises partly at our own level of dissociation, because evolution has not given us, as metabolising creatures in a planetary environment, access to anywhere other than the layer of reality we need to survive. If there are nonbiological realms, we cannot reliably visit them, catalogue them, describe their function or freely interact with them. If they are significant for the structure of the world we know, rather than by-blows of the dissociation process, then they would need to be stable, definable and consensual. There is nothing like this we know of. Analytic Idealism requires a high level of rigour for its metaphysical arguments. Visionary experiences of other realms do not produce enough heft or data to mark them out from hallucinatory experiences occurring inside our own minds. In the absence of recurrent, validating evidence, experiences relating to nonbiological beings and realms can only be regarded as significant for the individuals concerned.

Well, one response to this could be a reciting of 'The Central Topic' thread. Are you offering an invitation for it to be re-offered here, so it can once again be dismissed as being as incomprehensible as a foreign language, which one can't be bothered to learn/acquire?

I'll only add that as far as one can tell, those who do (or once did) have access to transcorporeal realms, often have arrived here with that natural proclivity and ability, albeit one that also requires careful and attentive nurturing to further develop, before being indoctrinated into a predominant, monopolizing paradigm that then shuts it down very quickly by forcibly educating it out of one's purview, as flatly naive, unacceptable, inappropriate, just embarrassingly childish nonsense that needs to be forgotten asap, a thorough lesson which once inculcated renders any return to the natural inborn state a formidable task that has to be re-acquired in the face of constant detractors and denials, even taking the very positions that you've presented above, basically saying that even if such realms exist, we are innately precluded by nature from accessing them, and they have no bearing on our life, so why even bother. Sorry for the run-on sentence, but surely you see the catch 22 dilemma any child seer is faced with here?

[Martin_]

basically saying that even if such realms exist, we are innately precluded by nature from accessing them, and they have no bearing on our life, so why even bother.

I don't think Analytical Idealism is saying this. I think it's only saying that it doesn't know, doesn't have a suggestion on how to know, and doesn't need to know, in order to argue its central thesis. Maybe one can say that it's Agnostic to the question?

[Ben Iscatus]

Maybe one can say that it's Agnostic to the question?

Yes, I think that's a fair way of putting it.

[Soul_of_Shu]

basically saying that even if such realms exist, we are innately precluded by nature from accessing them, and they have no bearing on our life, so why even bother.

I don't think Analytical Idealism is saying this. I think it's only saying that it doesn't know, doesn't have a suggestion on how to know, and doesn't need to know, in order to argue its central thesis. Maybe one can say that it's Agnostic to the question?

How is Ben, speaking on behalf of analytical idealism, not suggesting that we are innately precluded by nature from accessing these realms, which is the only way we can know them, when he writes: "The problem arises partly at our own level of dissociation, because evolution has not given us, as metabolising creatures in a planetary environment, access to anywhere other than the layer of reality we need to survive. If there are nonbiological realms, we cannot reliably visit them, catalogue them, describe their function or freely interact with them. "

Then we get the old claim that such 'extraordinary', read 'unnatural', explorations/expressions require extraordinary evidence to verify them, while asserting that we have not been given, and indeed cannot have, access to those realms, which renders any evidence moot—speaking once again to the catch 22 dilemma of any child seer, who when they naturally express, nurture and develop such innate proclivities and abilities, it is discouraged, deterred, shut down/put down, and even shunned, while if they don't express, nurture and develop them, they atrophy and become dormant. Under those conditions, it's hardly surprising that such a child eventually resorts to agnosticism, if not outright cynicism.

[Martin_]

basically saying that even if such realms exist, we are innately precluded by nature from accessing them, and they have no bearing on our life, so why even bother.

I don't think Analytical Idealism is saying this. I think it's only saying that it doesn't know, doesn't have a suggestion on how to know, and doesn't need to know, in order to argue its central thesis. Maybe one can say that it's Agnostic to the question?

How is Ben, speaking on behalf of analytical idealism, not suggesting that we are innately precluded by nature from accessing these realms, which is the only way we can know them, when he writes: "The problem arises partly at our own level of dissociation, because evolution has not given us, as metabolising creatures in a planetary environment, access to anywhere other than the layer of reality we need to survive. If there are nonbiological realms, we cannot reliably visit them, catalogue them, describe their function or freely interact with them. "

Then we get the old claim that such 'extraordinary', read 'unnatural', expressions require extraordinary evidence to verify them, while asserting that we have not been given, and indeed cannot have, access to those realms, which renders any evidence moot—speaking once again to the catch 22 dilemma of any child seer, who when they naturally express, nurture and develop such innate proclivities and abilities, it is discouraged, deterred, shut down/put down, and even shunned, while if they don't express, nurture and develop them, they atrophy and become dormant. Under those conditions, it's hardly surprising that such a child eventually resorts to agnosticism, if not outright cynicism.

How about a different emphasis:

we cannot reliably visit them

With that emphasis, visitation is not impossibe. But it makes the inter-personal reproduction of the experience difficult.

[Ben Iscatus]

How about "Visionary experiences of other realms do not produce enough heft or data to mark them out as a veridical in a context larger than the individual having the experience ."

Yes, that's good. So we could amend as follows (based on your suggestions):
Hierarchies of dissociation are not ruled out by Analytic idealism. However, they do not seem to be necessary to account for reality. In the end, all must be part of (i.e. within) the Transpersonal Mind. The problem arises partly at our own level of dissociation, because evolution has not given us, as metabolising creatures in a planetary environment, access to anywhere other than the layer of reality we need to survive. If there are nonbiological realms, we cannot reliably visit them, catalogue them, describe their function or freely interact with them. If they are significant for the structure of the world we know, rather than by-blows of the dissociation process, then they would need to be stable, definable and consensual. There is nothing like this we know of. Visionary experiences of nonbiological beings and realms do not produce enough heft or data to mark them out as a veridical in a context larger than the individual having the experience. As Analytic Idealism requires a high level of rigour for its metaphysical arguments, it must remain silent, even agnostic, about other layers of reality.

[Soul_of_Shu]

How about a different emphasis:

we cannot reliably visit them

With that emphasis, visitation is not impossible. But it makes the inter-personal reproduction of the experience difficult.

Well again I must question how can it become 'reliable', and make the inter-personal reproduction of the experiences easy and quite natural, if from the outset it is deterred, retarded, declared unnatural, etc, rather than encouraged, nurtured and learnedly developed and taught by adepts from day one?

[AshvinP]

basically saying that even if such realms exist, we are innately precluded by nature from accessing them, and they have no bearing on our life, so why even bother.

I don't think Analytical Idealism is saying this. I think it's only saying that it doesn't know, doesn't have a suggestion on how to know, and doesn't need to know, in order to argue its central thesis. Maybe one can say that it's Agnostic to the question?

How is Ben, speaking on behalf of analytical idealism, not suggesting that we are innately precluded by nature from accessing these realms, which is the only way we can know them, when he writes: "The problem arises partly at our own level of dissociation, because evolution has not given us, as metabolising creatures in a planetary environment, access to anywhere other than the layer of reality we need to survive. If there are nonbiological realms, we cannot reliably visit them, catalogue them, describe their function or freely interact with them. "

Then we get the old claim that such 'extraordinary', read 'unnatural', explorations/expressions require extraordinary evidence to verify them, while asserting that we have not been given, and indeed cannot have, access to those realms, which renders any evidence moot—speaking once again to the catch 22 dilemma of any child seer, who when they naturally express, nurture and develop such innate proclivities and abilities, it is discouraged, deterred, shut down/put down, and even shunned, while if they don't express, nurture and develop them, they atrophy and become dormant. Under those conditions, it's hardly surprising that such a child eventually resorts to agnosticism, if not outright cynicism.

Great points, Dana. We can also observe how there is an entirely unwarranted assumption that our "planetary environment" only includes what we can physically perceive as flattened pictures around us. Modern science has already established very concrete links between invisble and extra-terrestrial forces and our own biological and ecological processes here on Earth. So now analytic idealism must positively deny the unambiguous results of modern science, as opposed to secular-materialist interpretations of those results, to maintain its abstract "instinctive MAL/alter" hypothesis. This is not remaining silent, but proactively burying our heads in the sand.