Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 9:34 pmWell, I suppose there's some debate to be had about whether or not archetypal expressions constitute transcorporeal beings. Nonetheless, such cross-border traffic surely isn't only unilateral/one-way. And what I'm getting at, as I've gleaned from Cleric, is that if one's innate, natural proclivity and ability to open and cross the veil, so to speak, is denied, deterred, retarded, not nurtured, not taught, not learned from adepts, and thus not efficaciously developed from very early on, left to atrophy and lay dormant, it should come as no surprise that when at some point one inexplicably, unexpectedly, without informed preparation, bemusedly stumbles into encounters with transcorporeal realms and beings, that upon return it comes across to others as ambiguous and unreliable. Not sure I've much more to add than that.Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 9:11 pmGood point. It's not that the boundary dissolves - dissociation is not perfect, and can be more "porous and permeable" in some people than others, and in ourselves, depending on our state of mind.Yes, granted it's not a substance dualism, whereby there are two distinct ontological categories, i.e. mind and matter. Still you seem to be saying that in order for any such beings to inform, influence, commune, co-create with our corporeal expressions, those boundaries of dissociation must be dissolved. If so, is that what happens when for example a 'daemon' informs, influences, co-creates the ideation and writing of much of BK's early body of work, clearly involving his corporeal form, as per his own claim?
The daemon represents archetypal expressions of Mind which happen to resonate with us, based on our unique perspective. Whether those archetypes derive from what Jung called the Collective Unconscious or whether they derive from what Jung called the Personal Unconscious, I haven't seen or heard.
In a consistent idealism, epistemology is the same as ontology. A dualism assumed in either one is a dualism inherited in the other. The most important thing to realize is that it's assumed from the outset, not concluded by any reasoning apart from "out of sight, out of mind". Martin doesn't like the word "dualism" apparently, so instead we could speak about chalk lines. It's exactly as Cleric commented to Shajan on TCT thread:
Cleric wrote:Please try to step back and see what is really given in the riddle of existence. You might say that the given is the objective world but that would be incorrect. The given is the world of direct experience - colors, sounds, feelings, thoughts, etc. In themselves these perceptions don't say anything about objective world. I gave that example to Jim - your visual experience is not that different in waking life and while dreaming. While dreaming you feel like you're going through an objective world. Only upon awakening you say 'it was just a dream'. So what has changed? The meaning, the understanding that you experience in relation to perceptions. For this reason, the given is the perceptions. What the nature of these perceptions is, we're yet to find out when we start to think about them. Seen in this way, what you call objective world is really only a specific spectral band of conscious phenomena which you have decided that informs you about an objective world out there. So practically, for some reason you have drawn a chalk line within consciousness and you have said "color, sound, smell, touch, etc. tell me about the objective world out there. On the other side of the chalk line are feelings, will, thoughts. These I'll strike out as unreliable and potential source of 'enormous confusion'. I'll try to explain them away through the phenomena on the other side of the chalk line".