(Medium-Long) Infernal Loops of the Abstract Intellect

[AshvinP]

To be honest, despite reading pretty much everything you and Cleric have written in recent months, I don't really get what it means to "ascend by thinking into more fluid meaning (active)". I get that there may be a depth of structure to our observations and there may be higher modes of thinking, but experientially, I am a mere flat thinker. Perhaps we need to do a series on the development of higher thinking for dummies!

Despite my inadequacies, I'm keen to hear how you understand Revelation.

This is an arena where I think I understand what Ashwin is referring to . . . for example, imagine watching a child play with toys on the living room carpet, there is a certain joy and sweetness to the play. Now, take away the child's feeling that 'Mother is at home', now the joy and sweetness of the play will evaporate.
During the course of any day or week, we've all had experiences similar to the above - - differing levels of sweetness or flow - - depending on how well we've slept, etc.
It is possible to nurture a feeling of 'Mother is at home' on a celestial level - and appreciate the celestial value of the world. Ashwin is proposing to culture this 'feeling' intellectually, and for me, that would be a hard and difficult road.

Well, this is at least a good illustration of how our Thinking is a living organism which evolves. For small children, the willing and feeling organisms are more dominant, which makes them more passively dependent on their mothers and other adults, and on the perceptions and meanings of the sense-world in general which stream towards them. We, as spiritual children and adolescents, are trying to grow out of that dependence through the power of our own active Thinking organism, allowing perceptions-meanings to stream from within us in a conscious manner. Instead of our subconscious desires and feelings determining how we interact with the world content, our ever-more conscious Thinking provides us ever-more degrees of freedom to actively engage that content. So we need to stop looking to Cosmic 'mothers' and 'fathers' for our purposes and goals, but look within ourselves. We are truly microcosms of the Macrocosm, a fractal image of the Whole Cosmos. Only that Self-knowledge via independent and active qualitative Thinking can become a path to genuine spiritual freedom.

[lorenzop]

the playing child is an analogy to demonstrate the ease, naturalness and honesty of the topic

[AshvinP]

the playing child is an analogy to demonstrate the ease, naturalness and honesty of the topic

Fair enough, thanks. We are certainly 'mirroring' the childlike play imagination, but across the metamorphic plane between subconsciousness and consciousness.

[Anthony66]

To be honest, despite reading pretty much everything you and Cleric have written in recent months, I don't really get what it means to "ascend by thinking into more fluid meaning (active)". I get that there may be a depth of structure to our observations and there may be higher modes of thinking, but experientially, I am a mere flat thinker. Perhaps we need to do a series on the development of higher thinking for dummies!

Despite my inadequacies, I'm keen to hear how you understand Revelation.

Anthony,

You are ascending from fixed perceptions into the more fluid meaning all the time. It is truly only a matter of becoming more aware of what you are already doing. Here is a crude illustration:

Consider the following sentence in three formulations to discern carefully how your own cognitive activity responds when perceiving them:


(1) "hereliesthewhitemousewhowaseatenbythebrowncat".


(2) "hereli esthewhitemo usewhowaseate nbytheb rowncat".


(3) "herelies thewhitemouse, whowas eatenbythe browncat".


As you went from #1 to #3, you were ascending from fixed perceptions with little meaning to relatively more fluid meaning, by the power of your own thinking. What else have I done in formulations #2 and #3 above apart from creating and enlarging (or modifying with punctuation) empty spaces within the syntax of the letters and words, so that your conceptual activity can fill them with meaning more easily? Nothing else has been done besides that. Note how the empty spaces do not automatically bring meaning to the structure, but only reveal it after your cognitive activity has been invited in to assume its 'shape' and you accept the invitation with meaningful engagement. The same logic used above will apply to all other perceptual phenomena in our experience.

So these rhythmic movements are occurring all around us and within us, each and every day. I am sure you have also experienced waking up from a dream, i.e. moving from the fluid dream imagery, which is rich in meaning, to the fixed world of forms with very little meaning. That is an example of descent or falling. We really just need to pay attention more. This is why we always mention "Thinking about thinking" or "observing your own thinking". We must remember that the inner world of experience, just like the outer world, also has perceptions , i.e. desires, feelings, thoughts. We can also descend into fixed loops of these inner perceptions which then present to us as the same inner meaning cycling over and over again. By observing our own thoughts and connecting them back into more holistic constellations of meaning via our Thinking, we are then ascending.

I really want to see if we can agree to these basic foundations, because there is no point discussing scripture or anything else for that matter until we do. If we did that, then everything written would simply be another intellectual theory of scripture, of the sort we find in modern academic theology, rather than a living experience of the Divine Word and its inner meanings which come to life through us.

Of course I can I identify an ascent to meaning in my own thinking with the sort of examples you give here. But the bar is set low. The higher thinking often referenced is still a mystery to me although I can grok that it may well be attainable.

So I can see the fall/redemption model recast in our own thinking but this is a "bastardization" of what is traditionally understood in orthodox Christianity.

[AshvinP]

Of course I can I identify an ascent to meaning in my own thinking with the sort of examples you give here. But the bar is set low. The higher thinking often referenced is still a mystery to me although I can grok that it may well be attainable.

So I can see the fall/redemption model recast in our own thinking but this is a "bastardization" of what is traditionally understood in orthodox Christianity.

Anthony,

Yes, most everything has been inverted in the modern age, including Christian theology. There is a lot of talk about the "anti-Christ" by fundamentalists, usually as a single individual, but they fail to see how their own theology manifests the opposite of the Christ-impulse towards Self-knowledge and spiritual freedom.

We can actually see how it mirrors materialism and mysticism in certain ways. For one, the Kantian divide is asserted, as illustrated in 2nd loop of the essay. As a consequence, the understanding of the spiritual Cosmos is flattened out. There is no depth structure to speak of, i.e. the fundamentalist position considers the physical world to have more discernable structure than the spiritual world, with the latter as an amorphous realm which we will only discover after death. It is a black hole, a blank canvas, to project our own abstract concepts of "heaven", "afterlife", etc. into. This also manifests in the complete refusal to consider the possibility of reincarnation, even though it is referenced quite a few times in scripture. Where we live between death and rebirth is precisely in the structured spiritual realms (we are always actually there, but during this period it is more explicit from 1st-person perspective). Since reincarnation is denied any possibility, all sorts of doctrinal concepts are used to try and reconcile things, such as the state of souls who lived before the time of Christ incarnate. Or the state of the child who dies very young.

How do they get to participate in this Christ-impulse, i.e. redemption of humanity? The fundamentalist position will say things like, "it retroactively applies to everyone before Christ", or "God will know if a person was old enough to choose faith, and if not, he will automatically grant them eternal life". What is the age cutoff for this? All of these 'problems' are self-imposed via the Kantian divide and flattening of the Cosmic depth structure. The nonsensical nature of that divide becomes really evident once we internalize that our Thinking activity participates in the very spiritual processes revealed in scripture on a daily basis. If someone told us fire won't burn us if we hold our hands to the flame, and then we set out to touch it and get burnt, no amount of intellectual philosophical arguments are going to convince us that this fire/pain divide is real. The same holds true for our concrete experience of the Thinking organism growing, maturing, and evolving. It is not about reading scripture and seeking to confirm a strange interpretation of it with our intellectual theories about "thinking", but rather we first experience, via Reason, the reality of our Thinking organism and its connection to Divine meaning, and then when we look back at scripture and the deeper, enriched meanings of the text become self-evident.

[Anthony66]

Ashvin,

I spent a couple of decades as an evangelical Christian before moving on, but it still evokes a reaction in me when traditional Christian motifs are re-framed.

For example the "Christ-impulse". As you no doubt know, Christ is derivative of the Hebrew messiah whose referent is Jesus of Nazareth. Would it make any sense to speak of a "messiah-impulse", particularly as something that is available to the average Joe off the street?

So while I resonate with a lot of what you write, framing things in Christian speak with alternate semantics seems somewhat unhelpful.

I'm still unsure how you understand "revelation". What is the bible in your view?

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

I spent a couple of decades as an evangelical Christian before moving on, but it still evokes a reaction in me when traditional Christian motifs are re-framed.

For example the "Christ-impulse". As you no doubt know, Christ is derivative of the Hebrew messiah whose referent is Jesus of Nazareth. Would it make any sense to speak of a "messiah-impulse", particularly as something that is available to the average Joe off the street?

So while I resonate with a lot of what you write, framing things in Christian speak with alternate semantics seems somewhat unhelpful.

I'm still unsure how you understand "revelation". What is the bible in your view?

Anthony,

We don't have to frame it in Christian terms at all, and mostly we don't (although, admittedly, in latest essays I have been quoting scripture because it is so relevant to the topic). But since you asked about the Christian framework in your original question, that is why I mentioned it. The fact is, if the spiritual evolutionary progression unfolds in the way we understand it, then it's practically impossible that the major spiritual traditions of the world would not fit into the framework. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Judeo-Christian, Islam... they all fit into their integral roles in this unfolding tapestry of the Spirit. To paraphrase Owen Barfield, if I had never heard of Christianity but only knew the science of the Spirit in non-religious terms, I would need to invent something like Christianity to save the appearances, i.e. to make sense of how the Spirit came to be incarnated within man so that man could evolve back to the Spirit.

So you asked another question about "revelation" and "the bible", and I hope it's clear that I am not bringing up "Christian speak" to begin with, but only trying to precisely respond to your inquiries. The Bible is the most comprehensive set of shared imaginations and inspirations which have precipitated into the sphere of human knowledge between about 1,500 BC (perhaps earlier) and 200 AD. It reveals a clear progression of how the spiritual "I" was etched into humanity through the Hebrew people and then universalized through the Incarnation. That is not to say there weren't prophets (initiates) in other regions and traditions, because there were, but the Incarnation of the "I" came through Christ, who fulfilled all the various mystery traditions. The OT, Gospels, Epistles, and Book of Revelation (along with other apocryphal writings, including Gnostic ones) really illustrate the entire spiritual evolutionary progression of man from our earliest stages to the furthest ones we can currently envision.

I hope it's clear, what we now call "revelation" was the outward manifestation of what we now call "ideas", and it includes all the ancient mythologies and philosophies. Today, this revelation comes from within in the form of concepts and ideas, yet we need to consciously think through them, along with percepts of the outer and inner worlds, to penetrate to their deeper Cosmic meanings.

[Anthony66]

Thanks Ashvin, the above makes sense.

It reveals a clear progression of how the spiritual "I" was etched into humanity through the Hebrew people and then universalized through the Incarnation.

Would you be able to add some flesh to this? I assume you are drawing from Barfield. What precisely happened in the Incarnation and how is this made effective for us? The evangelical Christian response is that by placing faith in the atoning death of Jesus, our sins are forgiven and we will be granted a place in heaven (rather than hell).

[AshvinP]

Thanks Ashvin, the above makes sense.

It reveals a clear progression of how the spiritual "I" was etched into humanity through the Hebrew people and then universalized through the Incarnation.

Would you be able to add some flesh to this? I assume you are drawing from Barfield. What precisely happened in the Incarnation and how is this made effective for us? The evangelical Christian response is that by placing faith in the atoning death of Jesus, our sins are forgiven and we will be granted a place in heaven (rather than hell).

Anthony,

Barfield and Steiner had much to say on this topic. But, we should be clear, it is most important to discover the logic of these ideas for ourselves. That is the process of making the world content into our own thought-content. I can outline spiritual scientific theories endlessly here, but it won't have any meaningful impact until it is permeated by the spiritual thinking activity of each individual. Many of our questions presuppose that an answer would have meaning to us, but sometimes that's not the case. Sometimes, no matter what the answer is, it will sound like mostly empty words and we will assume that's because the word-symbols are lacking deep meaning, but it could be we have not developed the conceptual slots for that meaning to resonate yet. I think that's especially likely when it comes to this topic of esoteric spirituality.

That being said, it's good you are asking questions with genuine interest in the answers. We talk about "Thinking" so much because that is where we most immediately find what happened in the Incarnation and how it is made effective for us. For me, it resonates the most when I find a balance between the Cosmic unfolding of primordial Spirit into W-F-T, B-S-S, physical-etheric-astral, and my own individual experience of logical reasoning (Logos). John 1 says, "In the beginning was the Word... and the Word was made flesh". Right in these opening verses we have the intersection of Divine Thinking which fashioned the Cosmic realms and human ideas which we engage every day. There is continuity between these characters I am typing on my computer, the forms mediated by my inner experience (thoughts), the natural forms of Earth, and the Cosmic forms of planets and stars. If I am typing outside on a clear night, I can perceive all four at once.

The continuity reveals itself in the meaning of the varied forms and the meaning reveals itself to our Logos within (logical reasoning). Meaning permeates all. Moreover, my Thinking which discerns meaning is also the most self-sacrificial, as Christ incarnate. It is the hardest for me to take notice of because it is always active and focusing its energy on the object of its activity. It runs quietly in the background, submerging itself. This is reflected in our langauge. When an object makes me happy, like a tree, I say "this tree makes me happy" or "I am happy about this tree." When I discern the meaning of its form, I say, "this tree is growing" or "this tree is is dying". The "I think" is there but almost always remains implicit, silent in the background. The more I contemplate the meaning of the tree, the less likely the thought-statement will simply be a means of expressing my own desires and feelings rather than expressing something meaningful about the tree itself.

The intellect can remain cynical. It can (and will) chalk these things up to mere "psychological" tricks or linguistic games of some sort. We don't need to shy away from such objections by our intellect. They too can be sacrificially embraced and permeated by our logical reasoning. In my experience, that reasoning never fails to reveal the deeper meaning which explains the flaws in the objections and also the reasons why they are made so often. Many times these objections project our own localized limitations onto Thinking as such and use that as the basis for critique. Schopenhauer was correct to say, "every man mistakes the limitations of his own vision for the limitations of the world." All of these things can be permeated by unprejudiced thinking and made sense of. Making sense of our given perceptions and conceptions is what Thinking does, if we allow it to flourish.

Some will say these things are all expressions of a mind indoctrinated by a religious "cult". Fantasies and egoism or profiteering woven together into a seemingly coherent narrative. Besides the obvious fact that I am writing essays for no money and posting where the least amount of people are likely to see them, let alone subscribe to my blog and donate money, the fact is that no cult has ever emphasized the role of one's own independent and free thinking. That is for obvious reasons. Thinking is that spiritual activity which reveals deceptions for what they are, when it is truly free. You have probably even noticed how every question about spiritual science is redirected towards our need to discover the power of our own Thinking. Very few specific spiritual claims are written. No organizations are advertised. No donations are sought.

These are all things to consider carefully. We have to ask ourselves whether this philosophy and spirituality stuff is all just a hobby to pass the time until something or someone "saves us" or we really feel it deserves to be something more. That our hyper-fragmented culture needs it be something more. If we feel the latter and proceed with open mind and good will, then Christ within us will lend us the courage to pursue it even further and overcome the obstacles in our way, of which there will be many. We won't need or want anyone to reveal anything to us. We will be willing and eager to discover everything in the Cosmos anew for ourselves. It will excite and thrill us to contemplate the possibilities that open up from simply pursuing the truth, beauty, and goodness which makes us human, but which our cynical culture often dismisses without thought. That is how knowing the Truth will set us free.

[Anthony66]

Ashvin,

There's a lot of good stuff in there but I'm failing to see significant connection to my question pertaining to the Incarnation. What is B-S-S?