BK's latest article on "self-deception"

[AshvinP]

You say about the habitual dualities, This way of thinking served a great purpose but it has outlived that purpose. We cannot naively balance everything in our experience and call that understanding. I agree that dualist dichotomies served and serve limited purposes that has been outlived in certain contexts. Yes, and now we work on transcending deceptions by not clinging to them.

Looking at the duck-rabbit image, I see a non-existent critter, duck-like with a rabbit mouth on the back of its head. Do you think I'm naively balancing something or just seeing what is in plain sight?

I confess that I don't grok Cleric's chart. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's not for me.

I am saying the concept that "thinking" and "not-thinking" are equally useful, or can be reconciled with each other in some way, is itself a dualist dichotomy. It diminishes the act of thinking into its most abstract form, via something akin to subject/object or mind/matter dualism, and then says, "we can accomplish plenty of things in the world without this rigid thinking". That conclusion is only made because "thinking" has been reduced to its lowest form via the implicit dualism.

re: duck-rabbit - I think calling it "non-existent" is again reducing "idea" to something fanciful and ephemeral, added on top of the world where we perceive "real" rabbits and ducks. I hold that the particular forms we see, such as individual rabbits or ducks, are perceptions reflecting real archetypal ideas, such as rabbit-duck, which are currently supersensible to most people. The idea is real and its reflection is also real, but since we currently only perceive the reflection in particular forms, we confuse that for what "really exists" and say the former is our "fantasy", "hallucination", etc. By this simple error, we siphon our thinking towards complete epistemic nihilism.

I surely do not deny the possibility of "true hallucinations" or the reality of the imaginal realm. Do you really believe that BK denies them when he says he "has an ambivalent relationship with first-person revelations"? Is this nihilism or is it that the difference between the imaginal and the imaginary must have practical meaning to survive tests and challenges and build intersubjective consensus?

Lou,

I don't know why you are trying so hard to change what BK meant. TB and Shalibei also had the same impression and I don't think Ben or Eugene dispute the meaning of what was said. I already explained that meaning in multiple ways and TB did as well. You are stating what you think, not what BK meant in the article.

[Lou Gold]

I am saying the concept that "thinking" and "not-thinking" are equally useful, or can be reconciled with each other in some way, is itself a dualist dichotomy. It diminishes the act of thinking into its most abstract form, via something akin to subject/object or mind/matter dualism, and then says, "we can accomplish plenty of things in the world without this rigid thinking". That conclusion is only made because "thinking" has been reduced to its lowest form via the implicit dualism.

re: duck-rabbit - I think calling it "non-existent" is again reducing "idea" to something fanciful and ephemeral, added on top of the world where we perceive "real" rabbits and ducks. I hold that the particular forms we see, such as individual rabbits or ducks, are perceptions reflecting real archetypal ideas, such as rabbit-duck, which are currently supersensible to most people. The idea is real and its reflection is also real, but since we currently only perceive the reflection in particular forms, we confuse that for what "really exists" and say the former is our "fantasy", "hallucination", etc. By this simple error, we siphon our thinking towards complete epistemic nihilism.

I surely do not deny the possibility of "true hallucinations" or the reality of the imaginal realm. Do you really believe that BK denies them when he says he "has an ambivalent relationship with first-person revelations"? Is this nihilism or is it that the difference between the imaginal and the imaginary must have practical meaning to survive tests and challenges and build intersubjective consensus?

Lou,

I don't know you are trying so hard to change what BK meant. TB and Shalibei also had the same impression and I don't think Ben or Eugene dispute the meaning of what was said. I already explaining that meaning in multiple ways and TB did as well. You are stating what you think, not what BK means in the article.

Ashvin,

Simple. I'm not attempting to change his view or declaring his intent. I'm not presenting evidence as if in a court of law. I am elaborating on how I can receive BK's words, find certain truths in them and not be at war with them. There are lots of layers and resonances stirring and swirling in his essay making it especially rich for me. Perhaps, you can ponder that I, with a totally life-changing dream quite stabilized after 40 years, with more than two decades of spiritual practice with psychoactive sacraments, with some out of the body experience and some meditation, with an ongoing familiarity with mediumship and communion with non-corporeal entities, and with 15 years of living in and loving Brazil, can read BK's essay and find it a rich and rewarding experience? However, I confess that all this elaboration on my part is probably more in response to your unequivocal condemnation of the essay. As you've probably noted, there's a lawyerly quality in my nature as well. Takes two to tango.

[AshvinP]

I surely do not deny the possibility of "true hallucinations" or the reality of the imaginal realm. Do you really believe that BK denies them when he says he "has an ambivalent relationship with first-person revelations"? Is this nihilism or is it that the difference between the imaginal and the imaginary must have practical meaning to survive tests and challenges and build intersubjective consensus?

Lou,

I don't know you are trying so hard to change what BK meant. TB and Shalibei also had the same impression and I don't think Ben or Eugene dispute the meaning of what was said. I already explaining that meaning in multiple ways and TB did as well. You are stating what you think, not what BK means in the article.

Ashvin,

Simple. I'm not attempting to change his view or declaring his intent. I'm not presenting evidence as if in a court of law. I am elaborating on how I can receive BK's words, find certain truths in them and not be at war with them. There are lots of layers and resonances stirring and swirling in his essay making it especially rich for me. Perhaps, you can ponder that I, with a totally life-changing dream quite stabilized after 40 years, with more than two decades of spiritual practice with psychoactive sacraments, with some out of the body experience and some meditation, with an ongoing familiarity with mediumship and communion with non-corporeal entities, and with 15 years of living in and loving Brazil, can read BK's essay and find it a rich and rewarding experience? However, I confess that all this elaboration on my part is probably more in response to your unequivocal condemnation of the essay. As you've probably noted, there's a lawyerly quality in my nature as well. Takes two to tango.

Of course you can appreciate BK's essay. I recognize that and that's fine. The question is, what is the relevance for everyone else? BK is an analytic philosopher, he writes an article flatly critiquing human reasoning capacity in the centuries-long tradition of analytic philosophy, I post it here along with my critique of his critique, and people discuss the arguments. Your argument seems to be, "maybe you should dial back that critique because his article means something else to me and I find that meaning rewarding". Surely you can see why that makes no sense to me and, therefore, why I am pushing back on your arguments in defense of BK.

I think you are probably aware that Cleric and myself are critical of animism and mysticism as it often manifests in the world today. We consider it an over-spiritualized approach which can be just as counter-productive to lawful spiritual evolution as over-materialized approaches. He knows much more about it than I do, but I can perceive pretty clearly the reasons why this approach would inhibit the growth of our Thinking organism. One must really try to view things from a spiritual scientific perspective to understand the critiques we are making, at least with regards to this specific issue re: mysticism and psychedelics and what not. Note I am not saying anyone needs to or should agree with that perspective, but only understand the basis for the perspective.

The fourfold nature of the human organism and reincarnation is quite important. We are not only physical bodies, but also etheric and astral bodies with an Ego-"I" (Spirit). There are different forces and streams of evolution at work in these members of the human soul. Currently, the growth and maturation of our spiritual (thinking) organism is most important. This will take place over many more lifetimes, so what any person accumulates in terms of spiritual experiences in any given lifetime is not so important as how they go about approaching the spiritual worlds. Here the feelings really come into play. Some here clearly dislike anything which hints that their own spiritual approach could be better. This is not tolerated in our age. That's fine, but I think it can be admitted rather than presented as some sort of considered logical argument against our own.

[Lou Gold]

Lou,

I don't know you are trying so hard to change what BK meant. TB and Shalibei also had the same impression and I don't think Ben or Eugene dispute the meaning of what was said. I already explaining that meaning in multiple ways and TB did as well. You are stating what you think, not what BK means in the article.

Ashvin,

Simple. I'm not attempting to change his view or declaring his intent. I'm not presenting evidence as if in a court of law. I am elaborating on how I can receive BK's words, find certain truths in them and not be at war with them. There are lots of layers and resonances stirring and swirling in his essay making it especially rich for me. Perhaps, you can ponder that I, with a totally life-changing dream quite stabilized after 40 years, with more than two decades of spiritual practice with psychoactive sacraments, with some out of the body experience and some meditation, with an ongoing familiarity with mediumship and communion with non-corporeal entities, and with 15 years of living in and loving Brazil, can read BK's essay and find it a rich and rewarding experience? However, I confess that all this elaboration on my part is probably more in response to your unequivocal condemnation of the essay. As you've probably noted, there's a lawyerly quality in my nature as well. Takes two to tango.

Of course you can appreciate BK's essay. I recognize that and that's fine. The question is, what is the relevance for everyone else? BK is an analytic philosopher, he writes an article flatly critiquing human reasoning capacity in the centuries-long tradition of analytic philosophy, I post it here along with my critique of his critique, and people discuss the arguments. Your argument seems to be, "maybe you should dial back that critique because his article means something else to me and I find that meaning rewarding". Surely you can see why that makes no sense to me and, therefore, why I am pushing back on your arguments in defense of BK.

I think you are probably aware that Cleric and myself are critical of animism and mysticism as it often manifests in the world today. We consider it an over-spiritualized approach which can be just as counter-productive to lawful spiritual evolution as over-materialized approaches. He knows much more about it than I do, but I can perceive pretty clearly the reasons why this approach would inhibit the growth of our Thinking organism. One must really try to view things from a spiritual scientific perspective to understand the critiques we are making, at least with regards to this specific issue re: mysticism and psychedelics and what not. Note I am not saying anyone needs to or should agree with that perspective, but only understand the basis for the perspective.

The fourfold nature of the human organism and reincarnation is quite important. We are not only physical bodies, but also etheric and astral bodies with an Ego-"I" (Spirit). There are different forces and streams of evolution at work in these members of the human soul. Currently, the growth and maturation of our spiritual (thinking) organism is most important. This will take place over many more lifetimes, so what any person accumulates in terms of spiritual experiences in any given lifetime is not so important as how they go about approaching the spiritual worlds. Here the feelings really come into play. Some here clearly dislike anything which hints that their own spiritual approach could be better. This is not tolerated in our age. That's fine, but I think it can be admitted rather than presented as some sort of considered logical argument against our own.

[Lou Gold]

Ashvin,

Simple. I'm not attempting to change his view or declaring his intent. I'm not presenting evidence as if in a court of law. I am elaborating on how I can receive BK's words, find certain truths in them and not be at war with them. There are lots of layers and resonances stirring and swirling in his essay making it especially rich for me. Perhaps, you can ponder that I, with a totally life-changing dream quite stabilized after 40 years, with more than two decades of spiritual practice with psychoactive sacraments, with some out of the body experience and some meditation, with an ongoing familiarity with mediumship and communion with non-corporeal entities, and with 15 years of living in and loving Brazil, can read BK's essay and find it a rich and rewarding experience? However, I confess that all this elaboration on my part is probably more in response to your unequivocal condemnation of the essay. As you've probably noted, there's a lawyerly quality in my nature as well. Takes two to tango.

Of course you can appreciate BK's essay. I recognize that and that's fine. The question is, what is the relevance for everyone else? BK is an analytic philosopher, he writes an article flatly critiquing human reasoning capacity in the centuries-long tradition of analytic philosophy, I post it here along with my critique of his critique, and people discuss the arguments. Your argument seems to be, "maybe you should dial back that critique because his article means something else to me and I find that meaning rewarding". Surely you can see why that makes no sense to me and, therefore, why I am pushing back on your arguments in defense of BK.

I think you are probably aware that Cleric and myself are critical of animism and mysticism as it often manifests in the world today. We consider it an over-spiritualized approach which can be just as counter-productive to lawful spiritual evolution as over-materialized approaches. He knows much more about it than I do, but I can perceive pretty clearly the reasons why this approach would inhibit the growth of our Thinking organism. One must really try to view things from a spiritual scientific perspective to understand the critiques we are making, at least with regards to this specific issue re: mysticism and psychedelics and what not. Note I am not saying anyone needs to or should agree with that perspective, but only understand the basis for the perspective.

The fourfold nature of the human organism and reincarnation is quite important. We are not only physical bodies, but also etheric and astral bodies with an Ego-"I" (Spirit). There are different forces and streams of evolution at work in these members of the human soul. Currently, the growth and maturation of our spiritual (thinking) organism is most important. This will take place over many more lifetimes, so what any person accumulates in terms of spiritual experiences in any given lifetime is not so important as how they go about approaching the spiritual worlds. Here the feelings really come into play. Some here clearly dislike anything which hints that their own spiritual approach could be better. This is not tolerated in our age. That's fine, but I think it can be admitted rather than presented as some sort of considered logical argument against our own.

Ashvin,

Circles again, huh? Maybe this will help.

You offer strong condemnation from your philosopher view.
I offer strong appreciation from my storyteller view.
Appreciation does not mean I agree with everything said.
It means that I see its value.

And what does this mean for others?
They can and do speak for themselves.

[Ben Iscatus]

I offer strong appreciation from my storyteller view.
Appreciation does not mean I agree with everything said.
It means that I see its value.

Indeed! Else if something is not understood to be wholly true, it must be wholly consigned to hell. This would be a fundamentalist approach.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

Circles again, huh? Maybe this will help.

You offer strong condemnation from your philosopher view.
I offer strong appreciation from my storyteller view.
Appreciation does not mean I agree with everything said.
It means that I see its value.

And what does this mean for others?
They can and do speak for themselves.

The intellect only has to travel in circles if we arbitrarily declare human reason as "hallucination". Think about BK's writings and the discussions on this forum (independent of our Thinking philosophy and spiritual science). That is the very image of traveling around in circles, exploring the same conceptual territory over and over again while the map seems to be growing more dim, rather than gaining higher resolution. What else can happen if the only faculty which makes things more clear is denied reality? This is very elementary stuff and it's only the intellect which complicates things for itself. That allows it to remain at a safe distance from the world of actual thinking experience, endlessly opining on the world content from afar.

I do appreciate BK's work. I appreciate the opportunity his writings, like everyone else's writings, provides us for spiritual development. They stimulate us to think through them and perceive how their concepts and our own go forth from the world harmony, IF we are willing to share them and discuss them logically, without labeling all critical thinking as some "attack". When we perceive the cessation of logical reasoning in BK's article, which ultimately denies reality to all higher meaning, we are given the opportunity to perceive that shortcoming in our own thinking. We can see how the road to hell is paved with our own 'best intentions'. We don't need to worry about "going to hell" because we are already here and there is nothing keeping us here but ourselves. We enjoy it too much to let it go.

I am not interested in receiving or handing out spiritual change as outward displays of pity and virtue. These things do not stimulate us to new life in meaning but only make us feel more comfortable remaining exactly where we are. Remaining still is the image of death itself. Growth, maturation, metamorphosis, transfiguration, evolution... these are the principles of Life. The spiritual Cosmos is a living organism growing within and through us. We have a responsibility to care for it, not in a superficial materialistic way, throwing spiritual change at it from afar when we pass by on the street (endless intellectual and mystical musings), but by becoming more unified with it in symapthy through our higher Thinking. This is how we truly participate in its awakening.


“No one should deny the danger of the descent, but it can be risked. No one need risk it, but it is certain that someone will. And let those who go down the sunset way do so with open eyes, for it is a sacrifice which daunts even the gods... Yet every descent is followed by an ascent; the vanishing shapes are shaped anew, and a truth is valid in the end only if it suffers change and bears new witness in new images, in new tongues, like a new wine that is put into new bottles.”
- Carl Jung, Symbols of Transformation

[Lou Gold]

Some may find this Krishnamurti quote as relevant...

[Eugene I.]

Some here clearly dislike anything which hints that their own spiritual approach could be better.

You guys do for sure

[AshvinP]

Some here clearly dislike anything which hints that their own spiritual approach could be better.

You guys do for sure

Uh oh... is this finally an admission that Eugene thinks his spiritual approach is superior than others

Good, now let's hear the logical reasoning in support