New topic split from 'concise criticism of analytic idealism' thread.

Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns.
User avatar
Federica
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: New topic split from 'concise criticism of analytic idealism' thread.

Post by Federica »

AshvinP wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:06 am ...

Thank you Ashvin for bringing here part of that discussion and raising its connections to the threads. It’s very helpful, even without the knowledge to relate to Hegel, western esotericism, and all the other references to literature.


Your thoughts on the ‘too good to be true’ attitude and lack of self-love make me think that maybe one idea that reinforces such a ‘pessimism’ is the apparent asymmetry embedded in the possibility for humans, which could be seized or not, to rise to higher levels of ideation, while animals, plants and minerals cannot. Am I right? Or could for example animals also extricate themselves from their present condition and evolve their thinking out of the dreamy state into a human-like metaconscious type of ideation and then even higher up, without limits? If not, then maybe the pessimism comes from the question: ‘Why should we be the exception in the hierarchies of reality, where we could, but it’s not sure we will succeed, use our inner strength to elevate ourselves indefinitely?’ It seems an asymmetry, where we for some reason are granted and have at our disposal extra degrees of freedom/responsibility that don’t seem to be accessible on other planes of reality. And what about other beings that might simultaneously exist elsewhere in space, do they also face a challenge similar to the one of human evolution or are they just an unconscious projection of us humans ‘out in space’ that needs to be creatively inverted into the field of our expanding now (or maybe we are theirs…)?


It’s the dissonance between on one hand the extremely complex and hyper-meaningful organization of reality, with all its levels of nested ideations, speeds of relative time flow, and its equally complex, non linear paths of unfolding, and on the other hand the idea that just for us, right here, right now, there are ‘all of a sudden’ these degrees of freedom available and, with them, this uncertainty, this breach in the unthinkable, or divine, perfection of the construction, which is not in the higher levels’ hands but strangely, half-unbelievably, in our own hands…

.
This is the goal towards which the sixth age of humanity will strive: the popularization of occult truth on a wide scale. That's the mission of this age and the society that unites spiritually has the task of bringing this occult truth to life everywhere and applying it directly. That's exactly what our age is missing.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5457
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: New topic split from 'concise criticism of analytic idealism' thread.

Post by AshvinP »

Federica wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:06 am
AshvinP wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:06 am ...

Thank you Ashvin for bringing here part of that discussion and raising its connections to the threads. It’s very helpful, even without the knowledge to relate to Hegel, western esotericism, and all the other references to literature.


Your thoughts on the ‘too good to be true’ attitude and lack of self-love make me think that maybe one idea that reinforces such a ‘pessimism’ is the apparent asymmetry embedded in the possibility for humans, which could be seized or not, to rise to higher levels of ideation, while animals, plants and minerals cannot. Am I right? Or could for example animals also extricate themselves from their present condition and evolve their thinking out of the dreamy state into a human-like metaconscious type of ideation and then even higher up, without limits? If not, then maybe the pessimism comes from the question: ‘Why should we be the exception in the hierarchies of reality, where we could, but it’s not sure we will succeed, use our inner strength to elevate ourselves indefinitely?’ It seems an asymmetry, where we for some reason are granted and have at our disposal extra degrees of freedom/responsibility that don’t seem to be accessible on other planes of reality. And what about other beings that might simultaneously exist elsewhere in space, do they also face a challenge similar to the one of human evolution or are they just an unconscious projection of us humans ‘out in space’ that needs to be creatively inverted into the field of our expanding now (or maybe we are theirs…)?


It’s the dissonance between on one hand the extremely complex and hyper-meaningful organization of reality, with all its levels of nested ideations, speeds of relative time flow, and its equally complex, non linear paths of unfolding, and on the other hand the idea that just for us, right here, right now, there are ‘all of a sudden’ these degrees of freedom available and, with them, this uncertainty, this breach in the unthinkable, or divine, perfection of the construction, which is not in the higher levels’ hands but strangely, half-unbelievably, in our own hands…

.
Hey Federica,

This isn't quite accurate. Due to the archetypal structure of the evolutionary progression, which we should remember is always known from the first-person relational perspective, we could say all conscious beings perceive themselves to be at the Center of the entire process, at all times. Every being is always halfway between the known (lower) and unknown (higher), no matter how relatively low or high they are. So humans are not at all special in that regard. Many other higher beings already went through their "human" stage of evolution in previous incarnations of the Earth soul (with different perceptual conditions, of course), and lower beings will eventually go through theirs on future incarnations. We also went through our mineral, plant, and animal stages. 

The various ranks mentioned above are to be thought of as offices, stages of capacities and responsibilities which each being evolves through. Ultimately, every being who develops an individual "I" consciousness, and therefore the capacity for free sacrificial Love in full consciousness, becomes increasingly responsible in helping to raise up the lower beings who have yet to develop such "I" consciousness. The angelic beings have become quite responsible for us at our current stage, but they are also working in concert with the entire symphony of higher hierarchies to polish the human soul. We must now become increasingly responsible for ourselves so that, when we grow into our angelic consciousness, we can do the same for the current animals. 
Alyosha Karamazov wrote:Love all God’s creation, both the whole and every grain of sand. Love every leaf, every ray of light. Love the animals, love the plants, love each separate thing. If thou love each thing thou wilt perceive the mystery of God in all; and when once thou perceive this, thou wilt thenceforward grow every day to a fuller understanding of it: until thou come at last to love the whole world with a love that will then be all-embracing and universal.
Even at the superficial secular scientific level, it's quite evident that what humans do with their conscious imaginations going forward will have major impacts on the lower kingdoms - on the future environment they (and we) will inhabit. It's interesting to also consider the physical food chain - this is the way in which Wisdom, working through Nature, allows lower beings to evolve through higher beings up to a certain point. We are at the point where consuming animal meat no longer does anything for their evolution and only hampers our own, while consuming plant material still aids their evolution (but each individual needs to consider their own nutritional situation and only make sacrifices with complete information and genuine desire, in freedom). As you said, it gets pretty complex, but there are archetypal threads running through it all. 

Spiritual science simply makes all of this alive for us and precise - all our faculties of will, feeling, reason, imagination must be engaged to delve into the deeper living dynamics. And these deeper dynamics exist - we could study them consistently our entire life and not come close to exhausting knowledge of them, even at the intellectual level. That's another inversion of the modern era - it is felt the archetypal worlds are less rich in complex meaning than the perceptual world it gives rise to. We have a huge diversity of kingdoms, species, cultures, organizations, etc. here, but only "God and angels" or "MAL" up there. Instead we can get in the habit of understanding that everything we perceive here are dim copies of That which exists on the higher planes - "as above, so below." They are perceptually less abstract (lifeless), fragmented, and complex than things here, but in terms of interrelations of meaningful activity, they are much more varied and rich. 
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
User avatar
Federica
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: New topic split from 'concise criticism of analytic idealism' thread.

Post by Federica »

AshvinP wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:51 pm Hey Federica,

This isn't quite accurate. Due to the archetypal structure of the evolutionary progression, which we should remember is always known from the first-person relational perspective, we could say all conscious beings perceive themselves to be at the Center of the entire process, at all times. Every being is always halfway between the known (lower) and unknown (higher), no matter how relatively low or high they are. So humans are not at all special in that regard. Many other higher beings already went through their "human" stage of evolution in previous incarnations of the Earth soul (with different perceptual conditions, of course), and lower beings will eventually go through theirs on future incarnations. We also went through our mineral, plant, and animal stages. 

The various ranks mentioned above are to be thought of as offices, stages of capacities and responsibilities which each being evolves through. Ultimately, every being who develops an individual "I" consciousness, and therefore the capacity for free sacrificial Love in full consciousness, becomes increasingly responsible in helping to raise up the lower beings who have yet to develop such "I" consciousness. The angelic beings have become quite responsible for us at our current stage, but they are also working in concert with the entire symphony of higher hierarchies to polish the human soul. We must now become increasingly responsible for ourselves so that, when we grow into our angelic consciousness, we can do the same for the current animals. 
Alyosha Karamazov wrote:Love all God’s creation, both the whole and every grain of sand. Love every leaf, every ray of light. Love the animals, love the plants, love each separate thing. If thou love each thing thou wilt perceive the mystery of God in all; and when once thou perceive this, thou wilt thenceforward grow every day to a fuller understanding of it: until thou come at last to love the whole world with a love that will then be all-embracing and universal.
Even at the superficial secular scientific level, it's quite evident that what humans do with their conscious imaginations going forward will have major impacts on the lower kingdoms - on the future environment they (and we) will inhabit. It's interesting to also consider the physical food chain - this is the way in which Wisdom, working through Nature, allows lower beings to evolve through higher beings up to a certain point. We are at the point where consuming animal meat no longer does anything for their evolution and only hampers our own, while consuming plant material still aids their evolution (but each individual needs to consider their own nutritional situation and only make sacrifices with complete information and genuine desire, in freedom). As you said, it gets pretty complex, but there are archetypal threads running through it all. 

Spiritual science simply makes all of this alive for us and precise - all our faculties of will, feeling, reason, imagination must be engaged to delve into the deeper living dynamics. And these deeper dynamics exist - we could study them consistently our entire life and not come close to exhausting knowledge of them, even at the intellectual level. That's another inversion of the modern era - it is felt the archetypal worlds are less rich in complex meaning than the perceptual world it gives rise to. We have a huge diversity of kingdoms, species, cultures, organizations, etc. here, but only "God and angels" or "MAL" up there. Instead we can get in the habit of understanding that everything we perceive here are dim copies of That which exists on the higher planes - "as above, so below." They are perceptually less abstract (lifeless), fragmented, and complex than things here, but in terms of interrelations of meaningful activity, they are much more varied and rich. 

Ashvin,

I was only trying to take the pessimistic perspective you were referring to (I am not pessimistic) and see things from that perspective.
I for myself don't have an opinion on these archetypal dynamics and analogies, because I don't have knowledge of them, and I don't realize or intuit them. When you mention for example that we went through a mineral, plant and animal stage, I hear it, however I don't have any understanding of how these elements of 'spiritual science' unfold, let alone thinking about them in creative or responsible ways (when I put 'spiritual science' within quotes, I am not in any way dismissing the idea pointed to by the expression, I simply mean that I use it as a reference to your use, I notice that you use it, so I align my language to that, even without really understanding any details of that which it might refer to).
Similarly - and although I stopped eating meat about two years ago - I have not the least idea what you are talking about when you say that we have reached a point of evolution when eating animal meat does not help animals anymore.

One thing that I do feel though, is that sense of dissonance I was trying to convey. A dissonance that comes from on one hand having the intent to take responsibility for understanding reality and self, whatever it takes (and it is taking a lot of my efforts), and on the other hand what I hear from you (unless I got it wrong) that what I, you, and other individuals will succeed or not succeed getting is about to have a significant impact on the destiny of the whole of humanity and that this has to happen urgently, now, and that it is not sure how things may turn out. The higher beings would hope for a plan A for humanity but it could very well turn out we end up in some sort of catastrophic plan B. This I would admit is not clear to me.

.
This is the goal towards which the sixth age of humanity will strive: the popularization of occult truth on a wide scale. That's the mission of this age and the society that unites spiritually has the task of bringing this occult truth to life everywhere and applying it directly. That's exactly what our age is missing.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5457
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: New topic split from 'concise criticism of analytic idealism' thread.

Post by AshvinP »

Federica wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:58 pm Ashvin,

I was only trying to take the pessimistic perspective you were referring to (I am not pessimistic) and see things from that perspective.I for myself don't have an opinion on these archetypal dynamics and analogies, because I don't have knowledge of them, and I don't realize or intuit them. When you mention for example that we went through a mineral, plant and animal stage, I hear it, however I don't have any understanding of how these elements of 'spiritual science' unfold, let alone thinking about them in creative or responsible ways (when I put 'spiritual science' within quotes, I am not in any way dismissing the idea pointed to by the expression, I simply mean that I use it as a reference to your use, I notice that you use it, so I align my language to that, even without really understanding any details of that which it might refer to).Similarly - and although I stopped eating meat about two years ago - I have not the least idea what you are talking about when you say that we have reached a point of evolution when eating animal meat does not help animals anymore.

One thing that I do feel though, is that sense of dissonance I was trying to convey. A dissonance that comes from on one hand having the intent to take responsibility for understanding reality and self, whatever it takes (and it it taking a lot of my efforts), and on the other hand what I hear from you (unless I got it wrong) that what I, you, and other individuals will succeed or not succeed getting is about to have a significant impact on the destiny of the whole of humanity and that this has to happen urgently, now, and that it is not sure how things may turn out. The higher being would hope for a plan A for humanity but it could very well turn out we end up in some sort of catastrophic plan B. This I would admit is not clear to me.
.
Oh sorry, I misunderstood.

Yes, I think what you point to could be a factor in the pessimism as well. At least at the surface of the rationalizing intellect. Subconsciously, often we find expressed concern for animals, plants, Earth, etc., leaving them behind or whatever the case may be, is simply a means of feeling better about not helping them. It's like throwing change into the tin cup of a beggar - we don't really care how he will use it or how his life will unfold from there, we just want to feel better about ourselves, more virtuous. We want to say, "I did the best I could do to help, now it's a matter of chance or destiny, not my responsibility anymore." 

Yet if they did what you are doing - follow the threads of their logic and firsthand experience in humility and good will - then they would inevitably discover very concrete and creative ways to contribute to the evolution of these other beings, not to mention other humans, that could be practiced every single day. There are endless little things we can be doing for them with little time commitment and little money, and in fact these things will likely even save us money and improve our health, body, soul, and mind. The interests of all beings can be harmonized with living Imagination, but people avoid taking the first few steps for the reasons we have discussed.

“To what shall we liken the kingdom of God? Or with what parable shall we picture it? It is like a mustard seed which, when it is sown on the ground, is smaller than all the seeds on earth; but when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all herbs, and shoots out large branches, so that the birds of the air may nest under its shade.”

Yes, things are pretty urgent now. No one knows how it will play out year to year exactly, but there are broad outlines of the evolutionary progression. And, of course, we can simply notice the increasing tribal fragmentation around us, the dearth of any shared understanding or purpose. The evolutionary progression now is about integration of divisions across cultural divisions, nations, races, genders. The original plan for humanity was actually a single archetypal form, yet certain angelic forces of resistance led to severe fragmentation instead, the Fall, in which we were very much complicit. Even these forces of resistance against the flow are what make rhythmic evolution possible, and ultimately are being made to work for the Good by the progressive spirits. But in the short to medium term, we can expect things to deteriorate significantly. 

Integration only happens in a healthy way through living spiritual knowledge. Otherwise, the natural impulse to integration becomes an impulse for eradication of differences through violence. In this sense, murder and genocide are the polar opposites of Wisdom and Love. The former accomplishes the "integration" in the worst way possible, and we have already seen examples of this in the last century or so. Higher powers will not intervene to override our freedom at this stage - the latter is much too important in the overall Wisdom of Cosmic evolution. We cannot remain as spiritual infants if any deeper plans for humanity are to be fulfilled. To be clear, those plans will be fulfilled no matter what, but each individual can choose now to what extent they will participate in bringing about their fulfillment.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 2023
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm
Contact:

Re: New topic split from 'concise criticism of analytic idealism' thread.

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

AshvinP wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:06 am I had a chance to ask BK a couple questions this afternoon in the critical AMA. Unfortunately I couldn't transcribe his answers, but maybe a recording will be made available. For now, I will try to summarize my initial question, his response, my response, and then a follow up I wrote on the discord server in response, which also incorporates some things we have been discussing here recently.
I admire the attempt to engage BK in this much more nuanced way. If nothing else, despite his initially misconstruing your core points, his answers offer intriguing teasers that bespeak the kind of meaty discussion it could be possible to have, indeed indicative of a discussion he might embrace under the right circumstances—which the AMA format just isn't suited to, no sooner getting into the meat, when the plate is pulled away. In any case, if BK has ever investigated Steiner's work, he's given no indication of it, and however much he might find some value in it, I suspect there are aspects of it that will remain problematic discussion-enders for him. Nevertheless, I still eagerly await the interview with BK on the Ashvin youtube channel, wherein no plates, or punches, will be pulled ;)
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5457
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: New topic split from 'concise criticism of analytic idealism' thread.

Post by AshvinP »

Federica wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:58 pm Similarly - and although I stopped eating meat about two years ago - I have not the least idea what you are talking about when you say that we have reached a point of evolution when eating animal meat does not help animals anymore.
Right, I'm not sure why I thought that would be comprehensible without any context... let me add some thoughts on that.

When we speak of evolution, we are really speaking of coarse matter returning to its more spiritual-ideal origins in a rhythmic, lawful way. The dormant Spirit imprisoned within matter yearns for its supersensible home. But if a rocket is ignited without any planning, there's no telling where it will go and land, what wreckage it will cause in the process. If a pot of water is put under a rocket flame, it will be burned up immediately into nothingness. Then what good came of its descent into matter? No focused, usable energy is worked free from the water in this way. Instead, the wise powers structured the physical-perceptual plane so that water (matter) can come to a gradual boil from fire (spirit) and release useful energy which eventually translates into higher development of spiritual understanding, aesthetic, and ethics - Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.

A major issue for people today is that humanity is considered mostly separate from the natural order. We feel human beings are a really late addition in evolution, with a thought-capacity which frothed up from blind, instinctive nature and will return back to that nature. In the meantime, it is felt like this thinking is mostly inconsequential or even destructive (and it certainly can be the latter in its lower manifestations). But the reality is, human spiritual activity evolved from the natural order and is integral to it - we bring great harmony to the kingdoms of Nature through this activity. Without it, the rest of the kingdoms would wither away and die, i.e. become even coarser matter, rigidify, disintegrate and otherwise remain in a deep slumber. The Earth would eventually cease to exist.

The spiritual science behind this claim is pretty complex, as we would expect from any rigorous science, but if we adopt the ideal perspective, which really requires the inspired experiential 'inversion' spoken about on the other thread, these things become much more clear. Just like it's rather obvious to us that physical processes are needed to sustain and evolve life, it becomes obvious that it's actually the spiritual (ideal) processes, most of which still exist as the invisible context of ideal activity above us - the supersensible forces of nature and culture - which are in the driver's seat. 

We often hear about "food for thought". Even from a secular perspective, we say food is needed for energy, energy is needed for brain activity, brain activity is needed for thinking. Then we usually stop and fail to recognize the simple fact that thinking is needed for all sorts of processes which order nature and culture and allow the evolutionary process to continue on. From the spiritual science perspective, we can go much deeper into it. The human organism is an alchemical laboratory which transmutes the form-constraining material into the life-giving spiritual, turns lead into gold. Every time we eat, we are in fact taking in material elements which can be spiritualized by us through Divine thinking, feeling, and will, and the more conscious we are of this inner nature and activity, the more effectively we carry out the spiritual alchemy. 

OMA wrote:When you eat, learn to concentrate on your food by thinking you are communing with the whole universe. In this way the food will tell you its story, it will speak to you of the earth, the wind, the rain, the dew, the sun, the stars… Food is made up of particles and energies that come not only from the earth, but from the whole cosmos. Yes, elements from the cosmos have materialized in the form of flowers, vegetables, fruit. In reality, food materializes on earth in exactly the same way that children materialize in their mother’s womb. Originally, plants and fruit were spirits in space, but as we cannot work in the physical plane if we have no physical body, in order to act efficiently here on earth and to maintain life, it was necessary for these spirits to conform to the laws of matter by incarnating...

Humans eat, all creatures eat, but why? You will say that it is to receive energy. Yes, but is there not another reason? Everything we do does not have just one reason, one goal, and if we eat, it is not just to keep us alive and healthy... Look, what do worms do? They swallow earth and then reject it. By making it pass through them in this way, worms work the earth in order to aerate it, to enrich it, make it more fertile. Well, humans do just the same with food. On account of their psychic, spiritual faculties, they belong to a much higher degree of evolution to that of the matter they absorb, so by passing through them matter is enriched and refined. All creatures - plants, animals and human beings- eat, and by eating they transform the matter they absorb and impregnate it with elements that it did not have before. It is as if it was a duty for each of nature’s realms to absorb the matter of the lower realms in order to make it evolve. Cosmic Intelligence could doubtless have found other methods, but it has chosen this one: it has decided that, in order to live, each creature would absorb the matter of the realm below it, in order to pass it to the realm above it . That is what we do when we eat.

In reality, it is not just a question of passing matter through our stomach, but also through our lungs, our heart, our brain. It is not only by eating that people can improve matter, but by all their actions: by breathing, working, speaking, looking… You see how far humanity’s task reaches. That is why when, after their death, the matter of their bodies disintegrates and returns to the four elements -earth, water, air, fire - the particles that form it have become more alive, subtler, more expressive and will be used for other forms, other creations of better quality. Of course, it can happen that on the contrary these particles are degraded because of the animalistic or criminal life that the person has led and so they will be used only for crude creations.

In this way, the food chain is a magnificently Wise aspect of the natural order. But at a certain stage of evolution, an organism must not continue relying solely on higher beings to evolve, but must discover the impulses to evolve within itself, just as the infant must pass into adolescence and adulthood. This is what is known as the "Christ impulse" that Cleric referenced in his last comment. Particular animal forms are approaching this stage - their "I" must begin descending into the particular forms as it did for humans previously. Humans belonged to an archetypal group soul before becoming individuated, as the animals do today. Even over the last few millennia, we see a great transition from human identification with collectives to the identification with the individuated "I" within; to individual sovereignty. So now animals will not really gain in their evolution from being consumed by humans going forward, and we, in turn, will hamper our own evolution by absorbing more animalistic passions. Now, we longer need to sacrifice animals in religious ceremonies, factory farms, laboratories, etc., but sacrifice our inner animals which keep us chained to past stages of evolution through animalistic tendencies.

None of this should be taken as a 'corrective' to past cultural practices. This is a great error of recent times which has led and continues to lead to devastating consequences. Let's say I pull up to a red light and start making a right turn without looking. At the last second, out of the corner of my eye, I become aware of a car going through the intersection and slam on the brakes. Actually, this 'right brain' instinct becomes aware of the vehicle even before I see it physically, and kicks into gear. The goal of evolution is not to eliminate this vital instinct, but to make it more conscious, to spiritualize it, to transmute it into the higher faculty of Intuition. Similarly, cultural institutions which evolved through nature are very important symbols for the Spirit. Whether we are speaking of genders, marriage, races, nationalities, economies, philosophies, etc., the goal isn't to eradicate these but to integrate them through living spiritual knowledge. We aren't sacrificing meat-eating because it was "wrong", but because we can take over its functions to do it even better now, i.e. more consciously, more spiritually.

Until we realize this simple 'inverted' fact, our attempts to forcibly and physically integrate the divisions, or end meat consumption, save the environment, etc., will actually bring about the opposite of their intended goals - further division, tribalization, alienation from Nature and other humans, and even slaughter on a mass scale. We saw examples of the latter in various 'socialist' movements of the 20th century. True spiritual alchemy is not about eliminating the natural or cultural distinctions, but redeeming them through inner work. That is the rhythmic, gradual integration of our divisions through spiritual evolution, which doesn't only work on this flaw here or that flaw there at the surface of the rational intellect, but attempts to gain knowledge of their inner dynamics via living cognition and encompass them all holistically. Then we have a real foundation for shared human understanding and harmonized intentions and goals, born from living knowledge of who we were, we are, and are destined to become.

Owen Barfield wrote:There are two things that are noticeable about the modern psychology... the first is that the root, the subconscious root, of schizophrenia is increasingly being traced to the experience of what I will for the moment call "cut-offness". The second is that the experience is increasingly being regarded, not as one that is peculiar to the patient, but in a greater or less degree as one that is the predicament of humanity, or certainly Western humanity, as a whole.
...
The clinically schizoid are simply the ones who are becoming most sharply aware of it. Thus, they speak of the personality, or the self, as being isolated, encapsulated, excluded, estranged, alienated. There are many different ways of putting it. But what the self of each of us feels isolated from, cut off from, by its encapsulation in the nakedly physical reality presented to it by the common sense of contemporary culture, is precisely its own existential source [the 'true Self'].

Sin and Madness, by Dr. Shirley Sugerman... argues, convincingly to my mind, that what is now conceived and felt as insanity can only be properly understood as the evolutionary metamorphosis of what was formerly conceived and felt as sin.
...
But can there by sin without guilt? Paul Ricouer, in his book The Symbolism of Evil, observes, rightly I think, that a feeling of guilt is the fundamental experience of sin. If so, how can this contemporary madness, from which there is evidence that we all suffer, but about which we certainly do not feel guilty, have anything to do with sin? Perhaps because, although we do not feel guilty about the sin, we do feel guilty because of it.
...
There is atmosphere of guilt. Take for instance the issue of racialism, the relation between the advanced and the so-called "backward nations", or between white and colored... what was until recently called "the white man's burden" was a burden of responsibility, not of guilt.
...
People seem almost to go out of their way to find things to feel guilty about, or to encourage others to feel guilty about. I can think of two reasons in particular why it is bad... such confused feelings of guilt tend to beget paralysis rather than energy... when they do not beget paralysis, feelings of guilt tend to turn rather easily into feelings of hatred and contempt. We may feel a bit guilty ourselves, but we are very sure that a whole lot of other people are much more guilty, and probably ought to be destroyed.
...
And just this darker side to the experience of guilt seems to be even more evident when the experience is collective rather than when it is the individual. 'All are responsible for all', said Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov. A noble, a truly human sentiment - perhaps the only absolutely human sentiment there is... It is the irritation of guilt that turns it into the impulse to compel, into a determination to use every kind of violence, every device of indoctrination, in order to enforce on all a systematic equality that must entail a mechanical and inhuman uniformity.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5457
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: New topic split from 'concise criticism of analytic idealism' thread.

Post by AshvinP »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:23 am
AshvinP wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:06 am I had a chance to ask BK a couple questions this afternoon in the critical AMA. Unfortunately I couldn't transcribe his answers, but maybe a recording will be made available. For now, I will try to summarize my initial question, his response, my response, and then a follow up I wrote on the discord server in response, which also incorporates some things we have been discussing here recently.
I admire the attempt to engage BK in this much more nuanced way. If nothing else, despite his initially misconstruing your core points, his answers offer intriguing teasers that bespeak the kind of meaty discussion it could be possible to have, indeed indicative of a discussion he might embrace under the right circumstances—which the AMA format just isn't suited to, no sooner getting into the meat, when the plate is pulled away. In any case, if BK has ever investigated Steiner's work, he's given no indication of it, and however much he might find some value in it, I suspect there are aspects of it that will remain problematic discussion-enders for him. Nevertheless, I still eagerly await the interview with BK on the Ashvin youtube channel, wherein no plates, or punches, will be pulled ;)

Thanks, Dana. Here is the full AMA recording. My question starts at about the 48 min mark. Listening again, there is a ton of insights we can mine from BK's responses, in terms of his view on these issues. He makes them very clear. Maybe I will write out a point by point response and see if it can be brought to his attention.





But the divergence between us is very clear to me now. Instead of focusing on what we disagree about, let me mention one of his last comments that we completely agree on. After mentioning the higher angelic hierarchies of Christian esotericism, he comments that we simply cannot justify argument for them by current "objective, empircial" standards of science, and that their activity seems to have no influence on our own experience (which I obviously disagree with 100%), but then he adds at the end, "but it's possible their activity is permeating our own and we simply don't have the perceptual tools to detect it... it's like air that surrounds us but we cannot differentiate enough to detect with current tools."

Yes, this last part is exactly right, except the "we" should be "me". He doesn't have the perceptual tools to detect the activity, so he concludes that is universal limitation of human cognition right now. We have discussed this here many times before - it's the same Kantian and Schop error which creates the 'impenetrable barrier' to human supersensible perception and logical reasoning. Even though his reason tells him there is 100% chance there are higher ideational perspectives than our own, i.e. higher hierarchies of spiritual beings (but he resists the appropriate term "hierarchy", which I addressed in last post), he feels no one can as of yet make a solid scientific argument for them.

Of course, a major part of the problem is he thinks human reasoning is not on par with "direct perceiving" (there is no such thing, because perceiving and reasoning are inextricably linked, they are two manifestations of the same unified ideal force), so anything reached by reason (which is absolutely everything we know) without corresponding perceptions is still beneath serious philosophical and scientific discussion. The problem is, where to go from here? I hope it's clear that it's only prejudice which reaches this conclusion. It's not a logical conclusion at all, and in fact his logic takes him to 100% certainty of these higher spiritual realities. This is the inner contradiction that Cleric has been mentioning often. So the only way he will ever take anything we or Steiner or Christian esotericists write more seriously, is if he finds a way to overcome his own prejudice here - to confront the inner contradiction which leads to the inversion from the dreamscape perspective.

He also mentions that he believes we die, fall into the angelic perspective, which eventually dies and falls into the archangelic perspective, so on and so forth until we reach the Godhead. We can all just ask - does natural evolution ever proceed by beings passively falling into qualitatively more evolved states of being? This simply can't be reconciled with any natural philosophy or science.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
User avatar
Lou Gold
Posts: 2025
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:18 pm

Re: New topic split from 'concise criticism of analytic idealism' thread.

Post by Lou Gold »

AshvinP wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:53 pm He also mentions that he believes we die, fall into the angelic perspective, which eventually dies and falls into the archangelic perspective, so on and so forth until we reach the Godhead. We can all just ask - does natural evolution ever proceed by beings passively falling into qualitatively more evolved states of being? This simply can't be reconciled with any natural philosophy or science.
Firstly, let me say that I REALLY enjoyed your exchange with BK, which struck me as informed, intelligent, respectful, considered and genuinely dialogic. I'd love for it to continue in the same tone. Yes, there was much to consider on both sides.

Here, in your unpacking, I'm especially confused by your last paragraph. As idealists we know the consciousness never dies. What dies are the forms or appearances that constrain it. Forcing consciousness into a tiny body is surely a birth trauma resulting in dissociation. Bodily death releases consciousness into the next level of forms resulting in its expanded awareness and being and thusly continues into more evolved states with the death of each container. YES (!) this cannot be reconciled with any physicalist philosophy or science. Why would you (or we idealists) expect it to?

Looked at from a spiritual perspective the closing line of the so-called "Peace Prayer of Saint Francis" makes sense to me: "It is by dying that we are born to eternal life" and it's easy to grok it as an ongoing process of hierarchical expansion in all directions well beyond our earthly limited bodily view of appearances.
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5457
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: New topic split from 'concise criticism of analytic idealism' thread.

Post by AshvinP »

Lou Gold wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 12:24 pm
AshvinP wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:53 pm He also mentions that he believes we die, fall into the angelic perspective, which eventually dies and falls into the archangelic perspective, so on and so forth until we reach the Godhead. We can all just ask - does natural evolution ever proceed by beings passively falling into qualitatively more evolved states of being? This simply can't be reconciled with any natural philosophy or science.
Firstly, let me say that I REALLY enjoyed your exchange with BK, which struck me as informed, intelligent, respectful, considered and genuinely dialogic. I'd love for it to continue in the same tone. Yes, there was much to consider on both sides.

Here, in your unpacking, I'm especially confused by your last paragraph. As idealists we know the consciousness never dies. What dies are the forms or appearances that constrain it. Forcing consciousness into a tiny body is surely a birth trauma resulting in dissociation. Bodily death releases consciousness into the next level of forms resulting in its expanded awareness and being and thusly continues into more evolved states with the death of each container. YES (!) this cannot be reconciled with any physicalist philosophy or science. Why would you (or we idealists) expect it to?

Looked at from a spiritual perspective the closing line of the so-called "Peace Prayer of Saint Francis" makes sense to me: "It is by dying that we are born to eternal life" and it's easy to grok it as an ongoing process of hierarchical expansion in all directions well beyond our earthly limited bodily view of appearances.
Thanks, Lou.

Let's firstly make clear BK certainly desires to reconcile all philosophical conclusions with modern scientific results (not theories). That's why he emphasizes he's a "naturalist" and not a "supernaturalist" - the latter would take your position here, that we shouldn't expect essential philosophy and spirituality to be reconciled with science, because they are studying two entirely separate domains of experience. BK and I wholly disagree with that duality and, while he's a bit hesitant here, I say the higher spiritual reality is 100% permeating our experience between birth and death and we can't make any sense of that experience without factoring these higher domains of supersensible activity in, just like we can't make sense of the rainbow colors without also factoring in supersensible bands of the Light spectrum.

In that sense, every human since the dawn of reason has been studying the higher worlds, but in the modern era, mostly without knowing that's what they are doing. All the laws of nature, mathematical systems, principles, archetypes, etc. are nothing other than symbols for what goes on in the higher worlds. This is where BK veers off the trail for no logical reason. He says Goethe "didnt know how to do science" and his study of colors with first-person phenomenology is not what science does. According to him, science is taking inner concepts to model outer perceptions in nature - this is the Kantian dualism we always mention here. On the contrary, I say no scientist, materialist or otherwise, has ever done that when developing and verifying their theories. They have been doing the exact same thing Goethe was doing except they weren't conscious of it, while he was. Because he was conscious of what he was doing, he didn't abstract his own observation out from the science of colors, but tried to account for it (and very successfully IMO, based on what was available to him at the time). Newton abstracted out his participation because he wasn't conscious of it's influence on the experiment, while Goethe was, so Newton ended up with flawed Light-in-itself conclusion like Schop ended up with Will-in-itself conclusion.

We must admit, going down Goethe's more conscious path is messy - now we have to account for a dynamic variable of human observation-thinking along with the transforming outer perceptions. But as BK also hinted, QM has practically verified that abstracting out is no longer an option if we want to discover any essential relations behind the appearances. So the biggest divergence is whether we should simply give up because of the messiness or whether we can find new, creative thinking skills to factor ourselves into what we are studying. Steiner shows it is perfectly possible to do the latter in PoSA. The video host put a link to it in the show notes, so maybe BK will decide to give it a read with an open mind. Just maybe.

As regards evolutionary theory, the above also applies. We can't simply chuck the most fundamentally sound and verified scientific principle out the window for our preferred form of spirituality. Again, things would be much less messy if we could simply die and then fall back into higher levels of cognition somehow. The birth-death rhythm is actually taking place all the time between what we call "birth" and "death". Every day we sleep and wake up, for ex. What we experience during dreams and deep sleep seeds the archetypal structure for the next day, which feeds back into what is experienced the next night during dreams and sleep. It's the same with birth, death, and rebirth. These are continuous states of Being throughout, only alternating perspectives. If we don't do anything during the day, we will have no ideal seeds to plant during sleep for the next day. We simply won't evolve if we remain entirely passive each day, barely conscious of what we're doing. Likewise if we don't actively seek the higher worlds during our current incarnation, we won't remain conscious to do the work of evolution during the period between death and rebirth.

Cleric also discussed a similar topic with Dana recently, which you may want to look at - viewtopic.php?p=17527#p17527
Cleric wrote:The deathlessness of the human psyche is not guaranteed. I guess I'm sounding as a broken record already but we create a world of hard problems for ourselves when we imagine some spiritual space and atomic deathless and eternal psyches floating there. Things are readily comprehensible when we gain insight into Time and Memory. Alas this proves to be difficult.

If instead of imagining that every being has individual immortal bubble of consciousness which preserves its atomic identity even after the Solar system has perished, we conceive of the One Spirit which manifests simultaneously through all states of being, then we can understand that the feeling for identity is really a function of the integration of the states of being as memory. It is this implosion of states, that seem to trace an individual evolutionary story, which at the same time is the feeling for the particular identity of that story.

Yet it is perfectly possible that this story can degenerate and dissolve.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
User avatar
Lou Gold
Posts: 2025
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:18 pm

Re: New topic split from 'concise criticism of analytic idealism' thread.

Post by Lou Gold »

AshvinP wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 11:07 pm
Lou Gold wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 12:24 pm
AshvinP wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:53 pm He also mentions that he believes we die, fall into the angelic perspective, which eventually dies and falls into the archangelic perspective, so on and so forth until we reach the Godhead. We can all just ask - does natural evolution ever proceed by beings passively falling into qualitatively more evolved states of being? This simply can't be reconciled with any natural philosophy or science.
Firstly, let me say that I REALLY enjoyed your exchange with BK, which struck me as informed, intelligent, respectful, considered and genuinely dialogic. I'd love for it to continue in the same tone. Yes, there was much to consider on both sides.

Here, in your unpacking, I'm especially confused by your last paragraph. As idealists we know the consciousness never dies. What dies are the forms or appearances that constrain it. Forcing consciousness into a tiny body is surely a birth trauma resulting in dissociation. Bodily death releases consciousness into the next level of forms resulting in its expanded awareness and being and thusly continues into more evolved states with the death of each container. YES (!) this cannot be reconciled with any physicalist philosophy or science. Why would you (or we idealists) expect it to?

Looked at from a spiritual perspective the closing line of the so-called "Peace Prayer of Saint Francis" makes sense to me: "It is by dying that we are born to eternal life" and it's easy to grok it as an ongoing process of hierarchical expansion in all directions well beyond our earthly limited bodily view of appearances.
Thanks, Lou.

Let's firstly make clear BK certainly desires to reconcile all philosophical conclusions with modern scientific results (not theories). That's why he emphasizes he's a "naturalist" and not a "supernaturalist" - the latter would take your position here, that we shouldn't expect essential philosophy and spirituality to be reconciled with science, because they are studying two entirely separate domains of experience. BK and I wholly disagree with that duality and, while he's a bit hesitant here, I say the higher spiritual reality is 100% permeating our experience between birth and death and we can't make any sense of that experience without factoring these higher domains of supersensible activity in, just like we can't make sense of the rainbow colors without also factoring in supersensible bands of the Light spectrum.

In that sense, every human since the dawn of reason has been studying the higher worlds, but in the modern era, mostly without knowing that's what they are doing. All the laws of nature, mathematical systems, principles, archetypes, etc. are nothing other than symbols for what goes on in the higher worlds. This is where BK veers off the trail for no logical reason. He says Goethe "didnt know how to do science" and his study of colors with first-person phenomenology is not what science does. According to him, science is taking inner concepts to model outer perceptions in nature - this is the Kantian dualism we always mention here. On the contrary, I say no scientist, materialist or otherwise, has ever done that when developing and verifying their theories. They have been doing the exact same thing Goethe was doing except they weren't conscious of it, while he was. Because he was conscious of what he was doing, he didn't abstract his own observation out from the science of colors, but tried to account for it (and very successfully IMO, based on what was available to him at the time). Newton abstracted out his participation because he wasn't conscious of it's influence on the experiment, while Goethe was, so Newton ended up with flawed Light-in-itself conclusion like Schop ended up with Will-in-itself conclusion.

We must admit, going down Goethe's more conscious path is messy - now we have to account for a dynamic variable of human observation-thinking along with the transforming outer perceptions. But as BK also hinted, QM has practically verified that abstracting out is no longer an option if we want to discover any essential relations behind the appearances. So the biggest divergence is whether we should simply give up because of the messiness or whether we can find new, creative thinking skills to factor ourselves into what we are studying. Steiner shows it is perfectly possible to do the latter in PoSA. The video host put a link to it in the show notes, so maybe BK will decide to give it a read with an open mind. Just maybe.

As regards evolutionary theory, the above also applies. We can't simply chuck the most fundamentally sound and verified scientific principle out the window for our preferred form of spirituality. Again, things would be much less messy if we could simply die and then fall back into higher levels of cognition somehow. The birth-death rhythm is actually taking place all the time between what we call "birth" and "death". Every day we sleep and wake up, for ex. What we experience during dreams and deep sleep seeds the archetypal structure for the next day, which feeds back into what is experienced the next night during dreams and sleep. It's the same with birth, death, and rebirth. These are continuous states of Being throughout, only alternating perspectives. If we don't do anything during the day, we will have no ideal seeds to plant during sleep for the next day. We simply won't evolve if we remain entirely passive each day, barely conscious of what we're doing. Likewise if we don't actively seek the higher worlds during our current incarnation, we won't remain conscious to do the work of evolution during the period between death and rebirth.

Cleric also discussed a similar topic with Dana recently, which you may want to look at - viewtopic.php?p=17527#p17527
Cleric wrote:The deathlessness of the human psyche is not guaranteed. I guess I'm sounding as a broken record already but we create a world of hard problems for ourselves when we imagine some spiritual space and atomic deathless and eternal psyches floating there. Things are readily comprehensible when we gain insight into Time and Memory. Alas this proves to be difficult.

If instead of imagining that every being has individual immortal bubble of consciousness which preserves its atomic identity even after the Solar system has perished, we conceive of the One Spirit which manifests simultaneously through all states of being, then we can understand that the feeling for identity is really a function of the integration of the states of being as memory. It is this implosion of states, that seem to trace an individual evolutionary story, which at the same time is the feeling for the particular identity of that story.

Yet it is perfectly possible that this story can degenerate and dissolve.
Seems that you are pushing for a debate here. I avoided the "naturalist vs supernaturalist" dichotomy because I also don't believe in it (note: I used the word "physicalist"). Nor am I committed to "death" being limited to corporeal death. Less prejudice and more truth, less dream and more awake, less old paradigm and more new, etc, etc. And surely there are practices allowing more awareness in the living now. There are also traps as your signature statement warns, "Do not stop on any step, no matter how high, or it will become a snare.”

I thought BK handled the Newton vs Goethe question in a nuanced way.

I'm curious, do you think BK has not read PoSA?
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
Post Reply