Whirlpool's core/first motion

[idlecuriosity]

And for how long should humanity keep strictly separated the world of academic thought and the world of Truth? Who are we serving by keeping these 'good manners' by not disturbing the secular world through the implications of the given facts?

This is also why simply trying to prove materialism wrong in itself, can never lead too far. That's way the Intelligent Design movement (renamed Creationists) fails. They present valuable observations about the inadequacy of evolution through purely random mutations but at the same time don't provide anything as a substitute, besides "God created everything."

Similarly, simply showing the inconsistencies of materialism, leaves one in void. Then they become susceptible to the worst kinds of superstitions. In other words, the materialist superstition (which sclerotized the ancient gods of the elements into laws of nature) is simply exchanged for another superstition - such as "there's MAL or whatever behind the disassociative curtains of inner reality."

That's why it is so urgent today that we not only show the inconstancies but also show how they can resolved (besides simply picking a blind belief of choice). And this resolution is to happen here and now, not by fantasizing and expecting it only after death but by growing into the full spectrum of reality.

I think that BK is sincerely trying to do just that: bringing his truth out there, to the secular world. He has quit academia as well as a top job to lead a foundation devoted to spreading the word of idealism outside of the closed circles of academia. He is touching a much larger public than one would expect from a philosopher. And the shift away from materialism today in and outside academia is tangible, especially in the younger generations.

Also, BK is not simply trying to prove materialism wrong in itself. That's unfair. He has developed a cohesive vision, inquired and connected evidence from physics, psychology, medicine to it.

Now, that his system has pitfalls, yes, and that another system is what the world urgently needs right now, ok maybe. But what does this bitterness stand for?

The problem is that Ashvinp won't just get a room with Kastrup, as much as I like some of his own philosophical musings. The thread OP was at least in part designated as being aimed at BK's framework specifically. It's my easy to dismiss and assumed understanding he doesn't want a broader forum of people coming in to learn all this stuff and to go through the motions of struggle necessitated by even grasping the foundations of this, so only those who are far on their journey already can discuss, or I can't tell since he talks in an incredibly spiritual way even when we're talking about something as simple as how best to handle a thread. It is this understanding that gets more and more difficult to ignore every week I lurk here

I admit it gets wearying seeing 'yeah i admit i have an ego and flaws and keep mentioning BK, sorry about that.. btw, here's more about BK'. It pretty much just resonates of astute disdain towards Kastrup especially when it is being used as an excuse to move into spaces where Kastrupian logic is explicitly and exclusively argued in pertinence to the foundation of the request. (in this case, the whirlpool) I struggle with mental issues and at least for now I think I'm ill disposed towards enlightenment as BK's brain frying analogy actually makes candid some of my own struggles in pervading higher cognition with the finesse purported here, so it's easy for me to wish Ash had my sense of self depreciation so he could graft it onto what reads as far less tumultuous cerebral framework in general. edit for clarity: I don't feel like I have much of a sense of self or even will to live most of the time, so I can't relate

So, I find how Cleric puts this particular brand of understanding into a cohesive language to be far more digestible and less alienating than Ashyp's approach even though both have many unique ideas (flat mal and the cascading layers being one) that have turned on it's head my own worldview. I'm afraid I'll get some reply on part with Star Trek technobabble if I propose the inquiry (welcomed if it's actually philosophy, this isn't) but you should make concrete what you want on this forum, what you don't, and then have the rest of us (perhaps even moderation) decide if those are tenable goals for open discussion. No philosophy, simple sentences, for that. It should be assumed people of a lower level of cognition should still be left to find their own tether given your own perusing of the fact that we must each make it alone, but if you do not want them here it would be sporting to make it plain so something could be thought (possibly done, but at least thought) of it. It probably comes in layers.

There have been jokes about talking to people like 'little children' here, but the fact of the matter is that children learn insidiously fast and adults made to take the same steps they do often can't progress so far even absent of the snares you say these steps become when they stop. An adult learning chess is *slow,* sometimes you must even take it slower than you would with a child. Anyone has to start somewhere, you will always look like a fool in the intervening years as you accrue a mastery.

This makes me wonder of if this forum has anything to do with kastrup? His name's in the domain, I assume it was at some point meant specifically for him

Another edit for clarity: AshvinP's posts are freaking cool and I love the poetic approach. It is just they come bagged with the same issue a fly buzzing around your food would give when a discussion might otherwise attract newcomers lured in by Kastrup's publicizing and who want to start finding their own tether in their own way before climbing to where they find some of Cleric K's fantastic graphs digestible. I am only trying to be candid, I am sure you could ascribe the same feeling to scrubs like me and anyone else into BK from your own point of view.

[AshvinP]

And for how long should humanity keep strictly separated the world of academic thought and the world of Truth? Who are we serving by keeping these 'good manners' by not disturbing the secular world through the implications of the given facts?

This is also why simply trying to prove materialism wrong in itself, can never lead too far. That's way the Intelligent Design movement (renamed Creationists) fails. They present valuable observations about the inadequacy of evolution through purely random mutations but at the same time don't provide anything as a substitute, besides "God created everything."

Similarly, simply showing the inconsistencies of materialism, leaves one in void. Then they become susceptible to the worst kinds of superstitions. In other words, the materialist superstition (which sclerotized the ancient gods of the elements into laws of nature) is simply exchanged for another superstition - such as "there's MAL or whatever behind the disassociative curtains of inner reality."

That's why it is so urgent today that we not only show the inconstancies but also show how they can resolved (besides simply picking a blind belief of choice). And this resolution is to happen here and now, not by fantasizing and expecting it only after death but by growing into the full spectrum of reality.

I think that BK is sincerely trying to do just that: bringing his truth out there, to the secular world. He has quit academia as well as a top job to lead a foundation devoted to spreading the word of idealism outside of the closed circles of academia. He is touching a much larger public than one would expect from a philosopher. And the shift away from materialism today in and outside academia is tangible, especially in the younger generations.

Also, BK is not simply trying to prove materialism wrong in itself. That's unfair. He has developed a cohesive vision, inquired and connected evidence from physics, psychology, medicine to it.

Now, that his system has pitfalls, yes, and that another system is what the world urgently needs right now, ok maybe. But what does this bitterness stand for?

The problem is that Ashvinp won't just get a room with Kastrup, as much as I like some of his own philosophical musings. The thread OP was at least in part designated as being aimed at BK's framework specifically. It's my easy to dismiss and assumed understanding he doesn't want a broader forum of people coming in to learn all this stuff and to go through the motions of struggle necessitated by even grasping the foundations of this, so only those who are far on their journey already can discuss, or I can't tell since he talks in an incredibly spiritual way even when we're talking about something as simple as how best to handle a thread. It is this understanding that gets more and more difficult to ignore every week I lurk here

I admit it gets wearying seeing 'yeah i admit i have an ego and flaws and keep mentioning BK, sorry about that.. btw, here's more about BK'. It pretty much just resonates of astute disdain towards Kastrup especially when it is being used as an excuse to move into spaces where Kastrupian logic is explicitly and exclusively argued in pertinence to the foundation of the request. (in this case, the whirlpool) I struggle with mental issues and at least for now I think I'm ill disposed towards enlightenment as BK's brain frying analogy actually makes candid some of my own struggles in pervading higher cognition with the finesse purported here, so it's easy for me to wish Ash had my sense of self depreciation so he could graft it onto what reads as far less tumultuous cerebral framework in general. edit for clarity: I don't feel like I have much of a sense of self or even will to live most of the time, so I can't relate

So, I find how Cleric puts this particular brand of understanding into a cohesive language to be far more digestible and less alienating than Ashyp's approach even though both have many unique ideas (flat mal and the cascading layers being one) that have turned on it's head my own worldview. I'm afraid I'll get some reply on part with Star Trek technobabble if I propose the inquiry (welcomed if it's actually philosophy, this isn't) but you should make concrete what you want on this forum, what you don't, and then have the rest of us (perhaps even moderation) decide if those are tenable goals for open discussion. No philosophy, simple sentences, for that. It should be assumed people of a lower level of cognition should still be left to find their own tether given your own perusing of the fact that we must each make it alone, but if you do not want them here it would be sporting to make it plain so something could be thought (possibly done, but at least thought) of it. It probably comes in layers.

There have been jokes about talking to people like 'little children' here, but the fact of the matter is that children learn insidiously fast and adults made to take the same steps they do often can't progress so far even absent of the snares you say these steps become when they stop. An adult learning chess is *slow,* sometimes you must even take it slower than you would with a child. Anyone has to start somewhere, you will always look like a fool in the intervening years as you accrue a mastery.

This makes me wonder of if this forum has anything to do with kastrup? His name's in the domain, I assume it was at some point meant specifically for him

Another edit for clarity: AshvinP's posts are freaking cool and I love the poetic approach. It is just they come bagged with the same issue a fly buzzing around your food would give when a discussion might otherwise attract newcomers lured in by Kastrup's publicizing and who want to start finding their own tether in their own way before climbing to where they find some of Cleric K's fantastic graphs digestible. I am only trying to be candid, I am sure you could ascribe the same feeling to scrubs like me and anyone else into BK from your own point of view.

IC,

I'm not sure if I really understand your criticism, since it's all over the place and you know it. I'm not even sure who is "you" in the bold part or what you are proposing. What I gleaned was that you feel I shouldn't try to skip over the most basic philosophical errors of Kastrup's whirpool view (which I have written many essays and posts critiquing), but instead should pretend like the whirpool atomistic view makes some sense and maybe we can incorporate it somehow or let people explore it more and gradually ascend to other considerations. Why? What if that wading in the shallow end of the whirpool view is exactly what makes it increasingly difficult to understand the most simple, concrete, and living ideas that Cleric illustrates here, which I agree he does much better than I do? It's what leads Martin to respond to the latest fantastic illustration of the simple idea, "but you don't know whether I get it or not". It's what leads you to write the above post about how my ideas are "freaking cool" (but I'm also a fly buzzing around food), instead of putting that same mental energy into actually understanding the ideas, asking questions, exploring it calmly and objectively like Federica. I don't want you to think my posts are cool and poetic, but to understand what I am writing. I have no interest in playing that game of, "look, I am just as self-depricating as you are, now please read my posts!"

If you don't want to read, don't read. I won't be offended if you tell me you have no interest in what I am writing. But please don't blame your lack of understanding or whatever other personal issues you are having on my writing style or the fact that I reference BK's philosophy as a point of departure. We must start somewhere and why not start at the place we are all familiar with? Overall, this pattern of excusing one's own lack of effort to understand certain ideas by externalizing blame is exactly what we are criticizing. As you wrote on your thread that you may not have enough time to respond to what I offered, apparently you were devoting time to constructing the above post. Do you see the problem here? I hope you do. It's only a lack of effort which makes one feel like what we are writing about are the loftiest of ideas. And understanding our thinking as spiritual activity does not take nearly as much effort as understanding analytic philosophy, only a new living perspective on our own immanent experience. If people stopped complaining so much about taking on that new perspective, and simply tried to attain it, many of their frustrations here would evaporate. But, as it is, people much rather prefer to complain about others than to try and understand others.

[Federica]

I think that BK is sincerely trying to do just that: bringing his truth out there, to the secular world. He has quit academia as well as a top job to lead a foundation devoted to spreading the word of idealism outside of the closed circles of academia. He is touching a much larger public than one would expect from a philosopher. And the shift away from materialism today in and outside academia is tangible, especially in the younger generations.

Also, BK is not simply trying to prove materialism wrong in itself. That's unfair. He has developed a cohesive vision, inquired and connected evidence from physics, psychology, medicine to it.

Now, that his system has pitfalls, yes, and that another system is what the world urgently needs right now, ok maybe. But what does this bitterness stand for?

The problem is that Ashvinp won't just get a room with Kastrup, as much as I like some of his own philosophical musings. The thread OP was at least in part designated as being aimed at BK's framework specifically. It's my easy to dismiss and assumed understanding he doesn't want a broader forum of people coming in to learn all this stuff and to go through the motions of struggle necessitated by even grasping the foundations of this, so only those who are far on their journey already can discuss, or I can't tell since he talks in an incredibly spiritual way even when we're talking about something as simple as how best to handle a thread. It is this understanding that gets more and more difficult to ignore every week I lurk here

I admit it gets wearying seeing 'yeah i admit i have an ego and flaws and keep mentioning BK, sorry about that.. btw, here's more about BK'. It pretty much just resonates of astute disdain towards Kastrup especially when it is being used as an excuse to move into spaces where Kastrupian logic is explicitly and exclusively argued in pertinence to the foundation of the request. (in this case, the whirlpool) I struggle with mental issues and at least for now I think I'm ill disposed towards enlightenment as BK's brain frying analogy actually makes candid some of my own struggles in pervading higher cognition with the finesse purported here, so it's easy for me to wish Ash had my sense of self depreciation so he could graft it onto what reads as far less tumultuous cerebral framework in general. edit for clarity: I don't feel like I have much of a sense of self or even will to live most of the time, so I can't relate

So, I find how Cleric puts this particular brand of understanding into a cohesive language to be far more digestible and less alienating than Ashyp's approach even though both have many unique ideas (flat mal and the cascading layers being one) that have turned on it's head my own worldview. I'm afraid I'll get some reply on part with Star Trek technobabble if I propose the inquiry (welcomed if it's actually philosophy, this isn't) but you should make concrete what you want on this forum, what you don't, and then have the rest of us (perhaps even moderation) decide if those are tenable goals for open discussion. No philosophy, simple sentences, for that. It should be assumed people of a lower level of cognition should still be left to find their own tether given your own perusing of the fact that we must each make it alone, but if you do not want them here it would be sporting to make it plain so something could be thought (possibly done, but at least thought) of it. It probably comes in layers.

There have been jokes about talking to people like 'little children' here, but the fact of the matter is that children learn insidiously fast and adults made to take the same steps they do often can't progress so far even absent of the snares you say these steps become when they stop. An adult learning chess is *slow,* sometimes you must even take it slower than you would with a child. Anyone has to start somewhere, you will always look like a fool in the intervening years as you accrue a mastery.

This makes me wonder of if this forum has anything to do with kastrup? His name's in the domain, I assume it was at some point meant specifically for him

Another edit for clarity: AshvinP's posts are freaking cool and I love the poetic approach. It is just they come bagged with the same issue a fly buzzing around your food would give when a discussion might otherwise attract newcomers lured in by Kastrup's publicizing and who want to start finding their own tether in their own way before climbing to where they find some of Cleric K's fantastic graphs digestible. I am only trying to be candid, I am sure you could ascribe the same feeling to scrubs like me and anyone else into BK from your own point of view.

Hi idlecuriosity,

I’m happy that something or someone has inspired you to come out and weigh in on the conversation.
And, as an aparte, I get the impression that your sense of self must be quite well defined, otherwise how could the ‘cerebral framework’ be ‘tumultuous’, without imprinting a distinct mark into the backgroud, or in kastrupian terms, how could a tumultuous whirlpool not form a very distinct swirl into the water?

Anyway, I guess one of the points you are making, correct me if I’m wrong, is that you would appreciate some access to a more systematic, and maybe more step-by-step exposition of the teachings that Cleric and Ashvin are facilitating here.
Let me tell you, I would actually like that too! As an example, what about those codified terms that often recur, with capital initials? One gets a sense that there must be a complex construct behind them. It would be nice if there was a kind of dictionary to refer to, wouldn’t it?
And if the finesses expressed here leave you perplexed sometimes, or with even more questions than you had before reading them, please know you are not the only one, and there is surely no requirement to go into self-deprecation for as little as that.

Then the other point you make is something I have also been wondering about, and asked about more than once. It’s about the motivations lying behind the dynamics in motion on this forum. So I obviously think it’s a valid question. Probably it will require some more back and forth before we get it, but why not keep inquiring? So let’s keep exploring, and nice that we are bringing in some similar points!


Hi Ashvin,

Not that I want to replace idlecuriosity in explaining what is meant in these comments, however I want to share my impression on your reply. You have read too quickly!
As I see it, also reading the post as a continuation of the other one from yesterday, idlecuriosity is mainly expressing appreciation for what you and Cleric write about, and for how you do it. With the appreciation, comes a wish for these contents to come across just as beautifully as they do, but also more intelligibly for the sake of newcomers and people not accustomed to directly climb to the place where the essence of the living thinking path can be understood and experienced.

By the way, the fly buzzing around food is not a metaphor for yourself, if you read carefully. It is a metaphor for the frustration the newcomers would get, as they come to this forum and try to wrap their head around the depth and complexity of the ideas you expose here, hoping to enjoy some low hanging fruits maybe, but quickly finding themselves unable to extricate the various layers.
I am sincerely glad that you appreciate my questions and thankful for the generous answers you offer in response, but isn’t idlecuriosity doing the same here, just with a different style and vocabulary?

And what is said about newcomers being ‘lured here by Kastrup’s publicizing’ is absolutely accurate in my case. That’s exactly how I was ‘lured’ here. : )
Then I happened to be curious enough to try hard enough to get the discourse without getting overwhelmed in my attempt to - as idlecuriosity puts it - ‘start finding my own tether in my own way before climbing to where they find some of Cleric K's fantastic graphs digestible’.

But that’s not to say that this is always easy to digest. In other words, what you write might be bugged with issues but is still so freaking cool and poetic. Wouldn't that be a good thing? I would say so : )

[AshvinP]

Hi Ashvin,

Not that I want to replace idlecuriosity in explaining what is meant in these comments, however I want to share my impression on your reply. You have read too quickly!
As I see it, also reading the post as a continuation of the other one from yesterday, idlecuriosity is mainly expressing appreciation for what you and Cleric write about, and for how you do it. With the appreciation, comes a wish for these contents to come across just as beautifully as they do, but also more intelligibly for the sake of newcomers and people not accustomed to directly climb to the place where the essence of the living thinking path can be understood and experienced.

By the way, the fly buzzing around food is not a metaphor for yourself, if you read carefully. It is a metaphor for the frustration the newcomers would get, as they come to this forum and try to wrap their head around the depth and complexity of the ideas you expose here, hoping to enjoy some low hanging fruits maybe, but quickly finding themselves unable to extricate the various layers.
I am sincerely glad that you appreciate my questions and thankful for the generous answers you offer in response, but isn’t idlecuriosity doing the same here, just with a different style and vocabulary?

And what is said about newcomers being ‘lured here by Kastrup’s publicizing’ is absolutely accurate in my case. That’s exactly how I was ‘lured’ here. : )
Then I happened to be curious enough to try hard enough to get the discourse without getting overwhelmed in my attempt to - as idlecuriosity puts it - ‘start finding my own tether in my own way before climbing to where they find some of Cleric K's fantastic graphs digestible’.

But that’s not to say that this is always easy to digest. In other words, what you write might be bugged with issues but is still so freaking cool and poetic. Wouldn't that be a good thing? I would say so : )

Federica,

Thanks for the different perspective on it. I really hope you are right, but at this point I simply don't know, and I don't want to spend too much time going down this rabbit hole (or what's the name for a 'rabbit hole' which doesn't lead to any more insights?). My reaction to his post doesn't come out of the blue. This isn't the first time we have heard, "you guys (or one or the other) are making things too complex." As Cleric often points out, we have literally been discussing the same basic issue from various angles in hundreds of essays and posts over the last few years. I never cease to amaze at how many ways Cleric is able to metaphorically illustrate the same point - every single post he writes gives a fresh angle on the same underlying point about our thinking as creative spiritual activity which has infinite room to grow. This itself is a validation of the point being made, if we pause to consider what is actually required to be endlessly creative in making such posts.

I know you haven't read most of them, because you were unaware of their existence, but some of the people commenting here and complaining about our posts are perfectly aware of their existence. Martin, for example. Some of them even deny the validity of our arguments while simultaneously claiming they can't understand the arguments. I won't go on naming names...

No doubt that the new perspective will seem very difficult to approach at first for anyone mired in the abstract and dualistic thinking habits of Western culture, which we all are. But, as I tried to relay in the natural-moral post relating to psychological projection, our intellectual tendency is to blame this on something or someone else and thereby cut off the one avenue we have for overcoming our own thinking habits - seeing the flaw resides within our own consciousness, our own thought-and-soul life, and taking responsibility for it. Many times it's simply a complete lack of interest in the topic, but a desire to express one's opinion anyway, and justified to oneself as "I simply can't understand the complexity of what this guy is writing", as Cleric explained to Martin on the other thread. I know first-hand that even the most alien sounding spiritual ideas become easier to holistically grasp the more we work on our own conscious development, in terms of both thinking and moral orientation towards greater responsibility for our inner being. No amount of additional descriptions or lists of definitions will do this inner work for us (btw, the words are capitalized to indicate an activity in its broadest possible essence, i.e. its Divine essence).

So you seem to have started with the TCT essays, and really everything essential to understand has been summed up by Cleric in those. You wrote:

viewtopic.php?p=17297#p17297
"Wow... this is turning the lights all on in the stadium. And I was off track regarding what is meant with vantage point…"

I wonder if we can refocus on what really matters here and pick up the discussion there, with whatever further thoughts or questions you may have?

[Martin_]

Thanks for summarizing my position so succinctly...

Anyway. Yes this forum has history...
Welcome! BTW.

[Federica]

I wonder if we can refocus on what really matters here and pick up the discussion there, with whatever further thoughts or questions you may have?

Ashvin,

In fact what's just happened on the other thread, where you and Cleric said ‘how strange you don’t realize your point is ultimately in line with our views’ while I was expecting some major backlash, shows how communication without much common ground, as it happens on this forum, can be treacherous and highly ambiguous, even when everyone does their very best and I guess this applies to all threads. Whatever the history and pending disputes, trying to start afresh is often worth the effort, as I found.
You wonder if we can refocus on what really matters here. While I am lucky I got the lite version compared to ‘I don't want you to find my writings freaking cool and poetic I want you to understand them’ I happen to be drawn to interactions just as much as I am to introspection. To me they also matter.

[AshvinP]

I wonder if we can refocus on what really matters here and pick up the discussion there, with whatever further thoughts or questions you may have?

Ashvin,

In fact what's just happened on the other thread, where you and Cleric said ‘how strange you don’t realize your point is ultimately in line with our views’ while I was expecting some major backlash, shows how communication without much common ground, as it happens on this forum, can be treacherous and highly ambiguous, even when everyone does their very best and I guess this applies to all threads. Whatever the history and pending disputes, trying to start afresh is often worth the effort, as I found.
You wonder if we can refocus on what really matters here. While I am lucky I got the lite version compared to ‘I don't want you to find my writings freaking cool and poetic I want you to understand them’ I happen to be drawn to interactions just as much as I am to introspection. To me they also matter.

Interactions matter, but humility is a precondition to any understanding of such interactions. The humility to know that this medium of exchange, with all its limitations, despite our sense of conviction of our own powers of discernment, simply doesn't give us a window into the soul of any other being. When I criticize BK here, for ex., it should never be understand as a judgment on his personality, his soul, but on the ideas which are expressed through him and millions of others in our age. That is what our spirit can reach out, touch, and know simply by virtue of its shared ideational essence between us, not the inner soul state of any particular individual typing here. When we reach out with logic and reason to the same ideas, our soul actually lives in the same spirit space of those reasoning with us. When we focus on feelings, bitterness or frustration, sympathies and antipathies, likes and dislikes, especially with conviction that we are wise enough to parse their complex subconscious dynamics, we only invite barriers to shared understanding which must be the point of departure for any ideal pursuit into the depths of the World Content. This is why I say it matters more. The restricted format of this medium simply won't give us holistic context for the soul dynamics of our interactions, but only invite projections to fill the void in that respect. It doesn't invite Light, only darkness and fog.

[AshvinP]

I wonder if we can refocus on what really matters here and pick up the discussion there, with whatever further thoughts or questions you may have?

Ashvin,

In fact what's just happened on the other thread, where you and Cleric said ‘how strange you don’t realize your point is ultimately in line with our views’ while I was expecting some major backlash, shows how communication without much common ground, as it happens on this forum, can be treacherous and highly ambiguous, even when everyone does their very best and I guess this applies to all threads. Whatever the history and pending disputes, trying to start afresh is often worth the effort, as I found.
You wonder if we can refocus on what really matters here. While I am lucky I got the lite version compared to ‘I don't want you to find my writings freaking cool and poetic I want you to understand them’ I happen to be drawn to interactions just as much as I am to introspection. To me they also matter.

It occurred to me that I may have misunderstood your last post. If so, I apologize. Regardless, I agree that it is often best to start fresh. Some of the confusion in our recent interactions may come from the fact that we are constantly coming up with new ways to express our points. Speaking for myself now, there is certainly a self-interest here - I don't tire of conveying these ideas to others, but I also take the opportunity to exercise my imaginative muscles in the process. And, as mentioned before, Cleric is practically coming up with one or two or three new metaphors for the same underlying point to use in every single post. So, if someone new arrives on the forum, it may seem like we keep changing things up to confuse the issues, but it's only a means of providing new angles for those who have been following for some time while also seizing the opportunity to get more creative thinking involved.

It may seem like there is a lot of time and effort involved in our responses, and of course there is some. It may even give off a scent of desperation, and there is certainly a sense of urgency. But the time and effort is not nearly as much as it may seem. We constantly emphasize the need for people to become more active thinkers here, because we are well aware of what inspirations come in return for such a sacrifice. Nature and Culture makes things easy for us. Every natural process, every physical image, every conceptual theory, every cultural institution, every epoch of time, etc., lends itself to becoming a metaphor for deep truths of soul and spirit, of our inner willing-feeling-thinking dynamics. Nature gives birth to fixed matter, ensouls it, and Culture takes it up into the realm of spirit (idea) where it can be liberated, so that the Idea can once again be vitalized to give birth through a new, higher Nature.

Nature and Culture are polar opposites of Body and Spirit, Perception and Idea, and the individual Soul mediates between them. We often ask people to simply reflect on what must be true of reality, and of their own thinking activity, to make this consistent metaphorical reasoning between the natural, cultural, and spiritual possible. I won't get into details of that now. It's enough to say, discovering these secrets of existence through analogical reasoning and conveying them here is not busy work at all. The joy of having one's deepest desires and highest ideals both united with one's logical and creative thinking is enough to keep one inspired for many lifetimes. It's tough to convey this in words. Probably it sounds like yet another new age, self-help, motivational talk that I'm giving. There are plenty of people giving those lately, and I can only say that what they are giving isn't nearly enough to inspire me to continue writing. And it isn't enough for them either, hence they charge money for their books and talks.

All too often, it seems like people arrive at this forum, an idea-list forum no less, with little appreciation for the unending strength of our logical thinking, our ideational activity. It's strong enough that we can just begin writing from any given starting point in Nature or Culture, from any given angle, and with sound reasoning arrive at rock solid metaphors and arguments. None of it needs to be outlined or planned out in advance (although that effort could make it even more potent) - we can simply trust the Spirit will weave together coherent threads of logic leading back to itself from all outer and inner perceptions. What's most difficult, though, is when the utility of logic itself is questioned. We have had people here construct a metaphor, follow its logic through, and then, when it's apparent where their own logic is taking them, completely abandon it to make their conclusion fit their underlying desires and preferences.

This is the peculiar characteristic of the modern age - we have convinced ourselves that our own logic cannot be trusted past a certain threshold. Usually that threshold is anything within the domain of soul and spirit dynamics, i.e. our subconscious desires, feelings, and thoughts. There is a strong urge to keep these private and off limits. We will question the subconscious impulses and preferences of others, but never our own. That is why, other than the fact it is more effortful, we cut off the capacity for thinking to tread through our inner world. We say the deepest truths, beauty, and ethical values simply arrive to us via pure unthinking consciousness, the pure is-ness you mentioned, like the materialist says the riddles of the Cosmos are laid bare to us from outer perceptions alone. What could be less effortful and more safe than this? We can remain with our intellectual conveniences and avoid confronting our shadows at the same time.

Yet, on the other hand, when we critique abstract thinking, it sounds like we are telling people to stop thinking how they are thinking now and just follow wise spiritual teachings. That's not the case at all. Rather we are pointing to a deep law of reality that, when there is a sacrifice of current abstract thinking, the opportunity naturally arises to replace it with something much better - living and creative thinking. The latter can make the soul more transparent to the spirit and increase one's creativity and productivity without end, in all domains of life, for all practical purposes. No past thinking or knowledge is lost whatsoever, only enriched and woven into higher constellations of meaning. Only when thinking awakens to its own higher activity, its own continuity with the evolving World Process, does it become entirely dissatisfied with its current tenuous and speculative state of existence, and convicted that its activity can tread far within the depths of reality.

In order to feed the flame, a candle has to provide its own substance, and in doing so the candle itself becomes smaller. Combustion, therefore, is a sacrifice. If there were no sacrifice there would be no light. Light and fire both require nourishment in order to exist, and that nourishment is the candle. And each one of us represents a candle; we have all kinds of combustible materials in us, the black, lifeless materials of our faults and failings. The fire of sacrifice is the only thing that can bring them to life and make them shine, and for this to happen there has to be a spark to set fire to them.

As long as people continue to live an ordinary, workaday life, they will be like the black, lifeless wood of a dead tree. They will shine and glow and be filled with life, beauty and warmth only when they have been visited by the fire of the spirit. But before this can come about they have to sacrifice their selfish life. It is the fear of disappearing altogether that prevents human beings from making this sacrifice. Of course, something has to disappear, that is true, but it has to disappear so that something else may appear. The wax of the candle disappears so that light and warmth may appear. You will say that, after a while, the candle will be consumed and disappear completely. That is true, but humans can go on burning indefinitely. Once lit they cannot be put out: they will always have enough matter to fuel the fire.

[Federica]

...

Thank you, no worries! Not to diminish my appreciation for this benevolent post, I’ll for now refrain from asking about the new insights here. I will admit that in my case work is being quite busy at the moment on the other thread and tracing back : )

[Soul_of_Shu]

Oh dear dreamscape artists, if you only knew how far more dynamically and co-creatively involved you are in vastly greater dimensions of Reality than you re-cognize or give yourselves credit for, if only you could remember doing so upon re-focusing in this oh-so-limited slice of your infinite existence within the Eternal Validity of the Soul, of which Seth speaks ...

"... But in the very deep reaches of sleep experience—those, incidentally, not yet touched upon by scientists in so-called dream laboratories—you are in communication with other portions of your own identity, and with the other realities in which they exist.

In this state you also pursue works and endeavors that may or may not be connected
with your interests as you know of them. You are learning, studying, playing; you are
anything but asleep as you think of the term. You are highly active. You are involved in
the underground work, in the real nitty-gritty of existence.

Now let me emphasize here that you are simply not unconscious. It only seems that
you are, because as a rule you remember none of this in the morning. To some extent,
however, some people are aware of these activities, and there are also methods that will
enable you to recall them to some degree.

I do not want to minimize the importance of your state of consciousness; as, for
example, you read this book. Presumably you are awake, but in many ways when you
are awake, you are resting far more than you are in your so-called unconscious nightly
state. Then to a larger extent you realize your own reality, and are free to use abilities
that in the daytime you ignore or deny.

At a very simple level, for example, your consciousness leaves your body often in the
sleep state. You communicate with entities in other levels of reality that you have known,
but far beyond this, you creatively maintain and revitalize your physical image. You
process daily experience, project it into what you think of as the future, choose from an
infinity of probable events those you will render physical, and begin the mental and
psychic processes that will bring them into the world of substance.

At the same time, you make this information available to all these other portions of
your identity, who dwell in entirely different realities, and you receive from them
comparable information. You do not lose contact with your ordinary waking self. You
simply do not focus upon it. You turn your attention away. In the daytime you simply
reverse the process. If you were looking at your daily normal self from the other viewpoint, you see, using an analogy here, you might find that physically waking self as strange as you now find the sleeping self. The analogy will not hold however, simply because this sleeping self of yours is far more knowledgeable than the waking self of which you are so proud.

The seeming division is not arbitrary, or forced upon you. It is simply caused by your
present stage of development, and it does vary. Many people take excursions into other
realities - swim, so to speak, through other streams of consciousness as a part of their
normal waking lives. Sometimes strange fish pop up in those waters!

Now I am obviously such a one in your terms, swimming up through other
dimensions of reality and observing a dimension of existence that is yours rather than
my own. There are, therefore, channels that exist between all these streams of
consciousness, all these symbolic rivers of psychological and psychic experience, and
there are journeys that can be made from my dimension as well as yours.

Now initially Ruburt and Joseph [names Seth uses to refer to Jane Roberts and her spouse Rob] and I were a part of the same entity, or overall identity, and so symbolically speaking, there are psychic currents that unite us. All of these merge into what has often been compared to as an ocean of consciousness, a well from which all actuality springs. Start with any one consciousness, and theoretically you will find all others.

Now often the ego acts as a dam, to hold back other perceptions - not because it was
meant to, or because it is in the nature of an ego to behave in such a fashion, or even
because it is a main function of an ego, but simply because you have been taught that
the purpose of an ego is restrictive rather than expanding. You actually imagine that
the ego is a very weak portion of the self, that it must defend itself against other areas
of the self that are far stronger and more persuasive and indeed more dangerous; and
so you have trained it to wear blinders, and quite against its natural inclinations.

The ego does want to understand and interpret physical reality, and to relate to it. It
wants to help you survive within physical existence, but by putting blinders upon it,
you hamper its perception and native flexibility. Then because it is inflexible you say
that this is the natural function and characteristic of the ego.

It cannot relate to a reality that you will not allow it to perceive. It can poorly help
you to survive when you do not allow it to use its abilities to discover those true
conditions in which it must manipulate. You put blinders upon it, and then say that it
cannot see."