Whirlpool's core/first motion

[Lou Gold]

To be a bit more complete, the remaining section of that quote from DUR was left out because it went, IMO, in the entirely wrong direction. Something along the lines of, "...then I understood everything!" In other words, his intellectual understanding of the ineffable experience was the absolute peak of current, pre-death understanding possible for humans. It's a cautionary tale for how half-truths are often the most dangerous sort, and we are always walking a fine line between genuine insight into the spiritual and prideful conceptual idolatry of it.

Despite the common parlance confusing conflation "understand" (to stand under) and "comprehend" (to intellectually grasp) are not the same. The difference making the difference is obvious to anyone who has integrated a mystical experience. However, I agree that there's "a fine line between genuine insight into the spiritual and prideful conceptual idolatry of it." Holding right balance, being humble (well grounded), is an ongoing work.

[AshvinP]

To be a bit more complete, the remaining section of that quote from DUR was left out because it went, IMO, in the entirely wrong direction. Something along the lines of, "...then I understood everything!" In other words, his intellectual understanding of the ineffable experience was the absolute peak of current, pre-death understanding possible for humans. It's a cautionary tale for how half-truths are often the most dangerous sort, and we are always walking a fine line between genuine insight into the spiritual and prideful conceptual idolatry of it.

Despite the common parlance confusing conflation "understand" (to stand under) and "comprehend" (to intellectually grasp) are not the same. The difference making the difference is obvious to anyone who has integrated a mystical experience. However, I agree that there's "a fine line between genuine insight into the spiritual and prideful conceptual idolatry of it." Holding right balance is an ongoing work.

That was just my crude summary of a few paragraphs Bk wrote. Here is the full context. He makes quite clear his own estimation of his "understanding" at this stage, which he feels was imparted to him by just "looking". If he only realized that he was not just "looking" to discern the meaning, but also thinking within the confines of pre-verbal intellectual concepts, then he would also realize he had not understood how any of it precipitates into perceptual reality, and rather this was something which must be investigated much further with great inner effort and more awakened consciousness, without the interference of psychedelics.

As it is, he was not standing under anything, but standing over it with inflated ego and encompassing the experience within imperceptible thought-bubbles, which he conveniently assumed out of existence.

Suddenly it was completely clear. I could understand it! It was an unbelievably complex, yet self-explanatory evolution of concentric patterns growing out of concentric patterns; like self-generating, hyper-dimensional mandalas recursively blossoming, like flowers, out of the centers of previous hyper-dimensional mandalas, ad infinitum, but with a single point of origin from where it all emanated. This point of origin, this Source of it all, however, remained elusive: hidden behind the layers of wonders growing outwards from it. Somehow, the way new patterns unfolded and evolved was already entirely encoded in, and determined by, the very shapes, angles, and proportions entailed by previous patterns, so that no new primary information was ever added to the thing as it evolved. The entire story was already fully contained in it from the very beginning, and it was simply unpacking and manifesting itself in all its indescribable glory. It was a thing of startling power and beauty, yet put together with a level of sophistication and perfection that goes way beyond anything I could compare it to.

I was flabbergasted with how unambiguous this experience was. No fluffy and debatable impressions here; this thing was there. I could hardly believe it. Despite its sheer complexity, and unlike diagrams in a textbook – which require captions for their meaning to be made clear – this thing was entirely self-evident in its perfect harmony. Simply by “looking” at it I understood not only it, but its far-reaching implications as well. This was the answer to the question that haunted me my entire life: this thing, this miraculous, hyper-dimensional, evolving pattern, was the definitive explanation to the underlying structure of reality. There was no doubt. This settled the question entirely. One simply needed to “look” at it with the mind’s eye to know that this is how reality came to being; this is how nature was formed; this is what nature is; this is what is behind everything. There, in that pattern, in its wondrous shapes and features, in the angles, lengths, proportions, and relationships among its components, and in the way it evolved recursively as if re-birthing itself continuously, was the answer to everything. The pattern was the answer. At this point of the experience, there was no other reality to me but this jaw-dropping thing that was unfolding and revealing itself; physical body and life in linear time completely forgotten.

From the moment the metaphorical dome began to open, I felt thoughts in my mind that I did not recognize as my own. These were clearly and very gently articulated statements that popped seemingly out of nowhere: “You wanted to know... so here is how it is, you see? This is how it is...” These words came invested with a sense of calm and benevolence. “This is how it all is, you see?” spoke my supposed alter ego, borrowing my own voice.

...

My reasoning machinery was operating in overdrive. I could not stop “looking” at that miracle of a thing, trying to somehow articulate its implications in language. But it was impossible. I thought to myself: “this is not meant for human consumption.” The mere attempt at articulating it was exhaustive. I noticed I was – and I cannot avoid the expression – frying my brain to a crisp. It was overwhelming and painful in a non-physical way. I thought I would go insane, and it dawned on me that this is what insanity may feel like. Yet, I felt as though my mysterious alter ego were aware of how dangerous and distressing this kind of knowledge could be, and were somehow controlling the “dose,” if you will. That was a reassuring thought, whether factual or not.

I concluded with certainty then that one must be literally insane in order to comprehend this thing. The magnitude of it, its hyper-dimensional character, and its implications, cannot be apprehended unless one completely abandons all pre-existing mental models, semantic frameworks, assumptions, and paradigms of thought one holds. Losing all this mental infrastructure comes very close to the definition of mental pathology. In fact, I understood then why ego dissolution appeared to be a necessary pre-requisite for exposure to that miraculous pattern: the preconceptions, expectations, and closed thought paradigms of the ego would prevent one from even seeing the pattern for what it is, let alone understanding it. The ego would dress it up and squeeze it into lower-dimensional models that would limit the perception of its true nature. Perhaps the mandalas I saw in inner theater were but such lower-dimensional, fragmentary projections or resonances of that miraculous pattern. Perhaps the mandala drawings used by mystics the world over are even lower-dimensional projections of it. There seems to be a hierarchical progression of states of consciousness leading to the state that made such understanding possible: from consensus reality, to the inner theater of mind, to ego dissolution, to this.

...

Now, as I write these words, I face the formidable challenge to try and articulate the unfathomable. Whatever I do, I am certain that more than 99% of the meaning, nuances, and richness of what I perceived have been lost upon the precarious imprinting of the impressions onto my brain. But I will do my best. The following paragraphs represent my feeble attempt at articulating some of what was instantaneously obvious to me merely upon “glancing” at the indescribable pattern I referred to earlier. The words capture but a very modest part of the pattern’s self-evident and far-reaching implications. I do not know how an abstract pattern could entail or imply so much concrete information. I will simply record this information here as I recall it, with suspended judgment and critique about its validity. Later we will have occasion for rational analysis.

[Lou Gold]

I can't help but recall a few years back when I first showed up at this forum. I was puzzled, so in ritual space I asked, "What's up with this forum?" The instant answer was, "NO MOTHER!" I don't feel forsaken by the daemon. I feel it's pushing BK and us to where we have to go.

So the mother has forsaken the forum? I guess the mod will have to do as the surrogate mommy ... Now go outside and play, before I give you a piece of my 'primate head'

Strange that your interpretation was that the mother might have forsaken the forum. My interpretation was that the forum had not embraced Her.

SALVE A RAINHA

"Tanatzin Guadalupe" by Estrella Apolonia

[Lou Gold]

That was just my crude summary of a few paragraphs Bk wrote. Here is the full context. He makes quite clear his own estimation of his "understanding" at this stage, which he feels was imparted to him by just "looking". If he only realized that he was not just "looking" to discern the meaning, but also thinking within the confines of pre-verbal intellectual concepts, then he would also realize he had not understood how any of it precipitates into perceptual reality, and rather this was something which must be investigated much further with great inner effort and more awakened consciousness, without the interference of psychedelics.

As it is, he was not standing under anything, but standing over it with inflated ego and encompassing the experience within imperceptible thought-bubbles, which he conveniently assumed out of existence.

Ashvin,

If it's possible to put the BK bashing aside for a moment, I'd be curious to know your take on the Richard Tarnas lecture. As a storyteller, I really liked it. I'd be interested in how it looks through your lens. Perhaps you can give it a listen.

[AshvinP]

That was just my crude summary of a few paragraphs Bk wrote. Here is the full context. He makes quite clear his own estimation of his "understanding" at this stage, which he feels was imparted to him by just "looking". If he only realized that he was not just "looking" to discern the meaning, but also thinking within the confines of pre-verbal intellectual concepts, then he would also realize he had not understood how any of it precipitates into perceptual reality, and rather this was something which must be investigated much further with great inner effort and more awakened consciousness, without the interference of psychedelics.

As it is, he was not standing under anything, but standing over it with inflated ego and encompassing the experience within imperceptible thought-bubbles, which he conveniently assumed out of existence.

Ashvin,

If it's possible to put the BK bashing aside for a moment, I'd be curious to know your take on the Richard Tarnas lecture. As a storyteller, I really liked it. I'd be interested in how it looks through your lens. Perhaps you can give it a listen.

Well you may know that I agree with Tarnas' assessment in the philosophical portions of Passion of the Western Mind, as I was the one who initially brought it up in response to JW.

viewtopic.php?p=13853#p13853

But like I said up thread, half-truths can be the most deceiving if they are not pursued further. Unfortunately that seems to be the case with Rick Tarnas, Becca Tarnas, and Matt Segall. I mentioned before that Tarnas sent his daughter to a Waldorf school (Steiner), but it seems quite a few people eventually reach a threshold of the spiritual they are not comfortable crossing. I find it interesting that most of these, along with BK, share a sociopolitical sympathy for left-leaning tendencies in our age. Usually this is associated with hyper-cynicism of Western civilization and its institutions (except whenever they are supporting preferred 'causes' like the pandemic response or the war in Ukraine), which, in my view, is simply an inability to discern the wheat from the chaff, and to discern the evolutionary continuity between the pre-modern and post-modern ages. I don't consider this a matter of personal preferences, secular or religious, but of objective historical and scientific inquiry. We need to keep our experience and reasoning in movement to discern the progressive spirits working through this 'dark night of the soul', yet, if we do so, they are easily discerned.

[Lou Gold]

That was just my crude summary of a few paragraphs Bk wrote. Here is the full context. He makes quite clear his own estimation of his "understanding" at this stage, which he feels was imparted to him by just "looking". If he only realized that he was not just "looking" to discern the meaning, but also thinking within the confines of pre-verbal intellectual concepts, then he would also realize he had not understood how any of it precipitates into perceptual reality, and rather this was something which must be investigated much further with great inner effort and more awakened consciousness, without the interference of psychedelics.

As it is, he was not standing under anything, but standing over it with inflated ego and encompassing the experience within imperceptible thought-bubbles, which he conveniently assumed out of existence.

Ashvin,

If it's possible to put the BK bashing aside for a moment, I'd be curious to know your take on the Richard Tarnas lecture. As a storyteller, I really liked it. I'd be interested in how it looks through your lens. Perhaps you can give it a listen.

Well you may know that I agree with Tarnas' assessment in the philosophical portions of Passion of the Western Mind, as I was the one who initially brought it up in response to JW.

viewtopic.php?p=13853#p13853

But like I said up thread, half-truths can be the most deceiving if they are not pursued further. Unfortunately that seems to be the case with Rick Tarnas, Becca Tarnas, and Matt Segall. I mentioned before that Tarnas sent his daughter to a Waldorf school (Steiner), but it seems quite a few people eventually reach a threshold of the spiritual they are not comfortable crossing. I find it interesting that most of these, along with BK, share a sociopolitical sympathy for left-leaning tendencies in our age. Usually this is associated with hyper-cynicism of Western civilization and its institutions (except whenever they are supporting preferred 'causes' like the pandemic response or the war in Ukraine), which, in my view, is simply an inability to discern the wheat from the chaff, and to discern the evolutionary continuity between the pre-modern and post-modern ages. I don't consider this a matter of personal preferences, secular or religious, but of objective historical and scientific inquiry. We need to keep our experience and reasoning in movement to discern the progressive spirits working through this 'dark night of the soul', yet, if we do so, they are easily discerned.

Thanks Ashvin,

Got any comments on RT's discussion of Solar and Lunar archetypal powers and their roles in initiation?

[Federica]

The criticism is not meant to demean BK's efforts but only to point attention that we need to be vigilant for something. I'm fully aware that most people would say "BK's mission is to simply take the first step - show the inconsistencies of materialism. Others will continue the work further." But the thing is that there's great significance what this first step is. It can easily turn also into a last step (dead end) and that's the kind of constructive criticism we're offering here.

It's true, in our materialistic age it seems as a big deal when someone says that reality is spiritual in essence, that matter is simply the name we have given to the specific dynamics of a part of the perceptual spectrum. But if we continue our reasoning further we'll quickly realize that this in itself doesn't lead a long way as far as the transformation of our human conduct goes.

First of all, why is BK and others concerned about confronting materialism? Hopefully it isn't just to win an intellectual fight and in the end claim "See, I have truer understanding of reality than you do." Instead, one feels that the materialistic conception actually cripples the human spirit, it limits our spiritual potential. It invites us to live animalistic lives building on the foundations of physical survival and only slightly embellishing it with higher interests like music, poetry, philosophy, etc. This is really what is at stake here. That by having incorrect understanding of what reality is, how it functions and how we contribute to it, we're being severely limited to purely bodily life receiving commentary from futile intellect.

So people who find interest in idealism in most cases are drawn by the possibility that morality and harmonious human conduct can find support through our understanding of the laws of existence. It's a common misconception that by simply admitting the underlying One consciousness, we attain to something beneficial for our Earthly life. As a matter of fact, ever since the advent of quantum field theories, scientists also live in 'oneness'. There are no fundamentally separate particles. It's all ripples in the continuous quantum fields. In this sense we're all one. So what is the practical difference when we call the supposed ground of reality not quantum field but MAL?

It should be clear that simply holding an understanding about the continuous nature of reality in itself has no moral consequences. The idealist would say "You shall not harm another because we're one consciousness". So what? Does this mean that the materialist is justified to harm another because they share one energy quantum field? What's the big deal of speaking of one consciousness when I don't experience the pain of another? A materialist capable of empathy is just as sensitive for the suffering of others. If we think things through, we'll see clearly that the idea of the undivided grounds of existence doesn't have anything to say about morality. Neither believing in a ground energy field (materialism) forces me to be insensitive to the pain of others, nor belief in one field of consciousness automatically makes me sensitive (in fact, the dissociation theory ensures that others' pains are beyond my local field).

Here things get very mixed up. The idea that oneness somehow implies morality is simply false. True morality results from genuine insight into the nature of reality. Just as we have understanding of the effects of watering a plant with water or gasoline, so we should have living understanding of the way our thoughts, feelings and actions 'water' the Cosmic interference pattern. Then we should have understanding that these ripples that we produce through the one field of reality have certain dynamics, lawfulness. This has always been known as the law of Karma.

The critical thing to realize is that simply showing the inconsistencies of materialism, in itself can never give us the kind of consciousness where we can observe the workings of spiritual dynamics, of Karma. Not only that, but we'll once again be left in the same old state where human souls are ripped apart by conflicting desires which throw them into conflict with themselves and others. Even if tomorrow it was to happen that the whole world would adopt the idea of MAL, nothing would change very much. As a matter of fact, things may get even worse because people will begin to experiment with their psychic abilities (which have been hitherto chained by materialistic conceptions) and this would quickly escalate into the widespread use of black magic.

These are very serious things. Refuting materialism doesn't really lead to deeper insight into reality, let alone to higher moral conduct. Pointing our finger at materialism and blaming it for the misfortunes of humanity simply diverts our attention from the essentials - which are what lives deep in the human soul. Unless we recognize the forces and beings of the spiritual world, which on the surface of our consciousness emerge as desires pulling our yoke hither and tither, materialism actually protects us from greater evil. In certain sense, our ability to wreck havoc is constrained. It will be far more dangerous if certain occult powers are unleashed and fall in the hands of unrestrained desires. No amount of preaching about oneness can lead to harmonious moral conduct, similarly to that the understanding of the one unified quantum field, doesn't stop the ill-intended to utilize them for the creation of more destructive technologies. Even with full awareness of the one field of consciousness, one who doesn't understand the depth of his own soul and the source of desires, wouldn't hesitate to pursuit these desires no matter what. The one field of consciousness will simply be valuable condition for one to spread the tentacles of control over greater domains of reality in much more occult manners.

And this is the reason for the constructive criticism here. All effort should be to deepen our soul life and understand the higher strata of reality, which otherwise blindly pull our yoke and we believe that we fulfill our own desires. Unfortunately it is precisely the late soul mood of BK which forecloses any possibility for such deepening - since the soul depths are seen as inexplicable black box, into which no form of cognition can ever penetrate. This practically puts the lid on evolution and no one should be surprised when in the future people who have left behind materialism long ago, wage occult wars between each other, utilizing the forces of the one field of consciousness through the dark arts.

Practically, what Cleric responded is all too real. In addition to this website, there is a discord server dedicated to BK's idealism. The comments there are 90% bashing of materialists, of the sort we might hear on a playground, as if the intellectual label "materialist" defines the very essence of someone's being and we can find all flaws of modern thinking within that label, and about 7% remarks about how we are all "one consciousness". The other 3%, if I am being generous, is devoted to matters of moral significance as they relate to the logical implications of idea-lism, and mostly that is on side threads started by one other person and myself.

BK wrote a book called "Dreamed Up Reality". We often here about Maya in the nondual discussion. But it seems the possibility that we are part of that dreamed up Maya, as atomized intellects perceiving and conceptualizing the world, is entirely ignored. It simply isn't taken the least bit seriously. For ex., BK just wrote an article speculating on "How can you be me?". To preserve the atomistic dissociation theory, and the conviction that the rational intellect is the very apex of cognitive evolution, he speculates the analytic idealist equivalent of the infinite multiverse 'explanation'.

The latter is sometimes used by the atheist-physicalist to 'explain' how consciousness evolved in this universe and how it is so finely-tuned for life and sentience. BK uses it to 'explain' how we can exist in dissociated bubbles of consciousness yet all be the same Consciousness in essence. He posits that each dissociated perspective is constantly time-traveling to occupy the dissociated perspectives of other 'alters' it is interacting with, like a person playing chess against themselves. There is no discussion of more holistic Time-experience, as Cleric discussed in several recent posts, or about the integration of Memory through the ceaseless evolution of ideational activity.

Of course this article got glowing reviews on the server - the riddle of One Consciousness existing alongside 'dissociated alters' had been solved once and for all! The point here is to notice how all of this is done for only one reason - to simply avoid admitting that the rational intellect lives in Maya, its concepts are Maya, and its sense of atomization is Maya. It is done to preserve the theory of dissociated bubbles which, in turn, preserve the intellect at the apex of cognitive evolution, with no living ideas between it and the One Consciousness that it should seek out, pay attention to, and grow into. It is felt that the chess analogy works because Cosmic ideation within and between the human perspective and that of God/MAL is similar to that of two people making decisions while playing chess, i.e. rational intellect with only mineralized concepts to work with.

Ultimately it's not about criticizing BK, because BK is not reading any of this. He won't be reading Cleric's Nth metaphorical and imaginative illustration of Time-consciousness on the other thread, so there's not even a possibility of it being constructive for him. Why should that stop it from being constructive for the rest of us? This cliquish adherence to the public-facing academics is Maya. It is born of the physicalist perspective that what is bigger, weighs more, gets more views, has more followers, etc. is what wins the battles for human body, soul, and spirit. We feel that any truths we have won for ourselves can't possibly match up with those produced from the academic Goliath, no matter how sound our own logic and reasoning. So we must choose a 'side' and remain completely loyal to its doctrines.

But what if the individuals winning ideas through the strength of their own inner experience and reasoning is precisely the way in which failing philosophical-spiritual (or anti-spiritual) paradigms grow into new ones with minimal casualties of war in the process?

More than in previous experiments, I find it extraordinarily difficult this time to recall the details of the experience. Like a regular dream that one forgets seconds after waking up, this time the experience began fading fast, even before I was back to more ordinary states of consciousness. Still, I remember that, at some point in the experiment, I was saying repeatedly in thought: “I am trying, but I cannot understand it... I am trying...” Something was being displayed in the screen of my mind; something extraordinarily profound and complex, but I could not make sense of it. It was very, very hard to grasp, whatever it was.

The gestalt of the experience was that of a “better informed” alter ego of mine trying to convey something to his space-time-bound doppelganger. I had a hard time making sense of “his” message. Yet, very slowly, the entire situation started becoming clearer. At some point, I felt as though my supposed alter ego were metaphorically opening the dome of inner theater above my head – like the moving dome of an astronomical observatory – revealing a profound and unprecedented truth operating busily and inconspicuously just behind what had previously been the boundary of my perceptual universe.

What I then “saw” was indescribable. How inadequate words are. This... “thing” that was revealed... froze me to the spot. It was a pattern. Whatever doubt I might have harbored about whether these experiences truly entailed knowledge input from outside my brain evaporated: there was absolutely no way this thing, this unfathomable miracle of a pattern, could have come out of my primate head.

We only need to take these words of BK, written soon after altered state of consciousness, more seriously. Our current state of conceptual activity is more Maya than we can imagine, but the fact that we can know this, as BK knew it above, is the greatest hope, for it means the gradient between our current state and higher ones is continuous and can be consciously grown into without limit. That is not to say without constraints, because it is actually the structured constraints which make the growing possible. The poor in spirit are blessed because they are in a position of humility to realize the Maya of their situation and, by that very realization, begin to grow out of it in a living and productive, not merely theoretical and often vindictive, way.

I am still new here, so not sure if this is a pattern, but it seems like indulging a little too long in BK-ish speculations is, believe it or not, a high-risk behavior on this forum, that can stir some serious ire and trigger some impressive deployment of forces.
It’s understandable that this unresolved ‘dispute debt’ with BK, apparently going back to years of private conversations on other servers, colors your attitude. This is a part I am not familiar with and really not interested in digging out. Although I certainly believe the playground description, let’s just drop this part because, as you say, the question is another one here.


So let me to try to unearth and restore what remains on the ground after this almost fully conjunct double layer of steamrolling. I say ‘almost’ because there seems to be one point, not even a minor one, where you, Cleric and Ashvin (if I am allowed to drop the intials) are actually not in full agreement with each other. I’ll get back to that. Let’s go to the main topics first and do some reparation. I agree steamrolling is more fun, but hey, someone has to do it, if we don’t trust dried-out begonias to make it happen - with all due respect to all members.


You say, the spiritual, non-material nature of reality doesn’t lead in itself to the behavioral transformation we need. So be it, but which philosophy, tradition, or teaching has been so gross as to posit that all reality is non material, then sit down and get ready to watch the world transform? If this is not a BK-specific critique, and as I guess you are not throwing in the garbage in one blow millennia of non-materialistic traditions, which are these philosophies we should walk past now - the modern mystics? Is it them, with BK, the mistaken pioneers whose first step of great significance is bringing humanity from bad materialism to worse?


Bad materialism. Let’s look at it. What I think is missing in your account of the havoc of materialism is the most important reason why materialism is bad. No worries I am not about to resort back to those philosophical mannerisms longing for axiomatic elegance and parsimony. No need. The worst outcome of materialism is clearly the made up attachment to a personal identity. This is what creates the escalation of shortsightedness, egotism, narcissism, and generalized violence we all witness, at a (hopefully) lesser scale in our own thinking patterns and behaviors ,and at full scale out there, all around us!


Materialism gives our ego, or intellect, both the aspiration and the green light to build for itself this beautiful, dignified, authentic, proud identity that grounds so nicely the narrative of why we do what we do in our life. It does it so beautifully that we cannot but fall in such a pure, deep love and connection with the story. The reason why we grow so attached to this edifying narrative that tells us our reason to exist, is because it allows our little materialistic body-brain to feel grand again, despite its materialistic self belief. And we are so relieved when the hard work of putting together this persona starts to take shape, at least in provisional version…. We are crafting the narrative that will now be able to spare us the overwhelming sense of inadequacy that our little body-brain would otherwise succumb to.


The narrative so tells us under which flag we should rally, what side we should support, and what are the matching opinions that we can proudly brandish. It’s full options and we become so identified with it, so attached to this meaningful, heartwarming, face-saving narrative, that before we know it, we also find ourselves ready to think and do whatever it takes, ready to go to the most extreme lengths, for the only real sake of keeping us integral. We have to stay true to it, honor it, live up to it. What is more vital than having an inspiring purpose for our life that comes in so handy to answer with some gravity any questions about what our life is all about?


Materialism doesn't limit us to ‘animalistic life plus intellect embellishments from art and philosophy’. In fact, the ‘embellishments’ are way more pernicious than that. Futile intellect gives our material little self permission to go to whatever lengths of manipulation and violence, provided that it is for the sake of the ‘higher ideals’ we have sealed in the narrative. Which more often than not is just a suit we picked up and jumped in, either because it was given to us and we had no better initiative, or because we did go shopping and found it was looking quite good on us. In both cases we have now come to think the suit fits us perfectly. We now love the suit, we are one with the suit, and by this same token, ready to judge, demean, ridicule, insult and of course also invade, attack and eliminate whatever or whomever does not cooperate with our narrative. Of course desires are an additional problem with materialism, but this attachment to identity is worse.


Now to the second question you raise, morality. You bring it in as a primal, legitimate quest from people curious about idealism and then you argue that a monist understanding of reality cannot grant it.
I actually doubt that people are drawn to idealism in search of morality. That was certainly not my reason. If the one thing people are seeking is ‘morality’ first, if that is where one wants to start, well why not go with the fundamentalists? They definitely put morality number one! Everything else derives from it. How can we say that their morality is not appropriate if that’s our blank starting point? (and by the way, sadly, that’s exactly how their followers start following them).
Who in their right mind would search for “rules of conduct” first and then a philosophy that supports them? Rules for the conduct of what? Only after understanding what it is that requires conduct, and how it works, only after understanding ‘the laws of existence’ can we lay out, if necessary, the rules to conduct it.


And it is true that the not-so-recent-anymore discoveries in the foundations of physics have not had any major social impact. They haven’t been integrated, not even by the scientific community. Instead they are being kept aside, in a small abstract bubble where a small nerdy community is allowed to play around with them and even publish, while everyone else anyway is still fine with only acknowledging the good old Newtonian framework, because after all, it is still so incredibly handy in everyday life. The scientific community is quite skilled at keeping things nice and separate and keep going as if nothing had happened. I mean look at the treatment a guy like Rupert Sheldrake is given even today, after a life of experimentally indisputable evidence production. Materialistic momentum can easily take care of things like that, surely for a few more years, or decades…


Next, your point that one consciousness does not have moral consequences. Yes, simply proclaiming that consciousness is one, or bashing materialism will not redeem our societies from its current dysfunctional state. But here's the problem: you seem to imply that there’s only two ways societies can benefit from harmonious and beneficial earthly life. Either the moral rules (you shall not harm another) should come from shared perception (if I don’t experience the pain of another why should I not harm them) or they should simply be imposed by fear, in other words, by the law of Karma. Once we understand how our thoughts, feelings and actions 'water' the Cosmic interference pattern, you say, and that the ripples that we produce through the one field of reality have certain dynamics, then we stick to (Karma dictated) morality. So it's basically the fear of backlash.


Let’s say we catch ourselves secretly wishing our enemies failure and misfortune. First we don’t act on the wish, of course not, otherway Karma would strike, but then because the thought is already out there and we can’t take it back, what do we do, we bash ourselves and… what else? Do we rush to thinking school so we learn how to dig new thinking patterns, set thinking rails in them, always choose the right thoughts and then hook them up on the proper rails? Is it by training that way that thoughts can only just turn out fully right? What does freedom mean under the law of Karma?



I find it difficult to accept that harmonious behavior should come either from fear or from shared pain (which actually resorts to fear as well). There should be a third way.
What if the experiential intuition of one consciousness is brought further into an understanding of reality that enables us to disconnect our happiness from desires, so as to cut the pull of addiction and exploitation? Then we could enjoy the same exact experiences we were used to chasing as we are presented with them, but this time in a free, disinterested way.


And what if we could disconnect our sense of self from visceral attachment to opinions, factions, parties, flags, sides, so as to cut the pull of aggression and violence? Then we could engage in healthy interactions, and discuss the same exact topics we were used to strenuously identifying with, but this time without feeling that our honor, our pride and our whole identity is at stake?


Wouldn’t that be a healthier foundation for a society where we could, as the Saint said, “Love and do what you want” and where virtuous behaviors would come naturally from an embodied understanding of one consciousness, rather than be forced upon us by an overhanging karmic rule?

[AshvinP]

 

Ashvin,

If it's possible to put the BK bashing aside for a moment, I'd be curious to know your take on the Richard Tarnas lecture.  As a storyteller, I really liked it. I'd be interested in how it looks through your lens. Perhaps you can give it a listen.

Well you may know that I agree with Tarnas' assessment in the philosophical portions of Passion of the Western Mind, as I was the one who initially brought it up in response to JW.

viewtopic.php?p=13853#p13853

But like I said up thread, half-truths can be the most deceiving if they are not pursued further. Unfortunately that seems to be the case with Rick Tarnas, Becca Tarnas, and Matt Segall. I mentioned before that Tarnas sent his daughter to a Waldorf school (Steiner), but it seems quite a few people eventually reach a threshold of the spiritual they are not comfortable crossing. I find it interesting that most of these, along with BK, share a sociopolitical sympathy for left-leaning tendencies in our age. Usually this is associated with hyper-cynicism of Western civilization and its institutions (except whenever they are supporting preferred 'causes' like the pandemic response or the war in Ukraine), which, in my view, is simply an inability to discern the wheat from the chaff, and to discern the evolutionary continuity between the pre-modern and post-modern ages. I don't consider this a matter of personal preferences, secular or religious, but of objective historical and scientific inquiry. We need to keep our experience and reasoning in movement to discern the progressive spirits working through this 'dark night of the soul', yet, if we do so, they are easily discerned.

 

Thanks Ashvin,

Got any comments on RT's discussion of Solar and Lunar archetypal powers and their roles in initiation?

That is a vast topic. I have been reading a book called The Great Initiates, which relates deeply to these archetypes. Here is an excerpt:

The Semitic and the Aryan currents are the two rivers upon which all our ideas, mythology, religion, art, science and philosophy have come to us. Each of these streams carries with it a different conception of life; the reconciliation and balance of the two would be truth itself. The Semitic current contains absolute and superior principles: the idea of unity and universality in the name of a supreme Principle that, in its application, leads to the unification of the human family. The Aryan current contains the idea of ascending evolution in all terrestrial and supra-terrestrial kingdoms, and its application leads to an infinite diversity of developments in the richness of nature and the many aspirations of the soul. Semitic genius descends from God to human being; Aryan genius ascends from human being to God. One is represented by the punishing archangel who descends to earth, armed with sword and thunder; the other by Prometheus, who holds in his hand the fire snatched from heaven and surveys Olympus with his glance.

We bear these two geniuses within us. We think and act under the influence of the one or the other in turn. But they are not harmoniously blended within us. They contradict and fight each other in our inner feelings, in our subtle thoughts, as well as in our social life and institutions. Hidden beneath many forms that can be summarized under the generic terms spirituality and naturalism, they control our discussions and struggles. Irreconcilable and invincible, who will unite them? And yet the progress, the salvation of humankind depends upon their reconciliation and synthesis. For this reason, in this book we would like to go back to the source of the two streams, to the birth of the two geniuses. Beyond the conflicts of history, the wars of cults, the contradictions of sacred texts, we shall enter the very consciousness of the founders and prophets who gave religions their initial impetus. From above, these individuals received keen intuition and inspiration, that burning light that leads to fruitful action. Indeed, synthesis pre-existed in them. The divine ray dimmed and darkened with their successors, but it reappears, it shines whenever prophets, heroes or seers return to their life origins. For only from this point of departure does one see the goal; from the shining sun, the path of the planets.

Edouard Schure. Great Initiates: A Study of the Secret History of Religions (p. 41). Kindle Edition.

These two currents are associated with the Solar (Semitic) and Lunar (Aryan) archetypes. What we call them isn't so important as the meaning of the archetypal streams and their evolution through human history. We could say the Lunar principle has been dominant mostly since the dawn of self-consciousness, which also coincides with the Fall into sin-error. In our current age, this is mostly from 3,000 BC to the time of Christ. Then the Sun principle becomes active and the relationship begins to change. The key is that different balances are most appropriate for the development of different epochs. In our current epoch, the Solar principle must take the leading role (this is also associated with right brain and left brain, solar and lunar). All of humanity's precise knowledge has arisen so far through the Lunar principle, but this by itself does not give it a moral orientation - it does not inform us how our knowledge should be employed for the benefit of the Cosmic whole. That is where the Solar principle of Light and Warmth, Inspiration and Love, comes in. Then we move from perceiving the spiritual through the reflected light of the Moon from without to perceiving it through the direct Light of the Sun, from within.

From the most remote times, visionary women prophesied under trees. Each tribe had its great prophetess, like the Voluspa of the Scandinavians, with her school of Druidesses. But these women, at first nobly inspired, became ambitious and cruel. The good prophetesses changed into evil magicians. They instituted human sacrifices, and the blood of their Herolls flowed continuously over the dolmens, to the sinister chants of the priests and the approving shouts of the ferocious Scythians...

The people were courageous, their warriors held death in contempt; at the first call they came voluntarily and bravely threw themselves beneath the knives of bloodthirsty priestesses. Through human hecatombs the latter hurried the living to join the dead as messengers, for it was believed that in this manner one gained the protection of the ancestors. This activity on the part of the prophetesses and Druids became a fearful means of domination. This is the first example of the perversion the noblest instincts of human nature inevitably undergo when they are not controlled by a wise authority or guided toward the good by a higher conscience. Left to the mercy of ambition and individual passion, inspiration degenerates into superstition, courage into ferocity, the sublime ideal of sacrifice into an instrument of tyranny and of sinister and cruel exploitation.

This development of higher Ego-Consciousness, the inner guidance of Thinking with moral conscience - Thinking of the Heart - is the modern initiation for human individuals. It is what spirals the Solar-Lunar principles into more harmonious unity, through (not in opposition to) the spiritual freedom of the individual. It is not 'moral conscience' imposed by philosophy of ethics, Eastern or Western religions, humanist science, etc., but harmonically grown through the free thoughts, feelings, desires, and action of individuals. Even the ugliest passions and thoughts of humanity can be made 'golden' through this impulse. So we certainly need to rediscover the Divine Feminine, but not just any divine feminine. Not the divine feminine of ages past, which were appropriate for the development of those ages but not our own. Now we need the redeemed divine feminine, the Wisdom of Sophia which purifies the soul of its moral impurities through higher consciousness. These things will only grow gradually over time, of course, but it is well past time for human individuals to become conscious of them and begin taking them seriously - "to grow in Wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man".

[Lou Gold]

Well you may know that I agree with Tarnas' assessment in the philosophical portions of Passion of the Western Mind, as I was the one who initially brought it up in response to JW.

viewtopic.php?p=13853#p13853

But like I said up thread, half-truths can be the most deceiving if they are not pursued further. Unfortunately that seems to be the case with Rick Tarnas, Becca Tarnas, and Matt Segall. I mentioned before that Tarnas sent his daughter to a Waldorf school (Steiner), but it seems quite a few people eventually reach a threshold of the spiritual they are not comfortable crossing. I find it interesting that most of these, along with BK, share a sociopolitical sympathy for left-leaning tendencies in our age. Usually this is associated with hyper-cynicism of Western civilization and its institutions (except whenever they are supporting preferred 'causes' like the pandemic response or the war in Ukraine), which, in my view, is simply an inability to discern the wheat from the chaff, and to discern the evolutionary continuity between the pre-modern and post-modern ages. I don't consider this a matter of personal preferences, secular or religious, but of objective historical and scientific inquiry. We need to keep our experience and reasoning in movement to discern the progressive spirits working through this 'dark night of the soul', yet, if we do so, they are easily discerned.

 

Thanks Ashvin,

Got any comments on RT's discussion of Solar and Lunar archetypal powers and their roles in initiation?

That is a vast topic. I have been reading a book called The Great Initiates, which relates deeply to these archetypes. Here is an excerpt:

The Semitic and the Aryan currents are the two rivers upon which all our ideas, mythology, religion, art, science and philosophy have come to us. Each of these streams carries with it a different conception of life; the reconciliation and balance of the two would be truth itself. The Semitic current contains absolute and superior principles: the idea of unity and universality in the name of a supreme Principle that, in its application, leads to the unification of the human family. The Aryan current contains the idea of ascending evolution in all terrestrial and supra-terrestrial kingdoms, and its application leads to an infinite diversity of developments in the richness of nature and the many aspirations of the soul. Semitic genius descends from God to human being; Aryan genius ascends from human being to God. One is represented by the punishing archangel who descends to earth, armed with sword and thunder; the other by Prometheus, who holds in his hand the fire snatched from heaven and surveys Olympus with his glance.

We bear these two geniuses within us. We think and act under the influence of the one or the other in turn. But they are not harmoniously blended within us. They contradict and fight each other in our inner feelings, in our subtle thoughts, as well as in our social life and institutions. Hidden beneath many forms that can be summarized under the generic terms spirituality and naturalism, they control our discussions and struggles. Irreconcilable and invincible, who will unite them? And yet the progress, the salvation of humankind depends upon their reconciliation and synthesis. For this reason, in this book we would like to go back to the source of the two streams, to the birth of the two geniuses. Beyond the conflicts of history, the wars of cults, the contradictions of sacred texts, we shall enter the very consciousness of the founders and prophets who gave religions their initial impetus. From above, these individuals received keen intuition and inspiration, that burning light that leads to fruitful action. Indeed, synthesis pre-existed in them. The divine ray dimmed and darkened with their successors, but it reappears, it shines whenever prophets, heroes or seers return to their life origins. For only from this point of departure does one see the goal; from the shining sun, the path of the planets.

Edouard Schure. Great Initiates: A Study of the Secret History of Religions (p. 41). Kindle Edition.

These two currents are associated with the Solar (Semitic) and Lunar (Aryan) archetypes. What we call them isn't so important as the meaning of the archetypal streams and their evolution through human history. We could say the Lunar principle has been dominant mostly since the dawn of self-consciousness, which also coincides with the Fall into sin-error. In our current age, this is mostly from 3,000 BC to the time of Christ. Then the Sun principle becomes active and the relationship begins to change. The key is that different balances are most appropriate for the development of different epochs. In our current epoch, the Solar principle must take the leading role (this is also associated with right brain and left brain, solar and lunar). All of humanity's precise knowledge has arisen so far through the Lunar principle, but this by itself does not give it a moral orientation - it does not inform us how our knowledge should be employed for the benefit of the Cosmic whole. That is where the Solar principle of Light and Warmth, Inspiration and Love, comes in. Then we move from perceiving the spiritual through the reflected light of the Moon from without to perceiving it through the direct Light of the Sun, from within.

From the most remote times, visionary women prophesied under trees. Each tribe had its great prophetess, like the Voluspa of the Scandinavians, with her school of Druidesses. But these women, at first nobly inspired, became ambitious and cruel. The good prophetesses changed into evil magicians. They instituted human sacrifices, and the blood of their Herolls flowed continuously over the dolmens, to the sinister chants of the priests and the approving shouts of the ferocious Scythians...

The people were courageous, their warriors held death in contempt; at the first call they came voluntarily and bravely threw themselves beneath the knives of bloodthirsty priestesses. Through human hecatombs the latter hurried the living to join the dead as messengers, for it was believed that in this manner one gained the protection of the ancestors. This activity on the part of the prophetesses and Druids became a fearful means of domination. This is the first example of the perversion the noblest instincts of human nature inevitably undergo when they are not controlled by a wise authority or guided toward the good by a higher conscience. Left to the mercy of ambition and individual passion, inspiration degenerates into superstition, courage into ferocity, the sublime ideal of sacrifice into an instrument of tyranny and of sinister and cruel exploitation.

This development of higher Ego-Consciousness, the inner guidance of Thinking with moral conscience - Thinking of the Heart - is the modern initiation for human individuals. It is what spirals the Solar-Lunar principles into more harmonious unity, through (not in opposition to) the spiritual freedom of the individual. It is not 'moral conscience' imposed by philosophy of ethics, Eastern or Western religions, humanist science, etc., but harmonically grown through the free thoughts, feelings, desires, and action of individuals. Even the ugliest passions and thoughts of humanity can be made 'golden' through this impulse. So we certainly need to rediscover the Divine Feminine, but not just any divine feminine. Not the divine feminine of ages past, which were appropriate for the development of those ages but not our own. Now we need the redeemed divine feminine, the Wisdom of Sophia which purifies the soul of its moral impurities through higher consciousness. These things will only grow gradually over time, of course, but it is well past time for human individuals to become conscious of them and begin taking them seriously - "to grow in Wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man".

Interesting. I'm not familiar with Schure. Seems like quite a different usage than what was discussed in the Tarnas lecture. However, i don't think the views are necessarily opposed. Would you change this Wisdom of Sophia?

[AshvinP]

You say, the spiritual, non-material nature of reality doesn’t lead in itself to the behavioral transformation we need. So be it, but which philosophy, tradition, or teaching has been so gross as to posit that all reality is non material, then sit down and get ready to watch the world transform? If this is not a BK-specific critique, and as I guess you are not throwing in the garbage in one blow millennia of non-materialistic traditions, which are these philosophies we should walk past now - the modern mystics? Is it them, with BK, the mistaken pioneers whose first step of great significance is bringing humanity from bad materialism to worse?

There is a ton here to comment on. I think Cleric will be in much better position to respond on most of it, especially with regards Karma. So I will keep it brief. You may be right too much emphasis has been focused on BK on my part. I mostly use him as a way to skip right to issues that are endemic to modern habits of thinking in all its philosophical and religious forms, hoping our shared knowledge of BK idealism will also lead to shared understanding of what is being critiqued, but I see that is often not the outcome as much as it is. So, for my part, I will leave BK out of it entirely.

As Jung keenly observed, "People don't have ideas, but Ideas have people." That is the stage of spritual evolution we are in - we are mostly vehicles for the ideations of higher living forces. This includes all of us, across most dimensions of our thinly conscious, rationalizing existence. What is the solution to this predicament? Only to become more conscious of these higher living forces within us. What does it mean to become more conscious? Nothing less than growing into the inner perspective of those spirits traditionally known as 'gods', in which our current ideational existence is embedded and entirely dependent on. Clearly this is not a matter of years, but epochs and aeons which we have all already gone through and are yet to go through (clearly linear time must be abandoned).

Why even bother, if that's the case? Well, if the materialist is correct, and something along the lines of random mutations and 'natural selection' are responsible for evolution, and significant changes in human consciousness only happen over massive timeframes, mostly outside of our conscious control, then there is no point. Is that not a core issue at the heart of our philosophies and outlooks? What is actually possible for human consciousness to attain, to experience and know in living way, in any given lifetime through conscious effort? If spritual transformation of an enormous degree is not possible in this manner, then I view all of what we are doing here as egoic speculation and venting, and we are much more productive for society investing time and resources into politics.

Bad materialism. Let’s look at it. What I think is missing in your account of the havoc of materialism is the most important reason why materialism is bad. No worries I am not about to resort back to those philosophical mannerisms longing for axiomatic elegance and parsimony. No need. The worst outcome of materialism is clearly the made up attachment to a personal identity. This is what creates the escalation of shortsightedness, egotism, narcissism, and generalized violence we all witness, at a (hopefully) lesser scale in our own thinking patterns and behaviors ,and at full scale out there, all around us!

Materialism gives our ego, or intellect, both the aspiration and the green light to build for itself this beautiful, dignified, authentic, proud identity that grounds so nicely the narrative of why we do what we do in our life. It does it so beautifully that we cannot but fall in such a pure, deep love and connection with the story. The reason why we grow so attached to this edifying narrative that tells us our reason to exist, is because it allows our little materialistic body-brain to feel grand again, despite its materialistic self belief. And we are so relieved when the hard work of putting together this persona starts to take shape, at least in provisional version…. We are crafting the narrative that will now be able to spare us the overwhelming sense of inadequacy that our little body-brain would otherwise succumb to.

The narrative so tells us under which flag we should rally, what side we should support, and what are the matching opinions that we can proudly brandish. It’s full options and we become so identified with it, so attached to this meaningful, heartwarming, face-saving narrative, that before we know it, we also find ourselves ready to think and do whatever it takes, ready to go to the most extreme lengths, for the only real sake of keeping us integral. We have to stay true to it, honor it, live up to it. What is more vital than having an inspiring purpose for our life that comes in so handy to answer with some gravity any questions about what our life is all about?

Materialism doesn't limit us to ‘animalistic life plus intellect embellishments from art and philosophy’. In fact, the ‘embellishments’ are way more pernicious than that. Futile intellect gives our material little self permission to go to whatever lengths of manipulation and violence, provided that it is for the sake of the ‘higher ideals’ we have sealed in the narrative. Which more often than not is just a suit we picked up and jumped in, either because it was given to us and we had no better initiative, or because we did go shopping and found it was looking quite good on us. In both cases we have now come to think the suit fits us perfectly. We now love the suit, we are one with the suit, and by this same token, ready to judge, demean, ridicule, insult and of course also invade, attack and eliminate whatever or whomever does not cooperate with our narrative. Of course desires are an additional problem with materialism, but this attachment to identity is worse.

Now to the second question you raise, morality. You bring it in as a primal, legitimate quest from people curious about idealism and then you argue that a monist understanding of reality cannot grant it.
I actually doubt that people are drawn to idealism in search of morality. That was certainly not my reason. If the one thing people are seeking is ‘morality’ first, if that is where one wants to start, well why not go with the fundamentalists? They definitely put morality number one! Everything else derives from it. How can we say that their morality is not appropriate if that’s our blank starting point? (and by the way, sadly, that’s exactly how their followers start following them).
Who in their right mind would search for “rules of conduct” first and then a philosophy that supports them? Rules for the conduct of what? Only after understanding what it is that requires conduct, and how it works, only after understanding ‘the laws of existence’ can we lay out, if necessary, the rules to conduct it.

My questions here are,

1. How do you speak of "bad" and all these negative influences of materialism without presupposing what is "good" i.e. moral orientation? Even if you don't fully know what is Good (none of us do), surely you have an intuitive sense of this general direction? That is nothing other than what we are calling moral.

2. What in materialistic thinking and inner orientation, if anything, do you also perceive in your own current thinking and inner orientation? Is there any significant overlap between your current state of being and "them"?

And it is true that the not-so-recent-anymore discoveries in the foundations of physics have not had any major social impact. They haven’t been integrated, not even by the scientific community. Instead they are being kept aside, in a small abstract bubble where a small nerdy community is allowed to play around with them and even publish, while everyone else anyway is still fine with only acknowledging the good old Newtonian framework, because after all, it is still so incredibly handy in everyday life. The scientific community is quite skilled at keeping things nice and separate and keep going as if nothing had happened. I mean look at the treatment a guy like Rupert Sheldrake is given even today, after a life of experimentally indisputable evidence production. Materialistic momentum can easily take care of things like that, surely for a few more years, or decades…

Next, your point that one consciousness does not have moral consequences. Yes, simply proclaiming that consciousness is one, or bashing materialism will not redeem our societies from its current dysfunctional state. But here's the problem: you seem to imply that there’s only two ways societies can benefit from harmonious and beneficial earthly life. Either the moral rules (you shall not harm another) should come from shared perception (if I don’t experience the pain of another why should I not harm them) or they should simply be imposed by fear, in other words, by the law of Karma. Once we understand how our thoughts, feelings and actions 'water' the Cosmic interference pattern, you say, and that the ripples that we produce through the one field of reality have certain dynamics, then we stick to (Karma dictated) morality. So it's basically the fear of backlash.

Let’s say we catch ourselves secretly wishing our enemies failure and misfortune. First we don’t act on the wish, of course not, otherway Karma would strike, but then because the thought is already out there and we can’t take it back, what do we do, we bash ourselves and… what else? Do we rush to thinking school so we learn how to dig new thinking patterns, set thinking rails in them, always choose the right thoughts and then hook them up on the proper rails? Is it by training that way that thoughts can only just turn out fully right? What does freedom mean under the law of Karma?

I find it difficult to accept that harmonious behavior should come either from fear or from shared pain (which actually resorts to fear as well). There should be a third way.
What if the experiential intuition of one consciousness is brought further into an understanding of reality that enables us to disconnect our happiness from desires, so as to cut the pull of addiction and exploitation? Then we could enjoy the same exact experiences we were used to chasing as we are presented with them, but this time in a free, disinterested way.

And what if we could disconnect our sense of self from visceral attachment to opinions, factions, parties, flags, sides, so as to cut the pull of aggression and violence? Then we could engage in healthy interactions, and discuss the same exact topics we were used to strenuously identifying with, but this time without feeling that our honor, our pride and our whole identity is at stake?

Wouldn’t that be a healthier foundation for a society where we could, as the Saint said, “Love and do what you want” and where virtuous behaviors would come naturally from an embodied understanding of one consciousness, rather than be forced upon us by an overhanging karmic rule?

There is a presupposition here that we are speaking of moral laws imposed externally, by state or religion or other norms of conduct. That is not the case in terms of Karma. I will quote a passage from Steiner's Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, also known as Philosophy of Freedom. The key consideration is how, phenomenologically, and especially in any monist idealist metaphysics, attaining thinking degrees of freedom, through natural 'bottom-up' effort and evolution of cognition, harmonizes with our shared moral imaginations, inspirations, and intuitions which precipitate from 'top-down'. We need not forsake one at the expense of the other, and neither Steiner nor we are giving you these natural-moral laws, since they cannot be given to anyone in either genuine understanding or freedom, but only pointing to the very first steps on a path from which they can be unveiled by each individual from within. I myself am only taking these first of first steps now, but clearly even these are profoundly transformative enough to inspire my participation here.

Ethical individualism, then, is not in opposition to a rightly understood theory of evolution, but follows directly from it. Haeckel's genealogical tree, from protozoa up to man as an organic being, ought to be capable of being continued without an interruption of natural law and without a break in the uniformity of evolution, up to the individual as a being that is moral in a definite sense. But on no account could the nature of a descendant species be deduced from the nature of an ancestral one. However true it is that the moral ideas of the individual have perceptibly developed out of those of his ancestors, it is equally true that the individual is morally barren unless he has moral ideas of his own.

The same ethical individualism that I have developed on the basis of views already given could also be derived from the theory of evolution. The final conviction would be the same; only the path by which it was reached would be different.

The appearance of completely new moral ideas through moral imagination is, for the theory of evolution, no more miraculous than the development of a new animal species out of an old one ; only, as a monistic view of the world, this theory must reject, in morality as in science, every transcendental (metaphysical) influence, every influence that is merely inferred and cannot be experienced ideally. In doing so, the theory follows the same principle that guides it when it seeks the causes of new organic forms without invoking the interference of an extra-mundane Being who produces every new species, in accordance with a new creative thought, by supernatural influence. Just as monism has no use for supernatural creative thoughts in explaining living organisms, so it is equally impossible for it to derive the moral world order from causes which do not lie within the experienceable world. It cannot admit that the moral nature of will is completely accounted for by being traced back to a continuous supernatural influence upon moral life (divine government of the world from the outside), or to an act of revelation at a particular moment in history (giving of the ten commandments), or to God's appearance on the earth (as Christ). What happens to man, and in man, through all this, becomes a moral element only when, in human experience, it becomes an individual's own.