Is the Sun Conscious

[Lou Gold]

Folks may be interested in a recent paper "Is the Sun Conscious?" by Rupert Sheldrake,
published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, 28, No. 3–4, 2021, pp. 8–28.

Abstract: The recent panpsychist turn in philosophy opens the possibility
that self-organizing systems at all levels of complexity, including
stars and galaxies, might have experience, awareness, or consciousness.
The organismic or holistic philosophy of nature points in the
same direction. Meanwhile, field theories of consciousness propose
that some electromagnetic fields actually are conscious, and that these
fields are by their very nature integrative. When applied to the sun,
such field theories suggest a possible physical basis for the solar
mind, both within the body of the sun itself and also throughout the
solar system. If the sun is conscious, it may be concerned with the
regulation of its own body and the entire solar system through its
electromagnetic activity, including solar flares and coronal mass
ejections. It may also communicate with other star systems within the
galaxy.

I'd love to see a respectful dialogue between Bernardo and Rupert on it.

[AshvinP]

Folks may be interested in a recent paper "Is the Sun Conscious?" by Rupert Sheldrake,
published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, 28, No. 3–4, 2021, pp. 8–28.

Abstract: The recent panpsychist turn in philosophy opens the possibility
that self-organizing systems at all levels of complexity, including
stars and galaxies, might have experience, awareness, or consciousness.
The organismic or holistic philosophy of nature points in the
same direction. Meanwhile, field theories of consciousness propose
that some electromagnetic fields actually are conscious, and that these
fields are by their very nature integrative. When applied to the sun,
such field theories suggest a possible physical basis for the solar
mind, both within the body of the sun itself and also throughout the
solar system. If the sun is conscious, it may be concerned with the
regulation of its own body and the entire solar system through its
electromagnetic activity, including solar flares and coronal mass
ejections. It may also communicate with other star systems within the
galaxy.

I'd love to see a respectful dialogue between Bernardo and Rupert on it.

I hope you, or at least anyone who happens upon this article, can see how this is a complete materialization of ideal dynamics. It simply reduces Consciousness to physical concepts and 'bottom-up' modes of operation. Panpsychism is itself a clearly dualist ontology, so I'm not sure why an idealist would rely on that (or maybe Sheldrake was never an idealist). This materialization and reductionism then leads him to things like:

In so far as the sun’s mind is working habitually, it is probably unconscious, just as we are unconscious of most of our own habitual patterns of activity. According to the general principle of a temporal relationship between minds and matter suggested by Whitehead, discussed above, if the sun is conscious, its conscious mind is likely to be concerned with possible actions and choices among them. Its choices may include an influence on the numbers, locations, and activities of sunspots, the timing and directions of solar flares and coronal mass ejections, and the coordination of granules and supergranules within the surface layers of the sun, as well as the flow patterns within the inner regions of the solar body. All these activities in turn affect the reverberating acoustical vibrations within the body of the sun, which in turn set up rhythmic patterns in its electromagnetic fields.

Yes, it's nice to know humans are the only self-conscious, thinking, ideational beings in the whole solar system, right? That the Sun-being probably has habitual unconscious patterns of activity because we do, and nothing can have greater continuity of consciousness than us! That surely makes us feel better about ourselves, more superior beings. Yet it doesn't make for logically sound philosophy or science, and it most surely leads to disharmonious ethical orientation over time. This is at the root of all reductionist outlooks - unabashed intellectual pride which flips the relation of consciousness between humans and the higher worlds, making the latter less evolved than we are. When are we going to awaken to the Wisdom that "pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a Fall"?

[Lou Gold]

Folks may be interested in a recent paper "Is the Sun Conscious?" by Rupert Sheldrake,
published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, 28, No. 3–4, 2021, pp. 8–28.

Abstract: The recent panpsychist turn in philosophy opens the possibility
that self-organizing systems at all levels of complexity, including
stars and galaxies, might have experience, awareness, or consciousness.
The organismic or holistic philosophy of nature points in the
same direction. Meanwhile, field theories of consciousness propose
that some electromagnetic fields actually are conscious, and that these
fields are by their very nature integrative. When applied to the sun,
such field theories suggest a possible physical basis for the solar
mind, both within the body of the sun itself and also throughout the
solar system. If the sun is conscious, it may be concerned with the
regulation of its own body and the entire solar system through its
electromagnetic activity, including solar flares and coronal mass
ejections. It may also communicate with other star systems within the
galaxy.

I'd love to see a respectful dialogue between Bernardo and Rupert on it.

I hope you, or at least anyone who happens upon this article, can see how this is a complete materialization of ideal dynamics. It simply reduces Consciousness to physical concepts and 'bottom-up' modes of operation. Panpsychism is itself a clearly dualist ontology, so I'm not sure why an idealist would rely on that (or maybe Sheldrake was never an idealist). This materialization and reductionism then leads him to things like:

In so far as the sun’s mind is working habitually, it is probably unconscious, just as we are unconscious of most of our own habitual patterns of activity. According to the general principle of a temporal relationship between minds and matter suggested by Whitehead, discussed above, if the sun is conscious, its conscious mind is likely to be concerned with possible actions and choices among them. Its choices may include an influence on the numbers, locations, and activities of sunspots, the timing and directions of solar flares and coronal mass ejections, and the coordination of granules and supergranules within the surface layers of the sun, as well as the flow patterns within the inner regions of the solar body. All these activities in turn affect the reverberating acoustical vibrations within the body of the sun, which in turn set up rhythmic patterns in its electromagnetic fields.

Yes, it's nice to know humans are the only self-conscious, thinking, ideational beings in the whole solar system, right? That the Sun-being probably has habitual unconscious patterns of activity because we do, and nothing can have greater continuity of consciousness than us! That surely makes us feel better about ourselves, more superior beings. Yet it doesn't make for logically sound philosophy or science, and it most surely leads to disharmonious ethical orientation over time. This is at the root of all reductionist outlooks - unabashed intellectual pride which flips the relation of consciousness between humans and the higher worlds, making the latter less evolved than we are. When are we going to awaken to the Wisdom that "pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a Fall"?

I don't know that Sheldrake describes himself as an idealist. I believe he describes himself as a cosmopsychist, which according to Wikipedia is a top-down view not fitting your bottom-up description.

Cosmopsychism hypothesizes that the cosmos is a unified object that is ontologically prior to its parts. It has been described as an alternative to panpsychism, or as a form of panpsychism. Proponents of cosmopsychism claim that the cosmos as a whole is the fundamental level of reality and that it instantiates consciousness. They differ on that point from panpsychists, who usually claim that the smallest level of reality is fundamental and instantiates consciousness. Accordingly, human consciousness, for example, merely derives from a larger cosmic consciousness.

[AshvinP]

Folks may be interested in a recent paper "Is the Sun Conscious?" by Rupert Sheldrake,
published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, 28, No. 3–4, 2021, pp. 8–28.

Abstract: The recent panpsychist turn in philosophy opens the possibility
that self-organizing systems at all levels of complexity, including
stars and galaxies, might have experience, awareness, or consciousness.
The organismic or holistic philosophy of nature points in the
same direction. Meanwhile, field theories of consciousness propose
that some electromagnetic fields actually are conscious, and that these
fields are by their very nature integrative. When applied to the sun,
such field theories suggest a possible physical basis for the solar
mind, both within the body of the sun itself and also throughout the
solar system. If the sun is conscious, it may be concerned with the
regulation of its own body and the entire solar system through its
electromagnetic activity, including solar flares and coronal mass
ejections. It may also communicate with other star systems within the
galaxy.

I'd love to see a respectful dialogue between Bernardo and Rupert on it.

I hope you, or at least anyone who happens upon this article, can see how this is a complete materialization of ideal dynamics. It simply reduces Consciousness to physical concepts and 'bottom-up' modes of operation. Panpsychism is itself a clearly dualist ontology, so I'm not sure why an idealist would rely on that (or maybe Sheldrake was never an idealist). This materialization and reductionism then leads him to things like:

In so far as the sun’s mind is working habitually, it is probably unconscious, just as we are unconscious of most of our own habitual patterns of activity. According to the general principle of a temporal relationship between minds and matter suggested by Whitehead, discussed above, if the sun is conscious, its conscious mind is likely to be concerned with possible actions and choices among them. Its choices may include an influence on the numbers, locations, and activities of sunspots, the timing and directions of solar flares and coronal mass ejections, and the coordination of granules and supergranules within the surface layers of the sun, as well as the flow patterns within the inner regions of the solar body. All these activities in turn affect the reverberating acoustical vibrations within the body of the sun, which in turn set up rhythmic patterns in its electromagnetic fields.

Yes, it's nice to know humans are the only self-conscious, thinking, ideational beings in the whole solar system, right? That the Sun-being probably has habitual unconscious patterns of activity because we do, and nothing can have greater continuity of consciousness than us! That surely makes us feel better about ourselves, more superior beings. Yet it doesn't make for logically sound philosophy or science, and it most surely leads to disharmonious ethical orientation over time. This is at the root of all reductionist outlooks - unabashed intellectual pride which flips the relation of consciousness between humans and the higher worlds, making the latter less evolved than we are. When are we going to awaken to the Wisdom that "pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a Fall"?

I don't know that Sheldrake describes himself as an idealist. I believe he describes himself as a cosmopsychist, which according to Wikipedia is a top-down view not fitting your bottom-up description.

Cosmopsychism hypothesizes that the cosmos is a unified object that is ontologically prior to its parts. It has been described as an alternative to panpsychism, or as a form of panpsychism. Proponents of cosmopsychism claim that the cosmos as a whole is the fundamental level of reality and that it instantiates consciousness. They differ on that point from panpsychists, who usually claim that the smallest level of reality is fundamental and instantiates consciousness. Accordingly, human consciousness, for example, merely derives from a larger cosmic consciousness.

Does it really matter what outer label he adorns for himself? We can discern the meaning of what he wrote for ourselves. He explicitly refers to panpsychism as the basis of his analysis in the article and, more importantly, uses the bottom-up approach to understand the consciousness of the Solar Being. As I quoted to you, he says it is probably unconscious when using its mind to manage the solar system, just like Bernardo's instinctinve animal consciousness of MAL. Are we just ignoring that or do you agree with it?

[Lou Gold]

I hope you, or at least anyone who happens upon this article, can see how this is a complete materialization of ideal dynamics. It simply reduces Consciousness to physical concepts and 'bottom-up' modes of operation. Panpsychism is itself a clearly dualist ontology, so I'm not sure why an idealist would rely on that (or maybe Sheldrake was never an idealist). This materialization and reductionism then leads him to things like:





Yes, it's nice to know humans are the only self-conscious, thinking, ideational beings in the whole solar system, right? That the Sun-being probably has habitual unconscious patterns of activity because we do, and nothing can have greater continuity of consciousness than us! That surely makes us feel better about ourselves, more superior beings. Yet it doesn't make for logically sound philosophy or science, and it most surely leads to disharmonious ethical orientation over time. This is at the root of all reductionist outlooks - unabashed intellectual pride which flips the relation of consciousness between humans and the higher worlds, making the latter less evolved than we are. When are we going to awaken to the Wisdom that "pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a Fall"?

I don't know that Sheldrake describes himself as an idealist. I believe he describes himself as a cosmopsychist, which according to Wikipedia is a top-down view not fitting your bottom-up description.

Cosmopsychism hypothesizes that the cosmos is a unified object that is ontologically prior to its parts. It has been described as an alternative to panpsychism, or as a form of panpsychism. Proponents of cosmopsychism claim that the cosmos as a whole is the fundamental level of reality and that it instantiates consciousness. They differ on that point from panpsychists, who usually claim that the smallest level of reality is fundamental and instantiates consciousness. Accordingly, human consciousness, for example, merely derives from a larger cosmic consciousness.

Does it really matter what outer label he adorns for himself? We can discern the meaning of what he wrote for ourselves. He explicitly refers to panpsychism as the basis of his analysis in the article and, more importantly, uses the bottom-up approach to understand the consciousness of the Solar Being. As I quoted to you, he says it is probably unconscious when using its mind to manage the solar system, just like Bernardo's instinctinve animal consciousness of MAL. Are we just ignoring that or do you agree with it?

My understanding is that cosmopyschism is a type of panpyschism. If you asked whether the animal expresses the glories of the sun or the reverse, my bias and/or faith is that it's the former. I suspect Sheldrake would take such a top-down view but I'm not trying to defend it, just trying to clarfify.
I do very much like the "Canticle of the Creatures" of Francis of Assisi.

[Lou Gold]

I don't know that Sheldrake describes himself as an idealist. I believe he describes himself as a cosmopsychist, which according to Wikipedia is a top-down view not fitting your bottom-up description.

Cosmopsychism hypothesizes that the cosmos is a unified object that is ontologically prior to its parts. It has been described as an alternative to panpsychism, or as a form of panpsychism. Proponents of cosmopsychism claim that the cosmos as a whole is the fundamental level of reality and that it instantiates consciousness. They differ on that point from panpsychists, who usually claim that the smallest level of reality is fundamental and instantiates consciousness. Accordingly, human consciousness, for example, merely derives from a larger cosmic consciousness.

Does it really matter what outer label he adorns for himself? We can discern the meaning of what he wrote for ourselves. He explicitly refers to panpsychism as the basis of his analysis in the article and, more importantly, uses the bottom-up approach to understand the consciousness of the Solar Being. As I quoted to you, he says it is probably unconscious when using its mind to manage the solar system, just like Bernardo's instinctinve animal consciousness of MAL. Are we just ignoring that or do you agree with it?

My understanding is that cosmopyschism is a type of panpyschism. If you asked whether the animal expresses the glories of the sun or the reverse, my bias and/or faith is that it's the former. I suspect Sheldrake would take such a top-down view but I'm not trying to defend it, just trying to clarfify.
I do very much like the "Canticle of the Creatures" of Francis of Assisi.

Here's an image of my recent vision of it:

[AshvinP]

My understanding is that cosmopyschism is a type of panpyschism. If you asked whether the animal expresses the glories of the sun or the reverse, my bias and/or faith is that it's the former. I suspect Sheldrake would take such a top-down view but I'm not trying to defend it, just trying to clarfify.
I do very much like the "Canticle of the Creatures" of Francis of Assisi.

Lou,

Does this mean that you feel human consciousness expresses the glory of the Sun-consciousness, and the latter is more evolved, i.e. more intelligent, self-aware, virtuous, etc. (not necessarily in the same way we conceive of those things)?

If so, why must this remain a "bias" or "faith" instead of a scientific fact?

[Lou Gold]

My understanding is that cosmopyschism is a type of panpyschism. If you asked whether the animal expresses the glories of the sun or the reverse, my bias and/or faith is that it's the former. I suspect Sheldrake would take such a top-down view but I'm not trying to defend it, just trying to clarfify.
I do very much like the "Canticle of the Creatures" of Francis of Assisi.

Lou,

Does this mean that you feel human consciousness expresses the glory of the Sun-consciousness, and the latter is more evolved, i.e. more intelligent, self-aware, virtuous, etc. (not necessarily in the same way we conceive of those things)?

If so, why must this remain a "bias" or "faith" instead of a scientific fact?

I believe that the whole is more complete (less dissociated) than the parts.

I used the words "bias" or "faith" to express personal humility rather than asserting my particular model or myth as the basic truth. I probably am agnostic toward ontology in-so-far as I seem to constantly see a both/and that needs to be balanced circumstantially with an either/or. My way might be called, "Finding the Way of Balance."

I believe that the truth can be obfuscated or blocked by fantasy, prejudice, denial or other illusions. When such faulty thinking is the immediate problem, it is wise to stop thinking, quiet the mind and let a greater truth emerge naturally. But "stop thinking" is not an absolute, a quiet mind cannot banish the truth from the mental, which is what makes or proves that it is true.

One measure I use in regard to my personal path or way is to notice whether it expands my appreciation of and compassion toward other ways. About ultimate bliss or satisfaction or rapture or ecstacy, I agree with Thich Nhat Hanh saying, "If you haven't seen the suffering, you haven't seen anything." I believe that a noble reason to stop or pause on or return to a step, is to compassionately help to reduce the suffering.

I do believe there are sciences of fact/truth, which are performed by shamans, mystics, laboratorists, meditators, artists, philosophers and others. There are common ingredients called intense monastic-like devoted focus, sacrifice or diet limiting diversions or disruptions, retrievable revelations, peer-reviewed sharing with traditional wisdom keepers, replication by others and demonstrable more generally shared results that offer truth, goodness and beauty to the community.

I do not reject mysticism as necessarily impractical or ungrounded. Great achievements in both realms are possible. I believe that "The Best Way to Complain is To Create."

That's my best shot at this moment in process.

[AshvinP]

My understanding is that cosmopyschism is a type of panpyschism. If you asked whether the animal expresses the glories of the sun or the reverse, my bias and/or faith is that it's the former. I suspect Sheldrake would take such a top-down view but I'm not trying to defend it, just trying to clarfify.
I do very much like the "Canticle of the Creatures" of Francis of Assisi.

Lou,

Does this mean that you feel human consciousness expresses the glory of the Sun-consciousness, and the latter is more evolved, i.e. more intelligent, self-aware, virtuous, etc. (not necessarily in the same way we conceive of those things)?

If so, why must this remain a "bias" or "faith" instead of a scientific fact?

I believe that the whole is more complete (less dissociated) than the parts.

I used the words "bias" or "faith" to express personal humility rather than asserting my particular model or myth as the basic truth. I probably am agnostic toward ontology in-so-far as I seem to constantly see a both/and that needs to be balanced circumstantially with an either/or.

I believe that the truth can be obfuscated or blocked by fantasy, prejudice, denial or other illusions. When such faulty thinking is the immediate problem, it is wise to stop thinking, quiet the mind and let a greater truth emerge naturally. But "stop thinking" is not an absolute, a quiet mind cannot banish the truth from the mental, which is what makes or proves that it is true.

One measure I use in regard to my personal path or way is to notice whether it expands my appreciation of and compassion toward other ways. About ultimate bliss or satisfaction or or rapture or ecstacy, I agree with Thich Nhat Hanh saying, "If you haven't seen the suffering, you haven't seen anything." I believe that a noble reason to stop or pause on or return to a step, is to compassionately help to reduce the suffering.

I do believe there are sciences of fact/truth, which are performed by shamans, mystics, laboratorists, meditators, artists, philosophers and others. There are common ingredients called intense monastic-like devoted focus, sacrifice or diet limiting diversions or disruptions, retrievable revelations, peer-reviewed sharing with traditional wisdom keepers, replication by others and demonstrable more generally shared results that offer truth, goodness and beauty to the community.

I do not reject mysticism as necessarily impractical or ungrounded. Great achievements in both realms are possible. I believe that "The Best Way to Complain is To Create."

That's my best shot at this moment in process.

I appreciate the thoughtful response, Lou.

Let's consider the inner orientation of this thought, which of course is not unique to you but very common in our time - "I used the words "bias" or "faith" to express personal humility rather than asserting my particular model or myth as the basic truth."

Part of the problem is we only like to judge the "humility" of our ideal attitudes in terms of other humans, i.e. beings we can already see, hear, touch, etc. But what about the higher beings, the Gods, our creators, life-sustainers, and inspirers? What does this thought sound like to them?

Perhaps something like, "you aren't capable of giving me the capacity to extend my belief in your Wisdom and Goodness beyond mere bias and faith." In that way, our earthly humility, which we take as such a virtue because we let our fellow humans 'live and let live' with a multiplicity of notions about the Sun-Spirit, ranging from supreme being to instinctive animal or mindless field of energy, is seen as pride by that very same Sun-Spirit. From His perspective, we have taken the Cosmic Intelligence gifted to us with glee but refuse to use it in service of a proper and shared understanding of His nature, only for our personal musings and academic endeavors on the physical plane.

Now if this is was a mere matter of intellectual debates about His nature, I doubt He would bother paying any attention. If it was a matter of mere insult to His ego, it wouldn't be an issue because He has no lower ego like we do. But if the Sun-being has, in all living reality, been shepherding humanity and the Earth itself through its evolution over many aeons, like He does on a daily basis as well, then our lack of understanding of that true nature means the failure of His mission. If enough humans become convinced the Sun-being is like a mostly unconscious mental force, like most people already feel it is a mindless ball of gas which provides energy to the solar system, then human evolution is stopped in its tracks.

It's also interesting to consider how this thinking spiritual path which seeks the precise scientific dynamics of the higher worlds, the precise relations between all the higher hierarchies, their manifold beings, and ourselves, is actually a means of taking all modern worldviews held by a diverse range of people more seriously. It takes what is otherwise thrown around as empty concepts in mystical or academic circles and brings them to life. A case in point is the blind Will philosophy of Schop, which of course underlies BK's analytic idealism and also the unconscious Sun-being science of Sheldrake.

Now consider how there once lived a philosopher who in the second half of the nineteenth century had a great influence on many people, namely, Schopenhauer. As you know, he exercised a great influence both on Nietzsche and Richard Wagner. Schopenhauer derived the world — as others have derived it from other causes — from what he called conception, or representation, and will. He said: Representation and will are what constitutes the foundation of the world.

But — obsessed by Kant’s method of thinking — he goes on to say that representation are never more than dream-pictures and that it is impossible ever to come to reality through them. It is only through the will that we can penetrate into the reality of things — this is done by the will. Now Schopenhauer philosophises in an impressive manner about representation and will; and, if one may say so — he does this indeed rather well. He is, however, one of those who I have likened to a man standing in front of a door and refusing to go through it. When we take his words literally — the world is representation, the world is a mere dream-picture — we have to forgo all knowledge of the world through representation and can then pass on to knowledge of the representations themselves, pass on to doing something in one's own soul with the representations — in other words to meditate, to concentrate.

Had Schopenhauer gone a step further he would have reached the point of saying: "I must renounce representations! If a representation is something produced within me, I must put it to an inward use.’ Had he made this step he would have been driven to cultivate his representations, to work upon them in meditation and concentration.

You see here another example of how a renowned Philosopher of the nineteenth century takes men to the very gates of initiation, right up to spiritual science; and how this philosopher then does everything he can to close these gates to men. Where people really take hold of life they are shown on all sides that the time is ripe for picking the fruits of spiritual science — only things must be taken in earnest, deeply in earnest. Above all we must understand how to take people at their word. For it is not required of spiritual science to stand on its own defense. For the most part this is actually done by others, by its opponents, though they do not know this, have no notion of it.

When he says: The world is will — when, as in his clever treatise on the "Will in Nature", he goes on to describe this will in nature, he does not take his own proposition in earnest. In describing the will we seek the help of representations and he denies those all possibility of knowledge. This reminds us of Munchausen who to pull himself out of a bog catches hold of his own pigtail. What would Schopenhauer have been obliged to be if had taken in earnest his own words — the world is will? He would have had to say: Then we ought to pour out our will into the world; we must use our will to creep inside things. We must delve right into the world, send into it cur will, no longer taking the color blue as mere representation, but trying to perceive how the will sinks down into it; no longer thinking of our stupidity as a representation, but realizing what can be experienced through that stupidity.

You can see that here too it is possible to arrive at a description which needs only to be taken in earnest. Had Schopenhauer gone further he would have had to say: If the representation is really only a picture we represent to ourselves, then we must work upon it; if the will is really in the things, then we must go with it right into the things, not just describe how things have the will within them.

This is what is so profoundly significant in the world — conception of spiritual science, that it takes in all earnest what is not so taken by the others — what they skim over in a superficial way. Proofs are always to be found among the opponents of spiritual science. But people never notice that in their assertions, in what they think, at bottom they are at the same time setting at naught what they think. For the materialistic atomist, and Schopenhauer too, set a naught what they themselves maintain.

Schopenhauer nullifies his own system when he asserts: Everything is will and representation. The moment he is not willing to stop there, however, he is obliged to lead men onto the development of spiritual science. It is not we who form the world-conception of spiritual science; how then does this world-conception come into being? It enters the world of itself — is there, everywhere, in the world. It enters life through unfamiliar doors and windows; and even when others do not take it in earnest, it finds its way into men’s cultural life.

[Lou Gold]

Lou,

Does this mean that you feel human consciousness expresses the glory of the Sun-consciousness, and the latter is more evolved, i.e. more intelligent, self-aware, virtuous, etc. (not necessarily in the same way we conceive of those things)?

If so, why must this remain a "bias" or "faith" instead of a scientific fact?

I believe that the whole is more complete (less dissociated) than the parts.

I used the words "bias" or "faith" to express personal humility rather than asserting my particular model or myth as the basic truth. I probably am agnostic toward ontology in-so-far as I seem to constantly see a both/and that needs to be balanced circumstantially with an either/or.

I believe that the truth can be obfuscated or blocked by fantasy, prejudice, denial or other illusions. When such faulty thinking is the immediate problem, it is wise to stop thinking, quiet the mind and let a greater truth emerge naturally. But "stop thinking" is not an absolute, a quiet mind cannot banish the truth from the mental, which is what makes or proves that it is true.

One measure I use in regard to my personal path or way is to notice whether it expands my appreciation of and compassion toward other ways. About ultimate bliss or satisfaction or or rapture or ecstacy, I agree with Thich Nhat Hanh saying, "If you haven't seen the suffering, you haven't seen anything." I believe that a noble reason to stop or pause on or return to a step, is to compassionately help to reduce the suffering.

I do believe there are sciences of fact/truth, which are performed by shamans, mystics, laboratorists, meditators, artists, philosophers and others. There are common ingredients called intense monastic-like devoted focus, sacrifice or diet limiting diversions or disruptions, retrievable revelations, peer-reviewed sharing with traditional wisdom keepers, replication by others and demonstrable more generally shared results that offer truth, goodness and beauty to the community.

I do not reject mysticism as necessarily impractical or ungrounded. Great achievements in both realms are possible. I believe that "The Best Way to Complain is To Create."

That's my best shot at this moment in process.

I appreciate the thoughtful response, Lou.

Let's consider the inner orientation of this thought, which of course is not unique to you but very common in our time - "I used the words "bias" or "faith" to express personal humility rather than asserting my particular model or myth as the basic truth."

Part of the problem is we only like to judge the "humility" of our ideal attitudes in terms of other humans, i.e. beings we can already see, hear, touch, etc. But what about the higher beings, the Gods, our creators, life-sustainers, and inspirers? What does this thought sound like to them?

Perhaps something like, "you aren't capable of giving me the capacity to extend my belief in your Wisdom and Goodness beyond mere bias and faith." In that way, our earthly humility, which we take as such a virtue because we let our fellow humans 'live and let live' with a multiplicity of notions about the Sun-Spirit, ranging from supreme being to instinctive animal or mindless field of energy, is seen as pride by that very same Sun-Spirit. From His perspective, we have taken the Cosmic Intelligence gifted to us with glee but refuse to use it in service of a proper and shared understanding of His nature, only for our personal musings and academic endeavors on the physical plane.

Now if this is was a mere matter of intellectual debates about His nature, I doubt He would bother paying any attention. If it was a matter of mere insult to His ego, it wouldn't be an issue because He has no lower ego like we do. But if the Sun-being has, in all living reality, been shepherding humanity and the Earth itself through its evolution over many aeons, like He does on a daily basis as well, then our lack of understanding of that true nature means the failure of His mission. If enough humans become convinced the Sun-being is like a mostly unconscious mental force, like most people already feel it is a mindless ball of gas which provides energy to the solar system, then human evolution is stopped in its tracks.

It's also interesting to consider how this thinking spiritual path which seeks the precise scientific dynamics of the higher worlds, the precise relations between all the higher hierarchies, their manifold beings, and ourselves, is actually a means of taking all modern worldviews held by a diverse range of people more seriously. It takes what is otherwise thrown around as empty concepts in mystical or academic circles and brings them to life. A case in point is the blind Will philosophy of Schop, which of course underlies BK's analytic idealism and also the unconscious Sun-being science of Sheldrake.

Now consider how there once lived a philosopher who in the second half of the nineteenth century had a great influence on many people, namely, Schopenhauer. As you know, he exercised a great influence both on Nietzsche and Richard Wagner. Schopenhauer derived the world — as others have derived it from other causes — from what he called conception, or representation, and will. He said: Representation and will are what constitutes the foundation of the world.

But — obsessed by Kant’s method of thinking — he goes on to say that representation are never more than dream-pictures and that it is impossible ever to come to reality through them. It is only through the will that we can penetrate into the reality of things — this is done by the will. Now Schopenhauer philosophises in an impressive manner about representation and will; and, if one may say so — he does this indeed rather well. He is, however, one of those who I have likened to a man standing in front of a door and refusing to go through it. When we take his words literally — the world is representation, the world is a mere dream-picture — we have to forgo all knowledge of the world through representation and can then pass on to knowledge of the representations themselves, pass on to doing something in one's own soul with the representations — in other words to meditate, to concentrate.

Had Schopenhauer gone a step further he would have reached the point of saying: "I must renounce representations! If a representation is something produced within me, I must put it to an inward use.’ Had he made this step he would have been driven to cultivate his representations, to work upon them in meditation and concentration.

You see here another example of how a renowned Philosopher of the nineteenth century takes men to the very gates of initiation, right up to spiritual science; and how this philosopher then does everything he can to close these gates to men. Where people really take hold of life they are shown on all sides that the time is ripe for picking the fruits of spiritual science — only things must be taken in earnest, deeply in earnest. Above all we must understand how to take people at their word. For it is not required of spiritual science to stand on its own defense. For the most part this is actually done by others, by its opponents, though they do not know this, have no notion of it.

When he says: The world is will — when, as in his clever treatise on the "Will in Nature", he goes on to describe this will in nature, he does not take his own proposition in earnest. In describing the will we seek the help of representations and he denies those all possibility of knowledge. This reminds us of Munchausen who to pull himself out of a bog catches hold of his own pigtail. What would Schopenhauer have been obliged to be if had taken in earnest his own words — the world is will? He would have had to say: Then we ought to pour out our will into the world; we must use our will to creep inside things. We must delve right into the world, send into it cur will, no longer taking the color blue as mere representation, but trying to perceive how the will sinks down into it; no longer thinking of our stupidity as a representation, but realizing what can be experienced through that stupidity.

You can see that here too it is possible to arrive at a description which needs only to be taken in earnest. Had Schopenhauer gone further he would have had to say: If the representation is really only a picture we represent to ourselves, then we must work upon it; if the will is really in the things, then we must go with it right into the things, not just describe how things have the will within them.

This is what is so profoundly significant in the world — conception of spiritual science, that it takes in all earnest what is not so taken by the others — what they skim over in a superficial way. Proofs are always to be found among the opponents of spiritual science. But people never notice that in their assertions, in what they think, at bottom they are at the same time setting at naught what they think. For the materialistic atomist, and Schopenhauer too, set a naught what they themselves maintain.

Schopenhauer nullifies his own system when he asserts: Everything is will and representation. The moment he is not willing to stop there, however, he is obliged to lead men onto the development of spiritual science. It is not we who form the world-conception of spiritual science; how then does this world-conception come into being? It enters the world of itself — is there, everywhere, in the world. It enters life through unfamiliar doors and windows; and even when others do not take it in earnest, it finds its way into men’s cultural life.

Yikes, Ashvin, this feels like so many dialogues you've had with others where they feel misrepresented. I posted Shedrake's article as something folks might find interesting and not as a devotee wanting to defend it. You try to engage me personally in debate. I'm not going there.

For clarification, my "bias" is the constellation or gestalt of my circumstance -- ancestral, cultural, current life history, etc -- beliefs quite subject to changes. On the other hand, my "faith" is that which survives beyond the ebb and flow of beliefs, it is my personal certainty resonating from a firm spiritual anchor within.

Your speculation feels intellectual to me. I do commune with non-corporeal beings. My signature quote was given to me by what you refer to as a "higher being." The image I offered above is a result of a recent communion. But, no, I don't proselytize. It's prohibited on my path. Are you judging me? If so I ask if your way gives you the direct experiences of communion or are you offering a critique of me based on what you have gleaned intellectually from the writings of others and projected onto me?

BTW, I do not reject Steiner, et al, as a valid spiritual path. In scanning across a variety of spiritual paths I find much to appreciate from diverse paths. The comparative critiques and debates I find less interesting.