Cell Intelligence in Physiological & Morphological Spaces

[AshvinP]

From here, either something extraordinary is about to happen (I have seen that someone has just been visiting the essay link) or a final rebuttal comment is about to be dropped

I joined in with a comment as well:

Marco, when Federica refers to the vertical path to dealing with these environmental issues, perhaps a concrete example will help.

What is your view, for example, on the idea that the Earth is a living and sentient being, with its own intentional first-person perspective just as we have ours? Of course, that doesn't mean the Earth is thinking in verbal concepts and analyzing the warming of its body, but simply that the metamorphoses of its bodies have some integral relationship with its higher-order soul and spiritual existence.

That doesn't mean humanity has no relevance for the Earth organism's metamorphoses, either. On the contrary, humanity is like the brain of this organism and is becoming increasingly responsible for stewarding its psychic and bodily rhythms. Yet would you agree this can only be done properly from a place of deep spiritual insight into the higher-order intentions through which the Earth's state of being unfolds?

Otherwise, it is as if we are a doctor confronted with a patient who has a high temperature and our first response, instead of doing diagnostic tests and conversing with the patient to resonate with their inner state of being, is to dose them up with whatever medications we can find based on myopic knowledge that some of these medications were correlated with lowering temperatures in the past, even though we have no deep insight as to why there is a temperature to begin with.

[Federica]

From here, either something extraordinary is about to happen (I have seen that someone has just been visiting the essay link) or a final rebuttal comment is about to be dropped

I joined in with a comment as well:

Thanks, Ashvin. An example could have been useful, but the disposition to consider it was not there:


MM: "I believe you have misread everything. Anyway… if my essays sound so superficial to you, why are you wasting your time writing so much about it? You want me to read that essay? I began to read the first part some time ago and didn’t perceive it as something written by someone “knowing the truth from within” and, therefore, didn’t feel it necessary to proceed further. But what I’m pretty much sure of is that nobody who is on the “progressive discovery of truth by learning to dive into the sea of consciousness” would feel the need to tell someone else being “homey, satisfied filling boxes with thoughts.” Don’t you see that you are only gilding yourself?

Thus, I believe it is time to give it a cut. This conversation isn’t constructive and is becoming toxic. From my side I don’t feel it necessary to comment further and wish you good luck."

Reply: Thank you, Marco. I am sorry my viewpoint reads on your side in the way you express. I also send you my best wishes.

[AshvinP]

Thanks, Ashvin. An example could have been useful, but the disposition to consider it was not there:

Yeah, I have no illusions my side of the discussion is going anywhere fruitful either, but nevertheless here are the latest comments. If nothing else, it helps me to think through the phenomenological issues related to these modern developments more.


MM: Yes, quite so. There must be a convergence between the mental/technological and spiritual. That's what was (more or less implicitly) meant.

So how would you say the spiritual informs your scientific understanding in these domains of inquiry? For example in this essay you mention the reasons for climate change, the course of human evolution for millions of years, tipping points in complex physical systems, and the likely outcomes of a 3 degree warming by 2080. Does spiritual knowledge of the human subtle organization, the Earth subtle organization, and the strucutre of the higher supra-rational spaces play into any of these conclusions? If so, I am curious to hear how. Or if that's the subject of an upcoming installment, then I will simply wait.


MM: It isn’t about knowing the “structure” of the subtle organizations or supra-rational spaces, but that of seeing from it, connecting with the whole as an archetypal manifestation of a deeper will-force and which isn’t separate from us. Once one enters into that cognitive space, the impossible appears as entirely possible, and even inevitably in the natural order of things.

Ok, but there are many people who feel they have connected with the whole and are seeing from it. There are the theosophists, the anthroposophists, the martinists, the aurobindans, the tibetan buddhists, and so on. All of them recognize the existence of the supra-rational spaces. Some of them may say the Divine Will reveals to them from this higher cognitive space that actually the climate won't increase by 3 degrees but soon it will begin cooling again and we are headed for a new ice age.

What can we look for to evaluate which claim to higher revelation can be relied upon? Is there anything akin to the scientific method for the supersensible? Do any details of the supersensible make a practical difference to the Earthly stream of becoming? Or must we simply see which claims match up with the secular climate models and predictions?


MM: I’m usually not interested in higher revelations of others (unless I intimately feel/know them to be true,) let alone passively rely on them. While, it is the collective state of consciousness that will determine whether secular predictions will become true or will be overruled. Not the other way around.

Isn't this exactly what the materialist does? Reject any higher revealed wisdom, even if it can be logically reasoned through and harmonized with the accessible facts of experience, because it doesn't fit with what they 'feel/know' from default sensory intuition, and rely passively on intellectual models instead. These models simply follow the transformation of perceptual frames, which is really the transformation of our intellectual *thinking states*, and then extroplate that data indefinitely into the past and future even though the collective state of consciousness has changed radically and will continue to. It is the same with all the associated models of how climate change will affect the environment and the economy.

All of this is thoroughly explored through the phenomenology of cognition, such as the essays you dismissed before. We can only be safe from passive reliance on external authorities, secular or religious, when we become intimately familiar with our own cognitive structure, and yes this means we have to take an active interest in the details. Then we come to know how exactly intellectual models come into existence and what sort of value we can place on them (which is not zero, because they certainly have some value), where they fit into the bigger spiritual context. We come to know how our intellectual thinking states rest atop a whole subconscious iceberg of assumptions, preferences, habits, and deeper influences that can be lucidly known.

To be clear, I am not trying to debate climate change, its causes, or where it is headed. Just trying to point out that we won't make very much progress analyzing the issue with the same intellectual hubris as the materialistic culture that developed industrial society for endless profit in the first place.

[AshvinP]

Final comments. It seems a common defense mechanism in this area is to lose all ability to distinguish writing styles and accuse two people of being the same person : )

MM: Because the "higher revelations" that my intimate feeling/knowing tells me are false I will not follow and prefer to listen to those I resonate with, or listen to my inner intuition and heart. That you brand them as "default sensory intuition, relying passively on intellectual models" only highlights your own default passive intellect, as your essays do, and that don't go beyond subconscious iceberg and intellectual hubris either. I begin to suspect that you and Federica are the same person. The same writing style and nomenclature but, especially, the same level of toxicity. So, my superficial intellectualized default intuition/feeling tells me it is better to shut down this conversation, once and forever. Good luck... again.

I didn't refer to your intuition as "default sensory intuition", but simply pointed out you are falling into the same trap, albeit at a higher stage of thinking. You confirmed that again in this reply. We can never learn anything new if we are only willing to think through ideas we already "resonate" with, for subconscious reasons that we are hardly aware of. This is the very definition of passive reliance on external authorities. And it is the very end of higher knowledge.

I was genuinely hoping that maybe I was missing something in your line of reasoning, but now I see what I am missing is that your reasoning consists of projecting your own inner tendencies onto anyone who challenges you to think more actively, deeply, and freely. It is disappointing that this comes from someone who should know better from studying Aurobindo.

Good luck to you too!

[Federica]

Final comments. It seems a common defense mechanism in this area is to lose all ability to distinguish writing styles and accuse two people of being the same person : )

Yeah... even if it's sad, I have to admit that I laughed when I saw that
Exactly, I remember that Jim Cross argued a similar thing, that you and Cleric were the same person
I would call it the claustrophobic mind.
Surely the atmosphere becomes rather "toxic" rather fast, when one self-isolates in there.

[lorenzop]

When multiple people specifically suggest a messaging is toxic, or people flee a messaging - instead of pointing fingers at the suggestions, perhaps the messengers should inspect their presentation and manner.

[Federica]

When multiple people specifically suggest a messaging is toxic, or people flee a messaging - instead of pointing fingers at the suggestions, perhaps the messengers should inspect their presentation and manner.

Lorenzo, it's not multiple people, it's one person.
By the way, have you read the messages in question and their presentation and manner, to judge for yourself?
You can find them in the comments here:

https://marcomasi.substack.com/p/geoeng ... t-54779630

[AshvinP]

When multiple people specifically suggest a messaging is toxic, or people flee a messaging - instead of pointing fingers at the suggestions, perhaps the messengers should inspect their presentation and manner.

I wonder if it's the presentation and manner so much as the idea being presented (as understood by the person receiving the message).

The suggestion that our thoughts\thinking is influenced or perhaps sourced from archetypal beings doesn't seem reasonable or intuitive. In fact, if I 'thought' this was the case, I'd revolt and strive for freedom from these tricksters.

Even if I surrounded my comments with 'agreements', flowery praise, and emojis of hearts and kisses, I doubt it would lessen the disgust for the idea that our thinking/thoughts is not our private possession but is modulated by Cosmic intelligences we can hardly conceive and to whom we owe concrete responsibilities. Marco sensed this in the messaging, just as you did, and chose to flee. It is a perfectly understandable reaction when one's mystical philosophy is geared toward smearing out any hint of hierarchical structure in the Cosmos.

[lorenzop]

I can't speak for Marcos et al. but Marcos did find find the ideas disagreeable or toxic - but he described the conversations as toxic.
I'd recommend trying more compassion and generosity in your writings, and less self-certainty and pompousness.