Anthroposophy as Fascio

[AshvinP]

I've been pondering this statement all afternoon. Can you please provide some clarifications on: is "higher being" a referent to a single being or higher levels of being;

Higher being in this case refers simply to a perspective which experiences the intellectual self as its suit, so to speak. Of course, there are levels but in this particular case it was used in a more general manner.

and what "feels itself", the higher being or our thinking united with the higher being?

This is a good question and hints at the difficulties we encounter when we try to have a clear intellectual definition of "what I am". I would say that the second form - thinking united with the higher being - is better but it really depends on what exactly one implies. How would you describe this unity?

Rupert Spira is fond of the metaphor of Mary and Jane. In it, Mary falls asleep and dreams she is Jane in the streets of London. Jane experience herself as a separate self, but when she starts investigating who she really is, she finds out she is not a separate self (Jane) in London, but that she was Mary all the time. Everything was just Mary, including all the objects and other subjects in London. All was just a dream in Mary's mind.

This partly gets at the issue but it does flatten things into "everything was just Mary". The dynamics of Jane's mind in the context of Mary's mind are left largely unaccounted for. The "non-dual awakening" of Jane happens either when Mary awakens from sleep and so destroys Jane or perhaps when a level of lucid-dreaming occurs.

Anthony,

If Jane is to awaken to her existence as Mary, then what does this mean? Mary doesn't only 'destroy' Jane, but comes to understand why and how Jane experienced herself as this separate dream personality (assuming Mary lucidly remembers the dreaming). Everything which occurred within the dream is understood as archetypal symbols for higher-order spiritual activity. Perhaps the dream narrative of wandering through a never-ending maze with weird creatures is understood as the symbol of a Mary's childhood experience of getting lost from her parents in a mall with strangers. Does the nondual awakening result in a similar precise understanding of wandering through the maze of normal Earthly life? I had asked Eugene before for a written example from someone who had so awakened, which could give us more confidence in such a conclusion. Can you provide that?

[Federica]

OK, good. Balance is the in-the-now quest in a dynamic system. I might prefer the word "expandable" to "scalable" in order to accomodate all "externalities" but I think we are talking about much the same thing.

Lou... I intentionally used scalable - as opposed to extendible, or expandable - to suggest that there really are two very different ways to conceive progression on the path. We can either remain stuck in our current, possibly ego-inflated, level of understanding, when we do add pieces of knowledge by expansion, but without accepting to move the apex of our cone of awareness. Most of all we want to remain true, so to say, to what we are currently persuaded our self is, more than to Truth. So we only broaden the aperture of our cone of awareness, and in so doing we subtly cap any qualitative progression. We only add pieces to our current setup, but we refuse to question the setup itself. Maybe scalable is not the ideal word, as it may suggest the preservation of some initial proportions. But do you get what I was trying to say?

Alterantively, we keep our current mode of knowledge scalable, and so we are humbly conceiving the possibility that our very sense of what understanding is will be revolutionized and transformed in currently unconceivable ways. We are open to a quantum leap that can blow away our current perspective. This second mode is necessary to allow for true progression. But this possibility is excluded, when one's ego is too proud and out of balance, more attached to remaining "true to oneself", as we often hear today, than to discover what reality are (if I can say so).

Hi again Federica,

But do you get what I was trying to say?

I thought about it more. Perhaps I stumbled, as a photographer, on the word "aperture," which is used to adjust the amount light in a given unchanging view. Sometimes the best view needs more light and other times it needs more shadow. To change the view one must change the focal length and quality of the lens, for example: normal or macro, wide angle or telephoto. These adjustments would expand the views to be broader or longer or deeper. They would all be expansions of what the human eye can normally see. So... perhaps I am a bit confused as to exactly what you meant.

Hi Lou,

Yes, maybe aperture was not the best word. I could have used angle. I had in mind the aperture of the photographic lens, because this is the opening of the lens - the bigger, the more light gets in. Similarly the cone of awareness can become wider (but not wiser) to incorporate more pieces of information.

[Federica]

I take offense on two fronts. The first is the growing disrespectful tone towards Eugene, particularly evident in the paragraph I've highlighted. The second is more personal - I view this forum as precious in my life, one which has been quite transformative. I resist any efforts to close down conversation fronts because someone "is not getting it" or is perceived to be resistant.

Anthony,

Regarding the first front of offense you are taking, I would like to ask you what it means to take offense by proxy, or on behalf of someone else, because it’s a feeling I have difficulties understanding. Maybe you had a private conversation with Eugene, when he shared that he was offended, and you sympathize with him? Or maybe you didn’t, and you are offended that he didn’t seem to be offended? In case he did not feel offended, what would your feeling consist of? I am not sure, please explain. Also, I wonder: were you offended on behalf of Ashvin, when he was called a liar, arrogant, and so on? Were you offended on behalf of Jordan Peterson, when the journalist was expressing confrontational viewpoints to him (if you have checked the video)?


Regarding the second front of offense you speak of, when you take personal offense to my “efforts to close down conversation fronts”, it seems that my previous post has gone completely unregistered. By the way, in your view, could an hypothetical sympathizer of mine feel offended on my behalf for this side-tracking? I wonder. Maybe you have noticed that I never ignore, and always reply to all posts that are addressed to me (in an open-ended way, of course). The same cannot be said of, for example, you. Does that mean that you are blocking conversations in this way? I would say, it doesn’t mean that - what do you think? Still, you are arguing that I am blocking conversation fronts, despite the fact that I continue writing substantial replies... Well, as it seems, factfulness and objectivity are suffering here.

Also, one could ask, why are you not doing much - or anything at all to be precise - to try and keep that conversation front open - yeah, that front that I am “closing off”, supposing it can be identified, you must know which one. Why don’t you contribute yourself to keeping your topics of interest open, with factual comments or questions, now that they are "threatened"? Could it be that you prefer to rely on Eugene’s ability to profusely comment and respond, and you are now afraid he won’t be providing anymore? Could this be the source of your feeling of offense? I am wondering, because, again, this transitive property that you apply to "feeling offended" remains quite incomprehensible to me.

At this rate, I could just as well feel offended on behalf of my Danish friends, because of this:

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, as they say.

I don’t get that in 2023 people keep propagating non-inclusive, discriminatory sayings of this sort, when there are so many other ways to say the exact same thing that don’t require offending the very nice Danish people, and me with them, so casually and insensitively.

I'm not sure what I can say if acts of empathy are apparently so foreign. I have a soft-spot towards non-dual practice and I'm particularly interested to see how it relates to SS. I've been, and continue to be, an engaged onlooker with these discussions. Apart from this, it's quite a normal reaction to feel offended on behalf of others one perceives to be unfairly treated. We have advocacy groups in our society driven by this very reason.

Rather than taking on board my concerns and moving on, you're now launching a counter-attack. I will not get embroiled in that. I've made my point. Take it or leave it. The matter is closed from my end.

I post as I am able in my 80+ hour work week.

Anthony, I admit I have difficulties following you. You are the one who started this exchange, accusing me of various things, and continuing. There are no accusations in my replies, you may have noticed. Up to a point, I don’t mind being accused in this way, because I know these are not really attacks, but I admit I prefer to read and write other types of posts, and I'm glad you decided that the matter is now closed.

[Lou Gold]

Lou... I intentionally used scalable - as opposed to extendible, or expandable - to suggest that there really are two very different ways to conceive progression on the path. We can either remain stuck in our current, possibly ego-inflated, level of understanding, when we do add pieces of knowledge by expansion, but without accepting to move the apex of our cone of awareness. Most of all we want to remain true, so to say, to what we are currently persuaded our self is, more than to Truth. So we only broaden the aperture of our cone of awareness, and in so doing we subtly cap any qualitative progression. We only add pieces to our current setup, but we refuse to question the setup itself. Maybe scalable is not the ideal word, as it may suggest the preservation of some initial proportions. But do you get what I was trying to say?

Alterantively, we keep our current mode of knowledge scalable, and so we are humbly conceiving the possibility that our very sense of what understanding is will be revolutionized and transformed in currently unconceivable ways. We are open to a quantum leap that can blow away our current perspective. This second mode is necessary to allow for true progression. But this possibility is excluded, when one's ego is too proud and out of balance, more attached to remaining "true to oneself", as we often hear today, than to discover what reality are (if I can say so).

Hi again Federica,

But do you get what I was trying to say?

I thought about it more. Perhaps I stumbled, as a photographer, on the word "aperture," which is used to adjust the amount light in a given unchanging view. Sometimes the best view needs more light and other times it needs more shadow. To change the view one must change the focal length and quality of the lens, for example: normal or macro, wide angle or telephoto. These adjustments would expand the views to be broader or longer or deeper. They would all be expansions of what the human eye can normally see. So... perhaps I am a bit confused as to exactly what you meant.

Hi Lou,

Yes, maybe aperture was not the best word. I could have used angle. I had in mind the aperture of the photographic lens, because this is the opening of the lens - the bigger, the more light gets in. Similarly the cone of awareness can become wider (but not wiser) to incorporate more pieces of information.

Yikes, the opposite is always always true, hence "wider but not wiser," "deeper but lost in the dark" and "lofty but not grounded." The general challenge is to find the sweet mix offering a stable balance. Without darkness one will not see the moon and stars. "Expanded" to me means "in all directions in right proportion." Cones don't work well for me. I prefer a Yin-Yang of expanded diameter embracing more multidirectional flow. Or a Merkaba such as my icon. But, so goes mere representations. Always lacking.

[Federica]

Hi Lou,

Yes, maybe aperture was not the best word. I could have used angle. I had in mind the aperture of the photographic lens, because this is the opening of the lens - the bigger, the more light gets in. Similarly the cone of awareness can become wider (but not wiser) to incorporate more pieces of information.

Yikes, the opposite is always always true, hence "wider but not wiser," "deeper but lost in the dark" and "lofty but not grounded." The general challenge is to find the sweet mix offering a stable balance. Without darkness one will not see the moon and stars. "Expanded" to me means "in all directions in right proportion." Cones don't work well for me. I prefer a Yin-Yang of expanded diameter embracing more multidirectional flow. Or a Merkaba such as my icon. But, so goes mere representations. Always lacking.

The opposite of what?
(side note: the moon can be seen without darkness)

[Lou Gold]

Hi Lou,

Yes, maybe aperture was not the best word. I could have used angle. I had in mind the aperture of the photographic lens, because this is the opening of the lens - the bigger, the more light gets in. Similarly the cone of awareness can become wider (but not wiser) to incorporate more pieces of information.

Yikes, the opposite is always always true, hence "wider but not wiser," "deeper but lost in the dark" and "lofty but not grounded." The general challenge is to find the sweet mix offering a stable balance. Without darkness one will not see the moon and stars. "Expanded" to me means "in all directions in right proportion." Cones don't work well for me. I prefer a Yin-Yang of expanded diameter embracing more multidirectional flow. Or a Merkaba such as my icon. But, so goes mere representations. Always lacking.

The opposite of what?
(side note: the moon can be seen without darkness)

Yes, the moon can but the moon and the stars? I was just commenting on dialectical thinking and its endless loops.

[Federica]

Yikes, the opposite is always always true, hence "wider but not wiser," "deeper but lost in the dark" and "lofty but not grounded." The general challenge is to find the sweet mix offering a stable balance. Without darkness one will not see the moon and stars. "Expanded" to me means "in all directions in right proportion." Cones don't work well for me. I prefer a Yin-Yang of expanded diameter embracing more multidirectional flow. Or a Merkaba such as my icon. But, so goes mere representations. Always lacking.

The opposite of what?
(side note: the moon can be seen without darkness)

Yes, the moon can but the moon and the stars? I was just commenting on dialectical thinking and its endless loops.

No, not the stars.
Could you be more precise on what you meant with: "Yikes, the opposite is always always true"?

[Lou Gold]

The opposite of what?
(side note: the moon can be seen without darkness)

Yes, the moon can but the moon and the stars? I was just commenting on dialectical thinking and its endless loops.

No, not the stars.
Could you be more precise on what you meant with: "Yikes, the opposite is always always true"?

For example: "There are no rules, including this one. "

[Federica]

Yes, the moon can but the moon and the stars? I was just commenting on dialectical thinking and its endless loops.

No, not the stars.
Could you be more precise on what you meant with: "Yikes, the opposite is always always true"?

For example: "There are no rules, including this one. "

How is this related with anything I wrote about "the cone"?

[AshvinP]

Yikes, the opposite is always always true, hence "wider but not wiser," "deeper but lost in the dark" and "lofty but not grounded." The general challenge is to find the sweet mix offering a stable balance. Without darkness one will not see the moon and stars. "Expanded" to me means "in all directions in right proportion." Cones don't work well for me. I prefer a Yin-Yang of expanded diameter embracing more multidirectional flow. Or a Merkaba such as my icon. But, so goes mere representations. Always lacking.

The opposite of what?
(side note: the moon can be seen without darkness)

Yes, the moon can but the moon and the stars? I was just commenting on dialectical thinking and its endless loops.

On another side not, I have been reading a book on Hermetic astrology. Although the stars cannot be seen during the day, the location of the Sun allows us to know what Zodiacal and planetary influences are at work at any given time. For ex., we can know that as the Sun crosses the vernal point (spring equinox) during our age, it is within the sign of Pisces, but is gradually moving back towards Aquarius (at a rate of about 1 degree every 72 years). Through such knowledge, if it really penetrates from the head into the heart, we can anctipate the dawning of new cultural influences as we approach a new cultural age and how we can contribute to their fulfillment. Dialectic thinking need not be abandoned, but enlivened and enriched with heart knowledge. The Moon impulse can be redeemed by the Sun impulse.

Perhaps that relates in so far as the widening, deepening, etc. of the 'aperture' in our stage of evolution only occurs through the intensification of our inner Light (the spiritual Sun) which discerns more and more of the threads weaving together the spiritual relations of the manifest world. The physical Sun accompanies us on this moral journey as an outer marker, as we progressively enlighten the dark liminal spaces of our cognition. Although we can speak of polar influences and balancing broadly, it is clear that certain scales of the balance need to be emphasized over others in any given evolutionary context. To discern what needs emphasis, we need to also know what tasks for humanity and the Earth organism are ahead of us and how we can optimally perform them.