Anthroposophy as Fascio

[Federica]

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.

Lou,
I'm seeing your post. I have a big week coming up, I am sorry I'll have to get back to this in a few days.

[Lou Gold]

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.

Lou,
I'm seeing your post. I have a big week coming up, I am sorry I'll have to get back to this in a few days.

Not a big one here Federica. Was a minor quibble. Hope you do well in your big week.

[Stranger]

Meaning 2: What one gets with the exercise of asking "What am I", where one notes that I am not this and not that. Usually, the exercise is intended to show "there is no I", but this is fallacious because all the thises and thats are objects, while the "I" is not an object. It is (meaning 2) subject, and exists in polar relation to all the thises and thats. So, again, not a dualism.

That's the intermediate "neti-neti" phase of the practice where the "I am awareness of..." subject is distinguished from the forms/objects of awareness. At the next stage the inseparability of the "I" and the forms/objects is also realized (subject is no other than object, object is no other than subject), so they are still distinguishable, but not separable, and so, even though the subject-object distinction remains, there is no longer any subject-object dualism.

[Cleric K]

When you say the bold you mean that the oneness embraces these things in principle but you haven't yet reached that level yourself? Or that you have already embraced them but don't find it necessary to look into the details (and that's why you can't confirm anything about the sheaths, soul organs, spheres, hierarchies, etc.) since after death you'll be free of these folds anyway?

In principle

OK. It all has to do with this fundamental inner attitude that has been spoken of so many times. In one case it is assumed that through the experience of oneness we already intuit reality from the standpoint of the Divine Container, even though the contents of consciousness are still indeterminate (and that’s why we say that we know the folds and hierarchies of the oneness only in principle). These details are expected to be elucidated at some point, analogously to seeing an illuminated object in a dark room, which was until recently invisible. In other words, we already have intuition of what space and objects are, it’s only that the picture is incomplete. This is summarized with the position ‘we know what consciousness is’. From that perspective, the stages of higher cognition – even if not yet developed – are felt to be certain modes of perception and intuition within the One Divine Container. Otherwise stated, we already encompass the higher stages similarly to the way we encompass the objects in a dark room even if we don’t yet see them. We may not see them yet but they’re expected to certainly fit within our Container as soon as they are illuminated.

This has been contrasted many times with the conception that the higher stages are not simply something that is elucidated within our Container but are themselves a revolution in our intuition of ‘what consciousness is’. In other words, at present our consciousness in deep sleep is dark not simply because the lights are out while we’re otherwise fully capable of cognizing whatever there is if they were on, but precisely because our sense of ‘what consciousness is’ is not yet complete.

I’ll give it a break. I believe this has been explicated as much as possible so from that point onwards everyone can do whatever they wish with these ideas.

[Stranger]

This has been contrasted many times with the conception that the higher stages are not simply something that is elucidated within our Container but are themselves a revolution in our intuition of ‘what consciousness is’. In other words, at present our consciousness in deep sleep is dark not simply because the lights are out while we’re otherwise fully capable of cognizing whatever there is if they were on, but precisely because our sense of ‘what consciousness is’ is not yet complete.

This is correct (and said it already before): our knowledge of both what consciousness is and what it does is incomplete. We are in a process of expanding or frontier of knowledge in both dimensions - vertical (what it is) and horizontal (what it does), And yes, progressing to higher levels of cognition opens to us new discoveries in both dimensions of knowledge. The knowledge in these dimensions do not conflict with each other but instead they enhance each other, because the better we understand what it is, the better we also understand what/how/why it does, and the other way around. But it is not about knowledge only, but also about moral side of life, because there is a causal relation between knowledge and harmony. The more our understanding of reality is distorted, the more disharmony and suffering is created as a result of acting upon the distorted knowledge.

[AshvinP]

This has been contrasted many times with the conception that the higher stages are not simply something that is elucidated within our Container but are themselves a revolution in our intuition of ‘what consciousness is’. In other words, at present our consciousness in deep sleep is dark not simply because the lights are out while we’re otherwise fully capable of cognizing whatever there is if they were on, but precisely because our sense of ‘what consciousness is’ is not yet complete.

This is correct (and said it already before): our knowledge of both what consciousness is and what it does is incomplete. We are in a process of expanding or frontier of knowledge in both dimensions - vertical (what it is) and horizontal (what it does), And yes, progressing to higher levels of cognition opens to us new discoveries in both dimensions of knowledge. The knowledge in these dimensions do not conflict with each other but instead they enhance each other, because the better we understand what it is, the better we also understand what/how/why it does, and the other way around. But it is not about knowledge only, but also about moral side of life, because there is a causal relation between knowledge and harmony. The more our understanding of reality is distorted, the more disharmony and suffering is created as a result of acting upon the distorted knowledge.

How do you reconcile the bold with the below (and many similar comments)?

Awareness as the lucidity of conscious experience is the same in all individuals

How can you know that if your knowledge of what consciousness is, is incomplete?

[Lou Gold]

The question I was raising was related to added anxiety. The suggestion offered was this was due to guilt. I didn't quite get how that might unfold and passed the guilt question to you. Got any thoughts?

Yes, sorry, I missed it. I agree, I don't get it either and I don't see how it could be related to the sense of guilt.

Hey Eugene,

I think I found the answer in the Gabor Maté podcast that I put up in [viewtopic.php?t=918]my next topical post.[/url] It is in the nature of strong vulnerability, which is a helpless childlike feeling including narcissism (I am the cause) to think that bad things happen because of "something wrong with me" or guilt. The dying process is, of course, full of vulnerabilities. Think about it.

[Stranger]

This has been contrasted many times with the conception that the higher stages are not simply something that is elucidated within our Container but are themselves a revolution in our intuition of ‘what consciousness is’. In other words, at present our consciousness in deep sleep is dark not simply because the lights are out while we’re otherwise fully capable of cognizing whatever there is if they were on, but precisely because our sense of ‘what consciousness is’ is not yet complete.

This is correct (and said it already before): our knowledge of both what consciousness is and what it does is incomplete. We are in a process of expanding or frontier of knowledge in both dimensions - vertical (what it is) and horizontal (what it does), And yes, progressing to higher levels of cognition opens to us new discoveries in both dimensions of knowledge. The knowledge in these dimensions do not conflict with each other but instead they enhance each other, because the better we understand what it is, the better we also understand what/how/why it does, and the other way around. But it is not about knowledge only, but also about moral side of life, because there is a causal relation between knowledge and harmony. The more our understanding of reality is distorted, the more disharmony and suffering is created as a result of acting upon the distorted knowledge.

How do you reconcile the bold with the below (and many similar comments)?

Awareness as the lucidity of conscious experience is the same in all individuals

How can you know that if your knowledge of what consciousness is, is incomplete?

Because in addition to the common awareness, which we already know and which is one of the unifying aspects of what consciousness is, there may be other aspects of it which we may not know yet.

[Anthony66]

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.

[Anthony66]

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.