Philosophical Speculations

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 8:05 pm I personally hold your view above to be the most dangerous form of spirituality going forward.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 11:50 pm [videos of Eckhart Tolle and Rupert Spira]

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 8:05 pm I personally hold your view above to be the most dangerous form of spirituality going forward.

Exactly! These spiritualists who are so popular and have genuinely good intentions have no idea what kind of damage they can do to those hanging on their every word, according to my spiritual approach which seeks higher resolution because higher resolution can actually be gained (which is not necessarily resolution of "total" Reality, as your comments on the other thread re: Godel make clear you also do not understand). But the purpose of me making that comment to you was NOT to argue their approach is wrong and Cleric's or mine is right. If their approach is in accord with Reality more than mine, then what I am saying about the "danger" is obviously incorrect. Cleric and I cannot even get to the arguments for our approach with you. This post by you proves that, somehow, against all odds, you STILL do not understand what I am saying in these pre-debate remarks.

Seriously, Eugene, this is a real problem. In fact, a big reason why I started writing relatively long essays instead of simply making small posts and comments is because you were making that completely unproductive for everyone else on the forum (although I will admit I am glad you motivated me in that direction because I truly enjoy writing the essays). Every single discussion started by me or Cleric which involved any spiritual claims were completely derailed by you, so that we could never flesh out our arguments any further. We spent the pages upon pages on each thread simply trying to get past square one with you, which was only to make clear what the positions were with respect to each other. This literally happened dozens of times and continues to happen right now.

So I am done trying to make you understand the positions when you clearly have no desire to. If you are not going to put in the effort to carefully read what we are writing, from every possible angle we can think of to write it, over the course of many months and pages upon pages of essays and comments, then there is no use persisting. You can keep obfuscating the positions and derailing the discussions and we can keep trying new ways to work around you for productive dialogue. It's really annoying and unnecessarily time consuming, but that's just the way it has to be, I guess.

Well, that is because you keep obfuscating the positions of the whole body of Eastern spiritual traditions and modern non-duality teachings, their wisdoms and spiritual insights, most of which also qualify as idealism from philosophical point of view. So I feel a duty to defend them, although I'm not so sure if they really need to be defended ... You have right to have your version of idealism, but you can't "own" idealism. There are many other versions of idealism different and even at some points incompatible with your paradigm but equally having all rights to exist. So, if you criticize other versions, their representatives have all rights to defend their positions and you should not be surprised when they do that.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 12:28 am Well, that is because you keep derailing, demeaning, ignoring and obfuscating the positions of the whole body of Eastern spiritual traditions and modern non-duality teachings, their wisdoms and spiritual insights, most of which also qualify as idealism from philosophical point of view. So I feel a duty to defend them, although I'm not so sure if they really need to be defended ...

No, I never mention Eastern philosophers or traditions in my essays, because I do not know their cultures or speak their languages. And that is what one must do because they are entirely culturally-oriented, which I know from experience with family in India. My grandfather was a famous Hindu philosopher, but I do not pretend to know even his philosophy. I have a feeling that is exactly what you are pretending to do, even though you come from a thoroughly Western Christian culture, because you have experience meditating and lucid dreaming and feel that puts you at the height of Eastern spirituality and above all perspectives of higher spiritual beings, as Cleric pointed out. So the point remains the same, you hate the implications of Western spiritual claims, probably unconsciously, as Cleric also pointed out, so your mission becomes to derail our philosophical thoughts before they even materialize fully. That is evident from your first post within minutes of my publishing the Philosophy Unbound thread, which was about Schopenhauer and Steiner on one specific topic and therefore completely within only the Western tradition. You immediately tried to disrupt the entire spirit in which I posted it and the questions being asked. I politely PMed you to point this out and request you modify the comment to go by the rules and support the effort, but you declined and changed the comment to be even more disruptive. It is extremely immature behavior. Frankly, if Cleric and I were not continuously posting essays and commenting, I am not sure how much of a forum there would even be thanks to your derailing efforts. I can't speak for Cleric, but like I said before, I am going to continue working around you from here on out until you show some maturity when engaging these issues.

I think you take things too personally here, Ashvin. We are discussing philosophy But please work around me, that's a good way to end our endless discussions usually going nowhere ...

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 1:03 am I think you take things too personally here, Ashvin. We are discussing philosophy But please work around me, that's a good way to end our endless discussions usually going nowhere ...

I tried a more light-hearted approach on the other thread and we all saw how you responded there... nothing can satisfy Eugene "the Tolerant" Mystic! I would also appreciate if you refrain from commenting on my essays until you actually read them. I promise I will continue to avoid mentioning Eastern spiritual traditions so you do not feel the need to continue defending something that was not even mentioned.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 1:17 am I tried a more light-hearted approach on the other thread and we all saw how you responded there... nothing can satisfy Eugene "the Tolerant" Mystic! I would also appreciate if you refrain from commenting on my essays until you actually read them. I promise I will continue to avoid mentioning Eastern spiritual traditions so you do not feel the need to continue defending something that was not even mentioned.

I always read your essays. But are you saying that I have no right to express my opinions regarding your claims and philosophical views?
I never take things personally by the way, if you might have noticed, I only discuss philosophy. Science works by scrutinizing the claims of scientific theories by all kids of scientific criticism to make sure there are no inconsistencies and gaps it in. The critics in science actually do more good then harm to the theories they criticize. So, if you really claim your approach to be a science or a philosophy, you should expect criticism. But if it is actually a religion, then it's a different story, we are not supposed to criticize other people religious beliefs because it's a fundamental freedom of every human to have personal religious beliefs, and I respect that right. So, if you would say that your paradigm is a religion, then I will stop commenting and criticizing. But if you claim that it is a science and/or philosophy, then you can not get away from people questioning your position and claims.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 1:33 am

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 1:17 am I tried a more light-hearted approach on the other thread and we all saw how you responded there... nothing can satisfy Eugene "the Tolerant" Mystic! I would also appreciate if you refrain from commenting on my essays until you actually read them. I promise I will continue to avoid mentioning Eastern spiritual traditions so you do not feel the need to continue defending something that was not even mentioned.

I always read your essays. But are you saying that I have no right to express my opinions regarding your claims and philosophical views?
I never take things personally by the way, if you might have noticed, I only discuss philosophy. Science works by scrutinizing the claims of scientific theories by all kids of scientific criticism to make sure there are no inconsistencies and gaps it in. The critics in science actually do more good then harm to the theories they criticize. So, if you really claim your approach to be a science or a philosophy, you should expect criticism. But if it is actually a religion, then it's a different story, we are not supposed to criticize other people religious beliefs because it's a fundamental freedom of every human to have personal religious beliefs, and I respect that right. So, if you would say that your paradigm is a religion, then I will stop commenting and criticizing. But if you claim that it is a science and/or philosophy, then you can not get away from people questioning your position and claims.

Eugene... I desperately want criticism! But if it is not criticism of my actual position then it is rather unproductive. Let me recap that position quickly and this will be the last time I say these things.

1. I hold fundamental Reality to be a Tri-Unity of willing, feeling, and thinking (all three have distinct domains they belong to in the metamorphic progression of Spirit)

2. I hold philosophy, science and spirituality to be contiguous fields of inquiry with each other, so they are all amenable to rigorous empirical inquiry by what we call "scientific method".

3. Realm of the "subject" can be studied just as rigorously and objectively as the realm of "objects".

4. Metamorphic progression of Spirit necessitates conclusion that spiritual traditions are all nested within each other and supporting the same naturally unfolding process.

My essays are all about providing the reasoning for these conclusions and elaborating on their details as much as I can at this time. Let me also add, I am sure you are reading some of my essays, but I cannot figure out how you quote Steiner and Heidegger as support for your position if you are reading them carefully. So I am happy to answer any questions regarding any specific claims I make about the position of these philosophers I reference. My paradigm is certainly not a religion and I welcome thoughtful consideration and questioning/criticism of any claims made. Thanks!

OK thanks Ashvin, good summary. Two comments:

1. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "nested" within each other n #4. In geometry, A can be nested in B, but that means A totally encloses B, and therefore B can not be nesting A. So, "nesting each other" is a contradictory statement. Perhaps you meant something else, but then please clarify.

2. Our main disagreement is regarding #1. As I always said, your view is incomplete and you are missing other fundamental aspects of reality that make the ideal content possible in addition to Thinking/Willing/Feeling: the conscious Experiencing and Being. And, as you rightly noticed that spirituality is contiguous to philosophy, such incompleteness has spiritual consequences as well.

3. Regarding #4, I also agree in general, but with a reservation that such naturally unfolding process is not necessarily aimed at total integration, but rather at the exploration of the infinite realm of conscious ideas and at creativity of ideal forms.

With the rest of your statements I pretty much agree.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 3:35 am OK thanks Ashvin, good summary. Two comments:

1. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "nested" within each other n #4. In geometry, A can be nested in B, but that means A totally encloses B, and therefore B can not be nesting A. So, "nesting each other" is a contradictory statement. Perhaps you meant something else, but then please clarify.

2. Our main disagreement is regarding #1. As I always said, your view is incomplete and you are missing other fundamental aspects of reality that make the ideal content possible in addition to Thinking/Willing/Feeling: the conscious Experiencing and Being. And, as you rightly noticed that spirituality is contiguous to philosophy, such incompleteness has spiritual consequences as well.

3. Regarding #4, I also agree in general, but with a reservation that such naturally unfolding process is not necessarily aimed at total integration, but rather at the exploration of the infinite realm of conscious ideas and at creativity of ideal forms.

With the rest of your statements I pretty much agree.

1. I am not sure if "nested" is proper term, but basically I mean they evolve from each other (as man evolves from ape). Earlier forms give rise to later forms but earlier forms are still present. Metamorphosis is better term because it drops materialist baggage of "evolution" and highlights the major transformations which occur in relatively short timespans.

2. Yes I agree our main disagreement is over this precise point and its relation to the human capacity for bringing Unity to the world-content.

3. I am not sure whether it is "aimed" at total integration but that is where I argue it is naturally heading, as evolution naturally heads in certain directions, and individual perspectives can either choose to fully embrace that Reality or not.

PS - I am out of town for next two days so likely will not be commenting.