Philosophical Speculations

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:19 am we don't lift a finger to gradually reveal the precise avenues through which the One Spirit becomes conscious of itself within individuals, communities, nations, species, and the Earth organism as a whole.

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.(Matt 6. 33)

Stranger wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:20 am

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:11 am You say:

I am an engineer.
I am down to Earth.
I am minimalist.
I follow step by step instructions.
I think best with lists.
I can't understand esoteric analogies and metaphors.
Etc.

The perspective which is making all of these rigid identifications is exactly what needs to be sacrificed in the process of doing the exercises.

got it

“Where we”, who is this we?
“Image for ourselves”, who is ourselves?
“Our boundaries”, who is our?
“We creatively”, who is we?
“Our boundless first-person perspective”, who is our, and who is first-person?
“Our private property”, who is our?

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:07 am
What Mike was saying is basically, "there's no point even speaking of this stuff, because as soon we open our mouth we have permanently lost connection to nondual consciousness".

That perspective, which says such things to avoid the inner effort of carefully working through the first-person phenomenology of its cognitive becoming, should be sacrificed. It is the perspective which refuses to patiently and humbly find the expression of its higher Self within the lower ego. It ascends to Oneness and then refuses to wash the feet of its lower self.

Federica wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:21 am
Eugene, I really agree with what Ashvin is saying here about the attitude in Mike's words.

And in this sense, I want to praise you, because beyond the exact way you're going about it, the fact is that you are putting yourself out there, putting effort and time in the exchanges, accepting the challenge. And I see that you are not exactly the same you were in the older discussions from 2021, for example. In fact, you look significantly different to me.
What is the impulse that gives you the persistence to engage in the exchanges today? I feel that some part of it is still in line with what Mike, and Lou (as I see it) hope to watch - and the main reason why they are following the thread. They wish to watch how you are going to make the cause of Oneness win, in the face of the Anthorposophists, so they can feel more comfortable in their choices, without themselves putting in much effort. They are still bringing attention to all these questions, so even for them there is a lightglimt, a concrete possibility to take action, but for now they are basically relying on your shoulders.
I believe a part of you is still sharing that aim with them, but there's also a newly grown part, that was not there in 2021. It's the Stranger part, which indeed is stranger to the previous one (and that's why you felt like cutting bridges with your older username). This more recent part expresses your thirst for knowing, before it has a thirst for fighting the egoic structures, and somehow needs to make sure there is not by any chance a deeper truth that's being overlooked. So there is a process of change you are engaged in, and this process is to some extent visible. Right now, there are "conflicting calls to action" so to say, and it seems to me that the position in which you find yourself today is actually a great one to leverage your deep intention and will, and to actively become your thirst for knowing. And as there are these very useful conflicting calls to action operating right now, I am also reminded that you are not only an engineer, but a musician as well (if I am not mistaken) which also puts you in a great position to recognize and use that leverage, or leeway, as Cleric and Ashvin would say, to progressively become the knowing that is calling you.

Can you explain exactly what is the problem with this filter of human cognition, and what and how exactly it needs to be fixed and what needs to be changed or sacrificed/recycled? And also how and why it leads to duality?

Stranger wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:41 am

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:19 am we don't lift a finger to gradually reveal the precise avenues through which the One Spirit becomes conscious of itself within individuals, communities, nations, species, and the Earth organism as a whole.

There are immeasurable number of such avenues, all of them curved to the self-recognition point at which One Spirit becomes conscious of itself within individuals. We can spend eternity to investigate all these avenues and the structures of their content. But the point is not to lose ourselves in the Investigaton of all the intricate details of these avenues, but, no matter at which avenue we are currently travelling, to follow the curvature without deviation and arrive to the point of such recognition of One Spirit becoming conscious of itself. And, once that recognition happens, we can continue travelling along the avenues, but after such recognition the direction of those avenues will make a dramatic turn and their previous content will mostly become irrelevant, while their post-recognition content will become very relevant, since the content will inevitably undergo a substantial restructuring.

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.(Matt 6. 33)

Cleric wrote:It is easiest if we continue with the example of the primitive man. In actuality, the evolutionary curvature of our development has ensured that we reach the awakening of the ego but let’s assume for a moment that this was somehow up to the primitive man to do. Imagine that he would instinctively assume that he’s already one with the contents of his soul (the world) and tried to fuse with color, sound, feelings and so on. This however would never lead to the awakening of the ego.

Stranger wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:09 am But now I invite you to think for yourself: why you are rejecting the fundamental existential oneness of the Self and only looking at one side - "feeling intimately active in its temporal unfolding of your own thinking voice"? What is it that is resisting to open yourself to the simple truth of the existential Oneness of the Self?

Cleric K wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:57 pm Eugene, I’m puzzled. I don’t see how you could have gathered from what is written so far that Oneness is rejected. I’ve stated it explicitly, that not only Oneness is not rejected but all we do is meant to manifest the Oneness in ever greater degrees through our perspective.

I guess that in the above you’re worried by the example with the thinking voice. It is something personal and you don’t see how that may have anything to do with the Oneness of all. Is this the issue?

Even though you say you 'got it', what you write indicates quite the opposite. Take the following: what do you consider to lead to deeper experience of oneness: hearing voices in your head and feeling that you are one with them because of the "fundamental unity of the content and its conscious experience" OR hearing your own thinking voice and feeling intimately active in its temporal unfolding? Are you more 'one' with the random voices in the head OR with your thinking voice? I'm not speaking of ontological or theoretical oneness. We have agreed thousand times that no one disputes that and it is accepted by default. We're speaking about the practical realization of oneness. What of the above do you feel to lead in the direction where the oneness is not only generally acknowledged but realized in living experience?

Stranger wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 12:58 pm
Federica, I'm really grateful for your understanding of my position and your thoughtful approach. Just to comment, transitioning to the state of Oneness actually requires quite significant effort and undertaking, but it is just a different transitional curvature and different spiritual practice compared to Anthroposophy. But my approach is integral, meaning combining both approaches and transitioning to a state of consciousness that encompasses both full realization of Oneness and full realization of Thinking creative potential. So, I am indeed trying to understand the perspective and the practical methods of Anthroposophy, specifically:
- in which direction the curvature of Anthroposophic meanings/ideas is directing the human stage of consciousness, what is the target state of consciousness and what are the practical methods for this transition
- why Anthroposophy is rejecting Oneness

I'm going to pause my preaching of Oneness here because I see that it leads nowhere, but I would still like to find answers to the above questions. So, I can see, as you pointed and according to Anthroposophy, that there is an issue with the human perception mechanism, namely, the "filtering" of the Thinking ideations, the result of which are the precipitations of human percepts. I'm trying to understand the logic there. Can we go back to that discussion and proceed from there? I will repost my questions here where we left them:

Can you explain exactly what is the problem with this filter of human cognition, and what and how exactly it needs to be fixed and what needs to be changed or sacrificed/recycled? And also how and why it leads to duality?

Stranger wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:16 pm Likewise, I'm puzzled too, because I also stated many times explicitly that I fully accept "feeling intimately active in its temporal unfolding of your own thinking voice" and realizing the full creative potential of Thinking through its individuated spiritual activities, while simultaneously attaining to the state of Oneness in all aspects of Consciousness - Being, Awareness and Thinking (because they are in fact inseparable). So, what are we arguing here about?

Cleric K wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:25 pm Well it all started because we were trying to investigate the proper evolutionary approach towards the realization of Oneness. The whole argument is whether this turning inside-out of the potential through the thinking ego, is indispensable for our development and that of humanity as a whole or it is something which has relevance only while in a body and if we want to proceed further on our evolutionary journey it is enough to embrace the general idea of Oneness and the rest is to be expected only after death even if we don't do anything for this turning inside-out while still in the body.

Federica wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:23 pm

Stranger wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 12:58 pm
Federica, I'm really grateful for your understanding of my position and your thoughtful approach. Just to comment, transitioning to the state of Oneness actually requires quite significant effort and undertaking, but it is just a different transitional curvature and different spiritual practice compared to Anthroposophy. But my approach is integral, meaning combining both approaches and transitioning to a state of consciousness that encompasses both full realization of Oneness and full realization of Thinking creative potential. So, I am indeed trying to understand the perspective and the practical methods of Anthroposophy, specifically:
- in which direction the curvature of Anthroposophic meanings/ideas is directing the human stage of consciousness, what is the target state of consciousness and what are the practical methods for this transition
- why Anthroposophy is rejecting Oneness

I'm going to pause my preaching of Oneness here because I see that it leads nowhere, but I would still like to find answers to the above questions. So, I can see, as you pointed and according to Anthroposophy, that there is an issue with the human perception mechanism, namely, the "filtering" of the Thinking ideations, the result of which are the precipitations of human percepts. I'm trying to understand the logic there. Can we go back to that discussion and proceed from there? I will repost my questions here where we left them:

Can you explain exactly what is the problem with this filter of human cognition, and what and how exactly it needs to be fixed and what needs to be changed or sacrificed/recycled? And also how and why it leads to duality?

Eugene,

I will try my best to find a different way to put it, compared to my previous posts in this thread. This might come slower than instantly, as I don't yet know how to go about it, plus I have some work left to do today, but one thing I want to highlight already now, because I think it could be a major hindrance to a fruitful discussion, is this. You are touched by the truth of the one reality, and so are those who are on a path of living thinking. Regardless of how the realization is formed, it is shared, as such. What is not shared is how to deal with the question of our human relation to Oneness, what Oneness means for us, individually and collectively.

The hindrance is the following. You speak of an integral approach, in which you aim to combine the non-dual and the living thinking paths. This is a problematic approach. The living thinking path is not a cognitive add-on, just as the non-dual approach isn't. You must enable yourself to loosen the tight grip on the non-dual way of reasoning, provisionally. A clean slate is necessary for the sake of true understanding, which is clear if we remember that we are not wrapping our heads around something, we aim to enter the nucleus of Being instead, and can't do it while we keep holding on something else at the same time. If you are not ready to give yourself the complete freedom to start afresh, for the sake of the experiment, your nondual understanding will act as a hidden repellent. It will derail anything that doesn't follow the same clog sequence, or maybe transcends the clog stage altogether. If you don't want to, OK but then the question is, what motivates you to the exploration and effort you are doing now? Because one thing is sure, treating the living thinking path as an add-on, a nice-to-have, or a complement to current 'toolbox', is never, ever, ever going to work in any way.

Smorgasbord approaches would equal psychosis here, and are destined to fail 100%, because living thinking is not a thing, a practice, a framework, a methodology, or a worldview. It's us. Either we are it and know it, or we don't come to know it, hence we are not it, and are set to abandon ourselves to unknown flows of eternal cosmic soup.