Stoicism and Paul: Making a Cosmology-Anthropology-Ethics for Today

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Bluelamp said:
Approaching Infinity said:
Laura said:
Hopefully we'll be able to find some corresponding terms and descriptions in Collingwood and possibly elsewhere. Perhaps Gurdjieff's idea of bankruptcy can serve temporarily for the "struck" part?

I think that's a part of it. Collingwood describes how each mode of thought - e.g., art, religion, science - has an error built into it that is transcended by the next level of thought. I think bankruptcy can apply to each of those modes - the experience of the limits of your mode of thought/way of life, as the illusion comes crashing down. I'd just say at this point that the bankruptcy seems to me to be the state that allows or facilitates the "strike". It's the opening, but something else has to "come in". So maybe we can also think of it in terms of B and C influences. The "influence from above" can take the form of insight/inspiration/channeling/a book/a teacher. But the ground has to be prepared, as in bankruptcy. And maybe what comes into us can be thought of in terms of a "higher truth", a higher level of information that re-organizes us and our thinking/feeling/acting.

I think sometimes the initial shock (to use another Gurdjieff term) can be more of a WOW (like first seeing this forum) and the bankruptcy could be more of a being slowly cooked (to borrow a Cs phrase) thing that happens after the initial shock though you can get just as down on yourself (even more so because after something like this forum, you think you have zero excuses for not being better).

Thinking about it some more, there has to be an element of being "struck" even in bankruptcy, because it's a new experience and prompts a new valuation of your life. Otherwise, people would just habituate, and nothing new would enter into consciousness. (The Cypher example from DBZ is a good one for that.) To use Collingwood again, I think maybe bankruptcy is something akin to the "aesthetic consciousness" of being struck from above. There isn't necessarily any clear content, just the immediate sense that things have gone WRONG - the symphony of your life has gotten messed up, the notes are wrong, the instruments are out of tune. And that sense that things are wrong can only happen if there is some aspect of consciousness that can discern the wrongness - a yardstick of wrongness and rightness.

So yeah, "shocks" and "bankruptcy" fit in here. Religious imagery can guide the process and provide material with which to reorganize the self - but it remains mysterious and vague. Science and philosophy can approach a more objective picture of what is actually happening.
 

obyvatel

The Living Force
Beau said:
AI said:
The "X" pole is something higher and external to "I". For Paul, this is Christ and God. For the Stoics, it is reason and God (keeping in mind that the Stoic God didn't have much in common with the Jewish God). But even though it is external to us from our perspective at the "I" pole, it's related to us in some fundamental way as well, because we can come to identify with it. These relationships and interactions are represented by the arrows between "I" and "X". In "X->I", the individual at "I" is somehow "struck" by "X". In "I->X", we stretch up toward "X", to the extent that we come to identify with it and see our "self" as belonging to it, and it as belonging to us. We cease to see ourselves as "I", and become "X" instead.

So, what does it mean exactly when you say that I is "struck" by X?

In religious imagery, "I being struck by X" is often represented by a lightning bolt. Light is a common symbol for consciousness and being struck by a lightning bolt (metaphorically) leads to an expansion of consciousness. For religions which have a revelatory core, the experience is a sudden unexpected phenomenon and occurs as a result of Grace. One can prepare the ground (which would constitute I-->X) but it does not guarantee the X-->I strike.

From a psychological perspective, "I being struck by X" is an unforgettable experience which originates from the unconscious archetypal center which Jung called "Self". It could be a vision or dream - in which case the experience is inner only. It could also be a synchronistic event where the inner experience is mirrored in some deeply meaningful way by an outer event in the material world. This could be a big one-time event which is processed gradually throughout the life of the individual or it could be an incremental process of gradual unveiling.

From the 4th Way perspective, Gurdjieff talked about "glimpses of objective consciousness".

[quote author=ISOTM]
"In all there are four states of consciousness possible for man" (he emphasized the word "man"), "But ordinary man, that is, man number one, number two, and number three, lives in the two lowest states of consciousness only. The two higher states of consciousness are inaccessible to him, and although he may have flashes of these states, he is unable to understand them and he judges them from the point of view of those states in which it is usual for him to be.

"The two usual, that is, the lowest, states of consciousness are first, sleep, in other words a passive state in which man spends a third and very often a half of his life. And second, the state in which men spend the other part of their lives, in which they walk the streets, write books, talk on lofty subjects, take part in politics, kill one another, which they regard as active and call 'clear consciousness' or the 'waking state of consciousness.' The term 'clear consciousness' or 'waking state of consciousness' seems to have been given in jest, especially when you realize what clear consciousness ought in reality to be and what the state in which man lives and acts really is.

"The third state of consciousness is self-remembering or self-consciousness or consciousness of one's being. It is usual to consider that we have this state of consciousness or that we can have it if we want it. Our science and philosophy have overlooked the fact that we do not possess this state of consciousness and that we cannot create it in ourselves by desire or decision alone.

"The fourth state of consciousness is called the objective state of consciousness In this state a man can see things as they are. Flashes of this state of consciousness also occur in man. In the religions of all nations there are indications of the possibility of a state of consciousness of this kind which is called 'enlightenment' and various other names but which cannot be described in words. But the only right way to objective consciousness is through the development of self-consciousness. If an ordinary man is artificially brought into a state of objective consciousness and afterwards brought back to his usual state he will remember nothing and he will think that for a time he had lost consciousness. But in the state of self-consciousness a man can have flashes of objective consciousness and remember them.
..........................................................
But man does not know of the third state of consciousness or even suspect it. Nor can he suspect it because if you were to explain to him what the third state of consciousness is, that is to say, in what it consists, he would say that it was his usual state. He considers himself to be a conscious being governing his own life. Facts that contradict that, he considers to be accidental or temporary, which will change by themselves. By considering that he possesses self-consciousness, as it were by nature, a man will not of course try to approach or obtain it. And yet without self-consciousness, or the third state, the fourth, except in rare flashes, is impossible. Knowledge, however, the real objective knowledge towards which man, as he asserts, is struggling, is possible only in the fourth state of consciousness, that is, it is conditional upon the full possession of the fourth state of consciousness. Knowledge which is acquired in the ordinary state of consciousness is intermixed with dreams.
……………………………..
All these 'mystical states' and so on are wrong definitions but when they are not deceptions or imitations they are flashes of what we call an objective state of consciousness .

[/quote]
 

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thank you, Laura and Approaching Infinity for working on our new "wineskins" for Cosmology-Anthropology-Ethics.

New Living Translation
"And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. For the old skins would burst from the pressure, spilling the wine and ruining the skins. New wine is stored in new wineskins so that both are preserved."

I agree with others that the "strike" seems very similar to Gurdjieff's "shock". As obyvatel just posted I think it could be a big shock or as series of shocks in varying degrees. I also think there could be degrees of bankruptcies for each of these steps but that is just my thought for now.

obyvatel said:
From a psychological perspective, "I being struck by X" is an unforgettable experience which originates from the unconscious archetypal center which Jung called "Self". It could be a vision or dream - in which case the experience is inner only. It could also be a synchronistic event where the inner experience is mirrored in some deeply meaningful way by an outer event in the material world. This could be a big one-time event which is processed gradually throughout the life of the individual or it could be an incremental process of gradual unveiling.

I think the "boiling frog" analogy is not quite as parallel since it describes a more slow process. Unless taken as very small shocks that produce beneficial change a slowly boiled frog is "done" for.

I am looking at the way we have used the term "Christed" which basically originally meant "anointed" I think. Maybe that could be further developed in this process too OSIT.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Approaching Infinity said:
Laura said:
Hopefully we'll be able to find some corresponding terms and descriptions in Collingwood and possibly elsewhere. Perhaps Gurdjieff's idea of bankruptcy can serve temporarily for the "struck" part?

I think that's a part of it. Collingwood describes how each mode of thought - e.g., art, religion, science - has an error built into it that is transcended by the next level of thought. I think bankruptcy can apply to each of those modes - the experience of the limits of your mode of thought/way of life, as the illusion comes crashing down. I'd just say at this point that the bankruptcy seems to me to be the state that allows or facilitates the "strike". It's the opening, but something else has to "come in". So maybe we can also think of it in terms of B and C influences. The "influence from above" can take the form of insight/inspiration/channeling/a book/a teacher. But the ground has to be prepared, as in bankruptcy. And maybe what comes into us can be thought of in terms of a "higher truth", a higher level of information that re-organizes us and our thinking/feeling/acting.

TEP talks about what it is that is the "X attractor" for the Stoic, so perhaps you could discuss that in a relatively simple way?
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Approaching Infinity said:
Bluelamp said:
Approaching Infinity said:
Laura said:
Hopefully we'll be able to find some corresponding terms and descriptions in Collingwood and possibly elsewhere. Perhaps Gurdjieff's idea of bankruptcy can serve temporarily for the "struck" part?

I think that's a part of it. Collingwood describes how each mode of thought - e.g., art, religion, science - has an error built into it that is transcended by the next level of thought. I think bankruptcy can apply to each of those modes - the experience of the limits of your mode of thought/way of life, as the illusion comes crashing down. I'd just say at this point that the bankruptcy seems to me to be the state that allows or facilitates the "strike". It's the opening, but something else has to "come in". So maybe we can also think of it in terms of B and C influences. The "influence from above" can take the form of insight/inspiration/channeling/a book/a teacher. But the ground has to be prepared, as in bankruptcy. And maybe what comes into us can be thought of in terms of a "higher truth", a higher level of information that re-organizes us and our thinking/feeling/acting.

I think sometimes the initial shock (to use another Gurdjieff term) can be more of a WOW (like first seeing this forum) and the bankruptcy could be more of a being slowly cooked (to borrow a Cs phrase) thing that happens after the initial shock though you can get just as down on yourself (even more so because after something like this forum, you think you have zero excuses for not being better).

Thinking about it some more, there has to be an element of being "struck" even in bankruptcy, because it's a new experience and prompts a new valuation of your life. Otherwise, people would just habituate, and nothing new would enter into consciousness. (The Cypher example from DBZ is a good one for that.) To use Collingwood again, I think maybe bankruptcy is something akin to the "aesthetic consciousness" of being struck from above. There isn't necessarily any clear content, just the immediate sense that things have gone WRONG - the symphony of your life has gotten messed up, the notes are wrong, the instruments are out of tune. And that sense that things are wrong can only happen if there is some aspect of consciousness that can discern the wrongness - a yardstick of wrongness and rightness.

So yeah, "shocks" and "bankruptcy" fit in here. Religious imagery can guide the process and provide material with which to reorganize the self - but it remains mysterious and vague. Science and philosophy can approach a more objective picture of what is actually happening.

A big nod on this direction, to mesh together what is being discussed in some of the threads and recent books; which I'm way behind on in reading and will look for things within as I progress.

This bankruptcy, deeper conscious suffering with awareness - against so many aspects of human life that exhibit this unconscious sliding backwards into some entropic pit, a pit that seems to hold sway over humanity without signs of remedy (the C;'s mention this "hell on earth"). The other threads talked about Collingwood and G, and without their awareness of mental pathology per se, which is a a crucial step to be able to historically try to enter the minds of those creating much of history and the fall in their times, cyclical times. This step, like today's pathological endemic nature, is a vital first step to see, osit.

I happened to have read the following tonight, as well as thinking more on the Stoics as well as paths for regrowing spirit, balancing, and the faith required for same; for growth of "higher centers."


Session May 30, 2009

Q: (L) Okay, what is the importance of Paleochristianity?

A: The only hope for the survival of your realm and species.

Q: (L) In what sense do you mean that?

A: Unification of aim: survival and avoidance of the destruction hanging over your heads as a consequence of the machinations of psychopathy.

[...}

Q:...(L) Okay. What is the most essential thing for us to know about Paleochristianity, about what people need to know?

A: People need to know about pathology as you call it. In former times it was often referred to as demonic possession. In some cases, they were right.

Q: (L) But clearly not in all cases, and that needs to made absolutely clear because there are some people who are just sick.

A: Yes. Hyperdimensional influences are often the cause of pathology. This can be due to influences at this level of reality including dietary and nurture.

Q: (L) Okay, what else?

A: Just as detoxing the body can lead to abundant health, so can detoxing the mind and environment lead to abundant life and happiness for all. But as was the "fall", it must be a group decision and the differences and pathological blocks to objective understanding must be removed.

Q: (L) In other words, there's no hope for our planet or our species if normal human beings do not come together and get over these varied pathological belief systems and religions and "your truth" and "my truth" and all that sort of thing?

A: Yes. All of that was created and spread by pathological types under the influence of their hyperdimensional masters for the purpose of turning this planet into a "hell on earth" with them as the masters. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. What is needed is for many people to begin to make direct connections with their higher centers. This has been done via the "work" up to now, but there are other methods to accelerate the process and obtain the needed assistance.

Anyway, thanks AI, Laura and others for following the tracks being presented.
 

mariz

The Force is Strong With This One
Approaching Infinity said:
I think that's good advice. But I think the reason that many of us hear it (and say it), and yet don't quite understand it, is that there is something missing from it. What's missing is the "X" perspective. In order to treat another person with true justice, I need to do something in addition to just putting myself in their skin. I need to adopt a perspective that is above both me AND that other person. I can't just skip from "I" to "S". I need the wide-angle view that a higher perspective supplies. If I am viewing things from that "X" perspective, then I will be able to see that other person, and the specific context in which they find themselves, and then I will know the best way to act in relation to them. Even if "I" wants something different. For example, in some contexts "I" may want to be mean when that is not appropriate. Or, in other contexts "I" may want to be nice when THAT is not appropriate. We'll see some specific examples of examples like that as we go through Paul's letters.

I totally agree with you AI. There is always a deeper layer of understanding and wider-angle view that take us to higher level perspective (at least flashes of that state of consciousness) which guide us after we experienced that perspective. From my experience, this context when "I" want to be nice when that is not appropriate was/is the hardest work for me personally after "I" wanted to be nice to everyone and that's where most of my "suffering" came from(mostly in my past). Just like G said, that one must get rid of his sufferings cause we think/hope that we shall be rewarded after that, but that just isn't so (that's merely STS thinking and nothing else). One must truly and fully understand his own thoughts and actions to take his consciousness to a higher level. I'll patiently wait for those specific examples and your brilliant simplified explanations. :)
 
Thank you so much for the clear way of connecting the different philosophies .
When I finished Collingwood's "Idea" I wondered how to connect all these different 'ideas' together: zoroastrism, Stoics, Paul, Cs, Collingwood, psychopathy, earth changes..
 

Windmill knight

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
That's very interesting, thanks for the summary AI! I know which book I'll be adding to my reading list next (when I finish the latest recommended books plus some more for ancient Rome, that is). Most of all I like the idea, which is consistent with many other sources and psychology books, that development essentially consists of changing the center of gravity of one's life from "I" (a purely selfish perspective) into a higher ideal or source ("X") and/or the interests of others and the community at large ("S").
 

987baz

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Wow, amazing work thanks AI and Laura, having you both explain this makes it so much easier for me to grok.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
obyvatel said:
In religious imagery, "I being struck by X" is often represented by a lightning bolt. Light is a common symbol for consciousness and being struck by a lightning bolt (metaphorically) leads to an expansion of consciousness. For religions which have a revelatory core, the experience is a sudden unexpected phenomenon and occurs as a result of Grace. One can prepare the ground (which would constitute I-->X) but it does not guarantee the X-->I strike.

From a psychological perspective, "I being struck by X" is an unforgettable experience which originates from the unconscious archetypal center which Jung called "Self". It could be a vision or dream - in which case the experience is inner only. It could also be a synchronistic event where the inner experience is mirrored in some deeply meaningful way by an outer event in the material world. This could be a big one-time event which is processed gradually throughout the life of the individual or it could be an incremental process of gradual unveiling.

This is approaching what has been running around in my head. It seems to me that being struck is something that comes as a result of inner yearning whether that is fully conscious or not. And that sort of leads me to think again about what the Cs had said about soul marrying with genetics when present. It's like there has to be some kind of transmitter and receiver in the person to begin with. Bankrupty - or repeating bankruptcies when trying one thing after another - would result from the "soul" or higher self or perhaps something that is already connected with X at some level realizing that this or that is "not X". Ra said that some souls (the discussion was about "wanderers" but I think the application could be wider) have a "bias" toward Truth which helps them a bit when navigating a sea of lies and delusions. But he emphasized that it was only a bias, and the individual still had to do some conscious work.

Hopefully AI will find that bit about how the Stoics saw Truth/Knowledge etc being the "attractor" and that which could "strike" those who were actively seeking it. The thing is, the Stoics and others would actively "advertise" their system, their model of reality or explanation of the cosmos or what have you. In the same way, Paul and early Christians were advertising their interpretation. This evangelizing was a human figure acting as proxy for X in the X-> movement. Supposedly, upon hearing the Truth, something inside the person would be moved to yearn or reach or decide for that, the I->X movement. Then, theoretically, the person would "move into a new reality", a new cosmic family, and various other descriptions.
 

Gaby

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Fascinating discussion!! It definitely resonates with me. I look forward to read the books once I get the basic understanding from this thread. Despite the rampant chaos out there, I feel hopeful as I go through Collingwood's material. I'm going through Speculum Mentis right now and look forward for the rest.

Thank you!! :)
 
Laura said:
obyvatel said:
In religious imagery, "I being struck by X" is often represented by a lightning bolt. Light is a common symbol for consciousness and being struck by a lightning bolt (metaphorically) leads to an expansion of consciousness. For religions which have a revelatory core, the experience is a sudden unexpected phenomenon and occurs as a result of Grace. One can prepare the ground (which would constitute I-->X) but it does not guarantee the X-->I strike.

From a psychological perspective, "I being struck by X" is an unforgettable experience which originates from the unconscious archetypal center which Jung called "Self". It could be a vision or dream - in which case the experience is inner only. It could also be a synchronistic event where the inner experience is mirrored in some deeply meaningful way by an outer event in the material world. This could be a big one-time event which is processed gradually throughout the life of the individual or it could be an incremental process of gradual unveiling.

This is approaching what has been running around in my head. It seems to me that being struck is something that comes as a result of inner yearning whether that is fully conscious or not. And that sort of leads me to think again about what the Cs had said about soul marrying with genetics when present. It's like there has to be some kind of transmitter and receiver in the person to begin with. Bankrupty - or repeating bankruptcies when trying one thing after another - would result from the "soul" or higher self or perhaps something that is already connected with X at some level realizing that this or that is "not X". Ra said that some souls (the discussion was about "wanderers" but I think the application could be wider) have a "bias" toward Truth which helps them a bit when navigating a sea of lies and delusions. But he emphasized that it was only a bias, and the individual still had to do some conscious work.

Hopefully AI will find that bit about how the Stoics saw Truth/Knowledge etc being the "attractor" and that which could "strike" those who were actively seeking it. The thing is, the Stoics and others would actively "advertise" their system, their model of reality or explanation of the cosmos or what have you. In the same way, Paul and early Christians were advertising their interpretation. This evangelizing was a human figure acting as proxy for X in the X-> movement. Supposedly, upon hearing the Truth, something inside the person would be moved to yearn or reach or decide for that, the I->X movement. Then, theoretically, the person would "move into a new reality", a new cosmic family, and various other descriptions.

The above comments from Laura and obyvatel made me wonder about what I have read from the apostle Paul/John a lot of years ago (almost 30)... keep in mind that what I will present below has a heavy biblical gloss, then I expect that the readers can separate the wheat from the shaff (or shaft?... sorry for my English).

In the case of obyvatel comments (specially the bolded part):

Ephesians 4:22–24
"To put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."

Romans 12:2
"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect."

In the case of Laura comments (specially the bolded part):

1 Thessalonians 4:1
"Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more."

John 17:14–16
"I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world."

obyvatel: The apostle Paul et al are obviously talking about the transforming experience "I being struck by X" a big change in the self. (But I can be wrong on this.)

Laura: The apostle Paul et al are too talking about the spread of the "Word/Truth" ("This evangelizing was a human figure acting as proxy for X in the X-> movement" and the "upon hearing the Truth, something inside the person would be moved to yearn or reach or decide for that, the I->X movement")

So, from the biblical religious perspective it seems that using your own words but changing the STOICS word we have: "...find that bit about how the Christians saw Truth/Knowledge etc being the "attractor" and that which could "strike" those who were actively seeking it..." (Again I can be wrong on this too.)

The above was to Just draw a parallel in the biblical context, keeping in mind the distortions that both the Stoics and the early Christians have in relation to the hyper-dimensional interventions in their Cosmology/History views.

Just my two cents!!!... :cool2: :cool2: :cool2:
 

Altair

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Approaching Infinity said:
Bluelamp said:
Approaching Infinity said:
Laura said:
Hopefully we'll be able to find some corresponding terms and descriptions in Collingwood and possibly elsewhere. Perhaps Gurdjieff's idea of bankruptcy can serve temporarily for the "struck" part?

I think that's a part of it. Collingwood describes how each mode of thought - e.g., art, religion, science - has an error built into it that is transcended by the next level of thought. I think bankruptcy can apply to each of those modes - the experience of the limits of your mode of thought/way of life, as the illusion comes crashing down. I'd just say at this point that the bankruptcy seems to me to be the state that allows or facilitates the "strike". It's the opening, but something else has to "come in". So maybe we can also think of it in terms of B and C influences. The "influence from above" can take the form of insight/inspiration/channeling/a book/a teacher. But the ground has to be prepared, as in bankruptcy. And maybe what comes into us can be thought of in terms of a "higher truth", a higher level of information that re-organizes us and our thinking/feeling/acting.

I think sometimes the initial shock (to use another Gurdjieff term) can be more of a WOW (like first seeing this forum) and the bankruptcy could be more of a being slowly cooked (to borrow a Cs phrase) thing that happens after the initial shock though you can get just as down on yourself (even more so because after something like this forum, you think you have zero excuses for not being better).

Thinking about it some more, there has to be an element of being "struck" even in bankruptcy, because it's a new experience and prompts a new valuation of your life. Otherwise, people would just habituate, and nothing new would enter into consciousness. (The Cypher example from DBZ is a good one for that.) To use Collingwood again, I think maybe bankruptcy is something akin to the "aesthetic consciousness" of being struck from above. There isn't necessarily any clear content, just the immediate sense that things have gone WRONG - the symphony of your life has gotten messed up, the notes are wrong, the instruments are out of tune. And that sense that things are wrong can only happen if there is some aspect of consciousness that can discern the wrongness - a yardstick of wrongness and rightness.

So yeah, "shocks" and "bankruptcy" fit in here. Religious imagery can guide the process and provide material with which to reorganize the self - but it remains mysterious and vague. Science and philosophy can approach a more objective picture of what is actually happening.

Thank you for the great summary, AI!

I'm wondering how "revelation" might fit in here. If bankruptcy is a precondition for strike/shock (passive element), the strike/shock itself is an active element so maybe revelation is a neutralizing/resulting element? Here is an excerpt from The Sufi Path of Knowledge:

[...]revelation is "that which God casts into the hearts of His servants without intermediary. He makes them hear a speach in their hearts, bur hearing does not grasp how it takes place, limits do not define it, and imagination does not give it form. Nevertheless, he understands it, but he does not know how it has come, from whence it has come, nor what is its cause."

Revelation, through which we learn the names of the names, makes known the nature of things; without it, true knowledge of existence is impossible. Revelation is an outward form, while God's own knowledge of Himself and the Cosmos is the inner meaning, the spirit and the life behind the form.

Unveiling takes place through light, but the light that comes from God must coincide with the light inside the heart. Sometimes a person may perceive an excess of radiance in self-disclosure so that he does not gain in knowledge. This is because his own light is not equal to the task of matching the outside light.

Edit: added quotes
 

Mark7

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Luc said:
The idea of bankruptcy being a facilitator for higher energies to enter sounds about right to me. When I read the passage quoted by Beau, what came to mind as the "higher" with which we can identify were ideas, concepts or archetypes that can guide us. Kind of like a new idea/ideal/principle becoming one's "God". Notice that "higher" doesn't mean "the highest" or the "absolute", but rather something that is above our current being, and is subject to change as we develop and learn more. It's more like an initial break-through of something that is above us, an entry to the path so to speak. Without it, we are stuck in the animal-like world of identification with ourselves, but with it, we leave that realm, if only a tiny step, which is nonetheless extremely significant. It's the point where we transcend "regular existence".

In this context, it's interesting that people who suffered from some form of trauma, under certain conditions, seem to change their attitude towards life dramatically. Many such cases are outlined in Jim Rendon's book "Upside: The New Science of Post-Traumatic Growth" (thread). Same apparently goes for NDEs. But after such an initial break-through (bankruptcy) that allows a higher principle to guide our life, it seems we need to consciously move forward, gather more knowledge and develop our being, so that we can refine our "God" while He refines us; so it's more like a two-way thing. Otherwise we may be stuck on a higher, yet not optimal level where we can still be mislead, osit.

Getting a glimpse of "X" could come by a visceral experience of mortality whether by an NDE or something else. The feeling of "you can't take it with you" - that's what I think of in terms of bankruptcy... being struck, Saul on the road to Damascus.

Much evidence in the forum and in the Wave Series that reincarnation is real, many folks have been other people in other times. Yet how many who have actually reincarnated have access to those other lives, (why don't we?). Would an objective perception of our identity/reality include such awareness?

Reading this thread I am reminded of a book I read by Authur Koestler many years about about how we/the world is structured - as "Janus-faced Holons":

Janus: A Summing Up is a 1978 book by Arthur Koestler that develops his philosophical idea of the holarchy, introduced in his 1967 book, The Ghost in the Machine. The holarchy provides a coherent way of organizing knowledge and nature all together. The idea of the holarchy is that everything we can think of is composed of holons (simultaneously both part and whole), so that each holon is always a constituent of a larger one and yet also contains other holons that are constituents of a lower level system within. Every holon is like a two-faced Janus, the Roman god: one side (the whole) looks down (or inward); the other side (the part) looks up (or outward). Each whole is a part of something greater, and each part is in turn an organizing whole to the elements that constitute it. Koestler believed that everything in a healthy system is organized this way, from the human body, to chemistry to the history of philosophy.

The concept of holon, however, is closely integrated in Janus with the theory of complex systems as was developed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy and Herbert Simon, both well known investigators and friends of Koestler. Janus put together one of the first broad based arguments for incorporating the theory of complex systems into the philosophy of science and epistemology.

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus:_A_Summing_Up

Epistemology and the way things are structured - rising to identify with a higher level?

[...] Koestler emphasizes that hierarchic order is a characteristic of all forms of social organization from “insect state
to Pentagon.” It is “true of the process of becoming – phylogeny, ontogeny, the acquisition of knowledge.” In
more recent years it has been found to be true within the cell. There are homeobox genes that coherently control
batteries of subordinate genes that are hierarchically regulated by complex transcription factors. And single Cells
have an obvious hierarchical relationship to a complement of tissues in Organs which in turn are hierarchically
related to the whole Host creature. And the host creature is part of a whole species and species part of a genus
which is subordinate part of a whole family, then kingdom and then part of the whole living biosphere which is
somehow regulated by the ontological essence of all being. Hierarchies are all pervasive.

Koestler says: “The first universal characteristic of hierarchies is the relativity, and indeed ambiguity of the
terms ‘part’ and ‘whole’ when applied to any of the sub assemblies. ,,, But ‘wholes’ and ‘parts’ in this
absolute sense just do not exist anywhere, either in the domain of living organisms, or of social
organizations.” (p 48)

_http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/Two-Faces-of-3-Brains.html

fwiw.

I am reading "The Idea of History" now.

[edit: spelling, punctuation]
 
Top Bottom