Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:03 pmYou'll wait forever for that to happen; when we flame-out as a species we still won't know because there is nothing to know. All our professed wisdom from whatever source is based on our myths which includes those espoused by everyone you incessantly quote.
You imply that once we know ourselves enough to become ourselves the universe will respond with an acknowledgement and the 3rd eye, or philosophically stated, the ontological I gets revealed to make Purpose obvious in a universe that doesn't seem to have any...which all reeks of abject mysticism. If consciousness can't get what it wants, it applies its own incantations to accomplish it.
Purpose, which you constantly emphasize according to some cosmic perspective, can be derived, (not messaged universally), in many ways including the secular which you describe as "The Great Beast". In fact, that connotation best suits nature at large in which ONLY process rules as manifested by its total apathy and yet we're ALL derivatives of.
We warm ourselves at the hearth of our own ideals because we can and because we can, we need to. Purpose prescribes purely on that inflection and while consciousness is temporarily satisfied with those insights, it never ceases yearning to create more according to its nature.
To think in a manner attempting to rinse out a few drops of enlightenment within a reality thoroughly barren of anything personal requires an open mind which you are completely exempt of with almost zero effect on others. What you attempt to teach cannot be taught by any single impervious closed creed...such as yours.
You really have no idea, even intellectually, what the conscious universe is and the potential for human conscious evolution within it. The universe doesn't tell us anything. Does the universe tell animal Man what to do? No, Doing is automatic reaction. It is the same with conscious man. Doing is conscience in action uniting above and below. You seem to believe that discussing ideas you don't understand requires negative reaction. I have found this to be the case with the secular mind which believes somehow that its conclusions concerning the great questions are somehow superior. The rest is just considered some sort of weird mysticism. Can't you see how egotistical this appears?
Jacob Needleman explains in part why the scientific mind has such trouble with the conscious universe"
http://www.tree-of-souls.com/spirituali ... leman.html
When fragmentation dominates, the big picture is denied. It is no wonder then why the secular mind must remain closed to the premise of the conscious universe. Eventually science can become so advanced so as to allow the results of unified thought and feeling through conscious contemplation to be put into the context of the conscious universe and the potential for conscious Man to consciously connect levels of reality. The real question is if our species can survive the adverse effects of technology which diminish our power of attention long enough to survive the effects of technology.We must explore this thought further, for it can help us to see why the idea of a conscious universe appears to modern man as naive, as either a daydream or a nightmare. Science, as we know it, searches the universe for order and pattern. To pursue this search carefully, objectively, the scientist struggles to be free of his feelings, his inclinations to believe. He may follow hunches--what he calls "intuitions"--but in the final analysis he wishes for proofs that will compel the intellect, and only the intellect. The entire organization of modern science, the community of experimenters and researchers, the teaching of science in the schools, the training of specialists, is based on this ideal of proof that compels the mind.
Looked at in this way, we may conclude that the practice of modern science is based on a demand for human fragmentation, the division between thought and feeling. Searching for an outer unity, the scientist demands of himself an inner disunity. Perhaps "demands" is not the right word. We should simply say that in his practice the scientist endorses the division and inner fragmentation from which all of us suffer in our daily lives.
We now see why a conscious universe makes no sense to modern science. In the ancient teachings, higher mind or consciousness is never identified with thought associations, no matter how ingenious they may be. If these teachings speak of levels of reality higher than human thought, they are referring, among other things, to an order of intelligence that is inclusive of thought. Consciousness is another word for this power of active relationship or inclusion. Can the power to include ever be understood through a process of internal division and exclusion? Fascinated by the activity of thinking, and drawn to it to the extent of psychological lopsidedness, is it any wonder that we modern scientific men almost never directly experience in ourselves that quality of force which used to be called the Active Intellect, and which in the medieval cosmic scheme was symbolized by a great circle that included the entire created universe?