God or Man: the Source of Higher Values

[Nick_A]

Once we have become ourselves, what to do in accordance with universal purpose becomes obvious

You'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

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?

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.

[Dubious]

You really have no idea, even intellectually, what the conscious universe is and the potential for human conscious evolution within it.

...neither do you or anyone else whoever lived. No one can know...REALLY KNOW and what cannot be known continues to be speculated upon most often idiotically and sometimes brilliantly yet both of these extremes are not immune to the fact that it's speculation that provides the theories and THAT is the REAL bottom line. The best I can do is play with the idea intellectually and even identify with it empathically like many others have without submitting to any concrete conclusion of it being true.

Everything you write on the subject and those you quote simply tender their ideas and only that. Regarding the ontology of the universe every "opinion" evaporates in speculation and for the last 3000 years opinions are the only thing we have.

[Greta]

Everything you write on the subject and those you quote simply tender their ideas and only that. Regarding the ontology of the universe every "opinion" evaporates in speculation ...

Yes, it's hard to see how philosophy can ever regain credibility until those supposing to practice it stop falsely presenting their opinions as established fact.

A lack of qualifiers actually weakens rather than strengthens a case to an informed observer; cocksure posturing tends to only work on the naive who, in lieu of understanding, seem inclined to simply follow the strongest pose of authority.

[Nick_A]

You really have no idea, even intellectually, what the conscious universe is and the potential for human conscious evolution within it.

...neither do you or anyone else whoever lived. No one can know...REALLY KNOW and what cannot be known continues to be speculated upon most often idiotically and sometimes brilliantly yet both of these extremes are not immune to the fact that it's speculation that provides the theories and THAT is the REAL bottom line. The best I can do is play with the idea intellectually and even identify with it empathically like many others have without submitting to any concrete conclusion of it being true.

Everything you write on the subject and those you quote simply tender their ideas and only that. Regarding the ontology of the universe every "opinion" evaporates in speculation and for the last 3000 years opinions are the only thing we have.

Why be so negative? Is it really inconceivable that some past and present have experientially verified the reality of the human condition in relation to the potential for human being. Is conscious contemplation or striving for the conscious intuitive experience really just meaningless leaving us with nothing other than arguing opinions. Sorry, don't buy it.

[Dubious]

Everything you write on the subject and those you quote simply tender their ideas and only that. Regarding the ontology of the universe every "opinion" evaporates in speculation ...

...cocksure posturing tends to only work on the naive who, in lieu of understanding, seem inclined to simply follow the strongest pose of authority.

That's always been one of the hallmarks of human nature; especially so when the "strongest pose of authority" colludes and confirms one's wishful thinking as default, every other emergence of thought usually considered ultra vires. Ironically and even perversely, it's usually the late latter heresies which compel humans forward. How often in history have such progressions been a mass movement!

[Greta]

Everything you write on the subject and those you quote simply tender their ideas and only that. Regarding the ontology of the universe every "opinion" evaporates in speculation ...

...cocksure posturing tends to only work on the naive who, in lieu of understanding, seem inclined to simply follow the strongest pose of authority.

That's always been one of the hallmarks of human nature; especially so when the "strongest pose of authority" colludes and confirms one's wishful thinking as default, every other emergence of thought usually considered ultra vires. Ironically and even perversely, it's usually the late latter heresies which compel humans forward. How often in history have such progressions been a mass movement!

I'm having a little trouble keeping up here - do you mean that it's usually those who are initially considered to be rebels and ratbags who make the breakthroughs?

Also, I didn't know "ultra vires" - thanks!

[Dubious]

...cocksure posturing tends to only work on the naive who, in lieu of understanding, seem inclined to simply follow the strongest pose of authority.

That's always been one of the hallmarks of human nature; especially so when the "strongest pose of authority" colludes and confirms one's wishful thinking as default, every other emergence of thought usually considered ultra vires. Ironically and even perversely, it's usually the late latter heresies which compel humans forward. How often in history have such progressions been a mass movement!

I'm having a little trouble keeping up here - do you mean that it's usually those who are initially considered to be rebels and ratbags who make the breakthroughs?

Also, I didn't know "ultra vires" - thanks!

Not to imply it absolutely but that's exactly what I mean whether in science, philosophy or math. The masses, the orthodoxies taught in universities usually have to catch up to the rat bags...who usually die of frustration in the meantime!

[Nick_A]

Greta wrote

...cocksure posturing tends to only work on the naive who, in lieu of understanding, seem inclined to simply follow the strongest pose of authority.

This is the only reason that secular progressive phiosophy is readily accepted. Experts in the destruction of the potential human soul act as if they know what they are talking about as it concerns the societal good. They are accepted because their negativity and denial of common sense gives the impression of authority. Little do people know that they are just pompous empty shells completely oblivious of the real needs of the human psych.

What else could be expected when they assert that the source of higher values is Man which denies them in favor of attempted political indoctrination

[Greta]

That's always been one of the hallmarks of human nature; especially so when the "strongest pose of authority" colludes and confirms one's wishful thinking as default, every other emergence of thought usually considered ultra vires. Ironically and even perversely, it's usually the late latter heresies which compel humans forward. How often in history have such progressions been a mass movement!

I'm having a little trouble keeping up here - do you mean that it's usually those who are initially considered to be rebels and ratbags who make the breakthroughs?

Also, I didn't know "ultra vires" - thanks!

Not to imply it absolutely but that's exactly what I mean whether in science, philosophy or math. The masses, the orthodoxies taught in universities usually have to catch up to the rat bags...who usually die of frustration in the meantime!

The way I see it, there have always been people ahead of the curve, but there is tremendous inertia in the masses - how to get the message out to them? Ostensibly today's networks would allow for quick meme transmission but commercial enterprises with vested interests work to muddy the waters and slow the information's effective dissemination.

Nick, "cocksure posturing tends to only work on the naive who, in lieu of understanding, seem inclined to simply follow the strongest pose of authority" was aimed squarely at you. I have never known you to show a moment's doubt about your beliefs. Not once in all these years on the forums. Not even a hint of self doubt or admission of errors, even when clearly demonstrated. You simply refuse to question yourself, as though you alone are infallible, and that is the issue.

[Dubious]

Everything you write on the subject and those you quote simply tender their ideas and only that. Regarding the ontology of the universe every "opinion" evaporates in speculation and for the last 3000 years opinions are the only thing we have.

Why be so negative?

Nothing to do with negative. It’s simply a matter of discounting your borrowed philosophic ponderings as something real when it’s only an ideal that you feel!

Is it really inconceivable that some past and present have experientially verified the reality of the human condition in relation to the potential for human being.

"Experientially verified" subsumes you have felt the validity or truth of a belief without further means to know if authentic beyond your feelings which you conflate with actual knowledge. People who imprison their minds with fixed assertions have no reason or right to talk about “knowing themselves”.

Is conscious contemplation or striving for the conscious intuitive experience really just meaningless leaving us with nothing other than arguing opinions.

Conscious contemplation is available to everyone including those who notice major faults in your views. Please note that one must actually be conscious to contemplate.

Doubt is usually incipient to a higher form of contemplation than those who hold their beliefs as certain. Not much there to contemplate when that happens. Unconditional acceptance is all that’s required; most welcome are the confirming assumptions of those you quote. A moped mentality doesn’t need a lot of gas.

[Dubious]

Ostensibly today's networks would allow for quick meme transmission but commercial enterprises with vested interests work to muddy the waters and slow the information's effective dissemination.

That is true but personally I think the situation is made worse by the speed of transmission. One would assume that universities as institutions of learning conform to the principle of free debate by students or invited speakers. And yet how often do people get shouted down because it doesn't or may not agree with the accepted PC standards of the student body before the speaker even properly begins...his/her reputation having preceded them!

I may be wrong and open to refutation which is fine, but it seems that the quick transmission of memes is hugely responsible in preempting the analytical thinking process in favor of creating cloned walking functions for the future. I think the present age especially dangerous which values speed over torque especially when so many memes riding the internet are themselves toxic...but that's a separate subject.

[Greta]

Ostensibly today's networks would allow for quick meme transmission but commercial enterprises with vested interests work to muddy the waters and slow the information's effective dissemination.

That is true but personally I think the situation is made worse by the speed of transmission. One would assume that universities as institutions of learning conform to the principle of free debate by students or invited speakers. And yet how often do people get shouted down because it doesn't or may not agree with the accepted PC standards of the student body before the speaker even properly begins...his/her reputation having preceded them!

I may be wrong and open to refutation which is fine, but it seems that the quick transmission of memes is hugely responsible in preempting the analytical thinking process in favor of creating cloned walking functions for the future. I think the present age especially dangerous which values speed over torque especially when so many memes riding the internet are themselves toxic...but that's a separate subject.

You are probably right that the situation is more complex. Still, the capability for rapid dissemination of useful ideas is at least now potentially there, even if squandered to some extent on biased talking heads, asinine Twitter feeds and porno.

The mess appears to me like a work in progress, still yet to be organised, which perhaps could act as a metaphor for humanity as a whole and to some extent the subject of this thread. It's all about those damnable humans continuing to not live up to expectations, isn't it? Yet, laughable as it may seem, for all we know we humans may be ahead of the curve morally as compared with intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. We have no other examples with which to compare ourselves.

[Dontaskme]

The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it will thrive and grow up to God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God. ~ Meister Eckhart

Isn’t it good to know that we can have differing perspectives without cursing each other out.

Well that's because we have no fight in us, we've both evolved to the point of being able to recognise our own fruit.

I can understand why you believe as you do but it doesn’t answer my questions as to universal meaning and purpose and Man’s purpose within it. Coming to understand the relationship between involution and evolution in the context of the great chain of being and why Man’s being is dual natured has provided a path capable of answering my questions.

Sometimes I don't know how to answer other peoples questions Nick,because of the problem of trying to be inside of another persons mind.. but I think the quote you posted above which I've put in bold answers it perfectly, you already know which quote to find to match your own frequency to answer your own question.

For example, appreciating Man’s dual nature makes it clear what it means to receive from above and give to below in order to awaken our essence to feel higher values. In respect to this thread, losing the natural connection with our higher parts creates dominant secular values in compensation and destruction of the seed of the soul and its potential to reconcile our dual nature from a higher perspective rather than refusing to recognize our lower nature.

I absolutely know what you are saying here today, and I totally agree with you.

Even though we disagree I respect your passion in pursuit of meaning.

Ditto.

.

[Nick_A]

Sometimes I don't know how to answer other peoples questions Nick,because of the problem of trying to be inside of another persons mind.. but I think the quote you posted above which I've put in bold answers it perfectly, you already know which quote to find to match your own frequency to answer your own question.

A curious thing about the modern secular mind is that it preaches acceptance of outer differences in people like gender and color but does what it can to destroy those whose inner difference from them makes them uneasy.

"Pity them my children, they are far from home and no one knows them. Let those in quest of God be careful lest appearances deceive them in these people who are peculiar and hard to place; no one rightly knows them but those in whom the same light shines" Meister Eckhart

The light these unusual ones project from their being when like Simone, they become influential, is offensive to those who have suppressed it in themselves so must be eliminated to make them normal where we are all one in spiritual emptiness.

I've read those who believe it was insane for Simone to abandon marxism and her devotion to the idea of social justice achieved through politics in favor of her experiential belief in the essence of Christianity which allowed her to become known as a Christian mystic. Condemned by some and admired by others. Welcome to the human condition.

[Dubious]

The mess appears to me like a work in progress, still yet to be organised...

That’s a valid point even though it seems the more we know without the time to digest causes more mental constipation and confusion becoming ever more insidious to ourselves and the planet. At this time in particular the paradigms of "progress" demand to be examined where once it was only the individual.

It's all about those damnable humans continuing to not live up to expectations, isn't it? Yet, laughable as it may seem, for all we know we humans may be ahead of the curve morally as compared with intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

Not laughable at all! That thought often came to me mainly in those moments of regarding the human species as one of the most execrable creations in the galaxy occupying the landfill area of it; but it was never a singular conclusion. The thought that there could be worse inevitably followed simply as a more sinister extension of ourselves.

We have no other examples with which to compare ourselves.

Definitely a handicap. Even when we default to comparing very different civilizations in all ages the differences are minimal human nature being what it is.

Based on our solitary confinement the future depends on thinking and examining from an inside-out perspective not only being right but as importantly being in time; late metanoias rarely help but do cause a lot of regret. Also, there are always clues and feedback in spite of receiving only CMB signals from the universe at large. But as in any chess game, the pawns are usually the first to get removed from the grand cosmic chessboard...the ultimate playing field.