You're in the dilemma of the gymnast who feels she is only really alive while spinning on a rope. The choreography is so melodious, ordinary life seems so flat besides it.

This is not quite what I was saying. I was saying that metaphysicians apply logic to the mystical revelations. This is why metaphysics is so different from the natural sciences which have little if any regard for mysticism, only applying logic to observations of the natural world, metaphysics will apply logic to the observations of mysticism.

Ok, that's of interest, you realise now don't you that I will provide a revelation for discussion.

Consistency is produced by conforming habituation to logic. But in the essence of human nature there is no necessity to conform, conformity must be willed.

Yes this correlates to mystical contemplation, but surely the metaphysician is building an ivory tower from which to survey the world. The tower stands if the foundations are inviolable. I see how it is a good discipline, or exercise. The mystic also realises that any of these towers are an impediment to putting one foot in front of the other on the path, so always leaves the door open in humility.

I think I disagree with this statement. The metaphysician has to derive principles from somewhere. and as mentioned above, I think that the principles are derived from mysticism, and mysticism takes direction from the natural world. This is a completely different type of direction from the direction that natural sciences get from the natural world.

Yes, but inevitably every pointer, every hint derived from the natural world, be it for a mystic, a metaphysician, a scientist, a flat earther even, is a reflection of the divine, of eternity. The mystic works with such axioms of thought, along with revelation and stills the chitta chatta some more. Continually dwelling in the pure experience of nature. Imbibes the liquid of the gifts provided by incarnation. From where is a metaphysician drawing her sustenance?

Metaphysicians really apply mystical principles to logic, such that the laws and rules of logic are formulated to be applicable to the natural world as understood through mystic practises.

I would be interested in an example here. My first thoughts are that when one delves into an analysis of mystical experiences (revelations), the external world evaporates as the nature of being becomes the focus. That nature being what is referenced in spiritual cosmology. One is transcending the spheres and learning ones way around, guided on a need to know basis through the unfurling of ones being. The alignment of the chackras.

So if I were to imagine myself as a metaphysician considering this cosmogony. I would find myself documenting an organism, like a plant, and the particular geometrical relation between the petals. Like a naturalist in exploring in the jungle. Perhaps when I return to my study I might try and apply some rational thought to this, but I would have to realise eventually that all I am doing is documenting the natural shape of a flower which I have come across (by incarnating into it). Nowhere am I advancing knowledge of the origins, or principles of existence.

All we can glean of the divine realms is a faint memory of a grain of dust on the floor of the divine realm. To know more than this requires personal experience via revelation, in particular that kind of revelation in which one is lifted up and hosted in the body of a divine being, that temporarily one is transfigured by experiencing through their eyes, their mind, what life is like for them. And when one comes back down to earth how does one apply logic?

I will give the example I have cited before, of a dream I had in which I was taken up by the Christ and as I looked back down to where I was sleeping I saw time layer out like a series of rooms with no roofs, so I could see my past and future laid out before me. It reminded me of the experience of my life flashing before me when I was on the point of drowning (someone pulled me out thankfully). A sequence of experiences in which I travelled through time at a different rate and was transcending time, free to move either way, in a sense.

Now what can a metaphysician say about this?

You've deemed to apply a little oil (quick silver) to your nib. The trouble is the skies the limit now and if you fly beyond the end of your nose, they will shoot you down in the heat of disdain like Icarus.

Solution, fly in the other direction, towards the origin of your nose, you won't find them there.

Thanks, Augustine refers to it as eternal and incorporeal, so that would fall into what I describe as eternity. All things truly real are there, including those which are incorporeal.

The Akashic records, In the way it is treated in theosophy, is on the monadic plane. The lowest plane of the truly real. On this plane all forms including thoughts, concepts, principles of manifestation*, kingdoms of nature. All ideal forms, truths and past and future events, combinations of forms are found. They are incorporeal in that they are not subject to material, but mind. They are the daily bread of the immortals, while to us they are highest and purest ideals and the most refined forms of thoughts and concepts.

* by principles of manifestation I mean the equivalent of a rule book, or pathway via which all incarnate and physical worlds are manifest, which necessarily encapsulates their entire period, or eons of existence. From when they form to when they pass.

Forgive me if this comes across as spiritual hokum, I realise this is a metaphysics thread.

No, the formal realm is not heaven. It's the domain of laws, numbers, and so on - only by way of analogy, because it's only 'a domain' in the sense that 'the set of all real numbers is a domain'.

Oh I see what you mean now. To me this equates to the Akashic record, in theosophy.

"Henry Steel Olcott's A Buddhist Catechism (1881).[6] Olcott wrote that "Buddha taught two things are eternal, viz, 'Akasa' and 'Nirvana': everything has come out of Akasa in obedience to a law of motion inherent in it, and, passes away."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records

They are on another level or domain of reality, that being the 'formal realm' or 'the domain of pure form'. But that also doesn't 'exist' in the sense that objects exist; I don't think current English has a term for the sense in which that domain is real.

Heaven? I prefer the word eternity, because it offers a direction in that there are things there which are without end, inviolable, transcendent, real (as in self existent). Also that there is the inconceivable and a portal to worlds beyond end.

I think this chitta chatta is what I called mental habits.

Yes, that sounds good for me. As I said, I am happy to accommodate a recognised metaphysics as I don't want to get into the mysticism of physical material.

I believe that metaphysics derives its principles from mysticism, through a sort of logical analysis of mystical practises and myths.

Yes I would agree with this, but that it came about due to the nature of the manifestion we find ourselves in. This nature inevitably being a reflection of divinity. So metaphysics in attempting to apply its logic to the natural world is inevitably going to mirror in some way a mystical understanding.

Although I would also point out that there seems to be a variation in understanding in metaphysics from philosopher to philosopher. A kind of sectarianism, this also happens within mysticism, although for the mystic these differences in teaching don't matter much because the primary focus of mysticism is not a philosophy, but a practice and relation to the natural world via the body (as opposed to the mind) and being. Whereas in metaphysics the only means of refining the ideas is via the application of logic, reason. There is no direction from the natural world, although it is to some degree an expression of the divine, it is only a presentation of parts and complex systems of material, which is probably beyond our capacity to understand at this time. Also there are gapping holes and paradox in our understanding of material as understood through science and incarnation and being are areas unknown to science.

Or at least be able to make such distinctions (of subjective experiences) through experience itself and/or intuition.

And traditionally those who had an affinity would gravitate to the monastery.

And great point about those having an affinity for the mystical . That humility of sorts speaks to another irony in life...

Yes, the most mystical person I have met, was, at the right moment, the most humble person I have met.

Nice, but one must remain aware of the mystique employed by false prophets and religious leaders who seek to control the populous, generate wealth, or recruit followers.

The idea being that by claiming that the divine, or wisdom is only for the initiated to know, then the un-initiated should follow, or give praise to the initiated.

In my experience some of the most accomplished Mystics don't even know they are one, or would deny it. They just naturally follow that course. Also some creative people follow a similar course, unwittingly, or self effacing.

What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you-AH Maslow

I have tried to find the significance of this quote for the philosophy of mysticism. All I can come up with is that people who discuss the philosophy of mysticism while not themselves a mystic fall foul of it. But when a mystic discusses the philosophy of mysticism with another mystic, or non mystic, the quote doesn't apply.

Is there an implication that the mystic would not discuss the philosophy of mysticism, but instead do mysticism?

You are already a part of the laws.

Sounds good. To start with one puts one's house in order.

OK, I just wanted to get clear on what you meant by chitta chatta. I assume from this post, that it is conversations with others. But don't you distinguish between small talk and important talk?

What I mean by chitta chatta is all dialogue with other people, or with one's self and all conscious thinking. Also all unconscious thinking which emerges into the consciousness. Indeed all mental activity which is involved in and with the sense of self. Alternatively, If you practice meditation for a few hundred hours until you are able to still the mind, what you have stilled is the chitta chatta. The mental activity involved in communion with the higher self does involve some of this*, but is largely that which supports a growing together as an organism. Rather like the grafting of a plant, or a joining together of two plants at the graft. So that after the graft, the two plants merge and become, after some time, indistinguishable.

I'm trying to get a feel for what the higher self is like for you. If there is no proper communication between yourself and the higher self, then is there really any separation between these two at all?

There is a separation between them as a consequence of incarnation. So a human being is a complex organism in which there are membranes, regions, organs, divisions between parts performing different functions. Naturally such division into parts occurs in the mind and being. So parts of the being which are subject to/immersed during, incarnation are separated by natural divisions, or membranes.

Would it be ok to say that these two are really one and the same being?

Yes, where there is a part, or aspect of the being which is enthralled, or captured in, incarnated into a world. A world different in some way from the world where the other part is.

And could I look at this as a transformation, in which the self is being transformed into a higher self?

Yes, the word I would use rather than transformation, is transfigured. The lower self seeks to develop a relation, connection, communion with the higher self and via natural processes, including intuition, grow to be a reflection, expression of the higher self.

The lower self being the past self and the higher self being the future self.

Both are present in the past and will be in the future, I see it more an issue of the present. The higher self could be viewed as eternal, or to have a higher higher self itself which is eternal. Or overshadowed by an eternal aspect of the being, such as the atman. So in a sense a being can be viewed as having layers like an onion with the lowest layers on the surface and the divine/eternal in the innermost layers.

You do appear to be agreeing with me in regards to the ecosystem. The point about farming is interesting, technology exploits the ecosystem, reshaping parts of it, often in unsustainable ways. An example I an dealing with is polytunnel whitefly. There is an arms race going on between crop pests and pesticides. With pests adapting to our efforts to eradicate them and becoming super bugs, which can only be kept in check by using more powerful interventions with chemicals, or biological controls. Another is flea Beatle, which is controlled by neonicotinoids (which is now banned in the EU).

Anyway, my whole point about the ecosystem is that a reasonable medium length purpose for humanity going forward is to develop sustainable ways to live in the ecosystem and therefore secure our long term future.


*The mystic develops ways of distinguishing between thoughts relating to the higher self and those inherent in the lower self.

Can I ask, how do you distinguish the chitta chatta from the communion with the soul? The communion with the soul must consist of some sort of mental activity, how do you know that it's not just more chitta chatta?

Well I can easily distinguish between conversations I have with other people and those I have with myself, my inner narrative. Mystical practice can involve a number of different techniques in which one develops a space for communion, or for yogic practices. Practices which can develop aspects of the self not normally used. This can include developing the intuition through meditation and work with the chakras, so as to begin to open the crown chakra. The communion with the higher self, as I see it doesn't include thinking, a dialogue, or any kind of chitta chatta. It is more like an osmosis, an imbuing, a merging, through the aura. A growing together. The mental activity manifests more in the way one playfully and creatively contemplates ones own motives, desires and those of the higher self and looks to them becoming the same, in alignment ( there is a great deal that can be said about this, I am barely scratching the surface here).

Why do you think that communion with the higher self is a better goal than organizing the activities which you need to do?

They are complementary, indeed once you are in alignment, they literally are the same thing. It is a useful discipline to be able to make time, to attend to your exercises, as part of a balanced life.

I don't agree with this. I think it's somewhat egotistical to think that human beings have the capacity to control the ecosystem.

I don't disagree with the points you raise, but we have evidence of the control over the ecosystem exercised by humanity. For example we have instigated a mass extinction event, one which is entirely of our own making. I know that the ecosystem will outlive us and may destroy us through a pandemic for example. But the point I am making is that for a large population of humans to live sustainably on the planet, it will require a healthy functioning ecosystem. Something which we are putting in jepardy right now by our stupidity.

It shouldn't be to big a thing to ask should it, that humanity should put its house in order and live sustainably on the planet.

Or are we to stupid, to selfish, to blind to our own frailties to survive more than a few thousands of years before going extinct like the dodo.

Yes, although I'm not at all a Bible person, I find it pretty remarkable how well the first book of the Bible predicts where we find ourselves today. A knowledge explosion, threatening to evict us from the garden of eden.

Yes, although, as I was saying, I don't think it's unique it might have happened a few times before on earth and many times in the cosmos. Quite predictable I think.

Regrettably, there isn't much evidence this will happen any time soon.

I know, I am thinking more about humanity living in harmony with the ecosystem (and themselves) long term.

If that interests you, you might investigate the work of Robert Hastings who has extensively researched reports of UFOs interfering with nuclear weapons systems. https://www.ufohastings.com/ He's more about aliens than divine intervention,

Yes, I looked into this in the early 1990's, when the Ashtar tapes came out, talking about this stuff, it gets interesting when one considered that there is a crossover between extraterrestrials and divinity. What I was thinking of though is divinity subtly changing the course of events through happenstance. Rather than any grand intervention.

Yes I agree with that. The way I understand the fall and the story depicted in the bible is just that. That the development of thinking in early humanity was the beginning of the problems which lead to the nuclear weapons down our throats. I don't know if the bible predicts nuclear weapons, but it predicts something like a nuclear holocaust. The rest is history.

As to whether it was a good thing, the right thing, progress. I see it as an inevitable crisis of the development of intelligence in nature. Wherever such a development happens, the same crisis will occur. So if intelligence and more advanced life forms exist in nature this point of crisis has been reached before and the species concerned must have survived beyond it. This is humanity's chance to survive the crisis of the fall.

The New Testament depicts God giving us a helping hand through the life and story of Jesus. To pick ourselves up and take responsibility to clean up our own mess, like nappy training.

So I think it is a good thing and it is progress, but we now have to step up to the plate before someone presses the button and collectively take responsibility for our own actions. Not least for our own survival, but for the fate of the other members (species) of the ecosystem, to show respect for them, to care for them in their vulnerability.

P.s. If someone were about to press the button like they were about to do during the Cuban missile crisis. I suspect there would have been some covert divine intervention to prevent it. It would be quite an expensive mistake, in ways beyond our understanding.

Strategic advantage?

I'm portraying it as a bad thing, part of the fall of man. You make a good point though, all sorts of people can talk good words and the like. But those warheads are still pointing down our throats. I'm reminded of Dr Strangelove.

We are about to see what happens when there is not a lockdown, but chaos instead, in Brazil and the whole of Latin America.

This is the first step of indoctrination, what some would call brainwashing, clearing the mind to have a clean slate.

It is a widely used practice in meditation and particularly Raja Yoga. The aim being to regulate and eventually tame the mind through coming to terms with the conditioning. Also to get rid of any unnecessary baggage and bad habits.

I use a practice of developing an imagined place in my mind, which is always still like a flame, where there is no breeze. This is kept separate from the chitta chatta. After a while this place develops and one can retreat there, or draw on it at any time. Also at a latter stage, make use of it in restructuring the mind one has controlled. A similar thing is done with the emotions via a safe space within the heart chakra. The aim being, not to become a clean slate to be brainwashed, but rather to further develop the communion with the higher self, or soul.

I don't think that ecosystems can actually behave or exist in the type of balanced harmony you describe. There are ups and downs in one species or another, as one becomes strong and takes supremacy over another, then for some reason becomes weaker and becomes suppressed or even driven into extinction. It's not a balance at all, but a complex process of ups and downs, as one species prospers because of an abundance of the resource it requires, until this resource runs out, and it cannot adapt. Then another species might come into prosperity on the waste of that species, etc..

I agree, but in the case of humanity we have developed something called a thinking mind. This has given us a strategic advantage above all the other organisms in the ecosystem. An advantage to the extent that we can control the entire ecosystem to our own advantage, or perceived advantage. One might think all well and good, but it has also given us the agency to pervert the ecosystem to some divisive end, to pollute the whole ecosystem for some internally determined need. For example exploit fossil fuels so that we can all move around faster, while polluting our environment. And when a scientist steps forward and says if we pollute in this way we will destroy the ecosystem, someone like a president Trump steps forward and says that's nonsense, we need to exploit more and more shale gas now and make America great again.

You see, it's the fall again.

I don't think I quite understand this concept you are making reference to. Is it a sort of metaphysical principle?

You know like some of the more difficult metaphysical concepts that take a while to understand and might require a lot of rational steps to get there. Well it's the same in mysticism. I might find myself referring to such a concept which without many pages of careful explanation is not adequately conveyed.

When I used the word principle, I was adopting the phraseology used in my source material. So I think it might have seemed out of place. Anyway it was in relation to the idea that the physical world is not an inviolable reality, but a construct devised, created and maintained by a being who is inviolable and drawing on inviolable principles and powers. By inviolable I mean having an eternal presence, existence, reality.

Thanks for the link to the Allman Brothers. Yes what they produced on that album was something. It was sad to hear the story of Eric Clapton's life, he was for many years a tortured soul. It is a testament for the human soul that just at his lowest point, when his son died, he turned and took control of his life for the better and now is a completely reformed person. He has set up a rehabilitation centre on Antigua for recovering alcoholics, who don't have the money to seek help and thrives on helping his fellow man. We could all take a lesson from that strength of character.

If I stay in the woods long enough my mind and body will gradually and naturally slow down, not as an act of will, and at some point I'll find myself standing in one place for an hour just looking around, with no desire to be somewhere else, here and now enough.

I yearn for that moment. I have on occasion camped out in the woods, also in the Himalayas and stretched that moment out for weeks, or months.

Barbarism premised on presentism. It’s Year Zero nonsense.

Nothing but straw. As I said there is a debate about these issues.

[quote A culture that will not defend its past is unlikely to defend its future.[/quote]Vacuous twaddle. Perhaps it's time for Britain to invade Europe, it would be the British thing to do. The bulldog spirit and all that, what what.

This is part of the reason why I do not accept Nuke's attempt to divide mysticism from philosophy as if it is not a form of philosophy.

Well as you say, there are many kinds of mysticism. The majority I find would agree with Nuke, to the extent that trying to work it out with the mind is a distraction. There are some though, perhaps only a few, who do also seek to develop some kind of intellectual understanding. This is exercised alongside other practice and does require some discipline to prevent it becoming a distraction.

If we have different ways of doing the same thing, then despite the different ways, we are still doing the same thing. What one is doing is determined by reference to the end, the goal. So if we both have the same goal, we are doing the same thing, perhaps in a different way though. Nuke attempts to avoid this reality by claiming that mysticism is not a goal directed activity, but that is nonsense.

It is important to separate one of the first principles of mysticism from any intellectual analysis. The idea, or concept that the mystic is not going anywhere in the sense of attaining a goal. But rather attempting to cease any goal, or seeking of a goal. There is an objective, but the objective is the negation of objectives, the negation of determining goals and working towards them. It is a neat psychological trick, which I found very productive when I was younger.

This negation of goals and seeking is foundational to meditation and the quieting of the mind is achieved through practice of meditation. For me it took perhaps 100-200 hours of practice before I found I was able to quieten the mind and there is no problem in starting it up again, it bounces back every time. One is only quieting the chitta chatta.

I don't see any difference between these two, simply different words to refer to the same thing. To me a principle, which an individual might try to follow as a rule, is a construction, and human constructions are all imperfect. So a principle is always an imperfect fabrication.

Yes, I should have been more specific*. What I was referring to is the belief that the world we are living in** is artificial in that it is a construct conceived of, created and maintained by a divine being. That it has no independent existence, it is not inviolable.

With these premises, attempting to understand what the human mind cannot presently understand, may help to bring about the evolutionary changes required to produce a mind which can understand this.

Yes, it would be required in a large number of the population, not 50%, I expect, but a sizeable amount of the population. Something not very likely anytime soon. Still the clock ticks as the crises mount. If however we are talking of the individual, yes I wholeheartedly agree with you. For me though, there are numerous other means of developing such a mind alongside practicing philosophy. Although I find Philosophy is important in its rigour and scepticism.

I had a hard time understanding this passage, how the mind could be a hindrance to progress, until I grasped the importance of the qualification "as it is conditioned".

The * again, I find myself skirting a large area of thinking to make an initial point. Mysticism is very much concerned with conditioning, principle because it entails the purification of aspects of the being, specifically the those related to this incarnation. So all forms of conditioning are addressed. Also the products of this enquiry ( into one's conditioning) become useful in contemplation, reorientation and rebuilding the transfigured self.

Perhaps the type of revelation you describe in the footnote requires that the mind has this type of freedom, to a maximum possible degree.

Quite.

Determining the purpose which unifies is not as easy as suggesting an "immediate" purpose.

Yes, I am aware of this. I was only referring the the pressing purpose of humanity as a whole. To reiterate, the pressing purpose of humanity is, to begin to live in harmony with/in the ecosystem, in a way which secures the health of the ecosystem and the human civilisation, for the medium and eventually long term.


* I keep Finding myself making a reference to a concept that has been developed over a long period, has a lot of theory behind it and used in its development, or derived from a divine revelation from a trusted source and yet is something not commonly talked about, or perhaps conceived. I think I might have to begin introducing footnotes to explain them.

** the world we are living in, does not just refer to the physical world, but more specifically the results of incarnation.

I agree with all of that. Education is the way through I think, but it will be a slow process. I can't speak for the US, but here in the UK recent protests have had some effect and perhaps due to the media cycle government and public sentiment does respond. In small steps, I admit, but there is a demographic divide here and the young are on message about equality and tackling racism, like being on message on climate change and a need for more socialist political policies. But unfortunately the majority of the older generation is stubborn about such issues and hides its head in the sand and old fashioned endemic racism, climate change denial and rightwing capitalist policies harking back to Thatcherism. They are in denial on a lot of these issues, but are continuing to vote for rightwing governments which perpetuate this denial. There will be big changes here as they die off and the ranks of the young grow.

I admit that the exploitation fostered by capitalism is abhorrent and may be harder to rectify. Because the affluence we enjoy as a result of it is difficult to give up, or we are terrified of social and economic collapse, loosing our fortunes, descending into poverty and depravity etc etc. Which may result from making systemic change. What is more likely is that catastrophic events will make such change.

is a visceral act, not a strategy. Is like a yell, or punching the wall.

I know, people are asking should the statue have been removed by the council by now. Should statues be removed by public consent etc.

I dove in some Dutch slavery past. Apparently all the slave owners were compensated 300 guilders per slave. That resulted in 12 million guilders in 1863, which was about 10% of the government's budget.

Yes, there were large amounts of compensation paid out to the traders and businessmen who would loose out in the UK too. Nothing was paid to the slaves who were liberated.

There is a debate raging in the UK about which statues should be pulled down and if it is justified to pull them down and how to determine which should, or shouldn't be pulled down. People are saying should we now pull down the statue of Churchill in parliament square.
I was there when this happened, nice Mohican.

I happened to watch a documentary on Eric Clapton lastnight. It was interesting to learn that Duane Allman collaborated on his Layla album. It was apparently an intense and highly creative collaboration. They were apparently "inseparable" throughout the recording sessions and jammed continuously day after day.

We are very clearly incapable of understanding this temporal continuity.

Yes, I would say also of extension. I appreciate your focus on time, I prefer to lump space and time together. But also to allow for the presence of that which is beyond our understanding. In the sense that it might be foundational to manifestation and space and time are a consequence of it.

. But recognizing the reality of this inability to comprehend, and giving a name to the thing which appears to us but cannot be understood, is not itself naivety, as it is a recognition of naivety, and a very reasonable step toward understanding what is currently unknown

Yes, as I said I do not want to diminish the value, or relevance of metaphysics for philosophy. When it comes to mysticism, it does tend to become relegated to part of the chitta chatta of the mind. However, personally I am of the opinion that mysticism and metaphysics can mesh together and provide a useful comparison. But only where the proponents have that particular interest, rather than as some kind of doctrine. By naivety I am referring to our primitive kind of understanding shaped by the kind of experience we have informed by the issues of incarnation in this particular kind of world. Indeed, I work from the premise that this kind of understanding and the experience of this incarnate world is an imperfect fabrication, construction. Not a principle.

But "more imaginative" does not equate with "better", as there is the issue of correspondence with reality

Quite, by imaginative I mean as an alternative to a logical rational process.

If we conclude that the human mind is inadequate, then what is the alternative?

One of the first realisations of the mystic is that the mind (as it is conditioned) is inadequate and more of a hindrance to progress than a means to progress. That the nature of reality, indeed ourselves, our bodies and every experience is an unfathomably mystery*. The development of communion, or that kind of intuition which develops between the personal self (the personality) and the higher self, or soul, is regarded as of more importance and the establishment of some kind of direction via this intuition

I agree, the problem is very deep. And as I said, I believe resolution requires a deep understanding of the nature of "purpose". What unites people is to bring them together in cooperation toward a common goal. What divides them is the false certainty that a specific identified goal is the correct goal. So "purpose" is the double edged sword, it is what unites us, and it is what divides us.

The problem isn't one of identifying a purpose, the (immediate) purpose is clear to any intelligent person who gives it some thought, as I have pointed out. The problem is the choreography of the population to carry it out. Political and economic issues are likely to cause the demise of the current civilisation and the survivors will have to start again (I don't want to get into a discussion of these issues here).

* an unfathomably mystery to our rational mind, in the absence of revelation, that is. Meaning that the self may behold the reality of the mystery and understand, know that truth. In such revelation, the mind takes a back seat and often cannot process what was known after the event. Where the mystery is of a more profound nature, the self may only behold the reality by being temporarily transfigured by the guide in the revelation. That the self sees it through the eyes, and mind of the guide as her own being is incapable of the degree of revelation. She will of course not be able to process/interpret the experience afterwards and will develop a narrative which intuitively approximates the experience.

So this necessary conclusion, that the entire physical world is created anew at each passing moment of time, completely humbles all of humanity who grasp it, by belittling our extremely deficient state of knowledge, as it becomes evident how extremely limited is our capacity to understand this reality.

Yes I reached the same conclusion via a different route many years ago. Also Bhuddism says as much. However I went further, I realised incidentally (while contemplating other things) that the human logic exercised in such realisations may be naive, incapable of comprehending the formation and processes of sustaining material in a realm*.
Also I find an affinity with the concept of all material as the physical expression of beings in other kingdoms of nature, allowing for an equivalence with the formation of a human as an expression of being.

So I suppose what I am saying in response to the metaphysics you present here, while it is good philosophy and a useful model for contemplation. It is attempting to form an explanation of something which the human mind is as yet unable to conceive. Also it doesn't appear to have any guidance from a route of divine intuition, although I may be mistaken here, but rather it is a bottom up logical summation from a position of ignorance. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that humanity is up to the task of understanding reality and manifestation, but rather that we are still at an early and naive stage in our progress in this endeavour.

I believe, that since the desire for knowledge is inherent within the human being, as a fundamental driving force, then the humbling referred to above, which comes about from a recognition of the extreme inadequacies of the present state of human knowledge, is enough in itself, to inspire humanity to "do their own housekeeping". The process is ideological. The will to know is extremely strong, and when a vast area of unknown is revealed, there is a strong inclination to produce the means to proceed. To improve the state of human knowledge, and prevent human demise, ideology must change substantially.

Maybe you do not take a serious interest in politics these days. In reality the civilisation we are in is deeply flawed in its constitution and is controlled largely by greed and exploitative forces, negating any progress for humanity. Leaving us in a very vulnerable position.

Going back to what I was saying about our work in terms of a progress in development of the race of humanity and individual people. Mysticism is concerned with working to improve things here. Even the mystic who is practicing alone, or in a tradition in which service is not focussed on, are working in a positive way, by exercising mysticism. There are for example, a large number of people who pray for humanity, or who at least are concerned for progress to be made. But unfortunately the world is held in a stranglehold by divisive and exploitative powers who seek to control the population for greed and power. Divide and rule etc.

* for example, I contemplate numerous more imaginative, creative solutions to metaphysics derived from other sources than the philosophical tradition. Often taking their lead from concepts presented in some form in the mystical and religious traditions. But as I said earlier this is a leasure pursuit in terms of mystical service, not really of any import, other than at more advanced stages of mystical development.

This is the process called evolution. If we look at what is known about the history of biological evolution we can see many such stages of development toward more freedom, some obvious ones being the step from water based creatures to land and air, and the step from plant to animal. One might also characterize rational thinking as such a step.

Yes, I agree, but this freedom and development of bodies is a further evolution within this physical system within which we find ourselves (as beings).
Let me put it another way, if we weren't constrained by our physical bodies, but some other kind, perhaps more subtle body, while our being is unchanged it's expression would be different due to the particular conditions of those bodies. So for example we might have direct telepathic communication whatever the distance between us, or could see each other's thoughts like pictures, or holograms and act in group formation like bees or angels and have entirely different kinds of experiences, or goals.
Just as we are placed into our material world and are learning it's ways, likewise we would be placed into this other world and would be learning its ways. The point being we are learning a process of that world.

The new behaviour is not intrinsic to the purpose of, or why that material body is the form that it is. The material body may then change (in evolution) to accommodate these new behaviours. This is Lamarckian evolution.

Yes, but the rest of the ecosystem doesn't change right along with it. The development might destroy the ecosystem which produced it, so causing its own demise.

Now human beings find new ways to use there bodies, ways that go far beyond the old actions which produced that particular form, so the form of the human body needs to evolve now, to follow.

Yes, but they still might destroy the ecosystem and cause their own demise. It will require them to learn how to prevent this demise and do their own housekeeping, keep their own house in order, now that they have developed the liberty to do so. When I say they can't go back, all I am saying is once they have reached this point, they have no choice they have to keep their own house in order, or perish, through inadvertently destroying the ecosystem which sustains them. They can't step back into their evolutionary niche and carry on as before if they want to. It is an initiation, a door is opened, passed through and shut behind them. They do not have the liberty to go back through that door. They can though through ingenuity recreate a world just like that garden of Eden, but with themselves acting as custodians in that idyll.

So if you think that humanity has taken a wrong turn, we can't go back, but we can try to correct for it in the roads ahead. Otherwise we could be on the road to extinction. The road we are on, at any given time, is very much determined by our past material bodies (instinctual behaviour). But the future road is not. So we always need to make corrections as we go, when it becomes evident that improvement is needed. This is what I believe Jesus did, show a needed correction.

So you are agreeing with me, that once the human race developed autonomy, it was required to keep its house in order and God through Jesus, offered a lesson in house keeping.

This might seem a simple thing to do, what is there to worry about. But it is not that easy a thing to achieve. The idyll of the garden of Eden from which humanity emerged was a finely tuned environment and humanity was a result of such fine tuning. In order for a civilisation of primates to live in harmony with its ecosystem, especially so when they are highly intelligent is a Herculean task and it is only now after a few million years of autonomy that we are beginning to understand what this entails. Unfortunately we have been slow learners and have belatedly reached this point at a stage in human development in which the pressures of overpopulation are coming to bare. The climate is becoming irrevocably (in the short term) changed, putting great pressures on the ecosystems. And we are not showing much willing to make the required changes to remedy the problems we have created. It is now going to be quite a struggle for us to pull through with any kind of civilisation intact at the end of it.
Slow learners indeed.

And you experienced this divine presence, as something separate from yourself?

yes, it was like a kind of electricity between them, almost telepathic, words fail me. A magic, like pixy dust, which made things happen.

It's a curious thought that a majority is required to make something real.

Well this is what I observed, I may have been mistaken in assuming that everyone had to be in on it for it to be real. It just was, and appeared not to be at home, that's all.

The punishment of having the soul incarnate with a body is to make us know our place, as lower than God.

I don't wholly disagree with your thoughts about human instinct. But rather I view how we got into this predicament differently. In your comment that incarnation is to make us know our place as lower than God, I accept that it can be seen that way, but rather I see it as we are learning to know our place, God doesn't really come into the equation. We find ourselves in a highly structured and rigid physical framework entombed in a body through which we have to learn to behave in a way developed through an evolution in this material. It is the nature of this behaviour which is being learned. How could it be anything other than this? We are learning the lessons of the tree of knowledge as experienced by physical animals which have evolved in this environment. This includes being subject to the hormones and enzymes and disease of such bodies. The emotions, the psychology, the psychosis which are a result of such evolution. Now most people just get on with it and are conditioned by the society around them, but a few step outside and take a broader perspective, or even look to be of service to those around them. Some manage to subjugate the negative and confining aspects of their bodies and develop more divine, or gracious qualities. Indeed the society often elevates such people to a position of cultural importance, prophets, or shamans perhaps. And what do these people say with their wise words, well pretty much what is notionally required for the human race to prosper and reach a balanced and constructive position within the ecosystem. In the knowledge that any other course will end in their destruction, or at least a serious collapse in civilisation. Something which has happened many times before.

And did these remote Himalayaians validate your experience?

Yes they did, although it was as a series of small glimpses of how reality was for them, rather than one intense experience. The way I saw it was in the way they all believed in a divine presence, or magic continually at play in their world. This was normality for them and I doubt they realised it could be any other way. It also enabled me to put into some kind of focus how my society at home had lost this. This is not to say that there weren't people at home who realised this, or who had faith, but rather the society as a whole had lost this and it relied on everyone, or at least most of the people for it to be, to be real. Also curiously, at this time, I realised that in my society hypocrisy was widespread and endemic. That what I had found problematic my whole life in the way people behaved was as a result of this. It was like in my society no one really said what they believed, they mostly said something contradictory, or different for some cultural reason. Often their body language said something else again, or told me the truth they were for some reason not communicating, or denying.

By this point, I felt at home with these people in the Himalayas, there was none of this hypocrisy, or disingenuous behaviour, people dwelt and communicated freely, honestly and with conviction, in tune with their environment. It was not an idyl, there were many problems and difficulties experienced by these people, but they had not lost this reality, some kind of living presence between them.

The mystic is attempting to go nowhere while realising that she has not as yet arrived there. She knows where she is going (nowhere) but realises that she is not there at the moment. Also that she is already there now and that going somewhere, or at another time, was always a distraction, although it (going somewhere) might help her recognise where she is going and help her to reach her destination.

The UK hadn't lost its sovereignty.

Now on 6th of June 2020, we have a speech by Michel Barnier, in which he points out in detail how the British negotiators are pulling back from the commitments in the withdrawal agreement past last December. That the withdrawal agreement and the commitments agreed and signed up to by both sides in its formulation, will form the basis of the EU negotiating position.

So as predicted the talks are going nowhere, the British side is conducting a sham of a negotiation, so as to blame the other side when no agreement is reached and we are heading for a no trade deal Brexit.

This morning Nissan said that if there is no deal, then its manufacturing presence in the UK would become unsustainable. This issue is widely regarded as the canary in the coal mine, whereby if Nissan pulls the plug, the whole thing will go up in smoke.

Somehow I can't see the government surviving to 31st December, or if by some miracle they do, they will sink shortly afterwards.

The official Covid death figures in the UK on Wednesday (3rd June) was 359, for the same day the Covid deaths for the whole of the EU was 330. On the same day Johnson stood in parliament and said how proud he was of the way the government had handled the crisis. Plus, he was now going to personally take control of the crisis. "Take back control"

None of this was reported in the mainstream media, the public doesn't know, or care anymore.

The instinctive behaviour is a double edged sword.

The point is, once the instinctive behaviour is lost it is lost forever, it is permanent, there is no way back. Hence it is a fall, a fall into an abyss.
This is so important IMHO I will reiterate it, the moment humanity took control of its own destiny, learnt the intelligence to supersede its natural instinctive behaviour in the ecosystem, it metaphorically left the Garden of Eden, with no way back, it was shut out, metaphorically was left to wonder in the wilderness forevermore and would now have to find its own way forward, or perish*.

This is the meaning of the Story of the fall and in a sense the New Testament, with the story of Jesus depicts God's attempt to give humanity a helping hand to get up after it fell and stand up as an individual in heaven**.

Let's suppose that a person enters this trip without any specific purpose, or any specific direction in mind. A sign appears, and the person must decide whether the sign says go left, go right, go straight ahead, or whatever. The person could make up anything, saying that for me, the sign means go straight ahead, so I'm going straight ahead. But that person is really just lost within one's own imagination, perhaps falling into some sort of mental illness or something. The real mystic would want to know the real meaning of the sign, to know the real direction to go, and therefore would seek help to interpret the sign.

I will agree with this for now, although I would say it is more complicated than this and we could go into far more depth on this issue. My point was that the mystic should cultivate a reasonable sense of humility and realise that they are not personally required to work it all out in order to proceed. On the understanding that there is far more going on in their lives and the world around them than they are aware of. So they should seek guidance of some sort, externally through a fellow mystic, or teacher, or via the intuition.

*I accept that what I say here may be controversial and can be argued and cross examined at length from numerous angles, but that may derail the thread, so I accept that it is an oversimplification.

**As above this may be controversial, it is only my own way of seeing it.

but if something is impossible to recall or imagine then how can you recall or imagine it?

I don't want to speak for Wayfarer here, but the way I see it is that it is a situation where one can't see the wood for the trees. It is "impossible" to remember what was lost because all you can see is the world as it is now. There may be a better way to put it, I know what he means because I have experienced what was lost in the way he puts it while spending time with people living in remote areas of the Himalaya.

so immigrants settling. But making the connections requires a global understanding that is rare. What one experiences are local events I'm doing badly, the town's doing badly, and the place is full of foreigners.

A perfect opportunity for the populist, the population feels desperate at the relentless economic decline in their area, while noticing a gradual increase in immigrants at the same time. The populists comes along a tells them that the former was caused by the latter. Bingo, the populist gets into power, the population feels empowered, with their grievances represented. What's not to like? Then the tabloids feed off this feeding frenzy and the social divisions become entrenched. Then the populist tells them to solve these problems we need to regain our sovereignty, take back control of our borders by, you've guessed it leaving the EU. Make Britain great again.

Then we get a feeding frenzy at the top where the tabloids (this includes the Telegraph) reinforce these lies and support the populists in return for more rightwing Britain first policies. All the billionaires and rip off merchants, investment bankers etc get into a feeding frenzy because they're going to make loads of money out of the economic and financial changes during the Brexit process and the workforce will become more pliant and desperate, so easier to control and exploit. Win win.

Then sell of to the US so they can pick the carcass clean, job done.

The country will be ok, they survived the war, they will survive this, it's the bulldog spirit.

Interesting, yes I think hallucinogens found in the environment have been made use of by shamans in human society for a very long time. They may have been responsible for the invention of religions etc.