A tree produces a seed in order to produce another tree. If you just look at the seed and say "oh that's not a tree, obviously it failed let's destroy this tree" one quickly notices an error in judgement. Belief systems call this arrogance or pride. Society calls this impatience and prudence. Science calls this just being wrong. Remember that. — Outlander

I don't see the relevance. If the seed fails in producing a tree it demonstrates its own faultiness.

I don't see the relevance. If the seed fails in producing a tree it demonstrates its own faultiness. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course. But my point is sometimes we jump the gun, per se. Some flowering plants take hundreds of years to produce fruit. People don't live hundreds of years. So, by all apparent rational sense, you could be like "oh look this plant doesn't do anything" when in reality you're dead wrong. Literally. :lol:

Come on you should know this stuff. This isn't elementary school.

I already gave good reasons why it isn't a case of premature judgement.

Thanks for that description.

I think we can learn quite a lot from these sort of experiences, it’s like a window into hidden parts of our world that we don’t ordinarily see*.

For example; I have come to realise that extremely inprobable events and coincidences happen all the time. Probabilities equivalent to a lottery win. The probability that the crowd of dancers would part like that is extremely low. I have many other experiences which confirm this observation**. And yet, very few few of us notice these events, or if we do, realise the significance.

Secondly; for this event to happen, there was a collective action between all the people involved. So in a sense the crowd, including myself and the small chap, were acting as one cohesive organism. Which might suggest that we act as one organism more often than we might expect.

Thirdly; there was some kind of calling, need, requirement for the two of us to see each other and have our interaction***. I have had numerous encounters with people which involved exchanging of glances, as intense, or meaningful as this, indeed even more so. So have come to view such interactions as a window to the soul, or something like that.

Fourthly; and this point involves another encounter at the same event, aswell. The realisation that brief meetings between particular people can have a meaning, or significance, way beyond what we might expect. And that some kind of group communion is going on within populations.

This leads me to conclude a number of things about our world and humanity, which are not overtly evident and that there are deeper meaning and far reaching processes and purposes at play in our world about which we know nothing (in particular).

* we are blind, or blinkered to it. Although some cultures are not so blind and embrace it.

** I know about probability, chance and random events. But I am putting it in the context of a human life and the rarity within the experiences of a person for such improbable events to happen with meaning, within their particular path of experience. And that through the development of the skills of observation, one can come to see these events more and more and make use of them.

***the implication being that there is something going on at a soul, or spirit level in the beings involved.

This isn't elementary school.

We are all still in kindergarten, but don’t realise it. We are playing with our shiny toys and passing them around in our own little worlds pretending to be important, or saying important things. While the grown ups are in the next room keeping an eye on us. Just to make sure we don’t go pressing any big red buttons out of curiosity.

For example; I have come to realise that extremely inprobable events and coincidences happen all the time. — Punshhh

I strongly agree. That's why there is sayings like "truth is stranger than fiction". I believe it has something to do with the variety of possibility. Possibility extends through such a vast array of features of a vast array of activities, far beyond the capacity of the most imaginative minds. That is why superstition extends to such a broad array of habitual activities. You'll find that people who work in a career where luck and chance are significant factors (such as sports games) pay very strong attention to the most minute factors of daily life. They are said to be superstitious. Very small things, which are not even noticeable to most people can end up having a large effect on what happens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Secondly; for this event to happen, there was a collective action between all the people involved. So in a sense the crowd, including myself and the small chap, were acting as one cohesive organism. Which might suggest that we act as one organism more often than we might expect.

Thirdly; there was some kind of calling, need, requirement for the two of us to see each other and have our interaction***. I have had numerous encounters with people which involved exchanging of glances, as intense, or meaningful as this, indeed even more so. So have come to view such interactions as a window to the soul, or something like that. — Punshhh

These two features involve a non-conscious relation between individuals, which will act to amplify the minute factors of possibility, through multiplication.

Here's an analogy. Consider that a living body is composed of a multitude of small parts, individual cells, or even the smaller parts, parts of a cell and the parts that act between cells. Each part is acting out its own role, by what it is inclined to do by the deterministic laws of physics, while leaving open minute factors of possibility. That is, it is still free to make a different move, one which would appear to be chance, or random. Also, there must be an non-conscious relation between all the different parts, so that the possibility which is left open by each individual is multiplied by the possibility left open by each other, allowing for coincidental apparent chance or random acts. This "coincidence" acts to "amplify possibility". When the whole, as a group, does something unexpected, the effect of amplified possibility is realized. We observe this, "the effects of amplified possibility" every time a being makes an act which we designate as freely chosen.

Fourthly; and this point involves another encounter at the same event, aswell. The realisation that brief meetings between particular people can have a meaning, or significance, way beyond what we might expect. And that some kind of group communion is going on within populations. — Punshhh

This is analogous to the above referenced "butterfly effect" itself. However, there is a very big difference. Understanding of the butterfly effect is based in principles of chance, randomness, described by chaos theory. This theory demonstrates how the concept of "amplified possibility" is permissible in a deterministic world, if we allow that at a fundamental level, chance occurrence is real. The chance occurrence must be very real, for chaos theory to be real, so in reality chaos theory is a denial of the "deterministic world". People will claim that chaos theory is consistent with determinism, but it is not, because it requires chance, undetermined actions, at the basic level.

What you are indicating is that these supposedly "chance" occurrences, which form the base of chaos theory, actually have meaning and significance which extends far beyond the capacity of the conscious human mind to understand. This implies that within the "non-conscious relation between all the different parts", there is some form of what you call "group communion", which is some form of recognition of the underlying meaning or significance, and this acts to cause the amplification of possibility which is required for the individuals to act together as a whole, in a way which is non-deterministic.

Possibility extends through such a vast array of features of a vast array of activities, far beyond the capacity of the most imaginative minds.

Yes, although, I am focussing on the personal angle of a being. Which is actually quite limited, on a small scale and only covering a small number of events, outcomes etc. This does require the vast majority of what happens external to the being to be ignored, or screened out*. For such a being, the experience of such an unusual event is very rare, perhaps once in the lifetime, or only for 1 in 10 people in their lifetime. What I’m saying, is that infact it happens more than we know, even regularly, but we either don’t see it, couldn’t appreciate the relevance, are conditioned to screen it out etc. essentially we are blind to it, except in certain very narrow circumstances determined by our life, heritage and conditioning.
For the mystic, or seer, this is fertile ground for exploration and contemplation.

This "coincidence" acts to "amplify possibility". When the whole, as a group, does something unexpected, the effect of amplified possibility is realized. We observe this, "the effects of amplified possibility" every time a being makes an act which we designate as freely chosen.

Yes, that makes sense, specifically to my second point. But when it comes to my third point, I am talking about something else. That there is some transcendent (perhaps) process, or cause which may involve far reaching karmic**significance. For example, two beings who have some connection from a previous life. Or some extended interaction between historical groups etc. in which the two people involved are emissaries, or representatives to some other unknown process, or meeting.

This implies that within the "non-conscious relation between all the different parts", there is some form of what you call "group communion", which is some form of recognition of the underlying meaning or significance, and this acts to cause the amplification of possibility which is required for the individuals to act together as a whole, in a way which is non-deterministic.

Yes, I’m with you about it not being deterministic. I go back to my emissary analogy, in each event, each being may act as an emissary, or ambassador for a whole species, or series of unconnected(seemingly) events. Also, there is an internal dimension within the physical body of the beings (we are after all a colony of millions of individual cells), a spiritual dimension and a cosmic dimension, to this.***

* we have evolved to do this, in a profound sense, through necessity.
**I am using the word karmic, descriptively, not necessarily in its precise meaning.
***I would refer you to Hindu mythology, in which there is a vast, infinite spiritual cosmos, of which we are in a small pond in a distant backwater.

For such a being, the experience of such an unusual event is very rare, perhaps once in the lifetime, or only for 1 in 10 people in their lifetime. What I’m saying, is that infact it happens more than we know, even regularly, but we either don’t see it, couldn’t appreciate the relevance, are conditioned to screen it out etc. essentially we are blind to it, except in certain very narrow circumstances determined by our life, heritage and conditioning.
For the mystic, or seer, this is fertile ground for exploration and contemplation. — Punshhh

I opt for "regularly". I tend to think that this sort of thing happens all the time, and it is a significant aspect of existence, but since it doesn't make sense to our deterministic way of understanding things, we have been conditioned to tune it out.

Here's an analogy, or another example of the "tuning out". There is talk and speculation about people who experience an "inner voice". Many people do not experience the inner voice. Those who do experience it, generally condition themselves to believe that the inner voice is simply a personal dialogue, talking to oneself. The self-conditioning occurs at such a young age we do not even remember it. It could be very confusing to think that I am talking to someone other than myself, internally, so I carry on a self-dialogue which effectively blocks out, tunes out, any external source from my inner voice. Talking to myself, internally allows me to block out any internal voice which is not my own, convincing me that the internal voice is simply my own. Any external sourced voice, in the internal, is pushed under the rug, and drowned out, therefore not noticed.

However, some do not succumb to the conditioning, and end up believing that the voice of another is speaking to them internally. These people are designated as psychologically challenged. That designation doesn't make the phenomenon go away, or make it any less real. So this feature, of having someone who is somehow not you (external in that sense), speaking to you internally, is very real, despite the fact that normal people shout at themselves internally to drown out or tune out, the "not you" aspect, and think of this as thinking.

Shhhhh, you might want to keep quiet about hearing voices and talking to yourself around here they might think you’re away with the fairies (just joking).

Yes, I agree with you entirely. Indeed one of the stages, initiations, or crises that I talk about is reaching an accommodation, an understanding with the internal dialogue. To develop a trust and rapport and develop the ability to work with, to bounce ideas off the voice. At a later stage, one might develop the faculty to hear the divine voice. Something, which I think is achieved by prayer in monastic settings. For me it is rather like a radio receiver.

So let's say that we do have a radio receiver of that sort, and it's common to us all but the majority of people, (the normal people), condition themselves to tune it out, or maybe even turn it right off. I don't consider myself to be normal, so I am cognizant of that signal as I explained, but I also understand that I've spent most my life under the 'tune it out' program of conditioning. I didn't succeed in completely tuning it out, or turning it off, because it was too strong for my conscious mind to overpower. Now it really confuses me, even causing unnecessary stress and anxiety, because I don't know how to interpret or translate the meaning, having never taken the time to learn the language, yet it is so strong and seems to tell me that I ought to try.

If I want to try and understand it, what do you think would be my best approach? Should I first attempt to determine where it's coming from, and then after forming that understanding I would have an approach toward trying to understand what it is saying? Or, do you think that I should first learn to understand what it is saying, then, where it is coming from might sort of reveal itself naturally?

First thing first though, how can I know that it is really being received, and not just created by me as a form of self-deception? That's what I'm really afraid of, that it's a sort of self-perpetuating anxiety, like I am creating a problem for myself, and actively propagating the problem. The 'tune it out conditioning' tells me it is self-created deception and that's why it must be shut off. How can I convince myself of its reality, so that I can peacefully live with it, and so it resolves that anxiety of self-deception, rather than creating it? Is there a logical trick, like even if it is self-created, it must have a cause?

Yes, there is a logical trick and various techniques. Were you involved in the New Age movement at all? Because these techniques would have been available then. I can’t offer much help, from here, because normally I would advise someone to undergo a programme of self development for a few years first. This is important because it would bring to the surface any psychological issues, or trauma which would be problematic at a later stage, or might make one unsuitable for such practice. Due to the risk of psychosis, or other mental health problems.
You’re in Australia right? I would have a chat with Tom Storm, he might be able to refer you to someone who can help.

I can give you a simplified overall description of what is involved, but as I say, it needs to be undergone with, or adjacent to a group who are able to assess and assist in the process.

I spent a decade of rigorous self development before I was in a position to develop what I am talking about.

So basically, you come to an accommodation with yourself, once this is established and settled, with no conflict, or any issues. Then you establish a dialogue with the voice, or alter ego*. You come to terms where you have an established and shared common interest which is directed at the purification and development of your being. Because there is a strong common interest there is no, opportunity, or room for mischief. I say this because we are here dealing with the ego and the subconscious and if there are any internal conflicts, unreleased trauma, then it can derail the process and progress cannot be made.

The next stage involves reaching an understanding and trust with the voice/alter ego, to become good friends so to speak. To develop a working relationship. This goes hand in hand with a spiritual path in which one is seeking to reach a common understanding with the soul(or equivalent) and become aligned with one’s divine presence**.

Once this is established, one then proceeds to divine (as in divination), or using intuition the ways in which the divinity is infusing into the being. To practice a good life and role in a community, or family.

Over time this develops and reaches a point where there is a divine, or spiritual voice, or presence. Something which is acted out in small acts of kindness with other members of the community and or family. At this point, one would have developed a strong sense of humility and peace in living a relatively simple life engaging in pastimes like gardening, painting, literature or the like. Or discussing these ideas on a friendly forum, for example.

*working with the ego is a whole subject in itself and is the subject and goal of self development practices.

**alignment with one’s divine presence is simply the process practiced in all religions and spiritual schools of becoming one with one’s higher self, soul, becoming close to Jesus etc. There is a whole spiritual philosophy around this with more advanced stages and practices, where one allows the soul to play a guiding role and one and one’s soul (or equivalent) become assimilated in one being, or person.

For example; I have come to realise that extremely inprobable events and coincidences happen all the time. — Punshhh

The story of Jung and the scarab beetle is one of the most famous examples he used to illustrate his concept of synchronicity.

Once Carl Jung was treating a young woman who was a very difficult patient. She was highly educated and deeply rational, so much so that she had "sealed herself" off from emotional or psychological progress. Jung felt he was at an impasse with her, as she was resistant to his therapeutic attempts to get her to a "more human understanding." He hoped that something "unexpected and irrational" would happen to break through her intellectual defenses.

One day, she was in his office telling him about a dream she had the previous night. In the dream, she was given a piece of jewelry in the shape of a golden scarab beetle. As she was recounting this dream, Jung heard a gentle tapping sound on the window behind him. He turned around and saw a large flying insect tapping against the pane, seemingly trying to get into the dark room.

Jung opened the window and caught the insect as it flew in. He was astonished to discover that it was a scarabaeid beetle, a common rose-chafer, whose golden-green color was the closest thing in that region to a "golden scarab."

Jung handed the beetle to his patient and said, "Here is your scarab."

The event had a profound effect on the woman. Her rigid, rational worldview was shattered by the coincidence of her dream and the appearance of the real beetle. Jung noted that this "broke the ice of her intellectual resistance," and the treatment was able to proceed with satisfactory results.

Yes, there is a lot going on there.
I could tell you a story or two about such things. Like when I was half way through writing the word, evil, when a large spider ran onto the back of my right hand, the hand I was writing with.
Also the idea of a world view being shattered is in the area I am referring to.

So basically, you come to an accommodation with yourself, once this is established and settled, with no conflict, or any issues. — Punshhh

So this, I think would be the most difficult part, the initial accommodation. That is where the logical trick I requested would be required. Maybe Wayfarer's example of the scarab beetle is such a trick. The trick is not really logical, but something which goes beyond logic, something which demonstrates the vast field of meaning which is not enveloped by logic. This is where significance commonly escapes conscious interpretation. Once I recognize that things which I don't even notice, and which would commonly completely escape my conscious perception, may in reality have great significance, then I might be in a position to accommodate my alter ego. The alter ego might be in a position to provide me with a sort of window into this vast realm which is a very real part of the world, completely surrounding me, but totally unnoticed by me. It appears like the only access I have to this very significant part of my environment, is through the means of an inner adventure.

I'd like to replace "alter ego" with the subconscious, or unconscious aspects of my being. What I find is that there seems to be a sort of self, which is almost totally distinct from my conscious self, and this other self which somehow lies in my unconscious, is evident in dreaming. This is my real being, as a living organism. I must pay respect to the fact that the unconscious self is the immediate environment to the conscious self, and the consciousness is a product of the unconscious self. Now I find my consciousness to be within this environment, the living being, and this environment completely escapes my observations. Furthermore, I find that the unconscious living being, allows the consciousness to practise self-deception, in thinking that it is the real self. It is not the real self, my consciousness is just a small bloom which has blossomed out of the unconscious activities of my being, and my ego deceives itself into thinking that the conscious mind is representative of the being itself.

Therefore, i must allow that when messages from the deep internal, the underneath, the alter ego, or subconscious, are being received into my conscious mind, these are coming from the real being which lies underneath. Whenever I block them out as being not-real, I feed the self-deception which supports my conscious mind in its illusion that it is the real self, and the real being. In reality, I think that maybe the underlying real being produces this consciousness, providing for that self-deception, so that the consciousness will do all sorts of different strange things, in a trial and error sort of way, supporting the being's quest for freedom. The underlying being, in disconnecting the consciousness from itself, and producing the conscious self-deceptive illusion of selfness, allows that the consciousness can act in an "objective" way, which is free from the influence of the true interest of the underlying being. Then the underlying being is the true observer of the conscious antics.

So this, I think would be the most difficult part, the initial accommodation. That is where the logical trick I requested would be required. Maybe Wayfarer's example of the scarab beetle is such a trick. The trick is not really logical, but something which goes beyond logic, something which demonstrates the vast field of meaning which is not enveloped by logic

This crisis, or inititiation is foundational in the mystical life. Along with the other crisis I referred to in an earlier post. The one where one realises that the world might not be made of the solid objects we live alongside, but could be some form of immaterial phenomena, or something as yet undisclosed.

The mystical life is a combination of realising what we don’t know, our limits, so to speak and a movement inward to the true self and along the way we encounter human nature. Which is profoundly evolved to see the world as real and dwell there. So there is grounds for a conflict here, or a straight jacket, built in to our predicament. This is where the scarab beetle analogy is appropriate, for the aspirant there is a hurdle, perhaps a number of hurdles to overcome to reach the point where one is ready to begin.

Regarding the initial accommodation I didn’t mean what you describe, which is referring to later stages in the process. The initial accommodation is with yourself here and now. It’s such a subtle distinction it’s almost impossible to grasp. It is with the person typing this message, so to speak. What you refer to here as “my consciousness is just a small bloom which has blossomed out of the unconscious activities of my being”. You know the well used phrase, be true to yourself, this encapsulates it. Although here I would describe it in more technical terms.

One reaches an accommodation with one’s self, such that there is no question, or possibility of a breaking of the bond, or trust between you.

I know this sounds odd, how can you have an unshakable bond with yourself etc. But we must remember human nature. We are beings with an incredibly complex brain and mind, which consists of many layers of activity. Including projections, layered over projections. So basically there is more than one you, or you are a nexus of slightly differing and sometimes opposing mental and emotional processes. The task is to unify this in a way that is true to yourself. Initially it is more a case of reaching a threshold, beyond which the true you holds together and is able to build a focal point. Or it’s like crossing the Rubicon, you pass the point of no return(this is not strictly true, just an analogy).

This stage is very important, because all the other stages build upon it and in a sense they are present in it as it is achieved. So it is a real crisis, or initiation and it inevitably results in a moment of choice(a pivotal choice), the forming of a conviction(determination) and an act signifying the step being taken(acting definitively as your true self).

This can be practiced as an initiation right and there is a long history of this in our cultures. The boy becomes a man, through a right of initiation.

This is not a question of the act of crossing the Rubicon, that happens internally and in all likelihood cannot be pinned down to a moment, or a thought. It is symbolic of a movement within the self, which leaves behind the previous status quo.

One reaches an accommodation with one’s self, such that there is no question, or possibility of a breaking of the bond, or trust between you. — Punshhh

You see right through me. This is where I have an ingrown difficulty which will probably never be resolved. It seems that the inner me has some tendencies which the outer me has difficulty accommodating for, social anxiety for example. The outer me therefore, has created a bunch of defence mechanisms to fend off what the inner me is telling it. The outer me has set up ways to effectively block the influence of the inner me, because the outer me wants something different from what the inner me can provide for.

This can be understood in the context of moral training. The inner instinctual inclinations and desires are suppressed because we are taught that these tendencies are not good, and moral virtue requires suppression of them. In my case, what I describe above, the inner tendencies created uncomfortableness for the outer me, from an extremely young age, so the defence mechanisms referred to, which were required to fend off that uncomfortableness, are very strong. For the conscious me to be at all comfortable, from a very young age, the inner me had to be significantly blocked. In effect, the inner me is the enemy to the outer me, and creating a "bond" like you describe would require a complete annihilation of the outer me. The inverse, destruction of the inner me, is impossible. In other words, I cannot live with myself, and I believe that the separation must be maintained to ensure my existence.

The task is to unify this in a way that is true to yourself. — Punshhh

So the task appears unsurmountable to me. Contrariety runs deep, and "true to myself" would require truth of contradiction. The river cannot be crossed, and I believe an alternative, a compromise of sorts, is required. Can't I take another path, which allows for a disunited me, some form of divisive dualism maybe?

It seems that the inner me has some tendencies which the outer me has difficulty accommodating for, social anxiety for example. The outer me therefore, has created a bunch of defence mechanisms to fend off what the inner me is telling it. The outer me has set up ways to effectively block the influence of the inner me, because the outer me wants something different from what the inner me can provide for.

This is not necessarily insurmountable, although it would require professional help to unravel. We all have inner conflicts like this of some kind. I had something similar with intense shyness from a young age. But it didn’t develop into something problematic and through considerable effort during my formative years I was able to overcome it. Even now it rears its head occasionally along with other psychological ticks and dysfunctional, or underdeveloped (resulting in repressed), character traits.
But I am able to manage them, neutralise them and clean up the emotional impact they have when they happen.

There is a sense that our weaknesses are actually our strengths, because we have unique experience and ability to live with these. So being able to see this as a strength rather than a failing helps one to face it, work through it and live with it. Even use it to our advantage. Also we have the opportunity to shape our lifestyles to make it easier to live without these issues normally arising. The thing with following a mystical life, it is entirely personal and doesn’t require, necessarily, dealing with the outside world, and you can shape your lifestyle to suit.

Now there are two tricks I use which might be of use to yourself. You may have already come to this realisation. The first is that there isn’t actually a destination, because you are already at your destination, always have been and it is simply a process of taking off the blinkers. Even this is not necessarily required, it might be seen rather as just taking a breath to be quiet, still, that is required. Breathing practice, pranayama, is very beneficial here.

Secondly and this is quite a neat trick, (this is the simplified version). You basically offer yourself up freely to any entity who is gooder than yourself. This necessarily requires one to be sufficiently good yourself that you would happily give yourself up someone equally, or more good than yourself. Once this level of goodness and conviction is reached, you can do a deal with yourself. You will offer access to yourself on the condition that your alter ego becomes at least as good as yourself. With the selling point being that, such a deal would enable progress and greater access. And of course your alter ego would naturally offer access to itself for yourself, because the result would only be gooder, or at least the same level of good. Then both party’s can become gooder and gooder in a partnership of mutual benefit.
I realise that this might be a non starter, but it works well for me. Although I do have a back up association with the deity Kali*, via an association and practice with a Guru and Ashram offering devotional worship to the goddess Kali**.

I would also say that this path isn’t an important thing to do, for any particular reason and is more a choice for certain people who have a calling of some kind to follow it. Others might follow a more intellectual pursuit, or something else entirely. All equally valid and meaningful.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali

**I don’t think it necessary to have such a back up, I just happened to have made and established this connection prior to further work on myself.

Reflecting upon your responses to that particular text, it prompts me to wonder how Kant's objections to the theories of a "rational psychology" relate to explanations that base themselves on some version of that.

Kant’s critique of rational psychology comes in the Paralogisms of Pure Reason (A341–405 / B399–432). His main point is that from the necessary “I think” we cannot infer a knowledge of the soul as a substance. The unity of apperception is a formal condition of experience, not an intuition of an inner object; hence we can’t determine the subject of experience as if it were a thing among things.

That point is also made in many other places, including the issue of method put forward in my quote.

The topic of "rational psychology" is often brought up in the CPR as a fusion of personal experiences with universal conditions. That response opposes, for instance, the presumptions of Neoplatonism and other depictions of what is rational in regard to our existence.

Agree. My way of approaching these arguments — which, as you say, crop up in many places in the Critique — is to keep in mind Kant’s awareness of the danger of objectification. To designate mind, soul, or self as a substance (in the philosophical sense) is to treat it as a “that,” an object among objects. But that can’t be done, because it leads to a circularity or reflexivity — like the eye trying to see itself, or the hand trying to grasp itself. Much of Kant’s critique of metaphysics turns on this basic insight.

Many of the objections to Kant, as they played out in his lifetime and afterwards, concern his treatment of the "object" as a product of what we do. So, the effort is different from someone who looks at the attempt of explanation as a product of talking per se. I am not up to speed with Buddhist texts, but Zhuangzi put it as every attempt at division.
So, I submit that there is an importance difference there.

I had something similar with intense shyness from a young age. But it didn’t develop into something problematic and through considerable effort during my formative years I was able to overcome it. — Punshhh

OK this is me, fundamental intense shyness. It didn't develop into anything problematic because I managed to get around it with conscious tricks and defence mechanism to ward off the social anxiety. However, I feel that it still exists as a basic part of the inner me. Now, the conscious tricks by which I suppressed the basic shyness are really problematic if I want to reconcile the outer me with the inner me, because they seem to have produced an inauthentic outer me. The outer me is not representative of the true me. I can't erase the conscious tricks, and recoil back into shyness, because they are a very strong part of my character, and actually very necessary for coping with the social aspect of life which is unavoidable.

There is a sense that our weaknesses are actually our strengths, because we have unique experience and ability to live with these. So being able to see this as a strength rather than a failing helps one to face it, work through it and live with it. Even use it to our advantage. Also we have the opportunity to shape our lifestyles to make it easier to live without these issues normally arising. The thing with following a mystical life, it is entirely personal and doesn’t require, necessarily, dealing with the outside world, and you can shape your lifestyle to suit. — Punshhh

.I've already come to take this approach, that our weaknesses are actually strengths. My weakness is that I am a conflicted or divided person. If I look at this as actually a strength, then I see no reason to unify myself. That division within me has now become a strength.

Secondly and this is quite a neat trick, (this is the simplified version). You basically offer yourself up freely to any entity who is gooder than yourself. This necessarily requires one to be sufficiently good yourself that you would happily give yourself up someone equally, or more good than yourself. Once this level of goodness and conviction is reached, you can do a deal with yourself. You will offer access to yourself on the condition that your alter ego becomes at least as good as yourself. With the selling point being that, such a deal would enable progress and greater access. And of course your alter ego would naturally offer access to itself for yourself, because the result would only be gooder, or at least the same level of good. Then both party’s can become gooder and gooder in a partnership of mutual benefit.
I realise that this might be a non starter, but it works well for me. Although I do have a back up association with the deity Kali*, via an association and practice with a Guru and Ashram offering devotional worship to the goddess Kali**. — Punshhh

I like this, but it's going to take a goodly number of readings to fully realize the meaning. I've already accepted the alter ego as the real me, therefore the better me. But the conscious me needs some reciprocation from the alter ego, or else I'd be lost in the social environment. This is where the alter ego needs to become at least as good as the conscious self. So I'm thinking that there must be various aspects of myself to be judged, and the conscious me might actually be the better me with respect to some aspects, even though the alter ego is the more real me.

How can the conscious me request the alter ego to submit, when the logic by which the conscious me recognizes the reality of the alter ego is by assigning to it a higher reality? If I remove that higher reality, then the alter-ego becomes imaginary, a delusion in fact. And, if I assign some sort of equality to it, I lose the grounding for both, and my being in general becomes illusionary. I lose the principle by which i would determine better and worse. So I don't think this sort of proposal would be adequate for me.

I believe, that since I find this divisiveness within me to have become a strength, then attempts to unify might actually be a mistake. Perhaps I can use the divisiveness to encourage healthy competition between the two. Instead of one submitting to the goodness of the other, maybe they can always challenge each other. Then if one appears to be better than the other, the other will need to best up.

The question which comes to mind, do you believe that the alter ego can change itself? And if so, how?

This strikes me as a conversation which might better be conducted in private.

Yes, I think it’s reached that point.
If there is anyone who would like to look into this subject further I would be happy to start a new thread.

You might be right.

Many of the objections to Kant, as they played out in his lifetime and afterwards, concern his treatment of the "object" as a product of what we do. — Paine

Many objections, sure.
What is to be understood by “object”?
And what is it we do by which the “object” is a product?

“….an object is that, in the conception of which the manifold in a given intuition is united. Now all union of representations requires unity of consciousness in the synthesis of them. Consequently, it is the unity of consciousness alone that constitutes the relation of representations to an object, and therefore of their objective validity, and the fact they are modes of knowledge; and upon it therefore rests the very possibility of the understanding….” (B137, in Kemp Smith)

Given scarce objection to the object here, by definition, how is it different from “object”?

Honest; just trying to see what you see.

The passage you quote puts it in a nutshell; All instances of "objectivity" are also moments in consciousness. The emphasis upon objectivity that Wayfarer finds fault with is, by this account, already too "subjective" for some thinkers.

Kant was wrestling with his contemporaries on the question of what was "real" in this context when discussing the existence of time outside of our experience of it. This is touched upon in my quote upthread:

I admit the entire argument. Time is certainly something real/
namely the real form of inner intuition. It therefore has subjective real-
ity in regard to inner experience, i.e., I really have the representation of
time and of my determinations in it. It is therefore to be regarded re-
ally not as object but as the way of representing myself as object But
if I or another being could intuit myself without this condition of sen-
sibility, then these very determinations, which we now represent to our-
selves as alterations, would yield us a cognition in which the represen-
tation of time and thus also of alteration would not occur at all. Its
empirical reality therefore remains as a condition of all our experiences. — CPR A36/B53

As the rest of the passage demonstrates, there is an aspect to experiencing an object that points beyond the representations of it. Kant is saying that that element is not a representation in its own right.

The passage you quote puts it in a nutshell; All instances of "objectivity" are also moments in consciousness. — Paine

And yet I find no reference to Kant’s treatment of what you call the “object”, thus no indication of the ground for peer-reviewed dispute.

The cause of the questioning resides in the fact Kant doesn’t make such distinction, re: object/“object”, which implies he isn’t talking about either one except to define the former under initial conditions for the ensuing exposition in B137. And because he isn’t talking about either one within the exposition itself, I wonder by what ground is there objection to his treatments, and of whatever that treatment entails, why it should be called treatment of “objects”?

My question is repeatable with your “real”. All I wish to be told is the difference between object and “object” in the first case, and the real and the “real” in the second. A matter only of my interest, your interpretive arrangement be as it may.

My interpretive arrangement so far has been to try and make sense of what Kant seems to not explain. When I read certain passages to be restrictions upon how to understand representations, for example, I am not claiming insight into the role of objects in Kant's system.

The "real" involved in this case is not my opinion but a citation of where Kant answered a challenge on the matter by his contemporaries.

Is your question about "object" such that you remove yourself as a peer capable of reviewing the text?