Agreed. On a materialism thread some folk say that there is nothing apart from the material known to us and science and its effects, products. I usually point out that there might be other materials that we, or science are not aware of.
Nice joke about the British parliament being billions of cells all arguing with each other.

Is there any sense to be made of a more “pearl” (soul) type view?

There is, but that largely falls under theology, philosophy seems to find it a hot potato.

You have some interesting ideas there, but until science finds out something, we won't be able to confirm or deny any of it.

Trillions of self-conscious cells? What a scandal! It would be worse than a session of the British parliament.

I hope you are not going to view me as schizophrenic now. lol

In fact, the concept of science as a fundamental part of Reason is typical of the Enlightenment, which Kant culminates. A reason that combines the analytical with the synthetic.

This is all fine for a philosopher, but it still doesn't have the capability to explain consciousness, or mind. This is because we don't know the basis of the world of existence we find ourselves in. As I said, we need legs then feet and a rock to stand on, to make any progress.

My point is you, or any philosopher, can't deny that the human brain is a host for a being which is as yet beyond the preview of science, or our understanding. You can call it fantasy, or something, but that would just be name calling. Hence idealism.

Even idealism becomes a straight jacket, because it entertains the immaterial, whatever that is.

I would prefer to distinguish consciousness ( awareness ) from mind,

Likewise.

It seems that the concept of human mind includes some functions of the body, but I will not say so.

I think it is reasonable to distinguish between the management of the bodily functions by the brain and the intellect.

Of course, if life=consciousness a paramecium has consciousness. And every cell in our body. Then we are composed of millions of tiny consciousnesses. Why not?

Yes, but have we established that a human is not millions of tiny consciousnesses?
Consider a wave in the ocean, is it constituted of millions of tiny microscopic waves?

Obviously, because it's not like that when we talk about consciousness.

So when we talk about consciousness, we know what we're talking about?
I doubt it, we are merely talking about what human discourse has established (informed by science). Which is based around biology, which is reductionist, hence it is deemed to be the attribute of awareness.
But what about what philosophy has to say about it, is idealism nonsense? Or is consciousness just some robotic post modernism?

They're two different problems.

Quite so, some people on these boards think that mind equates to consciousness, or visa versa.

Reflex acts of the body are independent of the conscious mind,

So you are including in mind everything the brain does, is it confined to the brain?

I don't know if you want to reduce the mind to the conscious.

For me the mind is what the brain does in relation to the person, or the self, the acting being.

"Living" seems to me a very ambiguous term to define consciousness.

Not at all, it can have a precise definition if we can bring ourselves to defining it as cellular life. Also it could have caveat that there do seem to be a few more simple forms of life, but these are outliers.

A paramecium is also living.

And conscious, being closely related to us. The main difference being that we are each a colony of cells.

I've had a change of heart after reading this on Quora;

Is Brexit going to make the UK more powerful?

So in that spirit, I will answer, yes of course it will. Guaranteed. We will have all the easiest deals in history and a landmass full of Big Red Buses proclaiming how the original Big Red Bus was not only telling the truth, but was exactly perfect in it’s predictions, remarkably accurate. In fact, accurate to the penny.

After the German car makers have done a surprise above and beyond delivery of an EU deal that’s even sweeter than what was promised by Vote Leave, there will be nothing stopping the UK as those fantastically favourable international trade deals roll in for our liberated nation. Each nation around the world will be desperately trying to out-bid the other nations in their attempts to be the most favoured trading nation for the UK. It will be open competition of giveaway deals that are eyewateringly profitable to the UK.

This will power a renewed era of British expansionalism that will see the UK sweep the globe as a benevolent, highly respected super power. The respect for the UK’s social savvy will only be matched by the admiration that the world has for how cohesive and united our society is but towering above this will be the respect, globally for how completely uncorrupt we are, with nothing but fair play and not the faintest hint of collusion in tax avoidance, money laundering, dark money and criminal money anywhere near any British jurisdiction or dependency.

It’s only onwards and upwards from here. Rule Brittania!

Chester where are you?

I don't know if you've noticed that you're describing consciousness all the time in terms of ideas (of a pig), perceptions (of things), and sensations (of pain). If we don't talk about them we can't talk about any consciousness.

I asked you for a thought proven to be true and you mentioned a finger in boiling water, it is you who are confused. My next point was that your body will act independent of your mind and consciousness (something else you use interchangeably).

I think you confuse the concept of consciousness as nothing with the concept of non-existence.

I note that the one attribute you are not prepared to remove in your description of the void of consciousness is the body. So you are secretly relying on it.

Consciousness exists, but you cannot define it or describe it with consistent properties.

You can, it has the property of being alive, it is living. Now prove that things live without being conscious?

That's why I say it's nothing. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that it is a void.

This intrigues me, I also have experienced it thus, but I somehow I don't think you mean it the same way.

Choose the word you like best.

Living.

I know the idea may seem strange to common sense, but I am nothing more than what I am feeling or thinking. If you take away my feelings, my sensations and my thoughts, I am left as an empty space. I am strictly nothing.

Until someone thrusts your finger into boiling water. You forgot to take away your body.

So if someone takes away your feelings, sensations, thoughts and your body (brain), I would agree with you, that you are strictly nothing.

Let's say you are watching something extraordinary like a pig flying, then you accidentally put your finger in boiling water. I doubt you would have any thoughts about it, all your thinking would be occupied with trying to believe that you were really looking at a flying pig. Your body would take care of its finger while your mind was preoccupied. It is not your mind, or your thoughts, which is looking after your finger.

Your are not gonna make it great by telling bedtime stories.

Can you give me a thought that has been proven to be true?

Surely truth needs legs, feet and a rock (emotional or not) to stand on.

Fiction is fine when we use it for entertainment. But it becomes a hoax when we put the label of truth

Truth is a high barrier. If we confine ourselves to what we have established is true and what can logically be deduced about our bodies, then we are nowhere near understanding the origins of consciousness, or mind and our philosophy gets smaller by the day.

Maybe this is evidence of that difference between metaphysics and mysticism which you have been describing. Metaphysics, in the tradition of philosophy involves the desire to know.

Mystics may also have the desire to know, however realise that there are necessarily things which are unknown, or can't be known. Also that the process of finding out something might be a distraction from a more important, or pressing goal. Let's say for example that it would take a Herculean effort to find out how the world we find ourselves in came to be. While in fact that knowledge is not of importance and that effort was either inefficient, or sideshow. When in reality the goal of the mystic is to allow her natural inclinations of the her higher self to shine through and further down the path such truths about existence might be revealed in an instant. Or more importantly they would be revealed via the appropriate route and not through an overdevelopment of the intellect.

As I explained in the prior post, the reason for separating space from time is to bring the eternal, or what you called eternity, into the realm of intelligible. What separates the forms which we know and sense, from the Forms of eternity, is matter. So we have to get through matter in one way or another if we want to properly understand the existence of the divine, immaterial Forms.

Yes I would agree with this, I would be interested in what metaphysics can say about this?

without any desire to act. But the nature of the human being, as I described earlier is to be inclined to act.

I would disagree with this from the point of view of a mystic, although I recognise the need for the mystic to want, to have the desire, to embark on the mystical path. Once on the path, the intellectual direction of one's actions are seeded to the higher self via the intuition to a degree.

and this makes us consider purpose and therefore ethics. We need to bridge that gap between the passive enjoyment of the divine beauty (aesthetics), and the ethical principles which guide us in our actions. This means that we need to understand what it means to act, and this includes all forms of activity, including that divine activity which is prior to material existence (the eternal). And since space is a concept based in observations of material existence, we must allow a conception of time which is free from space, in order to understand this activity, which is necessary for an inclusive ethics..

I don't see the requirement for a knowledge of an intellectual understanding of ethics in this endeavour, although I am interested in the role this will play, please continue.

But we see that the internal is much closer to the real, so the internal activity, internal changes, are the activities which the concept of time ought to be based in, not conceptions of space. The internal time is based in the distinction between past and future, not in spatial relations.

I follow you, although it would be useful to take a look at this distinction you make between past and future, and possibly the present again?

Regarding planes, we all understand what the physical plane is, it is not restricted to two dimensions. As we experience it there are a minimum of 3 dimensions. Perhaps if I were to substitute the word, realm, for plane that would give a better idea. So the mental plane is a realm in which mental stuff is the equivalent of physical material on the physical plane. So a being on that plane would be expressed through a mental body, or vehicle, but instead of emotion would have Atman* (Bhuddi) and except for mind would have Monadic consciousness.

So it seems to me that to say that this type of body is on this plane, and another type on another plane, would create a certain incommensurability between these different types of bodies.

but the planes are like nodes on a scale of frequency, the higher planes being at a higher frequency. We only hear sounds within the range of frequency that our ears are attuned to detect. All the other frequencies are present, but we can't detect them. Through incarnation a being becomes embedded in a plane of activity and is able to detect what the apparatus which naturally occur on that plane, in reference to the being in question, detects. Were that being to be more developed, she might detect higher frequency notes due to having a suitable apparatus. Mystical practice is about developing and using this apparatus for some kind of constructive purpose.

This is the opposite of what I described, and is the key principle of Plato's cave allegory. In reality, the material world is an expression of the immaterial Forms.

Substitute subtle (can be undefined) for immaterial and we are in agreement.

If so, do you think that an adequate conception of time could establish a relation between them?

Well they would all be bound to an extent to the time, the present of our world, certainly if part of our being. I think if there were a disconnect in time it would be between the lower three and the higher three. Although I see no reason to regard them as not present in the same moment of time.

* I put Bhuddi because some theosophists use different terminology for the planes and Bhuddi can be seen as equivalent to the consciousness of the Bhudda for example.

I don't think we're invaded by a parasite called "mind". We're not in Alien. We're not doing science fiction.

But you wrote this in your previous reply;

There's a lot we don't know about the universe in general that we know we don't know. Much more than we even suspect.

So were we to consider these things we don't know, we would be writing science fiction then?

You can't banish the "alien", because you don't like it. Theology a respectable branch of philosophy would'nt like it if you were to banish the soul, which is hosted by the brain.

What there is is an exact relationship between the mind, which is the manifestation of certain verbal and gestural actions, and the brain. Remove one, and the other ends.

Likewise a puppet on a string, or a philosophical zombie. Cut the strings and the puppet doesn't move ergo the puppet must be dead. Unplug the TV and the rendition of Bach's toccata and fugue in d minor ceases to be broadcast. Could, I wonder, the TV have broadcast it absent the signal it hosts?

There's no indication of a mental parasite.

There is in the puppet and the TV and perhaps if there weren't one in us we would be philosophical zombies.

And if a word has no directly or indirectly observable reference, a word has no meaning.

Does my TV understand the meaning conveyed by Bach's toccata and fugue?

But the philosophy is more serious. It is not about the possible but about the existing and, at best, about what we can predict from the existing. The horizon of our hopes and their foundation.

What exists beyond what can be tested for, or observed is up for debate. Our hopes can be narrow minded, confined to the conditioned reason that we are presented with by our culture. Presumably metaphysics tries to look beyond these confines, but where to look?

I have made an argument that the brain can be considered the cause of the mental.

Could it possibly be a host to the mental, or a cause of the expression in the host?

And if you want to say that it's a mixed thing between matter and non-matter you should specify what the properties of that strange entity are that they are neither.

Its more subtle than that. We don't actually know everything about matter. It's true we have worked out what can be determined and measured using scientific instruments, but it is a mistake to limit the properties of matter to these discoveries. The so called non matter, or the dreaded aether might also be properties of matter which we have not discovered yet. Also we don't understand the origin, or cause of matter, which might were we to know it provide a grounded basis for a philosophy of matter.

For the reasons alluded to in my last post, and mentioned earlier in the thread, I really think it is necessary to separate space and time conceptually.

I don't see the need myself, but I would like you to explain it some more so that I can understand what you are getting at.
Also, as I said initially the mysticism of the creation and maintaining of the physical world is complex with some deep mysteries and spiritual cosmology which will probably be difficult to correlate with metaphysics. It would be better to stick to the more obvious correlations around being and what Mystics are actually concerned with, as the physical world is regarded merely as a tool for the development of the expression of being.
If you insist on delving into the creation of physical matter and it's attendant time we can go there, but I expect we will quite rapidly hit an impasse. However provided when the impasse is reached we can get back to the topic in hand then that's ok with me.

The problem described in the last post is that there is an actuality which is prior to the existence of material things. Since space is a concept used for measuring material things, and this activity does not involve material things, being prior to them, we have no reason to believe that space is an applicable concept when we are speaking about this activity which is prior to material existence.

But surely the prior state is external to (separate from) the physical universe we are discussing. So it can have its own separate space? Remember I said the physical world we find ourselves in is a construct. So the prior actual, genuinely real state then constructed an artificial world which isn't real in the same, actual, way, which is the our physical world*.

So we must unchain the concept of time from the material world, such that we can apply it to the activity of the eternal, which for now is outside of time because the currently applied concept of time is tied to the spatial activity of material things.

Ok, that's fine and how does that look?

Remember the principle we agreed upon earlier, that the entire material world must be created anew at each passing moment.

I don't see it that way myself, but I am happy to go with that concept and see where it leads.

So if there is a bubble which is blown at each moment (to use your analogy), each of these bubbles must expand from nothing, or near nothing, to extremely big, in a time period which is so short that we do not even notice it.

My bubble analogy was for the creation of the physical world, not its maintenance. Although I am happy to look at the idea of it renewing every moment for now, as I said.

Our conceptions of space do not allow for anything like this, having been derived from the illusion of continuity of spatial existence and distances, rather than from this idea, that spatial existence must be recreated (therefore expanded from near nothing), at each moment.

Well this would not be an issue provided the recreation occurred at the level of the sub atomic particle, temporally on the Planck scale.

whereas western mysticism, such as Neo-Platonism has turned to a hierarchy of immaterial Forms which are separate, free from bodies

For me all is material, but this is not the material known to science, or philosophy, but rather a constellation of subtle bodies. The only physical material in this schema is on the physical plane. So if by immaterial, we can agree on some kind of subtle body, immaterial in terms of any material we are aware of, then that's fine. I can also go along with immaterial too, but at some point I would ask the nature of these immaterial forms and how they become expressed in worlds of material.

But a bigger body, a unity of which the smaller body is just a part, requires a Form with more governing capacity then the smaller one, because it also exercises some control over the smaller body, robbing the smaller body's Form of some degree of freedom by virtue of the smaller body being within the unity of the larger. So the Neo-Platonists start with the One, which would be the Form that corresponds with the entire universe, and they proceed from there.

Yes, for me these forms are subtle bodies, there are numerous kinds of subtle bodies, or ethers (ethereal bodies).

I think that's a good way of putting it.

Yes, the mystic is practicing activities tailored to their individual spiritual development, directed by the intuition.

*remember Ishvara spun the physical world from his fingertips. This is alluding to artifice, composition, weaving.

Unlikely. Newspapers seem to respond to bias, not drive it. People are always looking for some external bogeyman to blame.

Well I suppose the media could have exploited an underlying xenophobia in the population. But once the ball was rolling they just threw more and more fuel on the fire. Just like they did over Brexit.

There was a small residual scepticism about the EU, (which the tabloid media had been drip feeding for decades) which the populists, who were in league with the tabloid media, exploited. Resulting in a 52% victory for leave. Whereas just a few years earlier the levels of people who were sceptical of the EU, enough to even think about leaving it, was very few.

Here in the UK, it's the rightwing media which drives racism, to boost their readership and make a bit of profit. Not to mention, as a driver for Brexit.

Are you familiar with Aristotle's cosmological argument?

Yes, I haven't given it all that much significance for two reasons, firstly that it is a human invention and as such cannot be verified. Which is fine and secondly that I had already reached the point where you end up here;

Once the concept of time is adjusted, then the so-called eternal actuality can be brought into relationship with material actualities so that this actuality is no longer "outside time".

You see I had already arrived at these conclusions before I encountered academic philosophy, so it is more a case of marrying up academic philosophy with my own philosophy, (or more correctly a marriage of theosophy with Hinduism).

This implies that the common notion of "time", which ties time to material existence, is incorrect, and must be adjusted to allow for this time in which the supposed eternal actuality is active, prior to material existence.

Yes, which is why I said before that our material world is a construct, conceived by, constructed by, maintained by and animated by a being who is a priori, external to this world.

The way I view it is that divine beings came up with a system of generating a realm of manifestation, a place of extension, of extension of space and time, spacetime. As this extends the space inflates along with the window of time, like blowing bubbles. Or as the Hindu's describe it spun from the tips of Ishvara's fingers like silk, creating the fabric of our world.

This spinning is similar by analogy to the spinning generated by gravity around a black hole, or worm hole. I like to imagine a way in which each atom in our world is held and maintained on a thread of silk from its own point of connection with eternity. So eternity is actual, active, imminent via every atom and vibrationally expressed through the energy between them. But that we do not have apprehension of this reality because we are still in the early stages of embryonic development.

So the mystic is concerned with the practice of developing this embryonic development within themselves.

I see that there is a sort of understanding possible through comparison or analogy. The parts of the higher three can be compared to the parts of the lower three.

Yes, very much so, there is a correspondence between the higher and lower. Which is understandable, as we are told we are made in the image of God. We are baby gods, I suppose.

That's the first time I've seen "eternity" described without reference to temporal concepts. So I don't really think it's the classical interpretation. Even the ancient Greeks described it through relation to time.

Forgive me, I am not trained in classical philosophy, I simply looked for a definition and this seemed to fit.

Wiki, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity
"Eternity in common parlance means infinite time (or the quality, condition or fact of being eternal).[1] In classical philosophy, however, it is defined as what exists outside time as describing supranatural beings and forces, whereas sempiternity corresponds to the infinitely temporal, non-metaphoric definitions, as recited in requiem prayers for the dead. Thomas Hobbes and many others in the Age of Enlightenment drew on the classical distinction to put forward metaphysical hypotheses such as "eternity is a permanent Now".

I think where I stray from the philosophical definition is that I tend to use the word eternity as a substitute for divine realm. I will happily change to that if you would prefer. Naturally for me the divine realm is outside time, atemporal in relation to our word. Also I tend not to delve into that realm in discussion because we would be trying to discus things we don't understand, perhaps can't understand, which are not like our world and about which we don't have means of finding out (other than through revelation).

As such, I don't think we are in a position to say whether, or not there is time in the divine realm, or what form it might take, likewise extension and whether divine beings have bodies, or what form those might take. I tend to defer to spiritual systems of describing such things, not on the assumption that those descriptions are accurate, or specific, but that they convey the appropriate relation in the hierarchy of being.

Why is it called the seven planes of our solar system?

This is theosophy, in the cosmogony it refers to, it is specifically discussing the beings represented by humanity, their role in the being of the planet Earth and likewise in the being of the Sun.

Are you sure there would be a body composed of the third etheric? Doesn't "etheric" imply without any body? The diagram shows will there. How can there be a body composed of will?

The usage of the terminology is different to other uses. Etheric in theosophy refers to a level of being, and is often used as in the etheric body. The form this takes is not known in the sense that science currently understands the physical body. It is largely undefined, some people might know it as the astral body. It is a body in a system that describes a human being as having 7 bodies, or vehicles of expression.

Regarding the usage of will, I was not considering that there would be a body composed of will, but rather a body composed of Atman in which will is expressed.
So the divine being has a body, or vehicle of expression on the atmic plane, this would necessarily be a subtle body, which is undefined on the assumption that it is beyond our comprehension. That the divine being would have a mind on the monadic plane, again undefined on the assumption that it is beyond our comprehension and that the divine being has the equivalent of a soul on the logic plane, which would be beyond our comprehension. So trying to understand the detail of these planes, or bodies etc is futile, pointless, as they are manifestations in a divine realm, for which we as humans are unequiped to understand.

I'm really having difficulty with your use of "eternity"..

I appreciate this and am happy to try to find a way through here. Perhaps if you were to define your use of the word? We might find there is not much difference in our understanding of the underlying issues, but that I use the word in an unconventional sense.

Now, this is not the first time you've referenced "the divine", and "eternity", so we really need to broach this subject "eternity", to validate claims such as this. We've really avoided what constitutes "divinity" up to this point.

Well eternity is reality which from our perspective is all things to all men. It is heaven, or nirvana, for example. This I think is described as the classical interpretation of eternity. I will be more specific and define it as that realm embodied by the three higher planes of our existence. The atmic, monadic and logoic, in this realm the divine logos, or God is manifest together with the various divine beings and immortals which form the hierarchy of being. All things are born out of this realm and worlds like ours are like pearls on Ishvaras necklace.
By divinity I mean beings who dwell in eternity and their nature.

These three higher planes of our existence of the seven, in which our incarnate world is the lower three planes. In this link the seven planes are laid out. My preference is for the last passage taken from The works of Alice Bailey. I left the other references for comparison.
http://frcmh.tripod.com/sevenplanesofconsciousnes.htm

So when someone says something like "lifted up and hosted in the body of a divine being", I realize that it is impossible for a divine being to have a body, and so you are speaking metaphorically. What I can imagine is you taking a place in another human body, or even a body which is very much superior to the human body.

A subtle body, I don't think we can say that these beings do, or don't have a body, or what form it takes. But in line with the cosmology of the the three higher planes there will be a body constituted of the forms found on the lower of the three planes, the atmic. Something which we probably can't comprehend.

I would say that you've had a glimpse into eternity. It is experiences like this which open our eyes to the extremely befuddling nature of time and existence.

I have a rich narrative which I use in contemplation on this issue. What I have experienced is not that clear, but I have had a number of experiences in the form of a presence of eternity, or divinity in some way. Rather like sitting in a room and eternity is in the next room and there is frosted glass between them and I can feel the presence and dimly make out the forms. I have had experiences like soma, but not in a formal setting. Although in a heightened state in puja, there was formal orchestration of revelation, or ceremony, to a degree.

I haven't read Castaneda, but have heard of him on ocassion. During my youth I did get involved a lot in New Age groups which was more to do with channeling than soma. I have used hallucinogens in the past, which resulted in many of the more lucid revelations. Most of my interest though was with more formal texts.

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.