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

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

We are very clearly incapable of understanding this temporal continuity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And did these remote Himalayaians validate your experience?

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

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

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

The UK hadn't lost its sovereignty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The instinctive behaviour is a double edged sword.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But this opens up the question of what have we done to deserve incarnation, the incarnated state being an inferior state. So we have mystical teaching about Satan and the fallen angels. Satan, I believe was created by God as the archangel. But in seeing his great power he believed himself to be God, or equivalent to God, and therefore was exiled by God.

I am not familiar with the theology around Satan. The analogy I use is the fall, the mystery of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and how humanity in gaining intellectual knowledge lost its way. Because that knowledge enabled people to disregard their instinctive evolutionary behaviour which kept them within their evolutionary niche and in balance with the ecosystem. Once this balance was lost, at some point the people would have to manage their own position in the ecosystem to prevent destroying it. I see this as one of the important human initiations being undergone at this time (this instantiation of humanity), that humanity's task on this world in this epoch is to learn how to maintain and control its balanced position in a functioning ecosystem past the point of inevitable crisis. Each of us can play our individual role in this endeavour, but might experience powerlessness due to the poor state of human affairs at this time. It's a rocky road ahead.

Why have we been thus saddled? We have been given this less than perfect conditioned, burdened with the deprivations of matter. We cannot rise to the higher trinity which you describe, to obtain freedom, unless we come to understand how we are chained to the weight of matter, and release the bonds which hold us.

like I said it is a point of crisis for life, humanity in this epoch, the purpose of which, as we have already discussed is not known. Other than the wisdom of natural cycles of life and evolutionary development. In regards of the higher trinity, there would be Mystics undergoing initiations into the higher trinity within the population, their initiations playing out within the crisis conditions, but the goal of the whole of humanity attaining that goal is a long way off, eons away. They have first to learn to keep their house in order within a healthy ecosystem.

The mystic might apprehend that the experience is significant, and meaningful, but the meaning itself, or significance, will not be understood unless that person relates the experience to something else, and this is best done through explanations, descriptions, and comparisons with others.

Yes, I agree, although as I said before the intellectual understanding of the mystic of her development of her being is not a necessity, this development is happening in her being and body regardless as a natural process. Although the mystic can attempt to understand what is going on, but is not required to orchestrate it, for it to happen.

I would point out a mystical perspective on the development of the self. That the self, it's being, it's body is far more complex and sophisticated than the embryonic development of the conscious self and agency in the individual concerned. I notice you have already agreed on this point, when you referenced the complexity of the role and purposes of the individual cell in the body. So the mystic who thinks they are somehow orchestrating their mystical development is mistaken and should apply some humility, which would help and enable them to move forward.

But eating a mushroom might. :cool:

I could get into the experiences I have had on mushrooms, but critics may devalue them as hallucinations caused by the drug.

I made this point some time back, but the two central protagonists on this thread enjoy discussing philosophical perspectives of mystical experiences that are, themselves, better understood by actual practitioners.

Ok, I take your point. I have been trying to have the discourse I have been having with Metaphysician Undercover on this forum for a number of years now. So now that it is happening I will continue, but I am happy to also discuss more directly mystical experience. Although, I cannot really comment on Zen, as I haven't practiced it, I would have liked to but the opportunity never arose.
My experience is with Hindu puja practiced in ashrams and in India and Raja yoga which I practiced at the Theosophical society in London. Although at the time, this was the early 90's, I was so on fire as an aspirant that I would try anything that I could get my hands on. So also Christian worship and prayer, the full range of New Age stuff and practice, even the Ashtar tapes of channelled extra terrestrials.

I have had many mystical experiences of varying type, although nothing so transformative as some of the New Age practitioners I met. For me it was more a truth seeking endeavour rather than a transformative one. Do you have a kind of experience, or practice in mind, as a starter?

I just thought I would share. I find that the works of great thinkers are invariably sprinkled with aphoristic gems that are like little bubbles of clarity. I like to think of them as "core concepts" that transcend and bridge the larger philosophical contexts of dispute.....

Yes, such jewels of wisdom really can leapfrog a lifetimes teaching. I find now that if I read some passages in the bible, where Jesus speaks, his words are this profound, they can cut through the chitta chatta and tear the curtains in the temple from top to bottom. Or likewise mystical books I read decades ago.

Imho, it is widely regarded as woo for the same reason religion is so often regarded as woo, because of all the ego becoming trips etc which are so often layered on top of it.

Yes, there is a lot of New Age dross around making a serious enquiry difficult without having to waste a lot of time wading through it. The problem as I see it is that we live in an age, a society which is drawing back from religion (except for some sections in the US) and anyhow Christian mysticism was on the wane already. So it has fallen from the zeitgeist, only to be picked by New Ager's.

Can we just dump the explanations? Most of the time, probably not. We're human so explanations are probably going to happen, especially if one has a philosophical nature. But we don't have to take the explanations too seriously, especially given that doing so is usually an act of taking ourselves too seriously.

Personally one can dump the explanations, provided you are able to plot your own course. Its when discourse is contemplated, or engaged in that the explanations become relevant. I agree that we really don't have to take the explanations to seriously. This is what this thread is about, can we enter into meaningful discourse about something which is an intensely personal experience? Well I think we can, because I hold the discourse within my self with myself, albeit that I already have shared the experience with the other part of myself, prior to the discourse. This does still leave out the experiences which I can't even hold a discourse with myself about. These can be discussed under the heading epiphanies.

I don't think the discourse should be taken as a replacement for the genuine mystical experience.

↪Chester But you like authority and order. Why are you complaining about rules being enforced on you? Fall in line.

Chester is a working class Tory, an oxymoron, but real, there are lots of them in the UK, they helped to get the Brexit vote through. I tried to explain to him that he is allying himself with the self serving wealthy privelidged classes, but he couldn't see it, he obviously hasn't met any of them. The contortions these people get themselves into are remarkable.

He was a good example of where England is going wrong.

I think the problem is your surrealist turn of phrase. It can catch people out and they think it's something else.

He hid in a bunker and is demonising anti-fascists.

Sound familiar?

So you had to have that one last pint before closing time. Now your going to spill out onto the pavement and waddle all the way home.

If the median position, spirit, is different depending on which direction the action is going, we'd have six partitions, two distinct parts of each of the fundamental three, depending on which direction the activity is proceeding. How would I derive the seventh? Do these two distinct trinities, being distinct

I am not familiar with Plato's description, but I can say where 6 becomes 7 in The Hindu traditions,

We have two trinities the lower (physical body, the emotional body, the lower mind) and the higher ( higher mind, soul, spirit). This is the incarnate human, but there is also that present, which is not incarnate, or is prior than incarnation. This level is the level which is expressed in the six levels of incarnation, I Refer to monad here it could be seen as God or Brahman.

So the expression manifests as 6, but that which is expressed is also present in its unexpressed form, making 7.

There are numerous different classifications of the levels in a human, it may depend on the school one is referring to, or the particular subject one is addressing. My preference is for the Theosophical system, particularly that of Alice Bailey, thus;

You could view a human as the three inviolable principles;
Spirit......Atman
Soul.......egoic body
Mind......manas

Which becomes prostrate on the cross of incarnation as;
Lower mind
Personality
Emotional body
Physical body

Mind, or manas is separated into the the upper and lower. The lower mind is a product of the incarnation into a body, so the true seat of mind is in the higher trinity. Also physical material is not treated as a principle, but more as a substrate which is not used when the person becomes resident in the higher trinity. Also during transfiguration, the emotional body merges into the egoic body and the personality into Atman. A new level becomes present above the higher three, the monadic, so we then have the higher cross of the heavens.

Monad............God
Atman.............spirit
Egoic body......soul
Manas.............mind

I agree, but I don't see why we can't do both. Religion, which is a formalised version of mysticism, is treated academically, indeed theology is taught alongside philosophy. I don't see why mysticism can't be treated academically. There has been a trend of Western people taking an interest in Eastern mysticism over the last hundred and forty years or so. But it is still relegated to the New Age shops and widely regarded as woo. I know there are actually a handful of colleges where Eastern religions are treated seriously, so there may be some attention given to Eastern mysticism there too, I don't know.

Postal voting should be only for the disabled and armed forces members that are serving abroad...everyone else can get off their fat arses or not vote, the choice is theirs.

You really don't know what you're talking about. You're just that loudmouth shouting in the pub after one to many drinks. 180 proof summed you up.

You really don't know what the real problem with voting in this country is do you? It's certainly not husbands beating their wives.

Benkei is right. It was embarrassing to watch the Tory party pulling their own hair out and scrapping like cats in a sack over what they want out of Brexit, what sort of Brexit they want, or how to get out of the hole they had dug for themselves. At every turn in their indecision they lost more and more negotiating cards until they are now in the position of having to beg for some scraps to cobble together some kind of deal.

Because as I said before, no other country will accommodate the UK until they have sorted out their relationship with the EU first. At every stage the UK will have to go back to Barnier on their knees.

What an unholy mess.

Oh, it's all Banier's fault, or it's those lefties over there.

Who knows.

Precisely.

It was an example of why postal votes are not a good option...it's a lot harder to force someone to vote in a particular way at a polling station...that's why they were created dumb-ass.

And what about the voters who can't get to the polling station, or are away from home etc?

I am a polling officer and I see plenty of couples where one person tells the other where to put their cross in the polling booth, or writes it for them.

You've just been duped by the Brexit party.

Oh, but a polling officer wouldn't know anything about polling would they? You will say.

How many husbands are beating their wives into voting differently then?

I don't see the need for such multiple divisions in a mystical perspective. In the west the tradition is one division, the distinction is between the body and the soul. Then each has properties, mind is proper to the soul, and desires and emotions are derived from the body.

Whatever works for you.

The problem I have with creating structure for understanding these differences is that the entire living being is a system, or systems of activity, and each activity crosses any proposed divisions.

I dont see a problem here, The system I refer to is a tool, of use from time, the use a botanist makes of the biological classification and scientific understanding of plants.

Further, from my conscious observation point, I seem to be able to manipulate these two distinctly sourced activities. In the process of thinking, contemplation, I can divert the activities, making them go around and around, or opposing them to each other, preventing the externally sourced activities from going deeper and changing my mind, and also preventing the internally sourced activities from causing me to actually get up and do something, changing the external world.

I agree with all of that.

So I think the black, white, and grey is actually a very good analogy.

I agree, also I can work with that because it lends itself to the triadic axiomatic system (for want of better words) I use.
So the dark aspect I would equate with the father, God, will power. The lighter aspect with the mother, the Holy Spirit, nature(physical material) The grey area with the son of the father and mother, the Christ, the human mind. So I can draw a correspondence as follows.

1, first aspect............the dark,....father,.....God.....soul.......will
2, second aspect.......the light....mother.....Spirit....Body....Intelligence
3, third aspect............the grey....son..........Christ...Mind....agency

Although I prefer to swap 3 for 2 here in the trinity so we have father, (dark) and mother (light) at either side/side end and son (grey) in the middle.

So father is will, the creator, purpose.
Mother is the universe, the bearer of life, wisdom.
Son is humanity, the creation, mind, or agency.

I don't believe in this form of "ineffable" though

I only meant ineffable in terms of trying to understand the mystical experience of another mystic, something not easy to convey.

So the mystic doesn't really deal with the ineffable,

I don't think you can say what this, that is a restriction in itself and may inadvertently elevate the limited, frail human mind onto a pedestal of importance. I have had mystical experiences which I cannot express in words, or thoughts. Never mind convey to another person. I am not saying such things are ineffable in nature, but rather from our limited perspective.

The problem is that only a very small portion of activity which is going on within a human being is evident to the conscious mind.

Agreed, the distinction I continuously make is between the conscious mind in the sense of what is orchestrated by the conscious, sentient being of the self, and other unconscious activities of the mind.

I should point out at this stage that when I describe the mind as split into two categories, I include all that we are talking of here in the lower division and only the highest manifestation of intuition, or the activity of the soul, or the like in the upper division.

I will not comment about the ego, only to say that I am not familiar with Freudian terminology, and this term is too ambiguous, used in too many other ways, for me to say anything useful.

Agreed, I will refer to it as the emotions, the emotional aspect of the personality, or body. The emotional body, as opposed to the physical, or the mental.

Let's say that a common sense idea is that postal voting is easy to manipulate , easy to corrupt. To attempt to destroy that concept leftists say not having postal votes is racist... but in no way address the point of postal voting corruption.

That's a Brexit party meme, it's weird the way they convinced themselves that democracy in the UK is under threat from bullying husbands.
So Faridge sold you out to the moderate Tory's, now you've got that buffoon in Downing st, your precious Brexit is going to be chaos and economic ruin. And guess who will get the blame? The Brexit party and UKIP, Johnson will dodge the blame and pin it on Faridge.

Happy days.

Quite.
The precious.

If you'd like to expand on this further I would read with interest. How does the mystic facilitate human development in your view?

Through pursuing some kind of service, this could be doing good works and/or offering oneself as a vessel to convey divinity of some kind for acts of service.

This all makes sense to me, but I don't see the specific need for seven, instead of five or nine or something like that. And since you don't lay out the distinction or boundary between each, it appears sort of random to me. For instance, I can somewhat see the need for the higher and lower mental body, but this could really be divided into numerous distinctions, because the boundary between the two seems quite vague, and could afford the imposition of more boundaries. Then the "three more subtle bodies" are even less well defined. Are all these parts meant to be "bodies", or is that just figurative? Referring to "bodies" seems to be an attempt to objectify the subjective.

Yes these are all valid concerns. What I am describing is a structured mystical teaching developed within Hinduism.Which just so happens to be the structure which I find most beneficial for my own use. Likewise Wayfarer references Bhuddist sources, something which I am not so familiar with, but which I expect works for him. There are other structures or systems, a seeker will try them out and find the one which speaks to them.

As I said a few posts back is that what I am presenting is this teaching as a means of talking about mysticism. The practice itself is more ineffable and less structured and would be virtually impossible to convey in this kind of linear intellectual communication. There are ways of conveying less linear kinds of understanding where relations can be conveyed in a poetical, as proverbs, or axiomatic structure. For example I can converse in a triadic form in which everypoint can be seen through a kind of trinity of understanding. Also there is a kind of numerology which I find useful. For example if we go back to the seven levels I describe. It can be seen as two trinity's, a higher and a lower, with a pivotal layer, or point between them. This pivotal point can be considered as a kind of overlap between the two trinity 's, such that it can relate to either, act as a bridge. For example an average human can be seen as having 4 levels with the pivotal one associated with the lower trinity with the focus of their life being in the lower trinity. Whereas a more spiritual person could be seen to have their life focus in the higher trinity with the pivotal level associated with this trinity. So the normal person has a division of 4 and 3 (4 below the pivotal and 3 above) and a more spiritual person a division of 3 and 4 (3 below and 4 above) of the aforementioned 7 layers. Also at some stage the spiritual person would shed the bottom layer (the physical) and attain and new layer at the top (the monadic). Thus becoming 2 and 5.

I hear what you say about the grey area, but as I say, I am describing a structured mystical teaching. The decisions and separations as described in this structure do relate to aspects of the real nature of people. The use of black and white and grey are to convey understanding of aspects of people, being and self which cannot be easily distinguished within oneself without some kind of structure. But they must not be confused with the personal understanding, or nature of the individual mystic, which as I say is ineffable and not easily communicated, if at all.

So that is how I see this supposed distinction between conscious and subconscious, as a grey area. The mind is always active, both conscious and subconscious, and the activities are constantly going back and forth, crossing through the grey area. So to make a divide between the conscious and the subconscious is to make such an artificial separation, an analysis not based in reality, which one might later try to bridge in an intellectual practise of synthesis. But that bridge would not be representative of the natural, existing bridge.

So are you reducing the sentient thinking person to a agglomeration of numerous subconscious levels, with the illusion of choice? And if so, what about the ego, where does that fit in?

Part of the implicit condition of modernity is the sense of oneself as an intelligent, separate subject in a domain of objects (and other subjects), whereas in the pre-modern world, the world was experienced as, or realised as, an intrinsically alive presence with which one had a relationship beyond the merely adaptive. Having fallen out of that, it is impossible to recall or imagine what has been lost or forgotten.

Nicely put, I keep coming up against this like a brick wall when trying raise this issue.

It is probably going to be quite complicated to interpret different parts of the self into a more philosophical interpretation. I can categorise these more formally later, but to refer to them briefly if you imagine a human as layered like an onion (not literally) with the more refined layers towards the middle. So the physical body is the outer layer, the emotional body next, with the mental body next which is divided into two ( lower and higher) inside that. Then three more subtle bodies inside that, the soul (for want of a better word), a spiritual body, culminating in the Atman as I said earlier as number seven. Each layer is separated in a unique way from the others due to the nature of the evolution we have become expressed in and mystical practice in one way or another breaks down or bridges these seperations.

Going back to the mind, I have been referring to the thinking mind, by which I mean the sentient thinking being, I think, therefore I am. As distinct to the subconscious levels of the mind, or intuitive levels. These other levels are largely unconscious, or at least not deliberated on and directed by the thinking mind (ego/personality).

You seem to describe an experience of observation, "baring witness", and an experience of growth, "the fully awakened mind emerges from the bud", without anything to reconcile the difference between these two, or unite the two. One is to be passive, the other to be active.[/quote]

It is the being who bares witness, the thinking mind is only a faculty of the being, exercised when reasoning is carried out. It is the being which grows and its expression, the body adjusts accordingly inline with the growth.

If I take the active perspective, you say that what you are doing is culturing a relationship between two parts of yourself. Since you actually say between yourself and another part of yourself, I would say that the other part is the passive intuitive part, and yourself, being active in growing the relation, is the active part.

It is not that simple, the inactive part is and never was inactive in my description. But that it was merely inactive in respect of the mystical process itself, which is an endeavour of the active part, or self. But really to try and analyse such things in this way is overly reductive and I can see leading to confusion. I am happy to try, but I find myself trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

What I was hoping you would recognize is how much intuition enters into the active part, by influencing decision making. So I don't believe we can separate the passive "baring witness" from the activity of growing the mind in such a straight forward way.

By baring witness, I mean observing an experience as a direct result of having it, while not engaging the mind in its interpretation, or developing narratives. At that time of the experience. My cat bears witness of my drawing of a Jabberwoky, she does not use her mind to interpret what she sees. But she has most certainly experienced a drawing of a jabberwoky. Likewise I might have experienced my being outside conventional, or normal time and not used my mind to interpret it, at the time. This does not preclude me from thinking about it later, but I focus on the act of witness of a real event.

And, since the active and passive seem to be thoroughly blended throughout all the aspect of living beings, while you are describing them as separate, I think that what you are really doing is culturing a separation between these two rather than a relation between them. If you are not dividing the other part of yourself from yourself, for the purpose of analysis, or some other philosophical goal, then what is the purpose of this?

I view myself as having seven parts, like layers on an onion, so I am seven beings in a sense, cooperating as a unity, but with some barriers of some kind between them.

As for intuition and communion, I am working on an assumption that my personality and parts of my mind are separated from my higher being (soul) due to evolutionary conditions and that the intuition and practice of communion are employed in bridging this divide. As I said, I am only concerned with this internal bridging in my practice, not anything else in my life. I do contemplate these other things etc, but I separate the activities.

It would seem to be in the spirit of mysticism to look at it as simply, and perhaps humbly, as possible. So for example, instead of seeing mysticism as a ladder one climbs to some higher position, it might be seen as an act of routine maintenance of one of the body's mechanical processes.

I agree with this, humility and the realisation that you are in a sense already where you wish to be, if you could but see it. There is also the path of the mystic, which some may choose to tread, if one wishes to help in the enterprise of human development.