Spiritual Science Madness

[Nai]

Spiritual Science could be a lot of things. I'm not picky I don't really care what it is.

"Lets see what happens when I do this."

I asked that this be called mad spiritual science. It is my own take on the subject and it is not well informed or educated, I don't always care about "rules".

I also chose mad science for the title because I didn't want anyone to view these things as advice. It is a buyer beware type of thing, always remember the weird science movie! Proceed with caution. In most cases I take reasonable safety precautions, but I'm not making promises. Nor are many safety precautions always appropriate. I find I'm used to reading the finished product when I read about some technique whether it is spiritual or spiritual science, but here you will often get the trial and error, get to read what I did before I got it right, and what I learned from that. This provides you with a wider spectrum to explore. You can also assess how I might have gotten there quicker, and scrutinize whether or not what was done is valid or not; much as a real scientific community would.

Tentative thesis of Spiritual Science

My general tentative take on spiritual science. It is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the "worlds" work, with ?observable? evidence as the basis of that understanding.

"Worlds" refers to a key difference between science and spiritual science. In science we study mostly only the physical world, or empirical reality. In spiritual science we obviously also study the spiritual world or worlds, if you consider the Assemblage point to be real, or possibly real, or you at least have some reason to believe in alternate realities (as I do), then it becomes a matter of "worlds" which are not only plural, but also not all physical as we would define such a thing.

Evidence in this kind of science would thus also have to be measured and valued according to different standards. Hopefully I will find time to cover that and the concept of spiritual proof in more detail later on. Suffice to say it is a very important issue. I think of it this way, if it were not for actual experiences that verified the reality of various concepts I would be an armchair philosopher of a Sunday school church boy. Because I have "seen" and "felt" I have evidence that others do not, I can walk a path others will not. My notion of spiritual science takes this further by taking the initial experiences and extracting further knowledge from them in an attempt to solidify the power of this knowledge by making it more than just a glimpse, but to prove it by acquiring more evidence from it. And if I disprove it, then it is all the better that I know the truth than that I live in delusion. Great care must be taken to consider thoroughly what is true or not, what is proven or not, and can one ever know for certain? 

This kind of science is done through any means that allows you to observe the world/s in part, in whole or however including but not limited too experimentation that tries to create or simulate phenomena under seemingly controlled conditions.

The total scope of qualifies as "spiritual science" is ultimately up to us. The road is still being paved. Others have walked it in their way, but personally I'm skeptical that their way was the best or even just the only good way.

So again I say that most of this can be summed up with: "Lets try this and see what happens."

The key I'm looking at here is to know as many positions of the assemblage point as possible and take that knowledge and study and scrutinize it, compare and contrast it. For instance what can I learn about the world of form of the First Attention by studying the world of energy of the Second Attention and what of them by studying the Third Attention. And then Carlos's books speak of virtually an infinite number of possible other worlds or positions to explore, so you seek them out then say wow know the world is really amazing, you come back to the world of form and it is all so different now. Then you share that knowledge with the other warrior spiritual scientists and they give their views of what you saw, and they seek out their own experience of these positions and share that, and your body of "power knowledge" grows huge. You aren't accumulating more inventory for your mind so it isn't a "body of knowledge" in the conventional sense, it is a body of experiences with the power to set you free, and move humanity into an age of true enlightenment.

Unmethodology

Descartes utilized a process of questioning and negation in what he basically asks what can he verify as real. He goes through a list of many things and comes to the famous conclusion: Cogito ergo sum or I think therefor I am.
And as Carlos's books state there is some truth to this if you consider that the assemblage point is held in its current position by the internal dialog. In my own meditations I have observed a point at which a fear of death of identity comes after quiting my inner dialog for a certain amount of time. And after the assemblage point moves and reality shifts does the reality of who I am also change, do I in a sense die?

As a child I went through a similar period of questioning in which I came to a similar conclusion. Instead of stopping at thought, I questioned thought as well. Descartes stops at thought because he is thinking, and to question the very tool he is using to find answers probably didn't seems logical. Yet, I questioned if none of that is real, how do I know my thoughts are real either? And, I did what Descartes did I found flaw in thought. If I can't trust my senses because sometimes they lie to me then how can I trust my thoughts as sometimes my thoughts have also lied to me. At some point around here my perception of self shifted. I saw myself as infinite and connected to all things yet somehow separate, I felt great potency or power in this infinite self, and this self felt real in a way I had never known before. From then on this true self was the god of my personal religion, and the foundation of my personal science. In normal science the physical world is god, and everything else is measured according to what we feel we know about it. This is the one thing I feel I more or less know about the world, but the only thing I really know is that I don't know anything.

And, that is as good a beginning as anything.   

[Nai]

Anthroposophy, is Rudolf Steiner's Spiritual Science.  If you want a more comprehensive take on actual Anthoposophy you can go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy

I'm not going to go into detail about traditional Anthroposophy, this post is intended to take from Anthroposophy what I can use for my own work and to twist it to my mad ends. muhahaha! lol

Objectivity, Clarity and Precision

As Descartes found he couldn't trust his senses and decided he could trust his thoughts, and I decided I couldn't trust my thoughts and I found a experience of self independent of normal sensory reality, Rudolf Steiner said we can cultivate conscientiously a form of thinking independent of sensory experience. Developing this kind of thinking is supposed to open you to an objective comprehensible spiritual world accessible to direct experience. Exactly what comprehensible means would probably take on a new meaning once this new thinking is attained.

To me this seems a reasonable foundation for further exploration for spiritual science. If such an objective reality is possible then it would provide me with vital knowledge with which to study the "other worlds"... But with so many possible worlds how could any "one" of them being objective, unless that one somehow was the key connected to all the others....what a wonder that would be!

This brings to question something interesting that in my mind is partially inspired by a line of reasoning I found in one of L. Ron. Hubbard's Scientology books. I wont get into Hubbard's work right now just citing him as inspiration since he was supposedly searching for the greatest common denominator or all life. The question is whether or not the true or essential self could also be accurately be termed the greatest common denominator between all the selves? Each self has different qualities and attributes, but what do they all essentially have in common? Each is a self, which is self is more purely self than the others, which self reflects this greatest common denominator the most? The true self or essential self mayhaps?

Anthroposophy shares at least one goal with my goal. We both aim to to attain the precision and clarity of natural science's investigations of the physical world or of course if possible even greater clarity.

We both also seek to do this by extending the clarity of the scientific method to phenomena of a "spiritual" nature....
To achieve this requires the development of objective spiritual perception according to Steiner. But, suppose objective perception isn't possible, this doesn't mean the clarity of the scientific method cannot be attained, after all who says physical reality is truly objective? One reality may more be relative to its position amongst the whole. So an understanding of the whole might be required to determine what is truly objective.  To continue this line of reasoning you can look more closely at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

The Spiritual Scientific Community

A very important goal of Steiner's approach and mine: "The anthroposophical schooling of thinking leads to the development of a non-sensory, or so-called supersensory consciousness, whereby the spiritual researcher brings the experiences of this realm into ideas, concepts, and expressive language in a form which people can understand who do not yet have the capacity to achieve the supersensory experiences necessary for individual research."

I would further describe it as taking the experience of any reality outside the norm, any position of the AP outside the norm, and bringing those experiences into ideas, concepts, and expressive language in a form which people can understand who do not yet have the capacity to achieve such states of consciousness. This helping others achieve what you achieved. This way others can replicate what you achieved and your knowledge can be verified through the experience of others. If the experience of others is counter to your own, which it may indeed be, this does not de-value your own experience, but it does emphasize the importance of the experiences of others in seeing the whole picture. In this the different experience can be bounced back to the original scientist and he can then learn something new, the new stuff is constantly bounced back and forth amongst members of the community until a much higher and higher refined understanding of the truth is attained.

This also provides a gateway to the goal of attaining a truly enlightened humanity.

Freedom for all through the Freedom of each

Another area of great interest to me and possibly some others. Is Steiners interest in bypassing the dangers of external authority figures on the spiritual journey. We often speak of the importance of a teacher, guru, guide, or at least of some form of external help. There are a lot of contradictions from different people on this issue, some like Krishnamurti state we don't need a teacher at all. Interestingly people like this are often very rationally minded or at least they are very clear and concise in their wording; it seems a part of their approach. Yet, even Steiner with his pathless land, is actually detailing a path! Gurdjieff speaks highly of the importance of a teacher.
At the same time he did say: "In properly organized groups no faith is required; what is required is simply a little trust and even that only for a little while, for the sooner a man begins to verify all he hears the better it is for him."
Steiner seemed to believe that this capacity for objective thinking or reasoning has the power to free us from a need to depend on any kind of teacher or external authority. I consider this not only very important to the spiritual scientist but also important for all people. Imagine a world where we do need to be dependent on a government, a position, or leader of any kind, each person is completely capable of carrying their own weight and working responsibility side by side with their fellow man. It seems that such a goal might be attainable with the aid of such objective thinking. Such a goal could be called Anarchism.

"Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself; which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination. Emma Goldman, "What is Anarchy?"

Of course whether God truly plays into this is a discussion I will have to bring up later.

Steiner even had his own theory about government that has parallels with various ideas of democracy, Panarchy, Communism, and Anarchism yet is very unique. His theory was called Social Threefolding, for more on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Threefolding

The notion here though as I see it has a lot to do with the government in our heads. There is a certain order to our mind in which the various "I's" that we call the personality rule our lives. This order is reflected in various ways in the societies we live in. Different types of people act different ways. Bob has a very democratic mind, and this is reflected in how he deals with others, how he treats himself effects how he treats others. Another is communistic in their head. My ex-mother in law is totalitarian with herself so she tries to control everyone else. Interestingly when the false ruler in our head is de-throned through through things like not doing or the effect of other practices or even power plants, the true power takes over at least temporarily. If all people lived from this place what type of society would be formed?

[Sano Mor]

nice

[songbird]

"Lets see what happens when I do this."


And, that is as good a beginning as anything.   

Very nice, all of it.  Look forward to reading more as your experiments progress!
 

[Nai]

These here are idea posts a fusion of Steiner and my own improv, and a little bit of Castaneda and others. Experiment posts soon to come.

[lavender orchid]

Nai:
wonderful presentation!
as a foreigner (german), i have always admired americans for this unique quality: express their grasp of things.

with regards to cogito, ergo sum i take the ergo as being what, i.e. the contents of thought, so that a question of whose thinking etc. would either immediately disappear (most advantageously!) or, in sort of slomo, reduce its importance.

realizing now, however, that i was coming from somewhere where others may want to go, but seeming to be unable to "meet" them, feels kind of eerie, to say the least.

castaneda's assemblage point to me, meanwhile, is not something i will have fixated,
but have awareness "realize" to be such in agreement with or adjustment to every moment's need.

reading, therefore, to me is no longer for learning, but for confirmation of inner knowing from others' viewpoints.

what's the application like when we can drop the crutches of learned knowledge (again)?

p.s. there is, of course a scientific jargon, a vocab, available, just not sufficiently accessible to me to make me fully internet-compatible (imho).