Origin: CHANNEL1 - 0594 - NewAge-R To: GLENDA STOCKS Date: 05/30/94 at 14:34 Re: Ulitmate

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Origin: CHANNEL1 - 0594 - NewAge-R From: TONY PECORARO Public To: GLENDA STOCKS Date: 05/30/94 at 14:34 Re: Ulitmate Reality 1/5 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Letters on Ultimate Reality When we attempt to decipher the nature or Ultimate Reality and further attempt to investigate the means which it is made known to human beings, then we must needs take into account a Universal Structure that expands the periphery of menial human cognition. That one creature may not have "cognitive" abilities to interlace the constituent fragments of the existence to which it is confined does not negate the essential essence of an existing substructure of reality. In the same manner, that some other creature may temporarily lack the rudimentary means to fathom the existence which subsumes its existence does negate its reality. What is given to each individual creature is according to its confinement, according to its Being in a peculiar modality of existence; this, however, does not preclude the grander scheme of what is existentially given as the totality of Ultimate Reality for a given creature but for which its measure has yet to unfurl into. It is given, but not fathomed. What is given to you and I is but a fragment as to what is given according to the substructure of our existence which allows for a far greater knowledge of reality but for which you or I have yet to apprehend in agreement to our rudimentary means. We can endlessly categorize the varieties and gradations of knowledge based on our present Being: e.g., what is immediately known prior to cognition; what is made known by dint of cognition -- but this will never give us the transrational unity for which we seek in order to adumbrate the task of personally experiencing those levels of knowing which lie at the center an all-embracing unity of existence: Ultimate Reality. [...and which we desire to know!] The "mental faculty of conception" is but one tool to lay bare just some of the crevices of our reality -- and this only to a rather restricted mode of Being. If you have read "Reality," [12-2-91, Book 23] further above, then we add "...Seething Chaos..." [12-9-91, Book 23] to supplement the direction of our meaning. Certainly, without eyes we cannot see in the sense of physical things, but this is not our argument. We are not seeking a sequence of logical determinations in the process of knowing. We are, however, attempting to uncover the ingredients of an Ultimate Truth & and an Absolute Universal Structure that is available for humans to play in; this, you may know, cannot be done my merely logical means. There are means of knowing that transcend our perceptual & conceptual arrangements. Our present constitutional make-up does not allow us to replace the means we presently use, but we may certainly supplant these means when we rightly consider their proper role in light of their teleological destiny and if we correctly give credence to their import as a platform from which to launch a transcendental, transrational, ontological inquiry of Pure Being. The mental faculty of conception is used to "translate" our transrational experience (experiences in the realm of the Absolute) to human knowledge; that is, knowledge which is accessible to human beings. For this we need those faculties, but they certainly are not a prerequisite for metalogical knowing (through experience) or for what is ultimately and exclusively given but which may be unfathomable due to lethargy of Being! Do yo feel comfortable with this? -=<< Continued >>=- POST SCRIPT: Let us not further perplex the matter by confusing the "known" and the "given." What is immediately given may not be immediately known; Being here surmounts the inquiry by existing as the intermediary between what is given and what is known--and what is present. This can be seen as one of the sacred trinities in our philosophical query: The Knower, Known, & Knowing. What is present is the totality of potentiality, and our knowledge of this borders against the unknowable. What is given is of a second order, so to speak, succumbing to partitions in creation: In this case, the human entity. What is given for human capacity is not given for other capacities. This implies a finite realm or restricted modality of the human domain. This clarifies our meaning of Being that conforms to an existence to which it is confined. Within this strictly human realm there are indefinite possibilities of finite potentials: The domain here is restricted to the laws to which it must conform. The given, as we said earlier, is according to creature, our creature, and not some other. What is given for human existence is exclusive for this domain. Within man there is Being and there is will; there are indefinite capacities for knowing. What is known for the particular Being is not a gauge for the enthralling totality possible for Being's embodiment (archetype). That I may know is according to my capacity, and no other. What man may know, as a tenuous binary star inhabitant, as an earthly species, is according to his creature, his physical embodiment. However -- and this is where the insolvable antinomy forever parades among our conscious awareness of existence -- what the human may know according to his essence -- Pure Being -- is none other than what is given for the domain for his existence. This is what is present, but not known, and may be given. The Spiritual. We posit in these discourses not what is given to individuality or individual Being, but what is possible in the presence of "Pure Being," in its unending perpetuating becoming. --ALP, 10-2-92 (Steph: Book 25) -=<< Continued >>=- This is a touchy subject here; I've gone into it numerous times. The example I give you will be related to you on the level of the rational, on the level of thinking. The "essence" of the example, the state of the example -- in the state-of-itself -- is anterior to thinking, meaning transrational. For you to have knowledge of this, in essence, then this knowledge is best obtained (let's be careful here) through transrational means--the "direct" experience--rather than through conceptual means (logical determina- tions) as in my explication of such. For example, in a state of "direct knowing," the state of direct apprehension, there is the experiencing of a fluid knowingness of that which is apprehended: It is the state of pure experiencing, of pure knowingness, devoid of thinking and its conceptual mechanisms. My "explanation" of this is NOT the experience of this as in the state of being the experience. You may know this because I tell you it is so, or you may affirm this through your "direct experience" of this, in which case you will be assured of its "contents" devoid of the thinking principle. At the moment -- it is a timeless moment -- of this "pure ex- periencing," there is only the experiencing. After the fact, after the experience has transpired, you, your conscious Being, becomes aware of the experience as a recollection *after having had it*; and this is very clear to you, nay, self-evident. Then, by your thinking, you may form a vast variety of concepts to relate this experience to human knowledge -- in terms of associa- tions and discreet, logical determinations. Q: But, apprehending the nature of existence cannot be done without our mental faculties of perception, conception and reason. A: This depends on what state of Being one is fathoming from, which mode of Being one is deciphering from. If one's experience does not extend beyond the periphery of reason, then no. However, we maintain that beyond the boundary of reason there are areas that are transrational, states of Being that humans may indeed dwell in, so to speak, or areas, as in the "transcendental," from which the human may operate from. I have written much in this area; it is a difficult "concept" to get across. It is a true antinomy. --ALP, 10-6-92 (Steph2: Book 25) -=<< Continued >>=- "Experience" of God -- not "thoughts" of God -- are a matter of Being; they are not a matter of conceptual manifestation. One may deliberate about an experience of God, but this deliberation is on the level of thought and is "after-the fact"; that is, having already had the God-"experiencing." Moreover, direct experience of noumena in creation is a transrational or transcendental experience, outside the domain or the periphery of intellect and its conceptual mechanisms. It is a timeless, momentary flash -- an illumination. One translates this experience to human knowledge by the mind and its faculties, kind of like a recognition. With all of this, irrespective of the of the validity of transrational experience in experiencing God, one has to begin where one is, in one's present state of Being, in the mode of Being from which we presently function--and that is our thinking! I came across two more thoughts on which will allow me to close this subject: That is why I wrote to Anders in Sweden: ["Anders3"--7/27/90, Book 19] "2-6-3: For the seer, indwelling within his own consciousness of pure knowingness, he need not "transform" spiritual per- ception; he is simply conscious of such "things." And so also for the student: For his own knowingness, he simply needs to have consciousness of pure experiencing. However, if the student wishes to examine, deliberate, or promulgate the contents of consciousness, then and only then does he require the use of concepts. That I am, is not a concept; it simply IS. That I wish to know I am, then the product of this intent is a concept. Through will, we motivate mind to perform its function of constructing concepts that fit in with an acceptable framework of our world-view: This is not experiencing here -- it is after the fact of experience. (Please see my essay "Shining Bright"--11/23/88, Book 15.)" Furthermore, on the "...the Qualifications for Spiritual Research and..." we noted: ["Qualify"--12/16/90, Book 21] "In spiritual investigation and spiritual experience, we note the terms of direct cognition, direct experience, and spiritual apprehension (refined perception; see "Inner Planes"--6/23/85, Book 3) as the modality of pure experiencing transcendent to the thinking principle and originating on the level of Pure Being; and sensual experience (mundane experience), including abstraction of notions, as the natural (general) experience of the thinking principle, with its sub-functions of mental constructs and sentient interplay. (This here signifies the major differences in modes of ascertaining knowledge in the western and far eastern cultures. Western civilization gains knowledge through inference and testimony (see Patanjali); the eastern culture "apprehends" knowledge through "direct cognition," through the "direct experience" of that knowledge -- which lies outside the domain of thinking intellect; hence we say that the Laws of Nature (the Vedas) were simply "cognized." Furthermore, we note that any human, should he so desire, has the ability to "cognize" any aspect of creation or any nuance of universal knowledge.) "Behind thought life another life of the soul must lie, a soul life that would be con- cealed rather than revealed by the action of thought. --Rudolf Steiner The Riddles of Philosophy -=<< Continued >>=- "The articulation, however, of any or one of these varieties of experience (communication via transcript, for example) is always of the second order of experience: general, sensual experience; but the "moment of knowing" (actually, outside the confines of "moment," for moment is time-ideated and direct cognition is beyond and therefore not bound by temporal constraints) in true spiritual investigation is [timeless] Pure Being in the domain of pure experiencing, the first order, and is prior to personal, individual knowingness, which is "thinking" about..., not the direct experiencing of it. (See "Shining Bright"--11/23/88, Book 15) "The qualities of both kinds of experience, although the first order is more penetrating than the second order and causal in nature, can be clearly distinguished in the thinking principle by virtue of the variance in influx of that which is apprehended in the different varieties (dimensions) of experience. This is made clear in "Spiritual Things" --10/11/88, Book 15." [][][][][][][][][] But all this begins with where we are at now: Thinking is the foundation with which to transcend thinking into the realm of "pure experience"; thinking in the beginning from which we leap beyond the boundaries of the rational to reach into the domain of the transrational, the God-experience I spoke of when I noted that "intellect has to go out the window." "Wanting" this experience is akin to starting the process of diving deeper into the realm of thought, moving to subtler and subtler planes of thought until one eventually and inevitably arrives at the source of thought and then ultimately transcends thought, thus plunging into a state of Pure Being, the Absolute state of existence from which true God-experiencing lives and ensues according to one's Being. OK? --ALP, 10-4-92 (MarkJ: Book 25) [][][][][][][][][] But these things are not disclosed to the uninitiated, by whom I mean those attached to the objects of human thought, and who believe there is no superessential Reality beyond... --Dionysius the Areopagite Mystical Theology... ### * The MOG-UR'S EMS Granada Hills, CA 818-366-1238/8929 21.6K D/S * PostLink(tm) v1.20 MOGUR (#323) : RelayNet(tm) <*>

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank