Insanus wrote:I could say I believe in God of whom nothing can be said.
You already have some idea of that God, or you wouldn't know enough of that idea to believe in it, right?
If I encounter a math problem I don't know the answer to, I know I can solve it, if it's not too difficult.
If I believe that science will one day be able to prove the existence of God, I don't necessarily know anything about what that proof could be like, but maybe I can speculate a bit. If I believe there are languages I don't understand, I don't know anything about how to speak them, yet maybe I can imitate them and try to learn, if I hear them. Now, if I believe there is just something I don't know, the only thing I'm actually referring to is my own limitation, but maybe I can try to cultivate my understanding further and be more open to the world, maybe meet something completely other than myself. Then my mind has to adapt to it, and my whole being transforms. It's not like it is some idea my mind can grasp now, it's just a sense of being shackled.
Maybe this becomes clearer at the next point:
Insanus wrote:Meaningless, nonexistant &c. are very suitable expressions too from our human viewpoint.
I disagree. In the occult world view there are no things that are completely meaningless or nonexistent. Even the things which have negative value for us as human beings (suffering) have positive value for the cosmos as a whole, or they couldn't exist. Universe is held up by teleology, or to say it in a more human way, our teleology necessary is drawn from cosmic blueprints. There are more and less meaningful things to us, and more or less perceivable ("existent" to us).
I know, and largely agree with this. The idea of nonexistent nothings that are meaningless don't fit in that or any other world for that matter. I'm trying to find those/that beyond this world view and that's why I can't call them anything else. I can accept unity, but not the identity of unity & the absolute. I think unity is the human way of seeing this unknown x.
Exactly. So, there's a common nominator. It is always somewhat obstructed, and more & more the denser the worlds in which we communicate, but we are not separate beings.
Yes there is a common nominator now that we have made it such. It is not metaphysical a priori or anything like that, but our construction which we are also able to break. Just like if I offer you my hand and you accept it. I don't think the accepting of hand is forced
or a given fact on any plane of existence, otherwise it wouldn't even be real & there wouldn't be any communication after all.
Insanus wrote:we are the basis for our conversation
Should you say that our Egos, or monads, or whatever of our spirit-touching principles are the "basis", I would agree to a point. For those spiritual principles are actually one, they touch each other and the divinity.
How do they touch "each other" if they are one? Isn't there some truth to dualism? I didn't mean "physical body".
Do I understand rightly that also the manasic and buddhic principles with their holistic way of perception are also pure speculation to you?
Absolutely not, I think they are (maybe the most refined and best possible) human
Insanus wrote:They perceive things outside of themselves to make them parts of themselves via adaptation.
So you see, there is a bridge that connects minds. The bridge of "adaptation".
Yes, it connects
If there is no plane of whole, the archetypical existence (by whichever name: all the esoterical world views have one; we might call it "spiritual unity"), there is no hope for even theoretically come to understanding of the whole. There is no center, there is no spirit, everything rotates endlessly on the peripheria of chaotic thought, for in such a state "chaos" would certainly be a good way to see how we are tossed by the cosmic laws without a possibility to ever end the process: for there is no rock whatsoever to reach, because there is no "God" and no unity. Is this nihilistic postmodern cosmology your approach?
Maybe it's more like a preferred aesthetic, but it has a lot in common with my approach. I think "theoretically understanding the whole" would just be the total elimination of understanding. Otherwise my understanding would be greater than the whole. Again, we go to the non-idea of meaningless nothings. I think the unity must be constructed, it's not a given: our separation is.
Insanus wrote:Aesthetical pleasure is the main reason to discuss anything because we are able to understand and expand into something more. I don't know if it is more or less real though.
How do you see this "something more", how exactly is it "more"? More aesthetically pleasing?
Especially that. Clearer minds, more pure hearts, that kind of thing.