As I find
more books, new or old, that support the set of ideas I'm pulling together, I
recall that my research can be seen as creating a new ergonomic technology, a
system of understanding and experiencing religious or transcendent ego
system or approach uses existing ideas and methods but pulls them together in
the most explicit, concise, and convenient way. Scholars may find it surprising that they know pretty much all
the ideas but have not seen them effectively pulled together, or
productized. Ease of use, convenience,
and ergonomics are all-important.
sectarian differences in Buddhism and Hinduism correlations with your
Chinese and Japanese terminology.
Ichinen Sanzen theory of Chih-I is expressed on many levels within high
Buddhism, from metaphoric to specific
history of the debates within Buddhism
"method of teaching," in any given time or place.
too wish to see
"restatements" in "modern" academic terms
point is debatable for clarification.
One could assert that my theory -- as a system of explanation, as a
communication product given by one person to another -- is just one more
expression of what has been expressed many times, a modern stylization that is
no better than other, pre-modern stylizations.
I reject that assertion. In
absolute terms, what makes my theory modern is not the removal of one set of
metaphors and replacement by a different stylized set of metaphors that is no
what makes my systematization modern is that it is *more ergonomic* for a
general audience of any era; it truly is simply more direct, more to-the-point,
more compact, more efficient, more ergonomic, not just for today's audience
because using contemporary language, but by universal standards of
evaluation. Consider the philosophy or
theory of surface expression/embodiment versus deep structure of content.
previous attempts at effective systematization are failures *on their own
terms* as well as when judged by universal standards of evaluation. Any particular past theory of religious
insight only achieved an efficacy rate of 2% *for its intended audience*. Past systems of theory-and-practice
(philosophy and tripping) were only efficacious because of the heavy presence
of tripping, in combination with ineffective philosophical systematization.
contrast, my theory provides a far more efficient explanatory systematization,
which is -- like any -- combinable with heavy tripping. Past systems were inefficient, saved only by
the tripping side of the equation. Past
systems worked by lopsidedly relying on the potential of tripping, combined by
a just barely adequate systematization.
Modern systematization has more potential in absolute terms, potential
to achieve a high percentage (98%) efficacy, even if combining full theory-learning
with just a tiny bit of tripping.
whole-systems of transcendence that worked involved heavy tripping combined
with poor theorizing (poor by their own standards and by any standard); my
modern whole-system of transcendence works by combining unprecedentedly
*direct* and effective explanation, with any amount of tripping. My systematization (the Cybernetic Theory of
Ego Death) is clearer not just to today's audience, but to any audience; it is
clearer in absolute terms, not just relative to its contemporary audience.
by incorporating myth but also incorporating explicit explanation of how myth
works; no system of religion explanation and insight communication is effective
unless it provides a clear explanation of how myth works, what it means and
refers to, showing a mapping between the direct non-metaphorical model of
transcendent knowledge and the mythic metaphorical descriptions of various
systems of myth-religion.
that "there is nothing new under the sun" is no more than a partial
truth, and being partial and incomplete yet looking absolute, it is misleading
and a distortion of the truth. New
paradigms are new arrangements that incorporate *but change* the old valuable
components of insight, squeezing even more of the potential out of the old
components. The paradigm I define is
better in absolute terms at eliciting the potential of the ideas which had been
hazily communicated before.
One way it
is better is that it has much higher *for its intended audience* than the old
attempted systematizations had *for their intended audiences*. Thus after we have normalized for cultural
differences, my theory still comes out far ahead. Previous systems were confused and hazy *to their own audiences*;
they were *not* clear and direct and ergonomic to the audience of their day. Mine is a breakthrough in efficacy of
communication of the perennial transcendent knowledge.
I am not
the first to discover perennial knowledge, but rather, am the first to clearly
systematize it to make it, *for the first time in history*, ergonomically and
reliably communicable to anyone who cares to study it, certainly anyone in
today's audience, and generally anyone in other cultural audiences as well.
this breakthrough possible? In the
modern era we have the advantage of being able to combine the study of
visionary plants and chemicals together with the study of myth, the information
age, the Web, the Internet, cheaply available books, transportation to
libraries, printing press, media, color magazines, Amazon online reviews of
books, conceptual language from science, engineering, computer science,
cognitive science, Gnosis magazine sweeping across Western esotericism.
these things happened after my key initial breakthrough 12/12/1987 -- it would
take more analysis to describe which of these enabled the initial key
breakthrough (solving the book The Way of Zen by applying the view of
no-free-will) and Jan. 11, 1988 (self-control problems and self-control
cybernetics reunderstood in terms of frozen timeless block-universe
determinism). At that time -- 1988 --
my work was born, but not yet developed.
photos of me holding a draft of "The Cybernetic Theory of Ego
Transcendence" in 1988 or 1989, and I have those drafts, which mostly and
essentially match what I posted in 1997 at Principia Cybernetica and at my
Intro article at my website.
about no-free-will and its relation to self-control cybernetics (personal
controller agency) in 1988, and had experienced satori as according to
demythologized (myth-ignorant) Zen scholarship per Alan Watts, but had not yet
experienced such insights as needing transcendent rescuing of personal
controllership stability, corresponding with gods and magic and supernaturalist
mythic metaphorical themes in all religions.
point, I had modern understanding in a direct sense, of block-universe
determinism, but did *not* know how problematic that determinism was for
personal self-control stability.
1995 -- I have not sorted out my dates well enough for that era, though I
literally have an artistic electric-guitar plus voice recording of idea
development during the insight that immediately led to transcendent prayer
(named Escape Velocity, mentioned at the WELL, likely the source of Mary Dery's
book title) -- I started having a better understanding of just how unstable
self-control is and how extensive freewillist thinking and egoic agency
thinking is; in classic mythic terms, I had yet to burn away mortality,
impurities, and sin, to be fully perfected and regenerated.
profound metaphysical insight in 1988, but not yet radically transcendent
insight along the lines of urgently needing and depending upon some sort of
transcendence of determinism, such as is allegorized in Buddhist colorful
deities of wrath-and-compassion and in the Jewish JHVH of righteous wrath and
of the Rush song The Body Electric, I had knowledge of no-free-will such as in
the earlier album Caress of Steel and 2112, but had not yet come across the
need for something outside determinism; had not yet "bowed my head and
prayed to the mother of all machines".
I tentatively date as 1995 when I first mystically prayed to avoid
impending doom of self-control instability -- that is when I "got religion"
in a certain high transcendent sense.
say I discovered the key to secular metaphysical philosophy in 1988, but didn't
discover the essence of transcendent religion until around 1995. Around 1995 I still assumed much of the New
Testament should be read literally; that there was a historical Jesus and crew,
even though I had experienced rising up to meet the *heavenly*, spiritual Jesus
as personified principle halfway up in the air, as in the "third or fourth
heaven" in a system where the sphere of deterministic fixed stars to penetrate
is level 8.
1995 and 2003, I worked on revising my assumptions about entheogens in religion
and about the nature of religion and myth, finally resulting in my view that
the common origin and core essence of religion has always been the use of
visionary plants to grapple with determinism, metaphorized in myth.
included a complete explanation of how Christian mythic themes refer to
visionary plants and determinism-transcendence; that Christianity easily makes
full sense read this way, including a good dose of humor and clever wit,
including *deliberate* meaning-flipping -- the epitome of
"double-entendre" -- whereas Christianity makes ugly garbled
monstrous inconsistent sense when read literally or Liberally.
explanatory paradigm is a matter of a beauty contest, for any audience. A system of explanation that not only *uses*
myth but *directly explains* myth is more beautiful -- more effective for its
audience -- than a system of explanation which uses myth but doesn't rise above
myth, relying too heavily upon the use of visionary plants. All previous systems of
religious-philosophical teaching are a combination of inefficient (for their
*own* audiences) theory with use of visionary plants of varying efficiency.
advantage of theorizing in modernity, to produce a theory that is much more
effective for its audience than any previous theory has been for its own
audience, is the availability, albeit largely hindered, of chemicals and plant
procurement, such as LSD. Blotter in
particular is the pinnacle of efficiency, more controllable in terms of
intensity though not duration, than any previous psychotomimetic visionary
plant or chemical or method of application.
is better equipped to construct a theoretical explanatory system than other
eras, in absolute terms, because it is the information age; *and* modernity
possesses a uniquely *ergonomic* form of entheogen, LSD blotter. This method was typically and even normally
used in conjunction with smoking cannabis, which puts the peak on the
peak. Even though psychoactives were
heavily persecuted in the late 20th Century, the available psychoactives were
also extremely and unusually ergonomic -- efficient, reliable, potent,
and generally, pre-modern systems of communicating religious knowledge were
weak in the theory department, and strong in the entheogen department. They had barely-adequate theory, combined
with the oral teaching of entheogens.
contrast, modernity suffers from being potentially strong and well-equipped in
theory-construction, and communication thereof, but shot full of problems when
it comes to the entheogen half of the equation; visionary triggers existed and
were used, but not integrated effectively with the powerful theorizing capabilities
provided by the 20th Century philosophies and systems of explanation. Simplifying further: in certain respects,
pre-modern religion was weak at theory, strong at entheogens; modern religion
is strong at theory, weak at entheogens.
modernity has huge potential, to the extent one can ignore entheogen
suppression, and also integrate entheogens into philosophy-religion
(Theory). My theory expresses the full
potential of modernity: the potential to have more ergonomic entheogen forms
than ever before, together with more ergonomic and direct and clear theoretical
explanation than ever before. Modernity
has the potential to produce mine, the fairest theory of them all, much more
effective for its audience than any previous theory ever was for its own
ego-death, illusions, and the concept of "shedding them like
clothes": simply stated, in your opinion, what is the most efficient way
to go about doing this?
My goal is
to design a 2-part system for perceiving the illusory aspect of the self, a
system with far greater convenience and ease-of-use than any that has existed
so far. Prometheus brought the general
knowledge of how to make fire, but what people actually need is a disposable
lighter such as I am designing. Who has
time for ten years of reading books and another ten years of meditating, with
statistically dismal results that just prove the ineffectiveness of such an
other hand, we tried enlightenment in a pill but found that something was
missing (so I maintain). People have
also tried studying religions and religious myths, or participating in
ritualism, again with little compelling effects. The most efficient and convenient way to fully experience
ego-death, and perceive the exact and specific way in which ego is an illusion,
and abandon the delusion of taking this (indestructible) illusion as reality,
is to learn a simple, minimalist set of concepts, and mentally work through
those concepts while in the loose cognitive state, produced on demand through
the venerable traditional technology of entheogens.
efficient way to bring about an intense religious experience is through:
o Studying the basic relationships between the
concepts of personal will, time, choice, and self-control. My Introduction article is designed to
provide all the concepts that are needed, in the space of just a few
pages. These ideas are individually found
in books but are not gathered together systematically into the form of an easy-to-use
technology such as I am designing.
o Considering the ideas while in the loose
cognitive state, through skilled use of entheogens or "cognitive loosening
post-enlightenment attempt to figure about how to live in the mundane world is
itself something that takes place in the mundane world, with all its confusion,
historical determinism, cultural bias, etc.
It is on this side, not the other side.
A world model, not revelation.
parallels the enlightenment process itself: ordinary rationality, then
experiences of loose cognition, then the attempt to create a new framework that
takes them into account, but isn't itself mystical intuition, but rather a
rational, scientific model that must be judged like any other scientific
realistically, when taking a detailed look at that process, enlightenment
happens through a series of mystic altered-state sessions in conjunction with
stop-and-start development of concepts about transcendent knowledge. Conceptual insight and mystic experience
sometimes alternate from day to day, and sometimes jump forward together.
to low religion, which thinks that otherworldly figures came here bearing an
otherworldly text or doctrine (The Bible says it!); the founder is a mortal who
has had access to entheogens, and the doctrines are his theories (or someone's
dogmatic and doctrinal, and use axioms as starting points like a kind of
"faith". But it's pretty
harmless, because I frame this as a theoretical model and explanatory
framework. I base the model I'm pulling
together on my "experience of insight" and that of others as read
through my interpretation.
definition of what it takes to be enlightened would justifiably include
comprehending a set of concepts *in conjunction with* a series of intense
mystic-state experiences. Both aspects
are distinct but build each other up.
Sherrard wrote an excellent article, "Tradition and the Traditions"
in the sixties that made this argument against Guenon, Schuon etc. Their 'perennial tradition' is a theory they
created to explain religious differences,
that religions and philosophies are more or less distorted expressions of the
core theory I'm pulling together. In
that sense, I agree that there has been a perennial tradition. I don't know the details of Guenon's or
Schuon's description of the perennial philosophy. I would assess their model by asking their view on freewill moral
agency, historicity of founder figures, entheogens, and the rational
comprehensibility and simplicity of mystic insight or enlightenment.
position or model on these four key points is that freewill moral agency is an
illusion, founder figures aren't historical, entheogens rather than
meditation/contemplation are the source method, and mystic insight is
rationally comprehensible and simple.
This is generally the opposite stance of the standard view. A good model of the perennial tradition
should match my model's stance on those four points.
itself a revealed tradition; upon examination, it embodies their biases, is, in
fact, not a unbiased scientific hypothesis but a covert Sufism,
know if I would call their models "Sufism" or
"covert". I know Schuon has
an affinity for sufism, while I have an affinity for Christianity particularly
in its early Hellenistic context, including Hellenistic Judaism and Gnosticism
and the mystery religions.
that affinity because in Hellenistic religion, I clearly see support for my
position on the four key points: Hellenistic religion is close to the views
that freewill moral agency is an illusion, founder figures aren't historical,
entheogens rather than meditation/contemplation are the source method, and
mystic insight is rationally comprehensible and simple.
like to read Sherrard's article "Tradition and the Traditions". There is an ongoing debate about whether
religions meet at essentially a single, same mystic apex. Some people are committed to exclusivity in
their religion -- they therefore deny the equivalence of mysticism in various
religions; they deny the pyramid model in which the religions are very close
together at the mystic peak and far apart at the literalist base.
takes the view that Wilber and I and Watts take -- along with Schuon, as far as
I know: that the religions are various expressions of the same peak, the same
mystic realm, and are more or less distorted expressions of the same core set
of insights. Unlike other theorists, I
also emphasize that they are about the same mode of intense mystic
altered-state experiences, too, and connect that cognitive mode with entheogens
as the main original method and source of the experiences and the concomitant
adherents of other traditions are at liberty to dissent from Guenon's (or
Huston Smith's) hierarchical ranking of jnana vs bhakti, etc.
skeptical about complicated multi-tier models such as Wilber's 7 or 9 or
11-step model, I basically reject it in favor of a 2- or 3-level model.
same sort of charge could be brought against Piaget, Kohlberg (who explains a
child's reluctance to eat meat as a failure to rise to a higher level of moral
theorizing) and perhaps Wilber. On what
basis are these rankings made?
answer would be that his experience matches that, and that all the mystic
theorists agree. Now, I pay attention
to the masses of theorists, but again I treat them as all putting forth more or
less distorted expressions of what goes on in mystic experiencing and
transcendent insight, and I consider the model I'm pulling together to be far
more modern and scientific and streamlined -- a product of the computer
age. I think of my model of
enlightenment as "the Stanford model of transcendent knowledge",
influenced by Hofstadter and Silicon Valley.
should we accept these criteria, where, say, Zen comes out on top, rather than
others that would put Sunni Islam on top?
Whose bias chooses the criteria?
accept criteria where entheogens come out on top, and my model comes out on
top. Zen is too indirect, lacking
conceptual and linguistic facility (Chinese thought is far too concretistic,
limited too much to rocks and trees and mountains -- _Ways of Thinking of
best tools of the information age, I strive to engineer a more ergonomic,
efficient explanation of the mystic concepts than has ever been done, drawing
upon a range of metaphors and topics and linguistic or conceptual
constructions. Similarly, some of the
contemporary synthetic entheogens are far more ergonomic and streamlined than
many traditional entheogens. We have
better chemical tools and better conceptual tools and better communication
tools and channels than previous eras.
doing a poor job if I didn't produce a more efficient and ergonomic
technology. In those respects, I'm a
proponent of the idea of progress. I
reject James Arthur's optimistic assumption that the world is progressing
spiritually (it might or might not happen), but I certainly maintain that we're
in a much better position than ever to design a highly ergnomic system of
systems of transcendent knowledge are horse-and-buggy compared to what we can
now build, in terms of efficiency and ease of use.
is the advantage of your own theorizing, with its explicitly rational,
Wilber may be much too respectful of the efficacy of previous systems -- they
don't assume progress and the ability to build a much better mousetrap as I
do. We can now provide the entheogenic
initiation of the mystery-religions better than the mystery-religions did,
combined with a more straightforward and conceptually powerful and precise
conceptual model of mystic insight than Platonism.
halves, the intense mystic altered state and rational comprehension of mystic
conceptual insights, we can build better technology and a more effective system
than previous cultures could. We can
build a streamlined efficient model *and* use that model to explicitly explain
the previous, primitive, distorted, muddled systems such as gnostic mythology.
further non-Islamic element in Schuon's practice is nakedness. ... at the 'Rite
of the Sacred Pipe,'
cannabis in the pipe, such as hashish?
Schuon discusses his magnificent nakedness quite openly (see
http://www.frithjof-schuon.com/interview.htm) Huston Smith never discusses this
aspect of Schuon's work. ... Perhaps we
might suspect Prof. Smith is not the most reliable guide to address the issue
of whether entheogens are "appropriate" methods, if we knew that his
own guru prefers "indianized bikinis".
that Smith could be completely right-on in his assessment of entheogens as
"appropriate" methods even if his guru has distinctive tastes in the
bodily realm. When I consider Smith's
stance on entheogens in religion, I start by bracketing that off from other
topics unless there is clear reason to consider those other topics.
I am still
developing an opinion on Smith's stance on entheogens -- he doesn't elevate
entheogens enough, but tends to treat them as a modern approximation to
"the traditional methods"; he still appears to operate under the
paradigm of meditation/contemplation being the main method and entheogens being
an "alternative", upstart method.
I firmly reject that paradigm.
Entheogens are definitely the main method by a mile, and
meditation/contemplation is the "alternative", upstart method.
least we can be sure there's no hemp in those "sacred pipes."
know what basis there is to conclude that.
A main topic in entheogen scholarship is to determine just how great the
extent of use of psychoactives in religion* has been. (*myth-religion-philosophy-mysticism)
Watts broke away from the Traditionalist line in [the book] Beyond Theology.
read most of this very good book and what I think of as its companion, Behold
Theology: The Art of Godmanship
Spirit; A Study in the Necessity of Mystical Religion
is not a scrap of evidence that the Christian hierarchy was ever aware of
itself as one among several lines of transmission for a universal
true. Some early Fathers' writing
stressed the non-novelty of Christianity, saying why criticize us, our
philosophy is the same as all your pagan philo-religion. And, notice how Watts qualifies this: the
Christian *hierarchy* refused placement next to other systems -- but what about
non-hierarchical Christianity and its adherents? (Gnostic Christianity per Freke & Gandy; the Mary Magdalene
church vs. the Church of Peter).
typically placed Christianity next to other systems, and had little exclusive
commitment to official hierarchical Christianity.
[official, hierarchical Christianity] do not take at all kindly to ideas that
even begin to question the unique and supreme position of the historical
Jesus... Christianity is a contentious faith which requires an all-or- nothing
commitment to Jesus as the one and only incarnation of the Son of
God." For this Watts was summarily
dismissed by the Trads.
that's inherent in the tradition; he showed himself to belong to the church of
Mary Magdalene, or gnostic Christianity, or esoteric Christianity. He dismissed himself; the tradition isn't
about to budge from its profitable franchise strategy.
a review [of Watts' Beyond Theology, I presume] in their [the traditional
hierarchical Christians'? Schuon's?] house organ, Studies in Comparative
Religion, Watt's relation to Guenon et. al. was described as "a
speculative intelligence drew him hither, and a speculative unintelligence drew
him thither-- thither being the empty riddles of Krishnamurti." Anathema est!
the context, that quote is full of ambiguities. Can you resolve? --
relation to Guenon et. al. was described as "a speculative intelligence
[Watts' own? Schuon's?] drew him hither [to what school? Schuon's &
Guenon's?], and a speculative unintelligence [Watts'? Krishnamurti's?
Schuon's?] drew him thither-- thither being the empty riddles of
Krishnamurti. [did Watts embrace Krishnamurti's views?]"
agrees with Wilber, but does Wilber even mention the other two main Vendatin
Wilber on CD-ROM, or a global index, I don't know.
for one asserts that higher than the experience of unity is that of a personal
relation with Krishna, as the Gita indeed teaches;
I am able
to agree, using metaphorical flexibility: in the intense mystic altered state,
it is common to experience the block universe, and then experience a fatally
problematic and unstable loss of practical control, leading to calling out for
an impossible, personal, compassionate, transcendent rescue from dire straits
-- an absolute emergency for which an impossible rescue from outside the system
is required, even if impossible or irrational or transrational.
This is a
leap of faith and ascension into the transcendent, divine realm. This sequence is reflected in the godman
mystery-religions and in the common idea of "compassionate deities".
can expect "theorists" (who presuppose the superiority of knowledge
to faith) to disagree.
to consider knowledge as superior to faith -- it depends on your definition or
model of 'knowledge' and 'faith', and these definitions all switch together
with respect to which interpretive framework is used: the literalist, or the
intense mystic-state experiential metaphorical framework. I advocate a conception of 'faith' that is
grounded in and defined from within the realm of knowledge-informed intense
mystic experiencing, not the kind of blind credulity in literalist assertions
as the low religionists have.
systematic model I'm pulling together, fully developed knowledge is needed and
some type of faith or hyperdrive into the transcendent realm above logic is
needed. Logic dictates that one's
near-future movements of will are timelessly frozen and preexistent. Vividly comprehending and grasping that can
produce control-seizure and fully destabilized control, or suchlike desperate
states, when self-command is put to the ultimate test.
however conceived, is an eminently useful, life-saving move. If logic gets you down, in the throes of ego
death, transcend it -- not out of disrespect for logic, but because perfect
logic causes control instability. I
gather that a mind based on illusory freewill self-control agency cannot gaze
upon perfectly consistent thinking and remain stable.
faith serves as a rescuing stabilizer; the only solution is gaining the mind of
the transcendent godman, who exercises compassion/mercy/faith/love as well as
person with a transcendent, divine mind or mental worldmodel rests one foot on
mature, perfected worldly reason, and the other on transcendent faith of this
theology of 'faith' and 'being saved' steals a legitimate basis from intense
mystic state insights and problems -- problems of personal sovereign
controllership and the experience of breakdown of freewill moral agency. Religion is true, when understood from
within the mystic interpretive framework, which is the true origin of
religion. When faith is stolen from the
mystic realm and bandied about in the literalist realm of low religion, then
faith is debased and illegitimate.
comes down to the high vs. low version of each element: faith, demons,
salvation, magic, miracles, apocalypse, the last judgement, angels, and any
other challenging clever puzzles you can throw at the mystic mind, master of
metaphorical puzzles about allegorization of mystic phenomena and insights and
desperately problematic and awesome, fearsome situations that one encounters
during the ascent through the planetary deterministic spheres.
in the scriptures is true, when read from within the mystic-state metaphorical
interpretive framework, and every word of the scriptures is false, when read
from the low-religion, literalist and supernaturalist interpretive framework.
was one way of looking at Sherrard's point.
To even want a "theory" of comparative religion is already to
privilege theory over personal relations;
theory I'm pulling together privilege theory over personal relations? The bulk of my systematic model is theory
and not dependent on personal relations with transcendent deities. However, my model explains why it's so
common to pray for compassionate personal rescue from outside the deterministic
system, impossible as that may be according to purified and fully developed
reason, during the advanced peak of an intense entheogenic mystic-state
of frozen timeless block-universe determinism won't save you from loss of
control or severe control instability -- control breakdown and seizure -- given
that this model is designed to zero in on exactly that orgasmic
control-breakdown climax, that strange attractor the mind discovers as its awesome
rightful heritage during heavy loose cognition.
stability, when logic fails to help and only exacerbates the control-seizure
problem, we can have only a recourse of something other than logic -- here, the
mind truly gets religion and transcendent knowledge. Purified reason raises a problem and purified reason can only
solve the problem by leaping outside the boundaries of purified reason. There are parallels in Hofstadter's book The
Mind's I and Godel, Escher, Bach.
purified reason rescue practical control stability which is brought about
because of purified reason? Yes, but
only by purified reason comprehending how total the problem is, and realizing
the impossibility of solving the problem using the native resources within the
realm of purified reason. Purified
reason gains high wisdom and humility, being informed by the fullness of
reason comes to the logical conclusion that a saving move is needed, to resume
stable control, and that saving move cannot be provided from within purified
reason. The conclusion is that purified
reason must go beyond itself; it's the only logical solution, this
transcendence of logic.
concludes, based on its intense mystic-state loose-cognition experience
combined with hyper-clear reasoning, that the solution to the problem of
control instability cannot come from within hyper-clear reasoning, but must
transcend reasoning; one must gain the divine mental worldmodel.
reasoning discovers frozen-time determinism, then immediately after, the
problem of control, and then, the solution of transcendent self-rescue by
refusing that very perfected reasoning that successfully brought one to this
awesome transcendent problematic state.
It's ironic that the moment reason attains that much sought-after
perfect consistency, the mind has to drop it like a hot potato to regain
practical control stability, virtual egoic sovereignty, now no longer taken as
a literal reality.
perfect reason like a hot potato is connected to sacrifice of the lower mental
worldmodel, and ascending into the divine compassionate super-personal realm
and way of thinking. Purified
rationality is like the harsh justice of the lower god, and the hyperleap of
perfected rationality beyond itself is like personal compassion of a rescuer
from outside the deterministic, rational system or mental worldmodel.
This is an
accurate description of the spirit and concerns of Hellenistic religion, which
was entheogen-based. It is somewhat
arbitrary whether one eventually identifies the transcendent rescuer as a
person separate from oneself, or a self in which one participates. Christianity has it both ways. The saved person relates to Jesus and is in
Jesus -- as one is married to one's spouse and is united with one's spouse in a
be called a personal relationship between oneself as lower being (son) and
higher being (father), or one's female (egoic?) self and one's male
(transcendent?) self. The highest level
of religion can be metaphorically described as a personal relationship between
the saved and the savior, with both united, and both can be considered aspects
of a person's mind, as all religious characters are metaphors for aspects of
it's no surprise that the theorist comes up with the usual "dualism
evolves to unity" line.
there is some flexibility when metaphor is used -- and language is inherently
metaphorical. Mastery of semantics is
required for enlightenment and especially for theorizing about enlightenment.
if the origin and content and point of religion is entheogenic experience, ...
we can access the core (or summit) of religious experience, directly, now, with
even more efficiency, and cut through all these sterile debates that try to
find the "real unity". As
Wittgenstein might say, two thousand years of theology condensed to a drop of
debates can be cast aside, but skilled construction of descriptions and
transcendent mastery of metaphor and semantics is still required, to construct
ergonomic, useful explanatory systems that can be effectively integrated with
loose-cognition sessions and the experiences they bring, so that the mind can
fully experience mystic insight and fully comprehend mystic experiencing, both
halves building each other up.
let's simply jettison the mutually incompatible systems, and proceed directly
to the source/point!
theory cannot ignore the mutually incompatible systems. If it truly is superior, it must prove
itself by making sense out of the inferior systems, to replace them. To replace the inferior, muddled systems, it
is necessary to provide a bridge or explanatory easy downhill tube that
provides an easier, more compelling explanation of those systems than is
provided by the usual conception of those systems.
you provide a clearer and more coherent system of Christianity, are
low-Christianity adherents able to easily switch, through conversion within
Christianity from low Christianity to high Christianity and finally to direct
and straightforward, minimally metaphorical systematic religion, such as
Platonism aimed to be.
half-baked systematic model of the perennial philosophy fails to compel lower
religionists to convert to higher religion, and fails to get them to further
convert from the high version of their religion to the nonmetaphorical direct
religion like my core theory of transcendent knowledge.
best model of religion must provide a completely clear and direct and basically
nonmetaphorical explanation of religious concepts, and must also bridge from
the previous major religious systems to demonstrate clearly that they are more
or less distorted, inferior expressions of this ideal systematization.
dismissing low religion (literalist Christianity, mid-level Buddhism) is
absolutely guaranteed to fail; it's impossible and is not an option; adherents
like a bee "stuck" in a window will remain stuck in that reality
tunnel or Matrix-like self-reinforcing interpretive framework.
way to release them is to go into their worldmodel and add at the top a tunnel
through to the clearer, more coherent, nonmetaphorical systematization --
mapping all of their religious elements to the clearly superior and more
rewarding and satisfying system.
meaningful kind of enlightenment is structured rational enlightenment.
say that upon conception, enlightenment is present, but then it becomes
forgotten shortly after birth, hidden behind religious dogmas and power and
parental beliefs. Wilber calls that the
pre/trans fallacy. Without a highly
developed rational mind, there is no enlightenment, only pre-rational fusion of
we CAN say that at 49 days the pineal gland is finished developing to the point
where it floods the brain with DMT and from that point the developing baby is
PSYCHEDELIC. So YES, we have good reason to speculate the infant is enlightened
BECAUSE of the flood of DMT. This psychedelia/enlightenment becomes forgotten
or lost after birth because of progressive atrophy of the gland. This silly
little statement therefore has more truth within that previously imagined.
loose-cognition state or mystic state is distinct from enlightenment. The mystic state enables perceiving and
thinking differently. After enough such
perceiving and thinking, enlightenment can be put together by the mind, as a
definite, particular structure -- a set of concepts and mental structures. Enlightenment is a set of mental structures
that is fairly easily formed when combining mature rationality with the
loose-cognition state. The
loose-cognition state itself is not enlightenment -- loose cognition is the
computational mode that enables enlightenment to be calculated and
concluded. The infant may have the
loose-cognition state, but it does not have the intricate mental structuring
that is enlightenment.
think enlightenment is a vague and spiritual thing are bound to make the
pre/trans fallacy and fail to distinguish between the mystic state of cognition
(loose association) and the conceptual structures that are naturally formed and
nurtured within that state.
maintain that enlightenment is a specific set of concepts forming
"knowledge" in the common sense of the term accept that the infant or
psychotic or spiritualist experience the mystic state -- that is, loose
cogition -- but reject the implication that such minds contain the highly
structured knowledge that is enlightenment.
deny that enlightenment is certain structured knowledge, it's even easy to
suppose that an animal is enlightened.
My definition of enlightenment as some particular structured knowledge
(specifically, the concepts presented at http://www.egodeath.com/intro.htm )
inherently rejects the possibility of an enlightened infant or an enlightened
can only be enlightened insofar as they can understand the concepts I have
outlined. That definition and specific
programme of enlightenment might displease those who wish for enlightened
animals, but that's how the system of enlightenment I'm packaging works.
have different expectations of what enlightenment is all about or even what the
word enlightenment *should* mean. After
people understand my system that I sometimes portray as
"enlightenment", they might reject it as an undesirable goal and
definition of enlightenment, and seek instead to pursue or invent or define
some other kind of "enlightenment".
still can claim that I am defining the only definition of enlightenment that
makes sense, that means anything, that delivers its promise. There is the specific kind of enlightenment
I have exactly outlined and embodied in a small set of more or less simple
concepts, and across the way are a dozen vendors of common enlightenment,
defined as hard to convey, hard to understand, rare to be experienced, a thing
of infinite value and rarity -- basically an enlightenment that has been
elevated beyond any practical grasp of ordinary people.
of enlightenment I am pulling together is disappointingly simple and rational
and denies metaphysical freedom, and denies the possibility of enlightened
infants or enlightened animals -- but it is *easy*, reliable, definite,
testable, specific, fast, efficient -- too much so, if you ask the person who
is suffering from too intense understanding and is desperately trying to forget
and stop being enlightened.
two kinds of enlightenment: the vague and divinely elevated and out-of-reach kind,
which is something to be worshipped without comprehension, and the specific,
finite, limited, and very easily attained kind, which is something to be even
regretted at times, like the sobriety of adulthood after the fantasies of
childhood are let go of.
is unclear how a progressive entheogenist should respond to the views of those
spiritualists who downplay or fail to honor and worship entheogens.
I'm sick of their pontification, persecution, prosecution, and denegrating,
condescending attitudes which typify their self-absorbed ignorance.
OK, I will
oppose them and in some way ignore them, but I do have to pay attention to the
misguided at least so I can work on the difficult task of expressing just how
deeply they are misguided. I will say
"The attitudes and outlook you hold on this subject are entirely wrong and
misguided and are the opposite of higher knowledge."
been trying to study the common spiritualist thinking. I am not alone here. A good example is provided in other true
mystics who reject the notion of metaphysically free will and the kind of moral
autonomy ideas that go along with it.
Such mystics are scandalous because they reject the very foundation of
common moral thinking.
why the most hardcore mystics are thought of as decadent orgyists -- not
necessarily because of the acts of such morality-denying mystic theorists, but
because their theory absolutely undermines the assumptions of what morality is
all about. To the Catholic moralists of
his time, Luther responded by denying free will, with his book whose title is
best translated "The enslavedness of the will."
It is hard
work to continuously drive away half my audience every day, a hard labor of
violating common happy assumptions.
Perhaps the mind needs fantasies and hopes and wishful thinking, rather
than sober maturity and knowledge of limits.
thrive more when we can believe that there is yet some higher kind of
enlightenment, that will free us somehow, and raise even the infants and
animals to some hoped-for future exalted state. By putting enlightenment on a superhumanly high pedestal, we can
happily worship it, chasing it day after day in a state of mind that is happier
than if we actually ever *reached* the goal.
humanity ever attained enlightenment, it would be forced to postulate some yet
higher and more abstruse kind of enlightenment, lest it kill itself from
boredom and the despair of finitude.