Sorrow, Comon Father and Paying For Our Arising

[go2]

So when you say:

I begin to consider the inner subjective world of the feeling center to be the reconciliation of the thinking center and the instinctive-motor center. I ponder whether objective reason requires the inclusion of the subjective inner world of the feeling center of relationship to enter the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’.

I think you kind of identify the feeling center with subjectivity and subjectivity with the inner world and then its integration with the thinking and motor center as the means for achieve objectivity, when as I see it:

The observer (consciousness unit/soul) uses different organs of perception and knowledge which vary depending on the level of growth / evolution of this; the feeling center as the thinking center are organs of perception and knowledge, they are not subjective nor objective and their use in haras of objectivity or subjectivity completely depend of the observer.

So it is the observer whom is subjective and has the capacity to choose otherwise.

Ana, would you elaborate on and locate the observer in three-brained model and in the parable of the coach? What role do you attribute to the observer? If the observer is located in the Higher Emotional and the Higher Intellectual Center it has 'objective reason'. How can the observer exhibit subjectivity unless it is located in the lower centers? Here is a Catch 22 . How can the subjective observer choose? Choice is the privilege of a Real Man or a Real Woman whose lower centers are harmonized to receive the emanations of 'objective reason' from the higher centers. This is hard stuff for me to grasp.....I have to connect more synapses to harmonize the three-brain centers. :)

 

[ana]

So when you say:

I begin to consider the inner subjective world of the feeling center to be the reconciliation of the thinking center and the instinctive-motor center. I ponder whether objective reason requires the inclusion of the subjective inner world of the feeling center of relationship to enter the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’.

I think you kind of identify the feeling center with subjectivity and subjectivity with the inner world and then its integration with the thinking and motor center as the means for achieve objectivity, when as I see it:

The observer (consciousness unit/soul) uses different organs of perception and knowledge which vary depending on the level of growth / evolution of this; the feeling center as the thinking center are organs of perception and knowledge, they are not subjective nor objective and their use in haras of objectivity or subjectivity completely depend of the observer.

So it is the observer whom is subjective and has the capacity to choose otherwise.

Ana, would you elaborate on and locate the observer in three-brained model and in the parable of the coach? What role do you attribute to the observer? If the observer is located in the Higher Emotional and the Higher Intellectual Center it has 'objective reason'. How can the observer exhibit subjectivity unless it is located in the lower centers? Here is a Catch 22 . How can the subjective observer choose? Choice is the privilege of a Real Man or a Real Woman whose lower centers are harmonized to receive the emanations of 'objective reason' from the higher centers. This is hard stuff for me to grasp.....I have to connect more synapses to harmonize the three-brain centers. :)

Yes I'll try to :),
In the parable of the coach the observer/master is absent or its presence/essence is still feeble, this means the observer is identified with the lower centers. The center the observer is identified with brings life to the three diferent types of man, although it can vary in all of them.

The law of accident under wich these three types of man live brings them the necessary lessons for the observer to grow and step by step become more aware of itself.

This brings awareness of its possibilities and greater freedom to manage the three centers of perception and knowledge,the steady correct and balanced use of the three centers open the possibility to new organs of knowledge and perception first the higher emotional and the higher intelectual, wich must also be mastered in its fullest.

The concept of mastering has nothing to do with power per se but with freedom, growth and joy in its fullest possibilities wich also lead to precious works of service as a natural mode of existence .

Of course I may be wrong, this is just my current interpretation of how it works.

 

[go2]

I have a small gift for you, Ana.... :)

'When the soul was joined to the body it was part of the all; never has there been so marvelous a talisman. The soul had a share of that which is high and the body a share of that which is low; it was formed of a mixture of heavy clay and pure spirit. By this mixing man became the most astonishing of mysteries.'

 

[Laura]

None of you have really addressed the issue of his use of a male deity, nor have you fully addressed the idea that this male deity has infinite sorrow that our ancestors caused that we must pay for.

Personally, I don't know that G's statement was meant to be taken literally.

Indeed, I don't think it was literal, it was a metaphor to convey an idea.

In many ancient systems, the "soul" or animator is male/penetrating and the matter/mater, that which exists in a state of receptivity, is feminine. I see nothing wrong with this representation. In fact, if "things that are real" are "words" in the cosmic story, and those words are "true" to their arising/source, then the male/female dynamic is exactly metaphorical as well.

I would suggest that Limit spend some time reading Chittick's exposition on Al-Arabi: "The Sufi Path of Knowledge."

 

[ana]

I have a small gift for you, Ana.... :)

'When the soul was joined to the body it was part of the all; never has there been so marvelous a talisman. The soul had a share of that which is high and the body a share of that which is low; it was formed of a mixture of heavy clay and pure spirit. By this mixing man became the most astonishing of mysteries.'

Thanks so much go2

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Ana, would you elaborate on and locate the observer in three-brained model and in the parable of the coach? What role do you attribute to the observer? If the observer is located in the Higher Emotional and the Higher Intellectual Center it has 'objective reason'. How can the observer exhibit subjectivity unless it is located in the lower centers? Here is a Catch 22 . How can the subjective observer choose? Choice is the privilege of a Real Man or a Real Woman whose lower centers are harmonized to receive the emanations of 'objective reason' from the higher centers. This is hard stuff for me to grasp.....I have to connect more synapses to harmonize the three-brain centers. :)

Yes I'll try to :),
In the parable of the coach the observer/master is absent or its presence/essence is still feeble, this means the observer is identified with the lower centers. The center the observer is identified with brings life to the three diferent types of man, although it can vary in all of them.

The law of accident under wich these three types of man live brings them the necessary lessons for the observer to grow and step by step become more aware of itself.

This brings awareness of its possibilities and greater freedom to manage the three centers of perception and knowledge,the steady correct and balanced use of the three centers open the possibility to new organs of knowledge and perception first the higher emotional and the higher intelectual, wich must also be mastered in its fullest.

The concept of mastering has nothing to do with power per se but with freedom, growth and joy in its fullest possibilities wich also lead to precious works of service as a natural mode of existence .

Of course I may be wrong, this is just my current interpretation of how it works.

How about this?

The Observer is normally objective (i.e. if it functions as it should), making use of the data provided by each of the three centers. It tests reality, it 'digests' it as the body digests food. But as we are, we are subjective. We take everything in mechanically, like a person who eats food and poison, not actively differentiating between the two.

When the Observer is not present and functioning as it should (as in our waking state of 'consciousness'), each center acts as a sort of 'pseudo-observer' or 'I'. The lower self usurps the thrown of the true Master. This identification with the source of data for development is subjective by our definition.

 

[ana]

How about this?

The Observer is normally objective (i.e. if it functions as it should), making use of the data provided by each of the three centers. It tests reality, it 'digests' it as the body digests food. But as we are, we are subjective. We take everything in mechanically, like a person who eats food and poison, not actively differentiating between the two.

When the Observer is not present and functioning as it should (as in our waking state of 'consciousness'), each center acts as a sort of 'pseudo-observer' or 'I'. The lower self usurps the thrown of the true Master. This identification with the source of data for development is subjective by our definition.

Agree, I think it greatly explains the concept.
Maybe we can add that it is in this state of subjectivity that we become "food for the moon" and that only the observer can make a difference as Laura explains in The nonlinear dynamics of love and complex systems -Debugging the Universe

 

[LIMIT]

None of you have really addressed the issue of his use of a male deity, nor have you fully addressed the idea that this male deity has infinite sorrow that our ancestors caused that we must pay for.

Personally, I don't know that G's statement was meant to be taken literally.

Indeed, I don't think it was literal, it was a metaphor to convey an idea.

In many ancient systems, the "soul" or animator is male/penetrating and the matter/mater, that which exists in a state of receptivity, is feminine. I see nothing wrong with this representation. In fact, if "things that are real" are "words" in the cosmic story, and those words are "true" to their arising/source, then the male/female dynamic is exactly metaphorical as well.

I would suggest that Limit spend some time reading Chittick's exposition on Al-Arabi: "The Sufi Path of Knowledge."

Thank you for your advice Laura, but I have already moved on to the second in Chittick's series; "The Self Disclosure of God - Principles of Ibn al-'Arabi's Cosmology".

It remains very dangerous to fixate on a male deity, just look at the damage this has caused to females around the world subject to such bias.
All the best, LIMIT

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Thank you for your advice Laura, but I have already moved on to the second in Chittick's series; "The Self Disclosure of God - Principles of Ibn al-'Arabi's Cosmology".

It remains very dangerous to fixate on a male deity, just look at the damage this has caused to females around the world subject to such bias.
All the best, LIMIT

LIMIT, did you miss the point I made about psychopathy? If it wasn't for psychopaths, there would be no evil patriarchy. And if psychopathy was a predominantly female phenomenon, you'd be saying the same thing about the Goddess and Mother Earth. Gender isn't the issue, pathology is. What's wrong with the father figure as an archetype, anyways??? It seems YOU are the one fixated on a male deity. It's a symbol. Simple as that. No need to take a fly for an elephant here.