-
Posts
-
When it says “…whose existence cannot be materially demonstrated.”…I presume that means to mortals living still upon their material worlds of origin? I mean, mota and our morontial education and journey to Paradise and fusion with our Adjuster should provide a material or factual demonstration of objective reality, right?
Here’s a repeat of the quote in full:
103:9.9 (1141.7) The full realization of the reality of mortal life consists in a progressive willingness to believe these assumptions of reason, wisdom, and faith. Such a life is one motivated by truth and dominated by love; and these are the ideals of objective cosmic reality whose existence cannot be materially demonstrated.
Not exactly. What I think they’re saying is that truth and love are the most objectively real ideals in the whole cosmos but they are a subjective experience for the personality. Objective reality is love and truth but not the relationship one has with love and truth. Love and truth are personal qualities belonging to personalities, and relationships between persons are primarily subjective.
I can swear that I love my kids and they can rightfully say, “Really, then prove it.” And we all know that it can’t be proven objectively, only subjectively, yet the fact that it exists is undeniable to me. Love, like truth, is an inconcussible reality. I’m so sure of it, I’ll give my life for it. The same goes with God, who is Love. My kids could also ask me to prove I love God, but they wouldn’t dare, because they know it’s true and it’s also ridiculous to ask for such a thing. They may have said when they were young that the fact that they didn’t get their way with something is proof that I didn’t love them, but maturity generally cures that problem. Love and truth, the most objective ideals in the universe, simply cannot be proven objectively. The proof is the actual relationship itself.
(1139.2) 103:7.10 In the mortal state, nothing can be absolutely proved; both science and religion are predicated on assumptions. On the morontia level, the postulates of both science and religion are capable of partial proof by mota logic. On the spiritual level of maximum status, the need for finite proof gradually vanishes before the actual experience of and with reality; but even then there is much beyond the finite that remains unproved.
Yes indeed…thank you. Illuminating and clarifying. Not only do we gain objectivity over time and by spiritual progress and experiential wisdom…but the source and the context of confidence and conviction of fact and reality also changes. We may gain confidence in understanding in each phase or state but there are distinct phases/states wherein the nature of proofs changes…but no matter how much objectivity we may gain over time, our experience with the objective realities and ideals remains a very personal, and therefor subjective, relationship and experience, as we will always be personalities in relationship to all realities. We gain objective perspective of the whole but retain the subjective experience to or with the whole.
Hope I did not distort all that too much. I am most grateful to gain objectivity by the generous sharing of others here. Thank you Bonita!
Thanks Bradly.…but the source and the context of confidence and conviction of fact and reality also changes.
Maybe I’m reading this too literally, but as it is, I can say that I doubt the source changes, but the context certainly does. It’s all about the experience of discovering ways the potentials of love and truth can become actual in real life experience. The source of the objective realities of truth and love is always the same, no? It’s the application, or experience with love and truth that changes. It’s sort of like how personality never changes but the experiential character of the personality does. If change is synonymous with growth, then increasing confidence and conviction comes from increasing divinity attunement, or self-realization. There’s more to it than that, but in a nutshell, I think that’s how it goes.
Agreed. By “source”, I meant to agree with the quote posted:
(1139.2) 103:7.10 In the mortal state, nothing can be absolutely proved; both science and religion are predicated on assumptions. On the morontia level, the postulates of both science and religion are capable of partial proof by mota logic. On the spiritual level of maximum status, the need for finite proof gradually vanishes before the actual experience of and with reality; but even then there is much beyond the finite that remains unproved.
Our source of conviction and understanding changes form and format on these different levels. I remember that we will lose our need for curiosity as a Finaliter to keep us growing and learning. And that we gain evidence and experience of universe realities that diminish or change the nature of faith required for our earlier progress dependence on believing what we do not know. We will come to know more and more on the way to Paradise. But certainly there is only one ultimate “source” for everything…including love.
Bradly wrote:I remember that we will lose our need for curiosity as a Finaliter to keep us growing and learning.
Right. Apparently the “forward impulse of eternity” becomes a sufficient urge. Like being 100% on board and going with the flow, I guess.
(159.3) 14:5.7 Not until you traverse the last of the Havona circuits and visit the last of the Havona worlds, will the tonic of adventure and the stimulus of curiosity disappear from your career. And then will the urge, the forward impulse of eternity, replace its forerunner, the adventure lure of time.
Dear Bonita and Bradly – what a fabulous exploration you’ve led us along!
Too many things to cover each properly, so I’ll just add a few thoughts:
Regarding our attitude toward “the highest realms of universe objective reality“,
“Although religious experience is a purely spiritual subjective phenomenon, such an experience embraces a positive and living faith attitude toward the highest realms of universe objective reality.” (103:9.5)
the sense I get is that true “religious experience” implies that we have discovered — and chosen — a particular attitude toward the most objectively real — and subjectively desirable — thing in the universe: the love of the Father. Which of course touches the core of the relationship between Person and Adjuster:
“The Adjusters are the actuality of the Father’s love incarnate in the souls of men;” (107:0.2)
Thus Bonita must be on the right track by highlighting the Father’s personality circuit. “The thing that makes such an inner experience objectively real is the intimate personality-to-personality contact of creature and Creator through the Father’s personality circuit […]”
Regarding “philosophic objectification of idealistic desire” (103:9.5) Bonita hit the nail on the head: that attempts “to objectify that experience” belong to the domain where mind tries to make sense of it.
Regarding how and why metaphysics slips in, I think this is not so much philosophy taking a ride out of Realville, but the inevitable response of one who has dared to launch beyond their “full philosophic limit” (103:9.7). When a PERSON is soaring in the “sole company of Truth” (103:9.7) it can be hard for mere mind to keep up!
[PS]: Love the idea that our reality reflex response “pings“ with those “intuitions of validity” made accessible by the cosmic mind. As Bonita wrote, if we are simply willing to accept the reality reflex associated with (causation, duty, worship), we are able to recognize their validity.
Regarding our (post-curiosity) motivation as Finaliters, Bonita wrote:
“Right. Apparently the “forward impulse of eternity” becomes a sufficient urge. Like being 100% on board and going with the flow, I guess.”
From paper 106:7
“[…] Far from harassing the creature, the infinity of God should be the supreme assurance that throughout all endless futurity an ascending personality will have before him the possibilities of personality development and Deity association which even eternity will neither exhaust nor terminate.” (106:7.6)
with thanks!
Nigel
Thank you Nigel.
I’d like to expound on this statement:
Regarding how and why metaphysics slips in, I think this is not so much philosophy taking a ride out of Realville, but the inevitable response of one who has dared to launch beyond their “full philosophic limit” (103:9.7). When a PERSON is soaring in the “sole company of Truth” (103:9.7) it can be hard for mere mind to keep up!
I agree that metaphysics is a philosophical journey, but a person soaring in the “sole company of TRUTH” would be soaring in the morontia zone with another PERSON. Truth is a relationship which can only be experienced by a personality on the soul level of morontia reality. At least that is what the original quote is referring to. Metaphysics on the morontia level of reality is called revelation, no?
So, the mind having trouble keeping up would be the material, adjutant-level mind. Such a mind is incapable of experiencing morontia reality so it makes things up to fill in the gaps in order to stay whole. Metaphysics created by the philosophical material mind is doomed to failure according to TUB, but it I do think it is an inevitable phenomenon. The more soul-conscious a personality becomes, the more revelation it experiences and the less metaphysics it needs to fill the gaps (healthier, more real skin, thus fewer scabs to drop off ).
Personal, or self- revelation, or auto-revelation is a soul-level experience. Metaphysics is not revelation of any sort; it is a substitute for it. A personality soaring with TRUTH ALONE is no longer paying attention to the material mind’s metaphysical inventions. It’s been weaned off. Such a personality no longer has need for substitutes. This is a personality who has discovered the inevitable mind function created by the soul itself in order to foster it’s own growth:
111:3.4 Both the human mind and the divine Adjuster are conscious of the presence and differential nature of the evolving soul — the Adjuster fully, the mind partially. The soul becomes increasingly conscious of both the mind and the Adjuster as associated identities, proportional to its own evolutionary growth. The soul partakes of the qualities of both the human mind and the divine spirit but persistently evolves toward augmentation of spirit control and divine dominance through the fostering of a mind function whose meanings seek to co-ordinate with true spirit value.
Discovery and recognition of this mind function is an inevitable part of the ever-evolving love relationship between creature and Creator. It’s designed to be an open mental highway for personality identity transfer, a function which provides for the personality’s relationship with the divine persons living within the soul, not unlike the mind of Jesus exchange reference:
(553.7) 48:6.26 Even on Urantia, these seraphim teach the everlasting truth: If your own mind does not serve you well, you can exchange it for the mind of Jesus of Nazareth, who always serves you well.
Metaphysics is not a personality relationship with deity, nor does it qualify as divinity since it is a mental construct and not an actual personality acquirement to character development. Metaphysics is a substitute for a genuine religious experience with deity which naturally results in actual divinity attainment for the personality who identifies with it.
Personal, auto-, and self-revelation is the result of reality recognition by the personality within the soul. The personality is able to utilize two minds. One is material, the other is morontial. A personality who identifies with the morontia mind of its selfhood will become less and less material and more spiritual. A personality who soars in the sole company of TRUTH has left the material mind in the dust. I don’t think this is entirely possible while alive in the flesh. While alive we will always have two minds; we will never be in the sole company of TRUTH but for moments at a time. The more moments in the sole company of TRUTH the more real we become – less responsive to material gravity and more responsive to spirit gravity.
12.8.5 As the mind of any personality in the universe becomes more spiritual — Godlike — it becomes less responsive to material gravity. Reality, measured by physical-gravity response, is the antithesis of reality as determined by quality of spirit content. Physical-gravity action is a quantitative determiner of nonspirit energy; spiritual-gravity action is the qualitative measure of the living energy of divinity.
After rereading what I wrote yesterday, I realize I did a poor job of making my point. I’d like another stab at it.
Nigel has suggested that metaphysics is the result of the material mind attempting to build a philosophical construct around a personal religious experience with TRUTH. He theorizes that the material mind cannot keep up with the morontia mind of the soul where TRUTH exists and where one would have such soaring experiences in its company. He suggests that metaphysics is the only resource the intellect has to give meaning to the experience of the personality while in the sole company of TRUTH. I may be misunderstanding his words, but if I do understand them correctly, I don’t think the theory holds. My problem is to explain why I think so without causing more confusion. Here goes.
My theory: The material mind’s attempt to describe the personality’s experience with TRUTH in the soul is not equivalent to metaphysics.
Metaphysics is only necessary when the personality does not have an experience with TRUTH in the soul. Metaphysics is a substitute for revelation. Metaphysics is an intellectual attempt to give meaning to something unrevealed, or unknown. When the personality has had an experience with TRUTH in the soul regarding the particular unknown, that personality has experienced a revelation and no longer requires a metaphysical substitute for it. The unknown now has experiential meaning in relation to TRUTH.
The inability to explain such an experience does not take away the reality of its existence. I think this is so critical to understand. The inventions of the mind we call metaphysics is not an attempt to describe revelation, it is a substitute for the experience of revelation when it is absent.
For instance, when John described in Revelations the seven adjutants as “lamps burning before the throne”, he was not engaging in metaphysics. He was merely attempting to describe with his material intellect a revelatory experience he had in his soul. The reality of his experience and the truth revealed to him in that experience did not change because his material mind couldn’t “keep up” due to its inability to think on the morontia level. Likewise, John did not attempt to take the idea of seven burning lamps and build a metaphysical construct around it.
But many of those who later read John’s description of his adventure in the sole company of TRUTH did just that. They built a myriad of metaphysical musings based on his descriptions. How many metaphysical versions of the Apocalypse have grown from John’s innocent attempt to describe a personal religious experience? The Apocalypse is a perfect example of metaphysics, a substitute for an individual experience in the sole company of TRUTH. I’m sure John, who did have the actual personal experience with TRUTH, never once considered the need for such metaphysical constructs.
Metaphysics is for those who have not had the experience. It’s a substitute for the actual experience of personal revelation. Truth is always a revelation. Metaphysics is not. Truth reveals inconcussible reality as a personal experience, forever part of the soul. Metaphysics constructs a mental philosophy around something which is yet unrevealed, or remains unknown due to the absence of personal experience in the sole company of TRUTH. Once that happens, metaphysics lifts off like scabs, the reality of truth taking its place. And this is a continuous experience for any personality who has discovered and recognized the existence of living TRUTH in the soul and formed a relationship with him. When a person is in the sole company of TRUTH, that person is in the company of another person, a divine person who is continuously revealing the true relationship between all things and all persons.
101:4.3 Truth is always a revelation: autorevelation when it emerges as a result of the work of the indwelling Adjuster; epochal revelation when it is presented by the function of some other celestial agency, group, or personality.
101:2.12 Revelation as an epochal phenomenon is periodic; as a personal human experience it is continuous.
56:10.13 The recognition of true relations implies a mind competent to discriminate between truth and error. The bestowal Spirit of Truth which invests the human minds of Urantia is unerringly responsive to truth—the living spirit relationship of all things and all beings as they are co-ordinated in the eternal ascent Godward.
Hi Bonita,
You wrote:
“Metaphysics is for those who have not had the experience.”
Yes, I think this is on the right track. You also explain that…
“The inability to explain such an experience does not take away the reality of its existence. I think this is so critical to understand. The inventions of the mind we call metaphysics is not an attempt to describe revelation, it is a substitute for the experience of revelation when it is absent.”
Precisely. And as you go on to say, “metaphysics” emerges when we try to share that experience, or to objectify it. As humans, once we try to extrapolate beyond simply savoring the truth of the experience, we bump into those limitations and constraints that mean such experience is (for most of us) “too deep for words”. The phenomenon of Shakespeare et al. is the they find words that manage somehow to reflect some feature of that experiential truth.
Thus the “ping” when we meet such reflections, e.g. in art?
Thanks for going so deep into this!
Nigel
Hi Nigel,
Thanks so much for your willingness to reflect on this topic with me. I’m wondering if you’d also like to reflect on this:
The phenomenon of Shakespeare et al. is the they find words that manage somehow to reflect some feature of that experiential truth. Thus the “ping” when we meet such reflections, e.g. in art?
If the mission of art is to foreshadow a higher universe reality, as stated below, then perhaps some words do qualify as an art form. But do words, or can words, qualify as a revelation and provide the “ping” of the reality of truth? Is it possible that the “ping” of reality provided by word-art is the reality “ping” of philosophy/duty rather than truth/worship? Or can it be both?
48:7.23 21. The high mission of any art is, by its illusions, to foreshadow a higher universe reality, to crystallize the emotions of time into the thought of eternity.
I think it’s odd they refer to art as a form of illusion. How does illusion foreshadow reality? And what exactly are crystallized emotions? How do crystallized emotions turn into “the thought of eternity”? Peculiar isn’t it?
And what about TUB? Are the words in TUB an art form? Are they philosophy or are they truth? Are they illusions? Can truth be an illusion? We are told TUB is a revelation, which surely cannot be an illusion. Is revelation philosophy or is it truth? Do the words in TUB crystallize emotions into the thought of eternity? Lots to consider here.
101:9.4 The search for beauty is a part of religion only in so far as it is ethical and to the extent that it enriches the concept of the moral. Art is only religious when it becomes diffused with purpose which has been derived from high spiritual motivation.
Hi Bonita,
Great questions, but well outside my experiential depth!
Nevertheless, regarding words and revelation, and reflecting on the complexity and sophistication of both adjutant and soul response, how about “word-art” as one of those paths for discoveries to enter our private inner world, where our available systems of mind more or less recognize and interpret; and where we as persons choose ?
Regarding “art as a form of illusion”, and “crystallizing the emotions of time into the thought of eternity”…
“The high mission of any art is, by its illusions, to foreshadow a higher universe reality, to crystallize the emotions of time into the thought of eternity.” (48:7.23, 557.7)
Illusion derives from the Latin, {ludo, ludere, lusi, lusus}: {I play, to play, I shall have played…}; and the figurative (non-scientific) use of “crystallize” implies that something which was “indeterminate”, takes on some gem-like arrangement, or clarity, or beauty. Combining {illusion and crystallize} with enhanced artistic sensibilities (of Adamic mind?), I get the idea of playful, artistic arrangements that capture some indeterminate emotional response as a gem for future contemplation.
“The search for beauty is a part of religion only in so far as it is ethical and to the extent that it enriches the concept of the moral. Art is only religious when it becomes diffused with purpose which has been derived from high spiritual motivation.” (101:9.4, 1115.5)
When an artist tries playfully to crystallize a metaphysical illusion of a spiritual experience, such a work might help to trigger, in the minds of their fellows, a ping of discovery? Or of recognition?
just thinking out loud
Nigel
103:9.10 (1142.1) When reason once recognizes right and wrong, it exhibits wisdom; when wisdom chooses between right and wrong, truth and error, it demonstrates spirit leading. And thus are the functions of mind, soul, and spirit ever closely united and functionally interassociated. Reason deals with factual knowledge; wisdom, with philosophy and revelation; faith, with living spiritual experience. Through truth man attains beauty and by spiritual love ascends to goodness.
I find the “ping” concept helpful. We are told about the Cosmic Mind’s function of the reality-response. Consider sonar…the ping is the return/response of an object…in this case it is truth. How quickly the ping comes back to us tells us how close we are to the object…in this case, how close we are perhaps to truth? Things are true or not true but truth is relative to our personal experiential perceptivity and appreciation…meaning and value to the personal mind are not inherent in that which is true until discerned and appreciated! “When reason recognizes”…and “wisdom chooses”…then is truth discovered and not before. Sometimes the ping tells us truth is in a direction and some distance and sometimes the echo ping is very near…frequency of ping tells us our proximity to truth.
When an artist renders their interpretive expression of truth, it is always personalized and distorted. Whether painting or drawing, we get abstraction and impressionism and realism, and with musical instrument we get syncopation and note bending and improvisation in rhythm, melody, and harmony and in writing we get prose, poetry, screen play, joke and irony, comedy and tragedy. The expression of truth is always less and more than true because it’s realization and perception is so very personal.
Nigel Nunn wrote:Great questions, but well outside my experiential depth!Yeah, me too. Hope you don’t mind if I think out loud also, so don’t hold me to anything, I’m just musing . . .Nigel Nunn wrote: Nevertheless, regarding words and revelation, and reflecting on the complexity and sophistication of both adjutant and soul response, how about “word-art” as one of those paths for discoveries to enter our private inner world, where our available systems of mind more or less recognize and interpret; and where we as persons choose ?I think that’s a really good description of what I call the gateway. If art, including word-art, is an illusion, a shadow of reality, which has been discovered and recognized by the spirits of worship and wisdom as something with the potential of greater meaning, then of course they would urge the mind of the personality to send the inquiry to a higher source for deeper contemplation. That, of course, would be the soul which houses the spiritual philosopher capable of revealing new meanings.
1:6.1 . . . And no actuality can ever be adequately comprehended by an examination of its shadow. Shadows should be interpreted in terms of the true substance.
But isn’t the first step, the discovery of the shadow, a philosophical step? And the second step, a desire to interpret the shadow in terms of its true substance, a religious/spiritual step? Moreover, doesn’t the original philosophical step take heed of the material facts/things which contribute to the formation of the illusion in the first place? That would be all three levels of reality working in concert. I think that’s how the mind is supposed to work in its ideal state. Jesus used word-art in the form of parables because they encourage this normal process of mind ministry.
151:3.7 The parable proceeds from the things which are known to the discernment of the unknown. The parable utilizes the material and natural as a means of introducing the spiritual and the supermaterial.
When an artist renders their interpretive expression of truth, it is always personalized and distorted. Whether painting or drawing, we get abstraction and impressionism and realism, and with musical instrument we get syncopation and note bending and improvisation in rhythm, melody, and harmony and in writing we get prose, poetry, screen play, joke and irony, comedy and tragedy. The expression of truth is always less and more than true because it’s realization and perception is so very personal.
So, would you call that metaphysics? Or something else?
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.