"I cannot understand a thing," then what is metaphysical discussion oriented around?

[sjel]

What is meant to be achieved by discussing topics such as the higher densities and the idea of Self? By definition these concepts cannot be expressed in words.

Any description of literally anything beyond third density is completely and utterly lacking. That is the only realization that can be achieved by discussing higher densities.


*note that of course I am intensely interested in higher densities and descriptions of Self and Selfless states, and I will continue to ask and wonder. But I feel like there is no substance at all to any words or even thoughts attached to these concepts.

My confusion grows.

[anagogy]

Words are signs. Pointers. They can't communicate the reality, but they might light the way for some people. Everybody has access to intuition. Sometimes words help people zone in on metaphysical realities that they know on an intuitive level, but couldn't intellectually verbalize in a logical manner. It is like listening to music. You don't need someone to tell you that a song is harmonious, you just know it, balls to bones. Intuition is the same way once it is honed, you can hear the pitch, the rhythm, and timbre of the truth being expressed. The serious truth seeker is engaged in a constant journey of synthesizing logic and intuition.

[Aion]

The allure of the mystery.

[Infinite Unity]

What is meant to be achieved by discussing topics such as the higher densities and the idea of Self? By definition these concepts cannot be expressed in words.

Any description of literally anything beyond third density is completely and utterly lacking. That is the only realization that can be achieved by discussing higher densities.


*note that of course I am intensely interested in higher densities and descriptions of Self and Selfless states, and I will continue to ask and wonder. But I feel like there is no substance at all to any words or even thoughts attached to these concepts.

My confusion grows.

I agree to a large extent it is utterly useless to try and teach unity awareness. I do believe it is good inspiration though. My personal belief is that the people experiencing these profound states wish to jut talk about it. To just express. Its one of those things you just want to run around and tell people about. The energy the emotion...

It is not that there is no self. It is that the self extends into everything. In my opinion stop trying to lose the self, and realize the true self.

You been reading Tibetan books?

[I am Shayne]

Awesome statements! :

"Words are signs. Pointers."

"..stop trying to lose the self, and realize the true self."

What is meant to be achieved by discussing topics such as the higher densities and the idea of Self?

I think; because quantifying infinity is a fun game to play.

[Cobrien]

Well let's consider a "word" is and what a string of them is used to elucidate from a mechanical point of view.

I'm biased because I've considered this. What do you think?

[Bring4th_Austin]

Along the lines of what anagogy said, words and discussion are like the finger pointing to the moon. The finger is not the moon, but it can be helpful.

And really, if you think about it, discussing "higher densities" (or other specific topics beyond the scope of 3rd density experience from the Ra material) is, on the surface, irrelevant to practical and spiritual lives. We are here in 3rd density living our 3rd density lives, understanding the conditions of 6th density is a bit like understanding the temperature of the surface of Mercury. Sure, it's interesting information, but how can we apply it to our life in a direct way?

I think the reason we find such discussion so compelling is because it puts our own experience within a certain context, provides contrast and comparison, story and myth, ideals and inspiration. We can't directly use knowledge of higher densities in a meaningful way, but they certainly can correlate to our current experiences. We can hear about the conditions of 6th density, but like you say, any description or image of such conditions is pointless as it has been grasped within our 3rd density paradigm. But doesn't it help us to understand and expand our 3rd density paradigm?

Not only are things like higher densities correlated to our experiences through the energy centers, but contemplating and imagining them seem to put us in a different state of consciousness. We can relate descriptions of higher densities to ways we have felt, ideals and morals we have attempted to grasp, ways of being that we can see play out in our own lives and around the world. We go through our own microcosmic progression every second of every day, to which the densities are a macrocosm. As a fractal, the actual higher density might be out of our current grasp, but there is a direct experience we are having now that resonates with the discussion of higher densities, and they are of the same progression.

Do you feel you have not gained anything from such discussions?

[Diana]

Read Flatland. Being exposed to the exploration, even in words, of realities beyond one's own present reality, expands consciousness. It may not provide understanding—that comes later. But it widens the view. It reminds us of possibilities. 

[APeacefulWarrior]

Yeah, Flatland is a really good illustration of limited perception, as well as hinting at what it might be like if humans were able to cross over into the "fourth dimension." Too bad about the Victorian sexism, which is kind of egregious at points, but if someone can get past that there's definitely quite a lot of value in reading it.

[Infinite]

We attract what we think. Even though in an abstract context, concentrating on higher dimensions inevitably elevates us to the high vibrations of our infinite universe.

Peace, love and light.

[sjel]

Do you feel you have not gained anything from such discussions?

I have gained an unshakable sense of wonder and mystery for sure.

I guess I'm just wondering how to simultaneously not understand and conceptualize at the same time. Socrates said 'the only thing I know is that I know nothing.' But he was a philosophical genius. What is it that he was describing in his writings and teachings, then, if he was constantly aware of his lack of understanding? What is one communicating when they know they know nothing?

[sjel]

The serious truth seeker is engaged in a constant journey of synthesizing logic and intuition.

It kind of feels like intuition is all there is. It is starting to feel like logic is just a subset of intuition. Like intuition is the mainframe, and logic is the little illusory programs that you play with along the way. Like intuition is what you're attached to, the rope that pulls you ever upward, and logic are the playgrounds that you stop at along your path until you outgrow that one, on to the next, more advanced form of logic. But logic will always be abandoned eventually.

[Night Owl]

I stumbled upon this video a few minutes ago and I feel like it is intimately tied with this subject.



Welcome to lygometry

Lygometry (“lygo”: latin for shadow or darkness “Metry”: Measurement) so lygometry is a process where you measure things you know that you do not know, questions on knowledge that you know you don't have, it's like searching or ask the questions about those dark or shadowy place which you know you know nothing about.

Apparently the creator has created a reversopedia which is some kind of wikipedia of all that we know we don't. How interesting

Interesting quote from the video about the unknown and it's dark side: ''Lygometry, asking the open questions, acknowledging the things you know you don't know, is a very vulnerable process. But if you endure the pressure, if you can get through it, on the other side there's creativity, there's innovation, there's liberation. No pressure, no diamond''

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

It's oriented around our desire to look at these things from a much more open and mysterious perspective.

If you're a wanderer, you aready know a lot of these things.  Imagine being Einstein and you choose to live as a child Einstein who didn't know all he does now, who gets to rediscover everything all over again but in a new way, from a potentially new personality, and a very different viewpoint.  And this kid Einstein one day says, 'I wonder what things are like at the speed of light.  In one way, this kid knows, but right now he doesn't. His mind is free to grasp openly, speculate largely, he has no template but has aready done it, maybe he remembers a little bit and it helps, or through the same faculties Einstein discovered e=mc2 he as a kid will rediscover e=mc2 or perhaps something else entirely new now that he is getting to try again with a previous success.

But throughout it all, what was the point?  That kid Einstein can't possibly understand the depth of what that knowledge entails, he as a kid won't be able to go much beyond his previous success, but as a kid, to be there even then is enough to expand things.

Talking about higher stoof, is giving us wanderers (and 3D's) chances to give 3D ideas beyond its time to advance it.  Its like a Buddha, only in idea form instead of Corporeal.  It helps 3D with its simple presence there.

The Point is that there Is No Point, EXCEPT, The Point You Author.

Earth would be very different if it didn't know it was going into another kind of reality.  Good thing these higher things helped inform it with some ideas though

[rva_jeremy]

The serious truth seeker is engaged in a constant journey of synthesizing logic and intuition.

It kind of feels like intuition is all there is. It is starting to feel like logic is just a subset of intuition. Like intuition is the mainframe, and logic is the little illusory programs that you play with along the way. Like intuition is what you're attached to, the rope that pulls you ever upward, and logic are the playgrounds that you stop at along your path until you outgrow that one, on to the next, more advanced form of logic. But logic will always be abandoned eventually.

I definitely am starting to feel like this, but I suspect this is merely a function of balancing against a great deal of intellectual imbalance on my part.

In my opinion--and this is just my opinion--logic, reason, rationality, etc. are just heuristics for evaluating information within a particular context.  What the spiritual demands is a fluidity of context in which these heuristics operate, a fluidity that can only come from understanding the deeper self employing the heuristic.  In my life I find this often feels like a kind of comfort with or acceptance of paradox, ambiguity, and lack of resolution.  

I find when I stress the logical, it is largely about satisfying myself with the comfort of resolution, where every element has a clear explanation that reinforces every other element.  It is not about finding out what is "true" nearly as much as achieving a conclusion that is sufficiently true to placate me.  I find much discourse that describes itself as rational operates this way, where the goal is achieving certainty within the material context instead of actually following all the threads of logic (since each one of these threads  followed long enough can lead to conclusions that contradict the others).

I concur with the other posters here who have described words as pointers, but I think there's a larger point to be made: you have to do your homework in order to make the best use of class time.  One has to do the work of finding the things within being pointed at.  Otherwise, discussing the Law of One will be a mostly intellectual exercise of debate and definition, building a complex metaphysical model that allows for a shallow sense of resolution while not exploring any of the substance and rich meaning below the surface.  

I agree wholeheartedly with you that there's not much point endlessly discussing the ineffable, the intangible, the paradoxical that is at the center of our common search--except if you augment that discussion with your own inner work.    Discussions such as this one can never be that substantive experience, but they can call upon your substantive experience and draw your attention to new, novel, radical ways of thinking and feeling it.  

In other words, understanding is not of this density because the kind of resolution that typically attends understanding is largely unreachable.  This is because our lives are not for their own sake, in my opinion, but are means to a greater end.  As means, they do not self-resolve.  We must look for resolution in deeper waters.

[Minyatur]

I always liked to say that while a picture is worth a thousand words, so is a word worth a thousand pictures.

The pointer thing is probably the best analogy for anyone with a background in computer science and computer languages are a good example for the versability of keywords toward the same end, which shows that in the end its all about intelligent patterns and that from them you can build anything.

Also, walls of text may sometimes seem like a lot of mental gymanastics from another's perspective, but like in my case, most of my posts are single streams of thought which I re-read and refine and edit afterwards a bit in the wording and such. But a single huge block of text, more often than not, is but an attempt to paint a single picture or idea through words.

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

Sorry for the bump but I noticed no one really answered this question:

What is one communicating when they know they know nothing?

So I will.

Your Q: What is one communicating when they know they know nothing?
My A: Beliefs.

[Dekalb_Blues]

~
Apropos to your question, Sjel, cue one of Man's most important works of art (for those with weird-enough ears/eyes to hear/see):



Premiered in Paris (en francaise, ne sais-tu pas!), in 1953; premiered in London (in English, don't you know!), 1955.
For an exemplary depiction of the type of fervour and lucidity that typically lies at the very heart of the average everyday human metaphysical discussion, see Lucky's learned and lucid thinktank-worthy discourse following 44:30.
Note: qua (Latin 'which way', 'as', from ablative singular feminine of qui 'who') in the capacity or character of, e.g. an analysis of art qua art, leaving aside its commercial aspect, or art qua commodity.

From a percipient commenter: "[Beckett's] work is all 'about' skating the paradoxical postmodernist line between the epistemological and ontological understanding." [Sorta takes all the mystery out of it, don't it?]

From another: "I've read that in an interview, Becket said if he meant 'God' he would've said 'God'. Whilst it is not wrong to view it like that, because all forms of art are supposed to have subjective interpretations, others have suggested that 'Godot' could mean 'Godillot'.
Godillot is a French military boot*, much like the one Estragon takes on and off. An idea is that the boot represents distractions [read a la Ra: distortions]; something to do all day 'When there isn't anything to be done.'
Further evidence for this is that Samuel Beckett was in the French military on an outpost. [Well, close. In World War II he served as an intelligence officer in the paramilitary French Resistance.] Perhaps he one day got bored, finding that the only interesting thing to do was to take on and off his boot?"
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fr:Alexis_Godillot (1816-1893) maker of military footwear; colloquially, godillot has come to mean "clodhopper"

The playwright speaks: "It would be fatuous of me to pretend that I am not aware of the meanings attached to the word 'Godot', and the opinion of many that it means 'God'. But you must remember -- I wrote the play in French, and if I did have that meaning in my mind, it was somewhere in my unconscious and I was not overtly aware of it."

I like the way Coordinate_Apotheosis put it:
"Your Q: What is one communicating when they know nothing? My A: Beliefs."
I'd put it that most metaphysical talk is actually phatic noise communally uttered in group-conditioning-and-re-conditioning support of some cockamamie tribal belief-system, the more absurd the better, as only the purported Higher Whatever could possible perform the miracles required to wade through the nonsense to some effectual end, thus neatly supporting said H.W.'s unique Whateverness.

Compare these comments from Idries Shah: "All systems, cults, metaphysical groups and almost all human organisations practise conditioning."
And, "Words alone do not communicate: there must be something prepared, of which the words are a hint." And, "Answers are nothing. Experience is everything. But the answer gives you the wherewithal to acquire experience."
The idea is that the emitting-symbolic-noises-thing will work for all it's worth if folks in discussions using words of this or that language (with all their attendant cultural-bound semantic baggage of assumptions, beliefs, expectations, etc.) can remain conscious of the limited character of the linguistic approach to truth -- that it is at best only a temporary bridging tool between personal particularity and objective infinity**, and can keep in mind that yapping back and forth is only something to be employed until one can (through intelligent exploitation of language's limited uses for delivering useful information and patterns) perhaps find one's way to better tools, using more advanced, subtler means of communication.

** How's that for metaphysical jargon? I especially like the pseudo-significance of the alliteration. And just think, I wasn't even trying! My natural affinity for complete bull***tting coming out, that's all!

Meanwhile, if one dares to utter some perfectly reasonable statement along certain logical lines, people think that one is babbling mystically. For instance:
"The existence of a relative truth does not prove the non-existence of universal truth."
Or if one speaks matter-of-factly about the challenges and work required after the verbalizing phase, even self-declared purportedly open-minded metaphysicians, (especially them) look askance:

[from an interview with Idries Shah by Elizabeth Hall, in Psychology Today, July 1975:]

Elizabeth Hall: Sufis also seem to take extra-sensory perception as a matter of course and as not very interesting.

Idries Shah: Not interesting at all. It is no more than a by-product. Let me give you a banal analogy. If I were training to be a runner and went out every day to run, I would get faster and faster and be able to run farther and farther with less fatigue. Now, I also find that I have a better complexion, my blood supply is better, and my digestion has improved. These things don't interest me; they are only by-products of my running. I have another objective. When people I am associated with become overwhelmed by ESP phenomena, I always insist they stop it, because their objective is elsewhere.

Hall: They are supposed to be be developing their potential; not attempting to read minds or move objects around. Do you think that researchers will one day explain the physical basis of ESP or do you think it will always elude them?

Shah: If I say it will elude the scientists, it will annoy the people who are able to get enormous grants for research into ESP. But I think, yes, a great deal more can be discovered providing the scientists are prepared to be good scientists. And by that I mean that they are prepared to structure their experiments successively in accordance with their discoveries. They must be ready to follow and not hew doggedly to their original working hypothesis. And they will certainly have to give up their concept of the observer being outside of the experiment, which has been their dearest pet for many years.
And another thing, as we find constantly in metaphysics, people who are likely to be able to understand and develop capacities for ESP are more likely to be found among people who are not interested in the subject.

Hall: Is that because disinterest is necessary to approach the subject properly?

Shah: Something like that. Being disinterested, you can approach ESP more coolly and calmly. The Sufis say: 'You will be able to exercise these supernatural powers when you can put out your hand and get a wild dove to land on it.' But the other reason why the people who are fascinated by ESP or metaphysics or magic are the last who should study it is that they are interested in it for the wrong reasons. It may be compensation. They are not equipped to study ESP. They are equipped for something else: fear, greed, hate, or love of humanity.

Hall: Often they have a desperate wish to prove that ESP is either true or false.

Shah: Yes, that's what I call heroism. But it's not professionalism and that's what the job calls for.

http://www.idriesshahfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/TheSufiTradition.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


 You too can get your third-eye mojo workin'! No fussin', no mussin', just sheer groovin'!