DIALOGUE On Lessons 1-4, radical uncertainty and The Dragon.

 On Lessons 1-4, radical uncertainty and The Dragon.

A recent dialogue from our studygroup:

 

 

STUDENT A: To be sure, Lessons 1, 2,3 question the notion of "direct experience," and show that one is supplying all meaning to direct, empirical experience.

 

1. Nothing I see in this room ....... means anything.

 

2. I have given everything I see...... all the meaning that it has for me.

 

3. I do not understand anything I see.

 

4. These thoughts do not mean anything.

 

It should be also clear we are also giving meaning to all direct experiences of what is alleged to be direct experiences of such things termed as "ego,"  Christ, "God," "Sonship," "Oneness."

 

This is self evident in the sense, the "direct experience," allegedly beyond concepts and beyond judgment, are put into to word and concepts or given meaning. Given meaning certainly implies both judgment and concepts.

 

In addition, while "direct experience," can give confidence as a steadfast source of truth, its also obvious that the direct experience of say a Christian Heaven, with angels and streets of gold by a Christian, is clearly not evidence to everyone, not even all Christians, that Heaven is paved in streets of gold.

 

In the same way, large doses of morphine reportedly often produces an ego-less state of non-boundaries. Whether this ego less state is later described as a side effect of morphine or as an experience of Oneness is clearly a process of giving meaning and significance to the direct experience, which in turn clearly gives meaning to any "truth," extracted from the experience and expressed in words and concepts.

 

However in ACIM all expressed thoughts extracted from alleged "direct experience," are subject to lesson 4: these thoughts do not mean anything.

 

Which to many obviously applies the direct experience of  a Christian heaven by a Christian expressing the thought of a Christian Heaven, but not acceptable to many who claim a direct experience of God or Oneness and wish to similarly express a thought or concept about this experience. In this sense, the students' expressed thoughts about Oneness are as meaningless as a Christian Heaven.

 

To be sure, what is being described here is a system of self-referencing thoughts/language creating a intractable condition of radical uncertainty --in other words, there is no condition including direct experience which cannot be subjected to deconstruction, radical analysis and reductionism to be rendered meaningless. In other words, what is described is a thought system of fear whose purpose is to render reality meaningless, and demonstrate itself real by both making the real, unreal and suspect, while not subjecting itself to its own deconstruction.

 

Again and to be sure what is being describe is intractable in the sense, that all obvious and common spiritual and religious tactics and strategies for transcending and establishing what is real, or "center and origin," are self-referencing and only entrench the thought system of radical uncertainty. To me the point of lesson four is to demonstrate a self referencing loop of ultimate meaninglessness.

 

If one reads the author closely there is a way out which is not itself rendered meaningless by lesson 4. But this way out of a self-referencing thought system has little to do with the common tactics and strategies of spirituality and religion which for the most part are conducted as teaching discourse, or exploiting various self-referencing paradoxes of the thought system, as an alleged tactic for transcending the thought system whose purpose in radical uncertainty, into question. A tactic which clearly only reinforces radical uncertainty and perpetuates the thought system of fear/lack/uncertainty.

 

 

STUDENT B: As I understand the ACIM wb, the first half is to clear the mind of thoughts that get in the way of healing and the second half is to fill it with thoughts that help with healing.

 

 

STUDENT A:  Fair enough. Now if you wished to hold a thought, such as "God is love," how would you know this is a meaningful thought which could helpful healing the mind, and not a meaningless thought by apply lesson 4?

 

 Isn't it obvious that truth is being associated with meaning? Furthermore a meaning which is not arbitrary and does not change? Moreover, isn't it clear that we cannot establish a meaning which is not arbitrary and cannot change? How exactly could you do that?

 

 As such "God is love," is a meaningless thought unless its meaning is first established outside a thought/language system incapable of establishing anything but arbitrary, constantly changing meaning.

 

 What this indicates is "meaning," is contextual. Something which is established as unchanging operates as a reference point, origin and source. Conversely, without source or origin  all is discourse-- or self referencing words generating a linguistic reality where meaning is constantly morphing and changing.

 

It is obvious that people give all meaning to so called religious/spiritual experiences in the same way they give meaning to what they see, and what they think. Given meaning is "meaning" which is arbitrary and changes. As such, lesson 4 applies.

 

 

STUDENT C:That's what is meant by it can't actually be shared, John. Every individual has at least a slightly different perspective of shared experience

 

 

STUDENT A: The reason one has different perspectives is different people are supplying different  meanings to experience. Clearly to the extent people supply arbitrary meaning then any shared agreement is but an agreement about shared meaningless under the illusion the sharing establishes meaning. Again lesson 4 applies.

 

 

STUDENT C: We can't do that with personal experience. We can only communicate it verbally and either accept or reject it.

 

STUDENT A: Again, one gives all meaning to private,  personal, mystical or spiritual experiences.

 

 

STUDENT D: The types of "experiences" I know of that the Course esteems:

 

 1. Revelatory experiences;
 2. Miraculous experiences;
 3. Visionary experiences;
 4. Holy Encounters;
 5. Holy Instants, and;
 6. Prayer.

 

 

STUDENT A: What I think is these above experiences are highly personal, and clearly mean nothing if there is no personal self -ie, soul/individual spirit,  As such they can only be a demonstration of the soul.

 

Furthermore, like miracles, such experience are not to be used to inlicit belief in one's personal power and spiritual authority.

 

 Let's step back and talk in broad terms. Wouldn't you agree that one of the most important characteristics of course study is competing, often mutually exclusive interpretations of the source material?

 

Second point: Isn't interpretation of the source material a process of giving meaning to ideas offered by the author?

 

Question then ---does the course material itself offer the solution and resolution for conflicting and mutually exclusive interpretation?

 

 

STUNDENT B : I would say that it does but I would say that the process it offers is a process of getting rid of ego obstacles to understanding the meaning its Author

 

 

STUDENT A:  Okay. Now is an interpretation of solipsism a clear demonstration of a meaningless world made meaningfully by supplying the meaning of "Oneness."?

 

Or conversely, is the interpretation of "other," ie, Father, Son, creation, individuality, etc, meaningful only because the ego is supply the meaning of these terms?

 

How is this resolved?

 

One resolute move is to subject all interpretations to lesson 4. In other words, all interpretations are meaningless.

 

Now don't panic. And don't prematurely attempt to  force meaning on the meaningless by various means.

 

Ask yourself if we have found one certainty --that all interpretation of ACIM are meaningless?

 

Remember we can always argue that even this certainty is meaningless but only at the expense of perpetuating over all uncertainty.

 

Now ground yourself. Isn't this your intuition that all course interpretation, including your own are at best lacking or incomplete?

 

 

STUDENT C: I would say the Holy Spirit gives the correct interpretation to each student depending on where they are at that moment.

 

 

STUDENT A: I'd say that assumes a lot. The Holy Spirit is not necessarily involved with everyone who describes himself as a course student. Moreover and clearly, the Holy Spirit is not necessarily involved even with those who claim guidance from the Holy Spirit.

 

Moreover the notion of an "interpretation," means giving meaning to words/ideas given meaning by the author which by virtue of interpretation must assume the author's meaning is the object of study and hence the only meaning important.

 

This contrasts with the notion of text as a tabla rasa --or "blank slate," where interpretation means projection of meaning on words and ideas, where the reader is in competition with the author for the meaning of the text.
In either case, the mind is uncertain and is estranged from the meaning given by the author.

 

That said --clearly the correct way to study and apply ACIM is by direct guidance from the Holy Spirit. This solves the practical problem of clarity if not complete certainty of interpretation for some students but not all.

 

However this does not solve the practical problem of competing and often mutual exclusive interpretations all supported by claims of guidance from the Holy Spirit, which confuse students before they establish direct guidance from the Holy Spirit, if they ever do.

 

 

STUDENT B: Ok, you are asking how we might resolve two very contradictory understandings of ACIM and asserting that one method we might try is to take these interpretation and remind ourselves of an early workbook lesson designed to undo our existing way of thinking at the time when we first do the workbook, namely the lesson: These thoughts do not mean anything. If we use this lesson, you state, the one certainty we might arrive at is that any and all interpretations of ACIM are meaningless. Further, you note that we cannot really argue that this single miserable little certainty we now have is itself meaningless because doing so would perpetuate our general level of uncertainty. I am not sure how you argue that because our thoughts are ALL meaningless or they are not ALL meaningless and if the certainty we have arrived at (no matter how stingy a certainty it may be) is not meaningless, then the idea that all our thoughts are meaningless must be false. Moving on, yes, it is my intuition that all course interpretations, including my own, are incomplete. Nonetheless, it is also my intuition that some interpretations are way more complete and accurate than others.

 

 

STUDENT A:  Not false --but meaningless. Yes, all thoughts (which are not our true thoughts) are meaningless. False and meaningless are not the same notion.

 

Meaningless not in the sense these thoughts of which one is aware are not given an arbitrary, changing meaning, but rather meaningless in the sense that the meaning given, is arbitrary and changing.

 

Now back to the concrete. This tracks with what we observe. Indeed words and ideas offered by the author are give arbitrary and changing meaning by the reader/student/interpretor.

 

You cannot honestly deny you do this in interpretation, nor deny Wapnick, Renard, Perry, etc also do this.

 

In other words, we are clearly defining and giving meaning to thoughts/ideas/concepts such as "God," "Son of God," "communication," "Oneness," "love," etc, by our own admittedly limited understanding.

 

The notion here is "interpretation" is a process of the mind in the condition of uncertainty, ie perception. We cannot therefore claim that the product of interpretation, in this case interpretation of text produces a condition of certainty --or the condition of knowledge/One Mindedness --rather we are forced to admit any interpretation of ACIM is arbitrary, and changes, thus uncertain, and thus meaningless.

 

The value here of applying the first few workbook lessons is it punctures inflated ego certainty over interpretation.  It would seem to me Renard would have been better off, if he had applied lesson  1 when he first saw Arten and Pursha as objects in his living room.  In other words, nothing in this room means anything.

 

Similarly, it would seem wiser if Wapnick had applied the first few lessons when he reasoned that the author could not be Jesus but unconditional love given the form of Jesus by Helen's mind. After all this move is a blatant supplying of meaning to text.

 

Again and similarly, rendering meaningless by lesson 4 punctures inflated ego certainty of students like Carrie who wish to present with all certainty that "no one else is there," and "I don't exist," which clearly pushes any envelope of meaning and which she can't begin to explain without it being obvious that she is at every point supplying  her own meaning to interpretations of interpretations.

 

So yes, I'm willing to say in all the above cases, by lesson 4, these thoughts do not mean anything. Consequently, these interpretations are meaningless and all conclusions drawn from these interpretations are meaningless, even at the expense of rendering ALL interpretation of ACIM meaningless for the same reason.

 

The value in this move is that again, it deflates ego certainty, high lights and emphasizes the intractable uncertainty of the mind in the grip of perception, and calls into question the prevailing assumption of typical religion and spirituality that this intractable uncertainty can be remedied by "correct interpretation,"or a correction from the up -down, rather than from the bottom (or foundation) up.

 

To be sure this move must generate an awareness of the condition of radical uncertainty.

 

Which is a good thing. Its honest. Moreover, by its acceptance leaves open the door to question at a deeper level, if one desires certainty as  a value, in other words, truth as a value, how can one attain certainty from a condition of radical uncertainty?  In other words, if in fact there is a condition of unchanging meaning --ie, unchanging, absolute truth --how do we discern the meaningful from the meaningless?

 

 

STUDENT B:  But you are holding that the statement "my thoughts are meaningless,’ (LESSON 4) is not meaningless but a useful understanding that can be applied to help people better grasp that there is a certain inherent uncertainty about their interpretations of ACIM. (And God knows something like that appears to be needed!)

 

 

STUDENT A:  Yes, exactly. Not only a "certain inherent uncertainty," but rather a radical, largely intractable uncertainty.

 

 

STUDENT B: So if the statement is not meaningless, then it is a meaningful claim which is to say that it is of a thought system where truth and falsity can be determined and have meaning.

 

 

STUDENT A:  Exactly. The statement is a meta comment about thinking. In other words, a comment not from within the thought system of ego/perception, but rather from a thought system (One Mindedness) outside the ego/perception thought system, where truth and falsity can be determined because the thought system was established by God through laws.

 

 As such the comment is about authority to establish reality/truth/meaning, and the mind's conflict over true authority at the expense of not attaining authority and autonomy but a meaningless world, that it would not want if it were in its "right mind." Hence all ideas we hold within and depending on the context of the ego thought system are meaningless in relationship to the thought system of One Mindedness. And that is demonstrated by the ego's thought system to provide anything but temporary, arbitrary and always changing meaning for its own thoughts.

 

 

STUDENT C: Unfortunately, I have seen too many students take the ball tossed to them via Lesson 4 and try to run with it all the way down the field, doubting that they can know a damn thing. They put all their trust in Doubt as if it is God.
 

 

STUDENT A: Exactly.  Now consider the spirit of deconstruction, extreme analysis, unrestrained reductionism, and radical doubt as the power of "the dragon". The dragon's power competes with God over authorship of reality. Hell the power can even deconstruct God. It can deconstruct reality and reassemble reality in to any constellation of meaning of its choosing. Unrestrained, the power of the dragon must lead to a condition of radical doubt and uncertainty.

 

 In this sense, in the beginning lessons, the author is using the power of the dragon against itself. In other words, rightly deconstructing the deceiver and would be destroyer of God's reality. The dragon doesn't like someone riding the dragon.

 

 

STUDENT C: Aha! I actually (and finally) understand!

 

 

STUDENT A: Now take the statement, "I don't exist," or "No one else is there."

 

Are these quintessential dragon statements?

 

If you don't know or are indecisive or unsure. You will be eaten by the dragon.

 

Its hard to destroy the dragon when you are in the belly of the beast. And most of us are in the belly of the beast.

 

So what is it? Are you God by virtue of no one else being there, and you are resisting God-hood because your own ego-dragon resists giving up up the world, bodies, individuality, and  personal existence?

 

Or is this a seduction statement of the dragon seducing you as the "only one there," while promising you the authority of God to establish reality.

 

You have exactly 20 seconds to decide before the dragon eats you or you thwart the dragon.

 

The seconds are ticking, one, two, three, four . . ... .

Meta-Metaphysics of ACIM & the linguistic dilemma

From our studygroup, May 14th 2011


Meta-Metaphysics of ACIM & the linguistic dilemma

"Much of Course commentary posted on the Net is so full of elementary philosophical errors, its almost a joke.

Moreover, it should be an indication in order not to spew meaningless platitudes its first necessary to have a thesis statement, synopsis, or abstract of the overall paradigm you are purposing and advancing and wish to hang your individual notions and concepts.

Why? Basic linguistic philosophy. Words are meaningless symbols pointing to other words without a reference. You can't begin to have a reference without an overall paradigm. And even with a paradigm there is no demonstration that a word symbol like "God," is "pointing to," anything but other words.

After all in language to give the word symbol "God," meaning it has to be described in other words. There is no indication in any practical manner that the word symbol "God," points to anything but other words. As such "God," as Derrida says is not reality, but a "linguistic dilemma," where "reality" itself is a linguistic dilemma.

In fact, Derrida would say the notion of personal self is a linguistic dilemma. In other words, we interact with symbols not reality, and even what is claimed  to interact --personal self- or even God self or consciousness doesn't exist, and as such all is discourse.

Nor does "direct experience," resolve the situation. An "Experience of Oneness," is suspect not only because both personal self AND God self are illusionary and linguistic dilemmas, but clearly the experience is described in terms of arbitrary word symbols which in turn give the illusion of meaning to the experience. In other words, this "experience" described as of Oneness or direct experience of God can just as easily and and with as much meaning be described as a "hormonal rush," or  a "side effect of certain chemical imbalance of the body."

In other words, another linguistic dilemma in a closed loop system of language.

To be sure, there is no claim here that anything written above is anything but total philosophic bs. Which is the point. Its all total philosophic bs, including what you write, and Renard writes and Wapnick writes and even Jesus writes because its a closed language system with words just pointing to other words.

The second point is all metaphysics involves DECONSTRUCTING apparent reality into new constellations of meaning and this must be and can only be a linguistic process of symbol manipulation and as such is subject to the constraints and paradoxes sited by philosophers like Derrida.

The third point. All deconstruction of apparent reality is fraught with danger and ambiguity, paradox, lies and deceits. After all and clearly, the so called personal self contemplating its own non existence and deconstruction, is in no way either destroying itself or deconstructing itself and personal self or ego remains intact and the same after such contemplations.

Fourth point: Once deconstruction of reality or apparent reality begins and is accepted then there is no end to deconstruction. New constellations of meaning can be deconstruction as easily as the old, and alleged irreducible, indestructible linguistic constructs such as "God Self," or "Reality," are themselves subject to analysis, reductionism and a breaking into component parts. This bottomless pit of unrestrained deconstruction of  idea constructs is what  I believe is what is meant  by the  "mad idea."   And clearly  "God as an idea," can  be  deconstructed.

In other words and clearly the typical ways and method of doing or articulating religion and metaphysics is stuck in the uncertainty and paradox of whether reality can or should be deconstructed.
As such one can say glibly, that "real" Reality cannot be deconstructed, destroyed or analyzed, reduced or broken into component parts, but this obscure and denies this is what we are doing in religion, spirituality and metaphysics, and consequently "Reality," has a self referencing definition of what cannot be deconstructed, which  is in turn can be rendered or demonstrated as "Unreal," by the "mad idea" of deconstruction of any proposed candidate or condition we call "Reality."

As such and clearly, "God Self," can be deconstructed as easily as "ego self." because deconstruction is a linguistic process manipulating  word symbols pointing to other words symbols and consequently producing not truth (another word symbol) but linguistic dilemmas. In other words and clearly we are NOT deconstructing reality through our metaphysical belief and "truths." In fact we don't even know if there is any 'reality,: beyond words symbols, and if there is any "truth," the truth is in the end, we don't know what the hell we are doing. Which accurately describes the condition of uncertainty and lack of communication inherent in the condition of perception.

Fifth and finial point. In consideration that nearly all course student realize or suspect that the endless manipulation of word symbols of ACIM by so called teachers and "enlightened" commentators is a Tower of Babel of bullshit, contradiction, ego inflation and ego agenda, a humbleness of inflated ego certainty is demanded.

In other words, we don't know, are totally confused, while any honesty or self reflecting reveals the horror of the bottomless pit of uncertainty and isolation caused by our need, desire and first instinct to deconstruct  reality to our fit our whims and desires. Which is exactly what we did and what was done when we applied deconstructive methodology and thinking  to the offered course material.

What we did was confuse a linguistic process where reality and any Reality can be deconstructed to uncertainty and paradox with an ontological Reality which (we are taught) cannot be deconstructed.

As such the author, Jesus did not leave us in a lurch, or an unresolvable  paradox predicated on misuse of unlimited creative power. Instead he addresses all the above philosophical concerns and leads us out of a self-referencing, closed linguistic universe which grips the mind in perception (not duality.) 
 If read closely, the author's methods have nothing to do with deconstructing reality. The point here is ACIM is clearly not metaphysics but meta-metaphysics."