Replying here to the overall thread, so I'll tag you causticus, in case it doesn't notify you about replies to replies.
I agree that The Cosmic Doctrine as his go-to metaphysical text doesn't exactly square with "the universe doesn't care about you." I also suspect that his "Weird of Hali" novels might have more to say on how he tries to square cosmic indifferentism with more individual and intermediate meaning than some of his explicitly "spiritual" statements/writings. A tentative thought I've had is that he sees "the whole cosmos" as not caring much about what matters to any one social primate, but in between our admittedly small point of view, and the biggest of big pictures, there's a lot of room for Gods, angels, and so forth, who might partake a bit of both the small and big pictures, and maybe reconcile the seeming contradictions. Or perhaps he's just inconsistent! We humans do tend to do that.
As I said above, I haven't given all of this the thought and meditation it deserves, so I don't have much of an answer yet.
Jeff, I think it's mostly inconsistency. One thing he does a lot (that I struggle with greatly) is totally compartmentalizing each of the different systems of teaching he works with. On the contrary, I'm always inclined to try and synthesize every teaching of seeming worth that I come across in my mental travels.
I actually think compartmentalization is good practice.
There's a famous saying in statistics, "all models are wrong, but some models are useful." JMG is swift to point out (following Kant) that models are all we have access to, and Plotinus would say Objective Truth only exists at the level of the Intellect (which we're two hops away from)! Here in the material world, we're merely the blind men and the elephant: any teaching we have access to can only encapsulate one small nugget of Truth, and it isn't possible even in theory to reconcile them all.
It is good to learn to use a tool when it's appropriate, but it must also be kept in mind that no tool can be universal!
Yeah, I think epistemic/intellectual humility of this sort is useful - maybe a helpful meta-lesson from JMG, even if we might disagree with some of the specific applications. It's a lesson I find especially hard to swallow, since I tend to want to synthesize everything into an intellectually satisfying, comprehensible framework, like causticus mentions - which likely means that learning to get comfortable with such ambiguity is exactly what I need.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I agree that The Cosmic Doctrine as his go-to metaphysical text doesn't exactly square with "the universe doesn't care about you." I also suspect that his "Weird of Hali" novels might have more to say on how he tries to square cosmic indifferentism with more individual and intermediate meaning than some of his explicitly "spiritual" statements/writings. A tentative thought I've had is that he sees "the whole cosmos" as not caring much about what matters to any one social primate, but in between our admittedly small point of view, and the biggest of big pictures, there's a lot of room for Gods, angels, and so forth, who might partake a bit of both the small and big pictures, and maybe reconcile the seeming contradictions. Or perhaps he's just inconsistent! We humans do tend to do that.
As I said above, I haven't given all of this the thought and meditation it deserves, so I don't have much of an answer yet.
Cheers,
Jeff
no subject
no subject
There's a famous saying in statistics, "all models are wrong, but some models are useful." JMG is swift to point out (following Kant) that models are all we have access to, and Plotinus would say Objective Truth only exists at the level of the Intellect (which we're two hops away from)! Here in the material world, we're merely the blind men and the elephant: any teaching we have access to can only encapsulate one small nugget of Truth, and it isn't possible even in theory to reconcile them all.
It is good to learn to use a tool when it's appropriate, but it must also be kept in mind that no tool can be universal!
no subject