Steven Norquist's Haunted Universe

[J.F. Martel]

Are you guys familiar with the work of Steven Norquist? He claims to be enlightened and has written a book, The Haunted Universe, in an attempt to communicate it. 

While he's evidently a nondualist, the conclusions he draws from nondualism aren't those you'll hear about at SAND. 

Here's an interesting presentation he gave in 2010. It touches on enlightenment, lucid dreaming and absolute idealism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPoK3RegPuU

And here's a link to his book's website: http://www.hauntedpress.net

   

[Scott Roberts]

JF,

I didn't look at the video (don't like them for presentation of ideas), but did follow the link to his website, and read this essay. Curious. By way of contrast, I recommend the chapter "A Mystical Unfoldment" (PDF) from Merrell-Wolff's Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object. He says:

"[footnote 9] The final thought before the “breakthrough” was the very clear realization that there was nothing to be attained. For attainment implied acquisition and acquisition implied change of content in consciousness. But the Goal is not change of content but divorcement from content. Thus Recognition has nothing to do with anything that happens. I am already That which I seek, and therefore, there is nothing to be sought. By the very seeking I hide Myself from myself. Therefore, abandon the search and expect nothing. This was the end of the long search. I died, and in the same instant was born again. Spontaneity took over in place of the old self-determined effort. After that I knew directly the Consciousness possessing the characteristics reported by the mystics again and again. Instead of this

process being irrational, it is the very apogee of logic. It is reasoned thought carried to the end with mathematical completeness."

This is consistent with what Norquist says, as are some other things (basically, being free of karma). But there is a lot more that seems to be absent in Norquist's experience -- see starting at the bottom of page 9 -- on affective and noetic consequences (joy, feeling of benevolence, knowing reality beyond space, time, and causality). For example,

 " The critical stage in the transformation is the realization of the “I” as zero. But, at once, that “I” spreads out into an unlimited “thickness.” It is as though the “I” became the whole of space. The Self is no longer a pole or focal point, but it sweeps outward, everywhere, in a sort of unpolarized consciousness, which is at once self-identity and the objective content of consciousness. It is an unequivocal transcendence of the subject-object relationship." 

In fact, I wonder if what Norquist is experiencing might be a Dark Night of the Soul kind of thing (I'm speaking beyond my competence, so I could be way off). Bernadette Roberts (in, I think, The Path to No-Self) describes a long period (18 years) of meaninglessness after losing the ego, but before achieving mystical Union.

[J.F. Martel]

Thanks, Scott. There's a moment at the end of the video where a Vedantist member of the audience tells Norquist that the experience of the ultimate is bliss, not apathy. Norquist replies that this is a delusion, that the only bliss he understands is the bliss of non-existence. 

 " The critical stage in the transformation is the realization of the “I” as zero. But, at once, that “I” spreads out into an unlimited “thickness.” It is as though the “I” became the whole of space. The Self is no longer a pole or focal point, but it sweeps outward, everywhere, in a sort of unpolarized consciousness, which is at once self-identity and the objective content of consciousness. It is an unequivocal transcendence of the subject-object relationship." 

That's a lot of stuff for a "zero" to do, but I understand that we have crossed here into the realm of metaphor. Correct?

[Scott Roberts]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 7:22:16 AM UTC-10, J.F. Martel wrote:

Thanks, Scott. There's a moment at the end of the video where a Vedantist member of the audience tells Norquist that the experience of the ultimate is bliss, not apathy. Norquist replies that this is a delusion, that the only bliss he understands is the bliss of non-existence. 

Well, that's the question. There appear to be stages of enlightenment. Is bliss a delusion, or a later stage? The Bernadette Roberts story suggests the latter.

Just to complicate things, Merrell-Wolff also relates two stages: the first he calls Nirvana (which includes all the affective/noetic things mentioned), while the second is the Realization that Nirvana and Samsara are the same (nondualism).

 

 " The critical stage in the transformation is the realization of the “I” as zero. But, at once, that “I” spreads out into an unlimited “thickness.” It is as though the “I” became the whole of space. The Self is no longer a pole or focal point, but it sweeps outward, everywhere, in a sort of unpolarized consciousness, which is at once self-identity and the objective content of consciousness. It is an unequivocal transcendence of the subject-object relationship." 

That's a lot of stuff for a "zero" to do, but I understand that we have crossed here into the realm of metaphor. Correct?

Here's the sentence preceding the above quote: "As a symbol to represent this ultimate and irreducible subject to all consciousness, the “I” element, I know nothing better than zero or an evanescent point."

[John DiFool]

 Yay.  More pure ascent nonsense.  Yes, I decry this "Gotta totally kill your ego and forsake the entire world" horsehockey.  It is quite possible to yes have your cake, eat it too, and totally savor the experience, while not grasping after it at all.

Now, someone mentioned this Bernadette Roberts person, but did not elaborate on her views or link to same.  Please feel free.

[J.F. Martel]

I agree that Norquist is a bit of a caricature, but his thoughts is shared by many who are into Advaita.

Now I'm wondering:

What is the advantage of detaching oneself from the manifest world? What is the cost of remaining fully attached, so to speak? Do the benefits of enlightenment make 18 years of absolute nihilism worth it?

I can imagine how a traditional Buddhist or Hindu would answer these questions (karma). I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on it.

[Peter Jones]

On Thursday, 7 April 2016 00:21:23 UTC+1, John DiFool wrote:

 Yay.  More pure ascent nonsense.  Yes, I decry this "Gotta totally kill your ego and forsake the entire world" horsehockey.  It is quite possible to yes have your cake, eat it too, and totally savor the experience, while not grasping after it at all.

It is not 'kill the ego'. This would be a misunderstanding. The ego would not exist and we would come to realise this. It never did exist. This is the point about attainment and acquisition made in the OPs quote. These would be unnecessary because we simply need to see the facts as they are.  The 'gateless gate' of Zen and all that. We do not have to kill the ego, says the Dalia Lama, because it is not something that existed in the first place.  With this fantasy out of the way we can then properly enjoy life without attachment and ego-centricity.

[J.F. Martel]

So do you agree with Norquist’s point of view, Peter?

I’m having trouble squaring what you’re saying here with what you said in the symbols thread. You say that the manifest world is real even though it is dependent upon a self-existing ultimate. From an idealist standpoint the manifest world is entirely dependent on a perceiving ego, which should also presumably be real. Yet here you say, with Norquist, that the ego does not exist. How can something be fully real while not existing? Or does your term “ego” here refer less to the self and more to a particular attitude of the self towards reality?

[Peter Jones]

On Thursday, 7 April 2016 13:39:36 UTC+1, J.F. Martel wrote:

So do you agree with Norquist’s point of view, Peter?

I’m having trouble squaring what you’re saying here with what you said in the symbols thread. You say that the manifest world is real even though it is dependent upon a self-existing ultimate. From an idealist standpoint the manifest world is entirely dependent on a perceiving ego, which should also presumably be real. Yet here you say, with Norquist, that the ego does not exist. How can something be fully real while not existing? Or does your term “ego” here refer less to the self and more to a particular attitude of the self towards reality?

Sorry, I don't know Norquist.

I'm suggesting that Reality would always stay the same but we can perceive it truthfully or in ignorance. The manifest would be real but dependent on a greater phenomenon. You may be separating the manifest and the unmanifest but it would all be one Reality. The ego would be a fabrication, a veiling of Supermind by Mind in the style of Aurobindo.leading to Ignorance, an individuation and division in the Whole. But the Whole would always be the Whole. Only our (false) perception could make it less. The ego would be an invention, but this is not to say the invention has no effect on the world.

I'm not sure whether Aurobindo sees the descent from Supermind to Mind (or 'Overmind') as the birth of the ego, but perhaps he does. This is where unity would be lost and found.

Don, do you have a comment on this? Is Mind the birth of ego fro Aurobindo, or would that come later? .  

[David Gabriel]

I experienced a Halloween type of mood and atmosphere while watching this guy's video. I took note of it. Very interesting effect, especially because he talks about it on his website and how others have reported it. I'm experienced with and aware of his subject matter though, so I was primed for it whereas many others won't be.

[J.F. Martel]

Hi David

Yeah, he's definitely going for a spooky vibe. What do you mean when you say that you are "primed" for it? Do you mean that it's not scary to you because you have passed through this stage and are now in the eternal bliss state Scott mentioned above?

[Don Salmon]

ah my name!!?  And here I am, having no time:>))) (this was mentioned in the Symbols post).

Exhausted now, 3:54 PM, Sunday afternoon, US, Eastern Standard Time. ALMOST finished editing an 8 minute, 55 second audio.  Fantastic piece, if I do say so myself, Guaranteed to wipe out the ego!

Ok, let's see.  That Infinite Chaos (I like that word - I'll substitute that for "the Divine" - since the "Divine" is unthinkable, inconceivable, and utterly beyond "mind" in every imaginable way, no reason why "Chaos" isn't as good as any other - in fact, I'm starting a separate thread on Chaos - a passage from an essay on Hakim Bey, aka Peter Lamborn Wilson, "Spiritual anarchist).

So, again, the Infinite Chaos "sees" in itself the unfolding of ecstatic evolutionary possibilities (and as JF said in another thread, this seeing is not temporally but logically prior to the manifestation of a most definitely REAL universe) and through a process of what Sri Aurobindo calls "exclusive concentration" (this has some resemblance to what Bernardo refers to as "obfuscation" - great word too) the Infinite Chaos apparently - but only apparently - is limited to the extent that a "physical" and apparently mindless or more properly Chit-less (I'd prefer not to translate the word as our "minds" immediately throw up all kinds of frames and filters which completely impede any real intuitive understanding) universe.   

In the process of exclusive concentration, that aspect of Chaos which differentiates - the individualizing aspect of the Vijnana or "Supramental" (which is infinitely beyond anything we know or conceive of as "mind") separates from the "Unity" aspect of the Vijnana or Truth Consciousness (and remember Chaos is as much beyond One as beyond Many) and makes it appear possible to have differentiation without integration.  

This leads ultimately to what Sri Aurobindo calls the "dumb seed of ego" present in every atom or subatomic particle in the universe.  There is also, hidden "within" (or behind or under or whatever) the ego the Divine Spark of Chaos, which grows through every experience the apparently separative ego has through the billions of years of evolution.

Ethologist Franz de Waal suggests that the first appearance of "centered" experience may occur in some fish, though there is a remote possibility something like this may even occur in insects. It most definitely, he says, occurs in amphibians, and reptiles, and you don't need a scientist or scholar to know it occurs in birds and mammals.

Increasing evidence mounts that something like self-awareness emerges in dolphins, whales, even more so in primates (and in "that damn bird" - as primate expert Mark Tomasello refers to him - Alex, the African gray parrot), but there may not be anything quite like the self-awarness that correlates with the prefrontal - and particularly the middle region, including the dorsolateral and orbitofrontal and medial prefrontal cortex) of the brain.  All of this is the increasingly individualized spark of Divine Chaos which is covered over - obfuscated - by the exclusive concentration of that Divine Chit which is an expression of the ecstatic Lila which IS the glorious universe in which we are all immersed.

And when the exclusive concentration or obfuscation is fully released, as Sri Aurobindo puts it, the Divine Chaos can fully express, bringing about not only an utter unimaginable unthinkable inconceivable transformation of every aspect of the psyche, the life force, every one of the countless trillion cells of the body, but an utter transformation of society at large, freeing up the forces of inconceivable Divine Chaos to manifest in a way unimagiable to 21st century humanity (not that our time and spatial notions will remain untransformed)

now, off to post on chaos

[David Gabriel]

By primed for it I meant prepared for it. There are many definitions for that word which is why I try not to use it. I enjoy that spooky kind of fear but not because I'm in a state of eternal bliss. I go into states of bliss sometimes as a result of my mysticism but it isn't all the time. My mysticism is the spooky kind and I'm very negative as well so I'll definitely buy his audio book. Most actors can't trigger a mood as well as that guy.

[J.F. Martel]

David--

Yeah, I also enjoy that feeling of uncanniness. I find Norquist's analogy of the empty house very effective. 

It should be said that he got some editorial help putting together Haunted Universe from horror writer Thomas Ligotti, whom I would rank with the very best fiction living fiction writers. Ligotti wrote a philosophical tract entitled The Conspiracy Against the Human Race: A Contrivance of Horror. The guy who wrote True Detective borrowed heavily from it when composing Matthew McConaughey's existential monologues. It's different from Norquist's in its metaphysics but aims at conveying a similar affect. 

Don--

I enjoyed this post on chaos very much. Replacing "God" with "Chaos" may seem like a minor move, but in fact the implications are tremendous when you take words, which are all we have, seriously. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/yCAl4pi4EaA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[David Gabriel]

I hadn't heard of Thomas Ligotti. McConaughey's character in True Detective is quite a marvel for anyone versed in metaphysics.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Don Salmon]

JF: glad you enjoyed the substitution.