I have received a number of insightful and useful comments pertaining to my recent blogs from members of the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC, as to my development of reality employing modern scientific thought, rather than deferring to the mysticism of Plato, Philo of Alexandria, Plotinus and his students, Gregory of Nyssa, Dionysus pseudo-Areopagite, Augustine, Nicholas of Cusa, and the Rosicrucian Teachings.

There is a very sound reason for the arrangement of knowledge being provided in these blogs, beginning with the simple physical, progressing to the psychological, and ending in the metapsychological. This arrangement exposes the new seeker to simple ideas and exercises he or she can conduct without upsetting ‘normal’ psychological processes. As the seeker gains experience and understanding of the physical and the psychological, he or she is less likely to get enticed too early into the dreamworld by the mythical and imagined archetypes available for experience therein. Such archetypal images being presented as ‘actualities’ within the theological orthodoxy of the particular school entered.

Therefore, the first steps provided to the seeker in many dogmatic paths to Spirituality are potentially nocuous; causing some seekers to stray ‘from the straight and narrow’ under the influence of unguided imaginations arising in the dreamworld with its intoxicating archetypes, offering psychic faculties useful, solely for feeding egoism and greed. Eventually, such archetypes becoming as real to the strayed student’s imagination as objects within the physical world.

The traditional approach to this problem has been entrance into a mystical, rather than an occult school. One can learn much by directly facing his or her own psychological angels and demons, however, this is much too dangerous for many seekers. The modern approach is entrance into an Esoteric School seeped in scientific methodology  in the pronaos and mysticism in the temple.

To avoid losing people to their ungirded imaginations, the ‘path to enlightenment and orthopractic service’ followed, herein, has been found the most efficacious and successful.

Returning to our current blog series, clearly, a final and definitive answer to the question, as to the ‘why’ of human existence, has not been adequately answered in scientific journals, philosophical treatises, or in sacred scripture. So what are we to do? How are we to investigate? How do we avoid errors of thought typical of the past?

First, we need to place our current world views to the side; realizing that our educational and cultural experiences have tainted our thoughts, filling our minds with idiosyncratic notions, biases, prejudices, beliefs, hopes, and desires (most false or never personally verified). Accomplishing this is more difficult than you may imagine.

Second, more damaging than false beliefs, are the essential feelings (and underlying needs) strongly associated with all traditional worldviews, e.g., feelings of being part of a unified group identity, surety and rightness of society’s principles, fear, existential uncertainty, distrust of others, and so on. An investigator must be taught a method so to diminish such hindrances to finding a more accurate and altruistic world view.

Third, investigation must begin at the bottom, using scientific methodology so to uncover what is invariant within the physical world. Using knowledge of the physical world, investigators can hypothesize new models which can be tested objectively. We need a new and all-encompassing physical theory of space, time, and energy to replace the current theories. Wild postulation and unfounded revelations are useless.

Fourth, understand that neo-Darwinian evolution, quantum mechanics, and special relativity are the best foundational theory we have to explain the actual physical, inanimate and animate, the finite.

Fifth, study and understand the dynamics of our personal and conjoint psychologies (and CNS function) so that we are able to stop self-aggrandizement and hoarding and begin to live altruistically.

Sixth, employ new models of physics, allowing a rational explanation for aphysical experience, such as our dream world, without resorting to imaginary theologies.  Such new models are minimalistic by design, for orthopraxy is superior to orthodoxy.

Seventh, use all of the above so to come to a workable understanding of Godliness so to arrive at a common world model suitable for this century. A model which is orthopractic at all time, manifesting most importantly through ‘good works being done only for the sake of good works.

Though, my review has been limited to briefly introducing the foundational beliefs of several ancient and modern theologies, I opine that such review is sufficient to demonstrate that there exists NO definitive agreement between philosophical schools and concepts of God, the creation of the universe, the substance of the universe, or our psychological existence. Such disagreement resulting from the compiling of: [1] ‘sacred scripture’ by the devotees of persons considered to be purposeful agents of Omneity, sent into incarnate life so to set right the world according to his or her divine revelations and [2] unverified, idiosyncratic speculations of competing schools of philosophy.

Such disagreement is not unique to spiritual matters; it arises in mathematics when practitioners approach the concept of potential and actual infinite(s).

We shall touch upon this subject in the future.  Cheer up, All is Not Lost!