The higher potential for philosophy 

Question: Mother Mary’s opening dictation has, among many other things, provided a severe challenge to the whole area of philosophy. This discipline has, at least in its Western form, to large parts from its very inception, deeply embraced linear thinking. My question is, what role can philosophy play in the golden age, if there is a place for it at all? How would philosophy have to change in order to play a more constructive role? What questions must philosophers address in the coming decades in order to facilitate a potential transformation of philosophy?


Answer from the Ascended Master Saint Germain through Kim Michaels. This answer was given at the 2020 Webinar – Being the Divine Mother.

Well, we have in many dictations actually challenged current philosophy, at least current Western philosophy. We have talked about how this goes back to Aristotle, who did not recognize what was recognized by Plato that there is a realm beyond the material realm. And that, therefore, you cannot ultimately explain the material realm by looking only at the material realm. It is, as the example we have used, attempting to explain the cause of the tide by only looking at the ocean. It was Aristotle who gave rise to this form of very linear thinking because he claimed that the material world is made of smaller components, and if you understand how the small components work, you can understand the whole. This gave rise to this attitude that you see in most Western philosophers where they believe that by using their minds in their present form they can come to rationalize and reason, and use logic and linear thinking to explain everything in the universe.

Now, if you study Western philosophers as this messenger has done, you will see that most of them think in a very similar way. They believe that they can sit there, wherever they are in the physical, but they can sit there and use their own minds to probe deeper and deeper aspects of how the world works without ever stepping outside of themselves and looking at their minds. Very few Western philosophers have asked a question: “Is my mind limited? Is my mind, in its current state, in a limited state of consciousness at a limited level? And does my current state of consciousness limit what I can see? What I can know? What I can grasp? What I can experience about the universe? In other words, can my current level of consciousness grasp the totality of the universe? Or are there aspects of how the world functions that are simply beyond the observation horizon, on my current level of consciousness?”

These questions then lead on to the next question, which ties into what Portia said. That the essential humanity is that you have an opportunity to raise your consciousness. Very few Western philosophers have tuned into this, and this is the most severe limitation of Western philosophy. Then the need is to ask this question: “Is it possible for a human being to raise his or her consciousness beyond what is considered normal in the present time in the present society in the present culture? And can raising your consciousness then enable you to see, to grasp, to understand and experience something that you cannot currently see?” This will then lead up to a broader question: “Is it really possible to do philosophy without understanding the workings of the mind, including the limitations of the mind and the potential for raising your consciousness? Is it even meaningful to start at a certain level of consciousness and then pursue philosophy by thinking that by using rationality and logic and reasoning you can expose all of the secrets of the universe? Does this give any meaning? Or should it instead be so that philosophers see themselves as mystics, who are first of all pursuing a process of raising their consciousness to a higher level before they even start doing philosophy, or certainly writing about philosophy?”

What you see about current Western philosophy is that there are, of course, philosophers who have used their intuition to see certain aspects of how the world works that are not incorrect. You can take some of the more prominent philosophers and you can see that, despite the fact that Western society is so enamored with rational thinking, there were philosophers who were willing and able to use their intuition and they gained certain insights. But what you most often see is that these philosophers, they had certain things that they took for granted. And there is nothing wrong with this, as such, because you must start somewhere. You can go back to Immanuel Kant, who wrote his most famous book Critique of Pure Reason where he attempted to grapple with the limitation of reasoning and the mind. And you can say that he gained some valuable and valid insights, but you can also see that his entire philosophy is based on a certain foundation. There were certain things he took for granted: what he could see with his own level of consciousness, how his culture used language, the ideas, the concepts that were found in his culture. You can say that, within the context of which Immanuel Kant did philosophy, he came up with many valid insights. But if you take the step of thinking that Immanuel Kant discovered some ultimate truth, some ultimate insight, some ultimate philosophy, and therefore his philosophy represents some absolute truth or some absolute achievement, then you have stepped into the realm that we might call the religious realm where you claim that something is ultimate.

In essence, no philosopher should ever make the claim of having discovered an ultimate truth. Truly what philosophers could benefit from doing is to recognize the potential for raising human consciousness. And also, again, as Portia said, use this perfect hindsight of looking at history and see that there has been a raising of the collective consciousness.

What can you do as a philosopher, living right now in this time? Well, you can first of all, recognize that your current state of consciousness is limited. And then you can seek to raise that on an individual level. When you have raised yourself beyond the level of the collective consciousness in your society, then you can bring forth some insights that will be valuable for other people in your society who have not raised their consciousness to that level. Therefore, your philosophy can help people individually raise their consciousness, but it can also help raise the collective consciousness of your society, which can then transform your society.

But you need to recognize that as your philosophy has an impact on your society, the primary impact will be that it raises the collective consciousness. And that means that something can now be brought forth that is higher than what you have been able to bring forth, at least with your present level of consciousness. That means that if you have time in your lifespan, you need to again go into a cycle of raising your consciousness. Then you might be able to bring forth something new. But you may also have reached the end of what you are capable of bringing forth because you are not willing to transcend your consciousness. And therefore there will be someone else who will pick up the torch and bring forth something new. It is, again, exactly the same as we have sponsored several dispensations of ascended master organizations and teachings. And in each of them there are some that have believed that their messenger was capable of bringing forth the ultimate teaching that would stand for the next 2000 years. This messenger has not made this claim and does not believe this, but realizes that as the teachings we have given through him begin to affect the collective consciousness, of course, we can bring forth a higher teaching. If he continues to raise his consciousness he can bring forth at least part of that higher teaching. But there will come a point where there will be other messengers who will now be able to pick up on this and bring forth the next teaching. And that is simply how progressive revelation works. That is also how philosophy progresses, it is how science progresses, it is how religion ideally should progress. What you see is always that there is a historical process that drives progress. There is a force that drives progress. And this force is not a dualistic or dialectic force.

You know the philosopher Hegel came up with the idea that a thesis created an antithesis, and the interaction between the two led to a synthesis. This is actually not the full explanation here. The reality is that what we have called the force of the Holy Spirit or the river of life is what drives progress on earth. It is because the Earth is one among billions of planets where self-aware beings on the vast majority of these planets, these beings have made constructive upward choices of raising their consciousness constantly transcending themselves. This creates this force that pulls on the earth. It pulls the earth upwards, it pulls on the collective consciousness.

Now what creates the dialectic that Hegel correctly intuited is the duality consciousness. There is a force that drives progress, but progress often happens because there are two opposing polarities. It can be, as we have explained, an established power elite that opposes change and an aspiring power elite that seeks to bring about change but does so through force and violence. They often see themselves as opposing the established elite, rather than being truly attuned with the upward force. What you see here is that there is an underlying force that drives progress. But then there are, because so many people are still trapped in the duality consciousness, the emergence of these dualistic polarities that oppose each other. And this is what Hegel saw, that one dualistic polarity forms the thesis, the other dualistic polarity forms the antithesis, and the interaction between them creates a synthesis. But this synthesis is not created exclusively by these two forces. It is created by the upward force of the universe pulling the two dualistic polarities higher. It is not just a synthesis between these two polarities. There is that underlying force that pulls everything up. And that is what drives progress. There may then, when a new level has been reached in society, form another dualistic pair of polarities that becomes a new thesis and antithesis, and therefore, you can see that this process continues. But as we move further into the golden age, as people become more aware of the dualistic dynamic and the epic mindset, and as the collective consciousness is raised, there will be less of this dialectical ping pong game. And the earth will go into a spiral of more upward growth that does not require these swings into the extremes. And therefore, there will no longer be, at a certain point, a thesis and an antithesis. There will simply be an upward moving growth where it is not necessary for people to go into these absurd extremes before they see a more balanced way to create growth.

There is, of course, much more that could be said about this, but certainly these thoughts in itself could put philosophy on an entirely new track that could bring it forward into the golden age. But I can tell you that as we move further into the golden age, philosophy will not be separated from mysticism because philosophers will no more be intellectuals that use only the reasoning faculties of the mind. They will become aware that in order to reach their potential—in fact, in order to move philosophy out of the stalemate it has been in now for a long time—they need to use their intuitive faculties and raise their consciousness. Mysticism and philosophy will begin to merge, as of course, mysticism and science, mysticism and religion, mysticism and spirituality, mysticism and invention, mysticism and business will all begin to merge because people will realize that in order to fulfill your highest potential in any endeavor you must work actively on your personal psychology, resolving any traumas and raising your level of consciousness so you can grasp higher ideas in your particular field of interest.

 

Copyright © 2020 Kim Michaels