Post Notes on the Spiritual Spectrum

 Post Notes on the 

Spiritual Spectrum

        Something to note about the nature of the Spiritual Spectrum is that there’s a point of reversal that’s never reached. Futuristic dials back to Progressive, then Moderate, then Conservative etc. to Primordial at the end but this dialing back is never reached because the Futuristic portion is never-ending. 

        To reach the point of reversal, you’d have to approach a ceiling which is impossible since there’ll never be a ceiling to infinite progression. Futuristic is ultraprogressive and so, it progresses forever. 

        So even though I could very well make the spectrum go red to blue then back to red, there’s no point in listing the return to red at the end because it’s never reached. Therefore, functionally, the spectrum ends at Futuristic. It’s the final portion that you can access in the progression forward. 

        So the spectrum I’ve used (beginning at red and ending at blue) is the functional spectrum. If I were to list the full spectrum then, Futuristic wouldn’t be the opposite end to Primordial. Primordial would be its own opposite. It’s the Beginning and the End. 

        Futuristic is more like the equator and Primordial is the poles. You can never pass over an infinite equator and so, the Conservative side of the spectrum will never be ahead. Always behind. 

        Since the Futuristic portion functions like the equator which is opposite to the poles in some respect, you could still say that Futuristic is opposite to Primordial. Futuristic shouldn’t necessarily be thought of as a true moderate to the spectrum but rather, a middle extreme like the equator is. If Futuristic is the middle extreme, then Primordial is both the external extremes. 

        Conservative and ultraconservative portions are closer to both the North and South Poles (even though one of those sets is functionally nonexistent). As for the Moderate portion, it can be thought of like the mid-latitude regions half-way between each of the poles and the equator. It’s temperate climate in those regions just like how the Moderate portion of the spectrum is ideologically temperate. 

        As you get more Progressive, you move closer to the equator. So for example, Ethan Kahn (who I placed at both extremes of the spectrum) would be flat on the equator (0° latitude) and at both the poles (90° and -90° latitude). 

        Primordial functions as the Beginning and the End of the spectrum even if it’s true that existence is beginningless and endless because Primordial is existentially-independent. So it’s what was there before existence began up until it’s very beginning and what will be there starting at its end and forever-after that end. Essentially, Primordial is both the outer extremes of the spectrum in addition to “everything” outside the spectrum. 

        Futuristic is the infinite middle to get lost in. I said in the first post that Progressive Spiritualists don’t buy into New Age teachings because they’re too relativistic for that and like to focus on the infinitude of ages rather than just one up-and-coming age. 

        This may have left some of you wondering, “why wouldn’t that make them Futuristic or ultraconservative if they’re focusing on insights relevant to all those past and future ages?” That’s because you can access insights like that through Progressive means. 

        For example, you don’t need Futuristic technology to find spiritual insights that’ll still be relevant in future ages. You can just take some DMT (a Progressive Spiritual method) and experience the conscious insights from some of these ages for yourself. 

        Lots of people have taken psychedelics and seen the cosmos going through infinite cycles and ages. They’ve drawn relevant Nondual insights from witnessing these cycles. Those Nondual insights aren’t necessarily anything Spiritually Futuristic just because they can be extrapolated from witnessing something relevant to future ages. If anything, such insights are actually more traditional and Conservative. 

        So with that said, here’s a rule of thumb: accessing future states is not the same as gaining Futuristic insights. You could just be witnessing something relevant to those ages which is also relevant to yours and therefore, not Futuristic at all. It has to be irrelevant, impractical, or even incomprehensible to your age for it to be entirely Futuristic. 

        Another example that this rule of thumb applies to are the Spiritually Moderate insights channeled from advanced inter-dimensional beings by many New Agers. Yes, the beings they’re channeling probably have Futuristic forms of spirituality since they’re most likely so far ahead and so much more advanced than humanity. However, that doesn’t mean that the insights being channeled from them are Futuristic. 

        The beings themselves could be Futuristic while the insights syphoned from them aren’t. This would explain why so many New Agers who claim to be in contact with extraordinarily advanced beings never really channel anything more profound than typical Spiritually Moderate teachings about chakras, crystals, & astral projection. 

        I once read an article about a Pleiadian contactee named Billy Meier who I believe said that not only was Pleiadian technology thousands of years ahead but even their spirituality was far more advanced than ours. In fact, I remember reading that - according to Meier - they’re even further ahead of us spiritually than technologically. Billy Meier said something about their spirituality being about 12 million years ahead of ours. 

        Yet, Meier was like the New Agers in that most of the insights he shared from the Pleiadians were Spiritually Moderate. There was talk of the existence of time travel, other dimensions, 10^49 other Universes (remember that talk we had about Spiritual Moderates and arbitrary numbers?) but no mention of infinity or any notably Progressive topics (let alone Futuristic insights). 

        Even if Billy Meier really was in contact with Pleiadians and their spirituality is truly 12 million years in advance of ours, then I don’t think anything Meier spoke of would be representative of their fullest teachings. 

        I’d think that Ethan Kahn’s teachings on Everything Explained would be more reminiscent of true Pleiadian spirituality or any forms of spirituality that belong to a hyper-advanced civilization. I don’t think Ethan’s Primordial teachings are the same in that respect as I feel they’d be too domineering for a Futuristic civilization. 

        Now I said that due to the reversal at the other end of the spectrum being unreachable, the Conservative side will always be behind and the Progressive side ahead. However, if a civilization regresses in complexity, that would be another scenario in which they would move back towards the Conservative direction. For example, a civilization could go from having Progressive values to having Moderate values. 

        So what I meant was that you’ll never reverse so long as you’re advancing in infrastructure & complexity. Not that you could never reverse in advancement through time. In terms of time, a Moderate or Conservative age could indeed come after a Progressive one if there’s a regression in complexity. However, if there’s a progression in complexity, then you’ll never move back in the Conservative direction. That’s what would happen at the other Pole that’ll never be reached. 

        I can explain in a later post why that reversal of the spectrum would happen but, for right now, I simply want to list a few other teachers that I think may reside in various other sections. With these next few, it’s a little more hypothetical since I haven’t studied there work as deeply. 

        David Hawkins is someone who’s created maps of consciousness with many stages. So I would place him in Progressive territory but not nearly as extreme as Leo Gura or Connor Murphy. He’d be slightly Progressive. 

        I’d place Alan Watts as slightly Conservative since he holds to a more traditional Nondual philosophy. He’s not as strict as Peter Ralston is though. 

        Frank Yang would be someone who I’d say is just as far to the right as Teal Swan is to the left. He’d be right-of-center but not as far to the right as Sadhguru. He’s closer to the center than that. This is because he holds a more binary Conservative view of Awakening but still values Progressive notions like Absolute Infinity. So he’s Moderate but leans to the right. 

        You can see this in his attitude towards psychedelics too. He believes they can provide some facets of Awakening but never Full Enlightenment. So he gives them enough slack to be Moderate but still leans in the Conservative direction of “those states are never it.” 

        Grigori Rasputin, as I’ve said in the last post, is someone I’d say is an example of Spiritually Barbaric. Jesus is possibly Moderately Primeval. I don’t know of any other teachers so far at the more extreme portions of the spectrum. It’s expected to be more unique.