In the name of God, we have reached the seventeenth article titled "Levels of Cognition". In this article, I have separated seven clauses and try to explain each so that ultimately you can connect with the issue of cognition in human and its degrees.
Text of the Article
1. Cognition based on mental propositions derived from Imaginal Body experiences, manifesting as pleasure and pain, without the conditional presence of an observer.
2. Cognition based on the first level, but now with the conditional presence of an observer, or with interfering observational presence.
3. Cognition based on cause-and-effect mental propositions, where there is interfering conditional presence of an observer, often in the form of imposed beliefs.
4. Cognition based on the same cause-and-effect mental propositions from level (3), but without the interfering conditional presence of a resident observer, achieved through one’s own Imaginal Body experiences or by encountering the Imaginal Bodies of others.
5. Cognition based on noticing the differences, mismatches, or significant contradictions between levels (3) and (4).
6. Cognition arising from the recognition of the ineffectiveness of the Illusory Mind, leading to a transition of mental propositions into the space of rational experience.
7. Cognition based on the presence of the heart, accomplished through the removal of the Illusory Mind.
The seventh level begins with the appearance of a guide (or mentor), whose necessity is felt from the fifth level onward. Humans encounter the guide (or mentor) according to the functioning of their unconscious mind at level (5). However, due to lack of alignment at level (6) and because of the dominance of the Illusory Mind over them, they lose connection with the guide. If the individual does not return to level (5) and actively seek the guide, they will fall into confusion. They will face the sealing of the heart, veiling of the senses, and a regressive (degenerative) trajectory of the mind.
Explanation of the Article
Clause One considers cognition based on mental propositions derived from Imaginal Body experiences, in the form of pleasure and pain, but without the conditional presence of an observer. Consider an individual who, based on a personal experience in the form of pleasure and pain, achieves a knowledge, knowing, or cognition; there is also no one alongside them who has any interference in that experience. For example, a child reaches out toward a flower and the thorn on its stem wounds their hand; based on the pain they experienced, they find a personal cognition; they reach this conclusion for themselves that approaching such an experience has pain for them. Or another example: a child experiences ice cream or a desired food and experiences pleasure. It is not necessary for someone to be alongside them and say that this experience must be measured based on such-and-such topic; this cognition is a presential cognition, without any interference. So a part of the degrees of cognition must be sought in this first clause: experiences that the person themselves, simply and to the extent of pleasure and avoiding harm, has obtained.
Clause Two continues the same first clause, but now we consider the presence of an observer—an interfering presence. A part of what you know is related to this truth that another individual was alongside you and interfered in what you obtained; in this case, we must also consider a "conditional" factor; meaning that interfering factor has influenced your receptions. For example, consider again that child who this time goes toward the sweet plate. Suppose in the first clause, without having seen anyone, they had obtained that pleasurable experience; but now someone is present alongside them—for example, their father or mother—and when the child reaches out to repeat that previous experience, that interfering individual, for example, strikes their hand, or sets aside the sweet plate. Now the child has a cognition in which what was pleasurable earlier is now accompanied by another pain. This is that same interfering issue that must be paid attention to; the child has obtained a cognition that will be question-inducing for them in the future: on what account was I punished? On what account was I unable to use what seemed pleasurable to me? I hope the connection between these two clauses—the presence of an observer and the lack thereof—is simply clarified.
Clause Three considers cognition based on cause-and-effect mental propositions, but this time with the interfering and conditional presence of an observer, in the form of imposed beliefs (I deliberately brought this clause before the fourth clause, though the third and fourth are interchangeable; but because I had raised the discussion of interfering presence earlier, I preferred to bring it sooner). Here we do not confront that initial child; suppose an adolescent whose people alongside them—whether friends or father and mother—place propositions alongside their experiences. In the second clause too a proposition existed, but there not much reason was explained to them; in this clause, the meaning is that in experiences, questions, and matters that the person raises, the conditional observer interferes in the formation of these propositions; enters their personal opinions into their experiences, but still their experiences remain to the extent of pleasure-seeking and harm-avoidance. That observer tries to bring reason for the works that the person must perform; either approves them or rejects them. The importance of these propositions and their imposed nature is from here that the person has not yet reached a stage where they can examine where these propositions came from and whether they have the right not to agree with them. I must also explain the word "conditional": the observers who are alongside us and interfere in our cognitive perceptions, we have familiarity and connection with them; we are "conditioned" to them; meaning if we listen to their words and accept their propositions, its reason is that we are dependent on them, we want their affection and attention, we live alongside them, and we do not think at all of having a clash with their propositions that leads to distancing from that interfering presence. This acceptance sometimes stems from fear of being punished and sometimes from being encouraged or receiving a gift; and "imposition of beliefs" is also specified from here.
Clause Four considers cognition again based on cause-and-effect mental propositions, but this time without the interfering and conditional presence of a resident observer. The person is alone again and either repeats those same previous experiences, or has fresh experiences; but now, as if from those same previous samples that were told to them, they slowly build propositions for themselves too; they raise in their mind why such-and-such event occurred in that way, or what must be accepted and what not. It is still the beginning of the work, but the person themselves, without the presence of an individual to give them a theory, with those same initial experiences and the collection of analytical beliefs they learned, proceeds to examine and extracts fresh propositions from those materials themselves.
Clause Five considers cognition based on difference, mismatch, and significant contradiction between the levels of clauses three and four. Here consider an individual who has passed the period of adolescence and entered a series of social connections; their connection with previous observers has become less, they confront other people, they also observe the beliefs of others; but they reach this conclusion that everyone, in similar experiences, does not arrive at a single proposition. For example, they had told them not to ride a bicycle at nights, but they see some of their friends ride a bicycle at nights; this is where they experience a mental issue: so how can they perform this work, while they had been told not to do it? My meaning of "mismatch" is this kind of instances: other methods that other people use, but were never told to them, did not even cross their mind; their conditional observers never made any reference to those other methods. In this same clause, one can also pay attention to this point that some of the solutions they told us seem ineffective: others get along with them more easily, but the person cannot solve many of their issues with those same solutions and confronts questions that answering them, with the same background they brought with themselves, is not possible; as if a distance exists between them and the mental world of others. Some call this stage "the critical stage of life"; a stage that is marked in the life of every youth.
Clause Six is cognition based on identifying the ineffectiveness of the Illusory Mind, which leads to the transition of Illusory mental propositions into the space of rational experience. Here consider an individual who realizes the ineffectiveness of what has been shaped in their mind—that same Illusory Mind we described earlier; a collection of propositions of which most are imposed and a part is also the product of their own experiences; they see that they can no longer live alongside others with this Illusory Mind, or even answer the questions that arise for them. Why? Because as we said earlier, these propositions are illusory and must become rational; meaning there must be a teacher or guide to clarify this Illusory Mind for them, determine its gray parts and teach them how to reason, how to experience, how to see what they have in mind in the crucible of experiment to realize how effective it is, where it has a problem, and what part of what they have in mind is of no use to them at all and they have assigned a part of their mind to it for no reason—as if they were not the "child of their time". If such a guide exists, they can help them to give order and arrangement to their mind and move toward rational arguments: determine the boundaries, clarify definitions, from a series of basic matters, debate them with one other, exert reasoning, and predict results. This stage clearly requires a guide.
Clause Seven is cognition based on the presence of the heart; this clause is related to the last article I presented before this: where the person sets aside the Illusory Mind and progresses so much that they experience an imaginative mind—we gave its explanation earlier and I do not repeat it. This stage in reality requires a guide of another kind; a guide that differs from the guide of clause five to six; there must be a guide who is themselves imaginative, themselves experiences such a reception that they can take the person to a space where they can imagine; and guidance for this stage must begin from that same clause five.
Humans usually meet their guide through the functioning of the unconscious mind, in that same clause five. That is, any one who experiences that mismatch and that special mental agitation, constantly speaks with themselves and requests that they need guidance; someone who can speak with them, raise their beliefs without fear and without embarrassment. As if their unconscious mind helps them to see the guide alongside themselves; guides whom perhaps we do not see. But it is interesting to know that despite this request, many of us have said for years if a guide exists we will accompany them and go to the end; but it happens very often that mental illusions dominate us; many of those who are around us prevent our progression; when they see we are separating from that illusory space, it might be costly for them and they would like to keep us among themselves. In short, many factors join hands for us to lose the guide. If humans do not return to that same fifth stage and rise up against their normal and Illusory Mind, they will live confused and their course will be a regressive course.
In the end of this discussion, I also add another point: many of the humans who possess an Illusory Mind, their cognition is "historical"; meaning their words are often about chains very far from time and from our current links, but they look at those chains in such a way as if they have a real cognition toward them and pick topics from there that are not applicable to fresh conditions at all. We call such individuals "history-struck" (tarikh-zadeh); they have a special care for the past and do not consider the materials raised in the past subject to debate and question at all; sometimes in this path they turn to a kind of "Salafism": they pick materials from the depth of history, from past chains, to measure fresh issues with them; while those issues are not comparable to those materials at all.
In contrast, some people are "history-active" (tarikh-varz)—and here one must smile and be happy—those who pay attention to past chains and opinions, but with the goal of training their current mind; using opinions and events that occurred in the past, they get ready for theorizing about their present or future, without making themselves small in front of the past or bowing down; they propose questions and in many cases also examine materials in such a way to reject some of the past opinions. But most interesting of all are those who perform "phenomenology"; they are more present in their own time, they examine the environment and space of the present more; and if they pay attention to past issues, it is only so that they can find threads and clues that have the same foundations with what they are confronting now; in other words, they deal with concepts that are not very historical, but only have historical instances. For example, if I want to work about affection and loving, it is not necessary to content myself only with the love of Layla and Majnun or Joseph and Zulaikha and confine myself only there; I can refer to those stories, get their reasons and lessons, and mix them with what I confront now; but not in a copy-equal-to-original form. I must, according to the conditions of my life, create changes in those past materials so that it can answer my current needs.