Philosophical Speculations

Thanks, Starbuck. You put it very succinctly. Much appreciated. "To speak of things including solar systems, stars and planets requires the dissociation of organic life's perception." I'm wondering if we could say that when we see a planet, we are looking at the extrinsic image of what it ...

I love Steiner's work. He is wonderful in that he shows us how complex it can be when one is trying to translate interaction with real archetypes into communicable experience. The things he says about skin color are incredibly ridiculous but they fit right in with the models he had unconsciously eat...

I'm easily one of BK's biggest fans when it comes to holding his fundamental model up as incredibly well argued and compelling. It's air tight for me and I have endless gratitude for what he is doing. But the devilish fun is in the details and I always come back to this head-scratcher: I know exactl...

In honor of this being the "Formal" section and to narrow the scope of what I am trying to speak about, I'd request that all responses stay within Bernardo's basic framework and language, which of course leaves us lots of room for exploration. Starting with the notion that the inanimate un...

Yes, Matthew, I thought "C" being the correct answer was presupposed by the question, but I guess not for some of you :) AshvinP, I certainly can 'picture' A more easily than B, so I catch your drift and respect your reasoning. For me, nonetheless. it is less conceivable to me (meaning I c...

No, not at all. This kind of casual 'forced choice' isn't an attempt to have a vigorous and precise philosophical conversation. Sorry, but not all useful conversations are in that realm, as Bernardo often demonstrates in his book and conversations. When people shift from technical to casual conversa...

What do you think would be Bernardo's response to this question:

What's more reasonable/possible

a) solipsism being the case
b) consciousness being derived from something non-conscious


Thanks

JF

My experience, so far, tells me that most good people aren't very good at understanding their moral intuitions. This is probably as it should be if you think about it. My atheisist friends who live selfless and compassionate lives all have different ways of speaking why they act as they do and what ...

Good points. And I imagine that in a future in which psychology presupposed idealism, we'd see the same kinds of differences in coding and categorizing and the same kinds (not in terms of content, obviously) of passionate disagreements as to what constitutes pathology and causes.

I think the only thing that will really make a difference is the 'engine' behind whatever metaphysic a person explicitly references as what they 'believe in.' That said, various expressions of Idealism will undoubtedly be absorbed by people who's 'engine' is more aligned with their explicit structur...