What is the strongest argument against Bernardo's monistic idealism and/or non-duality?

Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5461
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: What is the strongest argument against Bernardo's monistic idealism and/or non-duality?

Post by AshvinP »

SanteriSatama wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:53 pm
AshvinP wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:33 pm But the thing is, you are not.
Has anybody ever told you that talking with a lawyer, the way lawyers tend to talk by their profession, is often a huge energy drain and no fun?
Sure, but people still pay us a solid chunk of change because we produce real insights into their situation and results for their lives. I can't imagine what a post-modern deconstructionist lawyer sounds like... if they exist, probably a combination of unintelligible jargon and "fun" whimsical aphorisms. You could be the first, a real unexplored niche market... I'll help you study for the Bar :)
OK.

However, the comment and exchange was useful to me, as it inspired me to look closer at different versions of non-dualism, and the wiki quote confirmed by vague impression that Vedanta approach is substance oriented and Mahayana process philosophical. Which was the "strongest" argument could think of. On the level of discussing with text, not the author presumed behind the text. Barthes' "Death of the Author" is an ethical and pragmatic school of hermeneutics, as ad hominem arguments, whether positive or negative, are not very supportive of constructive reading and textual criticism.
We all like to think we are simply "discussing the text", not bringing in any of our biases, judgments, motivations, etc., not presuming anything about the author, but obviously that's not how it really works. It's as true of me as it is of you. The key is to realize it rather than futilely attempt to avoid it. A lot of 'post-structural' linguistic philosophy ironically pretends it has transcended the need to account for the author behind every text, which is a mistake. Truly good literature opens a portal into the consciousness of the author, who, even if 'physically' dead, is very much alive in Memory.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
SanteriSatama
Posts: 1030
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: What is the strongest argument against Bernardo's monistic idealism and/or non-duality?

Post by SanteriSatama »

AshvinP wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:44 pm
SanteriSatama wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:53 pm Has anybody ever told you that talking with a lawyer, the way lawyers tend to talk by their profession, is often a huge energy drain and no fun?
Sure, but people still pay us a solid chunk of change because we produce real insights into their situation and results for their lives. I can't imagine what a post-modern deconstructionist lawyer sounds like... if they exist, probably a combination of unintelligible jargon and "fun" whimsical aphorisms. You could be the first, a real unexplored niche market... I'll help you study for the Bar :)
That gave a chuckle and made me feel better. :D
We all like to think we are simply "discussing the text", not bringing in any of our biases, judgments, motivations, etc., not presuming anything about the author, but obviously that's not how it really works. It's as true of me as it is of you. The key is to realize it rather than futilely attempt to avoid it. A lot of 'post-structural' linguistic philosophy ironically pretends it has transcended the need to account for the author behind every text, which is a mistake. Truly good literature opens a portal into the consciousness of the author, who, even if 'physically' dead, is very much alive in Memory.
Focusing on the text as such instead of the Author does not deny our lenses, confirmation biases, etc. My own professional background is translation. The whole profession is deeply and consciously connected with Gadamer's ethical hermeneutics - which would make a lawyer lose his every case ;). In practice that means, for example, that loyalty to the source text means doing all you can to make the translation better than the original. The same fundamental 'better' that JP talks about, I guess/translate.

How translation really works, translation theory does not know. Theory can proceed only so far on both sides of source and target, and then it meets the "black box" in between where the actual translation really happens. Translating written text or consecutive oral interpretation is nothing compared to the rare ability for simultaneous interpretation, which has strong element of telepathic mind-melt channeling, and the pros can do that with anybody, not just people they like and have spent a lot of time together. The focus is so intense and consuming that they can stay in the flow zone only a very limited time. IIRC in EU parliament that's half an hour periods. Even with literary translation the flow zone is familiar phenomenon, fun and very productive, but if you have to check a dictionary or do a internet search, it gets interrupted.

So yes, of course the consciousness of even physically dead Source is relevant in the process, as translation work shares aspects of inspiration and spirit possession. Very concrete aspect in idealist-animistic sense. That's not what Barthes talks about, letting your self be inspired and possessed by the source of meaning and letting meaning flow free by pushing your ego and it's projection mechanisms aside. He's not criticizing the real thing, but shallow psychological theorizing especially in the field of literary criticism and similar textual interpretation. Which, when politicized e.g. in the style of current cancel culture, identity politics and cult of person-masks, can become extremely destructive moralizing. That's not what Barthes' liberation of the reader is about. Reader is liberated to receive all layers of meaning in the text, without chaining the meaning in the fiction of an alter having ownership - and copyright! - of the meaning. For example, you can't read on Jungian level of interpretation if you presume full ownership of meaning by an alter-author.
User avatar
Martin_
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:54 pm

Re: What is the strongest argument against Bernardo's monistic idealism and/or non-duality?

Post by Martin_ »

SanteriSatama wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:53 pm
AshvinP wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:33 pm But the thing is, you are not.
Has anybody ever told you that talking with a lawyer, the way lawyers tend to talk by their profession, is often a huge energy drain and no fun?
I have a feeling i should've been a lawyer
"I don't understand." /Unknown
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 5461
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: What is the strongest argument against Bernardo's monistic idealism and/or non-duality?

Post by AshvinP »

SanteriSatama wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:47 pm Focusing on the text as such instead of the Author does not deny our lenses, confirmation biases, etc. My own professional background is translation. The whole profession is deeply and consciously connected with Gadamer's ethical hermeneutics - which would make a lawyer lose his every case ;). In practice that means, for example, that loyalty to the source text means doing all you can to make the translation better than the original. The same fundamental 'better' that JP talks about, I guess/translate.

How translation really works, translation theory does not know. Theory can proceed only so far on both sides of source and target, and then it meets the "black box" in between where the actual translation really happens. Translating written text or consecutive oral interpretation is nothing compared to the rare ability for simultaneous interpretation, which has strong element of telepathic mind-melt channeling, and the pros can do that with anybody, not just people they like and have spent a lot of time together. The focus is so intense and consuming that they can stay in the flow zone only a very limited time. IIRC in EU parliament that's half an hour periods. Even with literary translation the flow zone is familiar phenomenon, fun and very productive, but if you have to check a dictionary or do a internet search, it gets interrupted.

So yes, of course the consciousness of even physically dead Source is relevant in the process, as translation work shares aspects of inspiration and spirit possession. Very concrete aspect in idealist-animistic sense. That's not what Barthes talks about, letting your self be inspired and possessed by the source of meaning and letting meaning flow free by pushing your ego and it's projection mechanisms aside. He's not criticizing the real thing, but shallow psychological theorizing especially in the field of literary criticism and similar textual interpretation. Which, when politicized e.g. in the style of current cancel culture, identity politics and cult of person-masks, can become extremely destructive moralizing. That's not what Barthes' liberation of the reader is about. Reader is liberated to receive all layers of meaning in the text, without chaining the meaning in the fiction of an alter having ownership - and copyright! - of the meaning. For example, you can't read on Jungian level of interpretation if you presume full ownership of meaning by an alter-author.
Well I will certainly defer to your expertise on translation. What worries me is the way similar philosophies manifest in society, especially in my profession. There is an increasing push to get rid of intent, mens rea, as an element required for establishing a person's guilt or liability. Mostly that manifests in the standard "woke" areas right now, i.e. laws relating to race, gender, LGBTQ, and a push for expanding the definition of "hate crimes", but there is no reason for me to think it will fizzle out there. There is a real push for determining someone's culpability solely on the fact that they are perceived to belong to a certain racial-ethnic, gender or socioeconomic group which has historically oppressed others. Perhaps that is all a 'religious' pathologizing of the underlying post-structural philosophy which is otherwise valid, but nevertheless it is happening and does not show any signs of slowing down.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
User avatar
Martin_
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:54 pm

Re: What is the strongest argument against Bernardo's monistic idealism and/or non-duality?

Post by Martin_ »

AshvinP wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:13 am
Well I will certainly defer to your expertise on translation. What worries me is the way similar philosophies manifest in society, especially in my profession. There is an increasing push to get rid of intent, mens rea, as an element required for establishing a person's guilt or liability. Mostly that manifests in the standard "woke" areas right now, i.e. laws relating to race, gender, LGBTQ, and a push for expanding the definition of "hate crimes", but there is no reason for me to think it will fizzle out there. There is a real push for determining someone's culpability solely on the fact that they are perceived to belong to a certain racial-ethnic, gender or socioeconomic group which has historically oppressed others. Perhaps that is all a 'religious' pathologizing of the underlying post-structural philosophy which is otherwise valid, but nevertheless it is happening and does not show any signs of slowing down.
That is really disturbing. Do you have any further reading to point at?
"I don't understand." /Unknown
User avatar
Martin_
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:54 pm

Re: What is the strongest argument against Bernardo's monistic idealism and/or non-duality?

Post by Martin_ »

I really had to detox myself from all of that stuff after the events of the last 12 months, and I really don't feel like wading back into it right now
I remember. I'll look around myself.
"I don't understand." /Unknown
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 2023
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the strongest argument against Bernardo's monistic idealism and/or non-duality?

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

Ashvin ... not seeing how any of this is even remotely related to the topic. So yes, I would prefer that the focus is reeled back into keeping within house rules.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
SanteriSatama
Posts: 1030
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: What is the strongest argument against Bernardo's monistic idealism and/or non-duality?

Post by SanteriSatama »

AshvinP wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:13 am What worries me is the way similar philosophies manifest in society, especially in my profession. There is an increasing push to get rid of intent, mens rea, as an element required for establishing a person's guilt or liability.
Well, that is a genuine philosophical, spiritual and sociological tangle of questions.

What comes now first to mind is something that Eckhart Tolle said when talking with Russel Brand. "Forgive them for they don't know what they are doing" can be taken as quite literal statement of being unaware when behaving highly mechanically. In our local legal tradition, analogue of 'Insanity defense' (which is English wiki link to the Finnish concept, but not same word-concept) is defined as absent or very low ability to understand cause and effect. Any case, in many or most justice philosophies that seems to be the common nominator that applies also to juveniles etc. as a requirement to establish consciouss intent.

Of course in more general philosophical and spiritual approach ability to understand cause and effect aka karma can go very far, also far beyond after spiritual awakening from ignorance (moksha, satori etc. in Eastern terminologies for "enlighetenment"); Wild Fox Koan is often characterized as post-awakening study of cause and effect, which seems to have no end, no final answer.

That's the general context, where some set of social norms and customs are supposed to make enough sense to be socially acceptable and benign, but of course the philosophical and practical problems are humongous.

As you mention the "woke" phenomenon of cancel culture etc. obsession for social exclusion of perceived ideological enemies as well as obsession of constantly seeking and creating new enemies to exclude, that's to me quite obviously a phenomenon of collective psychosis of ideological possession. If you have seen the document of Third Wave experiment, it's very similar or same phenomenon as what is called mass psychology of fascism. The name and details of the ideology in question are not what is most significant, it's the mass psychology phenomenon as such that is the real problem.

As the collective psychosis creates also very strong empathy barriers against it's perceived enemies and feeds from negative energies, it can also decrease awareness and understanding of cause and effect very severely. And possession by ideological super-ego is indeed a possession. When there was the NPC meme around, i thought it was not just a joke or ridicule from malice of their opponents, but in a sense also quite accurate diagnosis.

"Forgive them for they don't know what they are doing" applies very much to the woke phenomenon, IMHO. When I've tried to talk with them, of similarly possessed by other ideologies, there's often no ability to make a real connection, and a sense that there's nobody present there, just a mechanical thing. In our old language we would say that, an important part of the soul is lost, and to heal, needs to be retrieved. The part that is capable of autonomous and fully responsible intent.

Mods: not about politics, but about mass psychology of any and all ideological possessions.
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 2023
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the strongest argument against Bernardo's monistic idealism and/or non-duality?

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

Santeri ... Yes, I understand the distinction, and thanks for sharpening the focus.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Dave casarino
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:27 pm

Re: What is the strongest argument against Bernardo's monistic idealism and/or non-duality?

Post by Dave casarino »

So the strongest argument against Kastrup's idealism is...... uuummmm..... do people realise that the constant narrative framing of this so called 'çancel culture' reads as the same mass hysteria you are accusing it of? Suspicion of the suspicious! Anywaaaay a strong consideration against Kastrup may (or may not) be the future possibility of AI developers fully activating subjection within some pseudo organic material construct that has no basis in real living DNA of any kind (because real DNA/genetics might be magical and the only way consciousness can manifest whether emergent or as alter) and is thus completely synthetic despite being intricately analogous in form and structure to the brains found in organic entities. But if this is achieved then what we would have to consider is would the precise architecture of an adequate brain form be a producer/generator or does it mathematically tie consciousness to one spot due to the dynamic of it's function in tandem with it's special architecture, as in does the form of accurate brain do something to localise MAL or pull in "souls" so long as it is "activated" or alive? We would have to ask this android of sorts these questions, after teaching it to speak and accentuate itself (chances are it may not know).
Post Reply