What does the moral code of idealism look like?

[Lou Gold]

@Ed ... I do have one grandchild, and if it's any consolation, he is about as intellectually curious and creative as it gets, plays electric piano, composes songs using computer software, creates and plays in virtual worlds, and yet still loves exploring in nature, helping in the garden, and crafting things out of discarded stuff, all the while probably 10 times more knowledgeable in general than I was at his age, and not just about the techno-wizardry he has access to, as with most kids in Canada these days. I could be mistaken, but he just somehow seems to be wired differently, in some way that has never been the case before. So I'm not so sure it's as dire as it sometimes may appear to be, and these kids are actually what leave me with some hope for the future of this now inextricably connected global village in this electro-cyber age from which there's no turning back, on the verge of what seems an unprecedented shift in the evolution of consciousness ~ the outcome of which we old folks may not even be capable of grasping. Of course, we may all be headed towards mass extinction, but if not, then it's not going to be the grandparents that are figuring it out, but rather I can imagine my grandson working with those kids in Cuenca growing up to dream up some way to make it work for all concerned.

Shu, I have no grandkids but I get that feeling in the music of Jacob Collier. It really does seem that there are younguns who sanctify rather than justify, who shine rather than whine. They inspire me toward hopefulness.

[Ed Konderla]

JC dedicated his life to promoting a vision not that much different than Bernardos and he did it with at least as much passion and not near the fanfare unless being nailed to a cross in front of thousands counts as fan fare. The point is all has happened before. To be specific Bernardo first and foremost characterized consciousness as being fundamental. I remember a person in the audience asked if Bernardo was trying to convert people. His response was basically he was trying to reach people that already knew what he was talking about was true. I was one of those only in regards to the fundamental nature of consciousness. I hit myself on the far head and said "Damn it was right there in front of me all along". One mistake I have seen many many intelligent people make is that because a person can recognize a bad landing that makes them a pilot. I'm leaning at this point to the Essentia Foundation being a whole lot of smart people that see the bad landing humanity has made and the obvious upcoming skid off of the runway where the plane explodes and bursts into flames as being something they have the capacity to stop that from happening. Unfortunately so far they seem to be fooling themselves into thinking they can bake the cake and not break any eggs or dirty any pots and pans.

[Lou Gold]

Actually, the questions of structure are more complex. They would also have to include the patterns of wealth and power that largely determine the course of collective actions taken by a society. In this sense (but not necessarily in ultimate truth) we really do seem to have a mix, as when Jesus says, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

This just speaks to my point above that while BK's model is isomorphic to the structures of the natural world, e.g. the structure of a bee hive, such structure can't necessarily be extrapolated to the world of monetary wealth and political power, as these are based in metacognition, which is implicated in those natural structures being disrupted rather than propagated. So when you say that BK's model lacks structure, if instead what you mean to say is that it can't be extrapolated to account for the chaotic disruptive effect of metacognition on such natural structures, then I'd suggest that is not what his model is intended to address, as it only tends to address how we got to that point. So what you really find lacking in his model is your own PolSci conditioning, affinity and projection. Not surprisingly, you get truly turned on when he writes pieces in which he rips into the corrupted metacognition of Vatican politics, or other such dysfunctional quagmires that make a bee hive look like a model of ideal inter-beeing. In that regard, BK joining in with the likes of many other political commentators offering their preconditioned opinions doesn't do much for me.

As for Neil Thiese being totalling in sync with BK's version of idealism, I only know that he is familiar with it, having attended some of the same conferences, like Sagas and Scientists, SAND, etc, and having sat on panels with BK listening to, and to some extent supporting his arguments. They've also both collaborated with Menas Kafatos, so there is that too. But if he fully grasps and embraces BK's ideas I can't claim to know for sure. As I recall, he also has an affinity for Kabbalah, given his cultural heritage.

Interesting what you project. I wasn't conditioned by PolSci. I was quite disappointed by it and left for another path but I do like it when BK takes a stand even though I don't think his stands are particularly powerful. Indeed, like you, I often find them disappointing. Nevertheless, I find it hard to imagine process without participation or philosophy without practice and performance. Therefore, I applaud when he jumps into the messy world. I do agree with you about his essays on Vatican politics, which seem distinctly European and not attuned to a very different more Marion Catholicism found in Latin America.

About the messy world, I find it noteworthy that Deepak Chopra piece says, "The four most urgent problems on humanity’s plate are overpopulation, pandemic disease, refugeeism, and climate change." and these are nearly impossible to discuss here because they are too political and articles about them tend not to contain "nuanced metaphysical meanings." I often find it ironic that it is the materialist scientists who are raising these issues into highest profile. But they are also likely to turn toward geoengineering or the latest greatest wall or dike, which has a lot to do with the enormous amounts of funding that can be amassed for infrastructure rather than inner structure like who we are as a species. BTW, Elizabeth Kolbert's latest is a worthy read, full of unintended consequences of well intended actions

I don't suspect that Neil Theise would get behind BK's Idealism beyond its most important critique of dogmatic reductionist science and a general faith that consciousness plays an absolutely essential role. In a spectrum view of Idealism I suspect that most leading edge life-science folks might lean more toward some form of pan- or cosmopyschism. In any event, I'm grateful for the turn-on to Theise. Thanks again.

[Soul_of_Shu]

One mistake I have seen many many intelligent people make is that because a person can recognize a bad landing that makes them a pilot. I'm leaning at this point to the Essentia Foundation being a whole lot of smart people that see the bad landing humanity has made and the obvious upcoming skid off of the runway where the plane explodes and bursts into flames as being something they have the capacity to stop that from happening. Unfortunately so far they seem to be fooling themselves into thinking they can bake the cake and not break any eggs or dirty any pots and pans.

Alas, I can see that we're not about to overcome each other's predispositions, so I'm not inclined to carry on with this kind of point contra counter-point exchange that at best will be yet another case of agreeing to disagree. Talk later in another thread perhaps, but now the sun appears to be making an appearance on this damp and chilly spring day, so I'm gonna gives this keyboard a rest ... as always, kind regards.

[Lou Gold]

I have been extremely lucky to have walked the paths I have walked. Systems have always been screwed in their out of balance way they distribute benefits and costs. What has happened now is that we have an expectation that technology can fix that. I was a Texas public high school teacher for 4 years and a teacher at a community college for 2 years. At the high school I taught cabinet making and millwork for half a day (shop teacher) and computers and electronics for half a day. At the community college I taught Petroleum Technology. I was stunned by the lack of intellectual curiosity the students today seem to have. I've never had kids so I never was aware what was going on in public education. None of the students knew how anything worked and what was worse, didn't care. At that point in time I was a devout disciple of pushing kids into technology primarily because technology had been so good to me. Now I live in the middle of no place where my neighbors still plow with bulls, ride horses for transportation, have been poor all of their lives and fully expect to die poor. They have incredible kids. They have tiny houses with almost no furniture. I have one close neighbor couple about 65 years old that have never had electricity in their lives. However these houses are always full of happy smiling family and friends. Joeffre David, the 25 year old guy that has worked with me for 5 years is incredible. He works like a Trojan, is as honest as the day is long and smart as a whip. I teach him no technology. I research and attempt to teach him the latest on holistic gardening methods. I teach him crafts like welding and wood working but no technology because I think the basic knowledge this community has on how to survive without technology may come in very handy in the near future.

Across my years of living in rural Brazilian Amazônia I've been similarly impressed. I know guys who need only a tree, chainsaw, some string and a hammer and nails to build a house. Compare that with the modern techno-dependent urban dweller! Nevertheless, in a world of 8-11 billions, more chainsaws and fewer trees is clearly not the answer.

BTW, do you know the writings of Wendell Berry? He managed to fashion a life of being an intellectual, an academic and farming land behind a horse-drawn plow and celebrating the simple folk of place. I think you'd love his critiques of big techno ag.

[Ed Konderla]

One mistake I have seen many many intelligent people make is that because a person can recognize a bad landing that makes them a pilot. I'm leaning at this point to the Essentia Foundation being a whole lot of smart people that see the bad landing humanity has made and the obvious upcoming skid off of the runway where the plane explodes and bursts into flames as being something they have the capacity to stop that from happening. Unfortunately so far they seem to be fooling themselves into thinking they can bake the cake and not break any eggs or dirty any pots and pans.

Alas, I can see that we're not about to overcome each other's predispositions, so I'm not inclined to carry on with this kind of point contra counter-point exchange that at best will be yet another case of agreeing to disagree. Talk later in another thread perhaps, but now the sun appears to be making an appearance on this damp and chilly spring day, so I'm gonna gives this keyboard a rest ... as always, kind regards.

Count yourself lucky. Today we have pea soup fog. Hasta Luego mi amigo!

[Ed Konderla]

I have been extremely lucky to have walked the paths I have walked. Systems have always been screwed in their out of balance way they distribute benefits and costs. What has happened now is that we have an expectation that technology can fix that. I was a Texas public high school teacher for 4 years and a teacher at a community college for 2 years. At the high school I taught cabinet making and millwork for half a day (shop teacher) and computers and electronics for half a day. At the community college I taught Petroleum Technology. I was stunned by the lack of intellectual curiosity the students today seem to have. I've never had kids so I never was aware what was going on in public education. None of the students knew how anything worked and what was worse, didn't care. At that point in time I was a devout disciple of pushing kids into technology primarily because technology had been so good to me. Now I live in the middle of no place where my neighbors still plow with bulls, ride horses for transportation, have been poor all of their lives and fully expect to die poor. They have incredible kids. They have tiny houses with almost no furniture. I have one close neighbor couple about 65 years old that have never had electricity in their lives. However these houses are always full of happy smiling family and friends. Joeffre David, the 25 year old guy that has worked with me for 5 years is incredible. He works like a Trojan, is as honest as the day is long and smart as a whip. I teach him no technology. I research and attempt to teach him the latest on holistic gardening methods. I teach him crafts like welding and wood working but no technology because I think the basic knowledge this community has on how to survive without technology may come in very handy in the near future.

Across my years of living in rural Brazilian Amazônia I've been similarly impressed. I know guys who need only a tree, chainsaw, some string and a hammer and nails to build a house. Compare that with the modern techno-dependent urban dweller! Nevertheless, in a world of 8-11 billions, more chainsaws and fewer trees is clearly not the answer.

BTW, do you know the writings of Wendell Berry? He managed to fashion a life of being an intellectual, an academic and farming land behind a horse-drawn plow and celebrating the simple folk of place. I think you'd love his critiques of big techno ag.

I read what Wikipedia had on him. A pretty fascinating guy. I wouldn't necessarily share his Christianity or pacifism but I always admire people that talk the talk and walk the walk. I don't claim to be one of those that talk the talk and walk the walk but I always admire those that do even if I disagree with them 100%. What were you doing in Brazilian Amazonia? We haven't made it to Brazil yet but its on the agenda. Definitely want to do Patagonia. I'm surrounded by people that wouldn't know how to be dependent. You would have to give them lessons. Unfortunately we have quite a few Gringos that have their Masters in dependence and victimology. I just hope they don't rub off on the locals too much.

[electricshephard]

Speaking from the experience of this psyche, I can no longer look into the gaze of another sentient being and not feel the presence of the very same ipseity, the one 'I' that looks out from everyOne, the essence of which is That which supersedes all else, however distorted in may be by the veils of suffering prone maya, and the apparency of separation. As such, to understand them or relate to them in any way other than with compassion, just simply feels like adding to, or amplifying the suffering, from which this psyche can't be extricated. From there, it just seems to follow that, eventually, what goes around comes around, and if indeed a psyche is eternal, then less suffering seems the way to go ... at least in this experience.

These are my conclusions also, and I'm quite certain it is the secret to unlocking true compassion moving forward. It is perhaps an amusing irony that the final conclusion to the issue of morality rests on the fundamentals of selfishness, so long as it is the right kind of selfishness.

Or in other words: Selfishness on behalf of the Universal Self is perfect moral accuracy. Selfishness on behalf of the separate self (and at the expense of other separate selves) is a moral mistake.

A wise man once said (albeit using different words): Love thy Universal Self with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and Love the neighbouring separate self as yourself.

I have my own ontological one-liner: If you care more about your own mother than you do the homeless person down the street, then you're doing it wrong.

Predictably, this doesn't go down too well at dinner parties.

But as much as it is true, in ignorance of the Universal Self, many people have a theoretical relationship with morality that is totally dysfunctional. Broadly two types:-

1. Obligational Morality (akin to putting out the trash, recycling plastic or giving to charity. Something that people don't necessarily want to do, but do it anyway as a part of a systemic obligation or social duty. A reluctant compassion.)

2. Neurochemical Morality (aka the maternal / paternal protectorate instinct. Very much a feeling based morality. Being kind to small fluffy animals and homeless people with no limbs. Meanwhile, rapists and mass murdering dictators get a raw deal: Send them to the guillotine! A conditional compassion.)

Both are ontological misalignments, heavily founded on virtue, moral vanity, judgement and vengeance. All mistakes of the separate self. Mistakes of ignorance toward the Universal essence.

People can wax lyrical about the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Holocaust, the slave-trade and so forth. And though they are right, for them it is merely a theoretical exercise of which they believe they have no direct investment.

The moment you sit them down and calmly explain that all those who experienced Hiroshima and Nagasaki were You, and all those who experienced the Holocaust were You, and all those who experienced the slave-trade were You.... that's when things start to get interesting, and you end up getting nailed to a cross.

[Soul_of_Shu]

These are my conclusions also, and I'm quite certain it is the secret to unlocking true compassion moving forward. It is perhaps an amusing irony that the final conclusion to the issue of morality rests on the fundamentals of selfishness, so long as it is the right kind of selfishness.

Or in other words: Selfishness on behalf of the Universal Self is perfect moral accuracy. Selfishness on behalf of the separate self (and at the expense of other separate selves) is a moral mistake.

A wise man once said (albeit using different words): Love thy Universal Self with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and Love the neighbouring separate self as yourself.

I have my own ontological one-liner: If you care more about your own mother than you do the homeless person down the street, then you're doing it wrong.

Predictably, this doesn't go down too well at dinner parties.

But as much as it is true, in ignorance of the Universal Self, many people have a theoretical relationship with morality that is totally dysfunctional. Broadly two types:-

1. Obligational Morality (akin to putting out the trash, recycling plastic or giving to charity. Something that people don't necessarily want to do, but do it anyway as a part of a systemic obligation or social duty. A reluctant compassion.)

2. Neurochemical Morality (aka the maternal / paternal protectorate instinct. Very much a feeling based morality. Being kind to small fluffy animals and homeless people with no limbs. Meanwhile, rapists and mass murdering dictators get a raw deal: Send them to the guillotine! A conditional compassion.)

Both are ontological misalignments, heavily founded on virtue, moral vanity, judgement and vengeance. All mistakes of the separate self. Mistakes of ignorance toward the Universal essence.

People can wax lyrical about the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Holocaust, the slave-trade and so forth. And though they are right, for them it is merely a theoretical exercise of which they believe they have no direct investment.

The moment you sit them down and calmly explain that all those who experienced Hiroshima and Nagasaki were You, and all those who experienced the Holocaust were You, and all those who experienced the slave-trade were You.... that's when things start to get interesting, and you end up getting nailed to a cross.

@electricshephard ... Out of curiosity, what is your take on this realization eventually being actualized on a mass scale of any significance, rather than just in a few seers who are 'nailed' for their trouble ~ albeit not so much literally nowadays, but rather just cynically lambasted for talking rubbish in suggesting that we're not inevitably destined as a collective to dysfunctionally carry on under the suffering-prone spell of maya, with just an endless series of 'train wrecks' awaiting us until, at best, we shed this corporeal form and its veil of tears, never to return again, forsaking any foolhardy Bodhisattva vows.

[AshvinP]

Speaking from the experience of this psyche, I can no longer look into the gaze of another sentient being and not feel the presence of the very same ipseity, the one 'I' that looks out from everyOne, the essence of which is That which supersedes all else, however distorted in may be by the veils of suffering prone maya, and the apparency of separation. As such, to understand them or relate to them in any way other than with compassion, just simply feels like adding to, or amplifying the suffering, from which this psyche can't be extricated. From there, it just seems to follow that, eventually, what goes around comes around, and if indeed a psyche is eternal, then less suffering seems the way to go ... at least in this experience.

These are my conclusions also, and I'm quite certain it is the secret to unlocking true compassion moving forward. It is perhaps an amusing irony that the final conclusion to the issue of morality rests on the fundamentals of selfishness, so long as it is the right kind of selfishness.

Or in other words: Selfishness on behalf of the Universal Self is perfect moral accuracy. Selfishness on behalf of the separate self (and at the expense of other separate selves) is a moral mistake.

That is well said and speaks to deeper truth. What we are put off by in "selfishness" is the conflict it creates within ourselves and between us and others. We do not like the way in which it produces disharmony and takes us out of rhythmic balance, as we seek material and egoistic satisfactions which always remain elusive. But, as you point out, there is another form of "Selfishness" which does the exact opposite. It's probably more appropriate to call it Self-actualization or Self-determination, but it does indeed require a radical interest in one's own ambitions and creations in life, and a striving for one's own independence and freedom in service of spiritual growth and maturation.

“When the healthy nature of man acts as a whole, when he feels himself to be in the world as in a great, beautiful, noble, and valued whole, when harmonious ease affords him a pure and free delight, then the universe, if it could experience itself, would exult, as having attained its goal, and admire the climax of its own becoming and essence.” -Goethe