What does the moral code of idealism look like?

[Lou Gold]

This is called in kabbalah “ran and returned” (“ratzo va-shov”). A principle that expresses the tension and dynamics in reality between male and female, thought and faith, expansion and contraction and more. Like a melody

Yes, I agree. I had a very interesting experience in Brazil of being immersed, as a non-Portuguese speaker, in a spiritual practice heavily dependent on music where I would be drawn musically deep into its essential heartfelt doctrine but later, with translation of the lyrics, be diverted into a bunch of mental judgemental agreements and disagreements. Balancing or integrating heart and mind is quite a dance, the success of which is revealed only in performance.

In my opinion it is a product of spiritual maturity. By the way I loved the poem of Mary Oliver

I strongly suspect that we are on the same page but why call it "spiritual maturity" rather than "experiential maturity", which would mix the spiritual and the material in the humble way of the poem of Mary Oliver?

[Shaibei]

Yes, I agree. I had a very interesting experience in Brazil of being immersed, as a non-Portuguese speaker, in a spiritual practice heavily dependent on music where I would be drawn musically deep into its essential heartfelt doctrine but later, with translation of the lyrics, be diverted into a bunch of mental judgemental agreements and disagreements. Balancing or integrating heart and mind is quite a dance, the success of which is revealed only in performance.

In my opinion it is a product of spiritual maturity. By the way I loved the poem of Mary Oliver

I strongly suspect that we are on the same page but why call it "spiritual maturity" rather than "experiential maturity", which would mix the spiritual and the material in the humble way of the poem of Mary Oliver?

I'm not sure I understand. If you mean ontology when you write "mix spiritual and material", then I do not think it is possible to prove ontology but it is possible to provide motivation to support one

[Lou Gold]

In my opinion it is a product of spiritual maturity. By the way I loved the poem of Mary Oliver

I strongly suspect that we are on the same page but why call it "spiritual maturity" rather than "experiential maturity", which would mix the spiritual and the material in the humble way of the poem of Mary Oliver?

I'm not sure I understand. If you mean ontology when you write "mix spiritual and material", then I do not think it is possible to prove ontology but it is possible to provide motivation to support one

The shamanic approach would sidestep the quest for proof in favor of questing for a way to walk in balance in the uncertainty, which would simply acknowledge no proof for ontology. If, OTOH by 'motivation', you mean to look for what's being left out, then I agree. Over-privileging either Materialism or Idealism will be problematic depending on the times and conditions -- there's a season for all and to think more is a vanity.

[Lou Gold]

I'm wondering, can you name a famous biologist or life science researcher who is a BK-style Idealist?

Neil Theise, whose field of expertise is biology-based, and being familiar with Bernardo's model does not balk at idealism, would be about as close it it gets.

Thanks for the turn-on to Neil Theise, who is new to me. I'm getting into his videos now. BTW, I do not balk at Idealism. I surely consider it preferable to dogmatic reductionist materialism and this is no small matter. However, in the context of Ed's lead question I'm not sure that Idealism compels a better way beyond simply allowing for the possibility.

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."

[Lou Gold]

At this point I feel like a meteorologist trying to predict the weather during a period of very unstable weather patterns. I loved this article not for it's discussion on what got us here but from the conclusions of where the writer or writers think we should be going. I was an automation engineer without a degree in anything (I still don't have a degree in anything). That occurred only because I had a unique ability to solve complex process control problems using the new fangled computers coming out. Prior to computers process control was done by human, pneumatic, electrical and mechanical devices. All of the time prior to 1977 when I left the US Air Force where I was a weapons control system technician on the F-4E Phantom fighter/ bomber very little in industry was done by computer. Cars were designed and built, oil was produced and refined, crops were planted, grown, harvested and distributed etc., etc. and that list of etc.'s is almost endless. Society was made up of millions of autonomous people and systems. Then computers came along and all of that went out the window. Now in plants that used to require a 100 operators you can do the job with 3. Then you had control loops that operated completely independently now are all interconnected. Back then you had a 100 operators that many of them understood how almost all of the systems worked to now you have 3 operators that don't have a clue. They have no more of a clue then the vast majority of people using computers understand how their computers work. When I play out where this is going in my mind using the data I collect now through the news and articles such as this I think humanity especially in technological society's is doomed. We have more and more self indulgent, self important people demanding more and more control and feel totally justified in destroying systems that don't meet their demands. More and more "equality" from people that produce nothing and don't have a clue of how anything is produced. What we now have happening on a global scale is Venezuela. I believe Venezuela is broken beyond repair and anybody that might have fixed it has left and is begging on the street corners in cities like Cuenca for food to feed their families.

Cool background that you have Ed. I had a friend who was an intuitive problem-solver. He spend his time split between being a backwoods hippie builder and a design engineer (with an art degree) at Lockheed-Martin, where he designed the solar masts for the international space station. Laughingly, he liked to say he did most of his research at the bait-and-tackle shop at the wharf where he contemplated fishing rods and various connectors.

I don't know how to evaluate your sense of high tech controlled systems but there surely seems to be something out-of-balance in the skew or screwed way modern systems distribute benefits and costs.

[Lou Gold]

I'm wondering, can you name a famous biologist or life science researcher who is a BK-style Idealist?

Neil Theise, whose field of expertise is biology-based, and being familiar with Bernardo's model does not balk at idealism, would be about as close it it gets.

Thanks for the turn-on to Neil Theise, who is new to me. I'm getting into his videos now. BTW, I do not balk at Idealism. I surely consider it preferable to dogmatic reductionist materialism and this is no small matter. However, in the context of Ed's lead question I'm not sure that Idealism compels a better way beyond simply allowing for the possibility.

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."

I like the little I've seen of Neil Theise. I think we are going to have to clarify our lingo about BK-style Idealism. For example, I consider Rupert Sheldrake and Joanna Macy as types of Idealists but I don't think BK would. What's your take?

As an aside, I'm curious about the so-called faces-and-vase "complementarity dilemma." I find it quite easy to see both/and rather than get stuck in a perceptual either/or. All I have to is to defocus my eyes a bit. OTOH, if I tighten my focus trying to select either/or it truly becomes difficult. I think there's a lesson in this.

[Shaibei]

I strongly suspect that we are on the same page but why call it "spiritual maturity" rather than "experiential maturity", which would mix the spiritual and the material in the humble way of the poem of Mary Oliver?

I'm not sure I understand. If you mean ontology when you write "mix spiritual and material", then I do not think it is possible to prove ontology but it is possible to provide motivation to support one

The shamanic approach would sidestep the quest for proof in favor of questing for a way to walk in balance in the uncertainty, which would simply acknowledge no proof for ontology. If, OTOH by 'motivation', you mean to look for what's being left out, then I agree. Over-privileging either Materialism or Idealism will be problematic depending on the times and conditions -- there's a season for all and to think more is a vanity.

It's interesting. I think it is hard to ignore the fact that scientific achievements are a product of materialism. Over the years science has sought to define reality objectively independent of the subject. The last century has questioned this possibility and has led various philosophers to distinguish between presentation and representation, between what is “out there” and the way our consciousness interprets it. Like these animations that for some people rotate from right to left and for others the other way around.
We should note that it was these scientific discoveries that led to the distinction between representation and presentation, and not an early philosophical conception that influenced scientific discoveries. Such a philosophical distinction certainly does not characterize philosophers like Hegel. And here I think lies the danger in idealism. Idealism has a tendency to make some thinkers build a ramified network of ideas by which they explain reality, the so-called Historiosophy. More than once we realize that reality has its own laws, and it is far from obeying the imaginations of one thinker or another. What is given to the prophet is not given to every person. And if we want to avoid these mistakes and their consequences we must be humble about the things we still cannot understand.

[Lou Gold]

I follow your drift.

And if we want to avoid these mistakes and their consequences we must be humble about the things we still cannot understand.

I used to have long discussions with the most evolved man I've ever known. At a certain point in our discussions he would stop more talk saying, "We should not speak of things we don't know." I do think there's a way to understand, which is to stand under with awe and respect and allow this careful holding of unknown space to change us. It's called 'devotion'.

[Shaibei]

I follow your drift.

And if we want to avoid these mistakes and their consequences we must be humble about the things we still cannot understand.

I used to have long discussions with the most evolved man I've ever known. At a certain point in our discussions he would stop more talk saying, "We should not speak of things we don't know." I do think there's a way to understand, which is to stand under with awe and respect and allow this careful holding of unknown space to change us. It's called 'devotion'.

I agree. There is more to "not knowing" than a lack of knowledge. "Not knowing" itself is a kind of knowledge. Sometimes "knowing" binds the mind and "not knowing" releases it

[Lou Gold]

I follow your drift.

And if we want to avoid these mistakes and their consequences we must be humble about the things we still cannot understand.

I used to have long discussions with the most evolved man I've ever known. At a certain point in our discussions he would stop more talk saying, "We should not speak of things we don't know." I do think there's a way to understand, which is to stand under with awe and respect and allow this careful holding of unknown space to change us. It's called 'devotion'.

I agree. There is more to "not knowing" than a lack of knowledge. "Not knowing" itself is a kind of knowledge. Sometimes "knowing" binds the mind and "not knowing" releases it

Exactly. I once said to a teacher, "I don't know how to be humble." He responded, "Ask instead of tell."