Bernardo's latest essay

[DandelionSoul]

OK sorry I probably misunderstood the first time. I don't really follow now either. Does the above mean the question of Ground vs. no Ground is meaningless or that the concept of "no Ground" is meaningless, or something else?

Apologies for the delay in responding. I felt it would be wise to read Rovelli's book for myself first, to try to get a sense of exactly what Kastrup's contention with him is, before trying to unpack my intuition here. I have my own issues with Rovelli's perspective, in that he seems to fundamentally misunderstand the Hard Problem, but in terms of the (lack of) Ground, I think I can stand by my initial reply, which is that I don't think the dispute amounts to much at all. Kastrup likes to say of his Ground, his Mind at Large, that just as ripples on a lake are nothing but the lake, or the vibrations of a guitar string are nothing but the guitar string, so the patterns of excitement of M@L are nothing but M@L. So far so good. But then what is M@L without its patterns of excitement? What can we say about it? It seems to me that we can say nothing -- it is the unrealized disposition for patterns of excitement, but an unrealized disposition isn't anything at all.

To say, with Rovelli (as he says with Nagarjuna), that underlying the mutually arising world of things is nothing is, at least as I see it, to say exactly that: there is nothing that the Ground is, and if there is nothing that the Ground is, then the Ground is nothing, and I don't see "The Ground is nothing" as meaningfully distinct from "There is no Ground." So there is no Ground. Kastrup is wrong. But... on the other hand... while M@L without its ripples is nothing, M@L is not without its ripples. It is rippling. Or, per Rovelli, we might say that while a relational reality without any actualized relationships is nothing, in fact, relationships are actualized: reality is relating. Hence, the disposition underlying those relationships -- the fundamental relatability itself, or M@L -- is realized in the relationships themselves and reveals itself in every revelation of every relationship or being or ideation or what-have-you. So there is a Ground. So Rovelli is wrong.

The conclusion that seems unavoidable to me is just this: mutual arising extends even to the relationship between Ground and contingent arisings in/on/through the Ground. The eternal and the temporal constitute one another. The Ground of the world of relations only exists through the relations it grounds, which only exist or cohere through it. They are not two. So when Rovelli brackets the world of things-in-relation and sets it aside and, without it, goes on the hunt for that in which it's grounded and finds nothing at all, he hasn't missed anything -- there's not anything for him to miss. He's not wrong. But when Kastrup looks at the world of things-in-relation and, through it, gestures at that in which it's grounded, he isn't wrong, either. As Lou Gold said in their response to me, form is emptiness and emptiness is not other than form. This, I suspect, is what Nagarjuna meant when he said that even emptiness is empty, and if it isn't, then, at least, it's what I would mean by his words.

So to answer your question directly, yes to all three: the distinction is meaningless, because it's a distinction without a difference or, at most, a quirk of the particularity of perspectives; the concept of "no Ground" is meaningless because there is nothing to deny in the concept of "Ground" apart from its arisings; and the Ground of being and the being of beings reveal themselves as, well, interbeing.

[Ben Iscatus]

DandelionSoul, it seems to me that a point BK made impinges on your argument - that is, the idea of the Ground being not nothing, but a superposition of all possibilities; in other words, a plenum. Emptiness then implies that forms are hitherto unrealized and unmanifest. However, the potential for manifestation removes the idea of a vacuum.

[Eugene I]

What Borella is pointing to, as Cleric and I have been pointing to for a good while now, is that you can only know the "fundamental aspects of Reality" through Thinking activity. Knowing = Thinking, simple as that. That knowing activity restores the Unity which for your mere experience is always divided. Until ideal content enters the picture, we can only speak of fragmented perceptions. (actually we can't even speak of them, because speaking of anything presupposes Thinking and ideal content). Why is this self-evident truth so important? For one, it is not nearly as self-evident as it should be, as evidenced by many comments from many people on this forum. To paraphrase Barfield, in the modern world, one forgets it almost as soon one realizes it. Secondly, it makes clear that there is an activity within you which is always calling upon you to seek higher resolution of the world's Unities. Mere being, experiencing, willing, and feeling never does that. In fact, they do the exact opposite - they give you a feeling that you are at the highest resolution when you feel Oneness. That is no surprise when we realize their essential role is to maintain your individuality as you establish higher and higher ideal unities. How do I know that is their essential role? The same way I know anything - by Thinking.

Thinking could not know anything beyond its self-encapsulated world of ideas if it would not have information about Reality from Experience.

[AshvinP]

Simon, thank you for sharing that from Borella. I am not going to pretend I followed all of it, but I think I followed most of it, and from what I did follow, it sounded spot on. There are some minor issues I have, such as the actual-potential distinction which may be unnecessary if we think in terms of polarity of known-unknown or something similar. Maybe Scott can provide further insight on that, because my knowing mind is definitely not up to the task right now

If there is any major issue I have with what Borella wrote, it is with this - "Not only does it make it possible to envisage realization by knowledge in a new light, by inseparably considering it as the realization of the "object" as well as the "subject", but it is also based on what we will call a metaphysics of knowledge that, in a certain sense, replaces a metaphysics of being." Specifically, with him calling it a "new light" on the "metaphysics of knowledge". What Borella says there in somewhat confusing analytic philosophical terms, Steiner already said in very clear and accessible terms for everyone back in the 1890s. That is what The Philosophy of Freedom (or Spiritual Activity) is all about (and much more)! Unless I am completely misreading what Borella is saying, which is possible. So there is definitely much common ground there.

I think Borella is pointing out that Thinking (Knowing) is prior to all distinctions of subject-object, etc. Those distinctions presuppose the ideal content which only Thinking (not mere "Being") provides. That is why he wants to replace a metaphysics of being with a metaphysics of knowledge. And if we make such a replacement, we see that it is meaningless to speak of "objective Reality" without a Thinking "observer" beholding it. Or rather it is self-defeating, because such statements can only be meaningful if Thinking is not what they claim it is. However, Borella is not aware that Steiner already did all of that replacing (most people are not aware), or maybe he is aware and wants to leave Steiner out of the discussion for the typical spiritual reasons people want to leave him out. So if you have no problem reading such things on your phone, then I think you will have even less problem reading the PoF

It was interesting to me because what he described (via Guenon) as ‘real’ seemed close to your framing, but he has this as a perspective, within a vertical, coming down from “the
Supreme Principle, the Universal Possibility”, and returning up as experience (I guess in a way, similar to your co-creation). This “Universal Possibility” he describes as an active aspect of god, as opposed to “the Infinite” aspect which is passive. The distinction is only meaningful from our perspective, but he describes the reason for it a couple of paragraphs before the part I quoted;

we must ask ourselves why Guénon introduces the concept of Universal Possibility. What is the point? What is it for? Isn't Infinite's enough? Guénon gives a first answer by declaring that the point of view of the Universal Possibility constitutes "the minimum of determination that is required for us (...) to make the Infinite currently conceivable". In short, we cannot currently conceive of the Infinite in itself. When we think of the Infinite, we actually think of "universal possibility", in other words "what can be absolutely anything", "what reality cannot be limited absolutely by anything"

This is interesting to me in another way, as much of the current thinking in physics I’ve been superficially sampling recently describes the ‘laws of nature’ (the Standard Model etc) as limits on what is possible. So you have god as full possibility creating the universe of constrained possibility. I’ve ordered a book of his where he specifically looks at science with a physicist to see his take on this (Rediscovering the Integral Cosmos: Physics, Metaphysics, and Vertical Causality), and just hope that I can follow it!

Exactly. It is very helpful to think in terms of the U-shape of Spirit descending into phenomenal world and ascending through the individual human who is reintegrating the world appearances (i.e. Barfield's "Saving the Appearances") through Thinking activity (in its highest sense). Christ is the living archetype of that integral process which bridges future and past, love and memory, willing-feeling and thinking. Or even better is Cleric's image of sphere with center and periphery - the metamorphic evolutionary process moves now from periphery to center through and against reverse flow from center to periphery (that is essence of polarity). That book on "rediscovering the integral Cosmos" sounds very interesting, thanks!

The next question, and by far the most important one IMO, becomes whether we are forever destined to think of this integral process in low-resolution pictures? The process itself presupposes the answer to that question is "no". We are not speaking of reintegration as a mere metaphor for some other personal psychological process - we are speaking of it literally as the reintegration of manifold perspectives within the Cosmos (without losing individuality). This is where a lot of people get stuck and for pretty obvious reasons. I am not sure what Borella's position is on that, but in any case we must move beyond the mere abstract intellect into these higher modes of perception-cognition to fully realize the Christ impulse working within us.

[AshvinP]

What Borella is pointing to, as Cleric and I have been pointing to for a good while now, is that you can only know the "fundamental aspects of Reality" through Thinking activity. Knowing = Thinking, simple as that. That knowing activity restores the Unity which for your mere experience is always divided. Until ideal content enters the picture, we can only speak of fragmented perceptions. (actually we can't even speak of them, because speaking of anything presupposes Thinking and ideal content). Why is this self-evident truth so important? For one, it is not nearly as self-evident as it should be, as evidenced by many comments from many people on this forum. To paraphrase Barfield, in the modern world, one forgets it almost as soon one realizes it. Secondly, it makes clear that there is an activity within you which is always calling upon you to seek higher resolution of the world's Unities. Mere being, experiencing, willing, and feeling never does that. In fact, they do the exact opposite - they give you a feeling that you are at the highest resolution when you feel Oneness. That is no surprise when we realize their essential role is to maintain your individuality as you establish higher and higher ideal unities. How do I know that is their essential role? The same way I know anything - by Thinking.

Thinking could not know anything beyond its self-encapsulated world of ideas if it would not have information about Reality from Experience.

Of course not. But that is the extent of what "Experiencing" is doing - providing sense information (in very broad definition of "sense"). It is not providing any sort of meaningful link between the fragments of sense information or between the fragments and ourselves - that is what Thinking does. Actually, if we speak of "information" we are already presupposing ideal content of Thinking. That is why I would say Experiencing provides bare percepts, and Thinking informs us of the meaningful connection between bare percepts.

[AshvinP]

To say, with Rovelli (as he says with Nagarjuna), that underlying the mutually arising world of things is nothing is, at least as I see it, to say exactly that: there is nothing that the Ground is, and if there is nothing that the Ground is, then the Ground is nothing, and I don't see "The Ground is nothing" as meaningfully distinct from "There is no Ground." So there is no Ground. Kastrup is wrong. But... on the other hand... while M@L without its ripples is nothing, M@L is not without its ripples. It is rippling. Or, per Rovelli, we might say that while a relational reality without any actualized relationships is nothing, in fact, relationships are actualized: reality is relating. Hence, the disposition underlying those relationships -- the fundamental relatability itself, or M@L -- is realized in the relationships themselves and reveals itself in every revelation of every relationship or being or ideation or what-have-you. So there is a Ground. So Rovelli is wrong.

The conclusion that seems unavoidable to me is just this: mutual arising extends even to the relationship between Ground and contingent arisings in/on/through the Ground. The eternal and the temporal constitute one another. The Ground of the world of relations only exists through the relations it grounds, which only exist or cohere through it. They are not two. So when Rovelli brackets the world of things-in-relation and sets it aside and, without it, goes on the hunt for that in which it's grounded and finds nothing at all, he hasn't missed anything -- there's not anything for him to miss. He's not wrong. But when Kastrup looks at the world of things-in-relation and, through it, gestures at that in which it's grounded, he isn't wrong, either. As Lou Gold said in their response to me, form is emptiness and emptiness is not other than form. This, I suspect, is what Nagarjuna meant when he said that even emptiness is empty, and if it isn't, then, at least, it's what I would mean by his words.

So to answer your question directly, yes to all three: the distinction is meaningless, because it's a distinction without a difference or, at most, a quirk of the particularity of perspectives; the concept of "no Ground" is meaningless because there is nothing to deny in the concept of "Ground" apart from its arisings; and the Ground of being and the being of beings reveal themselves as, well, interbeing.

The distinction for me is that "Ground is no-thing" speaks of the Ground in its formless aspect of existence, while "there is no Ground" denies it any existence whatsoever. However, that is not very important compared to the truth of your bolded statements - the Ground as the Tri-Unity of formlessness, form and self-awareness which comes from their eternal dynamic interplay.

[Eugene I]

Of course not. But that is the extent of what "Experiencing" is doing - providing sense information (in very broad definition of "sense"). It is not providing any sort of meaningful link between the fragments of sense information or between the fragments and ourselves - that is what Thinking does. Actually, if we speak of "information" we are already presupposing ideal content of Thinking. That is why I would say Experiencing provides bare percepts, and Thinking informs us of the meaningful connection between bare percepts.

This is all true, I agreed with it many times before. However in addition to that, there is another facet of Unity. Experiencing is not limited to sensing only. Every act of thinking is also Experienced, every idea is Experienced, every volition is Experienced, every feeling is Experienced, and even Experiencing itself is Experienced. Everything and all there is (in idealism) is always consciously Experienced, and Experiencing is what "glues" and unites together all fragmented perceptions, feelings, ideas etc. So the Unity has two facets/aspects: the Unity in the ideal content (as you say), and the Unity in conscious Experiencing. The PoF approach emphasizes the former but ignores the latter, the Eastern traditions do the opposite. What is needed for the realization of the Unity to be complete is integration of these two aspects, if we really try to reach to the completeness of Unity. But if we just stay with the Unity in Thinking, that's fine too, I have nothing against it, it is indeed already a Unity (in one aspect). I'm only saying that it would be still incomplete, but only if we really aim to reach to the completeness of the Unity.

[AshvinP]

Of course not. But that is the extent of what "Experiencing" is doing - providing sense information (in very broad definition of "sense"). It is not providing any sort of meaningful link between the fragments of sense information or between the fragments and ourselves - that is what Thinking does. Actually, if we speak of "information" we are already presupposing ideal content of Thinking. That is why I would say Experiencing provides bare percepts, and Thinking informs us of the meaningful connection between bare percepts.

This is all true, I agreed with it many times before. However in addition to that, there is another facet of Unity. Experiencing is not limited to sensing only. Every act of thinking is also Experienced, every idea is Experienced, every volition is Experienced, every feeling is Experienced, and even Experiencing itself is Experienced. Everything and all there is (in idealism) is always consciously Experienced, and Experiencing is what "glues" and unites together all fragmented perceptions, feelings, ideas etc. So the Unity has two facets/aspects: the Unity in the ideal content (as you say), and the Unity in conscious Experiencing. The PoF approach emphasizes the former but ignores the latter, the Eastern traditions do the opposite. What is needed for the realization of the Unity to be complete is integration of these two aspects, if we really try to reach to the completeness of Unity. But if we just stay with the Unity in Thinking, that's fine too, I have nothing against it, it is indeed already a Unity (in one aspect). I'm only saying that it would be still incomplete, but only if we really aim to reach to the completeness of the Unity.

The first bolded assertion is contradicted almost immediately by the second bolded assertion. It really boggles the mind how this happens with you so often. I say, "only Thinking provides meaningful link between fragments", you say, "this is all true and I agree", then you say, "Experiencing is what unites together all the fragments". So let me say it again - the last assertion is not true. Experiencing does not unite any thing, at any time, at any place. That is done only by Thinking.

And if we just cut to the chase, the reason you will not admit that or will half-admit and half-deny it at the same time, is because you do not want to acknowledge higher resolution on the underlying relations is objectively possible. That is, the claims of spiritual science can be shown as objectively superior (in terms of truth value) to other spiritual claims via cobbling together NDEs and what not. You want them to remain in the realm of mere personalized fantasies, as do most philosophers of Will and Being.

[Eugene I]

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:35 am
Of course not. But that is the extent of what "Experiencing" is doing - providing sense information (in very broad definition of "sense"). It is not providing any sort of meaningful link between the fragments of sense information or between the fragments and ourselves - that is what Thinking does. Actually, if we speak of "information" we are already presupposing ideal content of Thinking. That is why I would say Experiencing provides bare percepts, and Thinking informs us of the meaningful connection between bare percepts.

The first bolded assertion is contradicted almost immediately by the second bolded assertion. It really boggles the mind how this happens with you so often. I say, "only Thinking provides meaningful link between fragments", you say, "this is all true and I agree", then you say, "Experiencing is what unites together all the fragments". So let me say it again - the last assertion is not true. Experiencing does not unite any thing, at any time, at any place. That is done only by Thinking.

And if we just cut to the chase, the reason you will not admit that or will half-admit and half-deny it at the same time, is because you do not want to acknowledge higher resolution on the underlying relations is objectively possible. That is, the claims of spiritual science can be shown as objectively superior (in terms of truth value) to other spiritual claims via cobbling together NDEs and what not. You want them to remain in the realm of mere personalized fantasies, as do most philosophers of Will and Being.

In the quoted text you did not say "only Thinking provides meaningful link between fragments", you only said "Thinking provides meaningful link between fragments" Latter statement is what I agree with, while still disagreeing with the former one. But I understand you position: because you have no experience of the Unity in Experiencing, you also have no evidence for such Experiential Unity, and therefore it is natural and logical for you to claim that "b]only [/b]Thinking provides meaningful link between fragments".

[AshvinP]

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:35 am
Of course not. But that is the extent of what "Experiencing" is doing - providing sense information (in very broad definition of "sense"). It is not providing any sort of meaningful link between the fragments of sense information or between the fragments and ourselves - that is what Thinking does. Actually, if we speak of "information" we are already presupposing ideal content of Thinking. That is why I would say Experiencing provides bare percepts, and Thinking informs us of the meaningful connection between bare percepts.

The first bolded assertion is contradicted almost immediately by the second bolded assertion. It really boggles the mind how this happens with you so often. I say, "only Thinking provides meaningful link between fragments", you say, "this is all true and I agree", then you say, "Experiencing is what unites together all the fragments". So let me say it again - the last assertion is not true. Experiencing does not unite any thing, at any time, at any place. That is done only by Thinking.

And if we just cut to the chase, the reason you will not admit that or will half-admit and half-deny it at the same time, is because you do not want to acknowledge higher resolution on the underlying relations is objectively possible. That is, the claims of spiritual science can be shown as objectively superior (in terms of truth value) to other spiritual claims via cobbling together NDEs and what not. You want them to remain in the realm of mere personalized fantasies, as do most philosophers of Will and Being.

In the quoted text you did not say "only Thinking provides meaningful link between fragments", you only said "Thinking provides meaningful link between fragments" Latter statement is what I agree with, while still disagreeing with the former one. But I understand you position: because you have no experience of the Unity in Experiencing, you also have no evidence for such Experiential Unity, and therefore it is natural and logical for you to claim that "b]only [/b]Thinking provides meaningful link between fragments".

You know my position has always been that it is only Thinking which reunites the phenomenal world, by various essays, comments, and even PMs to you. That is made perfectly clear by me. But you keep reverting to this flawed understanding of my position whenever we get to the point that you can no longer deny the arguments I am making. We are now at such a point again - once you claim there is "Unity in Experiencing", you have introduced the element of ideal content which presupposes Thinking. I do not need mystical experience to know that Thinking is the only means by which the ideal content of "Unity" can be experienced and expressed. Ideal content is only provided to any experience by Thinking - that is pretty much a tautology in any age except the modern one. I expect it will not be long before you will "forget" my position again and start back from square one of misrepresenting it and square two of me correcting your understanding of it...