Is Rovelli 'Dragooning the Human Spirit'?

[Soul_of_Shu]

What sort of "remains in their absence" are we speaking of? Positing a Reality which exists apart from our "idea constructs" is dualism.

More accurately referring to what remains when not fixatedly focused on idea constructs, which would be the awareness of simply being unconditioned Awareness, for lack of better words for what defies all wording of it.

[AshvinP]

What sort of "remains in their absence" are we speaking of? Positing a Reality which exists apart from our "idea constructs" is dualism.

More accurately referring to what remains when not fixatedly focused on idea constructs, which would be the awareness of simply being unconditioned Awareness, for lack of better words for what defies all wording of it.

But One cannot be aware of "unconditioned awareness" without also being aware of the meaning of "unconditioned awareness" (whatever that happens to be). So now we already have UA + Meaning. But that is dualism, so instead it should be unconditioned Ideating activity (out of nostalgia for "idealism", if nothing else) which, by its very essence, is eternally 'awaring' (and willing and feeling). Damn... how did we get back here? I suppose we are all to blame

[Eugene I]

These things can be cleared up if we adopt a more living sense of "truth". The modern age also led us to think "truth" is when some facts external to us hold good absolutely and for all time (clearly this stems from Cartesian S-O dualism, and Kant adopted it as well in his epistemology). So then the modern intellectual says "Aristotelian logic is untrue, because later we discovered other forms of logic which seem inconsistent with it." If we do not ignore our own role in assessing the "facts", and we consider our own activity in the world one of those facts, then "truth" becomes what holds good (proves useful towards specific aims) under definite circumstances and under definite conditions. That is generally the pragmatic notion of truth.

To be clear, though, I was not referring to logical or mathematical systems. I was just saying the concept of "triangle", for ex., I do not hold to be as abstract as the concept of "velocity", the latter being several concepts put together. And I am not saying abstractions are untrue - abstract reasoning and concepts were very useful in the Middle Ages for penetrating into some 'layers' of the spiritual realm, but they have very little such utility in the post-modern age. We need to get in the habit of thinking of all these things, especially "truth", as relational and context-dependent. Truth is more about how we assess and combine various facts of Nature (including ourselves) under various conditions rather than any absolute state of facts.

OK, let's consider a specific scenario: the world we live in is a "simulated" or "secondary" layer of reality that functions and appears to us in a completely different way from how the actual Reality functions and what it actually is. There can be multiple ways for that to happen:
- As in BK's scheme, the world we see is a result of mind-created ideations of MAL. We don not experience the MAL directly and do not communicate with it, we only perceive its ideations directed towards us through our "Markov's blankets" in which we are completely wrapped and isolated from teh MAL.
- As in the Matrix movie, the world we see is a computer simulations having nothing to do with the reality where the sumulating computer is running.
- As per Hoffman's model, the world we perceive is an "interface" that has little to do with the "hardware" on which the "code" creating such interface is running.

In either case, the reality we live would be a construct, a "game" unfolding according to its own rules. No matter how much we study the rules and the behaviors of objects within the game, they will tell us nothing about the Reality behind it where the "game" is being created, just like studying the appearances on the computer screen may give us some insights into how the code works, but will tell us nothing about the hardware on which it is running. So, if we follow your definition of truth (which I'm ok with and agree), we can find all kinds of practical evolving content-dependent and relational truths and shared meanings that will make us more adapted and fit to the simulated reality we live in. These practical truths will be all valid ones, but they will only be relevant to how things "function" in the simulated layer of reality, but not what things actually are on the hidden level of the "base" Reality. Those truths will actually have nothing to do with the base Reality. This is what I was asking about.

So, applying this scenario to your question, in my engineering work I deal with concrete experiences of how my designs actually function and I acquire practical knowledge of their behaviors and functioning. But again, all these experiences and knowledge only appears within the apparent reality and applies to the rules and behaviors of the objects residing in the apparent "simulated" level of reality. All this knowledge would be irrelevant to the "base" level of Reality.

On the other hand, there could be different more optimistic scenarios where the reality we see is an "extension" of the "base" Reality, and by studying and knowing the shared and content-related truths of the apparent level of reality, we could at the same time advance our knowledge of and get insights into the actual "base" Reality.

I can easily foresee you objection: what I'm proposing here in the first "pessimistic" scenario is a hopeless Kantian divide between how the reality appears to us and how it actually is as the "thing in itself" with a hopeless disconnect between these two levels of reality, which leads to an epistemological dualism. But I'm just giving this example as a possible scenario, I'm not saying this is how things actually are, I'm only saying that this is how things could be, but we have no reason to claim they could not be this way. But we also have no reason to claim that this is how thisgn necessarily have to be. The fact is, we do not know. We can hope that the Reality is fundamentally comprehensible by our knowledge down to the very fundamental "ontological" level, but we can never be sure that it is in fact true and that there is not another "turtle" underneath of it that is inaccessible and incomprehensible to us.

But practically I'm all for it: we should not adhere to these pessimistic and agnostic types of scenarios because they are practically counter-productive. In the situation of uncertainty like this it is more productive to deliberately choose more optimistic paradigm, because it will give us a chance to progress in case if it turns out to be true. If it turns out to be not true, well, at least we tried. Another way to call this strategy is "faith" - we don't know with certainty how things are, but we still hope and have faith that the Reality, no matter how challenging it may be to us, is still ultimately "friendly" to us and comprehensible for us.

[AshvinP]

These things can be cleared up if we adopt a more living sense of "truth". The modern age also led us to think "truth" is when some facts external to us hold good absolutely and for all time (clearly this stems from Cartesian S-O dualism, and Kant adopted it as well in his epistemology). So then the modern intellectual says "Aristotelian logic is untrue, because later we discovered other forms of logic which seem inconsistent with it." If we do not ignore our own role in assessing the "facts", and we consider our own activity in the world one of those facts, then "truth" becomes what holds good (proves useful towards specific aims) under definite circumstances and under definite conditions. That is generally the pragmatic notion of truth.

To be clear, though, I was not referring to logical or mathematical systems. I was just saying the concept of "triangle", for ex., I do not hold to be as abstract as the concept of "velocity", the latter being several concepts put together. And I am not saying abstractions are untrue - abstract reasoning and concepts were very useful in the Middle Ages for penetrating into some 'layers' of the spiritual realm, but they have very little such utility in the post-modern age. We need to get in the habit of thinking of all these things, especially "truth", as relational and context-dependent. Truth is more about how we assess and combine various facts of Nature (including ourselves) under various conditions rather than any absolute state of facts.

OK, let's consider a specific scenario: the world we live in is a "simulated" or "secondary" layer of reality that functions and appears to us in a completely different way from how the actual Reality functions and what it actually is. There can be multiple ways for that to happen:
- As in BK's scheme, the world we see is a result of mind-created ideations of MAL. We don not experience the MAL directly and do not communicate with it, we only perceive its ideations directed towards us through our "Markov's blankets" in which we are completely wrapped and isolated from teh MAL.
- As in the Matrix movie, the world we see is a computer simulations having nothing to do with the reality where the sumulating computer is running.
- As per Hoffman's model, the world we perceive is an "interface" that has little to do with the "hardware" on which the "code" creating such interface is running.

In either case, the reality we live would be a construct, a "game" unfolding according to its own rules. No matter how much we study the rules and the behaviors of objects within the game, they will tell us nothing about the Reality behind it where the "game" is being created, just like studying the appearances on the computer screen may give us some insights into how the code works, but will tell us nothing about the hardware on which it is running. So, if we follow your definition of truth (which I'm ok with and agree), we can find all kinds of practical evolving content-dependent and relational truths and shared meanings that will make us more adapted and fit to the simulated reality we live in. These practical truths will be all valid ones, but they will only be relevant to how things "function" in the simulated layer of reality, but not what things actually are on the hidden level of the "base" Reality. Those truths will actually have nothing to do with the base Reality. This is what I was asking about.

Right. So these are all abstract partial images from different angles of the mythic understanding - the physical is a shadow of the spiritual, as in Plato's allegory of the cave. To be clear, I am not mentioning Plato because I want to debate his understanding, just as a reference point everyone here is aware of. I readily acknowledge there are a fair amount of people who will abstractly translate that understanding into "there is X, Y, Z in physical realm, so that is shadow of slightly different X,Y,Z in spiritual realm". That abstract translation is completely useless - it is trying to concretize the abstractions of physical world by way of more equally abstract concepts born of the physical world. It just won't ever happen. That is how I think the Matrix and VR/simulation type analogies are also functioning here. Hoffman's appraoch is of a somewhat different nature, but we don't need to get into that now. I think we both agree that neither BK's model, nor any sort of simulation hypotheses, are going to bring us closer to the details of the spiritual realm.

So, applying this scenario to your question, in my engineering work I deal with concrete experiences of how my designs actually function and I acquire practical knowledge of their behaviors and functioning. But again, all these experiences and knowledge only appears within the apparent reality and applies to the rules and behaviors of the objects residing in the apparent "simulated" level of reality. All this knowledge would be irrelevant to the "base" level of Reality.

On the other hand, there could be different more optimistic scenarios where the reality we see is an "extension" of the "base" Reality, and by studying and knowing the shared and content-related truths of the apparent level of reality, we could at the same time advance our knowledge of and get insights into the actual "base" Reality.

I can easily foresee you objection: what I'm proposing here in the first "pessimistic" scenario is a hopeless Kantian divide between how the reality appears to us and how it actually is as the "thing in itself" with a hopeless disconnect between these two levels of reality, which leads to an epistemological dualism. But I'm just giving this example as a possible scenario, I'm not saying this is how things actually are, I'm only saying that this is how things could be, but we have no reason to claim they could not be this way. But we also have no reason to claim that this is how thisgn necessarily have to be. The fact is, we do not know. We can hope that the Reality is fundamentally comprehensible by our knowledge down to the very fundamental "ontological" level, but we can never be sure that it is in fact true and that there is not another "turtle" underneath of it that is inaccessible and incomprehensible to us.

But practically I'm all for it: we should not adhere to these pessimistic and agnostic types of scenarios because they are practically counter-productive. In the situation of uncertainty like this it is more productive to deliberately choose more optimistic paradigm, because it will give us a chance to progress in case if it turns out to be true. If it turns out to be not true, well, at least we tried. Another way to call this strategy is "faith" - we don't know with certainty how things are, but we still hope and have faith that the Reality, no matter how challenging it may be to us, is still ultimately "friendly" to us and comprehensible for us.

Here is the key point for me - if we remain within abstract intellect, then yes there is very little reason to think the base spiritual realm can be explored in any sort of high resolution. No matter how much we discuss it here with each other, we are not going to find what we are looking for. In my view, these discussions can be useful for penetrating the spiritual realm to the extent they can convince us there are higher modes of cognition which dwell in the spiritual realms. That is why all of these fundamentally "pessimistic" views of the modern age can be traced back to leaving Thinking in the blind spot - if we feel there is no reason to look for higher cognition, born from within ourselves, then of course we won't look for it or find it. The common element between such varied philosophies as rationalism-dualism-materialism, logical positivism, Kantian idealism, Schopenhauer philosophy of Will, etc. is a diminishing of Thinking to personal activity which tries to recreate an 'external' world within each individual. Steiner's PoF is about dispelling that entire way of thinking about Thinking via carefully reasoned arguments.

Eventually we must confront those arguments head on - because no philosophy or science can sidestep Thinking essence and provide meaningful value to the burning questions of humanity. It is really the only aspect of the spiritual realm which we can locate directly in our immanent sensible experience. In your engineering work, you must start with concrete experience of how a design actually functions. Once you find that concrete experience, I presume you Reason your way to the higher level dynamics which can improve the design or adapt it for various uses, etc. In the spiritual realm, that concrete experience is our own Thinking activity. Once we get that concrete experience of the spiritual-noumenal in the phenomenal realm, our Reason can do what it does best and make the meaningful connections which allow some more unconcealment of the spiritual. Perhaps you could say we must have "faith" that Reason is up to the task, but since we rely on it for so many important things in our lives, I think everyone agrees it is up to the task, and if they don't that is another expression of the modern bias.

Eventually we need to progress beyond Reason to Imagination, which allows us to experience the shared spiritual meaning of images from ancient mythology and aesthetics. I have written a few essays on the latter, and I have also been writing an essay about the former and first part should be posted by tomorrow. Ancient mythology uses imagistic symbols to speak directly of spiritual details. We find the same core meanings of those symbols in all mythologies of the world. I am hoping to shed light on a fair amount of that overlap in these essays. Assuming there is the overlap I am asserting, how do we account for that? I argue there is no reasonable explanation other than the existence of a shared spiritual realm which is periodically revealed through the physical realm (or the soul-realm) in those mythic images. We should not think of it in spatial terms as "layer", "base", "extension", etc. - the spiritual is completely interwoven into the physical, because the physical is essentially the spiritual. We just need our senses and thinking faculties to be reborn in the light of higher cognition to perceive that.

[Soul_of_Shu]

But One cannot be aware of "unconditioned awareness" without also being aware of the meaning of "unconditioned awareness" (whatever that happens to be). So now we already have UA + Meaning. But that is dualism, so instead it should be unconditioned Ideating activity (out of nostalgia for "idealism", if nothing else) which, by its very essence, is eternally 'awaring' (and willing and feeling). Damn... how did we get back here? I suppose we are all to blame

Well, here we go, hoping there's some definitive wording of it ... But alas compelled to try, there is a state whereby the idea constructs are defocused, including the ones required to speak of it, even while there is no exclusive lasting abidance there, as refocusing is inevitable—and only then one attempts the ever inadequate wording of it, before someone else then attempts to improve upon the inadequacy.

[Eugene I]

Something relevant to the discussion:
Simulacra and Simulation

[AshvinP]

But One cannot be aware of "unconditioned awareness" without also being aware of the meaning of "unconditioned awareness" (whatever that happens to be). So now we already have UA + Meaning. But that is dualism, so instead it should be unconditioned Ideating activity (out of nostalgia for "idealism", if nothing else) which, by its very essence, is eternally 'awaring' (and willing and feeling). Damn... how did we get back here? I suppose we are all to blame

Well, here we go, hoping there's some definitive wording of it ... But alas compelled to try, there is a state whereby the idea constructs are defocused, including the ones required to speak of it, even while there is no exclusive lasting abidance there, as refocusing is inevitable—and only then one attempts the ever inadequate wording of it, before someone else then attempts to improve upon the inadequacy.

I am not trying to capture the definitive wording which explains its essence, but one that is just detailed enough so that we are at least looking in the right direction. This is no trivial matter. If we leave out the meaningful aspect of the "state", then we assume what you appear to be assuming above - there is no way of crossing the threshold of this state to more meaningful resolution on the 'other side'. The only reason someone can attempt the ever inadequate wording after "refocusing" is because there was, in fact, meaningful activity occurring during the defocused state. Why should we assume it is not possible that meaningful activity can be expanded during the defocused state to encompass even more meaningful aspects of that state without "refocusing" back into abstract intellect?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Why should we assume it is not possible that meaningful activity can be expanded during the defocused state to encompass even more meaningful aspects of that state without "refocusing" back into abstract intellect?

All I'm getting at is that, in this experience, while in that state, wherein even the idea construct of someone asking questions about it is defocused, and even while there is profound meaning to be found in it, there is no way of speaking about its revelatory meaning until refocusing. That doesn't mean that the meaning has no encompassing impact on the way one then conceives of being in the participatory, relational, metapersonal process of the transfiguration of idea construction, just that given the inherent limitations of the wording of it, that alone is never going to be adequate to convey it, especially if there's no mutual recognition of the actual gnosis of that state. As such, beyond just speaking of it, one can also wordlessly embrace being a clear and present example of what is possible when the meaning is actually lived, and when just gazing into one's eyes reveals untold meaning ... albeit clearly not in this textbound format

[Eugene I]

I think John Vervaeke articulates the Hegel's philosophy (which is really the fundamentals of the Steiner's POF) quite well here:

[AshvinP]

Why should we assume it is not possible that meaningful activity can be expanded during the defocused state to encompass even more meaningful aspects of that state without "refocusing" back into abstract intellect?

All I'm getting at is that, in this experience, while in that state, wherein even the idea construct of someone asking questions about it is defocused, and even while there is profound meaning to be found in it, there is no way of speaking about its revelatory meaning until refocusing. That doesn't mean that the meaning has no encompassing impact on the way one then conceives of being in the participatory, relational, metapersonal process of the transfiguration of idea construction, just that given the inherent limitations of the wording of it, that alone is never going to be adequate to convey it, especially if there's no mutual recognition of the actual gnosis of that state. As such, beyond just speaking of it, one can also wordlessly embrace being a clear and present example of what is possible when the meaning is actually lived, and when just gazing into one's eyes reveals untold meaning ... albeit clearly not in this textbound format

I guess it all depends on what we mean by "refocusing". If that means snapping back to abstract intellect, then yes that just takes us back into abstractions which can never adequately capture more meaning of the spiritual reality than what was experienced in the "defocused" state. But my point is that we can "refocus" into higher modes of cognition which then captures more of the meaning of that state and that meaning can actually be communicated. For sure, that communication will take the form of living interaction with others that goes beyond simple exchange of words, especially words limited to this rather mechanical digital exchange. Although, ultimately, we are the ones responsible for imparting inner meaning to the exchanges which transcend their abstract outer forms, so I am sure we can figure out ways of using digital technology to further that aim.