Is Rovelli 'Dragooning the Human Spirit'?

[AshvinP]

Yes, we must be careful and sober about both spiritual science and "physical science". For the latter, we have come to believe in the modern age that we are observing phenomenon and testing their relations by way of 'measuring' devices and then comparing the measurements to derive the principles at work. The measuring devices are actually our own abstractions - we give meaning to what is a "pound" and what is a "gram" etc. so that they can be usefully compared to one another. I am not really well-versed in science so my examples will be pretty poor, but I think you get what I mean. So what we are really testing the phenomenal relations against is our own Reason. We create the abstractions of measurement and see whether the relations between the abstractions can be harmonized in a way that makes them useful to applied problems. And that is extremely useful to such applications - without the abstract reasoning we would never have the technology we have now. But it has never been telling us anything about essential relations. In the modern age, we came to believe that falsehood because the measurement abstractions were confused for the Reality itself, and it is a very difficult habit of mind to break. BK points this out often as well.

Why are the abstractions not the Reality itself? After all, they are based on 'things' we can see and measure. It is precisely because there is a spiritual Reality we cannot perceive. This conclusion every pre-modern culture came to and encoded in their various myths (and the farther we go back, the more directly this Reality was perceived). The invisible Reality is the only Reality and it is the source of all phenomenal appearances. So how do we go about distinguishing between our own fantasy (Coleridge uses "fantasy" to differentiate from "imagination" as the latter is fundamental to perceiving the Reality) and concepts which proceed from the shared spiritual Reality? With the exact same tool we use in physical science - our Reason. None of these can be simply accepted as they appear - not in the physical realm (sensible) or the spiritual (supersensible). We must test all of them against our Reason. Before we develop faculties of spiritual perception and higher cognition, it is true that we will not attain very high resolution on the supersensible Reality, but the intellectual concepts which also come from the spiritual world can and must be tested. All forms of thought come from the one and only essential realm, which is the spiritual. Eventually we can also test the images of that realm with Imaginative thinking.

We have accessible 'databases' of supersensible knowledge encoded in world mythology and esoteric traditions which comment on those mythologies. We cannot simply take those commentaries and state them as truths without first thinking through what they are saying and testing them against our experience of the mythic imagery by way of Reason/Imagination. Spiritual science tells us explicitly to do no such thing. Once we start taking a hard look at those mythologies, we will find a remarkable image of supersensible knowledge form within us. That has been my experience so far. Not just one or two mythologies, but every single mythology from every ancient culture, East-Middle-West. As long as we remember they are speaking from different spatiotemporal perspectives and modes of consciousness (due to metamorphic progression), which is difficult for the modern intellect to do, but must be done, then that larger image will emerge. The same can be done with aesthetics, as I have tried to show some through poetry and music so far in my essays. None of this is easy, as I am sure earning your engineering expertise was not easy, and neither was my law degree, but that is the only way to knowledge in any realm. Yet it becomes easier as we get in the habit of doing it. If we keep our minds always on the spiritual, try hard to see the spiritual in all that we do and feel and think, then it becomes a habit in the opposite direction of the modern age.

You are exactly right in your first paragraph, I was also brainstorming this "epistemological measurement problem" a while ago. But this brings us back to the problem we already discussed but I don't think it was resolved. In the natural science it can be phrased like this: if the measurement procedures and instruments are abstractions, and if the logic and math we use to validate our theories are also abstractions, then what criteria do we have to distinguish abstractions from Reality? What can we possibly know about Reality in natural sciences if we can only operate with abstractions?

And exactly the same problem can be extrapolated to the spiritual realm. I agree that there is a lot of content in the mystical and esoteric traditions and mythology that may contains certain truths about the Reality. At the same time, they are undoubtedly full of human-made abstractions and products of human imagination and fantasy. So, how do we distinguish the former former from the latter?

Or let's say I had a certain mystical experience. Suppose its content is logically consistent and all makes sense from the point of view of Reason. How do I know if what I experienced has any relevance to the actual invisible Reality or if it's just my hallucination or a product of my subconscious mental activity?

These are great questions. I don't have much time to respond now but will just list a few things as markers for later discussion.

1. I would not call pure logic and math "abstractions" in the same sense as scientific concepts like "mass", "velocity", "force", etc.

2. I do not think we can "only operate with abstractions" - spiritual sight and higher cognition is precisely a move away from abstraction into more concrete experience.

3. When proceeding with intellect, I think it is very important to keep the overall "bigger picture" in mind. The metamorphic progression, for example. Clearly there is a really patterned development in human history and the scientific mode of consciousness in the last few centuries is a major part of that pattern. Does it serve any purpose? I don't mean "purpose" as in external agent dreaming up a plan for everyone, but rather the inner necessity of the evolutionary progression. If we recognize that exists, then this exacting mode of consciousness must have a role to play in spirituality going forward.

4. If things are logically consistent and hold together from the POV of your Reasoning, then we should consider them as emanating from the shared spiritual realm. All thinking activity and thoughts are truly transpersonal (I remember you stated before some are personal, but I think that gives rise to dualism again).

[Eugene I]

1. I would not call pure logic and math "abstractions" in the same sense as scientific concepts like "mass", "velocity", "force", etc.

Well, this is a big topic and point of controversy. Many philosophers of science/math argue that they are abstractions, whether they would be sort of Kantian a-priori categories, or particular instances of mathematical systems among many other alternative systems. Here is an example: for millennia people believed that there is only one logic (namely, Aristotelian) that is a foundation of human reason and can be used as a tool for truth criteria. But that was only until mathematicians discovered the plurality of alternative logical systems each of them being self-consistent but different from and in many ways contradicting with the classical Aristotelian logic. Also, look here So now we have a plurality of different logical systems each offering different truth criteria. So, first, it can not be that all of them are simultaneously not abstractions and all of them are simultaneously relevant to Reality. How do we know which one is relevant to Reality and which ones are abstractions? and, as a consequence, how do we know which one of them should be used as truth criteria and applied to distinguish the Reality from abstractions in other areas of science?

2. I do not think we can "only operate with abstractions" - spiritual sight and higher cognition is precisely a move away from abstraction into more concrete experience.

Hopefully so, but as I asked at the end of my previous post, how do I distinguish between my mind-created abstractions (imaginations, fantasies, hallucinations) and "concrete experience"?

3. When proceeding with intellect, I think it is very important to keep the overall "bigger picture" in mind. The metamorphic progression, for example. Clearly there is a really patterned development in human history and the scientific mode of consciousness in the last few centuries is a major part of that pattern. Does it serve any purpose? I don't mean "purpose" as in external agent dreaming up a plan for everyone, but rather the inner necessity of the evolutionary progression. If we recognize that exists, then this exacting mode of consciousness must have a role to play in spirituality going forward.

Yes, we are undoubtedly metamorphically evolving in our cognition, but how do we know if we are just refining and creating more of our abstractions, or moving toward the actual knowledge of Reality.

4. If things are logically consistent and hold together from the POV of your Reasoning, then we should consider them as emanating from the shared spiritual realm. All thinking activity and thoughts are truly transpersonal (I remember you stated before some are personal, but I think that gives rise to dualism again).

Referring back to #1, which logical system among many alternative ones should the logical Reasoning be based on? The fact that any thought or idea is transpersonal can not guarantee that it has any relevance to the actual Reality. We have plenty of examples of shared hallucinations and delusions in psychiatry. We have plenty of examples of transpersonal and shared false ideas and beliefs that are apparently logically consistent but turned out to be false human fantasies. As an example, take any of the conspiracy theories we now have in our society - most of them are quite logically consistent and shared between millions of believers.

[Jim Cross]

OK, so if this no-thingness process has no point of origin, i.e. it's process all the way down, in other words uncaused, I'm missing how it is not the essence of our being ... which under idealism is the aware process of ideation, aka M@L.

Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise

Seems like reaching the stage of .... essence? ... no essence? ... meh!

I may have an idiosyncratic (possibly wrong) reading of Nagarjuna but I think the intent is to break through our conceptions, to realize that reality is actually something more than any of our conceptions of mind or matter can encompass.

[Eugene I]

I may have an idiosyncratic (possibly wrong) reading of Nagarjuna but I think the intent is to break through our conceptions, to realize that reality is actually something more than any of our conceptions of mind or matter can encompass.

Right, and that is a fundamental philosophical question of the relation between epistemology and ontology (we are just discussing it with Ashvin). How do we make a "leap" from epistemology to ontology, from knowing "how" the reality world behaves to what it actually "is"? Can our knowledge, experience and reason (be it scientific, or personal/psychological, or spiritual, or inter/trans-personal) be the tools/"bridge" between our experimental/experiential or cognitive knowledge and the actual reality? Through the history of philosophy, science and religion we have seen a whole range of answers to this question from optimistic "definitely yes" through cautious "may be" to skeptical "definitely no".

But even to approach this problem we would need some criteria to tell whether one of those answers is true or not. But how do we find such criteria if the very criteria to confirm (or deny) the possibility of such knowledge of reality can itself turn out to be a mental abstraction/concept? We would need another set of criteria to verify those truthfulness criteria, and so on, and we quickly run into a recursive bad infinity problem.

My view on this is that this problem is undecidable and unresolvable. That does not mean that we should deny any validity of our knowledge or stop trying to know more about reality. It just means that we can never be 100% sure that what we think we know about reality has any actual relevance to what the reality in fact is.

[Eugene I]

PS: Here is another question (for idealists only). Suppose we agree that the apparent world as we see is a result of MAL ideations, according to the idealistic paradigm. But we also seem to agree (and even materialists would subscribe to this) that the invisible Reality "as it is" is quite different from the apparent world as we perceive and interpret it. Now, the question is: if the apparent world is a pre-meditated and intentional creation of the MAL, why MAL is trying to fool us and conceal from us the Reality as it is by presenting to us a different "version" of reality that looks like material world? What is the purpose and the point of this masquerade "virtual reality" drama? I like the Evangelical Christian's answer to this: "it was to test our faith" But seriously?

[Soul_of_Shu]

I may have an idiosyncratic (possibly wrong) reading of Nagarjuna but I think the intent is to break through our conceptions, to realize that reality is actually something more than any of our conceptions of mind or matter can encompass.

Yeah, I take all this using of idea constructs to relinquish fixated attachments to idea constructs—as in using a thorn to remove a thorn—to be initially useful in shifting the focus to what remains in their absence. And then one re-embraces the wondrous inevitability of them freely forming, manifesting meaning in evermore novelty, lest they become like some caged songbird falling silent.

[Lou Gold]

I may have an idiosyncratic (possibly wrong) reading of Nagarjuna but I think the intent is to break through our conceptions, to realize that reality is actually something more than any of our conceptions of mind or matter can encompass.

Yeah, I take all this using of idea constructs to relinquish fixated attachments to idea constructs—as in using a thorn to remove a thorn—to be initially useful in shifting the focus to what remains in their absence. And then one re-embraces the wondrous inevitability of them freely forming, manifesting meaning in evermore novelty, lest they become like some caged songbird falling silent.

Hey SoS, I like your poetic language here (especially the 'thorns')!

[AshvinP]

1. I would not call pure logic and math "abstractions" in the same sense as scientific concepts like "mass", "velocity", "force", etc.

Well, this is a big topic and point of controversy. Many philosophers of science/math argue that they are abstractions, whether they would be sort of Kantian a-priori categories, or particular instances of mathematical systems among many other alternative systems. Here is an example: for millennia people believed that there is only one logic (namely, Aristotelian) that is a foundation of human reason and can be used as a tool for truth criteria. But that was only until mathematicians discovered the plurality of alternative logical systems each of them being self-consistent but different from and in many ways contradicting with the classical Aristotelian logic. Also, look here So now we have a plurality of different logical systems each offering different truth criteria. So, first, it can not be that all of them are simultaneously not abstractions and all of them are simultaneously relevant to Reality. How do we know which one is relevant to Reality and which ones are abstractions? and, as a consequence, how do we know which one of them should be used as truth criteria and applied to distinguish the Reality from abstractions in other areas of science?

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.

2. I do not think we can "only operate with abstractions" - spiritual sight and higher cognition is precisely a move away from abstraction into more concrete experience.

Hopefully so, but as I asked at the end of my previous post, how do I distinguish between my mind-created abstractions (imaginations, fantasies, hallucinations) and "concrete experience"?

By recognizing that our cognitive activity ("mind-created" activity) is a key aspect of the objective Reality we are observing. That is why Steiner does phenomenology of Thinking in PoF. Without coming to that understanding, we will simply assume the "true" facts of Reality are whatever the most people can agree on, what our measuring devices read out, etc., or maybe there are no true facts. Let's try a little of that phenomenology here - how do you come to distinguish between fantasies in your mind and concrete Reality when engaging in engineering work (I am not sure exactly what sort of engineering you do so you can fill that in). Maybe you picture some designs of the finished product in your mind and then assess them to figure out which one will actually work for the job you need done. How do you distinguish between those designs that are fantasies, i.e. will never work in the way you want, and those that will?

Also, we should be very clear that concrete experience is never an "abstraction". The experience might contain false content, like the hallucination, but it is not an "abstraction" for that reason. In general, "abstractions" are not automatically false, as they are often partial images of some true aspect of Reality. The problem is when we confuse that partial image for the entire Reality of what we are contemplating itself. Building abstractions upon abstractions will not lead us anywhere closer to the Reality unless we are relating them to our concrete experiences, and that process of relating is what we call our Thinking activity.

3. When proceeding with intellect, I think it is very important to keep the overall "bigger picture" in mind. The metamorphic progression, for example. Clearly there is a really patterned development in human history and the scientific mode of consciousness in the last few centuries is a major part of that pattern. Does it serve any purpose? I don't mean "purpose" as in external agent dreaming up a plan for everyone, but rather the inner necessity of the evolutionary progression. If we recognize that exists, then this exacting mode of consciousness must have a role to play in spirituality going forward.

Yes, we are undoubtedly metamorphically evolving in our cognition, but how do we know if we are just refining and creating more of our abstractions, or moving toward the actual knowledge of Reality.

My answer here will be basically the same as those above. But let's consider another concrete example - our cognition evolves from infancy to childhood to adolescence to adulthood, correct? How can we say the adult has moved towards more actual knowledge of Reality than the infant? I know some people today will actually say, "well, we don't know that and that is your assumption", but is anyone satisfied saying the 40 year old person has no more actual knowledge than the one day old infant? Is none of what we write on this metaphysics forum "actual knowledge" that an infant's mind could never derive? Also, consider that evolved forms contain within them previous forms they evolved from. So if perception-cognition itself is evolving, then our perception-cognition today must have more capacity for detailed knowledge than what existed 2,000 years ago.

4. If things are logically consistent and hold together from the POV of your Reasoning, then we should consider them as emanating from the shared spiritual realm. All thinking activity and thoughts are truly transpersonal (I remember you stated before some are personal, but I think that gives rise to dualism again).

Referring back to #1, which logical system among many alternative ones should the logical Reasoning be based on? The fact that any thought or idea is transpersonal can not guarantee that it has any relevance to the actual Reality. We have plenty of examples of shared hallucinations and delusions in psychiatry. We have plenty of examples of transpersonal and shared false ideas and beliefs that are apparently logically consistent but turned out to be false human fantasies. As an example, take any of the conspiracy theories we now have in our society - most of them are quite logically consistent and shared between millions of believers.

I will also refer back to #1 and #2 answers here. Further, I would say that idea-thoughts always have relevance to the actual Reality, it's just a matter of where and how they fit in. I don't want to get into "conspiracy theories" because that seems pretty far afield of this philosophical discussion.

[Jim Cross]

My view on this is that this problem is undecidable and unresolvable. That does not mean that we should deny any validity of our knowledge or stop trying to know more about reality. It just means that we can never be 100% sure that what we think we know about reality has any actual relevance to what the reality in fact is.

Yes. The big metaphysical problem is undecidable and unresolvable. But relative knowledge, which is what science gives us, is possible. That is why I've often said my metaphysics, if I have any, is a pragmatic metaphysics. It is a metaphysics that says the ultimate and absolute are pointless goals.

using a thorn to remove a thorn

Once the thorn is removed the wound can heal. Removing it, even if it requires another thorn, is better than pushing the thorn deeper into the flesh.

[AshvinP]

I may have an idiosyncratic (possibly wrong) reading of Nagarjuna but I think the intent is to break through our conceptions, to realize that reality is actually something more than any of our conceptions of mind or matter can encompass.

Yeah, I take all this using of idea constructs to relinquish fixated attachments to idea constructs—as in using a thorn to remove a thorn—to be initially useful in shifting the focus to what remains in their absence. And then one re-embraces the wondrous inevitability of them freely forming, manifesting meaning in evermore novelty, lest they become like some caged songbird falling silent.

What sort of "remains in their absence" are we speaking of? Positing a Reality which exists apart from our "idea constructs" is dualism. I doubt that is what you are doing, or intended to do, but certainly Jim is. Ideating activity and ideas never disappear - they are just as much a feature of the objective underlying Reality as any other activity. It is true that our mere intellectual conceptions cannot encompass Reality, but our thoughts (in their highest sense) can.