Finding My Monkey

[maybe_my_monkey]

I think the reason I can think M@L as the dreamer is just in the way that my 'mind' is generating whatever bizarre qualities arise as dreams...I'm the dreamer in that context and yet I don't identify with any of those arising qualities. But I don't need to think of it that way. I'd be curious what inclines you away from thinking of the ultimate source as being that within which anything arises...

I ask myself the question(s) 'What precedes the dreamer. (What constitutes the dreamer.?)' because it seems to me that a dreamer necessitates awareness and is a 'something' having a dream. In other words three things seem required here: (a) a dreamer, (b) a dream and (c) some kind of differential engagement between (a) and (b) otherwise it would be meaningless to speak of either (a) or (b) in isolation? Is that which dreams the same as that which is dreamed? Is that which is mind the same as that which is mentation? Is that which is God the same as that which is creation? In each of those questions is it's own cognitive compass smuggled.

In the context you note, it would be hard for me to see how we would be talking about an ontological primitive. One of the reasons would be that there is an 'I' observing and differentiating between itself and what is observed in the dream. In other words there is meta-cognition occurring, as well as differentiation, and for meta-cognition to occur, in Kastrup's scheme, it requires a dissociated alter. In fact meta-cognition seems a defining characteristic of the dissociated alter but not, in Kastrup's scheme, of an ontological primitive. So I'm trying to see how far I can move before I come to a cognitive boundary, which could be one of the things which characterise the cognitive arrangement of an alter. That a reflective loop of the excitation of Mind, which is the dissociated alter and from which meta-cognition can occur, cannot 'see' or 'cognise' beyond it's reflective surface. It cannot 'see' beyond the very thing which constellates its' seeing? If it could, then would it not be supra-cognitive and no longer dissociated? Remembering that no dissociation means no meta-conscious, in Kastrup's idealism as I understand it.

I'm starting to see how that logic implies a ground-floor that is 'nothing'.

If I were to follow this I might feel as if I had cheated myself and smuggled in the idea that my logic is sound because of how it 'appears'. What if it were not so much that it is a logic whose implication is of a ground-floor that is 'nothing'......but a logic that implies a ground-floor that is 'nothing that can be pointed at.'? They are two different starting (ending?) points aren't they?

[findingblanks]

Hi Monkey:

"I ask myself the question(s) 'What precedes the dreamer. (What constitutes the dreamer.?)' because it seems to me that a dreamer necessitates awareness and is a 'something' having a dream. In other words three things seem required here: (a) a dreamer, (b) a dream and (c) some kind of differential engagement between (a) and (b) otherwise it would be meaningless to speak of either (a) or (b) in isolation? Is that which dreams the same as that which is dreamed? Is that which is mind the same as that which is mentation? Is that which is God the same as that which is creation? In each of those questions is it's own cognitive compass smuggled."

I know all analogies and metaphors have their limits, but this is when I use the river/ripples metaphor. The river has ripples and the ripples are composed of the river only. If reality is the 'dreamer' than I'd say all manifestations are the dreams/ripples.

I see why the metaphor of 'The Dreamer' can seem to objectivize fundamental reality. But I think it is The Subject and apparent objects only can arise and fade within this primary Who.

"In the context you note, it would be hard for me to see how we would be talking about an ontological primitive. One of the reasons would be that there is an 'I' observing and differentiating between itself and what is observed in the dream."

I hear you. But I think it depends how comfortable you are with the notion of some kind of dissociation being a fundamental aspect of M@L. I'm not sure what I said about the ontological primitive that made it sound as if I thought of it as self-conscious. I'll need to go back. But I don't ascribe self-consciousness to core Being. I am happy to say that as its creative incarnations, that's our job

"It cannot 'see' beyond the very thing which constellates its' seeing? If it could, then would it not be supra-cognitive and no longer dissociated? Remembering that no dissociation means no meta-conscious, in Kastrup's idealism as I understand it."

If I'm understand what you said above, I'd just want to suggest that an alter could possibly find ways to modify the membrane that allow different kinds of 'translative' processes between it and M@L. This wouldn't mean 'popping' as much as modifying its senses.

"If I were to follow this I might feel as if I had cheated myself and smuggled in the idea that my logic is sound because of how it 'appears'. What if it were not so much that it is a logic whose implication is of a ground-floor that is 'nothing'......but a logic that implies a ground-floor that is 'nothing that can be pointed at.'? They are two different starting (ending?) points aren't they?"

I'll have to take time with this and get past my biases. I get a bit stuck when the conversation becomes about a 'nothing' from which everything springs forth. Well, it just seems that that kind of a specifically pregnant 'nothing' is very different from the 'nothing' that points to there being no reality at all.

I realize why the question "Why is there something rather than nothing" is ill-formed, but I do enjoy how it points to the differences between the two kinds of 'nothing.'

The generative 'nothing' might not be anything but it has a very unique way of expressing itself! Whereas the 'literal' nothing wasn't ever there to speak its mind.

I'll come back! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts.

[maybe_my_monkey]

I see why the metaphor of 'The Dreamer' can seem to objectivize fundamental reality. But I think it is The Subject and apparent objects only can arise and fade within this primary Who.

Yes and when I read this it makes sense to me. Then what seems to be happening lately, is that a little voice within me will say something like "Hmm, what if you looked at this in the way Alchemists expressed it, as '...a circle whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.'...what would that look like?'....and then ask myself how that Alchemical expression might be informed by the philosophy of idealism.

The starting point feels very tricky to me because of the way I can begin to see how I participate in these questions and how the 'view' is different depending on the approach I participate in, the language is different as well. I didn't realise how tricky this would be. I felt myself to be taking these questions seriously, and genuinely so, until I've started to place myself directly in front of these questions so that my own shadow falls upon them rather than put a philosopher or mystic in front of my question. As helpful as both of those are, they continue to be for me, there seems no escaping a direct personal encounter with the creative aspect of representing things to ourselves. This is an area I've become drawn to, in asking myself these questions, it seems to create a space, a way of looking or a vantage point which I haven't noticed before.

But I think it depends how comfortable you are with the notion of some kind of dissociation being a fundamental aspect of M@L.

I'd probably lean more towards the notion of some kind of dissociation being an emergent aspect of a fundamental M@L. Not fundamental in the sense of that which gives birth to us or which we arise out of, as that would give it dimension rather than ontological irreducibility.

But I don't ascribe self-consciousness to core Being. I am happy to say that as its creative incarnations, that's our job

Agreed

If I'm understand what you said above, I'd just want to suggest that an alter could possibly find ways to modify the membrane that allow different kinds of 'translative' processes between it and M@L. This wouldn't mean 'popping' as much as modifying its senses.

Well I have a positive view towards the respectful and informed use of psychedelics. That would likely do it

I realize why the question "Why is there something rather than nothing" is ill-formed, but I do enjoy how it points to the differences between the two kinds of 'nothing.

I love the question and nothing ill formed from my perspective. When my daughters are older and ask me that question, I'll probably have a wry smile and realise that earlier part of their childhood is withdrawing and making way.

I wonder if it doesn't, in some manner, point more towards us. In the sense of how creative we are in representing 'things' and 'nothings'. But, as you say 'That's our job'.

[findingblanks]

Wonderful Stuff, Monkey. I really enjoy exploring with you. I'll be back when I can and highlight your comments that really sank in for me.