Depiction, Objective and Subjective

[findingblanks]

Hi Ech,

"I would say that this formless singularity is behind a markov blanket and that any act of creation is inevitably and irreducibly subjective. Even the all-universal archetypes are depictions on some level only pointing toward the formless. The event horizon is at the exact moment of creation of forms."

Okay, that's helping me. So does that include creations/forms like planets, meaning that you would say that a planet is ireeeducibly subjective?

"What is it like to be that pregnant and formless singularity? Who can say? But I think you'd have to turn toward mysticism–Nisargadatta Maharaj, Neem Karoli Baba, et al, who insisted they were utterly centered–for an approximation of relative centeredness."

Agreed. But I guess I'm asking i f your model has reason to suppose that there is something it is like to be that singularity. As an analogy, my hunch is your model might commit to saying that, say, there is something it is like to be a grasshopper. Bernardo's model is mainly grounded in his reasons for concluding that the 'singularity' or M@L is a subjective field, is THE subjective field from which creations emerge. And I agree that mystic might give us a good phenomenological description of various kinds of archetypal being. But I'm more asking just about if there are commitments that your model makes regarding the question of if subjectivity 'starts' somewhere or goes all the way 'down.'

"I think at some level aim plays a role in this distance from objectivity (though "aim" may be problematic w/r/t levels of consciousness). For example, we can see that a depiction or design or work of art that completely misses the mark and say that it's tied to other unintended threads."

Thanks for sharing that. It provokes some thoughts, but I'll wait to see where the main thrust of our conversation goes.

"Ancient symbols depicting something like animals or mountains are clearly depictions of the physical, natural world, but why is it that a spiral or cross or swastika unequivocally depicts a similar spiritual meaning? If there is no obvious model or analogy in nature on which to base these symbols, where did they come from and why did they independently arise across separated cultures to depict a similar meaning?"

This is profound stuff. And this is where I wish I could be more clear. Let's see....

I wonder if in your model there is something that grasps the following intuition in different words than I am about to use:

Before the human mind abstracted out the concept "sprial", the human being was inspired to express/articulate/explicate into the world a reshaping of materials. The meaning was there before, during, and after (perhaps changing slightly with each stage of expression) the form appeared (the form would later be abstracted as 'sprial' perhaps centuries later).

Okay, so I'm interested in subtle forms of distortion or 'damage' we do in understanding these early participations with 'Archetypes' if we even tacitly smuggle in what comes with the later abstractions like 'spiral', 'circle' or 'swastika.'

One quick and common way of dealing with this is just to say, "Well, we have to talk about it some way and why not just say that those early humans drew circles and spirals and that they expressed meaning?" But I think that quick and common way reflects the very blind-spot I'm trying to point to. Before I go on, I should stop to see if I'm making even a bit of sense. You may not have time to keep this conversation going. I get that. I know you came here for a specific response to your question about Kastrup. Please feel free to guide me back to your main concern or, if you've gotten what you needed from all the fine folks in this group, I send blessings on your project and would love to see more it down the road.