Figs do not grow on thistles

[Jesse_Schneider]

I don't quite understand why there must be a qualitative disconnect between the evolutionary process of MAL and that of the human individual. Or why 'time', in some non-linear sense, cannot be fundamental to MAL? I am thinking along the lines of Piaget's theory of play in children:

I don’t see how MAL could evolve. Evolution implies time and space, but time and space are not ontological primitives or independent realities. Time does not exist “out there” ticking away from past to future, but rather is a tool of human and animal minds. Many experiments show that the structure of space-time depends on the observer.

With involution down into the matrix of space and time, where physical events occur, MAL could undergo development, perhaps as described by Piaget, but only as an alter, not as MAL.

[AshvinP]

I don't quite understand why there must be a qualitative disconnect between the evolutionary process of MAL and that of the human individual. Or why 'time', in some non-linear sense, cannot be fundamental to MAL? I am thinking along the lines of Piaget's theory of play in children:

I don’t see how MAL could evolve. Evolution implies time and space, but time and space are not ontological primitives or independent realities. Time does not exist “out there” ticking away from past to future, but rather is a tool of human and animal minds. Many experiments show that the structure of space-time depends on the observer.

With involution down into the matrix of space and time, where physical events occur, MAL could undergo development, perhaps as described by Piaget, but only as an alter, not as MAL.

We could just replace "evolution" with "transformation" if that's easier to work with. I still do not see why MAL cannot undergo transformation independent of our concepts of space-time. Can you elaborate on the philosophical reasons?

[Soul_of_Shu]

If ideation is the uncaused ontological imperative of, and inextricable from the uncaused ontological primitive, it does seem to leave one grasping for a descriptor for that which defies all descriptors ... Scott's mumorphism comes to mind. However, once again, the wordbound languaging of this, which is a function of the spatiotemporal subject><object dynamic, is always going to be the Tao that can be spoken which is not the eternal Tao. But being these story-making alters we seem compelled to keep trying.

[AshvinP]

I don't quite understand why there must be a qualitative disconnect between the evolutionary process of MAL and that of the human individual. Or why 'time', in some non-linear sense, cannot be fundamental to MAL? I am thinking along the lines of Piaget's theory of play in children:

I don’t see how MAL could evolve. Evolution implies time and space, but time and space are not ontological primitives or independent realities. Time does not exist “out there” ticking away from past to future, but rather is a tool of human and animal minds. Many experiments show that the structure of space-time depends on the observer.

With involution down into the matrix of space and time, where physical events occur, MAL could undergo development, perhaps as described by Piaget, but only as an alter, not as MAL.

We could just replace "evolution" with "transformation" if that's easier to work with. I still do not see why MAL cannot undergo transformation independent of our concepts of space-time. Can you elaborate on the philosophical reasons?

To specify my position some more:

BK often remarks that MAL did not need to 'evolve' since it was not competing for resources on a planetary ecosystem. At the very least, though, some dissociation process must have taken place for there to be alters, i.e. a transformation of MAL into MAL plus alters. A lot of 19-20th century thinkers have proposed that 'collective consciousness' (MAL) has been evolving and will continue to evolve. That also fits with the concept that the human individual is a microcosm of the macrocosm, which is one reason I would conclude the human transformative process would be analogous to that of MAL.

[Jesse_Schneider]

We could just replace "evolution" with "transformation" if that's easier to work with. I still do not see why MAL cannot undergo transformation independent of our concepts of space-time. Can you elaborate on the philosophical reasons?

“It is important to notice that the formation of alters does not entail or imply fragmentation of TWE itself, but only the dissolution of cognitive bridges between some of TWE’s mental contents. Even when these mental contents are dissociated from each other—in the sense of not being able to directly evoke each other—TWE remains unitary.”

Kastrup, Bernardo. The Idea of the World (p. 67). John Hunt Publishing. Kindle Edition.



There is no possessor of knowledge other than MAL because all knowledge whatsoever is a participation in MAL’s knowledge. Just as every point of time and space is, to MAL, absolutely here and now, so it knows everything as immediately present to its entire Self. All separate points of time are simultaneously present. From the standpoint of eternity, then, every moment of time, past, present, or future is now, and there can be no history and no development or transformation. The conceptual problem arises when we think of the ground of being in finite terms, as preceding the world of objects and alters, like something which is first a void, and then a void containing forms.

[AshvinP]

We could just replace "evolution" with "transformation" if that's easier to work with. I still do not see why MAL cannot undergo transformation independent of our concepts of space-time. Can you elaborate on the philosophical reasons?

“It is important to notice that the formation of alters does not entail or imply fragmentation of TWE itself, but only the dissolution of cognitive bridges between some of TWE’s mental contents. Even when these mental contents are dissociated from each other—in the sense of not being able to directly evoke each other—TWE remains unitary.”

Kastrup, Bernardo. The Idea of the World (p. 67). John Hunt Publishing. Kindle Edition.



There is no possessor of knowledge other than MAL because all knowledge whatsoever is a participation in MAL’s knowledge. Just as every point of time and space is, to MAL, absolutely here and now, so it knows everything as immediately present to its entire Self. All separate points of time are simultaneously present. From the standpoint of eternity, then, every moment of time, past, present, or future is now, and there can be no history and no development or transformation. The conceptual problem arises when we think of the ground of being in finite terms, as preceding the world of objects and alters, like something which is first a void, and then a void containing forms.

I agree with the above, but there is an element missing. From the standpoint of the eternal Mind, the 'illusion' of temporal change in the realm of alter-minds is itself changing. The eternal Mind is changed by its awareness of this change, yet also remains unchanged in its unified experience of the change.

[Jesse_Schneider]

The eternal Mind is changed by its awareness of this change, yet also remains unchanged in its unified experience of the change.

Yes, MAL remains unchanged, even in its experience of change. Consciousness, though not describable in terms of known objects, does not exclude objects, just as a mirror reflecting red, at the same time remains essentially colorless. The very fact that MAL and the mirror are objectless and colorless is what makes them able to contain objects and colors. It is in that sense of formlessness that the ultimate reality remains eternally unchanging and never develops, evolves, or transforms.

[AshvinP]

The eternal Mind is changed by its awareness of this change, yet also remains unchanged in its unified experience of the change.

Yes, MAL remains unchanged, even in its experience of change. Consciousness, though not describable in terms of known objects, does not exclude objects, just as a mirror reflecting red, at the same time remains essentially colorless. The very fact that MAL and the mirror are objectless and colorless is what makes them able to contain objects and colors. It is in that sense of formlessness that the ultimate reality remains eternally unchanging and never develops, evolves, or transforms.

I wrote a longer reply and saved it as a draft but I don't know how to retrieve it. My question is, how can MAL become MAL + experience of new thought-forms without changing? It appears to me that MAL changes and remains unchanged through its inter-penetrating action with forms, just as we finite beings do.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I wrote a longer reply and saved it as a draft but I don't know how to retrieve it.

Ashvin ... From the drop down menu, upper right corner, go into 'User Control Panel', and there is a 'Manage Drafts' function.

[AshvinP]

I wrote a longer reply and saved it as a draft but I don't know how to retrieve it.

Ashvin ... From the drop down menu, upper right corner, go into 'User Control Panel', and there is a 'Manage Drafts' function.

Thanks. I was attempting to draw a 'homology' between MAL perception-thinking and that of humans. But it was pretty clumsy so I am scrapping it for now.