Here both posters and comments will be restricted to topic-specific discourse. Comments should directly address the original post and poster. Comments and/or links that are deemed to be too digressive or off-topic, may be deleted by a moderator.
. In idealistic one there is no independently existing "external reality" whatsoever, and so our direct conscious experiences are all there is to the reality, there is no other reality other than consciousness and the phenomenal content of its direct experiences.
So the garden hose really is a snake. That's absurd.
You are making the assumption that there is a ‘thing’ out there...But ultimately, like a dream, every moment is a fresh manifestation of the dreaming mind. We never step into the same river twice. Continuity is an illusion of similarity. In BkS model, similarity is accounted for by the metaphor of vibration/resonance/waves/ripples etc which are ultimately all happening right now in one mind.
Actually I think Bernardo and Hoffman both make that assumption too. That is what alters are all about. What's out there is the mind at large.
And there is a great deal of permanence in it which is why the rock in my garden is still essentially the same rock for days, weeks, and years. Even rivers have eddies that form with some degree of permanence. It is especially ironic that some idealists want to argue for some sort of "immortal soul" while the stuff of consciousness and world itself as you seem to envision it seems to be forming afresh moment to moment.
I think the world has forms which can arise and maintain a consistent structure for varying periods of time. An eddy in a river, the rock in my garden, and my mortal self are all good examples. If dreams are a model for how the world is, then the rock might one moment be granite and the next sandstone. But that doesn't match how my world seems to work.
There is nothing in BK's idealism which rules out continuity of form or existence of real 'objects', however forms are never unaccompanied by formlessness, both of which are necessary to explain continuity of form with true change-novelty. We should also remember that we are necessarily dealing with abstractions here, regardless of idealist or materialist assumptions, because language is by definition an abstraction. The world we perceive is a form of language, under idealism, although one which most of us are no longer able to read in any meaningful way. That is not necessarily a Kantian epistemological limit, but perhaps just an unconscious habit of mind.
Under educated materialism (as opposed to naïve materialism), the world we perceive is totally incommensurate with what is 'really out there', since all perception involves conscious processing and what is 'really out there' is not intermingled with conscious qualities. Whatever is 'out there', we can only get hints of through mathematical equations which are remarkably (and inexplicably, under materialism) accurate at modeling reality. Ironically, the Kantian limit is more universally and unquestionably valid for materialism than it is idealism. There are no colors, tastes, smells, shapes, etc. under materialism - all of that is evolved illusion.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
“There is nothing in BK's idealism which rules out continuity of form or existence of real 'objects',”
Yes, but only to the extent that an object in a dream appears to persist over time as an enduring object. It has archetypical reality. As you say it could not exist without the one observing mind, and equally any notion of one mind is impossible without the appearance of objects to qualify it. True non duality.
What is the point of materialism? What does it explain? How does it help us understand the world? Have you ever met a materialist who has the slightest grasp of how to solve metaphysical problems? Materialism is logically absurd such that a materialist has to believe the world is paradoxical. It explains nothing.
I was a tentative materialist for decades for want of something better,, but never for a moment though it made any sense. I'm sure most people can work out that it does not work and does not help.
It may be important to note that for 'nondual' or 'Absolute' idealism as endorsed by the mystics it is not just matter that evaporates under analysis. So do mental events. Nothing would really exist or ever really happen. So the debate is not between the idea that matter or mind is fundamental, but between dualism and nondualism. Even Descartes proposed that mind-matter form a unity, he just couldn't see how. This can be explalned only if there is a third phenomenon. This third phenomenon would be consciousness. Thus mental events and processes should not be confused with consciousness. Consciousness and Reality would be the same phenomenon.
Just noting some of the subtleties. Often materialists assume they are opposing mind-only theories but neither works in metaphysics. .The real alternative is the rejection of matter-only, mind-only and mind/matter only theories. Then we can dispense with dualism and have a source and mediating power for mind and matter.
AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:27 am
There is nothing in BK's idealism which rules out continuity of form or existence of real 'objects',
Well, it might depend on how you are using 'real'. Metaphysically-speaking there would be no such thing as objects. They would not be truly real. Nor would time, so even continuity is reduced for an ultimate analysis.
The point being that form has an origin, and this must be prior to form.
Peter Jones wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:32 pmThe point being that form has an origin, and this must be prior to form.
Peter ... And thus rekindles the ongoing debate between you and Scott dating far back into the old MS forum, and which, as I recall, was not resolved beyond agreeing to disagree, and pretty much had you bowing out all further discussion for quite some time, until this recent resurgence. Take it away Scott
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:27 am
There is nothing in BK's idealism which rules out continuity of form or existence of real 'objects',
Well, it might depend on how you are using 'real'. Metaphysically-speaking there would be no such thing as objects. They would not be truly real. Nor would time, so even continuity is reduced for an ultimate analysis.
The point being that form has an origin, and this must be prior to form.
That would imply formlessness can exist without form, for ex. our thinking activity can exist without thoughts. We know from experience that is not possible. Also if time is not "truly real" how can we even speak of an ontic "origin" and one "prior to" another?
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
What is the point of materialism? What does it explain? How does it help us understand the world? Have you ever met a materialist who has the slightest grasp of how to solve metaphysical problems?
I think a pragmatic materialism is at the core of science. It starts with the idea there is something outside the mind that can be understood even if it requires the mind to understand it. So it goes right to the heart of understanding the world. And that is its point. However, this pragmatic materialism has really no need for metaphysics. It couldn't care less for understanding the "ultimate substance".
On the other hand, what does idealism add to science? I can't see that it adds a single thing
On the other hand, what does idealism add to science? I can't see that it adds a single thing
It would do so, if accepted. So-called paranormal experiences involving expanded and nonlocal consciousness could be scientifically investigated (telepathy, ghosts, remote viewing, channelling, automatic writing, NDEs, OBEs, clairvoyance, psychometry, psychokinesis, etc ) instead of dismissed as impossible and therefore ignored. If such experiences were scientifically demonstrated to be valid, our cultural view of reality would be forever changed.
On the other hand, what does idealism add to science? I can't see that it adds a single thing
It would do so, if accepted. So-called paranormal experiences involving expanded and nonlocal consciousness could be scientifically investigated (telepathy, ghosts, remote viewing, channelling, automatic writing, NDEs, OBEs, clairvoyance, psychometry, psychokinesis, etc ) instead of dismissed as impossible and therefore ignored. If such experiences were scientifically demonstrated to be valid, our cultural view of reality would be forever changed.
Even more simply, it could lead scientists to ask how the dynamics of consciousness gives rise to the world of appearances. Right now Hoffman and team are the only ones I am aware of working on that question.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
On the other hand, what does idealism add to science? I can't see that it adds a single thing
It would do so, if accepted. So-called paranormal experiences involving expanded and nonlocal consciousness could be scientifically investigated (telepathy, ghosts, remote viewing, channelling, automatic writing, NDEs, OBEs, clairvoyance, psychometry, psychokinesis, etc ) instead of dismissed as impossible and therefore ignored. If such experiences were scientifically demonstrated to be valid, our cultural view of reality would be forever changed.
All of this can be investigated now with science and some people are trying to do it with little success.
