M@L's different experiences

[findingblanks]

Staying strictly within BK's terms, do we have any way of relating our perceptions of different aspects of the inanimate universe to actual differences in the experience of M@L?

[Starbuck]

If the inanimate universe is the representation of instinctive ideations then the question is: can we quantify a feeling/thought/urge etc? Where does a thought begin and end, is love located in one place and fear and hate in another?

Bernardo would say that we can never know or validate what is 'out there' other than symbolically in our perception or through partial first person introspection.

The mapping is therefore not isomorphic and even if it was, we could never verify that because will and perception are two different branches (albeit within the same ontology of mentation). Thus he solves the hard problem but maintains Kant's noumenon/phenomenon distinction.

[AshvinP]

If the inanimate universe is the representation of instinctive ideations then the question is: can we quantify a feeling/thought/urge etc? Where does a thought begin and end, is love located in one place and fear and hate in another?

Bernardo would say that we can never know or validate what is 'out there' other than symbolically in our perception or through partial first person introspection.

The mapping is therefore not isomorphic and even if it was, we could never verify that because will and perception are two different branches (albeit within the same ontology of mentation). Thus he solves the hard problem but maintains Kant's noumenon/phenomenon distinction.

These presumed "limits" to perception-thinking are discussed in my Metamorphoses of the Spirit essays (in general discussion section). Summary of conclusion - there are no such limits built into the structure of Reality. Kantian divide is an artifice of flawed assumptions about the phenomenal world. Thought-forms are perceptions of our Thinking organ, and their ideal content (concepts-ideas) are what allow us to reunify the phenomenal-noumenal world. So, yes to OP, we can trace back our normal perceptions to deeper ideal relations which produce them with 'higher cognition'. All limits to such reunification are self-imposed. Seek and ye shall find.

[Starbuck]

If the inanimate universe is the representation of instinctive ideations then the question is: can we quantify a feeling/thought/urge etc? Where does a thought begin and end, is love located in one place and fear and hate in another?

Bernardo would say that we can never know or validate what is 'out there' other than symbolically in our perception or through partial first person introspection.

The mapping is therefore not isomorphic and even if it was, we could never verify that because will and perception are two different branches (albeit within the same ontology of mentation). Thus he solves the hard problem but maintains Kant's noumenon/phenomenon distinction.

These presumed "limits" to perception-thinking are discussed in my Metamorphoses of the Spirit essays (in general discussion section). Summary of conclusion - there are no such limits built into the structure of Reality. Kantian divide is an artifice of flawed assumptions about the phenomenal world. Thought-forms are perceptions of our Thinking organ, and their ideal content (concepts-ideas) are what allow us to reunify the phenomenal-noumenal world. So, yes to OP, we can trace back our normal perceptions to deeper ideal relations which produce them with 'higher cognition'. All limits to such reunification are self-imposed. Seek and ye shall find.

I hear Bernardo as somewhat paradoxical in this sense.

The maps/dials/dashboards are not the territory, yet to the extent that they are all we have, they ARE the reality. I'm ok with paradox

[AshvinP]

If the inanimate universe is the representation of instinctive ideations then the question is: can we quantify a feeling/thought/urge etc? Where does a thought begin and end, is love located in one place and fear and hate in another?

Bernardo would say that we can never know or validate what is 'out there' other than symbolically in our perception or through partial first person introspection.

The mapping is therefore not isomorphic and even if it was, we could never verify that because will and perception are two different branches (albeit within the same ontology of mentation). Thus he solves the hard problem but maintains Kant's noumenon/phenomenon distinction.

These presumed "limits" to perception-thinking are discussed in my Metamorphoses of the Spirit essays (in general discussion section). Summary of conclusion - there are no such limits built into the structure of Reality. Kantian divide is an artifice of flawed assumptions about the phenomenal world. Thought-forms are perceptions of our Thinking organ, and their ideal content (concepts-ideas) are what allow us to reunify the phenomenal-noumenal world. So, yes to OP, we can trace back our normal perceptions to deeper ideal relations which produce them with 'higher cognition'. All limits to such reunification are self-imposed. Seek and ye shall find.

I hear Bernardo as somewhat paradoxical in this sense.

The maps/dials/dashboards are not the territory, yet to the extent that they are all we have, they ARE the reality. I'm ok with paradox

Yes these analogies get tricky very quickly and therefore must be carefully used and specified. That would be my main criticism of BK philosophy in general, a lack of specification on the analogies. Under idealism, the map is not of a different nature than the territory (it's all ideal relations). The modern era has imbued a major sense of discontinuity between mere intellectual concepts and the underlying reality they are referring to, but we are only restricted to mere intellect if we choose to be rather than making a sustained effort to reach higher modes of cognition.

[findingblanks]

Thanks for these responses.

If Mind-at-Large is a unified experiencing, then when we look at any object (a mountain, a marble, a stream, a wall), what lives behind that perceptual 'object' is one unified experience.

This is very tricky for me. Of course there is a tendency to think that the "thing" we are looking at has a specific *kind* of experience 'behind' it; but this violates a core principle that BK is stating. I'm not saying we have to agree with BK's model.

But I am trying to think this question from within his terms and constraints.