Eugene I wrote: ↑Fri Aug 20, 2021 3:14 amThey are valid claims, but claims of spiritual science, in other words idealistic blend of the metaphysical science, and not strictly natural science. Jim does not want to allow idealistic science to enter the arena of the natural sciences, even though he is ok with the materialistic metaphysical science.AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:54 am Yes, I understand that. This is sort of like my back and forth with Jim on the other thread - after he said it does not matter for the scientific method-results whether one pursues it with idealist metaphysical assumptions (or non-materialist ones) vs. materialist ones, I responded with Goethe's example of just that occurring. Then he started saying, "ok but the idealist science is wrong". Switch "idealist science" for "spiritual science", and "idealist science is wrong" with "we cannot confirm whether spiritual science is true or false", and it's the same exact discussion. I am not asking you personally to verify the validity of the spiritual science claims, only whether you can acknowledge that they are, in fact, scientific claims which can be investigated.
So, let's say the MAL had the idea (archetype) of the Schrodinger equation, but did not have the idea/archetype of Wave. The MAL only developed the archetype of Wave when it experimented with the idea of the Schrodinger equation and was able to observe the wave patterns occurring in the manifestation of it. So, a new archetype was "created" by the MAL at the moment of such discernment that never existed before. And this is also what all conscious being do. But of course once an archetype is discerned, it can be "passed around" and shared between conscious beings, and so become an "objective" (shared) ideal reality. This is how new archetypes come into existence as a result of spiritual/conscious activity in a non-Platonic idealistic paradigm. But alternatively, in a Platonic way, we can propose that the archetype of Wave always existed and was only "discovered" by the MAL during the exploration of the manifestation of the Schrodinger equation, and it is the archetype of Wave that was unfolding along with the unfolding of the Schrodinger equation to exhibit the wave patterns. Again, which paradigm is true - I do not know and have no way to tell, but I'm open to both.Your illustration here is not contesting Goethe's archetypal metamorphic view but confirming it. Goethe did not naively believe that a "plant archetype" existed as something that looks like a primordial plant in the spiritual realm. So what you call "manifestation of Schrodinger equation" would be another way of saying "manifestations of the archetypal idea". We should be able to agree that Schrodinger equation (or whatever equation may reflect in abstract symbols how these dynamics occur), under idealism, cannot possibly be pointing to anything other than an archetypal idea. Whether we consider that archetypal idea instinctive, meta-cognitive, discovered, or invented is irrelevant to the scientific fact that an archetypal idea is responsible for the manifold forms we observe. Higher resolution, of course, will only be gained via higher cognition which can penetrate into the realm where the archetypal idea resides. So, your Reason has led to the same conclusion as Goethe's from a different (math) angle.
I am not sure if you saw Cleric's post about "linear time" (I actually did not see it until SS quoted it), but that addresses this argument about "created at the moment of such discernment that never existed before". That is a physicalist way of thinking about it. Likewise, to say "MAL had the idea of the Schrodinger equation" is another physicalist way of conceiving it - that the Reality which gives rise to the phenomenal world is something akin to abstract mathematical equations existing in a void. How can that be so under a consistent idealism? Whatever the Schrodinger equation is reflecting in the noumenal Reality must be of qualitative essence, and a qualitative essence which gives rise to phenomenal manifestations is basically the definition of an "ideal archetype". This "other alternative" you keep saying is an option simply cannot be an option under a consistent idealism.
And I think the same applies to "spiritual science" vs. "metaphysical science" vs. "natural science", as if somehow those domains can remain separate from one another. Whether you call the spiritual reality "MAL" or anything else does not matter - it must be what gives rise to the phenomenal world of appearances which the "natural sciences" study (under physicalist method, not Goethe's method). So those sciences under the physicalist method are not actually studying the complete Reality - at the very most, they are studying one half of the Reality (probably much less) and confusing that for the totality. The only question remaining is whether we can empirically investigate the "excitations of MAL" or whatever we want to call it, in detail, and that is what I have been asking you.