Intuitive Idealism vs. Analytic Idealism (Part II): An alternative formulation of idealism

[Eugene I]

Eugene I,

I've given it a shot here within the framework of a divine idealism. I talk about the various well-established features of quantum mechanics and what theological implications there might be. Within a divine idealism ontology, what science characterizes is what divine mentation looks like to us. This includes both the regularities and novelties — all intentionally constituted in the mind of God according to divine purposes.

A metaphor I often use is Author/Story where the author creates a narrative in her mind. She intentionally constitutes everything, including the settings, characters, plants, other animals, environments, other beings, and events. It's all in the author's One mind but there are distinctions(aspects as I call them) in her mind where she "lives" each aspect, honoring whatever features, freedom, and constraints each has.

Steve, I'm really impressed with your essays, will keep reading. Finally a theology that makes sense.

[Steve Petermann]

Eugene I,

Thanks for the kind words.

[AshvinP]

Eugene I,

I've given it a shot here within the framework of a divine idealism. I talk about the various well-established features of quantum mechanics and what theological implications there might be. Within a divine idealism ontology, what science characterizes is what divine mentation looks like to us. This includes both the regularities and novelties — all intentionally constituted in the mind of God according to divine purposes.

A metaphor I often use is Author/Story where the author creates a narrative in her mind. She intentionally constitutes everything, including the settings, characters, plants, other animals, environments, other beings, and events. It's all in the author's One mind but there are distinctions(aspects as I call them) in her mind where she "lives" each aspect, honoring whatever features, freedom, and constraints each has.

Your essays are well written, I'm gonna spend some time reading them. You are right, in the theistic version of idealism the origins of the observable laws can be easily explained: God created them, duh But for other non-theistic versions it is a more challenging problem.

I also like the topics of your essays, Steve. Thanks for sharing! I like the sentiment expressed here:

Now, as I have talked about in various places, one way to characterize life is as constrained being. Those constraints shape both how life happens and how we perceive it. I think, however, there is also something deeply embedded within our being that also informs us. If we participate in the divine then there is an imprint of the divine within us that speaks to us. The apostle Paul said, “Now we see in the mirror dimly”. There is an image within us of the divine, albeit dimly. Similar sentiments are found in other religious systems. If we are parts or aspects of the Divine Mind, then there is a divine transcendent depth within us. Though often subtle and unclear, it can inform us. Then, if there is a distorted picture of reality, either immanent or transcendent, perhaps it leaves us with an uncomfortable feeling about it. It doesn’t fit with that deeply embedded image of God and God’s relationship with the world.

Most people will say the following sounds 'trivial' or 'reductive' in some manner, but I hold that "imprint" which speaks to us is our spiritual activity of Thinking. Further, I hold there are no fundamental limits to how far the "dim" thoughts reflected within and through us by the Spirit can be expanded to encompass the life of the Whole. The Spirit's informing can become quite explicit and clear, not only about what pictures of Reality are distorted, but what images of Reality are veridical. I am curious to hear your thoughts on that? (or feel free to point me to an essay if you have already written one)

[donsalmon]

Wonderful essay and interesting critiques. Just a few brief suggestions:

BK's analytic idealism vs intuitive idealism: I think there's room for both. I don't think BK has done a good enough job playing by the rules of materialism and explaining his ideas. The problem with materialism is not really an intellectual one but both an instinctive and intuitive one. You just have to find some way to integrate some strict, contemplative discipline with the intellectual analysis. BK was totally closed to this idea when I first proposed it to him in 2013 but he seems to have been warming up to it in recent years. His videos at the Essentia foundation are a start, but there needs to be more experiential stuff accompanying the logical arguments.

sensation vs perception: Adur, you should look at Owen Barfield's "Saving the Appearances" - particularly what he says about how thought and sensation are never separate, and his concept of "figuration.".

If you look up "Saving the Appearances" on youtube, you'll find a set of animations based on Barfield's book. Here's #1:

Combine this with Alan Wallace's contemplative science and his correct insistence on developing research teams of contemplative scientists who have relative mastery of attention (rapid shifting to a state of effortless awareness in which the mind is completely silent) - and you'll have a new science.

Good luck!

[Steve Petermann]

Eugene I,

Most people will say the following sounds 'trivial' or 'reductive' in some manner, but I hold that "imprint" which speaks to us is our spiritual activity of Thinking. Further, I hold there are no fundamental limits to how far the "dim" thoughts reflected within and through us by the Spirit can be expanded to encompass the life of the Whole. The Spirit's informing can become quite explicit and clear, not only about what pictures of Reality are distorted, but what images of Reality are veridical. I am curious to hear your thoughts on that? (or feel free to point me to an essay if you have already written one)

Yes, that imprint informs our thinking as well as every other aspect of our being. In the thinking part, we see the evolution of religious thought from the days of early humans to today where earlier religious forms are left behind for something that is more compelling to today's mind. This evolution will not end. Since the divine depth is infinite, so can our exploring of that depth be forever. While what I think is important is the way we live and relate to others and our world, the metaphysical systems and the way we think and orient ourselves around them have a profound effect.

I agree that sometimes the Spirit's informing us can be explicit and clear. This can occur in any number of ways. Often this is called a religious experience but unfortunately, the typical understanding of this phrase is distorted and unhelpful. It is typically thought of as some one-off, over-the-top experience. While any spiritual experience or insight does carry with it a profundity that moves us, I think these experiences are ubiquitous, even in everyday life. If we have an experience that is what I call "meta-suggestive" then I would count that as the Spirit informing us. While sometimes these experiences are powerfully ineffable, often they can be very explicit. Here one could think of Einstein reveling in his theories of relativity as knowing something about the mind of God. Tillich also said that anything can be transparent to the divine. It could be a place, a person, an event, a scripture, a scientific discovery, a philosophical idea, a work of art or music, the birth of a child, etc. Even an everyday experience of an act of kindness can have this power. Then there are kairotic moments. These are moments that build to "a time of fulfillment" where when the last piece falls into place the change either in perception (picture of reality) or our inner person is dramatic and momentous.

I've written an essay about much of this on Religious Experience/Religious Intuition.

[AshvinP]

sensation vs perception: Adur, you should look at Owen Barfield's "Saving the Appearances" - particularly what he says about how thought and sensation are never separate, and his concept of "figuration.".

If you look up "Saving the Appearances" on youtube, you'll find a set of animations based on Barfield's book. Here's #1:

Nice animation. Minute 5 is especially important - "This book is not about metaphysics... I have no desire to demonstrate that trees, or rainbows, or particles are not really there". Adur's presentation expresses a very similar sentiment in critique of BK, which of course applies to Kantian-Schopenhauer idealism in general. We do not "save the appearances" by relegating them to illusory realm of personal ideation or "MAL" ideation which can be exhaustively studied by physical science. Consider the rainbow - most of us in American schools learned the colors by a pneumonic device such as, "ROY G BIV". Physical science then says, "let's take each color as a separate 'entity' and reduce them to quantitative abstractions of 'wavelengths' of 'photons' 'refracting' through 'water vapor' 'particles'" (I'm not sure if that is exactly how physicalist science would describe it, but you get my point). Qualitative phenomenology goes in the exact opposite direction, from the abstract to the concrete, and does not stop at any model which says "this is the conclusive formulation".

One path in this other direction could be to say, "it's very interesting that light is expressed in this sevenfold spectrum of colors - what sort of concrete meaning does that evoke within me when I experience the rainbow?" Then we may look to other natural phenomenon which manifest to us in this sevenfold relation and see if those meanings can be usefully related with the rainbow meaning and each other, and what this larger constellation of meaning expresses to us inwardly. Perhaps we notice each color of the rainbow tends to evoke certain constellations of qualities in a living and interpenetrating way. So we look to other natural phenomena which evoke those same constellations of meaning in similar ways. We are testing the qualitative relations with our Thinking each step of the way and learning to trust in that Thinking at the same time. That is a crude illustration, of course, but I think anyone who compares the two approaches honestly must say they can hardly be reconciled with each other.

With the qualitative phenomenology, we are always trying to bring about a Unity through the manifold phenomenal appearances which cuts across all other fields of empirical study. We don't need to hold this unifying purpose in mind consciously, because it's just a natural result of moving in that concrete qualitative direction, but we also cannot help but notice it in the process. The physical science approach moves in the opposite direction - it may seek an abstract unifying principle (never a concrete one) for some phenomenon, but it also naturally maintains hard borders between the principles and the fields of study. Once you reach a certain level of abstraction, there is no possible way to dissolve those borders in any concrete, meaningful manner. And if your life and/or vocation is tied up in maintaining the fragmented abstract models, that just makes it all the more difficult to change approaches. Here we see how Barfield's "original participation" is still within us, just waiting to be reborn by a slight shift in perspective, which still manages to be one of the most difficult things we will ever do.

When Barfield speaks of "saving the appearances", he is literally speaking of us saving the appearances in this qualitative thoughtful manner, in the here and now. He is speaking of each individual person being responsible for that salvation. We find this exact same sentiment expressed in ancient mythology and religious traditions, from different angles and at different levels of development. Our integral future-Self is saving the appearances from our fragmented past-self. Our spiritual-Self from our merely physical-self. If we internalize that salvific responsibility and its concrete implications for our lives, then I think we find it increasingly difficult to casually pass by philosophical or scientific worldviews without making this critical distinction and asking ourselves what side of the quantitative-qualitative, abstract-concrete, fragmented-integral fence they are manifesting on.

[Steve Petermann]

Eugene I,

The Spirit's informing can become quite explicit and clear, not only about what pictures of Reality are distorted, but what images of Reality are veridical.

I just remembered a blog post that might address this as well.
A Music Metaphor — Consonance and Dissonance

[Adur Alkain]

In one of his interviews BK explained why he chose to pursue the path of the analytical idealism. This is because the framework of the analytical philosophy has a set of well-defined rules that are used for the metaphysical studies. Materialism claims that it adheres to the rules of the analytical philosophy. So, as BK said, he wanted to demonstrate that idealism can actually defeat materialism strictly within the limits of these rules. However, there is nothing wrong to approach metaphysics, and idealism in particular, beyond the narrow limits of the analytical approach, and by all means it should be done. It is just that beyond these analytical limits idealism would have weaker argumentation base for defeating materialism. The argument "my intuition and spiritual experience tells me that idealism is true" will do nothing to argue with materialists, they will just laugh at it. It is only when you confront materialism on its own playground - natural sciences and analytical philosophy, is where it can be defeated, and this is exactly what BK is doing. So, before criticizing the BK's approach, it is good to understand why he chose that approach and what is he "strategically" trying to do with it.

Hi Eugene,

I understand and respect Bernardo's motivations for going into academia, and I admire the astounding amount of work he is putting into this. Sadly, I don't think he will succeed (unless he improves his theory). His argumentation doesn't convince me, a militant idealist since I was fourteen or so. I doubt it will convince any materialists.

I can even point out some logical errors Bernardo has made in his peer-reviewed papers. None of his peers seem to have noticed those errors. Or maybe they just couldn't bother. I watched the video of Bernardo's defence of his thesis, and most professors there looked rather uninterested. I don't believe most academic philosophers are actually interested in the truth. And I don't believe you can reach the truth by abstract reasoning, anyway.

I'm not trying to convince anybody by talking to them about my intuitions. My approach is a purely scientific one. (Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, all great scientists started from their intuitions, btw.) I'm proposing actual experiments that could prove (if my hypothesis is correct) that materialism is false and (some form of) idealism is true. I believe that's the way to go. Materialism is currently under threat, not from philosophers, but from scientists doing actual experiments in quantum mechanics. But as far as I know, nobody has done yet the kind of simple experiment I'm proposing. Since I'm not an expert, it is impossible for me to know if this experiment is possible or not. My hope is that somehow my idea will reach some professional physicist that might find it worthwhile and try it out.

It seems ridiculous, of course, to think that a complete amateur like me could come up with an idea for an experiment that has never occurred to any professional physicist. But the thing is, I don't think that any professional scientist has thought about QM in the way that I do. I sincerely think that my idea, and my version of idealism, is completely new.

Chances are I'm wrong, of course. But I believe it's worth giving it a try. And I'm doing my best to put my idea out there. That's all I can do. In any case, I'm having lots of fun in the process

[AshvinP]

Eugene I,

Most people will say the following sounds 'trivial' or 'reductive' in some manner, but I hold that "imprint" which speaks to us is our spiritual activity of Thinking. Further, I hold there are no fundamental limits to how far the "dim" thoughts reflected within and through us by the Spirit can be expanded to encompass the life of the Whole. The Spirit's informing can become quite explicit and clear, not only about what pictures of Reality are distorted, but what images of Reality are veridical. I am curious to hear your thoughts on that? (or feel free to point me to an essay if you have already written one)

Yes, that imprint informs our thinking as well as every other aspect of our being. In the thinking part, we see the evolution of religious thought from the days of early humans to today where earlier religious forms are left behind for something that is more compelling to today's mind. This evolution will not end. Since the divine depth is infinite, so can our exploring of that depth be forever. While what I think is important is the way we live and relate to others and our world, the metaphysical systems and the way we think and orient ourselves around them have a profound effect.

I agree that sometimes the Spirit's informing us can be explicit and clear. This can occur in any number of ways. Often this is called a religious experience but unfortunately, the typical understanding of this phrase is distorted and unhelpful. It is typically thought of as some one-off, over-the-top experience. While any spiritual experience or insight does carry with it a profundity that moves us, I think these experiences are ubiquitous, even in everyday life. If we have an experience that is what I call "meta-suggestive" then I would count that as the Spirit informing us. While sometimes these experiences are powerfully ineffable, often they can be very explicit. Here one could think of Einstein reveling in his theories of relativity as knowing something about the mind of God. Tillich also said that anything can be transparent to the divine. It could be a place, a person, an event, a scripture, a scientific discovery, a philosophical idea, a work of art or music, the birth of a child, etc. Even an everyday experience of an act of kindness can have this power. Then there are kairotic moments. These are moments that build to "a time of fulfillment" where when the last piece falls into place the change either in perception (picture of reality) or our inner person is dramatic and momentous.

I've written an essay about much of this on Religious Experience/Religious Intuition.

Steve, thanks for this response and the essay links. I have read them and really appreicate the content and line of thinking. I have written some essays on music aesthetics as well, which I suppose are easiest to find by searching my name and "aesthetics". They are more in the realm of phenomenonology and esoteric theology I suppose. And they are pretty lengthy so I know they take time and effort to consider. I am also listening to Swan Lake as I type this, which is a very consonant experience : )

Do you have familiarity with the esoteric Christian tradition? I know that is often considered a taboo, one bridge too far to cross (or to even consider crossing).

I agree that all of your examples are those of inutitive revelation by the Spirit. My recent essays on mythology are mostly focused on imaginative thinking of the Spirit. I suppose you are familiar with Coleridge and Barfield? They along with Steiner placed utmost important on the Imagination and its ability to bridge our normal abstract intellect with higher order cognition of the spiritual relations. If you have any thoughts on that I am curious to hear them. Thanks again for the links and I will try to check out more of the essays when I have a chance.

[Eugene I]

Materialism is currently under threat, not from philosophers, but from scientists doing actual experiments in quantum mechanics. But as far as I know, nobody has done yet the kind of simple experiment I'm proposing. Since I'm not an expert, it is impossible for me to know if this experiment is possible or not. My hope is that somehow my idea will reach some professional physicist that might find it worthwhile and try it out.

It seems ridiculous, of course, to think that a complete amateur like me could come up with an idea for an experiment that has never occurred to any professional physicist. But the thing is, I don't think that any professional scientist has thought about QM in the way that I do. I sincerely think that my idea, and my version of idealism, is completely new.

Chances are I'm wrong, of course. But I believe it's worth giving it a try. And I'm doing my best to put my idea out there. That's all I can do. In any case, I'm having lots of fun in the process

Adur, that sounds interesting, can you point me to a description of this experiment idea, or may be just post it here?

Also, do you have any answer to this question?