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

[AshvinP]

My experience has been the exact opposite of yours when reading Steiner, Barfield and Cleric - their writing is a pure breath of fresh air compared to the suffocating abstractions of modern philosophy which attempts to formulate everything of importance in terms of those dead abstractions, such as "mathematical ontologies".

I'm reading Barfield's Saving the Appearances at the moment. IMO, whilst it has some great insights, in itself it does not seem to provide much philosophical grounding for an idealist worldview.

Barfield's notion of 'final participation' is postulated as being a destination which is arrived at after the retreat inward to the imagination from physicalist idolatry (Pan has shut up shop and gone indoors - p. 130). So it's like a dualist route to idealism. .However:

- Barfield starts off by utilising the physicalist premise that the unrepresented is 'particles' (p. 17).
- Later on he speculates that the unrepresented might also be phenomenal and 'take its place among the collective representations' (p. 153).
- But Barfield (p. 154) states that whether it is the case that the unrepresented is actually representational is something that 'everyone will decide for himself' and is something for which he will 'assume its validity'.

So whilst Barfield makes a good argument for dualism, there does not seem to be much of an argument for idealism. The belief if in idealism seems to me to be more of a leap of religious faith.

Justin,

I am glad you are reading it. Barfield is not attempting to provide a philosophical grounding for an idealist worldview. That is why he says "this is not a book on metaphysics". We must remember metaphysical "idealism" is just an expression of our intuition that there is only conscious activity. Beyond that, it only helps to the extent it points us away from abstract models and towards the living experience of that conscious activity. That is the phenomenology Barfield was engaged in, i.e. Steiner's phenomenology of metamorphic Thinking activity and his own phenomenology of language meanings over time.

I was also confused by use of "particles" the first time I read it, but suffice to say he is NOT using it in the physicalist sense. He explains that he just uses it because he does not want to make any assumption of what the unrepresented consists. Steiner and Barfield hold there are no arbitrary limits to how much of the unrepresented can become represented and, eventually, directly experienced. But they don't want us to take their word for it... that defeats the entire 'aim' of the current epoch, which is to develop spiritually free individuals. Each person must truly explore these experiences and decide for themselves.

I have no idea how you arrived at Barfield making a case for "dualism". I suspect it has to do with this abstract model issue. Since we are only comfortable constructing such models, we assume everyone else must be attemtping the same thing. Barfield most certainly was not, rather he is trying to show how we can gey back to living experience of the "appearances" i.e. save them from those cold, dead abstractions which are confused for Reality itself (idolatry). 60 or 70 years later and we are clearly very much mired in this same problem in the forms of materialism and mysticism.

[Eugene I]

So there is no mathematical objectively verifiable explanation of the consistent phenomenonal patterns, and also no such spiritual explanation... what do you propose then?

I don't propose anything, I was asking what POF proposes for an explanation of why the patterns exactly follow the Schrodinger equation.

Cleric was using this language to describe his concrete qualitative experience. Instead of looking towards the qualitative realm of your inner experience to confirm or deny what he claims, you are translating that back to abstract quantitative terms! You are expressing the modern age in a nutshell - anything and everything, including your own inner experience, is reduced to quantitative abstractions so as to avoid confronting the qualitative spiritual exprience.

Every meditator (me included) observe the constant changes in the conscious states, including more periodically oscillating ones as well as non-systematic and less patterned changes. These changing states can be explained as result of superposition of strictly periodic waves of conscious activity, or by "polynomial" waves, or by other functional base waves. It's amazing how you guys always present trivial ideas as some profound spiritual revelations

You really don't get it. We don't deny the ineffable, we just refuse to accept that it can only be experienced as vague mystical smearing out of ideal content. You know that, Eugene, as we have discussed it dozens of times with you now and is also laid out in all the essays which you apparently never read, so please stop intentionally misrepresenting our positions.

I know, you claim that ineffable can be fully and exhaustibly comprehended/cognized by thinking activity, but in such case it's not ineffable anymore, but becomes effable

That's it, I lost any interest in your goofy pseudo-spiritual science, so no discussions anymore. I'm much more interested in Steve's theology now.

[AshvinP]

So there is no mathematical objectively verifiable explanation of the consistent phenomenonal patterns, and also no such spiritual explanation... what do you propose then?

I don't propose anything, I was asking what POF proposes for an explanation of why the patterns exactly follow the Schrodinger equation.

Cleric was using this language to describe his concrete qualitative experience. Instead of looking towards the qualitative realm of your inner experience to confirm or deny what he claims, you are translating that back to abstract quantitative terms! You are expressing the modern age in a nutshell - anything and everything, including your own inner experience, is reduced to quantitative abstractions so as to avoid confronting the qualitative spiritual exprience.

Every meditator (me included) observe the constant changes in the conscious states, including more periodically oscillating ones as well as non-systematic and less patterned changes. These changing states can be explained as result of superposition of strictly periodic waves of conscious activity, or by "polynomial" waves, or by other functional base waves. It's amazing how you guys always present trivial ideas as some profound spiritual revelations

You really don't get it. We don't deny the ineffable, we just refuse to accept that it can only be experienced as vague mystical smearing out of ideal content. You know that, Eugene, as we have discussed it dozens of times with you now and is also laid out in all the essays which you apparently never read, so please stop intentionally misrepresenting our positions.

I know, you claim that ineffable can be fully and exhaustibly comprehended/cognized by thinking activity, but in such case it's not ineffable anymore, but becomes effable

That's it, I lost any interest in your goofy pseudo-spiritual science, so no discussions anymore. I'm much more interested in Steve's theology now.

Exactly. You don't propose anything and you never will, because you want to remain in a world of abstractions where no effort is required of you. As soon as you open the doort to true knowledge of the noumenal spiritual, you know a heavy responsibility comes with it, so you keep the door closed. When Cleric presents an undeniably logical and reasonable argument for opening the door back up, you say "yeah I agree and knew all of this before", and then go on to assert the exact opposite of what is being discussed.

Since you are such an experienced meditator and knew everything Cleric was pointing to, maybe you can describe your experience of the light point pen exercise and what insight about your inner experiential states you have gained from it. I won't hold my breath waiting... there is no point wasting any more time directing your attention to these things, because you never read what we provide you, only pretend to and simultaneously claim "I cant follow anything you guys write" and "you are only presenting trivial ideas which I already knew". If that's not a more clear reflection of your lack of intellectual integrity, I don't know what is. I am done as well.

[Eugene I]

As I said many times, paradigms are validated not only by arguments, but by actions. Particularly in spiritual area it is not about what we think, but how we behave and how we treat people, specifically people who do not fully agree with our views. A sure way to disprove the principles we promote is to behave contrary to these very principles. Spirituality is an art of life overall, not only an art of thinking. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits"

[Soul_of_Shu]

In the first part of this essay, I tried to show the problems inherent in Bernardo Kastrup’s Analytic Idealism. My critique has been based on direct intuition, but also on the study and practice of Eastern and Western wisdom traditions, which (at least in my view) provide a much deeper insight into the nature of consciousness than anything contemporary Western philosophy and science can deliver.

The alternative formulation of idealism that I’m proposing here (Intuitive Idealism) shares a same basic tenet with Analytic Idealism: consciousness is fundamental; it is an ontological primitive, uncaused and irreducible. It also shares the recognition that all reality exists only as experience, and that experience is excitation in the boundless field of consciousness. There is no subject-object separation.

However, I depart from Analytic Idealism in two crucial points: I reject the notion of dissociative boundaries. And I reject the idea that the physical world we perceive is the extrinsic appearance of something else, or a simplified user interface, or anything other than what it appears to be.

I’m rejecting those notions not only because they are counter-intuitive: they are also, as far as I can see, completely unnecessary. It is perfectly possible to explain from an idealistic perspective all fundamental facts about reality in an intuitive and straightforward way, with no need to resort to any sort of far-fetched mental contrivance. This is Intuitive Idealism.

The main facts that need explanation from an idealistic perspective are these three:

a) Why do we all (seem to) share the same physical world?

b) Why does physical reality (our sense perceptions) follow regular, predictable patterns?

c) Why is there a close correlation between conscious experience and brain activity?

Am I missing something here? What about some comprehensive explication for how the sole uncaused, irreducible, Cosmic Consciousness (or M@L if preferred) comes to be the apparency of myriad inter-subjectified loci of consciousness engaged in an evolutionary, relational dynamic with its objectified idea constructions—which is idealism in a nutshell. BK concedes that he doesn't really offer any such comprehensive explication of that process-at-large, but only offers the DID analogy, limited hint that it may be, as an example of how a psyche can apparently fragment into multiple seemingly segregated identities. And as far as I can tell, there are no models that do actually offer much in the way of any comprehensive explication of that process-at-large, but they all pretty much just take it for granted, and then from that starting point proceed to address how these subjectified loci of consciousness become problematically egocentric, fall under the spell of separation, are then prone to segregative self vs other-than-self behaviour, deprived thinking capacity, shadow projection, abasement of love, etc, with all of the attendant misunderstanding and existential suffering that entails—which all spiritual traditions attempt to rectify in one way or another, albeit with varying degrees of success. In any case, why is some explication of that process-at-large not addressed? Is it just simply beyond the purview of any given finite perspective of mind to know how it arrived in that condition?

[AshvinP]

As I said many times, paradigms are validated not only by arguments, but by actions. Particularly in spiritual area it is not about what we think, but how we behave and how we treat people, specifically people who do not fully agree with our views. A sure way to disprove the principles we promote is to behave contrary to these very principles. Spirituality is an art of life overall, not only an art of thinking. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits"

Spirituality is also about letting egoistic desires fall away and seeking the Truth with devotion and good faith. Nothing is more egoistic and pharasiacal than "your view is wrong because I live a better life than you do". The person you quoted died on a Cross at the hands of people with that self-righteous attitude.

(don't worry Dana, I am definitely done responding now )

[Steve Petermann]

BK concedes that he doesn't really offer any such comprehensive explication of that process-at-large, but only offers the DID analogy, limited hint that it may be, as an example of how a psyche can apparently fragment into multiple seemingly segregated identities. And as far as I can tell, there are no models that do actually offer much in the way of any comprehensive explication of that process-at-large

For theistic systems, this process of the One becoming Many could be characterized as kenosis (the act of emptying). We see this concept of the divine taking on finite form in many religious texts and traditions such as in the Epic of Gilgamesh (circa 2100 BCE), the avatars in Hinduism, a god taking on human form in Greek mythology, and especially the incarnation in Christianity. The Apostle Paul put it this way:

Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality
with God as something to be grasped, but poured out and emptied himself (εαυτον εκενωσεν-eauton ekenōsen)
becoming a servant and, being born in the image of a human being, appeared in human form.
Paul - Philippians 2: 5-81

While many of these acts of kenosis are said to occur only in unique individuals, I think that is too limited. In my view, God chose to live finite lives and that includes everything from quarks to humans, and ET's. So, there is a Divine Life that includes everything in this reality where God accepts the limitations of finite being.
Here's a couple of Venn diagram metaphors for this.

[Soul_of_Shu]

While many of these acts of kenosis are said to occur only in unique individuals, I think that is too limited. In my view, God chose to live finite lives and that includes everything from quarks to humans, and ET's. So, there is a Divine Life that includes everything in this reality where God accepts the limitations of finite being.
Here's a couple of Venn diagram metaphors for this.

Steve ... I've visited your site previously, back in the days of the old MS forum, along with the Venn Diagrams - A Metaphor page, and I'm not seeing how it amounts to much more than saying that it's in the immanent nature of the Divine to incarnate in finite form, and not greatly different from BK saying much the same about M@L being imperatively impelled into alter-mode, absent the 'Divine' overlay, and so just taking it for granted, without offering much more, and thus saddling Idealism with its own 'hard problem', while left making the case that it's less perplexing than materialism's hard problem. Seems we're always stuck with at least one free miracle

[Steve Petermann]

Steve ... I've visited your site previously, back in the days of the old MS forum, along with the Venn Diagrams - A Metaphor page, and I'm not seeing how it amounts to much more than saying that it's in the immanent nature of the Divine to incarnate in finite form, and not greatly different from BK saying much the same about M@L being imperatively impelled into alter-mode, absent the 'Divine' overlay, and so just taking it for granted, without offering much more, and thus saddling Idealism with its own 'hard problem', while left making the case that it's less perplexing than materialism's hard problem. Seems we're always stuck with at least one free miracle

Every metaphysical system must at some points assert brute facts (or miracles as you say). The question for those evaluating it is if they are legitimate or just a cop-out. That's obviously a judgment call but it can be informed by reasoning and evidence. If there are plausible empirical examples for it, that lends credence to it. Berardo suggests that DID is a plausible empirical analogy to address the issues of why Mind-at-Large goes from the One to the Many. Does it work? He thinks M@L is instinctive and undifferentiated. As I said in a prior post, what's to dissociate from? If M@L is undifferentiated there is no association to dissociate from. In human DID there is an associated identity to start with. An undifferentiated M@L wouldn't seem to have that. It's unclear to me why he even needed to offer that analogy. An evolutionary model would seem to suffice where identities just emerged from the evolutionary process. And why use the term "alters"? This suggests that Mind-as-Large is in some sense similar to so-called alters but according to Bernardo, M@L is not meta-cognitive with no introspect or particular purpose in mind. That is so different from cognitive, meta-cognitive, and purposeful beings that using the term "alters" seems strange.

However, we do have empirical examples where the One becoming the Many is legitimately shown. I've offered examples of this in my post on "Analogies for Idealism". We have actors taking on roles. We have authors creating complete new worlds with new characters in their own minds. We have game players taking on roles in MMORPG's. All these represent an associated mind freely choosing to take on a role within their own mind.

Now, religious sentiment necessarily draws from human experiences. We project our own perspectives onto the divine. This is risky but what else do we have? So, to assert a brute fact, as I mentioned in the prior post, that God chooses to take on the role of finite beings correlates with our own experiences. Just as humans can take on a role (like in a game, play, or movie) perhaps that offers credence to the posit of that brute fact. It's a brute fact that is certainly open to criticism but if it offers good answers to the many existential issues (what matters to us) then perhaps it could be entertained.

[AshvinP]

While many of these acts of kenosis are said to occur only in unique individuals, I think that is too limited. In my view, God chose to live finite lives and that includes everything from quarks to humans, and ET's. So, there is a Divine Life that includes everything in this reality where God accepts the limitations of finite being.
Here's a couple of Venn diagram metaphors for this.

Steve ... I've visited your site previously, back in the days of the old MS forum, along with the Venn Diagrams - A Metaphor page, and I'm not seeing how it amounts to much more than saying that it's in the immanent nature of the Divine to incarnate in finite form, and not greatly different from BK saying much the same about M@L being imperatively impelled into alter-mode, absent the 'Divine' overlay, and so just taking it for granted, without offering much more, and thus saddling Idealism with its own 'hard problem', while left making the case that it's less perplexing than materialism's hard problem. Seems we're always stuck with at least one free miracle

Let me offer the altogether unsatisfying answer for modern speculative intellect - positing MAL instinctive impelling into "alter-mode" and positing transcendental Divine purpose are both equally anthropomorphic in terms of projecting our own current finite and distorted perspective onto the eternal Cosmic Mind. Can we ever get a satisfying answer to these questions? Yes, but never by mere abstract intellect, and I think you both know where I would take it from there.