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

[Soul_of_Shu]

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.

To be sure, there is always going to be some predisposition of sensibilities that go into why someone might prefer one metaphor over another. I'm also not sure why BK glommed onto that particular one, and wonder if in retrospect he might have tossed it aside, considering how often folks get hung up on it, and tend to take it literally that he's implying that M@L suffers from some such 'disorder'—which he has made quite clear is not the case. I don't really find any of them wholly satisfactory, even as it may well be that metaphors are as good as it's ever going to get. Suffice to say if it's all Mind-conceived idea construction, and if the possibilities are limitless, what's to preclude the idea of the One manifesting as the Many, however it may have been dreamed up?

[Adur Alkain]

I might be completely wrong about this. But I think it's an interesting and novel idea. And here is the thing: If I'm correct, we are at the end of mathematical physics. No new "fundamental" mathematical laws will ever be discovered. The new goal of physical science will be to understand what "consistency" actually means, and how it works. This isn't a small question, I believe.

I think you are. I agree that mathematical laws are (most likely) not fundamental and only present an approximate description of the observable phenomenal patterns. Yet, there is little doubt that the patterns of of phenomena that they approximate exist independent of whether people discover these mathematical equations or not. Physicists collected a lot of unexplained experimental data long before they discovered that all this data can be with high degree of accuracy approximated by the Schrodinger equation.

Eugene, I completely agree with what you are saying here. My point is that, if the mathematical laws are only approximations and not fundamental, there is something else underlying the regularities of those patterns of phenomena. I call that "something else" the Law of Consistency, and I think it's based on the fundamental fact that all observations of physical reality are ultimately carried out by the one and only observer: universal consciousness.

Like I said, the next big question would be what "consistency" actually means and entails. I believe it means that universal consciousness can't contradict itself in any observation.

We can see this in our own experience: there is a clear difference between inner experiences (thoughts, emotions) and sense perceptions. In inner experience there is no fundamental impossibility of contradiction: I can feel happy and sad at the same time, or think that materialism is false and at the same time (maybe on some deeper layer of my mind) believe it is true, etc. But when it comes to sense perceptions (on which every scientific measurement is based), any contradiction is fundamentally impossible. I can't look at a cat and see it dead and alive at the same time (only in my mind can I hold the images of the dead and alive cat simultaneously).

I sincerely think that it is possible to explain all the regularities of physical reality starting from some ridiculously simple idea like that.

[AshvinP]

I might be completely wrong about this. But I think it's an interesting and novel idea. And here is the thing: If I'm correct, we are at the end of mathematical physics. No new "fundamental" mathematical laws will ever be discovered. The new goal of physical science will be to understand what "consistency" actually means, and how it works. This isn't a small question, I believe.

I think you are. I agree that mathematical laws are (most likely) not fundamental and only present an approximate description of the observable phenomenal patterns. Yet, there is little doubt that the patterns of of phenomena that they approximate exist independent of whether people discover these mathematical equations or not. Physicists collected a lot of unexplained experimental data long before they discovered that all this data can be with high degree of accuracy approximated by the Schrodinger equation.

Eugene, I completely agree with what you are saying here. My point is that, if the mathematical laws are only approximations and not fundamental, there is something else underlying the regularities of those patterns of phenomena. I call that "something else" the Law of Consistency, and I think it's based on the fundamental fact that all observations of physical reality are ultimately carried out by the one and only observer: universal consciousness.

Like I said, the next big question would be what "consistency" actually means and entails. I believe it means that universal consciousness can't contradict itself in any observation.

We can see this in our own experience: there is a clear difference between inner experiences (thoughts, emotions) and sense perceptions. In inner experience there is no fundamental impossibility of contradiction: I can feel happy and sad at the same time, or think that materialism is false and at the same time (maybe on some deeper layer of my mind) believe it is true, etc. But when it comes to sense perceptions (on which every scientific measurement is based), any contradiction is fundamentally impossible. I can't look at a cat and see it dead and alive at the same time (only in my mind can I hold the images of the dead and alive cat simultaneously).

I sincerely think that it is possible to explain all the regularities of physical reality starting from some ridiculously simple idea like that.

Adur,

You really should check out Steiner's The Philosophy of Freedom. It is a phenomenology which goes precisely into why what you are saying above must be correct. You can skip reading my essays if you must : )

[Lou Gold]

We can see this in our own experience: there is a clear difference between inner experiences (thoughts, emotions) and sense perceptions. In inner experience there is no fundamental impossibility of contradiction: I can feel happy and sad at the same time, or think that materialism is false and at the same time (maybe on some deeper layer of my mind) believe it is true, etc. But when it comes to sense perceptions (on which every scientific measurement is based), any contradiction is fundamentally impossible. I can't look at a cat and see it dead and alive at the same time (only in my mind can I hold the images of the dead and alive cat simultaneously).

I sincerely think that it is possible to explain all the regularities of physical reality starting from some ridiculously simple idea like that.

Adur, I'm wondering if the bolded contradiction can't be overcome with a dynamic process view? As an old guy with health issues I often feel sensually like I'm living/dying.

[Eugene I]

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 )

The thing is, I agree with many views of Cleric/your paradigm, while I still disagree or undeceive on certain ones. It's just that I don't want to be a part of a militant Taliban-like idealist sect. It's not only about views, it's also about what you do with them and how you treat people who disagree with you.

[AshvinP]

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 )

The thing is, I agree with many views of Cleric/your paradigm, while I still disagree or undeceive on certain ones. It's just that I don't want to be a part of a militant Taliban-like idealist sect. It's not only about views, it's also about what you do with them and how you treat people who disagree with you.

Eugene, I don't want to go back and forth about personal projections of "militancy" - we both think the other person is doing it in their own way. But the key point here is that you do not agree with many of our views. You frequently say you do, but then the rest of your comment goes to show that you do not. At the end of the day, you feel the claims of spiritual science are "goofy", "fantasy", etc. It's perfectly fine to disagree with those claims, but you should also recognize that you do, in fact, disagree. We are not just differing on minor details which are "undecidable" or matters of "opinion", but very deep approaches to philosophy, science, and spirituality. Obviously none of this began with us, but this fundamental tension has existed between Eastern nondual and Western idealism for centuries, well before materialism and such came into the picture, although I think the modern age has made the two approaches seem so irreconcilable, since it ignores the evolutionary progression of spiritual revelation.

[Eugene I]

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.

Good points, Steve. Just to summarize, we are talking about 3 alternatives (and of course there might be more that we don't know of because we would have no anthropomorphic analogy to them)
1. Undifferentiated MAL where individuated/differentiated conscious activities randomly emerge from the "soup". This is close to the Buddhist view. No intentionality or meta-cognition in the MAL and not even any global subjective perspective.
2. BK's model: MAL with a subjective perspective and instinctual will but no meta-cognition and no intentionality. Dissociation happens instinctively. Your point that the individual beings should not be even called "alters" is somewhat valid here, even though the MAL still has its own subjective perspective and technically can be called a "prime-self" conscious subject. But notice that in the BK's view the MAL is not a fully undifferentiated consciousness.
3. Theistic model: fully meta-cognitive and fully intentional MAL, "dissociation" is a pre-meditated and intentional purposeful act.

Just a reminder, as BK said many times, the primary reason that he chose the #2 approach is the problem of evil: he believes that a meta-cognitive intentional and benevolent MAL would not be capable of creating the world (in its own mind) with so much suffering. He has a point, and it just means that the problem of evil is an essential part of the overall equation and should not be neglected. I met too many people (myself included), including dedicated spiritual seekers, who stumbled upon the problem of evil and were opposed to the theistic view mostly because of it. So its not enough just to mention that suffering can be mitigated, this problem deserves serious consideration (and I know that you do give it a serious consideration in your theology).

[Soul_of_Shu]

Just a reminder, as BK said many times, the primary reason that he chose the #2 approach is the problem of evil: he believes that a meta-cognitive intentional and benevolent MAL would not be capable of creating the world (in its own mind) with so much suffering. He has a point, and it just means that the problem of evil is an essential part of the overall equation and should not be neglected. I met too many people (myself included), including dedicated spiritual seekers, who stumbled upon the problem of evil and were opposed to the theistic view mostly because of it. So its not enough just to mention that suffering can be mitigated, this problem deserves serious consideration (and I know that you do give it a serious consideration in your theology).

Why, if such a Divine Mind is the case, would that preclude the allowance of suffering, for if it is indeed omniscient, it could know that such suffering plays an integral function, such that there are lessons to be learned from it that can't be learned in any other way, within some greater scheme that we as its subjectified finite monads of Mind are not privy to?

[Cleric K]

The thing is, I agree with many views of Cleric/your paradigm, while I still disagree or undeceive on certain ones. It's just that I don't want to be a part of a militant Taliban-like idealist sect. It's not only about views, it's also about what you do with them and how you treat people who disagree with you.

I agree with that, Eugene. But you must also understand that part of this behavior results from frustration when what is being written is completely misunderstood, in a way that often seems on purpose. For example you say:

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

I don't know if you do this on purpose or because you really didn't see what I was writing:

In the above picture we have 'spectrum analyzed' the Time-Consciousness layers. It must be immediately stated that none of this should become a rigid abstract theory. Everything that we describe as conscious time rhythms must be immediately related to something concrete that we find as living conscious experience. Here someone can object that there's no proof that such rhythms exist, that it might all be just in our head. This simply shows the extent to which the Kantian divide has been embedded into one's thinking. One almost immediately declares his conscious experience as unreality in order to postulate the 'true' reality somewhere out there. As we said, we do nothing more than sticking to the given. As far as our immediate experience is concerned, these waves we draw simply symbolize our ability to encompass the unity of states of being that are spread in time.
...
We don't presuppose or postulate anything by recognizing this overarching nature of the idea and we simply illustrate this in a picture. We're simply trying to read out what the given can speak out of itself instead of arbitrarily discarding its elements and trying in vain to produce them through combinations of intellectual thoughts.

...

With risk of becoming annoying I'll once more repeat that there's no need to seek some reality of these rhythms 'out there'. There's no need to fantasize these rhythms as some exotic vibrating energy or anything of that sort. We are speaking concretely about inner experiences. We let the experiences speak for themselves, without coloring them with abstract theories. All we are pointing out is that the ideas of these ever widening rhythms bring meaningful unity to the separate states. That's all.

I really don't know how much more explicit I could have made this. But things are really deeply connected. Ashvin already pointed it out. The reason is that one doesn't want to live the thoughts. One wants to first place them on the wall as scribbles, to 'understand' them and only then to agree with them. But this is not how it works. And that's the reason (again Ashvin pointed out) why Steiner and others are difficult to read for some. It's difficult only if we try to build an intellectual model of things, instead of live through them. In the former case it's like we're adding more and more baggage on our shoulders until at some point we collapse under the weight of the abstract thoughts. Things become totally different when we read in such a way that everything that we read is like a description of a gymnastic exercise. Imagine what it would be if one had to learn some very complicated physical skill by entirely thinking abstractly about it. We can hold in our mind only few things at a time, it's simply impossible to hold a complex intellectual description of every minute detail. But things are different if we slowly and patiently just apply the description on ourselves. Then gradually we begin to live through the movements and we build upon them. But this is only one thing. The other, which is even more critical, is that our intellectual understanding of the movement can never in itself give us the actual experience of the movement. This holds profoundly for spiritual matters too. It's one thing to think "So you express the changing states as sum of waves - big deal!" but another to actually experiment in our inner experiences with these ideas, to really feel the overaching nature of ideas. Then the dry diagrams become symbols for living experiences. The point is not to build an theoretical hypothesis for the ineffable but to actually explore the uncharted degrees of freedom of our spiritual activity. And everything that is being spoken of is nothing but signs, directions, stepping stones, scaffolds, to enable our spirit to live through certain spiritual 'asanas', that we experience directly.

Let me give another example. Imagine that we know only the sensation of cold and hot. These stand as disconnected phenomena, seemingly having nothing in common, similarly to the way color and sound seem completely different. Then I draw on the white board two circles - blue below, red above - and connect them with a line and say - warmth sensations actually lie on a gradient but we need to exert certain effort, to make an experiment of changing the temperature gradually in order for this to be experienced. Steve will say "That's nothing but metaphysical speculations - lines, gradients!" Eugene will say "Connecting two dots with a line? You really have the gift to present trivial ideas as profound truths". And the truth is indeed simple, there's nothing spectacular about it but it only becomes reality when we step into the actual experiences. When we experience the change of warmth sensation we truly understand what it means to have a gradient. Then the line on the board is no longer a metaphysical speculation but a symbol for inner experience.

It's exactly the same with everything I write here. When I speak of Time-Consciousness spectrum I don't aim to play with big words and try to sound techy. It is a domain of inner experiences but we really need to make an effort at least to experience the thoughts and not only look at them from safe distance, preserving the sanctity of the ego.

[Eugene I]

Why, if such a Divine Mind is the case, would that preclude the allowance of suffering, for if it is indeed omniscient, it could know that such suffering plays an integral function, such that there are lessons to be learned from it that can't be learned in any other way, within some greater scheme that we as its subjectified finite monads of Mind are not privy to?

I'm not sure about the "omniscience", but it definitely could. I'm just saying that this problem deserves consideration if we want such paradigm to be appealing to people. One of the issues here is the moral question whether the MAL, being benevolent, would be ethically capable of making the finite monads suffer without their free pre-consent. The monads of course may not be developed enough to understand the grand scheme and all the mitigation factors, but as long as they are meta-cognitive and have free will, they should have and should be given a capacity to make such choice. But this can be easily accommodated in a view that allows for reincarnation because obviously the monads would reincarnate with they free pre-consent, and this view is supported by a lot of evidences from NDE and regression therapy studies.