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

[Cleric K]

Cleric,

There is interest, even from those who have been advised they're not interested.

Your posts are not too long. Please don't stop for that reason. It takes me a while to read them. That is not a complaint. It's because at least some "processing" needs to accompany the reading, otherwise it would feel like starting from scratch every time.

Thank you.

Thank you, PZ!
I appreciate that!

[Soul_of_Shu]

That's because the "conditioned mindsets" are the way for the "unconditioned mindset" to explore the possibilities not achievable from the "unconditioned mindset" perspective. In a way, the "unconditioned mindset" is limited in its own unconditionality.

Perhaps I'll shift the focus here ... We would seem to be in agreement that we don't arrive in this corporeal construct as blank slates, such that all the conditioning is post-natal, and thus can ostensibly be undone by some attempt at re-education—which is pretty much what participants in this discussion are attempting. Rather, we arrive here with some significantly entrenched degree of karma-bound pre-conditioning that determines our preference/proclivity/affinity for any given mythos, and thus no amount arguing for or against a preferred mythos is going to have much impact in altering that conditioning, which can only ever be effectively altered by some serious, introspective delving into the shadowlands of the psyche, leaving all these attempts at re-education a moot point. Those who are inclined toward Cleric's view will feel compelled toward it, and those who aren't will feel otherwise compelled toward some other view, regardless of what anyone else might do or say to sway them. Might just as well save the wear and tear on the keyboard.

[AshvinP]

That's because the "conditioned mindsets" are the way for the "unconditioned mindset" to explore the possibilities not achievable from the "unconditioned mindset" perspective. In a way, the "unconditioned mindset" is limited in its own unconditionality.

Perhaps I'll shift the focus here ... We would seem to be in agreement that we don't arrive in this corporeal construct as blank slates, such that all the conditioning is post-natal, and thus can ostensibly be undone by some attempt at re-education—which is pretty much what participants in this discussion are attempting. Rather, we arrive here with some significantly entrenched degree of karma-bound pre-conditioning that determines our preference/proclivity/affinity for any given mythos, and thus no amount arguing for or against a preferred mythos is going to have much impact in altering that conditioning, which can only ever be effectively altered by some serious, introspective delving into the shadowlands of the psyche, leaving all these attempts at re-education a moot point. Those who are inclined toward Cleric's view will feel compelled toward it, and those who aren't will feel otherwise compelled toward some other view, regardless of what anyone else might do or say to sway them. Might just as well save the wear and tear on the keyboard.

I don't think that is true for all intents and purposes right now. We are in the metamorphic stage when our Karmic destiny is taken into our own hands, so to speak, even though there is still an overall Wisdom guiding the process. I can't really speak to any more detail of that, except to say Steiner remarks there was a time in the ancient past when the souls alive had not had any previous incarnations, and there will be a time in the future when such incarnations no longer occur. Maybe Cleric can shed more light. The overall point being, we may as well act as if everything we say and do has great impact on our own souls and others, and that we can overcome the "pre-conditioning" by way of Self-knowledge. That is the mythos for our time.

[Eugene I]

I can see you point, Cleric, but I don't agree that any mode of existence of an individuated conscious being is always egoic. In some non-dual traditions the the metamorphic process is the process of awakening of the individuated monads to their non-dual nature of One Consciousness without compete dissolution of their individuated activity into the Oneness. So it is a continuation of the individuated activity in a post-egoic way (these traditions call it "enlightenment" but I would rather avoid such ambitious definitions). And on the post-egoic stages the "imaginary" inter-personal boundaries become transparent and the connection with the cosmic organism becomes more lively experienced, but not to the extent of the total dissolution of individuated activities.

There is likely an option for any monad to completely integrate into Oneness at a certain stage of the metamorphic process if one chooses to, but I do not believe it is the only available option. I think the continuation of individuated mode of existence in a post-egoic way is also a possibility that does not contradict the MAL's intentions. This is because the exploration and expansion into unknowns can not be done only through the single unified subjective perspective of One Consciousness. The dissociation into multiplicity of subjects is a necessary step in order for such exploration to unfold. How would MAL ever experience the subjective perspective of a fish without actually becoming a fish?. How could Bach Chaconne ever be composed without some monad actually becoming Bach and living as Bach? And because this exploration of conscious forms has no end, then the dissociation also has no end. But the way to avoid egoic states and the suffering associated with them is for the monads to mature and to evolve into the post-egoic state of their individuated conscious activity.

[Eugene I]

Those who are inclined toward Cleric's view will feel compelled toward it, and those who aren't will feel otherwise compelled toward some other view, regardless of what anyone else might do or say to sway them. Might just as well save the wear and tear on the keyboard.

That exactly what I'm saying And perhaps now is a good time to stop.

But I think it was still a good exercise to explore different views and their pro- and contra- arguments. After all, this forum is for "metaphysical speculations", isn't it? (As long as it is done in a non-confrontational manner).

[Soul_of_Shu]

That exactly what I'm saying And perhaps now is a good time to stop.

Yeah, perhaps you can stop, and as I said elsewhere, I'm naive to think that I can stop you.

[Soul_of_Shu]

... That is the mythos for our time.

Indeed, and I seem to have been born into this world predisposed and compelled toward such a mythos.

[AshvinP]

... That is the mythos for our time.

Indeed, and I seem to have been born into this world predisposed and compelled toward such a mythos.

The answers to these mysteries are actually all within the movie, Minority Report. The pre-cogs of Karmic Wisdom do not override the meaning of our choices, but in fact make that meaning possible

[AshvinP]

I can see you point, Cleric, but I don't agree that any mode of existence of an individuated conscious being is always egoic. In some non-dual traditions the the metamorphic process is the process of awakening of the individuated monads to their non-dual nature of One Consciousness without compete dissolution of their individuated activity into the Oneness. So it is a continuation of the individuated activity in a post-egoic way (these traditions call it "enlightenment" but I would rather avoid such ambitious definitions). And on the post-egoic stages the "imaginary" inter-personal boundaries become transparent and the connection with the cosmic organism becomes more lively experienced, but not to the extent of the total dissolution of individuated activities.

There is likely an option for any monad to completely integrate into Oneness at a certain stage of the metamorphic process if one chooses to, but I do not believe it is the only available option. I think the continuation of individuated mode of existence in a post-egoic way is also a possibility that does not contradict the MAL's intentions. This is because the exploration and expansion into unknowns can not be done only through the single unified subjective perspective of One Consciousness. The dissociation into multiplicity of subjects is a necessary step in order for such exploration to unfold. How would MAL ever experience the subjective perspective of a fish without actually becoming a fish?. How could Bach Chaconne ever be composed without some monad actually becoming Bach and living as Bach? And because this exploration of conscious forms has no end, then the dissociation also has no end. But the way to avoid egoic states and the suffering associated with them is for the monads to mature and to evolve into the post-egoic state of their individuated conscious activity.

Cleric is trying to give concrete answers to all these questions you ask, rather than rest satisfied with pure speculation. For some reason, you view this lack of complacency with vague, fuzzy, and often illogical speculations as threatening and oppressive. The desire for "endless exploration", in the sense you use it, is born of the fragmented intellectual ego's desire to appropriate all possible experiences to itself, rather than find peace with the fact that its unique experiences and role in spiritual evolution serve the integral life of the whole Cosmic organism.


"For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness."

[Adur Alkain]

In my comment I was thinking mainly of Owen Barfield, who I think was quite ethnocentric.

You realize you're going to be lambasted for misrepresenting Barfield. I would suggest that we are all to some extent or another 'conditioning'-centric, in that we all are interpreting through a conditioned mindset, which predisposes us toward certain views, for example, your own view that Barfield is ethnocentric, or that your guru Almaas is a cut above the rest ... Let anyone who is without conditioning cast the first stone

I really like Barfield. I found Saving the Appearances a very interesting and inspiring read. Saying that he was ethnocentric was not intended as an insult. But it's a fact.

Barfield was a man of his time and of his country. We all know that he was one of the Inklings, a friend of Tolkien. Tolkien is my personal hero. I decided I wanted to become a writer when I read The Lord of the Rings as a teenager. I think Tolkien is the most important writer of the 20th century. But it would be ridiculous to deny that he was ethnocentric.

So I'm not criticizing Barfield for being ethnocentric. I'm just saying that his ideas about the "spiritual evolution" of humanity have this ethnocentric bias. In Saving the Appearances when he talks about "original participation" he consistently refers to non-Western peoples who "still" experience the world in this way as "primitives". In this he was just following the anthropologists of his time like Durkheim and Lévy-Bruhl. (Well, actually, these belong to an era of anthropology prior to Barfield's time; in 1957, when he published Saving the Appearances, the most influential anthropologist was Claude Lévi-Strauss, who rejected Lévi-Bruhls ideas about the "primitive" mind.) In contemporary anthropology it's considered ethnocentric to use the term "primitive" to refer to those peoples, so it's never done anymore. (I have a degree in Cultural Anthropology, so these details probably seem more important to me than to most people.)

In calling those non-Western peoples "primitives", some obvious assumptions are being made: that those "primitive peoples" somehow belong to the past (although they exist right now on this Earth!), and that inevitably all humans will eventually have to go through the same "evolution" that modern "civilized" Westerners have undergone. (That, or face extermination, I guess.)

I am Basque, and I'm pretty ethnocentric myself. But I don't believe that all of humanity will have to go through the same spiritual development that we Basques have. And yet, I resist the idea that the traditional Basque culture (which I believe is imbued in "original participation") belongs to the past. I resist the idea that we Basques are "still" experiencing the world in this way because we are "primitive", but that we will necessarily have to become "civilized".

I'm currently reading Barfield's History in English Words, which I find fascinating, but pretty ethnocentric. Here is a quote:

Strengthening their physique through the generations by stricter notions of matrimony, working by exogamy upon their blood, and through that perhaps upon some quality of brightness and sharpness in their thought, the Aryans became—Aryans. And then they began to move. And the result was the Bhagavad Gita, the Parthenon frieze, the Roman Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire—it was Buddha, Michelangelo, the plays of Shakespeare, Bach, Goethe—it was Aristotle and Bacon, and the vast modern industrial civilizations of Europe, Britain and America reaching out to the Antipodes.

Barfield, Owen. History in English Words (p. 17). Lindisfarne Books. Kindle Edition.

Since he includes the Baghavad Gita and Buddha, you can say that he was much less etnocentric than for example somebody like Tolkien... But since I'm not "Aryan", he still seems ethnocentric to me!