Eugene I wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 10:05 pm
I
actually do admit them, but only contingently on all of these above
IFs. I admit them contingently and pragmatically with a principal possibility that all those IFs
may be wrong. So, to me, this approach is a pragmatic spiritual practice and spiritual science. Basically, I pragmatically and contingently assume that "there
are no processes in the Cosmos for which no conscious perspective can account" until I come to encountering certain facts proving that "there
are processes in the Cosmos for which no conscious perspective can account" (and so I remain open to such possibility in principle). This assumption is my pragmatic working hypothesis, not a religious belief.
Let's look closely at the above thinking attitude. It would be quite on the mark if the question was "Is string theory right?". Then one could answer "Contingently and pragmatically, string theory works for me but I prefer not to accept it as religious dogma and remain open that at some point it might be proven wrong". Such an attitude is indeed the healthiest approach for intellect operating with the Kantian divide. It's the most logical thing to do. If the thing-in-itself is in principle to forever remain only asymptotically approached through mental models which approximate the dynamics of its appearances, then it's only a sign of sound thinking that we don't claim absolute truthiness for our model. Even if our model currently matches all known facts it could still turn out that thousand years from now, a new phenomenon can be discovered that doesn't fit the model. This is all fine and is indeed the healthy attitude towards the unknowable thing-in-itself (if we assume that it is indeed forever unknowable).
But let's consider something else. You already gave similar example. Let's take the statement "I experience thinking". If we approach this with the same attitude as the above, it will sound something like "My working hypothesis is that I do indeed experience thinking but that's only my pragmatic approach. I remain open to the possibility that I may not be experiencing thinking. I want to remain unbiased and accept that I can only asymptotically approach this fact but I can never be certain about it. If I claim certainty, it would immediately turn into religious dogma and this is simply bad science."
Now the denial of the above statement is not as absurd as it might sound to some. Actually it is even the norm in many philosophical views. This is really the symptom of the pathological state of thinking in our age. Thinking has been driven into a phantom layer of completely abstract thoughts which are so alien to reality that these thoughts can't even formulate a statement for their own existence. Indeed, in some schools it is even considered the pinnacle of wisdom if the thoughts formulate their own denial.
All talks here about Thinking with capital T, SS and so on are completely pointless if one can't comprehend the gravity of a statement like the above. If one feels that the truthiness of the statement may sound plausible but is ultimately a matter of belief and we become dangerously and dogmatically biased if we recognize its truth, then there's really no point to continue this discussion.
It should be completely transparent for those whose thinking capabilities have not been completely devastated by contemporary philosophical trends, that the denial of the statement can be seen as a possibility
only if the thinking which pronounces this denial is deeply buried in the blind spot. Even the slightest awareness of the thinking which utters the words of the denial would immediately show that this denial simply doesn't relate to anything but its own abstractness. The words are just a shiny arrangement of sounds which have no relation to anything else. The "I" stares at the shiny arrangement of words and says "These are only words, they can never tell if there's thinking-in-itself responsible for them. They are locked into a phantom closed system of logic which is completely isolated from the reality-in-itself."
On the other hand, if we're aware of the thinking process that utters the words, it'll be seen that they are condensed symbols of the meaning inherent in the very act of thinking activity which produces them. It's mindboggling that it is necessary to explain such things but alas, these are the pathological times in which we live. Times in which black is called white and it is celebrated as the triumph of wisdom.
If the reader still feels that the statement can only be taken as dogmatic belief, which implies that at some point the facts may prove "I don't experience thinking", then there really isn't any point to speak of these things anymore. And I'm fine with this. But let at least the reader be perfectly aware of the infinitely deep chasm between the phantom layer of the intellect and the thing-in-itself. This is practically the definition for the Kantian divide.
So our topic here is of the exactly same nature as the above. It really boils down to the question: "Can thinking express anything certain about reality or it forever remains within the phantom layer of the intellect, where things can be only asymptotically approximated through mental models."
Now with this in mind it should be clear why what Eugene says above sounds really as paragraph 22. Let me put it into a bluntly simple example. We have a door and we stand on one side of it. There are two statements "The door can be gone through" and "The door
can't be gone through". It's a fact that as long as we are on the same side of the door we can speak about possibilities. We say IF the door can be gone through. Now Eugene and Martin say that they are open for the possibility that the door can be gone through but they reserve the possibility that this may actually not be the case. Who knows, maybe some clever genius can prove the you-shall-not-pass theorem. But in any case, I hope it's clear that the openness for the possibility of going through the gate remains entirely in phantom layer of the intellect. It is as if by definition all that talk about the gate is bound to forever remain purely abstract speculation. It is
completely forgotten that the statement refers to something that can indeed be
verified. Not
proven entirely within the bounds of the phantom layer but
verified when phantom thinking steps outside pure abstraction.
Another example. I see a pencil on the desk in front of me. I can speculate: "It is either possible or impossible to lift that pencil with my hand". Eugene and Martin say "We're open that it might be possible to lift the pencil but we don't want to subscribe to religious dogma. We'll live our life
as if the pencil can be lifted because it has beneficial pragmatic consequences but we stay on the sure side and remain open that this can be proven wrong at any point in time."
I apologize for using such childish examples but this is really how ridiculous the whole situation is.
What is
not understood is that all those talks about Thinking and PoF are
not supposed to remain empty phrases in the phantom layer. Instead they say "you don't need to believe dogmatically that the pencil can be lifted. Just stretch your arm and verify this once and for all."
I'm not saying that this verification is the easiest thing to do. It's actually very easy to do but tons of obstacles prevent this verification. These obstacles are not so much because of technical difficulties but of purely human nature - there's simply inner resistance, plain antipathy towards the verification of these things because of the felt consequences in case of the potential successful verification.
Saying that "Yes, I'm open for the possibility that the forces concealed in thinking are of the same essence as those that are responsible for the Cosmos at large (1), but I remain open for the possibility that this might also not be the case and it seems there's no way to ever be certain (2)" is of the same nature as saying "I'm open for the possibility that I can lift the pencil (1) but I also remain open that this might not be the case and it seems there's no way to ever be certain (2)".
What is not understood here is that part (1) actually speaks about a
path of experience, not about empty speculations that are bound to remain phantom models of reality-in-itself. Yes, it might be that the path leads to a dead end but adding (2) simply shows that
there's no intent whatsoever to verify (1).
I'm not sure I can make it more explicit than this. In summary, I'm perfectly fine with being open for possibilities but let at least be clear that the way (2) is used by Eugene and Martin, simply shows that they are not willing to lift the pencil. They prefer to remain in the eternal openness, the pencil staying at hand's distance and forever remaining as unverifiable mystery if it can be lifted or not. Really, what's the point of being open to the possibility of lifting the pencil if this possibility forever remains as arrangement of words in the phantom layer? What is being completely missed is that the arrangement of words actually points to something beyond the phantom layer where thinking can find its being too. If we lift the pencil we've gone beyond the phantom layer and now thinking confronts actual willing experience and sensory perceptions.
For the n-th time I say that it's not about convincing anyone that the possibility of lifting the pencil is the true possibility, without the person verifying it for himself. It's all about pointing out to the
simple cognitive error that is being committed over and over again. The error is that thinking self-defeats itself. It declares openness for a possibility in (1) but in the second part of the sentence (2) it practically denies that very possibility. It's as simple as that. Really! In (1) we open up for the possibility to find the cognitive element in reality at large, in (2) we say "Yeah but we can never know if this is really true so it's better to remain honest and embrace agnosticism." Seriously. Is it really so difficult to see the glaring contradiction in this? What's the point of speaking about the possibility of cognitive element in reality in (1) when just an instant later (2) we declare that it is
in principle impossible to know if this is true.
The reason is simple. When (2) is declared it simply means that one doesn't understand what (1) means. It is simply not realized that the cognitive element that we're allegedly open to find as intrinsic aspect of being
is the same cognitive element which lives in the phantom layer and declares that it is in principle impossible to find itself outside the narrow bounds of the phantom layer. This is the dualism in thinking that Asvhin keeps trying to point out. As soon as the cognitive element within the phantom layer speaks of the cognitive element in reality at large, there's a tic-like split and now the former thinks about the latter in the same way one thinks about the Cosmic microwave background radiation - as something 'out there', part of the world-in-itself which will forever remain opaque to the phantom layer of cognition. One completely blinds himself about the fact that as by (1) the phantom thoughts are supposed to seek
their own essence in the Cosmos at large. Instead, by the time thinking reaches the second part of the sentence, it has already forgotten why (1) was at all stated, and instead, the cognitive element in the Cosmos, for which (1) speaks, is now seen as
completely foreign and abstract element, having
nothing to do with the
same cognitive element which expresses its doubt in (2). It's impossible to make sense of this if one refuses to observe the thinking process.