The Central Topic

[Soul_of_Shu]

Well, there was a time, not all that long ago, when I would have said much the same. But these things can, and indeed will, actually change.

Dana, can you identify what has actually changed such that things became more comprehensible? Is it as when we struggle with a mathematical formula until we finally grasp it. Or it's more like an inner hindrance has been overcome, of which there wasn't even clear awareness previously?

It's not necessary to answer if you don't have a clear conception at this time. As a matter of fact this is an important guideline in higher development. We need to attain certain inner patience and not be in haste to fragment everything into words. We need to allow things to quietly grow. It can be compared to learning a language. As long as we insist to always mechanically translate everything in and out of our own language we'll never learn to think and understand the new language directly. The new language will remain as a metaphor which we can only interpret through our own language. Of course, the translational period is completely unavoidable (and necessary if we are to communicate with our peers) but we shouldn't turn that into a barrier which says that the higher order language can only be felt aesthetically but meaningfully interpreted only in our own thinking language.

Well, having pondered this, and slept on it, I'm not sure I'm much closer to a percipient answer as to what has changed or how/when it happened, in the transition from not-grokking to grokking. The 'learning a new language' analogy does make some intuitive sense, but it somehow feels incomplete on its own. Certainly one is learning a new mode of expressing and 'listening', that relates to acting from integral stage thinking, rather than pre-integral stage thinking—still a work in progress. However, what precipitates this learning and transition is difficult to say. I'm not sure what effort on my part has to do with it, as one just feels irresistibly, excitedly, impassionedly impelled, as one imagines the caterpillar being impelled to spin a chrysalis of alchemy, by the urge to do whatever needs to be done. Or more in keeping with the 'language learning ' analogy, it's like finding oneself as a stranger in a strange land, wherein one's very life process vitally depends upon learning its language. And yet, as far as I can tell, it may just as well have to do with being compelled/willed from some 'oversoul' purview, that inspires the crucial effort, at which point there's no turning back. As such, some Cleric may just be a tool at its disposal

[Steve Petermann]

There is something very unique that can be only accomplished in this "veiled" environment, and for which the veil is not a hindrance, but a catalyzed, .....

I agree. There is a long history of those who want/hope/strive to remove the veil. But to what end? Utopia? Complete enlightenment? If accomplished, would this even be appealing? I think not. Why? Because many of the things we so admire would not be possible without some level of veiling. Finite life by definition is limiting and offers opportunities that would not be available without it.

Since I subscribe to a theistic divine idealism, every event in this reality is intentional. Each event is a collaboration/dialog between God-as-transcendent and God-as-living (a veiled existence with some level of independent freedom). If everything is intentional then with the obvious evil we see, the question is why? With God as the artisan of this reality, why would a beneficent God opt for this type of reality? My speculation is that it offers the opportunity for all the things we admire so much to be possible. As finite creatures, we face difficult decisions. There may not be any clear-cut answers to ambiguous questions. So what do we do? We can cower in indecision and fail to commit or we can courageously forge ahead knowing full well we may make a mistake. Courage is a keyword here. The veil means there is uncertainty. So what do we do? My father sometimes said, "Do something, even if it's wrong". For the courageous, inaction is not an option. To my mind, courage is one of the key virtues of life. What might be others that are only available in a reality just as it is?

What do we admire? Here's an excerpt from an essay on this:

Here are only a few: Love, Courage, Grit, Honor, Self-sacrifice, Vitality, Compassion, Creativity, Humility, Faith in the face of doubt, Long-suffering, Kindness, and on and on. The Apostle Paul puts it this way in 1 Corinthians 13 talking about love:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Other religious traditions have their own affirmations of these noble qualities. And these admirable traits are not just found in the human realm. They are present everywhere. Who isn’t brought to tears when we see creatures protecting their young or sacrificing themselves for their group? What about dogs saving their owners and dying in the process? Or Dolphins going out of their way to the rescue of humans in danger? This list goes on and on.

Now, I think it is important to state that the veil is not some rigid, unassailable boundary. It can be fluid and porous where the transcendent depth can be probed and appropriated for living. If so, to what end? Utopia? An ending in perfection? This would mean the end of all those things we admire in life, as it is. Instead, I think the incorporation of divine transcendence represents an evolution of the divine to life to greater heights. This is not some end game to be had but rather a continuous movement where divine goals are challenged in different ways that can be more fruitful and profound. If the divine goals are to promote what we (and God) admire, could there really be a final end in stasis with no need for virtues? I think not.

[AshvinP]

There is something very unique that can be only accomplished in this "veiled" environment, and for which the veil is not a hindrance, but a catalyzed, .....

I agree. There is a long history of those who want/hope/strive to remove the veil. But to what end? Utopia? Complete enlightenment? If accomplished, would this even be appealing? I think not. Why? Because many of the things we so admire would not be possible without some level of veiling. Finite life by definition is limiting and offers opportunities that would not be available without it.
...
Now, I think it is important to state that the veil is not some rigid, unassailable boundary. It can be fluid and porous where the transcendent depth can be probed and appropriated for living. If so, to what end? Utopia? An ending in perfection? This would mean the end of all those things we admire in life, as it is. Instead, I think the incorporation of divine transcendence represents an evolution of the divine to life to greater heights. This is not some end game to be had but rather a continuous movement where divine goals are challenged in different ways that can be more fruitful and profound. If the divine goals are to promote what we (and God) admire, could there really be a final end in stasis with no need for virtues? I think not.

Steve,

The best test to see if we are engaged in purely abstract metaphysics is to ask, what practical significance does my speculation have? If the veil is permeable boundary which can be negotiated by careful and concrete reasoning, why speculate on the limits to some far-distant cognitive Utopia? Whether that is possible or not has absolutely no practical significance on what we can do today, right now, to begin attaining more degrees of Thinking freedom and unveiling the layers of meaning which weave together and structure our currently perceptible world, inner and outer. We can use the same Thinking-tool for our inner nature as we do for outer Nature.

We can, for example, carefully reason to the conclusion that our inner life-processes act as a metamorphosing agent for what we take in from Nature and put back out into her environment. We can reason to perceive that, what outer Nature accomplishes over many aeons, our inner nature accomplishes over relatively short timespans. We can further reason that this is related to the fact that our inner nature functions according to different relativistic time-experience than outer Nature from our 1st-person perspective. I have not presented any of the actual reasoned arguments here, so the point is not whether we agree or not. The point is, have we ever even thought about this possibility before? Have we had any reason to even investigate it?

That is what Cleric is pointing to with TCT - the most simple steps we can begin taking to even move our Thinking in this more concrete direction are not being taken as long as we set up abstract metaphysical roadblocks related to "Utopia" and what not so as to avoid contemplating what is being spoken of in TCT. That is how all of these arguments from Eugene, Jim, yourself function and it has become very clear, if we simply view them without too much ego and prejudice. The most simple step we can take is simple recognition that it is very possible to take these steps in the first place. As long as we avoid that initial step, we will choose to speculate endlessly rather than make the Thinking effort. We may have to sacrifice some of our previous efforts, and writings, and conclusions, and I am perfectly fine with that, because what we get back in turn is infinitely more rewarding.

PS - Cleric has illustrated previously some of the problems with your argument above, which rests on an anthropomorphization of integrative Thinking which can increasingly unite with itself to reach "a more perfect Union". For ex:

As this process continues one approaches the seed of the Cosmic Fractal. And here is the greatest challenge. One imagines that approaching this seed of pure potential is like sad event where all the fun ends. Like I said, this only applies when one can't escape the intellect operating under the Newtonian clock. Just as we get false idea if we imagine the land around us continuing flatly in all directions, so we get false conception if we imagine Newtonian time continuing linearly until the 'last' state. One imagines this as riding on a train, approaching the last station and starting to worry "But I don't want this to end, I want to keep riding".

One has to work on his own to at least notice the glaring anthropomorphism of this conception. First, one imagines that consciousness experiences time in the same Newtonian ticks until the very last moment. Second, one imagines that up until that last moment one will feel as an atomic ego in quite the same way as today. Third, which is related to the second, is that in these states where the One Cosmic Consciousness encompasses more and more of the Eternal potential, it still feels as an isolated ego, feeling human-like emotions, desires to keep experiencing, fear of boredom at the end and so on.

I really can't convey these things in words. It's practically impossible to get true understanding of the nature of Time while caught into the intellectual rhythm.



It's by no means representative but it can be used as an analogy. Development really continues endlessly in the Candy Shop. Except that this endless journey is not experienced from the point of view of atomic egos.

Notice the flow of the fishes in the big circle in the upper part. They coalesce from infinity pass the center and go into infinity. It is somewhat in this way that the World Process looks like (again this is very abstract way to put it and can't really be truly grasped if we only depend on the intellect).

Why is the idea of telos (fishes coming from involution on the right and evolving into infinity at the left) so repulsive? Because one identifies with one of the fishes. This is the only reason. One can't help but imagine himself as atomic perspective that must have continuous existence endlessly. If we identify with that fish, then going towards infinity (perfection) on the left would be felt like marching towards the grimmest doom. The fish says "This is outrageous, totalitarian! I refuse to be a pawn in the hands of some Gods, I want to swim forever!"

[Jim Cross]

Officially I'm content with no ontology. They are all false.

However, the matter aspect of DAM solves the problem of why the train that runs over the idealist on the tracks is mangled and dead. Why if you hit your hand with a hammer, you may feel pain with your consciousness, but there will also be real consequences for the hand and you may not be to able to use it as you did before you hit it.

If the observer/measurer is what brings reality into existence, then measurements must be real; otherwise, we would have a real observer only ever able to make unreal measurements, which means there would be no reality. Both the observer and the measurement are required. If measurement is real, then quantities are real (which is exactly what our consciousness suggests) and then the matter aspect is real.

Jim, are you conscious of the fact that after the first sentence you're doing precisely what you have condemned as false? You try to keep it close to the facts but suddenly you jump into full-blown metaphysics. Even though you recognize the abstractness and deny all metaphysics, you're blinding yourself for the fact that you're doing the exact same thing you scorn.

Both Eugene and me explained to you not long ago (which you obviously completely ignored) that all modern science is completely independent of any metaphysics. It's entirely weaved of correlative thinking which maps mathematical thoughts to perceptions. The assumption that there should be 'other' side of reality which by its very definition can never be known to exist, is pure superstition. All the mathematical predictions of science will work exactly the same even if you drop the belief in the 'other side'. Even if it turns out that you're dreaming or it's all a simulation, science will remain the same because it mimics appearances and it doesn't care if there are really atoms 'out there'. The mathematical models in scientific theories don't mimic 'atoms-in-themselves' but our perceptions (extended by instruments). The idea that the theory maps the 'real' atoms-in-themselves is something that is added on top of the mathematical model by metaphysical thinking. Similarly, if you're drawing a painting, it doesn't matter if you're doing it in your waking life or while dreaming - in both cases you're replicating appearances. The painting in itself couldn't care less if what it depicts proceeds from atoms, dreams, psychedelics, etc. It's the same with science - it is a mathematical painting of quantified perceptual appearances. What we fantasize as the metaphysical nature behind what is being mathematically painted, is completely irrelevant to the painting mechanism.

Do you recognize this fact? Do you realize that you're trying to justify the stability of perceptions by inventing metaphysics about the 'other side of the coin' which in its very definition guarantees that can never be anything more than blind belief? It's like you are psychologically tormented by the fact that the Earth seems stable and you feel forced to postulate elephants and a turtle which give it support, even though on some level you're aware that you're only telling yourself a fairytale to put your mind at ease.

See, it's not the goal to replace one kind of fantasized source of stability (matter) with another fantasized source (MAL). It's the simple realization that both of these remain in the sphere of forever unverifiable metaphysical ideas. It is indeed right that science must be our ally and not enemy but you must be true to your first sentence above and stop unconsciously sneaking in metaphysics into science.

Of course I realize how difficult this must be for you. Even though intellectually you (hopefully) realize that your matter is a metaphysical claim, you still can't help but embrace it. It's like saying "I just can't help it. I know that I'm going against my own logic but I simply need that superstition. I'll go mad without it. I feel the need to superstitiously invent matter or turtle and elephants that I can blame for the stability of perceptions, even though I realize that this will forever remain just a myth in my imagination." And please note - it's not the goal to deny that there's something which accounts for the stability of perceptions. The superstition is that we postulate purely metaphysical explanation of that stability, which will forever remain in the sphere of by definition unverifiable assumptions, supported by blind belief.

Unless you can step back and recognize the mental reflex (in your own words) that you unconsciously utilize and which continuously sneaks in metaphysical superstition in your thinking, there's simply no way to speak of the Central Topic in any meaningful way. Unless you put the effort to attain consciousness of the fact that you're adding metaphysical superstition to the given through reflexive (subconscious) thinking, we can't make even the tiniest step forward. The only way to make that step is by beginning to pay attention to what you are innerly doing when you spit out reflexive thoughts. You need to consciously intercept that automatic reflex and awaken on a level before you have passed your metaphysical assumptions on the perceptions.

Cleric,

You write:

See, it's not the goal to replace one kind of fantasized source of stability (matter) with another fantasized source (MAL). It's the simple realization that both of these remain in the sphere of forever unverifiable metaphysical ideas. It is indeed right that science must be our ally and not enemy but you must be true to your first sentence above and stop unconsciously sneaking in metaphysics into science.

This pretty much says it all. I guess you have nothing more to offer this forum. I'm fine with no metaphysics. Are you? You seem to have a lot to say about metaphysics for someone who seems not to accept it.

[Steve Petermann]

The best test to see if we are engaged in purely abstract metaphysics is to ask, what practical significance does my speculation have? If the veil is permeable boundary which can be negotiated by careful and concrete reasoning, why speculate on the limits to some far-distant cognitive Utopia? Whether that is possible or not has absolutely no practical significance on what we can do today, right now, to begin attaining more degrees of Thinking freedom and unveiling the layers of meaning which weave together and structure our currently perceptible world, inner and outer. We can use the same Thinking-tool for our inner nature as we do for outer Nature.

I think it does make a practical difference in how we orient to our current situation. If we approach our spiritual growth as some path towards utopia or complete knowledge, then we will view this reality as somehow deficit, needing some distance eventual "fix" instead of seeing this limited and to some extent veiled reality as being necessary to instantiate profound meaning. A distant "optimized" state would seem to preclude what is offered here and now.

[Eugene I.]

Now, I think it is important to state that the veil is not some rigid, unassailable boundary. It can be fluid and porous where the transcendent depth can be probed and appropriated for living. If so, to what end? Utopia? An ending in perfection? This would mean the end of all those things we admire in life, as it is. Instead, I think the incorporation of divine transcendence represents an evolution of the divine to life to greater heights. This is not some end game to be had but rather a continuous movement where divine goals are challenged in different ways that can be more fruitful and profound. If the divine goals are to promote what we (and God) admire, could there really be a final end in stasis with no need for virtues? I think not.

Yes, Steve, exactly, this is my view too. Infinite and transcendent can only actualize through finite and immanent existence, and finite can only actualize with boundaries and limitations. So, we, as frail and limited as we may be, are actually on the "bleeding edge" frontier of God actualizing itself.

[AshvinP]

The best test to see if we are engaged in purely abstract metaphysics is to ask, what practical significance does my speculation have? If the veil is permeable boundary which can be negotiated by careful and concrete reasoning, why speculate on the limits to some far-distant cognitive Utopia? Whether that is possible or not has absolutely no practical significance on what we can do today, right now, to begin attaining more degrees of Thinking freedom and unveiling the layers of meaning which weave together and structure our currently perceptible world, inner and outer. We can use the same Thinking-tool for our inner nature as we do for outer Nature.

I think it does make a practical difference in how we orient to our current situation. If we approach our spiritual growth as some path towards utopia or complete knowledge, then we will view this reality as somehow deficit, needing some distance eventual "fix" instead of seeing this limited and to some extent veiled reality as being necessary to instantiate profound meaning. A distant "optimized" state would seem to preclude what is offered here and now.

I don't mean the approach, I mean the specific claim "Utopia for Thinking is not possible". That claim has no practical significance whether true or not. The approach of making that claim here has great practical significance if it is being used to also rule out or otherwise avoid the immediate stages of cognitive evolution directly ahead of us. The approaches themselves obviously have practical significance, otherwise I wouldn't be criticizing yours.

[Eugene I.]

Imagine you are holding a hammer in your right hand. Take some time to sense how heavy it is and how the wood handle feels in your hand. Now put your left hand on a table with palm up. Now bring your right hand with the hammer down on your left hand. Try that a few times to get the feel for it.

Now repeat the same exercise with an actual hammer.

Report back to us the difference between the two experiences, if you noticed any.

This one exercise may tell you everything you need to know about metaphysics. And you don't really need to understand any special jargon.

Update: I decided to post a slightly modified version of this on my blog under "Everything You Need to Know About Metaphysics".


https://broadspeculations.com/2021/12/1 ... taphysics/

This exercise tells you nothing about any "world stuff". It only tells you about the difference between conscious phenomena of imagination and conscious phenomena of sense perceptions. Yes, they "feel" differently, perceptions feel "painful" and imaginations do not. So what? What does this "different feel" tells you about the existence of any non-conscious "world stuff" beyond your conscious experience? Absolutely nothing.

The experience of conscious phenomena (both imaginations and perceptions) has nothing to do with metaphysics, it's a fact of experience. But the existence of anything other than the conscious phenomena of our 1-st person experience (such as non-conscious "world stuff") can only be an unprovable metaphysical assumption. So, if you would really be consistent with your anti-metaphysical approach, then you could not make any legitimate inferences about the existence of non-conscious "world stuff". It is only through a metaphysical assumption that you can assert the existence of the non-conscious "world stuff".

So, ironically, any worldview that assumes the existence of something of the nature different from "mind" is by definition a metaphysics or ontology. If we are to save ourselves from such unwarranted metaphysical assumptions, then we have only two options:
1. We know from the fact experience that conscious phenomena, and experiencing and thinking (manipulation of them) exist, it's a fact of experience. Then we refrain from making any assertations whether any other phenomena of non-conscious nature exist or not (because we can never experience such phenomena in our conscious experience, and therefore can never prove that they exist). They may or may not exist, but we have no way of proving or disproving that and we don't even care. This position can be called an "agnostic idealism" which is truly free from any metaphysics or ontology.
2. We know from the fact of experience that conscious phenomena, and experiencing and thinking (manipulation of them) exist. We have no need to make any additional assumptions about the existence on non-conscious phenomena ("world stuff"). Therefore, by applying the principle of parsimony and Occam razor, we arrive at the assumption that nothing other than thinking/consciousness and conscious phenomena actually exist. This is already a metaphysical assumption of course, but it is the simplest and the most parsimonious assumption that does not require inventing and adding the existence of anything other than the stuff that is already proven to exist (=conscious content). So, it is a metaphysical negation rather than a metaphysical assertation (any stuff that I can't in principle ever experience does not exist).

[AshvinP]

The best test to see if we are engaged in purely abstract metaphysics is to ask, what practical significance does my speculation have? If the veil is permeable boundary which can be negotiated by careful and concrete reasoning, why speculate on the limits to some far-distant cognitive Utopia? Whether that is possible or not has absolutely no practical significance on what we can do today, right now, to begin attaining more degrees of Thinking freedom and unveiling the layers of meaning which weave together and structure our currently perceptible world, inner and outer. We can use the same Thinking-tool for our inner nature as we do for outer Nature.

I think it does make a practical difference in how we orient to our current situation. If we approach our spiritual growth as some path towards utopia or complete knowledge, then we will view this reality as somehow deficit, needing some distance eventual "fix" instead of seeing this limited and to some extent veiled reality as being necessary to instantiate profound meaning. A distant "optimized" state would seem to preclude what is offered here and now.

I don't mean the approach, I mean the specific claim "Utopia for Thinking is not possible". That claim has no practical significance whether true or not. The approach of making that claim here has great practical significance if it is being used to also rule out or otherwise avoid the immediate stages of cognitive evolution directly ahead of us. The approaches themselves obviously have practical significance, otherwise I wouldn't be criticizing yours.

I will add, the Utopia claim could only be relevant in this context if Cleric was basing any part of TCT on claim that "Utopia for Thinking is our goal and that's why we should discover concrete Thinking activity within". But there is nothing even remotely close to such a claim made in TCT. I know there will be no substantive response to this, because the logic is simple and sound. If it wasn't sound, I would never post it. Call that egotistical, arrogant, presumptuous, or whatever you want. I know people will think that even if they don't say it explicitly. That doesn't matter at all. I am only trying to point attention back to the question at the end of TCT, about whether it is even understood. Not accepted, just understood. The comments so far reveal it has not been understood. If one is following the logical progression of the argument without prejudice, these irrelevant objections would never be made against it. So people just need to ask themselves whether they are going to let anyone else's perceived "arrogance" interfere with their own ability to follow logic and come to better understanding. If not, then they can ask questions to clarify the logic, as Jim started to do but quickly abandoned, and thereby come to understand the argument being made.

[Jim Cross]

Imagine you are holding a hammer in your right hand. Take some time to sense how heavy it is and how the wood handle feels in your hand. Now put your left hand on a table with palm up. Now bring your right hand with the hammer down on your left hand. Try that a few times to get the feel for it.

Now repeat the same exercise with an actual hammer.

Report back to us the difference between the two experiences, if you noticed any.

This one exercise may tell you everything you need to know about metaphysics. And you don't really need to understand any special jargon.

Update: I decided to post a slightly modified version of this on my blog under "Everything You Need to Know About Metaphysics".


https://broadspeculations.com/2021/12/1 ... taphysics/

This exercise tells you nothing about any "world stuff". It only tells you about the difference between conscious phenomena of imagination and conscious phenomena of sense perceptions. Yes, they "feel" differently, perceptions feel "painful" and imaginations do not. So what? What does this "different feel" tells you about the existence of any non-conscious "world stuff" beyond your conscious experience? Absolutely nothing.

The experience of conscious phenomena (both imaginations and perceptions) has nothing to do with metaphysics, it's a fact of experience. But the existence of anything other than the conscious phenomena of our 1-st person experience (such as non-conscious "world stuff") can only be an unprovable metaphysical assumption. So, if you would really be consistent with your anti-metaphysical approach, then you could not make any legitimate inferences about the existence of non-conscious "world stuff". It is only through a metaphysical assumption that you can assert the existence of the non-conscious "world stuff".

So, ironically, any worldview that assumes the existence of something of the nature different from "mind" is by definition a metaphysics or ontology. If we are to save ourselves from such unwarranted metaphysical assumptions, then we have only two options:
1. We know from the fact experience that conscious phenomena, and experiencing and thinking (manipulation of them) exist, it's a fact of experience. Then we refrain from making any assertations whether any other phenomena of non-conscious nature exist or not (because we can never experience such phenomena in our conscious experience, and therefore can never prove that they exist). They may or may not exist, but we have no way of proving or disproving that and we don't even care. This position can be called an "agnostic idealism" which is truly free from any metaphysics or ontology.
2. We know from the fact of experience that conscious phenomena, and experiencing and thinking (manipulation of them) exist. We have no need to make any additional assumptions about the existence on non-conscious phenomena ("world stuff"). Therefore, by applying the principle of parsimony and Occam razor, we arrive at the assumption that nothing other than thinking/consciousness and conscious phenomena actually exist. This is already a metaphysical assumption of course, but it is the simplest and the most parsimonious assumption that does not require inventing and adding the existence of anything other than the stuff that is already proven to exist (=conscious content). So, it is a metaphysical negation rather than a metaphysical assertation (any stuff that I can't in principle ever experience does not exist).

My point (made more explicitly in the blog version) is that I agree with Cleric about metaphysics. In an absolute way, we don't know what absolute reality is. We can't know. It probably doesn't even make sense to even try to know.

You seem to think the fact that we are conscious and experience something is telling us something useful in an absolute sense,. It doesn't. The real hammer may be imagined too but it is at the same time clearly different from the one that is only imagined.

We use "mind" and "matter" also in a relative sense. There may be pragmatic value in the concepts. The pragmatic value is that we don't deliberately hit our hands with a hammer or stand in front of an oncoming train.

The problem with idealism and materialism both is they take pragmatic, useful, and relative concepts and try to use them them in an absolute sense.