Watching this video re Antrhroposophy

[lorenzop]

You are referring to chaos/interpretation/meaning of the content - by 'chaos in the sense world' I thought you were referring to the 'thrown stone' and sight perceptions..

[AshvinP]

You are referring to chaos/interpretation/meaning of the content - by 'chaos in the sense world' I thought you were referring to the 'thrown stone' and sight perceptions..

Yes, we are. What allows you to make sense of fragmented perceptual frames of stones being thrown or anything else which occurs in the world content? It is your meaningful ideation. The ideation of "motion", the meaningful content, is inseperable from the act of motion perceived. We really need to try and concretely sense the subject/objective divide which forms when we think, "my ideation is connecting things which are already out there in the sense-world". Perhaps we also think, "this entire stone throwing process would still occur if my ideation was not also observing". It is very difficult because it is built into our very language and intellectual vision.

[lorenzop]

Yes I agree re the meaningful ideation of stone, throwing, etc. However, the sense world has to contain some information or else 2+ individuals couldn't asgree on stone, throwing, etc. My question is how can we know how much ideation occurs, how much information is contained in sense world.
My experience (and intuition) is that the sense world is not a chaotic maelstorm.

[AshvinP]

Yes I agree re the meaningful ideation of stone, throwing, etc. However, the sense world has to contain some information or else 2+ individuals couldn't asgree on stone, throwing, etc. My question is how can we know how much ideation occurs, how much information is contained in sense world.
My experience (and intuition) is that the sense world is not a chaotic maelstorm.

Under idealism, the "sense world" is the structured ideational activity of beings. The "stone" is a partial appearance of that activity, the 'end thought-result' so to speak. So it's all actually meaningful activity and content. Technically we could reason this out from given experiences, but since we already agree idealism makes the most sense of that experience, this is really the only logical possibility. BK lumps all of these ideational beings and their activity into "ideations of MAL" which the "alters" observe as the natural sense-world. But, implicit in that, is the view that we are all separate beings, acting within space and linear time. Even though, if asked, he will say spatial dimension and linear time "not fundamental", that is practically how they function for purposes of the anaytic idealist model. This model, and all models, eventually run into all sorts of hard problems and conundrums.

Instead, we can understand ourselves as perspectives within the unified, non-spatial Mind which result from the 'interference' of all other perspectives. We should remember, until this is experienced concretely, it runs the same risk of all other intellectual models. That being said, my perspective of the "sense-world" is different from yours because the 'interference pattern' results in different spatiotemporal angles on the other perspectives. My sense-world is those other interwoven perspectives, viewed from my own. When perspectives end up in mostly similar spatiotemporal angles (although there are still differences), they experience the shared meaning in similar ways and we group them into "species". There are also supersensible aspects from our current "human" perspective, which are the actual ideational beings and their activity which result in our sense-world. It is all lawful and structured. The structure we observe in mathematical systems such as QM, and concepts such as 'interference pattern', is reflecting to us the lawful nature of Reality itself.