I feel like Bernardo is getting carried away in a scary direction

[AshvinP]

Yes, I hold to a Western idealism which does not add abstract "consciousness", which no one has ever experienced

Consciousness is not abstract, it is the reality most intimately and directly experientially known to each of us - our ability to consciously experience, will, think, imagine, perceive. We all share the same ability and we all know it. In the philosophy of Consciousness Realism this ability is the fundamental ontic prime of the reality that creates within itself the world of forms - ideas, imaginations, thoughts, perceptions etc.

The way you consistently use the word, to make thinking and meaning epiphenomenal, is abstract. If "consciousness" in anaytic idealism was not so abstract, someone like Lorenzo would not have such a hard time figuring out what "meaning" is and would not deny there is discernable Cosmic meaning. Same goes for BK (in his current understanding) and for you. I notice you and lorenzo completely ignored the quote from The Idea of the World. What does it mean to "contemplate and understand 'God's thoughts'", which you would call "Platonic forms" (another sign ideas are only abstract for you)? The fact is, if you abstract "consciousness" into an intellectual concept which includes absolutely anything and everything, and therefore all ideas about its structure are of equal value, then you have denied consciousness any meaningful existence. The materialist denies its existence by robbing it of meaning via abstract "matter", you deny its existence by diluting its meaning via abstract "consciousness". Both result from egoism and end in nihilism.

[lorenzop]

Firstly, i don’t view consciousness as abstract-if anything it’s sufficiently concrete enough to regard consciousness as a ‘substance’
Secondly I am not BK, nor do I click with model, nor do I believe in a thinking God so I don’t know what BK is referring to. I’d totally get his phrase as an expression of gratitude

[Lou Gold]

Yes, I hold to a Western idealism which does not add abstract "consciousness", which no one has ever experienced

Consciousness is not abstract, it is the reality most intimately and directly experientially known to each of us - our ability to consciously experience, will, think, imagine, perceive. We all share the same ability and we all know it. In the philosophy of Consciousness Realism this ability is the fundamental ontic prime of the reality that creates within itself the world of forms - ideas, imaginations, thoughts, perceptions etc.

The way you consistently use the word, to make thinking and meaning epiphenomenal, is abstract. If "consciousness" in anaytic idealism was not so abstract, someone like Lorenzo would not have such a hard time figuring out what "meaning" is and would not deny there is discernable Cosmic meaning. Same goes for BK (in his current understanding) and for you. I notice you and lorenzo completely ignored the quote from The Idea of the World. What does it mean to "contemplate and understand 'God's thoughts'", which you would call "Platonic forms" (another sign ideas are only abstract for you)? The fact is, if you abstract "consciousness" into an intellectual concept which includes absolutely anything and everything, and therefore all ideas about its structure are of equal value, then you have denied consciousness any meaningful existence. The materialist denies its existence by robbing it of meaning via abstract "matter", you deny its existence by diluting its meaning via abstract "consciousness". Both result from egoism and end in nihilism.

Isn't the problem that the absence of a singular absolute meaning maybe projected toward either nihilist license or toward humble attentiveness? When Thich Nhat Hanh says, "Peace is Every Step" it is not to suggest that every step is peaceful. It means, pay attention in context, which is humility.

[AshvinP]

Firstly, i don’t view consciousness as abstract-if anything it’s sufficiently concrete enough to regard consciousness as a ‘substance’
Secondly I am not BK, nor do I click with model, nor do I believe in a thinking God so I don’t know what BK is referring to. I’d totally get his phrase as an expression of gratitude

This is how I think many people here conceive "abstract" and "concrete", but only you are admitting it. The relationship between meaning and perception has become completely inverted. Perception, matter, substance, etc. is more "concrete", and the meaning, discerned by our reasoning which tells us there are no isolated 'things' or 'substances', only evolving qualitative processes, is considered "abstract". Eugene practically repeats this in every comment without realizing it, whenever he says, "these things you guys speak of are all personal imaginations you have about the 'actual' world". It is the same exact understanding of the physicalist, the fundamentalist, and all modern worldviews in between. It is the natural consequence of subject/object dualism and intellect which cuts off its own access to the one tool which could set this inverted relation right side up - human logical reason.

This is why we keep arguing that our reason discerns the reality that meaning precedes perception, that qualitative processes are responsible for our perceptions of 'matter' and 'things' around us, that willing-feeling-thinking activities are what have causal efficacy in the Cosmos and structure the perceptual reflections we call "objects" of the outer and inner worlds. Our reason goes from the naively perceived fragmented relations of the physical senses to the harmonious relations of evolving processes united in meaning. All of this is shrugged off, it seems. Either it is not understood or it is not agreed with or both, but no logical arugments are presented against it in any case. It is only met with feelings and beliefs... with "I prefer this", "I don't click with that", "I believe this", and the occasional, "I just can't understand anything you are writing". Everyone can understand the basic meaning of what BK wrote in that quote.

Meaning is inherent in Nature. Perceptual forms embed hidden meaning. We are tasked with unveiling that meaning. He leaves out how in that quote, which can only be through logical reasoning.

[lorenzop]

By suggesting consciousness is concrete and not abstract I simply mean consciousness is familiar and not theoretical

[AshvinP]

By suggesting consciousness is concrete and not abstract I simply mean consciousness is familiar and not theoretical

Here's the issue - you are conceptualizing "consciousness" as a thing, a substance that you can distance yourself from and observe. That is the same way physicalist conceive of "mind" and "idea", and why they feel perfectly justified in saying, "what consciousness? I look around and see tables and chairs which are obviously not conscious". They externalize and thingify the first-person thinking process which perceives the meaning of "tables". That thinking, which can always trace back outer forms to living and conscious beings, is arbitrarily cut off when reaching the conclusion, "there are plenty of non-conscious things around me". Once we dissociate from our own thinking in that way, we will naturally only perceive a very limited sphere of meaning and find it "weird" when people speak of essential meaning permeating the Cosmos.

Eugene also does this when saying "consciousness", "experiencing", "imagining", etc. There is no attempt to get inside and stay connected with the first-person transformations of the conscious activity. This also holds for the nondual "thought-free" mystical state, as Cleric has illustrated at length many times. It is that distancing into a hypothetical (but non-existent) 3rd person perspective on the phenomena of mind that leads to the abstract conceptualization. That is why you find it is easier to perceive a generalized "consciousness" in the world rather than specified meaning, even though we are always and only perceiving meaning and its living transformations when we are conscious. When we pay a little attention to the dynamic of our perceptual experience, this becomes evident. None of us are immune from these mental habits of the last few millennia, and we only ward it off with deeper reasoning through experience.

The other problem is some people really have a tough time with "logic", "thinking", "reason". They assume it must be referring to some acadmic intellectual endeavor that they don't engage in too often. But anyone who posts here with coherent phrases and sentences is using logical structure to precipitate meaning into perceptions (word forms). Language itself is an outward manifestation of inner logic. The inner voice which speaks our thoughts to us is a manifestation of that logic. Music and art forms of all sort are another expression. Every art form has its theoretical aspect and meaningful aspect, which often work in harmony and makes them great tools to perceive the same relation permeating the physical images we perceive with five senses. Langauge is least abstract connection to make, physical images is the most, but the logical essence permeates all these 'sentences' of outer forms. This isn't really a matter of debate - it's just established scientific understanding, although people often fail to integrate scientific knowledge from various fields to make the connection. It is also easily discerned by plain thinking through experience.

[lorenzop]

By suggesting consciousness is concrete and not abstract I simply mean consciousness is familiar and not theoretical

Here's the issue - you are conceptualizing "consciousness" as a thing, a substance that you can distance yourself from and observe. That is the same way physicalist conceive of "mind" and "idea", and why they feel perfectly justified in saying, "what consciousness? I look around and see tables and chairs which are obviously not conscious". They externalize and thingify the first-person thinking process which perceives the meaning of "tables". That thinking, which can always trace back outer forms to living and conscious beings, is arbitrarily cut off when reaching the conclusion, "there are plenty of non-conscious things around me". Once we dissociate from our own thinking in that way, we will naturally only perceive a very limited sphere of meaning and find it "weird" when people speak of essential meaning permeating the Cosmos.

Eugene also does this when saying "consciousness", "experiencing", "imagining", etc. There is no attempt to get inside and stay connected with the first-person transformations of the conscious activity. This also holds for the nondual "thought-free" mystical state, as Cleric has illustrated at length many times. It is that distancing into a hypothetical (but non-existent) 3rd person perspective on the phenomena of mind that leads to the abstract conceptualization. That is why you find it is easier to perceive a generalized "consciousness" in the world rather than specified meaning, even though we are always and only perceiving meaning and its living transformations when we are conscious.

This about the opposite of what I wrote, I’m thinking you and can not communicate at all

[AshvinP]

By suggesting consciousness is concrete and not abstract I simply mean consciousness is familiar and not theoretical

Here's the issue - you are conceptualizing "consciousness" as a thing, a substance that you can distance yourself from and observe. That is the same way physicalist conceive of "mind" and "idea", and why they feel perfectly justified in saying, "what consciousness? I look around and see tables and chairs which are obviously not conscious". They externalize and thingify the first-person thinking process which perceives the meaning of "tables". That thinking, which can always trace back outer forms to living and conscious beings, is arbitrarily cut off when reaching the conclusion, "there are plenty of non-conscious things around me". Once we dissociate from our own thinking in that way, we will naturally only perceive a very limited sphere of meaning and find it "weird" when people speak of essential meaning permeating the Cosmos.

Eugene also does this when saying "consciousness", "experiencing", "imagining", etc. There is no attempt to get inside and stay connected with the first-person transformations of the conscious activity. This also holds for the nondual "thought-free" mystical state, as Cleric has illustrated at length many times. It is that distancing into a hypothetical (but non-existent) 3rd person perspective on the phenomena of mind that leads to the abstract conceptualization. That is why you find it is easier to perceive a generalized "consciousness" in the world rather than specified meaning, even though we are always and only perceiving meaning and its living transformations when we are conscious.

This about the opposite of what I wrote, I’m thinking you and can not communicate at all

I don't know, Lorenzo. You can't understand anything I write. You can't understand anything Cleric writes. You can't understand the few sentences BK wrote that I quoted. When does this stop being everyone else's inability to communicate and your own lack of interest in understanding anything you don't like?

"I have no interest in encouraging any beliefs or meanings I may burden myself with." -Lorenzo

[Eugene I.]

This about the opposite of what I wrote, I’m thinking you and can not communicate at all

Any meaningful or productive communication with Ashvin is impossible, so I quit trying a while ago.

[Jim Cross]

This about the opposite of what I wrote, I’m thinking you and can not communicate at all

Any meaningful or productive communication with Ashvin is impossible, so I quit trying a while ago.

BTW, there are friend and foe options on the user control panel. You can almost tune it out if you want.