This forum

[Federica]

This forum used to be about many things. It is now only about one thing.
One thing which has been repeated ad nauseum. Cleric outlined the central thesis of Structured Idealism very coherently and clearly a long time ago. For some reason we haven't - from a scientific perspective - been able to move further than that. (Granted, the last months, I've merely been skimming the posts. Maybe there's a nugget or two in there that i've missed).

Add to that the "I get it. No you don't!" dynamic, and the fact that any attempt to bring something new to the table, runs a high risk of being accused of dualism. (Which, apparently , has ben proven to be the biggest Sin of All in this forum).

This is my perspective. As an example I've been thinking about posting about the merits of Pirsigs MOQ for a while, but can't be bothered because it feels like it would be pointless to do so.

Martin,

Thanks for weighing in. It’s appreciated that you are adding your perspective. I think that much of what you are saying is understandable. You are nauseated by the Steinerian vibes, fed up with critiques of dualism and exasperated by the straight talk, aka the no-free-pass approach. Yes it might feel unforgiving, and this is all understandable. But your last point… You are not for real accusing those who discuss Steiner of not bringing about someone else’s agenda on their behalf? Or are you? Are you seriously saying that, if the current discussions revolve around one thing, that’s the fault of those who are involved in those discussions, while everyone is free to give life to their own threads, if they only could be bothered?


And if you are not saying that, then what for a thing is making you feel that it would be pointless to post on a topic you care about? Are you not interested in offering your topic the examination and even the constructive critical look of fellow members? Not eager to evolve your own perspectives that way? Why can’t you be bothered? What’s the rationale, or the feeling, behind that? Just because the vast majority of members here, when engaged by Ashvin on their own territory, quickly fall short of arguments, then retreat into silence, can’t be bothered and leave their own open questions pending on all sides, it doesn’t mean everyone is obliged to take a similar stance.


And it’s not remotely a matter of me being patient here (although I do consider myself rather patient, maybe not right now). This is blatantly unjust towards the incomparable levels of patience and goodwill consistently practiced by Ashvin and Cleric, and especially Ashvin. Let’s be clear, because your perspective, or critique, is primarily directed to him, right? Seriously… Ashvin consistently meets everyone on their own terms and questions, thoroughly, extensively, with unwavering openness, regardless of the levels of resistance, at times fog, and sometimes even rudeness emerging on the other side. Can anyone decently deny that? By the way, noticing that, we haven’t even started to look at the substance of the exchanges. However, instead of appreciating that openness, or at least recognizing it, people prefer to speak of cults, of the one thing, and to complain that there are not enough new topics, not enough BK topics, or too many Steiner topics.
Guys… whose job is it to initiate the topics if not everyone’s job on the forum? Did anyone sell you metakastrup tickets so now you want the Great Wheel of Topics @Large to hurl new topics every day against your dissociative boundaries hard enough that you can get some good impingement?


It really goes beyond my understanding how all this holds together, not for all, but at least for a majority of people here. Now, if the reason why people are not posting - not referring to you specifically Martin - but if the reason is that one only wants to get tapped on the shoulder, in all camaraderie, and to receive flattering comments, but zero argumentations and zero debate, that's fine too, but that’s not philo-sophy. It’s another type of forum one should join in that case. That person may still be in love with truth and wisdom, but not right now…

[AshvinP]

... and one can only irresistibly submit to.

And equally clear that you can't resist either

We can resist, and if we don't, it's because we choose not to. Some time ago, when I had my ongoing spats with Eugene, you would comment that I should look at why I feel compelled to hammer him on each and every point he was making. I would respond with various external factors which I felt necessitated my responses. But you were right - I should have been locating the need to respond within my own sphere of interest and lack of willpower to be patient, disciplined, and produce more even-keeled, measured responses. To the extent that I am still doing that here, I should continue locating the issue within my own personal shortcomings. Is this an example of that? Perhaps. I am hoping that one of these comments will finally 'click' with you or anyone else who is following along and doing something similar. The problem is not the tendency, which we all share, so much as our lack of self-consciousness and self-honesty that the tendency exists.

It's the same exact principle in philosophy and spirituality.

Materialist: "There are clearly neurons, chromosomes, material things of all sort which appear mindless to my consciousness and external to it, so they must have an existence in themselves and I am powerless to change my relation to them, and if I am powerless to change my relation to them, so is everyone else."

Dana: "There are clearly periodic 7-year inspirations from my Daimon which lead me to this or that endeavor, so it must be the Will of the Gods for me to wait for these external impulses, and I am powerless to change my relation to that Will, and so is everyone else."

Are you willing to locate the issue here within the sphere of your own personal limitations and interests? Simply admitting this to oneself is most important.

[Martin_]

This forum used to be about many things. It is now only about one thing.
One thing which has been repeated ad nauseum. Cleric outlined the central thesis of Structured Idealism very coherently and clearly a long time ago. For some reason we haven't - from a scientific perspective - been able to move further than that. (Granted, the last months, I've merely been skimming the posts. Maybe there's a nugget or two in there that i've missed).

Add to that the "I get it. No you don't!" dynamic, and the fact that any attempt to bring something new to the table, runs a high risk of being accused of dualism. (Which, apparently , has ben proven to be the biggest Sin of All in this forum).

This is my perspective. As an example I've been thinking about posting about the merits of Pirsigs MOQ for a while, but can't be bothered because it feels like it would be pointless to do so.

Martin,

Thanks for weighing in. It’s appreciated that you are adding your perspective. I think that much of what you are saying is understandable. You are nauseated by the Steinerian vibes, fed up with critiques of dualism and exasperated by the straight talk, aka the no-free-pass approach. Yes it might feel unforgiving, and this is all understandable. But your last point… You are not for real accusing those who discuss Steiner of not bringing about someone else’s agenda on their behalf? Or are you? Are you seriously saying that, if the current discussions revolve around one thing, that’s the fault of those who are involved in those discussions, while everyone is free to give life to their own threads, if they only could be bothered?

I'm actually not nauseated by the "Steinerian vibes". In its essence, there are a lot of interesting, meaningful and important things in there. It's more the repetition which "nauseates" me.

You are not for real accusing those who discuss Steiner of not bringing about someone else’s agenda on their behalf?

Of course not. That would be silly. It's more that given the current state of the forum, I feel like the only type of sincere feedback a new subject would receive would be how it compares to "Steineranism" (for the lack of a better term). And that is not the type of feedback I'm interested in.

And it’s not remotely a matter of me being patient here (although I do consider myself rather patient, maybe not right now). This is blatantly unjust towards the incomparable levels of patience and goodwill consistently practiced by Ashvin and Cleric, and especially Ashvin. Let’s be clear, because your perspective, or critique, is primarily directed to him, right? Seriously… Ashvin consistently meets everyone on their own terms and questions, thoroughly, extensively, with unwavering openness, regardless of the levels of resistance, at times fog, and sometimes even rudeness emerging on the other side. Can anyone decently deny that? By the way, noticing that, we haven’t even started to look at the substance of the exchanges. However, instead of appreciating that openness, or at least recognizing it, people prefer to speak of cults, of the one thing, and to complain that there are not enough new topics, not enough BK topics, or too many Steiner topics.

I will not be goaded into starting another sh*t show
I don't speak the same language as Ashvin, nor as Steiner. I think our points of reference are vastly different. That's the main issue. I have no doubt that Ashvin has good intent.

[Federica]

This forum used to be about many things. It is now only about one thing.
One thing which has been repeated ad nauseum. Cleric outlined the central thesis of Structured Idealism very coherently and clearly a long time ago. For some reason we haven't - from a scientific perspective - been able to move further than that. (Granted, the last months, I've merely been skimming the posts. Maybe there's a nugget or two in there that i've missed).

Add to that the "I get it. No you don't!" dynamic, and the fact that any attempt to bring something new to the table, runs a high risk of being accused of dualism. (Which, apparently , has ben proven to be the biggest Sin of All in this forum).

This is my perspective. As an example I've been thinking about posting about the merits of Pirsigs MOQ for a while, but can't be bothered because it feels like it would be pointless to do so.

Martin,

Thanks for weighing in. It’s appreciated that you are adding your perspective. I think that much of what you are saying is understandable. You are nauseated by the Steinerian vibes, fed up with critiques of dualism and exasperated by the straight talk, aka the no-free-pass approach. Yes it might feel unforgiving, and this is all understandable. But your last point… You are not for real accusing those who discuss Steiner of not bringing about someone else’s agenda on their behalf? Or are you? Are you seriously saying that, if the current discussions revolve around one thing, that’s the fault of those who are involved in those discussions, while everyone is free to give life to their own threads, if they only could be bothered?

I'm actually not nauseated by the "Steinerian vibes". In its essence, there are a lot of interesting, meaningful and important things in there. It's more the repetition which "nauseates" me.

You are not for real accusing those who discuss Steiner of not bringing about someone else’s agenda on their behalf?

Of course not. That would be silly. It's more that given the current state of the forum, I feel like the only type of sincere feedback a new subject would receive would be how it compares to "Steineranism" (for the lack of a better term). And that is not the type of feedback I'm interested in.

And it’s not remotely a matter of me being patient here (although I do consider myself rather patient, maybe not right now). This is blatantly unjust towards the incomparable levels of patience and goodwill consistently practiced by Ashvin and Cleric, and especially Ashvin. Let’s be clear, because your perspective, or critique, is primarily directed to him, right? Seriously… Ashvin consistently meets everyone on their own terms and questions, thoroughly, extensively, with unwavering openness, regardless of the levels of resistance, at times fog, and sometimes even rudeness emerging on the other side. Can anyone decently deny that? By the way, noticing that, we haven’t even started to look at the substance of the exchanges. However, instead of appreciating that openness, or at least recognizing it, people prefer to speak of cults, of the one thing, and to complain that there are not enough new topics, not enough BK topics, or too many Steiner topics.

I will not be goaded into starting another sh*t show
I don't speak the same language as Ashvin, nor as Steiner. I think our points of reference are vastly different. That's the main issue. I have no doubt that Ashvin has good intent.

What you're saying seems clear at first look, but it’s actually quite sibylline : ) Is it on purpose? : )
I wonder: if with Steineranism you are at a level of understanding where repetition is aggravating, you must be on top of things in many ways. But then why are you not interested in comparing your other insights or topics to that? Do you function on alternate systems? Alternate interpretations of reality?
More generally I wonder: when we share a new subject we care about, for instance this Pirsigs MOQ topic I have not the least idea what it is, how can we only be interested in one type of feedback? The very nature of feedback is that we don't direct it. Again, to me it suggests that there’s a compartmentalized approach. Or maybe it depends on the specific nature of this subject “Pirsigs MOQ”?

[Martin_]

when we share a new subject we care about, for instance this Pirsigs MOQ topic I have not the least idea what it is, how can we only be interested in one type of feedback?

I am NOT interested in only one type of feedback. That is not what I said. Please re-read my statement carefully.

[Federica]

when we share a new subject we care about, for instance this Pirsigs MOQ topic I have not the least idea what it is, how can we only be interested in one type of feedback?

I am NOT interested in only one type of feedback. That is not what I said. Please re-read my statement carefully.

You are only interested in the type of feedback that doesn't involve Steiner. You want to orient the direction feedback is coming from. The point and the question remain...

[Martin_]

when we share a new subject we care about, for instance this Pirsigs MOQ topic I have not the least idea what it is, how can we only be interested in one type of feedback?

I am NOT interested in only one type of feedback. That is not what I said. Please re-read my statement carefully.

You are interested in the type of feedback that doesn't involve Steiner. You want to orient the direction feedback is coming from. The main point and question remain...

Sure, if you want to phrase it like that, it's only one kind of feedback. lol.
It's like saying that I only like one type of fruit, the type that isn't bananas.
Or only one type of music, the type that isn't Michael Jackson. (God forbid(!))
But whatever. Minor point in the scope of things.

But then why are you not interested in comparing your other insights or topics to that?

Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt. Not doing it again.

I'm not sure you realize this, but this forum is essentially coming out of a war where emotions were high and pages after pages were spent on various specifics re:Steineranism (for the lack of a better term).

I'm not trying to be sibylline. I'm trying to word myself carefully, only saying what I truly believe, and limiting myself to the "tip of the iceberg". I don't want to go into more detail for the simple reason that I fear that "all hell" would break loose again.

If you really want to understand the current state of this place, I think you need to check out the historical posts, but I dont want to point out any specifics for fear of appearing partial. Actually, scr*w that here's an example where I essentially lose my sh*t viewtopic.php?t=657 .
After exchanges like that, maybe you can understand why I'm hesitant to engage again?

[AshvinP]

So, anyway, what do you think about your own first-person thinking agency and its role in the World Content? Have you had any insights in that regard?

A bit off-topic, but sure, i'll bite.

I am - and have been for some time - quite convinced that it plays a significantly more material role than what the dualist (as in your definition of the word) story leads us to believe.

(So no; nothing mind-blowing there, at least it shouldn't be for this audience)

I'll go out on a limb and say Federica didn't start this thread so that people could respond, "here is why I don't participate" and disappear, but rather so people could offer their own philosophical thoughts and share contributions. It could be completely unrelated to PoF and Steiner. But that's not coming, is it?

A few new people have showed up recently with the following questions:

I greatly appreciate receiving your answer to the following question about analytical idealism.

————————
Q1: Whatever the reality of the outside world is (even if we accept that it is mental),
why should we assume that its appearance in our mind necessarily and
correctly mirror or correspond to what it (the outside world) really is?

In more recent years, however, he seems to follow Donald Hoffman's idea that our conscious experience of the world is like a "dashboard of dials" a pilot sees when flying in IFR weather (actually, an "instrument panel" would be a more accurate aviation term). In other words, what we see is not reality itself, but an evolutionary designed, limited representation thereof. Much like in physicalism, there is a reality out there that we can never know in itself.
So my question is when, and why, did Bernardo make this shift in his thought process? I have not yet run across a segment in any of his writings or video appearances where his discusses this change in perspective.

Can anyone shed light on this difference?

In contrast to the Abrahamic Religions and "neo-platonism", Bernardo has said he does not think that MAL is identical with Goodness. In his view, the purpose of metacognition is for MAL to gain insight into its otherwise phenomenally conscious instinctual nature. Because this nature includes pain, famine, disease, suffering, and death, it's reasonable to assume MAL's essence isn't the "summum bonum". He has stated reality uses metacognition to realize "I like when I do this, but I don't like when I do that".
Does his view suggest MAL's telos is to become metacognitive? If so, would MAL then attempt to correct the undesired behavior that was previously unconscious?

Any thoughts on the TAG?

The simple form of the argument is that God is the necessary precondition for certain transcendental categories (logic is a typical example). Part of the argument is that universals cannot be reduced to particulars (e.g. matter), then that the ontological basis of such things is a mind (omniscient) as no other way is possible (this is based on Jay Dyer's TAG defences, Greg Bahnsen was an earlier proponent)

The conception of 'God' (i.e. the omniscient mind) could vary here, and many would probably input M@L. Thought it might be worth thinking about

Neither you, Jim, Papanca, or anyone who has complained about the "Steinerian vibes" responded to a single one, even though they had nothing to do with Steiner. Why is that? There are plenty of opportunities in the last week or so for non-Steiner discussions to take off, yet none of you guys were willing to put any time or effort into it.

You may also notice a pattern in the questions above. When people are essentially asking the same thing over and over again (because that's what following BK inspires at this point), is is not reasonable for the answers to be repetitive? Even still, Cleric managed to come up with a new angle when answering here - viewtopic.php?p=18009#p18009

You have also avoided the additional opportunities given to you by Federica and myself on this thread, via the simple questions we asked. And now we are spending time trying to explain these simple things to you, as we have many times before, rather than advancing to new discussions. Repetitive, indeed. If you have actually been following the discussions between Federica, Cleric, and myself, it should be obvious that many new topics were raised and insights shared, even if you don't understand what they mean. Her questions and insights prompted me to have and share thoughts I had never had before, let alone posted on this forum.

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

[Martin_]

You have also avoided the additional opportunities given to you by Federica and myself on this thread, via the simple questions we asked.

Apologies. I must have missed these opportunities / simple questions. I was using my best judgement in focusing on what I perceived to be the biggest question marks. Could you please restate them.

[Cleric K]

Here's my take on the issue.

Imagine being on a forum where people primarily discuss physicalist theories of consciousness. Then if someone tries to point out that inner experience is the actual given in the mystery of existence, soon there will be complains "This forum was about many things - neurons, microtubules, fields, dimensions, wind tunnels - there're endless possibilities which may explain how consciousness arises out of the physical. Now it's only about one thing - someone trying to point out that spiritual experience is more immediate and certain fact than the existence of a distinct inanimate physical world on the opaque side of subjectivity."

This has been pointed out several times. People here should be able to relate to this example. It's about certain maturation of consciousness. It's like rising to a hill and seeing from above that the labyrinth below has no exit, while others still down there say "You fool, there are so many more possible unexplored corridors, you're just lazy."

The matter is such that intellectual idealism has run its course more than a century ago. This is transparently clear for anyone who climbs the next hill and sees that the metaphysical systems are yet another intellectual labyrinth that never leads beyond itself. And this is not to say that all these systems of thought were wrong or unnecessary side tracks of evolution - quite the contrary - these are stages through which humanity's consciousness evolves. They cannot be skipped. But today we're already in a position to understand that they are really stages, metamorphosing into one another, just like leaves of a plant unfold one by one.

At present, the intellect has driven itself into a corner. Or we may say it's pressing its back into the ceiling. I'm sorry to say that but it's more likely that something of practical value will come out of a neuroscience lab than from the Essentia foundation. And this holds true for all philosophy, metaphysics, spirituality that tries to extract the essence of reality as some clever arrangement of thoughts.

This observation doesn't even require some especially deep insight. It's more or less what most people already feel anyway. The quick and dirty solution is for the intellect to simply negate itself. Clearly, this doesn't really lead much further. It simply replaces the imagined vacuum of physical space with the spiritual vacuum of universal consciousness, where virtual potential emerges like manifested electron-positron pairs, only to quickly annihilate back into the Cosmic foam.

So this is the basic mood we find everywhere: yes - many will say - the thinking ego is a transient illusion, completely opaque to the potential from whence it emerges. It exists only within the manifested phenomena. It can know of deeper reality only as someone staring at a blackhole, capable of following phenomena only till the event horizon. When the intellect negates itself it remains in pure feeling which the same that intellect chooses to call the spiritual vacuum/plenum.

So basically we have people coming here, overly enthusiastic about Bernardo's work, without really knowing that even though clothed in modern terminology, the mode of cognition itself has already been thoroughly explored by the German Idealists of the 18th and 19th century. And this is not to criticize BK. It's actually valuable work because modern people (not speaking of amateur or professional philosophers) would have the greatest difficulty entering the mindset and language of the idealists of the past, so rising awareness to such a worldview through modern language is indispensable.

Yet soon after the initial euphory subsides, one begins to realize that not much has really changed - "OK, the world is mental in nature but now what?" And for most there are two basic paths to pursue. One is to continue exploring the intellectual labyrinth with the faith that maybe just behind that corner some ingenious arrangement of thought-pieces will be found which will solve everything. The other is based on the realization that nothing will ever be solved in this way so it's better to just annihilate the polarized intellectual phenomena back into their virtual state. Then there's also the mixture of two, where one accepts the marginal existence of the manifested intellect, yet some value is seen also in the arrangements of thoughts as long as they somehow convince the intellect that the highest wisdom consists into it negating itself and plunging into pure inexplicable experiencing. It's interesting to note that even BK's career so far exemplifies this archetypal pattern - starting overly enthusiastically, then gradually becoming disillusioned by the inability of the intellect to penetrate its depths (basically Schop's blind Will, which in modern terminology can be called the virtual/unmanifested potential of the One Universal Consciousness), thus analytical idealism has become simply another intellectual ladder which leads thinking to the point where it must negate itself in hope to annihilate into the inexplicable but true reality.

In this forum there is an attempt to simply indicate that this final frontier encountered by the intellect is only a threshold leading to another stage of cognition. Endless attempts have been made to explain what the nature of this cognition is. In the context of this post we can picture that in yet another metaphor. The intellect accepts that its thoughts emerge from the virtual state metaphorically as electron-positron pairs, yet when raising the question of what the 'wavefunction' that guides this process is, on quickly declares it to belong to the realm of the dark instinctive nature of MAL. But through the proper meditative concentration on the very process of thoughts willed into emergence from the virtual state, we gradually come to know that there's a non-intellectual (in the sense not thinking in sequences of thought-pieces) yet fully self-conscious cognitive activity which guides this process of emergence. Through this concentration we awaken to a higher stratum of our being where our spiritual activity weaves in the sympathies, antipathies, and meaning, through which, if I can use the expression, we steer the unfoldment of our states of being. Then we no longer think instinctively about what reality is but begin to awaken right into the forces that shape reality - starting from the forces that shape our own inner life. Gradually we come to realize that the virtual state is not at all inexplicable but consists of structured and fully conscious layers of spiritual activity, which seem to have their coherent personalities, as it were. We don't simply perceive these depths as some additional sensory perceptions, like some exotic color which we confront with our intellect, but by evolving our own thinking spiritual activity into becoming self-similar to the higher order spiritual activities which weave the hierarchical (in the sense of musical or linguistic) structure of the dreamscape.

This is the critical threshold at which humanity finds itself today. So we basically either continue to endlessly explore the intellectual labyrinths, or we decide that annihilating the intellect is the highest achievement on Earth (anything else, if there's anything at all, to be expected only after death), or we realize that we've reached a point where we need to raise in consciousness and begin participating fully consciously along the gradient of manifestation. Not only at the level of final 'collapse of the wavefunction' but along the depth which shapes it through fully conscious spiritual activity.

Seen in this way, longing for the times when there were so many other things, is like grieving for all those kinds of distractions that were keeping the intellect happily engaged. The troublesome 'one thing' is not about reducing the richness of existence to one thing but only point at the one direction which leads to even greater richness of existence. In fact, such richness and lucidity, in comparison to which our whole former Earthly life seems only as a dim dream.

As a final note I would like to point out that all said above hasn't and need not be related in any way to Steiner. No special terminology needed, only metaphors based on concepts that any relatively educated person of our age should be familiar with (like electron, positron, wavefunction, etc.) All that is needed is for one to be relatively conscious of the historical process in which we're placed. Questions such as the above should come completely naturally for anyone who can encompass the state of the world with their gaze. These are the pressing issues of our times, so to speak. And if after this one still wants to call such ideas Steineriaism or any other -ism, then it simply means they are still wandering the intellectual labyrinth and feel the need to put labels on every corridor. Such a person is not yet willing to go in a perpendicular direction and investigate the real forces that weave the very being who puts the labels and tries to classify the corridors, or even negates itself.