Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

[David_Sundaram]

I'd like to start a discussion on the notorious dilemma in idealism: is the Cosmic Consciousness meta-cognitive or not?

Hi0Ho Eugene,

I think that the concept of meta-cogniitiveness, which implies that one is either super-cognitive or 'blindly', by virtue of 'i'dentifying with being a 'self'', under-cognitive is an unduly dualistic, hence reality-of-Life-violating, truth bifurcating 'red-herring'. I attempt to to un-'herring' this in my treatise by way of:

"Many would rather simply believe that by saying “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) Jesus unequivocally asserted that the gestalts of his and his/our Father’s spirits were absolutely identical, that they were literally one and the same aspect of Life in action; case closed. Such statement may certainly be read that way and, taken by itself, used to support God-concept co-opting narratives such as the one presented in the Nicene Creed which proclaims that the personage of Jesus was “begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made;” etc. But it may also be taken to mean that Jesus thought and felt that his and said Father-God’s spirits were dynamically integrated and functionally co-operational, and so 'united' as ‘one’, metaphorically speaking, in terms of purpose and consequence – analogous to the way in which partners who aren’t identical may accomplish something they both desire when and as they work together in a complementary manner, which they couldn’t and so wouldn’t be able to creatively accomplish if each worked alone. (This is what holism really means, by the way: “Holism is based upon idea that: the whole is more than the sum of its constitutive parts, so reduction of the whole to its constitutive elements eliminates some factors which are present only when a being is seen as a whole. For example, synergy is generated through the interaction of parts but it does not exist if we take parts alone.”)

For those who have reached the point where they are capable of dispassionately pondering such matters, I submit that “The Father is in me, and I in him” (John 10:38) which Jesus added in the same speech-sequence (as “I and my Father are one”) clearly shows the latter understanding to be what he actually meant to communicate. Notwithstanding the meta-truth that every ‘feature’ of Creativity (Life, God, Reality, Being – however you wish to view and reference It) is an inseparably integral aspect of one all-inclusive phenomenon, in light of which any and all conceptual ‘divisions’ which distinguish aspects of It one from another may be seen to really just be navigational aides at best, this saying indicates that Jesus ‘saw’ that there was a dynamic, two-way flow-connection between the primally progenitive soul of ‘the Father’ and the consequentially co‑generative soul-constellation of ‘the Son’, such that the outflow from one functions as inflow in relation to the other in continuously ongoing outflow→inflow→ad infinitum fashion. Readers capable of engaging in abstract thought experiments may appreciate the kind of experience an observer walking lengthwise along the seemingly two‑sided ‘surface’ of a mobius strip would have and, if reasonably intelligent, sooner or later grok as analogically explaining the never‑ending ‘story’ of ever-ongoing Father↔Son Creation."

[JustinG]

Psychedral has just written a great essay on the topic of this thread. It is in defense of "Divine Idealism" and is well worth a read : https://psychedral.medium.com/what-does ... 79d79b8132

He is critical of the implications of BK's version of idealism, which, he writes:

"... means we are the product of an unthinking and uncaring cosmic consciousness. Is that an existential improvement on unthinking and uncaring stuff in our brains?

It is interesting that Kastrup is an admirer of Schopenhauer—a pessimist, like Ligotti, who thought human life was a “kind of mistake”. Even the dissociative identity disorder metaphor makes human life seem like a kind of psychiatric disease—the supreme insanity—within mind-at-large."

[Soul_of_Shu]

Psychedral has just written a great essay on the topic of this thread. It is in defense of "Divine Idealism" and is well worth a read : https://psychedral.medium.com/what-does ... 79d79b8132

He is critical of the implications of BK's version of idealism, which, he writes:

"... means we are the product of an unthinking and uncaring cosmic consciousness. Is that an existential improvement on unthinking and uncaring stuff in our brains?

It is interesting that Kastrup is an admirer of Schopenhauer—a pessimist, like Ligotti, who thought human life was a “kind of mistake”. Even the dissociative identity disorder metaphor makes human life seem like a kind of psychiatric disease—the supreme insanity—within mind-at-large."

I've got a simple antidote to this misconception ... read Decoding Jung's Metaphysics.

[Eugene I]

Very good writeup, explains subtle philosophical issues in a clear, simple and straightforward language.

Personally I have no fear of existential void and do not need a higher authority to define the meanings of existence for me, I'm able to do it for myself. Neither do I fear explanatory gaps. That makes me unbiased towards the choice between the divine and Advaitic idealisms, which means that I'm equally open to both possibilities.

[JustinG]

Very good writeup, explains subtle philosophical issues in a clear, simple and straightforward language.

Personally I have no fear of existential void and do not need a higher authority to define the meanings of existence for me, I'm able to do it for myself. Neither do I fear explanatory gaps. That makes me unbiased towards the choice between the divine and Advaitic idealisms, which means that I'm equally open to both possibilities.

My position is that hope (the desire for an outcome and a belief in the outcome’s possibility) is an important part of worldy existence, although I recognise that hope could be seen as just another form of craving. Therefore, other things being equal, I would select divine idealism over Advaitic variants, on the basis that it is the more hopeful and therefore more preferable option.

This could be characterised as running afoul of the fact/value or is/ ought distinction, but IMO the fact-value distinction is itself a product of naive materialist thinking, which posits that objectivity can be separated from subjectivity.

[Eugene I]

My position is that hope (the desire for an outcome and a belief in the outcome’s possibility) is an important part of worldy existence, although I recognise that hope could be seen as just another form of craving. Therefore, other things being equal, I would select divine idealism over Advaitic variants, on the basis that it is the more hopeful and therefore more preferable option.

I don't see how Advaitic idealism is less hopeful compared to the divine one. As we, conscious agents, can define the values, goals and meanings four ourselves, we also can align our hopes with those meanings/values.

I would still comment on the final conclusion from that article:

I suppose the answer depends on what you truly fear: explanatory gap or existential void.

I don't think any kind of fear is a good motivation for choosing a metaphysical platform or a set of values and meanings. We often make poor judgements and decisions when we are driven by fears.

[Lou Gold]

Let's flip it around - a parent comes to you and says "my daughter has terminal cancer and is in extreme constant agony, how could this be in a Good and Just universe?" Would your response be, "well... according to X, Y, Z presuppositions, your child actually chose to be incarnated into this life, even though I know it does not appear that way in the slightest..."? I doubt it.

Yes, that's how I would answer

Dostoevsky is too deep of a thinker to identify him with any particular character in his writings. We know that he often 'steel-mans' the characters expressing philosophical positions which he ultimately disagrees with. That being said, Ivan's hypothetical of an omnibenevolent Creator justifying the suffering is not the same as the evolutionary will-to-meaning argument. In fact, it's basically the opposite. It is not pointing to a grand Architect to justify the suffering, but rather to a non-directed process. And it is not even claiming there is pure harmony and bliss at the 'end' of the process, just that it is clearly beyond our current understanding and therefore something we must submit to and attempt to understand from that position of humility.

The way Dostoevsky approaches this is not that he is trying to make God responsible or blame him for the suffering of the child. But he is exposing it "as if" from God's first person perspective, with Alyosha representing such perspective: would benevolent God himself have any compassion to the child's suffering or moral remorse from exposing the child to suffering? I does not matter with whom Dostoevsky himself identified with, he identifies Alyosha with God's first person perspective and with the voice of the Divine goodness, and specifically makes it clear that the Divine goodness would have to say "no" to its own creation plan. The point is, if the evolutionary will-to-meaning is meta-cognitive and if it is fully benevolent and has a fully developed conscience and compassion, it would be morally unable to expose conscious beings to suffering without their consent. So this is not a question of responsibility or justification, but a question of the moral inability of fully benevolent Divinity to expose beings to suffering. Dostoevsky basically pointed to the irresolvable moral contradiction in the traditional Christianity where God is understood as fully benevolent, meta-cognitive and compassionate, but at the same time human sols had no say or consent in the decision to be exposed to sufferings.

This may sound naive but I would reverse the perspective from asking "why?' by accepting the existence of evil and suffering and concluding that God's compassion is found in the existence of the healing technologies of caring and sharing for us to use.

[AshvinP]

Let's flip it around - a parent comes to you and says "my daughter has terminal cancer and is in extreme constant agony, how could this be in a Good and Just universe?" Would your response be, "well... according to X, Y, Z presuppositions, your child actually chose to be incarnated into this life, even though I know it does not appear that way in the slightest..."? I doubt it.

Yes, that's how I would answer

OK, but then I would say that's a terrible answer and very likely to turn people away from consideration of the Divine. Not only does it appear to be patently false, you also have no idea whether it is true or not. In contrast, we know that people have survived the most horrendous evils by embracing a will-to-meaning. That is something anyone can relate to, while the proposition that a small child with terminal cancer is somehow responsible for their own suffering is way askance of any reasonable experience in this world.

Dostoevsky is too deep of a thinker to identify him with any particular character in his writings. We know that he often 'steel-mans' the characters expressing philosophical positions which he ultimately disagrees with. That being said, Ivan's hypothetical of an omnibenevolent Creator justifying the suffering is not the same as the evolutionary will-to-meaning argument. In fact, it's basically the opposite. It is not pointing to a grand Architect to justify the suffering, but rather to a non-directed process. And it is not even claiming there is pure harmony and bliss at the 'end' of the process, just that it is clearly beyond our current understanding and therefore something we must submit to and attempt to understand from that position of humility.

The way Dostoevsky approaches this is not that he is trying to make God responsible or blame him for the suffering of the child. But he is exposing it "as if" from God's first person perspective, with Alyosha representing such perspective: would benevolent God himself have any compassion to the child's suffering or moral remorse from exposing the child to suffering? I does not matter with whom Dostoevsky himself identified with, he identifies Alyosha with God's first person perspective and with the voice of the Divine goodness, and specifically makes it clear that the Divine goodness would have to say "no" to its own creation plan. The point is, if the evolutionary will-to-meaning is meta-cognitive and if it is fully benevolent and has a fully developed conscience and compassion, it would be morally unable to expose conscious beings to suffering without their consent. So this is not a question of responsibility or justification, but a question of the moral inability of fully benevolent Divinity to expose beings to suffering. Dostoevsky basically pointed to the irresolvable moral contradiction in the traditional Christianity where God is understood as fully benevolent, meta-cognitive and compassionate, but at the same time human sols had no say or consent in the decision to be exposed to sufferings.

Even if that interpretation is accurate, it's irrelevant. The theodicy I am referencing is much more aligned with Nietzsche's metaphysics and ethics than that of traditional Christianity. It does not invoke an omnibenevolent meta-cognitive Creator.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Great art, whether evoking the horrific or beatific or both, is not really about meta-cognition, although that can play a part, but is more about intuition, instinct, or gut feeling, where even in the most profound grief, still bliss can be found. In this regard we are like chips off the old M@L block, whereby the meaning of it all is to create the meaning of it all ...


“The artist is a receptacle for emotions that come from all over the place: from the sky, from the earth, from a scrap of paper, from a passing shape, from a spider’s web.”~ Pablo Picasso

[Lou Gold]

Great art, whether evoking the horrific or beatific or both, is not really about meta-cognition, although that can play a part, but is more about intuition, instinct, or gut feeling, where even in the most profound grief, still bliss can be found. In this regard we are like chips off the old M@L block, whereby the meaning of it all is to create the meaning of it all ...


“The artist is a receptacle for emotions that come from all over the place: from the sky, from the earth, from a scrap of paper, from a passing shape, from a spider’s web.”~ Pablo Picasso

I believe that "bliss" is a tricky word because it is commonly associated with something joyous on this side of the line of incarnation. However, for example, if the soul intention is to play a healer/healing role from either the spirit or bodily side, being able to feel and express great suffering may be part of the developmental process. The wounded healer or a Van Gogh come to mind. One would not necessary use "bliss" to describe their life. The challenge of art is to truly feel and thus attain/receive expanded being and express it.