One of my favorites! And what a great whirlpool among the graphics!Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:30 am For sure, the great poets can turn that whine into bittersweet wine ...
Can Idealism be without thought?
Re: Can Idealism be without thought?
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
Re: Can Idealism be without thought?
Idealism is a kind of thinking - so the answer would be: NO
"I think, therefore I am an idealist"
“Study hard what interests you the most
in the most undisciplined, irreverent and
original manner possible.”
― Richard Feynmann
in the most undisciplined, irreverent and
original manner possible.”
― Richard Feynmann
Re: Can Idealism be without thought?
As others have already pointed out, as long as philosophy (idealism included) is considered an intellectual discipline, obviously it is expressed in thoughts.
The interesting question is whether intellectual thought is the only possible form of cognition?
It is clear that we can’t go beyond thought through thought. We can’t think our way out into a form of cognition that is different from thought. The result of any logical train of thought is still a thought.
This is the cause of the strong dichotomy between dual and non-dual, self and no-self, thought and no-thought, time and no-time, etc. Our sense of self is most immediately experienced within the thinking process. It is within our thoughts that we experience, for lack of better words, some kind of “self-reflective quality”. There’s something objectively different in the perception of a thought, compared to other perceptions. For example, when I perceive a word, I can ask “Why I'm perceiving this? Where it comes from?" But if I perceive the same word as a thought-perception, the answer to these questions is contained within the thought-experience. The though is an immediate reflection of the ideal content, the meaning of our experience. We do not perceive the thought as an external sensory perception and then go on to interpret its meaning - instead, the thought is a projection (arguably, only partial) of the idea/meaning that we already experience. But most importantly, we feel the unmistakable quality of self-reflectivity within the thought process. In thought-perceptions cause and effect, so to speak, are one.
In this way we see that when we speak of self or "I", this is not something that we decide to construct arbitrarily. We can only say "I" because of the self-reflective quality within thoughts. Our intellectual speculations about what that "I" is, are something that we really add only consequently. But the self-reflective quality of the thinking process is not something that we add through our own actions. It is there in the given. We can't separate that quality from the experience of the thinking process.
Now the strong dichotomy mentioned above proceeds from the fact that on one side we have the self-reflective thinking process and on the other we envision some kind of awareness or consciousness that can be experienced even in the absence of thoughts and a self. Clearly, it is possible to attain to a meditative state where thinking ceases. We detach from the immediate thought forming process and this naturally distances us from the self-reflective quality within that process. When there's no active thought process, there is also no self-perception as conveyed through that process. This seems to support the idea that the self only exists as long as the self-reflective quality of thinking is present.
But we should be aware that, paradoxically as it may sound, we are actively pursuing this experience. Anyone who has personal experience in these things and is honest about them, would acknowledge that we actively repel any form of spiritual activity that might have the self-reflecting quality. This is something that is quite underestimated in our time. It is widely assumed that the experience of no-thought reveals the ultimate ground of existence. But it is rarely taken into account that the experience results from a method of meditation that is being actively sought after. We repel any form of spiritual activity because we believe that by doing so we attain to the grounds of existence.
Yet anyone who has dared to break the dogma of no-thought, no-self, can confirm that within a higher state it is in fact possible to have experiences of self-reflecting quality that are not thought themselves but precede thoughts. A common metaphor for this kind of experiences is to picture regular thoughts as standing wave forms within a deeper stratum of spiritual activity. Many meditators would readily agree with such a metaphor but will fiercely oppose the idea that there's a kind of spiritual activity of a self-reflective quality within the deeper stratum. But this opposition is not based on some kind of certain experience that shows beyond any doubt that it's impossible for such a kind of spiritual activity to exists within deeper reality.
The problem here lies not in what the experiences tell out of themselves but in what we seek within the experiences through our preconceived ideas. There's no doubt that it is possible to experience a tranquil state detached from the thought-forming process and thus from the self that this process entails. But this experience itself does not tell us anything of whether there could be other states within which we can experience self-reflective spiritual activity. The only way to confirm the reality of such a state would be to experience it. But this is exactly what mystics will never do because it goes against their beliefs.
A very simple (probably insultingly simple) example could be if we have never moved our arm and hold on to the "no-arm-movement" paradigm. Someone tells us "Hey, it is actually possible to move your arm". We reply "Negative. I have never experienced arm movement so there's no such a thing." Furthermore, if the no-arm-movement paradigm is presented in such a way that it is considered the ultimate reality, then we'll actively suppress any hints of movement because we believe that any movement leads us into the illusionary world of "arm-movement". We can very clearly see the fallacy here. There are experiences that can only become confirmed reality if we actively pursue them.
And this is the peculiar situation of humanity in our age. We are on a threshold where thought-only cognition becomes lost in the abstractness of isolated thoughts that build upon themselves. On the other hand, the impossibility to transcend thinking through thinking throws many in the completely opposite extremum, and consider thoughts worthless along with the self-reflective quality they entail.
But couldn't it be that thinking activity is only a more limited form of a higher form of spiritual activity of self-reflective quality?
The interesting question is whether intellectual thought is the only possible form of cognition?
It is clear that we can’t go beyond thought through thought. We can’t think our way out into a form of cognition that is different from thought. The result of any logical train of thought is still a thought.
This is the cause of the strong dichotomy between dual and non-dual, self and no-self, thought and no-thought, time and no-time, etc. Our sense of self is most immediately experienced within the thinking process. It is within our thoughts that we experience, for lack of better words, some kind of “self-reflective quality”. There’s something objectively different in the perception of a thought, compared to other perceptions. For example, when I perceive a word, I can ask “Why I'm perceiving this? Where it comes from?" But if I perceive the same word as a thought-perception, the answer to these questions is contained within the thought-experience. The though is an immediate reflection of the ideal content, the meaning of our experience. We do not perceive the thought as an external sensory perception and then go on to interpret its meaning - instead, the thought is a projection (arguably, only partial) of the idea/meaning that we already experience. But most importantly, we feel the unmistakable quality of self-reflectivity within the thought process. In thought-perceptions cause and effect, so to speak, are one.
In this way we see that when we speak of self or "I", this is not something that we decide to construct arbitrarily. We can only say "I" because of the self-reflective quality within thoughts. Our intellectual speculations about what that "I" is, are something that we really add only consequently. But the self-reflective quality of the thinking process is not something that we add through our own actions. It is there in the given. We can't separate that quality from the experience of the thinking process.
Now the strong dichotomy mentioned above proceeds from the fact that on one side we have the self-reflective thinking process and on the other we envision some kind of awareness or consciousness that can be experienced even in the absence of thoughts and a self. Clearly, it is possible to attain to a meditative state where thinking ceases. We detach from the immediate thought forming process and this naturally distances us from the self-reflective quality within that process. When there's no active thought process, there is also no self-perception as conveyed through that process. This seems to support the idea that the self only exists as long as the self-reflective quality of thinking is present.
But we should be aware that, paradoxically as it may sound, we are actively pursuing this experience. Anyone who has personal experience in these things and is honest about them, would acknowledge that we actively repel any form of spiritual activity that might have the self-reflecting quality. This is something that is quite underestimated in our time. It is widely assumed that the experience of no-thought reveals the ultimate ground of existence. But it is rarely taken into account that the experience results from a method of meditation that is being actively sought after. We repel any form of spiritual activity because we believe that by doing so we attain to the grounds of existence.
Yet anyone who has dared to break the dogma of no-thought, no-self, can confirm that within a higher state it is in fact possible to have experiences of self-reflecting quality that are not thought themselves but precede thoughts. A common metaphor for this kind of experiences is to picture regular thoughts as standing wave forms within a deeper stratum of spiritual activity. Many meditators would readily agree with such a metaphor but will fiercely oppose the idea that there's a kind of spiritual activity of a self-reflective quality within the deeper stratum. But this opposition is not based on some kind of certain experience that shows beyond any doubt that it's impossible for such a kind of spiritual activity to exists within deeper reality.
The problem here lies not in what the experiences tell out of themselves but in what we seek within the experiences through our preconceived ideas. There's no doubt that it is possible to experience a tranquil state detached from the thought-forming process and thus from the self that this process entails. But this experience itself does not tell us anything of whether there could be other states within which we can experience self-reflective spiritual activity. The only way to confirm the reality of such a state would be to experience it. But this is exactly what mystics will never do because it goes against their beliefs.
A very simple (probably insultingly simple) example could be if we have never moved our arm and hold on to the "no-arm-movement" paradigm. Someone tells us "Hey, it is actually possible to move your arm". We reply "Negative. I have never experienced arm movement so there's no such a thing." Furthermore, if the no-arm-movement paradigm is presented in such a way that it is considered the ultimate reality, then we'll actively suppress any hints of movement because we believe that any movement leads us into the illusionary world of "arm-movement". We can very clearly see the fallacy here. There are experiences that can only become confirmed reality if we actively pursue them.
And this is the peculiar situation of humanity in our age. We are on a threshold where thought-only cognition becomes lost in the abstractness of isolated thoughts that build upon themselves. On the other hand, the impossibility to transcend thinking through thinking throws many in the completely opposite extremum, and consider thoughts worthless along with the self-reflective quality they entail.
But couldn't it be that thinking activity is only a more limited form of a higher form of spiritual activity of self-reflective quality?
Re: Can Idealism be without thought?
Excellent post, Cleric! Although I have never gone into the deep meditative states you reference, the Self beyond the no-thought paradigm makes great sense and aligns with what many other deep thinkers have found.Cleric K wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:06 pm It is clear that we can’t go beyond thought through thought. We can’t think our way out into a form of cognition that is different from thought. The result of any logical train of thought is still a thought.
...
But couldn't it be that thinking activity is only a more limited form of a higher form of spiritual activity of self-reflective quality?
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
-
SanteriSatama
- Posts: 1030
- Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:07 pm
Re: Can Idealism be without thought?
Higher and lower, both more holy and profane. Stirner:
Self-reflective quality, a tool to toy with. A time machine for choosing invitations from possible to actual, from thought to felt. The reflection of a creative nothing gives a question for care-full thinking and feeling: the tree in and of this seed of unique thus?The ideal “human being” is realized when the Christian view is overturned in the statement: “I, this unique, am the human being.” The conceptual question: “What is the human being?”—has then changed into the personal question: “Who is the human being?” With “what” one looks for the concept in order to realize it; with “who” there is no longer any question at all, but the answer present personally in the questioner himself: the question itself answers itself.
They say of God, “Names name you not.” This is true of me: no concept expresses me, nothing that is said to be my essence exhausts me; they are only names. They also say of God that he is perfect and has no calling to strive for perfection. This too is true of me alone.
I am owner of my power, and I am so when I know myself as unique. In the unique the owner himself returns into his creative nothing, from which he is born. Every higher essence over me, be it God, be it the human being, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and only pales before the sun of this awareness. If I base my affair on myself, the unique, then it stands on the transient, the mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say:
I have based my affair on nothing.
In my language to care - välittää - is to become and be the medium, the in-between, the interval - väli.
-
David_Sundaram
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:22 pm
Re: Can Idealism be without thought?
My 'view'. which admittedly is a function of my e-motional engagement with Life (defintion: Life/Creativity is causal purpose in action), is that classic (i.e. tradition ensconced) advaita vedanta is an 'abortive' desire for an attempt to get 'out' of living Life permanently on the part of bummed-out folks, IMO, it is a 'suicidal' desire for and attempt at never-again-having-to-think-as-a-'self' oblivion.
P.S. Not that such a state of absolute 'surrender' can't be 'blissful'. It can be very 'blissful'. I know this from an extended evening and night of extremely joyful.restful 'peace' which I had upon (firmly!) deciding that I would kill myself (to get off this often quite un-merry-go-round) back in my thirties.
I would suggest such a choice is not dissimilar to the choice to 'go to sleep'. Very refreshing and restoring, but essentially a 'sick' (attempt at) at abandonment of and escape from response-ability if and as desired and sought as a permanent (enlight*ened? yikes!) condition.
* Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works [which cannot be done without, at least on some level, thinking!], and glorify your Father which is in heaven. " (Matthew 5)
I reiterate: the above statement derives from my emotional leaning (which advaita vedantists would say is 'delusional'). Real Life isn't just a feeling of 'exciting' 'bliss', folks -- there is much more to being alive and creatively living than that!
Hiyo Silver, Away - the David-masked 'man' has thought-fully spoken!
My Website: https://davidsundom.weebly.com
Re: Can Idealism be without thought?
“Above all, trust in the slow work of God.
We are quite naturally impatient in everything
to reach the end without delay.
We should like to skip the intermediate stages.
We are impatient of being on the way to something
unknown, something new.
And yet it is the law of all progress
that it is made by passing through
some stages of instability—
and that it may take a very long time.
And so I think it is with you;
your ideas mature gradually—let them grow,
let them shape themselves, without undue haste.
Don’t try to force them on,
as though you could be today what time
(that is to say, grace and circumstances
acting on your own good will)
will make of you tomorrow.
Only God could say what this new spirit
gradually forming within you will be.
Give Our Lord the benefit of believing
that his hand is leading you,
and accept the anxiety of feeling yourself
in suspense and incomplete.”
― Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
We are quite naturally impatient in everything
to reach the end without delay.
We should like to skip the intermediate stages.
We are impatient of being on the way to something
unknown, something new.
And yet it is the law of all progress
that it is made by passing through
some stages of instability—
and that it may take a very long time.
And so I think it is with you;
your ideas mature gradually—let them grow,
let them shape themselves, without undue haste.
Don’t try to force them on,
as though you could be today what time
(that is to say, grace and circumstances
acting on your own good will)
will make of you tomorrow.
Only God could say what this new spirit
gradually forming within you will be.
Give Our Lord the benefit of believing
that his hand is leading you,
and accept the anxiety of feeling yourself
in suspense and incomplete.”
― Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
-
SanteriSatama
- Posts: 1030
- Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:07 pm
Re: Can Idealism be without thought?
The desire to wake up from a nightmare tends to be strongest when in most pain. And already recognizing escapism for what it is, becomes an act of courage.David_Sundaram wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:37 pm P.S. Not that such a state of absolute 'surrender' can't be 'blissful'. It can be very 'blissful'. I know this from an extended evening and night of extremely joyful.restful 'peace' which I had upon (firmly!) deciding that I would kill myself (to get off this often quite un-merry-go-round) back in my thirties.
I would suggest such a choice is not dissimilar to the choice to 'go to sleep'. Very refreshing and restoring, but essentially a 'sick' (attempt at) at abandonment of and escape from response-ability if and as desired and sought as a permanent (enlight*ened? yikes!) condition.
Re: Can Idealism be without thought?
If someone wants to toy with that tool (or any other) it's their choice. If someone finds the greatest satisfaction in building thought structures in the space of imagination and admire their beauty - it's their choice. If its all about the ego and its own - end of story - out of nothing, back to nothing... at least as long as the belief lasts.
So if it's a matter of belief-of-choice - we couldn't be living in better times
There's a belief for every taste on the shelf.On the other hand, if we at least admit as a possibility that there's something that can be known about the riddle of existence, we'll have to start from somewhere. And assuming we dismiss belief as an explanation, the only alternative is to start from the given.
-
SanteriSatama
- Posts: 1030
- Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:07 pm
Re: Can Idealism be without thought?
Just listened to Corbin saying that there's no knowledge, only knowing. That sounds good. Belief comes from belief in knowledge, which is dull. Let's not confuse belief and knowledge with poetry. Let's not translate Einzige und sein Eigentum for worse ("Ego and it's own"), but for better: Unique and its property.. When we speak already from philosophical skepticism, free of belief, free from knowledge, we do hermeneutics. Poetry, hermeneutics and translation. This is how The Given, the Source, The Creative Nothing becomes and flows, in its nominal fake-belief substance of as-if-existence.Cleric K wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:46 pm On the other hand, if we at least admit as a possibility that there's something that can be known about the riddle of existence, we'll have to start from somewhere. And assuming we dismiss belief as an explanation, the only alternative is to start from the given.