Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Breaking Bad Habits

[Cleric K]

My posts to you point attention to something very concrete.

I would agree, they contain a lot of fallacies. You must address the fallacies before we can go anywhere because all an argument needs to fail is one bad premise. No one needs to do anything else after that. The burden is yours as it is you who have made the claim and must either defend it or abandon it. A false premise exposes an unsound argument.

OK, I'll not call it 'spiritual' activity, as this seems to produce sparks.

You don't know what it produces in me, you are assuming it must be because I have challenged it. This is philosophy, it doesn't matter whether I have sparks or lightning bolts or fits of weeping. It's about argument. So it would be wise for you to abandon implied attempts at Psychogenic Fallacy (If you learn the psychological reason why your opponent likes/dislikes an argument, then he's biased, so his argument must be wrong. It is irrelevant.).

You must also define your terms clearly and stick to them, your terms must be valid. You simply cannot change the words to suit what you want, "OK, I'll call it something else." because then it is something else. What you must not do is equivocate. Your term must mean what it means, not mean something else. You must demonstrate why it means what it means and cannot mean something else.

It may be annoying but those are the rules and methods of philosophy. If you wish for your argument to succeed then you must apply and follow them.

So perhaps if you tidy up your essay, define your terms properly first and then do all the other necessary things to ensure your argument ends up with valid premises and a conclusion that follows, then you may have a valid and sound argument. One of the best ways to do that is to stand back from your opinion, try to disinvest yourself, and become your own worst opponent and see where you can attack your premises and the logic of your argument. Mercilessly.

What you cannot do, if you wish to succeed, is insist that people see it your way or that there is something faulty with people's view or their understanding. It's irrelevant, a valid and sound argument succeeds in its own right. What is important about a sound argument is that you have no choice but to agree with it. Sound arguments put an end to all possible debate and discussion. They are the ultimate debate-stoppers.

Then you can move forward. Rather than going round in circles as is happening presently.

OK. I take note of everything you said. Can we now consider the actual argument from my previous post?

The point is that according to direct observation, when we trace the roots of what we call knowing, we reach thinking. Thinking is the activity of knowing. All philosophical or any other judgment is already application of thinking. Subject, object, inner, outer world, mind, matter, etc. - all these are already products of thinking. None of these are given as hard truths of reality. What is given is an amalgamation of perceptions that are being confronted and worked upon by thinking. Only then we begin to recognize the spectrum of perceptions, we sort them into domains, one we call color, other sound, yet others feeling, will, smell, we divide the world into inner and outer, etc. Through thinking we make these distinctions by attaching the corresponding concepts and investigating the relations and interactions. For example if I visually see a pin pressing into my finger I also experience the feeling of pain. I can grasp this relation with thinking as the idea for the connection between sharp objects pressing in my body and pain.

[Apanthropinist]

My posts to you point attention to something very concrete.

I would agree, they contain a lot of fallacies. You must address the fallacies before we can go anywhere because all an argument needs to fail is one bad premise. No one needs to do anything else after that. The burden is yours as it is you who have made the claim and must either defend it or abandon it. A false premise exposes an unsound argument.

OK, I'll not call it 'spiritual' activity, as this seems to produce sparks.

You don't know what it produces in me, you are assuming it must be because I have challenged it. This is philosophy, it doesn't matter whether I have sparks or lightning bolts or fits of weeping. It's about argument. So it would be wise for you to abandon implied attempts at Psychogenic Fallacy (If you learn the psychological reason why your opponent likes/dislikes an argument, then he's biased, so his argument must be wrong. It is irrelevant.).

You must also define your terms clearly and stick to them, your terms must be valid. You simply cannot change the words to suit what you want, "OK, I'll call it something else." because then it is something else. What you must not do is equivocate. Your term must mean what it means, not mean something else. You must demonstrate why it means what it means and cannot mean something else.

It may be annoying but those are the rules and methods of philosophy. If you wish for your argument to succeed then you must apply and follow them.

So perhaps if you tidy up your essay, define your terms properly first and then do all the other necessary things to ensure your argument ends up with valid premises and a conclusion that follows, then you may have a valid and sound argument. One of the best ways to do that is to stand back from your opinion, try to disinvest yourself, and become your own worst opponent and see where you can attack your premises and the logic of your argument. Mercilessly.

What you cannot do, if you wish to succeed, is insist that people see it your way or that there is something faulty with people's view or their understanding. It's irrelevant, a valid and sound argument succeeds in its own right. What is important about a sound argument is that you have no choice but to agree with it. Sound arguments put an end to all possible debate and discussion. They are the ultimate debate-stoppers.

Then you can move forward. Rather than going round in circles as is happening presently.

OK. I take note of everything you said. Can we now consider the actual argument from my previous post?

The point is that according to direct observation, when we trace the roots of what we call knowing, we reach thinking. Thinking is the activity of knowing. All philosophical or any other judgment is already application of thinking. Subject, object, inner, outer world, mind, matter, etc. - all these are already products of thinking. None of these are given as hard truths of reality. What is given is an amalgamation of perceptions that are being confronted and worked upon by thinking. Only then we begin to recognize the spectrum of perceptions, we sort them into domains, one we call color, other sound, yet others feeling, will, smell, we divide the world into inner and outer, etc. Through thinking we make these distinctions by attaching the corresponding concepts and investigating the relations and interactions. For example if I visually see a pin pressing into my finger I also experience the feeling of pain. I can grasp this relation with thinking as the idea for the connection between sharp objects pressing in my body and pain.

I would encourage you to take further note of what I said at the end of my prior post to you, as it is fairly unequivocal: 'Then you can move forward. Rather than going round in circles as is happening presently.'

What can then be legitimately considered, is that anyone on this forum, who chooses to do so, can read your amended essay which adheres to philosophical rules, principals and methods. The same rules, principals and methods that Kastrup or any other philosopher and the claims they make, adhere to. Otherwise it is a disingenuous attempt to insulate and immunise your claims from legitimate philosophical criticisms or attacks.

Please remember "What is important about a sound argument is that you have no choice but to agree with it. Sound arguments put an end to all possible debate and discussion. They are the ultimate debate-stoppers."

Naturally you are under no obligation whatsoever and if you choose to let your essay remains as is, then your essay is essentially theologically oriented and that is a different domain to rational metaphysics philosophy.

There isn't anything else than can be said without adding to yet more Argument Ad Nauseam.

[Ratatoskr]

Interesting. I always thought that the essence of Christianity was : "(...) unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." But maybe that's just my improper cognitive perception.

When taken in isolation, it's common to project interpretations to words that best suit our own inclinations. A very sweet tasting interpretation of the above is that the Christ was suggesting we should be ignorant as children, mood-swinging, erratic, carefree and occupied entirely with play. The scriptures only make sense if we can encompass them as something whole. Otherwise what do we do with other verses such as "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect"? Was the Christ contradicting himself? Or there are other qualities of a child which he was referring to? If we consider the purity of a child, innocence, openness, eagerness to learn and develop, humility and reverence towards what's wiser and more loving than it, we arrive at something which is in complete harmony, and is actually the prerequisite, for entering the Kingdom of Heaven and its coming to Earth.

To avoid projecting my own interpretations I choose to settle on psychological fact of no meta cognition in children. The mirror is not cleaned, it is sacrificed. The second passage you provided can be interpreted likewise.

Let's consider something more concrete in order not to be lost in generalities. The concept for the soul organs (the so called chakras) is known from the most ancient times. It has been largely lost for a long time but it's now reemerging. Unfortunately most of what we find in popular literature today (primarily New Age-like materials) is quite abstract. The organs are described as colorful blobs along the length of the body, some characteristics are given but all this remains very abstract. In the very similar way Astrology has become something utterly abstract. It's spoken about planets, constellations and their influence on soul life but there's no clear experience how exactly is this possible. (...)
Why are things like the above seen as totalitarian, demeaning, offending? Isn't it completely obvious that man's disorderly life is at the root of all suffering? He has found how to satisfy the tastes of the physical body to excess but has never cared to learn what kind of nourishment the soul and the spirit require. While man is preoccupied with his physical pleasures, his soul and spirit are deprived, hungry, thirsty, ripped apart by foreign forces.Man is not only a body with flat mind. His being is much deeper and in direct interrelation with the forces of the Cosmos. We need to get to work and refine, tune, perfect this deep structure because all problems stem from the fact that man is a slave to the unknown, contradictory and often hostile forces within his depths. If things like these are rejected, seen as offending, it's only because one still clings to the utopian dream that everything will be fine if they simply follow their desires in peace. And what have been people doing for so many thousands of years? Haven't they done exactly that - allowing free reign of their desires without any question for their origins?

Thank you for clarification. Now I understand you better. The only thing that still remains unclear is the distinction you make between "body" and "soul life". Are not body and soul life qualia in awareness ?

[Cleric K]

I would encourage you to take further note of what I said at the end of my prior post to you, as it is fairly unequivocal: 'Then you can move forward. Rather than going round in circles as is happening presently.'

What can then be legitimately considered, is that anyone on this forum, who chooses to do so, can read your amended essay which adheres to philosophical rules, principals and methods. The same rules, principals and methods that Kastrup or any other philosopher and the claims they make, adhere to. Otherwise it is a disingenuous attempt to insulate and immunise your claims from legitimate philosophical criticisms or attacks.

Please remember "What is important about a sound argument is that you have no choice but to agree with it. Sound arguments put an end to all possible debate and discussion. They are the ultimate debate-stoppers."

Naturally you are under no obligation whatsoever and if you choose to let your essay remains as is, then your essay is essentially theologically oriented and that is a different domain to rational metaphysics philosophy.

There isn't anything else than can be said without adding to yet more Argument Ad Nauseam.

I'm well aware that my essay it's only that - an essay. It's in no way a formal philosophical proof of anything. I would call it simply 'food for thought'. That's why I posted it into the 'General discussions' section of this forum and not in 'Formal Philosophical Discussions'.

What I presented in the previous post is completely independent of the essay and is exactly what you demand - clear, sound arguments, requiring no a priori agreement on axioms, only thinking and observation. I'm only asking if this argument meets your philosophical criteria.

[AshvinP]

.

Nothing is outrageous. I simply asked for clarification in case I misunderstood you.

What is difficult to digest is that it seems that you consider other people's experiences of higher order realities (which doesn't resemble anthroposophical model) as "flaws on the mirror" which need to be removed in order for an individual to properly cognize the correct model of "spiritual structure of man".

I am not saying this to gloat or claim some kind of special insight, but I find it fascinating that many of the comments here have been quintessential examples of what I was trying to highlight as the "bad habit" which needs desperately to be broken right now. It is precisely the habit of thinking the realm of mind i.e. psyche i.e. "Spirit" is some free-for-all purely "subjective" realm where any opinion goes and any claim to "objective" truth should be met with contempt. Not only is that fundamentally dualist thinking, it serves to undermine personal responsibility and support apathetic ethical relativism. What's even more fascinating is the inability of those engaging in such tactics to realize they are doing so even when it is pointed out on many different occasions in many different ways.

This is also a Psychogenic Fallacy (If you learn the psychological reason why your opponent likes/dislikes an argument, then he's biased, so his argument must be wrong. It is irrelevant.).

(Actually also Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People) Using emotionally loaded words.)

(...and also Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics) Saying an opponent must be wrong, because if he is right, then bad things would ensue.)

Bad habits/good habits do not and cannot support nor falsify arguments, they are irrelevant. Bad/good premises, faulty/valid logic and sound/unsound arguments are the only things that will do the trick.

First, I was not arguing a philosophical position, only pointing out what I genuinely find "fascinating". Second, I cannot try to "falsify" my "opponent's" argument if I have no idea what it is. No argument has even been made by my "opponent" yet.

[Apanthropinist]

I am not saying this to gloat or claim some kind of special insight, but I find it fascinating that many of the comments here have been quintessential examples of what I was trying to highlight as the "bad habit" which needs desperately to be broken right now. It is precisely the habit of thinking the realm of mind i.e. psyche i.e. "Spirit" is some free-for-all purely "subjective" realm where any opinion goes and any claim to "objective" truth should be met with contempt. Not only is that fundamentally dualist thinking, it serves to undermine personal responsibility and support apathetic ethical relativism. What's even more fascinating is the inability of those engaging in such tactics to realize they are doing so even when it is pointed out on many different occasions in many different ways.

This is also a Psychogenic Fallacy (If you learn the psychological reason why your opponent likes/dislikes an argument, then he's biased, so his argument must be wrong. It is irrelevant.).

(Actually also Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People) Using emotionally loaded words.)

(...and also Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics) Saying an opponent must be wrong, because if he is right, then bad things would ensue.)

Bad habits/good habits do not and cannot support nor falsify arguments, they are irrelevant. Bad/good premises, faulty/valid logic and sound/unsound arguments are the only things that will do the trick.

First, I was not arguing a philosophical position, only pointing out what I genuinely find "fascinating". Second, I cannot try to "falsify" my "opponent's" argument if I have no idea what it is. No argument has even been made by my "opponent" yet.

No Ashvin, you were arguing a philosophical position, here:

quintessential examples of what I was trying to highlight as the "bad habit" which needs desperately to be broken right now.

Basically you are suggesting people are doing it wrong, ie, bad habit, which is a Psychogenic Fallacy.

Second, I cannot try to "falsify" my "opponent's" argument if I have no idea what it is. No argument has even been made by my "opponent" yet.

Both of these statements are true and valid.

I was, however, talking about your argument.

Claiming that people are employing a 'bad habit' where your claim is 'It is precisely the habit of thinking the realm of mind i.e. psyche i.e. "Spirit" is some free-for-all purely "subjective" realm where any opinion goes and any claim to "objective" truth should be met with contempt.'

That is nothing else other than a philosophical position you are arguing.

[AshvinP]

This is also a Psychogenic Fallacy (If you learn the psychological reason why your opponent likes/dislikes an argument, then he's biased, so his argument must be wrong. It is irrelevant.).

(Actually also Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People) Using emotionally loaded words.)

(...and also Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics) Saying an opponent must be wrong, because if he is right, then bad things would ensue.)

Bad habits/good habits do not and cannot support nor falsify arguments, they are irrelevant. Bad/good premises, faulty/valid logic and sound/unsound arguments are the only things that will do the trick.

First, I was not arguing a philosophical position, only pointing out what I genuinely find "fascinating". Second, I cannot try to "falsify" my "opponent's" argument if I have no idea what it is. No argument has even been made by my "opponent" yet.

No Ashvin, you were arguing a philosophical position, here:

quintessential examples of what I was trying to highlight as the "bad habit" which needs desperately to be broken right now.

Basically you are suggesting people are doing it wrong, ie, bad habit, which is a Psychogenic Fallacy.

Second, I cannot try to "falsify" my "opponent's" argument if I have no idea what it is. No argument has even been made by my "opponent" yet.

Both of these statements are true and valid.

I was, however, talking about your argument.

Claiming that people are employing a 'bad habit' where your claim is 'It is precisely the habit of thinking the realm of mind i.e. psyche i.e. "Spirit" is some free-for-all purely "subjective" realm where any opinion goes and any claim to "objective" truth should be met with contempt.'

That is nothing else other than a philosophical position you are arguing.

See bolded phrase. I am arguing that the comments reflect what I was trying to highlight. Only I know what I was trying to highlight. I did not claim what I was trying to highlight is actually true.

But anyway, I am interested in what you actually think of the Cartesian (mind-matter) and Kantian (epistemic-ontic) divides, which is what I am calling "bad habits of mind" and what I am claiming many people unconsciously hold to. Perhaps you think they are perfectly valid philosophical positions to hold to? That is what I am very interested in exploring, among other things.

[Eugene I]

Claiming that people are employing a 'bad habit' where your claim is 'It is precisely the habit of thinking the realm of mind i.e. psyche i.e. "Spirit" is some free-for-all purely "subjective" realm where any opinion goes and any claim to "objective" truth should be met with contempt.'

That is nothing else other than a philosophical position you are arguing.

That is exactly the position of objective idealism: there is an "objective truth", and certain people have a privilege to know it, but those who don't or those who doubt it simply do it because the employ bad and ill thinking habits. No doubt or questioning of the universal truth is allowed, because the truthfulness of it is a given fact, so then it can only be some bad or ill habit/intention to doubt it.

I see it as epistemological fallacy of objective idealism (or at least certain versions of it).

[Eugene I]

But anyway, I am interested in what you actually think of the Cartesian (mind-matter) and Kantian (epistemic-ontic) divides, which is what I am calling "bad habits of mind" and what I am claiming many people unconsciously hold to. Perhaps you think they are perfectly valid philosophical positions to hold to? That is what I am very interested in exploring, among other things.

I mentioned before, that there are other alternative ways to close the Cartesian and Kantian divides, one of them is non-dual subjective idealism paradigm.

[AshvinP]

But anyway, I am interested in what you actually think of the Cartesian (mind-matter) and Kantian (epistemic-ontic) divides, which is what I am calling "bad habits of mind" and what I am claiming many people unconsciously hold to. Perhaps you think they are perfectly valid philosophical positions to hold to? That is what I am very interested in exploring, among other things.

I mentioned before, that there are other alternative ways to close the Cartesian and Kantian divides, one of them is non-dual subjective idealism paradigm.

Nothing I wrote is in contradiction to "non-dual subjective idealism", so you will have to specify further. I hold to "objective idealism" only in so far as I do not believe my limited ego, as I am currently experiencing it, encompasses the entirety of Reality (a view I would call "unhealthy solipsism").