Bernardo's latest essay

[Cleric]

"Counting"of hands?

Feeling hungry and eating until not feeling hungry. Growing until it's time to be born. Etc.

Ok. We're talking about different things. I have something fairly simple in mind. I'm just saying that I haven't seen a child that has learned the numbers by quantifying its sense of hunger, instead of counting its hands or toys.

[DandelionSoul]

Sure, there can absolutely be a medium with a separate substance from what travels through it. But BK (in Why Materialism Is Baloney, chapter 6) posits the "medium" as pure awareness, as void, which only actually exists once it has experiences and then only consists of those experiences. His medium of mind is not a substance in any meaningful way. It's an emptiness. I'm not sure if you're saying a medium can be such as he described it and also have existence independent of the experiences themselves -- if you are, could you elaborate a little on that?

First we need to make a distinction between sensual (feeling) and metacognitive (thinking) awareness. By latest anedcotal evidence from a NDE we exist in a sensual Goddess of Love and deep emotional curiosity to explore love in all forms, as her internal drama of costumes and materializations for sensual touch etc etc. According to the NDE narrative, She is not "really consciouss", apparently referring to metacognitive self-narration. In that sense we could call here Pure Will and Feel, the Source.

Experience of Void seems purely metacognitive tripping, only "emotion" possibly but not necessarily present or linked some existential horror. Somehow our metacognitive capacity and creative intelligence is also able to visit beyond Her.

The Void-kenoma is not any absolute, it's just a metacognitive dialectic, which allows Will and Feel to explore and satisfy curiosity internally in relative isolation from other Wills.

Hence, the metacognitive dialectic and it's antidialectic synthesis entails also the possibility to become the medium-pleroma that fills the void and allows Wills to feel each other directly and communicate p2p also on metacognitive level.

In Gnostic-Hermetic cosmology She could correspond with Sofia, and the ethical choice to become pleroma, the impartially meaning carrying medium that fills the Void of incommunicado, with Hermes Trismegistos.

All in wonderfully complex and dynamic holofractal of perspectival multinatures and multicosmologies...

There is a whole lot going on in this post and I can't follow most of it. I've been chewing on it a while and I just can't get my head around the procession from Goddess-Pleroma-Will through to isolated wills and the Pleroma-transcending Void and then to the choice to fill the void as Pleroma. I'm not terribly familiar with Hermetic cosmology, which you seem to be drawing on, so maybe that's my shortcoming here? I'm also unfamiliar with the term "holofractal," but I'll Google that and see what I come up with. In any case, thank you for a thoughtful reply, and I hope I'm able to unpack these thoughts with you a little more.

[SanteriSatama]

The imagined idea of "only one idea as big as the Cosmos" is as said an imaginary idea, which aspectually contains also the idea of separation, in the perfective aspect of the idea of the Whole. It's not empirical necessity, we can experience also without being possessed by that idea.

Here again 'idea' is being misunderstood as something which is added to pure experience and obscures its pristine qualities. You say "we can experience also without being possessed by that idea". This precisely implies that some idea is being forcefully carried as unnecessary appendage (which is of course possible). I'm not speaking of this at all. The thing is that when you 'experience without being possessed by the idea' you still have fundamental knowing that there's concrete experience. This knowing can be meaningful. I'm speaking about this inseparable meaningful attribute of consciousness which permeates it through and through. It is for this meaningful essence that I say is as big as the Cosmos. If you take that essence away you're left with the buzzing confusion (which is still some kind of knowing, although completely nebulous, indeterminate and inexplicable. In other words you can never completely remove the meaningful essence away and still have awareness).

I don't know why there's such resistance to grasp the simple fact that this meaningful and inseparable essence of conscious existence is called Ideal in Western thought. There's always the desire to thrust any meaningful essence down into 'mere concepts' and the other is elevated in some inexplicable and unapproachable through conscious spiritual activity, mysterious knowing that doesn't share anything with the Ideal.

For me "ideal" has primary connotation with Plato's study of Forms. Though I highly agree with the treatise of Great Kinds in Sophist, I depart from Plato when he says nouns are primary to verbs, and with his general obsession of eternalism. And what is Western though? "Margin comments to Plato" says a popular book on history of philosophy. The Greek word 'idea' is of the same root as Latin 'video', so the core meaning is something like 'mental image', which is a more or less static object in the verb flow of fenomenally present thinking (instead of abstracted and objectified Idea of Thinking).

"Misunderstanding" suggests that "correct understanding" could be possible at least in principle, if not in practice. What we have here is languages talking with each other, dance of linguistic perspectives and their connotations "pointing towards" or "referring" to, or intuiting, ideating, narrating etc. something that is supposed to be something universally shared and common to all. Some THING, as we can't avoid saying in English limitations.

We could also turn the question this way round: What is more important, to keep on pushing the word-concept ideal with all it's historical weight and connotatations, or focus communicative attention more to a (the???) meaning-itself, which is trying express itself through you and these discussions?

[Eugene I]

I don't know why there's such resistance to grasp the simple fact that this meaningful and inseparable essence of conscious existence is called Ideal in Western thought. There's always the desire to thrust any meaningful essence down into 'mere concepts' and the other is elevated in some inexplicable and unapproachable through conscious spiritual activity, mysterious knowing that doesn't share anything with the Ideal.

I agreed many times that the Ideal is inseparable (and meaningful). But inseparable from what? From the fomlessness aspect which by itself is not an Ideal (not "Ideal") but Experiential in its essence. The nature of Consciousness is inseparable unity of Ideal and Experiential. Ideal can not be entirely reduced to Experiential only, but likewise Experiential cannot be entirely reduce to Ideal only. But in your philosophy the wholeness of Reality is entirely reduced to Ideal, and this is what I and Santeri and many others resist.

And by the way, quoting Scott (from out private messaging):

I'm working on a clarification of what I mean by 'mumorphism', but this may take a while. Meanwhile, to answer your first question, for ontological purposes, I regard 'form' and 'ideal content' as synonymous, and 'idea' as synonymous with 'thing'.

As for your second question, no, formlessness is not an idea, but 'formlessness' is. That is, it is a concept used in expressing an ontology, but I consider it problematic to say "there is formlessness". It is this problem that I am trying to work out.

Here Scott makes a distinction between Formlessness as such (as an aspect of Reality), which is not an idea, and "formlessness" as a concept (reflection, idea) used in expressing an ontology (by Thinking). But if Formlessness is not an idea, then how would Thinking ever know about it? Would not it then be a Kantian "thing in itself" inaccessible to Thinking? No, because Formlessness is Conscious Experiencing by its nature, and that is what makes it knowable to Thinking.

[SanteriSatama]

"Counting"of hands?

Feeling hungry and eating until not feeling hungry. Growing until it's time to be born. Etc.

Ok. We're talking about different things. I have something fairly simple in mind. I'm just saying that I haven't seen a child that has learned the numbers by quantifying its sense of hunger, instead of counting its hands or toys.

I would say phenomenal continua are more simple than metaphysical postulation of counting numbers, ie. Existential quantification in fancy philosophy jargon. And attempt to make sense of natural continua from existential quantification becomes way too complex.

We learn counting numbers by being exposed to language where counting numbers are a thing. Children e.g. in Piraha tribe don't learn counting numbers, because in that language and perspective numbers are not a thing or a relation worth learning, thinking and making part of life.

[Cleric]

We could also turn the question this way round: What is more important, to keep on pushing the word-concept ideal with all it's historical weight and connotatations, or focus communicative attention more to a (the???) meaning-itself, which is trying express itself through you and these discussions?

This is what I strive for with all my strength. Yet to have proper communication we need some agreement on what meaning each one of us incarnates in every verbal, written or digitally typed word.

The meaning that I imply in the term 'idea' goes very deep and is not at all equivalent to 'noun'. I have barely any detailed knowledge of Platonism so I can't tell if what I say is just a commentary on Plato. I simply speak in attempt to describe inner experiences. When I speak of 'idea' it's because it's the simplest 'household' word that seems to capture the essential characteristics of what I try to describe.

Let's consider the idea of metamorphosis. Is metamorphosis a noun? I don't even think about it in this way, I'm not interested in the linguistic function of the word. When I contemplate a butterfly emerging from the cocoon I experience the living idea of metamorphosis. When I contemplate how my inner state has transformed from the time of my previous post until now, I again experience the idea of metamorphosis (of my inner state). You see, for me Idea is an intimate reality which elucidates the experience with meaning. And this meaning is not only passive and local comprehension of the World Content. The idea-meaning can be a motive for my spiritual activity. Is this a noun? This question simply doesn't make sense when we're dealing with realities, it only exists when we make linguistic analysis. Every keystroke as I write this is like a small organ of the living idea that I want to express. Everything around us begins to make sense only when it is complemented with ideas that various beings have incarnated. And it is here that the greatest obstacle is. Our intellect deals only with dead concepts. It's extraordinarily difficult for modern man to envision that life, for example, is an active idea that the Spirit wills continuously. What I find as factual idea of metamorphosis when I contemplate the butterfly, for another being is active expression of its ideating spiritual activity, just as my thoughts are active expressions of my ideating thinking activity. I understand the metamorphosis of the butterfly in the deepest sense when I merge with the perspective of that being and experience its ideating activity as if it happens through me.

[SanteriSatama]

We could also turn the question this way round: What is more important, to keep on pushing the word-concept ideal with all it's historical weight and connotatations, or focus communicative attention more to a (the???) meaning-itself, which is trying express itself through you and these discussions?

This is what I strive for with all my strength. Yet to have proper communication we need some agreement on what meaning each one of us incarnates in every verbal, written or digitally typed word.

The meaning that I imply in the term 'idea' goes very deep and is not at all equivalent to 'noun'. I have barely any detailed knowledge of Platonism so I can't tell if what I say is just a commentary on Plato. I simply speak in attempt to describe inner experiences. When I speak of 'idea' it's because it's the simplest 'household' word that seems to capture the essential characteristics of what I try to describe.

Let's consider the idea of metamorphosis. Is metamorphosis a noun? I don't even think about it in this way, I'm not interested in the linguistic function of the word. When I contemplate a butterfly emerging from the cocoon I experience the living idea of metamorphosis. When I contemplate how my inner state has transformed from the time of my previous post until now, I again experience the idea of metamorphosis (of my inner state). You see, for me Idea is an intimate reality which elucidates the experience with meaning. And this meaning is not only passive and local comprehension of the World Content. The idea-meaning can be a motive for my spiritual activity. Is this a noun? This question simply doesn't make sense when we're dealing with realities, it only exists when we make linguistic analysis. Every keystroke as I write this is like a small organ of the living idea that I want to express. Everything around us begins to make sense only when it is complemented with ideas that various beings have incarnated. And it is here that the greatest obstacle is. Our intellect deals only with dead concepts. It's extraordinarily difficult for modern man to envision that life, for example, is an active idea that the Spirit wills continuously. What I find as factual idea of metamorphosis when I contemplate the butterfly, for another being is active expression of its ideating spiritual activity, just as my thoughts are active expressions of my ideating thinking activity. I understand the metamorphosis of the butterfly in the deepest sense when I merge with the perspective of that being and experience its ideating activity as if it happens through me.

If the meaning of 'idea' speaks both the relation of whole and part and the active and creative participation of a part in the whole, as well as the continuous transformation of these interrelations, then we come close to the meaning I've technically named as 'dynamic holography'.

And the idea of dynamic holography is not just abstact ontology. Experientally it's also scary as hell, more beautiful than anything else, and also a passionate math puzzle. <3

[Eugene I]

The Reality of Consciousness in its essence is both Ideal and Experiential (form and formless) inseparably and simultaneously. There is no such thing as pure-Ideal without Experiential, neither there is pure-Experiential without Ideal.

[AshvinP]

And by the way, quoting Scott (from out private messaging):

I'm working on a clarification of what I mean by 'mumorphism', but this may take a while. Meanwhile, to answer your first question, for ontological purposes, I regard 'form' and 'ideal content' as synonymous, and 'idea' as synonymous with 'thing'.

As for your second question, no, formlessness is not an idea, but 'formlessness' is. That is, it is a concept used in expressing an ontology, but I consider it problematic to say "there is formlessness". It is this problem that I am trying to work out.

Here Scott makes a distinction between Formlessness as such (as an aspect of Reality), which is not an idea, and "formlessness" as a concept (reflection, idea) used in expressing an ontology (by Thinking). But if Formlessness is not an idea, then how would Thinking ever know about it? Would not it then be a Kantian "thing in itself" inaccessible to Thinking? No, because Formlessness is Conscious Experiencing by its nature, and that is what makes it knowable to Thinking.

Eugene... it's not like Scott has not already written about these things. It sounds like he is working on a follow up to clarify, but until that is posted we can refer to what he has already written:

https://sites.google.com/site/nondualis ... authuser=0

The word 'mumorphism', modeled after the Aristotelian word 'hylomorphism', is a compound of 'mu' -- Japanese for 'not', or 'no', or 'nothingness', but here, taking some liberty, to be understood as 'formlessness' -- and 'morphe', Greek for 'form'.

It is shorthand for

"Formlessness is not other than form, form is not other than formlessness" (Heart Sutra)
...
"Two forces of one power, expanding life and confining form" (Coleridge)
...
As a philosophy of mind, mumorphism is the claim that all mental activity is mumorphic. Take thinking. Thinking is not just thoughts (each of which has form), that is, the set of thoughts is just another thought. Rather it is what moves from one thought to another, unifying one concept with the next, which (if the thinking is original) changes the concepts. On the other hand, without the confining force of concepts, one would just have meaningless drivel. Thinking, then, in Coleridge's words, is a case of two forces of one power, which act against each other as they constitute the other.

So both the formless and formative forces are expressed in spiritual activity of Thinking. A separate activity does not need to be added to Thinking for both forces to be expressed (even if, in Reality, there are more activities such as Willing and Feeling). Can you at least acknowledge that?

[Eugene I]

So both the formless and formative forces are expressed in spiritual activity of Thinking. A separate activity does not need to be added to Thinking for both forces to be expressed (even if, in Reality, there are more activities such as Willing and Feeling). Can you at least acknowledge that?

Yes, as I said before, I'm fine with defining Thinking in a broader sense that includes both aspects/powers of formless and formative (and so there is nothing that would need to be added to Thinking). In that sense "Thinking" would be synonymous with "Consciousness". What I am questioning is the reduction of the wholeness of Consciousness to only "one force" - to the ideal content only, disregarding the formless/formative "force". And another important point is: the formative/formless "force" (I call it "aspect" but whatever) is not only the force that "moves from one thought to another", but also that consciously Experiences/Knows each thought/form/idea. The key thing is that the formative force/aspect it not an idea or form, but that which "moves from one thought to another" (volitional aspect) and that which Experiences every ideal form. Ideas/forms by themselves do not have any free will/volition and any ability to Experience. Its the formless/formative force that volitionally moves the ideas and experiences them and "gules" them all together into Oneness. Yet, the formative force never exists in a "pure state" apart from or in the absence of any forms/ideas.