Is Rovelli 'Dragooning the Human Spirit'?

[Eugene I]

PS: I assume you meant Noether's theorem. The spelling is important, because the lagrangian might behave differently in Yes-ether context.

Right, sorry, I learnt it years ago in another language

[SanteriSatama]

PS: I assume you meant Noether's theorem. The spelling is important, because the lagrangian might behave differently in Yes-ether context.

Right, sorry, I learnt it years ago in another language

Which language, if I may ask?

[ScottRoberts]

Nagarjuna said: stay on the Middle Way. That is, when confronted with some deep-seated metaphysical opposition, don't fasten on one, or the other, or both, or neither. One such opposition is relativism vs. absolutism, or the related anti-essentialism vs. essentialism.

Rovelli, and it seems Santeri, and now Jim, have fallen off the Middle Way insofar as they espouse relativism and anti-essentialism. So why do they celebrate Nagarjuna? I think this is because at the time (c. 2nd century), and until recently, most everyone could be found on the absolutist side of the Middle Way, hence most of his, and his followers, argumentation was directed against that side. But now the opposite side has become dominant, at least in philosophical circles, and so one needs argumentation from the likes of Barfield to get one back on the Middle Way.

But not just back. With Coleridge's concept of polarity, one can not only avoid the errors of falling off the Middle Way (which was the limit of Nagarjunic thinking), one can say something positive as well. One can place the polarity as the Ontological Prime and so have an ontology that is immune from Nagarjunic criticism. Further, this is not just another abstraction, because the polarity can be discerned in our every conscious act, other than which there is nothing more concrete.

[SanteriSatama]

Nagarjuna said: stay on the Middle Way. That is, when confronted with some deep-seated metaphysical opposition, don't fasten on one, or the other, or both, or neither. One such opposition is relativism vs. absolutism, or the related anti-essentialism vs. essentialism.

Rovelli, and it seems Santeri, and now Jim, have fallen off the Middle Way insofar as they espouse relativism and anti-essentialism. So why do they celebrate Nagarjuna? I think this is because at the time (c. 2nd century), and until recently, most everyone could be found on the absolutist side of the Middle Way, hence most of his, and his followers, argumentation was directed against that side. But now the opposite side has become dominant, at least in philosophical circles, and so one needs argumentation from the likes of Barfield to get one back on the Middle Way.

But not just back. With Coleridge's concept of polarity, one can not only avoid the errors of falling off the Middle Way (which was the limit of Nagarjunic thinking), one can say something positive as well. One can place the polarity as the Ontological Prime and so have an ontology that is immune from Nagarjunic criticism. Further, this is not just another abstraction, because the polarity can be discerned in our every conscious act, other than which there is nothing more concrete.

Madhyamaka is the Middle Way to avoid the extremes of essentialism and nihilism.

A positive way to express Middle Way as a way of Heart is the Lakota prayer Mitakuye Oyasin.

[AshvinP]

Just to correct factual misconception of physicalist theories. 1st law of thermodynamics is violated by vacuum energy fluctuation, virtual particles and whatever you call them. CPT symmetry means, roughly speaking, that the sum of positive and negative energy is zero.

Of course the energy concept of physicalism is just a speculative variety of abstract math.

Right, the energy conservation law is simply a mathematical abstract property that is invariant with respect to temporal transformations (and, based on the Netter's theorem, is a simple consequence of the temporal symmetry of the base physical equations). Eternalism is a philosophical premise that assumes that the invariants (of physical or mathematical theories, or of our inner experiences) represent some existing "eternal entities or essences". It works in a similar way in math, physics and in psychology. We observe a certain abstract invariant in our stream of consciousness - the sense of self - and imagine that it represents some eternally and separately/independently existing "self"-entity.

Apparently, eternalism is not only a Western and a recent phenomenon based on the fact that Buddha was arguing against exactly that in India 2500 yrs ago.

You guys are right about the energy conservation law, but in the exact opposite way than what you think. Here is a very helpful hint for those who approach these things with an open mind - if some way of thinking was derived in the modern age, you can probably assume the exact opposite formulation is true. If someone says material processes give rise to mental processes, flip it around for the truth. If someone says the individual plant is more real than the archetypal plant, flip it. If someone says that "energy" actually disappears from the Universe as things pass away never to come back, flip it. As old energy dies, new energy is reborn and there is always more energy infusing the Cosmos than there was before, as it flows from eternal spiritual realm into transient physical realm in the course of the latter's metamorphic development. That is what allows for true novelty in the Cosmos.

Eugene, do you realize that by denying "eternalism" you are also denying polar essences? Eternality is one of the fundamental poles! You really have the toughest time with these things. The "polarity" formulation is used because it should be very easy for anyone to grasp, even those without much philosophical background knowledge, but somehow you always end up denying it right after affirming it. Same goes for the fundamental nature of ideating (Thinking) activity in the Tri-Unity of OP, or "quaternity" if you insist on adding "E" for some unknown reason. The "E" is implicit in W, F, and T - obviously all of those activities include experiencing. But if that makes it easier for you, then by all means add the "E". I think you will find, however, when you investigate these essences further, the extraneous "E" will become a stumbling block to any real understanding of them. The threefoldness of W-F-T, body-soul-spirit, etc. is extremely important to recognize when approaching higher knowledge.

Another thing that must be flipped - when someone says their philosophical outlook is combatting abstraction of modernity, then there is a good chance that their outlook is the most abstract of them all. That is pretty clear from SS, as his ontological math arguments can barely be understood, and Eugene, you are now showing that as well in the bolded assertion. You are taking the immanent "sense of self", which no reasonable person can deny, and then denying it based on your own abstract conception of "self" as a "separate/independently existing" entity. Who introduced that conception into the discussion? You did! These sorts of wild maneuvers only became possible in the modern age. Therefore, you are completely wrong to assert Buddha was "arguing exactly against that" [eternality].

To understand the Buddha and the Christ beings and their teachings, we must put some serious effort into studying all the ancient mysteries and their metamorphic progression through the epochs prior to them (Indian, Persian, Egyptian, Greco-Roman). That is pretty easy to do with modern technology, but I am also in the process of writing some essays on that topic. These understandings will not come through mystical experience. Otherwise, we could just wait and pray for people to ingest enough psychedelics to attain them and reunite the world in peace and harmony. But we intuitively know that won't happen... it won't happen any more than people can meditate or trip their way into a medical degree. We want that to be true because it relieves us of so much responsibility when confronting the metaphysical and spiritual, but everyone knows subconsciously that such things are pure fantasy. Nothing good comes easy.

[Eugene I]

"Self is an activity, but not an entity" (Rupert Spira). It has no inherent existence
But there is definitely a sense of self reflecting this semi-autonomous thinking activity within the every alter's field of experience, and there is nothing wrong with that. But the "immanence" of this sense is rather relative (just like of any other sense), one can fairly easily dissolve it in meditative practice.

[AshvinP]

"Self is an activity, but not an entity" (Rupert Spira). It has no inherent existence
But there is definitely a sense of self reflecting this semi-autonomous thinking activity within the every alter's field of experience, and there is nothing wrong with that. But the "immanence" of this sense is rather relative (just like of any other sense), one can fairly easily dissolve it in meditative practice.

Well, I am not going to try convince you anymore. Everything which can be said to you has been said. You don't seem to realize you are denying polar essence of experience and ontic essence of Thinking, despite superficially affirming them both too many times to even count anymore. Even if you dont like calling it "essence", you are also denying the most important meanings of these things. So, to be frank, I feel it is best if I just use your comments as examples of why these views are dangerous.

It has a bunch of abstract equivocations which amount to, "our thinking and meaning is personal to each alter, and our sense of self is illusory". It is a combination of the worst aspects of mysticism, materialism, and associated naive realism. I have already explained how all three of those things apply earlier in the thread and can clarify again for anyone who needs it. They are dangerous because they give us the entirely unwarranted impression that we have reached full resolution on matters of the Spirit.

It stymies us in our track of spiritual development many thousands of years (or in all eternity) prematurely. Even non spiritual people can substitute "human development" and get the same result. True process philosophy and spirituality does not result in such an immediately Self-defeating outcome in such a hypocritical way. It does not prioritize personal preference and temperament over objective study of human and cosmic nature. There are infinitely more secrets to be revealed, but we will not find a single one of them by adopting this nihilistic anti-essentialist approach.

[Eugene I]

The self does exist, but it's a process of relational spiritual activity, and not an inherently/eternally existing entity.
Both shared and personal meanings do exist, but they are forms of relational spiritual activity, and not inherently/eternally existing entities.
Very simple.

The question whether the meanings are "ontic" or not "ontic" sound meaningless to me. If everything is "ontic" and nothing is not "ontic", then what does the term "ontic" actually mean?

[AshvinP]

The self does exist, but it's a process of relational spiritual activity, and not an inherently/eternally existing entity.
Both shared and personal meanings do exist, but they are forms of relational spiritual activity, and not inherently/eternally existing entities.
Very simple.

The question whether the meanings are "ontic" or not "ontic" sound meaningless to me. If everything is "ontic" and nothing is not "ontic", then what does the term "ontic" actually mean?

There is nothing about relational spiritual activity which requires us to deny inherence and eternality. In fact, as has been explained now by BK (via response to Rovelli), Scott, and myself several times on this thread alone, there can be no relational activity without that which Grounds the relations. That is what Nagarjuna's "middle way" speaks to; that is what the essential "polarity" also speaks to, which we can verify in our own Thinking experience (there is always eternal formless 'that which Thinks' and impermanent thought-forms), as Scott said. The only reason to deny inherence and eternality to the "Self" and "meaning" is to make it seem like they are personal and ephemeral qualities which disappear at death. Otherwise, we would admit they must be inherent and eternal if we are to have any sort of consistent idealism (as opposed to dualism) which also accounts for our immanent experience.

[SanteriSatama]

there can be no relational activity without that which Grounds the relations.

A ground or context is a relation among other relations. Whole and part are relations, and it does not follow from that relation that whole is eternal with inherent existence.

That is what Nagarjuna's "middle way" speaks to; that is what the essential "polarity" also speaks to, which we can verify in our own Thinking experience (there is always eternal formless 'that which Thinks' and impermanent thought-forms), as Scott said. The only reason to deny inherence and eternality to the "Self" and "meaning" is to make it seem like they are personal and ephemeral qualities which disappear at death.

You can't speak for others from your current position, so please say "I" instead of "we". When people say "we must", that is very often a projection attempt from self-truth "I need to" trying to escape and deny it's own local self-responsiblitity by bullshit narratives of purely abstract, theoretical and "essentialist" collectivizing. As Vervaeke says, we can't lie to ourselves, but we can bullshit to try to make truth as such meaningless. It can be a very good practice to non-judgementally observe a projection of the type "others should" as my evasive and often also abusive bullshit narrative of the intuitive truth of what I for my part need to learn and do.

Relationism of Pyrrhonism and Madhyamaka is profoundly and inherently participatory ontology. It's the essentialism of inherent existence of things which makes the illusion of separation possible in the first place and then perpetuates it, relationism with actual empirical insights liberates from the abstract spatial ideologies of egoism and essentialism to Cosmic Participation and ethical progress with high resolution of pragmatic philosophy and compassion.

In this sense of cosmic participation, relationism is coherent with Barfield's philosophy, except of course for the extremely poor choice of words of "final participation" with its direct connotation with "final solution".