Is Rovelli 'Dragooning the Human Spirit'?

[AshvinP]

I have one question that always puzzles and mystifies me - why and how Consciousness exists?

Insofar as it is causeless, and thus can't not exist, it seems rather a moot point. What I'm more mystified by is WTF (pun intended) integral, participating role does the apparency of this subjectified, ideating, locus of it play in manifesting meaning—which I feel is what Ashvin is getting at here ...

So do you think there is any means of taking those experiences and begin penetrating into the Reality itself, and, if so, what specific question could we start exploring in that regard?

I am genuinely asking the question. I want to move beyond our (Eugene and I) typical discussion of "what is nature of the OP, WFT, WFTE, WFTEXYZ?"to another more specified and potentially productive question. For ex, I have asked, "what is the relationship between musical melody, harmony, and the spiritual (noumenal) realm?" Clearly most idealist philosophers have recognized deep connection between music and noumenal realm. In general, my essays are ways for myself to explore those questions as I write them. Now, the fact that I have my suspicions about where the question will lead if answered squarely, and how it will highlight the differences in our respective approaches, and perhaps also show WTF triune WFT is best way to conceive the OP in the participatory process, does not make it any less genuine

[Jim Cross]

I think I see now the answer to a question I have occasionally posed.

Why is everything not simply a blob of mind? How would the mind at large, if that is what everything is fundamentally, be able to create the multitude of objects and things we seem to experience and see around us.

Nagarjuna's answer is that it can't. Nothing can come into being from one eternal essence.

[AshvinP]

I think I see now the answer to a question I have occasionally posed.

Why is everything not simply a blob of mind? How would the mind at large, if that is what everything is fundamentally, be able to create the multitude of objects and things we seem to experience and see around us.

Nagarjuna's answer is that it can't. Nothing can come into being from one eternal essence.

If you stop thinking of the world as made of "things", and only processes, then the answer is more obvious and satisfying. It is in the very essence of process to differentiate and unify in a rhythmic fashion. That is how we experience our own mental essence in every moment, as we observe and contemplate the world around us. No dualism of mind and matter (or any other "substance") is needed, and in fact the interaction problem makes it even harder to envision how two separate essences give rise to ever-changing phenomenon.

[Jim Cross]

I think I see now the answer to a question I have occasionally posed.

Why is everything not simply a blob of mind? How would the mind at large, if that is what everything is fundamentally, be able to create the multitude of objects and things we seem to experience and see around us.

Nagarjuna's answer is that it can't. Nothing can come into being from one eternal essence.

If you stop thinking of the world as made of "things", and only processes, then the answer is more obvious and satisfying. It is in the very essence of process to differentiate and unify in a rhythmic fashion. That is how we experience our own mental essence in every moment, as we observe and contemplate the world around us. No dualism of mind and matter (or any other "substance") is needed, and in fact the interaction problem makes it even harder to envision how two separate essences give rise to ever-changing phenomenon.

Same applies to processes. An eternal essence can't create any thing or any process. It can't cause things to change in time.

What's more processes are not eternal. They have beginnings and ends. So no soul.

[Eugene I]

Insofar as it is causeless, and thus can't not exist, it seems rather a moot point. What I'm more mystified by is WTF (pun intended) integral, participating role does the apparency of this subjectified, ideating, locus of it play in manifesting meaning—which I feel is what Ashvin is getting at here ...

So do you think there is any means of taking those experiences and begin penetrating into the Reality itself, and, if so, what specific question could we start exploring in that regard?

Well, I think we had a certain disagreement with Ashvin and Co on this subject regarding the view on the dissociation. Where is the evolution of Consciousness heading? What was a purpose of dissociation (if it was indeed premeditated and purposeful) and whether it is something to be overcome to end up in a re-integration, or whether it is an authentic and natural way in which Consciousness evolves and explores the endless Universe of forms?

Granted, as alters, we feel fragmented, disconnected, lonely, and we long for integration. But is it really something we are heading to? Could it be that what Consciousness is doing is exploring the endless Universe of forms, and in order to do that, it has to "shape" itself into a variety of living forms and to experience the world of forms from a variety of different perspectives, something that it could never do within the singular integrated/non-dissociated state?

[AshvinP]

I think I see now the answer to a question I have occasionally posed.

Why is everything not simply a blob of mind? How would the mind at large, if that is what everything is fundamentally, be able to create the multitude of objects and things we seem to experience and see around us.

Nagarjuna's answer is that it can't. Nothing can come into being from one eternal essence.

If you stop thinking of the world as made of "things", and only processes, then the answer is more obvious and satisfying. It is in the very essence of process to differentiate and unify in a rhythmic fashion. That is how we experience our own mental essence in every moment, as we observe and contemplate the world around us. No dualism of mind and matter (or any other "substance") is needed, and in fact the interaction problem makes it even harder to envision how two separate essences give rise to ever-changing phenomenon.

Same applies to processes. An eternal essence can't create any thing or any process. It can't cause things to change in time.

What's more processes are not eternal. They have beginnings and ends. So no soul.

Your processes of willing, feeling, thinking, also imaged in your blood circulation, heart beating, and in-and-out breathing, this very moment, which all interpenetrate and evolve and feedback into each other, disproves your assertions written above. You would not be able to write those assertions if those differentiating and unifying processes were not always occurring. We should not elevate our own mental abstractions above that which is Self-evident in our immanent experience. When did your physiological processes begin and end? You will have to use some completely arbitrary cutoff to answer that question.

[SanteriSatama]

Gnostics were not dualist, as they lived far before dualism became a philosophical possibility.

Dualism of God vs. World, dualism of spiritual truth vs. phenomenal illusion. Plato's cave vs. light outside of cave. There are many versions of these Matrix-type dualisms.

"An object to be penetrated" is a linguistic thought with some kind of dualistic/polar grounding. Prudish JP tore his pants because Derrida invented the word "phallogocentrism". But it is worth paying attention to such expressions and investigate their modes and origins. Does the expression originate from your true character and intention, or from some more superficial force of habit? This is a genuine question which could be very important to find your own answer to, not a moral judgement from my part.

The world I experience right now is filled with living beings, human ones who are social, and also is objectively shared by all those beings, with objectively shared meanings, and can be objectively investigated (including our participatory role in it). I see no reason to assume that the spiritual is fundamentally different in that regard, and that of course is the core of dualism - mental and material are essentially two realms with two different essential features and two different means of investigation, or lack of investigation for the mental-spiritual.

By "objectively" I assume you mean "inter-subjectively"?

With that answer you might, perhaps, also agree that it is possible that you would not be the first and only to investigate mental-spiritual?

[AshvinP]

If you stop thinking of the world as made of "things", and only processes, then the answer is more obvious and satisfying. It is in the very essence of process to differentiate and unify in a rhythmic fashion. That is how we experience our own mental essence in every moment, as we observe and contemplate the world around us. No dualism of mind and matter (or any other "substance") is needed, and in fact the interaction problem makes it even harder to envision how two separate essences give rise to ever-changing phenomenon.

I think I see now the answer to a question I have occasionally posed.

Why is everything not simply a blob of mind? How would the mind at large, if that is what everything is fundamentally, be able to create the multitude of objects and things we seem to experience and see around us.

Nagarjuna's answer is that it can't. Nothing can come into being from one eternal essence.
...
Same applies to processes. An eternal essence can't create any thing or any process. It can't cause things to change in time.

What's more processes are not eternal. They have beginnings and ends. So no soul.

Your processes of willing, feeling, thinking, also imaged in your blood circulation, heart beating, and in-and-out breathing, this very moment, which all interpenetrate and evolve and feedback into each other, disproves your assertions written above. You would not be able to write those assertions if those differentiating and unifying processes were not always occurring. We should not elevate our own mental abstractions above that which is Self-evident in our immanent experience. When did your physiological processes begin and end? You will have to use some completely arbitrary cutoff to answer that question.

Also, bolded assertion is quintessential example of the dogmatic anti-essentialist position (truth of pun intended). "I have reflected abstractly on a proposition or experience, so I now see the answer to the most fundamental questions of existence." This is direct path to nihilism, as a species who has stopped asking fundamental questions has nowhere to go but extinct. I hope, rather naively, that SS and Eugene also see the relation between their position and yours - "I have had mystical experiences and reflected on them abstractly, so now I know there cannot be eternal essence and all riddles of the Cosmos have been solved." I know they will deny any such feelings until the cows come home, but in the meantime I am still waiting on an answer to my question posed to Eugene. What next?

[Soul_of_Shu]

So it is no-thing.

That, of course, means no self or soul exists.

Things in fact lack essence, according to Nagarjuna, they have no fixed nature, and indeed it is only because of this lack of essential, immutable being that change is possible, that one thing can transform into another. Each thing can only have its existence through its lack (sunyata) of inherent, eternal essence.

A self or soul seems more idea construction, but then under idealism what isn't? I prefer not to fill in the "__" with the term Self—as the Ramana school teaches. This take on śūnyatā is that it refers to no-thingness, rather than some nihilistic notion of utter nothingness, and whatever Nagarjuna is nagging on about, it is surely not such a notion. In any case, whatever this no-thingness process is, please point out its point of origin.

[AshvinP]

Gnostics were not dualist, as they lived far before dualism became a philosophical possibility.

Dualism of God vs. World, dualism of spiritual truth vs. phenomenal illusion. Plato's cave vs. light outside of cave. There are many versions of these Matrix-type dualisms.

"An object to be penetrated" is a linguistic thought with some kind of dualistic/polar grounding. Prudish JP tore his pants because Derrida invented the word "phallogocentrism". But it is worth paying attention to such expressions and investigate their modes and origins. Does the expression originate from your true character and intention, or from some more superficial force of habit? This is a genuine question which could be very important to find your own answer to, not a moral judgement from my part.

There is a major difference between dualism and distinction/polarity. Scott, Cleric and myself have explained this difference too many times to count (with integers or non-rational numbers alike) anymore. Distinction between noumenal-phenomenal, spiritual-physical, mental-material, etc. are so self-evident to any philosophical mind they cannot possibly be argued against. The purpose of the distinction is precisely to figure out how they arise and how they may lead back to unification. And the latter is precisely through "penetration" - yes, the physical act of love-making is a symbol for the love expressed when we take a deep, passionate, and loving interest in the eternal Cosmic Soul and seek to give birth to a new Unity from within her. You may see the fact that the eternal Soul is always symbolized as feminine as some sort of pathology like Derrida, but I see it as the consequence of unified Wisdom passed down to all cultures through the ages and epochs.

The world I experience right now is filled with living beings, human ones who are social, and also is objectively shared by all those beings, with objectively shared meanings, and can be objectively investigated (including our participatory role in it). I see no reason to assume that the spiritual is fundamentally different in that regard, and that of course is the core of dualism - mental and material are essentially two realms with two different essential features and two different means of investigation, or lack of investigation for the mental-spiritual.

By "objectively" I assume you mean "inter-subjectively"?

With that answer you might, perhaps, also agree that it is possible that you would not be the first and only to investigate mental-spiritual?

I mean in a systematic manner that is valid for all. A manner that makes us realize that we are actually progressing towards true knowledge instead of endless "inter-subjective" opinions according to whatever we feel is most appropriate at any given time on any given day. Of course I am not the first and only - my entire worldview is based on countless others who already treaded this path of systematic knowledge before me so that I may discover it for myself from within myself.