Metaphysics - Idealism without woo-woo

[Eugene I]

Ok, that is an important aspect that may be a weakness in my presentation. Where is the "I" that has the experience ? Is it a part of the experience turned "inwards" and therefore inexperienceable (is that a word?). I am aware of it and I really have a hard time figuring that one out.. The "I" in the cogito so to say ... I would hate to have to go dualist

The "I" for us is always a meaning of a thought and an inference. We can never prove or disprove logically or experientially that such "thing" as "I" exists. In a way, the "I" is similar to "God" or "matter" - all of those are metaphysical inferences, even though they might be unconscious. The only thing we know for certain is the presence of consciously experienced phenomena (thoughts, perceptions), but we do not know whether there is such thing as the "experiencer"-"I" of these phenomena.

[Mandibil]

Ok, that is an important aspect that may be a weakness in my presentation. Where is the "I" that has the experience ? Is it a part of the experience turned "inwards" and therefore inexperienceable (is that a word?). I am aware of it and I really have a hard time figuring that one out.. The "I" in the cogito so to say ... I would hate to have to go dualist

The "I" for us is always a meaning of a thought and an inference. We can never prove or disprove logically or experientially that such "thing" as "I" exists. In a way, the "I" is similar to "God" or "matter" - all of those are metaphysical inferences, even though they might be unconscious. The only thing we know for certain is the presence of consciously experienced phenomena (thoughts, perceptions), but we do not know whether there is such thing as the "experiencer"-"I" of these phenomena.

Is that not basically a determinist position ? The "I" must "interact" with the experience in some way or am I out of bounds here ?

[Cleric K]

The "I" is the thing that sees but is never seen. Common analogy is "just as the eye sees but can never see itself" (assuming no mirrors).

The thoughts that we ourselves produce (for example the words of the voice in our head), when consciously observed, are the only thing within consciousness for which we know the cause. Because we ourselves are the cause! Every other perception can, so to speak, surprise us with its presence. A color, a sound, a smell enters our awareness and then we start to think about it and speculate why and from where it comes. All this is different when we observe our own thinking. There we experience ourselves as the cause. We don't know what we are but we most certainly feel as the causative spiritual activity, responsible for the words of our voice, that we hear in our head. This causative feeling is not something that we perceive externally. It is invisible awareness that we are something that is active, that thinks. As far as this awareness tries to objectify its own existence, it can produce the sound "I". But we must be clear that in this act, the real "I" again remains invisible. It only tries to mirror its existence in its thoughts, tries to build a model of itself.

[Cleric K]

That's why thinking (as far as we are cognitive beings) is primary. Because even the word "I" is already a product of thinking. As soon as we produce "I", we create the split in the World. We oppose this "I" to everything else, that now becomes not-I. These splits come in many forms: subject/object, being/non-being, self/other, etc. But in all cases they are produced by thinking.
(reminding that any mention of 'thinking' refers to the livingly observable thinking process and to some metaphysical entity)

When we say that thinking is primary, this is meant from our perspective as beings that begin to know the world. Clearly, this thinking exists in the vessel of consciousness. We may speculate that the Creator had first to make the vessel and only then the thoughts inside it. But this we can only think metaphysically. The very fact is that we can only know of consciousness because we have thought about it. In other words - thinking precedes everything we can know. Our concepts as awareness and consciousness are only products of thinking. Then we can speculate in anyway we want what they are and so on, but we continue to do that through thinking. It is in this sense that from our cognitive perspective, thinking precedes any act of knowledge.

[Lou Gold]

In other words - thinking precedes everything we can know.

OK. However, thinking does not precede everything we can be. Have you never felt "in the zone" acting as if on auto-pilot without thought, just doing with clarity and efficacy? Is it your notion of "knowing" that rests on separation?

[Eugene I]

The "I" is the thing that sees but is never seen.

If it is never seen how it is possible to prove that it exists?
But:

We don't know what we are but we most certainly feel as the causative spiritual activity, responsible for the words of our voice, that we hear in our head. This causative feeling is not something that we perceive externally. It is invisible awareness that we are something that is active, that thinks. As far as this awareness tries to objectify its own existence, it can produce the sound "I". But we must be clear that in this act, the real "I" again remains invisible. It only tries to mirror its existence in its thoughts, tries to build a model of itself.

I think we already agreed in another thread that what we know from our direct conscious experience is the definite presence of the "causative spiritual activity" in our conscious experience, which we linguistically can label "self" or "I". However, there is a problem with such labeling from the very start: we label an "activity" with a noun instead of a verb implying that the "self" is "something" that is performing the "thinking" (and later we assign to it other actions like "perceiving" etc.), while from our experience we can only know the "doing". It's simply an inference to assume that in order for "doing" (action) to exist there must be a "subject" or "object" that performs such doing, such inference is simply an unconscious but unverifiable axiom. So, there seems to be a very basic misrepresentation between the meaning of the label "self" and the experiential reality that it claims to represent, and this misrepresentation is is based on this implicit axiom. And I would rather use a different label - the verb "selfing" instead of "self" to represent such "causative spiritual activity" in order to avoid such misrepresentation.

[Cleric K]

OK. However, thinking does not precede everything we can be.

That's what the previous post was about. We awaken into our life as ready-made beings. We don't create consciously our physical, etheric, astral bodies. All this was created for us. Our "I" simply gets into the driver seat. That's why I said that thinking does not precede the creation of these bodies. As a matter of fact, thinking is the last thing to appear on the scene, it's the latest invention. And that's why we start from it. It is as if you have put on several layers of clothes and then begin to unclothe them in the reverse order.

In this sense, thinking is not the highest but the lowest form of cognition (yet the only one we currently have).

But more important than that is that it is in thinking where we experience causal creativity. This is what gives us self-consciousness. What does it mean to be self conscious? To find an perception in the dream, that mirrors our activity - whatever we are.

Imagine that you are a Spirit that sends its activity towards the World but nothing echoes back you look and look but simply can not find anything that has any relation to you - everything moves on its own. Then you find a small island within the substance of perceptions which acts interestingly. You discover that you spiritual impulses are completely correlated with the movements of that island. You have found your own image within the world of perceptions! Now you become self-conscious, that is, in addition to the world, you also perceive something of your own spiritual activity.
(this is very simplified but makes a point)

At our stage of evolution this happens only through thinking. We think and find our reflection within the thoughts.
Now you'll bring back the example of the zone, where there's no thought and there's still consciousness.
To clarify this we'll have to look at thinking in a little more general sense. Usually when we hear 'thinking' we imagine the intellect - the arrangement of trains of thought, verbal or otherwise. But thinking can be understood more broadly as the act of connecting a perception to its corresponding concept or idea. When we look at a tree, even if there's no verbal thought, as our gaze focuses on the tree, there's a silent act of cognition - we experience the idea of tree - this is what gives us the understanding that we see a tree and not a rock. Without this act of cognition we would perceive a green-brown blob but we would never have the understanding of what we see.
Intellectual thinking is only a more special type of cognition, where concepts are connected not to external perceptions but to thought-perceptions that we ourselves create. For example if I think in my mind "tree", I experience a sound-like perception of the word (my voice) and together with it the idea, the concept of a tree. It can be said that I project the idea into perception. While in perceiving, the perceptions evoke the concepts in my cognition.

So when we are in the zone, there's also cognition, even if there's no jumping intellectual thought. But still there's and idea that is being connected to what we see, as we move on auto-pilot. If this was not the case we would not understand what we are seeing. If this idea had to be verbalized, it would sound something like "I'm observing myself, moving on auto pilot".

It is similar with feeling. When I feel joy, there's also cognition in the background - even if not verbalized. The perception is the feeling and the idea/concept is my understanding that I feel joy. If I'm to verbalize this idea it will sound like "I feel joy".

This is the key observation - our cognition is always there when feeling or acting on auto-pilot. If that was not the case, after I'm out of the zone, I would not be able to say that it was me, who was observing the zone. The fact that after we are out of the zone, we can say "I was in the zone" confirms that our "I" was there the whole time. It was simply cognizing silently, experiencing the meaning of the perceptions, without projecting their meaning into verbal thoughts.

So we are conscious when this act of cognition is present and we become self-conscious when we observe the cognitive activity itself. Then we find ourselves to be creatively present within the cosmic dream. Everything else meets us as a mystery - we don't experience causes - only effects, perceptions, feelings press into our consciousness. Thinking is the only exception - it is the only thing that we experience together with its cause. And this cause we experience as something proceeding from ourselves, from our "I".

This places thinking in a unique position.
Normally, our I, our Spirit, which lives in the ideas and concepts, stands in opposition to the World (the perceptions that we don't control). It seems that these are two different worlds. It simply seems there's no point of contact between them. We either have our perceptions - the Cosmic Dream presenting itself to us, or our own ideas about it. But they seem completely different and unreconcilable.

But when thinking becomes its own object we find a bridge between the worlds. The activity of the "I" becomes perception. Now there's something in the world of perceptions which does not confront us as something foreign but is of our own making. In this way, our thinking has the potential to become the center of a vortex where the two Worlds - of perception (matter, object, not-I) and Idea (I, subject, being) - can become once again One.

[Cleric K]

If it is never seen how it is possible to prove that it exists?

I think we already agreed in another thread that what we know from our direct conscious experience is the definite presence of the "causative spiritual activity" in our conscious experience, which we linguistically can label "self" or "I". However, there is a problem with such labeling from the very start: we label an "activity" with a noun instead of a verb implying that the "self" is "something" that is performing the "thinking" (and later we assign to it other actions like "perceiving" etc.), while from our experience we can only know the "doing". It's simply an inference to assume that in order for "doing" (action) to exist there must be a "subject" or "object" that performs such doing, such inference is simply an unconscious but unverifiable axiom. So, there seems to be a very basic misrepresentation between the meaning of the label "self" and the experiential reality that it claims to represent, and this misrepresentation is is based on this implicit axiom. And I would rather use a different label - the verb "selfing" instead of "self" to represent such "causative spiritual activity" in order to avoid such misrepresentation.

In the context of this thread we are more concretely speaking of thinking as the root of cognition.
When thinking activity becomes its own object, it can produce the thought "thinking exists". This one is the verb and you're OK with that.

Now, the noun also has its justification. I have to leave now, so I can't go into details but here's something for meditation:

If blind spiritual activity was the only thing at play, we would have consciousness only from moment to moment - doing this, doing that.
But if we observe correctly we see that we don't experience activity only in some infinitesimal moment of Now but activity, so to speak, implodes, integrates, grows into something, it is building something. This something we can call memory. Memory not simply as the ability to remember this and that but the awareness that we are at the point where we are, only as a result of a long chain activities. Memory is not only to record our past. Activity is creative but it also can base itself on memory. For example, when we are somewhere and it's time to go home, our activity is based on the knowledge of where our home is, which is part of memory.
We can't explain memory through pure activity. There's something more, something where activities are being integrated into a wholeness.
When we encompass our memory with our activity it naturally expresses it as a noun. We can say "memory exists". It is the continuity of memory that we express as "I", the wholeness that ties all activities together. In this way, activity objectifies itself. When activity expresses memory, it say: That's me, that's how I got here. Thus the verb, fully justifiably, sees itself in the noun.

[Eugene I]

If blind spiritual activity was the only thing at play, we would have consciousness only from moment to moment - doing this, doing that.
But if we observe correctly we see that we don't experience activity only in some infinitesimal moment of Now but activity, so to speak, implodes, integrates, grows into something, it is building something. This something we can call memory. Memory not simply as the ability to remember this and that but the awareness that we are at the point where we are, only as a result of a long chain activities. Memory is not only to record our past. Activity is creative but it also can base itself on memory. For example, when we are somewhere and it's time to go home, our activity is based on the knowledge of where our home is, which is part of memory.
We can't explain memory through pure activity. There's something more, something where activities are being integrated into a wholeness.
When we encompass our memory with our activity it naturally expresses it as a noun. We can say "memory exists". It is the continuity of memory that we express as "I", the wholeness that ties all activities together. In this way, activity objectifies itself. When activity expresses memory, it say: That's me, that's how I got here. Thus the verb, fully justifiably, sees itself in the noun.

Nice try , but I'm still not convinced. Yes, our field of awareness has a mysterious quality of wholeness, all our experiences, thoughts and perceptions are always inseparably integrated into the oneness of consciousness. Yet, this does not mean that such wholeness represents a noun ("entity"), it can as well be be a wholeness and continuity of an activity. But the fact of its continuity and its wholeness creates an "impression" (or illusion) of the existence of some "entity" to which such wholeness pertains. Take for example computer AI as an analogy. There is an algorithmic activity and there is also a memory, and there can even be meta-cognition in AI (nowadays meta-cognitive AIs are being developed by some researchers). Yet all of it does not result in the existence of any "subject" of activity or continuity in AI. There is no "self" or "I" to AI. Similarly, there can certainly be an ideation of the "wholeness" and "continuity" in our thinking process. However, such ideation is simply a meaning of a thought, an abstraction of the fact of the presence of the memory, the wholeness and continuity of our perceptional and thinking process. I'm not saying that your argument is wrong, it may be true, but there is still a leap of inference in it to extrapolate the fact of the wholeness of conscious experience into the existence of an "entity" to which this wholeness presumably pertains.

[Lou Gold]

OK. However, thinking does not precede everything we can be.

At our stage of evolution this happens only through thinking. We think and find our reflection within the thoughts.

etc.

Cleric, Interesting mental meander. Well done. Seems that the unraveling does work like this. However, when in the zone, I'm just in the zone.

PS: I love this a lot.