AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:51 am
Eugene I wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:46 am
AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 8:56 pm
That is not "true randomness" in an ontological sense. It is starting from an already structured reality which operates by way of cognizable mathematical principles. I think part of the problem here is that people confuse "epistemic randomness" (not having sufficient information to predict outcomes) and what you call "selective randomness" (selecting within pre-existing structure without premeditated purpose) with "true randomness". Once you have either of the former, you don't have the latter. So maybe your #1 was trying to say there is no premeditated purpose to the natural selection process (at least no purpose independent of our own purposes that we can speak of now), but it occurs within
existing ideational structure. In which case, I agree with #1.
In certain sense I agree. Even the very ability to create and experience any ideations is already a certain pre-requisite mechanism that has to be there in order for the forms to unfold. So there must be some non-random minimal structure or function in consciousness just for the creation and experiencing of forms to happen. The question is whether or not the particular guiding instincts/archetypes
for the unfolding ideations are part of that structure as well.
Right, so if we compare that "minimal structure" to the simple equations which give rise to the Mandelbrot fractals, it indicates that very complex and novel ideational structures can unfold from the most minimal structure. When we speak of "archetypes" and "instincts", it seems to me we are speaking of whatever that "minimal structure" happens to be. What we can now cognize as the meaning of archetypes/instincts within the sense-world is surely a very dim reflection of their full essential meaning, but probably the best intellectual concepts to employ (of course I prefer "archetypal beings"). I guess it would help to specify the function of this particular exercise. If we are trying to identify specific instinctual patterns involved, then we can only speak of it at the lowest possible resolution by way of abstract intellectual concepts. And since MAL is eternal in essence, all such claims will be relational, i.e. from this or that particular spatiotemporal perspective, how does MAL
appear to unfold? We are not describing absolute states of MAL at time A, time B, time C, etc.
But it seems to me the general issue we are asking about with this exercise is that of "necessity vs. freedom/purpose". We want to know if, when we call MAL "instinctual", that rules out the possibility of MAL also allowing for freedom and purpose to unfold from within it. My informed opinion is that it is a false dichotomy. If we were to stand apart from MAL and all that unfolds within it, then we could speculate, "
it all had to unfold the way it did from the beginning". But that's a hypothetical perspective which can never exist. Our essential relational perspective is not other than that of MAL. So if we can develop purposes and freedom from within our relational perspective, as we align our desires/will with what results from them, then it makes no sense to say MAL is not also purposeful and free in the same way we (potentially) are. And it makes a lot of sense to say MAL is purposeful and free
through our evolving perspectives.
AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:51 am
Eugene I wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:46 am
AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 8:56 pm
That is not "true randomness" in an ontological sense. It is starting from an already structured reality which operates by way of cognizable mathematical principles. I think part of the problem here is that people confuse "epistemic randomness" (not having sufficient information to predict outcomes) and what you call "selective randomness" (selecting within pre-existing structure without premeditated purpose) with "true randomness". Once you have either of the former, you don't have the latter. So maybe your #1 was trying to say there is no premeditated purpose to the natural selection process (at least no purpose independent of our own purposes that we can speak of now), but it occurs within
existing ideational structure. In which case, I agree with #1.
In certain sense I agree. Even the very ability to create and experience any ideations is already a certain pre-requisite mechanism that has to be there in order for the forms to unfold. So there must be some non-random minimal structure or function in consciousness just for the creation and experiencing of forms to happen. The question is whether or not the particular guiding instincts/archetypes
for the unfolding ideations are part of that structure as well.
Right, so if we compare that "minimal structure" to the simple equations which give rise to the Mandelbrot fractals, it indicates that very complex and novel ideational structures can unfold from the most minimal structure. When we speak of "archetypes" and "instincts", it seems to me we are speaking of whatever that "minimal structure" happens to be. What we can now cognize as the meaning of archetypes/instincts within the sense-world is surely a very dim reflection of their full essential meaning, but probably the best intellectual concepts to employ (of course I prefer "archetypal beings"). I guess it would help to specify the function of this particular exercise. If we are trying to identify specific instinctual patterns involved, then we can only speak of it at the lowest possible resolution by way of abstract intellectual concepts. And since MAL is eternal in essence, all such claims will be relational, i.e. from this or that particular spatiotemporal perspective, how does MAL
appear to unfold? We are not describing absolute states of MAL at time A, time B, time C, etc.
But it seems to me the general issue we are asking about with this exercise is that of "necessity vs. freedom/purpose". We want to know if, when we call MAL "instinctual", that rules out the possibility of MAL also allowing for freedom and purpose to unfold from within it. My informed opinion is that it is a false dichotomy. If we were to stand apart from MAL and all that unfolds within it, then we could speculate, "
it all had to unfold the way it did from the beginning". But that's a hypothetical perspective which can never exist. Our essential relational perspective is not other than that of MAL. So if we can develop purposes and freedom from within our relational perspective, as we align our desires/will with what results from them, then it makes no sense to say MAL is not also purposeful and free in the same way we (potentially) are. And it makes a lot of sense to say MAL is purposeful and free
through our evolving perspectives.
What I find interesting are the ideas, that BK raises both in "More than allegory" and "Decoding Jung's Metaphysics" (as far as I get it correctly).
1. In "More than allegory", BK claims that human's mission is to raise questions in order for MAL to get to know itself. However, the answers lie within MAL itself. Correct me if I am wrong, but for me, for answers to exist within MAL, there has to be some form of intention, "likes", "preferences"... within MAL (everything we metaphysically sum up as archetypal patterns).
2. Furthermore Jung distinguishes between two forms or parts of the psyche: "instinct" and "spirit". While instinct is the primitive one, unfolding by static patterns or laws, the spirit is much more dynamic, relational and wise. It is able to undermine its instincts for the common good.
For me, it is the spirit that holds the "answers", which is why the spirit correlates with the degree of self-knowledge and therefore the questions we humans raise.
Trying to bring 1. and 2. together:
If we use the terms "instinct" and "spirit", MAL might have started with a major ratio of instinct (probably up to 100%), while the spirit only existed in potentiality. It is therefore, that we perceive the universe in the beginning as something, that only unfolds by unchangable patterns, that we call laws of nature.
With the degree of increasing self-awareness by living creatures, the spirit evolves continously and with it, the knowledge of its intentions, preferences and so on. It is this volitional deliberate spirit of MAL, that humans probably call God.
And while the spirit of MAL increases in ratio, the instinct automatically has to decrease.
It is this observation, that Thomas Campbell (an ideal physicist) in his BIG Theory of Everything equates to "entropy".
While matter (the instinctive activity of MAL) tends to lower states of order (= useless energy), consciousness and self-awareness (=spirit) tends to higher states of order (=useful energy). For him this is also the reason why MAL prefers love over fear, unity over division, empathy over greed. They all represent higher states of order and therefore an outpouring of psychic energy, that can be used to elaborate on new possibilities.
This probably also correlates with your kind of thinking, Hedge?