Philosophical Speculations

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:18 pm Do you think it is possible, in principle, for each unique perspective to access a truly shared set of thoughts, feelings, etc?

I would not use that terminology, but yes. Impossibility would be pretty darn hard to prove.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:53 pm A big part of your problem here, as Cleric points out, is the rigid, narrow definition of "proof" and "knowledge" you are using. In fact, it is so narrow that it necessitates the notion that our own experiences can never count towards knowledge of our own nature as living beings. It is that type of framing which allows people like Daniel Dennett to claim consciousness itself is an illusion and still be considered a serious philosopher with something to offer the world. You are a stone's throw away from his position if not already there with that framing. And it's easy to see the practical implications of such a view for individual and social life, because we have been seeing them for the last 150 years or so - nihilism.

It's funny to accuse me, a religious believer who believes in the cosmic consciousness, of nihilism.

All I am saying is that we have plain facts of our direct conscious experience and we have thoughts/ideas/beliefs/hypotheses/inferences of how these facts can be explained to give a consistent and harmonious worldview. But very unfortunately, after millennia of developments in religions, philosophy and science, we still haven't arrived at a single and harmonious "theory of everything" and there are still multiple worldviews/metaphysics/philosophies/religious views that explain the world each in a different way, with no way to prove, verify or falsify one vs the other. That is why these worldviews belong to metaphysics and religions, not to science, because they are unprovable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable (as if something in science can be provable ). So, what can we do with then, how do we choose the worldview among so many possible ones? We choose them based on our sense of harmony and "resonance" - we choose whatever "sounds true" to us. We choose based on moral, social, psychological or spiritual benefits that they can bring. Yet, there are two positions at that point when we make such choice: we can still remain honest and admit that our worldview of choice is only our belief an we have no right to claim it to be the ultimate truth. We admit that other people can and have right to choose different worldviews based on their sense of harmony and resonance, the worldviews that "sound right" to them. Or, we can become religious fanatics, claim that we know the ultimate truth, and those who deny our truth are going to have serious problems and consequences. And in each metaphysical camp we see those fanatics - among materialists, idealists, communists, liberals, conservatives, Nazis, Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, you name it. By far most atrocities committed in the human history were made by religious fanatics.

Dennet's mistake is that he denies the reality of the awareness of conscious experience. He is right to say that the content of our conscious experience (might be) an illusion or at least mis-representation of reality, and that's what he actually means when he says about illusion. But he misses or disregards the fact of the reality of the very experiencing the qualitative experience.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:12 pm Even the "bubble" is an inference, and notice: you were first to talk about the "bubble".

In the theme of the day, the little girl who lives here has been playing today with soap bubbles. We just danced a little with the mother and the daughter, very joyful.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:16 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:53 pm A big part of your problem here, as Cleric points out, is the rigid, narrow definition of "proof" and "knowledge" you are using. In fact, it is so narrow that it necessitates the notion that our own experiences can never count towards knowledge of our own nature as living beings. It is that type of framing which allows people like Daniel Dennett to claim consciousness itself is an illusion and still be considered a serious philosopher with something to offer the world. You are a stone's throw away from his position if not already there with that framing. And it's easy to see the practical implications of such a view for individual and social life, because we have been seeing them for the last 150 years or so - nihilism.

It's funny to accuse me, a religious believer who believes in the cosmic consciousness, of nihilism.

A part of being truly honest with ourselves is recognizing the nihilist operating within us. That is simply a living aspect of all modern men in search of a soul and meaning. We all want to avoid the immense responsibility that comes with acknowledging a deep experiential connection to the Whole, so we set for ourselves standards of knowledge and behavior which we can never meet. And when we don't meet them, we say to ourselves, "see, I knew that it was a worthless pursuit to begin with!" That character is operating within all of us and it's only through Self-knowledge we bring him under our control rather than being controlled by him.

All I am saying is that we have plain facts of our direct conscious experience and we have thoughts/ideas/beliefs/hypotheses/inferences of how these facts can be explained to give a consistent and harmonious worldview. But very unfortunately, after millennia of developments in religions, philosophy and science, we still haven't arrived at a single and harmonious "theory of everything" and there are still multiple worldviews/metaphysics/philosophies/religious views that explain the world each in a different way, with no way to prove, verify or falsify one vs the other. That is why these worldviews belong to metaphysics and religions, not to science, because they are unprovable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable (as if something in science can be provable ). So, what can we do with then, how do we choose the worldview among so many possible ones? We choose them based on our sense of harmony and "resonance" - we choose whatever "sounds true" to us. We choose based on moral, social, psychological or spiritual benefits that they can bring. Yet, there are two positions at that point when we make such choice: we can still remain honest and admit that our worldview of choice is only our belief an we have no right to claim it to be the ultimate truth. We admit that other people can and have right to choose different worldviews based on their sense of harmony and resonance, the worldviews that "sound right" to them. Or, we can become religious fanatics, claim that we know the ultimate truth, and those who deny our truth are going to have serious problems and consequences. And in each metaphysical camp we see those fanatics - among materialists, idealists, communists, Nazis, Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, you name it. By far most atrocities committed in the human history were made by religious fanatics.

Dennet's mistake is that he denies the reality of the awareness of conscious experience. He is right to say that the content of our conscious experience (might be) an illusion or at least mis-representation of reality, and that's what he actually means when he says about illusion. But he misses or disregards the fact of the reality of the very experiencing the qualitative experience.

So does the fact that we have not arrived at a spiritual TOE entail that it is impossible in principle, or that our spiritual frameworks cannot be made more comprehensive and encompass more of the Whole from what they are now, just as they are now from what was thousands of years ago? The bolded part is simply your assumption, one that has been held in various forms by every generation of thinkers in every age before a major philosophical, religious and scientific transformation in outlook took place. It is a natural evolutionary process which continues whether we wish for it or not and there is no reason to think it has stopped in the 21st century. It does not require anyone to threaten "serious problems and consequences" to others because those consequences naturally manifest themselves in due course. If we refuse to make conscious the unexamined living aspects within us, they don't simply disappear... rather they go to war with us and strike when we least expect it. Most atrocities committed in modern human history have been Self-inflicted wounds.

re: Dennett - he is not right to say any contents of conscious experience are "illusions" if we accept metaphysical idealism and take it seriously, but I understand his claim to be much stronger than that, i.e. phenomenal consciousness itself is an illusion.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:52 pm So does the fact that we have not arrived at a spiritual TOE entail that it is impossible in principle, or that our spiritual frameworks cannot be made more comprehensive and encompass more of the Whole from what they are now, just as they are now from what was thousands of years ago? The bolded part is simply your assumption, one that has been held in various forms by every generation of thinkers in every age before a major philosophical, religious and scientific transformation in outlook took place. It is a natural evolutionary process which continues whether we wish for it or not and there is no reason to think it has stopped in the 21st century.

No, absolutely it does not. May be even by the end of today some scientific or spiritual genius will come up with a perfectly harmonious TOE (theory of everything) and everyone will gladly agree with him and proclaim "we finally got it!". And we are definitely making progress and we are getting to know more and more through our scientific and spiritual explorations of reality. All I am saying is that, at this moment of now, we have not still arrived at that TOE, and there is no guarantee that we will arrive at it in a near, or far future, or even ever. It may happen tonight, or it may never happen at all even in our afterlifes. So, at this moment we have to soberly admit that we do not have a single harmonious TOE and we have to live with the uncertainty of the the fact that we only have a range of possible candidates for such TOE, each one still having explanatory gaps, pros and cons. And we need to learn how to peacefully coexist and cooperate with people who make different choices for their beliefs.

But I hear you, you want certainty, you want faith, you want meanings in your life. Sure, go for it, choose your belief/faith, nobody has right to tell you not to. Just do not assume at this point that your faith is the absolute TOE truth that everyone else is also obliged to accept, until we all arrive at the point that the truth is finally revealed to us in its complete certainty, may be even through the Second Coming of Christ, who knows? But course, you can definitely share your arguments to demonstrate the benefits of your faith, this is what we all do here.

So far you argument goes like this:
- If we accept the fact of the existence of multiples possible candidates for TOEs, this position is relativism that leads to nihilism and conflicts between the followers of various TOEs.
- To avoid such relativism/nihilism, we all together have to accept one of the TOEs
- I'm convinced that my TOE of choice is the true/best TOE
- Therefore everyone else is obliged to accept my TOE in order to avoid nihilism and finally arrive at peace and harmony on Earth.

And that is exactly the route that Crusaders, Jesuits, communists and Nazis tried to follow. Their intents were absolutely positive: they wanted to bring harmony and peace on Earth by converting everyone else, whether peacefully or by force, to their TOEs. But we all know how it all ended up.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:12 pm No, absolutely it does not. May be even by the end of today some scientific or spiritual genius will come up with a perfectly harmonious TOE (theory of everything) and everyone will gladly agree with him and proclaim "we finally got it!". And we are definitely making progress and we are getting to know more and more through our scientific and spiritual explorations of reality. All I am saying is that, at this moment of now, we have not still arrived at that TOE, and there is no guarantee that we will arrive at it in a near, or far future, or even ever. It may happen tonight, or it may never happen at all even in our afterlifes. So, at this moment we have to soberly admit that we do not have a single harmonious TOE and we have to live with the uncertainty of the the fact that we only have a range of possible candidates for such TOE, each one still having explanatory gaps, pros and cons. And we need to learn how to peacefully coexist and cooperate with people who make different choices for their beliefs.

It may even be possible that the closest we are to such TOE is being discussed here in this forum. At least, such possibility should not be excluded, until it has been shown that somebody "out there" has a theory that can convince all of us. From my part, based on my ethical axioms, I would reject any TOE that claims to be the final theory, a closure.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:37 pm Again, you are speaking about the "bubbles" here that I never mentioned. There is simply a space of your conscious experience here and now. It does not have to be limited to only our human sense perceptions and thoughts, it would be silly to deny that it can "extend" to include a far range of spiritual and subtle experiences, telepathic communications with other incarnate and discarnate beings, Gods etc. No one says that the limits are set in stone. Yet at any stage it will always remain simply a space of conscious experience. If at some point (in the body or after it dies) it expands to include the allness of all experiences in the universe - then be it! But even at that moment it will still remain the space of conscious experience.

That's all that I am saying. And that's what higher cognition confirms. We never find anywhere a second or a third space of conscious experience. We can only discover within the one space, the processes that shape our own experience but also the shared processes that shape the experiences of family, friends, nation, humanity, etc. In our ordinary state we experience these shared processes of the one consciousness, as the ideas of these very things listed. When through self-development we grow above the intellect, we can observe within a deeper stratum of the same one consciousness how our ordinary intellect probes in the dark these layers (nation, humanity, etc.) and experiences them as concepts. In the deeper stratum these are living idea-beings, just as our family are living beings. Just as we find within the one consciousness our own soul life, our desires, pains, etc., so in the deeper stratum we discover both ours and those of our family - they are part of the same one consciousness.

Now I'll be asked how do I know that I'm really perceiving other's spiritual life within the same one consciousness and I'm not simply hallucinating them. It's difficult to convey how real these experiences are - so real that our ordinary state seems as a faint dream in comparison. The fact that we can experience the pain of others in the same way as our own already tells a lot - there's no real difference between the two. The higher processes within the one consciousness reveal living processes that illuminate the whole life of Karma, the nation spirits, the spirits of darkness and in the intellectual state, all of this we experience only as mineral shadow in the forms of perceptions and concepts.

But as said many times, it's not even needed to blindly believe the above. One can simply think through the results that are such revealed and see if they make sense. This is always the final arbiter. All higher knowledge would be completely useless if it didn't have practical value for our Earthly life. The question is that in general people are little interested in what makes sense but only in what suits their desires and inclinations. If we comprehend results as the above, we understand in unprecedented depth the situation in which humanity is placed today. We understand the sources of the so called evil, we see why things like "let's just be good and live in peace" can never work out. While people are unconsciously yoked by their unseen spiritual nature, nothing will ever improve. Humans are strong at words, they speak of oneness, Love and compassion, but when it comes to the actual perception of the real ways in which we are one - to experience our collective spiritual processes - they tremble. It's one thing to fantasize about telepathy, as spiritual transmission of thoughts, but if we are to say that real telepathy consist in actual interpenetration of the conscious experiences of beings within the one consciousness, most people will quickly step back.

What are we resisting so fiercely? People want everything to be basked in Love but they don't want to Love because to Love means to make sacrifices. People want everything to be harmonious and intelligent but they don't want themselves to be that - it's too ascent oriented. No, they don't want to exert efforts, they want the instinctive Whole to settle everything for them. They want to have peace and harmony but don't want to discover their collective spiritual being. No, they want to feel detached, they wish all the best to humanity but don't want to have anything to do with humanity. This can go on and on. Truth is that our civilization is spoiled. We live with the impression that we've come here to have the time of our life. The fact that we might be one consciousness, not only on empty words but in the fullest reality, is far too inconvenient. It doesn't fit well our personal plans. If we look deeply at things we'll see that the Universe is perfectly logical. Everything that happens is exactly the result of what we are doing. Most of the time I even think that the Universe is way too kind with us, way too patient.

These are the urgent questions that humanity faces today. We really need to make up our minds - who we want to serve? And here is the great tragedy because people answer "I serve no one but myself". Yet they don't know why they want the things that they want. They don't know why they do the things that they do. What is called "I bow to nobody" is nothing else but "I'm fully ignorant of what I am". It is assumed that our desires, goals, inclinations are our purest essence emerging straight from the Fountainhead in the greatest purity. It is time to reconsider this idea. If people knew what spirits they are really serving through their whims, their hair would stand on end.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:12 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:52 pm So does the fact that we have not arrived at a spiritual TOE entail that it is impossible in principle, or that our spiritual frameworks cannot be made more comprehensive and encompass more of the Whole from what they are now, just as they are now from what was thousands of years ago? The bolded part is simply your assumption, one that has been held in various forms by every generation of thinkers in every age before a major philosophical, religious and scientific transformation in outlook took place. It is a natural evolutionary process which continues whether we wish for it or not and there is no reason to think it has stopped in the 21st century.

No, absolutely it does not. May be even by the end of today some scientific or spiritual genius will come up with a perfectly harmonious TOE (theory of everything) and everyone will gladly agree with him and proclaim "we finally got it!". And we are definitely making progress and we are getting to know more and more through our scientific and spiritual explorations of reality. All I am saying is that, at this moment of now, we have not still arrived at that TOE, and there is no guarantee that we will arrive at it in a near, or far future, or even ever. It may happen tonight, or it may never happen at all even in our afterlifes. So, at this moment we have to soberly admit that we do not have a single harmonious TOE and we have to live with the uncertainty of the the fact that we only have a range of possible candidates for such TOE, each one still having explanatory gaps, pros and cons. And we need to learn how to peacefully coexist and cooperate with people who make different choices for their beliefs.

But I hear you, you want certainty, you want faith, you want meanings in your life. Sure, go for it, choose your belief/faith, nobody has right to tell you not to. Just do not assume at this point that your faith is the absolute TOE truth that everyone else is also obliged to accept, until we all arrive at the point that the truth is finally revealed to us in its complete certainty, may be even through the Second Coming of Christ, who knows? But course, you can definitely share your arguments to demonstrate the benefits of your faith, this is what we all do here.

So far you argument goes like this:
- If we accept the fact of the existence of multiples possible candidates for TOEs, this position is relativism that leads to nihilism and conflicts between the followers of various TOEs.
- To avoid such relativism/nihilism, we all together have to accept one of the TOEs
- I'm convinced that my TOE of choice is the true/best TOE
- Therefore everyone else is obliged to accept my TOE in order to avoid nihilism and finally arrive at peace and harmony on Earth.

And that is exactly the route that Crusaders, Jesuits, communists and Nazis tried to follow. Their intents were absolutely positive: they wanted to bring harmony and peace on Earth by converting everyone else, whether peacefully or by force, to their TOEs. But we all know how it all ended up.

Isn't the issue that in order to make a path work for one's self it must, at least through often long early stages, be treated as the one and only TOE. Eventually, the temptation arises: power over others. Self certainty is challenged to limit itself until all naturally see the same thing. In effect, or analogously if not precisely, this seems to me as the Bodhisattva Vow. "I'm Right. I know the Truth. I've gotta wait for the others. So, meanwhile, offer as much compassion as I'm aware of to self and others." Not a bad deal really!

SanteriSatama wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Eugene I wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:12 pm No, absolutely it does not. May be even by the end of today some scientific or spiritual genius will come up with a perfectly harmonious TOE (theory of everything) and everyone will gladly agree with him and proclaim "we finally got it!". And we are definitely making progress and we are getting to know more and more through our scientific and spiritual explorations of reality. All I am saying is that, at this moment of now, we have not still arrived at that TOE, and there is no guarantee that we will arrive at it in a near, or far future, or even ever. It may happen tonight, or it may never happen at all even in our afterlifes. So, at this moment we have to soberly admit that we do not have a single harmonious TOE and we have to live with the uncertainty of the the fact that we only have a range of possible candidates for such TOE, each one still having explanatory gaps, pros and cons. And we need to learn how to peacefully coexist and cooperate with people who make different choices for their beliefs.

It may even be possible that the closest we are to such TOE is being discussed here in this forum. At least, such possibility should not be excluded, until it has been shown that somebody "out there" has a theory that can convince all of us. From my part, based on my ethical axioms, I would reject any TOE that claims to be the final theory, a closure.

If a complete TOE was possible (and thankfully it's not) and if people found it, that would be the tragic halt of all evolution. Spiritual activity would flow in a perpetual loop, it would never feel the need to go outside that loop. It's thanks to the constant contradiction that we face that we are forced to grow towards higher unities.
As long as the highest tool for knowledge is considered intellectual thinking, in the sense of building thought models and mapping them to perceptions, higher consciousness will always stay out of reach.

Yep, Cleric, I would agree with all you said above. And this is what most spiritual traditions aim to do - be it Christianity, Judaism, indigenous ones, Buddhism and so on. But each of them still offer somewhat different views, different spiritual paths and recipes. They still have a lot in common and they all address the issues you described, yet in different ways, and some of those ways are not compatible and reconcilable (as we found from our discussion).

And as we just discussed with Asvin, until the final truth is known to all of us, we have to live in this situation of diversity of views and faiths. And if we will continue our religious wars, people will look at us and say: "Look, these followers of religions and spiritual practices claim to point to the truth that leads to spiritual progress, love and peace, but they can't stop fighting with each other, hating and even killing each other. So, where is that spiritual progress and peace and love that they promote but cannot even demonstrate with their own behavior?"

So, what I'm saying is: if we really want to influence the route of humanity in the direction of spiritual progress, to demonstrate the practical and spiritual benefits of idealism and spiritual life, we need to come to peaceful terms with each other and stop fighting and claiming any superiorities. We need to find the common grounds, accept our differences, offer people in the world the whole package of our spiritual paths and let them choose the paths that they resonate with and that feel true to them. We might think that by fighting with each other we will make our faith of choice win, but exactly the opposite will happen: we will loose the people's trust, because they look not so much at our arguments, but at our behavior, now what we say, how we say it and how we live. On the other hand, we are all always free to present arguments to advocate our faiths and practices, to show their benefits, to share our spiritual experiences, as long as we do it in peaceful and non-confrontational way without demeaning other faiths and practices.