Eugene I wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:15 pm
Yes, there is an idea of a 3D cube, but (in a non-Platonic paradigm) it only exists as a meaning of your thought at the moment you think about it. You stop thinking about it and the idea is gone. You can recall the same thought again, and the idea will come into being again. Now, when you do not experience the idea of 3D cube, it may still be experienced by other alter minds (whether incarnate or discarnate beings, or the MAL itself), or it may not. But either way, there is no proof or evidence that the 3D cube idea still somehow "exists" when there is no mind thinking about it. We can still make an inference that it exists, but that is exactly Platonism.
Alright, I have nothing against the above. As I've said many times, nothing is changed for the experience of my perspective if the ideas do or do not exist in some special container while I'm not experiencing them.
Eugene I wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:15 pm
That is because MAL (of whoever is the creator-mind who keeps the ideation of the world running in its mind) keeps the ideation of the Eiffel tower in his mind even when nobody is looking at it, and while this is happening, the idea of the Eiffel tower is still being experienced by the MAL (or a creator-mind). But when MAL (or a creator-mind) drops that idea, it is truly gone and exists nowhere. That's a non-Platonic view. The Platonic view would say that this idea still actually exists as a reality in Consciousness in a mysterious "pool of all possible ideas", but just not experienced by any mind.
I agree about the pool too. But I would point out that we don't need even the idea of some MAL-container that keeps the manifested ideas in place. This is also something not experienced by any mind, just as the pool.
What is experienced, though, is that ideas exist in specific relations. You already gave a good example with Bach. I would go as far as to say that my current state of being wouldn't be what it is the Eiffel tower doesn't exist. Not only that, but even if I meditate on the emptiness, and two bolts on tower somehow switch places, my empty state would be slightly different. Of course, immeasurably slightly different but still different. Every state of my being is a unique idea and the totality of perceptions are the symbol, the hieroglyph resonating with that idea.
Does the above require that my idea-state exists in relation to a pool of ideas, including those of the two bolts in the tower? No it, doesn't require anything. It only states what is obvious. Of course, the example with the bolts may sound farfetched but we inevitably reach the conclusion that this must be the case when we begin to trace the relations of our idea-state to other ideas, because ideas ripple in one another and sooner or later we'll arrive also at the bolts.
I'll try to give an analogy (I assume it is clear how the Mandelbrot fractal is generated).
Does the right object push the strip on the left? Or the left strip makes way for the right and allows it to grow towards it? Every mathematician will say that such questions don't make sense because there's no causal relation between these areas. Nevertheless these areas exist in the specific relation we see. Even if we are to render only the strip on the left it would still curve in the same way. It doesn't 'know' that its shape may be influenced by areas that haven't even been revealed.
My point is that it's irrelevant whether we assume that these relations exist in some Platonic world-in-itself or exist only when we probe the complex plane. One thing is clear - they are interrelated. I repeat that this is only an analogy, I'm not building a model of reality. Yet it hints that whether we believe in a Platonic pool or not, ideas exist in specific relations and strangely enough, not a single idea could be what it is, if the whole infinity of other ideas were not imprinted in it. The idea doesn't care about our intellectual speculations about its 'anatomy'.
In the above sense we should reconsider the idea of 'consciousness creates ideas'. It would be more appropriate to say 'consciousness explores ideas and their relations'. This doesn't mean that ideas exist independently of consciousness but only what was presented above as analogy - that if I begin to investigate the structure of my idea-state I would be led to very specific ideas without which my idea-state would never be what it is. We can speculate as much as we want about the 'before' the first Idea but once there's experience of an Idea then immediately there's a whole infinity of other ideas that exist in relation to it - whether we imagine that this infinity exists in precomputed pool or the ideas exist only when we probe them, is completely irrelevant to practical experience. What has practical significance is that these ideas can be explored. If we understand the relational 'pushes' and 'pulls' between our idea-state and other ideas we gain a kind of higher-order knowledge. From that perspective we can guide the temporal metamorphosis of our state in accordance to that knowledge.