New interview with Bernardo

[Shaibei]

I saw about three hours from the interview. Bernardo as usual interesting. One of the points at which my view is separate from his own is regarding the nature of Mind at large, or God (as he chooses to appear). Bernardo looks at nature as Schopenhauer and sees it as instinct. One can understand such a point of view, after all there is a lot of evil that happens within nature. I do not think that in the context of thinking, or at least thinking alone, it is possible to give meaningto events. But, in the framework of faith it is possible. Just as in the use of psychedelics one sees reality differently, so there are righteous people who penetrate the inner nature of reality. Same thing about morality. Morality is not a human invention as Nietzsche believed. It is an ideal reality that God, for the sake of free choice, hides when he acts within the framework of nature

I am not sure it is fair to say Nietzsche believed morality is a human invention. I think it's more fair to say he claimed all systematic human conceptions of "morality" to the time he was writing were grossly inadequate. And he further claimed we must look to evolved natural instincts and agency to begin any inquiry into authentic morality. That seems to be about where he left it, and that is not really compatible with Schopenhauer as you point out, because the latter conceived of Reality as blind will rather than a purposive will-to-something.

I'm not an expert on Nietzsche, but I recall Jordan Peterson pointing that. As far as I know Nietzsche crowned his Übermensch in the creation of values ​​and not in their revelation, unlike, for example, Victor Frenkl who argued that man could not transcend himself if he did not believe in the real existence of values ​​and meanings

[Eugene I]

What about "Spirit"? Because "activity" implies only a portion of what the Spirit is/does.

And, just to confirm, we are in agreement that BK's idealism falls short in this regard, in so far as it denies the reality of Self-Spirit?

I'm fine with the term "Spirit". In fact, the Hindu term "Atman", which is typically translated to English as "Self", actually means "breath" or "spirit". Another term interchangeably used in Hinduism for Atman is Sat-Chit-Ananda, which can be translated as Consciousness - Existence - Bliss.

Regarding BK, he is using the term "consciousness", which I don't see as being substantially different from "Spirit" in its meaning. The only real difference between your and BK's position is the BK's claim that the ideational activity of consciousness on the global scale is non-meta-cognitive. This is the main diverging point between theistic and non-theistic versions of idealism. In the theistic ones the Spirit is a highly metacognitive and intelligent conscious activity creating the world with a pre-meditated purpose. In the non-theistic versions (BK's, Schopenhauer's, Buddhist and so on) it is a non-metacognitive conscious activity of the cosmic consciousness creating the world without any pre-meditative purpose. I'm personally open to both possibilities and remain indecisive at this pint.

[Cleric K]

Yes, I agree, but I still think that using the term "Self" is confusing and better be avoided, since in the minds of the ordinary people such term resonates with their habitual self-identification as separate entities/egos, and a more accurate term term "Spiritual Activity" (or any other similar one) should be used instead.

What about "Spirit"? Because "activity" implies only a portion of what the Spirit is/does.

And, just to confirm, we are in agreement that BK's idealism falls short in this regard, in so far as it denies the reality of Self-Spirit?

Sadly, the choice of wording can never satisfy every taste. Truth is that people will most often see in the words whatever they are inclined to see, even if we made all efforts to choose the most clear cut terms. In this sense, if someone so inclined is presented with the term Self, he'll summon his picture of himself, his own self-image. But if we use the term Spiritual Activity it's almost certain that he'll again summon an abstract picture of some weird, mystical spiritual process that bubbles in space. In both cases it'll be missed that one has to turn to his own self-generated spiritual activity. One has to trace the direction from which the thoughts emerge. Ironically we can't point attention to this spiritual process without at least some reference to 'self' of 'I'. Otherwise the man will never know where to look and will continue to fantasize the abstract bubbling activity in space, completely unrelated to his own spiritual activity - that is, missing the fact that we are talking about the real activity that imagines the bubbling activity in space.

Just for the records, some spiritual traditions use the terms personality and individuality. The first refers to the self as the sum total of our habits, likes and dislikes, ideas, opinions, prejudices, and so on. The latter refers to the spiritual core, for which we speak that is both doing and doer at the same time. In these traditions spiritual work is based on transforming the personality so that it becomes more and more the instrument of the individuality - which is connected with the Cosmic order.

[Eugene I]

Sadly, the choice of wording can never satisfy every taste. Truth is that people will most often see in the words whatever they are inclined to see, even if we made all efforts to choose the most clear cut terms. In this sense, if someone so inclined is presented with the term Self, he'll summon his picture of himself, his own self-image. But if we use the term Spiritual Activity it's almost certain that he'll again summon an abstract picture of some weird, mystical spiritual process that bubbles in space. In both cases it'll be missed that one has to turn to his own self-generated spiritual activity. One has to trace the direction from which the thoughts emerge. Ironically we can't point attention to this spiritual process without at least some reference to 'self' of 'I'. Otherwise the man will never know where to look and will continue to fantasize the abstract bubbling activity in space, completely unrelated to his own spiritual activity - that is, missing the fact that we are talking about the real activity that imagines the bubbling activity in space.

Good point, Cleric. In Tibetan Buddhism for example it is done by pointing to our own Awareness and its form-manifesting activity, which is a way to turn our attention into our own conscious/spiritual activity while bypassing any references to the self-identification. I would not claim that this is the best way to do it, but it is the one that has been used more-or-less successfully in the Buddhist tradition over the last millennium. Some modern non-duality teachings and practices, such as Rupert Spira's for example, basically use a similar method.

[AshvinP]

I saw about three hours from the interview. Bernardo as usual interesting. One of the points at which my view is separate from his own is regarding the nature of Mind at large, or God (as he chooses to appear). Bernardo looks at nature as Schopenhauer and sees it as instinct. One can understand such a point of view, after all there is a lot of evil that happens within nature. I do not think that in the context of thinking, or at least thinking alone, it is possible to give meaningto events. But, in the framework of faith it is possible. Just as in the use of psychedelics one sees reality differently, so there are righteous people who penetrate the inner nature of reality. Same thing about morality. Morality is not a human invention as Nietzsche believed. It is an ideal reality that God, for the sake of free choice, hides when he acts within the framework of nature

I am not sure it is fair to say Nietzsche believed morality is a human invention. I think it's more fair to say he claimed all systematic human conceptions of "morality" to the time he was writing were grossly inadequate. And he further claimed we must look to evolved natural instincts and agency to begin any inquiry into authentic morality. That seems to be about where he left it, and that is not really compatible with Schopenhauer as you point out, because the latter conceived of Reality as blind will rather than a purposive will-to-something.

I'm not an expert on Nietzsche, but I recall Jordan Peterson pointing that. As far as I know Nietzsche crowned his Übermensch in the creation of values ​​and not in their revelation, unlike, for example, Victor Frenkl who argued that man could not transcend himself if he did not believe in the real existence of values ​​and meanings

Well that is where the terminology becomes very slippery and misleading to most eyes. To avoid that, we can simply say that Nietzsche believed authentic morality, whatever that may be, will be found within an individual's sphere of being rather than imposed from without. He emphasized the individual's capacity as a free spirit. JP points out that Nietzsche was "redefining what it was that we conceptualize as powerful". In that sense, his philosophy was aligned with Christian spirituality and Frankl's 'logotherapy', and only in conflict with dogmatic formulations of theism.

[Soul_of_Shu]

The more I read of this insightful commentary inspired by BK's interview, the more I feel his lack of engagement with his larger audience, justified as it may be due to time constraints, is sorely missed, as it often seems that his clarification is surely needed. Alas, it seems that the only way to get an audience with him is to do a one-on-one interview, given that, as far as I can tell, he doesn't get involved with any broader audience Q&A on any of the platforms he uses to convey his ideas. And as much as I might enjoy listening to him engage with some interviewers, it often doesn't seem to get as deep as it might if some of the questions asked here were being put to him. Maybe it's time someone in this forum put in an interview request, and put some of these very nuanced and pointed questions to him. Any takers?

[Shaibei]

I am not sure it is fair to say Nietzsche believed morality is a human invention. I think it's more fair to say he claimed all systematic human conceptions of "morality" to the time he was writing were grossly inadequate. And he further claimed we must look to evolved natural instincts and agency to begin any inquiry into authentic morality. That seems to be about where he left it, and that is not really compatible with Schopenhauer as you point out, because the latter conceived of Reality as blind will rather than a purposive will-to-something.

I'm not an expert on Nietzsche, but I recall Jordan Peterson pointing that. As far as I know Nietzsche crowned his Übermensch in the creation of values ​​and not in their revelation, unlike, for example, Victor Frenkl who argued that man could not transcend himself if he did not believe in the real existence of values ​​and meanings

Well that is where the terminology becomes very slippery and misleading to most eyes. To avoid that, we can simply say that Nietzsche believed authentic morality, whatever that may be, will be found within an individual's sphere of being rather than imposed from without. He emphasized the individual's capacity as a free spirit. JP points out that Nietzsche was "redefining what it was that we conceptualize as powerful". In that sense, his philosophy was aligned with Christian spirituality and Frankl's 'logotherapy', and only in conflict with dogmatic formulations of theism.

Well, I'm not a Nietzsche expert, I do remember Peterson said in an interview that at this point Nietzsche was wrong. The painting in my profile picture is of a scholar who read Nietzsche originally and wrote an excellent article about the change in the thought of Nietzsche. In its final stages it comes to the critique of man and the critique of moral concepts.
As for such and such spiritual traditions, I do not criticize them as dogmatic or not. There are different ways of believing. Spinoza, for example, who gave birth to the idealism of Salomon maimon and German idealism, was influenced by Kabbalah. Underneath his books is the book of the Kabbalist Abraham Cohen de Herrera which Hegel also read.

[AshvinP]

I'm not an expert on Nietzsche, but I recall Jordan Peterson pointing that. As far as I know Nietzsche crowned his Übermensch in the creation of values ​​and not in their revelation, unlike, for example, Victor Frenkl who argued that man could not transcend himself if he did not believe in the real existence of values ​​and meanings

Well that is where the terminology becomes very slippery and misleading to most eyes. To avoid that, we can simply say that Nietzsche believed authentic morality, whatever that may be, will be found within an individual's sphere of being rather than imposed from without. He emphasized the individual's capacity as a free spirit. JP points out that Nietzsche was "redefining what it was that we conceptualize as powerful". In that sense, his philosophy was aligned with Christian spirituality and Frankl's 'logotherapy', and only in conflict with dogmatic formulations of theism.

Well, I'm not a Nietzsche expert, I do remember Peterson said in an interview that at this point Nietzsche was wrong. The painting in my profile picture is of a scholar who read Nietzsche originally and wrote an excellent article about the change in the thought of Nietzsche. In its final stages it comes to the critique of man and the critique of moral concepts.
As for such and such spiritual traditions, I do not criticize them as dogmatic or not. There are different ways of believing. Spinoza, for example, who gave birth to the idealism of Salomon maimon and German idealism, was influenced by Kabbalah. Underneath his books is the book of the Kabbalist Abraham Cohen de Herrera which Hegel also read.

Personally I have been reading Nietzsche, Fighter for Freedom by Steiner. It is available for free online - https://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA005/En ... index.html

I'll have to comment more on this later.

[Shaibei]

Now I remember you're interested in Steiner. If I understand correctly, Steiner's view is that morality stems from within and not imposed from without. It can indeed fit the point of view of different Kabbalists. In their view, the spiritual path opens with coercion from the outside but ends with an inner recognition that does not need an external law.
Along with that, as I mentioned then, as there are similarities between Steiner and Kabbalah there are also differences. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Nietzsche, in the last stages of his life, strived beyond good and evil, it is still possible, in my opinion, to reconcile this with the spiritual perception of Kabbalists.
Kabbalists, like Steiner, assume the existence of moral ideals. But they need to explain the phenomenon of evil in the universe. If morality has a real existence then why do we find it within us but not in the nature around us? The answer to this is that our thought is not similar to the divine thought. In divine thought even what appears to be evil is really good, but such thinking may lead to nihilism (even if we say Nietzsche wasn't one) and is kept in Kabbalah for the future to come, when consciousness expands and go beyond good and evil. In this, in my opinion, they are different from Steiner who emphasizes thinking, and give way to faith.

[AshvinP]

Now I remember you're interested in Steiner. If I understand correctly, Steiner's view is that morality stems from within and not imposed from without. It can indeed fit the point of view of different Kabbalists. In their view, the spiritual path opens with coercion from the outside but ends with an inner recognition that does not need an external law.
Along with that, as I mentioned then, as there are similarities between Steiner and Kabbalah there are also differences. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Nietzsche, in the last stages of his life, strived beyond good and evil, it is still possible, in my opinion, to reconcile this with the spiritual perception of Kabbalists.
Kabbalists, like Steiner, assume the existence of moral ideals. But they need to explain the phenomenon of evil in the universe. If morality has a real existence then why do we find it within us but not in the nature around us? The answer to this is that our thought is not similar to the divine thought. In divine thought even what appears to be evil is really good, but such thinking may lead to nihilism (even if we say Nietzsche wasn't one) and is kept in Kabbalah for the future to come, when consciousness expands and go beyond good and evil. In this, in my opinion, they are different from Steiner who emphasizes thinking, and give way to faith.

Yes, that is also what I gather from my admittedly limited understanding of Steiner, Nietzsche and Kabballah. Although I wouldn't say thinking (proper), faith and expansion of consciousness exclude each other, but perhaps emphasize distinguishable paths on the way.