Philosophical Speculations

I'd like to start a discussion on the notorious dilemma in idealism: is the Cosmic Consciousness meta-cognitive or not? This is the main diverging point between the 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 ("instinctive" in BK's terms) conscious activity of the Cosmic Consciousness creating the world without any pre-meditative purpose.

To start, Cleric, I would like to ask you about your take on this. In your post here you gave an overview of the creation myth in an esoteric language, but it was not clear to me from your phrase below if the the creative activity of the Spirit is meta-cognitive and intelligently pre-meditated or, as per BK's views, "instinctive" and non-metacognitive/non-pre-meditated.

The Universal Soul gives the materials, the space for consciousness, the arena. The Universal Spirit is the Creator, producing through His activity the forms within the Cosmic Womb.

Knowing that you are coming form Christian background, I think I know the answer, but I would be interested to know the reasoning behind your position and any critique of BK's views on that. Myself I'm still sitting on a fence and undecisive in this respect, after oscillating a few times back-and-forth between Christianity and Buddhism.

Just offering my 2 cents before Cleric replies:

We clearly see an evolutionary progression from non-metacognitive to metacognitive in human history (or perhaps the latest rhythmic cycle of human history). So, from that perspective, the view of Schopenhauer/Jung/BK is supported by that history. However, beyond or 'behind' that limited history, there is likely (IMO) much more evolutionary development that most people are not yet aware of. And therein may lie the purposive Cosmic Spirit which many idealists are missing for a variety of reasons, but chiefly the Kantian notion that it is simply futile to think or talk about the realms of 'things-in-themselves' because we can never experience and know about them in principle. Therefore, I would say that is the key idealist premise-conclusion we need to explore if we want to approach this question from an analytical philosophical perspective.

I’ve been thinking about this, and my own view is that the ‘world soul’ (or mind at large) is not meta-conscious. I agree with Bernardo that it appears to act in an instinctive way, like an organism. However I do not believe that it is god. It’s something that had a start, that is contingent. The universe is within god, but is not god. Nonetheless god can definitely also be immanent within the universe, just as within individuals. I’m still not sure about how this works, but I am at least partially drawn to the Palamite distinction between divine essence and divine energies.

Part of me thinks that our words and thoughts can’t really approach this, especially the idea of what meta conscious would even mean for god. The funny thing is that if you think of the way we are meta conscious, you could say we split ourselves into a subject and an object, like a loop in consciousness with our thoughts being what moves between the two. The classical theology view of the trinity is that the logos is the word of the father, and the holy spirit is the love that binds them. In my poor understanding, this does seem in some ways analogous to meta consciousness... although it’s a strange idea that I don’t think makes much sense on reflection...

@Eugene

I think in an earlier discussion of this topic we agreed that even if the "most fundamental" MAL is non-meta-cognitive, there had to be meta-cognition prior to the formation of physical reality, to explain its order and fine-tuning. In other words, this reality we find ourselves in has a purpose, even if that purpose isn't absolute.

As I see it, that is the limit of what we can answer in regard to this question, and all we need consider. That is, whatever is ultimately the case, we live in a meta-cognitively constructed reality, and the meta-cognitive source of that reality are our gods.

Having said all that, just because I am ontologically curious, my bet would be on "most fundamental" MAL being meta-cognitive. Partly this is a consequence of my reasoning that conscious activity involves formlessness, form, and self-awareness -- that last being a way of saying that it always knows what it is doing. Then one might argue that one can't get meta-cognition from non-meta-cognition. When confronted with what appears to us as non-meta consciousness (as in non-human animals), I would argue that we are not seeing the full picture, that there is a Group Soul of each animal species (as Cleric has described) which supplies the "meta" that is not in the individual animal. Of course, these arguments are less than conclusive, but they make some sense to me.

Cosmic fine-tuning requires either fundamental omniscience or an evolved intellect. Describing how the intellect evolved seems intractable, so I assume omniscience. Omniscience entails omnibenovelence, so I sacrifice omnipotence.

229 characters

According to Godel theorem, omniscience is impossible

Redefine "omni" as "maximum extent possible" instead of "all". Problem of evil solved.

86 characters

ScottRoberts wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:12 pm @Eugene

I think in an earlier discussion of this topic we agreed that even if the "most fundamental" MAL is non-meta-cognitive, there had to be meta-cognition prior to the formation of physical reality, to explain its order and fine-tuning. In other words, this reality we find ourselves in has a purpose, even if that purpose isn't absolute.

BK's usual explanation for the order we perceive in Nature is that MAL is ordered in its instinctive nature and therefore that's how we should expect it to appear to us. He claims that order is actually evidence in support of non-meta-cognitive MAL, because meta-cognition allows for more 'chaotic' processes which we don't see in Nature but only in humans. What is the counter-argument?

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 12:50 am He claims that order is actually evidence in support of non-meta-cognitive MAL, because meta-cognition allows for more 'chaotic' processes which we don't see in Nature but only in humans. What is the counter-argument?

Ashvin, I don't understand why meta-cognition would lead to "chaotic" processes. Do you?

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 1:04 am

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 12:50 am He claims that order is actually evidence in support of non-meta-cognitive MAL, because meta-cognition allows for more 'chaotic' processes which we don't see in Nature but only in humans. What is the counter-argument?

Ashvin, I don't understand why meta-cognition would lead to "chaotic" processes. Do you?

Because humans with meta-cognition have more degrees of freedom than non-human instinctive animals which in turn have more degrees of freedom than non-living Nature. A human can think-act in seemingly 'random' ways while the rest of Nature cannot. That's what I understand his argument to be.