What is the strongest argument against Bernardo's monistic idealism and/or non-duality?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Who da high priests?

For her, probably some high profile media spokesperson for science like Neil deGrasse Tyson.

[Brad Walker]

A classic:

[Lou Gold]

The main weakness that I see boils down to "no structure" -- everything goes from individual homo psyche to M@L. The great irony is that a materialist often groks practically that Gaia is a living being better than an idealist who merely allows for that possibility. In brief, you don't need to be an idealist to know that a hard rain's gonna fall.

[SanteriSatama]

The main weakness that I see boils down to "no structure" -- everything goes from individual homo psyche to M@L. The great irony is that a materialist often groks practically that Gaia is a living being better than an idealist who merely allows for that possibility. In brief, you don't need to be an idealist to know that a hard rain's gonna fall.

That's not so much an argument against BK's approach, more like a notice that it's WIP. BK has in his more freely speculative modes talked about some "middle-range" structures between alters and the roof idea. Whether Sun, Gaia and other planets can be conscious and in what sense is a big discussion when scientific criteria are applied, empirical study could require for example ways of establishing more reliable and consensual ways of communicating with them, instead of brushing off such demands off with "Great Mysteriousness".

There is certainly room and call for more nuanced discussion about the distinction between organic and inorganic matter. I have a vague memory of a fantastic discussion about consciousness of toenails and nailclippings. Even without materialistic reduction, question of relation of consciousness and electromagnetic fields and gravity fields is a very important one.

Tulpa-type phenomena can't be excluded when discussing consciousness of of Sun and planets. For a long time, many sorts of theological projections have been directed towards them, and those projections continue both on conscious and subconscious levels. Projecting only of mainly our feelings of collective guilt might not be the wisest possible strategy of communication.

[Lou Gold]

That's not so much an argument against BK's approach, more like a notice that it's WIP. BK has in his more freely speculative modes talked about some "middle-range" structures between alters and the roof idea. Whether Sun, Gaia and other planets can be conscious and in what sense is a big discussion when scientific criteria are applied, empirical study could require for example ways of establishing more reliable and consensual ways of communicating with them, instead of brushing off such demands off with "Great Mysteriousness".

Yes, not an argument against as much as pointing out a model weakness. But it's a critical challenge because it sure seems that at the present level of understanding systems, from colonies to corporations to societies to global ecologies -- indeed, with questions of power generally -- the materialists have the edge. I'm not liking it or defending it. I'm saying that I wish for an idealism that actually alters the balance of power beyond offering a new idolatries. If not, all we get is same-old-same-old at a new level.

PS: I never use the term "Great Mysteriousness" to brush off or evade. I use it to invite awe, humility, curiosity, exploration and respect.

[SanteriSatama]

Yes, not an argument against as much as pointing out a model weakness. But it's a critical challenge because it sure seems that at the present level of understanding systems, from colonies to corporations to societies to global ecologies -- indeed, with questions of power generally -- the materialists have the edge. I'm not liking it or defending it. I'm saying that I wish for an idealism that actually alters the balance of power beyond offering a new idolatries. If not, all we get is same-old-same-old at a new level.

Yes, corporations are deities created by us to rule us in ways that are not necessarily very nice. The critical challenge you pose is less about descriptive theoretical science/philosophy, and more about participatory and creative responsibilities in the field of potentialities that idealism opens to conscious exploration.

[Lou Gold]

Yes, not an argument against as much as pointing out a model weakness. But it's a critical challenge because it sure seems that at the present level of understanding systems, from colonies to corporations to societies to global ecologies -- indeed, with questions of power generally -- the materialists have the edge. I'm not liking it or defending it. I'm saying that I wish for an idealism that actually alters the balance of power beyond offering a new idolatries. If not, all we get is same-old-same-old at a new level.

Yes, corporations are deities created by us to rule us in ways that are not necessarily very nice. The critical challenge you pose is less about descriptive theoretical science/philosophy, and more about participatory and creative responsibilities in the field of potentialities that idealism opens to conscious exploration.

Of course! Participation is where the rubber meets the road. If not, so what?

[Lou Gold]

I concur that to make a strong argument against nonduality, one has to make a strong case that Reality is essentially based on there being at least two fundamentally and categorically different ontological primitives, which is inherently less parsimonious, notwithstanding the point that the nondual primitive expresses as multitudinous phenomenal polarities. As for making a strong case against the primacy of consciousness, one must make a strong case for how consciousness arises from a non-conscious primitive. I know of no such case.

This is why the shaman focuses on what works rather than trying to make a strong case.