Re: How is there a world that remains when not being perceived?
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:46 pm
I was talking about causality purely within the area of physics and materialism - see Causality (physics)
If you've read BK's Decoding Jung... you may wonder about Jung's use of Psyche (in the fullest sense) being possibly equivalent to M@L. There are three segments of the full spectrum of Psyche for Jung, with the individual psyche in the middle. To me, this would be, if BK would have it so, a maturation of M@L, given a more fully-realized treatment in the form of Jung's Psyche.Shaibei wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:35 pm If you are a solipsist m@l separates between object and subject, if you are an idealist it doesn't.
I do not know if the word consciousness is the word I would use for m@l since our consciousness experiences reality not only through thought and will, but also through senses, sight hearing and so on. We have no idea how M@L experiences reality and hence the contradictory statements between idealists themselves regarding its nature
I think I agree if I am understanding correctly. Jung famously remarked that he would never call himself "a Jungian". Which I take to mean that he was focused on exploring the psyche in a way that went far beyond academic and clinical psychology, down into the roots of philosophy and metaphysics and mystical thought, down into the soul of the entire cosmos. BK recognizes that in his new book on Jung and does an excellent job of presenting his metaphysical and spiritual orientation. It truly blew my expectations out of the water.dkpstarkey wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:50 amIf you've read BK's Decoding Jung... you may wonder about Jung's use of Psyche (in the fullest sense) being possibly equivalent to M@L. There are three segments of the full spectrum of Psyche for Jung, with the individual psyche in the middle. To me, this would be, if BK would have it so, a maturation of M@L, given a more fully-realized treatment in the form of Jung's Psyche.Shaibei wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:35 pm If you are a solipsist m@l separates between object and subject, if you are an idealist it doesn't.
I do not know if the word consciousness is the word I would use for m@l since our consciousness experiences reality not only through thought and will, but also through senses, sight hearing and so on. We have no idea how M@L experiences reality and hence the contradictory statements between idealists themselves regarding its nature
Then the question is, would BK have it so? How can he not have been moved by this work, himself?
Nope. Actually you haven't and that is exactly my point. As long as you are talking about mind/consciousness you are still wedded to duality. If there is only one thing, then it can't be mind because mind is a concept (your word) that only makes sense in a framework of duality. As long as you think that saying reality is mind or consciousness is a meaningful statement, as long as think that the distinction between materialism and idealism is anyway meaningful, you are attached to duality.That is exactly the point of the Eastern non-dual philosophy of consciousness (Advaitic/Buddhist). The subject/object distinction is only a concept, a hypothesis, a model. We habitually use it in our everyday life as a simplistic scheme to model or explain the patterns of phenomena, but we have no evidence whatsoever that it also applies to the reality on the metaphysical level and that it corresponds to any metaphysical realities. In idealism we have to give up on our fabricated concept of subject/object distinction just like we have to give up on our concept of absolute space and time in relativity physics.
Yup and the same is true for what you just said based on concepts (words) from duality. There are no rules, including this one. Insight can be marketed either by duality or non-duality, which are both myths. So be still and _______Nope. Actually you haven't and that is exactly my point. As long as you are talking about mind/consciousness you are still wedded to duality. If there is only one thing, then it can't be mind because mind is a concept (your word) that only makes sense in a framework of duality.
These are superficial problems of European language.Jim Cross wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:10 am Nope. Actually you haven't and that is exactly my point. As long as you are talking about mind/consciousness you are still wedded to duality. If there is only one thing, then it can't be mind because mind is a concept (your word) that only makes sense in a framework of duality. As long as you think that saying reality is mind or consciousness is a meaningful statement, as long as think that the distinction between materialism and idealism is anyway meaningful, you are attached to duality.
Jim, you have a wrong understanding of duality/non-duality. The assumption that there is no duality on the ontological level does not negate the fact that there is a diversity of forms, including a diversity of thoughts and their meanings. In fact, materialism is no different in that respect: in materialistic paradigm everything is made of fundamentally the same material "substance" (because if there would be multiple fundamental substances that have nothing in common, they could not interact with each other), yet, there is a diversity of material forms within a universe made of the single substance. Every particle has its EM and other fields and its wave function spreading to the whole universe, so there are essentially no boundaries between objects on the ontological level, the whole universe is a single material "mess", united in its ontologically fundamental substance, yet diverse in its forms. Therefore it is in principle impossible to define any boundaries between material "objects", all the boundaries we define are only imprecise mental abstractions. Where do you find subjects or objects in such universe if all divisions into subjects and objects are only our mentally fabricated abstractions? Such abstractions are still practically useful, yet they are ontologically irrelevant and do not represent any realities. Idealism is no different in that respect, just substitute "consciousness" in place of "material" substance, and we arrive at the same diversity of forms unfolding within a single ontic fundamental of consciousness. In each of these metaphysical schemes there is a variety of forms but no ontological duality because everything is fundamentally the same "substance" (whether it is matter or consciousness). A presence of the variety of forms does not lead to duality, unless we imagine in our thoughts that the forms represent some metaphysically separate entities ("subjects" and "objects"), so duality only exists in our imagination.Jim Cross wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:10 am Nope. Actually you haven't and that is exactly my point. As long as you are talking about mind/consciousness you are still wedded to duality. If there is only one thing, then it can't be mind because mind is a concept (your word) that only makes sense in a framework of duality. As long as you think that saying reality is mind or consciousness is a meaningful statement, as long as think that the distinction between materialism and idealism is anyway meaningful, you are attached to duality.
I do see what you mean about the M@L framework being more tolerable for some audiences. The most unsatisfying thing about M@L for me is its lack of symbolic content; it's almost a perfectly empty symbol. This is in sharp contrast to Jung's descriptions of psyche, which acknowledge the richly symbolic character of its native language. So the new Jung book is perhaps one way of bridging that rather large gap in the analytical narrative.AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 1:56 am I think I agree if I am understanding correctly. Jung famously remarked that he would never call himself "a Jungian". Which I take to mean that he was focused on exploring the psyche in a way that went far beyond academic and clinical psychology, down into the roots of philosophy and metaphysics and mystical thought, down into the soul of the entire cosmos. BK recognizes that in his new book on Jung and does an excellent job of presenting his metaphysical and spiritual orientation. It truly blew my expectations out of the water.
So I think BK understands Jung deeply, certainly more deeply than myself, even though I have been reading a lot of Jung in the last few years and especially the last year. But BK is also trying to keep the M@L framework as analytical as possible for his audience. He does not seem very eager to imaginatively expand on the concept too much, bringing a finer resolution to it like a Jung or a Steiner did. Perhaps because he prefers that people view his own work through a thoroughly 'Eastern' philosophical lens rather than a Western one, and he knows it could rather easily push any serious academic types away from his work.