Views on dual-aspect monism?
Views on dual-aspect monism?
This is an idea that Pauli and Jung toyed around with a lot. It's not necessarily idealism but accounts for mind and matter being composite parts of a single whole. Wonder what everyone here thinks!
Re: Views on dual-aspect monism?
You should check out BK's new book, Decoding Jung's Metaphysics. He makes a pretty unshakeable case that Jung was an idealist and not dual-aspect monist. He specifically references various parts of the dialogue between Jung and Pauli.
"A secret law contrives,
To give time symmetry:
There is, within our lives,
An exact mystery."
To give time symmetry:
There is, within our lives,
An exact mystery."
Re: Views on dual-aspect monism?
Correct me if I'm wrong but honestly I see dual-aspect monism as an idea that either collapses into idealism or property dualism. I don't think the two idea are necessesarily antithesis of each other. To me there's a pretty good argument to be made that Jung saw the merits of both idealism and dual-aspect monism without making the jump into either.
Re: Views on dual-aspect monism?
Yes it must collapse into idealism (not property dualism) for it to reflect Jung's metaphysics. Which then raises the question of why even refer to dual-aspect monism rather than idealism? I think it just confuses people more than clarifies. It is easier to simply explain that we can distinguish between mind and material representation of mind without dividing into two different substances-processes or properties.Astra052 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:20 amCorrect me if I'm wrong but honestly I see dual-aspect monism as an idea that either collapses into idealism or property dualism. I don't think the two idea are necessesarily antithesis of each other. To me there's a pretty good argument to be made that Jung saw the merits of both idealism and dual-aspect monism without making the jump into either.
"A secret law contrives,
To give time symmetry:
There is, within our lives,
An exact mystery."
To give time symmetry:
There is, within our lives,
An exact mystery."
Re: Views on dual-aspect monism?
I agree, and I also see that it further collapses into panpsychism, and we know the difficult problems that panpsychism faces. Goff is still struggling with them but seems like he is giving up. At the time of Pauli and Jung these problems were yet unknown to philosophers.Astra052 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:20 am Correct me if I'm wrong but honestly I see dual-aspect monism as an idea that either collapses into idealism or property dualism. I don't think the two idea are necessesarily antithesis of each other. To me there's a pretty good argument to be made that Jung saw the merits of both idealism and dual-aspect monism without making the jump into either.
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kanzas anymore" Dorothy
- Soul_of_Shu
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm
- Contact:
Re: Views on dual-aspect monism?
Another term that is used is dialetical monism, which suggests something more nuanced, i.e. a fundamental irreducible Reality of Mind that expresses as dual aspects, e.g. formlessness><form, implicate><explicate, noumenal><phenomenal, yin><yang, as an immanent dynamic, without prioritizing one or the other, along the lines of what Scott Roberts posits. But if he would consider his premise tantamount to dialetical monism, you'd have to ask him.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Re: Views on dual-aspect monism?
I don't think I've ever heard of Scott Roberts? What is his viewpoint?Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 11:21 am
Another term that is used is dialetical monism, which suggests something more nuanced, i.e. a fundamental irreducible Reality of Mind that expresses as dual aspects, e.g. formlessness><form, implicate><explicate, noumenal><phenomenal, yin><yang, as an immanent dynamic, without prioritizing one or the other, along the lines of what Scott Roberts posits. But if he would consider his premise tantamount to dialetical monism, you'd have to ask him.
- Soul_of_Shu
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm
- Contact:
Re: Views on dual-aspect monism?
Scott is a regular participant in the forum as recently as yesterday. But perhaps you just haven't been following the topics he's involved in. Hopefully, he'll give some input on this topic.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Re: Views on dual-aspect monism?
Again, if the question is about dual-aspect monism as "mind and matter being composite parts of a single whole", or "property dualism", that is not what Jung claimed if we are taking his writings and dialogue with Pauli seriously (as BK outlined very well in the new book). I don't really understand why there is hesitation to accept that...Eugene I wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:41 amI agree, and I also see that it further collapses into panpsychism, and we know the difficult problems that panpsychism faces. Goff is still struggling with them but seems like he is giving up. At the time of Pauli and Jung these problems were yet unknown to philosophers.Astra052 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:20 am Correct me if I'm wrong but honestly I see dual-aspect monism as an idea that either collapses into idealism or property dualism. I don't think the two idea are necessesarily antithesis of each other. To me there's a pretty good argument to be made that Jung saw the merits of both idealism and dual-aspect monism without making the jump into either.
"A secret law contrives,
To give time symmetry:
There is, within our lives,
An exact mystery."
To give time symmetry:
There is, within our lives,
An exact mystery."
Re: Views on dual-aspect monism?
Sorry, when I said "I agree" I only meant the first sentence about the "collapsing", not about Jung.AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:56 pmAgain, if the question is about dual-aspect monism as "mind and matter being composite parts of a single whole", or "property dualism", that is not what Jung claimed if we are taking his writings and dialogue with Pauli seriously (as BK outlined very well in the new book). I don't really understand why there is hesitation to accept that...Eugene I wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:41 amI agree, and I also see that it further collapses into panpsychism, and we know the difficult problems that panpsychism faces. Goff is still struggling with them but seems like he is giving up. At the time of Pauli and Jung these problems were yet unknown to philosophers.Astra052 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:20 am Correct me if I'm wrong but honestly I see dual-aspect monism as an idea that either collapses into idealism or property dualism. I don't think the two idea are necessesarily antithesis of each other. To me there's a pretty good argument to be made that Jung saw the merits of both idealism and dual-aspect monism without making the jump into either.
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kanzas anymore" Dorothy