Views on dual-aspect monism?

[Astra052]

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!

[AshvinP]

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!

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.

[Astra052]

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!

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.

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.

[AshvinP]

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!

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.

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.

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.

[Eugene I]

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.

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.

[Soul_of_Shu]

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!

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.

[Astra052]

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!

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.

I don't think I've ever heard of Scott Roberts? What is his viewpoint?

[Soul_of_Shu]

I don't think I've ever heard of Scott Roberts? What is his viewpoint?

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.

[AshvinP]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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...

Sorry, when I said "I agree" I only meant the first sentence about the "collapsing", not about Jung.