The nature of 'relations' in Mind at Large

[findingblanks]

I pour one chemical into another chemical and watch the massive changes that result.

Within BK's model, we take each chemical to be a partial image of the one experience that is the Cosmos as a whole. So we have two partial images of the one experience that the Universe is undergoing.

We have names for the two chemicals and BK would remind us that these TWO THINGS are really merely nominal, they are ways we carve up ONE experience of the Cosmos in our process of translating that one experience into a livable apparent environment.

And yet we also know that the ways these two chemicals interact is incredibly exact. If I pour a micro less of one, we don't get this very huge change. If I pour a micro too much, we get some other thing. And we are able to model these relations in great detail.

But, remembering that these are merely nominal, what does the relation-interaction refer to with regards to the one experience that is the Cosmos? In other words, what might be ways to think about the highly intricate development that depends on a very exact interaction between the chemicals -- to think about it in a way that speaks to there actually be no two different chemicals in reality?

[AshvinP]

I pour one chemical into another chemical and watch the massive changes that result.

Within BK's model, we take each chemical to be a partial image of the one experience that is the Cosmos as a whole. So we have two partial images of the one experience that the Universe is undergoing.

We have names for the two chemicals and BK would remind us that these TWO THINGS are really merely nominal, they are ways we carve up ONE experience of the Cosmos in our process of translating that one experience into a livable apparent environment.

And yet we also know that the ways these two chemicals interact is incredibly exact. If I pour a micro less of one, we don't get this very huge change. If I pour a micro too much, we get some other thing. And we are able to model these relations in great detail.

But, remembering that these are merely nominal, what does the relation-interaction refer to with regards to the one experience that is the Cosmos? In other words, what might be ways to think about the highly intricate development that depends on a very exact interaction between the chemicals -- to think about it in a way that speaks to there actually be no two different chemicals in reality?

I am not following why BK's model necessitates that the chemical interaction is "merely nominal"? There is not two things of different essence, but that is true for all monism. A materialist must also make that distinction, so it shouldn't be very hard to explain. Two different appearances of ideal processes amounts to a real distinction in BK's model even though they are both unified from a higher order perspective.

[Starbuck]

I pour one chemical into another chemical and watch the massive changes that result.

Within BK's model, we take each chemical to be a partial image of the one experience that is the Cosmos as a whole. So we have two partial images of the one experience that the Universe is undergoing.

We have names for the two chemicals and BK would remind us that these TWO THINGS are really merely nominal, they are ways we carve up ONE experience of the Cosmos in our process of translating that one experience into a livable apparent environment.

And yet we also know that the ways these two chemicals interact is incredibly exact. If I pour a micro less of one, we don't get this very huge change. If I pour a micro too much, we get some other thing. And we are able to model these relations in great detail.

But, remembering that these are merely nominal, what does the relation-interaction refer to with regards to the one experience that is the Cosmos? In other words, what might be ways to think about the highly intricate development that depends on a very exact interaction between the chemicals -- to think about it in a way that speaks to there actually be no two different chemicals in reality?

If you can name it, it is nominal. Even materialist ideas of causation are nominal. We say the boiling water 'caused' the egg to cook, but what caused the water to boil? Its an endless recurrence even if you invoke a big bang or singular material origin. Even the impulse to intuitively identify a discreet cause such as the boiling water derives from an urge to understand the process according to a desired purpose which was itself 'caused' by a prior 'need'.

Materialist and idealist views are identical A nominal idea can be as intricate and exact as a nominal material interaction. Of course, we can endlessly debate the permutations of holding either stance. More nominalism, which is where the rational mind fails.

[Cleric K]

But, remembering that these are merely nominal, what does the relation-interaction refer to with regards to the one experience that is the Cosmos? In other words, what might be ways to think about the highly intricate development that depends on a very exact interaction between the chemicals -- to think about it in a way that speaks to there actually be no two different chemicals in reality?

The "merely nominal" is a common misunderstanding of idealism as a whole. Let's trace where this comes from.
In the spectrum of our experience we have many kinds of perceptions. Of these, the sensory seem to be more stable, lawful, persistent. On the other hand our emotions, thoughts, moods, seem very volatile. Viewed in this way, the general response to spiritual perspectives is to imagine that the stable sensory evaporates and we're only left with the volatile and chaotic inner world. Then the question: if all that exists is of such a volatile nature, what's the logic to get anything stable, like the sensory world, out of it - it doesn't make sense!

And that's true. If we view the spiritual only as our fleeting thoughts and swinging emotions, we have all reasons to doubt how anything stable may emerge from such a chaos. But this is only a quite prejudiced view on what idealism really implies. The above implicitly assumes that what we experience at the surface of our consciousness is already all there is. We implicitly dismiss the possibility that our cognitive perspective may be lacking in some ways.

Ideas exist in very definite relations to each other. See something like the Mandelbrot set. It's not 'material', it's only a definite relations between mathematical ideas. Yet these ideas produce something completely stable. If we are unaware of the underlying idea, when contemplating the infinite complexity we have no choice but to imagine that there's some 'space' where the 'particles' of the Mandelbrot set exist, where their position, color, etc. is somehow stored and encoded. This is a rough analogy but captures something fundamental. When we can't spot the ideal unity in multiplicity we are forced to postulate some storage 'space' that records the intricate relations between parts.

And here we arrive at the major stumbling stone today for materialists and spiritualists alike. In our thinking ego we experience a unity of multiplicity. The thoughts are multiplicity, yet they are only reduced expressions of ideas in manifold relations. If we fantasize that the thoughts thus experienced are responsible also for anything else, like the sensory perceptions, we really enter pathological state, and anyone who has not lost their reasoning capabilities should be justifiably concerned. But this doesn't mean ideas experienced in rigid concepts are the only way we can approach reality. We need to make the effort to go beyond our 'heads' if we are to livingly experience Ideas At Large. Only there we find Cosmic Ideas in intricate relations, which at the same time are responsible for the stable and lawful relations we observe in the sensory spectrum. Materialists embrace the intellect but are forced by their belief to stay within their skulls and envision all ideas only as local to the brain mental representations - thus the nominalism. Mysticism goes the other way, where everything is reverted back to nebulous feeling and all cognition is abolished. From that perspective cognition and ideas emerge only as a secondary effect within Cosmic awareness and thus they are again only local to the soul - again the nominalism. They serve purpose only as long as the intellect comprehends through the ideas its own worthlessness.

Cosmic scale Ideas are what holds/is the structure of M@L and if we are to comprehend how they shape our existence, we need to go beyond our heads. Not in order to be lost in vague and inexplicable feeling of undividedness but to investigate how Cosmic ideas support and shape reality. Needless to say, it's exactly this going beyond the head (intellect) to higher forms of cognition that's so outrageous both for materialists but also for spiritualists.

[findingblanks]

AhvinP, thanks for your response.

BK's model says that despite the manifold ripples that may constitute MaL at a given "time", it is only having one experience.

Language forces us to say this poorly, but perhaps you know what I mean.

We evolve within some aspect of ripples that allow separation/dissociation and what we 'see' as objects is merely how our body is representing MaL

The two chemicals in my example, according to BK, should not be thought of as having two experiences. They are each partial images (in BKs model) of the experiencing of MaL
.This is why I ask what the intricate precision of their relationship (to us) refers to in the whole experiencing of MaL.

I'm trying to stay within BK's terms and model.

[AshvinP]

AhvinP, thanks for your response.

BK's model says that despite the manifold ripples that may constitute MaL at a given "time", it is only having one experience.

Language forces us to say this poorly, but perhaps you know what I mean.

We evolve within some aspect of ripples that allow separation/dissociation and what we 'see' as objects is merely how our body is representing MaL

The two chemicals in my example, according to BK, should not be thought of as having two experiences. They are each partial images (in BKs model) of the experiencing of MaL
.This is why I ask what the intricate precision of their relationship (to us) refers to in the whole experiencing of MaL.

I'm trying to stay within BK's terms and model.

I'm really tired so this may not make any sense... but I think it's important to recognize that BK is a "naturalist" and therefore thinks that all appearances of the world are "real" notwithstanding they also form higher unities which are not readily apparent to the senses-intellect, with MAL being a symbol of the highest possible Unity i.e. God. The chemicals you reference are only partial appearances of a higher order set of ideal relations, so we should not expect a 1:1 correspondence between their specific interaction and what's really happening at the supersensible level of ideal relations. I believe that's also what Cleric was pointing out in his post, but I could be wrong about that.

[findingblanks]

Hmmmm....

Bernardo often asks us to imagine he is having an experience and we are looking at the complicated interactions taking place within one of his brain's neurons.

His experience is united and whole. He is having *an* experience. We are seeing all these fascinating parts and interactions of his neuron (this would be the different chemicals in my example).

I believe that BK would have to say we are making a mistake if we take a very intricate and specific relation we notice in the interactive parts of the neuron to refer to a relation between some 'parts' of his current experiencing.

[AshvinP]

Hmmmm....

Bernardo often asks us to imagine he is having an experience and we are looking at the complicated interactions taking place within one of his brain's neurons.

His experience is united and whole. He is having *an* experience. We are seeing all these fascinating parts and interactions of his neuron (this would be the different chemicals in my example).

I believe that BK would have to say we are making a mistake if we take a very intricate and specific relation we notice in the interactive parts of the neuron to refer to a relation between some 'parts' of his current experiencing.

Yes that is correct, because we are then mistaking the partial images for the ideal relations which give rise to the experience.

[findingblanks]

"Yes that is correct, because we are then mistaking the partial images for the ideal relations which give rise to the experience."

So then the specific effects that the chemicals are having on each other are objective in that they reflect actual relation of ideas that are helping constitute MaL's experience?

[AshvinP]

"Yes that is correct, because we are then mistaking the partial images for the ideal relations which give rise to the experience."

So then the specific effects that the chemicals are having on each other are objective in that they reflect actual relation of ideas that are helping constitute MaL's experience?

Yes I think they are objective because they are not dependent on any particular localized consciousness.