Eugene I wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 2:27 am
AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 12:58 am
Go to 1:40 timestamp of "Meaning and Ontology" - BK discusses Schopenhauer's criticism of Kantian epistemology and then goes into a discussion of whether depth psychology can address the absence of meaning, i.e. the fundamental issue of our day, without also discussing ontology. He says, "
either meaning is really there, or my giving meaning to things is self-deception" and asks, "
do you think we can solve the meaning crisis without addressing ontology head on?"
...
I just quoted it.
I can't find it, where is this "Meaning and Ontology"?
But even better, go to the beginning of JV's response to BK in that section. He says "I think the key to 'participatory knowing', which I take from Plato, and I consider Jung is a 'Platonist', he is basically the Plato of the inner psyche..." and then watch BK's reaction to that (he smiles and nods in agreement).
BK always smiles, he is a nice guy, that does not mean he agreed, he is not a Platonist. But it looks like John is, which is OK, there are many Platonists around.
If you go below the video to the description, then you will see timestamps. "Meaning and ontology" is at 1:40:00. BK starts talking about depth psychology and how meaning is
not helpful self-deception we employ as part of our narrative (which means it is
not epiphenomenal and it is fundamental). JV's response I am referring to is a few minutes into that. BK does not just smile when JV characterizes Jung as the "Plato of the inner psyche", he nods several times. Keep in mind BK just wrote a book on Jung's idealism, as you know, and is on record saying he "agrees with everything Jung thought". They are discussing ontology and both of them have high philosophical IQ and are very careful with their philosophical terminology. Put this also in the context of him retweeting the
Incarnating the Christ essay (the first post I have sent him which he retweeted, and I tag him on almost all of my posts). Also in the context of him stating MAL experiences from "
both sides" of dissociative boundary, instinctive and meta-cognitive.
Of course, none of this is relevant to the actual power of the philosophical-scientific arguments which establish ideational activity as fundamental, it just indicates BK also knows that it is the best conclusion for the empirical data we have. He realizes philosophy-science is intimately linked with specific forms of spirituality, which, as Dana pointed out on the other thread, should also be clear from his books.