Curt Jaimungal announces a 3 way conversation between himself, Hoffman, and Kastrup is coming!

[Eugene I]

sure, I agree

[AshvinP]

sure, I agree

OK. Then do you also agree there are scientific models of plant behavior-development which are more accurate than other models?

[Eugene I]

OK. Then do you also agree there are scientific models of plant behavior-development which are more accurate than other models?

Of course. That does not mean that the most accurate model we have at the moment is the absolute-true model. We have never witnesses any absolutely true and absolutely accurate models in science, all of them have been always approximate to certain degree, but some more accurate than others. And there have been examples in science when there were a number of models that are different, but all equally accurate at the same time, and the choice became indecisive. Example: an insane number of string-theory models in modern physics, all of them having different number of dimensions and string configurations, yet all of them describing the particle structures equally accurate, with no way to choose which one is "truer".

[AshvinP]

OK. Then do you also agree there are scientific models of plant behavior-development which are more accurate than other models?

Of course. That does not mean that the most accurate model we have at the moment is the absolute-true model. We have never witnesses any absolutely true and absolutely accurate models in science, all of them have been always approximate to certain degree, but some more accurate than others.

Agreed. And I am not looking for absolute certainty of any spiritual model. So we are agreed that some spiritual models can be more complete given the empirical data we have at any given time than other ones?

[Eugene I]

Agreed. And I am not looking for absolute certainty of any spiritual model. So we are agreed that some spiritual models can be more complete given the empirical data we have at any given time than other ones?

Here is the problem: what is the empirical data for such measurement of completeness if we are talking about spiritual realms beyond our perceived world? Such empirical data is different from scientific one because it is not reproducible and not consistent, it varies from person to person, from one tradition and age to another. It is also biased and much determined by the very tradition it is supposed to confirm: the empirical spiritual and extra-sensory data is different between those traditions, which we can easily see when we study those traditions and compare them. So, how would we know which tradition is more accurate and complete with the lack of a reliable and reproducible data? For example how do we know if there is one single creator-Deity supported by spiritual experiences and extra-sensory visions within monotheistic traditions, or multiple Deities supported by spiritual experiences and extra-sensory visions within indigenous or Eastern traditions?

Of course if you can present a bullet proof empirical evidence that there is a single Deity, than yes, in that case all monotheistic traditions could be said to be more complete and accurate based on that data. The problem is - we do not have such data.

[Eugene I]

In reality we typically have a number of models that only cover and explain different parts of the empirical data. These models are not encompassing each other and each can be said to be incomplete. For example, quantum model accurately describes micro-behavior of matter but fails at mega scale, and SR/GR model does the opposite. These two models are incompatible with each other and all attempts to combine them into in a single encompassing model in physics failed so far. We have a similar situation in the spiritual domain: so called "Western" and "Eastern" models are both incomplete and incompatible, yet more or less accurate within their domains of empirical data. Surely there must be more accurate and all-encompassing model IF we would have more empirical data about the spiritual world. But unfortunately we do not at this point.

I never thought that the Eastern traditions present the most accurate spiritual models, on the opposite, I find them lacking in many respects. On the other hand, I also find the Western ones lacking, for example, completely neglecting/ignoring the reality and importance of the "adverbial qualia".

[AshvinP]

Agreed. And I am not looking for absolute certainty of any spiritual model. So we are agreed that some spiritual models can be more complete given the empirical data we have at any given time than other ones?

Here is the problem: what is the empirical data for such measurement of completeness if we are talking about spiritual realms beyond our perceived world? Such empirical data is different from scientific one because it is not reproducible and not consistent, it varies from person to person, from one tradition and age to another. It is also biased and much determined by the very tradition it is supposed to confirm: the empirical spiritual and extra-sensory data is different between those traditions, which we can easily see when we study those traditions and compare them. So, how would we know which tradition is more accurate and complete with the lack of a reliable and reproducible data? For example how do we know if there is one single creator-Deity supported by spiritual experiences and extra-sensory visions within monotheistic traditions, or multiple Deities supported by spiritual experiences and extra-sensory visions within indigenous or Eastern traditions?

Of course if you can present a bullet proof empirical evidence that there is a single Deity, than yes, in that case all monotheistic traditions could be said to be more complete and accurate based on that data. The problem is - we do not have such data.

That is the fundamental argument I have been making here - 1) Philosophical-scientific (outer) divide from mental-spiritual (inner) is artificial holdover of Cartesian-Kantian divides and 2) Humanity's mode of perceiving-thinking (activity of Spirit) has been qualitatively evolving, as demonstrated by both analogy and empirical data. We are now at the beginning stages of what Gebser called "aperspectival", Barfield called "final participation", Teilhard de Chardin called "Omega Point", and others called various other names. This stage involves the Spirit (thinking activity) becoming an organ of our perception of ideal relations just as our other five senses perceive their respective content.

Of course, none of that will make sense if you simply reject the metamorphic progression of Spirit, hence the essays. If you have philosophical-scientific reasons to reject the metamorphic argument, then I am all eyes to read them.

[Simon Adams]

We are now at the beginning stages of what Gebser called "aperspectival", Barfield called "final participation", Teilhard de Chardin called "Omega Point", and others called various other names. This stage involves the Spirit (thinking activity) becoming an organ of our perception of ideal relations just as our other five senses perceive their respective content.

Of course, none of that will make sense if you simply reject the metamorphic progression of Spirit, hence the essays. If you have philosophical-scientific reasons to reject the metamorphic argument, then I am all eyes to read them.

Sorry to but in, but I have a specific question for Ashvin. One of the big issues I have with the “metamorphic progression of Spirit” being applied to the words of Christ is that they seem to me very specifically directed at the level of the individual. I won’t go quoting loads, but it applies right from those you quote, such as “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit…”, to “ …because you are not My sheep, you refuse to believe. My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me” etc. They all see seem to suggest a conditional requirement, at the level if the individual. Then those individuals form one body.

In fact when he uses the shepherd analogy he explicitly includes an exception; “I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them in as well, and they will listen to My voice. Then there will be one flock and one shepherd”. I find this intriguing, but it doesn’t seem to suggest the whole of mankind to me (although of course universalists would disagree on that).

I do get the evolution of consciousness, but to me that just changes the conscious reality, not necessarily how people respond to that reality. Do you really see that it makes no difference what an individual does, how they treat others, how kind versus violent/cruel, how much responsibility they take for their own actions etc? Is all that matters in your view really a vague hope that you can set a good example that others will follow, with the aim of leading the whole to an omega point?

Also if there is life on other planets, as seems likely, does that need to be part of this evolution?

[AshvinP]

We are now at the beginning stages of what Gebser called "aperspectival", Barfield called "final participation", Teilhard de Chardin called "Omega Point", and others called various other names. This stage involves the Spirit (thinking activity) becoming an organ of our perception of ideal relations just as our other five senses perceive their respective content.

Of course, none of that will make sense if you simply reject the metamorphic progression of Spirit, hence the essays. If you have philosophical-scientific reasons to reject the metamorphic argument, then I am all eyes to read them.

Sorry to but in, but I have a specific question for Ashvin. One of the big issues I have with the “metamorphic progression of Spirit” being applied to the words of Christ is that they seem to me very specifically directed at the level of the individual. I won’t go quoting loads, but it applies right from those you quote, such as “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit…”, to “ …because you are not My sheep, you refuse to believe. My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me” etc. They all see seem to suggest a conditional requirement, at the level if the individual. Then those individuals form one body.

In fact when he uses the shepherd analogy he explicitly includes an exception; “I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them in as well, and they will listen to My voice. Then there will be one flock and one shepherd”. I find this intriguing, but it doesn’t seem to suggest the whole of mankind to me (although of course universalists would disagree on that).

I do get the evolution of consciousness, but to me that just changes the conscious reality, not necessarily how people respond to that reality. Do you really see that it makes no difference what an individual does, how they treat others, how kind versus violent/cruel, how much responsibility they take for their own actions etc? Is all that matters in your view really a vague hope that you can set a good example that others will follow, with the aim of leading the whole to an omega point?

Also if there is life on other planets, as seems likely, does that need to be part of this evolution?

No, the individual level is the most important of all. That is why the essay stresses the fractal analogous relationship - these metamorphoses happen at every scale from individual to collective (remembering that is merely an abstract analogy used for orientation in the right direction). How each individual reacts to this progression is of utmost importance because that determines their specific role in the ongoing course of history. We cannot even talk about "progress" unless there are specific individuals progressing, and I suppose it's theoretically possible noone chooses to progress, even though that seems unlikely to me.

As to the last question, it seems clear to me there are other planetary systems involved in the whole progression, but I definitely do not have any experience or knowledge to speak to any specifics there.

[Ben Iscatus]

[BK is now saying that subject combination problem makes panpsychism fundamentally incoherent. Which means he does accept that the subject combination problem is an argument/criterium that can make an ontology incoherent.

Yes - I can't really follow this argument. Hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water, a different substance - what am I missing here? Is it because gases and liquid are still "matter", whereas consciousness is not ? (but then...matter is really just an aspectual appearance of consciousness viewed from across a dissociative boundary).