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

[Eugene I]

You are adding assumption that we "define" meanings, as in "inventing" them. It is better to think of it as matching existing meanings to existing perceptions (although that is still abstract simplification). Most of that happens unconsciously right now, so not even meta-cognitively. And it is certainly possible we inaccurately match meanings to perceptions in meta-cognitive mode. That is essentially what philosophical-scientific method is about - figuring out what matches are accurate i.e. expansive and useful towards specific aims of relational knowledge.

OK, but that would only be true in the Platonic framework where the meanings always exist and what we alters do is just "pull them out" and match to perceptions. Which is possible (I'm not refuting Platonism) but not necessarily true. In a non-Platonic framework we "invent" the meanings when we attempt to make sense of perceptions, so in the evolutionary process of consciousness development the alters who are able to invent better matching meanings had fitness and survival advantage, so this is how our meaning-invention ability became developed.

[AshvinP]

You are adding assumption that we "define" meanings, as in "inventing" them. It is better to think of it as matching existing meanings to existing perceptions (although that is still abstract simplification). Most of that happens unconsciously right now, so not even meta-cognitively. And it is certainly possible we inaccurately match meanings to perceptions in meta-cognitive mode. That is essentially what philosophical-scientific method is about - figuring out what matches are accurate i.e. expansive and useful towards specific aims of relational knowledge.

OK, but that would only be true in the Platonic framework where the meanings always exist and what we alters do is just "pull them out" and match to perceptions. Which is possible (I'm not refuting Platonism) but not necessarily true. In a non-Platonic framework we "invent" the meanings when we attempt to make sense of perceptions, so in the evolutionary process of consciousness development the alters who are able to invent better matching meanings had fitness and survival advantage, so this is how our meaning-invention ability became developed.

The "non-Platonic" framework is the dualist framework. It sets up realm of experience and separate realm of meaning which only arrived at a later time and, theoretically, could disappear altogether (which is nihilism). The whole endeavor of idealism including BK's is to eliminate such dualisms so we can start asking the right questions about our experience and avoid the abyss of nihilism.

[Eugene I]

You are adding assumption that we "define" meanings, as in "inventing" them. It is better to think of it as matching existing meanings to existing perceptions (although that is still abstract simplification). Most of that happens unconsciously right now, so not even meta-cognitively. And it is certainly possible we inaccurately match meanings to perceptions in meta-cognitive mode. That is essentially what philosophical-scientific method is about - figuring out what matches are accurate i.e. expansive and useful towards specific aims of relational knowledge.

OK, but that would only be true in the Platonic framework where the meanings always exist and what we alters do is just "pull them out" and match to perceptions. Which is possible (I'm not refuting Platonism) but not necessarily true. In a non-Platonic framework we "invent" the meanings when we attempt to make sense of perceptions, so in the evolutionary process of consciousness development the alters who are able to invent better matching meanings had fitness and survival advantage, so this is how our meaning-invention ability became developed.

The "non-Platonic" framework is the dualist framework. It sets up realm of experience and separate realm of meaning which only arrived at a later time and, theoretically, could disappear altogether (which is nihilism). The whole endeavor of idealism including BK's is to eliminate such dualisms so we can start asking the right questions about our experience and avoid the abyss of nihilism.

No true, there is only one realm of conscious experiences that differ from each other in aspects and qualities, but not in their ontic essence.
Check out 54:00 of BK-John dispute. The variety of qualities of experiences does not mean "duality". Perceptions do differ form meanings in qualities, and both of those differ from feelings or imaginations in qualities, but that does not mean that they belong to "different realms". As BK said at 54:00, our "partitioning" of experiences into different categories is completely nominal.

[AshvinP]

OK, but that would only be true in the Platonic framework where the meanings always exist and what we alters do is just "pull them out" and match to perceptions. Which is possible (I'm not refuting Platonism) but not necessarily true. In a non-Platonic framework we "invent" the meanings when we attempt to make sense of perceptions, so in the evolutionary process of consciousness development the alters who are able to invent better matching meanings had fitness and survival advantage, so this is how our meaning-invention ability became developed.

The "non-Platonic" framework is the dualist framework. It sets up realm of experience and separate realm of meaning which only arrived at a later time and, theoretically, could disappear altogether (which is nihilism). The whole endeavor of idealism including BK's is to eliminate such dualisms so we can start asking the right questions about our experience and avoid the abyss of nihilism.

No true, there is only one realm of conscious experiences that differ from each other in aspects and qualities, but not in their ontic essence.
Check out 54:00 of BK-John dispute. The variety of qualities of experiences does not mean "duality". Perceptions do differ form meanings in qualities, and both of those differ from feelings or imaginations in qualities, but that does not mean that they belong to "different realms". As BK said at 54:00, our "partitioning" of experiences into different categories is completely nominal.

Yes, at that time BK is pointing out exactly what we are discussing - the partition of the world into 'things' is arbitrary and nominal. Obviously it must be done for us to communicate about anything, but it is not ontic. Therefore, we cannot say quality of ideation-meaning is ontically "impermanent" or anything synonymous with that, while quality of perceptive experience is "permanent". That is immediately dualistic. The practical significance of that ontic nature of meaning is that we also cannot say spiritual traditions are merely human "defined" meanings which could be completely different under different cultural circumstances or cease to exist altogether.

[Eugene I]

Yes, at that time BK is pointing out exactly what we are discussing - the partition of the world into 'things' is arbitrary and nominal. Obviously it must be done for us to communicate about anything, but it is not ontic. Therefore, we cannot say quality of ideation-meaning is ontically "impermanent" or anything synonymous with that, while quality of perceptive experience is "permanent". That is immediately dualistic. The practical significance of that ontic nature of meaning is that we also cannot say spiritual traditions are merely human "defined" meanings which could be completely different under different cultural circumstances, i.e. spiritual relativism.

No it is not dualistic, it simply means that they have different qualities, - the former has a quality of impermanence, and the latter has a quality of permanence, that's all.

Yes, it is spiritual relativism, you are spot on. If you don't like relativism, that's fine, and you can stick with absolutism and the philosophies that support it. But I personally do not like dictatorship absolutism, IMO it is much-much worse than democracy relativism in practical and spiritual sense, and that is why I choose philosophies that do not support absolutism, still with a clear understanding of all the pitfalls of relativism. They are both not perfect, but absolutism is IMO much worse. If you count the number of atrocities over the human history, by far most of them were inflicted by political or religious absolutists.

Yet, with all that relativism of meanings, I still subscribe to idealism, which is essentially absolutism of one essence, the essence of Consciousness. But that Consciousness, even though it is singular in essence, allows an infinite variety of forms and meanings to unfold in it, and has no agenda of its own to control or dictate to alters what to do and what "absolute" meanings they should or should not assume. It's a paradigm of an ultimate freedom.

PS: regarding permanent-vs-impermanent aspects, that is exactly what John and BK discussed. John named these as "adverbial qualia" and "adjectival qualia", with adverbial being "prerequisites" of adjectival ones in the sense that no adjectival qualia could even exist in the absence of adverbial ones. And BK agreed with that. That does not mean one kind is more "ontic" that the other and does not introduce any duality, it is simply differentiation in qualities.

[AshvinP]

Yes, at that time BK is pointing out exactly what we are discussing - the partition of the world into 'things' is arbitrary and nominal. Obviously it must be done for us to communicate about anything, but it is not ontic. Therefore, we cannot say quality of ideation-meaning is ontically "impermanent" or anything synonymous with that, while quality of perceptive experience is "permanent". That is immediately dualistic. The practical significance of that ontic nature of meaning is that we also cannot say spiritual traditions are merely human "defined" meanings which could be completely different under different cultural circumstances, i.e. spiritual relativism.

No it is not dualistic, it simply means that they have different qualities, - the former has a quality of impermanence, and the latter has a quality of permanence, that's all.

Yes, it is spiritual relativism, you are spot on. If you don't like relativism, that's fine, and you can stick with absolutism and the philosophies that support it. But I personally do not like dictatorship absolutism, IMO it is much-much worse than democracy relativism in practical and spiritual sense, and that is why I choose philosophies that do not support absolutism, still with a clear understanding of all the pitfalls of relativism. They are both not perfect, but absolutism is IMO much worse.

Yet, with all that relativism of meanings, I still subscribe to idealism, which is essentially absolutism of one essence, the essence of Consciousness. But that Consciousness, even though it is singular in essence, allows an infinite variety of forms and meanings to unfold in it, and has no agenda of its own to control or dictate to alters what to do and what "absolute" meanings they should or should not assume. It's a paradigm of an ultimate freedom.

I edited to take out "spiritual relativism" because "relativism" is just a misleading characterization. What we are really dealing with is concrete meaning vs. ephemeral meaning. Dualism of the kind you are clearly and repeatedly advocating, despite your protests to the contrary, produces the latter and the latter ends up in nihilism or what you are calling "absolutism". They are two sides of the same coin. Why? Because when people cannot find their concrete meaning in spirituality they will either give up all hope OR they will project it all into their own non-spiritual creations, such as political causes. You keep claiming that you are not attacking spirituality as such or the "reality" of spiritual traditions, but that is exactly what you are doing without realizing it. So much so that you feel an essay quoting scripture is offensive and proselytizing, which in your mind overshadows all of the philosophical reasons for quoting it in the first place. It is Cartesian-Kantian dualism writ large and I guess we will just need to agree to disagree. I will keep making my case for reconciling philosophy-science and spirituality and you will keep making your case to keep them forever separate and everyone else can decide which one makes more sense.

[Eugene I]

I edited to take out "spiritual relativism" because "relativism" is just a misleading characterization. What we are really dealing with is concrete meaning vs. ephemeral meaning. Dualism of the kind you are clearly and repeatedly advocating, despite your protests to the contrary, produces the latter and the latter ends up in nihilism or what you are calling "absolutism". They are two sides of the same coin. Why? Because when people cannot find their concrete meaning in spirituality they will either give up all hope OR they will project it all into their own non-spiritual creations, such as political causes. You keep claiming that you are not attacking spirituality as such or the "reality" of spiritual traditions, but that is exactly what you are doing without realizing it. So much so that you feel an essay quoting scripture is offensive and proselytizing, which in your mind overshadows all of the philosophical reasons for quoting it in the first place. It is Cartesian-Kantian dualism writ large and I guess we will just need to agree to disagree. I will keep making my case for reconciling philosophy-science and spirituality and you will keep making yours and everyone else can decide which one makes more sense.

No, I am finding many meanings in spirituality, I was practicing spiritual traditions all my life, and never ended up in any nihilism whatsoever.

If there is no singular absolute meaning, that does not entail in nihilism, it just means that there is a choice and a FREEDOM of choice of good and meaningful meanings among a variety of them. All those good meanings are very concrete, they are available for us, and we can create more of them. And this is what "relativism" is really about - it's about claiming our fundamental freedom of choice and refutation of a "dictatorship" of a single absolute meaning that everyone has to comply with.

[AshvinP]

I edited to take out "spiritual relativism" because "relativism" is just a misleading characterization. What we are really dealing with is concrete meaning vs. ephemeral meaning. Dualism of the kind you are clearly and repeatedly advocating, despite your protests to the contrary, produces the latter and the latter ends up in nihilism or what you are calling "absolutism". They are two sides of the same coin. Why? Because when people cannot find their concrete meaning in spirituality they will either give up all hope OR they will project it all into their own non-spiritual creations, such as political causes. You keep claiming that you are not attacking spirituality as such or the "reality" of spiritual traditions, but that is exactly what you are doing without realizing it. So much so that you feel an essay quoting scripture is offensive and proselytizing, which in your mind overshadows all of the philosophical reasons for quoting it in the first place. It is Cartesian-Kantian dualism writ large and I guess we will just need to agree to disagree. I will keep making my case for reconciling philosophy-science and spirituality and you will keep making yours and everyone else can decide which one makes more sense.

No, I am finding many meanings in spirituality, I was practicing spiritual traditions all my life, and never ended up in any nihilism whatsoever.

If there is no singular absolute meaning, that does not entail in nihilism, it just means that there is a choice and a FREEDOM of choice of good and meaningful meanings among a variety of them. All those good meanings are very concrete, they are available for us, and we can create more of them. And this is what "relativism" is really about - it's about claiming our fundamental freedom of choice and refutation of a "dictatorship" of a single absolute meaning that everyone has to comply with.

Spiritual freedom only makes sense in the context of a spiritual Reality we are navigating. Such freedom does not exist in the abstract isolated intellectual ego which claims a right for itself to do whatever it wants and to ascribing meanings however it wants. That is what you are pushing here without any solid philosophical basis, but only your dislike of certain traditions and how they have been expressed in the past.

[Eugene I]

Spiritual freedom only makes sense in the context of a spiritual Reality we are navigating. Such freedom does not exist in the abstract isolated intellectual ego which claims a right for itself to do whatever it wants and to ascribing meanings however it wants. That is what you are pushing here without any solid philosophical basis, but only your dislike of certain traditions and how they have been expressed in the past.

Yes, in the context of spiritual reality of Consciousness there is an ultimate freedom. But I agree that is a pitfall of relativism - when such freedom is taken from the perspective of ego, it ends up in a "freedom for my ego to do whatever it wants". So, limitations and restrictions of freedom are necessary until a developmental stage is achieved where egoic mind no longer dominates. This is why there is a place for more restrictive spiritual traditions, and so I'm not denying them. My point is that those restrictive traditions tend to stretch too far and claim that their restrictions are not provisional and not only fit to particular stages of development, but universal and absolute.

[AshvinP]

Spiritual freedom only makes sense in the context of a spiritual Reality we are navigating. Such freedom does not exist in the abstract isolated intellectual ego which claims a right for itself to do whatever it wants and to ascribing meanings however it wants. That is what you are pushing here without any solid philosophical basis, but only your dislike of certain traditions and how they have been expressed in the past.

Yes, in the context of spiritual reality of Consciousness there is an ultimate freedom. But I agree that is a pitfall of relativism - when such freedom is taken from the perspective of ego, it ends up in a "freedom for my ego to do whatever it wants". So, limitations and restrictions of freedom are necessary until a developmental stage is achieved where egoic mind no longer dominates. This is why there is a place for more restrictive spiritual traditions, and so I'm not denying them. My point is that those restrictive traditions tend to stretch too far and claim that their restrictions are not provisional and not only fit to particular stages of development, but universal and absolute.

And I view that as a trivial point we all agree with and has little to do with philosophy-spirituality connection. Can the spiritual realm be investigated with the same empirical rigor we can investigate plants, chemicals, geology, etc.? Or, put another way, is our investigation of the latter also investigation of some aspect of the former?