Speculation About the Discovery of Ideal Forms

[AshvinP]

I actually created this thread so you guys can continue your discussion on the original thread without the detour of my purely speculative metaphysical question. Not that it matters to me, but I figured it would be easier for others to follow that way. But if you guys want to continue here instead, have at it!

[AshvinP]

Well, from my perspective, there is a logical impossibility under idealism when we claim some ideal forms can exist in potential state without being known.

Exactly. That is why the only logically consistent option is to assume that ideal forms simply do not exist in any sense in a "potential" state, and only exist when they are actually experienced by Consciousness. "Potential existence" is a logically inconsistent idea, and it is useless and unnecessary anyway (IMO).

The ideal forms must exist in a "potential state" if they do not actually exist. How else can we explain the emergence of new ideal forms? That is why I am saying all possible ideal forms actually exist. We avoid the "potential state" duality that way.

[Eugene I]

In a nutshell I say that the empty state is mistaken as direct confirmation for the existence of pure consciousness (above form and idea) while in fact this can only exist as abstract idea inspired from the empty experience. Then the abstract idea is taken and is used to argue that penetrating the world of ideas is only an exotic adventure, since nondualism already addresses the pure consciousness beyond ideas.

I never said that there is a "pure Consciousness above" form and ideas. I don't even remember using the term "pure Consciousness". The only thing I said (repeating 101-th time) is that Consciousness has impermanent aspects (phenomena, forms, ideas) and permanent aspects - existence and awareness (simply because Consciousness can not not exist and not be aware, duhh ). Whether there are cognitive layers of Consciousness that are still functioning in the "seemingly thoughtless" state is also irrelevant. The only purpose of the thoughtless state meditation practice is to help to recognize those permanent aspects of Consciousness. Once they are recognized, there are no other benefits of the thoughtless state whatsoever, and there is no priority of the formless state whatsoever. IMO the formless state is actually an inferior state, it's a state of a living vegetable, and there are danger in being attached to it (which Buddha warned about), but it may become be a resort for some escapists who suffer too much and don't like their lives, but I'm not one of those.

By the way, all we are doing here are pretty exotic adventures anyway: idealist philosophy, spiritual science, non-dual practices. How many people in the world are doing that? Perhaps a few thousand out of 10 billion?

Well, the above is a completely natural result when we take the beforementioned stance about the gate of death. This splits the world into two spheres with different rules. No wonder that penetrating into the spiritual is seen only as an interesting but quite optional (speaking for humanity's evolution as a whole) endeavor. Anyone can see for themselves how different everything becomes if we assume for a moment the standpoint of true monism (which is the only direct experience we can know), without presupposing that we are only temporary visitors in the Earthly sphere, coming from another sphere, with other rules of existence. Honestly, I don't see how it is "less dangerous" to base our whole life on a pure belief about the nature of existence in the yonder sphere, while ignoring the "more dangerous" path of direct experience that is available for us, which starts with lucid and unprejudiced thinking and gradually and naturally transforms into higher forms of spiritual activity, revealing the depth of reality.

Oh, no question, enjoy you path along the spiritual science , that is what we are here for - to take paths not available to us in the discarnate form.

[Eugene I]

The ideal forms must exist in a "potential state" if they do not actually exist. How else can we explain the emergence of new ideal forms? That is why I am saying all possible ideal forms actually exist. We avoid the "potential state" duality that way.

New ideas emerge because they are "potentially possible to exist", not because they "potentially exist". "Potential existence" makes no sense, things either exist or not, there is no other "middle option".

[AshvinP]

The ideal forms must exist in a "potential state" if they do not actually exist. How else can we explain the emergence of new ideal forms? That is why I am saying all possible ideal forms actually exist. We avoid the "potential state" duality that way.

New ideas emerge because they are "potentially possible to exist", not because they "potentially exist". "Potential existence" makes no sense, things either exist or not, there is no other "middle option".

It doesn't matter how you phrase it... if you claim that all possible ideal forms do not actually exist, then you are positing a duality of ideal forms which are "potentially possible to exist" vs. "actually existing". And that is being done simply to hold up the notion that ideal forms may be invented rather than discovered. Why that is being done, I don't know... other than discovery of ideal forms is more aligned with "Platonism". Maybe I am missing something, but your responses are definitely not clarifying what that something is.

[Eugene I]

It doesn't matter how you phrase it... if you claim that all possible ideal forms do not actually exist, then you are positing a duality of ideal forms which are "potentially possible to exist" vs. "actually existing". And that is being done simply to hold up the notion that ideal forms may be invented rather than discovered. Why that is being done, I don't know... other than discovery of ideal forms is more aligned with "Platonism". Maybe I am missing something, but your responses are definitely not clarifying what that something is.

How can something that does not exist pose any duality to something that exists? If something does not exist, then it simply does not exist, there is just none of it.

You are voicing the well-known "Multiverse" paradigm, only in an idealistic/Platonic way. The Multiverse theory poses that if something can potentially exist, then it necessarily must exist. In your version it also must exist but only in a form of "potential existence" in the "universe of all possible ideas" within Consciousness. If you want to believe in it, no problem, people have so many different beliefs.

That is how Consciousness has fun entertaining itself in the eternity: fantasize all kinds of ideas (or pull them out from the shelves of the "universe of all potential ideas" ) and then start believing that they are true. Knowing only one plain truth for the whole eternity is too boring.

[AshvinP]

It doesn't matter how you phrase it... if you claim that all possible ideal forms do not actually exist, then you are positing a duality of ideal forms which are "potentially possible to exist" vs. "actually existing". And that is being done simply to hold up the notion that ideal forms may be invented rather than discovered. Why that is being done, I don't know... other than discovery of ideal forms is more aligned with "Platonism". Maybe I am missing something, but your responses are definitely not clarifying what that something is.

How can something that does not exist pose any duality to something that exists? If something does not exist, then it simply does not exist, there is just none of it.

You are voicing the well-known "Multiverse" paradigm, only in an idealistic/Platonic way. The Multiverse theory poses that if something can potentially exist, then it necessarily must exist. In your version it also must exist but only in a form of "potential existence" in the "universe of all possible ideas" within Consciousness. If you want to believe in it, no problem, people have so many different beliefs.

That is how Consciousness has fun entertaining itself in the eternity: fantasize all kinds of ideas (or pull them out from the shelves of the "universe of all potential ideas" ) and then start believing that they are true. Knowing only one plain truth for the whole eternity is too boring.

What I am voicing is objective idealism. The only 'things' under idealism are ideal forms. If there are ideal forms which Mind has not yet experienced but could possibly experience, then they exist in some sort of potentiality. I do not like the idea of such potentiality because it does not fit well with monism, so I say all ideal forms which could possibly be experienced are experienced. If theoretical physics is aligned with that as well, then all the better.

Again, there could be holes in this purely abstract intellectual argument, but you seem to be doing everything except pointing them out To be fair, you countered with the uncountable infinity argument, but that fell flat for me because I am willing to prioritize the monist aspect of idealism over a quantitative limitation. After all, quantities are fundamentally qualitative under idealism. And I do not see a reason to limit the qualitative-ness of existence.

[Eugene I]

OK, as I said, the metaphysics of objective Platonic idealism has all rights to exist, so no problem. There are also versions of subjective idealism that do not need to assume any existence of potentially possible ideas, and all sorts of other blends of idealism that also have all rights to exist. That's the fun of philosophy.

By the way, one of the feature of the uncountable infinity in math is the impossibility of any quantification of it. That is exactly why it is called "uncountable".

[AshvinP]

OK, as I said, the metaphysics of objective Platonic idealism has all rights to exist, so no problem. There are also versions of subjective idealism that do not need to assume any existence of potentially possible ideas, and all sorts of other blends of idealism that also have all rights to exist. That's the fun of philosophy.

By the way, one of the feature of the uncountable infinity in math is the impossibility of any quantification of it. That is exactly why it is called "uncountable".

Indeed, any concept has a "right to exist", but we are asking on this forum which concepts are more accurate and/or useful. I don't think my conception in this matter depends on objective vs. subjective idealism, but idealism in general.

re: uncountable infinity - what if we just translate that into quality rather than quantity? The quality of uncountable infinity.

[Cleric K]

I never said that there is a "pure Consciousness above" form and ideas. I don't even remember using the term "pure Consciousness". The only thing I said (repeating 101-th time) is that Consciousness has impermanent aspects (phenomena, forms, ideas)and permanent aspects - existence and awareness (simply because Consciousness can not not exist and not be aware, duhh ).

That's the whole thing, Eugene. It is precisely the nature of these permanent aspects that cause the confusion. This is what draws artificial dividing line within consciousness. And it requires nothing but proper introspection in order to investigate what we are really doing in our spiritual activity as to arrive at such views.

If we are completely objective in the way we conduct our knowing activity we can't fail but notice that the permanent aspects exist still as ideas within thinking. What is awareness? What is existence? These are ideas that our thinking grasps when it confronts the totality of perceptions and their metamorphoses. Thinking complements the perceptions with the all-encompassing ideas of 'awareness' and 'existence'. Confusion arises only when we believe that we arrive at the idea of 'awareness' in some different way than cognition. We should grasp this correctly. This doesn't demean in any way our experience. It doesn't at all say that "All we know is the idea of awareness, while the 'real' awareness remains unknowable." That would be completely erroneous (and a typical Kantian trap). All it's needed is to recognize that the perceptions and ideas are the only reality available to our experience.

It's all a matter of recognizing that what we call permanent aspects is actually also ideal content which overarches and unifies the disparate temporal states. The whole confusion arises when we project this all-encompassing idea into some 'awareness-in-itself' which can exist without idea. It's as simple as that. The fact of the given is that we never experience anything devoid of ideal content (even if it as vague as in the empty state). Instead of recognizing the aspect of permanence for what it is - namely, an ever evolving idea that unifies our temporal experience - we externalize it into some thing-in-itself called awareness which is supposed to be beyond any ideal content and instead creates it for us. Yet this is nothing but another hard problem, existing for the sole reason that we invent something out of our abstract thinking.