AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 1:44 pm
Apanthropinist wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 12:51 pm
AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:29 pm
Completely agreed again. As to that last question, I am arguing that the metamorphic progression of Spirit has provided us the tools to expand that threshold to encompass increasingly more ideal relations in very fine detail. It is not much different from the common cultural view of science, except that the investigation must start from
within because, as you also agreed, we are microcosm of the macrocosm and therefore our "boundary",
in principle, is the
same boundary as the macrocosm. With a slight shift in philosophical assumptions, a whole vista of potentially explorable territory is opened up to our Spiritual Imagination.
OK, let's unpack this: "
I am arguing that the metamorphic progression of Spirit has provided us the tools to expand that threshold to encompass increasingly more ideal relations in very fine detail." Let's do this in a way that employs the 'very fine detail' of dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness that are words by definition, (very fine detail), I think we both agree that this is what words
are. So I can see if I understand you correctly.
'I am providing a chain of related premises that will naturally lead to the conclusion (
arguing) that the progressive change in form or structure (
metamorphic) of consciousness (
Spirit) has provided us with means and method
(tools) by which we can dissolve the threshold boundary of the dissociative, delineative, descriptive distinctiveness of the 'alter' such that the re-associative, less-delineated, more indefinite, more ambiguous, experience of beholding (
encompass increasingly more) what this 'looks like' (
ideal relations) by employing dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness (
words; very fine detail).'
In other words, you seem to be arguing that we can explain less fine detail (expansion) by employing more (very) fine detail (reduction)? Or, put another way, describing less distinction by employing more distinction? Given that less distinction would seem to be a natural consequence of crossing the dissociated boundary and the arrow of increasing association until we arrive at M@L, the unity.
Individual consciousness
appears to be distinct (a dissociated alter) but when you look behind that distinction (across a dissociated boundary) it becomes less distinct (more associated) and so trying to apply more distinction to less distinction results in a reductive collapse back to distinction. We can't capture less distinctiveness (association) with more distinctiveness (dissociation) it's logically and practicably absurd.
It sounds like you are simply assuming that more association means less distinction. That is the "Flat M@L" view in Cleric's essay - the view that re-association means a smearing out of ideal-perceptive contents. That is
not the spiritual scientific view. While higher cognition will reveal more unities of relations, it does not necessarily do so by revealing 100 different things to be only 50 different things, to be only 10 different things, to be only 1 thing. There is a qualitative unification but not necessarily quantitative unification. Of course, I am just speculating from what I have read from Steiner and Cleric, and what seems to make the most intellectual sense (without any philosophical assumptions), so I could be wrong in the way I am phrasing it, but the key point I am making is that we are adding assumptions when saying more association means less distinctiveness.
If I were making an assumption then I could do nothing other than agree with you. But the English language (the 'very fine detail' of dissociative, delineative, descriptive, distinctiveness that words are by definition and which we both agree on) prevents this and I have argued the limits of it's capacity and competence......
.....directly related to that of logic and science, which we also agree:
AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 1:35 pm
You are actually correct to say that we cannot fundamentally investigate beyond the "boundary" of the alter.
All the above being said:
1. More association means exactly and explicitly, by definition, less dissociation.
2. So more dissociation means exactly and explicitly, by definition, less association.
2. More distinction means exactly and explicitly, by definition, the opposite of less distinction (or ambiguity).
3. So less distinction (or ambiguity) means exactly and explicitly, by definition, the opposite of more distinction.
If the premise of analytical idealism is valid and its conclusion reveals a sound argument that there is one consciousness as the irreducible ontic reality (Mind At Large), which is to say an unambiguous unity of which 7,500,000 distinct by dissociation alters are
experiences of that unambiguous unity.
Then, 7,500,000
appearances of distinct by dissociation alters can be nothing
other than the
experiences of the ontic unity termed Mind At Large.
AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 1:44 pm
it does not necessarily do so by revealing 100 different things to be only 50 different things, to be only 10 different things, to be only 1 thing.
Ashvin I believe you know well enough that you (& Cleric) must demonstrate what it necessarily
does do, rather than what it necessarily
doesn't do, otherwise you leave a wide open door to the objection "Well if it doesn't
necessarily do so then it
possibly could do so..." Then that's your argument in serious jeopardy right there and then. This problem is also related to, and compounded by, this below:
AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 1:44 pm
There is a qualitative unification but not necessarily quantitative unification.
There is a disguised dualism being introduced here. Here's how I see that:
A dissociated alter is not separate from the ground of what it is, ie, M@L. In the same way that the whirlpool (Kastrup's analogy) is in any way separated from the water, the whirlpool is nothing
other than the water. There is nothing to unify
as such simply M@L experiencing itself as dissociated alter. If the whirlpool ceases the water does not disappear.
A quantitative unification is neither necessary nor unnecessary, it simply does not exist and introduces a dualism. There is no 'I' except M@L, our identity, you and I, are an illusion. That is my understanding of Kastrup's analytical idealism. Would you agree?