How Bernardo's Theory Deals with Logical Challenges to Idealism

[Eugene I]

To the extent this cosmological point of "pure Consciousness" is a common ground of all versions of idealism and has long been expressed in the world's wisdom traditions, it may be a relatively easy point for people--even broadly--to accept. The problem remains, however, how to get from the experience of everyday reality to this ideal, ultimate reality? To finally put reductionism and materialism to bed and make idealism work practically, this point is key.

In podcasts, Bernardo has talked about intuitionist logic and the need to get away from Aristotelian logic, and yesterday from reading parts of his really wonderful Ph.D. dissertation it seems he is open to the idea of a complementarity-of-opposites logic, like in a Taiji symbol and perhaps some forms of Hindu logic, as opposed to an oppositional or really contradiction-of-opposites logic, as in the Aristotelian dialectic.

Any further insights into this matter? Outside of a logic based on complementarity, is there any other way to get to an ideal, everyday experience? It seems, moreover, that a YinYang logic might be necessary to bridge the analytical tradition with the continental tradition, as Bernardo is seeking to do.

I agree, as the modern math revealed to us, there is a large number of different logic systems different form Aristotelian, so we no longer have any ground to claim that only Aristotelian logic is appropriate as an intellectual model of reality. There are two ways to approach the ultimate reality: by applying cognition/intellect, and experientially. Both should be used, but the latter is crucial to recognize the ever-presence of the ultimate reality in our everyday experience.