How Bernardo's Theory Deals with Logical Challenges to Idealism

[JLPratt]

And then, idealism never really explains where the Ideal, or what Bernardo following Schopenhauer might label the Will, comes from. Is such an idealist Primitive not also suggesting an even deeper, perhaps ineffable reality? If so, is this Idea or One Mind really all that can be said to exist? The answer of course need not be an independent "god" as in popular Christianity, but could be something like an ultimate Emptiness as in Taoism and Zen Buddhism, or perhaps labelled as an ultimate Consciousness sans cognition as in Hinduism (though Consciousness again might connote "a thing").

For this second challenge, one could perhaps say that the Ideal, or Mind, always entails an unfathomable Emptiness, or that Consciousness is what Emptiness looks like from the perspective of a transcendent Cognition, and in discourse Emptiness must be referred to somehow. The former conclusion, however, wrongly leaves the focus on the Ideal, or Mind, while the latter conclusion albeit helpful in appreciating ultimate reality also defines ultimate reality from the perspective of what it is not--the Mind, or Matter as may occur in Hinduism. Would it be best to characterize ultimate reality simply as unfathomable Emptiness, Darkness, or Void, without any meaningful opposition?

This is likely one of those metaphysical conundrums which has no practical significance. What caused Mind? Well, causation implies there is something which Mind is dependent on to exist, but since it is our ontic primitive, it is not dependent on anything to exist. So we can simply say it is Eternal, realizing that is not a satisfying answer for anyone, hence we probably need to abandon the question if it has no satisfying answers.

Again, it would seem this metaphysical point basically defines everyday reality and thus is almost all that matters. As you point out, moreover, positing the Mind as an ontic primitive results in a contradiction, the Mind is both dependent and independent. At some point, doesn't it begin to seem like this idealism is simply projecting its own conflicted sense of reality onto a higher power, not unlike religions are apt to do?

[JLPratt]

And then, idealism never really explains where the Ideal, or what Bernardo following Schopenhauer might label the Will, comes from. Is such an idealist Primitive not also suggesting an even deeper, perhaps ineffable reality? If so, is this Idea or One Mind really all that can be said to exist? The answer of course need not be an independent "god" as in popular Christianity, but could be something like an ultimate Emptiness as in Taoism and Zen Buddhism, or perhaps labelled as an ultimate Consciousness sans cognition as in Hinduism (though Consciousness again might connote "a thing").

For this second challenge, one could perhaps say that the Ideal, or Mind, always entails an unfathomable Emptiness, or that Consciousness is what Emptiness looks like from the perspective of a transcendent Cognition, and in discourse Emptiness must be referred to somehow. The former conclusion, however, wrongly leaves the focus on the Ideal, or Mind, while the latter conclusion albeit helpful in appreciating ultimate reality also defines ultimate reality from the perspective of what it is not--the Mind, or Matter as may occur in Hinduism. Would it be best to characterize ultimate reality simply as unfathomable Emptiness, Darkness, or Void, without any meaningful opposition?

This is likely one of those metaphysical conundrums which has no practical significance. What caused Mind? Well, causation implies there is something which Mind is dependent on to exist, but since it is our ontic primitive, it is not dependent on anything to exist. So we can simply say it is Eternal, realizing that is not a satisfying answer for anyone, hence we probably need to abandon the question if it has no satisfying answers.

Again, it would seem this metaphysical point basically defines everyday reality and thus is almost all that matters. As you point out, moreover, positing the Mind as an ontic primitive results in a contradiction, the Mind is both dependent and independent. At some point, doesn't it begin to seem like this idealism is simply projecting its own conflicted sense of reality onto a higher power, not unlike religions are apt to do?

[Simon Adams]

Thank you for your explanation. The question might then be so where do the ostensibly separate representations come from and why is there a dissociative boundary in the first place? In other words, how do you get from the One to the many and vice versa?

I keep guessing Bernardo’s answer which is a dangerous thing to do, but I suspect he would say two things. First we know from DID that disassociation happens within individual minds. In that case it’s usually trauma, but need not necessarily be the only reason. Secondly, within nature he would say the processes of disassociation are essentially the same as those studied by science. Mind at Large has habits that generate the multiplicity within itself. Once there are disassociated ‘forms’, any interaction between them appears as a representation.

I don’t agree with it all, and I agree that it leaves as many questions as it answers, but still arguably less than most others.

[Simon Adams]

Again related to the previous points, why should suffering be necessary, especially in an idealist reality? For a materialist, human inadequacy and thus suffering is a brute fact of nature. But for an idealist, where reality is One Mind, or whatever you want to call it, how does suffering even make sense? Instead of "suffering," why not form the alternative mental image that "challenges are necessary" for the meaningful experience of that One Mind? Couldn't the challenges then be seen as either lessons or suffering? In short, how can you assume reality is inherently conflicted?

Yes for a theistic idealist things are a bit different, but you could still argue it’s a conflict. Understanding why we need to be “refined like silver in the furnace” is not so easy to understand when you’re in the furnace.

[JLPratt]

If all is Mind, then we should not have much of an issue imagining how Mind connects to itself. In our personal inner experience, we know our perceptions influence our feelings which influence our thoughts, so on and so forth, even though they are quite different qualities of our experience. "Everyday reality" is also Mind. If you are asking about a precise mechanism of how all of this occurs, then I would say look to depth psychology and cognitive science. If you want even more precise than that, then you likely need to inquire from spiritual science.

Thank you for your response and suggestions. It is hard for me to imagine how Mind connects to itself, even if there is no question that such a Mind is related to our everyday experiences and mentations. This explanation, moreover, goes to the heart of reality. Without this explanation, how can you just assume that everyday reality is one way, say about suffering, and not another way, say about learning? Isn't it possible that everyday reality, especially insomuch as it is based on "the One Mind," could revolve around harmony and peace but also encompass discord and strife for that first condition to be sensible?

I think a lot of the confusion comes from setting up any sort of duality from the start, such as "ideal" and "reality". We are always encountering One reality which has been polarized and later "dualized" (poles are viewed as completely separate) by our self-aware existence. So with that in mind, yes Reality encompasses both harmony and discord, because the latter is essentially a privation of the former. We experience suffering and malevolence because we have lost sight of the ideal relations which harmonize us with all other beings i.e. MAL. That is why I would say all metaphysical idealism must, at its core, be about spiritual progress towards such re-recognition of the ideal relations for it to have any practical significance to our lives.

Yes, your point sounds right to me too. And your explanation of discord as the privation of harmony is wonderful. Some religions relegate harmony to a peaceful state that transcends discord, and that perhaps can happen with extreme ascetic practices, for example. But how could everyday reality even be simply discordant? In other words, shouldn't everyday reality entertain both harmony and discord?

[JLPratt]

You are asking very good questions, JLPratt, there is definitely a lot of explanatory gaps in idealism. There is also number of variants of idealism offering different versions of the answers like these, BK' sis only one of them. But any other ontology is not any better from that perspective, and some, like materialism, are only worse.

The problem also is that each of these explanatory gaps entails a contradiction. Given Aristotle's predilection for logical answers, it's perhaps no surprise he disagreed so profoundly with Plato. It may also be why some people today wave off idealism, even as they part with materialism.

[Eugene I]

You are asking very good questions, JLPratt, there is definitely a lot of explanatory gaps in idealism. There is also number of variants of idealism offering different versions of the answers like these, BK' sis only one of them. But any other ontology is not any better from that perspective, and some, like materialism, are only worse.

The problem also is that each of these explanatory gaps entails a contradiction. Given Aristotle's predilection for logical answers, it's perhaps no surprise he disagreed so profoundly with Plato. It may also be why some people today wave off idealism, even as they part with materialism.

Yeah, there are inconsistencies, in Platonic versions of idealism specifically, and I pointed to them on this forum too.

There are more basic and "clean" versions of idealism that do not make up much theories of how exactly the "consciousness" gets splits into alters and creates the appearances of the world and ideations etc, these versions just leave these questions unanswered as we do not have enough empirical data at this point to answer them. But if you can show me any other ontologies that can have better answers to your questions, I would be interested to know.

[AshvinP]

Thank you for your response and suggestions. It is hard for me to imagine how Mind connects to itself, even if there is no question that such a Mind is related to our everyday experiences and mentations. This explanation, moreover, goes to the heart of reality. Without this explanation, how can you just assume that everyday reality is one way, say about suffering, and not another way, say about learning? Isn't it possible that everyday reality, especially insomuch as it is based on "the One Mind," could revolve around harmony and peace but also encompass discord and strife for that first condition to be sensible?

I think a lot of the confusion comes from setting up any sort of duality from the start, such as "ideal" and "reality". We are always encountering One reality which has been polarized and later "dualized" (poles are viewed as completely separate) by our self-aware existence. So with that in mind, yes Reality encompasses both harmony and discord, because the latter is essentially a privation of the former. We experience suffering and malevolence because we have lost sight of the ideal relations which harmonize us with all other beings i.e. MAL. That is why I would say all metaphysical idealism must, at its core, be about spiritual progress towards such re-recognition of the ideal relations for it to have any practical significance to our lives.

Yes, your point sounds right to me too. And your explanation of discord as the privation of harmony is wonderful. Some religions relegate harmony to a peaceful state that transcends discord, and that perhaps can happen with extreme ascetic practices, for example. But how could everyday reality even be simply discordant? In other words, shouldn't everyday reality entertain both harmony and discord?

Yes, I would say it does, especially if we understand "harmony and discord" as processes rather than states. We are always in the process of moving towards greater harmony or, by going in the opposite direction towards disharmony or simply doing nothing, greater discord.

[JLPratt]

You are asking very good questions, JLPratt, there is definitely a lot of explanatory gaps in idealism. There is also number of variants of idealism offering different versions of the answers like these, BK' sis only one of them. But any other ontology is not any better from that perspective, and some, like materialism, are only worse.

The problem also is that each of these explanatory gaps entails a contradiction. Given Aristotle's predilection for logical answers, it's perhaps no surprise he disagreed so profoundly with Plato. It may also be why some people today wave off idealism, even as they part with materialism.

Yeah, there are inconsistencies, in Platonic versions of idealism specifically, and I pointed to them on this forum too.

There are more basic and "clean" versions of idealism that do not make up much theories of how exactly the "consciousness" gets splits into alters and creates the appearances of the world and ideations etc, these versions just leave these questions unanswered as we do not have enough empirical data at this point to answer them. But if you can show me any other ontologies that can have better answers to your questions, I would be interested to know.

As for another ontology, the only possible ontologies that wouldn't suffer from explanatory gaps and contradictions would seem to be Taoism and some versions of Buddhism and Hinduism, all of which might be conveying a single ontology. Taoism begins from Emptiness and regards the Ideal (Mind) and the Material (Matter) as second-order phenomena albeit at different layers of reality. Taoism also encompasses both complementarity and contradiction, and as AshvinP has been stressing must be the case, is in the nature of a process philosophy rather than a thing-hood philosophy. Taoism never refers to itself as idealistic or even holistic, although it certainly stresses at least holism. For Taoism, Emptiness, or the Dao, is all that ever really exists. In case you are interested, here is a paper on how Daoism might be compared to Dialectics: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3140946. Some people may be concerned with regarding a single ontology as "the final answer." Daoism, along with the versions of Buddhism and Hinduism, however, offers a clear measure of the "good"--basically a true unity with personal freedom, as opposed to a false social harmony and conflicted individuality. This latter, discordant state is more or less what the world appears to be undergoing right now.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Taoism begins from Emptiness and regards the Ideal (Mind) and the Material (Matter) as second-order phenomena albeit at different layers of reality.

How is there no explanatory gap in getting from some prioritized emptiness (formlessness) to phenomenal form?