How Bernardo's Theory Deals with Logical Challenges to Idealism

[Eugene I]

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.

I'm in the Eastern paths myself. The way you described Taoism is called dual-property neutral monism in philosophy. It sounds nice, but it runs in the "hard problem of consciousness" just like materialism: how can something not conscious by nature (Tao) can make conscious experience happen? This is a very problematic explanatory gap. Many Buddhist schools (not all of them though) are actually idealistic, for example Yogachara, Chittamara, Tibetan schools (Dzogchen etc).

[JLPratt]

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.

I'm in the Eastern paths myself. The way you described Taoism is called dual-property neutral monism in philosophy. It sounds nice, but it runs in the "hard problem of consciousness" just like materialism: how can something not conscious by nature (Tao) can make conscious experience happen? This is a very problematic explanatory gap. Many Buddhist schools (not all of them though) are actually idealistic, for example Yogachara, Chittamara, Tibetan schools (Dzogchen etc).

Well, perhaps check out this paper, which goes into consciousness as opposed to cognition (mind) and form (matter), and let me know what you think. In short, Taoism, very much like Buddhism and Hinduism, would say that the ultimate reality--Tao, Emptiness, Brahman, whatever you want to call it--is akin to Consciousness. As mentioned in a previous post here, however, the term "consciousness" tends to connote a "thing" and this ultimate reality is beyond any such conception. The first line of the Tao Te Ching could even be translated to read, "The Dao that one is conscious of is not the eternal Dao." At the end of the day, all one can do in language is to simply point out this ultimate reality.

The Eastern wisdom traditions are particularly focused on this more subtle metaphysics, although they do not explain themselves in the logical manner that Western philosophers expect, and they often are misunderstood even in their own home countries. The Western wisdom traditions, as far as I can tell, are offering the same vision. Sometimes, reading the Bible, especially sayings of Jesus but also parts of the Old Testament, one can see exact parallels in the Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi. In a way, because the ontology is complete, a wisdom tradition could not but be this way.

[Soul_of_Shu]

It is an interesting paper, however in positing (paraphrasing here) that the fundamental emptiness can be described as an "ultimate Consciousness" which begets form, and the first step in begetting form is the Dao (emptiness/Consciousness) giving rise to the One, while granting the 'One' as a primary 'idea'—not a 'thing' per se—then I'm not seeing how this is not somehow tantamount to idealism. And there still remains the tracing of a point of causal origin for this 'begetting' other than eternally now, rendering it in essence uncaused.

[JLPratt]

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?

The Tao Te Ching, as well as the Zhuangzi, Huainanzi, and Yellow Emperor's Medical Canon, appreciates numbers as primarily qualitative and only secondarily quantitative, and sums up the seamlessness of reality in Chapter 42: "The Dao begets the One, the One begets the Two, the Two begets the Three, and the Three begets the myriad things." The Dao is an Ultimate Emptiness, the One is a Transcendent Oneness, the Two is a YinYang Twoness, and the Three is an Embodied Threeness.

[Soul_of_Shu]

The Tao Te Ching, as well as the Zhuangzi, Huainanzi, and Yellow Emperor's Medical Canon, appreciates numbers as primarily qualitative and only secondarily quantitative, and sums up the seamlessness of reality in Chapter 42: "The Dao begets the One, the One begets the Two, the Two begets the Three, and the Three begets the myriad things." The Dao is an Ultimate Emptiness, the One is a Transcendent Oneness, the Two is a YinYang Twoness, and the Three is an Embodied Threeness.

Ok ... my subsequent 2nd comment/inquiry still applies.

[Eugene I]

Well, perhaps check out this paper, which goes into consciousness as opposed to cognition (mind) and form (matter), and let me know what you think. In short, Taoism, very much like Buddhism and Hinduism, would say that the ultimate reality--Tao, Emptiness, Brahman, whatever you want to call it--is akin to Consciousness. As mentioned in a previous post here, however, the term "consciousness" tends to connote a "thing" and this ultimate reality is beyond any such conception. The first line of the Tao Te Ching could even be translated to read, "The Dao that one is conscious of is not the eternal Dao." At the end of the day, all one can do in language is to simply point out this ultimate reality.

The Eastern wisdom traditions are particularly focused on this more subtle metaphysics, although they do not explain themselves in the logical manner that Western philosophers expect, and they often are misunderstood even in their own home countries. The Western wisdom traditions, as far as I can tell, are offering the same vision. Sometimes, reading the Bible, especially sayings of Jesus but also parts of the Old Testament, one can see exact parallels in the Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi. In a way, because the ontology is complete, a wisdom tradition could not but be this way.

Oh, I see, good paper, I'll take time to read it in full. From you paper:

Daoism also shows how a person is both connected to the ultimate reality as Consciousness—another name for the Dao
The Dao could be characterized as an ultimate Consciousness.

But to me this is pure idealism, or we can call it "Consciousness-based idealism", but not a neutral monism.
But this is in essence not different from Bernardo's analytical idealism. The confusion I think is only terminological. When Bernardo call it "Mind at Large" he refers to the same Consciousness, he just uses the term "Mind" that often confuse people and draw parallels to the discursive human mind as a human rational thinking activity.

But there are variants of idealism that differ in certain details, and there have been a lot of discussions on this forum regarding the question whether there is such thing as "pure Consciousness" without any forms, or whether the conscious activity is immanent to Consciousness and not its emergent property or aspect. IMO the extraction of a "sterile" Consciousness absent of any conscious activity, time, space, forms and ideal content is a pure abstraction - we never actually experiences such state so we can not prove that such state of "pure Consciousness" even exists. Even in a thoughtless meditative states there is still very subtle conscious activity (even if it is only just memory function that records such state in memory), and the fact that a meditator can pull himself out of such state at any moment by an act of volition proves that the conscious volition and cognition is still functioning, even though they may go almost dormant. So, we never observe such thing as "pure Consciousness" apart form conscious activity, and therefore cannot experimentally prove that it can exist in such form. IMO we are running in a wrong direction when searching for some "singular ontic ground" prior-to any activity and ideal/form content. There is nothing wrong in assuming that Consciousness, as a unity of its immanent aspects of beingness, awareness and conscious activity, actually IS the ontic fundamental with all those aspects equally immanent. It is exactly how Tibetan Buddhists see it: the Dharmadhatu - Ground of Being - is a unity of three aspects (Trikaya): Dharmakaya (emptiness, suchness), Sambhogakaya (awareness, conscious experiencing) and Nirmakaya (ideation, conscious activity with all its ideal forms).

[Soul_of_Shu]

But to me this is pure idealism, or we can call it "Consciousness-based idealism", but not a neutral monism.
But this is in essence not different from Bernardo's analytical idealism. The confusion I think is only terminological. When Bernardo call it "Mind at Large" he refers to the same Consciousness, he just uses the term "Mind" that often confuse people and draw parallels to the discursive human mind as a human rational thinking activity.

But there are variants of idealism that differ in certain details, and there have been a lot of discussions on this forum regarding the question whether there is such thing as "pure Consciousness" without any forms, or whether the conscious activity is immanent to Consciousness and not its emergent property or aspect. IMO the extraction of a "sterile" Consciousness absent of any conscious activity, time, space, forms and ideal content is a pure abstraction - we never actually experiences such state so we can not prove that such state of "pure Consciousness" even exists. Even in a thoughtless meditative states there is still very subtle conscious activity (even if it is only just memory function that records such state in memory), and the fact that a meditator can pull himself out of such state at any moment by an act of volition proves that the conscious volition and cognition is still functioning, even though they may go almost dormant. So, we never observe such thing as "pure Consciousness" apart form conscious activity, and therefore cannot experimentally prove that it can exist in such form. IMO we are running in a wrong direction when searching for some "singular ontic ground" prior-to any activity and ideal/form content. There is nothing wrong in assuming that Consciousness, as a unity of its immanent aspects of beingness, awareness and conscious activity, actually IS the ontic fundamental with all those aspects equally immanent. It is exactly how Tibetan Buddhists see it: the Dharmadhatu - Ground of Being - is a unity of three aspects (Trikaya): Dharmakaya (emptiness, suchness), Sambhogakaya (awareness, conscious experiencing) and Nirmakaya (ideation, conscious activity with all its ideal forms).

Nice elaboration on the point I'm also making.

[JLPratt]

Well, perhaps check out this paper, which goes into consciousness as opposed to cognition (mind) and form (matter), and let me know what you think. In short, Taoism, very much like Buddhism and Hinduism, would say that the ultimate reality--Tao, Emptiness, Brahman, whatever you want to call it--is akin to Consciousness. As mentioned in a previous post here, however, the term "consciousness" tends to connote a "thing" and this ultimate reality is beyond any such conception. The first line of the Tao Te Ching could even be translated to read, "The Dao that one is conscious of is not the eternal Dao." At the end of the day, all one can do in language is to simply point out this ultimate reality.

The Eastern wisdom traditions are particularly focused on this more subtle metaphysics, although they do not explain themselves in the logical manner that Western philosophers expect, and they often are misunderstood even in their own home countries. The Western wisdom traditions, as far as I can tell, are offering the same vision. Sometimes, reading the Bible, especially sayings of Jesus but also parts of the Old Testament, one can see exact parallels in the Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi. In a way, because the ontology is complete, a wisdom tradition could not but be this way.

Oh, I see, good paper, I'll take time to read it in full. From you paper:

Daoism also shows how a person is both connected to the ultimate reality as Consciousness—another name for the Dao
The Dao could be characterized as an ultimate Consciousness.

But to me this is pure idealism, or we can call it "Consciousness-based idealism", but not a neutral monism.
But this is in essence not different from Bernardo's analytical idealism. The confusion I think is only terminological. When Bernardo call it "Mind at Large" he refers to the same Consciousness, he just uses the term "Mind" that often confuse people and draw parallels to the discursive human mind as a human rational thinking activity.

But there are variants of idealism that differ in certain details, and there have been a lot of discussions on this forum regarding the question whether there is such thing as "pure Consciousness" without any forms, or whether the conscious activity is immanent to Consciousness and not its emergent property or aspect. IMO the extraction of a "sterile" Consciousness absent of any conscious activity, time, space, forms and ideal content is a pure abstraction - we never actually experiences such state so we can not prove that such state of "pure Consciousness" even exists. Even in a thoughtless meditative states there is still very subtle conscious activity (even if it is only just memory function that records such state in memory), and the fact that a meditator can pull himself out of such state at any moment by an act of volition proves that the conscious volition and cognition is still functioning, even though they may go almost dormant. So, we never observe such thing as "pure Consciousness" apart form conscious activity, and therefore cannot experimentally prove that it can exist in such form. IMO we are running in a wrong direction when searching for some "singular ontic ground" prior-to any activity and ideal/form content. There is nothing wrong in assuming that Consciousness, as a unity of its immanent aspects of beingness, awareness and conscious activity, actually IS the ontic fundamental with all those aspects equally immanent. It is exactly how Tibetan Buddhists see it: the Dharmadhatu - Ground of Being - is a unity of three aspects (Trikaya): Dharmakaya (emptiness, suchness), Sambhogakaya (awareness, conscious experiencing) and Nirmakaya (ideation, conscious activity with all its ideal forms).

To respond also to Mind of Shu's point, the Dao and the One are both distinct and the same, and both appear before any sense of causation, which would occur at the level of YinYang Two (or at least a pattern for causation would appear there). At that level, moreover, because of the relationship of the Dao and the One, correspondence is first-order and causation only second-order. The One could be called the Idea, but the One is a Singularity (or again perhaps the pattern for a singularity), void of any distinctions. And even this "One" but points to the Dao, or Emptiness. Reality unfolds and enfolds through the seamless process, and although we can link the various layers together it must always be remembered that the ultimate reality is beyond attribution.

Hegel at times also calls his Idea, something like the True or Nothingness; he just doesn't explain how these concepts might be related and then of course his theory revolves around contradiction and thus he could do much but posit these points and then of course he could not get from the One to the many and vice versa. In a Western philosophical context, Daoism would be considered a holistic or idealistic account of reality, but the Daoist texts themselves, considering Emptiness as all that really exists and following the above logic, hold the Idea, or "Name" as they often call it, as but secondary.

Bernardo certainly seems to be saying the same thing as this sense of Daoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and--as I learned today--Ubuntu, though he often stresses "One Mind" as all that exists and some of his terminology, like "dissociation," seems more in line with German idealism than the great wisdom traditions. He of course is speaking to a certain academic audience, so fair enough. But he might also consider tweaking his terms so as to avoid confusion between his ideas and other, less positive, forms of idealism.

As for the "pure Consciousness" debate, the Daoist, Buddhist, Hindu, and Ubuntu traditions would probably say that the problem is not whether "pure Consciousness" exists, the problem is that people think other things exist. The Dao De Jing and Zhuangzi, at least, are clear on this point. We as a species may be far from any such pure realization, and that's okay. Life is a joy now, because we are learning this truth.

[Eugene I]

Daoist, Buddhist, Hindu, and Ubuntu traditions would probably say that the problem is not whether "pure Consciousness" exists, the problem is that people think other things exist.

Exactly, I think it's a common ground of all versions of idealism: "consciousness is all there is"

[JLPratt]

Daoist, Buddhist, Hindu, and Ubuntu traditions would probably say that the problem is not whether "pure Consciousness" exists, the problem is that people think other things exist.

Exactly, I think it's a common ground of all versions of idealism: "consciousness is all there is"

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.