How Bernardo's Theory Deals with Logical Challenges to Idealism

[JLPratt]

Can anyone point me to a discussion or paper that explains how Bernardo's theory deals with the two main historical challenges to idealism? Bernardo's criticism of materialism is certainly spot on, and nowadays with quantum physics perhaps irrefutable. But it seems like idealism has a longstanding problem of connecting the Ideal, One, Form, or Will--whatever you want to call it--to everyday reality and vice versa. Wasn't that Aristotle's primary criticism of Plato's forms?

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?

For the first challenge of relating the Ideal to the real as in manifest reality, it seems like there is no way of doing so except through a central property like the YinYang, which can be both one and two. In a complementary state, the YinYang becomes One, while in a discordant condition, the YinYang is necessarily two—what Bernardo might regard as dissociation. An important distinction between this subtle property and the dialectic in idealism is that a person’s natural state is positive—something akin to flow, and human beings are constantly evolving towards a higher state of flow.

In other words, life is not a matter of simply transcending the suffering that comes with contradiction, though meditating on paradoxical koans might lead to such a peaceful spaciousness. Instead, life is about according with the Middle Way. Such harmony, moreover, is available to society writ large, not just to a few enlightened individuals. It may even be the key to true social progress. Anyway, it would be a delight to hear any insights the forum may have on these two issues.

[Simon Adams]

Can anyone point me to a discussion or paper that explains how Bernardo's theory deals with the two main historical challenges to idealism? Bernardo's criticism of materialism is certainly spot on, and nowadays with quantum physics perhaps irrefutable. But it seems like idealism has a longstanding problem of connecting the Ideal, One, Form, or Will--whatever you want to call it--to everyday reality and vice versa. Wasn't that Aristotle's primary criticism of Plato's forms?

I can give you a philosophical ignoramus answer, hopefully someone more erudite will give you a better answer. Bernardo would probably say that there is no need to connect anything, as physical matter is exactly the representation of mental processes, across a dissociative boundary. When you look in the mirror, you see an image of yourself. It may give you some hints of your emotions etc, but only an image of what it’s actually like to be you. He would also say that immaterial objects are the representation of instinctual mental processes within mind at large, with the instincts essentially being the laws of nature.

I have a bit more Plato in my view, but it’s worth thinking about his analogy of a cave. Are the shadows really a different substance than what casts them? I think Plato gets confused because of language. If I had my way we would only use ‘forms’ for the essence of the particulars, and use ‘ideas’ for the universals, the archetypes or templates that give forms their essence. But that’s another story…

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?

Bernardo would probably say no, he sees no reason why it should. I say yes, will is the active aspect of our telos, given from the divine will.

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").

Again, Bernardo would say they are all essentially the same thing, just different people’s experience of the cosmic consciousness. From my perspective, the ‘cosmic consciousness’ is instinctive as Bernardo says, but is not the source of all being, who is without any categories and does not change.

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?

From my perspective, the emptiness is the state in which the pond no longer has ripples, and perception perceives itself directly, but I’m sure others here will have different views.

For the first challenge of relating the Ideal to the real as in manifest reality, it seems like there is no way of doing so except through a central property like the YinYang, which can be both one and two. In a complementary state, the YinYang becomes One, while in a discordant condition, the YinYang is necessarily two—what Bernardo might regard as dissociation. An important distinction between this subtle property and the dialectic in idealism is that a person’s natural state is positive—something akin to flow, and human beings are constantly evolving towards a higher state of flow.

In other words, life is not a matter of simply transcending the suffering that comes with contradiction, though meditating on paradoxical koans might lead to such a peaceful spaciousness. Instead, life is about according with the Middle Way. Such harmony, moreover, is available to society writ large, not just to a few enlightened individuals. It may even be the key to true social progress. Anyway, it would be a delight to hear any insights the forum may have on these two issues.

My answer would be that a difficult but necessary part of this life is about learning to accept suffering in ourselves, and doing what we can to reduce it for other people and sentient creatures. Part of that is being detached from things, but part of it is about being integrated in something that roots your being in something that transcends this life. So a middle way of sorts…

[AshvinP]

Can anyone point me to a discussion or paper that explains how Bernardo's theory deals with the two main historical challenges to idealism? Bernardo's criticism of materialism is certainly spot on, and nowadays with quantum physics perhaps irrefutable. But it seems like idealism has a longstanding problem of connecting the Ideal, One, Form, or Will--whatever you want to call it--to everyday reality and vice versa. Wasn't that Aristotle's primary criticism of Plato's forms?

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.

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.

[JLPratt]

Can anyone point me to a discussion or paper that explains how Bernardo's theory deals with the two main historical challenges to idealism? Bernardo's criticism of materialism is certainly spot on, and nowadays with quantum physics perhaps irrefutable. But it seems like idealism has a longstanding problem of connecting the Ideal, One, Form, or Will--whatever you want to call it--to everyday reality and vice versa. Wasn't that Aristotle's primary criticism of Plato's forms?

I can give you a philosophical ignoramus answer, hopefully someone more erudite will give you a better answer. Bernardo would probably say that there is no need to connect anything, as physical matter is exactly the representation of mental processes, across a dissociative boundary. When you look in the mirror, you see an image of yourself. It may give you some hints of your emotions etc, but only an image of what it’s actually like to be you. He would also say that immaterial objects are the representation of instinctual mental processes within mind at large, with the instincts essentially being the laws of nature.

I have a bit more Plato in my view, but it’s worth thinking about his analogy of a cave. Are the shadows really a different substance than what casts them? I think Plato gets confused because of language. If I had my way we would only use ‘forms’ for the essence of the particulars, and use ‘ideas’ for the universals, the archetypes or templates that give forms their essence. But that’s another story…

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?

[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?

Bernardo would probably say no, he sees no reason why it should. I say yes, will is the active aspect of our telos, given from the divine will.

Without explaining this fundamental point, how can you have an explanation at all? At best, you only have a useful description of reality.

[JLPratt]

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").

Again, Bernardo would say they are all essentially the same thing, just different people’s experience of the cosmic consciousness. From my perspective, the ‘cosmic consciousness’ is instinctive as Bernardo says, but is not the source of all being, who is without any categories and does not change.

Related to the previous point about getting from the One to the many, isn't what is truly the One important? If the One is not Absolute, how can it be said that all of reality (i.e., the many) is the Mind? Again, moreover, what if the mind, or cognition, is but pointing to something deeper? And, to the extent the Mind is both Experience and Mentation, or both Consciousness and Cognition, why not start with Experience or Consciousness, so to speak, and take Mentation or Cognition as a second-order property?

[JLPratt]

For the first challenge of relating the Ideal to the real as in manifest reality, it seems like there is no way of doing so except through a central property like the YinYang, which can be both one and two. In a complementary state, the YinYang becomes One, while in a discordant condition, the YinYang is necessarily two—what Bernardo might regard as dissociation. An important distinction between this subtle property and the dialectic in idealism is that a person’s natural state is positive—something akin to flow, and human beings are constantly evolving towards a higher state of flow.

In other words, life is not a matter of simply transcending the suffering that comes with contradiction, though meditating on paradoxical koans might lead to such a peaceful spaciousness. Instead, life is about according with the Middle Way. Such harmony, moreover, is available to society writ large, not just to a few enlightened individuals. It may even be the key to true social progress. Anyway, it would be a delight to hear any insights the forum may have on these two issues.

My answer would be that a difficult but necessary part of this life is about learning to accept suffering in ourselves, and doing what we can to reduce it for other people and sentient creatures. Part of that is being detached from things, but part of it is about being integrated in something that roots your being in something that transcends this life. So a middle way of sorts…

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?

[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.

[JLPratt]

Can anyone point me to a discussion or paper that explains how Bernardo's theory deals with the two main historical challenges to idealism? Bernardo's criticism of materialism is certainly spot on, and nowadays with quantum physics perhaps irrefutable. But it seems like idealism has a longstanding problem of connecting the Ideal, One, Form, or Will--whatever you want to call it--to everyday reality and vice versa. Wasn't that Aristotle's primary criticism of Plato's forms?

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?

[AshvinP]

Can anyone point me to a discussion or paper that explains how Bernardo's theory deals with the two main historical challenges to idealism? Bernardo's criticism of materialism is certainly spot on, and nowadays with quantum physics perhaps irrefutable. But it seems like idealism has a longstanding problem of connecting the Ideal, One, Form, or Will--whatever you want to call it--to everyday reality and vice versa. Wasn't that Aristotle's primary criticism of Plato's forms?

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.