Part 2 of Kastrup and Vervaeke coming up May 21

[AshvinP]

No, as Whitehead makes clear, there is no such thing as unifying existence-awareness without the Thinking activity which provides the ideal content of "Unity". This is the most simple fact - explanation of anything requires Thinking. We cannot imagine a "reality" of pure awareness without first Thinking. The Thinking activity behind our thoughts is so ever-present that it always goes unnoticed until we call our own attention to it (this is also Heidegger's position which should become more clear in future essays). That activity is so simple that it is not worth mentioning in most arenas of life - it just happens and we take it for granted. Only in metaphysical discussions can such a simple fact be completely ignored or, even worse, treated as a "radical" claim.

And where exactly did I say that there is such thing as "unifying existence-awareness without the Thinking activity"? The Reality always exists in a unity of all its aspects - existence-awareness and thinking together. Yet, there are states of Consciousness without the realization/knowing of the unifying aspects of the existence-awareness even along with the Thinking activity. So the Reality is always unified in the existence-awareness-thinking aspects as a fact regardless whether the thinking activity is aware of it or not. But what thinking can do is to realize that fact and reflect it in its ideation.

You just claimed it again in this very post. You claim that existence-awareness unifies our experience in the same manner as Thinking. That claim is simply not true and the untruth of the claim is reflected immediately in the very fact that we must Think to make the claim and imagine a realm of "pure awareness" which is shared by everyone.

[AshvinP]

No, as Whitehead makes clear, there is no such thing as unifying existence-awareness without the Thinking activity which provides the ideal content of "Unity". This is the most simple fact - explanation of anything requires Thinking. We cannot imagine a "reality" of pure awareness without first Thinking. The Thinking activity behind our thoughts is so ever-present that it always goes unnoticed until we call our own attention to it (this is also Heidegger's position which should become more clear in future essays). That activity is so simple that it is not worth mentioning in most arenas of life - it just happens and we take it for granted. Only in metaphysical discussions can such a simple fact be completely ignored or, even worse, treated as a "radical" claim.

And where exactly did I say that there is such thing as "unifying existence-awareness without the Thinking activity"? The Reality always exists in a unity of all its aspects - existence-awareness and thinking together. Yet, there are states of Consciousness without the realization/knowing of the unifying aspects of the existence-awareness even along with the Thinking activity. So the Reality is always unified in the existence-awareness-thinking aspects as a fact regardless whether the thinking activity is aware of it or not. But what thinking can do is to realize that fact and reflect it in its ideation.

You just claimed it again in this very post. You claim that existence-awareness unifies our experience in the same manner as Thinking. That claim is simply not true and the untruth of the claim is reflected immediately in the very fact that we must Think to make the claim and imagine a realm of "pure awareness" which is shared by everyone.

By the way JV is making this same point right now and is making it very well, and BK seems to be struggling with it a bit. JV says he is a "realist about Reason" in the Neoplatonic tradition. Basically he is saying any claim to experience, whether our own experience or MAL's experience, without Thinking activity is forever outside of experience and therefore excluded from philosophizing and scientific inquiry. The same can be applied to the claim that "pure awareness" unifies our experience in the same manner as Thinking activity.

[Eugene I]

By the way JV is making this same point right now and is making it very well, and BK seems to be struggling with it a bit. JV says he is a "realist about Reason" in the Neoplatonic tradition. Basically he is saying any claim to experience, whether our own experience or MAL's experience, without Thinking activity is forever outside of experience and therefore excluded from philosophizing and scientific inquiry. The same can be applied to the claim that "pure awareness" unifies our experience in the same manner as Thinking activity.

I didn't say that they unify in the same way, I agree that they unify in different ways.

But here is something to explore: every event of our conscious experience includes the content of experience inseparable from Thinking and cognizing this experience, so it is essentially the same act. The experience does not exist without thinking, agreed, but in the same way, thinking does not exist without experience and without the qualitative content of our experience, they both inseparably co-exist. Even the Thinking itself (as an immanent aspect/ability of Consciousness) has to exist in the first place in order for thinking to know and cognize that we are thinking. Similarly, the aspects of existence-awareness must and do exist as facts and prerequisites in order for thinking to cognize them. In philosophical terms, the ontology (what exists) is a prerequisite for epistemology (knowledge of what exists), while being inseparable from it, because the knowing/thinking is the fundamental way for ontic reality to exist, yet no knowing is possible without the existence and the ability to experience in the first place.

Yet, there are states of consciousness where the thinking does not reflect and recognize all the aspects of the present-moment experience. For example, we may not cognitively reflect the objects in the peripheral field of our vision when we are focused on certain objects of interest, yet those peripheral objects are still experienced by consciousness, are recorded in memory and can be recalled. Thinking typically has narrower "scope of attention" compared to the whole field of experience. So, not all qualia and parts/aspects of experience are always processed and reflected by thinking. But that does not mean that those qualia do not exist when thinking is not processing them, and again we can verify this by recalling from memory.

So, I'm saying that certain aspects or qualia of conscious experience do not or may not get reflected by thinking at some points in time, while still perfectly being facts of conscious experience. This is what typically happens with out recognition of the aspects of the existence-awareness: they are always present in our filed of experience as experiential facts (and can be later recalled from memory), but most often are ignored and not recognized by thinking.

So, to summarize in a short sentence:
Experience does not exist without thinking activity, yet thinking activity does not always reflect all the content, aspects and qualia of the experience.

[AshvinP]

By the way JV is making this same point right now and is making it very well, and BK seems to be struggling with it a bit. JV says he is a "realist about Reason" in the Neoplatonic tradition. Basically he is saying any claim to experience, whether our own experience or MAL's experience, without Thinking activity is forever outside of experience and therefore excluded from philosophizing and scientific inquiry. The same can be applied to the claim that "pure awareness" unifies our experience in the same manner as Thinking activity.

I didn't say that they unify in the same way, I agree that they unify in different ways.

But here is something to explore: every event of our conscious experience includes the content of experience inseparable from Thinking and cognizing this experience, so it is essentially the same act. The experience does not exist without thinking, agreed, but in the same way, thinking does not exist without experience and without the qualitative content of our experience, they both inseparably co-exist. Even the Thinking itself (as an immanent aspect/ability of Consciousness) has to exist in the first place in order for thinking to know and cognize that we are thinking. Similarly, the aspects of existence-awareness must and do exist as facts and prerequisites in order for thinking to cognize them. In philosophical terms, the ontology (what exists) is a prerequisite for epistemology (knowledge of what exists), while being inseparable from it, because the knowing/thinking is the fundamental way for ontic reality to exist, yet no knowing is possible without the existence and the ability to experience in the first place.

Yet, there are states of consciousness where the thinking does not reflect and recognize all the aspects of the present-moment experience. For example, we may not cognitively reflect the objects in the peripheral field of our vision when we are focused on certain objects of interest, yet those peripheral objects are still experienced by consciousness, are recorded in memory and can be recalled. Thinking typically has narrower "scope of attention" compared to the whole field of experience. So, not all qualia and parts/aspects of experience are always processed and reflected by thinking. But that does not mean that those qualia do not exist when thinking is not processing them, and again we can verify this by recalling from memory.

So, I'm saying that certain aspects or qualia of conscious experience do not or may not get reflected by thinking at some points in time, while still perfectly being facts of conscious experience. This is what typically happens with out recognition of the aspects of the existence-awareness: they are always present in our filed of experience as experiential facts (and can be later recalled from memory), but most often are ignored and not recognized by thinking.

So, to summarize in a short sentence:
Experience does not exist without thinking activity, yet thinking activity does not always reflect all the content, aspects and qualia of the experience.

I disagree. First, we must remember "Thinking" includes all forms of cognizing, including intuition, imagination, and reason. Part I of the metamorphic essay (Breaking Bad Habits) was primarily to establish the inseparable nature of Thinking and perception, which lays the foundation for the conclusion that nothing is perceived without Thinking and Thinking is how we co-create the phenomenal world with God, idea-beings, whatever you want to call them. Hoffman says something similar when talking about how we "trash" the icons within our perceptual interface when we look away from them.

As I will discuss more in future essays, the 'right brain' is mostly responsible for the kind of Thinking I am referring to, so it has a much wider scope of attention than the mere intellect of the 'left brain'. Your second bolded statement above is once again a claim that there exists experiential content in the absence of Thinking activity. That is exactly what I keep disputing in these essays and posts to you! I am not sure why but it never sticks with you, and we keep rehashing the same points over and over. There are not any aspects of qualitative experience which are not also "reflected" by Thinking (qualia which lack ideal content; meaning). If they were not reflected by Thinking, then we would never know about them.

Although we should ditch the word "reflected" completely, because that is the Cartesian-Kantian dualist way of thinking about it. Thinking does not recreate an image of stuff 'outside us' within our consciousness, rather it takes a partially complete image and adds the concepts which unify the image into a meaningful coherent structure in the world. That process is explicated in great detail by Steiner in The Philosophy of Freedom, if not in the numerous passages I quoted in this part of the essay.

[Eugene I]

Regarding the BK-Vervaeke discussion, I'm even more amazed and resonate with John's positions, and there are so many synchronicities with mine. A few points:
- Participatory knowing and co-creation of reality in a community together with the Divine, with the Divine needing our participation and help as much as us needing the Divine ones.
- The development/metamorphic process is not simply expansion of knowledge, but a process of "fundamental transformation" of consciousness. Only part of which is the development of thinking and expansion of the realm of knowledge, but that is not the only part of the whole process. Like John said, "religion" is the "ecology of practices to develop wise and virtuous people".

[AshvinP]

Regarding the BK-Vervaeke discussion, I'm even more amazed and resonate with John's positions, and there are so many synchronicities with mine. A few points:
- Participatory knowing and co-creation of reality in a community together with the Divine, with the Divine needing our participation and help as much as us needing the Divine ones.
- The development/metamorphic process is not simply expansion of knowledge, but a process of "fundamental transformation" of consciousness. Only part of which is the development of thinking and expansion of the realm of knowledge, but that is not the only part of the whole process. Like John said, "religion" is the "ecology of practices to develop wise and virtuous people".

So when Steiner, Barfield, Gebser, Cleric or I say it, then it's absolutist fantasy castles made of sand... but when John says it, you are amazed!

But seriously, I am happy you are finding resonance there because that bolded part is a very critical thing for us to realize and take seriously at this time.

[Eugene I]

I disagree. First, we must remember "Thinking" includes all forms of cognizing, including intuition, imagination, and reason. Part I of the metamorphic essay (Breaking Bad Habits) was primarily to establish the inseparable nature of Thinking and perception, which lays the foundation for the conclusion that nothing is perceived without Thinking and Thinking is how we co-create the phenomenal world with God, idea-beings, whatever you want to call them. Hoffman says something similar when talking about how we "trash" the icons within our perceptual interface when we look away from them.

As I will discuss more in future essays, the 'right brain' is mostly responsible for the kind of Thinking I am referring to, so it has a much wider scope of attention than the mere intellect of the 'left brain'. Your second bolded statement above is once again a claim that there exists experiential content in the absence of Thinking activity. That is exactly what I keep disputing in these essays and posts to you! I am not sure why but it never sticks with you, and we keep rehashing the same points over and over. There are not any aspects of qualitative experience which are not also "reflected" by Thinking (qualia which lack ideal content; meaning). If they were not reflected by Thinking, then we would never know about them.

Although we should ditch the word "reflected" completely, because that is the Cartesian-Kantian dualist way of thinking about it. Thinking does not recreate an image of stuff 'outside us' within our consciousness, rather it takes a partially complete image and adds the concepts which unify the image into a meaningful coherent structure in the world. That process is explicated in great detail by Steiner in The Philosophy of Freedom, if not in the numerous passages I quoted in this part of the essay.

I do not understand how you arrived from

I'm saying that certain aspects or qualia of conscious experience do not or may not get reflected by thinking at some points in time
Experience does not exist without thinking activity, yet thinking activity does not always reflect all the content, aspects and qualia of the experience.

to

Your second bolded statement above is once again a claim that there exists experiential content in the absence of Thinking activity.

even though I explicitly stated that "Experience does not exist without thinking activity"

Thinking does not recreate an image of stuff 'outside us' within our consciousness, rather it takes a partially complete image and adds the concepts which unify the image into a meaningful coherent structure in the world.

I agree with that, but I was just saying that thinking does not always "cover" the whole partially incomplete image (content of experience) and often leaves some parts of the picture un-reflected and unattended. Yet, such fact does not mean that those unattended pieces of experience remain non-unified, because they are by nature always ontologically unified in the fundamental unity of the Ontic Prime, regardless whether thinking reflects this fact or not. But in addition to the ontological unity, when thinking does reflect these facts, they also get unified into "into a meaningful coherent structure in the world", and I agree with that.

[AshvinP]

I disagree. First, we must remember "Thinking" includes all forms of cognizing, including intuition, imagination, and reason. Part I of the metamorphic essay (Breaking Bad Habits) was primarily to establish the inseparable nature of Thinking and perception, which lays the foundation for the conclusion that nothing is perceived without Thinking and Thinking is how we co-create the phenomenal world with God, idea-beings, whatever you want to call them. Hoffman says something similar when talking about how we "trash" the icons within our perceptual interface when we look away from them.

As I will discuss more in future essays, the 'right brain' is mostly responsible for the kind of Thinking I am referring to, so it has a much wider scope of attention than the mere intellect of the 'left brain'. Your second bolded statement above is once again a claim that there exists experiential content in the absence of Thinking activity. That is exactly what I keep disputing in these essays and posts to you! I am not sure why but it never sticks with you, and we keep rehashing the same points over and over. There are not any aspects of qualitative experience which are not also "reflected" by Thinking (qualia which lack ideal content; meaning). If they were not reflected by Thinking, then we would never know about them.

Although we should ditch the word "reflected" completely, because that is the Cartesian-Kantian dualist way of thinking about it. Thinking does not recreate an image of stuff 'outside us' within our consciousness, rather it takes a partially complete image and adds the concepts which unify the image into a meaningful coherent structure in the world. That process is explicated in great detail by Steiner in The Philosophy of Freedom, if not in the numerous passages I quoted in this part of the essay.

I do not understand how you arrived from

I'm saying that certain aspects or qualia of conscious experience do not or may not get reflected by thinking at some points in time
Experience does not exist without thinking activity, yet thinking activity does not always reflect all the content, aspects and qualia of the experience.

to

Your second bolded statement above is once again a claim that there exists experiential content in the absence of Thinking activity.

even though I explicitly stated that "Experience does not exist without thinking activity"

Look at your bold statement above - what did you mean by it? Because it reads to me as a claim that there are qualia of experience which sometimes are not "reflected" by Thinking.

Thinking does not recreate an image of stuff 'outside us' within our consciousness, rather it takes a partially complete image and adds the concepts which unify the image into a meaningful coherent structure in the world.

I agree with that, but I was just saying that thinking does not always "cover" the whole partially incomplete image (content of experience) and often leaves some parts of the picture un-reflected and unattended. Yet, such fact does not mean that those unattended pieces of experience remain non-unified, because they are by nature always ontologically unified in the fundamental unity of the Ontic Prime, regardless whether thinking reflects this fact or not. But in addition to the ontological unity, when thinking does reflect these facts, they also get unified into "into a meaningful coherent structure in the world", and I agree with that.

Not true... you are treating Thinking as a flashlight which sheds light on unified objects so we too can then realize they are unified. That is not how it works. It makes no sense to speak of "always ontologically unified" objects in the world unless Thinking has first unified their percept-concept aspects.

[Eugene I]

So when Steiner, Barfield, Gebser, Cleric or I say it, then it's absolutist fantasy castles made of sand... but when John says it, you are amazed!

But seriously, I am happy you are finding resonance there because that bolded part is a very critical thing for us to realize and take seriously at this time.

John is very grounded in Taoism and Buddhism (which resonates with me), and he said interesting thing (reproducing from memory):
"religious people do better than non-religious (in terms of the "fundamental transformation" towards wisdom and virtue), but there is no noticeable difference in transformation between people different religious and spiritual practices.", suggesting that there is not a single :superior religion/castle", but instead a variety of them.

Regarding the "fantasy castles", as an example, the Buddhists are very serious about their spiritual practice and far from being lousy, yet the practice of non clinging even to their own practices and beliefs and realizing that they are only "fabricated castles" that are not to be overvalued is an essential part of the Buddhist path itself, a path to the realization of the fundamental freedom of Consciousness from the products of its own fabrications. There was even a ritual of burning Buddha's statues in some Buddhist monasteries.

Oh, and one more thing I forgot to mention about the discussion is John's point to "integrate humor in spirituality", synchronous with what I was saying in another thread. It's again finding a balance between being too serious, authoritative and pushy, and being too relaxed and lousy.

[Eugene I]

Not true... you are treating Thinking as a flashlight which sheds light on unified objects so we too can then realize they are unified. That is not how it works. It makes no sense to speak of "always ontologically unified" objects in the world unless Thinking has first unified their percept-concept aspects.

So, are you saying that the objects are actually separate from the Ontic Primitive unless/until they are unified by thinking?
Or do you mean that no objects/experiences can even come into existence unless "thinking has first unified their percept-concept aspects"?