Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Transfiguring our Thinking (Part II)

[AshvinP]

What you are claiming is no different from what Schopenhauer claimed with universal Will, and I address that in this essay. You cannot justifiably claim "reality is actually unified in these adverbial aspects regardless whether we reflect it with thinking or not". That is 1) impossible to verify and 2) sawing off the branch (thinking) you are sitting on to make that claim. So, in that sense, you cannot make that claim any more than a Christian theist could make the claim that a God who transcends Consciousness is the explanation for everything we perceive and think. Of course, when I say "you cannot make the claim", I mean the claim will not hold up under any philosophical or scientific scrutiny.

It is possible to verify with direct experience of those aspects. You are missing that experience, so it is understandable that for you those are just intellectual claims that are impossible to verify.

Do you think Heidegger was also making non-verifiable claims when he said this?:

"'Being' is not something like a being but is rather "what determines beings as beings."
M. Heidegger

Only if you claim there is zero ideal content in your direct experience of awareness, beingness, etc. I hesitate to ask, because we have been down this road many times before... but is that what you are claiming?

Heidegger, as far as I can tell, never claimed there is Beingness in the absence of Thinking activity-content. If you can point me towards a passage where he did, then I would be happy to say Heidegger was wrong on that.

Actually let us be more precise with your claim - it is not only that Beingness is fundamental (which I agree with), or that Beingness can exist without Thinking (which I disagree with, and maybe that is not your claim), but it is precisely that we find a unity of phenomenon in noumenon in pure experience of Beingness. Think about it - when saying "we find" or anything similar, we are already presupposing that Thinking activity which is what truly unifies phenomenon and noumenon. It is that activity which provides the unity, because the concept of "unity", as the concepts of "phenomenon" and "noumenon", is a product of our shared Thinking.

[Eugene I]

The question whether there is ideal content is actually irrelevant here. Yet, as I said, in the dog's state of consciousness the ideal content of the adverbial aspects is indeed zero, a dog has no clue about them, but experientially they are still present, they are just not reported by dog's cognition. So, when we do recognize them with the cognition, the ideal content of our recognition of adverbial aspects is simply a reflection of the experiential facts of the existence of those aspects.

But if you can point me towards a passage where Heidegger said that the "Being" is only an idea, then I would be happy to say Heidegger was wrong on that.

[AshvinP]

The question whether there is ideal content is actually irrelevant here. Yet, as I said, in the dog's state of consciousness the ideal content of the adverbial aspects is indeed zero, a dog has no clue about them, but experientially they are still present, they are just not reported by dog's cognition. So, when we do recognize them with the cognition, the ideal content of our recognition of adverbial aspects is simply a reflection of the experiential facts of the existence of those aspects.

But if you can point me towards a passage where Heidegger said that the "Being" is only an idea, then I would be happy to say Heidegger was wrong on that.

That goes to the point that we can only philosophize from the human perspective. Just because the dog's cognition appears to be non-self-reflective compared to our own, that does not give us any warrant to presume how the dog experiences the world and draw conclusions on the essence of Reality from that presumed experience. These are things we started doing so habitually in the modern world that it seems perfectly natural and justified. Yet once we reflect on it more, it should become obvious why such arguments cannot hold up under philosophical scrutiny.

Back to the point in my last comment - the unification of phenomenon-noumenon only happens in Thinking activity, as "unity" is ideal content of a concept discovered (or invented, if you prefer) by Thinking beings. How can it be any other way?

[Eugene I]

Back to the point in my last comment - the unification of phenomenon-noumenon only happens in Thinking activity, as "unity" is ideal content of a concept discovered (or invented, if you prefer) by Thinking beings. How can it be any other way?

The other way can be that the unity is an actual reality and thinking has the ability to reflect and comprehend it with ideas. But you cannot prove it unless you can experience the fact of the unity of the adverbial aspects as facts of reality. Existence is a fact of reality regardless whether or not there is an "idea of existence" and whether or not you can think this idea. You just exist, it's a fact, but you can also think about it and have ideas about it. Everyone else also exists in the same way, so we are all united in the aspect of the existence as a fact.

I also find it strange that you resort to Gospels to confirm you paradigm. Nowhere in the Gospels we can find any claims that the whole world is only ideas and thinking. Neither we find it anywhere in the traditional theology of the pre-schism Catholic-Orthodox Church. There is nothing wrong with saying that cognition is an immanent aspect of reality. It is reducing the wholeness of reality only to thinking and ideas that is problematic.

[AshvinP]

Back to the point in my last comment - the unification of phenomenon-noumenon only happens in Thinking activity, as "unity" is ideal content of a concept discovered (or invented, if you prefer) by Thinking beings. How can it be any other way?

The other way can be that the unity is an actual reality and thinking has the ability to reflect and comprehend it with ideas. But you cannot prove it unless you can experience the fact of the unity of the adverbial aspects apart form any ideas about it. Existence is a fact of reality regardless whether or not there is an "idea of existence". You just exist, it's a fact, but you can also think about it and have ideas about it. Everyone else also exists in the same way, so we are all united in the aspect of existence as a fact.

I also find it strange that you resort to Gospels to confirm you paradigm. Nowhere in the Gospels we can find any claims that the whole world is only ideas and thinking. Neither we find it anywhere in the traditional theology of the pre-schism Catholic-Orthodox Church.

"The fact of the unity" is ideal content! You are making an assertion that only has meaning in relation to our human thinking. The fact of unity is not discovered from "pure experience" but from thinking activity. People will jump through so many intellectual hoops to deny this simple reality.

re: Gospels - I never resorted to them to "confirm my paradigm". I quote or refer to them to show how well their spiritual observations match with the paradigm I am arguing for on independent phenomenological grounds. You already know my argument is not "the whole world is only ideas and thinking"... I have never made such a claim. Although, that also makes me think you do not take the spiritual metamorphic view seriously, because pre-schism theology only makes sense if we acknowledge that thinking in that era was not like thinking in the modern era. The doctrine of dualism, like "pure" experience separate from ideal activity-content, could not have been entertained at such time.

[Eugene I]

"The fact of the unity" is ideal content! You are making an assertion that only has meaning in relation to our human thinking. The fact of unity is not discovered from "pure experience" but from thinking activity. People will jump through so many intellectual hoops to deny this simple reality.

Wait, you contradict yourself. You say:

The fact of unity is not discovered from "pure experience" but from thinking activity.

So you are saying there is a fact of unity, and it is discovered by thinking. I agree, but what's important is that there is a the fact itself regardless whether it is discovered or not. And we discover it from experiencing it as a fact and then we apply cognition to recognize it and reflect through an ideal content.

But then you say:

"The fact of the unity" is ideal content!

which is saying that there is no fact of unity other than the ideal content.

So is there a fact or there is not?
Reality exists. Is this a fact (which the ideal content may reflect) or is it only an ideal content and nothing else than the ideal content?

[AshvinP]

"The fact of the unity" is ideal content! You are making an assertion that only has meaning in relation to our human thinking. The fact of unity is not discovered from "pure experience" but from thinking activity. People will jump through so many intellectual hoops to deny this simple reality.

Wait, you contradict yourself. You say:

The fact of unity is not discovered from "pure experience" but from thinking activity.

So you are saying there is a fact of unity, and it is discovered by thinking. I agree, but what's important is that there is a the fact itself regardless whether it is discovered or not. And we discover it from experiencing it as a fact and then we apply cognition to recognize it and reflect through an ideal content.

But then you say:

"The fact of the unity" is ideal content!

which is saying that there is no fact of unity other than the ideal content.

So is there a fact or there is not?
Reality exists. Is this a fact (which the ideal content may reflect) or is it only an ideal content and nothing else than the ideal content?

No, there is no "fact of unity" existing separately from the thinking activity. I understand what is confusing you here, but I guess I am not doing a good job addressing it. Let me try another way - we should treat thought-forms as phenomenon we perceive as discussed here:

Valentin Weigel was a 16th century German mystic who realized the true import of what Kant only realized later in a superficial manner. Our sensory organs are indeed adding ideal content to the bare percepts, but only if our thinking capacity is considered a sensory organ for the reasons we have discussed throughout this series. It does not add ideal content according to arbitrary or superficial rules. Rather, it matches the percepts with their appropriate concepts and, moreover, all beings who share in the Spirit which makes us human appear to perform this operation in a similar (but not exactly the same) manner. Our thought-forms, perceived by thinking, belong to the phenomenal world just as much as sights, sounds, tastes, and smells.

It is quite arbitrary to regard the sum of what we experience of a thing through bare perception as a totality, as the whole thing, while that which reveals itself through thoughtful contemplation is regarded as a mere accretion which has nothing to do with the thing itself. If I am given a rosebud today, the picture that offers itself to my perception is complete only for the moment. If I put the bud into water, I shall tomorrow get a very different picture of my object. If I watch the rosebud without interruption, I shall see today's state change continuously into tomorrow's through an infinite number of intermediate stages.

All "objects" are, in essence, continual progressions of forms and it is our thinking which allows us to recognize them as such.

When ideal content is added to the stream of perception, including thought-forms, we have the realization that the rosebud is in essence a continually developing form (a living form). Steiner's example is good because it shows how our participation in the living form (putting it into water) is also what allows there to be a living form. It is the same with "unity" of phenomenon-noumenon. There is so sense of talking about "unity" without Thinking being who is seeking for and participating in that "unity". Outside of that context, it is truly a meaningless question whether there is "unity" which simply exists without ideal content. We need to remember that there is no third-person 'external' perspective on this question.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I also find it strange that you resort to Gospels to confirm you paradigm. Nowhere in the Gospels we can find any claims that the whole world is only ideas and thinking. Neither we find it anywhere in the traditional theology of the pre-schism Catholic-Orthodox Church. There is nothing wrong with saying that cognition is an immanent aspect of reality. It is reducing the wholeness of reality only to thinking and ideas that is problematic.

"In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"—implying idealism/ideation. So if allowing for the monism of an aware prime Entity and a Logos that are not-two, with neither prioritized, and one not reducible to the other, with no causal point of origin for such ideation, what is the distinction? How is it not just nominal?

[Eugene I]

When ideal content is added to the stream of perception, including thought-forms, we have the realization that the rosebud is in essence a continually developing form (a living form). Steiner's example is good because it shows how our participation in the living form (putting it into water) is also what allows there to be a living form. It is the same with "unity" of phenomenon-noumenon. There is so sense of talking about "unity" without Thinking being who is seeking for and participating in that "unity". Outside of that context, it is truly a meaningless question whether there is "unity" which simply exists without ideal content. We need to remember that there is no third-person 'external' perspective on this question.

Ashvin, you keep answering a question different from what I asked. I have nothing against your claim that ""unity" (or experiencing or existence) does not exist without ideal content". I agree that it always exists with ideal content. I'm asking a different question: is the ideal content all there is to the existence (reality, conscious experience, unity) or whether there are aspects of reality irreducible to the ideal content only? Is the reality (existence, experiencing) entirely exhausted by and reducible to the ideal content of it?

[Eugene I]

"In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"—implying idealism/ideation. So if allowing for the monism of an aware prime Entity and a Logos that are not-two, with neither prioritized, and one not reducible to the other, with no causal point of origin for such ideation, what is the distinction? How is it not just nominal?

Dana, see my response to Ashvin. I'm simply saying that there are aspects of conscious reality irreducible to its ideal content. It's not about prioritizing anything, it's about neglecting certain key aspects of reality that are not reducible to the ideal content. Ideation is immanent and inseparable from the reality of consciousness, no question about that, but my point is that it is not all there is to consciousness. As per Scott's muomorphism, there is formless aspect and aspect of forms (ideation). If we neglect the formlessness and reduce all reality to ideation/forms only, that would be a bad misrepresentation of reality, a wrong metaphysics. The key is that the formlessness is not an idea, it is ineffable (i.e. irreducible to ideas) reality, but it can be directly experienced, because the formlessness aspect is conscious experience. And it can also definitely be reflected and cognized by ideations, no question about that.