Consciousness: Intention and Purpose

[AshvinP]

Robert and Simon, you position in philosophical terms is close to Kantian transcendentalism: God in its ultimate essence is even more fundamental than consciousness. So, God in its essence is a "thing in itself" for us, non-accessible by any means (experientially or cognitively) . This position is perfectly in accordance with the traditional Catholic-Orthodox theology, so it is understandable why it is the view of your preference. However, there are some things to note here:
1. Technically it is not idealism anymore, but rather something like "transcendental monism" or "property monism".
2. We are back to "Kantian divide" and dualism between the divine transcendent essence and world's immanent aspects.

Yes and my biggest problem with Kant is that he lumped everything that was not directly observable together ontologically, in his quest to confine reason, to try to make philosophy scientific. It seems to be that apart from any divide he created, he merged two types of differences together;

1) Phenomena versus “things-in-themselves”
2) “Things-in-themselves” versus god

For the first I would say there is no fundamental duality, phenomena is like that observable aspect of noumena. The second I do see as a kind of duality (though not fundamentally as only god is fundamental), but lumping god in the category of ‘things’ goes against everything we knew about god for thousands of years. Did he give any justification for this mixing that has allowed it to stand in ontological discussions ever since?

That is not quite accurate. Kant claimed that the phenomena were created through categorical judgments in our localized consciousness which we then impose on the world before we perceive and understand them. That is #1 above. I am not sure #2 is anything he claimed, but I think he would say God is the thing-in-itself who cannot be perceived or known through Reason. We should remember that he was critiquing "pure Reason". And, for him, I would say Reason also encompasses rationality, imagination and intuition. So basically any method of gaining knowledge was declared useless by Kant for gaining true knowledge.

This basically means that, as opposed to creatures who possess consciousness but have no ability to know the final essence, God is super-conscious in a sense that he is conscious like us, but in addition has an ability to know the final essence (and plus many other powers and abilities that we do not have).

I don’t think this is a correct way of looking at it. We have senses and develop understanding through experience, like we add something to ourselves. God just is unrestricted understanding. There is nothing he experiences to then understand. To even call it consciousness is really a mistake, although of course from our perspective consciousness is the only understanding we have of perception.

This is of course a possibility that we can not refute, but in philosophical terms, it is not idealism anymore. From philosophical perspective, as Bernardo would likely argue, it is not parsimonious, because postulating such extra "final essence" level of ontological structure of reality is not necessary. In simple words, it is an ontology with "one more turtle" below the fundamental level of consciousness.

Yes and I can respect that way of looking at things, if you don’t have faith in judeo-christian scripture it’s an understandable conclusion. It leaves you with some problems in terms of ‘first cause’, eternal, “simple” etc, but those are perhaps not obvious from a philosophical perspective. You also end up with a god that acts out of necessity, which I would argue makes the term “god” meaningless. However for those who believe in scripture, it’s clearly creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), not creation ex deo (out of god). Even Jesus asking people to pray becomes, if not completely meaningless, at least weird.

Judeo-Christian scripture, especially the NT, makes God immanent in a way that most other spiritual traditions do not. We could even say God becoming immanent to man is the very essence of the Gospels. Creation ex nihilo (or a nihilo) is indeed of central importance, but we must remember it is an aspect of humanity as much as one of God. Christ incarnate is truly who made such a capacity available to all humans in the world-evolving (metamorphic) process. In other words, humans can bring true novelty into that process.

[Eugene I]

Yes and I can respect that way of looking at things, if you don’t have faith in judeo-christian scripture it’s an understandable conclusion. It leaves you with some problems in terms of ‘first cause’, eternal, “simple” etc, but those are perhaps not obvious from a philosophical perspective. You also end up with a god that acts out of necessity, which I would argue makes the term “god” meaningless. However for those who believe in scripture, it’s clearly creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), not creation ex deo (out of god). Even Jesus asking people to pray becomes, if not completely meaningless, at least weird.

Another PS comment on this.
The view I'm leaning towards is that any personal loci of consciousness are the localized and personalized "activities" of the Cosmic Consciousness (CC), and that includes the Gods/Deities we know through our religions. The CC is a mysterious ontic ground having a variety of aspects and abilities such as beingness, conscious experiencing, volition, cognition, imagination, manifestation and so on. All Deities and other "dissociated alters" are, metaphorically speaking, "whirlpools" of the localized spiritual activities in the CC, and due to their volitional and creative abilities, create quasi-realities with quite complicated hierarchical structures. But all these personalized activities essentially are, as BK says, self-maintaining "excitations" of the CC and all of them share the same fundamental aspects and abilities of the CC. You can still belong to the group of souls reporting to God the creator of the quasi-material (and astral) universe that we currently live in, you can have relations with him, pray to him, get his assistance and develop according to his plan/telos. Praying to the CC itself of course is pointless.

[AshvinP]

Yes and I can respect that way of looking at things, if you don’t have faith in judeo-christian scripture it’s an understandable conclusion. It leaves you with some problems in terms of ‘first cause’, eternal, “simple” etc, but those are perhaps not obvious from a philosophical perspective. You also end up with a god that acts out of necessity, which I would argue makes the term “god” meaningless. However for those who believe in scripture, it’s clearly creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), not creation ex deo (out of god). Even Jesus asking people to pray becomes, if not completely meaningless, at least weird.

Another PS comment on this.
The view I'm leaning towards is that any personal loci of consciousness are the localized and personalized "activities" of the Cosmic Consciousness (CC), and that includes the Gods/Deities we know through our religions. The CC is a mysterious ontic ground having a variety of aspects and abilities such as beingness, conscious experiencing, volition, cognition, imagination, manifestation and so on. All Deities and other "dissociated alters" are, metaphorically speaking, "whirlpools" of the localized spiritual activities in the CC, and due to their volitional and creative abilities, create quasi-realities with quite complicated hierarchical structures. But all these personalized activities essentially are, as BK says, self-maintaining "excitations" of the CC and all of them share the same fundamental aspects and abilities of the CC. You can still belong to the group of souls reporting to God the creator of the quasi-material (and astral) universe that we currently live in, you can have relations with him, pray to him, get his assistance and develop according to his plan/telos. Praying to the CC itself of course is pointless.

How does CC experience and cognize without any personality? I dont mean the mechanism but philosophically, is there anything in potential experience which exists in such a manner?

[Eugene I]

How does CC experience and cognize without any personality? I dont mean the mechanism but philosophically, is there anything in potential experience which exists in such a manner?

All experiences always happen within the "boundaries" (local FOEs: fields of experience) of one of the personalized "whirlpools".
Regarding the global subjective experience and cognition of the CC as a whole, there are two possibilities:
1. Non-global-theistic CC idealism: there is no such thing as a single all-encompassing subjective global personal perspective, and all experiences happen in and belong to the FOEs of local alters (deities included).
2. Global-theistic CC idealism: there is a personalized global CC subjective perspective and volition-cognition associated with that. There is still a question whether all experiences of the alters are also simultaneously experienced by the global CC subject, or whether each experience remains strictly within the FOE of only one subject. We can still assume the Global CC subject having his own private experiences and we do not have to assume that all alters experiences are also shared with the Global CC subject. As we discussed before, the assumption of shared experiences faces the subject combination problem. Note that the CC subject can still "telepathically" know the alters experiences, but this is not the same as sharing/experiencing exactly the same experiences/qualia.

To me personally both options are possible, and I have nothing against either one of them in principle. The option #1 is still my personal preference, but I'm open to #2 as well, and I don't take these views religiously anyway. I have no way to prove or disprove either one of them. The option #1 aligns with Eastern (Vedic and Buddhist) paradigms, the #2 is the paradigm of the most Western religions.

[AshvinP]

How does CC experience and cognize without any personality? I dont mean the mechanism but philosophically, is there anything in potential experience which exists in such a manner?

All experiences always happen within the "boundaries" (local FOEs: fields of experience) of one of the personalized "whirlpools".
Regarding the global subjective experience and cognition of the CC as a whole, there are two possibilities:
1. Non-global-theistic CC idealism: there is no such thing as a single all-encompassing subjective global personal perspective, and all experiences happen in and belong to the FOEs of local alters (deities included).
2. Global-theistic CC idealism: there is a personalized global CC subjective perspective and volition-cognition associated with that. There is still a question whether all experiences of the alters are also simultaneously experienced by the global CC subject, or whether each experience remains strictly within the FOE of only one subject. We can still assume the Global CC subject having his own private experiences and we do not have to assume that all alters experiences are also shared with the Global CC subject. As we discussed before, the assumption of shared experiences faces the subject combination problem. Note that the CC subject can still "telepathically" know the alters experiences, but this is not the same as sharing/experiencing exactly the same experiences/qualia.

To me personally both options are possible, and I have nothing against either one of them in principle. The option #1 is still my personal preference, but I'm open to #2 as well, and I don't take these views religiously anyway. I have no way to prove or disprove either one of them. The option #1 aligns with Eastern (Vedic and Buddhist) paradigms, the #2 is the paradigm of the most Western religions.

Another possibility would be that all localized perspectives emanate from the Unified CC and all manifest within the same unified realm of conscious experience. Basically the Deep MAL possibility that Cleric wrote about in his essay. I do not see that represented in your options.

[Eugene I]

Another possibility would be that all localized perspectives emanate from the Unified CC and all manifest within the same unified realm of conscious experience. Basically the Deep MAL possibility that Cleric wrote about in his essay. I do not see that represented in your options.

Isn't it exactly #2 with the assumption that the Unified CC subject shares all alters experiences?

The fact is: there are different subjective FOE's and personalized subjective perspectives - we know that from our own experience. We alters do not have direct access to the other alters FOEs/experiences, as well as to the Unified CC FOE/experiences (if it exists). We do not experience any connection/merging of personalized subjective perspectives into one (we can think of it as a hypothetical idea, but we do not have such experience). So if we just assume that there is only one single subjective perspective in the Unified CC which "emanates" into multiple subjects, how come we do not have direct access to the Unified CC's and other alters experiences (if it's truly overall the same subjective perspective)?

According to our experience, our subjective perspective is united with and indistinguishable form our FOE. How is that possible, based on such experiential evidence, that the multiple subjective perspectives could be unified into one but the FOEs would stay dissociated? If two subjective perspectives could be merged into one, how would not they automatically also have their FOEs merged?

In the BK's dissociation model the MAL has no direct access to the alters experiences and subjective perspectives, and I remember BK explicitly stating that. And it is very logical for him to say because otherwise he would run into the subject combination problem (which he uses to criticize panpsychism, so he would not want to become a victim of his own arguments).

In the cases of human DID, each alter experiences its own FOE and own sense of subjectivity and subjective perspective. In these cases there is no evidence (to my knowledge) of the existence of any unified subjective perspective that would encompass the perspectives of the alters and their FOEs. So for the case of CC, it is a pure speculation to assume that such Unified subjective perspective exists.

So, I'm not saying that it is definitely impossible, but I'm saying that there are logical inconsistencies with the hypothesis of such Unified CC subjective perspective, and there are no experiential evidences to support it.

On the other hand, we can still assume the existence of the Global CC subjective perspective, but do not claim that all alters perspectives are subsumed into it (or "emanate" from it). In this case we do not have these logical inconsistencies.

[Eugene I]

Just as a side note, another discrepancy that I see between the traditional Christian mindset and the evidences from NDE and some other mystical experiences is that the latter witnessed the Divine Source being an easy-going, non-judgmental and accepting personality with a good sense of humor. As opposed to that, traditional Christianity has a very serous drama-tragic mindset, possibly because of the crucifixion story and the devil etc.

Also, common to the Judaic and Christian traditions, is complete rejection of any anthropomorphism and picturing the Divine as having nothing whatsoever in common with human souls. I don't think it is a necessary assumption to make. After all, we share many common faculties and aspects (beingness, experiencing, cognition, imagination etc).

[AshvinP]

Another possibility would be that all localized perspectives emanate from the Unified CC and all manifest within the same unified realm of conscious experience. Basically the Deep MAL possibility that Cleric wrote about in his essay. I do not see that represented in your options.

Isn't it exactly #2 with the assumption that the Unified CC subject shares all alters experiences?

The fact is: there are different subjective FOE's and personalized subjective perspectives - we know that from our own experience. We alters do not have direct access to the other alters FOEs/experiences, as well as to the Unified CC FOE/experiences (if it exists). We do not experience any connection/merging of personalized subjective perspectives into one (we can think of it as a hypothetical idea, but we do not have such experience). So if we just assume that there is only one single subjective perspective in the Unified CC which "emanates" into multiple subjects, how come we do not have direct access to the Unified CC's and other alters experiences (if it's truly overall the same subjective perspective)?

According to our experience, our subjective perspective is united with and indistinguishable form our FOE. How is that possible, based on such experiential evidence, that the multiple subjective perspectives could be unified into one but the FOEs would stay dissociated? If two subjective perspectives could be merged into one, how would not they automatically also have their FOEs merged?

I think most of the above questions are addressed in Beyond Flat MAL essay.

Just as globular Earth resolves many enigmas, impossibilities and contradictions existing in the flat Earth model, so does Deep M@L in relation to Flat M@L. What will be given below can be in no way exhaustive, it can be no more than hints that would have to be studied further.

Probably the most striking difference between the pictures above is that they completely change the way we view our personal consciousness. In Flat M@L every consciousness is an individuated part of M@L. This is the first fact of experience that we habitually extend 'beyond the horizon' and make an assumption. Here we are mislead by our spatial conceptions, derived from the sensory world. Just because our physical bodies are perceived as clearly separate entities in space we extend this idea to M@L and assume that our consciousness is also an enclosed unity. That's why we easily resonate with metaphors like bubbles, whirlpools, etc. Deep M@L, on the other hand, reveals that there's really only one space of consciousness. We can take the faces to represent our Earthly ego consciousness (and not the physical face) while everything 'behind' them represents subconsciousness. Nevertheless, we should imagine that our individual consciousness spans all the way from the One Center to the face - the light cones. Viewed in this way it can be said that different beings within Deep M@L are only different perspectives, points of view of the One Center. Because of the specific stage of evolution we find ourselves in, currently most people are conscious only at the Earthly ego face level, while everything behind is shrouded in sleep. As we'll see, it's possible for modern man, through self-development, to lift that shroud to varying extents. The spheres closer to the center represent archetypal ideas of Macrocosmic nature. As we go towards the periphery they are experienced in more and more complicated interrelationships, ultimately leading to the highly fragmented human condition of today. So the 'interior' of M@L is 'made of' ideas, yet not the rigid and lifeless concepts that we juggle with in our intellect but ideas that are actual living, creative processes. These are neither only intellectual metaphors for some external (to the personal whirlpool) processes in the Flat M@L, nor materialistic metaphors for biological and social functions. They are in the most real sense the creative ideas of Deep M@L, of whose complex interactions we are currently experiencing only a very fragmentary perspective. To distinguish these living processes within M@L from the rigid concepts of our intellect we'll call the former idea-beings.

Intellectual ideas only have meaning in relation to other ideas. For example, what meaning could it have to imagine empty M@L with nothing else but the single idea of a chair? This idea can never be what it is if it's not related to the ideas of human being, floor, gravity, etc. It is similar with the idea-beings. We shouldn't imagine that they are something self-contained that can exist independently. They only exist in relation to other idea-beings. In this sense we can say that idea-beings correspond to specific perspectives within M@L which receive their meaning only in relation to the unique constellation of all the other countless ideas-beings. We can think in the same way about man too. He's an idea-being that experiences the meaning of his perspective only because of his unique and highly complicated relation to the constellation of other idea-beings. For example, our perspective receives its natural 'feel' because M@L experiences (even if they are not conceptualized) the ideas of life, perception, desire, self, Earth, other humans, etc. We are idea-beings that struggle to find their proper relations to other idea-beings.

Seen in this way, we can envision M@L as the infinite and eternal idea-potential, which can be experienced through differentiated relative perspectives.
...
In Deep M@L the whole idea of hierarchy has completely different meaning. It has nothing to do external hierarchical associations of beings but it's the actual structure of M@L itself. As far as our normal thinking is concerned, ideas clearly form hierarchical relationships. In Flat M@L these ideas are seen as representations of reality, existing only within the individual being's consciousness. In Deep M@L the ideas that we probe and experience in intellectual thoughts are the very same beings that can be revealed through higher cognition as living idea-beings. For example, the idea of Capitalism is actually an idea-being in the deeper layers of M@L. We shouldn't imagine that this being is only that. As an analogy, it would be incorrect to say that if someone pushes me, he is wholly a push-being. By saying that that there's an idea-being of Capitalism we refer only to the way this being Inspires our perspective. It's very difficult (especially from our limited human condition) to form a proper image of the actual experience of these beings. Even through Intuitive cognition, where we practically merge in resonance with the other being's perspective, we can understand only as much as this perspective has in common with ours. Anyway, this being of Capitalism has found its way into the evolution of humanity and individual humans structure their physical relations by expressing that idea-being in their thoughts and actions. This is a clear example of the way that our so called consensus reality is not some external agreement but is the result of the common layers of ideas that shape our individual perspectives and relate them together.

So, I'm not saying that it is definitely impossible, but I'm saying that there are logical inconsistencies with the hypothesis of such Unified CC subjective perspective, and there are no experiential evidences to support it.

On the other hand, we can still assume the existence of the Global CC subjective perspective, but do not claim that all alters perspectives are subsumed into it (or "emanate" from it). In this case we do not have these logical inconsistencies.

There is evidence to support it, just not evidence you accept. I see no evidence that each person is a "whirlpool" consciousnesses in Flat MAL, other than the mere perceptions without further ideal content. Once we add that ideal content of shared experience, empathy, 'outer' world, emotional resonance, communication, cooperation, world-evolving process, etc., it seems very unreasonable to me to continue with the Flat MAL model.

[Eugene I]

We discussed that already before. There are to ways to have shared experiences.
1. If you and me look at the same flower, we both have the experience of the same kind of perception. If we think of the same number 2. we both have experiences of the same idea. Or we can have a telepathic communication of the same thought or idea. Yet each of our qualitative experiences (qualia) are unique to us and belong to our subjective perspective and FOE.
2. We share exactly the same qualia. This view runs into the subject combination problem, and I have no experimental evidence that this is possible.

Hierarchy of spiritual structures and levels of development does not mean that that the subjective perspectives and FOEs of the alters at lower level subsume to the perspectives/FOEs of those at higher levels. There can be non-flat hierarchical structures without such subsuming assumption.

But in any case you are free to believe in whatever structure you want. We can definitely add this tree-like subsuming subjectivity structure option to the list (just to have the list more comprehensive).

[AshvinP]

We discussed that already before. There are to ways to have shared experiences.
1. If you and me look at the same flower, we both have the experience of the same kind of perception. If we think of the same number 2. we both have experiences of the same idea. Or we can have a telepathic communication of the same thought or idea. Yet each of our qualitative experiences (qualia) are unique to us and belong to our subjective perspective and FOE.
2. We share exactly the same qualia. This view runs into the subject combination problem, and I have no experimental evidence that this is possible.

Hierarchy of spiritual structures and levels of development does not mean that that the subjective perspectives and FOEs of the alters at lower level subsume to the perspectives/FOEs of those at higher levels. There can be non-flat hierarchical structures without such subsuming assumption.

But in any case you are free to believe in whatever structure you want. We can definitely add this tree-like subsuming subjectivity structure option to the list (just to have the list more comprehensive).

1. The ideal content of the "flower" and the number "2" are the same for you and I. (if we perceived thought-forms as the ancients did, this would be much more clear to us) - do you believe this is ruled out by subject combo problem?

Yes, we are free to believe whatever we want, but the structure of Reality does not much care for our personal beliefs. And I think it's telling that this 3rd option does not even occur to most people after Cartesian-Kantian divides, while it would likely be the norm before the divides (to the extent people before that could abstractly think about these things).