Eugene "the Tolerant" vs. Ashvin-the-Argumentative, Esquire (side battle)

[Eugene I]

1. I am not sure if "nested" is proper term, but basically I mean they evolve from each other (as man evolves from ape). Earlier forms give rise to later forms but earlier forms are still present. Metamorphosis is better term because it drops materialist baggage of "evolution" and highlights the major transformations which occur in relatively short timespans.

2. Yes I agree our main disagreement is over this precise point and its relation to the human capacity for bringing Unity to the world-content.

3. I am not sure whether it is "aimed" at total integration but that is where I argue it is naturally heading, as evolution naturally heads in certain directions, and individual perspectives can either choose to fully embrace that Reality or not.

PS - I am out of town for next two days so likely will not be commenting.

1. Mostly agree, with reservation that some traditions do not overlap entirely and have their unique and spiritually useful features, and in that sense remain valuable, unless/until they are fully absorbed and integrated in an all-encompassing tradition.

2. We agree to disagree here

3. With that I also agree, the development and integration still happens as a natural outcome of the life of consciousness.

I would say our disagreements are actually not so significant even compared to our differences from BK's paradigm, let alone other metaphysics versions (panpsychism, materialism etc), we both converge to idealism and agree on meta-cognitive MAL. And in #2 I'm not disputing that Thinking/Feeling/Willing are fundamental aspects of OP, I'm only suggesting to ADD to that list two other key aspects: Awareness and Beingness, and for the Beingness I have Heidegger on my side, you may enjoy reading his "Being and Time" seminal paper.

[AshvinP]

1. I am not sure if "nested" is proper term, but basically I mean they evolve from each other (as man evolves from ape). Earlier forms give rise to later forms but earlier forms are still present. Metamorphosis is better term because it drops materialist baggage of "evolution" and highlights the major transformations which occur in relatively short timespans.

2. Yes I agree our main disagreement is over this precise point and its relation to the human capacity for bringing Unity to the world-content.

3. I am not sure whether it is "aimed" at total integration but that is where I argue it is naturally heading, as evolution naturally heads in certain directions, and individual perspectives can either choose to fully embrace that Reality or not.

PS - I am out of town for next two days so likely will not be commenting.

1. Mostly agree, with reservation that some traditions do not overlap entirely and have their unique and spiritually useful features, and in that sense remain valuable, unless/until they are fully absorbed and integrated in an all-encompassing tradition.

2. We agree to disagree here

3. With that I also agree, the development and integration still happens as a natural outcome of the life of consciousness.

I would say our disagreements are actually not so significant even compared to our differences from BK's paradigm, let alone other metaphysics versions (panpsychism, materialism etc), we both converge to idealism and agree on meta-cognitive MAL. And in #2 I'm not disputing that Thinking/Feeling/Willing are fundamental aspects of OP, I'm only suggesting to ADD to that list two other key aspects: Awareness and Beingness, and for the Beingness I have Heidegger on my side, you may enjoy reading his "Being and Time" seminal paper.

Eugene,

We are in major disagreement, and it basically stems from the history of Western idealism which has also occupied itself with the same disagreement for the last 400 years. The adding of aspects is a manifestation of that disagreement (in my view it waters down Thinkings unique role in bringing about Unity). As for Heidegger, I see no reason to prioritize his thought in the 1920s over that of the 1950s... if anything it should be the other way around. And his lectures on Thinking that I have been writing about clearly come down against your position (perhaps not so clearly, especially if one is unfamiliar with his unique philosophical style, which is partly why I am writing the essays).

[Eugene I]

Fair enough, even though the "Being and Time" is usually considered to be one of the most central papers in Heidegger's philosophy, so why would you dismiss it as erroneous or outdated but still accept his lectures on thinking? That looks to me a very cherry-picking approach. IMO "Being and Time" is one of the most profound philosophical works in the modern Western philosophy.

[AshvinP]

Fair enough, even though the "Being and Time" is usually considered to be one of the most central papers in Heidegger's philosophy, so why would you dismiss it as erroneous or outdated but still accept his lectures on thinking? That looks to me a very cherry-picking approach. IMO "Being and Time" is one of the most profound philosophical works in the modern Western philosophy.

The guy who wrote Being and Time felt the need to correct or at least expand on its philosophy by turning away from Being as "pure" Will to discuss the critically unique role of Thinking in its highest sense in the lectures. Do you think I am making up that this "turn" occurred in Heidegger's philosophy? Just google search or search on Stanford philosophical encyclopedia... it is there. This is a really odd habit you have. Like quoting one phrase out of context in Steiner's PoF to suggest the guy who spent his entire lifetime trying to correct your view (among other immensely important things) is actually supporting you. It's just a really bad look Eugene... it makes me think you have no interest in discussing these things in good faith. You do similar things with Cleric and Scott... "agreeing" with them in one sentence and in the very next sentence denying everything they just said. I really don't know what to make of it anymore or if it's worth more time making anything of it rather than simply ignoring it. Look at findingblank comment on other thread... now that's a serious consideration and critical response!