Simon Adams wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:07 am
AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:43 pm
Well we could say it that way, but then we must recognize we are
always "observing" the phenomenon in question. Thinking is a form of observation, as I claimed with regards to the inseparability of perceiving-thinking. How do objects gain "continuity and consistency"? It is
not by virtue of one person merely observing (without thinking) and another person merely observing and then matching up their mere observations. It is by virtue of the
ideal content added to the mere perceptions by Thinking activity. Only after that do we say there is continuities and consistencies in the phenomenal world. If we do not recognize that inter-dependence, then we are defaulting to physicalist view under guise of "idealism" and I assume nearly everyone here thinks that is a concern, otherwise they would not be here. Such a view removes all meaning behind the natural symbols of the phenomenal world and redirects it into various idols (or simply gives way to nihilism), such as politics, economics and religious dogmatic conceptions.
What do you think of Bernardo’s article on Rovelli, specifically the part I quoted on the other thread?
It sometimes feels like on this forum we’re talking about a tree;
Eugene: It’s all sap, the sap is in everything. By knowing the sap, you taste the nectar.
Ashvin: It’s all Leaves. Watch when the wind blows, the Leaves move, the Leaves and the sap are one (sap-Leaves). The evolution of trees is driven by Leaves, and there was nothing before the forest
Simon: It’s all about the hidden acorn planter
Santeri: The branches on the tree are not continuous, this is flawed logic. Between the branches are twigs but the twigs cannot really be divided into infinity, so the twigs don’t really exist.
Etc….
great summary!
I will get back to you on Rovelli article and your quote.
Simon wrote:Yes of course it does, because they are changed. Their perception has changed. What they are looking at has not.
Here is a critical disagreement. Around 1:10:00 or so in BK-MV discussion, BK talks about God not being "content" remaining in one state because there is clear dynamism in nature which never ceases. In terms of Heraclitus, there is
constant flux. Under this view, we cannot speak of something "not changing". We cannot say my perception changes but the 'thing' I am perceiving does not change. However, to make sense of our experience of ceaseless change, we must also acknowledge an eternal permanent force. So
polarity of experience becomes critical and that is exactly what BK-MV start discussing from there. Every experience has poles of permanence-change (and third aspect we could call "self-awareness" from interaction of poles).
Your view gets rid of
essential change by making God only the unchanging aspect i.e. it gets rid of the changing pole. Is that the way it has always been conceived by Western philosophers-theologians? No, not at all! It's the exact opposite - we can
only make sense of that earlier philosophy by thinking in terms of polarity (if we don't want it to become a mess of incoherence and inconsistency). That is because they still naturally experienced the polarity of existence. All forms of our experience ceaselessly change, which includes "what they are looking at". Steiner's illustration should make this point very clear and also relate it to our Thinking activity:
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.
The picture which presents itself to me at any one moment is only a chance cross-section of an object which is in a continual process of development.
- Rudolf Steiner, The Philosophy of Freedom (1894)