Bernardo's latest essay

[AshvinP]

For starters, I would just call your "knowing-1" informational knowing or propositional knowing, rather than "knowing of meanings", because as is implied by the bolded statement, meaning is inherent to all forms of knowing (you have to use the word "meaning" to even speak of any quality of "experiential knowing"). There are multiple levels in which the meaning operates, such as intellectual, imaginative, intuitive, etc., but it is all still the same meaning operating in those levels. More directly relevant, though, is that the types of knowing you delineate above are almost exactly the same as what we delineate via "intellectual", "inspirative", "imaginative", "intuitive" knowing via Thinking. There is no difference there, except we actually have more 'shades' of knowing than you do above.

I agree, my description was a simplification for clarity, but of course all of those "intellectual", "inspirative", "imaginative", "intuitive" ways are all just different modes of knowing-1 force/aspect of Thinking.

Finally, there is the polarity of Permanence-Change. Scott's mumorphism, which Cleric and I have also tried to express here in many ways, indicates that the force of Thinking activity has two poles of Permanence-Change just like all other fundamental activity. There is an aspect of Thinking which remains the same (formless Thinking which connects thought-forms) and an aspect which constantly changes (thought-forms and Thinking which is changed by thought-forms), just like with everything else in our experience. So the existence of that polarity is not a reason to ditch Thinking as the only "knowing" force. I think it is more clear than ever know that you failed to understand the full scope of what we were calling "Thinking" (perhaps because I did not make it clear enough) and therefore thought it was necessary to bring in another "knowing" activity which was never, in fact, necessary.

As I said, we can lump formless and forms, permanence and change together into the Wholeness of Thinking, I'm fine with that definition.
There is still a reason we epistemologically distinguish (without implying any ontological separation) change from permanence, time from timeless, form from formless. And for the same reason (that I sketched in my previous post) I still think that it is important to epistemologically distinguish the experiential knowing-2 as an aspect of Thinking that so crucially distinguishes it from materialistic AI machine.

Imagine arguing with a materialist who would claim that a super-AI-quantum-EM-computer can be as "intellectual", "inspirative", "imaginative" and "intuitive" as a human, and therefore all our conscious activity could be equally well explained by materialism. But we all know the Chalmers argument - such super-AI, regardless of its level of intelligence and intuition and imagination, would still be a "philosophical zombie" - it would not be able to consciously experience (know-2) anything. This is the actual meaning of the "hard problem of consciousness" and the key difference between consciousness and materialistic AI.

I do not get why you keep putting the three higher modes of knowing into "knowing-1" which is essentially different from "knowing-2". Think about it - if you were merely distinguishing rather than separating, you would be fine saying "knowing-2" is essentially the same as "knowing-1" and both fall under "Thinking". But you are not fine saying that. Without getting into question of whether AI can be conscious, there is no reason to reduce the three higher modes of knowing to mechanistic imagery and claim they can be reproduced by an intelligent machine. We are speaking of living beings and their relations who are behind all of these modes of knowing - that is what the modes of Thinking are in their essence. You may disagree with that conclusion, but that is our understanding of Thinking in this highest sense. Therefore, we do not sense any need to generate another type of "knowing" to avoid that "AI trap" because it does not apply to our understanding of the living Thinking essence. Or another way to think about it - if AI being could attain to those highest modes of knowing, then we have no right to claim it is not truly alive and conscious.

[AshvinP]

For starters, I would just call your "knowing-1" informational knowing or propositional knowing, rather than "knowing of meanings", because as is implied by the bolded statement, meaning is inherent to all forms of knowing (you have to use the word "meaning" to even speak of any quality of "experiential knowing"). There are multiple levels in which the meaning operates, such as intellectual, imaginative, intuitive, etc., but it is all still the same meaning operating in those levels. More directly relevant, though, is that the types of knowing you delineate above are almost exactly the same as what we delineate via "intellectual", "inspirative", "imaginative", "intuitive" knowing via Thinking. There is no difference there, except we actually have more 'shades' of knowing than you do above.

I agree, my description was a simplification for clarity, but of course all of those "intellectual", "inspirative", "imaginative", "intuitive" ways are all just different modes of knowing-1 force/aspect of Thinking.

Finally, there is the polarity of Permanence-Change. Scott's mumorphism, which Cleric and I have also tried to express here in many ways, indicates that the force of Thinking activity has two poles of Permanence-Change just like all other fundamental activity. There is an aspect of Thinking which remains the same (formless Thinking which connects thought-forms) and an aspect which constantly changes (thought-forms and Thinking which is changed by thought-forms), just like with everything else in our experience. So the existence of that polarity is not a reason to ditch Thinking as the only "knowing" force. I think it is more clear than ever know that you failed to understand the full scope of what we were calling "Thinking" (perhaps because I did not make it clear enough) and therefore thought it was necessary to bring in another "knowing" activity which was never, in fact, necessary.

As I said, we can lump formless and forms, permanence and change together into the Wholeness of Thinking, I'm fine with that definition.
There is still a reason we epistemologically distinguish (without implying any ontological separation) change from permanence, time from timeless, form from formless. And for the same reason (that I sketched in my previous post) I still think that it is important to epistemologically distinguish the experiential knowing-2 as an aspect of Thinking that so crucially distinguishes it from materialistic AI machine.

Imagine arguing with a materialist who would claim that a super-AI-quantum-EM-computer can be as "intellectual", "inspirative", "imaginative" and "intuitive" as a human, and therefore all our conscious activity could be equally well explained by materialism. But we all know the Chalmers argument - such super-AI, regardless of its level of intelligence and intuition and imagination, would still be a "philosophical zombie" - it would not be able to consciously experience (know-2) anything. This is the actual meaning of the "hard problem of consciousness" and the key difference between consciousness and materialistic AI.

I do not get why you keep putting the three higher modes of knowing into "knowing-1" which is essentially different from "knowing-2". Think about it - if you were merely distinguishing rather than separating, you would be fine saying "knowing-2" is essentially the same as "knowing-1" and both fall under "Thinking". But you are not fine saying that. Without getting into question of whether AI can be conscious, there is no reason to reduce the three higher modes of knowing to mechanistic imagery and claim they can be reproduced by an intelligent machine. We are speaking of living beings and their relations who are behind all of these modes of knowing - that is what the modes of Thinking are in their essence. You may disagree with that conclusion, but that is our understanding of Thinking in this highest sense. Therefore, we do not sense any need to generate another type of "knowing" to avoid that "AI trap" because it does not apply to our understanding of the living Thinking essence. Or another way to think about it - if AI being could attain to those highest modes of knowing, then we have no right to claim it is not truly alive and conscious.

One more thing on this point - the "hard problem of consciousness" is created by presupposing two separate essences and then wondering how one can lead to the other. How is that different from what you are doing with "knowing"? What is the relation between knowing-1 and knowing-2 in your view? Do they interact, does one give rise to the other, do some really "dumb" animals have one and not the other... what exactly is going on there?

[Eugene I]

I do not get why you keep putting the three higher modes of knowing into "knowing-1" which is essentially different from "knowing-2". Think about it - if you were merely distinguishing rather than separating, you would be fine saying "knowing-2" is essentially the same as "knowing-1" and both fall under "Thinking". But you are not fine saying that. Without getting into question of whether AI can be conscious, there is no reason to reduce the three higher modes of knowing to mechanistic imagery and claim they can be reproduced by an intelligent machine. We are speaking of living beings and their relations who are behind all of these modes of knowing - that is what the modes of Thinking are in their essence. You may disagree with that conclusion, but that is our understanding of Thinking in this highest sense. Therefore, we do not sense any need to generate another type of "knowing" to avoid that "AI trap" because it does not apply to our understanding of the living Thinking essence. Or another way to think about it - if AI being could attain to those highest modes of knowing, then we have no right to claim it is not truly alive and conscious.

And, if it "all One Thinking", why then are we distinguishing feelings from perceptions, timeless form time, formless from forms, God from humans? We are not ontologically separating anything from anything, it's all Consciousness/Thinking in its variety of aspects and modes. But if we are claiming to do any spiritual science at all, we have to make epistemological distinctions. In science we epistemologically distinguish various aspects of reality to be able to study and understand their specifics, properties and relations with each others. You question is the same as asking a physicist - "It's all ontologically the same inseparable "stuff" (a "universe"), why are you distinguishing protons from photos, EM field from gravitational field etc". Because if we don't make such distinctions, we just cannot do any science at all.

[AshvinP]

I do not get why you keep putting the three higher modes of knowing into "knowing-1" which is essentially different from "knowing-2". Think about it - if you were merely distinguishing rather than separating, you would be fine saying "knowing-2" is essentially the same as "knowing-1" and both fall under "Thinking". But you are not fine saying that. Without getting into question of whether AI can be conscious, there is no reason to reduce the three higher modes of knowing to mechanistic imagery and claim they can be reproduced by an intelligent machine. We are speaking of living beings and their relations who are behind all of these modes of knowing - that is what the modes of Thinking are in their essence. You may disagree with that conclusion, but that is our understanding of Thinking in this highest sense. Therefore, we do not sense any need to generate another type of "knowing" to avoid that "AI trap" because it does not apply to our understanding of the living Thinking essence. Or another way to think about it - if AI being could attain to those highest modes of knowing, then we have no right to claim it is not truly alive and conscious.

And, if it "all One Thinking", why then are we distinguishing feelings from perceptions, timeless form time, formless from forms, God from humans? We are not ontologically separating anything from anything, it's all Consciousness/Thinking in its variety of aspects and modes. But we are claiming to do any spiritual science at all, we have to make epistemological distinctions. In science we epistemologically distinguish various aspects to be able to study and understand their specifics, properties and relations with each others. You question is the same as asking a physicist - "It's all ontologically the same inseparable "stuff" (a "universe"), why are you distinguishing protons from photos, EM field from gravitational field etc". Because if we don't make such distinctions, we just cannot do any science at all.

We distinguish these things because they perform different roles/functions in the Cosmic Unity. Formless force plays a different role than formative force. Thinking activity performs a different role from Willing and Feeling. Under Thinking, we differentiate between ways in which meanings are revealed to us. For ex., the meaning of number "1" is revealed to us in the intellectual, imaginative, intuitive ways. These are very stark differences in how we understand the meaning revealed, but the essential meaning is the same and there is always meaning. You are attempting to establish two separate kinds of meaning, or perhaps a "knowing" (Thinking) where meaning is inherent and a "knowing" where there is no meaning. So I am asking what is the relationship between these two kinds of "knowing"? Is there meaning associated with "Experiential knowing"? If not, then what is its role in our experience apart from mere Perceiving?

[Eugene I]

So I am asking what is the relationship between these two kinds of "knowing"? Is there meaning associated with "Experiential knowing"?

Yes, there is a meaning to the Experiential Knowing, and I tried to explain it in my previous posts. And I claim that it is a Universal/Cosmic and Unifying meaning. But to know/understand/comprehend it, our local/human thinking activity needs to reach to that Cosmic Meaning, and that is what non-dual Eastern practices are about. If you do not practice spiritual science in a way Cleric promotes it, your local Thinking will not reach to the hierarchy of meanings towards the Cosmic Meanings of Ideals/Forms. Similarly, if you don't practice in the Eastern traditions, you will not be able to reach to and comprehend the Meanings of Formless aspects such as Beingness-Emptiness, Experiencing, Timelessness, Nowness etc. Western traditions explored and discovered one kind of Universal Meanings mostly associated with forms, their relations and structures (and that is wonderful!), the Eastern traditions explored the Universal Meanings associated with formless aspects. But if we really want to do an all-encompassing spiritual science, we would need to comprehend and integrate them all together without neglecting one kind or the other. But if you still want to focus only on the Meanings of ideals/forms, then you are free to do that, there is no obligation. Just don't assume that others have no right or freedom to do both.

[AshvinP]

So I am asking what is the relationship between these two kinds of "knowing"? Is there meaning associated with "Experiential knowing"?

Yes, there is a meaning to the Experiential Knowing, and I tried to explain it in my previous posts. And I claim that it is a Universal/Cosmic and Unifying meaning. But to know/understand/comprehend it, our local/human thinking activity needs to reach to that Cosmic Meaning, and that is what non-dual Eastern practices are about. If you do not practice spiritual science in a way Cleric promotes it, your local Thinking will not reach to the hierarchy of meanings towards the Cosmic Meanings of Ideals/Forms. Similarly, if you don't practice in the Eastern traditions, you will not be able to reach to and comprehend the Meanings of Formless aspects such as Beingness-Emptiness, Experiencing, Timelessness, Nowness etc. Western traditions explored and discovered one kind of Universal Meanings mostly associated with forms, their relations and structures (and that is wonderful!), the Eastern traditions explored the Universal Meanings associated with formless aspects. But if we really want to do an all-encompassing spiritual science, we would need to comprehend and integrate them all together without neglecting one kind or the other. But if you still want to focus only on the Meanings of ideals/forms, then you are free to do that, there is no obligation. Just don't assume that others have no right or freedom to do both.

For it to be a "universal/cosmic" and "unifying" meaning, it must be able to work with the meanings we already have in normal cognition and lift them back into the realms of Spirit by way of its illumination. The "meaning" you speak of does the exact opposite - it purports to be a meaning so isolated from normal cognition that few people will ever hear of it, let alone reach it, in their lifetimes unless they are fortunate enough to run into you. Your dualism of meaning keeps Eastern and Western spiritual thought forever separated, running in parallel tracks that never intersect. Fortunately, I think you are wrong and both tracks of spiritual traditions are speaking of the same intersecting meanings of ideal relations. I think sooner or later you will realize that. No one is claiming they can obligate anyone else to think a certain way by virtue of their philosophical view, so I am not sure why you always bring that up as if we are suggesting any such thing. Perhaps because your dualism is so hard to accept by Reason that you must make it seem more "fair" to gain any traction.

[Eugene I]

For it to be a "universal/cosmic" and "unifying" meaning, it must be able to work with the meanings we already have in normal cognition and lift them back into the realms of Spirit by way of its illumination. The "meaning" you speak of does the exact opposite - it purports to be a meaning so isolated from normal cognition that few people will ever hear of it, let alone reach it, in their lifetimes unless they are fortunate enough to run into you. Your dualism of meaning keeps Eastern and Western spiritual thought forever separated, running in parallel tracks that never intersect. Fortunately, I think you are wrong and both tracks of spiritual traditions are speaking of the same intersecting meanings of ideal relations. I think sooner or later you will realize that. No one is claiming they can obligate anyone else to think a certain way by virtue of their philosophical view, so I am not sure why you always bring that up as if we are suggesting any such thing. Perhaps because your dualism is so hard to accept by Reason that you must make it seem more "fair" to gain any traction.

You see dualism where there isn't any. All universal meanings, of both formless and of forms, are inter-related. Exploring all of them are of practical and spiritual benefit, and millions of both Eastern and Western traditions practitioners have been doing and finding that. Your attempts to oppose and separate these various but inseparable meanings and aspects are futile, and I hope you will soon realize it. But by doing that and keeping your arrogant attitude towards the spiritual science of formless, you will only limit your own spiritual progress.

[SanteriSatama]

For it to be a "universal/cosmic" and "unifying" meaning, it must be able to work with the meanings we already have in normal cognition and lift them back into the realms of Spirit by way of its illumination.

If you already have meaning framed by 1) subject-sbject division and 2) bivalent logic and 3) monotheism/One/atomistic reductionism (which all take the side of One instead Many in the polar opposition One-Many), and you consider that frame of thinking the "normal cognition", it is normal only to a certain cultural and linguistic conditioning, but not certainly universal in empirical comparison of anthropology, linguistics etc,... what then could "working with" those frames of meanings mean in relation to "unifying/integrating" meaning mean?

I'm afraid loosening the grip of the trinity of dualities listed above means lots of practice, where the dualities can both cease and appear again in the flow of experiencing, instead of staying on all the time. Intellectual work alone is not sufficient, the "knowing" beneath the dualities, the meaning in absense of the dualities, needs also to be embodied and actually experienced.

The practice (in Greek: askesis) does not need to be difficult or uncomfortable. Upholding and feeding the dualities takes lots of effort, stopping to feed them and just letting them dissolve for a duration is like relaxing a tension. And no need to fear, the dualities can come back on in various combinations, as needed.

[AshvinP]

For it to be a "universal/cosmic" and "unifying" meaning, it must be able to work with the meanings we already have in normal cognition and lift them back into the realms of Spirit by way of its illumination. The "meaning" you speak of does the exact opposite - it purports to be a meaning so isolated from normal cognition that few people will ever hear of it, let alone reach it, in their lifetimes unless they are fortunate enough to run into you. Your dualism of meaning keeps Eastern and Western spiritual thought forever separated, running in parallel tracks that never intersect. Fortunately, I think you are wrong and both tracks of spiritual traditions are speaking of the same intersecting meanings of ideal relations. I think sooner or later you will realize that. No one is claiming they can obligate anyone else to think a certain way by virtue of their philosophical view, so I am not sure why you always bring that up as if we are suggesting any such thing. Perhaps because your dualism is so hard to accept by Reason that you must make it seem more "fair" to gain any traction.

You see dualism where there isn't any. All universal meanings, of both formless and of forms, are inter-related. Exploring all of them are of practical and spiritual benefit, and millions of both Eastern and Western traditions practitioners have been doing and finding that. Your attempts to oppose and separate these various but inseparable meanings and aspects are futile, and I hope you will soon realize it. But by doing that and keeping your arrogant attitude towards the spiritual science of formless, you will only limit your own spiritual progress.

I have explained to you many times how there is a dualism, Eugene. The thing is, I don't actually think you hold to a dualism, rather I think you are making them up as you go along to avoid the implication that Western spiritual idealism may have more to offer people today than Eastern. But the problem with making up such worldviews on the fly is that they become less and less coherent as you are forced to defend them. Instead of all that song and dance, I wish you would just be straightforward with yourself and with us and say you resent the Western spiritual view. You see the atrocities committed in the name of "Christianity", all the dogmatic evangelical preaching that I also criticize, and you take it upon yourself to "balance out" that "karma" by claiming the Western view is incomplete no matter what it does to make itself more complete in people such as Steiner, who did not hold to any of that rigid dogma and who actively fought against it. You are not looking for "completion" or "integration" but some sort of revenge via philosophy.

I am not as disciplined as Scott and Cleric to bite my tongue, so naturally you feel like I am taking some completely different intellectual approach to idealism than they are which excludes your view. You reference them as if their writings support your position. You frequently (almost always) tell Cleric you "agree" or are "converging" with everything he writes but disagree with and digress from everything he wrote in the very next sentence. You keep telling him that his view is correct but he is just missing the "Eastern" side of things, which is really nonsensical if you consider Steiner's involvement in Theosophy and everything else he wrote, which goes deeply into Eastern spirituality. I suspect that is because it is nearly impossible to dispute what Cleric writes about so clearly from experience. For my intellectual elaborations, it is still possible to play all kinds of word games to obfuscate the issues that were originally raised. And my mistake, as always, is that lack of discipline which leads me to think I can build off of what he wrote to make you realize where you are going astray.

So maybe I will just leave this discussion with you by quoting his recent comment building off of his other recent posts with amazingly helpful diagrams. But, again, I don't think they will be helpful to anyone who is actively trying to block these things from their view at all costs. It requires some significant measure of humility and mood of prayer he speaks of below.

If we envision God or the Pure Consciousness as a Grand Circle and our ego consciousness as separate circle within it, there's apparent discontinuity (this is the dualism Ashvin speaks of). This is understandable in Simon's paradigm where this separateness is held fast. But it's little strange in nondualist view. It's odd that the Knowledge of Presence is forcefully put in completely separate and irreconcilable category. Isn't it the most logical thing for nondualism to seek the unified Knowing essence and recognize it as it manifests through the different frequencies? Through proper application of our spiritual activity we can guide the metamorphosis of our view, such that the circles can flow into each other and become a spiral (this is the bridge). Imagination, Inspiration, Intuition are the octaves that when developed, build this spiral transducing of wavelengths.

Here we shouldn't be worried that this bridge demeans the Divine nature of the longer wavelengths. We should be clear about this - the fact that we can experience the permanence of consciousness (the Master wavelength), even in a mystical state, doesn't mean that we encompass all time-consciousness. In fact, we must approach these longer wavelengths in complete humility and mood of prayer because they are not under our control. They are higher order rhythms that rule the unfoldment of the metamorphic view. The best we can do is to synchronize our lower level frequencies with the Master frequencies.

[SanteriSatama]

The best we can do is to synchronize our lower level frequencies with the Master frequencies.

And of course you all know what the sync ratio is. The golden ratio phi. Not the real number definition of phi, that's bollocks because real numbers are bollocks, but the ratio of consecutive Fibonacci thingies.