Squidgers wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 4:24 am
Do you think anyone really believes that their words and ideas are lierally the ontological reality? Even with an ontological mathematical model, there should be a clear distinction made between "paper mathematics" (to describe the model), and what is ontologically real.
Einstein did when he came up with Special Relativity. He had faith that his math was so beutiful that Mother Nature had no other possiblity than to obey. However, Einstein's day in the Glory remained short.
Wheeler did, when he read the paper math of QM and designed the Delayed choice and Quantum eraser experiments, which confirmed the paper math and violated unilinear causality (one of the many nails in Einstein's coffin).
Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 1:47 am
I understand what you're getting at, and what you are attempting to do with your essays, but I just don't think there's a one-way-fits-all approach to how each person can best come to terms with the profound implications of idealism. It may just be that some have to begin with whatever works for them at any given stage, before they are ready to move on to a more nuanced understanding. Indeed, there was a time when had I come across something like one of your essays, it would have made little sense, or had much appeal. As an analogy, if someone is just learning to play piano, they don't just leap into playing a Beethoven sonata, but have to begin with a very low resolution rendition of chopsticks, until eventually ready to move on. So I don't share the notion that just because they're not meeting someone's expectations of where they should begin, or when they should feel inspired to move on, that means they're not benefiting from where they're at.
I appreciate that and I completely agree with you. I started at A and now maybe I am at B, so I have absolutely no expectations for where anyone should start or how they should start. There are plenty of other ways, apart from those discussed in my essays, to approach the noumenal relations which constellate our experience. But let me try one more time to clarify my critique by quoting Scott from the other thread:
Scott wrote:This is not to say that exercising our mathematical capability is of no use in terms of the spiritual development... It is just that we should not be deluded into thinking that anything we can come up with is ontologically relevant.
What he calls "anything we can come up with" is what I am calling "abstractions". It's not that they are too simple, unclear, etc. My tweet said "low resolution" and that is probably causing confusion too. I would say BK's MAL framework is "low resolution", but clearly I also think his approach can be usefully adapted for people attempting to transfigure their thinking. BK always makes clear that his framework is just a useful heuristic device for approaching ideal Reality. Langan seems to be a different kind of animal (and I am not even positive about that, just based on what I have read so far), because his approach cannot be adapted. It is fundamentally trying to achieve something that I think we should not be trying to achieve - what spiritual types call "idolatry". Idolatry is what leads to being "deluded into thinking [the abstractions] are ontologically relevant". It is like trying to learn the piano by picking up a hammer and banging on trash cans - there is just no continuity there. I hope that clears up my critique. I know for sure that this was one of those times my own poor phrasing caused the confusion to begin with.
Do you think anyone really believes that their words and ideas are lierally the ontological reality? Even with an ontological mathematical model, there should be a clear distinction made between "paper mathematics" (to describe the model), and what is ontologically real.
A comprehensive ToE might support the notion of linking the expantion of an individuals mind with the grasping of the model. Where the knowledge becomes a psychoactive in ones spiritual development, like a kind of Gnosis.
When did I say Langan believes his words are the ontological reality? I do believe there are people who think abstractions of particles, fields, or strings are the ontological reality, those people we call "materialists". Not the actual words "fields" or "strings", but the mathematical concepts they are pointing to in any given abstract theory of physics. I don't see how Langan's approach is any different. Like I said, I have no problem with someone using these things as a heuristic device to become a "psychoactive in ones spiritual development", but that is not my sense of what Langan is doing. He is trying to set up his CMTU as the conclusive framework for grasping ontological reality. I could be wrong about that, but consider this quote:
Langan wrote:To model religious languages on the appropriate metaphysical level of logic and consistently express their interrelationships, the CTMU employs a trialic metalogical language which constitutes its own universe and its own model, and is thus capable of autonomously validating certain religious claims of truth and consistency. In effect, this language comprises the "metascripture" of a verific and potentially unificative metareligion. Its supertautological structure is that of a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language (SCSPL) exhibiting referential closure and thus reflecting the structure of the self-contained, self-sufficient reality in which we live. Encoding the relationship between man and Deity, humankind and the metaphysical structure of reality, it is the only valid basis for eliminating the existential confusion and religious conflict that threatens our world without sacrificing that which makes us human.
"A secret law contrives,
To give time symmetry:
There is, within our lives,
An exact mystery."
AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 2:22 amWhat he calls "anything we can come up with" is what I am calling "abstractions". It's not that they are too simple, unclear, etc. My tweet said "low resolution" and that is probably causing confusion too. I would say BK's MAL framework is "low resolution", but clearly I also think his approach can be usefully adapted for people attempting to transfigure their thinking. BK always makes clear that his framework is just a useful heuristic device for approaching ideal Reality. Langan seems to be a different kind of animal (and I am not even positive about that, just based on what I have read so far), because his approach cannot be adapted. It is fundamentally trying to achieve something that I think we should not be trying to achieve - what spiritual types call "idolatry". Idolatry is what leads to being "deluded into thinking [the abstractions] are ontologically relevant". It is like trying to learn the piano by picking up a hammer and banging on trash cans - there is just no continuity there. I hope that clears up my critique. I know for sure that this was one of those times my own poor phrasing caused the confusion to begin with.
"You call that music?!" I hear you protesting ... as clearly Langan is not music to your ears. I feel much the same about 'heavy metal' If I may extend the music analogy a bit further, if someone is to become the best musician possible, it isn't only about practice, but also about learning how to read musical notation, and some music theory and its language, which in this experience felt very abstract and tedious. But of course, just learning how to read music is clearly not sufficient if not also practising so as to not sound like one is playing off-key, and missing the beats. So I feel it's one of those times when both/and is apropos.
Right, and I basically agree with all of your posts because they are not addressing my actual critique
Maybe my comment above with quote from Langan will clarify more. I am not dismissing him because his mathematical approach is hard for me to understand or resonate with. It's not that at all. In my view, sticking with your analogy, his goal is not to learn how to become the best musician but to do away with music altogether. That is what I take away from "Encoding the relationship between man and Deity, humankind and the metaphysical structure of reality, it is the only valid basis..."
"A secret law contrives,
To give time symmetry:
There is, within our lives,
An exact mystery."
AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 2:04 pmRight, and I basically agree with all of your posts because they are not addressing my actual critique
Maybe my comment above with quote from Langan will clarify more. I am not dismissing him because his mathematical approach is hard for me to understand or resonate with. It's not that at all. In my view, sticking with your analogy, his goal is not to learn how to become the best musician but to do away with music altogether. That is what I take away from "Encoding the relationship between man and Deity, humankind and the metaphysical structure of reality, it is the only valid basis..."
Surely any model based on the premise of the primacy of consciousness, and the cosmos as idea construction, which also involves some relational, evolutionary, feedback loop process, by definition implies the evolution and/or metamorphosis of ideation/thinking—for under such a model what else would be evolving?—even if it isn't being explicated in some Steiner-esque fashion, in lieu of a seemingly soulless mathematical explication. In any case, I'm not suggesting some deep investment in Langan's model for those who have no affinity for the mathematical explication, or suggesting that it in any way be taken as definitive, but mainly brought it up to get some input/feedback in the hope of better grokking some of the concepts that the mathematically inclined here keep referring to ... eclectic curiosity seeker that I am.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 2:04 pmRight, and I basically agree with all of your posts because they are not addressing my actual critique
Maybe my comment above with quote from Langan will clarify more. I am not dismissing him because his mathematical approach is hard for me to understand or resonate with. It's not that at all. In my view, sticking with your analogy, his goal is not to learn how to become the best musician but to do away with music altogether. That is what I take away from "Encoding the relationship between man and Deity, humankind and the metaphysical structure of reality, it is the only valid basis..."
Surely any model based on the premise of the primacy of consciousness, and the cosmos as idea construction, which also involves some relational, evolutionary, feedback loop process, by definition implies the evolution and/or metamorphosis of ideation/thinking—for under such a model what else would be evolving?—even if it isn't being explicated in some Steiner-esque fashion, in lieu of a seemingly soulless mathematical explication. In any case, I'm not suggesting some deep investment in Langan's model for those who have no affinity for the mathematical explication, or suggesting that it in any way be taken as definitive, but mainly brought it up to get some input/feedback in the hope of better grokking some of the concepts that the mathematically inclined here keep referring to ... eclectic curiosity seeker that I am.
Fair enough. And I really wasn't trying to divert this thread so far away from the original topic, which, in my view, is about the participatory role of humans in the phenomenal world, which Langan does seem to be endorsing with his model. We can agree to disagree about Langan's overall approach, and I probably agree with you that his mathematical arguments are valuable to consider as tools in our spiritual development. Like Scott said, it is always helpful to discipline the mind by thinking through such arguments.
"A secret law contrives,
To give time symmetry:
There is, within our lives,
An exact mystery."
tjssailor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 4:45 pm
Nature obviously exists within consciousness and consciousness is the creator.
That would be the third option that I was hinting at in my original reply.
Robert. I've been rereading your initial post, and I'm not sure i understand your "The Principle of Rigged Probability"
Is it that these probabilities that proponents of the Anthropic Principle invoke, still have a piece of design within them so you still can't get away from there being a Designer in the background?
As a side note: I'm having an extremely hard time in general understanding what people on this board actually mean. Is this what Philosophy is about? Trying to figure out what people mean? Seems a lot of discussions (on this board and elsewhere) are about what did X really mean . X = {Jung, Steiner, ..., ...}. I keep feeling that there has to be a better way to reach true understanding between individuals than throwing walls of texts at each otner...
Martin_ wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 10:39 pm
As a side note: I'm having an extremely hard time in general understanding what people on this board actually mean. Is this what Philosophy is about? Trying to figure out what people mean? Seems a lot of discussions (on this board and elsewhere) are about what did X really mean . X = {Jung, Steiner, ..., ...}. I keep feeling that there has to be a better way to reach true understanding between individuals than throwing walls of texts at each otner...
Good point, Martin. We do really need to stop depending on references to past philosophers when framing our arguments. I know that I did this quite often, but lately I am getting better at avoiding it and I generally only mention them when trying to correct misrepresentations of their positions. That has happened with Steiner a lot on various threads recently. But I agree that this sort of thing quickly devolves into a rabbit hole of trying to figure out what past thinkers were saying, or what yet other people were saying about what they were saying, and then we completely forget about the original issues being discussed and how they are relevant to our present time.
"A secret law contrives,
To give time symmetry:
There is, within our lives,
An exact mystery."
I appreciate that and I completely agree with you. I started at A and now maybe I am at B, so I have absolutely no expectations for where anyone should start or how they should start. There are plenty of other ways, apart from those discussed in my essays, to approach the noumenal relations which constellate our experience. But let me try one more time to clarify my critique by quoting Scott from the other thread:
What he calls "anything we can come up with" is what I am calling "abstractions". It's not that they are too simple, unclear, etc. My tweet said "low resolution" and that is probably causing confusion too. I would say BK's MAL framework is "low resolution", but clearly I also think his approach can be usefully adapted for people attempting to transfigure their thinking. BK always makes clear that his framework is just a useful heuristic device for approaching ideal Reality. Langan seems to be a different kind of animal (and I am not even positive about that, just based on what I have read so far), because his approach cannot be adapted. It is fundamentally trying to achieve something that I think we should not be trying to achieve - what spiritual types call "idolatry". Idolatry is what leads to being "deluded into thinking [the abstractions] are ontologically relevant". It is like trying to learn the piano by picking up a hammer and banging on trash cans - there is just no continuity there. I hope that clears up my critique. I know for sure that this was one of those times my own poor phrasing caused the confusion to begin with.
Do you think anyone really believes that their words and ideas are lierally the ontological reality? Even with an ontological mathematical model, there should be a clear distinction made between "paper mathematics" (to describe the model), and what is ontologically real.
A comprehensive ToE might support the notion of linking the expantion of an individuals mind with the grasping of the model. Where the knowledge becomes a psychoactive in ones spiritual development, like a kind of Gnosis.
When did I say Langan believes his words are the ontological reality? I do believe there are people who think abstractions of particles, fields, or strings are the ontological reality, those people we call "materialists". Not the actual words "fields" or "strings", but the mathematical concepts they are pointing to in any given abstract theory of physics. I don't see how Langan's approach is any different. Like I said, I have no problem with someone using these things as a heuristic device to become a "psychoactive in ones spiritual development", but that is not my sense of what Langan is doing. He is trying to set up his CMTU as the conclusive framework for grasping ontological reality. I could be wrong about that, but consider this quote:
Langan wrote:To model religious languages on the appropriate metaphysical level of logic and consistently express their interrelationships, the CTMU employs a trialic metalogical language which constitutes its own universe and its own model, and is thus capable of autonomously validating certain religious claims of truth and consistency. In effect, this language comprises the "metascripture" of a verific and potentially unificative metareligion. Its supertautological structure is that of a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language (SCSPL) exhibiting referential closure and thus reflecting the structure of the self-contained, self-sufficient reality in which we live. Encoding the relationship between man and Deity, humankind and the metaphysical structure of reality, it is the only valid basis for eliminating the existential confusion and religious conflict that threatens our world without sacrificing that which makes us human.
Do you know if Langan is explicit on what his language of reality is (as opposed to what it does) or how it interfaces with known mathematical sciences? (It must have some proto-mathematical structure to account for mathematical structures in spacetime)
Do you think anyone really believes that their words and ideas are lierally the ontological reality? Even with an ontological mathematical model, there should be a clear distinction made between "paper mathematics" (to describe the model), and what is ontologically real.
A comprehensive ToE might support the notion of linking the expantion of an individuals mind with the grasping of the model. Where the knowledge becomes a psychoactive in ones spiritual development, like a kind of Gnosis.
When did I say Langan believes his words are the ontological reality? I do believe there are people who think abstractions of particles, fields, or strings are the ontological reality, those people we call "materialists". Not the actual words "fields" or "strings", but the mathematical concepts they are pointing to in any given abstract theory of physics. I don't see how Langan's approach is any different. Like I said, I have no problem with someone using these things as a heuristic device to become a "psychoactive in ones spiritual development", but that is not my sense of what Langan is doing. He is trying to set up his CMTU as the conclusive framework for grasping ontological reality. I could be wrong about that, but consider this quote:
Langan wrote:To model religious languages on the appropriate metaphysical level of logic and consistently express their interrelationships, the CTMU employs a trialic metalogical language which constitutes its own universe and its own model, and is thus capable of autonomously validating certain religious claims of truth and consistency. In effect, this language comprises the "metascripture" of a verific and potentially unificative metareligion. Its supertautological structure is that of a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language (SCSPL) exhibiting referential closure and thus reflecting the structure of the self-contained, self-sufficient reality in which we live. Encoding the relationship between man and Deity, humankind and the metaphysical structure of reality, it is the only valid basis for eliminating the existential confusion and religious conflict that threatens our world without sacrificing that which makes us human.
Do you know if Langan is explicit on what his language of reality is (as opposed to what it does) or how it interfaces with known mathematical sciences? (It must have some proto-mathematical structure to account for mathematical structures in spacetime)
No, I have no idea. You should check his papers out at the website and see if you can discern that. The quoted language seems indicative to me of his overall approach. For instance, "[CMTU] is thus capable of autonomously validating certain religious claims of truth and consistency... ". What does that phrase mean?
"A secret law contrives,
To give time symmetry:
There is, within our lives,
An exact mystery."
If I may extend the music analogy a bit further, if someone is to become the best musician possible, it isn't only about practice, but also about learning how to read musical notation, and some music theory and its language, which in this experience felt very abstract and tedious. But of course, just learning how to read music is clearly not sufficient if not also practising so as to not sound like one is playing off-key, and missing the beats. So I feel it's one of those times when both/and is apropos.
