Is Rovelli 'Dragooning the Human Spirit'?

[Soul_of_Shu]

No point.

OK, so if this no-thingness process has no point of origin, i.e. it's process all the way down, in other words uncaused, I'm missing how it is not the essence of our being ... which under idealism is the aware process of ideation, aka M@L.

[Eugene I]

These questions are all very abstract modern age questions, and they are trying to "leap in one bound to the eternal" (Bergson). They want to skip over all the details which would actually make possible the answering of the questions. That is why I am asking for a more specified question - think about it like you have been given a grant to explore a specific scientific inquiry in any particular field. What is the research question we should get started on to work our way to some true knowledge of Nature (including spiritual realm)? If we are, in fact, "on the path to and heading towards acquiring deeper knowledge about finer details and underlying structures of the Universe", we must first ask some specified questions before we get those finer detailed answers, right?

Well, the first obvious question for the "true knowledge of Nature" investigation project would be how exactly the observable universe is manifested ( including both natural phenomena and phycological phenomena). A starting assumption could be that there are certain structures "behind" the observable phenomena responsible for the generation and correlating of the observable phenomena. Then based on this assumption we would have further questions:
- How do these structures exactly function?
- How and in which ways are these two types of structures (producing natural phenomena and psychological phenomena) similar and in which ways they are different?

[Eugene I]

These questions are all very abstract modern age questions, and they are trying to "leap in one bound to the eternal" (Bergson). They want to skip over all the details which would actually make possible the answering of the questions. That is why I am asking for a more specified question - think about it like you have been given a grant to explore a specific scientific inquiry in any particular field. What is the research question we should get started on to work our way to some true knowledge of Nature (including spiritual realm)? If we are, in fact, "on the path to and heading towards acquiring deeper knowledge about finer details and underlying structures of the Universe", we must first ask some specified questions before we get those finer detailed answers, right?

Well, you and Cleric a while ago claimed that the evolution of humanity is heading towards integration, so I wanted to question whether such assumption is actually true.

[SanteriSatama]

I am speaking of the actual process of living in the world - observing it, thinking about it, making sense of it, uncovering its rich meanings, enriching our own relationships with Nature and others. You want to abstract away from that in every post you write, which leads us entirely away from productive dialogue. I wonder if you notice how your posts get shorter and shorter in every subsequent comment - it is a great living illustration of deconstructionist abstraction which diminishes concrete meaning further and further until there is nothing left to write or respond to.

I am not speaking about fantasizing about some rationalist and mechanical Utopia where everything is "acceptable" to everyone at all times. It's about seeking truth in spiritual freedom wherever that may lead.

I keep wondering about ability to distinguish between truth and BS, and why you behave as you do.

As for "systemic knowledge":

Dostoevsky is telling all of them that institutions and social structures don’t matter if the hearts of the people they serve aren’t free. He is telling us that the creation of a better world doesn’t happen at the level of government and institutions; it happens one human heart at a time.

What Dostoevsky is telling is a kind of systemic knowledge, a basic code of conduct established by generations and generations of spiritual investigation in the social spheres of spiritual world, in our self-awareness and truth of our hearts. This is the way of spiritual anarchy, as true anarchy means the way of the Heart.

Thus egoistic "wherever" is not the systemic knowledge of spiritual freedom of spiritual anarchy, systemic knowledge is true commitment to the whenever direction of creation of a better world, our own spiritual evolution. The choice to serve the way of the Heart is the greatest gift that spiritual freedom can give, and has value only if freely given. Postulating this systemic knowledge of the way of the Heart as "objective" and "essential" and "valid for all" would deny the freedom and the value of the gift freely given.

[Eugene I]

I keep wondering about ability to distinguish between truth and BS, and why you behave as you do.

I sadly have to agree with SS. In natural sciences the truths need to be validated and proven by experimental facts (which are the behaviors of natural systems). In spiritual, social and moral areas and sciences the truths need to be proven and validated by the practical social outcome and behavior of sentient beings adhering to the declared truths. No matter how beautiful and convincing the declared truths sound, if the behavior and practical outcomes of the individuals or groups proclaiming such truth do not align with the truths being proclaimed, such behaviors would naturally invalidate them, or at least be the evidences against the truths proclaimed. If we look back at the history, it shows us how the behaviors of adherents to beautifully and truly sounding social and spiritual paradigms (such as as Islam, Christianity or communism) eventually invalidated those paradigms and proved them nonfunctional. So, if there is an ethical, social or spiritual paradigm offered, the worst thing one can do is to proclaim and proselytize it by words and then invalidate it by their own behavior showing how a person adhering to these principles and paradigms can still behave contrary to the truths proclaimed. On the other hand, such instances might be quite useful, because they show us the early warning signs of how and in which ways such new paradigms could become nonfunctional before they become adapted on the mass scale.

I also tend to look at spiritual, moral and social paradigms from the psychological/psychotherapeutic perspective. I often observe how certain paradigms are the ways of "acting out" the underlying psychological neuroses while denying the very existence of such neuroses, and other paradigms are the ways of admitting, addressing, investigating the roots and healing the underlying neuroses. I think it's a good way of distinguishing functional and non-functional paradigms.

[AshvinP]

These questions are all very abstract modern age questions, and they are trying to "leap in one bound to the eternal" (Bergson). They want to skip over all the details which would actually make possible the answering of the questions. That is why I am asking for a more specified question - think about it like you have been given a grant to explore a specific scientific inquiry in any particular field. What is the research question we should get started on to work our way to some true knowledge of Nature (including spiritual realm)? If we are, in fact, "on the path to and heading towards acquiring deeper knowledge about finer details and underlying structures of the Universe", we must first ask some specified questions before we get those finer detailed answers, right?

Well, you and Cleric a while ago claimed that the evolution of humanity is heading towards integration, so I wanted to question whether such assumption is actually true.

That is a conclusion. Really this is only difficult to comprehend if you hold to dualism where scientific inquiry must be completely different from philosophical inquiry. In science, I could conclude, "space-time is doomed". That is a conclusion. We cannot investigate that conclusion without going into the details of how we arrive there, i.e. GR, QM, etc. We may ask about the dynamics of gravity at quantum levels, or something like that.

So... what specific question do you want to pursue re: evolution of consciousness and if it is heading towards integration or endlessly exploring different forms which will remain separated?

[AshvinP]

I keep wondering about ability to distinguish between truth and BS, and why you behave as you do.

I sadly have to agree with SS. In natural sciences the truths need to be validated and proven by experimental facts (which are the behaviors of natural systems). In spiritual, social and moral areas and sciences the truths need to be proven and validated by the practical social outcome and behavior of sentient beings adhering to the declared truths. No matter how beautiful and convincing the declared truths sound, if the behavior and practical outcomes of the individuals or groups proclaiming such truth do not align with the truths being proclaimed, such behaviors would naturally invalidate them, or at least be the evidences against the truths proclaimed. If we look back at the history, it shows us how the behaviors of adherents to beautifully and truly sounding social and spiritual paradigms (such as as Islam, Christianity or communism) eventually invalidated those paradigms and proved them nonfunctional. So, if there is an ethical, social or spiritual paradigm offered, the worst thing one can do is to proclaim and proselytize it by words and then invalidate it by their own behavior showing how a person adhering to these principles and paradigms can still behave contrary to the truths proclaimed. On the other hand, such instances might be quite useful, because they show us the early warning signs of how and in which ways such new paradigms could become nonfunctional before they become adapted on the mass scale.

I also tend to look at spiritual, moral and social paradigms from the psychological/psychotherapeutic perspective. I often observe how certain paradigms are the ways of "acting out" the underlying psychological neuroses while denying the very existence of such neuroses, and other paradigms are the ways of admitting, addressing, investigating the roots and healing the underlying neuroses. I think it's a good way of distinguishing functional and non-functional paradigms.

Well, the above is 100% antithetical to any objective area of inquiry. Maybe you should just admit to dualism - because that is what your view above implies - and then we can debate whether dualism is valid. You hold "natural sciences" can be objectively studied, but not "spiritual, social, and moral" areas. That is mind-matter dualism, plain and simple. No more psychoanalysis is needed. Also, I am still waiting for your approach to come up with a single specified question which relates to how the phenomenal world we all live in can reveal the noumenal meaning behind it. Given what you wrote above, I presume such a question is not coming because you have a priori ruled out such questions as even being possible to ask.

[Eugene I]

amazing

[AshvinP]

These questions are all very abstract modern age questions, and they are trying to "leap in one bound to the eternal" (Bergson). They want to skip over all the details which would actually make possible the answering of the questions. That is why I am asking for a more specified question - think about it like you have been given a grant to explore a specific scientific inquiry in any particular field. What is the research question we should get started on to work our way to some true knowledge of Nature (including spiritual realm)? If we are, in fact, "on the path to and heading towards acquiring deeper knowledge about finer details and underlying structures of the Universe", we must first ask some specified questions before we get those finer detailed answers, right?

Well, the first obvious question for the "true knowledge of Nature" investigation project would be how exactly the observable universe is manifested ( including both natural phenomena and phycological phenomena). A starting assumption could be that there are certain structures "behind" the observable phenomena responsible for the generation and correlating of the observable phenomena. Then based on this assumption we would have further questions:
- How do these structures exactly function?
- How and in which ways are these two types of structures (producing natural phenomena and psychological phenomena) similar and in which ways they are different?

I did not see this post before my last one, so you can ignore that. Although I have to ask, based on your last comment, do you think it is at all possible to objectively answer those questions you asked? If not, then I am not sure why I should bother trying.

[SanteriSatama]

So... what specific question do you want to pursue re: evolution of consciousness

The first actually evolutionary question that comes to mind, why are you behaving in a nasty way, with constant hostile interpretation and hurtful intention? Do you consider it possible, or at least worth a try, to became self-aware of what causes such behaviour, and pray tell, self-heal?