Intuitive Idealism vs. Analytic Idealism (Part II): An alternative formulation of idealism

[Soul_of_Shu]

I have to come to think of all 'higher' beings involved in our current thought-activities as future versions of our-Selves, in a very literal sense. By prayer, and generally any devotional activities of the Spirit (including thoughtful contemplation), we manifest our own future thought-qualities in the present. It reminds me of some lines from the movie Inception:


ARTHUR: Okay, here's planting an idea: I say to you, "Don't think about elephants."
(Saito nods)
What are you thinking about?
SAITO: Elephants.
ARTHUR: Right. But it's not your idea because you know I gave it to you.
SAITO: You could plant it subconsciously-
ARTHUR: The subject's mind can always trace the genesis of the idea. True inspiration is impossible to fake.
COBB: No, it isn't.

... (new scene)

EAMES: Now, in the dream, I can impersonate Browning and suggest the concepts to Fischer's conscious mind...
EAMES: (draws a diagram) Then we take Fischer down another level and his own subconscious feeds it right back to him.
ARTHUR: (impressed) So he gives himself the idea.
EAMES: Precisely. That's the only way to make it stick. It has to seem self-generated.

... (new scene)

EAMES: Arthur? You're still working with that stick-in-the-mud?
COBB: He's a good point man.
EAMES: The best. But he has no imagination. If you're going to perform inception, you need imagination.

Nolan is brilliant ... which reminds me, I've yet to get around to watching Tenet. Now I'm more inspired to get at it.

[AshvinP]

I have to come to think of all 'higher' beings involved in our current thought-activities as future versions of our-Selves, in a very literal sense. By prayer, and generally any devotional activities of the Spirit (including thoughtful contemplation), we manifest our own future thought-qualities in the present. It reminds me of some lines from the movie Inception:


ARTHUR: Okay, here's planting an idea: I say to you, "Don't think about elephants."
(Saito nods)
What are you thinking about?
SAITO: Elephants.
ARTHUR: Right. But it's not your idea because you know I gave it to you.
SAITO: You could plant it subconsciously-
ARTHUR: The subject's mind can always trace the genesis of the idea. True inspiration is impossible to fake.
COBB: No, it isn't.

... (new scene)

EAMES: Now, in the dream, I can impersonate Browning and suggest the concepts to Fischer's conscious mind...
EAMES: (draws a diagram) Then we take Fischer down another level and his own subconscious feeds it right back to him.
ARTHUR: (impressed) So he gives himself the idea.
EAMES: Precisely. That's the only way to make it stick. It has to seem self-generated.

... (new scene)

EAMES: Arthur? You're still working with that stick-in-the-mud?
COBB: He's a good point man.
EAMES: The best. But he has no imagination. If you're going to perform inception, you need imagination.

Nolan is brilliant ... which reminds me, I've yet to get around to watching Tenet. Now I'm more inspired to get at it.

He is definitely my favorite filmmaker. You shouldn't be disappointed with Tenet, but it will probably take multiple viewings. Much of that story is direct intuition of what I am also exploring via the 'inverted' mirror mythic images surrounding the Central 4th epoch. I guess that could be said of nearly all his movies, but Tenet is the most explicit visual representation of it. Sometimes I wonder if he is directly drawing from esoteric spiritual tradition, but I think it's more likely he just has a very well-tuned intuition, with high creative and reasoning faculties. Perhaps he was a medieval Christian mystic in his previous incarnation.

[AshvinP]

I have to come to think of all 'higher' beings involved in our current thought-activities as future versions of our-Selves, in a very literal sense. By prayer, and generally any devotional activities of the Spirit (including thoughtful contemplation), we manifest our own future thought-qualities in the present. It reminds me of some lines from the movie Inception:


ARTHUR: Okay, here's planting an idea: I say to you, "Don't think about elephants."
(Saito nods)
What are you thinking about?
SAITO: Elephants.
ARTHUR: Right. But it's not your idea because you know I gave it to you.
SAITO: You could plant it subconsciously-
ARTHUR: The subject's mind can always trace the genesis of the idea. True inspiration is impossible to fake.
COBB: No, it isn't.

... (new scene)

EAMES: Now, in the dream, I can impersonate Browning and suggest the concepts to Fischer's conscious mind...
EAMES: (draws a diagram) Then we take Fischer down another level and his own subconscious feeds it right back to him.
ARTHUR: (impressed) So he gives himself the idea.
EAMES: Precisely. That's the only way to make it stick. It has to seem self-generated.

... (new scene)

EAMES: Arthur? You're still working with that stick-in-the-mud?
COBB: He's a good point man.
EAMES: The best. But he has no imagination. If you're going to perform inception, you need imagination.

Nolan is brilliant ... which reminds me, I've yet to get around to watching Tenet. Now I'm more inspired to get at it.

He is definitely my favorite filmmaker. You shouldn't be disappointed with Tenet, but it will probably take multiple viewings. Much of that story is direct intuition of what I am also exploring via the 'inverted' mirror mythic images surrounding the Central 4th epoch. I guess that could be said of nearly all his movies, but Tenet is the most explicit visual representation of it. Sometimes I wonder if he is directly drawing from esoteric spiritual tradition, but I think it's more likely he just has a very well-tuned intuition, with high creative and reasoning faculties. Perhaps he was a medieval Christian mystic in his previous incarnation.

It just occurred to me that, if you take Cleric's recent post on the metamorphic progression, and map it onto the plot structure of Inception, it fits very nicely. The "unconstructed dream space" of 'limbo' is where Christ descended after the Cross; his wife symbolizes the idealized Divine spirit-soul from which he must separate himself to become free; waking up simultaneously through the levels of the dreams is... well, waking up through the 'dreams' of the sense-world into those of the higher realms. Of course many more symbolic parallels could be drawn, but I will leave the rest to the Imagination.

[Adur Alkain]

We can see this in our own experience: there is a clear difference between inner experiences (thoughts, emotions) and sense perceptions. In inner experience there is no fundamental impossibility of contradiction: I can feel happy and sad at the same time, or think that materialism is false and at the same time (maybe on some deeper layer of my mind) believe it is true, etc. But when it comes to sense perceptions (on which every scientific measurement is based), any contradiction is fundamentally impossible. I can't look at a cat and see it dead and alive at the same time (only in my mind can I hold the images of the dead and alive cat simultaneously).

I sincerely think that it is possible to explain all the regularities of physical reality starting from some ridiculously simple idea like that.

Adur, I'm wondering if the bolded contradiction can't be overcome with a dynamic process view? As an old guy with health issues I often feel sensually like I'm living/dying.

Hi Lou,

I was talking about sense perceptions of the outer ("objective") world, not about inner sensations or feelings. When it comes to these, of course you can experience all kinds of apparent contradictions or paradoxes.

I hope your health improves, take care of yourself!

[Adur Alkain]

That is a very good question! Which means, it is a very difficult question to answer.

...

Following A. H. Almaas, I would say that to understand that "process-at-large" you are describing, we need to introduce an intermediate level of reality between Universal Consciousness (or M@L) and ego-consciousness (what Rupert Spira calls "the limited mind"): this intermediate reality is what Almaas calls individual consciousness or soul.

Adur,

I already mentioned this in one of my previous posts to Eugene. What you've written above actually shows that as we deepen our understandings we begin to meet problems, thus we face as necessity to recognize some intermediate level of reality. When this process goes even further we find out that there are really much more such intermediate levels. For example, in the above scenario we have Universal -> Soul -> intellectual ego. Through higher forms of consciousness we can observe that the human soul is not yet fully differentiated. It is entangled with even higher entities called National (Folk) Spirits. Souls nested within these entities have some similar group characteristics, language being one of them. Languages have gone through many purely mechanical transformations but the initial differentiation of the proto-language has been directly inspired by the Folk Spirits. Even higher than this we have beings which rhythmically alternate in their activities and inspire the spiritual impulses in humanity that unfold in consecutive epochs of evolution. All these layers then have their additional reflections in the elements, the mineral, plant, animal kingdom, the planetary spheres, etc.

So these are my remarks to the essays in these threads: from the perspective of higher cognition, this looks like a flattened view of reality. As a matter of fact, most of the examples and principles (even the very principle of Consistency) I'm in much accord with. But just as we need to introduce the Soul level in order to be in harmony with the facts, so it will be found that there's a whole gradient of intermediate levels between our sensory consciousness and the Universal. The basic intuition remains the same - it really is the Universal One that looks through every being. But this 'looking through' really happens through a hierarchical system of spiritual lenses. In our sensory consciousness we have only the flattened projection of all this. Human evolution has in its course that consciousness will grow along the verticality of this Time-Consciousness spectrum, gradually revealing how the Cosmos has come into being, what are the forces that support it, and how in the course of evolution Man will take on the job of spiritualization of reality, thus gradually re-cohering the decohered physical world (the physical world is nothing but decohered Cosmic Imagination) and reintegrating the Universal perspective, out of which new waves of evolution issue, where new perspectives will have their unique journeys.

Adur, I hope you don't take the above as harsh criticism. I really enjoy your work because this is what we really need - strenuous and dedicated work to uncover the secrets of existence. Only in this way we can attain to the needed wisdom and freedom to conduct our metamorphic development in harmony with the World Process.

Hi Cleric,

I have a very simple mind, as you can probably tell from my essays. I'm drawn to simple explanations and simple models of reality. This is what I like the most about Bernardo's view: he also has a rather simple mind, I believe. And he also is interested in "parsimony". The main purpose of this essay was to say: "you can be even more parsimonious than that!".

But my goal is not to offer a complete explanation of reality (I don't think that's possible), it is only to offer an incomplete but workable explanation of physical reality, from an idealistic perspective. By "workable" I mean that this alternative non-materialistic interpretation of physical reality would (if my theory is approximately correct) open the door to a new science, and to a new physical reality, more open and full of magic.

So, my main focus is on the practical side of things.

I had to laugh when I read the part about "strenuous and dedicated work". I'm mostly having fun here, obviously. I know there is only a remote possibility that my theory (including the "observational interpretation" of QM, which is its cornerstone) may be correct. But it would be such a good joke if it actually were correct, that I just can't let it go. And until some physicist carries out the experiment I'm proposing and proves me wrong, I will enjoy entertaining the posssibility of being absolutely right! (Sometimes I feel much more serious and heavy about all this, like I said on a reply to Ashvin the other day; but I'm not there right now.)

I'm clearly no genius, though. If my theory is spot on, I'm just the simple-minded child in "The Emperor's New Clothes" that cries out: "But look! The guy is naked!"

[Lou Gold]

We can see this in our own experience: there is a clear difference between inner experiences (thoughts, emotions) and sense perceptions. In inner experience there is no fundamental impossibility of contradiction: I can feel happy and sad at the same time, or think that materialism is false and at the same time (maybe on some deeper layer of my mind) believe it is true, etc. But when it comes to sense perceptions (on which every scientific measurement is based), any contradiction is fundamentally impossible. I can't look at a cat and see it dead and alive at the same time (only in my mind can I hold the images of the dead and alive cat simultaneously).

I sincerely think that it is possible to explain all the regularities of physical reality starting from some ridiculously simple idea like that.

Adur, I'm wondering if the bolded contradiction can't be overcome with a dynamic process view? As an old guy with health issues I often feel sensually like I'm living/dying.

Hi Lou,

I was talking about sense perceptions of the outer ("objective") world, not about inner sensations or feelings. When it comes to these, of course you can experience all kinds of apparent contradictions or paradoxes.

I hope your health improves, take care of yourself!

Hmmm. Where are sense perceptions of the 'outer' if not an inner sensation? Are not both 'inner' and 'outer' sense perceptions?

Thanks for the good wishes. Not to worry. I'm finding living/dying as a great study and learning.

[AshvinP]

Here are some of my favorites from Nanci
Creation
What is Manifesting Reality?
Reincarnation
The Power of Beliefs

I listened to first one on "Creation". Was this really the sort of thing you were comparing in your mind to Cleric's posts? Even I thought it would be something more challenging to distinguish. It is not even comparable... actually it reminded me more of the vague mystical sentiments expressed by others here which are confused for absolute peak truth. You don't seem to understand the concept of developing thinking faculty towards spiritual discernment, even though you do it all the time in engineering. As usual, all of this boils down to modern prejudice against Thinking. Whether in engineering, or in spiritual experience, one is always testing things against their own Reason and logic. Yes the tools for testing will be different, just as they would be between an engineer and a doctor, but the knowing faculty which tests is essentially the same. Both take a lot of patience, effort and dedication if they are to be done well.

[Cleric K]

NDEs, psychedelic experiences, etc. don't give us directly the proper concepts. We can only translate into understanding that which succeeds to connect with concepts that we already possess from our ordinary life. Nanci for example had read quite some New Age books, so she already had a rich conceptual palette when her NDE occured. So this is the first thing - every person can extract from NDEs and other such states, only as much as can be translated into their conceptual palette. (Even Terence McKenna said "Psychedelics Don't Work On Stupid People" )

Right, that's also what I was saying. And it's not only that there are some independent reality that is only filtered through our conceptual palettes, but (in the discarnate realms) the very perceived reality is in most part a result of the manifestation of that palette by us and the beings sharing with us the same palette ("interest group"), and this is because the palette extends deep into the subconscious and carries our intentions and expectations that are part of the palette. But the same applies to your experiences: you have certain conceptual palette shaped by your Christian and Antroposophic background, so the beyond-physical reality you are experiencing is the result of the manifestation and translation of this palette by you and the beings from your "interest group" there.

...

So the views differ in roughly the following way:



On the left is what you suggest, which is that the Spiritual Cosmos consists of independent groups which have their consensual meeting point in the Earth matrix (green). In other words, the groups are completely free from each other, they only become entangled within the Earthly spectrum, where they can experience their temporary interactions.

On the right is the other view where we have higher spheres that represent increasingly integrated potential of the One Consciousness which differentiates towards the lower worlds and enters into myriad complicated relationships.

This can never be resolved formally. Here's how things look from each other's perspective:

The Moon Initiate says to the Sun Initiate: There's no single source, there are only infinite groups emerging like quantum foam from the One Background Consciousness. These groups interact to create a lower level matrices where they can experience relations in more consensual and entangled environment. The more we rise towards the heights of Consciousness the more segregated the groups become to the point that they lose conscious sight of each other (because they no longer interfere in any way). Your Solar group is just a group like any other but has become deluded that it has somewhat more fundamental role.

The Sun Initiate says to the Moon Initiate: The Moon view results from not penetrating enough within the depths of the Spiritual World. Within the Moon sphere (orange circle, World of Imagination) the groups look like they are still separate, but if we rise even further we enter the Sun sphere (yellow, World of Inspiration) where we can already trace how the groups differentiate from a common higher sphere. So instead of the groups becoming more and more segregated the higher we go, on the contrary we find the Universal life of the Spirit that is common to all of them.

Clearly, this can never be resolved. It's each Initiate's word against the other's. So what could we poor humans do? It is up to our freedom and what our high ideal is. Here everything is up to the individual. For example, there are plenty of people here who are perfectly happy with the thin dream picture explanation of reality - the Cosmos just dreams itself, there's no underlying logic, no reasons, no patterns, no rhythms. There are also those who intuit that the lawfulness and structure of the Universe is not there without reason. It is here that the differences between the two views can be more clearly assessed. In the Moon view it is all about consensual Imaginative process (much like Adur's essay here). The rose is a rose, there's no deeper meaning, it's just the Imaginative consensus of otherwise independent groups. In the Sun view we have actual structure, fractally embedded rhythms within rhythms of ideating Spiritual activity. Everything revealed in this way has immediate practical significance for our Earthly life, because these higher order dynamics are not in some separate world but are the actual 'carrier waves' over which the sensory world is like spectrum of overtones. These nested Worlds appear flattened on our sensory screen. That's why, even if we don't have the higher experiences, we can still think about them and decide for ourselves if the flattened dynamics really make sense in relation to the depth dynamics that the seer describes.

So I'm leaving it here. These are things that everyone must ponder for themselves. The most important thing is that everyone should try and identify the true reasons why one or another view seems more sympathetic. In our age especially, the Moon view is preferred because it gives the feeling of independence. People have had enough of being restricted in the Earth matrix and hope that at least after death they can be completely free, true masters of their destiny. This of course leads to specific soul mood, where one feels as a temporary visitor to the Earth inn, and there's no need to delve too much into its details (it's just a consensual Imagination, so there isn't anything to be learnt from it anyway). The Sun view opens the path of the evolutionary development of the Cosmic organism. Every little thing is of significance because it must ultimately find its proper place in a coherent and harmonic Being. This greatly alters the way we look upon all other beings. In the Earth inn we need compassion for the poor drunkards. In the Earth as the Body of Cosmic Man we need actual sacrificial Love. This is the The Parable of the Good Samaritan.

[Adur Alkain]

Adur, I'm wondering if the bolded contradiction can't be overcome with a dynamic process view? As an old guy with health issues I often feel sensually like I'm living/dying.

Hi Lou,

I was talking about sense perceptions of the outer ("objective") world, not about inner sensations or feelings. When it comes to these, of course you can experience all kinds of apparent contradictions or paradoxes.

I hope your health improves, take care of yourself!

Hmmm. Where are sense perceptions of the 'outer' if not an inner sensation? Are not both 'inner' and 'outer' sense perceptions?

Thanks for the good wishes. Not to worry. I'm finding living/dying as a great study and learning.

Hi again, Lou!

In my theory, sense perceptions consist of sensation + perception. Perception is an organization and interpetation of sensation performed by the brain (so, it would be an inner process). But sensation (and this is the most important element when it comes to physical reality) happens both inside and outside the physical body. In my theory, when you see a red flower the quale of red doesn't happen inside your brain, but at exactly the point in space-time where the flower is located.

I guess inner bodily sensations (an ache in my back, for example) are different from sensations of the outer world (like feeling a rock wall with my hand), in that no one else can sense what's happening inside my body. So I guess the "law of consistency" doesn't apply when it comes to inner sensations, and it is probably possible to experience inconsistent and contradictory inner sensations.

I don't know if this helps...

[Eugene I]

Cleric, your left picture is one of the possible scenarios that I also can not 100% rule out, but it does not describe exactly what I meant. What I meant is a combination of both left and right pictures. I do not deny the existence of MAL (Global Consciousness) as an active and intentional global subject with its telos for the world and meanings/values. Still, the universe of forms within the MAL's mind is structured in a more complex multi-group and multi-realm way with more than a single vertical hierarchy that you describe. And that universe of forms and structures is a co-manifestation of MAL global subject together with the interest groups and individual monads.

Also, regarding your "integration" telos, I can not rule it out but I do not believe the MAL's telos for the universe is integration into some state of unity and perfection. This would be one of the soteriological schemes that Steve criticized in his essays, and I agree with him. Steve made good arguments against the soteriological schemes that I'm not going to repeat here, anyone interested can just read his essays. IMO the universe is indeed going through an evolutionary process, there is an "evolutionary development of the cosmic organism", but there is no "perfection and unification end" to this process, it is never-ending because the universe of forms is inexhaustible. The telos of the Living God is "to live and experience life in all its forms" ((c) Steve). I do not see anything wrong with fragmentation of the MAL into multiple monads, this is not something problematic that needs to be fixed IMO.