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

[Eugene I]

Some local creative processes suffer from the feeling of their fragmentation and find their meaning and value to unite into oneness. So they believe that the universal telos of the creative spiritual activity is to unite back into undifferentiated/unfragmented oneness. And this is understandable and valid meaning and value and has all rights to exist.

But other local creative processes find value and meaning in the very creative process of thinking, creating and exploring the unlimited universe of forms and experiencing them from different subjective perspectives, and do not see anything wrong with that. They may find a deep creative satisfaction in such exploration, but such exploration is only possible by fragmenting the global subjective perspective into the multiplicity. So they may believe that the universal telos of the global creative activity is NOT to unite back into undifferentiated/unfragmented oneness, but to continue on the path of the creative exploration of the universe of forms from a variety of subjective perspectives. This is also a valid meaning and value and has all rights to exist.

[AshvinP]

I explicitly stated the above in bold, which you apparently ignored or decided to interpret in the exact opposite way. My essays also explicitly survey a number of different 20th century thinkers who took completely different paths, in fact were not even aware of each other, and still converged on the same conclusions. That convergence does not mean we are restricted to "one path" any more than a civil engineer and an electrical engineer reaching the same conclusions does. This "one path" objection you are adding on for no apparent reason, other than disliking the conclusions, is the real abstract assumption here, not tied to any experience of the world.

So you think that if some independent thinkers arrived at the same conclusions, it is a proof that their conclusions are true? Even though some other independent thinker arrive at different conclusions? This is what's called "confirmation bias" in science.

No I think that you are completely switching up the argument as usual. That was to address your "one path" antipathy for even considering the arguments in the first place. There is a reason why my comments are less frank and confrontational with Adur vs. you - he is expressing the same concerns as you but with an open mind and a willingness to travel down a suggested path a little bit before discarding it entirely. Hopefully he realizes we are not asking him to do things my way or Cleric's way, just to remain open and keep expanding the degrees of Thinking freedom. You, otoh, are completely unwilling to consider these things in good faith. That is evident from the other thread where I posted Cleric's imaginative exercise, which clearly you have not experienced, in response to you 5 months ago. Your misrepresentations now are the exact same as they were then, and even that comment had grown tired of your misrepresentations. Maybe you should reflect on that for a bit.

[Soul_of_Shu]

The bolded part is a source of trouble. The only thing that we truly are at any given moment is the 'tip' of our thoughtful becoming. This is the only thing that truly belongs to us and where we can in full objectivity say "I am". I'm One with That as far as I have a point of overlap with the Creative Becoming at the tip of my Thinking. Only at that point we are truly One. For the remaining part of the World Content I have no right to say "I'm doing it". This would be a lie. The pathological solipsism. I am not my body, I am not my subconsciousness. I have the right to say that I am these things only when I experience their reality proceeding directly from my spiritual activity in the way at the moment I do only for my thinking. To move in that direction I have to find my proper relations to That which is outside the point of overlap - my body, my feelings, my opinions and the World as a whole.

News flash ... Just got a message saying Hey Shu, this is the Divine speaking ... albeit in the confused guise of one's 'alter' ego ... Yes of course, 'Who' else would it be?

[Eugene I]

I was responding to Cleric's post but it disappeared for some reason, but I'll post my response anyway:

The Alpha and the Omega can only be understood as poles between which all the infinite potential unfolds. The Alpha and Omega exist simultaneously. Time is Divine 'technique' that allows infinite possible paths between the poles to be experienced as gradual integration of Memory. This is the only reason we can speak of Time. The Alpha and the Omega are like an hourglass where sand (conscious states of being) pass through and integrate. Currently we call this integration of Memory because it seems like it's just a kind of record for past events but in reality it's the gradual process of encompassing the Alpha and Omega as One. This is the technique the Divine uses to explore the infinite Candy Shop. There are infinite ways the potential between the Alpha and the Omega can be structured and traversed through Time.

There are only two options here:
- You can actually yourself directly experience the state of Alpha and Omega right now as encompassing the full infinity. Can you confirm that that the actual infinity and the Alpha-Omega states are in your direct experience? Can you experience not just an idea of infinity (everyone can do this), but the actual infinity of moments in time, or points on a line?
- If you can not, then these Alpha-Omega are simply your abstract concepts that you chose to believe in. (Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, as long as one honestly admits that those are his personal beliefs and does not present them as universal truths or direct experiences).

Now I repeat what I said in the beginning:
1/ If the above sounds restrictive because you want to keep exploring forever in Time, between A and O, this simply means that the simultaneous nature of A and O isn't grasped. And this is not a critique. This is a difficult topic. It is also impossible topic unless one can break away from the linearity of the sequential intellect. If you can't imagine otherwise but like if the meeting of A and O happens in some particular point of Time and then they begin to separate again, then the idea is not grasped. One can't break away from viewing existence as lying on an infinite arrow of time.
2/ If the problem with the one and the many is disturbing it's because one rigidly identifies with a fish. It's not a two level system - atomic egos (individual conscious spaces) on one side and the completely unified One consciousness on the other. There's only One "I". If we are worried about losing our subjective perspective in a merger event, this only shows that we don't understand ourselves as "I" but as something that identifies with specific patterns within the World Content. The Integration process is not merging of "I"s in which we lose our "I"dentity. The only thing that we lose - or not lose but transform - are the parts of the World Content within which the "I" mirrors itself. "... because I lay down my life, that I might take it again."

What if such break away form existence in linear time is actually not the telos of the spiritual activity, what if it was actually intended to exist by the spiritual activity and has its important telos of its own? Why do we think there is something fundamentally wrong with existing as personalized subjective activities unfolding in time? And in the absence of time/change how could the Spirit have any activity at all anyway?

But I agree that one of the implications of the existence as individuated activity in time is the danger of collapsing into the egoic mind-state with all its suffering and confusion. But that does not mean that it is inevitable, and that the individuated activities existing in time must be eliminated in order to overcome the egoic mode of activity. There is a path to transcend the egoic and fragmented mode and to realize the fundamental unity and interconnectedness while continuing the existence as individuated activities in time, and there is nothing intrinsically egoic in such mode of spiritual activity. What if this is exactly the way the universal spiritual activity chose to unfold, create and explore the universe of forms? In other words, what if the existence in time as a multitude of individuated activities and exploration of the unlimited universe of forms is exactly the telos of the universal spiritual activity? The reason I believe it might be true for me is experiential: I have a direct experiential knowing of the meaning and value of creative spiritual activity unfolding in time and experienced from individuated personal perspectives and I feel that there is a universal value, meaning and universal purpose in it. I feel that every experience of reality from a subjective perspective of a fish, a dog, of each human person, or of any other corporeal or noncorporeal being, has its own unique value and meaning. This is the Life that the Divine chose to live and experience through the variety of eyes of its numerous personalized perspectives, even from the perspectives denying any value and meaning in such Life and longing to integrate back to the Alpha-Omega of changeless, timeless and undifferentiated.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I was responding to Cleric's post but it disappeared for some reason, but I'll post my response anyway:

OMG, mea culpa, speaking of being confused, I was responding to Cleric's post, and then seeing I had duplicated my response, and in the process of deleting it, I deleted Cleric's post ... Most sincere alpologies to Cleric and others ... time for a break from this and a walk in the forest.

[Eugene I]

Just as a side note, in my engineering work there is a process of design reviews where one of us presents his design and others take a role of critics: they try to find every possible way the design may break or not work or show a non-intended performance, and any unproven or untested assumptions. Noone ever sees it as personal, noone blames anyone their doubts might be biased or unsupported. The purpose of this process is to make the best effort to demonstrate that the design will work and deliver the performance and make sure there are no gaps left, and a thorough criticism is one of the ways it can be accomplished. If anyone takes the criticism personally or start personally attacking or blaming others for criticism, such behavior is considered unprofessional. Fortunately, this rarely happens among professional engineers.

[Eugene I]

OMG, mea culpa, speaking of being confused, I was responding to Cleric's post, and then seeing I had duplicated my response, and in the process of deleting it, I deleted Cleric's post ... Most sincere alpologies to Cleric and others ... time for a break from this and a walk in the forest.

Oh, so by responding to it I actually saved it (because most of it is in the quotes of my response)

[AshvinP]

Just as a side note, in my engineering work there is a process of design reviews where one of us presents his design and others take a role of critics: they try to find every possible way the design may break or not work or show a non-intended performance, and any unproven or untested assumptions. Noone ever sees it as personal, noone blames anyone their doubts might be biased or unsupported. The purpose of this process is to make the best effort to demonstrate that the design will work and deliver the performance and make sure there are no gaps left, and a thorough criticism is one of the ways it can be accomplished. If anyone takes the criticism personally or start personally attacking or blaming others for criticism, such behavior is considered unprofessional. Fortunately, this rarely happens among professional engineers.

Yeah we lawyers have something similar except it's about logically reasoning through every single part of opposing party's argument. The judge really gets frustrated if one party misrepresents the other person's argument in open court... also if one party just keeps making the same irrelevant argument over and over again... I myself have never tried to test those waters, but I think it may be grounds for contempt and sanctions.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Oh, so by responding to it I actually saved it (because most of it is in the quotes of my response)

Thanks for that bit of serendipity.

[AshvinP]

I was responding to Cleric's post but it disappeared for some reason, but I'll post my response anyway:

The Alpha and the Omega can only be understood as poles between which all the infinite potential unfolds. The Alpha and Omega exist simultaneously. Time is Divine 'technique' that allows infinite possible paths between the poles to be experienced as gradual integration of Memory. This is the only reason we can speak of Time. The Alpha and the Omega are like an hourglass where sand (conscious states of being) pass through and integrate. Currently we call this integration of Memory because it seems like it's just a kind of record for past events but in reality it's the gradual process of encompassing the Alpha and Omega as One. This is the technique the Divine uses to explore the infinite Candy Shop. There are infinite ways the potential between the Alpha and the Omega can be structured and traversed through Time.

There are only two options here:
- You can actually yourself directly experience the state of Alpha and Omega right now as encompassing the full infinity. Can you confirm that that the actual infinity and the Alpha-Omega states are in your direct experience? Can you experience not just an idea of infinity (everyone can do this), but the actual infinity of moments in time, or points on a line?
- If you can not, then these Alpha-Omega are simply your abstract concepts that you chose to believe in. (Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, as long as one honestly admits that those are his personal beliefs and does not present them as universal truths or direct experiences).

Eugene,

I think you may have SPDD - selective polar deficit disorder

You acknowledge the poles of existence whenever it suits you, or whenever we make the argument for it, because it really cannot be logically argued against. Then when it comes to actual practical application of the polar dynamic in the world of experience, you pretend like Eternal-temporal polar relation is some crazy abstract idea. Or that Light-darkness interacting to produce colors is also personal fantasy of Goethe. I don't know if they have pills for SPDD yet, so I will just keep reminding you and hope that someday, somehow... it clicks for you.