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

[AshvinP]

Materialism is currently under threat, not from philosophers, but from scientists doing actual experiments in quantum mechanics. But as far as I know, nobody has done yet the kind of simple experiment I'm proposing. Since I'm not an expert, it is impossible for me to know if this experiment is possible or not. My hope is that somehow my idea will reach some professional physicist that might find it worthwhile and try it out.

It seems ridiculous, of course, to think that a complete amateur like me could come up with an idea for an experiment that has never occurred to any professional physicist. But the thing is, I don't think that any professional scientist has thought about QM in the way that I do. I sincerely think that my idea, and my version of idealism, is completely new.

Chances are I'm wrong, of course. But I believe it's worth giving it a try. And I'm doing my best to put my idea out there. That's all I can do. In any case, I'm having lots of fun in the process

Adur, that sounds interesting, can you point me to a description of this experiment idea, or may be just post it here?

Also, do you have any answer to this question?

Sorry to butt in here again, but don't QM experiments reveal how measurements of one 'particle' instantaneously influence that of another it is "entangled" with? Now if we stop assuming there are actually any isolated "particles" existing, and translate this principle into more qualitative terms, why is it so different from what Adur is pointing to? That it is only our own limited spatiotemporal perspective which isolates this principle to limited domain of "particles" we happen to be observing at any given moment. I am trying to relate this matter to your world-conception even though I think it's not necessarily the best approach.

Generally, we need to stop prioritizing abstract models over our own experience of the world. "Laws of nature", just like "laws of human culture", including the legal system I am pretty familiar with, never arrive to us by a bunch of people abstractly formulating and agreeing to them beforehand. They evolve from shared intuitions projected into the phenomenal world, and only later those shared intuitions are reflected on by way of abstract encoding into principles, laws, statutes, etc. So why study the abstract encoding when we can study the intuitions themselves? Maybe Adur can expand on that more with his ideas.

[Soul_of_Shu]

It seems ridiculous, of course, to think that a complete amateur like me could come up with an idea for an experiment that has never occurred to any professional physicist. But the thing is, I don't think that any professional scientist has thought about QM in the way that I do. I sincerely think that my idea, and my version of idealism, is completely new.

While you're at it, perhaps you could offer an explanation for the apparency of cutlery flying off a level table top with apparently no known force acting upon it? Long before I was interested in metaphysics, this is the kind of event that left one searching for explanations that could account for such events—for which I've yet to find one that is wholly satisfying, other than the very basic conclusion that the phenomenal cosmos, including space and time, is fundamentally mind-conceived idea construction, but is not an explication on its own.

[Steve Petermann]

Eugene,

Do you have familiarity with the esoteric Christian tradition?

I'm only minimally familiar with esoteric Christianity or the people you mentioned. There is so much out there to absorb and evaluate I think it can be important to understand one's personality type in order to find meaningful content that both informs one's own tendencies but also stretches them beyond the norm. Except for a two-year break to study theology, I worked as a design engineer for some 40 years. Accordingly, my inclinations are toward problem solving and systematics. However, restricting one's self to those areas that one finds appealing and reinforcing can also be stifling for one's holistic development. Branching out to other perspectives can be a helpful therapy for breaking those boundaries and challenging perspectives.

I employ a lot of metaphors in my theology because systematic explications can only be grounding for a more organic and lived orientation. Barfield talks about participation, as do I (e.g., the Communion). In this area, things like myth, metaphor, narrative, music, and art can be a great help. Philosopher Michael Polanyi wrote about different ways of knowing. There is the explicit mode that is structural and discrete but there is also what he called the tacit mode. In the tacit mode, "we know more than we can say". This could be called a gestalt or intuitive mode where things are not so explicit but also a powerful way of knowing. Here one could think of a dancer or jazz musician. They may or may not know the explications of their art but they, nonetheless, are able to express deep meaning.

We live in an interesting pluralistic world. The hyper-rational and hyper-empirical approach since the enlightenment has taken over much of academia and prominent public intellectuals. In my view, this has will have a short half-life because it is so existentially austere that many people will either not understand it or find it off-putting. So, I think counter approaches that acknowledge a "felt", intuitive sense will find more traction broadly.

I think this pluralism is great. Any explication about the divine should be met with a deep humility. That doesn't mean the lack of commitment to some metaphysical orientation but rather what I'd call a faithing fallibilism where a commitment is made but with the understanding it may be somewhat wrong. And that's OK. Each orientation can have an element of truth as well as error.

[Eugene I]

Sorry to butt in here again, but don't QM experiments reveal how measurements of one 'particle' instantaneously influence that of another it is "entangled" with? Now if we stop assuming there are actually any isolated "particles" existing, and translate this principle into more qualitative terms, why is it so different from what Adur is pointing to? That it is only our own limited spatiotemporal perspective which isolates this principle to limited domain of "particles" we happen to be observing at any given moment. I am trying to relate this matter to your world-conception even though I think it's not necessarily the best approach.

Based on what we know from quantum entanglement experiments, there is little doubt that nature behaves in a non-local and non-causal way spatiotemporally, whether we look at it from materialistic or idealistic perspective. However, that alone can not refute materialism as materialist science is now open to consider non-local and non-causal models of matter and give up their long-time-held locality and causality principles. No one among physicalists have been able to present a plausible model of non-local and non-causal matter yet (as far as I know), but that does not mean it's impossible and there have been some development attempts already. So, QM experiments alone can not refute physicalism but still present significant challenges to it.

Generally, we need to stop prioritizing abstract models over our own experience of the world. "Laws of nature", just like "laws of human culture", including the legal system I am pretty familiar with, never arrive to us by a bunch of people abstractly formulating and agreeing to them beforehand. They evolve from shared intuitions projected into the phenomenal world, and only later those shared intuitions are reflected on by way of abstract encoding into principles, laws, statutes, etc. So why study the abstract encoding when we can study the intuitions themselves? Maybe Adur can expand on that more with his ideas.

It's not just about abstract models, but about presenting a plausible explanation for how such intuitions give rise to extremely precise patterns in the apparent behavior of the perceived world. As opposed to human legal system that is indeed developed from human intuitions, in the natural sciences the situation is the opposite: we observe the factual patterns in our perceptions, we find that these patterns are shared (per Barfield's "shared representations") and we discover that those patterns follow certain mathematical formulas with amazing precision. The mystery and explanatory gap remains regarding to how and why those perceptions obey such precise formulas. It's easy to ignore this problem but I don't think people in both scientific and general public community will be satisfied with such ignorance. As Steve mentioned, and I agree with him, philosophy cannot hide from many issues and questions that we humans are faced with and it needs to address them all.

[AshvinP]

Eugene,

Do you have familiarity with the esoteric Christian tradition?

I'm only minimally familiar with esoteric Christianity or the people you mentioned. There is so much out there to absorb and evaluate I think it can be important to understand one's personality type in order to find meaningful content that both informs one's own tendencies but also stretches them beyond the norm. Except for a two-year break to study theology, I worked as a design engineer for some 40 years. Accordingly, my inclinations are toward problem solving and systematics. However, restricting one's self to those areas that one finds appealing and reinforcing can also be stifling for one's holistic development. Branching out to other perspectives can be a helpful therapy for breaking those boundaries and challenging perspectives.

I employ a lot of metaphors in my theology because systematic explications can only be grounding for a more organic and lived orientation. Barfield talks about participation, as do I (e.g., the Communion). In this area, things like myth, metaphor, narrative, music, and art can be a great help. Philosopher Michael Polanyi wrote about different ways of knowing. There is the explicit mode that is structural and discrete but there is also what he called the tacit mode. In the tacit mode, "we know more than we can say". This could be called a gestalt or intuitive mode where things are not so explicit but also a powerful way of knowing. Here one could think of a dancer or jazz musician. They may or may not know the explications of their art but they, nonetheless, are able to express deep meaning.

We live in an interesting pluralistic world. The hyper-rational and hyper-empirical approach since the enlightenment has taken over much of academia and prominent public intellectuals. In my view, this has will have a short half-life because it is so existentially austere that many people will either not understand it or find it off-putting. So, I think counter approaches that acknowledge a "felt", intuitive sense will find more traction broadly.

I think this pluralism is great. Any explication about the divine should be met with a deep humility. That doesn't mean the lack of commitment to some metaphysical orientation but rather what I'd call a faithing fallibilism where a commitment is made but with the understanding it may be somewhat wrong. And that's OK. Each orientation can have an element of truth as well as error.

Steve, I agree with what you say above. I would just add that, in the modern age, we often also stop pursuing those felt intuitions when they start shedding too much Light on our 'inner' world (which naturally translates to our experience of the 'outer' world). It is a very strange thing when considered in isolation - like we have been given thoughtful and emotional riches we do not deserve, so we must stop Thinking and do something self-destructive to balance the scales. Normally we feel, "if I am shown more and more Wisdom, I will gladly accept it and allow it to blossom even further", but when it actually starts happening, we switch to, "ok hit the brakes... this is becoming too real and sort of strange... let me just pause for a bit and come back to this later". At least that is how I have experienced it within. And that "pause" naturally morphs into an indefinite stand-still.

Also, I am not Eugene... but I annoyingly pester him often on this forum to see these spiritual matters from my perspective, so maybe that is what you are intuiting

[AshvinP]

Sorry to butt in here again, but don't QM experiments reveal how measurements of one 'particle' instantaneously influence that of another it is "entangled" with? Now if we stop assuming there are actually any isolated "particles" existing, and translate this principle into more qualitative terms, why is it so different from what Adur is pointing to? That it is only our own limited spatiotemporal perspective which isolates this principle to limited domain of "particles" we happen to be observing at any given moment. I am trying to relate this matter to your world-conception even though I think it's not necessarily the best approach.

Based on what we know from quantum entanglement experiments, there is little doubt that nature behaves in a non-local and non-causal way spatiotemporally, whether we look at it from materialistic or idealistic perspective. However, that alone can not refute materialism as materialist science is now open to consider non-local and non-causal models of matter and give up their long-time-held locality and causality principles. No one among physicalists have been able to present a plausible model of non-local and non-causal matter yet (as far as I know), but that does not mean it's impossible and there have been some development attempts already. So, QM experiments alone can not refute physicalism but still present significant challenges to it.

Why are we hung up on "refuting materialism"? That has been done a million different ways already. Someone who still clings on to it doesn't need to be refuted, just given space to (hopefully) realize all of these challenges exist. In fact, I think engaging them in debate only fuels their desire to defend their ego by way of materialism. That has been my consistent experience debating with any educated materialist - it leads nowhere fast. I say, if we want to promote meaningful discussion, we should look within the idealist framework and see what these natural scientific results are actually revealing to us about the structure of Reality.

Generally, we need to stop prioritizing abstract models over our own experience of the world. "Laws of nature", just like "laws of human culture", including the legal system I am pretty familiar with, never arrive to us by a bunch of people abstractly formulating and agreeing to them beforehand. They evolve from shared intuitions projected into the phenomenal world, and only later those shared intuitions are reflected on by way of abstract encoding into principles, laws, statutes, etc. So why study the abstract encoding when we can study the intuitions themselves? Maybe Adur can expand on that more with his ideas.

It's not just about abstract models, but about presenting a plausible explanation for how such intuitions give rise to extremely precise patterns in the apparent behavior of the perceived world. As opposed to human legal system that is indeed developed from human intuitions, in the natural sciences the situation is the opposite: we observe the factual patterns in our perceptions, we find that these patterns are shared (per Barfield's "shared representations") and we discover that those patterns follow certain mathematical formulas with amazing precision. The mystery and explanatory gap remains regarding to how and why those perceptions obey such precise formulas. It's easy to ignore this problem but I don't think people in both scientific and general public community will be satisfied with such ignorance. As Steve mentioned, and I agree with him, philosophy cannot hide from many issues and questions that we humans are faced with and it needs to address them all.

What you say about the natural sciences is simply not true, but that common impression is easy to trace - it comes from leaving the role of our own participatory Thinking out of consideration. All measurement tools in the sciences, including mathematical formulas, are expressions of our own patterned Thinking activity. That is what they were abstracted from in the first place, for the very fragmented (but practically useful) purposes of applied science and technology. BK also points this fact out very often when debating materialists (but seems to forget it when explaining idealism). It is no different from legal systems developed from shared intuitions in that sense - all of what we call "universal human rights" have evolved into our abstract legal systems in that same way. It is no grand mystery why our truly shared (transpersonal) patterned Thinking activity leads to very precise and consistent measurements, once we make that slight shift in perspective. The general "scientific and public community" will never be satisfied with any explanation until they learn to consider their own Thinking activity and its role in the phenomenal world, and we are in no position to advise them on how to do that until we start doing it ourselves.

[Steve Petermann]

AshvinP,

Also, I am not Eugene... but I annoyingly pester him often on this forum to see these spiritual matters from my perspective, so maybe that is what you are intuiting

Oops. Sorry about that. I need to slow down and look better.

[Steve Petermann]

Why are we hung up on "refuting materialism"? That has been done a million different ways already.

I agree. The question is why try to refute some metaphysical system? I could be motivated by some tribal or ego instinct to defend one's own position or it could have a more noble cause to contribute to the common good or counteract destructive views that actually effect people. Or a mixture of both.

I think, except for die-hards, materialism is and will continue to diminish as a worldview. The reason is that it presents a nihilistic, depressing worldview — no meaning, no free-will, no objective value, etc. One has only to look at what proponents are saying. Sam Harris that we have no free-will. Dawkins that we are essentially meat automatons. Now, for truth seekers, they might be willing to try to accommodate that if it seemed undeniably true. With the prevalent law-and-chance model of the universe, it seems like a slam dunk. In that model, without supernaturalism or magic, it is.

The question is what to replace it with? In today's science-literate societies that's a tough one. Common religious traditions have a challenge appealing to this group because they are rightfully perceived as not being science-friendly. Now, religions try to adapt but in a lot of cases, they just become obfuscated deistic systems. We see this in the theology of John Shelby Spong and John Haught. Unfortunately, most regular adherents don't see the profound negative implications of this trend.

As studies have shown, increasingly the traditions aren't compelling as a worldview. With all the modern biblical scholarship, the idea of scriptures as "holy writ" isn't compelling either. While that dismantles a level of certainty, it also leaves open the door for alternative metaphysics that, while not holy writ, could also be compelling. If formulated right, metaphysical idealism could offer a valid alternative worldview. Inevitably, this will be decided in the marketplace of ideas where some things gain traction and others move to the dust bin of history.

[AshvinP]

Why are we hung up on "refuting materialism"? That has been done a million different ways already.

I agree. The question is why try to refute some metaphysical system? I could be motivated by some tribal or ego instinct to defend one's own position or it could have a more noble cause to contribute to the common good or counteract destructive views that actually effect people. Or a mixture of both.

I think, except for die-hards, materialism is and will continue to diminish as a worldview. The reason is that it presents a nihilistic, depressing worldview — no meaning, no free-will, no objective value, etc. One has only to look at what proponents are saying. Sam Harris that we have no free-will. Dawkins that we are essentially meat automatons. Now, for truth seekers, they might be willing to try to accommodate that if it seemed undeniably true. With the prevalent law-and-chance model of the universe, it seems like a slam dunk. In that model, without supernaturalism or magic, it is.

The question is what to replace it with? In today's science-literate societies that's a tough one. Common religious traditions have a challenge appealing to this group because they are rightfully perceived as not being science-friendly. Now, religions try to adapt but in a lot of cases, they just become obfuscated deistic systems. We see this in the theology of John Shelby Spong and John Haught. Unfortunately, most regular adherents don't see the profound negative implications of this trend.

As studies have shown, increasingly the traditions aren't compelling as a worldview. With all the modern biblical scholarship, the idea of scriptures as "holy writ" isn't compelling either. While that dismantles a level of certainty, it also leaves open the door for alternative metaphysics that, while not holy writ, could also be compelling. If formulated right, metaphysical idealism could offer a valid alternative worldview. Inevitably, this will be decided in the marketplace of ideas where some things gain traction and others move to the dust bin of history.

Right. I definitely agree about the demise of materialism as metaphysics and exoteric religious traditions. I don't actually think any metaphysical or theological formulation will be what sparks or maintains a move towards more integrated science, art, mythos, spirituality. That is because I hold to the "evolution of consciousness" (metamorphoses of the Spirit) throughout human history. If you are familiar with Barfield, then it is the exact same view he held. I have written about this pretty extensively, so I will just give the conclusion - each individual must now give birth to the Spirit's entire metamorphic progression towards Self-knowledge from within themselves. That only comes with the 'Cartesian' doubting of all that is except the certainty of Thinking experience, but without the centuries-long detour into rationalism-dualism. All a priori assumptions will simply get in the way. It is no coincidence we find so many of these phenomenological approaches coming into existence in the 20th century (all prefigured, so to speak, by Goethe and Hegel). No knowledge acquired should be held dogmatically, but no hard-won knowledge should be dismissed cynically either. Certainly no arbitrary limits to knowledge should be dogmatically held to when there is no warrant for such limits.

[AshvinP]

What you say about the natural sciences is simply not true, but that common impression is easy to trace - it comes from leaving the role of our own participatory Thinking out of consideration. All measurement tools in the sciences, including mathematical formulas, are expressions of our own patterned Thinking activity. That is what they were abstracted from in the first place, for the very fragmented (but practically useful) purposes of applied science and technology. BK also points this fact out very often when debating materialists (but seems to forget it when explaining idealism). It is no different from legal systems developed from shared intuitions in that sense - all of what we call "universal human rights" have evolved into our abstract legal systems in that same way. It is no grand mystery why our truly shared (transpersonal) patterned Thinking activity leads to very precise and consistent measurements, once we make that slight shift in perspective. The general "scientific and public community" will never be satisfied with any explanation until they learn to consider their own Thinking activity and its role in the phenomenal world, and we are in no position to advise them on how to do that until we start doing it ourselves.

Here is Goethe's mathematical view, from Steiner's Goethean Science, which captures much of what I was trying to point out above:

Let us examine this nature more closely. Mathematics deals with magnitude, with that which allows of a more or less. Magnitude, however, is not something existing in itself. In the broad scope of human experience there is nothing that is only magnitude. Along with its other characteristics, each thing also has some that are determined by numbers. Since mathematics concerns itself with magnitudes, what it studies are not objects of experience complete in themselves, but rather only everything about them that can be measured or counted. It separates off from things everything that can be subjected to this latter operation. It thus acquires a whole world of abstractions within which it then works. It does not have to do with things, but only with things insofar as they are magnitudes. It must admit that here it is dealing only with one aspect of what is real, and that reality has yet many other aspects over which mathematics has no power. Mathematical judgments are not judgments that fully encompass real objects, but rather are valid only within the ideal world of abstractions that we ourselves have conceptually separated off from the objects as one aspect of reality. Mathematics abstracts magnitude and number from things, establishes the completely ideal relationships between magnitudes and numbers, and hovers in this way in a pure world of thoughts. The things of reality, insofar as they are magnitude and number, allow one then to apply mathematical truths. It is therefore definitely an error to believe that one could grasp the whole of nature with mathematical judgments. Nature, in fact, is not merely quantity; it is also quality, and mathematics has to do only with the first. The mathematical approach and the approach that deals purely with what is qualitative must work hand in hand; they will meet in the thing, of which they each grasp one aspect. Goethe characterizes this relationship with the words: “Mathematics, like dialectics, is an organ of the inner, higher sense; its practice is an art, like oratory. For both, nothing is of value except the form; the content is a matter of indifference to them. It is all the same to them whether mathematics is calculating in pennies or dollars or whether rhetoric is defending something true or false."