Criticism

[Cleric K]

Bernardo just posted his twitter-message on his FB as well. He thinks that a forum with different opinions could confuse his readers, as if readers dont know what a forum is. Strange one.

I wonder how many of BK's more casual audience, who have only watched some youtube interviews, if even having delved into the books, might be confused at the mere mention of Kant in relation to BK's ideas, never mind the nuanced deconstruction that has gone on in this thread of Kantian metaphysics vis-a-vis Heideggerian anti-metaphysics—as per JW's take who has actually read and digested it all in German at a truly sophisticated level? As mentioned elsewhere, many may find it might as well be written in Inuktitut, and I would not be surprised if they would be lulled to sleep after page 3.

Personally, I don't see what is going on here as take over. I wouldn't be here if I wasn't impressed with BK's dissertation, which was offered to me by the weekly academia.edu digest. I wrote to him with the intent to ask him few things. He directed me to the (old) forum.

It's very clear from his dissertation that he was building stepping stones. I was drawn to his lucid thinking and open ended approach. I don't think that his position was "There's MAL and BK is his prophet". So I saw the forum not as a place for memorizing his Qur'an but as place where the building can go further. Otherwise what's the point? There's MAL, we're alters, end of story forever and ever?

It's little sad that he seems to have lost interest for the continuation of this work. And frankly, once we see six or seven figure prizes flying around, it's clear that forces of quite different character are already at play

[Mark Tetzner]

What I personally think is a forum will consist of whatever people want to debate and that is liberating. I still welcome the recent attempts to get this back on track vs analytic idealism. In the end we can all decide if we want to participate or even read.

[AshvinP]

Bernardo just posted his twitter-message on his FB as well. He thinks that a forum with different opinions could confuse his readers, as if readers dont know what a forum is. Strange one.

I wonder how many of BK's more casual audience, who have only watched some youtube interviews, if even having delved into the books, might be confused at the mere mention of Kant in relation to BK's ideas, never mind the nuanced deconstruction that has gone on in this thread of Kantian metaphysics vis-a-vis Heideggerian anti-metaphysics—as per JW's take who has actually read and digested it all in German at a truly sophisticated level? As mentioned elsewhere, many may find it might as well be written in Inuktitut, and I would not be surprised if they would be lulled to sleep after page 3.

Personally, I don't see what is going on here as take over. I wouldn't be here if I wasn't impressed with BK's dissertation, which was offered to me by the weekly academia.edu digest. I wrote to him with the intent to ask him few things. He directed me to the (old) forum.

It's very clear from his dissertation that he was building stepping stones. I was drawn to his lucid thinking and open ended approach. I don't think that his position was "There's MAL and BK is his prophet". So I saw the forum not as a place for memorizing his Qur'an but as place where the building can go further. Otherwise what's the point? There's MAL, we're alters, end of story forever and ever?

It's little sad that he seems to have lost interest for the continuation of this work. And frankly, once we see six or seven figure prizes flying around, it's clear that forces of quite different character are already at play

This one really sticks in my craw... and I swear it's not about the missed opportunity for the $$

I just keep thinking of how long BK must have been avoiding the Deep MAL essay while reading over dozens of submissions to judge for this essay contest which will make absolutely no difference in the way anyone sees the world or their role in it... and actually a winning essay which will be counter-productive for any genuine knowledge of spiritual reality.

The lack of an accepted theory explaining how subjective experience and the nervous system interact with each other has hampered progress in the scientific study of consciousness. The most sophisticated and testable consciousness theory is the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (ORCH OR) model developed by Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist and director of the Center for Consciousnesstudies at the University of Arizona, and Nobel laureate mathematical physicist and philosopher Roger Penrose.51 Hameroff and Penrose hypothesize consciousness occurs at the quantum level, inside tiny microtubules
within neurons. Scientific tests to support or disprove this theory are currently underway.

Sorry, but I refuse to put additional effort into formatting this dualist drivel It is a way of seeing the world which is still captured in its entirety by this image.

[Soul_of_Shu]

This one really sticks in my craw... and I swear it's not about the missed opportunity for the $$

I could come up with a 500 pesos prize for Cleric's essay

[AshvinP]

This one really sticks in my craw... and I swear it's not about the missed opportunity for the $$

I could come up with a 500 pesos prize for Cleric's essay

Cleric is spiritually evolved to the stage he needs no monetary incentive to freely contribute his inspirations here. I, on the other hand, am not so evolved... and I accept American and Canadian dollars. No paypal, venmo, zelle, and what not, only cold hard tax-free cash

[Mark Tetzner]

What troubles you about this image? It seems to be like the example with the boiling water (one substance only) or as BK says ripples and whirlpools in mind, in this case the faces being the whirlpools.

BTW my webcam works again. This is not to spark the idea of having a convo with JW again (though I dont mind talking to him) about his mysterianism and Heideggerism, which many here think is a moot point, so do I. This is if one day for whatever reason we want to meet up, we can and I think it is a good idea. I would prefer it light because I think having a convo on these things is complicated enough in writing and my german English would not help too muchl. I am German to those of you who havent guessed it yet. A beer or a coffee....or whatever. On zoom or skype or similar. I would also talk to single individuals, just for fun. We could have chocolate-cake....
Cheers.

Who is next with a little video?

[AshvinP]

What troubles you about this image? It seems to be like the example with the boiling water (one substance only) or as BK says ripples and whirlpools in mind, in this case the faces being the whirlpools.

Mark,

With idealism, would you agree it is about going to the underlying meaning? Boiling water, whirpools, ripples, etc... these are analogies for an ideal reality without any such physical structure, correct?

So if we agree on that, we can observe another way of speaking about the meaning of some representation is its "function". How is this image functioning in our thought when we utilize it as an analogy for the underlying ideal reality? If we asked a materialist or mind/matter dualist to draw a world of people and groups existing within the unified substance they call "world of matter/energy", would it look and function a lot like this same image? I say the answer is cleary yes, and we need to admit this is a major problem if we take any of this non-dual/idealism stuff seriously, which I am assuming BK does since he has made it his career now, and most people who participate here do as well.

I will also refer you to my latest essay on dualism. I think we all need to take a serious inventory of the 12 signs listed and see how often our own thought-patterns conform to them.

[Mark Tetzner]

What troubles you about this image? It seems to be like the example with the boiling water (one substance only) or as BK says ripples and whirlpools in mind, in this case the faces being the whirlpools.

Mark,

With idealism, would you agree it is about going to the underlying meaning? Boiling water, whirpools, ripples, etc... these are analogies for an ideal reality without any such physical structure, correct?

So if we agree on that, we can observe another way of speaking about the meaning of some representation is its "function". How is this image functioning in our thought when we utilize it as an analogy for the underlying ideal reality? If we asked a materialist or mind/matter dualist to draw a world of people and groups existing within the unified substance they call "world of matter/energy", would it look and function a lot like this same image? I say the answer is cleary yes, and we need to admit this is a major problem if we take any of this non-dual/idealism stuff seriously, which I am assuming BK does since he has made it his career now, and most people who participate here do as well.

I will also refer you to my latest essay on dualism. I think we all need to take a serious inventory of the 12 signs listed and see how often our own thought-patterns conform to them.

Yes I think I know what you mean. I would ask you where you are going with this but I noticed your essay with some eye-popping images embedded earlier but did not get around to it, it will take some time. It is also true that that chocolate-image does help a little, it does not help a lot. (in case it is chocolate). I think you or someone else was asking earlier "ok so alters in mind - thats it??" and i was thinking yeah thats kind of where we are stuck, but after reading your essay....maybe not? Thanks for your response! - Mark
P.S. I just read in a different thread that you are writing a book about Barfield? Did you already publish books, can you post a link?
(Provided it does not violate forum-rules but I know there is at least one guy here who does it all the time).

[JeffreyW]

If you think I’m trying to find anything in abstract representations, you haven’t understood anything I’ve written.

I am not saying this is your conscious philosophical method (anymore than it was for Kant). Rather, I am saying you have not thought to look in the place where the Reason-Imagination continuity will be found for the same reason as him. From the perspective of abstract conceptual thinking, there is quite clearly a discontinuity, but there is no warrant to assume this is the only perspective from which we can observe temporal phenomena such as Thinking and Music (and there is really no such thing as non-temporal phenomena, i.e. there is no individual note apart from the melody). You (and Kant) were using very sound philosophical reasoning from a flawed assumption, and the only place for sound reasoning to go from that [implicity subject-object dualist] assumption is to the conclusion that the fragmented perception (note) is more real than the overarching temporal idea (melody), the latter only discernible via Reason and higher order cognition. So if the temporal strcuture which Reason discerns is concluded less real than the fragmented perception (or Rovelli's "emptiness of emptiness"), then it makes great sense to conclude Reason is taking us further away from the underlying reality. That is the only sound conclusion to reach. But all of that issues forth from the flawed assumption at the outset.

The other issue is, I am trying to explain all of this to you in abstract concepts, because that is all I am really capable of doing now. It's like a piano trying to explain to another piano how an orchestral symphony comes into being. So here's another approach - read the below from Cleric and tell us if you have honestly thought of aesthetic musical phenomena in the way he is illustrating it. If not, why not? Where is the flaw in the logic? Do you really think it issues forth from someone stringing together abstract metaphysical concepts about "idea" and "thinking"? If so, we need actual arguments for why, not just a blanket dismissal or references to some scientist's abstract intellectual theories.

When you're having a musical idea, what faculty of your being are you using? What are you doing in order to produce the melody? Would you agree if we call this a kind of Thinking? Instead of speaking forth philosophical words, you speak forth music. It's very interesting to observe how we can speak forth our own singing (inner) voice but we can also sing with the voice of a guitar, viola, drums, etc. We can even sing a whole symphony. These are all degrees of freedom of our spiritual activity.

Now what if I tell you that reasoned thoughts are only aliased sounds of higher order music, yet music that is very richly meaningful? What if all those aesthetic arts and music in particular are only the shadow of this higher order language? In fact we feel joy in music because it secretly speaks to us about a higher world where this music is actual meaningful speech.

So please pay attention that you know music and any aesthetic and mystical art only because you can follow its curvature with your spiritual activity. When you listen to music it entrains your activity along with it (in the same sense that written text entrains your thinking). You can experience the opposite effect when you create the music with your own activity. Then your musical idea entrains the sound-thoughts. To say that these modes of spiritual activity are unreasonable/a-reasonable tells me that you seek to replace them with conceptual thinking. This of course makes the music disappear and you say "There! Music is unreasonable!" Here we should simply not mistake reasoning with reducing. We can think about melody, harmony, rhythm, precisely because our thinking lives in the music. We simply recognize the spiritual gestures that we perform when we think music. Similarly, when we move our body our thinking lives in the will. We can speak of our different body parts and their gestures because we live in them cognitively. When I can't draw my hand through a wall I experience that in the cognitive element. Concepts are only thinking precipitations from all these forms of thinking. We can think in color, sound, touch, smell, feeling, will. After all, we think primarily in sound - it's our inner voice - it is sound.

Everything is reasonable because concepts originally precipitate from meaningful reality. This means that when we contemplate the arrangement of the concepts they will be seen as logical. Logic is the higher musicality of thinking. Things become misunderstood because this arrangement of concepts can take on its own life. Then we can arrange concepts which are not necessarily taken from reality. They are local reality but not one extracted from the world content. Seen in this way everything is known by Thinking - not by words but by moving along the curvature of color, sound, will. Thinking is versatile. It's not something concrete but it's the spiritual activity which similar to the octopus can resonate with every phenomenon by mimicking it. So music has its logic, color has its logic, smell has its logic. All these logics are part of even higher order logic. In order to understand this we must overcome our desire to extricate everything into abstract thoughts into the phantom layer. Then if we are criticizing higher cognition, we're most certainly criticizing our own inability to think in color, sound, feeling. Everything collapses in the phantom layer and then we blame Steiner and others that they do the same. In other words we're saying "If I can't do it, no one else can, so anyone claiming higher order spiritual activity is a liar".

“ You (and Kant) were using very sound philosophical reasoning from a flawed assumption, ”

What reasoning and what assumptions?

[AshvinP]

“ You (and Kant) were using very sound philosophical reasoning from a flawed assumption, ”

What reasoning and what assumptions?

That "knowing" is a modelling, by way of internal representations, an external reality. That what comes to the phenomena by way of conceptual activity is something added on top of them, something imposed on them by us, rather than a critical aspect of their Being, i.e. the meaningful aspect. I have tried to explain this is many ways so far and I think the major problem is that it all sounds too simplified and abstract to you, which it admittedly is given my own cognitive capacity, perhaps not befitting a rigorous esthetic philosophical discussion. That's why I took the other approach of quoting Cleric re: concrete relation of musical aesthetic, logic, and thinking. I asked for your thoughts on that and am still interested in reading them.