what is not in mind is abstract

[Ben Iscatus]

Still I feel that for many proponents of idealism, transpersonal Mind does pretty much remain an inferred abstraction, and not a lived reality that one is never actually apart from.

This statement is tricky, because it suggests Idealists might be veering towards solipsism. But if we avoid solipsism by accepting that others are not in our own minds, but have their own minds, the question, "Why are there multiple minds?" brings on the next stage. If we can't get past that to a Universal Mind, we're left without a universe in mind. And that is very tricky- because it leads to substance dualism.

[Mark Tetzner]

With that you are most certainly right with all of this.
What is starting to make me grumpy is that the more I think about abstraction the less I understand what it is.
I think it means "set apart from reality" or whatever wikipedia might have to say on it.
Others use the term in a more colloquial sense, like "doesnt prove anything".
Now Jim just said even feelings are abstractions.
If anyone can always name anything an abstraction then I dont know how to understand things anymore.
Another thing BK says a lot is "one level/ two levels of abstraction.
Same thing. Confusing.

[Cleric K]

With that you are most certainly right with all of this.
What is starting to make me grumpy is that the more I think about abstraction the less I understand what it is.
I think it means "set apart from reality" or whatever wikipedia might have to say on it.
Others use the term in a more colloquial sense, like "doesnt prove anything".
Now Jim just said even feelings are abstractions.
If anyone can always name anything an abstraction then I dont know how to understand things anymore.
Another thing BK says a lot is "one level/ two levels of abstraction.
Same thing. Confusing.

Gather few object of the same color, say - red. Look at them and appreciate them in their purely perceptual nature. Then think: "there's something in common in all these objects - they bear a perceptual quality that feels quite similar in all objects. I can call that similar quality - color 'red'". Now try to feel that this feeling of commonness that you recognize, is something in addition to the bare perceptions. If you were staying firmly within the perceptions you would have several independent color perceptions. But you raise above them and in your thinking you discover a new element which runs like a thread and indeed makes you recognize that there's something in common. This common element is the concept - some specific meaning in your thinking which gives you the intuitive understanding that these independent perceptions indeed have something in common.

Now you can turn away from the perception or close your eyes and simply think in your mind "red". Now you have once again the concept of red but not the perception. It is very important to pay close attention: even thought there's nothing red in your mind (unless you have very vivid imagination) you experience the knowing of what you think about. You know perfectly well what the word 'red' in your mind means, even though you don't see red. This invisible knowing is the concept which thinking experiences as meaning. This exercise should help to distinguish between the perception which seems to be coming from 'outside' and the concept which we add through thinking from 'within'.

It's the same about any other perception. When I feel joy, this is a real feeling, I perceive the feeling of joy filling my soul. Then I can say "I feel joy". Now I experience in my mind also the concept (idea) of joy. If I experience joy at another time, even though the experience will be in completely different context, I can say "I feel joy again". Then later, when I'm no longer joyous but maybe even sad I can think again about "joy". Now I have in my mind the abstracted meaning of joy but not the feeling. I don't know what exactly Jim meant with "feelings are abstractions" but this example should make it quite clear. We must distinguish between the actual feeling (or any other perception) and the thinking concept which adds the meaningful dimension to the feeling/perception. We work with the abstracted meaning when we can think the meaning (through words, symbols) even though the actual perceptions are no longer present. And on the contrary - the concepts are concrete (not abstract) when we experience them against concrete perceptions (actual perception of red, actual feeling of joy, etc.)

In this sense we can say that our idea of MAL is abstract because there's no concrete perception (doesn't need to be sensory) that we can match our concept of MAL against. On the other hand, thinking is not abstract because we can observe it - we can experience the concept of thinking against the perceptions of our own thoughts.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Still I feel that for many proponents of idealism, transpersonal Mind does pretty much remain an inferred abstraction, and not a lived reality that one is never actually apart from.

This statement is tricky, because it suggests Idealists might be veering towards solipsism. But if we avoid solipsism by accepting that others are not in our own minds, but have their own minds, the question, "Why are there multiple minds?" brings on the next stage. If we can't get past that to a Universal Mind, we're left without a universe in mind. And that is very tricky- because it leads to substance dualism.

All I can really say is that in this experience, whereby the One is the Many, and the Many are the One, more and more I cannot relate to being in a dissociative relationship with either, but rather it's an inter-being, ever-evolving feedback-looping, exploring/expressing of this locus of transpersonal Mind with other loci of transpersonal Mind, never apart from the ever-present Origin—not to be conflated with 'solipsism' defined as it all being a dreamed up projection of some personal dissociated mind.

[Mark Tetzner]

In this sense we can say that our idea of MAL is abstract because there's no concrete perception (doesn't need to be sensory) that we can match our concept of MAL against. On the other hand, thinking is not abstract because we can observe it - we can experience the concept of thinking against the perceptions of our own thoughts.

It makes sense, yes. Thank you.

[Jim Cross]

Still I feel that for many proponents of idealism, transpersonal Mind does pretty much remain an inferred abstraction, and not a lived reality that one is never actually apart from.

This statement is tricky, because it suggests Idealists might be veering towards solipsism. But if we avoid solipsism by accepting that others are not in our own minds, but have their own minds, the question, "Why are there multiple minds?" brings on the next stage. If we can't get past that to a Universal Mind, we're left without a universe in mind. And that is very tricky- because it leads to substance dualism.

BK's point actually seems somewhat similar to my own when I commented:

Ultimately your point seems about trying to find third person objective way of describing existence (or experiencing it) that is impossible to do because we exist in existence and can't ever know it from the outside.

The problem, however, isn't the mind/matter duality. It's the what's in my mind and what's outside of my mind..

We only know what is in our mind. Whatever is outside it, whether we think it to be mind or matter, is an abstraction from our mind. The first fact (that we only know what is in our mind) doesn't by itself allow us to conclude that what is outside our mind is a greater, different sort of mind. Hypothesizing any single something is unprovable and incoherent as a concept. I've never understood what excitations of consciousness without a experiencing self even means. It might as well be strings from string theory which in some ways feels slightly more concrete than an unit of raw consciousness.

[Ben Iscatus]

I've never understood what excitations of consciousness without a experiencing self even means.

You're right, it means nothing. But the idea is that Mind-at-large is an experiencing subject (in fact, the only one with core agency). We are dissociated alters inside that Mind. We're being dreamed (or nightmared) as dream characters. I think you're a good sceptical (trickster) dream character. MAL did a good job with you..

[Soul_of_Shu]

Again, I'm not sure we're any longer addressing the core question of Mark's topic, by getting into solipsism and whatnot, although perhaps Mark is finding these somewhat tangential comments helpful. If Mark is not finding it relevant, as it turns out, there is now a a topic started by Ashvin, in which these more tangential explorations can be addressed, being more free to wander in the GD section.

[Jim Cross]

Again, I'm not sure we're any longer addressing the core question of Mark's topic, by getting into solipsism and whatnot, although perhaps Mark is finding these somewhat tangential comments helpful. If Mark is not finding it relevant, as it turns out, there is now a a topic started by Ashvin, in which these more tangential explorations can be addressed, being more free to wander in the GD section.

I don't whether you are talking more to Ben or me but I think we are both on topic.

I'm responding directly to the link to BK article on the mind/matter duality. I'm arguing the duality is really between what is inside my mind and what is outside.

BK's starting point

Since all we can ever know are our subjective experiences

Where to go from there if you're an idealist. Solipsism is a one choice. But if there is something outside my mind, then what? The Cosmic Mind of God is pretty much the only good choice. BK, attempting a naturalistic view, sees a sort of elemental conscious substrate without self, intention, or planning. If we look at the BK MAL, it is hardly different from the matter and forces of physics which are also without self, intention, or planning.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I don't whether you are talking more to Ben or me but I think we are both on topic.

I'm referring to my own latest comments here, as much as any. But I'll leave it up to Mark: if he feels that the commentary is still relevant to his original question, then that's what counts.

As for where you're at in understanding BK's model, it's just making me realize even more that while I truly am grateful to BK for what he has offered, insofar as that stepping stone helped me to partially understand some of the experiences I've been coming to terms with, it just hasn't been enough, and is no longer serving me so well. As such, I now realize that I need to move on from those offerings, as some other forum participants have made me realize the limitations that have been hindering a greater understanding. And with that, I should probably bow out of the thread.