Page 1 of 3

what is not in mind is abstract

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:32 am
by Mark Tetzner
I am hoping to be posting in the proper category.

BK and others have said that whatever is not in mind/perception/feeling is necessarily abstract.

I agree to this, but I am wondering if I can be 100 percent sure, I feel like 90 percent sure only.

Especially since this would take materialism of the table immediately, but then one may wonder
why the entire world is not following this obvious argument.

Looking forward to thoughts on this.

Re: what is not in mind is abstract

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:06 pm
by Jim Cross
Mark,

Maybe you can explain this some more.

In my view mind, perception, and feeling are abstract concepts. My perception of a particular rose might or might not be abstract but "perception" by itself seems to me clearly a abstract concept. But aren't abstract concepts in "mind" too? If there is something that is not in "mind", then wouldn't that falsify idealism.

Re: what is not in mind is abstract

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:31 pm
by Soul_of_Shu
Well this is getting back to the core debate about the so-called Kantian divide, and the question of whether or not the existence of an immanent, irreducible transpersonal source Mind is also not an inferred abstraction within a human mind that somehow, we know not how, inexplicably emerged from a state of non-mind, or non-aware Being. If such Mind isn't just an abstraction, but rather a state than can demonstrably be shown to exist, given that this cannot be done within the purview of a science that is solely concerned with what is physically measurable and quantifiable, pretty much ending at the quantum vacuum state, then how does one go about doing so? BK makes the case that due to our 'dissociation' from Mind, into alter-mode minds, we are left knowing only the phenomenal representations of Mind, and upon the end of dissociation, i.e. the death of one's corporeal representation, the personal mind reverts back to transpersonal Mind, with no soul/psyche left to tell the tale. So forget about dear old dead dad reaching out from beyond the grave to convey a message about why he regrets being such a dickhead when he cheated on dear old mom, along with guardian angels, or any transcorporeal entities, and all such paranormal nonsense, as they are all dreamlike, alter-mode, metacognitive, mind-made abstracted projections of wishful thinking, distinct from the supposedly non-abstracted transpersonal source Mind, now expressing as us bemused by such oh-so-real experiences of NDEs and OBEs, etc. BK then trusts this clears it all up :?

Re: what is not in mind is abstract

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:41 pm
by AshvinP
Soul_of_Shu wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:31 pm Well this is getting back to the core debate about the so-called Kantian divide, and the question of whether or not the existence of an immanent, irreducible transpersonal source Mind is also not an inferred abstraction within a human mind that somehow, we know not how, inexplicably emerged from a state of non-mind, or non-aware Being. If such Mind isn't just such an abstraction, but rather a state than can demonstrably be shown to exist, given that this cannot be done within the purview of a science that is solely concerned with what is physically measurable and quantifiable, pretty much ending at the quantum vacuum state, then how does one go about doing so? BK makes the case that due to our 'dissociation' from Mind, into alter-mode minds, we are left knowing only the phenomenal representations of Mind, and upon the end of dissociation, i.e. the death of one's corporeal representation, the personal mind reverts back to transpersonal Mind, with no soul/psyche left to tell the tale. So forget about dear old dead dad reaching out from beyond the grave to convey a message about why he regrets being such a dickhead when he cheated on dear old mom, along with guardian angels, or any transcorporeal entities, and all such paranormal nonsense, as they are all dreamlike, alter-mode, metacognitive, mind-made abstracted projections of wishful thinking, distinct from the supposedly non-abstracted transpersonal source Mind, now expressing as us bemused by such oh-so-real experiences of NDEs and OBEs, etc. BK then trust this clears it all up :?

Dana,

Great points. It goes to show how quickly the whole things spirals out of control once the Kantian divide is set up. The phenomenal appearances are all dream-mirages, fata morganas. But what about our thoughts about the appearances? Those are also mirages. But what about our thought that "my thoughts are all mirages"? That is also a mirage! Once we get three levels deep of mirages, the whole game is lost... the entire endeavor collapses under its own weight. But all that weight was completely unnecessary, added onto the phenomenal content by us because we funneled our own Thinking through the Kantian divide and filtered out all that keeps it connected to Reality itself, forcing it to go in one direction towards an unknowable and therefore meaningless abyss.

Re: what is not in mind is abstract

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:43 pm
by Jim Cross
Soul_of_Shu wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:31 pm Well this is getting back to the core debate about the so-called Kantian divide, and the question of whether or not the existence of an immanent, irreducible transpersonal source Mind is also not an inferred abstraction within a human mind that somehow, we know not how, inexplicably emerged from a state of non-mind, or non-aware Being. If such Mind isn't just such an abstraction, but rather a state than can demonstrably be shown to exist, given that this cannot be done within the purview of a science that is solely concerned with what is physically measurable and quantifiable, pretty much ending at the quantum vacuum state, then how does one go about doing so? BK makes the case that due to our 'dissociation' from Mind, into alter-mode minds, we are left knowing only the phenomenal representations of Mind, and upon the end of dissociation, i.e. the death of one's corporeal representation, the personal mind reverts back to transpersonal Mind, with no soul/psyche left to tell the tale. So forget about dear old dead dad reaching out from beyond the grave to convey a message about why he regrets being such a dickhead when he cheated on dear old mom, along with guardian angels, or any transcorporeal entities, and all such paranormal nonsense, as they are all dreamlike, alter-mode, metacognitive, mind-made abstracted projections of wishful thinking, distinct from the supposedly non-abstracted transpersonal source Mind, now expressing as us bemused by such oh-so-real experiences of NDEs and OBEs, etc. BK then trust this clears it all up :?
I can't understand your point but is it the same as what Mark wrote? They seem different to me.

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.

Re: what is not in mind is abstract

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:49 pm
by Ben Iscatus
upon the end of dissociation, i.e. the death of one's corporeal representation, the personal mind reverts back to transpersonal Mind, with no soul/psyche left to tell the tale.
Hierarchies of dissociation are not ruled out by Analytic Idealism. But in the end, all is One. Certainly some NDErs claim they become the whole universe.
One problem with nonphysical hierarchies is nobody can be sure exactly what's real - by which I mean stable and definable - and what's not. I've not seen any description of them that's reliable in the sense that lots of people claim to have experienced them and say, "Yes, it's definitely like this - definitely not like that". If you have, let's hear it!

Re: what is not in mind is abstract

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:12 pm
by Soul_of_Shu
Jim Cross wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:43 pm I can't understand your point but is it the same as what Mark wrote? They seem different to me.

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.
Well, when Mark states that "BK and others have said that whatever is not in mind/perception/feeling is necessarily abstract", then it immediately demands a clarification of what is meant by 'mind'? If it is referring to Mind as a transpersonal category, then unless that category itself is known as more than just an abstraction, then what can be said about being 100% sure of abstractions conceived by any dissociated personal mind, if one isn't 100% sure that the Mind from which they are dissociated is not also an inferred abstraction? It's surely true that projecting that Mind 'out there' as a Mind apart from a dissociated mind creates a problematic duality. I'd suggest that we know it by virtue of being nothing apart from it, however it may be expressing as a locus Mind. And only insofar as one is imagined to be apart from it, is one faced with the futility of having to show that it isn't an objectified abstraction. Admittedly, this seems to leave us with the indelible knowing beyond any doubt whatsoever that the mystics speak of—which no amount of reading about is going get one past the above conundrum—who could not care less about any proof that they are right or wrong. I guess that's why they also refer to it as Liberation.

Re: what is not in mind is abstract

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:22 pm
by Soul_of_Shu
Ben Iscatus wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:49 pm Hierarchies of dissociation are not ruled out by Analytic Idealism. But in the end, all is One.
I'm more inclined to go with: The One is the Many, and the Many are the One, and there is no end or beginning. But this is drifting off topic, and perhaps should be addressed elsewhere, so I'll wait for Mark to follow up with questions if he feels his topic is not being addressed adequately.

Re: what is not in mind is abstract

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:42 am
by Mark Tetzner
Just came back from doing errands, here is where we can learn what BK means by mind, I will try to find more later.
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2015/05 ... atter.html

Re: what is not in mind is abstract

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:01 am
by Soul_of_Shu
Mark Tetzner wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:42 am Just came back from doing errands, here is where we can learn what BK means by mind, I will try to find more later.
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2015/05 ... atter.html
Yes, BK makes valid points ... My point is only that as long as transpersonal Mind also remains an inferred abstraction within a 'dissociated' personal mind, as opposed to an indelible knowing beyond any doubt whatsoever (90% doesn't cut it), it's an uncertain and problematic ontological premise, demanding some evidential verification from the likes of JeffreyW. Granted, perhaps not as problematic as the materialist premise of the inferred abstraction of a physical state of non-mind from which mind emerges, creating two distinct ontological categories, and the so-called hard problem. 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.