Philosophical Speculations

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 9:34 pm

Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 9:11 pm

Yes, granted it's not a substance dualism, whereby there are two distinct ontological categories, i.e. mind and matter. Still you seem to be saying that in order for any such beings to inform, influence, commune, co-create with our corporeal expressions, those boundaries of dissociation must be dissolved. If so, is that what happens when for example a 'daemon' informs, influences, co-creates the ideation and writing of much of BK's early body of work, clearly involving his corporeal form, as per his own claim?

Good point. It's not that the boundary dissolves - dissociation is not perfect, and can be more "porous and permeable" in some people than others, and in ourselves, depending on our state of mind.

The daemon represents archetypal expressions of Mind which happen to resonate with us, based on our unique perspective. Whether those archetypes derive from what Jung called the Collective Unconscious or whether they derive from what Jung called the Personal Unconscious, I haven't seen or heard.

Well, I suppose there's some debate to be had about whether or not archetypal expressions constitute transcorporeal beings. Nonetheless, such cross-border traffic surely isn't only unilateral/one-way. And what I'm getting at, as I've gleaned from Cleric, is that if one's innate, natural proclivity and ability to open and cross the veil, so to speak, is denied, deterred, retarded, not nurtured, not taught, not learned from adepts, and thus not efficaciously developed from very early on, left to atrophy and lay dormant, it should come as no surprise that when at some point one inexplicably, unexpectedly, without informed preparation, bemusedly stumbles into encounters with transcorporeal realms and beings, that upon return it comes across to others as ambiguous and unreliable. Not sure I've much more to add than that.

In a consistent idealism, epistemology is the same as ontology. A dualism assumed in either one is a dualism inherited in the other. The most important thing to realize is that it's assumed from the outset, not concluded by any reasoning apart from "out of sight, out of mind". Martin doesn't like the word "dualism" apparently, so instead we could speak about chalk lines. It's exactly as Cleric commented to Shajan on TCT thread:

Cleric wrote:Please try to step back and see what is really given in the riddle of existence. You might say that the given is the objective world but that would be incorrect. The given is the world of direct experience - colors, sounds, feelings, thoughts, etc. In themselves these perceptions don't say anything about objective world. I gave that example to Jim - your visual experience is not that different in waking life and while dreaming. While dreaming you feel like you're going through an objective world. Only upon awakening you say 'it was just a dream'. So what has changed? The meaning, the understanding that you experience in relation to perceptions. For this reason, the given is the perceptions. What the nature of these perceptions is, we're yet to find out when we start to think about them. Seen in this way, what you call objective world is really only a specific spectral band of conscious phenomena which you have decided that informs you about an objective world out there. So practically, for some reason you have drawn a chalk line within consciousness and you have said "color, sound, smell, touch, etc. tell me about the objective world out there. On the other side of the chalk line are feelings, will, thoughts. These I'll strike out as unreliable and potential source of 'enormous confusion'. I'll try to explain them away through the phenomena on the other side of the chalk line".

yeh well, the point is that I don't think Analytic Idealism assumes any chalk lines (at least none that "go all the way up"). And expecially not in the formulation in this thread.

Martin_ wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 10:21 pm yeh well, the point is that I don't think Analytic Idealism assumes any chalk lines (at least none that "go all the way up"). And expecially not in the formulation in this thread.

Ok so connecting the dots between what Cleric wrote and what is summarized as the position of analytic idealism here (which I agree is a decent summary of its position) - the world of will, feelings, and thoughts that Cleric mentions in his comment is what is being called here "nonbiological realms". It is the world of soul-spirit, the 'collective subconscious', that weaves together and structures all of these inner experiences. Any idealist can agree that there is no strictly 'biological' evolutionary explanation, in terms of sense-perceptible biology, for the existence of inner experience, let alone its structuring. So unless we literally think the three words "Mind at Large" is a sufficient explanatory account for these inner experiences, we must deny them objective verifiable reality altogether and say they don't need systematic explanation... they are just mysteriously and subjectively there. And that is the hallmark of the modern mindset which results from Cartesian subject/object, mind/matter division.

So unless we literally think the three words "Mind at Large" is a sufficient explanatory account for these inner experiences, we must deny them objective verifiable reality altogether and say they don't need systematic explanation... they are just mysteriously and subjectively there.

Systematic explanation would require a good measure of consensus. "Mind at Large" is not entirely regarded as mysterious, since the same consciousness informs us, its alters. Many of MAL's archetypes manifest through us, in our lives and in our art.

Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 10:46 am

So unless we literally think the three words "Mind at Large" is a sufficient explanatory account for these inner experiences, we must deny them objective verifiable reality altogether and say they don't need systematic explanation... they are just mysteriously and subjectively there.

Systematic explanation would require a good measure of consensus. "Mind at Large" is not entirely regarded as mysterious, since the same consciousness informs us, its alters. Many of MAL's archetypes manifest through us, in our lives and in our art.

What is preventing that consensus apart from our own assumption that it cannot be reached?

MAL as a three word container for whatever properties we want to speculate it has is just an empty symbol for those thinking scientifically or logically. I suspect that is why Eugene and Jim and a few others realize analytic idealism can never be anything more than a hobby, an intellectual distraction from the work of "real life". In that sense, they are right. It lacks all scientific and objective credibility and it always will unless transfigured into something more concrete and aligned with the spirit of scientific inquiry.

It is patently clear no scientific rigor goes into BK's analysis, only loose metaphors which are eventually conflated for that which they were originally intended to only be abstract spatiotemporal symbols of. But most don't realize the world of spirit-mind-meaning-"subjectivity" doesn't need to remain an eternal mystery, or even a current one. We have the thinking-tools at our disposal to reveal its inner workings right now. We can understand our Thinking, our spiritual "I" ("non-biological") as a perceptual organ which perceives meaningful inner structure in the world, like our physical eye ("biological") perceives outer structure.

Just like our sense of touch can communicate meaningful and detailed information to us, so can our Thinking. Our Thinking gestures can communicate this information to ourselves and others. That is what we dimly do when we precipitate language symbols from a world of shared meaning and speak to ourselves (inner voice) or others. But we will need to sacrifice the convenience of idle speculation and take on the proactive responsibility of knowing, which is what frightens us the most. We lend it that power to frighten us by ignoring it. Instead, we can transfigure it into an ever-evolving impulse for the greatest Wisdom. "The fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom".

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 1:28 pm It is patently clear no scientific rigor goes into BK's analysis, only loose metaphors which are eventually conflated for that which they were originally intended to only be abstract spatiotemporal symbols of.

Paradoxically enough, this could be BK speaking, to rebuke the facile thinking process of the average materialist mindset, only he'd say there's no analytical rigor. Suffice to say that if you were to confront him, face to face, with your rebuke, to say the least I'd like to be present at that discussion. How about getting in on one of those podcast AMA's he supposedly going to offer?

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 1:46 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 1:28 pm It is patently clear no scientific rigor goes into BK's analysis, only loose metaphors which are eventually conflated for that which they were originally intended to only be abstract spatiotemporal symbols of.

Paradoxically enough, this could be BK speaking, to rebuke the facile thinking process of the average materialist mindset, only he'd say there's no analytical rigor. Suffice to say that if you were to confront him, face to face, with your rebuke, to say the least I'd like to be present at that discussion. How about getting in on one of those podcast AMA's he supposedly going to offer?

That's exactly right. The criticism always applies so well to everyone else, but when it is turned back at ourselves, it suddenly becomes gibberish, elitist, supremacist, etc. Even if it's the exact same phrasing we used our entire philosophical career to challenge another worldview. This is exactly what happens in Kant and Schop.

Sure, if you can remind me when they are I will try to register or something.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 1:28 pm


It is patently clear no scientific rigor goes into BK's analysis, only loose metaphors which are eventually conflated for that which they were originally intended to only be abstract spatiotemporal symbols of.

Well that didn't take long.

Ashvin taught:

"It is patently clear no scientific rigor goes into BK's analysis, only loose metaphors which are eventually conflated for that which they were originally intended to only be abstract spatiotemporal symbols of."

Okay, so we know a couple things:

1) BK's work has no scientific rigor.
2) BK only uses loose metaphors.


.....................................................

Martin, I agree with you about the 'chalk lines.'

findingblanks wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 6:24 pm Ashvin taught:

"It is patently clear no scientific rigor goes into BK's analysis, only loose metaphors which are eventually conflated for that which they were originally intended to only be abstract spatiotemporal symbols of."

Okay, so we know a couple things:

1) BK's work has no scientific rigor.
2) BK only uses loose metaphors.


.....................................................

Martin, I agree with you about the 'chalk lines.'

I'm assuming you are about to drop another post which asks a bunch of questions to no one in particular and does not even hint what your own answers to the questions might be.

Let me just jump ahead of that and say now, there is obviously no problem with someone doing analytic philosophy without getting into scientific inquiries or conclusions. But it's also obvious BK's model does imply many scientific conclusions about evolution i.e. the Cosmic progression and human relationship with Nature. It's more accurate to say these conclusions are simply presupposed in his model and then he comes up with metaphors to make those conclusions fit with idealism. He does this because he does not realize a consistent idealism would make those conclusions untenable to begin with, as they are derived from an artificial dualism of internal mind modeling an external reality, and therefore there is absolutely no need to conjure up various metaphors to make idealism conform to them. The science without any dualist assumption is already more precise and helpful than the metaphors.

All of these problems and confusions are inherent to abstract metaphysics, in which philosophical and scientific Thinking can only flow towards the pole of more generalization, less detail, less resolution, less precision, and therefore incomplete and flattened out understanding of our ideational relationship with Nature and the Cosmos at large. When Thinking is left in the blind spot, abstract metaphysics and secular science is the only other option for someone who wants to tackle the biggest questions with logic and reason. "Secular" here does not mean inquiry apart from religious doctrine, which obviously rigorous science should always avoid, but science which does not factor in our soul-life and spiritual activity, i.e. inner meaningful experience perceived by our Thinking sense-organ. That meaningful aspect of Cosmic processes is arbitrarily considered impossible to investigate from the outset.