Bernardo vs Graham Oppy!!

[AshvinP]

Thanks Ashvin, it does not make complete sense to me but thanks for taking the time to respond.

Mark, here's another approach. The following are a few questions whose answers reside in black hole for BK:

1. How does consciousness evolve into "meta cognition"?

2. What ideal processes are "evolution of alters in a planetary environment" images of?

3. How do ideations of MAL manifest as physical appearances in nature? What depth structure is behind these outer appearances?

4. Are our inner experiences also images on "screen of perception"? If so, same question as #3.

5. What do our moral ideals reflect within depth structure of MAL?

6. What are we engaged in when willing, feeling, and thinking?

7. If our reasoned thinking is "stories we tell ourselves" to justify our existence, with no firm basis in objective Reality, how can we rely on any of your reasoned arguments for analytic idealism?

There are many more. Again, most people have lost all sense of what an "explanation" is. The physicalists are better in this regard, because some at least realize abstract concepts are not explanations for anything. They mostly just embed our own assumptions and preferences into the very definition of the concept. JW pointed this out and was absolutely correct, but his solution was "just admit we are hopelessly disconnected from reality, unless we listen to music", which is essentially Schopenhauer's pessimism, but he refused to acknowledge that obvious relationship.

[findingblanks]

"Yes. Our entire inner experience of willing-feeling-thinking is a black hole for BK."

This kind of statement is so much fun! Can you imagine a podcast where Sam Harris told Bernardo that Bernardo simply can't even begin to understand X, Y, or Z! Oh, the personalities in this group! And the certainty! I'd love to see Bernardo's face when an educator/scholar like Ashvin explains to him what his blackholes are. There is so much certainty you can almost feel the drug-like response to it that moves through this forum.

And: that's gotta be okay, right? People are just being honest when they say such things, yeah? I know that sometimes I feel shy that I feel the need to qualify my statements so much. Like, I know there is a certain kind of viral man who cringes when I explain why I can have so much respect for Steiner in dozens of domains on specific topics (education, development, farming, goethean science, social structure, ect) but that I have other areas I really boggle at his naivete. Or I have even felt shy when I point out how much overlap I have with these guys on PoF even though we certainly have areas of disagreement and they KNOW that I don't even grasp the very basics. They are so clear and outloud about my complete lack of knowledge! They are partially right, for a fact.

But I just had to comment that learning about just how awful Bernardo's ideas are is truly interesting. We learn that Bernardo has a worse mentality than 'physicalism':

"Yes. Our entire inner experience of willing-feeling-thinking is a black hole for BK. Ironically, this ends up resulting in a mentality worse than standard physicalism."

Whoa! Is that psychoanalysis? Nah, not in this context.

"BK rightly perceives that physicalism strips out qualities of experience in its scientific approach and forgets that these have been stripped out from the material abstractions."

Raise your hand if you think that Bernardo forgets that qualities have been stripped out from the material abstractions? I think he remembers it all the time. Oh no.

Imagine Bernardo being taught the following:

"BK knows these qualities are very important aspects of the natural phenomena, but since he enveloped our inner experience in black-holeness, this pings back and envelops all outer natural phenomena as well."

I honestly didn't know that Bernardo had enveloped our inner experience in black holeness or even that it pinged back and enveloped all outer natural phenomena as well. I think Cleric has a slightly different kind of certainty but I bet he's equally certain.

I know that Ashvin won't like this but what he says next is just utterly wrong:


"So now BK cannot say anything about outer natural phenomena either, except they result from dynamics of "instinctive mind". He writes a book about Jung, but if asked how these 'archetypes of the collective unconscious' actually fit into natural science, his answer is the exact same as the materialist - they must have resulted from bottom-up evolution somehow and are limited to only instinctual patterned behavior."

There is absolutely nothing about BK's model that rules out evolution participating with prior teleological forms (you can call them angels, platonic dynmaics or whatever you need to). Nothing. At all. That's why Bernardo is so fascinated and open to approaches that are trying to explain nature with such concepts. Everybody knows that Bernardo's goal is not to present a spiritual science that details evolution. Nobody thinks he is supposed to do something other than what he is doing. What is BK doing? Trying to make ONE kind of very strong argument against physicalism and for idealism.

Ashvin says that when Bernardo embraces evolution playing a primary role in the development of organisms he is 100% with materialists. Wow! I can tell you one way that Bernardo is not with them (and there are hundreds): Bernardo's model makes room for and can explain why teleology is a NECESSARY aspect of biological evolution. That's sort of a big deal. At the very least it is one way that Ashvin is just objectively wrong. But why on earth even speak about Bernardo's model as if it is supposed to be explaining specific natural events? Certainty!!!!!

And raise your hand if you think Ashvin is right that the following is the ONLY kind of response Bernardo would have?

".And if I were to ask him, "what about all the documented and experiential evidence for the evolution of cognition itself over the last several thousand years?", he would reply, "well those are interesting theories, but they can only remain pure speculation, regardless of the evidence, because that sort of thing is beyond any objective scientific inquiry".

I could imagine if he was conversing with a very manic, very dogmatic person who insisted on some specific clairvoyant claim that MUST BE TRUE, Bernardo would counterbalance it by saying, "That's just speculation..." Thank God. But I think at least 7 of us have even heard Bernardo talk about Owen Barfield's insights about the evolution of consciousness being brilliant. Oh no.

Anyway, I'm not certain that Ashvin is only wrong about these comments. I've tried to even show that there are threads of truth (in that Bernardo's model isn't trying to explain evolution and, therefore, it doesn't). I am certain that this form is filled with a few profoundly passionate minds that know for a fact Bernardo has made it impossible for us to know the truth! Maybe my hyperbole will lead towards a toned down response? Oh no.

[Mark Tetzner]

Thanks Ashvin, it does not make complete sense to me but thanks for taking the time to respond.

Mark, here's another approach. The following are a few questions whose answers reside in black hole for BK:

1. How does consciousness evolve into "meta cognition"?
I have no idea but what is the charge against BK?
It´s a task for scientists.
I am not quite sure what this is about, does BK have to worry about it?

2. What ideal processes are "evolution of alters in a planetary environment" images of?
Of a process in the mind of nature.

3. How do ideations of MAL manifest as physical appearances in nature? What depth structure is behind these outer appearances?
The "how" gets answered by abioginesis in principle. It seems we dont know much.
The depth-structure I guess is the first-person-perspective of MAL.
There is only cosmic consciousness and like so feeling and the body of MAL are the same.

4. Are our inner experiences also images on "screen of perception"? If so, same question as #3.
Appearances on the screen of persception is all they are.

5. What do our moral ideals reflect within depth structure of MAL?
I dont believe in morals.

6. What are we engaged in when willing, feeling, and thinking?
In water.

7. If our reasoned thinking is "stories we tell ourselves" to justify our existence, with no firm basis in objective Reality, how can we rely on any of your reasoned arguments for analytic idealism?
We cant. At the end we have criteria for hopefully true models and then have to hope for the best, at least most of us. It is a difficult task, but also the fun part for those who enjoy it, again I am wondering what your general love/hate-relationship towards BK exists, are you troubled that he does not explore these questions deeper? One thing that is always a good thing: logic. I am not sure materialists have thought about things sufficiently.

[AshvinP]

Thanks Ashvin, it does not make complete sense to me but thanks for taking the time to respond.

Mark, here's another approach. The following are a few questions whose answers reside in black hole for BK:

1. How does consciousness evolve into "meta cognition"?
I have no idea but what is the charge against BK?
It´s a task for scientists.
I am not quite sure what this is about, does BK have to worry about it?

2. What ideal processes are "evolution of alters in a planetary environment" images of?
Of a process in the mind of nature.

3. How do ideations of MAL manifest as physical appearances in nature? What depth structure is behind these outer appearances?
The "how" gets answered by abioginesis in principle. It seems we dont know much.
The depth-structure I guess is the first-person-perspective of MAL.
There is only cosmic consciousness and like so feeling and the body of MAL are the same.

4. Are our inner experiences also images on "screen of perception"? If so, same question as #3.
Appearances on the screen of persception is all they are.

5. What do our moral ideals reflect within depth structure of MAL?
I dont believe in morals.

6. What are we engaged in when willing, feeling, and thinking?
In water.

7. If our reasoned thinking is "stories we tell ourselves" to justify our existence, with no firm basis in objective Reality, how can we rely on any of your reasoned arguments for analytic idealism?
We cant. At the end we have criteria for hopefully true models and then have to hope for the best, at least most of us. It is a difficult task, but also the fun part for those who enjoy it, again I am wondering what your general love/hate-relationship towards BK exists, are you troubled that he does not explore these questions deeper? One thing that is always a good thing: logic. I am not sure materialists have thought about things sufficiently.

Mark,

Are you really satisfied with those "explanations"? Does your inner being desire anything deeper than those?

[Mark Tetzner]

Yes my inner being desires a lot more, I just dont see why its BKs job to go beyond him since he cant know. Can you?

[AshvinP]

Yes my inner being desires a lot more, I just dont see why its BKs job to go beyond him since he cant know. Can you?

I hesitate to even try answering because it seems anything I write will be ignored from the outset. You say, "he can't know". That tells me you are assuming from the outset that whatever I claim about deeper meaningful reality must be pure speculation, probably born out of "egoism, arrogance, intolerance" and what not, because someone as intelligent as BK "can't know", so how could the guy commenting on BK's forum? We have come across these dynamics so much on the forum at this point that it is nearly down to a science (which I am grateful for, because it means I am learning).

In the previous comment, your response to my question about morals was "I don't believe in morals". Again, I can see anything I write will be viewed as gibberish. For ex., let's say my position is that what we call "morals" are the very dim representations of meaningful activity that the entire Cosmos is woven through? There is no value in me simply asserting that it is, so then I would go about trying to explain how I have logically reasoned to this conclusion so far. But none of that will be processed by the person who "doesn't believe in morals". They are just wishy-washy values "subjectively" imposed on us by external authorities, so why would you try to carefully follow my reasoning? It seems like 90%+ of my critiques here are aimed at getting people to try and lay aside their unexamined assumptions and antipathies long enough so that I can actually begin making a logical argument.

But let me just throw out something here and you can think about it - there is no such thing as the spatial dimensions of width, depth, and height. These are our deeply subconscious representations for ideal and interwoven spiritual activity, i.e. Willing-Feeling-Thinking. I know BK has never considered this claim as one which would ever warrant serious investigation, specifically the claim that we can trace back these abstract dimensions to those activities in a precise way. Have you thought about that before? I suspect not, because that falls well into the realm behind the 'impenetrable' veil ("dissociative boundary") which cuts off the ideations of "alters" from those of "MAL".

[Mark Tetzner]

As for morals, no I dont think they are imposed by auhorities, I think its more the golden rule, what you dont want to be done onto yourself....

But let me just throw out something here and you can think about it - there is no such thing as the spatial dimensions of width, depth, and height. These are our deeply subconscious representations for ideal and interwoven spiritual activity, i.e. Willing-Feeling-Thinking. I know BK has never considered this claim as one which would ever warrant serious investigation, specifically the claim that we can trace back these abstract dimensions to those activities in a precise way. Have you thought about that before? I suspect not, because that falls well into the realm behind the 'impenetrable' veil ("dissociative boundary") which cuts off the ideations of "alters" from those of "MAL".

My response: That there is no spatial dimensions, is that your challenge or a fact?
And your second claim of course is the interesting one, how do you think this can be done?

[AshvinP]

As for morals, no I dont think they are imposed by auhorities, I think its more the golden rule, what you dont want to be done onto yourself....

But let me just throw out something here and you can think about it - there is no such thing as the spatial dimensions of width, depth, and height. These are our deeply subconscious representations for ideal and interwoven spiritual activity, i.e. Willing-Feeling-Thinking. I know BK has never considered this claim as one which would ever warrant serious investigation, specifically the claim that we can trace back these abstract dimensions to those activities in a precise way. Have you thought about that before? I suspect not, because that falls well into the realm behind the 'impenetrable' veil ("dissociative boundary") which cuts off the ideations of "alters" from those of "MAL".

My response: That there is no spatial dimensions, is that your challenge or a fact?
And your second claim of course is the interesting one, how do you think this can be done?

Think of it as a question - have you considered what these dimensions are ideal representations of, or have you always felt it is a meaningless question because no one can possibly know?

Again, if I start going into how this can be done, I have no confidence anything I write will make sense. But really I think Cleric outlined the initial considerations more clearly than I could possibly hope to right now in TCT post - viewtopic.php?t=687

[AshvinP]

[pyscho-cryptic filler until FB actually makes an argument, kind of...]

I know that Ashvin won't like this but what he says next is just utterly wrong:


"So now BK cannot say anything about outer natural phenomena either, except they result from dynamics of "instinctive mind". He writes a book about Jung, but if asked how these 'archetypes of the collective unconscious' actually fit into natural science, his answer is the exact same as the materialist - they must have resulted from bottom-up evolution somehow and are limited to only instinctual patterned behavior."

There is absolutely nothing about BK's model that rules out evolution participating with prior teleological forms (you can call them angels, platonic dynmaics or whatever you need to). Nothing. At all. That's why Bernardo is so fascinated and open to approaches that are trying to explain nature with such concepts. Everybody knows that Bernardo's goal is not to present a spiritual science that details evolution. Nobody thinks he is supposed to do something other than what he is doing. What is BK doing? Trying to make ONE kind of very strong argument against physicalism and for idealism.

Where has BK stated clearly that he is open to top-down Macrocosmic evolution via "telelogical forms", in stark contrast to the strictly bottom-up understanding of secular science? BK states over and over again that MAL does not need to evolve because it does not participate in a "planetary environment". Anyone who thinks his model of idealism does not embed assumptions about natural evolutionary processes has failed to understand anything he writes or says. How could BK possibly challenge physicalism without even mentioning the most well-established scientific theory we have?

Try to respond directly to the questions, if at all possible. I will be skimming and deleting any filler, anyway.

[more filler]

I've tried to even show that there are threads of truth (in that Bernardo's model isn't trying to explain evolution and, therefore, it doesn't).

"Tried" is really generous here, but OK. As I have already commented to you and others, my view necessitates "threads of truth" in all reasoned worldviews, including BK's. It is only your worldview which claims these things can be "true" or "false", "wrong" or "right", because 'internal' models do or do not correspond to 'external' reality. Did you forget all of Goethean Science or did you never agree with it in the first place?

[findingblanks]

Let's play a game. I'll show you specific comments by BK that support my claim that he fully grasps why evolution must include the participation of ideal forms, and you show me just two comments by BK that support the claim that "BK states over and over again that MAL does not need to evolve..."

I've only ever read quotes by BK that claim MaL has no option but to evolve. By 'evolve' of course BK means via MaL per alters.

This might be super fun!