Bernardo vs Graham Oppy!!

[findingblanks]

Mark, I fully agree with that

(mainly about your not fully agreeing with me)
cheers

[Ben Iscatus]

One of the reasons I like BK is his admitted fallibility. He's entitled to choose who he engages with - aren't we all? But he holds nothing back in discussions - all is revealed. I remember when Jordan P was talking to John Vervaeke, who was enthusing about his discussion with BK, Jordan P asked how many views they got. It was an obvious attempt to put BK down (else why ask?).

[Mark Tetzner]

One of the reasons I like BK is his admitted fallibility. He's entitled to choose who he engages with - aren't we all? But he holds nothing back in discussions - all is revealed. I remember when Jordan P was talking to John Vervaeke, who was enthusing about his discussion with BK, Jordan P asked how many views they got. It was an obvious attempt to put BK down (else why ask?).

good overservations!

[findingblanks]

Ben you said:

"One of the reasons I like BK is his admitted fallibility. He's entitled to choose who he engages with - aren't we all?"

Yeah, for sure. Just weird to claim that somebody is ignoring him who hasn't showed any signs of dialoging with him yet. And same for Sam. Of course Harris is entitled to engage with whomever he wants.

" It was an obvious attempt to put BK down (else why ask?)"

I'd have to see it. I'm not a JP fan but I can imagine other reasons to ask about views. But, sure, could have been pure ego.

[Lou Gold]

OK, there seem to be lots this-or-that options... ontology-or-no-ontology, physicalism-or-idealism, different kinds of science, reality-or-imagination, read-the-book-or-not, know-the-author-or-not, etc. How would folks apply their favorite option (and with what consequences) to this recent reading of the book? Please keep it simple: what difference would your preferred model make?

I would try hard to abandon the notion of "model" altogether. This is one thing we keep mentioning here but is rarely understood. It's not hard to understand - no philosophy degree or even familiarity with analytic idealism is needed. Only some minimal thinking effort and good will.

What is implicit in all "models" is the "correspondence theory of truth". It is really exactly what is sounds like, and it lives as a tempting force within all of us. That is key to remember - what we call it doesn't matter so much as how it actually functions in our experience. It is our default way of perceiving and thinking of the world content. We assume that Nature is there with her appearances, and it is our task to fashion inner concepts which model her independent behavior external to us. If we were snuffed out of existence in the next moment, we assume that her behavior would continue exactly the same as it always had. When we return to existence, we assume it is our task to fashion a historical model of what happened when we were gone (which are really things we no longer remember, because we are never actually snuffed out of existence). Whenever we speak of ideas being "right" or "wrong", we have already adopted this view. This happens every day and every lifetime for everyone. We never overcome this default mode by rearranging concepts and calling ourselves "idealist", "monist", "phenomenologist", "participatory cognitionist", and what not. We only set out on a path to mitigate its influence when we seek to deeply know it, to even Love and appreciate it, as it lives within us. Here I mean "Love" which wants the best for it, whatever it is, not "love" which wants it to remain exactly as it is. Love which deeply desires for it to reach its full potential, just as we can deeply desire to reach our own.

All of this has great practical relevance for your question and link. The correspodence view sees these natural phenomena and subconsciously thinks, "how do I rearrange the concepts that I already have to make sense of these things happening in the world out there". A "particpatory" view of thinking, again remembering it is not the outer label which matters but the inner meaning of what it is pointing to as a symbol, sees these natural phenomena as question marks. They are the punctuation at the end of questions we have not thought to ask Nature yet, perhaps because we don't know how to even formulate it, or we are anxious about popping the question. These natural questions invite our Thinking into them so we may discover new concepts - more holistic ideas - which explain why and how they appear to us. Notice we have not made any metaphysical judgments whatsoever at this point - we don't know what the natural phenomena are "made of". The natural phenomena are like clues on a treasure hunt which will naturally lead our concrete Thinking activity towards constellating their deeper meanings. So, the short answer to your question above is, we need to treat Nature more seriously than some object to which we "apply our favorite option". We cannot rush to impose our preferred intellectual "solutions" on her. She is not going to react favorably to that treament, and that is perfectly understandable. She deserves much more deep Thinking attention than most people are willing to give her today.

Ashvin,

I grok your drift here and very much agree.

[AshvinP]

OK, there seem to be lots this-or-that options... ontology-or-no-ontology, physicalism-or-idealism, different kinds of science, reality-or-imagination, read-the-book-or-not, know-the-author-or-not, etc. How would folks apply their favorite option (and with what consequences) to this recent reading of the book? Please keep it simple: what difference would your preferred model make?

I would try hard to abandon the notion of "model" altogether. This is one thing we keep mentioning here but is rarely understood. It's not hard to understand - no philosophy degree or even familiarity with analytic idealism is needed. Only some minimal thinking effort and good will.

What is implicit in all "models" is the "correspondence theory of truth". It is really exactly what is sounds like, and it lives as a tempting force within all of us. That is key to remember - what we call it doesn't matter so much as how it actually functions in our experience. It is our default way of perceiving and thinking of the world content. We assume that Nature is there with her appearances, and it is our task to fashion inner concepts which model her independent behavior external to us. If we were snuffed out of existence in the next moment, we assume that her behavior would continue exactly the same as it always had. When we return to existence, we assume it is our task to fashion a historical model of what happened when we were gone (which are really things we no longer remember, because we are never actually snuffed out of existence). Whenever we speak of ideas being "right" or "wrong", we have already adopted this view. This happens every day and every lifetime for everyone. We never overcome this default mode by rearranging concepts and calling ourselves "idealist", "monist", "phenomenologist", "participatory cognitionist", and what not. We only set out on a path to mitigate its influence when we seek to deeply know it, to even Love and appreciate it, as it lives within us. Here I mean "Love" which wants the best for it, whatever it is, not "love" which wants it to remain exactly as it is. Love which deeply desires for it to reach its full potential, just as we can deeply desire to reach our own.

All of this has great practical relevance for your question and link. The correspodence view sees these natural phenomena and subconsciously thinks, "how do I rearrange the concepts that I already have to make sense of these things happening in the world out there". A "particpatory" view of thinking, again remembering it is not the outer label which matters but the inner meaning of what it is pointing to as a symbol, sees these natural phenomena as question marks. They are the punctuation at the end of questions we have not thought to ask Nature yet, perhaps because we don't know how to even formulate it, or we are anxious about popping the question. These natural questions invite our Thinking into them so we may discover new concepts - more holistic ideas - which explain why and how they appear to us. Notice we have not made any metaphysical judgments whatsoever at this point - we don't know what the natural phenomena are "made of". The natural phenomena are like clues on a treasure hunt which will naturally lead our concrete Thinking activity towards constellating their deeper meanings. So, the short answer to your question above is, we need to treat Nature more seriously than some object to which we "apply our favorite option". We cannot rush to impose our preferred intellectual "solutions" on her. She is not going to react favorably to that treament, and that is perfectly understandable. She deserves much more deep Thinking attention than most people are willing to give her today.

Good thoughts Ashvin. I can align with much that you say. Truly, it's about the search for better questions and techniques for chasing them. I do think models have a function as tools but one must maintain humility in face of the Great Mysteriousness. We use different language but are often on the same page. One thing that I found especially interesting in the article was the statement by the scientist wrestling with potentially earth-changing events, “Unlike any other field of exploration, we are at the absolute frontier here.” I suspect that much of your effort is about wrestling with how to place human thought comfortably nearer to the frontier.

Lou,

My view here is that the utility of tools are primarily defined by their evolutionary timing. "All evil is untimely good". Many times we feel that the ancient ways were most wise and best, which they certainly were in their stage of spiritual evolution, but we also know there is realistically no "going back". What modern scientific thinking has brought to humanity is going to continue expressing itself, one way or another. But the "modeling" crowd wants to cling to this also wise and useful mode of scientific thinking while ignoring the emergence of Imaginative thinking in our own time, which bridges the gap between subject and object and therefore renders the "model" mentality practically useless. It is very difficult to notice precisely because we are at a new threshold of cognitive evolution, still thoroughly immersed in the old mode, and the fear and mistrust of what is unfamiliar and unknown kicks in. We all think and say we want to venture boldly into the future, but is this reflected in the evolution of our Thinking organism itself? Are we actually asking the new and deeper questions and following their threads, in the here and now, or are we simply dreaming about the day in the unspecified future when we still start asking those questions or someone will ask them for us? Practically all of my critiques here boil down to that core issue in some way.

[Lou Gold]

I would try hard to abandon the notion of "model" altogether. This is one thing we keep mentioning here but is rarely understood. It's not hard to understand - no philosophy degree or even familiarity with analytic idealism is needed. Only some minimal thinking effort and good will.

What is implicit in all "models" is the "correspondence theory of truth". It is really exactly what is sounds like, and it lives as a tempting force within all of us. That is key to remember - what we call it doesn't matter so much as how it actually functions in our experience. It is our default way of perceiving and thinking of the world content. We assume that Nature is there with her appearances, and it is our task to fashion inner concepts which model her independent behavior external to us. If we were snuffed out of existence in the next moment, we assume that her behavior would continue exactly the same as it always had. When we return to existence, we assume it is our task to fashion a historical model of what happened when we were gone (which are really things we no longer remember, because we are never actually snuffed out of existence). Whenever we speak of ideas being "right" or "wrong", we have already adopted this view. This happens every day and every lifetime for everyone. We never overcome this default mode by rearranging concepts and calling ourselves "idealist", "monist", "phenomenologist", "participatory cognitionist", and what not. We only set out on a path to mitigate its influence when we seek to deeply know it, to even Love and appreciate it, as it lives within us. Here I mean "Love" which wants the best for it, whatever it is, not "love" which wants it to remain exactly as it is. Love which deeply desires for it to reach its full potential, just as we can deeply desire to reach our own.

All of this has great practical relevance for your question and link. The correspodence view sees these natural phenomena and subconsciously thinks, "how do I rearrange the concepts that I already have to make sense of these things happening in the world out there". A "particpatory" view of thinking, again remembering it is not the outer label which matters but the inner meaning of what it is pointing to as a symbol, sees these natural phenomena as question marks. They are the punctuation at the end of questions we have not thought to ask Nature yet, perhaps because we don't know how to even formulate it, or we are anxious about popping the question. These natural questions invite our Thinking into them so we may discover new concepts - more holistic ideas - which explain why and how they appear to us. Notice we have not made any metaphysical judgments whatsoever at this point - we don't know what the natural phenomena are "made of". The natural phenomena are like clues on a treasure hunt which will naturally lead our concrete Thinking activity towards constellating their deeper meanings. So, the short answer to your question above is, we need to treat Nature more seriously than some object to which we "apply our favorite option". We cannot rush to impose our preferred intellectual "solutions" on her. She is not going to react favorably to that treament, and that is perfectly understandable. She deserves much more deep Thinking attention than most people are willing to give her today.

Good thoughts Ashvin. I can align with much that you say. Truly, it's about the search for better questions and techniques for chasing them. I do think models have a function as tools but one must maintain humility in face of the Great Mysteriousness. We use different language but are often on the same page. One thing that I found especially interesting in the article was the statement by the scientist wrestling with potentially earth-changing events, “Unlike any other field of exploration, we are at the absolute frontier here.” I suspect that much of your effort is about wrestling with how to place human thought comfortably nearer to the frontier.

Lou,

My view here is that the utility of tools are primarily defined by their evolutionary timing. "All evil is untimely good". Many times we feel that the ancient ways were most wise and best, which they certainly were in their stage of spiritual evolution, but we also know there is realistically no "going back". What modern scientific thinking has brought to humanity is going to continue expressing itself, one way or another. But the "modeling" crowd wants to cling to this also wise and useful mode of scientific thinking while ignoring the emergence of Imaginative thinking in our own time, which bridges the gap between subject and object and therefore renders the "model" mentality practically useless. It is very difficult to notice precisely because we are at a new threshold of cognitive evolution, still thoroughly immersed in the old mode, and the fear and mistrust of what is unfamiliar and unknown kicks in. We all think and say we want to venture boldly into the future, but is this reflected in the evolution of our Thinking organism itself? Are we actually asking the new and deeper questions and following their threads, in the here and now, or are we simply dreaming about the day in the unspecified future when we still start asking those questions or someone will ask them for us? Practically all of my critiques here boil down to that core issue in some way.

Ashvin,

I wonder if you are familiar with the work of the modern indigenous botanist Robin Wall Kimmerer whose book Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants has been a surprise best seller?

I surely agree that there is no going back AND I hold a notion that there may be an ancient-future view with much meaning in a modern context.

PS: I love the phrase, "All evil is untimely good". Are you its source?

[Mark Tetzner]

Dr. Shu, JW is trolling in the comment-section of the video as well. He says they are "two mediocre people".
I think he is watching BK all day or something. I am wondering where he is coming from when he thingks
he is the only one with substance.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

I wonder if you are familiar with the work of the modern indigenous botanist Robin Wall Kimmerer whose book Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants has been a surprise best seller?

I surely agree that there is no going back AND I hold a notion that there may be an ancient-future view with much meaning in a modern context.

Lou,

I am not, but I will check it out the links, thanks.

PS: I love the phrase, "All evil is untimely good". Are you its source?

Definitely not. That is Steiner.

[findingblanks]

Hi Ben,

I love your comments. Based on them, I suspect you would be much more surprised than me to find out that Bernardo himself experienced that as a fairly unique and inspiring conversation. I could be wrong, but I've received some indication that he did indeed find it refreshing. That doesn't make him right if so. But I agree with you that it is really interesting how differently people can experience 'the same' event.

I'm not saying it was explicitly ground breaking. I just really appreciated a few of the ways they made sense to each other. And I completely understand why that few minutes when Graham asked Bernardo questions it might have sounded no differently than a typical conversation.

You and I are united in our appreciation of different perspectives! Thanks for sharing.