dkpstarkey wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 11:06 pm
Ashvin, when you say "intuitions, in the sense you use it above, are the most subconscious of all ideations" I don't quite get that, because what I mean by "given to the intuition" refers to meanings, whether sensible or intelligible, that are received in an unreflected state, perhaps prior to final translation. The task of finding words for what has been given, as I use the term, may or may not be the job of the intuitive faculties. But then maybe my confusion is about whether intuition is sensible or intelligible, or can be either.
We should all be required to provide glossaries of our most-used terms.
So if they are received in an unreflected state, then they arrive to us subconsciously, right? One could say the intuition is to Thinking what the bare perceptual structure is to vision. It is meaning immediately given in perception (or even in absence of perception), but we also know the total meaning of our perceptions is not exhausted by immediate perception. So there are many layers of subconscious meaning which need to be unveiled to make the intuitions fully conscious, i.e. to know how they are actually manifesting via spiritual activity.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
AshvinP wrote:So if they are received in an unreflected state, then they arrive to us subconsciously, right? One could say the intuition is to Thinking what the bare perceptual structure is to vision. It is meaning immediately given in perception (or even in absence of perception), but we also know the total meaning of our perceptions is not exhausted by immediate perception. So there are many layers of subconscious meaning which need to be unveiled to make the intuitions fully conscious, i.e. to know how they are actually manifesting via spiritual activity.
Right, that would follow. I would like to think that the intuitive mode of experience begins with the sense of pregnant meaning, or for that matter, barren meaning. I think this comes from my Husserl studies. This presupposes that there is such a thing as conscious intuition, thus it is experienceable. Anyway, we can begin, with the necessity of many layers of meaning, and the possible inexhaustibility of the total meaning that is given, to cultivate some shared ideation.
AshvinP wrote:So if they are received in an unreflected state, then they arrive to us subconsciously, right? One could say the intuition is to Thinking what the bare perceptual structure is to vision. It is meaning immediately given in perception (or even in absence of perception), but we also know the total meaning of our perceptions is not exhausted by immediate perception. So there are many layers of subconscious meaning which need to be unveiled to make the intuitions fully conscious, i.e. to know how they are actually manifesting via spiritual activity.
Right, that would follow. I would like to think that the intuitive mode of experience begins with the sense of pregnant meaning, or for that matter, barren meaning. I think this comes from my Husserl studies. This presupposes that there is such a thing as conscious intuition, thus it is experienceable. Anyway, we can begin, with the necessity of many layers of meaning, and the possible inexhaustibility of the total meaning that is given, to cultivate some shared ideation.
It's interesting to note that, in a field like depth psychology, where it is unquestioned that we experience-think in ways which we are not yet conscious of, it is also taken for granted that what is currently unconscious can become conscious. If that were not the case, then the entire profession would be pointless. When it comes to the transpersonal ideational activity which weaves together Nature, however, suddenly a hard limit is manifested. It is only after that hard limit has been imposed, subconsciously, that we start wondering whether there is such a thing as conscious ideation at the level of intuition. So the first step is to make conscious the fact that we are subconsciously imposing the hard limit. A certain trust in our own Reason is required to motivate us enough to perceive that self-imposed boundary and find the courage to proceed as if it does not exist. And it is the observation of the immanent point of contact between our own conscious activity and our intellectually reasoned cognitions which provides that trust. Much of what unfolds from there is relatively easy to navigate by comparison. It really can be analogized to working up the courage to 'pop the question' of marriage. To make our cognitive proposals to Nature boldly and without fear of rejection. It is by making the unconscious conscious in this manner, that what is 'barren' in Nature's appearances becomes 'pregant' with meaning, giving birth to new ideal constellations of meaning in ever-more expansive harmony.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
AshvinP wrote:The useful distinction between the personal and the "general" (transpersonal, eternal, etc.) is precisely that ideation moves us towards the latter by discerning the core inner meaning of differentiated outer forms. We can speak of personal perceptions, feelings, and desires to some extent, but not personal ideations. The latter, of course, is what we are always engaged with in these forums for discussion and hopefully with a genuine aim to reach shared understanding above all else.
This is the source of a dilemma for me. There are transpersonal experiences, often announced by synchronistic phenomena, that are treated in depth by scholars like Jung, Hillman, Stan Grof, and others. Then there is "The view from nowhere" which has been critiqued by the philosopher Thomas Nagel in a book by that name. The following quote attempts to summarize his insight:
https://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-questions-and-answers/#p13 wrote:
We try to “transcend our particular viewpoint and develop an expanded consciousness that takes in the world more fully.” But there are limits to this motion. We can’t transcend all our starting points. No matter how far it pulls back the camera is still occupying a position. We can’t actually take the “view from nowhere,” but this doesn’t mean that objectivity is a lie or an illusion. Our ability to step back and the fact that there are limits to it– both are real. And realism demands that we acknowledge both.
So, what I want to understand is how general ideation can be contrasted with Nagel's critique of the view from nowhere. I wonder if the notion of general ideation presupposes a level of evolution that is significantly beyond where we currently are as a species.
It's very interesting how this works. Try to visualize what Nagel is speaking of. Do you see many bubbles of consciousness which are expanding their bubble-consciousness to "take in the world more fully"? Many 'cameras' which are each 'pulling back' to observe more and more of the world content? That is the view from nowhere! In other words, the view from nowhere is implicitly utilized in Nagel's critique of the view from nowhere. When I say "shared ideation", I am simply saying we should avoid fantasizing this view from nowhere and see what naturally results from our experience of thinking through the world content. We will find that this experience always presupposes shared ideations. It is never the particular perceptions which harmonizes our own understanding of the content and that with others, but the universal ideational (meaningful) content. We will further find that what we call "synchronistic", "archetypal", etc. is the norm of experience, not the exception (in fact there are no exceptions, like there are no exceptions to the principle of evolution itself), and it is only our own limited cognition at any given time which makes us fail to notice that.
I agree, synchronicities are everywhere. Another instance of the "view from nowhere" that I want to ask you about concerns the ever-popular Law of Very Large Numbers (VLN) that is used by a certain mindset to debunk personal reports of odd, inexplicable phenomena, such as precognitive dreams. For me, the VLN law is inapplicable in this context because it denies the personal reality that gave rise to the odd phenomenon. However, I feel that there should be a stronger argument to be made for the inapplicability of the Law of VLN to judgments of what is meaningful. But I haven't come up with one, beyond seeing this law as depending on a "view from nowhere". Thanks for any suggestions!
dkpstarkey wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:48 pm
This is the source of a dilemma for me. There are transpersonal experiences, often announced by synchronistic phenomena, that are treated in depth by scholars like Jung, Hillman, Stan Grof, and others. Then there is "The view from nowhere" which has been critiqued by the philosopher Thomas Nagel in a book by that name. The following quote attempts to summarize his insight:
So, what I want to understand is how general ideation can be contrasted with Nagel's critique of the view from nowhere. I wonder if the notion of general ideation presupposes a level of evolution that is significantly beyond where we currently are as a species.
It's very interesting how this works. Try to visualize what Nagel is speaking of. Do you see many bubbles of consciousness which are expanding their bubble-consciousness to "take in the world more fully"? Many 'cameras' which are each 'pulling back' to observe more and more of the world content? That is the view from nowhere! In other words, the view from nowhere is implicitly utilized in Nagel's critique of the view from nowhere. When I say "shared ideation", I am simply saying we should avoid fantasizing this view from nowhere and see what naturally results from our experience of thinking through the world content. We will find that this experience always presupposes shared ideations. It is never the particular perceptions which harmonizes our own understanding of the content and that with others, but the universal ideational (meaningful) content. We will further find that what we call "synchronistic", "archetypal", etc. is the norm of experience, not the exception (in fact there are no exceptions, like there are no exceptions to the principle of evolution itself), and it is only our own limited cognition at any given time which makes us fail to notice that.
I agree, synchronicities are everywhere. Another instance of the "view from nowhere" that I want to ask you about concerns the ever-popular Law of Very Large Numbers (VLN) that is used by a certain mindset to debunk personal reports of odd, inexplicable phenomena, such as precognitive dreams. For me, the VLN law is inapplicable in this context because it denies the personal reality that gave rise to the odd phenomenon. However, I feel that there should be a stronger argument to be made for the inapplicability of the Law of VLN to judgments of what is meaningful. But I haven't come up with one, beyond seeing this law as depending on a "view from nowhere". Thanks for any suggestions!
DKP,
Could you elaborate on an example of a phenomena VLN would target and how it would be used? In general, if an argument presupposes a divided Reality which does not exist, i.e. one where some experiential content is declared meaningless, I am not sure any other argument can be brought against it, other than the fact that it is presupposing a Reality which does not at all fit with the harmony of given facts. The latter suggest all is unified and meaningful, even the view from nowhere.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
It's very interesting how this works. Try to visualize what Nagel is speaking of. Do you see many bubbles of consciousness which are expanding their bubble-consciousness to "take in the world more fully"? Many 'cameras' which are each 'pulling back' to observe more and more of the world content? That is the view from nowhere! In other words, the view from nowhere is implicitly utilized in Nagel's critique of the view from nowhere. When I say "shared ideation", I am simply saying we should avoid fantasizing this view from nowhere and see what naturally results from our experience of thinking through the world content. We will find that this experience always presupposes shared ideations. It is never the particular perceptions which harmonizes our own understanding of the content and that with others, but the universal ideational (meaningful) content. We will further find that what we call "synchronistic", "archetypal", etc. is the norm of experience, not the exception (in fact there are no exceptions, like there are no exceptions to the principle of evolution itself), and it is only our own limited cognition at any given time which makes us fail to notice that.
I agree, synchronicities are everywhere. Another instance of the "view from nowhere" that I want to ask you about concerns the ever-popular Law of Very Large Numbers (VLN) that is used by a certain mindset to debunk personal reports of odd, inexplicable phenomena, such as precognitive dreams. For me, the VLN law is inapplicable in this context because it denies the personal reality that gave rise to the odd phenomenon. However, I feel that there should be a stronger argument to be made for the inapplicability of the Law of VLN to judgments of what is meaningful. But I haven't come up with one, beyond seeing this law as depending on a "view from nowhere". Thanks for any suggestions!
DKP,
Could you elaborate on an example of a phenomena VLN would target and how it would be used? In general, if an argument presupposes a divided Reality which does not exist, i.e. one where some experiential content is declared meaningless, I am not sure any other argument can be brought against it, other than the fact that it is presupposing a Reality which does not at all fit with the harmony of given facts. The latter suggest all is unified and meaningful, even the view from nowhere.
Ashvin, as you suggest, my question requires more information than I gave you. Here's a link to an article that describes the issue I am wondering about, concerning synchronistic phenomena and their debunkers, and how they misuse the Law of VLN:
This article concludes that we can't practically collect enough data to dismiss synchronistic phenomena on the basis of probability, even though many skeptics believe that they know enough to do so. I was wondering what your take might be on this issue, from a philosophical rather than a statistical perspective. And you have given me a reasonable answer to that, so this response is to give you a more complete context for my original question. Perhaps there is no other philosophical means of resolving this issue. Thank you.
dkpstarkey wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 4:15 pm
Ashvin, as you suggest, my question requires more information than I gave you. Here's a link to an article that describes the issue I am wondering about, concerning synchronistic phenomena and their debunkers, and how they misuse the Law of VLN:
This article concludes that we can't practically collect enough data to dismiss synchronistic phenomena on the basis of probability, even though many skeptics believe that they know enough to do so. I was wondering what your take might be on this issue, from a philosophical rather than a statistical perspective. And you have given me a reasonable answer to that, so this response is to give you a more complete context for my original question. Perhaps there is no other philosophical means of resolving this issue. Thank you.
Right. This happens a lot with naive realism and associated outer/inner dualism that we all grow up with.. It is assumed that what we cannot immediately perceive in the world content, and connect with our inner experience, only exists in some attenuated exceptional state or not at all. But any modern science which has investigated the issue shows what we perceive in the world is meaning, which then precipitates into perceptual symbols (not quite that simply). It is easily shown that our ideational state, along with desires and feelings, influence all that we perceive and vice versa in structured ways. So arguments like VLN are really only asking us to "prove" their own fantasized reality where at least half of reality is devoid of objective and structured meaning, and obviously that cannot be done to anyone's satisfaction. And, as much as some here will resist it, without explaining why they resist it, that is exactly what happens in BK's idealism as well. But instead of saying the natural outer world is meaningless, they say the connection between its meaning and our inner experience is permanently veiled during physical life, but sometimes supernatural miracles happen in the form of synchronicities, and psy-phenomena of all sort. If we are observing this without prejudice, this approach is no more deserving of serious consideration by logical thinking than religious theistic fundamentalism. So crass materialism-dualism, religious fundamentalism, mystical idealism are three sides of the same triangle.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
I got one more comment out of JMG, posted below with my response. Unfortunately he never responded to my response.
JMG:Ash, now compare that to what Goethe himself wrote in “The Experiment as Mediator between Object and Subject,” where he explicitly critiques the notion that it’s a valid approach to insert the creations of the mind into observed phenomena and treat them as though they belong there. One of the most fascinating things about Steiner, and one of the sources of his mistakes, is precisely the incomplete way that he followed up on Goethe’s insights. It’s to the credit of the Anthroposophical movement that some of its best exponents — I’m thinking here of Olive Whicher and Theodor Schwenk, among others — followed Steiner’s advice more closely than Steiner did, paid exceptionally close attention to Goethe’s principles of research, and produced such fine work.”
Me: Indeed, it is not valid to insert “creations of the mind” into observed phenomena, but Goethe does not consider ideal archetypes “creations of the mind” in that sense. Like Steiner, he held that ideations are fundamentally shared. This is the only possible conclusion of a consistent monist idealism. Coleridge also distinguished between “fancy” and “imagination”. The former is the abstract intellect working in the phantom layer of picture-concepts, rearranging them endlessly, while the latter is the transpersonal ideational activity of higher beings, in which we also participate with our cognition. It is how we co-create the phenomenal world, according to Goethe, Coleridge, and Steiner.
“The idea is eternal and single; that we also use the plural is not appropriate. All things of which we become aware and about which we are able to speak are only manifestations of the idea.”
– Goethe
More specifically to Goethe in “The Experiment as Mediator”, the main takeway for me was that we should take our standards for scientific investigation from what the phenomena disclose to us. This is a core point of Steiner’s PoF as well. Goethe says that the phenomena evoke ideations within us which connect fragmented perceptions, not arbitrarily or “subjectively”, but lawfully. That is why we can trust in where the experiment leads us via our Reason, if we refrain from inserting unwarranted assumptions born of the intellect, esp the “view from nowhere”.
Steiner says the faculty which perceives this disclosure by the phenomena is Reason. Our Thinking is a sense-organ which perceives ideal content in the phenomenal world like our eyes perceives colors and ears perceive sounds. In the article you say we can discern an analogy which marries phenomena and noumena, appearances and reality, matter and spirit, soul and spirit, etc. So the question is, what faculty of the human soul-spirit which discerns this analogy if not Reason? And how does perception of the analogy square with Kant’s epistemology?
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
JMG wrote another related post, this time discussing what he calls the "Lemurian deviation". It's an interesting read, but for those who are expecting great insights on the topic, his conclusion is "I have no idea" whether Lemuria was a real evolutionary age of Earth and humanity. I can't fault him for being honest, though. The part relevant to the previous discussion is as follows:
JMG wrote:This wasn’t something that leading occultists at the time were willing to concede. The crisis of philosophy I discussed two weeks ago was an explosive issue in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The thought that seership could be used to do an end run around the limits to human knowledge Kant had traced out was very tempting to enthusiastic thinkers at that time. Unfortunately those limits apply just as forcefully to clairvoyance or, shall we say, imaginative consciousness, as they do to every other mode of human experience.
We have been over the flaw of this 'hard limit' to human knowledge assumption many times and how it manifests in so many different modern world-conceptions, including spiritual ones. I asked him whether he will be expanding on the Kantian epistemic argument or directly addressing Steiner's rebuttal of it in PoSA. I will post any responses here.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
You forgot to post his response, Ash.
But anyway, his latest post says this:
"The mythology of progress I’ve critiqued at length in a variety of venues is only one form that this delusion took; you can find it equally often in spirituality, spanning the notional space from Rudolf Steiner at the century’s beginning to Ken Wilber at its end."
