BK's latest article on "self-deception"

[AshvinP]

I think this is the most epistemically nihilist I have ever come across from BK. The question is, how is this functionally any different from mind/matter dualism? It has simply placed the subject/object dualism in the realm of mind. It has disconnected ideas (subject) from perceptions (objects). Ironically, this leads to an even more pessimistic outcome than explicit materialism-dualism, because the latter at least says we can continue using our ideas and Reason to explore Reality. BK says even that cannot be done, but we must simply take our experiences as they are and wait for death to figure out the rest. BK also said in this article - "Rio exists within me". We can concretely sense what has occurred here. An entire city, which clearly has deeper layers of meaning, has been reduced to the localized intellect identifying itself with "MAL". Functionally, this kills all motivation to penetrate to the deeper layers of meaning. Why try to lawfully grow into an understanding of the archetypal ideations responsible for "Rio" if it's really just "within me"?


https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2022/02 ... n.html?m=1

The second message is a mirror image of the first: in insisting that the dreams were true, the obfuscated mind was indirectly insisting that the truth is dream-like; that our sense of reality, right now, is as much internally conjured up by mind as my sense of reality was during the dreams... In other words, our sense of reality isn't derived from objective observations, but arises endogenously instead; it's a phenomenon of mind, in mind.
...
If mind can conjure up that kind of robust certainty during a purely mental event—even when explicitly and repeatedly confronted with sceptical questions about the reality of the event—how can we be sure that it isn't doing precisely the same right now? If it is, then this ordinary reality, too, is mind-made; this, too, is real in the same sense that my glorious return to Rio was real five times: it is mentally real, and that's all there is to it and anything else.

As such, the message from trance states is not that the demiurges and aliens from the Pleiades are realities outside mind; to conclude that is to invert the meaning of the metaphor, to get things backwards. The message is, instead, that this waking reality, too, is not outside mind; for in both cases our sense of reality is endogenous—a cognitive hallucination, or a hallucination of beliefs and reasoning, as opposed to perceptions —not an external, objective fact.
...
Self-deception is mind's way to talk to, and make sense of, itself; for it can only express itself to itself through the production of inner imagery.

Stronger yet, mind's prime directive is to deceive itself, for only through self-deception can reality—any reality—be conjured up into existence and thereby evoke enough affection. Parmenides already hinted at this at the very birth of the Western mind. Peeling the layers of self-deception is like peeling an onion: at the end, nothing is left other than the mere potential for experience. The demiurges and aliens are all, indeed, just mind-made hallucinations; but so is this, right now. If you can wrap your mind around that, you will see the world with very different eyes.

The irony is that BK and other analytic philosophers are always engaging in this systematic reasoning activity, and engaging this activity presupposes that they are moving towards more comprehensive Truth with their Reason. The intellect denies the possibility of what it is actually doing; thinking denies Thinking.

His last two sentences in that article are a great example of this dynamic - (1) The demiurges and aliens are all, indeed, just mind-made hallucinations; but so is this, right now. (2) If you can wrap your mind around that, you will see the world with very different eyes.

What does it mean to "see the world with different eyes"? Does it not mean to see the world better than you were seeing it before? The very concept of "seeing better", especially in the philosophical context, implies a move towards a more harmonious understanding of Reality itself.

[Lou Gold]

His last two sentences in that article are a great example of this dynamic - (1) The demiurges and aliens are all, indeed, just mind-made hallucinations; but so is this, right now. (2) If you can wrap your mind around that, you will see the world with very different eyes.

What does it mean to "see the world with different eyes"? Does it not mean to see the world better than you were seeing it before? The very concept of "seeing better", especially in the philosophical context, implies a move towards a more harmonious understanding of Reality itself.

[Ben Iscatus]

That's a great image, Lou.

Yes, self-deception is, unfortunately, vital to self-knowledge. Greater self-knowledge leads to greater understanding of the world- seeing it with new eyes. From the article:

the metaphorical language of the deeper, transpersonal layers of the obfuscated mind, forever busy talking to itself through self-deception. Just as my series of dreams, it will only stop when it gets itself.

[Eugene I.]

Great article actually. Nihilism is negating the fundamental freedom and the ability of consciousness to recognize this self-deception and break free from it. Such "break-free" is not breaking free from the dream, but from a naive-realistic belief in a mind-independent reality of it.

This self-deception is not necessary in principle, consciousness can perfectly function and evolve without it, but it still happens naturally at certain evolutionary stages. When artists and novel writers create their artworks, they do not need to believe in the independent reality of their creations, they understand that the artworks are mind-fabricated, but this does not make them any less meaningful or less affective. When we dream lucidly, this does not make the dream less meaningful or less affective, it just changes the quality of the dream bringing it to a higher level of meta-cognition. If we approach our mind-fabricated reality like a lucid dream and like a work of art, we can still happily live and evolve in it without deceiving ourselves.

[Lou Gold]

That's a great image, Lou.

I neglected to note that the image is a famous one by M.C. Escher.

[Jim Cross]

That's a great image, Lou.

I neglected to note that the image is a famous one by M.C. Escher.

Escher is one of my favorite artists. I like this to show the futility of philosophical progress. Up, down, or sideways makes no difference.

[Lou Gold]

That's a great image, Lou.

I neglected to note that the image is a famous one by M.C. Escher.

Escher is one of my favorite artists. I like this to show the futility of philosophical progress. Up, down, or sideways makes no difference.

True, if you think that philosophical progress is a linear progression of intellectual products but not true if you see it as a multidimensional expansion of awareness of process. I can easily see that image as a mindful awareness of "sustenance is every step". (Wordplay on the "peace is every step" of Thich Nhat Hanh.) Indeed, that's the difference that makes the difference.

[AshvinP]

That's a great image, Lou.

Yes, self-deception is, unfortunately, vital to self-knowledge. Greater self-knowledge leads to greater understanding of the world- seeing it with new eyes. From the article:

the metaphorical language of the deeper, transpersonal layers of the obfuscated mind, forever busy talking to itself through self-deception. Just as my series of dreams, it will only stop when it gets itself.

"Getting itself" here means the cessation of all individuated and conscious thinking or feeling or willing. It means the abandonment of all truth, aesthetics and morality. Until then, according to BK, we are just dreaming about aliens from the Pleiades and may as well stop torturing ourselves with things like "humility", "compassion", "sacrifice", "service". This the logical outcome of these beliefs whether it is admitted or not. "Up, down, sideways, it makes no difference!" Well... it does for all those who are not armchair intellectuals, but don't let them ruin all our fun!

[TriloByte]

Several times, in books or interviews, BK mentions the ideas of Viktor Frankl as one example of wise thinking and viable solution for the crisis of meaning. The thing is that in Frankl’s writings always is emphasized the importance of the individual, his singularity and unrepeatibility situation in history, society and personal circumstances. The meaning is based in the values derived from this uniqueness and their eternal storing in the past. I don’t understand how BK mentions Frankl if the individual is an illusion and the primordial task of MaL is to deceive itself. Then what can give foundation to the realization of values in the Franklian sense?

If reality is an hallucination, where is the place of the Franklian philosophy as a solution for the crisis of meaning? This particular set of ideas of BK begins to sound as nihilism to me.

[Lou Gold]

That's a great image, Lou.

Yes, self-deception is, unfortunately, vital to self-knowledge. Greater self-knowledge leads to greater understanding of the world- seeing it with new eyes. From the article:

the metaphorical language of the deeper, transpersonal layers of the obfuscated mind, forever busy talking to itself through self-deception. Just as my series of dreams, it will only stop when it gets itself.

"Getting itself" here means the cessation of all individuated and conscious thinking or feeling or willing. It means the abandonment of all truth, aesthetics and morality. Until then, according to BK, we are just dreaming about aliens from the Pleiades and may as well stop torturing ourselves with things like "humility", "compassion", "sacrifice", "service". This the logical outcome of these beliefs whether it is admitted or not. "Up, down, sideways, it makes no difference!" Well... it does for all those who are not armchair intellectuals, but don't let them ruin all our fun!

Perhaps, being a non-philosopher intuitive visual guy, and rather naive, I can offer a small contribution. Consider this image >>>



One can endlessly debate whether this is a rabbit or a duck but that would be the result of falling into a false dichotomy (wrong thinking) of choosing one illusion or the other. However, once one gets that the image itself contains appearances of both a rabbit and a duck but, as a whole, is neither a rabbit or a duck, one gets free of the contradiction and "If you can wrap your mind around that, you will see [the image] with very different eyes."

Yup, I know that above I've changed the referent BK statement from the world to the image. For the broader philosophical view, there's the classic taoist butterfly dream tale:

The most famous of all Zhuangzi stories—"Zhuang Zhou Dreams of Being a Butterfly"—appears at the end of the second chapter, "On the Equality of Things".
Once, Zhuang Zhou dreamed he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering about, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know that he was Zhuang Zhou.
Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuang Zhou. But he didn't know if he was Zhuang Zhou who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming that he was Zhuang Zhou. Between Zhuang Zhou and the butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things.
The well-known image of Zhuangzi wondering if he was a man who dreamed of being a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming of being a man is so striking that whole dramas have been written on its theme. In it Zhuangzi "[plays] with the theme of transformation", illustrating that "the distinction between waking and dreaming is another false dichotomy. If [one] distinguishes them, how can [one] tell if [one] is now dreaming or awake?" from Wikipedia