BK's latest article on "self-deception"

[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:

"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."

Lou,

Did you look at Cosmin's paper posted on the other thread? It uses this same sort of image and does a great job of showing how it reveals the flexibility and adaptability of our Thinking which discerns meaning. It shows how that Thinking is always precipitating that meaning into perceptions such as the image. That meaning is fluid and points to something much higher than the perceptual forms. Many forms can be used to reveal aspects of that same meaning but none of them come close to exhausting it. They all point us back towards our own Thinking as the path upwards. It is the cynical modern age, and our own cynical intellect, which takes this thrilling revelation of meaning and makes it into a critique of the meaningful world as "illusion". It turns our activity into passivity. Up becomes down, rich meaning becomes visual trick. Instead, it can serve as motivation to seek out the sources of this rich meaning which flows through our shared Spirit.

[Lou Gold]

"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."

Lou,

Did you look at Cosmin's paper posted on the other thread? It uses this same sort of image and does a great job of showing how it reveals the flexibility and adaptability of our Thinking which discerns meaning. It shows how that Thinking is always precipitating that meaning into perceptions such as the image. That meaning is fluid and points to something much higher than the perceptual forms. Many forms can be used to reveal aspects of that same meaning but none of them come close to exhausting it. They all point us back towards our own Thinking as the path upwards. It is the cynical modern age, and our own cynical intellect, which takes this thrilling revelation of meaning and makes it into a critique of the meaningful world as "illusion". It turns our activity into passivity. Up becomes down, rich meaning becomes visual trick. Instead, it can serve as motivation to seek out the sources of this rich meaning which flows through our shared Spirit.

Ashvin,

Nope, I didn't look at Cosmin's paper or most of the other threads here. Remember, I'm a storyteller and not a philosopher. I got attracted here because I really liked the way Bernardo told his story and because I've always loved the Taoist butterfly story, which bears some similarities. More to the point of your comment, which I've read several times, I wonder if you believe I'm attacking thinking or denying the creative joys of finding meaning? If you do, you are very wrong. Let me share how I use the image as a tool for gaining an understanding of my mental participation: I bring up the image full-size on my laptop monitor. First, I focus my attention on the eye and then slowly loosen my focus to include all of the image without it becoming either a duck or a rabbit and I practice holding that full true image reality in a calm thoughtless firmness. Once that's accomplished, I simply say, mentally, "duck" or "rabbit" and watch the image change instantly with the naming. There's quite a practice involved until one can play the game well but it's quite revealing of the creative potentials of one's participation, which proves NOT that all is illusion but rather how our naming creates our perceptions. Seeing this does not destroy meaning for me but instead shows me how my participation creates meaning and makes me a more responsible participant in this richer awareness.

[AshvinP]

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."

Lou,

Did you look at Cosmin's paper posted on the other thread? It uses this same sort of image and does a great job of showing how it reveals the flexibility and adaptability of our Thinking which discerns meaning. It shows how that Thinking is always precipitating that meaning into perceptions such as the image. That meaning is fluid and points to something much higher than the perceptual forms. Many forms can be used to reveal aspects of that same meaning but none of them come close to exhausting it. They all point us back towards our own Thinking as the path upwards. It is the cynical modern age, and our own cynical intellect, which takes this thrilling revelation of meaning and makes it into a critique of the meaningful world as "illusion". It turns our activity into passivity. Up becomes down, rich meaning becomes visual trick. Instead, it can serve as motivation to seek out the sources of this rich meaning which flows through our shared Spirit.

Ashvin,

Nope, I didn't look at Cosmin's paper or most of the other threads here. Remember, I'm a storyteller and not a philosopher. I got attracted here because I really liked the way Bernardo told his story and because I've always loved the Taoist butterfly story, which bears some similarities. More to the point of your comment, which I've read several times, I wonder if you believe I'm attacking thinking or denying the creative joys of finding meaning? If you do, you are very wrong. Let me share how I use the image as a tool for gaining an understanding of my mental participation: I bring up the image full-size on my laptop monitor. First, I focus my attention on the eye and then slowly loosen my focus to include all of the image without it becoming either a duck or a rabbit and I practice holding that full true image reality in a calm thoughtless firmness. Once that's accomplished, I simply say, mentally, "duck" or "rabbit" and watch the image change instantly with the naming. There's quite a practice involved until one can play the game well but it's quite revealing of the creative potentials of one's participation, which proves NOT that all is illusion but rather how our naming creates our perceptions. Seeing this does not destroy meaning for me but instead shows me how my participation creates meaning and makes me a more responsible participant in this richer awareness.

Lou,

No, not you. BK is the one who writes Thinking off as an illusory activity, as the article clearly expresses. For him, the rabbit-duck image just shows how fanciful our mind is and how disconnected it will always remain from the Cosmic source of meaning. It is all just the "alter" mind deceiving itself. Trilobyte also noticed this rejection of 'will-to-meaning' (Frankl) in the article, which is what actually allowed he and others to survive the concentration camps during the Holocaust. That is the force of meaning which BK is so casually dismissing in the article.

[Lou Gold]

Lou,

Did you look at Cosmin's paper posted on the other thread? It uses this same sort of image and does a great job of showing how it reveals the flexibility and adaptability of our Thinking which discerns meaning. It shows how that Thinking is always precipitating that meaning into perceptions such as the image. That meaning is fluid and points to something much higher than the perceptual forms. Many forms can be used to reveal aspects of that same meaning but none of them come close to exhausting it. They all point us back towards our own Thinking as the path upwards. It is the cynical modern age, and our own cynical intellect, which takes this thrilling revelation of meaning and makes it into a critique of the meaningful world as "illusion". It turns our activity into passivity. Up becomes down, rich meaning becomes visual trick. Instead, it can serve as motivation to seek out the sources of this rich meaning which flows through our shared Spirit.

Ashvin,

Nope, I didn't look at Cosmin's paper or most of the other threads here. Remember, I'm a storyteller and not a philosopher. I got attracted here because I really liked the way Bernardo told his story and because I've always loved the Taoist butterfly story, which bears some similarities. More to the point of your comment, which I've read several times, I wonder if you believe I'm attacking thinking or denying the creative joys of finding meaning? If you do, you are very wrong. Let me share how I use the image as a tool for gaining an understanding of my mental participation: I bring up the image full-size on my laptop monitor. First, I focus my attention on the eye and then slowly loosen my focus to include all of the image without it becoming either a duck or a rabbit and I practice holding that full true image reality in a calm thoughtless firmness. Once that's accomplished, I simply say, mentally, "duck" or "rabbit" and watch the image change instantly with the naming. There's quite a practice involved until one can play the game well but it's quite revealing of the creative potentials of one's participation, which proves NOT that all is illusion but rather how our naming creates our perceptions. Seeing this does not destroy meaning for me but instead shows me how my participation creates meaning and makes me a more responsible participant in this richer awareness.

Lou,

No, not you. BK is the one who writes Thinking off as an illusory activity, as the article clearly expresses. For him, the rabbit-duck image just shows how fanciful our mind is and how disconnected it will always remain from the Cosmic source of meaning. It is all just the "alter" mind deceiving itself. Trilobyte also noticed this rejection of 'will-to-meaning' (Frankl) in the article, which is what actually allowed he and others to survive the concentration camps during the Holocaust. That is the force of meaning which BK is so casually dismissing in the article.

Do you find it noteworthy that your interpretation of what BK is saying is NOT my interpretation of his essay? Indeed, it was my contemplation of his essay that led me intuitively to arrive at what I've presented with the device of the duck/rabbit image. Yes! There is obviously lots of confusion or lack of consensus about the meanings of words like "thinking" that plagues these discussions and your lingo is not the same as his or mine. I don't want to argue for "best lingo" but please just note that I grok BK's notion of "getting it" as an example of what you call "Thought" and many call "awareness". I agree that so far (at least for me) Analytic Idealism has not been able to offer compelling meaning, which requires a story. It does a super better job of describing behavior than does reductionist physicalism, which for me makes his way of great value. For finding meaning and purpose, I do prefer McGiligrist. However, McGilgrist, BK, myself, you and the others are all presenting dreams that must be treated as true in order to birth their productions. Grokking this is seeing the world differently.

[Shaibei]

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.

Frankl believed a space of meaning and values exists. When I listen to Bernardo I hear Nietzsche. Frankl likes to quote Nietzsche's "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how", But that's exactly where the difference between the two lies. Nietzsche believes he creates values, whereas Frankl's faith is you discover them.

[Lou Gold]

Frankl believed a space of meaning and values exists. When I listen to Bernardo I hear Nietzsche. Frankl likes to quote Nietzsche's "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how", But that's exactly where the difference between the two lies. Nietzsche believes he creates values, whereas Frankl's faith is you discover them.

Of course, the tricky part is that generally one 'discovers' that which can be at least minimally re-cognized or somehow re-membered and, thus, we come into a realm of an interdependent co-arising and its auspicious events. Personally, I prefer Frankl's seemingly more humble way although it's obvious, as well, that some may become egocentrically arrogant about their 'discoveries', such as early European "discoverers' of the Americas.

[AshvinP]

Do you find it noteworthy that your interpretation of what BK is saying is NOT my interpretation of his essay? Indeed, it was my contemplation of his essay that led me intuitively to arrive at what I've presented with the device of the duck/rabbit image. Yes! There is obviously lots of confusion or lack of consensus about the meanings of words like "thinking" that plagues these discussions and your lingo is not the same as his or mine. I don't want to argue for "best lingo" but please just note that I grok BK's notion of "getting it" as an example of what you call "Thought" and many call "awareness". I agree that so far (at least for me) Analytic Idealism has not been able to offer compelling meaning, which requires a story. It does a super better job of describing behavior than does reductionist physicalism, which for me makes his way of great value. For finding meaning and purpose, I do prefer McGiligrist. However, McGilgrist, BK, myself, you and the others are all presenting dreams that must be treated as true in order to birth their productions. Grokking this is seeing the world differently.

Lou,

BK doesn't leave anything to the imagination in this article. He makes perfectly clear what he intends to say. Ben, Eugene, TriloByte, Shalibei, all seem to agree on what his message is. Ben and Eugene agree with him that the highest achievements of human reason and imagination are "illusions", :"self-deceptions", "mind fabrications", etc., I strongly disagree with that, and it seems TB and Shalibei have their reservations as well. Whatever you are taking away from his essay is not what he intended. Anaytical idealism of this sort is the mirrage image of physicalism, polarizing to abstract "mind" instead of abstract "matter", but sacrificing the existence of, let alone the capacity to discern, Cosmic Truth, Beauty, and Goodness all the same.

[Lou Gold]

Do you find it noteworthy that your interpretation of what BK is saying is NOT my interpretation of his essay? Indeed, it was my contemplation of his essay that led me intuitively to arrive at what I've presented with the device of the duck/rabbit image. Yes! There is obviously lots of confusion or lack of consensus about the meanings of words like "thinking" that plagues these discussions and your lingo is not the same as his or mine. I don't want to argue for "best lingo" but please just note that I grok BK's notion of "getting it" as an example of what you call "Thought" and many call "awareness". I agree that so far (at least for me) Analytic Idealism has not been able to offer compelling meaning, which requires a story. It does a super better job of describing behavior than does reductionist physicalism, which for me makes his way of great value. For finding meaning and purpose, I do prefer McGiligrist. However, McGilgrist, BK, myself, you and the others are all presenting dreams that must be treated as true in order to birth their productions. Grokking this is seeing the world differently.

Lou,

BK doesn't leave anything to the imagination in this article. He makes perfectly clear what he intends to say. Ben, Eugene, TriloByte, Shalibei, all seem to agree on what his message is. Ben and Eugene agree with him that the highest achievements of human reason and imagination are "illusions", :"self-deceptions", "mind fabrications", etc., I strongly disagree with that, and it seems TB and Shalibei have their reservations as well. Whatever you are taking away from his essay is not what he intended. Anaytical idealism of this sort is the mirrage image of physicalism, polarizing to abstract "mind" instead of abstract "matter", but sacrificing the existence of, let alone the capacity to discern, Cosmic Truth, Beauty, and Goodness all the same.

Ashvin,

Two questions:

I'm genuinely curious if Ben, Eugene, TriloByte and Shalibei would agree with the characterization you have provided here?

Have you considered that BK means by "illusions" what you mean by "incompleteness", when you assert that even the most insightful among us are still offering "incomplete" visions due to the still evolving state of the human spiritual endeavor?

[AshvinP]

Do you find it noteworthy that your interpretation of what BK is saying is NOT my interpretation of his essay? Indeed, it was my contemplation of his essay that led me intuitively to arrive at what I've presented with the device of the duck/rabbit image. Yes! There is obviously lots of confusion or lack of consensus about the meanings of words like "thinking" that plagues these discussions and your lingo is not the same as his or mine. I don't want to argue for "best lingo" but please just note that I grok BK's notion of "getting it" as an example of what you call "Thought" and many call "awareness". I agree that so far (at least for me) Analytic Idealism has not been able to offer compelling meaning, which requires a story. It does a super better job of describing behavior than does reductionist physicalism, which for me makes his way of great value. For finding meaning and purpose, I do prefer McGiligrist. However, McGilgrist, BK, myself, you and the others are all presenting dreams that must be treated as true in order to birth their productions. Grokking this is seeing the world differently.

Lou,

BK doesn't leave anything to the imagination in this article. He makes perfectly clear what he intends to say. Ben, Eugene, TriloByte, Shalibei, all seem to agree on what his message is. Ben and Eugene agree with him that the highest achievements of human reason and imagination are "illusions", :"self-deceptions", "mind fabrications", etc., I strongly disagree with that, and it seems TB and Shalibei have their reservations as well. Whatever you are taking away from his essay is not what he intended. Anaytical idealism of this sort is the mirrage image of physicalism, polarizing to abstract "mind" instead of abstract "matter", but sacrificing the existence of, let alone the capacity to discern, Cosmic Truth, Beauty, and Goodness all the same.

Ashvin,

Two questions:

I'm genuinely curious if Ben, Eugene, TriloByte and Shalibei would agree with the characterization you have provided here?

Have you considered that BK means by "illusions" what you mean by "incompleteness", when you assert that even the most insightful among us are still offering "incomplete" visions due to the still evolving state of the human spiritual endeavor?

If he meant "incomplete" , then he could have used that word. When I use "incomplete" as a critique, I mean present knowledge which has been idolized into complete knowledge. The present knowledge is still genuine knowledge which has advanced from prior knowledge. In contrast, BK says,

"The demiurges and aliens are all, indeed, just mind-made hallucinations; but so is this, right now."

In other words, his writing of the essay and our reading it is also a hallucination of the same sort as psychedelic experiences clothed in abstract physical symbols. He is saying everything which is logically reasoned, like the arguments in the essay, is also hallucination of the self-deceiving mind. If this is true, then you may ask, why does he still write the essay? That's a good question and what I pointed to in the first post. These sorts of abstract positions on logic are immediately self-defeating in that way, from Kant onwards, but that doesn't stop the intellect from asserting them.

[Lou Gold]

Lou,

BK doesn't leave anything to the imagination in this article. He makes perfectly clear what he intends to say. Ben, Eugene, TriloByte, Shalibei, all seem to agree on what his message is. Ben and Eugene agree with him that the highest achievements of human reason and imagination are "illusions", :"self-deceptions", "mind fabrications", etc., I strongly disagree with that, and it seems TB and Shalibei have their reservations as well. Whatever you are taking away from his essay is not what he intended. Anaytical idealism of this sort is the mirrage image of physicalism, polarizing to abstract "mind" instead of abstract "matter", but sacrificing the existence of, let alone the capacity to discern, Cosmic Truth, Beauty, and Goodness all the same.

Ashvin,

Two questions:

I'm genuinely curious if Ben, Eugene, TriloByte and Shalibei would agree with the characterization you have provided here?

Have you considered that BK means by "illusions" what you mean by "incompleteness", when you assert that even the most insightful among us are still offering "incomplete" visions due to the still evolving state of the human spiritual endeavor?

If he meant "incomplete" , then he could have used that word. When I use "incomplete" as a critique, I mean present knowledge which has been idolized into complete knowledge. The present knowledge is still genuine knowledge which has advanced from prior knowledge. In contrast, BK says,

"The demiurges and aliens are all, indeed, just mind-made hallucinations; but so is this, right now."

In other words, his writing of the essay and our reading it is also a hallucination of the same sort as psychedelic experiences clothed in abstract physical symbols. He is saying everything which is logically reasoned, like the arguments in the essay, is also hallucination of the self-deceiving mind. If this is true, then you may ask, why does he still write the essay? That's a good question and what I pointed to in the first post. These sorts of abstract positions on logic are immediately self-defeating in that way, from Kant onwards, but that doesn't stop the intellect from asserting them.

Understanding and accepting that I'll not convince you of my way of seeing, let me suggest that the phrase "true hallucinations" is quite meaningful. Referring back to my duck/rabbit example, the only way I can transform the whole image into a duck is by evoking the image of a duck as if it was real by naming it. And does this mean that real ducks do not exist beyond the image exercise? Of course, not!