BK's latest article on "self-deception"

[Lou Gold]

Lou

While I would need one thousand years to understand all that Ashvin says, yes, I agree with Ashvin on this issue.

If you think that you are a storyteller, well, no, it is mind that is deluding you. If you think, using reason, that there are real ducks, nop, that is mind deluding you.

Please, notice, I am not teelling you that you are wrong, I am saying rhat from Bernardo’s point of view you are deluded.

All opinions, reasons, value judgments, are delusions. So, yes, I agree with Ashvin that what Bernardo says is selfdefeating.

TriloByte,

I get it that you are not telling me that I'm wrong.

With regard to your bolded conclusion I would ask, "What if the purpose is to defeat the delusion of a separate self" and thus bring about a new way of seeing?

You can defeat the delusion of a separate self and at the same time don’t believe that mind’s prime directive is to deceive itself. Bernardo is not exactly a non-dual philosopher, let’s say, as Nagarjuna. He says that his post is about revelations, that

“I have a very ambiguous, dubious relationship with first-person revelations. I think they are very useful in a certain way, but should seldom be taken on face-value.”

But he takes on face value his own revelation about mind’s prime directive.

I get your drift TB and I don't want to get caught in a defense of Analytic Idealism. That's not my purpose here, it's beyond my paygrade and I also have qualms with AI. I'm just trying to share my perspective, the way I received/perceived this essay. I'm not sure what BK means by "prime directive." I take it to mean that the embodied mind focuses first and habitually on what has earthly survival value. In this experiential earthly existence, physicalism would be a "prime directive of the mind" because you don't want to walk over the edge of a cliff. Transcending classical physics includes it without the habitual exclusive attachment or "deception" formed out the "prime directive".

From another perspective on the essay, a la McGilchrist, I grok how a strongly left-brain person might feel quite ambivalent about first-person revelations. I also grok how BK might have felt out-of-sorts in Rio and in Brazilian culture. As a much more right-brained character, I had the opposite experience as an American living in Brazil. When I was asked early on how I found Brazil, I would respond, "It's crazy for my mind and delicious for my heart", which brought forth a smile and hug of recognition from the Brazilians.

[Lou Gold]

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!

Lou,

Everything is meaningful because Reality is meaning (see Flat MAL thread in general discussion). The question here is what meaning is conveyed in BK's article.

Hallucinations, like illusions and mirages, is the meaningful image of deception which leads to physical death. If I am in a desert, dying of thirst, and I go off towards an oasis that turns out to be a mirage, I have likely sealed my fate. Physical death, in turn, is the meaningful image of unconsciousness. It is no coincidence that BK feels "liberation" from illusion or hallucination is the merging back into primordial instinctive Consciousness, i.e. back to unconsciousness. He waffles around on that a bit, but he has made clear that his first preference would be unconsciousness rather than continued individuated existence if there was a choice. So the latest essay is just a natural and logical continuation of his view into its more extreme, i.e., polarized form and outcome.

re: duck and rabbit image - I will just quote Cosmin, because I agree with his broad assessment:

https://philpapers.org/archive/VISMAC-3.pdf

The first step is to establish that qualia are meaning, thus reducing the ontological category of “qualia” to the more natural ontological category of “meaning”. The most obvious one is the place where the concept of meaning is usually employed, and that is in language... The next easiest example is in cases such as the duck-rabbit image, as in Figure 8 (duck-rabbit image). This is a visual quale, but what is interesting here is that the particular quale that we get to experience depends on us attributing meaning to the image. The moment we attribute the meaning of “duck”, that same moment we experience the visual quale of “duck”. The moment we attribute the meaning of “rabbit”, that same moment we experience the visual quale of “rabbit”. Thus, visual experiences themselves are being modified according to what they mean. Actually, visual qualia themselves are a form of meaning.
...
We thus see that even more primitive qualia are also meanings. And this is true for qualia in general. The next step in the analysis is to explain how does meaning originates. One such reason is evolution, but “evolution” is again an ambiguous term, and given the fact that time itself is a quale in consciousness, evolution cannot be the one described today by Darwinism, but it must be an atemporal kind of phenomenon. Actually, evolution must be a side effect of the workings of meaning inside consciousness. Thus, “evolution” is not the primary selector of qualia/meaning. The primary selector, as we are about to see, must be an interplay between meaning and context.

We can go further to see what is always mediating that interplay between meaning and context in our experience, and that is our Thinking activity. Because it mostly runs quietly and sacrificially in the background, we often assume it isn't even there, but it is always there performing that mediating function. Your conscious intention to see the rabbit or duck form is a critical aspect of that context for the meaning. You cannot simply see any form you choose, but ideal evolution has run its course so that your Thinking can mediate smoothly between two different perceptual forms to express the meaning of the image, which we could liken to "small cute animal with beak or ears attached to the head". This meaning is not different for everyone - it is the same meaning. That is the only reason why the visual "illusion" works for everyone who participates in it. That is the reason why we can communicate, inform, empathize, adopt virtues, etc., bridging the gap between fragmented perceptions and shared meaning, and establish human culture which then provides us the moral and conceptual foundation for awakening to our own creative spiritual activity within the Cosmic organism.

First off, I do not have qualms with Cosmin's statement.

I agree that qualia are inseparable from attribution of meaning, which is the action of participation. In mind-in-movement state the image is either a rabbit or a duck and in mind-in-repose state it is both and neither. To rely exclusively on one state or the other would be a delusion. Perhaps mind-in-movement can be likened to "thinking" and mind-in-repose can be likened to "Thought." Whaddaya think?

[Lou Gold]

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!

Lou,

Everything is meaningful because Reality is meaning (see Flat MAL thread in general discussion). The question here is what meaning is conveyed in BK's article.

Hallucinations, like illusions and mirages, is the meaningful image of deception which leads to physical death. If I am in a desert, dying of thirst, and I go off towards an oasis that turns out to be a mirage, I have likely sealed my fate. Physical death, in turn, is the meaningful image of unconsciousness. It is no coincidence that BK feels "liberation" from illusion or hallucination is the merging back into primordial instinctive Consciousness, i.e. back to unconsciousness. He waffles around on that a bit, but he has made clear that his first preference would be unconsciousness rather than continued individuated existence if there was a choice. So the latest essay is just a natural and logical continuation of his view into its more extreme, i.e., polarized form and outcome.

re: duck and rabbit image - I will just quote Cosmin, because I agree with his broad assessment:

https://philpapers.org/archive/VISMAC-3.pdf

The first step is to establish that qualia are meaning, thus reducing the ontological category of “qualia” to the more natural ontological category of “meaning”. The most obvious one is the place where the concept of meaning is usually employed, and that is in language... The next easiest example is in cases such as the duck-rabbit image, as in Figure 8 (duck-rabbit image). This is a visual quale, but what is interesting here is that the particular quale that we get to experience depends on us attributing meaning to the image. The moment we attribute the meaning of “duck”, that same moment we experience the visual quale of “duck”. The moment we attribute the meaning of “rabbit”, that same moment we experience the visual quale of “rabbit”. Thus, visual experiences themselves are being modified according to what they mean. Actually, visual qualia themselves are a form of meaning.
...
We thus see that even more primitive qualia are also meanings. And this is true for qualia in general. The next step in the analysis is to explain how does meaning originates. One such reason is evolution, but “evolution” is again an ambiguous term, and given the fact that time itself is a quale in consciousness, evolution cannot be the one described today by Darwinism, but it must be an atemporal kind of phenomenon. Actually, evolution must be a side effect of the workings of meaning inside consciousness. Thus, “evolution” is not the primary selector of qualia/meaning. The primary selector, as we are about to see, must be an interplay between meaning and context.

We can go further to see what is always mediating that interplay between meaning and context in our experience, and that is our Thinking activity. Because it mostly runs quietly and sacrificially in the background, we often assume it isn't even there, but it is always there performing that mediating function. Your conscious intention to see the rabbit or duck form is a critical aspect of that context for the meaning. You cannot simply see any form you choose, but ideal evolution has run its course so that your Thinking can mediate smoothly between two different perceptual forms to express the meaning of the image, which we could liken to "small cute animal with beak or ears attached to the head". This meaning is not different for everyone - it is the same meaning. That is the only reason why the visual "illusion" works for everyone who participates in it. That is the reason why we can communicate, inform, empathize, adopt virtues, etc., bridging the gap between fragmented perceptions and shared meaning, and establish human culture which then provides us the moral and conceptual foundation for awakening to our own creative spiritual activity within the Cosmic organism.

First off, I do not have qualms with Cosmin's statement.

I agree that qualia are inseparable from attribution of meaning, which is the action of participation. In mind-in-movement state the image is either a rabbit or a duck and in mind-in-repose state it is both and neither. To rely exclusively on one state or the other would be a delusion. Perhaps mind-in-movement can be likened to "thinking" and mind-in-repose can be likened to "Thought." Whaddaya think?

Here's another reflection Ashvin,

The artist portrayed his revelation of a bill-ear critter which does not exist forcing the viewer to be ambivalent and attempt to resolve the image toward duckness or rabbitness. To choose one excluding the other, or worse to argue over it, would be to fall into a false dichotomy, a deception preying on a habitual tendency of the mind.

[Lou Gold]

BTW, folks might be interested in the question I posed directly in the comments on BK's page.

Bernardo,

I'm wondering if, now that you realize that YOUR Rio is inside you and the troublesome dream has vanished, might it be possible to visit the actual Rio and find it in some ways quite enjoyable?

[AshvinP]

Here's another reflection Ashvin,

The artist portrayed his revelation of a bill-ear critter which does not exist forcing the viewer to be ambivalent and attempt to resolve the image toward duckness or rabbitness. To choose one excluding the other, or worse to argue over it, would be to fall into a false dichotomy, a deception preying on a habitual tendency of the mind.

Lou,

Cosmin's paper, what we write here, and even what BK has written elsewhere, should make clear to us that meaning precedes perception. The modern mental habit is to invert these relations - object precedes subject, matter precedes mind, perception precedes meaning, etc. We need to realize, with our real-eyes (the spiritual "I"), that this is an inversion and actually the meaning comes first, which then precipitates or 'decoheres' into perception through our own mediating Thinking activity (Imagination). We are not "arguing" about the image, rather we are trying to understand this deep reality that it, along with all other perceptual forms, reveal to us. We are trying to leverage that insight into further revelations through the Logos principle who lives in us as our logical reasoning faculty. If that doesn't interest you, then that is fine, but it should be clear we aren't simply providing a different intellectual interpretation to argue over, but rather a different way of thinking.

[Lou Gold]

Here's another reflection Ashvin,

The artist portrayed his revelation of a bill-ear critter which does not exist forcing the viewer to be ambivalent and attempt to resolve the image toward duckness or rabbitness. To choose one excluding the other, or worse to argue over it, would be to fall into a false dichotomy, a deception preying on a habitual tendency of the mind.

Lou,

Cosmin's paper, what we write here, and even what BK has written elsewhere, should make clear to us that meaning precedes perception. The modern mental habit is to invert these relations - object precedes subject, matter precedes mind, perception precedes meaning, etc. We need to realize, with our real-eyes (the spiritual "I"), that this is an inversion and actually the meaning comes first, which then precipitates or 'decoheres' into perception through our own mediating Thinking activity (Imagination). We are not "arguing" about the image, rather we are trying to understand this deep reality that it, along with all other perceptual forms, reveal to us. We are trying to leverage that insight into further revelations through the Logos principle who lives in us as our logical reasoning faculty. If that doesn't interest you, then that is fine, but it should be clear we aren't simply providing a different intellectual interpretation to argue over, but rather a different way of thinking.

What makes you think that grokking that thinking/not thinking is a false dichotomy is NOT a way of forcing a different way of thinking to surface into awareness? Do you grok that I also am not speaking intellectually?

[AshvinP]

Here's another reflection Ashvin,

The artist portrayed his revelation of a bill-ear critter which does not exist forcing the viewer to be ambivalent and attempt to resolve the image toward duckness or rabbitness. To choose one excluding the other, or worse to argue over it, would be to fall into a false dichotomy, a deception preying on a habitual tendency of the mind.

Lou,

Cosmin's paper, what we write here, and even what BK has written elsewhere, should make clear to us that meaning precedes perception. The modern mental habit is to invert these relations - object precedes subject, matter precedes mind, perception precedes meaning, etc. We need to realize, with our real-eyes (the spiritual "I"), that this is an inversion and actually the meaning comes first, which then precipitates or 'decoheres' into perception through our own mediating Thinking activity (Imagination). We are not "arguing" about the image, rather we are trying to understand this deep reality that it, along with all other perceptual forms, reveal to us. We are trying to leverage that insight into further revelations through the Logos principle who lives in us as our logical reasoning faculty. If that doesn't interest you, then that is fine, but it should be clear we aren't simply providing a different intellectual interpretation to argue over, but rather a different way of thinking.

What makes you think that grokking that thinking/not thinking is a false dichotomy is NOT a way of forcing a different way of thinking to surface into awareness? Do you grok that I also am not speaking intellectually?

Because it's the same way of thinking we are all intimately familiar with for centuries in the modern age. The entire function of the intellect is to form "A and not-A" propositions. In science, they call it "hypothesis" and "null hypothesis". In law, we call it "examination" and "cross-examination", or "prosecution" and "defense". This way of thinking served a great purpose but it has outlived that purpose. We cannot naively balance everything in our experience and call that understanding. I remind of the chart Cleric made last year in response to one of your comments (I added the yellow/maroon labels for last essay).

[Lou Gold]

Lou,

Cosmin's paper, what we write here, and even what BK has written elsewhere, should make clear to us that meaning precedes perception. The modern mental habit is to invert these relations - object precedes subject, matter precedes mind, perception precedes meaning, etc. We need to realize, with our real-eyes (the spiritual "I"), that this is an inversion and actually the meaning comes first, which then precipitates or 'decoheres' into perception through our own mediating Thinking activity (Imagination). We are not "arguing" about the image, rather we are trying to understand this deep reality that it, along with all other perceptual forms, reveal to us. We are trying to leverage that insight into further revelations through the Logos principle who lives in us as our logical reasoning faculty. If that doesn't interest you, then that is fine, but it should be clear we aren't simply providing a different intellectual interpretation to argue over, but rather a different way of thinking.

What makes you think that grokking that thinking/not thinking is a false dichotomy is NOT a way of forcing a different way of thinking to surface into awareness? Do you grok that I also am not speaking intellectually?

Because it's the same way of thinking we are all intimately familiar with for centuries in the modern age. The entire function of the intellect is to form "A and not-A" propositions. In science, they call it "hypothesis" and "null hypothesis". In law, we call it "examination" and "cross-examination", or "prosecution" and "defense". This way of thinking served a great purpose but it has outlived that purpose. We cannot naively balance everything in our experience and call that understanding. I remind of the chart Cleric made last year in response to one of your comments (I added the yellow/maroon labels for last essay).

You say about the habitual dualities, This way of thinking served a great purpose but it has outlived that purpose. We cannot naively balance everything in our experience and call that understanding. I agree that dualist dichotomies served and serve limited purposes that has been outlived in certain contexts. Yes, and now we work on transcending deceptions by not clinging to them.

Looking at the duck-rabbit image, I see a non-existent critter, duck-like with a rabbit mouth on the back of its head. Do you think I'm naively balancing something or just seeing what is in plain sight?

I confess that I don't grok Cleric's chart. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's not for me.

[AshvinP]

You say about the habitual dualities, This way of thinking served a great purpose but it has outlived that purpose. We cannot naively balance everything in our experience and call that understanding. I agree that dualist dichotomies served and serve limited purposes that has been outlived in certain contexts. Yes, and now we work on transcending deceptions by not clinging to them.

Looking at the duck-rabbit image, I see a non-existent critter, duck-like with a rabbit mouth on the back of its head. Do you think I'm naively balancing something or just seeing what is in plain sight?

I confess that I don't grok Cleric's chart. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's not for me.

I am saying the concept that "thinking" and "not-thinking" are equally useful, or can be reconciled with each other in some way, is itself a dualist dichotomy. It diminishes the act of thinking into its most abstract form, via something akin to subject/object or mind/matter dualism, and then says, "we can accomplish plenty of things in the world without this rigid thinking". That conclusion is only made because "thinking" has been reduced to its lowest form via the implicit dualism.

re: duck-rabbit - I think calling it "non-existent" is again reducing "idea" to something fanciful and ephemeral, added on top of the world where we perceive "real" rabbits and ducks. I hold that the particular forms we see, such as individual rabbits or ducks, are perceptions reflecting real archetypal ideas, such as rabbit-duck, which are currently supersensible to most people. The idea is real and its reflection is also real, but since we currently only perceive the reflection in particular forms, we confuse that for what "really exists" and say the former is our "fantasy", "hallucination", etc. By this simple error, we siphon our thinking towards complete epistemic nihilism.

[Lou Gold]

You say about the habitual dualities, This way of thinking served a great purpose but it has outlived that purpose. We cannot naively balance everything in our experience and call that understanding. I agree that dualist dichotomies served and serve limited purposes that has been outlived in certain contexts. Yes, and now we work on transcending deceptions by not clinging to them.

Looking at the duck-rabbit image, I see a non-existent critter, duck-like with a rabbit mouth on the back of its head. Do you think I'm naively balancing something or just seeing what is in plain sight?

I confess that I don't grok Cleric's chart. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's not for me.

I am saying the concept that "thinking" and "not-thinking" are equally useful, or can be reconciled with each other in some way, is itself a dualist dichotomy. It diminishes the act of thinking into its most abstract form, via something akin to subject/object or mind/matter dualism, and then says, "we can accomplish plenty of things in the world without this rigid thinking". That conclusion is only made because "thinking" has been reduced to its lowest form via the implicit dualism.

re: duck-rabbit - I think calling it "non-existent" is again reducing "idea" to something fanciful and ephemeral, added on top of the world where we perceive "real" rabbits and ducks. I hold that the particular forms we see, such as individual rabbits or ducks, are perceptions reflecting real archetypal ideas, such as rabbit-duck, which are currently supersensible to most people. The idea is real and its reflection is also real, but since we currently only perceive the reflection in particular forms, we confuse that for what "really exists" and say the former is our "fantasy", "hallucination", etc. By this simple error, we siphon our thinking towards complete epistemic nihilism.

I surely do not deny the possibility of "true hallucinations" or the reality of the imaginal realm. Do you really believe that BK denies them when he says he "has an ambivalent relationship with first-person revelations"? Is this nihilism or is it that the difference between the imaginal and the imaginary must have practical meaning to survive tests and challenges and build intersubjective consensus? I can easily accept the duck-rabbit as existing and meaningful in the context of a story about how the mind habitually seeks to reduce confusion toward the greater certainty of the familiar. As Cosmin asserts, meaning precedes objects. So, where we might agree is that Analytic Idealism does not yet have a compelling story. Dissociated Identity Disorder is a valid "proof of concept" but hardly a compelling story. As a storyteller, I personally find Divine Identity Diversity more compelling. I smile approvingly when reading of Ramana Maharshi saying, "I see God in the tree because I see the tree as a tree." Oh, that we might treat each other and all things as containing God within. Yes there be dragons. Yes, there be transformations. Yes, transformation can occur in the here and now, it does not have to wait for "after death." The Taoist butterfly dream story is about transformation now. OK, that's my best shot. So be it.