Whirlpool's core/first motion

[findingblanks]

BK often states that when/If a person has the experience of be-ing that is stripped of all inner and outer 'ripples', they are identified with MaL. And then he will often say if two people are having this experience it is a shared reality rather than two subjectively confined experiences.

To me it seems more consistent with analytical idealism (I'm not talking about other cosmological here, just BK's basic outlines) to see that these experience are not of MaL as such but are experiences of the most basic and fundamental aspect of dissociation.

In the whirlpool analogy, these experiences would not be the river experiencing itself as river but would be the whirlpool experience the core movement of its outer lip.

I'm curious to hear other thoughts as long as they-- for the sake of this context -- take BK's basic framework for granted. Thanks.

*before the whirlpool funnels down into more intense/complex structures-- it is a wider and more basic self-locating structure.

[Federica]

Hi findingblanks,
The initial BK statement is not crystal clear to me/I can't recall it from the books/videos I'm aware of. Could you please link it or give a more detailed report?

[lorenzop]

I never understood BK's MAL and his use of term dissociation.

For myself, it's not worth attemting to figure out what BK is getting at . . . I'd recommend looking at Atman / Brahman, the similarities and differences and use of terms.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Hi findingblanks,
The initial BK statement is not crystal clear to me/I can't recall it from the books/videos I'm aware of. Could you please link it or give a more detailed report?

Ditto that ... In no reading of BK's various writings, or in watching any one of countless interviews, am I aware of any such statement 'often' being made. At best, this is a re-imagining of some point about corporeal death/dissolution being indicative of the end of the subject><object dynamic of the dissociative separate-self state. At which point, in BK's model, there is no discrete 'person' left to be a subject in relation to an object. To some extent I can concur with this view, in that what remains is no longer a bodily defined/identified 'person' per se. However, that does not preclude there being a non-localized psyche-at-large that still maintains some sense of ipseity, while no longer focused in a construct determined by the 'laws' of physics—albeit vestiges of the experience of corporeality may linger—notwithstanding, what precisely defines a 'psyche' that still maintains some sense of ipseity, absent any corporeal identity, remains an open question.

[Federica]

At best, this is a re-imagining of some point about corporeal death/dissolution being indicative of the end of the subject><object dynamic of the dissociative separate-self state. At which point, in BK's model, there is no discrete 'person' left to be a subject in relation to an object. To some extent I can concur with this view, in that what remains is no longer a bodily defined/identified 'person' per se. However, that does not preclude there being a non-localized psyche-at-large that still maintains some sense of ipseity, while no longer focused in a construct determined by the 'laws' of physics—albeit vestiges of the experience of corporeality may linger—notwithstanding, what precisely defines a 'psyche' that still maintains some sense of ipseity, absent any corporeal identity, remains an open question.

Yes - the question of whether or not (and how) anything proper of the whirlpool persists after bodily death is, to a big extent, yet to be tackled in BK's system.
The little we can gather - strictly dependent on his use of the concept of DID - seems to be that, DID being a "discontinuity or disruption in the normal integration of consciousness, memory, identity, emotions (...) bodily death must correlate with an expansion of our felt sense of identity, access to a broader set of memories, and enrichment to our emotional inner life." (The Idea of the world, page 275)

That, together with BK's statement that psychedelic trance and the "unambiguous expansion of awareness it entails" is probably at this point "the best model of death we have" seems to suggest that he tends toward a certain level of persistence of a sense of ipseity after death.

In fact, your wording is making me think further of dissociation and its dissolution and gives me another idea for a concise criticism of Bernardo's idealism...

This being said, I am still curious to know what video passage or other material has prompted findingblanks to report about this stripping of inner and outer ripples ending into identification with mind at large.

[Eugene I.]

Yes - the question of whether or not (and how) anything proper of the whirlpool persists after bodily death is, to a big extent, yet to be tackled in BK's system.
The little we can gather - strictly dependent on his use of the concept of DID - seems to be that, DID being a "discontinuity or disruption in the normal integration of consciousness, memory, identity, emotions (...) bodily death must correlate with an expansion of our felt sense of identity, access to a broader set of memories, and enrichment to our emotional inner life." (The Idea of the world, page 275)

That, together with BK's statement that psychedelic trance and the "unambiguous expansion of awareness it entails" is probably at this point "the best model of death we have" seems to suggest that he tends toward a certain level of persistence of a sense of ipseity after death.

In fact, your wording is making me think further of dissociation and its dissolution and gives me another idea for a concise criticism of Bernardo's idealism...

In private conversations BK is usually open to the idea of the "persistence of a sense of ipseity after death". He is aware of a large body of NDE accounts supporting this idea, however, he does not take them as scientifically valid evidences, so, in his academic-level works he avoids any unambiguous statements about it. The reason is that he sees his major role as to oppose materialism within the framework of the analytical philosophy, because this is the filed where materialism claims to have the strongest argumentation. But to do this successfully, he has to follow the rules of such analytical framework that does not allow for the views such as "persistence of a sense of ipseity after death" that lack scientifically valid evidence. It's like you can't blame a scientist who might be a Christian in their private life for not mentioning their Christian beliefs in their professional scientific publications.

[Federica]

[/quote]
In private conversations BK is usually open to the idea of the "persistence of a sense of ipseity after death". He is aware of a large body of NDE accounts supporting this idea, however, he does not take them as scientifically valid evidences, so, in his academic-level works he avoids any unambiguous statements about it. The reason is that he sees his major role as to oppose materialism within the framework of the analytical philosophy, because this is the filed where materialism claims to have the strongest argumentation. But to do this successfully, he has to follow the rules of such analytical framework that does not allow for the views such as "persistence of a sense of ipseity after death" that lack scientifically valid evidence. It's like you can't blame a scientist who might be a Christian in their private life for not mentioning their Christian beliefs in their professional scientific publications.
[/quote]


Yes, Eugene, I recall indeed BK making a similar statement even on Youtube, approximately in the terms: 'If you drive me into a corner I will admit that... however my official stance is....' Thanks for clarifying.

[Cleric K]

And for how long should humanity keep strictly separated the world of academic thought and the world of Truth? Who are we serving by keeping these 'good manners' by not disturbing the secular world through the implications of the given facts?

This is also why simply trying to prove materialism wrong in itself, can never lead too far. That's way the Intelligent Design movement (renamed Creationists) fails. They present valuable observations about the inadequacy of evolution through purely random mutations but at the same time don't provide anything as a substitute, besides "God created everything."

Similarly, simply showing the inconsistencies of materialism, leaves one in void. Then they become susceptible to the worst kinds of superstitions. In other words, the materialist superstition (which sclerotized the ancient gods of the elements into laws of nature) is simply exchanged for another superstition - such as "there's MAL or whatever behind the disassociative curtains of inner reality."

That's why it is so urgent today that we not only show the inconstancies but also show how they can resolved (besides simply picking a blind belief of choice). And this resolution is to happen here and now, not by fantasizing and expecting it only after death but by growing into the full spectrum of reality.

[Eugene I.]

Similarly, simply showing the inconsistencies of materialism, leaves one in void. ... That's why it is so urgent today that we not only show the inconstancies but also show how they can resolved (besides simply picking a blind belief of choice). And this resolution is to happen here and now, not by fantasizing and expecting it only after death but by growing into the full spectrum of reality.

You are right, Cleric, just showing inconsistencies is not enough, but it's still a necessary part of the work which involves challenging materialism within its own realm of defense - the analytical philosophy. So, I don't see any contradiction or exclusion here, but rather collaborative efforts on different fronts.

[Federica]

And for how long should humanity keep strictly separated the world of academic thought and the world of Truth? Who are we serving by keeping these 'good manners' by not disturbing the secular world through the implications of the given facts?

This is also why simply trying to prove materialism wrong in itself, can never lead too far. That's way the Intelligent Design movement (renamed Creationists) fails. They present valuable observations about the inadequacy of evolution through purely random mutations but at the same time don't provide anything as a substitute, besides "God created everything."

Similarly, simply showing the inconsistencies of materialism, leaves one in void. Then they become susceptible to the worst kinds of superstitions. In other words, the materialist superstition (which sclerotized the ancient gods of the elements into laws of nature) is simply exchanged for another superstition - such as "there's MAL or whatever behind the disassociative curtains of inner reality."

That's why it is so urgent today that we not only show the inconstancies but also show how they can resolved (besides simply picking a blind belief of choice). And this resolution is to happen here and now, not by fantasizing and expecting it only after death but by growing into the full spectrum of reality.

I think that BK is sincerely trying to do just that: bringing his truth out there, to the secular world. He has quit academia as well as a top job to lead a foundation devoted to spreading the word of idealism outside of the closed circles of academia. He is touching a much larger public than one would expect from a philosopher. And the shift away from materialism today in and outside academia is tangible, especially in the younger generations.

Also, BK is not simply trying to prove materialism wrong in itself. That's unfair. He has developed a cohesive vision, inquired and connected evidence from physics, psychology, medicine to it.

Now, that his system has pitfalls, yes, and that another system is what the world urgently needs right now, ok maybe. But what does this bitterness stand for?