Why I believe Analytic Idealism is flawed

[Lou Gold]

What does the materialist say? Before you were born, you existed as only potential in the unified field of matter/energy. Once you were conceived or born, the matter/energy combined and differentiated in such a way as to create a new living being, eventually capable of refleftive thoughts which simply try to model the real world 'out there' which preexisted it, but is essentially creating qualia (meaning) which have nothing to do with what is really out there. Your thoughts are added onto this preexisting black box, but themselves have no causal efficacy. When you die, your thoughts and memories will die with you and the very notion of "you" as an individuated consciousness will cease.

Does analytic idealism say anything different? It simply replaces the conceptual forms above with different words (dissociation, alter, entropic soup, blind will of MAL, instinctive consciousness, etc.), but their practical meaning is the exact same. How your individuated thoughts and memories came into the world, relate to that world (modeling a preexisting world of material or mental stuff), and will dissolve back out of that world are practically the same. The epistemological and ethical implications are the exact same. At best, it gives us an abstract wildcard concept - "who knows what really happens after death, maybe you will survive". Such a speculation is meaningless for all practical purposes and intents. None of it changes the way we relate to nature, other humans, or the higher Cosmic structure one bit.

Yes, I can go along with some of this, but still it's not clear to me how any actual segregated divide factors in, however hindered the interplay may be, as Mind cannot ever be other than Mind, in whatever ideated aspect it may appear. But perhaps that quibble is a moot point that misses the point. In any case, the only response to this critique I'm interested in would be one in which it is hashed out with BK in some extended dialogue. Alas, that ain't gonna happen here, or in some AMA format. Meanwhile I await some response from jp to the relevant commentary, should there be any clarification to add.

OK, I'm getting it (I think). Just "as Mind cannot ever be other than Mind," Nature cannot be other than Nature. In a co-arising process of diverse specializations including human metacognitive meaning and purpose as part of Nature how can Mind as All of Nature remain as a blind will?

[AshvinP]

What does the materialist say? Before you were born, you existed as only potential in the unified field of matter/energy. Once you were conceived or born, the matter/energy combined and differentiated in such a way as to create a new living being, eventually capable of refleftive thoughts which simply try to model the real world 'out there' which preexisted it, but is essentially creating qualia (meaning) which have nothing to do with what is really out there. Your thoughts are added onto this preexisting black box, but themselves have no causal efficacy. When you die, your thoughts and memories will die with you and the very notion of "you" as an individuated consciousness will cease.

Does analytic idealism say anything different? It simply replaces the conceptual forms above with different words (dissociation, alter, entropic soup, blind will of MAL, instinctive consciousness, etc.), but their practical meaning is the exact same. How your individuated thoughts and memories came into the world, relate to that world (modeling a preexisting world of material or mental stuff), and will dissolve back out of that world are practically the same. The epistemological and ethical implications are the exact same. At best, it gives us an abstract wildcard concept - "who knows what really happens after death, maybe you will survive". Such a speculation is meaningless for all practical purposes and intents. None of it changes the way we relate to nature, other humans, or the higher Cosmic structure one bit.

Yes, I can go along with some of this, but still it's not clear to me how any actual segregated divide factors in, however hindered the interplay may be, as Mind cannot ever be other than Mind, in whatever ideated aspect it may appear. But perhaps that quibble is a moot point that misses the point. In any case, the only response to this critique I'm interested in would be one in which it is hashed out with BK in some extended dialogue. Alas, that ain't gonna happen here, or in some AMA format. Meanwhile I await some response from jp to the relevant commentary, should there be any clarification to add.

OK, I'm getting it (I think). Just "as Mind cannot ever be other than Mind," Nature cannot be other than Nature. In a co-arising process of diverse specializations including human metacognitive meaning and purpose as part of Nature how can Mind as All of Nature remain as a blind will?

Another way to understand it is as follows - phenomenal appearances are confused for ontology (the 'essence' of the world). Phenomenally, the following is valid:

- The average human being today with normal waking cognition feels as an atomized being surrounded by perceptions he is not creatively responsible for.

These words are underlined because, as soon as we discard them and make these things generalized to 'humanity', we have made phenomenal appearance into ontology.

- From this modern waking cognitive perspective, each individual and humanity at large has evolved from instinctive experience ('blind' or 'instinctive' feeling and will) to self-reflective thinking experience ('meta-cognition').

- From this same perspective, self-reflective thinking is extinguished upon deep sleep and death.

Etc.

The easiest thing to do here is simply take the phenomenal appearances and reify them into ontology, because then our work is done. We then have an abstract metaphysics which we proclaim gets around the 'hard problem', since mind/consciousness is 'fundamental', and makes us all One with each other, since we all come from Consciousness and return to Consciousness. Other world ontologies can say the exact same thing, except the materialist substitutes "Consciousness" with "Matter/Energy", the mystical materialist with "Nothingness", and the fundamentalist with "God/Heaven" (and these all remain with the hard problem). They all end up in the same place because they all abstracted the Spirit (Thinking/Ideation) out of their own philosophizing and scientific pursuits, and therefore out of the World Process as they consciously participate in it. Since, in reality, we all do participate in the World Process through our shared Spirit, these ingrained, subconscious Ideas - habits of willing-feeling-thinking - influence all that we perceive, feel, think, and do. Since Ideas give rise to matter-perception, and not the other way around, we are at their mercy as long as their inner workings remain subconscious to us, i.e. as long as we remain with the average, normal waking cognitive perspective which cannot penetrate to those inner workings. And hence the average human soul is in the terrible state of isolation, alienation, and fragmentation from the universal Spirit that it is in.

[AshvinP]

What does the materialist say? Before you were born, you existed as only potential in the unified field of matter/energy. Once you were conceived or born, the matter/energy combined and differentiated in such a way as to create a new living being, eventually capable of refleftive thoughts which simply try to model the real world 'out there' which preexisted it, but is essentially creating qualia (meaning) which have nothing to do with what is really out there. Your thoughts are added onto this preexisting black box, but themselves have no causal efficacy. When you die, your thoughts and memories will die with you and the very notion of "you" as an individuated consciousness will cease.

Does analytic idealism say anything different? It simply replaces the conceptual forms above with different words (dissociation, alter, entropic soup, blind will of MAL, instinctive consciousness, etc.), but their practical meaning is the exact same. How your individuated thoughts and memories came into the world, relate to that world (modeling a preexisting world of material or mental stuff), and will dissolve back out of that world are practically the same. The epistemological and ethical implications are the exact same. At best, it gives us an abstract wildcard concept - "who knows what really happens after death, maybe you will survive". Such a speculation is meaningless for all practical purposes and intents. None of it changes the way we relate to nature, other humans, or the higher Cosmic structure one bit.

Yes, I can go along with some of this, but still it's not clear to me how any actual segregated divide factors in, however hindered the interplay may be, as Mind cannot ever be other than Mind, in whatever ideated aspect it may appear. But perhaps that quibble is a moot point that misses the point. In any case, the only response to this critique I'm interested in would be one in which it is hashed out with BK in some extended dialogue. Alas, that ain't gonna happen here, or in some AMA format. Meanwhile I await some response from jp to the relevant commentary, should there be any clarification to add.

Ashvin,

I don't normally read your comments but I happened to see this one embedded in Shu's and found I agree exactly with what you are saying. The terms ae different but otherwise it might as well be materialism. This might be a good criticism to post on the other thread that is asking for critiques.

I wouldn't say, however, that qualia have nothing to do with what is out there. Qualia are the elements of consciousness which is the model of the world and our interface with it at the same time.

When I say "nothing to do with", I mean it is assumed we cannot get from the 'interface' - the qualia - back to whatever gives rise to it. This is an entirely self-imposed problem because it assumes a duality of appearance/reality, generalized to all living beings across all time, and then reasons from that flawed assumption.

[Lou Gold]

I found a recent AMA with BK where he is asked what religion he prefers. He said that when he is in his strength (rational, intelectual) he prefers the Indian (meditative and Eastern) approaches and that when he is in his vulnerability (nonrational, feeling) he prefers Christianity (devotional and Western) based not an analysis but simply by virtue of the civilization into which he was born.

Additionally, some might find BK's most recent dialogue with Rupert Spira as informative.

[AshvinP]

I found a recent AMA with BK where he is asked what religion he prefers. He said that when he is in his strength (rational, intelectual) he prefers the Indian (meditative and Eastern) approaches and that when he is in his vulnerability (nonrational, feeling) he prefers Christianity (devotional and Western) based not an analysis but simply by virtue of the civilization into which he was born.

Additionally, some might find BK's most recent dialogue with Rupert Spira as informative.

There is a recent interview between BK and Pageau (Orthodox Christian) as well -

I haven't watched it yet, and not sure if I will. What you relayed from BK sums up "why AI is flawed". If I hadn't known, I would have guessed that was asked of and answered by an a-gnostic materialist philosopher.

[Lou Gold]

I found a recent AMA with BK where he is asked what religion he prefers. He said that when he is in his strength (rational, intelectual) he prefers the Indian (meditative and Eastern) approaches and that when he is in his vulnerability (nonrational, feeling) he prefers Christianity (devotional and Western) based not an analysis but simply by virtue of the civilization into which he was born.

Additionally, some might find BK's most recent dialogue with Rupert Spira as informative.

There is a recent interview between BK and Pageau (Orthodox Christian) as well -

I haven't watched it yet, and not sure if I will. What you relayed from BK sums up "why AI is flawed". If I hadn't known, I would have guessed that was asked of and answered by an a-gnostic materialist philosopher.

Well, in this age all the models are surely incomplete and flawed in some sense.
Personally, I find comfort in the lyrics of Leonard Cohen:

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in

[AshvinP]

Well, in this age all the models are surely incomplete and flawed in some sense.
Personally, I find comfort in the lyrics of Leonard Cohen:

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in

True, and as I wrote to Grant on the other thread, the Light only gets in if we are precisely aware of the cracks, where they are, and make an active effort to bring the Light through them.

[Lou Gold]

Well, in this age all the models are surely incomplete and flawed in some sense.
Personally, I find comfort in the lyrics of Leonard Cohen:

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in

True, and as I wrote to Grant on the other thread, the Light only gets in if we are precisely aware of the cracks, where they are, and make an active effort to bring the Light through them.

Without diminishing the value of personal effort, sincere intention and practiced awareness, I must offer witness to the fact that my greatest breakthrough events occurred in ways unforeseen and not expected, in my perception, by the Grace of God and not because I knew where the cracks were. However, it surely takes practice to turn the cracks into sustained open doors of perception and communion. It's a glorious work.

In my tradition, the month of May was devoted to communing with and absorbing the teachings of our Holy Mother. Nowadays, in the infirmity of my geezerhood, my visionary sandbox is often photoshop where I play creatively in search for treasures of light. Here's a recent result of looking through a motherly archetypal 'crack'...

[Lou Gold]

Well, in this age all the models are surely incomplete and flawed in some sense.
Personally, I find comfort in the lyrics of Leonard Cohen:

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in

True, and as I wrote to Grant on the other thread, the Light only gets in if we are precisely aware of the cracks, where they are, and make an active effort to bring the Light through them.

Without diminishing the value of personal effort, sincere intention and practiced awareness, I must offer witness to the fact that my greatest breakthrough events occurred in ways unforeseen and not expected, in my perception, by the Grace of God and not because I knew where the cracks were. However, it surely takes practice to turn the cracks into sustained open doors of perception and communion. It's a glorious work.

In my tradition, the month of May was devoted to communing with and absorbing the teachings of our Holy Mother. Nowadays, in the infirmity of my geezerhood, my visionary sandbox is often photoshop where I play creatively in search for treasures of light. Here's a recent result of looking through a motherly archetypal 'crack'...

Nature, this glorious creativity, that we've big given to serve and learn from as best we can is here for all to see. She invites us to do better. May we work and play well.

[Soul_of_Shu]

There is a recent interview between BK and Pageau (Orthodox Christian) as well -

I haven't watched it yet, and not sure if I will. What you relayed from BK sums up "why AI is flawed". If I hadn't known, I would have guessed that was asked of and answered by an a-gnostic materialist philosopher.

Thanks for the link to this discussion, one which I've long lobbied for in Pageau's youtube comments sections, which is surely pertinent to the original post, and which is the kind of dialogos with BK I crave, drawing him out of his strictly analytical approach, into what can be likened to 'intuitive thinking as a spiritual path'. The delving into their respective takes on angels and daemons, finding much common ground, as well as so much more insight, is surely worth a listen. Indeed, one wonders if the BK Daemon has not co-opted Pageau's in order to re-exert its influence