The world does not exist outside of perception, yet neither does it not exist.

[AshvinP]

Yes well now there is plenty of additional context for why the question was 'side-stepped'

Maybe not plenty, but some. By the way, I don't want to imply or let believe that for me the mentioned depth-thinking is now all self-evident and well understood, because it's certainly not. By the way, this discussion sent me back to PoF again (The Philosophy of Freedom) and to older posts, and I am sure I am not done

It's something which can only be self-evident in the living experience of it, because the entire function of the forces of our normal waking consciousness, at this stage of development, is to make it not self-evident. And of course there are vital Earthly purposes served by those forces, but we are gradually trying to bridge them with the living depth thinking so as to attain more continuity of consciousness through the alternating 'light-dark' periods, which occurs not only from life to after-life, or waking to sleeping (or non-meditating to meditating), but also while we are awake between our thinking (somewhat awake), feeling (dreaming), and willing (sleeping).

One thing which I am sure you have experienced in meditation is the torrent of chaotic soul-life which emerges when we are trying to deepen concentration into a unitary thought-image. Our thoughts, passions, anxieties, concerns, etc. keep swirling around and it's like playing whack-a-mole, as soon as one mole is squashed by our concentrating efforts, another pops up to take it place. We may employ some technique and have success squashing the moles and then find we are now thinking about how we attained that success, thereby sucked right back into the torrents. Our lower nature will use even our successes to distract us from the high Ideal in that way.

Lately what I find helpful to remember is that these chaotic torrents I experience in meditation are always happening during normal sensory consciousness as well, only drowned out by the sensory-conceptual spectrum. Thereby we fall under the spell of the Maya that our inner soul-life is relatively ordered, that our forces of willing-feeling-thinking are relatively harmonious and working towards unified goals in life. But really we are being tossed and turned on the waves of many conflicting soul-currents just as we experience when trying to deepen concentration. So just the conscious experience of and attention to those inner torrents is already an act of differentiating our intuitive depth activity from the intellectual body suit which formats the expression of its flow into horizontal concepts and perceptions, as in Cleric's last metaphor.

[Wayfarer]

Here’s my questions to you:
> What is it that wasn’t clear in what I previously wrote?

I've reviewed your first post - yes, it was very clear, but it came after Ashwin's post and made reference to it, and I wasn't very clear on Ashwin's initial response. But I thought the paragraph you highlighted in blue indicated a degree of mutual consensus.

And your next response was right on the mark - in fact, this paragraph captures exactly what I'm getting at:

We cannot fight the materialist assumption by countering it with another assumption. Instead we have to start from the given, meaning from the only thing we have, our human experience, and approach the subject-object question from there. We have to start from perception (some alignment of vocabulary may be required, when we refer to perception). The materialist, also, should agree to start there, rather than from a metaphysical account. Another way to say it is, we have to start from phenomenology. From the given of experience, through careful reasoning, we can logically discern the role of the thinking agency, or faculty, in the 'appearance' of reality.

That's exactly correct. It's also pretty much consistent with the Kantian and phenomenological tradition. It is just the kind of argument I'm trying to make. Notice again that quotation I included from Paul Davies' book in my response to you. It uses observations from quantum cosmology to call out the 'role of the observer'. So it's doing precisely as you suggest! This is why 'the observer problem', generally, has been the big philosophical breakthrough arising from quantum physics. (Notice also that the response of mine that you said was 'frustrating' was not in response to you.)

> Why did you decline Cleric’s question?

By Cleric's questions, you mean this one?

So does this cause any concern to you: that we can disentangle our personal perspective up to a point, yet we still remain entangled in a more mysterious stratum of reality where our bodily nature belongs? Do you conceive of a potential perspective which can experience itself consciously creative within the forms and organs of the body and the whole of Nature for that matter? Or the body and Nature are things that forever remain beyond the scope of the liberated mind, which just has to wait for death in expectation of the final liberation?

I didn't respond directly, because I didn't understand it, but this provides a general indication of how I would respond.

> What Ideal are you pursuing with your philosophical activities?

Kastrup refers to his current course as 'analytical idealism' and I think he uses the term 'analytic' to align his work within the general approach of 'analytical philosophy'. And that is the mainstream approach in Anglo-American academic philosophy. And he's making inroads there. Whereas if he went too far into the esoteric/occult, then the mainstream could easily write him off as 'an occultist'.

As I mentioned in my introductory post, I was a member on various philosophy forums for quite a few years, and I'm accustomed to trying to articulate my ideas within that framework, although I incorporate some perspectives from Buddhism. But I try to refrain from appeals to the esoteric or occult (hence Rudolf Steiner is not on my reading list although I've had some contacts with anthroposophy.)

I'm trying not to create too long a post, but as for my general orientation, I think you could call it 'the forgotten wisdom school' (a la Huston Smith). That is: ancient philosophy had a life-transforming wisdom and metaphysic, which over the millenia first became absorbed into religious dogma, then was abandoned by modern naturalism and has been forgotten. I had something of a Platonist epiphany (totally unexpected) which revealed the 'thread' I'm referring to that runs through philosophy up until Schopenhauer, after which it became extinguished in most Anglo-American philosophy. As Kastrup is re-introducing idealism, he's adapting some elements of this thread – hence his affinity with Schopenhauer.

Actually speaking of Schopenhauer, I can't resist from quoting this passage from him which I used many times on philosophy forums. which basically provides the answer to the question I asked:

All that is objective, extended, active—that is to say, all that is material—is regarded by materialism as affording so solid a basis for its explanation, that a reduction of everything to this can leave nothing to be desired (especially if in ultimate analysis this reduction should resolve itself into action and reaction). But we have shown that all this is given indirectly and in the highest degree determined, and is therefore merely a relatively present object, for it has passed through the machinery and manufactory of the brain, and has thus come under the forms of space, time and causality, by means of which it is first presented to us as extended in space and ever active in time. From such an indirectly given object, materialism seeks to explain what is immediately given, the idea (in which alone the object that materialism starts with exists), and finally even the will from which all those fundamental forces, that manifest themselves, under the guidance of causes, and therefore according to law, are in truth to be explained.

[AshvinP]

Here’s my questions to you:
> What is it that wasn’t clear in what I previously wrote?

I've reviewed your first post - yes, it was very clear, but it came after Ashwin's post and made reference to it, and I wasn't very clear on Ashwin's initial response. But I thought the paragraph you highlighted in blue indicated a degree of mutual consensus.

Wayfarer,

There are a lot of issues in your post that I want respond to, such as Kant-Schop "phenomenology" (especially that last quote), but I will give Federica an opportunity to respond first and then see if there is anything to add.

In the meantime, I want to ask, if you don't mind sharing, are you Indian or have Indian relations? I notice you and Lorenzo type my name as "Ashwin", which is how the "v" would be pronounced by Indians, but most people wouldn't be aware of that. Just curious!

[Wayfarer]

No, it was a slip on my part, sorry about that. I have no Indian relations, although in my teen years I became rather converted to Indian philosophy.

This might be a little too much to swallow in a single gulp but I just wanted to illustrate that what is here being talked about, is concerned with an actual path of inner experience. It is no longer mere interest in rearranging thought-images within the slots of our intellectual mask.

Thanks, I did read it, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying - but again I'm trying to frame the question in the lexicon of analytical philosophy rather than through depth meditation - not saying there's anything the matter with doing that.

It is taking a tool which is only appropriate for limited domains of intellectual human activity, and applying that same tool to penetrating Cosmic secrets of how Consciousness creates the World. So I was hoping that we could explore the alternative tool of vertical thinking through these questions, which we would say is better adapted to actually resolving them

As I mentioned above, it's a question of differing lexicons or explanatory frameworks. We all develop along different lines when contemplating these kinds of questions. I think your approach is rather esoteric and/or gnostic - which I have considerable respect for, with the caveat that these kinds of understandings don't always lend themselves to being easily transmitted via internet fora. The approach I'm trying to take is more in line with analytic philosophy and other sources broadly within Western and Eastern philosophy. It's not that it's 'better', it's just the way that I'm going about it. To be honest, I feel many of your responses, whilst well-intentioned, are not really being informed by any reflection on what it is I'm saying, but of you trying to induct me into an alternative school of thought (no offense or anything.)

Mind and large - I am sceptical about this expression, even though I can see the utility it has. It's kind of a stand in for Brahman, or Berkeley's God, or the 'One' of neoplatonism. But nobody really knows what it is, and it certainly is not something that can be empirically demonstrated. I wonder if readers here are familiar with the well-known 'Berkeley limericks' (I had only ever read the first, but the second came up in the search just now, and it's a gem, so I include it.)

There once was a man who said "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."


Dear Sir,

Your astonishment's odd.
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
God
----

If objects depend on our seeing
So that trees, unobserved, would cease tree-ing,
Then my question is: Who
Is the one who sees you
And assures your persistence in being?

Dear Sir,
You reason most oddly.
To be's to be seen for the bod'ly.
But for spirits like me,
To be is to see.
Sincerely,
The one who is Godly.

But I don't want to embark on a quarrel about whether mind at large 'exists or not'. Reflect on the title of this thread!

[AshvinP]

No, it was a slip on my part, sorry about that. I have no Indian relations, although in my teen years I became rather converted to Indian philosophy.

OK, but clearly you knew the "v" is pronounced as "w" by most Indians, right? Since you wrote it multiple times and the v isn't close to the w on the keyboard! I am guessing you have been around Indians and picked up on that pronounciation?

It is taking a tool which is only appropriate for limited domains of intellectual human activity, and applying that same tool to penetrating Cosmic secrets of how Consciousness creates the World. So I was hoping that we could explore the alternative tool of vertical thinking through these questions, which we would say is better adapted to actually resolving them

As I mentioned above, it's a question of differing lexicons or explanatory frameworks. We all develop along different lines when contemplating these kinds of questions. I think your approach is rather esoteric and/or gnostic - which I have considerable respect for, with the caveat that these kinds of understandings don't always lend themselves to being easily transmitted via internet fora. The approach I'm trying to take is more in line with analytic philosophy and other sources broadly within Western and Eastern philosophy. It's not that it's 'better', it's just the way that I'm going about it. To be honest, I feel many of your responses, whilst well-intentioned, are not really being informed by any reflection on what it is I'm saying, but of you trying to induct me into an alternative school of thought (no offense or anything.)

None taken, and I am well aware it seems that way. You should be aware that we have had this exact same debate with many people on this forum over the last few years. So, despite appearances, we know exactly what is being argued and why. For example, Cleric's last post was a metaphorical illustration of exactly where Kant and Schop went wrong in their analytical philosophy. But I'm sure that wasn’t apparent and it's understandable why. These things are very unfamiliar to past philosophical or spiritual traditions, even including 'Gnostic' thinkers like Jung, who I otherwise deeply respect. But the phenomenology of cognition need not be labeled esoteric or occult at all, and it's a direct rebuttal of previous 'critical idealist' conclusions, as also detailed in Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom. It's just unfamiliar.

PS - MAL is a term coined by Kastrup.

[Federica]

One thing which I am sure you have experienced in meditation is the torrent of chaotic soul-life which emerges when we are trying to deepen concentration into a unitary thought-image. Our thoughts, passions, anxieties, concerns, etc. keep swirling around and it's like playing whack-a-mole, as soon as one mole is squashed by our concentrating efforts, another pops up to take it place. We may employ some technique and have success squashing the moles and then find we are now thinking about how we attained that success, thereby sucked right back into the torrents. Our lower nature will use even our successes to distract us from the high Ideal in that way.

Absolutely, I have experienced that. It’s like there is an inexhaustible default energy that keeps the thoughts swirling around, making us feel like we are being thought by those thoughts (or at least so it feels for me). Similar to the act of breathing, which is unconscious by default, but can be taken over by conscious intention, so thinking seems to fall in between the unconscious and conscious spectrums, except that, unlike breathing, in thinking the two regimes work one against the other. By default, there's a sort of gravity that presses thinking down into the soul-sensory loops. If we let it be, that’s where thoughts will be embarked. So we have to consciously lift it up to a regime switch. With breathing we got lucky that some higher ideation was doing the project management for us

Lately what I find helpful to remember is that these chaotic torrents I experience in meditation are always happening during normal sensory consciousness as well, only drowned out by the sensory-conceptual spectrum. Thereby we fall under the spell of the Maya that our inner soul-life is relatively ordered, that our forces of willing-feeling-thinking are relatively harmonious and working towards unified goals in life. But really we are being tossed and turned on the waves of many conflicting soul-currents just as we experience when trying to deepen concentration. So just the conscious experience of and attention to those inner torrents is already an act of differentiating our intuitive depth activity from the intellectual body suit which formats the expression of its flow into horizontal concepts and perceptions, as in Cleric's last metaphor.

Yes, I have indeed lured myself into believing that I had made progress, and that my complex was becoming more under control. I see the illusion constructed by the intellect, an additional wave of activity that only covers up the chains of the soul and sensory loops, which are still active, only doubled by one extra unit of heaviness, that our willed spiritual activity will have to disentangle. I will now try to listen to the two wavelengths, and see if they can be perceived as operating one over the other. Thank you!

[Federica]

(...)

Thank you, Wayfarer! Much appreciated.
I will read it again tomorrow, and the other new posts, with a clearer mind.

Ashvin, please go ahead with your reply, but thank you!
(I could still attempt to write mine before reading yours).

PS: adding my two cents on the w-question: Ashvin, it could also be that one has first come across the name in its version with w and has simply remembered it in that version.

[Wayfarer]

the phenomenology of cognition need not be labeled esoteric or occult at all, and it's a direct rebuttal of previous 'critical idealist' conclusions, as also detailed in Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom. It's just unfamiliar.

PS - MAL is a term coined by Kastrup.

I notice if you search 'Steiner' you get 2,491 hits on this forum. If you search it on bernardokastrup.com, there are none (although the name is mentioned a few times in visitor comments.) In any case, this forum seems considerably more focussed on esoterica than Kastrup's books are. I think it could benefit from a more analytical slant.

I've just downloaded Kastrup's 'The Idea of the World' (as an audiobook) and will commence listening. I'm not disputing Kastrup's thesis of the world comprising 'excitations in consciousness', but I am wary about the reification of 'mind-at-large' as a kind of place-holder for 'spirit'.

[Cleric K]

Thanks, I did read it, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying - but again I'm trying to frame the question in the lexicon of analytical philosophy rather than through depth meditation - not saying there's anything the matter with doing that.

Wayfarer, I agree that the responses here were practically fast-forwarding the conversation in a way in which it seems they didn’t address your initial post at all. If you don’t mind, we can start over.

So basically your argument boils down to something like the images I used in the beginning of my previous post. The first step is to realize that whatever we do, we always do it from within a conscious perspective where we build a conceptual understanding of reality.

Our inner experience of perceptions and thinking are the givens of existence. Metaphysics deals with intellectual speculation about what might be the nature of that part of reality which is not immediately present in our inner experience (the processes 'behind' the immediate experiences). For example, we may imagine reality to be of physical origin or spiritually-energetic, it may be a computer simulation, we may be a Boltzman brain and so on. What you’re implying is that even this already goes too far. Imagining that something exists beyond our mind, already produces an irreconcilable conundrum of existence/non-existence.

When we unpeel the layers of cognition in this way, we finally reach a state that feels as a release from a vicious cycle. We have pierced through the impossibilities that we ourselves have created by thinking in polar categories. When we awaken to this fact we understand that there’s nothing to be solved about the world. This only happens if we split the world into solved and unsolved mysteries. This results in a kind of Vesica Piscis fractal. The dual mirror of the mind is separated and infinite reflections bounce in between, that can never find peace. It all starts because we asked an impossible question, which only finds its resolution when the asker brings the two mirrors back into unity.

So in a nutshell, to understand ‘mind creates the world’, we shouldn’t be simply trying to imagine that the mind creates the outer world because this outer world exists only as a concept in the mind. The thought about existence/non-existence itself must be undone. Only then we understand in truth what it means for the mind to create the world.

Would you say that this better addresses your initial post? Would you say that it presents a well understood account of your ideas or it has missed your essential point?

[AshvinP]

the phenomenology of cognition need not be labeled esoteric or occult at all, and it's a direct rebuttal of previous 'critical idealist' conclusions, as also detailed in Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom. It's just unfamiliar.

PS - MAL is a term coined by Kastrup.

I notice if you search 'Steiner' you get 2,491 hits on this forum. If you search it on bernardokastrup.com, there are none (although the name is mentioned a few times in visitor comments.) In any case, this forum seems considerably more focussed on esoterica than Kastrup's books are. I think it could benefit from a more analytical slant.

I've just downloaded Kastrup's 'The Idea of the World' (as an audiobook) and will commence listening. I'm not disputing Kastrup's thesis of the world comprising 'excitations in consciousness', but I am wary about the reification of 'mind-at-large' as a kind of place-holder for 'spirit'.

I think this just goes to my point, it's completely unfamiliar to analytic philosophers. It's actually quite remarkable. Steiner was first a rigorous philosopher within the German idealist tradition, before he started writing or lecturing anything 'esoteric/occult'. He wrote books like Goethean Science and Philosophy of Freedom, neither of which speak of esoteric wisdom in the least. They contain direct considerations and refutations of everything that Kastrup now argues for, metaphysically and epistemologically (which went from the World as Idea, to the World as instinctive animal consciousness).

Yet somehow Kastrup, who has read practically everything else within Western philosophy, and especially German idealist philosophy, has never read this relatively short PoF book (which I learned from a Q&A session)! Why is that? It doesn't really matter for our purposes. But you are here now and in a position to become familiar with what Kastrup is not yet familiar with, and which challenges us to rethink our understanding of our own cognitive-perceptive activity and role it plays in Consciousness Evolution. It challenges us to see exactly how the World is Idea, consisitng in the same scientific, aesthetic, and moral character of the ideas we use to structure our own microcosmic experience.

But I think Cleric's suggestion of 'starting over' is a good one, so let's see how that goes.