Triadic idealism: a model for the fundamental nature of reality
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:29 pm
Stranger wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:07 am Like Cleric often uses models such as standing waves or rays etc that are descriptive pointers to the structures of phenomenological realities, likewise the theoretical or philosophical models (e.g. of idealistic metaphysics) are meant to be pointers to the phenomenological reality and its inner structures
LukeJTM wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:54 pm Since this forum also is about Bernardo Kastrup, his idealism does seem guilty of using the idealist reductionism you are speaking of. I've noticed that his model, generally, doesn't seem much different from materialism in terms of how it functions. Because, he basically posits some blind Will force that creates the physical world, as well as experiences (it seems to function the same as blind matter honestly), and that our minds are something 'dissociated' from the cosmic mind until we die...not much different from how materialists consider minds to be something totally private or isolated from everything else, except that it's reduced to some 'dissociative boundary' rather than brain chemistry.
You are right here, but again, we need to give the academic philosophy a chance to develop. It is currently very constrained by the "rules" of analytical philosophy and scientific method, however, it is gradually changing. Notice how in other videos on his channel Nikolaj talks about the evidences of "A Continued Existence After Death". I believe and hope that transition to more spiritual-phenomenological approach will gradually happen in philosophy, but for that to happen there needs to be people who are both professional philosophers and spiritual practitioners who can understand and formulate philosophy form the spiritual and living-thinking perspective and yet present and publish it in academically accepted literature in order to influence the development of science and academic philosophy.Federica wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 10:47 am As for the “arrogance” of not saluting and bowing to the last developments in idealism, I understand you. When I was firstly sensing the inconsistencies in BKs model, I was having a recurring thought: “Well, it doesn’t matter so much, if at least a majority of thinkers could adopt this model, or idealism in general, we would still be so much better off, compared to the present predominant materialistic outlook.” A few months ago I would have agreed that “shifting the paradigm from materialistic to idealistic It is still very important development in modern philosophy and science”. I have changed my mind since I had the chance to gain a slightly larger perspective. A perspective that, as Luke recently said, allows us to realize how a certain type to surface-idealism - if I may call it so without being interpreted as a denier of the cleverness of current philosophy - can be quite coincident in essence with materialism itself, beyond the screen of categorizations and definitions. The materialistic approach is only reallocated to a different spot in the picture, in the model, like when we move around the furniture in the room.
Any philosophy, but idealistic in particular, always has some reference to the direct phenomenological experience, and good philosophers always understand it even if they do not explicitly state it as a disclaimer in every one of their texts. Good quality philosophy is usually based on intuitions grounded in phenomenological experience, we just need to look for these core intuitions through the layers of seemingly abstract formulations. This is why people resonate with BK's idealism because they intuitively sense that it resonates and aligns with their direct phenomenological experience of reality much better compared to materialism, in spite of many explanatory gaps in BK's paradigm.Well, Eugene, that’s exactly the problem! Good that you look at them from this angle, as pointers, however these philosophical models are definitely and clearly not meant to be pointers to phenomenological realities.
Stranger wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:30 pmYou are right here, but again, we need to give the academic philosophy a chance to develop. It is currently very constrained by the "rules" of analytical philosophy and scientific method, however, it is gradually changing. Notice how in other videos on his channel Nikolaj talks about the evidences of "A Continued Existence After Death". I believe and hope that transition to more spiritual-phenomenological approach will gradually happen in philosophy, but for that to happen there needs to be people who are both professional philosophers and spiritual practitioners who can understand and formulate philosophy form the spiritual and living-thinking perspective and yet present and publish it in academically accepted literature in order to influence the development of science and academic philosophy.Federica wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 10:47 am As for the “arrogance” of not saluting and bowing to the last developments in idealism, I understand you. When I was firstly sensing the inconsistencies in BKs model, I was having a recurring thought: “Well, it doesn’t matter so much, if at least a majority of thinkers could adopt this model, or idealism in general, we would still be so much better off, compared to the present predominant materialistic outlook.” A few months ago I would have agreed that “shifting the paradigm from materialistic to idealistic It is still very important development in modern philosophy and science”. I have changed my mind since I had the chance to gain a slightly larger perspective. A perspective that, as Luke recently said, allows us to realize how a certain type to surface-idealism - if I may call it so without being interpreted as a denier of the cleverness of current philosophy - can be quite coincident in essence with materialism itself, beyond the screen of categorizations and definitions. The materialistic approach is only reallocated to a different spot in the picture, in the model, like when we move around the furniture in the room.
Any philosophy, but idealistic in particular, always has some reference to the direct phenomenological experience, and good philosophers always understand it even if they do not explicitly state it as a disclaimer in every one of their texts. Good quality philosophy is usually based on intuitions grounded in phenomenological experience, we just need to look for these core intuitions through the layers of seemingly abstract formulations. This is why people resonate with BK's idealism because they intuitively sense that it resonates and aligns with their direct phenomenological experience of reality much better compared to materialism, in spite of many explanatory gaps in BK's paradigm.Well, Eugene, that’s exactly the problem! Good that you look at them from this angle, as pointers, however these philosophical models are definitely and clearly not meant to be pointers to phenomenological realities.
In that sense, what is good in the triadic idealism is that it introduces the spiritual intuition of the one subjectivity acting through a structure of a multiplicity of subjective perspective (so, it is both oneness and structure). In other words, it is the spiritual intuition of Oneness of the universal Self-subjectivity formulated in abstract philosophical terms. That is why it does not leave me cold, because I see that it points to the experiential phenomenological reality of Oneness of the universal subjectivity and at the same time the reality of a structure giving rise to the phenomenological reality of multiplicity of subjective perspectives. And I would assume that these ideas in Nikolaj triadic idealism are also grounded in his spiritual intuition and experience. However, if someone does not have such experience, then for them this remains only an abstract idea.
The Divine speaks to us through everything: the flowers and clouds in the sky, the masterpieces of art and music, the intuitions of philosophers, through spiritual experiences, but we need to develop intuitive cognition to be able to read this book written by the Divine. I can see some arrogance in the attitude of anthroposophist: "only we have the right phenomenological approach grounded in esoteric experience and every other perspective is always only empty abstraction". It is a sectarian black-and white approach of "we are always right, those who don't subscribe to our beliefs are always wrong". Even if your approach would indeed be the most aligned with the truth, that does not mean that other approaches may have at least some insights into at least some aspects of the truth, and may be even some aspects still missing in your approach. So, I think, certain openness and humility is always useful.
Stranger wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:30 pm You are right here, but again, we need to give the academic philosophy a chance to develop. It is currently very constrained by the "rules" of analytical philosophy and scientific method, however, it is gradually changing. Notice how in other videos on his channel Nikolaj talks about the evidences of "A Continued Existence After Death". I believe and hope that transition to more spiritual-phenomenological approach will gradually happen in philosophy, but for that to happen there needs to be people who are both professional philosophers and spiritual practitioners who can understand and formulate philosophy form the spiritual and living-thinking perspective and yet present and publish it in academically accepted literature in order to influence the development of science and academic philosophy.
Stranger wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:30 pm In that sense, what is good in the triadic idealism is that it introduces the spiritual intuition of the one subjectivity acting through a structure of a multiplicity of subjective perspective (so, it is both oneness and structure). In other words, it is the spiritual intuition of Oneness of the universal Self-subjectivity formulated in abstract philosophical terms
Stranger wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:30 pm I can see some arrogance in the attitude of anthroposophist: "only we have the right phenomenological approach grounded in esoteric experience and every other perspective is always only empty abstraction". It is a sectarian black-and white approach of "we are always right, those who don't subscribe to our beliefs are always wrong". Even if your approach would indeed be the most aligned with the truth, that does not mean that other approaches may have at least some insights into at least some aspects of the truth, and may be even some aspects still missing in your approach. So, I think, certain openness and humility is always useful.
You are right about noticing that in my responses T comes before F, it has to do with my personality.Federica wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 11:01 pmAs you can see, despite my rather soft post, and your initial factual expression, you later felt that it was necessary to reaffirm your position more strongly against me, recalling the ideas of arrogance, lack of humility, and taking a dig at “the anthroposophist” at the same time. Again, this was not present in your spontaneous reply, you got caught up by Feelings. As we both know, Feelings are perceived as thought-pictures just as thoughts are, and so my whole point with this long post is: please don’t forget that the trend, the direction of your thought-pictures is likely to go towards a hardening. Please, factor that in when you consider your interactions. Obviosuly, this is completely accessible to your attention.Stranger wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:30 pm I can see some arrogance in the attitude of anthroposophist: "only we have the right phenomenological approach grounded in esoteric experience and every other perspective is always only empty abstraction". It is a sectarian black-and white approach of "we are always right, those who don't subscribe to our beliefs are always wrong". Even if your approach would indeed be the most aligned with the truth, that does not mean that other approaches may have at least some insights into at least some aspects of the truth, and may be even some aspects still missing in your approach. So, I think, certain openness and humility is always useful.
Eugene, I hope and wish that you see the positive intention that makes me write all that. I know, I have not yet answered your question on the other thread, but I will have to take a pause now, I will continue later, or maybe tomorrow, as it’s now close to midnight where I live.