Triadic idealism: a model for the fundamental nature of reality

[Stranger]

[Federica]

I wonder why you didn't post the video in the hard problem of consciousness thread. This fully belongs there.

[Stranger]

I wonder why you didn't post the video in the hard problem of consciousness thread. This fully belongs there.

This is about idealism, it has little to do with the "hard problem"

[Federica]

This is another good example of the type of approach that flattens the idea in idealism (the spirit) to the unidimensional level of intellectual speculations. It is a "model", with the methodological implicit standpoint that we can start the game (because that's how the endeavor looks here, a strategy game, rather than a living quest) of grasping reality by exerting our reason, imagining a theoretical model, then pondering that theory against alternative theories, using the supposedly sufficient powers of our reasoning intellect. On this basis, conclusions are drawn based on arbitrary preferences. So for example "experiential grounding" is put in a trade-off with "explanatory power". He is telling us: Do you particularly like explanatory power? Ok, then you might like this model, but of course you should let go of your demands in terms of experiential grounding a bit. Conversely, do you value the experiential foundation of an argument above anything else? Then ok, this is probably not the model for you.
It becomes an abstract bargain! If we look honestly, it is nonsensical - what kind of questions are these?! There’s a belief or assumption that the proper way to explore the nature of reality is to throw out hypotheses and then ponder them with our unexamined, most often biased criteria, to compare them with one another, test their behaviors in various in vitro conditions, etc. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the proper attitude itself that can lead us to a truthful exploration and direct understanding of existence, rather than to the edification of an idealistic cozy laboratory in which we are longing to retreat and unleash our roaming intellect 'at will'. Unfortunately, no matter how much Will we put into spinning the intellect in this way, it will remain as powerful as a baby car, or a paper airplane, compared to higher cognition. Here the implicit, initial decision is made to limit the exploration to only one dimension within the space of human potential, namely the dimension of playing around with the very limited encompassing power of the reasoning intellect.
Coming the the specifics of this particular model, and I should give it a second view, but roughly put it seems to me that the EICO structure looks like a more elaborated version of BK's dissociative boundary, theorized with the primary goal of escaping objections, rather than explaining reality, which as an approach simply sends us back to the original, fundamental misunderstanding...

[Stranger]

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, but of course only if they are understood correctly as pointers and not as intellectual truths by themselves (as they say, do not confuse the moon with the finger pointing to the moon). On this basis we should also assess their usefulness based on how accurately they point to certain aspects of the phenomenological reality.

Also, it is an arrogant approach to deny any developments in academic philosophy or science just because it does not measure up to high standards of anthroposophy. Shifting the paradigm from materialistic to idealistic It is still very important development in modern philosophy and science, even if it still happens within the framework of abstract intellectual models, because this one of the routes through which will eventually spread to larger population. It is naive to believe that the global shift from materialistic to idealistic paradigm would happen through average people reading and subscribing to Steiner's PoF.

[Federica]

I wonder why you didn't post the video in the hard problem of consciousness thread. This fully belongs there.

This is about idealism, it has little to do with the "hard problem"

The "hard problem of consciousness" thread, as it has unfolded, is not about the hard problem really, as much as it is about how to overcome it, or how the hard problem is devoid of all meaning, when we directly enquire the nature of reality.

And this is also the starting point of the idealistic inquiry as posited at the beginning of this exposition by Nikolaj Pilgaard Petersen (let me properly name him, so that you may understand that I am not in any sense denying or degrading the intelligence making these speculations possible).

To me “this is idealism, that was the hard problem” is rigid segmentation, but anyway, I agree it is subjective evaluation how much this is connected to other ongoing conversations. We can let it fall.

[Federica]

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

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. This is extremely clear in this particular exposition of triadic idealism, for example. Not to say that knowledge of the philosophical theories is uninteresting, and unindicative of evolutionary trends - as all outer expressions of the spirit are, be it in science, philosophy, art, or outer activities of any kind. It is valuable to learn about present-day evolution of philosophical thinking. However, we cannot unsee the inherent methodological approach here, that little (or nothing) has to do with the first-person, experiential, phenomenological, living, direct approach that you - we - aspire to live up to.


That’s the clear-cut difference between the way Cleric uses (not models but) illustrations, analogies and metaphors, and the way they are used in this exposition, as replicas, models, as we can see with the example of the perforated sphere. Cleric uses illustrations not as final destinations, or sandboxes for the intellect to dwell and one-sidedly roam into ad infinitum, but as springboards, as supports to mediate between spiritual reality and the human faculties. Human faculties are currently so centered around the “clever cat” - to use an image from Steiner’s fairy tale on the other thread - they are so locked into the intellectual dimension, that a mediating sensory language is of great help.
The waves, the series, the rays, etc. are only meant as crutches to help our undeveloped, still atrophied human cognition visualize in sensory terms the nascent intuitions that can be sparked in various ways. So the analogies are exclusively meant to sustain them, not to replace the intuitions. One might object that the perforated sphere does the same - but no, it doesn’t, if we look carefully the difference is clearly detectable.


It’s like when we make a fire, especially if the logs are still too fresh and moist - as our cognition is today - we have to rely on those small, easily inflammable starters, to kindle the fire and get to the point where it becomes stabilized. The starters mediate between the heavy, dense and damp wooden nature, and the transformative power of the flames. But it would be obviously senseless to imagine that a sustainable fire can consist of starters exclusively. Such an attempt would leave us fully burned out, and yet cold inside. This is similar to what truly happens to us when we look at these models, such as triadic idealism. They leave us cold inside. In Steiner words from the fairy tales thread:

Steiner wrote: It surely cannot be denied that our epoch has something of a mood of loss and regret, that, despite the inventiveness with which art and poetry represent reality, our age has an underlying sense that all this is illusory, and not truth.

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.

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.

[Stranger]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Federica]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Eugene, I will respond to this first, because my reply due on the other thread builds on what I want to say here.

We certainly need to give philosophy a chance to develop. I am not familiar with this particular philosopher, and I have no intention to judge him based on one video, which moreover, as I already conceded, is cleverly constructed and presented. I agree: it's inevitable that there will be a gradual transition to a more spiritual-phenomenological approach in philosophy, although I don't think it will be necessarily driven by a popularization of such an approach within academia and its literature. But instead of explaining why I think so (we can keep it for a next post) I would bring to your attention something else that I have noticed instead, as a frequent occurence, in relation to how your posts unfold.


As I have observed, you usually write a reply on the spur of the moment first, and you post it. This often goes really fast. I believe the reason is that you have a very agile mind. You think fast, and round up your thoughts efficiently. There is a high intensity of thinking flow, which allows you to produce a well rounded reasoning sequence in little time, with little or no sacrifice of accuracy. This is not flattering, it's observation. Now, what I also have consistently observed is that you usually cycle back to what you have written and you rethink it, multiple times, and so you edit and often extend your posts. I am sure you are aware of that, still I hope it will be useful to highlight this here: the final result of your editing, with almost no exception, is a hardening of your initial position. Often, it is both a hardening of your statements, and also some form of rebuffing, or taking a dig at your counterpart, that was completely absent in your initial post.


I am sure you remember I have already posted various comments of similar nature to Ashvin (especially to Ashvin) Cleric, Lou, Mike, Lorenzo, at a minimum, and I have received some as well. So please, don't get me wrong, none is exempt from such soul dynamics I am hinting to here, although they take different forms for each of us. What I am trying to say is that you often have a spontaneous, factual reply first, upon which an additional layer of thoughts and emotions overflows, that makes you come back to your message, and makes you feel the need to revise your first expression and to counter the other person more firmly. The reason is that your Thinking is very efficient and fast, it comes in first, it tells its message. Later, Feeling comes in, and tells you that you should do well revising your thought-pictures towards a specific direction. As it turns out, this is consistently the direction of a hardening. For some people, as I have noticed, it works rather the opposite way. They are more cautious thinkers, slow thinkers, so they first perceive their Feeling-thought-pictures. And Feeling is where we are often half-conscious of what's going on, not fully on top of why we respond to certain stimuli more than to others, etc.


Clearly, it makes a noticeable difference whether T comes first, and then F comes in to color it, or the other way around. The cautious thinkers will typically go all the way in first, overexpressing their points under the impulse of their Feelings (of being misunderstood, or whatever it might be) and then only later they will reflect and realize that they may have overreacted. If their overall constitution allows, they would then later soften or adjust their message. Actually I should say 'we' instead of 'they', because I guess I belong to this second type. In the case of the thinking-first type of inner organization, although there are many positive sides (as you know) there is also one major drawback. It is that Feeling - with everything that Feeling might encompass in terms of possible past suffering, unresolved issues, weaknesses etc. - will tend to color and influence the initially 'pure' thought-pictures, in rather arbitrary ways that depend heavily on everyone's unique karma. This will naturally happen in situations when Feeling is stimulated, like for instance in exchanges of opinion with others, not when one meditates or reflects in solitude, of course. I am highlighting this because I think you should take this fact in due consideration, when you perceive your thought-pictures regarding the opinions and positions expressed by others, as you observe the trajectory of these thought-pictures. Conversely, people like me should learn to not follow their Feelings head first, as they present themselves to our perception, knowing that the reassessment of Thinking will come and will inevitably know better.
But for you, just the opposite dynamics is playing out, and I can give you the example of this post. Your initial reply was quite short, balanced, and factual. It reflects the trajectory of your fast, efficient Thinking. It only consisted of the following two paragraphs, one very moderate and smooth, and the second one, factual and neutral:

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.

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

Later, however, Feeling came in to override the thought-pictures. You edited and significantly extended the post. Among other things, you added:

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.

As 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.
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.

[Stranger]

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.

As 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.
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.

You are right about noticing that in my responses T comes before F, it has to do with my personality.

But that particular quoted passage was rather related to Ashvin's arrogant attitude, and I apologize if it sounded like it was relevant to your attitude. But I also see how Ashvin's arrogant approach may also be poisoning the minds of other people who sympathize with anthroposophy. which is definitely a concern. He seems to be totally fine with no feeling of wrongdoing whatsoever and continuing with employing the tactics of intentional twisting and misinterpretations and even lies by ascribing to people something they never said for the purpose of proving the views of other teachings/practices/philosophies wrong, with labeling them as "abstract" without any way to prove whether people's statements are grounded in their first-person phenomenological or spiritual experience or not, and with consistently arrogant attitude towards them. This is especially dissonant when the same person proclaims high moral standards according to the teaching/philosophy they claim to adhere to. I do not see a point in continuing any discussions in that way.