Idealism Misses The Point
Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:51 pm
The two most obvious aspects of reality are 1) your consciousness; 2) material objects external to you.
What distinguishes material objects from mind is the fact that material objects have BOTH a spatial and temporal existence, whereas mind LACKS a spatial location (there is no thought in centimeters or grams). Thoughts ARE indeed temporal, however (reasoning happens as a process in time). This means that material objects have two bounds, a spatial AND a temporal bound. Thoughts (consciousness) has ONLY one bound, i.e., it is bound by time alone.
Because consciousness is limited by time, it fails as a fundamental theory. That is to say, the foundation of all being cannot have a bound; Idealism does.
We need more. Whereas material has a spatial and temporal bound, and consciousness only a temporal bound, something that has NEITHER a spatial or temporal bound is required.
Consider the point as understood in geometry. In geometry, a point has no dimensions, and yet from it comes all geometric dimensions. From the point extends a line, which is one dimensional. At the end of a line comes a sweep which causes a circle, a circumference. The line together with its circumference defines two bounds, each emerging form a point which has no bound. The line, which is one dimension, can be likened to time. The line can extend forever, though it will always be bound to one dimension. The circumference is analogous to space, as it is that which restricts, demarcates a location. Whereas the line offers a plenitude for which events can happen, the circumference constricts "where" an object can be. Given this, the line (time) which is free from the parameters of a circumference (space), therefore is situated ontologically HIGHER than the spatial. In a phrase: Time is more fundamental than space.
With this, we find ourselves staring at two strata in a hierarchical ontology, i.e., the temporal and the spatial. The two most obvious aspects of reality being 1) your consciousness and 2) material objects external to you; we can say the same for time and space, given their analogical relationship to consciousness (in time, but free from space) and material objects (in space and in time).
But the line of geometry nor circumference could possibly cause themselves. They are inseparable from the geometric point from which they sprang. To account for their existence, the line and circumference require something transcendent of themselves. Because the line is analogous to consciousness, and circumference to material, we can safely say that consciousness nor materiality could possibly cause themselves.
And this is where idealism falls short. Idealism, like the line of geometry, cannot account for its beginning. Because, under idealism, consciousness is the ultimate foundation of reality, it fails by virtue of the fact that consciousness is a process, and all processes happen in time, and are bound time. The true foundation of reality is that which causes the process, and anything that causes a process can't already be that process, a metaphysical impossibility.
To restore a more authentic philosophy we must understanding that there is a fixed point of reality that causes time and space, thus can account for them both. It is this that caused the analogues of those cosmic bounds: consciousness and materiality. That point is bound NEITHER by time or space. This point is what allows for the most important aspects of reality: the now; facts; the truth; being; intelligibility, knowing. Idealism's "consciousness" being a process is analogous to reasoning without knowing. Reasoning in absence of truth will lead one to schizophrenic madness, or more appropriately, the madness of dissociative identity disorder. Without a cause of consciousness and materiality, we are unmoored, floating adrift in a see of meaninglessness, nothing to ground a fact of the matter. Idealism, while better than materialism, offers such much meaninglessness given that it would have us to believe that processes in time (consciousness) have no beginning.
The timeless point, together with the dimension of time and the parameters of space, define a hierarchical tripartite ontology. This is of course not original to me, as it is both Platonic schools and Vedic, restored most recently by the invaluable Dr. Wolfgang Smith.
Lowest within this ontology is the material world, i.e., objects which indeed exist yet do not themselves perceive (molecules, chairs, galaxies). These objects are constricted by both space and time, and yet by virtue of the fact that they own QUALITIES, means that they are "corporeal," they can be perceived, and thus part of the real world. Because corporeal objects have qualities, they cannot reduce to physics, though physics can describe a quantitative aspect of them. Corporeal objects are bound by both space and a time.
In this tripartite cosmos, a level above the corporeal is the mental which is mind or soul. I believe that idealism has misdefined consciousness,and so here I will call the consciousness of idealism "iconsciouness." This is because an authentic understanding of consciousness knows consciousness as a nomen dei (name of God) and not a kind of non-self-aware, untethered process bound by nature. (Consiousness as nomen dei is a topic for another time). And so, the second level in the tripartite cosmos, the mental is the consciousness of idealism. The mental is bound by time but not space. The mental or iconsciouness, is likened to time, which is above space, which is why idealism is philosophically "above" materialism.
Materialism is restricted to the spatial and Idealism is relegated to time. Idealism incorrectly places iconsciouness as the highest, "the ground of all being," when in fact iconsciouness is situated only in middle, i.e., it is above space, yet because iconsciousness is bound by time, it is beneath that which is timeless.
I am not saying that the timeless point of the cosmos is God, for even the point of geometry must be put there by a geometer. The cosmic point, which is spaceless and timeless, therefore was itself "put there" by the cosmic geometer, God.
What distinguishes material objects from mind is the fact that material objects have BOTH a spatial and temporal existence, whereas mind LACKS a spatial location (there is no thought in centimeters or grams). Thoughts ARE indeed temporal, however (reasoning happens as a process in time). This means that material objects have two bounds, a spatial AND a temporal bound. Thoughts (consciousness) has ONLY one bound, i.e., it is bound by time alone.
Because consciousness is limited by time, it fails as a fundamental theory. That is to say, the foundation of all being cannot have a bound; Idealism does.
We need more. Whereas material has a spatial and temporal bound, and consciousness only a temporal bound, something that has NEITHER a spatial or temporal bound is required.
Consider the point as understood in geometry. In geometry, a point has no dimensions, and yet from it comes all geometric dimensions. From the point extends a line, which is one dimensional. At the end of a line comes a sweep which causes a circle, a circumference. The line together with its circumference defines two bounds, each emerging form a point which has no bound. The line, which is one dimension, can be likened to time. The line can extend forever, though it will always be bound to one dimension. The circumference is analogous to space, as it is that which restricts, demarcates a location. Whereas the line offers a plenitude for which events can happen, the circumference constricts "where" an object can be. Given this, the line (time) which is free from the parameters of a circumference (space), therefore is situated ontologically HIGHER than the spatial. In a phrase: Time is more fundamental than space.
With this, we find ourselves staring at two strata in a hierarchical ontology, i.e., the temporal and the spatial. The two most obvious aspects of reality being 1) your consciousness and 2) material objects external to you; we can say the same for time and space, given their analogical relationship to consciousness (in time, but free from space) and material objects (in space and in time).
But the line of geometry nor circumference could possibly cause themselves. They are inseparable from the geometric point from which they sprang. To account for their existence, the line and circumference require something transcendent of themselves. Because the line is analogous to consciousness, and circumference to material, we can safely say that consciousness nor materiality could possibly cause themselves.
And this is where idealism falls short. Idealism, like the line of geometry, cannot account for its beginning. Because, under idealism, consciousness is the ultimate foundation of reality, it fails by virtue of the fact that consciousness is a process, and all processes happen in time, and are bound time. The true foundation of reality is that which causes the process, and anything that causes a process can't already be that process, a metaphysical impossibility.
To restore a more authentic philosophy we must understanding that there is a fixed point of reality that causes time and space, thus can account for them both. It is this that caused the analogues of those cosmic bounds: consciousness and materiality. That point is bound NEITHER by time or space. This point is what allows for the most important aspects of reality: the now; facts; the truth; being; intelligibility, knowing. Idealism's "consciousness" being a process is analogous to reasoning without knowing. Reasoning in absence of truth will lead one to schizophrenic madness, or more appropriately, the madness of dissociative identity disorder. Without a cause of consciousness and materiality, we are unmoored, floating adrift in a see of meaninglessness, nothing to ground a fact of the matter. Idealism, while better than materialism, offers such much meaninglessness given that it would have us to believe that processes in time (consciousness) have no beginning.
The timeless point, together with the dimension of time and the parameters of space, define a hierarchical tripartite ontology. This is of course not original to me, as it is both Platonic schools and Vedic, restored most recently by the invaluable Dr. Wolfgang Smith.
Lowest within this ontology is the material world, i.e., objects which indeed exist yet do not themselves perceive (molecules, chairs, galaxies). These objects are constricted by both space and time, and yet by virtue of the fact that they own QUALITIES, means that they are "corporeal," they can be perceived, and thus part of the real world. Because corporeal objects have qualities, they cannot reduce to physics, though physics can describe a quantitative aspect of them. Corporeal objects are bound by both space and a time.
In this tripartite cosmos, a level above the corporeal is the mental which is mind or soul. I believe that idealism has misdefined consciousness,and so here I will call the consciousness of idealism "iconsciouness." This is because an authentic understanding of consciousness knows consciousness as a nomen dei (name of God) and not a kind of non-self-aware, untethered process bound by nature. (Consiousness as nomen dei is a topic for another time). And so, the second level in the tripartite cosmos, the mental is the consciousness of idealism. The mental is bound by time but not space. The mental or iconsciouness, is likened to time, which is above space, which is why idealism is philosophically "above" materialism.
Materialism is restricted to the spatial and Idealism is relegated to time. Idealism incorrectly places iconsciouness as the highest, "the ground of all being," when in fact iconsciouness is situated only in middle, i.e., it is above space, yet because iconsciousness is bound by time, it is beneath that which is timeless.
I am not saying that the timeless point of the cosmos is God, for even the point of geometry must be put there by a geometer. The cosmic point, which is spaceless and timeless, therefore was itself "put there" by the cosmic geometer, God.