Idealism Misses The Point

[ScottRoberts]

Corporeality (objects bound by both space and time) is the bottom most level in a hierarchical ontology, mind which is above corporeality is bound by only time, not space, and the highest level in this tripartite cosmos is the "aeviternal," i.e., that which is bound by neither space or time. The aeviternal is that which ties the two lower strata together, and acts instantaneously. We know that there is a causation outside of space and time (the violation of Bell inequalities). Idealism, a process bound by time, cannot account for instantaneity, whereas the aeviternal can. This is why I believe that the materialist is stuck in the lowest tier (the corporeal, i.e., only material objects exist); idealism is stuck in the second tier (only mind exists), but both lack a necessary cause, and for that, I believe, we must appeal to the aeviternal.

Mind is not bound by time. In the first place, we have memories to access the past, and plans and goals which influence the future. But ontologically speaking, in order to be aware of time passing, we must, in some sense, be outside of time. To hear a sequence of notes as a melody, we must transcend linear time. If we were bound by time, we could not be aware of any process. Thus, there is no need to add the aeviternal to an ontology. It is already there in ordinary mental experience.

[Objects Are Real]

Firstly, let me point out where I think you're correct: You write, "...ontologically speaking, in order to be aware of time passing, we must, in some sense, be outside of time." This is true. Your statement about music is also true.

Your mistake, however, is the same as idealism's claim that mind is the highest. If mind were the highest, we could not perceive the passage of time, music, or anything, and that is because mind happens in time. One needs something more, and that more is "perception." We must distinguish between mind and perception, just as reasoning is not knowing. Once the idealist "sees" that mind is analogous to reasoning and perception to knowing, he will begin to understand the gravity of the aeviternal point.

Perception is above mind. To the human perception is "the intellect" the "spirit," and to the cosmos it the "aeviternal" point (the instantaneous which is outside of time). Mind is to the human "the soul," reasoning, and to the cosmos the "intermediary," domain, i.e., intermediary in that it is between the corporeal (material) and the aeviternal (instantaneous). Mind/soul is that which someone (the primary entity) possesses, it is a part of someone yet is not the whole. Mind is think"ing" and reason"ing", it is a process that the primary entity does. Perception, on the other hand, is the act of stepping outside of "the algorithm", so-to-speak, to "know," to apprehend music, to "see." Mind is above matter, and yet it is ontologically beneath perception. Mind/soul (intermediary) is the 2+2 part of the equation, and perception/spirit (aeviternal) is the act of knowing that that sum is 4.

Memories are an activity of mind. Memories happen in the present, even though they're about the past. When one recalls his wedding, he is not being transported through time, just as dreaming of a castle doesn't a real castle make. These are imaginations. As one remembers, time in ticking. Mind is bound by time, as are memories. Plans for the future happen in the present. Envisioning what one will do next year doesn't transport him there. His thoughts (mind) and body are bound by time.

This doesn't mean that mind/soul (intermediary) is "worse" than perception/spirit (aeviternal), just as the corporeal (material) is not "worse" than mind. The 3 form a beautiful harmonic cosmos that is tripartite: for the cosmos aeviternal, intermdiary, and corporeal, which in its theomorphic (human) manifestation is spirit, mind, body. To the vedandic it is, satchitananda, sat meaning "being," chit meaning "consciousness" ananda meaning the "material" world. When it was pointed out to me that the Vedic satchitananda was the same cosmic tripartition as that of Plato, the Christian Scholastics, and the still living Wolfgang Smith's, it occurred to me that idealism is chit in absence of sat and ananda, i.e., idealism's version of consciousness is a kind of untethered process which can make no account of its own beginning, or of time, and as Bernardo admits, idealism cannot account for objective morality.

In this, idealism, being a representation of the Vedic "chit," and of the Wolfgangian "intermediary domain," is on a path but is as a ship with no captain.

[ScottRoberts]

Firstly, let me point out where I think you're correct: You write, "...ontologically speaking, in order to be aware of time passing, we must, in some sense, be outside of time." This is true. Your statement about music is also true.

Your mistake, however, is the same as idealism's claim that mind is the highest. If mind were the highest, we could not perceive the passage of time, music, or anything, and that is because mind happens in time.

You have your meaning of 'mind'. and I have mine. In mine, that which transcends linear time is a part of mind. not "above" it. It seems your meaning of mind is just linear thoughts. My meaning of 'mind' includes the sat and ananda of satchitananda. Yours doesn't. Now I am not going to adopt your meaning of mind, so if you are going to stick to it, we have nothing further to discuss. It is only according to your meaning of mind that "idealists miss the point".

[Objects Are Real]

I think that, because idealism cannot account for objective facts, or for its beginning, this suggests that it is in need of the act of being, a cause. I think that this cause is best captured by the concept of the "aeviternal."

A well-known materialist recently wrote, "Materialism is doomed." As Bernardo shows well, this is in part because of discoveries in quantum mechanics. Materialists are seeing the writing on the wall. The bees nest has been poked, and what I observe is that there is a scattering both upward to idealism and downward to illusionism.

There are of course aspects of idealism that I love very much, owed in part to its preeminent proselytizer, Bernardo Kastrup.

[ScottRoberts]

I think that, because idealism cannot account for objective facts,

Such as?

or for its beginning, this suggests that it is in need of the act of being, a cause.

Idealism was caused by people like Plato and Berkeley thinking. As for thinking, it (or more generally, mental activity) is idealism's ontological prime, which is to say, the First Cause. (Of course, our thinking is derivative, namely from Divine Thinking. Though not all idealists would agree with this way of putting things.)

[Stranger]

OAR, the metaphysics that you represent is known as dual aspect monism, a version of neutral monism. It has its right to exist as ontology, but it is rather non-parsimonious where, in addition to the reality of conscious experience, two unobservable and unverifiable abstract entities are introduced (such as neutral prime/Aeviternal and corporeal world). Your criticism of idealism is based on your misunderstanding of it, which Scott tried to point to you. Your understanding of "mind" is reduced to cognitive temporal processes only, which is not at all what is meant by "consciousness" in idealism. In idealism spaceless-timeless reality of being and awareness is Consciousness, temporal mind is also Consciousness, and spatiotemporal corporeal world is also Consciousness.

Now, regarding Sat-Chit-Ananda. Advaita Vedanta is pure idealism contrary to your claim. In Advaita the world of forms has always been understood as of dream-like nature with no independent reality attributed to corporeal objects. In Advaita Consciousness (Sat-Chit-Ananda) is Reality beyond space and time while being inseparable from the world of forms unfolding in time and space. In Advaita the world of form (Maya) is still only consciousness and unfolds as an aspect of consciousness simultaneously within time and beyond time. Time and timeless are simply inseparable aspects of the same one Consciousness. "Consciousness is all there is." (Aitareya Upanishad) If you would say to any classical advaitist that Ananda means "corporeal world" then they would just laugh at you

[Stranger]