-
Mww
5.2kIs your question about "object" such that you remove yourself as a peer capable of reviewing the text? — Paine
Nope; got nothing to do with the text. By asking what you mean “object” to represent prevents me from prematurely mis-judging your use of it solely from what I think it represents.
I just want to know what “object” gives me that object doesn’t. What do the marks give to object that object doesn’t already have? -
Paine
2.9kI just want to know what “object” gives me that object doesn’t. What do the marks give to object that object doesn’t already have? — Mww
What I mean by that is that the properties of space and time that we confer to existing things in an Aristotle or Aquinas set of givens is upset when those are taken to be primarily intuitions that make our experience possible. The reaction by Kant at A36/B53 shows him insisting upon a strong separation from what things are beyond our experience. But it is not an absolute separation expressed in forms of idealism he opposes. But it is a duality of his own making. In that sense, it does not give more than it takes away. -
Gnomon
4.2k
I'm still reading the voluminous 2025 book by James Glattfelder : The Sapient Cosmos, What a modern-day synthesis of science and philosophy teaches us about the emergence of information, consciousness, and meaning. It's an encyclopedia of current concepts of the Idealistic worldview. The book has chapters on cutting-edge science, such as Relativity, Quantum physics, Information theory, and Complexity science. But it also has chapters on Buddhism, Shamanic traditions, and Psychedelic adventures. So, the label for his worldview is Syncretic Idealism, which some interpret as "scientific spirituality"*1.The aim of this essay is to make the case for a type of philosophical idealism, which posits mind as foundational to the nature of existence. Idealism is usually distinguished from physicalism — the view that the physical is fundamental — and the related philosophical naturalism, the view that only natural laws and forces, as depicted in the natural sciences, account for the universe. — Wayfarer
Syncretic : a combination, or mish-mash, of various schools of thought.
My personal background is mainly in the scientific aspects of the Mind Created World. But yours is much deeper in traditional Philosophy, including Buddhist insights on mind. So, the Shamanic & Psychedelic explorations in the mental world are exotic territory for me. Glattfelder calls those who experiment with mind-altering drugs : "Psychonauts". And he seems convinced that they are directly experiencing parallel realms of reality (Ideality???). He also thinks Near-Death experiences are previews of the afterlife. But those ideas about Idealism are hard for me to accept.
Today, I just read a quote from Richard Tarnas, historian and astrologer, that sounded reminiscent of your Mind-Created World : "The mind is not the passive reflector of an external world and its intrinsic order, but is active and creative in the process of perception and cognition. Reality is in some sense constructed by the mind, not simply perceived by it, and many such constructions are possible, none necessarily sovereign."
To me, that statement makes sense, insofar as Cognition is a construct, and Worldviews are personal models of reality. But the notion of opening The Doors of Perception*2 to alternate realities, that can be explored by "poisoning" the brain with serotonin agonists, that stimulate "non-ordinary mental states", and that skeptics call "hallucinations", does not compute.
In my profession as an architect, we built imaginary models of potential or possible buildings that do not exist yet in the real world. Although you may imagine yourself walking thru the atrium, the model is not intended to be interpreted as a hyper-real structure that you can inhabit with your disembodied Self/Soul.
Personally, my worldview is both Realistic (physical senses) and Idealistic (mental images)*3. But I'd like to hear from you, as the resident expert on traditional Idealism, what you think of Syncretic Idealism, as a synthesis of Science and Spirituality. Have you ever explored alternate Realities with a mind "cleansed" by entheogens? :smile:
*1. Syncretic idealism is a term used to explain the concept of scientific spirituality.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNukwNH0htX/
*2. Aldous Huxley :
Huxley used the phrase to describe his experiences with psychedelic drugs, which he felt temporarily "cleansed the doors of perception," allowing for a greater awareness of the world and human consciousness
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=doors+of+perception+quote
*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
# The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
# Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
# This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html -
Wayfarer
25.4kAs one who came of age in the 60’s I surely did have encounters with lysergines. Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Heart’s Club Band and the Summer of Love. It seemed an intoxicating new world of possibilities (although as I grew up in Australia I was geographically removed.) So, yes.
But the action of lysergic acid is very different to intoxicants as the amounts ingested are minute, in the micrograms. It doesn't 'flood the brain with chemicals' so much as trigger a kind of chain reaction which can considerably provide and enhance insights well beyond the normal sense of 'existence as usual'. While I wouldn’t ever advocate the consumption of illegal substances I have no doubt that this particular class of substances do indeed open the doors of perception (insights which are of course impossible to communicate or even really remember on a conscious level).
Yes, the Tarnas quote is exactly what I was getting at in this thread. Why this is even considered controversial beats me. It is obvious that our fantastically elaborate hominid forebrain creates our world. It doesn't mean there's no world outside it, but that's not the world we ever know.
I've looked at Glattfelder's books and listened to some of his talks. Overall I'm well-disposed towards him although some of it is pretty far out. He didn't coin the term psychonaut by the way. -
Gnomon
4.2k
If or when "recreational" Marijuana becomes legal in my area, I may give it a try, just to see what I'm missing. Most of the other "street drugs" seem to do more harm than good. So, I'm not inclined to open those particular doors. My naive question is this : do the psycho-drugs actually or metaphorically open your perception to exotic realities or to warped hallucinations?While I wouldn’t ever advocate the consumption of illegal substances I have no doubt that this particular class of substances do indeed open the doors of perception (insights which are of course impossible to communicate or even really remember on a conscious level). — Wayfarer
Glattfelder lists a wide variety of psychic experiences that are "real" to psychonauts : Synchronicity, ESP, Telepathy, Telekinesis, Clairvoyance, Mediumship, Presentiment, Psychic abilities, etc, that he deems worthy of scientific investigation. To explain their marginalization, he accuses scientists of have closed minds ; instead of having good reasons to avoid wasting time on subjective, non-empirical beliefs. And yet, in the last century, academically-trained Paranormal scientists & ghost-hunters have attempted to use empirical methods to study most of those “realities”, but their results have been generally un-reproducible*1, and have led to no practical uses, other than spooky entertainment*2. Therefore, like religious beliefs, such phantom “realities” seem to be a matter of faith, rather than science*3.
He says, "Although the boundaries of physical reality remain solid most of the time, there is not a priori reason radical modulations of sentience should not be able to puncture them momentarily". Does that assertion fit your understanding of the Mind Created World? He goes on to say, "this --- presumably, the fleeting temporariness of glimpses into other worlds --- would explain the difficulty in measuring and replicating such subtle and delicate effects accessible to the human mind only in moments of extreme modes of sentience." Besides, most of the plant-derived drugs may be natural, but their natural function is to kill or deter pests. So, using them to open doors to parallel worlds is un-natural. Can meditation open psychedelic doors?
He goes on to say, "this --- presumably, the fleeting temporariness of glimpses into other worlds --- would explain the difficulty in measuring and replicating such subtle and delicate effects accessible to the human mind only in moments of extreme modes of sentience." Quantum experiments are also fleeting and subject to biased interpretation, but they are reproducible and mathematical. On the other hand, most of the plant-derived psycho-drugs may be natural, but their natural function is to kill or deter pests. So, using insecticides and neuro-toxins to open doors to parallel worlds is literally un-natural. Is Buddhist meditation a safer option for timid psychonauts?
Apparently, the necessity for "radical modulations" --- that may lead to compulsive behavior and addiction, not to mention liver & heart disease & poisoning deaths --- makes other-worldly psycho-adventures just as dangerous as jungle & mountain explorations in mundane reality. Historically, ethyl alcohol (a mild neurotoxin) has been the most common & popular Affect Modulator. But it also modulates unacceptable social behaviors, that provoked wise King Solomon to denounce : "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise" Proverbs 20:1. Since I am not, by nature, an adventurer, I leave exploits in other-worlds to highly-motivated others. From the sentient safety of my armchair, I know the “secret knowledge” of Amazon Indians --- e.g. ethnobotany --- only by second-hand National Geographic reports. :nerd:
*1. No, paranormal activity has not been scientifically proven;it is considered a pseudoscience by most scientists and academics because there is no conclusive empirical evidence to support its existence. Many experiences attributed to the paranormal have scientific explanations, such as psychological factors (like pareidolia or sleep paralysis), environmental factors (like infrasound or electromagnetic fields), or even misinterpretations of mundane phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=history+of+paranormal+research
Note --- "no conclusive evidence" is not for lack of trying. After centuries of optimistic efforts, Paranormal research is not mainstream, not necessarily due to prejudice, but to lack of corroboration and practical applications.
*2. Paranormal research originated in the 19th century with the spiritualism movement and the founding of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) in 1882 to scientifically investigate spirits.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=history+of+paranormal+research
*3. “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” ____ Nikola Tesla,
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/139502-the-day-science-begins-to-study-non-physical-phenomena-it-will
Note --- Maybe Elon Musk will invest some of his Tesla profits into Mental, instead of Martial (Mars), exploration of other worlds. -
Wayfarer
25.4kI was the emphasis on hallucinogens that dampened my enthusiasm for Glattfelder’s book. It’s been many decades since my ingestion of lysergines. There were certainly remarkable hallucinations many of which were marked by astonishing apparent lucidity. But the most significant aspect was the awakening to the indescribable beauty of life itself, plants and trees seeming to possess a kind of luminous aliveness and perfection, and the sense that this sense of heightened awareness was reality itself.
As for the paranormal, I’m an open-minded sceptic. I don’t think it will ever be proven to exist, but I know that telepathy happens, it can’t simply be explained away. I think it’s possible that there are fields other than electromagnetic fields, something like Sheldrake’s morphic fields, but that can’t be detected by electronic instruments. -
Gnomon
4.2k
Me too! Glattfelder has a favorite term to describe the ambiguities & uncertainties of paranormal phenomena : Postmodern*1. He expresses some skepticism toward attempts to prove divine MIND by means of psychedelics and statistics*2. But he remains convinced that subjective Syncretic Idealism will soon be proven to be just as real, if not more, than the objective Reality of empirical Science*3*4.As for the paranormal, I’m an open-minded sceptic. — Wayfarer
Toward the end of the book, he quotes "philosophical entertainer" Alan Watts : "God also likes to play hide & seek, but because there is nothing outside God, it has no one but itself to play with."*5
I get the impression that Paranormal Research illuminates the dark corners of Consciousness with black light (statistical uncertainty), revealing formerly invisible things by re-emission of Bayesian belief. :smile:
*1. Trickster God? :
"In another display of postmodern mischief, reality appears to be teasing us by yet again hiding its true nature in a fog of inconclusiveness." {page 558}
Note --- After quoting a skeptical publication on telepathy, Glattfelder says "in this context, it is very hard to assess any claim for or against psi.
*2. "Yet again, psychedelics appear as a panacea for unorthodox knowledge access." {page 560}
*3. "It should be noted that the critics of syncretic idealism can only be taken seriously if they themselves have proficiency in modulating sentience."*4 {page 563}
Note --- Since he doesn't have much to say about Meditation, I suppose he means "modulating" brain functions by artificial means such as psychedelic drugs. Some paranormal researchers have indeed placed their bets on mind-soul-manifesting hallucinogenic substances (entheogens), to reveal the divinity hidden within the human entity.
*4. The phrase "modulating sentience" refers to the concept of influencing or altering the capacity to have subjective experiences, feelings, and sensations. This is a theoretical and speculative topic at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, and artificial intelligence (AI). While the total modulation of a biological organism's sentience remains beyond current capabilities, certain processes can alter the experience of consciousness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=modulating+sentience
*5. "Quantum hide and seek" refers to both a metaphor for the elusive and uncertain behavior of quantum particles and a scientific concept used in steganography and quantum computing to hide information. Researchers use analogies of hide-and-seek to describe the nature of quantum systems, where particles can be in multiple places at once (superposition) until observed. /i]
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+hide+and+seek -
Gnomon
4.2k
I get the impression that, compared to the "beauties" of the hallucinogenic*1 Psychedelic version of "reality itself", Glattfelder finds the sober view of human social Reality to be depressing. In the Epilogue to The Sapient Cosmos, he adds a "gloomy summary of the status quo". There, he lists a litany of what's wrong with the modern world ; not so much the natural world, but the un-natural un-spiritual environment created by the materialistic mind of technological humans.But the most significant aspect was the awakening to the indescribable beauty of life itself, plants and trees seeming to possess a kind of luminous aliveness and perfection, and the sense that this sense of heightened awareness was reality itself. — Wayfarer
He seems to weep for the loss of innocence of the babes in paradise (Genesis), after reaching the age of reason. As usual, that fall from grace is blamed on the serpent of Science, the "most cunning of all beasts". The snake-eyes of objectivity have given us wise apes mastery over the garden of nature, which we have raped & pillaged to gratify our own material desires.
Glattfelder seems to believe that humanity was better-off before science penetrated the "mystical veil" of reality. Before forces & energies replaced spirits & gods. Back when we were helpless animals kneeling before the mysterious powers of the non-self world. Back when we had to bend the knee to Nature, and to Nature's God.
His Syncretic Idealism seems to lean more toward Ontological Idealism (reality itself is mental) than to Epistemological Idealism (all knowledge is mental). But, although I find Idealism to be a good counterpoint to crass Realism, I've never been that romantically idealistic : more Pragmatic than Utopian. I was hopeful that the book would describe a sensible philosophy of Idealism to counter the crass Realism of Scientism. But if it requires dissociative drugs to open that door, I may have to remain benighted in Plato's cave for a while longer. :cool:
*1. Hallucinogenic drugs can cause hallucinations, which are sensations and images that seem real but aren't. People may hear, feel or see things that aren't really there. Some psychedelic drugs cause people to feel out of control or disconnected from their bodies and environment.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=on+and+off+psychedelic+drugs
LICK THE TOXIC TOAD TO FREE YOUR MIND
from its prison in mundane reality
-
Punshhh
3.2kI have extensive experience with using psilocybin, so might be able to help explore the effects of hallucinogens.
I would categorise it into two effects;
Firstly, the awareness of a subtle layer to our reality, which I will call the astral plane ( I know there is a lot of baggage with this word, as is often the case with these discussions), as shorthand for some kind of subtle realm that we are not normally aware of.
Secondly, a release from our rigid conditioned view and ideology of the world. A loosening of the bond and an awareness of something different, although fleeting, distorted, uncertain and undefined, due to the brute action of the chemical.
Both these realisations can be made through meditation and or religious practice. Or just happen through experiences of epiphany. The use of drugs does hasten the process, But I would guard against any use seeking to go further than this. As it can result in a whole range of psychological, or psychiatric conditions, which would prevent further progress. Also I am of the opinion that once these two realisations have been made, there isn’t really much more benefit to be made. The shell of the primordial egg has been cracked so to speak and one will begin to glimpse the chink of light through the cracks. -
Wayfarer
25.4kthat fall from grace is blamed on the serpent of Science, the "most cunning of all beasts". The snake-eyes of objectivity have given us wise apes mastery over the garden of nature, which we have raped & pillaged to gratify our own material desires. — Gnomon
The symbolism of the Fall is appropriate, considering that the fruit was 'from the tree of knowledge'. Another potent metaphor is that of Faust who sells his soul to the devil in return for knowledge. Mythological but as often the case, these religious metaphors convey something profound about human existence. And I've often mused on the idea that the physicalism sees humans as 'advanced hominids' - it's almost an article of faith (pardon the irony). One of the consequences of popular Darwinism is the belief that we're no different from animals in essence - so why aspire to anything higher? -
Wayfarer
25.4kGlattfelder seems to believe that humanity was better-off before science penetrated the "mystical veil" of reality — Gnomon
I have a more prosaic view, although we arrive at a similar conclusion. He says in his Medium synopsis
physicists almost unanimously ignore the philosophical implications of their work. As such, most scientists have unknowingly adopted an implicit metaphysical belief, rendering the universe inherently random and meaningless, implying a sense of cosmic nihilism.
There is a solid historical basis to this claim (even if it sounds extremely polemical). This is that the Scientific Revolution split the world asunder - into objective/subjective, mind/matter, self/world. This was not a conscious choice nor the doings of any specific individual, although there are several individuals who crystallised these tendencies into the underlying paradigm of modernity (Descartes, Galileo and Locke, to name several). It's also central to the themes explored in John Vervaeke's lecture series Awakening to the Meaning Crisis (in particular, Episodes 20, 21, and 22.)
The upshot was that the Universe comes to be seen as matter acted upon by physical principles which is accorded the status of 'primary reality'. Purpose and meaning are then assigned to the mind, and mind is, through evolution, a product of or derivative from 'the blind watchmaker' (Dawkin's terminology). And, with Descartes, comes the view that 'mind' and 'matter' are of utterly different kinds, with mind being pictured as 'res cogitans' (thinking substance) - which I think is an incoherent picture (i.e. it doesn't hang together.)
It has never been universally accepted, and there are many cracks showing up in it, but that is the 'big picture' view of how the Universe came to be seen as the meaningless collocation of physical forces.
Bernardo Kastrup and James Glattfelder are two of those who are criticizing this picture. (Note that Glattfelder's book was published by Essentia which is Kastrup's publishing house.) -
Wayfarer
25.4kWell, sure - there is much commentary on the fact that Galileo was deeply influenced by Plato in conceiving of “the book of nature” as written in mathematics. He was also indebted to Marsilio Ficino’s translation of Plato into Italian, one of the hallmark achievements of the Renaissance. Platonic and Neoplatonic influences run through much of early modern thought. Copernicus, for example, set out to show that the orbits of the planets were perfect Platonic circles—though Kepler was later to correct this with his vital discovery that they are elliptical.
By contrast, in Aristotelian philosophy, “matter” was only ever a potential something; outside of form, it had no intrinsic existence. Aristotle’s prima materia was a theoretical posit, not a substance you could pick up and throw. Galileo, however, shifted the emphasis: he insisted on the primacy of the measurable attributes of matter—those that could be captured mathematically. As John Vervaeke observes, matter now also possessed inertia, hence the modern concept of “inert matter.” So here the idea of inert matter, now devoid of intentionality and purpose, but conceived instead as passive, measurable, and defined in mathematical terms. -
Wayfarer
25.4kNevertheless, I think it must be acknowledged that the consequences of Galileo's overturning of Aristotelian physics was of major consequence in intellectual history, was it not? That that was central to the Scientific Revolution and the advent of the worldview of modern science, which is the topic under discussion.
-
PoeticUniverse
1.6kMe too! Glattfelder has a favorite term to describe the ambiguities & uncertainties of paranormal phenomena : Postmodern*1 — Gnomon
(See Dan Brown’s new book,
‘The Secret of Secrets’
For a similar investigation)
The Occasions of Experience via Whitehead’s Great Poet/Programmer
Like drops of dew upon the morning grass,
Brief moments sparkle, then are quick to fade;
Each “occasion” born, fulfilled, surpassed—
From these small deaths, reality is made.
The universe—a vast mosaic laid
Of prehensions, feelings, pure events;
Each atom, thought, and star in grand parade
Becoming, perishing, in present tense.
No substance fixed beneath the world we sense,
But process flowing through eternal Now;
Each moment grasps the past with reverence,
Then adds its novel aim, and takes its bow.
The concrescence of all things that be—
Each drop contains the cosmos’ memory.
Each moment bears within its fleeting form
The echoed traces of what came before;
Subjective aim transforms the uniform
Into creation's never-ending score.
We are not things but poems being writ,
A string of moments dancing into one;
The many and the one forever knit—
A billion suns comprising just one sun.
RevealThe void of time fills up with occasions bright,
Each grasping, feeling, yearning into form;
The universe—a symphony of light
Where past and future meet in endless storm.
So Whitehead taught: reality’s not clay,
But living moments born and passed away.
The actual world—a tapestry unfurled
Of prehended moments, gathered whole;
Each subject weaves the threads of what has swirled
Into new patterns as the cosmos rolls.
No static substance underlying all,
But drops of experience, self-creating;
Each moment rises, answers to the call,
Then perishes, its being still vibrating.
The great philosopher's vision clear and bold:
Reality is not of things, but acts;
Each ‘now’ contains what every ‘then’ has told—
A living process, not just lifeless facts.
The past is not just gone, but flows within
Each nascent moment, ready to begin.
Beyond the veil of common sense’s reach,
Lies truth more fluid than our words contain;
Each entity, like waves upon the beach,
Is but a ripple in experience’s chain.
The Poet’s primordial vision guides
Each occasion toward its best becoming;
The lure of beauty where all truth resides—
Eternal objects, endlessly oncoming.
The universe is not a clockwork cold,
But living feeling, sentient at its core;
Each quantum flash of being, brave and bold,
Creates itself, then passes through death’s door.
So Whitehead saw beyond the ancient rift—
As moments bloom and die, existence shifts.
Each moment blooms, a pulse in Time’s great sea,
Not things, but acts—events that come to be.
From drop to drop the cosmos takes its shape,
A dance of mind and matter, wild and free.
No static stone, no idle, lifeless clod—
But process moves beneath the soil and sod.
Each flash of being, brief as morning dew,
Is real as stars, is kissed by thought not odd.
These “occasions” rise with feeling at their core,
They prehend the past, yet seek a little more.
Each grasps the world, then yields itself in turn,
A spark that fades, but opens up the door.
They form a web, these nodes of sentient flare,
The past flows in, the future stirs the air.
Reality’s not built of blocks and beams,
But woven through with feeling, time, and care.
The world’s not made, but making ever still,
With every act a push against the will.
No fate is fixed, no god is locked above—
Creation wakes in each occasion’s thrill.
So sip this cup—each moment brims with wine,
Distilled from all that was, in grand design.
A drop contains the cosmos in its fold,
And flickers out, yet calls the next to shine.
The world becomes, it never merely is,
A flux of feeling, not a world of fizz.
No atom sits alone in timeless gloom—
It feels, it yearns, it tells us what it does.
Each moment’s born from many come before,
It draws their echo, adds a little more.
Then perishes, a whisper in the dark—
Yet leaves a trace no future can ignore.
Subject becomes object, tossed in the stream,
Each plays its part within the larger scheme.
No soul stands still, no world remains the same—
All shift and shape as in a woven dream.
From Poet’s lure to matter’s smallest twitch,
Each moment leans toward depths we cannot pitch.
Reality’s a poem never done—
Penned not in stone, but in becoming’s witch.
Not being, but becoming—this we are,
More like a flame than like a fallen star.
We flicker, burn, and pass our light along—
Each life a note in Time’s unending bar.
So here we dance, occasion upon flame,
Each flicker formed with joy, regret, or shame.
Yet in the forming lies the sacred spark—
A fleeting self that bears eternal name.
The stars themselves are thoughts that came to be,
Each nova sings in process, not decree.
A galaxy’s a rhythm, not a rock—
It hums with ancient acts of poetry.
Each quark, each pulse, each curve of stellar flare,
Responds to past and feels the future’s air.
The cosmos is a mind that builds itself—
A scaffold strung with intuition’s care.
No vast machine with cold and mindless gears—
But swirls of yearning shaped by hope and fears.
A thousand billion hearts in every sphere,
All whispering their stories through the years.
The past is real, but not a prison cell,
Its echoes guide, but do not bind or quell.
Each moment holds the power to re-form
The curve of time, the place where starlight fell.
From primal flux to now, the arc has bent—
Not by command, but lure and deep intent.
A One who woos, not rules, the world to grow—
Each choice a note in Love’s great instrument.
So let the comet blaze and atoms spin,
Each dance of dust a tale that dwells within.
No void is empty—everywhere there burns
A silent hymn of process born in din.
Creation is not done—it is the song,
Each verse a shift, each rhyme both right and wrong.
We are the singers, listeners, and score—
The universe becoming all along. -
Wayfarer
25.4k
-
Punshhh
3.2kWell, Aristotle puts a lot of emphasis on the being in front of you is what actually exists. We have different ideas about how that is possible, but the first thing is the encounter with such beings.
So, that is germane to the issue at hand.
This was the emphasis I was thinking of, while not coming at it from a philosophical perspective. What we encounter, fully formed in our world is what is of primary importance and that is what we are evolved to interact with. We don’t necessarily need to look under the bonnet, to see/know what is important. -
Gnomon
4.2k
I was reaching the end & epilogue of Glattfelder's book on Postmodern Paranormal Phenomena, when I began reading Dan Brown's new novel. To my surprise, he introduced the Golem of Prague, based on Jewish folktales, as a central character. And a major theme of the book seems to be Paranormal ESP, as investigated by a Noetic scientist. The real-world Institute for Noetic Sciences was founded by former astronaut Edgar Mitchell, to study Parapsychology, among other "fringe theories".(See Dan Brown’s new book,
‘The Secret of Secrets’
For a similar investigation) — PoeticUniverse
In his 2017 book, Origins, Brown also dealt with topics on the "fringe" between Philosophy and Science. The Futurist Ed Kirsch made a "discovery" that was said to challenge both Science and Religion : "If there is a divine force behind this universe, it is laughing hysterically at the religions we've created in an attempt to define it". But maybe that "force" would be sympathetic with the childish efforts of its own god-emulating upright-apes --- "poems being writ" --- to make sense our ever-changing world of contrasts & contradictions : of Angels & Demons.
Although some aspects of Kirsch's (Brown's) philosophy may not agree with my own Information-centric worldview, I found it generally compatible. For example, Robert Langdon was asked if he believed in God. He replied : " . . . . for me, the question of God lies in understanding the difference between codes and patterns. . . . . Codes, by definition, must carry information. They must do more than simply form a pattern --- codes must transmit data and convey meaning." :smile:
PS___ Regarding ultimate Origins, a sign on Langdon's Harvard classroom says :
"In my classroom, T > 0
For all inquiries where T = 0,
please visit the Religion Department." -
PoeticUniverse
1.6kI began reading Dan Brown's new novel. — Gnomon
Wow! You're on the ball; it only came out about a week ago. Has much about consciousness coming in from the outside. -
Paine
2.9k
One contrast I keep in mind is how deeply structured we are by our ancestors. They made their choices and we make ours.
I don't hold that they have a special power over our fortunes or anything of that sort. But their life is vivid in the expression of character and disposition of particular individuals. That view does not mesh well with the vision of souls being their own thing but also conscripted to the "material" world. -
Punshhh
3.2k
Yes, just read it again, it is good. I like the implicit suggestion that planets and stars are conscious beings and that each act has a deep creative potential. Along with the idea that each act is/can be informed by distant events.Hope you read that poetry above, it is really very good. I understand a lot more about Alfred North Whitehead just having read it. -
Gnomon
4.2k
I don't have to believe in animated-clay Golems or Paranormal Activity, or Parapsychology, in order to enjoy Dan Brown's fiction. I read fiction, in part, not to escape from reality, but merely to vicariously experience experiences that are different from our mundane existence. So, if I saw a clay-monster on the street, I'd assume it was a Comic-Con costume.I began reading Dan Brown's new novel. — Gnomon
Wow! You're on the ball; it only came out about a week ago. Has much about consciousness coming in from the outside. — PoeticUniverse
Likewise, I don't have to believe in Consciousness as signals from outside the skull in order to consider the philosophical implications of such a state of affairs. The Bible, that I was raised to believe was the word of God, has stories of people receiving divine messages from Angels, Demons, and Deities. But I now consider those stories to be fictional, not actual.
Therefore, while I have given some thought to the notion of brains functioning as radio receivers of messages from God, or from a sentient cosmos ; all I can say at this point is that I remain skeptical. However, I am working on an alternative explanation for the Hard Problem, based on non-fiction Energy & Information*1. For now, I do not accept the currently popular theory of Panpsychism, but I have my own theory of Enformationism, that some might consider equally fringey. :wink:
*1. How Does the Brain Create Mind? :
The Mind is an imaginary model of brain functions
Kastrup’s alternative to ancient Materialism & Panpsychism is similar to the equally antiquated worldview of Idealism¹⁹. His updated version of the all-is-mind concept is labeled Analytic Idealism, which some have renamed Cosmopsychism.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page14.html -
Paine
2.9k
In Plotinus, the soul animates matter as far as it can. The source is a power that can only go so far because matter is never completely mastered by form. The origin of that soul is from before our birth. Plotinus has also said he has visited that realm through contemplation.
I will leave off from distinguishing this view from Aristotle since years of our debates have become a circle. I will try contesting this view of "matter" with considerations from a modern thinker, Gregory Bateson.
Our ancestors show that our lives are built with components of past generations. We see that most readily through inherited characteristics in our relatives and ourselves in a mirror. Some very old material is moving through. One natural question is how does that element relate to an individual life. Bateson both ties oneself to the ancestors but separates them from our experience:
Let us start from the evolutionary side. It is now empirically clear that Darwinian evolutionary theory contained a very great error in its identification of the unit of survival under natural selection. The unit which was believed to be crucial and around which the theory was set up was either the breeding individual or the family line or the subspecies or some similar homogeneous set of conspecifics. Now I suggest that the last hundred years have demonstrated empirically that if an organism or aggregate of organisms sets to work with a focus on its own survival and thinks that is the way to select its adaptive moves, its "progress" ends up with a destroyed environment. If the organism ends up destroying its environment, it has in fact destroyed itself. And we may very easily see this process carried to its ultimate reductio ad absurdum in the next twenty years. The unit of survival is not the breeding organism, or the family line, or the society.
The old unit has already been partly corrected by the population geneticists. They have insisted that the evolutionary unit is, in fact, not homogeneous. A wild population of any species consists always of individuals whose genetic constitution varies widely. In other words, potentiality and readiness for change is already built into the survival unit. The heterogeneity of the wild population is already one-half of that trial-and-error system which is necessary for dealing with environment.
The artificially homogenized populations of man's domestic animals and plants are scarcely fit for survival.
And today a further correction of the unit is necessary. The flexible environment must also be included along with the flexible organism because, as I have already said, the organism which destroys its environment destroys itself. The unit of survival is a flexible organism-in-its-environment. — Bateson, Form, Substance, and Difference
Whatever opinion may have of this thinking, it is not "a view from nowhere."
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.
Categories
- Guest category
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum