That said, I think there is a way of parsing the quoted statement that makes sense: 'The idea of a self co-arises with the idea of a world'. Both ideas are inherently vague—we never actually encounter a whole self, or a whole world. — Janus

"The conscious self is a construction that arises in the dialectical process that is a world-making" is the sort of text against which Russell and Moore rebelled, Russell appealing to the newly formalised logic and Moore to common sense.


(Which do you prefer, "The conscious self is a construction that arises in the dialectical process that is a world-making" or "Here is a hand"?

Actually, I gave a fairly clear argument against dialectic. Your reply amounted to waving at Pierce.

I continue to add "details" to my own thesis, as do you, but I doubt that any amount of itemization will convince someone who is not already inclined toward your point of view. If the general notion is abhorrent to their worldview, more particulars will not sway them. Concur? — Gnomon

That's often the case here. The basic insight of the 'mind-created world' is like a gestalt shift - a sudden shift in understanding. (As a whimsical aside, I often feel that Lewis Carroll's madcap adventures in Alice in Wonderland were a kind of presage of post-modernism - the absurdity and groundlessness of the post-modern situation. The Chesire Cat's grin - the grin without the cat - a very pregnant metaphor for the post-modern landscape.)

The conscious self is a construction that arises in the dialectical process that is a world-making.
— apokrisis

:100:
— Wayfarer

You see, I don't think that this comment says anything. At least, not clearly. — Banno

I agreed with it, in light of considerable earlier conversation. What resonated with me is the 'constructivist' perspective - the sense in which the mind is 'world-making', moment to moment. It can be said of mindfulness meditation that its aim is to gain insight into the mind's 'I-making and mine-making' proclivities, which are going on ceaselessly due to ingrained habits of thought. There are articles about the role of Kant and Schopenhauer in Freud's development of the theory of the unconscious. Then there's Andrew Brook, who says that Kant was the godfather of modern cognitive science.

It's the sort of text against which Russell and Moore rebelled — Banno

Right. Which is why most of what they say is jejune and how modern analytic philosophy became part of Elliott's wasteland.

(Which do you prefer, "The conscious self is a construction that arises in the dialectical process that is a world-making" or "Here is a hand"? — Banno

We don't encounter a world or a self, but we encounter many hands. And many hands make light work—but only if they work together.

And I'm trying to point out that what you say is pretty much what Marx is on about :D -- wanting to understand how the capitalist machine works through critique in order to supply theory for the movement. — Moliere

Of course. Marx was a decent critic of his times. He took a systems view. He and Engels had their model of Dialectical Materialism.

But diagnosis did not produce the cure. Fukuyama points to the historical evidence that dialectics can't balance things. You need trialectics to achieve that.

After the madness of Stalin, the USSR achieved a stable political formula in having the triadic balance of the Politiburo, Army generals and KGB. An arrangement of power was institutionalised.

So we do know what makes systems work. And it ain't demolishing hierarchies. It is ensuring that hierarchical order does in fact have the two way information flow where top-down constraints exist in balance with bottom-up construction. A society is well balanced when it is a collective of interest groups formed over all scales of its existence.

One's freedom of choice is an existential condition more than a political one, I'd say. — Moliere

And what social purpose was that existentialism shaped to serve?

At what point did a revolutionary political idea become the basis of modern mass consumerism? The "because you're so individual and special" reason that you deserve a Lamborghini or Rolex?

At what point did it become the justification for neo-liberalism and the worker as entrepreneur?

Counter-culture mutates into mainstream culture to the degree that it fuels the end result – fossil fuel burning and resource consumption. If it is a "good idea" in that sense, it becomes the norm. The new ought.

It was so off the mark that I thought it better to let it sink into the darkness. :up:

It ican be said of mindfulness meditation that its aim is to gain insight into the mind's 'I-making and mine-making' proclivities, which are going on ceaselessly due to ingrained habits of thought. — Wayfarer

I don't see how you could transcend the "I-making and mine-making proclivities" as long as you cling to the idea that the mind (that is the self) creates the world. Insofar as this places the self at the centre of the world it is not a "Copernican Revolution" at all.

What resonated with me is the 'constructivist' perspective... — Wayfarer

Again, something with which I have considerable sympathy. But not in terms of a dialectic, for the reasons I have given.

:100:

:wink:

Both ideas are inherently vague—we never actually encounter a whole self, or a whole world. — Janus

Who is this "we" to which you just referred? Some form of self as a point of reference that suitably anchors some world in the passing pincer grip of a dialectic or dichotomised polarity? "I see this or that makes sense or nonsense within this or that world model or ontic framework."

Self and world never seem to be found apart, and yet never together either. Curious. It is almost as if each is the other's reflection somehow. An Umwelt almost.

You see, I don't think that this comment says anything. At least, not clearly. — Banno

Agreed. And with certainty on "clearly". Where such a "slogan" has to be explained in other words to mean anything at all, it is better to ditch the slogan and keep the other words, which is the actual, clear explanation of what the slogan meant in the writer's mind.

My criticism of the view that everything is mind is that we really have no idea what that could mean — Janus

By 'we' you mean 'me'. Take Richard Conn Henry. He's a Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, author of many publications on the topics of astrophysics and various forms of astronomy including optical, radio, ultraviolet, and X-ray. He had a kind of 'aha' moment in the 90's when he came to realisation that physics has undermined physicalism, which lead to him publishing an essay in Nature in 2005, The Mental Universe:

The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.

There are a lot of people in this territory nowadays. Kastrup's publishing organisation is called the Essentia Foundation - take a look at the list of authors and includes a lot of scientists. Essentia has a free online course on analytical idealism.

I don't see how you could transcend the "I-making and mine-making proclivities" as long as you cling to the idea that the mind (that is the self) creates the world — Janus

Again, 'I don't see how'. The fact you don't understand it is not a criterion. It's insight into a general process, one in which we're all involved. It's basic to the human condition, in fact it's basic to any form of organic life. It's the inveterate tendency to keep going. It's where there's convergence between Buddhism and Schop's 'will'.

he came to realisation that physics has undermined physicalism — Wayfarer

This sort of stuff can't not remind me of Deepak Chopra.

This sort of stuff can't not remind me of Deepak Chopra. — Lionino

Yes, it's true that stereotyping comes very easily.

The capacity for pattern recognition is a prerequisite for philosophy.

Who is this "we" to which you just referred? — apokrisis

I would have been better to say 'a world or a self is never encountered'.

Perhaps

"I see this or that makes sense or nonsense within this or that world model or ontic framework." — apokrisis

That seems right, but no framework is THE framework. I think we agree that the nature of things is best given to us by science, which is, when it comes down to it, an extensive elaboration of everyday experience and observation.

Self and world never seem to be found apart, and yet never together either. Curious. It is almost as if each is the other's reflection somehow. An Umwelt almost. — apokrisis

Right, the ideas of self and world are conceptually inseparable. I like the idea of an "Umwelt" or as Jaspers would put it "an Encompassing".

Didn't we at least reach some agreement that being good at physics does not make one good at philosophy?

The only reality is mind and observations...

Well, no. There are cats, too. And Forums. And promises.

Essentia has a free online course... — Wayfarer

So does Scientology.

Didn't we at least reach some agreement that being good at physics does not make one good at philosophy? — Banno

Physicalism is a major influence in philosophy, as you well know. So-called 'non-reductive physicalism' is probably the mainstream majority amongst academic philosophers. So the fact that physics calls physicalism into question is directly relevant.

↪Gnomon
My criticism of the view that everything is mind is that we really have no idea what that could really mean. On the other hand, we know very well what it means to say that everything is material or physical, since we find ourselves in a material world, where everything, except abstract generalities, does seem to be physical. Abstract generalities can be said to only exist in their material instantiations, and we have no way of clearly conceiving and saying how they could exist in any other sense. — Janus

's article seems to agree with your assessment, that a superhuman eye-in-the-sky worldview would be materially meaningless, but insists that the abstract notion may be metaphorically*1 relevant and symbolically meaningful. Before the 20th century, humans had never seen the world beyond their local horizon. But, they could imagine a bird's-eye-view, as evidenced by some of their ancient maps of the known world. {image below}

Where Kastrup aspires to prove logically that a Cosmic Mind must exist in some meaningful sense, Way says "there is no need to introduce a literal ‘mind-at-large’ to maintain a coherent idealism" {my emphasis}. What he does posit, in the article, is that a philosophical "paradigm shift from scientific materialism to scientifically-informed idealism" is currently underway"*2. And that new paradigm would not say "Abstract generalities can be said to only exist in their material instantiations" {my emphasis}. Which only makes sense from a Materialist perspective.

So, Way presents an alternative form of Idealism, which doesn't require an actual sensable God-in-the-quad to maintain the physical world in the absence of a human observer. For instance, a "cognitive shift"*3 in the observer/imaginer can be personally meaningful, even without an "instantiation". General Concepts and Universal Principles have no material specimen, only logical structure. :smile:


*1. Metaphor is figurative, not physical :
My favorite: Metaphor is a poetically or rhetorically ambitious use of words, a figurative as opposed to literal use. It has attracted more philosophical interest and provoked more philosophical controversy than any of the other traditionally recognized figures of speech.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-favorite-philosophical-metaphor

*2. Excerpt from Is there a ‘mind at large’? :
Without the organising capability which consciousness brings to the universe, what exists is by definition unintelligible and unknowable. The mind brings an order to experience in light of which data is interpreted and integrated into meaningful information — this is an intrinsic aspect of the meaning of ‘being’. But the sense in which the universe exists apart from or outside that activity is by definition unknown, so there is no need to posit a ‘mind-at-large’ to account for it.
https://medium.com/@jonathan.shearman/mind-at-large-169bb5f0c3a7
Note --- Plato postulated a universal logical force (LOGOS) in the world, organizing it into the orderly lawful physical system of parts that analytical Science can make sense of.

*3. The Overview Effect :
The overview effect is a cognitive shift reported by some astronauts while viewing the Earth from space. Researchers have characterized the effect as "a state of awe with self-transcendent qualities, precipitated by a particularly striking visual stimulus". The most prominent common aspects of personally experiencing the Earth from space are appreciation and perception of beauty, unexpected and even overwhelming emotion, and an increased sense of connection to other people and the Earth as a whole. The effect can cause changes in the observer's self concept and value system, and can be transformative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect


WORLD AS SEEN FROM ABOVE THE LOCATION OF THE MEDIEVAL IMAGINER

:100:

Sure, but what he says is blatantly misguided. There is more here than mind and perception.

hink about it this way: if you became convinced that all of the Dialectic was in error, would that change your view of what ought be done? — Banno

Oh no. It's not that central to my thinking.

So what is it that dialectic does?

Mostly cause me a headache :D -- it's more that it's so undeniable to Marx's philosophy that it's something I have to contend with and figure out its boundaries in understanding that philosophy. Although I see value in understanding a thinker in his own time on his own grounds even where I disagree with him -- but here it's not clear enough yet for me to agree or disagree, but it's something I like to work out.

Apo, Way and Moli are all attempting to answer the Big Questions with various stories. Much easier to point out the problems with their accounts, — Banno

Heh, I don't mind. Without something to think against the thoughts kind of just drizzle away in the day to day. So pick away.

Again, 'I don't see how'. The fact you don't understand it is not a criterion. It's insight into a general process, one in which we're all involved. It's basic to the human condition, in fact it's basic to any form of organic life. — Wayfarer

There is no point saying that I don't understand some idea if you cannot explain it yourself. I can simply retort that you don't understand it either and that it is just something you vaguely gesture at.

It seems obvious to me that the mind interprets the world, it does not create it. The mind (brain) as well as the language and culture also generate an idea of a self, but the idea is still vague if you want to say that the self is anything more than the body, including its ideas, emotions and its history. But even then, there always seems to be something left out.

The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things. — Wayfarer

What, I should believe that just because it is said by

a Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, author of many publications on the topics of astrophysics and various forms of astronomy including optical, radio, ultraviolet, and X-ray. — Wayfarer

I understand what is being said, and I think it is an unwarranted conclusion that is incorrect and not in accordance with human experience—observations obviously are of things. I do agree with the last part that says that observations are not themselves things, if we define 'things' as 'what is observable or encounterable in some sense', because observations are not observable.

There is no point saying that I don't understand some idea if you cannot explain it yourself. — Janus

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. Over and out.

Oh no. It's not that central to my thinking. — Moliere

And I bet it's even less central to your Doing!

Wittgenstein and Anscombe are lurking in the background here, pointing out that it's the use of our metaphysics that has meaning.

Of course. Marx was a decent critic of his times. He took a systems view. He and Engels had their model of Dialectical Materialism.

But diagnosis did not produce the cure. Fukuyama points to the historical evidence that dialectics can't balance things. You need trialectics to achieve that.

After the madness of Stalin, the USSR achieved a stable political formula in having the triadic balance of the Politiburo, Army generals and KGB. An arrangement of power was institutionalised.

So we do know what makes systems work. And it ain't demolishing hierarchies. It is ensuring that hierarchical order does in fact have the two way information flow where top-down constraints exist in balance with bottom-up construction. A society is well balanced when it is a collective of interest groups formed over all scales of its existence. — apokrisis

My view is that you can't science your way into future social organizations -- I think it's the scientific claim of Marx's that fails. Though it describes a pattern we still are contending with fairly well, it's not at present a scientific theory in the sense that it wants to be.

So when I see these sorts of claims it looks to me that you guys are in the same camp: you have the Newtonian Laws of social organisms and from those Laws we can control the direction of development of social organisms. Something like Comte's positivism?

And what social purpose was that existentialism shaped to serve?

At what point did a revolutionary political idea become the basis of modern mass consumerism? The "because you're so individual and special" reason that you deserve a Lamborghini or Rolex?

At what point did it become the justification for neo-liberalism and the worker as entrepreneur?

Counter-culture mutates into mainstream culture to the degree that it fuels the end result – fossil fuel burning and resource consumption. If it is a "good idea" in that sense, it becomes the norm. The new ought. — apokrisis

We can describe norms, but that's not the same as saying which norm we should pursue. The question isn't "What social purpose was that existentialism shaped to serve?" but rather "How shall we shape this existentialism?"

That seems right, but no framework is THE framework. — Janus

Sure. The next level dichotomy is deciding the pragmatic balance between generality and specificity - between laws and measurements in science terms. Each side contains information about “the world”. The balancing of what has been divided becomes a question of epistemic efficiency. Occam’s razor. What does the job of organising our behaviour in some useful and self-sustaining way?

Where Kastrup aspires to prove logically that a Cosmic Mind must exist in some meaningful sense, Way says "there is no need to introduce a literal ‘mind-at-large’ to maintain a coherent idealism" {my emphasis}. What he does posit, in the article, is that a philosophical "paradigm shift from scientific materialism to scientifically-informed idealism" is currently underway"*2. And that new paradigm would not say "Abstract generalities can be said to only exist in their material instantiations" {my emphasis}. Which only makes sense from a Materialist perspective.

So, Way presents an alternative form of Idealism, which doesn't require an actual sensable God-in-the-quad to maintain the physical world in the absence of a human observer. — Gnomon

You haven't and Wayfarer hasn't, said what that alternative form of idealism consists in. If it is only that the brain models a world, well I think that is uncontroversial. But to think that what is being modeled exists in its own right seems most plausible to me given all the evidence from our experience as it is given by everday life and by science.

If there are no mind-independent existents and if there is no collective mind to which we are all connected, then how would you explain the fact that we all perceive the same things, including at least some animals? I am yet to see even the beginnings of any such explanation coming from you or Wayfarer.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. Over and out. — Wayfarer

See above. You have not explained it. If you had I would have no trouble understanding it, although of course I imagine I probably would not agree with it and would thus critique it. But you have not given me anything at all to work with, just hand-waving. If you don't agree, then respond to this and lay it our as clearly as you can, and then we might get somewhere.

And I bet it's even less central to your Doing! — Banno

Well, here's where we can get critical of ourselves and maybe don't realize what it is what we are doing. So the dialectic plays no role in my doing, I'll say, but I go to work and pay my bills and dance around the boss all the same: so the material dialectic would play a role in my doing even if it's not a part of my thinking.

But, I take your point. It's not clear enough to myself to say one way or the other -- I can give some nascent beginnings of an attempt to give clear distinction, but that's about it, so clearly it doesn't play a role in thinking or my conscious doing.

Wittgenstein and Anscombe are lurking in the background here, pointing out that it's the use of our metaphysics that has meaning. — Banno

Heh. So Hegel's metaphysic is a good way to ensure the continuation of philosophy professors? :D (EDIT: I ought say this would be a point in its favor, for me)

You haven't and Wayfarer hasn't, said what that alternative form of idealism consists in. If it is only that the brain models a world, well I think that is uncontroversial. But to think that what is being modeled exists in its own right seems most plausible to me given all the evidence from our experience as it is given by science. — Janus

Yep, a model is presumably a model of something.