Could Karma be the expression of basic physical laws of motion emerging/permeating into the sphere of sophisticated societal dynamics? — Benj96

I do not think so. If Karma is real, it's basis is not physical. It is not a Law imposed from the outside. Rather, if it is real, it stems from the observation (presumably in early Indus civilizations) of cause and effect, then superimposed onto mental activity.

I would say that if any karma-like mechanism exists, it is not a system of reward and punishment, but rather, as it turns out, the way things happen to humans, those creatures "operating" Mind.

Karma is the name given to the displacement of true nature with the illusory constructions and projections of Mind. Presumably our "spiritual" "goal" is to uncloud our true being from the constructions and projections; and to make way for being to return to its natural aware-ing.

Attachment to the constructions and projections, moral or immoral, good or bad, accumulates "karma" making the realization of true being impossible.

Awareness and detachment, allow for the dust of karma to lift, and such realization possible.

Darn. I know what I said. But I offer and seek clarifications

.

There are complications. Is truth propositional truth? Or is there a dimension of "truth" that is non propositional, and I think you agree with the latter. But again, see where this goes: You "agree" with the latter? You mean a proposition that states the latter? And when you "think" about your position, the understanding you have certainly can be of something that is not language, like being burned or put to the rack, but the what is it? — Constance

Exactly. I acknowledge that jungle gym we have to traverse. Here, in this human world, expressions of (among other things) truth must involve, somewhere in the history of its expression, "a proposition that states the latter."

That's why I'm saying that while I recognize,
1. The brilliance and complexity of Husserl and Heidegger, and
2. My incapacity to even scratch the surface of their comprehension,
Yet,
they are not elucidating on any ultimate Truth about so called Eternity, or how the Universe/Reality/Godhead (if you wish), function, but only on how the human mind constructs and projects.
The former, is utterly not propositional, not knowledge in any form. It can only be accessed by the being in its being: thought is a distraction. Mind has displaced truth with make-belief.

I'm not suggesting these ideas are what Heidegger or Husserl are saying. I'm not saying that what I am saying is immune from the same critique. What I'm saying is, no one can say them.

As cringe as it may sound, especially here, and I didnt plan to arrive here, but some Zen Koans have it seemingly right. Not a direct quote, modified for us:

Novice: "Master, what is the Ultimate Truth?"

Answer:
[Implied preface but unspoken: "don't even ask the question; asking already prohibits truth]
"When hungry, I eat. When tired, I rest."

Or even better, putting it in its proper form, "hungering/eating; tiring/resting," (see, "drawing water/chopping wood"). That is for humans, ultimate truth: not what in its many forms, just is-ing. But we're in love with ourselves; and not without reason. So we cannot abandon the thinker or it's thoughts. I'm just making the observation.

And I think the observation is only not helpful if we insist that truth is not in the human be-ing ["its organic is-ing]."


More to clarify:

wonder if this is what you have in mind when you talk about the "field in which both ethics and logic sprouted." Pragmatics. — Constance

Not sure re "pragmatics" but I generally relate to the Pierce quote. Anyway, why for me apodictic does appear in degrees, and what I mean by "sprouted same field," is also related to my referencing organic feeling. While laws of logic seem apodictic, you'll note some Moral Laws also come close (which is your objection, "comes close" is thus not apodictic). Think of both as ultimately a belief (I believe it absurd or un-do-able to believe "I am a married bachelor"/ I believe it "absurd" un-do-able to believe "I'm going to kill my only child"). Neither actually has anything to do with a pre-existing attribute/state/law/tendency/desire of any all encompassing reality governing the universe or my body. Both are paths stored in memory as "language" to trigger functionally fitting responses. These triggers are so well entrenched in the feedback loop from language to feelings, that they promptly "release" whatever organic feeling it is which inspires a powerful confidence in the animal which would cause it to without hesitation act. Powerful trigger in the form of language is apodictic. Most people would also "with the fervor of apodiction" never eat shit. It is the same mechanism but not so obviously organic, buried in signifiers.

There are no eternal truths for Peirce, though he does not hesitate to say, if irrationality actually "works" for someone, he really has no ground for arguing the point, for after all, there simply is NO foundational Truth. What is true is what works! — Constance

Yes! And irrationality does work for some. Those suffering delusions (obviously, doesnt work for the rest of Mind but its "working" for that mind and we need not get intonthe reasons*); those inspired by a teleology requiring the suspension of rationality (e.g. a parent acts against reason to lift a car off a trapped child; romantic love; an individual is willing to temporarily suspend even reason in pursuit truth etc). Our minds with well tread paths to the Subject, reject any ideas--like such radical relativity--but a Phenomenological Reduction might reveal that "if it works" is what is at the root of every belief held by every mind.

*arriving at "it works" and triggering belief, follows a dialectic which ways things to degrees like, an individual minds locus in history, its intersecting with others, input thus far, habituations, convention, past trauma, special inclinations, logic, reason, efficiency, teleology, bonds with others etc etc etc

It is not feelings of belief, nor the rote meanings in things, nor the settled functions that we respond with. It is the qualitative presence of the pain of having your kidney speared. The world "does" this and it is impossible to interpret what is bad about it out of what it is. — Constance

This sounds like something I need to understand better. If you don't mind clarifying when you can.

It is the simplest of all inquiries into the "pure" phenomenological presence of what makes something "bad" in the ethical/aesthetic sense (Witt conflates the two). — Constance

Same as above. I mean, what makes a stab in the kidney "bad"?

1. The Truth is, it is neither. It is pain.

2. It's "bad" because we have constructed well tread paths triggering that feeling which in turn triggers "bad"; sad paths arising in relation to Signifiers like,
a) pain
b) stabbing
c) injuring the kidney
d) being injured
e) being at risk of death
f) etc...

Am I far from where you are going? This one has puzzled me.

such an unfolding cannot itself be religious insofar as it is the condition of possibility of religion itself. — JuanZu

Interesting. Maybe that's how [far] I'm taking "essence." Mabe you're suggesting the condition of possibility precedes the essence? I'll leave it to you if you wish to elaborate.

Generally, it's very clear to me that the liberties I'm taking far exceed my knowledge. I'm just exploring and, as I've said before, appreciate your efforts at keeping me within the boundaries.

I'll review what you wrote for my own edification and will try to resist the seemingly irresistible.

why we give face, will and divinity to the quasi-universalizing (it would be better to say Exteriorizing) unfolding of our valuations. — JuanZu

Or...why do we anthropomorphize the essence of religion? The essence not being in the face, but in the faceless [and nameless/and indefinable] which "precedes" the face we give.

The question is, what if ethics were as apodictic as logic? Clearly, logic is absolutely coercive to the understanding, but it is also only vacuously coercive. Who cares if logical form insists? — Constance

Apodictic only applies within the field in which both ethics and logic sprouted. Both are "apodictic" in varying degrees. First, you use "coercive/insist" I like that. Both, when, following a dialectic, present(v) to the aware-ing being in ready-to-project form, autonomously trigger a feeling which in turn triggers a further dialectic, and so on. I know I'm vague. I'll illustrate.

To simplify. In logic, take a statement like, "I do not exist." It triggers a habitually well tread path to whatever that bodily feeling for so called rejection is; and the next structure presents a temporary settlement which resolves the so called contradiction. Bad e.g.? So be it, hopefully you see where I'm going. Logic readily triggers feelings for immediate belief [i.e. in what the particular rule of ligic presents]. I'm not saying we're brainwashed. I'm saying there are settlements which are so functional, they lay potent triggers.

In ethics, the dialectics are much broader, the paths not so well tread to the specific feelings to settle at belief. "Don't exaggerate your gas expense on your taxes" triggers certain feelings (so called uneasy for e.g., but we cannot label them) which trigger a broader and vague range of potential settlements, leaving an opening for a slowed down and projected dialectic. "Don't kill your partner" a much more clear path to the feeling which promptly and narrowly settles the dialectic. Like a rule of logic.

You can go ahead and link them philosophically if that fits. E.g. that ethics is logical even. I don't know.

Through the evolution of these structures, logic, and ethics, they generally function in these ways. That's as far as I can say. When projected; our bodies readily respond.

Apodictic need not be something sourced in some pre-Historic Reality or Truth; it could just be a function of Mind going about its business in potent ways. In nature there would be no concern about existence nor I. And there would be nearly no moment where one would kill one's partner.

There must be an agent for human existence, yes, because Mind has evolved the Narrative form as most prosperous, and so predicates must have subjects. But what is really taking place is that well practiced code is triggering our Being to feel in ways which trigger action, or choice, emotion, or ideas; all just more code. No longer is the human animal aware-ing the drive only to mate, bond with and preserve partner, never-mind the odd growl; it is triggered by thoughts of justice, passion, revenge. No longer is the being aware-ing living; it is triggered by ideas of a self, a special place moving in existence, rather than just existing; and obsessions ensue.


But. Yes. Ethics is like Logic that way. Both can have immediate and positive effects upon feelings and actions. If that's apodictic.

Put a lighted match under your finger and observe. Ask, ontologically, what IS this? — Constance

It should be, "pain-ing."

But images structured for just such a purpose flood the aware-ing and displays ontological pain-ing with, and I won't even illustrate with the obvious few, but there may be hundreds triggering feelings, coloring the pain-ing with the making known of experience.

this ME is not transcendental, not Husserl's transego; it is just the description of the structure of the ontology of dasein. — Constance

But how? I think H² aimed for pure being, but, to put it plainly, couldn't detach the ego. Makes perfect sense, reason, like it's particular, logic, and its universal, the rest of grammar, necessarily includes subject and predicate. Even in the first modern phenomenological reduction, there it necessarily was, I think. No your body doesn't think; your mind constructs extremely fitting signifier structures, and projects them. Descartes remained in the projection; aimed for the body, but, just as is being done here, fell short.

Why do we all fall short? Any intellectual effort is necessarily short of Truth. Intellectual pursuits are projected constructions. From what I have gathered, I can detail the mechanics less complexly than Dasein and all of its--though H2 may deny it--categories. But we're all just making and believing what fits various malleable criteria, triggers.

Again, H might have realized but fell short due to his locus in History, that the only access to being is by a non intellectual path, one involving the being, the Body, not in pursuit of being, but having returned its aware-ing to its being. Philosophy needs to have the courage to admit a more functional truth, even if it proposes a practice which is virtually impossible. But it cannot. So we turn to religion. . .

suggest there is emerging a general consensus among active inference and 4EA researchers in cognitive neuroscience concerning the embodied , embedded and non-representational nature of consciousness and affectivity — Joshs

Do you agree that this nonrepresentational, non dual consciousness cannot be the one in mind when we think of free will in philosophical terms? Because, among other things, such cognition is necessarily nonconceptual. Choice is even in practice, conceptual in that it requires difference. Whereas embedded consciousness would involve sensations, drives, feelings and organic reactions which only appear to conceptual thinking as choice.

If so, and barring actual mind/body dualism, "free will" as we conventionally think about it, is an "illusion" as is the Ego it is necessarily tied to.

Seems to me I can control what I can or can’t do or decide to do or not do in the future. For example I did not shoplift today — kindred

I can see that as our source of attachment to free will; but here's what I wonder/currently believe.

What about situations where you think or say something without having willed it? As in something followed by the thought, "why did I say that?" Or a sudden unplanned desire? A recurring image or song? Or impulsive action? Are these pathological exceptions? Or are they instances where the always decentralized and autonomous processes mistaken for so called "will" become manifest because, for instance, they were "allowed" to surface, projected, without the usual mechanism of the Subject?

As for not shoplifting, is there not an underlying self-congratulatory tone, as in you didnt shoplift against an otherwise desire to do so (if not in the particula, then in general)? Don't you imply that you "know" it is wrong to shoplift. Thus, isn't that "knowledge" a force acting upon your behavior. Sure, not the only force, giving you tge illusion that among the "forces", or in the end, is free choice. But the moral force is just one among thousands determining the final choice. There is no free agent actually deciding.

I think of it as simply resolving existential crisis — praxis

Agreed

I’d say that you’re spiritual but not religious — praxis

Fair enough. However, to clarify, I think that I have arrived at most of my hypotheses following the reasoning of thinkers both east and west, and not following any devotion, etc. Nor are such hypotheses dualistic. In fact, I would reject a "soul" "spirit" and the "spiritual."

But I understand your point, and that you may already have contemplated that, using "spiritual" as perhaps the "religious studies" version of metaphysics.

one cannot reduce agency to that of an infant or a feral adult: what might they be able to "think" of their "being" intimations. Frankly, they would not only not think about them, but they would not have such intimations. — Constance

Then Heidegger is not far from the hypothesis I currently believe, because I do not disagree.

I'm just suggesting that Husserl admit that our inability to bring agency, or the Agent, into Reality or Being doesn't mean we arbitrarily designate the furthest edge of agency, as Being. Thats exactly the problem.

If the Agent as TransEgo is the "purest" form of human being why can't the Agent experience "itself" without "intimations"? Why? Because there is no Agent; there is only intimations. And, not beyond, but behind or before those intimations, there is Real Being, no attributes nor expressions, just the present participle pure and simple.

H is describing a process of the laws and dynamics of Mind. He is mistaking the grammatically necessary subject as a central being with will and authority; that which experiences. But really, there is no
such Agent.

That is why this discussion is relevant to the subject matter at hand. As far as H in his transcendental phenomenological reduction gets is the end of philosophy and the beginning of the need for some other mechanism to surpass intimations in order to get at this real being pure and simple. H knows it cannot be done (here, the ultimate infinite resignation). At least stop there, or intuit, as SK did, that the so-called transcendental leap (but it's not, it's a return to earth) is a "religious" movement; and neither ethical nor logical.

REQUIRES language to manifest this freedom in the understanding — Constance

That we humans must "understand" something in order for it to be the Truth, is not something I accept. I'm not sure about Thic Quan Duc, but I would think, the hypothetical Zen master who hypothetically succeeds at executing what I'm suggesting to be the essence of religion, (that is, has a "glimpse" into being unadulterated by becoming) does not admit to any ability to manifest that experience in language. But on contrary, admits that it is necessarily not manifested. Projection is what takes the human experience out of "eternity" of presence and into the "not real" world of history or time.

words are inherently open — Constance

Are you sure words aren't the opposite? They are the limiting adjunct we superimpose upon that which is inherently open. That's the whole problem. That's why phenomenology to begin with.

Thought constructs the world and in the process displaces any real being with the grammar of a self.

Why does K not see that the "commandment" of normal ethics itself possesses the divine commandment? This is one way to state the central idea of the OP. — Constance

Because "ethics"--as SK used that tool--signified the universal conventions made by humans over time. The so called human ethics of a matter are inapplicable to the Ultimate Truth. I agree with you that Ethics is ultimately metaphysics, but both ethics and metaphysics are conditional truths applying and understood within the world of constructions and projections. So called God, or ultimate reality, can not be subjected to the logic of words, nor can It be understood. It must be accessed by be-ing not by knowing. TPR is still a process of knowing.

The absurd is to believe in it anyway. — Constance

I agree that's how SK presented his intuition--but as for H, I extrapolate on SK here and suggest that what he really meant was that access to the Ultimate (for him, Christ) is by suspending this notion of reason, logic, justified belief because the ultimate is in something utterly other than that.

You say "... the essence of religion was...". — praxis

Unintentionally.

In any case, religion isn't needed to realize the whole, and it's not essential for religion to facilitate realizing the whole — praxis

How then? If we are even thinking of approximately the same thing, not regarding the "whole" so much, but in what we mean by "realizing"? Since you appear to dismiss the moral approach to realizing the whole (and I agree). And you dismiss the religious approach (with which I also agree) and seem to couple it with the "essence of religion" in your dismissal; then how? By reason? By something Cartesian-like? Im interested in your idea, but even if you didnt mean reason, may as well address it.

How can reason, a product and instrument of, and necessitated by, the "emergence" of difference, take you beyond difference? Reason trades in difference; the essence we are after is a "return" to a natural wholeness.

You're right that religion can't help; it's worse than the best philosophical methods, but the essence of religion is, to my current belief, exactly that. It's the final necessary turn away from all particulars, even reason, and a return (not transcendance) to natural reality (for the conventionally religious, a return to God or God's creation; for me a return to organic nature).

Reason keeps the being attuned to the becomings; because reason is no less constructed and projected. It is only by humbly (only because it requires/involves disregarding the subject) returning to being that we can realize our wholeness undisplaced by the veil of the multiform particulars.

it's not essential for religion to facilitate realizing the whole. I would argue that religion is anti-enlightenment in nature because enlightenment leads to independence. — praxis

I'm not sure enlightenment leads to independence. How? While I await, I'll mention, I think it's almost the opposite. Attachment to ego and other differences creates a strong incentive to treat one's body as the one and only end. While realization that reality is in the living being and not the ego and its desires; that the latter are not activities on behalf of the body, but rather, a desire for attention, for the Subject to be heard by and influence others, then although the subjects voice can never be silenced, it's narrative will shift naturally to the organism and the species. The cacophony of "me" will be curbed and that is the essence of religion.

Philosophy cannot as effectively silence the ego. Descartes provides an example; Husserl too; and probably Heidegger. And these were the ones whose aim it was to get down to the most real unconstructed version of a human being.

We want to be saved from our attachment to human-only constructions where we think in terms of suffering/not suffering. Though the myth, ritual, dogma have evolved their roles, the essence of religion was a "mechanism" whereby we might "transcend" the world of super-imposed difference (good and bad, this and that) to "remember" or "realize" that we are whole, "holy."

No doubt Buddhism is in it somewhere in some degree. But I don't look at it as Buddhist, but as obvious. I'm not often that confident. But this puzzles me.

Unless we are speaking of a mythological idea of dualism, like a soul, I can't see any basis in an afterlife.

As I said, life ends, so it's not life in this afterlife. If there's any evidence or even decent hypotheses about there being a non-material "aspect" of our natural being, then that evidence or hypothesis would also have to prove/reason that this non-material aspect produces and experiences our Narratives. But we are justifiably certain that the feelings, sensations, drives and movements, are organic. So the Narratives, on our non material natures, would be empty and serve no function; like a good novel when it's closed and sitting on the shelf.

Moreover, Ockhams razor. Why an immaterial soul constructing and projecting the Narrative? Because body feels a certain way when the Subject is projected, and we end up wanting to cling to this image. So philosophers, poets, mystics and theologians have gone to pains projecting hypotheses that keep the Subject separate from what becomes reduced to a lump of flesh, leading to this idea of the possibility of its perpetuity after the flesh dies.

But it's way more simple to say body--particularly and only the human body--has developed this unique, autonomous system of images in its brain, which have the effect of displacing the organic aware-ing of sensations, feelings, drives, and movements, with stories, perceptions, emotions, love and power, and the idea of free wilful movements. When the body ends, so do these images.

Where Buddhism likely sees in this admittedly reconstructed view of afterlife, is it agrees that this Subject we cling to is just a projection, never was real to begin with, let alone the idea of its survival. And, therefore it also agrees that if we really must entertain any discussion of an afterlife, it's not going to be what the Subject causes the body to (by having specific feelings triggered) "desire", i.e., the Subject itself. If there is an afterlife it has to be the same as the before life, some pervasive aware-ing in?of? nature without the cloak of human signifiers. "Buddha Nature," too deserves the same treatment if it is real and all pervading, it has to be an aware-ing in/of nature, not some mystical, mythical, or even metaphysical entity which we can only construct out of our images.

In the 30s (of CM) H recognizes that precondition for perceiving objects is data input. I had to learn what an apple is. Now I see a "apple" unified as perception in one ego. Good.
But what he didnt carry far enough is that therefore any intellectual exercise whose aim it is to grasp the bare truth, cannot, because it involves the mind, which is already preconditioning the process.

I think without Mind in the human form, the necessary relationship that the human animal has with say, an apple, to unify it and or separate it for that animal as food, is the pre-existent condition which allows us to visually sense, in the real world, as a real "thing" that fruit, and to eat it (rather than experience it as a blob of atoms say, or an undifferentiated oneness with the observer).

Both the body and the apple are real, sensor and sensed, but that I even need to explain and understand it that way, and all of the endless concommitant Narratives that flow out of that, from biology, to gravity, to botany, nutrition, Adam, Shakespeare, and Johnny Appleseed, are all layers of constructed representations of that real, unspeakable sensation.

It is similar for the body as an object sensed (what we call ourselves). What it really is is its drives sensations bonds feelings movements, but that I even need to explain and understand it that way, and all of the endless concommitant Narratives that flow out of that, like, desire, emotions, neuroses, and now, an ego to unify and structure those as belonging to the body, yet they are all just layers of constructed representations of that real, unspeakable body being.

it is impossible for life to continue after death? — Philosophim

By definition. Death is the end of living. There should be no debate.

Those who cling to the possibility, aren't thinking about life. Whether consciously or not, they are thinking that "consciousness" might continue. And not some idea of consciousness which we might share with the rest of the planet,* but the Subjective mind, and really just the Subject that Mind intermittently constructs and projects.

But not only is that impossible because that process doesn't work without the fleshy infrastructure. But that process is empty of what they think it holds while it's functioning: feelings. The body supplies that. So if words survive after the death of the individual without need of the body, then Ok. That's what we generally call history. You die and we still talk about you. But without the body's feelings, you won't "enjoy" the survival. So "you" will quickly drop away, having no reference to reality, and all that is left is history.


*e.g., an aware-ing of living and its sensations (including sense of inner images), drives (including for us bondings), movements and feelings. Maybe one could argue this organic consciousness pervades nature, is nature, and thus, yah, in that sense there is life Neverending, just moving. But that's not what they want. Is it?

Husserl would ask you not to use the term "organic aware-ing" simply because something being organic refers us to the naturalism that one has to suspend in the reduction. — Constance

Understood. My observation is that, while thinking that the phenomenological reduction ought, also, to bracket Nature, H did not take the phenomenological reduction far enough. It is all "modes" of Mind, including the ego, and all "modes" of the ego, including a so called transcendental ego, which ought to be bracketed so that the practitioner arrives finally at the aware-ing body, not as yet another "mode" of human being for the ego to contemplate or experience, but at being: just being.

Whether or not that aforementioned interpretation of H is even possible to execute is an open question. But I do think, notwithstanding H's language, that such being is what he was truly after. Like everyone from Plato to Descaryes, to Heidegger, he stopped just short of transcending Mind, because of attachment to ego.

the "qualitative movement" of Kierkegaard's away from naturalistic thinking. — Constance

Isn't SK's infinite resignation, ultimately acceptance that ego and its attachments are not the ulrimate; that ego has no means of grasping the ultimate; and, his leap and teleological suspensions, like N, H, H and S to follow, prescribed methods to "transcend" that ultimately incapable ego, for [a more authentic way of] being [one with God (for SK) or Truth (TE for H1, Dasein for H2, Good faith for S)? Yes, I am over generalizing their processes and methods. But even if unwittingly, they are all recognizing human perception is mediated, desire constructed; we need a means to return to unmediated sensation and organic drives?

But we are not
to think of Dasein as a conscious subject — Constance

. Right. Because a conscious subject is still Mind and its mistaken being, the ego. But real being is not. Yet, H2 goes on to describe some complex construction more burdened by ego and its constructions than what preceded him. This I submi

4Heidegger,
however, warns explicitly against thinking ofDasein as a Husserlian
meaning-giving transcendental subjec — Constance

And so H2 recognized the "problem" H1 encounters when he imbues the ego with a residual reality after shaving off most of its Fiction by way of the brilliant Transcendental Phenomenology. H2 acts as if he hasn't done the same. But as long as Dasein has "qualities" we can "know" it is "away from" Truth and Reality.

We ARE this institutional interface in the world, and General Motors and ham and eggs for breakfast is part of the conditions of our "being there" and thus IN a constitutive analysis of our existence. I think of Hirsch's concept of cultural literacy, which conservatives love so much as it curtails cultural acceptance down to a finite body of identity features that belong to us-as-a-culture or a race, is what Heidegger had in mind when he described human dasein, and Haugeland was right about this — Constance

I should be reiterating this incessantly, but especially now. I did read Being and Time, once, slowly. A wealth of tools it added to my mind's locus in History. But I am so far from being able to understand him, that I should just re-read and reserve comment.

However, Heidegger's seems an excellent "ology" of how [the constructions and projections of] Mind and its autonomous processes function. And that both on the local level of individual minds (psychology) and universal mind, history or culture (sociology). Yes, he is more ontological in approach but he's right, a primordial ontology cannot be made, because, being pri.ordial, it pre-exists both maker and making. So his is a restructuring for the purposes of projection into the world, of the deepest structures of Signifiers and their dynamics and there function. But they are still signifiers about signifiers. Good as it is.

take Husserl's reduction more seriously, I say, down to the wire where language ceases to be in control at all in the job of encompassing what lies before one as a perceiving agency. — Constance

Where language ceases, and yet he clings to a very feature of language, the Subject, then purports it to be outside of language. I say he really means the aware-ing our body has of its sensations, drives, bonding, and movements, and tge feelings associated with each unbound by language. That being is necessarily no ego, no lingering objects, no relationship thereto qua objects; transcendental or otherwise.

I am grateful that you already forgive my misuse of terms which is beyond the understandably (pedantic?) orthodox approach, and even places you at potential ridicule for being open. So I apologize for persistently responding not with total agreement but rather agreement with modifications. Believe me, I am being highly moved by your input. I hope that provides some gratification for your honorable efforts.

Please feel free to move on, although I welcome your further input.

Meaning at least read something firsthand they have done before approaching them through secondary sources. — I like sushi

Not only do you and I agree. But I remembered that Husserl prescribes same. Duh. What is a phenomenological (Husserlian) approach to Husserl, if not one which starts from scratch?

"I have thereby chosen to begin in absolute
poverty, with an absolute lack of knowledge." ---Husserl's intro to Cartesian Mediatations

I agree with you. The "of" is necessarily not a "content" (of) the "pure" mystical "event." The "of" is tacked on immediately after the event; for some, so immediately that the "pure" event is undetected/unrecognized.

Understood. Interesting and helpful. I've tried others of the basics without the assistance of a scholarly explanation and know exactly what you mean. I have to re-read pages, and then go back, and still only get an idea at best. I'm slowly making my way through Cartesian Meditations, sparked by the discussion here. Where does that work place? Would you say I'm especially ill advised to read that without a scholarly hand? I can see why you would say so.

How about first on my own, allow myself to explore parallels that might be buried by both the author and his disciples/critics, deliberately or neglegently, then see what the experts say, and, read again?

Don't misread me. I recognize the futility of embarking down the wrong path. That's probably what you're warning against. And of claiming to speak for Husserl without having a clue. I don't say this enough because it will sound inauthentic, but under my breath almost every utterance is prefaced with, "I stand to be corrected, but...". It's just easier and faster to text as if you know. Doesn't that apply to everyone in varying degrees?

In fairness to conventional logic, for me, that Gettier problem doesn't necessarily sway me. If a misreading of Husserl, nonetheless advances me to a reasonably justified belief, a temporary settlement in what is going to be a perpetual pursuit anyway, it's not the end of the world.

Thank you. I appreciate the information and do recognize that you are correct and I am being reckless.

I think in many ways a philosopher is somewhat of a mystic, wouldn't you say? — Outlander

simplistically, they seem the opposite ends of a telescope or like complementary photo negatives of one another. — 180 Proof

I do agree with both of you and see no prohibitive contradiction.

In some instances it's the opposite of what they/one might think.

The mediocre philosopher may think he is applying reason to get at the Truth; but is only digging herself deeper into a "world of" language, using language as both it's instruments and judge.

The mediocre mystic might think they are uniting themselves with God or the Divine; but are really silencing the cacophony and grounding themselves in the epitome of what we might see as boredom; meaningless matter, the organic being.

Yet if any vocation or discipline can access true being for the rest of its the philosopher and the mystic, "complimentary photo negatives."

and could easily make no sense to somebody. — Fire Ologist

Hah. You are spot on. Both, "could easily make no sense" to some; and how you happened to have read it.

No hurry.

Edit:
Can I just share this thought having emerged from Cartesian...so far. I'm not half done. It's short but I'm an extremely patient reader. Impatient writer. Says something about my own loud mouth ego.
Anyway, take a year to reply, but so you know where I'm wandering...

Here's the thought:
H's TransEgo is not a return to organic aware-ing or conscious living (I think, though expressed in different terms, that's what he thinks he's providing a method to reach), but rather, TransEgo is an experience mediated by mind. Why? Because ego--no matter how polished up-- is still assumed the experiencer. Organic aware-ing has no agent. It is aware-ing. Not I am aware-ing; and not I am aware-ing in the third person. Rather, real organic consciousness or being is the activity of present aware-ing. Not, some imagined agent doing the aware-ing.

Whithout these things, a mystic can be a mystic, but not a Roman Catholic mystic. In this situation he cannot, as you said,

say the same thing about the mystical as a non-theistic Taoist
— Fire Ologist — Angelo Cannata

I see your point as valid...but dig a bit deeper and maybe makes a valid point which need not be limited to the theoretical.

A Catholic Mystic in contemplative prayer, properly practiced and a proper practice of Jnana Yoga or Zazen, may yield the same aware-ing. It is only after the fact that most (but not necessarily, and not necessarily all) practitioners allow the Narratives of their own locus in History to fill the "void" of that experience with constructs.

Thus, if we are referring to real mysticism, the resulting effect on the organic being is the same for all: mind becomes finally (but briefly) yoked to reality/the body. It is only upon re-entry into the constructed atmosphere that variations start to project.

Mysticism according to Bernard McGinn concerns itself with "the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the effect of a direct and transformative presence of God." — Dermot Griffin

Mystical union is experienced via a recognition of the continual awareness of the presence of God in the here and now. — Dermot Griffin

I truly believe that genuine mysticism is a middle ground between rationalism and religion. — Dermot Griffin

Does it have to be a awareness of "God"? I think not. If (as you refer to Watts) Zen, Advait Vedanta, and Daoism can be thought of as (having) Mystical (branches), then it is not God, as commonly thought of (even by Mystics) in the West. But rather an "experience" of either Oneness with all, or Emancipation from the mundane, or "knowledge" of ultimate reality, or any combination of these, and more.

For me, so called mystic practices (I don't like "mysticism" as a name--it implies other than what it really means) may (but more often may not) turn one's aware-ing away from the constructions and projections of the mundane, and point one to the ultimate truth of their being; which, sure, one may choose to see as sacred or god; but I choose to see as Truth. That is a Truth from which all of the usual constructions and projections have been "cleared away." Moreover, for me, this experience does neither last, nor permanently alter the successful practitioner. The constructions and projections flood in as soon as the mystical practice ceases.

Why do it? The successful practitioner gets a glimpse into reality, can judge all mundane experience accordingly, which is astronomically further than the rest of us stuck only in the constructions and projections.

From my brief exploration so far (Cartesian...) Husserl rests in the same place as Descartes: not far enough. Both are happy to assume that because the ego is the last trace back (reduction) in knowledge, that in ego appearance is present (I get the sense, like being).

But the step further to which I have found History has brought us, is that all appearance (phenomenal) is fleeting, including the ego; not present, not that which we can be certain of as ontologically ultimately real, not that place upon which we hang our hats, but just another appearance, only seemingly special because of its consistency etc. (Brief read of Being and Time shows a deeper complexity...but just of deeper reconstruction kf the structures of mind; appearance reconstructing appearance; not an understanding of the simple truth. Yes, everything I write or think is the same. And you, etc.)

What Husserl was really after, and reached very far, far enough to get us here, was the being of this organism which we identify in the world of appearance as human (let alone, as image of God), and thus far our ignorance (arrogance?) has blinded us from the simple truth. The being of this organism is this organism being. Not in the appearances cast by the images, specially evolved and structured, in its memory, forming a system called Mind, tapped directly into the animal's feelings, senses, drives, movements.

But there is no escaping appearance. I am not a believer of any religious dogma, but, this attachment to the images appearing in our inner imaging sense is our original sin. We are banished from Nature and destined to construct and project knowledge--good and evil, this and that.

From Husserl, and through Freud, and, Derrida, etc, etc,(I'm not going to list the thousands of thinkers) we can leap away from attachment to all appearance, even from I, my so called self; and through philosopy--not the essence of religion with its precarious myth and ritual--and at least "knowingly" carry on the business of the phenomenal (and noumenal; both Mind), at least cognizant of "really" (whatever that means in a world without "meaning") being an animal being, even if obstructed from being aware-ing of it in its presence.

But I'm pointing out that it might be easy to say that, but it's very rare to actually see it. — Wayfarer

Agreed,

I came to realise that it's not straightforward nor obvious in the least. — Wayfarer

vehemently.

but that it's strongly associated with samadhi, states of trance and metabolic suspension which enables yogis to maintain stillness of extended periods of time. — Wayfarer

Are you suggesting (I'm not taking issue) that The explanation for samadhi as expressed in Vedanta etc, is the physiological thus inducing, say, an "illusion" of unity? Or just that this extremely rare experience of unity is organic based (as in metabolic suspension etc)?

It may be that those with a more mystical leaning find it makes sense than those with a more theoretical approach. — Jack Cummins

If I may hazard a guess, the so called East (and the farther east you get the more this applied) "did" there philosophy, rather than keeping it in their "heads". While the Brahmins and rest of India created a wealth of theoretical work, they also had Jnana Yoga and the other Yogas. Then by the time Buddhism reaches China, it's stripped of most of the theoretical--iconaclastically--
and the focus is on Zazen, tge exercise of sitting.

Maybe there is something in that which the West, having ignored (in Philosophy, to date), has not "seen." I.e., for instance (and now I'm being almost recklessly hypothetical) that the human organism can by a physical exercise of the body sitting in meditation, come to "see" with its organic senses, released very briefly from Mind's constructions, that all in Nature (what we call the Universe) is One. A thing that cannot be arrived at in theoretical reflection where difference, logic, cause, effect, are necessary mechanisms. How can one come to know all is one? One must only be that reality. Perhaps, though very vaguely, meditation has been a gift to the Eastern thinkers.

Great question. I am not fully confident in the precise definition of 'Non-duality'. But if it is like monism in regard to ultimate reality being One, isn't difference required to have "theism vs atheism" to begin with?

In other words, in non-duality, as Im reading it, there is ultimately neither atheism nor theism, all of reality is One (if non-dualism is like monism).

In that sense, maybe it bridges the gap by "telling" both theism, and atheism (and everything in between) that they're ultimately all wrong. Ultimately, it (metaphysically, literally and poetically) makes no difference.

Well, not assigned, but appearing historically and producing signification. — Constance

Yes

I would argue that it is the assumption of inside/outside talk that makes the very barrier in question a problem. — Constance

Quite possibly, I'm digging up the dirt to clear the way but am jumping right into the very hole I'm digging. A thing always cognizant of, and yet being pushed back to make room for hypothesizing.

But I know, you're saying the "dirt" is part and parcel of the "way." That it neither can, nor need be cleared.

But if that leaves the Subject in tact...

Much to consider. A very interesting thread which you are managing so well. Thanks

religion consists in 'metaphysics expressed through symbolic myths' (e.g. "Platonism of the masses" according to Nietzsche).. — 180 Proof

Again, generally I agree with you.

But I'm focused on an essence of religion which is a doing of metaphysics, beyond discourse. To do so with a goal in mind. It might be you persuade me that it is not possible to achieve that goal; that the goal for something like Husserl's transcendental phenomenology is not possible. But I don't think it's fair to insist religion in totality (let alone at its essence) is flawed metaphysics just because (and I agree) tge vast majority of its practice has mutated into flawed metaphysics.

origins of religion, would that be relevant here? — I like sushi

This overall thread? Not for me to say, I don't object; but I see that as an anthropological pursuit; one shared by at least one excellent representative of same on this thread.

As for our very specific exchange, for what it may be worth, I'll try once more and hopefully briefly. Though, to explain it well, would require pages; and I cannot refer you to a source, the information I'm providing comes from hundreds of sources, if not countless.

By "essence" of religion, what structures my thinking has led me to this: religion is a mechanism by which we might, at least, "recognize" that the ego is secondary; at best, turn away from ego, if only for a glimpse of the being emancipated from a world of constructions; the ego/Subject/I among such constructions.

As an aside which will not be explained for the sake of space here, Husserl went far but at the end remained as confused as the rest of his Western Age and identified the "goal" of his exercise as the (transcendental) Subject. It is not. His method seems sound, but the goal is no different than that of this essence of religion: a glimpse into our (you won't like this) "true consciousness," reduced from all constructions.

Though personally, I follow neither the methodology of Transcendental Phenomenology (which was very recently patiently (re)introduced to me by none other than the OP) nor any institutionalized method. The point nonetheless applies to me. I can benefit from the mechanism of religion applied in accordance with its essence, to discover my true nature(s). One, not real, ultimately immaterial in all senses of the word, a fleeting empty system of images to which my true consciousness, the only real nature, has been "attached." And that attachment is our condition and tge condition of our unique suffering. Religion frees us from the attachment, though we remain.

How do I know religion does this? Where in religion is this essence found? Briefly three examples but one could provide pages, and I'm simplifying and paraphrasing
Jesus--love god with all your might love your neighbor as yourself; that sums up the scriptures--read abandon ego
Vedanta--Moksa is freedom from ego
Zazen--a glimpse into true nature/no mind

Suffering from attachment N and S wrong

Sorry, no. I agree with you. It is a useful pacifier.

I'm just saying religion at essence is more

Without at least some spirituality that manages to transcend the nihilism of rationality, the rationalist cannot compete in the cutthroat environment of biological life — Tarskian

Good enough. But why is the most we can credit religion with is its opioid effect; to sedate us in the face of our inevitable suffering.

In its essence, like philosophy, religion is metaphysics first. Its goal is to answer the same big questions. I do not think any one serious about truth, is being "reasonable" by wilfully blinding themselves to the potential light which this essence may shed, in spite of the layers and layers of BS it may be burried under.

And anyway, as for pacifier, the same can be said about philosophical attempts to alleviate human suffering, from will to power, to communism, to transcendental subjectivity, to living in good faith. None of these approaches are apodictic. Not unlike mystical hypotheses, they're genuine attempts at addressing our condition.

Apologies. You're right.

Do you reject religion and mysticism because they do not adhere strictly to reason?

If not that, then why do you reject religious or mystical "contributions" about consciousness outright (which is what you seem to be saying about the former, while relegating the latter to a pacifier, which I read as a useful fiction)?

If so, then why do you think these (religion/mysticism) cannot be sources about consciousness? What is it about reason (assuming that is where you place your trust) that makes it the only path to understanding consciousness?

What if the best way to "access" consciousness is not the understanding but, like hunger and arousal, by "feeling-doing-being"? What if mysticism--admittedly, some hypothetical particular form--provided the methodology for such access? Would you deny it because it takes a path other than reason?

While I'm not denying the usefulness of reason, is it not possible that on some matters, reason can only go so far before it reaches a bridge which reason cannot cross?ĺ guess, I was suggesting--poorly--that there might be "truths" notwithstanding all of the self serving myth, ritual and dogma. It would be an absurd irony if our strict adherence to reason, rather like a dogma, forever barred us from making headway on the very topic which continues to baffle us.

Since we seem to have gone very far with reason--across the universe and down to subparticles--why is it we cannot understand consciousness? Is it possible that the latter requires some alternative methods of pursuit?

When you or Joshs talk about guilt in this way it is much the same as claiming that a tool such as a knife is inherently evil, and imputing bad motives to everyone who uses knives. — Leontiskos

Guilt serves a function. Sometimes it triggers functionally, sometimes it misfires.
But ultimately, it is, like a knife. And in that context, you are correct, it has no inherent value beyond function.

This, I submit, applies not just to all tools of morality-ethics, but to all words, thoughts, ideas. They have neither inherent value, nor is there necessarily inherent value in what they purport to represent; nor, and especiallythis, do they import value upon their users.

There is only used functionally, thus settled upon (believed) or dysfunctionally, thus modified or abandoned.

And all of these, temporarily, cyclically, perpetually, and autonomously (as in not under the direction of any central agent including any so called Subject).

Hence there is no (absolute) right or wrong in our concepts etc., and the OP is correct, a body should follow its "heart." [Albeit, alas, that final imperative, too, is empty and fleeting].

There are many personal motivations which from the heart that are "good" but may conflict with morality, such as loyalty and love, which may lead to actions that "betray the group" — Judaka

Yes, but, you rightly pointed out that morality is the second quote--coercive rules. How I read the OP is they're wittingly moving away from that to follow their heart; implicitly, to make room for "good" which may not be considered conventionally moral.

I am not keen on religious doctrines posing as a philosophy of consciousness, nor am I inclined to side with mysticism as anything other than a pacifier of sorts — I like sushi

While I understand one must always discriminate, may I ask, what has locked you in so seemingly tight such that you have fettered your discretion to pursue truth openly. Is your strict adherence to reason not prescribed by the very thing adhered to?ɓ