True enough ... I didn't intend to conflate cravings and needs. And it may be more than mere desire for meaning, but our imperative.

Isn’t the term ‘meta-narrative’ just another word for a belief system? Lately I’ve been pondering this idea of being ‘addicted’ to a paradigmatic mindset. It does seem, in a sense, that once indoctrinated, or bought into a given prevailing collective meta-narrative, oblivious to any alternative, it could be said that one becomes entirely dependent and fixated upon that mindset, through and from which one then derives a filtered interpretive understanding of one's experiential domain, and the meaning of one’s relational role within it. So it surely seems that, in effect, one’s identity and purpose in life becomes inextricably linked to that. So, for example, if indoctrinated into the materialist paradigm, it then becomes a meta-narrative of cultural materialism, and thus the ‘addictive’ need to attain more and more materiality, and carnal satisfaction, in order to feed and fulfill that corporeal identity and its cravings. Likewise, one can be indoctrinated into a religious or sociopolitical or militaristic meta-narrative, with its own problematic addictive implications. No doubt there are many examples of more extremist identifications from religious fundamentalists to neo-Nazis to militant fanatics of all types.

In some meditative state of thought-free non-attachment, I've tried keep the identity to 'I am-ness' -- without optional add-ons, attachments, tight-fitting self-identifications and storylines that spin off into the past and future, but even then it can become an identity of 'I am one who is non-attached', with some attendant story attached. Seems to be our story-telling destiny. Perhaps all I really know for sure is this presence of awareness, while all else is story time ... End of story :wink:

That is the philosophy of Vijñānavāda, translated as 'mind-only Buddhism' which forms a major part of the monastic curriculum in Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese schools of Buddhism. It is considered a very advanced subject of study. — Wayfarer

@Wayfarer ... Interesting ... This no doubt explains why I’ve always resonated with those metaphysical/spiritual expressions, even before being inclined to interpret and articulate them in terms of Idealism.

Be that as it may, I’m no longer even sure that I can give voice to an ultimate expression, as here again I must bow to the opening lines of the Tao Te Ching. And once more I must concede that the most appropriate name for what I’m positing here may be ‘mystical Idealism’. As such it may well even be unspeakable, unrelatable, and incomprehensible to the physicalist or substance-dualism mindset. It often feels as if I grok something I cannot quite convey, and which at best can only ever be an insufficient translation of some immanent, noumenal ‘language’ that must forever elude the gasp and expression of one’s finite, maya-bound locus of mind. Thus, perhaps poetry, metaphor and paradoxical allusions may be as good as it gets. Nevertheless, it also seems to be one’s creative imperative to try.

Now that is very different from the way 'mental substance' is usually depicted, but I think this is because the sense of 'mind-substance' is indeed fatally mistaken. It's not a ghostly ethereal stuff or protoplasmic entity. I would say the appropriate analogy is that of the relationship between words and meaning. — Wayfarer

So, I remain currently unconvinced that dualism is a genuine alternative to monism. — jkg20

This really does speak to the most profound implication of Idealism: that there is no ethereal substrate producing any substance. That which emanates these cosmic ideas/forms, as in its sapient analog, i.e. us, is more like how one's imaginative mind conceives of a language, or even a poem -- it is an entirely cognitive event. And more and more, as I read these comments -- especially in @jkg20 's most recent reply to @ProcastinationTomorrow making the case for monism -- I can only deduce (although it's now becoming one's direct experience) that there is but one realm, one boundless 'container,' by whichever preferred name: That which emanates these cosmic ideas/forms. So to pick a name, say Awareness, everything that is conceived, imagined, perceived, experienced, without exception, is contained within that Awareness, including even the apparency of a subject/object divide. As Wheeler put it ... "There is no 'out there', out there".

You perceive a boundary through sensation, but you claim that you cannot deduce a boundary. — Metaphysician Undercover

Once again there is some misconstruing, and a misquotation. I'm pointing out the difference between logical deduction and felt experience. I said that 'I don't deduce that there is any actual boundary.' In other words, I don't arrive at by reason, or draw as a logical conclusion that there is a 'real' actual boundary. Rather that is my felt experience, however ostensible that experience may be. Just as I don't arrive at by reason, or draw as a logical conclusion that the sun really descends beyond the horizon, but nonetheless that is my felt experience, despite knowing full well that it is an optical illusion based of the relativity of motion, since I understand that I am moving away from the sun on a rotating planet into the darkness of its shadow. Likewise, it is my felt experience that there seems to be boundaries and dualities, despite knowing that they are only an apparency.

Well no, if you were to recall accurately I asked: "Is not the 'recognition of things' entirely relational?" -- rather than making a claim -- to which you answered ''no', and which I actually found to be a useful answer. So I'm not sure there is really much conflict here.

Anyway, I'll try to clarify some more. I don't deduce any actual duality, or boundaries, or relational experience, but nonetheless experience the seeming appearance of such, however ostensible that experience may be. So, for example, I experience a boundary between the edge of the black text on this screen, in contrast to the whiteness of the screen, while still knowing that there is no actual boundary, which allows for some meaning to be read into that text, according to some agreed upon rules of language, without which the seeming relational experience of this exchange of information would not be possible. And however much I can philosophically deny that relational experience, it is nonetheless a 'real' experience, insofar as it manifests as this meaningful expression of words we're apparently sharing. Likewise, when I experience a nightmare, however unreal it may be, it is still 'really' meaningful, and scares the crap out of me. As such, even any seeming boundary between 'real' and 'unreal' can be dispelled.

The moon stands in relation to my mailbox, so each exists to the other, despite neither having awareness of each other. — noAxioms

Again, this offers no explanation or theory of conscious awareness/experience whatsoever, so isn't of much interest to me -- and indeed does feel quite nihilistic. But since it is of interest to you, then carry on. :)

Well actually I referred to an apparent or seeming duality. In any case, how is saying 'there is no actual boundary' different from saying that any boundary is an apparency, or a seeming boundary? In other words it is not what it appears to be. Perhaps we're running into some issue of semantics here.

So you have relations without boundaries, how? — Metaphysician Undercover

You seem to have overlooked the word 'apparent' -- which I did italicize for a reason, but perhaps the 'bold' will help too -- or I should have said 'seeming.' You also seem to have overlooked the part about "the compelling dream of relational experience." ... In other words an apparency.

Similar, the moon and I stand in relation to each other, and so I say it exists in relation to me — noAxioms

Really, when it comes down to it, all of these conscious machinations are doing nothing to address the 'hard problem' -- i.e. what is consciousness? What is the aware 'I'-ness which is aware of the moon, whatever the moon may be in essence, Platonic forms, mathematical structures, or otherwise? Absent any explanation, why should one adopt this metaphysical stance over physicalism? Physicalism at least has a theory of consciousness, however incomplete or inadequate it may currently be.

And if oneself is one identified thing, then it is one and the same thing, and this is not a relation, it is the simple recognition of a thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, what I am is not a thing at all. There's awareness ... There's the contents of awareness ... but there's no actual boundary and no 'out there.' So it does seem that any relation is dependent upon an apparent duality. Could this be what the mystics refer to as the spell of maya, for the sake of the compelling dream of relational experience? The One is the many ... The many are the One ... Quite amazing!

Mind-at-large was coined by Aldous Huxley to refer to some unitary state of Mind, which may be made clearer in the context of this statement: "In the final stage of egolessness there is an 'obscure knowledge' that All is in all—that All is actually each. This is as near, I take it, as a finite mind can ever come to perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universal Mind at large" In the version of Idealism I'm pondering, Mind would be the ontological primitive. Its ideated 'emanations' (though this may not be the ideal word) would be likened to Platonic ideas/forms. So to use an analogy, such 'emanations' would not be apart from this unitary Mind, in the same sense that waves are not apart from an ocean. However, the analogy can't be extended beyond that.

and the recognition of the things is prior to the recognition of the relations — Metaphysician Undercover

Is not he "recognition of things" entirely relational .. An aware subject in relation to phenomenal objects?

No I wouldn't agree. The whole point I am arguing is that the distinction is real, not apparent. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well then this may be one of those cases of having to agree to disagree. I fully concede that, not being a formally educated philosopher, I am coming at this more from the perspective of mysticism, via the lens of Buddhism/Taoism, that has evolved over time into this version of Idealism, perhaps akin to dual-aspect or dialetical monism, which may be a bit too numinous for some here. Nonetheless, I remain open to being otherwise enlightened -- although I may now have to shut the door on physicalism -- in this cyberspace crucible of cogent thinkers, such as @jkg20 and others, wherein I can put these ideas to the test of tenability. So far, it remains a work in progress.

Yes, to elaborate, it implies that what a 'finite' locus of mind can only know as experiential phenomenal appearances, by definition, is a limitation imposed upon what would be the potentially infinite emanations of Mind-at-large. As if it is the trade-off, so to speak, for the sake of this relational experience.

... @jkg20 Perhaps the descriptor 'apparently' distinct realms would be pertinent here. The realm of mind being not other than its phenomenal, experiential appearances, in some sort of self-observing sense, echoing the revelation of Buddhism that formlessness is not other than form, but within the context of Idealism.

Descartes, for instance, gets into trouble at this point - he believes he has established the existence of two distinct realms (he calls them "substances"), the mental and the physical, but if they are genuinely distinct, how can they possibly interact? — jkg20

:up: Yes indeed, and oh look, is that Idealism I see entering the stage, rearing its headless Mind?

'Realist', unqualified typically refers to the position that there is an existence independent of human mind. Anything else would need qualification, so idealism is 'realism of mind', and a theist is a realist of God, and a presentist is a realist of a preferred present. — noAxioms

Yes, I see what you mean. In terms of Idealism it seems it can only be resolved by positing a 'real' Mind that emanates 'real' ideations, which immanently exist whether or not there is a finite locus of mind as its subject -- or in other words, a human locus of Mind, or a bird locus, or a locust locus, etc, etc.

Well, as just a teaser from the blog post, what do you make of this? ...

"Badiou simply gives "this nothing" a name (namely, "the empty set"), et voilà, here we have our first being, the empty set, on the basis of which all other sets can be created. Now it will be obvious that, as an answer to Leibniz' question, this is totally unsatisfactory. I greatly admire the set-theoretic construction of mathematics out of the empty set. I'm even sympathetic to the idea that this construction may have some real ontological weight to it. But to answer the question "Is there something rather than nothing?" by simply giving a "proper name" to nothingness seems nothing more than a bad joke. Badiou's fallacy illustrates something of importance concerning the paradoxes surrounding the concept of nothingness. As soon as we start using "nothing" as a referring noun, we are in trouble: nothingness becomes a referent, an object. In that case, if we say that nothing exists, we imply that there exists this object called "the nothing", which is contradictory. It is clear that this contradiction is not an objective fact concerning the state where nothing exists. The contradiction is merely an effect of our objectification of this state. Just like Badiou cannot conjure being out of nothingness by giving the latter a proper name, so nothingness cannot be made inconsistent merely by our objectification of it." ~ Peter Sas

Ontologically, either you're a realist or an anti-realist.

So why not a 'real' Mind that emanates its 'real' ideations, being in essence not-two, as per Idealism?

This Leibniz question of 'why is there something rather than nothing?' it seems can't be answered unless we first agree on what precisely is meant by the terms 'nothing' and 'something.' As for the idea of 'nothing', the very act of giving it a name -- i.e. a 'mathematical structure' -- seems to render it as 'something', in an abstract sort of way. And talking about it at all implies some 'state' that can think and talk about it, therefore denying its nothingness. In a sense the question could be reframed as: why is there something that can conceive of 'nothing vs something' as opposed to there not being anything that can conceive ... aka 'the hard problem' and hence the attempt to resolve it with Idealism, positing the primacy of Mind.

Buddhism addresses this seeming paradox, or dilemma, with its revelation that emptiness, or formlessness, or no-'thingness', is not other than form, which seems to imply an ontological primitive that must account for both, but then is unwilling to apply a name to whatever that is, perhaps recognizing that language, being a subject/object modality, is inadequate to resolve the apparent duality.

What I'm getting at here in a very cursory sort of way, is elaborated upon in the following blog post, which is surely of relevance and interest here: The Inconsistency of Nothing. Subjective or Objective?

t’s more than just knowledge of the material that is carried over from professors to kids. — Larynx

This does sum it up in a nutshell sort of way, does it not? When considering how much about such educational institutions is about indoctrination, as opposed to any actual open-minded edification, I can now see why from almost day one of school I intuited with a sinking feeling that it was some kind of sham cooked up by those in charge to imprison me within their parochial worldview. No wonder I spent so much time window-gazing in imaginative revelry about what mysteries may await beyond the pane ... pun intended.

Again, I'm not advocating mixing psychedelics with your current medications, which would be clearly ill-advised and outright foolish. Also, I'm assuming when you say that you've tried psychedelics in the past that you're referring to some kind of casual usage, in perhaps a recreational context. Again, this is most certainly not what I am suggesting, and would be ill-advised. This should only be considered in conjunction with a formal clinical trial, with the support of experts who know what they're doing. And it may well be that it's not the right route or therapy for you, if there is some other psychosis coming into play. As always, get the best advise possible, before trying anything where you're not sure about about the possible risks involved.

By the way, I should state the usual disclaimer here that I am not a medical professional, or healer of any kind, so any advice taken here should be done so in the context of seeking expert information within the usual medical and healing modalities that are available.

Maybe there is some way you could get into one of those clinical trials I mentioned. If not, one can only hold out hope that they will bring about a more viable option accessible to all long term sufferers of psychological disorders, like PTSD, chronic depression and anxiety, etc, in the very near future.

Well supposedly there's much optimism that these so-called entheogens will be approved for clinical usage in the psychiatric field in the near future -- aiming for 2020 perhaps. So who knows what will eventually unfold, and how the pharmaceutical giants will be impacted, if at all. Within the context of the prevailing paradigm it's hard to imagine that there won't be some profit motive in play. But I try not to be pessimistic or cynical about it, as that seems to be a depressingly pointless option, and what good does that do?

I tend to agree about the over prescribing of anti-depressants, and other chemical masking of the underlying trauma and other unresolved emotional issues. No doubt the chemistry is out of balance, and it can be artificially, if temporarily, corrected in some way. But as long as the underlying issues are left to fester away, then it's jut dealing with the symptoms and not healing the dis-ease -- not that relieving symptoms is not warranted, but not at to the exclusion of true healing.

Ironically enough though, we're discovering that there are 'drugs' that can be effective tools for actually facilitating healing, as new research and clinical trials are showing that some psychedelics, like MDA and psilocybin, may be the key to unlocking that baggage, by allowing access to the subconscious realm were it is locked up, so as to start the true healing process, in conjunction with more conventional gestalt therapy, etc. So far the early results are proving to be very promising, with respect to bringing about profound and lasting change that doesn't just mask the suffering, but digs deep to get to the source and finally resolve it.

Yes, salient points. Some suffering can seem like a call for attention from the obfuscated, unresolved 'stuff' deeply repressed in the subconscious. When I wrote above that I made the move from 'I am suffering' mode to 'I am not suffering' mode, it was not without unloading of a lot of suppressed psychological baggage in the process. It was as if the conscious choice to move on from it, was like permission to let go and stop holding onto that baggage, allowing it to be unpacked, sorted through, and then disposed of, so to speak. It was a painful process, to say the least, but in the end, more than worth it. It is as if some great somatic weight is literally lifted from the body-mind.

And also I learned that forgiveness was a huge part of it, and not just tacit forgiveness, but actually spoken from the heart, along with giving voice to the thought-forms associated with those buried emotions. It all seems to become entangled somehow.

So I guess the meaning I got out of it was that we don't have to carry that sh*t around our whole life, and such healing can be bliss. Albeit, that suffering may have inspired some poetry, as is often the case for artists of all kinds ... thinking of Van Gogh, or Beethoven, or any number of other examples.

That thread did get moved to 'The Lounge' -- presumably not philosophical enough for 'General Philosophy'. It is curious how often things go missing in the process of moving. Last time it was a very expensive butcher knife. Go figure.

Wonderful poem ... I must seek out more Brautigan.

For sure, suffering while dying, with all of the fear, grief and despair that can entail, is another category altogether. But that too can be quite mysterious has to how it unfolds. I've seen folks, like my mother, die in psychological turmoil, while others in seemingly similar dire conditions pass away quite peacefully, as if they've seen that proverbial unconditional loving light, spoken of in NDE accounts that are now so pervasive on youtube. And what of Steve Jobs' now famous last words ... "Oh wow! Oh wow!! Oh wow!!!

Speaking of poetry, my mom's passing did inspire a poem, if I may be allowed to share, given its relevance to suffering ...

As I sat in that cathedral of life and death,
how many lives were born and lost
within the rooms of its labyrinth halls?
And where was god watching from?
As I gazed into the dazzling geometry
of its crystalline ceiling, did I see
the myriad crosses of Flanders repeated
there? During the countless hours
I waited, I tried in vain to count them,
until I could not bear them any more.
Strange, how one skin-cloaked skeleton
could radiate such beauty and light,
while yours, that shell of your being,
housed only darkness and despair.
And so I brought those fading photos
to remember your lost beauty and light,
to mask the pain and fear in your eyes.
And yet they too became unbearable,
as I sat helplessly by your side,
while some irrevocable karmic will
pulled your hand from mine. I tried
my love to read the failing words
upon your lips, believe me I tried,
but they also became too hard to bear.
And where was god listening from?
While everywhere around us, others
shared our grief, the angels of our ward
went about their gracious business,
as they warded over us. So I borrowed
their dauntless spirit, as they bravely bore
the infinite weight of our untold tears.
And I prayed that perhaps deliverance
might find a way into the darkest depths
of your sleeping soul, and prayed somehow,
somewhere, an angel was waiting to do
what I could bear to do no longer …
and that some god was waiting too.

To be sure, it is just the fact of life while firmly entrenched within the current prevailing paradigm, that our higher education systems, dependent upon tuition and/or grants from the establishment in order to survive, must become de facto shills for that paradigm.

To your point about the breakaway rebels, for the record, that alternative art school did turn out some notable indie artists over the years, who no doubt like most such folks struggle to get by on just the proceeds of selling their unique works of art. Alas, It just is the way it is, with no easy way to shift the paradigm, which it seems will only metamorphose when its evolutionary time has come.

@Londoner Further to your point, having peaked my curiosity, I now recall that some of the staff and students of that art college, bemoaning the status quo of art education believing that it had become too focused on teaching 'commercial' art, eventually quit and broke away to start their own program, naming it The New School of Art, or some such moniker, with the motto 'for artists, by artists.' Wondering how long it lasted, I googled away and discovered that after morphing into some later alternative incarnation, it eventually filed for bankruptcy some years ago, and closed its doors. Meanwhile the status quo institution it denounced is still going strong. Such is the power of prevailing consensus paradigms.

Yes, very true ... My academic college 'sojourn' amounted to a couple of years of art college, attended and taught by many counter-culture types, and even there it seemed that there was only so much leeway granted when it came to colouring outside the lines, if you will. One imagines that Picasso would not have thrived there ... not that I was in his league by any stretch of the imagination. :)

Yes, could it be perchance that WS was positing idealism? :wink:

Would it be fair to say then that academic philosophy has succumbed, or surrendered itself to the prevailing materialist paradigm/ethos -- using the descriptor 'materialist' in both its ontological and cultural sense -- just like most other academic pursuits, such that, once indoctrinated, there's no longer much leeway to be a so-called 'free thinker' outside that paradigmatic box, so to speak.

It's a logical problem. — frank

@frank Somehow I missed this snippet last night. These days, as the physicalist paradigm seems to be melting away before my eyes, I must concede that the mystical is more and more supplanting the logical, as it becomes my felt sense that what I'm experiencing is some 'self'-perpetuating Dream -- I know not how else to word it -- which this individual version of a self is somehow sharing with all these other such selves. And really, I've no idea how this could be. :)

I wonder if perhaps the meaning of it all is to create the meaning of it all. And it seems quite unconditional that way. When the meaning I create is that 'I am suffering', and I get caught up and identified with that meaning, then indeed I truly feel that I am suffering. When the meaning I create is that 'I am not suffering', then that meaning feels just as true. I suppose the question then becomes can we make the conscious choice, one way or the other, of which meaning to apply and identify with?

Just one personal example. Having been abused as a child, both in an emotional and corporeal way, much of my life was spent in 'I am suffering' mode. At some point, when I bottomed out, so to speak, having had enough of that meaning, I consciously switched to 'I am not suffering ' mode. Lately though, I just try to stay in 'I am' mode, with out the optional add-ons and identifications :)

Not sure we're on the same page here, in terms of what I was trying to convey. But that may be that I didn't make it explicit enough. I don't have time to go over it right now, so let me get back to you on that.

Thanks for the suggested article; I will get around to it. I actually read More Than Allegory a while back, and don't off hand recall the mention of QBism, so I expect it was quite incidental. Overall it was not a science-based exposition of Idealism, but mostly to do with the psychological implications, so not the one to read for its QM implications. I did enjoy it though.