Has the economic anarchy of capitalism produced the current status quo of 2/3rds of the world living below the poverty line? — an-salad

I'm neither a political Capitalist nor a political Socialist. Instead, I'm apolitical, and I happen to live in a regulated mixed economy, where my status is far above the world poverty line. My retirement Uber gig is "platform capitalism", where the workers are free to come & go, but their income remains near the bottom of the U.S. economic pyramid (not counting the unemployed)*1. At the same time, I benefit from socialist medicine (VA) because I gave four years of my life defending my less-than-perfect country. Although my income is near the bottom of the US scale, I don't consider myself impoverished, compared to the rest of the world --- much of which doesn't benefit from the political stability and moderation of a mixed economy*2.

I questioned the assertion that "2/3rds of the world living below the poverty line". So, I Googled "poverty line" and found a variety of estimates based on such criteria as "global data set on basic commodity prices to provide first estimates of global extreme poverty in the long run using a 'cost of basic needs' approach"*3. Proponents of Capitalism like to boast of the millions of people "raised out of historical poverty". As illustrated in the chart below *5. But, do you trust the data and criteria of Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.?

A major factor in world poverty seems to be, not so much Capitalism vs Socialism, as the political stability of the government. Capitalism flourishes with minimal regulation, but benefits mostly those near the top of the pyramid, and tends toward Oligarchism. Socialism depends on top-down suppression of the acquisitive motives of human nature, but tends toward Totalitarianism. Yet, a blend of both approaches seems to moderate the worst of each system, while allowing enough sociopolitical freedom to avoid the poverty rates of Ancient Rome for example*4. I'm just trying to put the current world economy into a broader perspective --- not either/or but BothAnd. Marx's philosophy may have had more impact on poverty than his politics. :smile:

*1. Gig employment vs poverty :
Thirty-two percent of drivers in the study reported falling into a “debt trap;” given the costs of an Uber lease, car insurance and Uber's 25 percent commission and booking fees, some drivers net less than $5 an hour. Half of drivers live at or below the federal poverty level.
https://today.advancement.georgetown.edu/georgetown-magazine/2020/is-uber-taking-its-drivers-for-a-ride/
Note --- My part-time gig income averages around high minimum wage : $25/hr

*2. Mixed Economy :
A mixed economic system is a system that combines aspects of both capitalism and socialism. A mixed economic system protects private property and allows a level of economic freedom in the use of capital, but also allows for governments to interfere in economic activities in order to achieve social aims.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mixed-economic-system.asp

*3. Global extreme poverty: Present and past since 1820 :
Based on our methodology, the global poverty rate fell below 70% in 1873, and below 60% by 1897; after that, it takes much longer to drop below 50% by 1955, then much less time to drop below 40% by 1977.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/e20f2f1a-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/e20f2f1a-en

*4. Ancient Poverty :
Their society may have consisted of a handful of wealthy individuals which made up 0.6% of the population, an army that made up 0.4% of the population, and the poor masses that made up 99% of the populace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_ancient_Rome

*5. HISTORY OF WORLD POVERTY SINCE 1800
Marx's critique of unregulated Capitalism published in 1867.
https://cepr.shorthandstories.com/history-poverty/

I recommend a recent (2014) book, Schopenhauer’s Compass, Urs App. — Quixodian

Thanks, but I'm a lazy amateur philosophical hobbyist. So I'm not likely to read the recommended book. I'd prefer to hear your well-informed & succinct opinion on the question of Schopenhauer's substitution of "Will" in place of "Soul". Was he rejecting supernatural Christian doctrine, regarding the essence of humanity, in favor of Buddhist notions*1 of a godless-mindless-worldly-physical-natural Life Force? I don't really care about Schop's opinion {pace }, except as it fits into the panoply of philosophical conjectures on the Subjective Awareness of why we strive to live. Are we living for something higher than just another day in the mundane life of Me?

The article I referenced above was entitled : "Schopenhauer and Buddhism: soulless continuity". Another article, entitled "Arthur Schopenhauer: a herald of the World Soul"*2 seems to imply that his "will-to-live"*3 was an impersonal natural force, comparable to Plato's Anima Mundi, and Bergson's Elan Vital, and Spinoza's Conatus. All of which are similar, in some features, to my own concept of Enformy & EnFormAction*4. Which is based primarily on Quantum & Information Science instead of religious or philosophical traditions. A late evolutionary expression of the information aspect of that natural force is what we now know as Mind & Intellect.

Yet, Nature/Cosmos is now known to have a questionable creatio ex nihilo, for which philosophers & cosmologists are still seeking a plausible First Cause. For example, was the Big Bang just an explosion of Preternatural Power without precedent and without meaning? Is the Will to Live, just the meaningless momentum from that initial outburst of causation? What was the primal Will Power, the original ding an sich? :smile:

PS__Is Schop postulating that Life is the fundamental force of the world, and that Mind is merely an accidental result of "blind striving"? If "life only comes from life" (per Pasteur), then does Mind only come from Mind?


*1. Buddhism in a Nutshell :
Buddhism denies the existence of an unchanging or eternal soul created by a God or emanating from a Divine Essence (Paramatma).
https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/nshell09.htm

*2. Herald of the World Soul :
Schopenhauer overcame Kantian skepticism by reinterpreting both Subject and the “Thing-in-Itself”. For him, Both actually form yet another, “missing” Attribute of the Spinozian Substance, Which becomes Its Natura Naturans. The resulting Arche, in contrast to Mind or Body, is Life proper, Which in antiquity had been featured as the “World Soul” and Which in the philosophy of Modern Times was more commonly known as “World Will”. Unlike Schelling, Schopenhauer did not shrink from his discovery and did not return to the Christian God. Instead, he seized on this precarious Arche and termed It more concisely and definitely, as “Will-to-Live”.
https://alexei800.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/schopenhauer-world-soul/
Note --- Arche : Archē, or 'principle', is an ancient Greek philosophical term. Building on earlier uses, Aristotle established it as a technical term with a number of related meanings, including 'originating source', 'cause', 'principle of knowledge' and 'basic entity'.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/arche/v-1

*3. Schopenhauer as Stoic :
Within Schopenhauer’s vision of the world as Will, there is no God to be comprehended, and the world is conceived of as being inherently meaningless.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/

*4. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress --- including the evolutionary emergence of Life & Mind.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Not a machine no, a creature of nature - not his exact words, but that's what he means. He appears to have something quite similar to evolution in mind and discusses some interesting ideas associated with such concepts. — Manuel

I got the idea that Schop thought of humans as mechanisms from the Wiki & JSTOR articles*1, which said he denied the existence of a Soul (immaterial essence, animating principle, spirit), perhaps due to the religious baggage attached to the notion of immortal spirits. But the most general meaning of "Soul" has been the rational powers that distinguish god-like humans from mere mechanical animals. Did I get the wrong impression of Schop's contrast of Will vs Soul?

The article also uses the term "possessed" to describe the activity of Will within a human. Is that not similar to the notion of Spirit possession? :smile:

*1. Soul vs Will :
Arthur Schopenhauer did not believe in soul. However, he explained that every living thing is possessed by a will.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/janimalethics.8.1.0012

I think he would have some issues with the term "information", as it comes loaded with many ideas that are quite the opposite of his elaboration of "will". The will is a blind striving, with no goal in mind. While there are several elaborations of "information" theory that are clear that information is meant in a technical sense, it becomes very slippery very quickly. — Manuel

"Blind striving" sounds very much like the common notion of physical Energy/Force. But, as the driving impetus behind Evolution, that cosmic Will-Power seems to have some direction (e.g. toward complexity & organization against impossible odds); especially here on Earth. That may be one reason some scientists are beginning to view physical Energy as a specific form of generic (multi-form) Information*2.

The original referent of the term "Information" was the immaterial contents of a Mind : Ideas, Facts, Intentions. Some of those enformed concepts seem to be the motivators & shapers of human goals. For example, the idea of a canal across the mountain ridge of Panama was so rationally & emotionally powerful, for economic & socio-cultural reasons, that it motivated the expenditure of decades of Time, and millions of money investments to overcome impossible odds*3. In a very real sense, Information (ideas) was transformed into Energy to "strive" for very focused goals. You might say that the idea of a short canal across forbidding mountains was the ding an sich (ideal referent) of the man-made watercourse we have today. Is the visionary concept of a future state merely a poetic metaphor, or also a causal force? :smile:


*2. Information transformed into Energy to do work :
Physicists in Japan have shown experimentally that a particle can be made to do work simply by receiving information, rather than energy.
https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

*3. Man behind the Panama Canal :
French engineer Bunau-Varilla energetically promoted a canal in Panama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Bunau-Varilla
Note --- Was he "possessed" by "blind striving" Will, or by a goal-oriented idea/emotion/will.?

It's important to keep in mind that for Schopenhauer, the will as thing in itself is the closest approximation to the thing in itself. . . . . what could this REFERENT be?? — Manuel

I've never read any of Schopenhauer's works, but my superficial understanding of his notion of Universal Will, sounds similar to a scientist's concept of causal Energy. He seemed to replace the personal Soul with an impersonal Drive or Motivation to work for life & survival. In other words, a human being is merely a robotic machine programmed (by evolution?) to do whatever is necessary to propagate its core program (seed) into the future --- to what end? But if invisible intangible abstract Energy is the universal ding-an-sich, it must also take on the causal, material & mental forms that we observe in the world.

That notion is similar to the 21st century concept of Information*1 as the ubiquitous shape-shifting "substance" that exists in the various forms of Energy & Matter & Mind*2. Hence, the evolutionary offspring of the Prime Mover (power to create & animate Forms) is the essence of all things in the world. In that case, our perceptions of mind, matter & energy may be the "approximations" (representations) that Schop was referring to. Could universal generic Information be the referent of Will? Does that make sense to someone more familiar with his publications? :smile:


*1. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the abstract mathematical ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*2. Mind as Energy :
The mind is viewed as energies of relationships, with no beginning and no end, that give rise to consciousness in an observer processing change or information from the universe.
https://researchoutreach.org/articles/mind-as-energy/

I'm not sure "complexity" has to equal "amazing". We love to pat ourselves on the back, don't we? — schopenhauer1

Actually, I was patting Nature (or nature's god) on the back. Ourselves may not yet be ready for prime time*1. "Amazing" is an expression of value judgement, based on personal values. And personally, I am impressed by the glacially slow natural methods of world creation, as compared to the instantaneous creation by fiat of the Bible. What's amazing is not just complexity, but the quality of the intricate & balanced organization of the cosmic organism that emerged from the chaos of an omnidirectional Big Bang beginning.

Nature's enigmatic "values" --- or criteria for computation (replication) --- seem to be the fuzzy logic of Fitness Functions, rather than the mythical magical logic of instant perfection (paradise), followed by degradation by its own internal intelligent agents. On the other hand, computer scientists have recognized that natural evolution functions like a computer program which works toward some ultimate output. Some even describe its creative process as "amazing"*2, and have begun to emulate its counter-intuitive ingenious methods.

Cosmologist Max Tegmark has based his Mathematical World theory on the notion of natural evolution as a goal-directed program*3. Likewise, in place of traditional god-as-magician myths of 7-day creation, I think of the First Cause as an intentional Programmer, who selects criteria and sets algorithms, and then leaves the computer world alone to do its work of creation via evolution. Let's hope "ourselves" don't screw it all up with our artificial un-natural meddling.

This novel way of thinking about the ups & downs (goods vs evils ; fit vs unfit) of the gradually emerging world-system is just the reverse of Genesis. In the Hebrew myth, the world started in a perfect state, but then was corrupted by wrong choices made by the upright creatures chosen as robotic caretakers of Paradise. Evil entered the world when those zombie-like proto-humans surprisingly gained the independent power of FreeWill, due to the intervention of an evil god. And the rest, as they say, is history, red in tooth & claw : the savage conflict of competition for goods.

Now that upstart homo sapiens are beginning to meddle with the well-honed program of Nature, we learn the hard way that it ain't as easy as it seems to reach perfection --- a man-made Utopia remains an elusive dream. For example, medical science can artificially increase health & lifespan for a few, but at the expense of allowing "unfit" humans to replicate. What effect that will have on future generations remains to be seen. On a much faster time-scale, antibiotics have saved some lives, but the rules of natural evolution have quickly produced antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Meanwhile, the successes of technological evolution have inspired some to aspire to a Utopia of fleshless Artificial Intelligences, with natural humans left behind in the dust.

So no, I was not patting wise apes on the back, for their attempts to create heaven on Earth. The "amazing complexity" created by heuristic natural processes requires a delicate balance of good vs evil in order to maintain its progression toward a "better" world. But who is qualified to judge its betterness, us still-evolving apes or the original Programmer? When humanity learns how to define "Good", then ourselves may become the little gods of a real paradise. :smile:



*1. Humanity's Awesome, Terrifying Takeover of Evolution :
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-walter-isaacson.html
Note --- This article expresses some trepidation regarding the outcome of human-engineered linear evolution as compared to Nature's meandering methods. However, computer scientists have adopted the heuristic (trial & error) procedures of natural evolution in order to "design" solutions to problems that cannot be easily formulated into numerical values. In place of human selection of criteria it emulates the wisdom of natural selection.

*2. Amazing Evolution :
Amazing Evolution shines a light on this incredible process, from the beginnings of life around 3.8 billion years ago, to the millions of different species alive today, including the moon-walking, talking apes with super-powerful brains–human beings!
https://www.lindentreebooks.com/amazing-evolution.html

*3. Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative principle (e.g. Logos), that uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

First, this was a hypothetical "If there was a god". I am not sure "Gaia" as a standin for simply "Nature" counts. So that is a bit moving the target to an insentient non-intentional, phenomeon. — schopenhauer1

Sorry! I was just riffing on the God/Nature notion. :yikes:

Also the assumption that a utopian universe would be somehow itself "inauthentic" is also a bias to the situation we have now. I see two utopias really: — schopenhauer1

As I see it, both of those Utopias were anticipated by the late Jewish/ early Christian notions of Heaven. But why would God make the hopeful future Heaven contingent on winning a piety competition in the here & now Earth? Apparently, the current occupants of Heaven are the Angels, who function more like immaterial email clients for God than as freewill agents, who must constantly battle their material bodies for moral control. Which "world" is "inauthentic" (tantalizing illusion) : the tangible material terran abode, or the invisible immaterial angelic realm? Do your "two utopias" play each other in football? :nerd:

Which then brings us back to the original question of what if god's morality is simply alien to ours? — schopenhauer1

I tried to address, in a blog post, that poor excuse for an argument in The Book of Job, that whatever God does is true & good, despite what fallible humans might feel about their plight*1. From that perspective, God is the moral native, and humans are the aliens.

*1. God's Inscrutable Plan : blog excerpt
A popular excuse for the Problem of Evil ─ that the world is unfolding according to God’s Plan, which is beyond human understanding ─ is merely a diversion, advising us to "suck it up" and accept the bad with the good, while hoping for a better deal in the next life*. Ironically, the old "mysterious ways" theory belies divine benevolence, implying that what’s good or bad for me is irrelevant to God. The faithful must accept the fact that they are pawns in the Lord’s chess match with Satan. The hidden meaning of the "my ways are not your ways" Plan is explained most clearly in Calvinism : The Creator intended for only a few “elect” humans to go to heaven; and the majority, including innocent babies, are destined to suffer & die & then burn in Hell for eternity. What kind of divine plan is that? . . . .
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page26.html

If you had the ability to create a universe without suffering, but you created it with suffering instead because "You want to see how the game works out", I would count that as immoral. — schopenhauer1

Some thinkers resolved that dilemma by dividing responsibility : Old Testament = Jehovah vs Satan ; Gnosticism = Sophia vs Demiurge. But that evades any satisfying ultimate buck-stopper. So, my initial tentative conclusion to that cosmic moral quandary was to assume that the First Cause of our temporary universe was not a moral agent, but more like an amoral Principle of Change (Prime Mover ; Cosmic Causal Energy?). However, since I cannot ignore the physical signs, revealed by Science, of an evolutionary tendency toward the gradual emergence of material complexity & mental sentience & moral ethics, I still have to assume that the Big-Bang-act-of-creation had some purpose behind it (LOGOS)*2. And maybe Humanity collectively can contribute to the improvement of the Game of Life. Therefore, lacking any direct revelation from the Prime Actor, I must admit that I have no idea what that end-game goal might be. Some have guessed that G*D is gestating little limited gods in He/r image. But why? Does G*D have a motherly instinct? All I can say right now, is that it's an open question --- ripe for philosophical exploration. :smile:

PS___My BothAnd philosophy advises us puzzling humans to just suck it up, and accept the good with the bad. But at the same time, still work toward a more moral Utopian culture on Earth. Ain't that what Morality is all about?

*2. God's Inscrutable Plan : Part Two
. . . . . But what if the sages of the past wove their fictional narratives from the wrong assumptions? Idealistic Priests imagined that a perfect deity could only create a perfect world. Ironically, with paradise at the beginning, the story could only develop downward into decay and decadence. Hence, cynical playwrights caricatured the gods as self-absorbed and indifferent to human suffering. To them, humans were pawns in a heavenly Game of Thrones. On the other hand, modern science has replaced the stagnant cycles of Greek Fate with a history of progress from Chaos to Cosmos in a logical series of steps. Current models of Evolution have constructed a plausible sequence of advancements from extreme simplicity to the amazing organic complexity we see today in our scopes and neighborhoods.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page26.html

But supposing there was a god, can we all agree that this world is sufficiently evil enough to account for an evil god? — schopenhauer1

I don't know of any objective measurement of the good/evil ratio of the whole universe. On the whole, it seems that our local planet is the only part of the cosmic system with any claim to moral accounts. And, those reports of Good vs Evil are entirely subjective & personal. Except, of course, for the broadcast news of the world, which tends to paint a bleak picture of suffering humanity and blighted ecosystem. From the moralizing media we get a concentrated dose of downers.

So my question to you (generic "you") is this : do you --- locally & personally & subjectively --- find the world to be more Evil than Good? By that I mean, is your personal experience of the world mostly Pleasant or mostly Unpleasant, or on average, Tolerable? In this question, I'm discounting the News Media, which mainly reports on the Bad Stuff : "if it bleeds, it leads"*1. And I'm also ignoring all of the 99.9% of the universe that seems AFAIK to be insentient, hence amoral. In that case, is our (1/10 of 1%) feeling-part-of-the-whole, mostly bad or mostly good, or on average, good-enough to make life worth living?

Your answer to that question, may shed some light on your general view of the moral status of the planet Earth, and by extension to the non-Earth universe. The reason I make the whole/part distinction is to determine if Nature herself is Evil, or if the personal feelings of a few humans make it seem so *2. If the life of a mosquito is abruptly snuffed-out by the hand of an unfeeling human, is that a moral tragedy?

If the Universe (Nature) is mostly malevolent, then the Culpable Cause of this ongoing disaster could be construed as morally Evil. But, if Nature is mostly benign, and conducive to sentient human flourishing, then "Mother Nature" could be construed as sufficiently Good for a general moral gold-star. If Gaia is the "god" referred to in the OP, should we view Her as Good, or Evil, or Neutral?

If Nature is morally neutral though, then who do we have to blame for all the adverse aspects of life in this merciless world, "red in tooth & claw"? Who makes all the free-will moral choices in this vale of tears anyway? Do the smiles of a satiated baby offset any of the bloody stuff? How do all such tiny little local Goods add-up in the total scheme of things in an unfinished work of creation : goodish or badish?

The bottom line of the Moral Accounting seems to rest on the question of Agency & Moral Choice. If individual moral agents are free to act selfishly or altruistically, then where should the blame be placed : on the creator of Free Choice or on the Choosers? Is "God" the author of confusion, or of order? Is FreeWill*3 a defect in a world system? Would a cosmos of automatons, be sufficiently Good Enough to warrant a gold star for the designer of a perfectly balanced system of insentient mechanisms?

On the other hand, if know-nothing Nature-as-we-know-it is nothing more than an interlude in an eternal series of physical accidents, who are we to blame for the misfortunes that will-free human puppets call Evil? Is the god-postulate merely a hypothetical scapegoat for our individual measures (feelings) of Good vs Evil? Do robots have feelings, or gods? . . . . . Just asking. :smile:


*1. News Bias :
Basically, if there’s violence, conflict or death involved, it gets top billing. Nowhere is this more true than in television news, which coined the expression, “If it bleeds, it leads.”
https://newsliteracymatters.com/2019/11/11/q-what-does-if-it-bleeds-it-leads-mean/

*2. Hamlet's Dungeon :
"Why, then, ’tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me, it is a prison". -----Shakespeare, Hamlet
Note --- The phrase means that one's subjective perspective is locally & personally biased.

*3. FreeWill : The ability (or illusion) to make moral choices. Assuming that human animals are not totally determined by the laws of physics (hot vs cold), but also by metaphysical laws of morality (good vs evil).

"I'm afraid that explaining the existence of the world is quite beyond my capacity." — Quixodian

Speaking of persistence in the form of general "existence" --- in the context of Phenomena and Noumena --- I just read the chapter In Search of Reality in Charles Pinter's Mind & Cosmic Order. On the topic of Facts, he says "our words cannot refer to things in the world, because those things don't really exist in the world. They only exist when they have been individuated, separated out, and noted in mind". (Internal Realism : word to world mapping) --- Gnomon

As I continued to read the Facts and Information chapter, I began to see how Pinter was using the term "exist" in his idealistic worldview. First, he makes the same differentiation as I do, between Shannon's use of "information" --- defining the physical carrier instead of the metaphysical content of a message --- and the traditional meaning of the word as "informative" (meaningful) content. He says "wherever there is some variation or modulation of a physical medium, there is potential information". {my bold} Then he further distinguishes the physical carrier (e.g. energy pulses) from the metaphysical content (meaning). "We shall regard information as a non-material 'something' "

Pinter goes on to define "Form" (the root of information) in terms of Structure : "aspects of an object that are accessible only to observers able to see in Gestalts". That is, to separate the meaningful Pattern from the noisy foggy background. Next comes the introduction of substance/property dualism : "every fact consists of two separate pieces of reality". One piece is A> the general material-world background --- including the not yet discerned Object --- and B> the specific logical structure (Form) that the observer interprets as meaningful to the Self.

Further down, he notes that things "outside the view of any sentient observer are latent and unrealized. They become actualized when living observers individuate them by assigning features and structure to them, and perceiving them as wholes". {my bold} I would prefer to substitute "conceiving" as the interpretation of parts into wholes (Gestalt images). "Objects do not exist outside the purview of minds" That is not a universal Ontology, but a personal meaning of Being.

Next, he makes the assertion that I found counter-intuitive : "If this [gestalt] information is absent from the universe, then the object does not exist" {my bracket} It does not exist for the viewer until defined (from meaningless background) by an act of conception. The brain perceives raw data, which the mind conceives into personally meaningful Gestalts (words). "To put it another way, the information which brings an object or fact out of the background in which it is immersed . . ."

As I understand his view of contingent "existence", clumps of matter (e.g. stars) only exist as a noisy meaningless background, but the concept of a star (Gestalt object) comes into existence when an observing sentient Mind defines it as a particular thing. An object may have potential Form when unobserved, but it only takes on actual formal Meaning in the mind of a Subject.

"Prior to the existence of conscious awareness, there were physical processes, but they were virtual [potential] and not actual because they were not impressed on any aware observer". Of course, that statement of fact is true only if you ignore the contribution of Berkeley's universal Observer. But that outside awareness may be the only way to "explain the existence of the world", as defined against the background of nothingness. :smile:


A Precis of Enformationism :
"This is a powerful and far-reaching proposal. What it claims is that all of reality is divided into two very different branches. There is the purely material aspect of reality which encompasses matter and energy playing by the rules of physics. In addition, there is information --- or rather knowledge --- which is immaterial . . . ." ----Pinter, Mind and the Cosmic Order
Note 1 --- BothAnd dualism = material & immaterial exist, but in different forms : substance + property
Note 2 --- Monistic Existence = both Physical and Metaphysical = universal Ontology
Note 3 --- The non-traditional vocabulary & counter-intuitive nature of this BothAnd worldview makes it difficult to convey without lots of parenthetical diversions.

DO YOU PERCEIVE A CAMOUFLAGE BACKGROUND OR CONCEIVE A "DAZZLE" OF ZEBRAS ?

I'd say my view is built from several pieces that work together all at the same time.
Like my Klein bottle icon. Or like a donut and a donut hole. Or the right and left hand. My argument for this is empirical, semantic, and holist. But it's in the OP, so I'll stop there. — plaque flag

Sorry, that view-splaining was as clear as a donut hole, and as straightforward as a klein-bottle. You had me at "holist", but it's the other bits that don't fit --- into my unsophisticated semantic receptacle. I guess, for now, I'll just have to muddle along with the naive Wiki definition of Direct Realism.

PS__As I mentioned before, it would help me to hear your response to the alternative views of Direct Realism linked in my previous post.

I'm sure we discussed this article before Quantum mysteries dissolve if possibilities are realities -'“This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility”. Notes that Heisenberg (Platonist that he was) endorses the Aristotelian concept of potentia. — Quixodian

Yes, that article seems to agree with my assessment of the Quantum quandaries, that make the basement of physical reality appear to be a dungeon of dragons. On the other hand, "including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses". Ironically, it expands our conventional materialistic notion of Reality into the realm of Platonic Ideality. Potential "things" --- hidden in statistical superposition --- are technically not-yet-manifest in our sensory reality. They must be coaxed to actualize (realize) by a technological act of mind.

That's why pragmatic scientists were appalled to "see" real particles appearing as-if out of nowhere (statistical probability) after an intervention by their mind-probes into the holistic systems of material atoms, that were previously assumed to be indivisible. Even singular photons are seen to split into multiple manifestations upon passing through a bottleneck slit. But, if we can be content to assume that the Potential for the multiple photons already existed in the potential of immaterial Energy, the mystifying magic is revealed to be merely a trick of the mind.

I think you may have a 'naive' view of phenomenological direct realism. I went out of my way to spare you the confusion. — plaque flag

I apologize for my dumminess! My naive notion of "direct realism" is limited to the Wiki summary. Since I have no formal training in the abstruse enigmas of academic philosophy, your clarification must have sailed right over my little pointy head. Can you read me into your more sophisticated view, without getting into technicalities that will only confuse me further. I sense that our worldviews are not far apart, but perhaps on the other side of the mountain. :smile:

PS__It may help to penetrate my opaque skull, for you to reply directly to some of the alternative views I linked to in the post.

In my opinion, the hard problem is made harder (pointlessly harder) by the confusions of dualism. I will perhaps please the Spiritual crowd by agreeing with them that the subject is absolutely crucial. I reject scientific realism understood as the dead pure object existing utterly apart from an embodied subject. — plaque flag

I happen to agree with that assessment, except to point-out that scientistic Materialism is a metaphysical monism. Hence, Brain & Mind are not two different substances, but simply a singular machine with the function of interpreting Reality in a way that behooves a temporary material creature in a sometimes hostile world. For the purposes of a life-preserving mechanism, the subjective Self is the "crucial" fact of Reality. That's one way of resolving the "confusion of dualism".

I also agree that scientifically dis-entangling the embodied Self from the Cosmic System (observer from environment) is a mindless-soulless worldview. That's why I prefer to re-integrate Matter & Mind, Part & Whole in a monism that might "please the Spiritual crowd" --- except that it has no need for the accretion of myths about the ultimate absolute Reality that hypothetically encompasses our local relative reality. I won't go into the details of that proximate Dualism within ultimate Monism in this post. It's a complex & controversial explanation for the apparent materiality of the world in which we are myopically entangled. And has been roundly rejected by the Scientism crowd. :smile:

I'm definitely more interested in what we think and ought to think. As a phenomenological direct realist (a phrase I may have made up), I don't believe in a world of appearances and yet some other world of realities. . . . Indirect realists [ dualists ] are pretty much doomed to misunderstand the project, thinking it focuses on appearances rather than realities. Actually it focuses on how realities are given. — plaque flag

"I see", said the blind philosopher. So, as a "naive realist" you disagree with Aristotle, Descartes, & Kant that we can't believe our perceiving eyes, because they deceive us with subjective beliefs about the non-self "other" (unreal or ideal) world that our senses purport to inform us of?*1 Hence, your worldview is direct & monistic with no filters?*2 No need for philosophical doubt about percepts? And no need for notions of Ideal Forms underlying the Facts. Do we still need the gods, though, to bestow upon us The Given?*3

That probably would have been my own worldview in earlier days, before I belatedly began to think scientifically & philosophically. Have I been deceived by those anti-religious thinkers into denying the "facts" reported to me by my personal senses? Or, have I been deceived by eons of evolution, to interpret reality in terms of meanings that have proven to be favorable for the continuation of biological species over many lifetimes?*4 If I can't believe my own senses, or my own mind, or the dons of science, what hope is there for me to cope with the slings & arrows of non-self-serving Reality? :cool:

PS__Did I mis-interpret your opinion of the way "we ought to think" : I.e. naively instead of skeptically?


*1. Arguments against direct realism :
This argument was "first offered in a more or less fully explicit form in Berkeley . . .
One concern with indirect realism is that if simple data flow and information processing is assumed then something in the brain must be interpreting incoming data. This something is often described as a homunculus, although the term homunculus is also used to imply an entity that creates a continual regress, and this need not be implied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism
Note -- That invisible interloping "interpreter" -- coming between the mind and reality -- may also be the culprit that makes the Problem of Consciousness "hard". Perhaps its that devious interpreter who pulls a curtain between Self & Non-Self; denying our holistic "entanglement" in the Cosmic System of Reality.

*2. Faith Filters :
Your beliefs, both good and bad, create your entire perception of how you see and experience the world.
https://limbicperformancesystem.com/beliefs-as-filters/

*3. Save the Appearances :
known for his attack on the “myth of the given”.
But you start from a kind of cognitive freebie: what’s ‘given’ to you in experience.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sellars/
Note -- With no formal training in philosophy, I've never read any of Sellars' work either. So my knowledge of his opinions is "indirect", mostly from Wikipedia. Anyway, the notion of "the given" sounds like inborn prejudices of the human brain, designed by evolution to do some of our thinking for us, in the form of prepackaged beliefs & kneejerk reactions.

*4. Evolution's benevolent deception :
The interface theory of perception is the idea that our perceptual experiences don't necessarily map onto what exists in the reality of itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman

Perhaps philosophy's essence is its tenacious investigation of the subject's contribution to experience and how this contribution affects what we ought to believe. — plaque flag

I suppose you are talking about how we feel about the world of appearances*1, in which we are entangled & embodied, as opposed to what we believe about its ultimate objective cosmic reality. In other words, Phenomenology vs Ontology. For example, "how do you feel about God" versus "do you believe that God is really out there?"

One could ask a true-believer, what does it feel like to know God or Jesus, despite their lack of phenomenal properties, i.e. direct experience? What the subject "contributes", brings to the table, is prior experiences & beliefs. All together, those embodied meanings form our belief system. But what makes the belief feel real? How do we derive feelings of trust & hope from indirect experiences?

I have only superficial knowledge of Phenomenology --- never read any Husserl, etc --- but I am philosophically interested in how subjective Consciousness emerged from the evolution of the objective insensible material world. We typically believe our own senses, yet some beliefs are not based on sensory information, but on cultural concepts. So, how do we transform cultural phenomena (words ; semiology??) into personal ideas & beliefs, such as "salvation"? :smile:



*1. Nagel's query about "what is it like to be bat" : the subjective feeling of being a sound-seeing flying mammal? For us primarily visual mammals --- like all consciousness questions --- that un-experienced experience is hard to imagine, and even harder to explain in words. The bat is "entangled" in the same physical world, but experiences different subjective sensations, due to unique features of its embodiment.

I want to make a couple of points about this. The first is a reference to the Copenhagen Intepretation of quantum physics. According to it, the object of analysis of an experiment does not exist until it is measured or observed ('no phenomena is a phenomena until it is an observed phenomena' ~ Neils Bohr.) But a corollary of this was that it was incorrect to say that the object did not exist until it was observed. Rather, nothing could be said about it, until it was observed. — Quixodian

Yes. As I understand it, the Copenhagen Interpretation was not about Idealism, but about Holism. The particle that suddenly appears upon "collapse" of the superposed statistical state did not just materialize from thin air. Instead its statistical (mathematical) existence is Potential, and its collapsed existence is Actual.

For example, a Holistic system -- such as a galaxy of stars -- appears as a Nebula (cloud) from a distance, and its component stars are bound into a system by mutual gravitational attraction. As long as the gravitational field is stable, none of the stars can move independently. Likewise, an Atom is a cloud of particles that act holistically and display collective properties. But when an atom-smasher destroys the system, each sub-atomic particle moves off on its own trajectory, defined by its own properties. When bound into the atom, each electron only has a statistical existence. It's in there, but undetectable until Actualized by the "collapse" (mathematical state to physical state) of the atomic system.

Aristotle probably had nothing like the modern concept of Electrons or Galaxies, but he saw a need to distinguish Potential existence from Actual being.


Systems Theory/Holism :
Holism emphasizes that the state of a system must be assessed in its entirety and cannot be assessed through its independent member parts.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Holism

I'm afraid that explaining the existence of the world is quite beyond my capacity. — Quixodian

Sorry, I persist in giving you credit for more explanatory powers than your modest evasion would imply.

Speaking of persistence in the form of general "existence" --- in the context of Phenomena and Noumena --- I just read the chapter In Search of Reality in Charles Pinter's Mind & Cosmic Order. On the topic of Facts, he says "our words cannot refer to things in the world, because those things don't really exist in the world. They only exist when they have been individuated, separated out, and noted in mind". (Internal Realism : word to world mapping)

That would make sense to me if he had said "in my world model". But the quote sounds like the counter-intuitive Idealist notion that there is no objective "real" world out there, only a subjective "ideal" model in symbolizing minds. Hence, Idealism seems to use the word "exist" differently from the usual objective meaning. Perhaps, "to be" from God's cosmic perspective vs "being" as seen from my local point of view.

Pinter goes on to note that "commonsense wisdom holds the opposite view : it holds that facts exist in the universe regardless of whether anyone notices them . . ." That is indeed my own sense of the word "to exist" : being a thing in the territory prior to becoming noted in a map. Is that disparity between "commonsense" existence and "idealistic" existence defined in the literature of Idealism? Is there a more accurate term of being to distinguish between Noumenal existence versus Phenomenal extant?

I understand that things don't exist for me --- in my imaginary world model --- until I have named them with a label attached to a personal meaning. However, my "commonsense" model of reality includes animals of the canine species, even before any human had named that type of animated matter as "canus" or "dog". For example, I assume that there were large ruminants --- that we now call "moose" roaming the American continent long before the so-called Indians migrated into their territory, and labeled that species as "moosu" (twig-eater).

Are Idealists, like Pinter & Kastrup, saying that there was no such thing (fact) as a Moose --- in the mind-independent world --- until a classifying human mind realized its existence? Pinter says that "the mind-independent world is not naturally divided into individual parts". Yet Plato's notion of "carving nature at its joints" seems to assume that the division into parts pre-existed the carving by a mind. Am I missing something here?

Even though my Information-centric world-model is similar in some ways to Platonic Idealism, it does not deny the existence of human-mind-independent Reality. Instead, it attempts to "explain the existence of the world" in terms of shape-shifting Forms that are (exist) both real and ideal, both Phenomenal and Noumenal. Does that notion of straddling the subjective & objective worlds make any sense to you? :smile:



BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create thing-beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

The philosopher is mostly a dunce in the eyes of a world “assured of certain certainties.” — plaque flag

Historically, some professional philosophers have been known to pontificate : to speak from authority, but in complex abstruse esoteric language. That's why my indirect & superficial introduction to Postmodern philosophy sounded more like legalistic Sophistry, than Socrates faux humility "know nothing" set-up.

Unfortunately, some people want to get their wisdom cheap & revealed to them, pre-packaged, by wiser heads, in cryptic words that will make the dummy seem to be an authority. But then there are those (Trumpers) who merely want to be told --- in no uncertain terms --- what they already believe. So, who's the dunce here? :smile:

Pontificate : express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic

Anti-Sophistry :
"And this is the point in which, as I think, I am superior to men in general, and in which I might perhaps fancy myself wiser than other men, – that whereas I know but little of the world below, I do not suppose that I know".
Note that here Socrates does not say that he knows “nothing.” Instead, he says that he does know “little.” The main point is not that he wants to glorify ignorance, but to expose those who pretend to know things that they don’t. ___Socrates
https://daily-philosophy.com/quotes-socrates-knowing-nothing/

As I understood it via Bernando Kastrup, all of reality emanates from the mind of God and this allows for apparent object permanence and the regularities of nature. — Tom Storm

I'm currently reading the 2021 book by Charles Pinter, subtitled : How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things. He seems to be an Idealist, but unlike Plato or Berkeley, he bases his idealistic interpretation of Reality on scientific evidence ; especially the non-classical (non-mechanical) notions of Quantum Physics.

For example, he says, echoing Donald Hoffman, that "we are biologically designed to believe that what we see is Reality with a capital R". Then he notes that "the 'cup in itself' -- the real teacup in the unobserved physical world -- consists of atoms & charged particles, and 'appearance' is not a force of physics". What he's referring to is the world as described by physicists probing the sub-atomic foundations of the physical world. What they report is something to the effect that atoms are fuzzy-fluff-balls of invisible energy. And each atom is like a star, whirling through empty space, connected to other atoms only by links of invisible attractive forces, like gravity. Hence, we perceive them only en masse (as a whole system), just as clouds are merely swarms of microscopic water particles as seen collectively from a distance. Hence, he concludes that "objectively the unobserved universe is formless and featureless" : like a fog.

Although I haven't reached the concluding chapter, so far Pinter doesn't seem to use the metaphor of the "Mind of God" to represent the ultimate reality. He does occasionally refer to a "mind-independent world", but that merely indicates the obvious fact that the Cosmos consists of more than a single human perspective. Yet that could imply that we collectively create the world, or that we each perceive a fraction of the whole world as created by some enigmatic cosmic mind. Similarly, Kastrup*1 sometimes uses the German term "alter" (elder ; other ; father ; dude)*2 to label a mysterious feeling of connection to some higher power. :smile:


Reality is not what it seems :
The idea that reality is fundamentally thought, consciousness, or an idea, as opposed to physical matter, atoms, or particles, is becoming more main stream. The many problems with scientific materialism are finally coming home to roost. But this does not mean reality just is how it appears to be in our own private consciousness of it, writes Bernardo Kastrup.
https://iai.tv/articles/reality-is-not-what-it-seems-auid-2312

Alter :
An alter is a “dissociation” of a part of the universal mind from the whole. A bit like monads
https://neuroself.wordpress.com/kastrup-bernardo/

So, modern philosophy begins with "first define your terms", and be specific*1. — Gnomon
Does defining one's terms work in reality? The logic of what a term refers to, and the interpretation of that logic is at the heart of philosophy, and language. If someone offers an understanding of a concept you don't agree with, it makes sense to dispute it, doesn't it? — Judaka

Sure. But rational dialog must follow from a clear understanding of how ambiguous words are intended to be applied. When those words are not made specific, what follows is usually emotional "dispute" based on a misunderstanding. The same word can be interpreted differently from the speaker's and hearer's perspective. Don't you agree? :smile:

Dialog : a calm exchange of ideas and opinions

Dispute : a passionate disagreement, argument, or debate.

But (to be fair), the timebinding cultural aspect of the self, largely its linguistic aspect, is a graveleaping ghost. Metaphorically speaking, this or that individual body is its temporary host. — plaque flag

Poetically expressed. But I'm not sure what you are implying. "Graveleaping ghost" sounds like reincarnation. I've seen that notion portrayed fictionally in movies : for example a man's soul gets transplanted into a woman's body, and has to learn to deal (comically) with the different physicality of its new host. But I'm not aware of any real-world souls escaping the flesh prison, and taking up residence in some other soul's body. Such ideas make amusing fiction & fantasy, but is there a factual basis? Is my soulful dog the new body of an expired blues musician? If so, how would I know?

Of course cultural immortality is a common way to speak of a writer's or artist's mind, as incarnated in objective forms, continuing to "live-on" in the minds of other embodied souls. But such an unexperienced "life" may be cold comfort to the dead or disembodied soul, with no sensory organs plugged into the non-self system. :smile:

“I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment.”
― Woody Allen

Subjectivity is meaningless apart from embodiment in an environment. — plaque flag

Yes. We humans reify our own subjective perspective with the noun label "Self". Since the Self exists invisibly & implicitly inside a vehicle of mud matter, we have no cause to worry about its substance or provenance : the Self is simply Me, and always has been. Moreover, my embodiment is known directly via internal perception (proprioception -- the sense of self-ownership).

What is cause for questioning though is other beings that behave as-if they know what they are doing (self-awareness). Yet, we don't know what is going on inside that other animal, so we cannot experience its self-sensation or self-concept first-hand. But, we can reason that, due to superficial similarities in flesh & behavior, the other body must also possess a motivating Self : a source of causal Will power, to move & guide the body toward its own self-interest within the non-self environment.

Acknowledgement of that other Self/Soul obligates us to treat its mud-made apparatus as-if it too represents an invisible Subjective experiencer of objective Reality. Thus the moral rule of "do unto other selves as-if they are your-own-self". Morally, the immaterial sensing Self is more important than the animated body, but since the essence is dependent upon the substance, we have no alternative to treating Body & Self as a unique composite entity : matter/life, brain/mind.

However, we learn from scientific experience that dissection of a frog results in cessation of froginess. So, we induct a general rule that body/self is an integrated system, with holistic qualities (Life & Mind) that don't exist, in any meaningful sense, in the isolated body parts. The matter is still there, but where did the mind, self, soul disappear to? The Body without the Self is simply meaningless meat. Yet, some imagine that the meat is the more important partner in the Game of Life. :smile:

PS___But important to whom : the Self, the Body, or the Other?

I'm afraid that explaining the existence of the world is quite beyond my capacity. But do consider the Buddhist approach, which doesn't begin with the origin of everything, but with the origin of suffering (dukkha). — Quixodian

I see. When I read your remark about not needing a genesis hypothesis, I was reminded of Laplace's well-known rejoinder that his mathematical Science intentionally avoided any supernatural theories*1. Hence, my questions about alternative theories of origins --- other than "it is what it is". In the year 1784, Laplace could reasonably assume that the logical structure of the material world just exists eternally, with no need for an origin story. But today, our sky-watching scientists have inadvertently reopened the original can of worms, with their mathematical evidence for a time with no time or space --- nothing to measure. Thus, raising philosophical "why?" questions, where Laplace only saw practical "how?" questions.

Although I respect your Buddhist avoidance of vexing ultimate metaphysical questions --- focusing instead on proximate reflective Psychology --- my own approach to philosophy is closer to Cosmology than to Theology. So, I wasn't thinking in terms of traditional pre-scientific magic myths to explain how we came to be sentient beings in a world of both suffering and flourishing. Instead, I'm intrigued by the failure of scientists to devise plausible explanations for the contingent existence of the world. Multiverse & Many Worlds & Inflation theories merely assume, as did Laplace, that the temporal material world just-is (Nontology?), needing no further elucidation.

But philosophy is all about such imponderables, taking nothing for granted. So, for me, it's just a question of impractical curiosity : "Why" questions are about Purpose & Causation & Reason. Any answer to such queries is not likely to end the suffering of sentient creatures*2, but it allows us to scratch the itch of observations without reasons ; just irksome never-ending ellipsis . . . . .

For example, why not accept sensory Phenomena as-is, without grasping for extra-sensory Noumena? The elusive butterfly of imagination. Pragmatic scientists may be satisfied with naming what meets the eye, but philosophers are tantalized by what is not apparent, but seems to be logically necessary. For example, an on-going physical world without an initial impetus to impart momentum. Is without ought.

I doubt that conjuring hypothetical explanations for the existence of the world is beyond your capacity. It's just a story to give meaning to the ellipsis. What's hard is actually conjuring a world from nothing. How could that happen? My un-scientific hypothesis begins with "let there be information (logic, form, causation)". :smile:



*1. Laplace's Mathematical World :
"a famous statement by the French mathematician Laplace is constantly misused to buttress atheism. On being asked by Napoleon where God fitted into his mathematical work, Laplace, quite correctly, replied: 'Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis.' Of course God did not appear in Laplace's mathematical description of how things work, just as Mr. Ford would not appear in a scientific description of the laws of internal combustion. But what does that prove? That Henry Ford did not exist? Clearly not. Neither does such an argument prove that God does not exist. Austin Farrer comments on the Laplace incident as follows:'Since God is not a rule built into the action of forces, nor is he a block of force; no sentence about God can play a part in physics or astronomy ..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Laplace.html

*2. How do animals deal with suffering?
In simpler animals with small numbers of neurons, such signals activate behaviors through reflex actions that are tuned to escape or defend against harm. In larger-brained animals, things get considerably more complicated.
https://www.aaas.org/why-do-animals-experience-suffering
Note -- In humans, we often treat our suffering by thinking about something else. Psychogenic pain can be ameliorated by "going to your happy place". Meditation & Prayer may be means of avoiding conscious awareness of suffering, by distracting attention from bodily sensations to dis-embodied imagination. Temporarily insentient.

My experience of discussing philosophy over the years has been an experience largely consisting of debates centred on umbrella terms. — Judaka

As others have noted, umbrella terms are generalizations that lump together ideas that have some properties in common. And ancient philosophers, such as Plato & Aristotle, may be best known for categorizing disparate ideas under broad headings, via Induction : one word to rule them all. Since those pioneers did the heavy lifting, most lesser lights have spent much of their time trying to break-down those generalizations into specific instances, via Deduction. Hence, the application of Philosophy we now call "Science". So, modern philosophy begins with "first define your terms", and be specific*1.


*1. Umbrella Terms :
a word or phrase used as a unifying term under which a group of specific and related things, words, phrases, subjects, or functions belongs
___Dictionary.com

In Berkeley's case, the only qualification required is that God sustains the Universe in existence, although personally I have no need of that hypothesis. — Quixodian

If you have no need for the God hypothesis, how do you explain the contingent existence of the space-time world, that appears to have a singular point of beginning into being? The cosmic clock seems to be ticking down to the ultimate Entropy of non-existence. Do you assume that the physical universe --- which we temporal humans perceive into conceptual being --- is actually self existent : requiring no external percipient (creator) to begin & sustain its beingness?

Apparently, Materialists assume that the world, or Multiverse, "just is", without any need for an external cause or perceiver. But, Charles Pinter, in his chapter on Reality, refers to it as the "mind-made firmament". Apparently, the mind is constrained by the organization of the brain to perceive the world in terms of Substance & Form. Yet, he goes on to say that "we are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that every material object has substance and form . . . . Once again, we are misled by common sense".

From that perspective, Materialism is simply common sense. Likewise, I would infer that the Flat Earth notion is common sense. We see, with our normally reliable eyes, that the Earth stretches out horizontally in all directions. And its topological curvature is not apparent from a viewpoint near the surface. Hence, it's a disk, not a sphere.

On the other hand, Pinter seems to view Idealism as un-common intelligence. Our mind-made concepts allow us to see the logical structure underlying the superficial substance of objects, and to imagine an objective perspective different from that of our own earth-bound eyes. Even so, Pinter says "the material universe outside the purview of any observer has no such thing as form"*1. Then he notes, "we imagine the universe as if we were looking at it, and find it is very hard to picture a reality in which we are totally absent".

That may be why Berkeley had to imagine an as-if scenario, with a super-human observer who could see the Cosmos from the outside, in its totality ; perhaps as a sphere seen from a 4D perspective, from all sides simultaneously. Physically, it might look like a shining star radiating energy in all directions; or an invisible black hole sucking-up all available energy; or just a featureless gray sphere. Yet, the super-objective Observer is not just perceiving the world, but also conceiving it into existence ; complete, down to the last quark.

Did I mis-understand the implication of your assertion, that "I have no need of that hypothesis". Other than the traditional creation event, or self-existent Reality, the only alternative theory I can imagine is that each of us imaginative Idealists is a world creator --- forming a unique world as a "mind-made firmament"*3. Yet, like sociable deities, we like to share our art-works with other gods. Not directly mind-to-mind though, but over the internet. :smile:

PS___Perhaps, once begun on its trajectory through time, what "sustains" the world is simply Momentum. But what abstains the world is Entropy. So, we have no need for the religious word "sustains". :joke:


*1. Form : "an object's form is an aspect of the object as an undivided whole, viewed from outside the object" -----Charles Pinter, Mind and the Cosmic Order

*2. To Conceive : form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind. ___Oxford

*3. How We Create Our Reality :
It’s not pseudo-science: you’re already doing it.
I create reality by taking an idea in my mind and bringing it into existence.
https://medium.com/an-idea/how-we-create-our-reality-7fc29fc899c

And without that observing self, which is never amongst the objects being observed, nothing whatsoever exists. — Quixodian

Berkeley's bold assertion, "esse est percipi", did not make sense, without some qualification. For example, as someone noted above : "the universe appears to have existed for 10 million years before the emergence of any perceiving creature". If so, in what sense can we say that anything --- say a 20 million year old rock on an uninhabited planet in a distant galaxy --- exists? Who or what is the percipient?

Is physical Existence*1 a necessary essence or a contingent attribution*1? If the latter, then Berkeley's observing God-in-the-quad*2 is a logically necessary inference, to explain the beingness of anything & everything in our world model. Hence, for anything contingent to exist in space-time Reality, something self-existent, perhaps in timeless Ideality, is obligatory. That mysterious absolute being is what insightful humans call "God". But how can we know that the named concept*3 exists, if we can't perceive anything existing without the limiting conditions of physics?

Physicists have inferred the existence of sub-sub-atomic particles called "quarks". They even envision families of invisible intangible Quarks, and assign necessary properties to those imaginary objects, that are not perceptible even by cutting-edge technology. We only know they exist fundamentally, because they must be there, to logically support all other aspects of our physical world-model. But, do they exist as percepts, or as concepts, or as metaphysical objects? In what sense does a Noumenon exist? Is conceptual existence real being? :smile:


*1. To Exist : have objective reality or being.
Note --- To Perceive is to attribute subjective being. Hence, objective existence must be inferred, not observed.


*2. Berkeley Limericks :

There once was a man who said "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."

Dear Sir,
Your astonishment's odd.
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by
Yours faithfully, God

If objects depend on our seeing
So that trees, unobserved, would cease tree-ing,
Then my question is: Who
Is the one who sees you
And assures your persistence in being?

Dear Sir,
You reason most oddly.
To be's to be seen for the bod'ly.
But for spirits like me,
To be is to see.
Sincerely,
The one who is godly.

http://faculty.otterbein.edu/AMills/EarlyModern/brklim.htm

*3. The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
https://researchers.usask.ca/gordon-sarty/documents/tao.html

Bottom Line: Did George Berkeley mean that the existence of the entire world was dependent upon human perception, or divine perception? — charles ferraro

I'm not an expert on such esoteric questions, but my rather naive interpretation of "esse est percipi" means just the opposite of Solipsism : "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist". Apparently he was merely stating the underlying assumption of traditional Idealism : that we observers are merely ideas, concepts, Forms, avatars in the mind of God (or LOGOS for Plato ; or the Universe Game for players). In other words, we humans, including bodies, are merely instances of universal Mind : parts of the whole ; chips off the old block. Is that hubris or modesty? Can we prove our claimed patrimony? Can the part question the Whole?

Both Self-image and God-image are imaginary concepts in your mind, not empirical objects. But, which came first : the Causal Principle or the Actual Effect ; the universal-eternal Creator or the local-temporal Conceiver? I guess that depends on your opinion of the reality/ideality/necessity of Eternity/Infinity to explain Space-Time and Consciousness. The computed answer is "42". :smile:

Mind of God :
Plato thought that forms (which he called Ideas) exist in a realm of their own. However, Aristotle considered that forms only exist in so much as they are instantiated in the things they inform. St Augustine, taking a basically Platonic point of view, placed the realm of the Ideas in the mind of God. In this question, Aquinas attempts to reconcile the teaching of St Augustine concerning Ideas in the mind of God with an Aristotelian metaphysical framework.
http://readingthesumma.blogspot.com/2010/05/question-15-ideas-in-mind-of-god.html

— The central defining tenet of chaos magic is arguably the idea that belief is a tool for achieving effects. — HarryHarry

I'm not familiar with the principles of Huna, or with the notion of Chaos Magic. But, I long ago, realized that one feature common to all forms of magic --- Taro cards, divination, astrology, incantations, alchemy, sorcery, spirit mediation --- is dependence on confusing the rational mind with chaos, or misdirection, of some kind.

For example, those who read tea leaves or animal entrails are seeing random/chaotic patterns, which allow the imagination to create its own designs. The freedom from structure allows the mind to rearrange old beliefs to suit new or future situations. Magical interpretations are usually expressed in the vocabulary of commonly held beliefs/superstitions, such as ghosts & fates. :smile:


Chaos magic teaches that the essence of magic is that perceptions are conditioned by beliefs, and that the world as we perceive it can be changed by deliberately changing those beliefs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_magic

But Kant only introduced the concept of the “thing in itself” to refer to the world as it is independently of our experience of it and unstructured by our cognitive constitution. — Quixodian

I'm still reading Charles Pinter's book, subtitled : How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things . . . .. In his chapter on Realism, he distinguishes between "direct realism" (naive realism) --- which equates the world with the appearances created by the mind to represent physical features --- and philosophical realism --- which is supposed to be more self-aware, taking into account the observer's contribution to reality. Presumably, Direct Realism & Materialism ignore the Me in the middle of the sensation/cognition equation.

That's the same conclusion quantum physicists came to when they discovered that the expectations & presumptions of the observer seemed to have some effect on the transformation of holistic entanglement into the particular objects of sub-atomic reality. John A. Wheeler called it the "observer effect"*1. Since such self-consciousness was not allowed in the objective/reductive scientific method, they turned to Eastern philosophy (e.g. Buddhism) for ways to account for the meddling man-in-the-middle.

The Buddha advised his followers to seek true reality by ignoring the mis-interpreting Self. He referred to "pure" & "impure appearances". He seemed to presume that intro-spection was more pure than extro-spection. Quakers, sitting quietly in church, are also seeking the Inner Light, that presumably comes directly from God. We may get closer to "pure" Truth by quieting the constantly processing brain. But do we really commune with God, or with our naive (child-like) model of reality?

Pinter said Kant "claimed that what we experience is never the thing in itself, but always as it is represented in our mind". It's the observer's self-interest that muddles our "impure" view of things-as-they-are from God's unbiased "pure" perspective. He also says "Kant was perhaps the first philosopher to draw a real distinction between properties which things have in themselves, and the experiences they produce in us". Empirical material properties are innate, but abstract essential qualia are attributed.

Pinter goes on to note that "the animal mind . . . envisions a world of features, aspects, and appearances, but those things don't exist outside the mind". Also, "without a living subject looking at a thing, it has no specific features, nothing it 'looks like' " {my bold} That observer effect may be what Nagel meant by his challenge to the Mind-Body problem : "What is it like to be a bat?" All minds take-in sensory information from the environment, then process & code the data into "cognitive" mental representations, that are meaningful to the observing Self.

On this forum, we often contrast Realism/Materialism with Supernaturalism/Idealism. But that black vs white dichotomy also overlooks the flesh & blood man-in-the-middle : the cogitating Brain/Self. Likewise, the Phenomena/Noumena polarity may miss the real world conjunction of Brain/Mind, which translates Real sensations into Ideal experiences. :smile:


*1. Observer Effect :
The surprising implications of the original delayed-choice experiment led Wheeler to the conclusion that "no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon", which is a very radical position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_experiment

I have no problem with scientific philosophy. Physics, as you say, is half philosophy, half empirical. What floats my spiritual boat is God as forms. But words like God or Deus is not really important. When i see a lion, i can cognate ever deeper understanding of its nature and animality. There is some kind of dualism that seems nevessary within our consciousness — Gregory

I assume that your equation of God with Platonic Form*1 may imply A> a separate-but-equal dualism of Ideal & Real, or B> a hierarchical superior vs inferior or ultimate vs proximate Reality (Heaven vs Earth). My philosophical BothAnd*2 dualism has a similar motivation, in that it attempts to reconcile Physical Reality, consisting of material objects & causal forces, with Metaphysical Ideality, consisting of imaginary concepts in individual human minds. Yet for religious purposes, those notions are typically projected into a unitary universal Mind. Which may seem philosophically necessary, but beyond the bounds of science, hence unprovable.

However, that Ideality may or may not be actually a supernatural Platonic realm of perfect Forms, or ding an sich perfections in the Mind of God. As far as I can tell, those higher realms are imaginary, existing in individual human minds, hence opinions that must be accepted by faith in the myths we tell each other. The commonality of supernatural notions among mankind, may or may not indicate that there really is some mysterious Force or Form or Agent in the Great Beyond. So, we disagree on the exact nature (features) of the inferred Absolute Form or form-maker.

Despite the uncertainty, we like to think of Ideality as a super-reality --- more real than apparent Reality. For the purposes of my own "scientific philosophy", I sometimes use the concept of G*D metaphorically to represent the unknowable pre-BigBang source of the energy & laws that necessarily existed prior to space-time, in order to explain the HOW questions of the BB. However, since I have no direct channel of communication to that hypothetical Designer, I must remain agnostic about the WHY questions. That's also a Deistic philosophy. :smile:



*1. Plato's Theory of Forms :
In basic terms, Plato's Theory of Forms asserts that the physical world is not really the 'real' world; instead, ultimate reality exists beyond our physical world.
https://study.com/learn/lesson/plato-theory-forms-realm-physical.html

*2. Both/And Principle :
*** My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
*** The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity), the whole of which our perceived reality is a part.
*** Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
*** This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Phenomena are objective, but Noumena are subjective. — Gnomon

Disagree. Going back to the pre-Kantian idea of noumena as ‘object of mind’, the noumenal might be understood as something nearer the original meaning of the idea, form or principle (bearing in mind that ‘form* *is nothing like* ‘shape’ :brow: ) The way that I interpret it (me, not Kant!) is in terms of principles that can only be grasped rationally, but which are independent of your or my particular mind. . . . . That’s why such principles are taken as subjective, or ‘in the mind’ - but they’re not in any individual mind. Bertrand Russell describes it exactly: ‘they are not thoughts, but when they are known they are objects of thought’. — Quixodian

Apparently you have a more nuanced definition of the terms "phenomena", noumena", "objective" and "subjective" than mine. As usual, you have a much greater mastery of philosophical literature than I do. My knowledge of Kant is superficial. So my usage of his terminology is more like common knowledge, and does not pretend to know the Mind of God. For me, "objective" is perceived Reality, while "subjective" is conceived Ideality.

So, when I classified Phenomena as objective, I merely meant that they are what we see (things or events out there) with our physical eyes : hence, Objective Percepts. But Noumena are what we know (in here) via our inner eye of reason (classification, categorization) : hence, Subjective Concepts. "Objective" is common knowledge ; "Subjective" is private knowledge.

Your interpretation of "noumenon" seems to be Platonic, in the sense of Eternal Transcendent Principles that are more real (ideal) than Temporal Physical Percepts (appearances). Mine was intended to be more down-to-earth and pragmatic.

Subjectively, I might think that my personal Ideas & Ideals are more perfect --- purged of the dross --- hence, closer to the true eternal essence (Form), than those of the common crowd. Others may disagree. :cool:


Percept : an impression of an object obtained by use of the senses
Concept : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion

What is objective vs subjective? :
Here's a trick to help you remember the difference between subjective and objective. Subjectivity is self-centered and based on speculations, sentiments, and experiences. Objectivity is outward-focused and based on observable facts and data that can be proven true.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective

Phenomenon synonyms : occurrence, event, happening, fact, experience, appearance, thing
Noumenon synonyms : concept, idea, essence, spirit, and substance. Other related terms include the metaphysical, the transcendent, and the ineffable.

Phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5g.htm

So maybe the question is, if there is and can be something infinite, what would that be? — Gregory

Although I've never read any of his writings, I'm superficially familiar with Hegel, due to his prominence in modern philosophical discussions. But, I'm not qualified to speculate on his particular notion of "absolute" or "something infinite". On the other hand, this thread may not really be about Hegel's formulation, but about any unwarranted assumption of an extra-sensory "something infinite" underlying the 4-Dimension world we all know via the physical senses. FWIW, my personal opinion of Infinity is based more on scientific concepts than on philosophical theories.

Unlike impractical Philosophy, for its pragmatic purposes, empirical Science typically ignores infinities as mathematical nuisances. That's because Logical thought requires well-defined boundaries. However, modern Cosmology --- a hybrid of science & philosophy --- has not been able to dismiss the real possibility of "something" outside the rational brackets of space & time. Which may also be free from the limiting laws of physics, hence essentially Absolute. Anything unconditional may not play by the conventional rules of human Reason, though.

The Big Bang theory, although initially met with derision by some anti-creation Astronomers, is now as fundamental to Cosmology as Evolution is to Biology. Yet, "what had a beginning" implies a Creation event, and leaves open the child-like question of what caused the Bang, and set the initial conditions for evolution to expand on. That's why, In the 21st century, some theoretical Astrophysicists, lacking experimental evidence, have begun to explore a variety of pre-Bang scenarios mathematically, since empirical methods are useless for a place-beyond-Space and a time-before-Time.

For instance, Inflationary Universe theories instantaneously expanded in the literature, but the fervor now seems to have cooled. Likewise, serious Multiverse and Many Worlds proposals have become staples of Science Fiction, but not of practical Science. Yet, mathematical physicist Max Tegmark continues to develop his theory of an immaterial time-free Mathematical foundation of the Reality we observe with our space-time senses. But, for the most part, speculations on Infinity & Eternity have been left behind as playthings for feckless philosophers. . . . including yours truly.

That said, all I can say is that whatever-it-might-be, the "something infinite" is not likely to be a being in any empirical or anthro-morphic sense of existence. Which may be why the ancients conjectured about some imaginary immaterial forms of being : such as Souls & Spirits. And Pure Math, per Tegmark, may be a modern term for immaterial "spiritual" existence. Mathematics is the science and study of quality, structure, space, and change. Those are abstractions that exist in rational minds, not in in the physical objects to which they are attributed. Hence, as ideal metaphysical concepts they are literally infinite ; not bound by the laws of physics.

However, mental abstractions do exist in some sense, don't they? Where is the realm of ideas? Plato postulated in his Theory of Forms, that they are timeless, absolute, and unchangeable. Likewise, my own notion of The Infinite, is built upon the concept of Form, defined as the active, determining principle of a thing. As we experience it in the 4D world, that Principle is equivalent to causal Energy plus defining Pattern/Code. I call it EnFormAction. But what is the ultimate Source of Guided Causation in the Real world? Frankly, I don't know. But, as an un-employed amateur philosopher, nothing in the world is keeping me from guessing about that mysterious "something" outside the world. :smile:


PS___My take-away from the philosophically floundering fact-free fairytales of Infinity is that it's a fool's errand. Yet, a philosophical forum is a fool's paradise. We can freely speculate without fear of consequences, except for derision by those defending fact-based belief systems such as Materialism & Realism. But ridicule is not a legitimate philosophical argument. So, "sticks & stones" . . . .


Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics. . . . “Inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/

Is the universe written in math?
That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics — specifically, a mathematical structure. Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)". . . . The MUH is based on the radical Platonist view that math is an external reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

It’s given as an example of a concept that is easy to grasp in principle, but is almost impossible to form or recognise an image of. In its context it was provided to illustrate the difference between concepts and mental images. But it also serves to illustrate the idea of ‘an object of mind’ i.e. you can understand it rationally even despite the difficulty of grasping its phenomenal depiction. — Quixodian

Your distinction between sensory Phenomena and mental Noumena, reminds me of a judicial distinction between observation and opinion : "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"*1. That's similar to the difference between knowing an empirical fact, and feeling an emotional sentiment.

Phenomena are objective, but Noumena are subjective. So there is no particular real-world referent for an amorphous ideal-world concept. As justice Potter pragmatically concluded, all we can do is point to several real world instances, from which the other person can construct her own hypothetical Noumenon from her personal experience. :smile:

PS__Empirical evidence is recognizable for anyone with a human sensorium. But to cognize a rational Principle requires a philosophical background. Principles are not real, but ideal.


*1. The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
Note -- A scene of two people behaving like rutting animals in polite company, may be literally porno-graphic, but "obscenity" is a generalization from many different instances in various circumstances, including personal mores of the observer & opinionator. It's the principle of the thing.

What is the "referent" for the term "noumenon"?
Can it have a referent?
Kant states that the noumenon is objectless (and also subjectless) beyond space, time and causality,
so how can there be any referent for "noumenon"?
if it is a concept, is it not then an object of thought? but if the noumenon is not an object, then we have contradicted ourselves... — jancanc

Perhaps, the "noumenon", that Kant distinguishes from a material object, is merely a mental concept (an idealization of the physical object). In Charles Pinter's book, subtitled How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things . . . ., he discusses the human "sensorium" in great detail. He says that body & mind are engaged in a two-way dialog : the sensory organs transmit coded data (about an object) which the Mind (mental function of brain) interprets into self-relevant Meanings. As far as the idealistic Mind is concerned, the immaterial function (purpose ; meaning) of the object is more important than its material substance. Yet, the idea refers (points) back to the object, and the object reminds us of the idea.

The sensory Appearances represent the object in terms of feelings (sight, sound, touch). And that superficial portrayal is all we ever know for sure (empirically) about the "real" object. But the core meanings are like an X-ray : abstracting away the surface material, to reveal the logical Form within. That notional structure defines both its primary, and its possible, functions in the world. If the observer is astute enough, she will then know something about the essence of the object. It's that Ideal Soul of the thing that Kant refers to as the "noumenon", which is an immaterial belief about*2 the object in its perfect form.

When we talk about a thing (e.g. a ball point pen ; plastic & metal), we imagine its function relevant to the user. You can write an essay with it, or twirl it in your fingers. Those functional uses are not physical things, but possible processes that may be beneficial to the observer. Conceptually, they are the essence of penness, the noumenal referent of the word "pen".

Plato imagined a whole realm of perfect Ideal logical structures (ghosts of objects) separated from the messy mundane Real things of the phenomenal world of appearances. Ironically, all we flesh & blood humans ever know are those appearances (sensory impressions). But we can imagine a Platonic referent in an ideal noumenal world of essences. :smile:

PS__I apologize if this post is opaque. I just wanted to jot down some ideas for my own future reference.


*1. Noumenon :
(in Kantian philosophy) a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes.

*2. Aboutness refers to the central theme or conceptual logic of a referent object
Note -- Aboutness is a quality, it references an idea, not an object

While there are many forms of new materialism, Karen Barad’s agential realism is the first and most widely cited account. Barad is a physicist and philosopher who has updated Niels Bohr’s interpretation of the two slit experiment in quantum field theory and incorporated it into a model of material reality that re-thinks traditional notions of non-human material reality as well as human linguistic discourse in such as way as to dissolve distinctions between nature and culture, the real and the ideal. I am posting Barad’s ideas there because many of the discussions on the philosophy forum begin from one side or the other of such dualist divides between inside and outside, difference and identity. — Joshs

I was not acquainted with Barad's novel approach to reconciling Materialism with Idealism. But I am somewhat familiar with physicist (manhattan project) John A. Wheeler's notion of a Participatory Universe*1*2, where object & observer "intra-act", to use Barad's term. Dogmatic Materialists and Idealists may interpret the significance of that assertion by minimizing the contribution of the other side of the equation. But, I prefer to take a monistic BothAnd compromise : to accept that the world consists of both objects & agents, so Information passes in both directions ; in the form of Energy and Ideas. The dynamic system of intra-action includes both Nature & Culture. Humans don't literally create material Reality, but do participate in its creation as a concept. :cool:

*1. Wheeler :
It from bit. Otherwise put, every it—every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—at a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

*2. Our Participatory Universe :
This agrees with Niels Bohr‘s suggestion to his students, at the end of a life-time of thinking about our quantum reality, that Man is inside the equation, simply by being there. Man is “entangled” in this “participatory universe”.
And so, it follows, as Wheeler asserted, that the “laws” of the functioning of the Universe (physics) make man’s participation in the flow of events – in the observable material reality – a given. And if that is true, then, it follows, that that participation leads to more “creation” (actions by man) which, as Wheeler put it, is new “information” added to the world (the observable reality) which gives rise to (more) physics (more material effects in the Universe).
https://medium.com/@tarek_osman/our-participatory-universe-ce640fed6585

I am glad that you raise the question of what happened to the historical Jesus, especially in regard to the resurrection. My own interest in uncovering the Grail tradition is in relation to this. It seems to be so important in understanding and disentangling facts and mythical ideas. The problem is so much literature, and trying to understand the historical agendas which are underlying them. — Jack Cummins

As far as I can tell, the historical Jesus was a mundane locally-focused Jewish Messiah candidate --- whose socio-political mission was limited to reviving the self-image of the sifted sediment of Abraham's seed, then living under the heel of yet another oppressive Gentile empire. In which case, it's possible that the flesh & blood Jesus had a child with Mary, as later mythologized in the Holy Grail legends. But it's also likely that --- due to his ignominious end --- his revival mission would have disappeared in the dust of history, like all the other Jewish messiahs of the era*1.

However, as a spiritual incarnation of the one & only super-human God, in the form of a world-conquering Christ, the notion of carnal knowledge with a worldly woman would have clashed with the glorious mystical myth that Rome wanted to propagate. So, I suspect that any documentation of his physical lineage would have been suppressed by the Roman Bible editors, whose official agenda might be to separate the noble Roman Christ from his humble Jewish roots.

On the other hand, some practical-minded people seem to prefer a romantic-but-plausible mundane myth over barely-believable other-worldly sublime fantasies. For example, the dual-god gnarly-gnostic Cathars may have promoted a more down-to-earth fable of Jesus as a real royal king, who founded a genetic Jewish dynasty, doomed to propagate on the margins of Imperial Rome*2. Like our modern-day video games, sometimes our gritty fairy-tale heroes battle the forces of Evil as muscular underdogs, rather than as super-heroes with divine powers. :smile:


*1. Many Messiahs :
. . . . making Jesus of Nazareth the most widely followed and most famous Jewish Messiah claimant in human history. Aside from Christians, Muslims also believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah but not the Son of God. Aside from the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth is allegedly mentioned by Josephus in the Antiquities of the Jews and by Tacitus in his Annals.
Several Jewish rebels and military leaders lived in the 1st century, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas, Simon of Peraea, and Athronges, all of whom are only documented by Josephus in surviving accounts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_messiah_claimants

*2. What is the difference between Cathars and Catholics?
The main difference between Cathars and Catholics is their beliefs about creation. Catholics commonly understand the creation of the world to be good before it was corrupted, while Cathars believed that the world was created by an evil force.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/cathars-overview-history-beliefs-catharism.html

Barad says:
“In an agential realist account, matter does not refer to a fixed substance; rather, matter is substance in its intra-active becoming—not a thing but a doing, a congealing of agency. — Joshs

The quote from Barad's book does indeed sound as-if she is moving toward a middle position between Hard Mechanical Materialism and Soft Mental Idealism. This trend may be due to the undermining of classical Materialism by modern Quantum Physics, which is more mathematical than mechanical. Now, the sub-atomic "substance" of reality seems to be more an act of becoming, as an intangible waveform --- when observed --- "collapses" (i.e. transforms) into a measurable particle.

We, flesh & blood, humans still conceive of reality as-if it is a static thing instead of a dynamic process. Our senses typically paint a mental picture of reality that is a snapshot of a fleeting instant of ongoing change. That idealized image (merged into a movie) is what we sense as the material world. But, in reality, the ding an sich remains forever beyond the reach of our physical senses. Only our metaphysical imagination can "see" into the sub-atomic foundations of Reality. :smile:

Idea/ideal : Etymology. The word idea comes from Greek ἰδέα idea "form, pattern," from the root of ἰδεῖν idein, "to see."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea
Note -- What we really "see" is our own ideas about reality.

Barad : In agential realism, realism is not about something substantialized and fixed or demarcated. Realism instead emphasizes that intra-active agentiality has real effects – effects that become ingredients in new and always also open-ended intra-active agencies.
https://dpu.au.dk/en/research/research-themes/all-themes/agential-realism-new-materialism
Note -- The "Agent" is the Observer who "measures" reality into snapshot concepts

Information Realism :
Artificial Intelligence researcher, Bernardo Kastrup, seems to be finding evidence to support the ancient philosophy of Idealism, which further weakens the equally venerable Atomic & Materialistic paradigms of modern science. He is the author of a book, The Idea of The World, which argues for the “mental nature of reality”, also known as “metaphysical realism” . In this article he discusses “information realism”, and begins by quoting physicist Max Tegmark, author of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. “For Tegmark, the universe is a ‘set of abstract entities with relations between them,’ . . . Matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real.” Kastrup then describes how reductive methods failed to find the definitive atom, and instead discovered only amorphous fields. “At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.”
. . . . But in the Quantum realm, scientific certainties get turned upside down. “Indeed, according to information realists, matter arises from information processing, not the other way around. Even mind—psyche, soul—is supposedly a derivative phenomenon of purely abstract information manipulation.” The notion of purely abstract information does not compute in a materialistic world.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page18.html
Note -- Information Realism does not deny the feeling of reality that we get from interacting with the abstract fields around us. When we touch a tabletop, we don't feel the field, but merely the substantial surface implied by its resistance to penetration of the atomic force field.

Some of this may come down to scholarship, but it is likely that there are gaps here, which may reflect biases in theology, as well as the political aspects of the development of the Christian Church. This may say alot in itself, but it does make it hard to put the missing jigsaw pieces together coherently. — Jack Cummins

I'm not a scholar of religion, but I have some general ideas about how the Christian religion developed. For example : if Jesus had survived his crucifixion, Christianity, as we know it today, probably would never have emerged. Jesus seemed to intend only to revive the crumbling Jewish religion with messianic motivation. But after his death, other motives were promoted by some of his followers. Their ideas ranged from personalized synagogue Judaism, to nationalized temple Judaism, to monkish retreats like the Essenes, and to abstract philosophical thinkers such as the Gnostics.

However, the most important factor in spawning a completely new popular religion was the political power of the Roman Empire. It was emperor Constantine, who by imperial fiat converted a minor Jewish sect --- appealing mostly to the oppressed underclasses meeting in modest homes --- into a majestic imperial religion --- congregating in awe-inspiring sky-scraping gold-encrusted cathedrals. Then, in order to unify all the divided streams of Jesus/Judaism sectarianism, Roman church leaders surveyed the range of then current beliefs & practices --- circa 300 AD --- in order to compile a compendium Bible that would best serve the interests of an imperial religion, and a world-spanning state.

Of course, the compilers of an official, emperor authorized, canon of God's Word --- beginning with the council at Nicea --- had to include the writings & doctrines of Paul, who single-handedly spread his version of the Gospel throughout the Roman empire. They also included John, who spiritualized the mundane mission & message of Jesus to make his humiliating death seem to be a victory instead of a defeat. Thus, giving new life to a moribund messianic revolution, whose inspirational leader, failed to rise from the grave as expected. It also replaced the martyred semi-divine messiah, with a living human political leader, whose religious role was appropriated from the Roman pagan political appointee*1, who ruled over all the various, mostly idol-worshiping religions of the empire. But, they excluded those writings that advocated skepticism & independent thinking.

Thus an isolated localized minor religion was transformed into a worldwide bastion of orthodoxy, with a novel hybrid theology, combining elements from Paganism, Gnosticism, Judaism, among others. Which may explain how adherents of the thousands of modern Christian sects can all claim to be faithful to the same Hebrew God that Jesus represented on Earth. The jigsaw puzzle of Christianity is held together by their common faith in the myth of a God, who came down to Earth to save mankind from the ravages of another God, whose mission is to make human life a living Hell*2. :smile:


*1. Why do they call the pope the pontiff?
It comes from the Latin 'pontifex” meaning any high or chief priest, a link or bridge builder between the people and the Almighty. Julius Caesar was called pontifex maximus 40 years before Jesus was born. After the time of Christ, the ancient Roman church had a college of pontiffs.
https://www.wytv.com/news/daybreak/pope-or-pontiff-both-are-correct/

*2. Sympathy for the Devil
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah

philosophy in the classical sense was a matter of practice — Wayfarer

Most religions are also grounded on Praxis (Works), especially repetitive activities. For example, Islam's primary communal practice is synchronized prayer. Praxis may be the tie that binds individuals into social organisms. Christianity is unusual (in theory), due to its focus on private internal intellectual Faith, instead of public, communal, oxytosin-enhancing, activities. However, some Christians seem to use private prayer as a form of meditation, for self-improvement (e.g. gaining merit), as contrasted with social improvement, or collective bonding (belonging).

As a philosophical loner though, I "belong" to no empathetic & like-minded group. Hence, I am lacking in emotional support to solidify my adherence to an identifying creed. Would some kind of Praxis lead me to emotional or intellectual self-improvement (self-control), apart from the feeling of being one with a group of fellow practitioners (group control)? Can I be saved, philosophically, by cerebral intellectual Faith without physical emotional Works? Just musing! :joke:

PS__More seriously, I suppose my Practice of writing down my philosophical thoughts, and subjecting them to criticism, is a form of Praxis. Could that lead me to "modify my hypothesis to fit reality", or to "understand the world differently"?


What is the difference between praxis and practice? :
Practice is what those in the trades (like doctors, engineers, psychologists and musicians) do to modify their hypothesis to fit reality. More seriously: Praxis is usually used in the Hegelian and Marxist sense meaning action that works to change society.
https://www.quora.com/In-an-academic-context-what-is-the-difference-between-praxis-and-practice

What is the difference between Zen meditation and transcendental meditation? :
Mantra meditation and Zen meditation both differ from mindfulness. Mantra meditation, which encompasses transcendental meditation, involves repeating a phrase throughout the meditation practice. Zen meditation originates from Zen Buddhism and has the purpose of helping practitioners understand the world differently.
https://positivepsychology.com/differences-between-mindfulness-meditation/

There's something else, though. To truly penetrate or understand the nature of being (I prefer 'being' to 'reality' in this context) requires a re-orientation or a change to one's way of being - walking the walk. That is what philosophical praxis (distinct from theoria) requires. — Wayfarer

I suppose my philosophical journey is also focused more on the abstract "nature of being" than on "Reality", in the usual materialistic sense. But it's mostly a bloodless intellectual search for meaning, deficient in passionate pursuit. And that dispassionate quest is lacking any formal Praxis. I was never directly exposed to Hinduism or Buddhism in my youth. And while others of my generation were experiencing the joys of Hippie virtues, I was in southeast Asia "killing the little yellow man". I never personally killed anyone, but I suppose I had the cloaks of killers "laid at my feet". Philosophy was not part of my "being" until I retired from Reality, and had time to spare for Ideal pointless pursuits. :smile:

How did you add the "Reveals" to your post? I didn't know it was an option.

Quote :
For Hadot...the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were a series of spiritual exercises. These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research. However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition: practices of attention (prosoche), meditations (meletai), memorizations of dogmata, self-mastery (enkrateia), the therapy of the passions, the remembrance of good things, the accomplishment of duties, and the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things...

Exercise! That require motivation. So, I exercise restraint in exercising. :joke:
1. "Repetition" : Sounds like prayer beads, which is not an element of my religious tradition.
2. "Attention" : That may be my weak point, due to a mild case of ADD
3. "Meditation" : Post-military, I went through a meditation phase while attending a super-liberal hippie-ish local Unity Church. I practiced what they called Alpha-Theta meditation, which was monitored by an EEG machine. I was able to peg the needle, but no big deal. I also tried a sensory-deprivation float tank. In the dark dank tank, my ADD mind never shut-down, but attended to peripheral sensations, such as water dripping. Bottom line : I didn't find the meditative state much different from my normal passionless introverted state of mind.
4. "Dogmata" : I left behind the "dogmas " of my fundamentalist raising. And have never found any new religious doctrines to replace them. I suppose you could say that, late in life, I have developed my own personal creedo, based on the Enformationism thesis. But I'm too flexible to make it a dogma.
5. "Self-mastery" : Again, a weak point for me. But that weak-will doesn't bother me, due to my normal "indifference" and "passivity".
6. "Passions" : I am, by nature, lacking in passion and motivation. So, "taming the tiger" is not a significant challenge for me. I am mostly apathetic toward the ups & downs of life. But that's not due to following any Praxis of Stoicism. It's just the way I am.
7. "Indifference" : "What? Me worry?" :cool:

I'm not sure what term you would prefer, to refer to the fundamental element/essence/substance of the universe (Mind ; Spirit ?) — Gnomon
I am very wary of the attempt to identify some putative ultimate in objective terms. — Wayfarer

As an aside, I'll mention that both of us seem to take broad moderate positions on the Realism vs Idealism and Materialism vs Spiritualism spectrum. Yet, we have crossed an invisible line in the sand, drawn by adherents of the non-religious belief system known as Scientism. Hence, any mention of woo-words like "spirit" can tag you with attributed beliefs that are associated with the "wrong" end of that spectrum. That's because those with polarized views of "ultimates", often see moderates as tending toward the opposite side.

Unfortunately, any metaphysical worldview (an -ism, like Materialism) can be turned into a dogmatic cult/religion by gurus who are motivated to gather admiring followers, who don't think for themselves. For example, even the literally rational (ratio-based) Mathematics of Pythagoras became a sort of religious cult, when an abstract idealized metaphysical concept became encrusted in physical metaphors about such innocuous things as reincarnating beans.

Although mathematical physicist/cosmologist, Max Tegmark, is treading on the ideal side of modern worldviews, I'm not aware of any cult following that has emerged from his Platonic notion of a mathematical universe . . . yet. My own one-man, information-focused, belief system does not have any of the emotional appeal necessary for a popular religion . . . yet. :joke:


Pythagoreanism :
Society remembers Pythagoras as a mathematician and not as a charismatic cult leader. However, the two go hand in hand. Pythagoras believed in sacred mathematics and thought that the universe could be understood through numbers. Pythagoreanism was more than a cult of numero-philes. They believed in metempsychosis (reincarnation), embraced an egalitarian communal lifestyle, and practiced a rigid set of daily rituals and dietary restrictions. The cult also believed in universal music or harmony of the spheres, wherein it was believed that the movements of celestial bodies were a form of music.
https://www.thecollector.com/cult-of-pythagoras/