Philosophical Speculations

Lou Gold wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:40 pm

Ed Konderla wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:01 pmAgreed.

I think our theories tend to rationalize past events. Quite predictably a Christian might see Intelligent Design and a Buddhist might see Interdependent Co-arising in the very same thing. Meanwhile, Idealism allows both and more without compelling one or the other.

I totally agree. We so need to believe in our ability to look at data and extrapolate a narrative when in reality we should be saying "I don't know". Especially in things like the sciences, education, engineering. I've often wondered if it is a quirk in human nature or the pressure put on one while playing in that arena or both. But I've been around the block and those 3 little words "I don't know" are more scarce than hen's teeth.

Ed Konderla wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:53 am

Lou Gold wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:40 pm

Ed Konderla wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:01 pmAgreed.

I think our theories tend to rationalize past events. Quite predictably a Christian might see Intelligent Design and a Buddhist might see Interdependent Co-arising in the very same thing. Meanwhile, Idealism allows both and more without compelling one or the other.

I totally agree. We so need to believe in our ability to look at data and extrapolate a narrative when in reality we should be saying "I don't know". Especially in things like the sciences, education, engineering. I've often wondered if it is a quirk in human nature or the pressure put on one while playing in that arena or both. But I've been around the block and those 3 little words "I don't know" are more scarce than hen's teeth.

Perhaps, "I don't know" is a kind of failure in a culture of striving and achievement (as if love needs to be earned) but it's also a glorious prod to an inborn childlike curiosity that turns over rocks in the creek to see what might be lurking underneath. When I realize that at age 83 there are presently more cells in my body competing/cooperating, killing/healing, and doing a whole bunch of other things -- more cells in my body than stars in the entire cosmos -- and somehow they are performing in ways that keep me alive on earth in a glorious place at a terrible time of wonder and terror I can only say, "I don't know" with a deep bow of gratitude.

Lou, Dude I bow to your wisdom and your maturity! I know, the numbers are staggering. A 100,000,000,000,000 atoms to make a single cell and 30,000,000,000,000 cells of over 200 types from a single fertilized egg. Hell yes I know what is going on, just ask me!(Joking) Many times I feel like I have this amazing machine transporting my consciousness around this incredible theme park and I don't know how I got a ticket to enter since I don't remember purchasing one. When you get into these discussions by their very nature they are myopic. Yes we are living in a "terrible time of wonder and terror" but like a roller coaster that is the reason for the ride. Way back in the back of my mind while pondering I keep getting this nagging feeling that maybe that is the reason we are here, just to experience the roller coaster. We are here just to embrace it and love the thrill of it. If our consciousness can't die and somebody someplace felt the need to put all of this together then what could possibly be the purpose. In my mind a purpose could be to experience and walk away and go back home with a lesson. In the American Indian tradition I follow the lesson learned is yours and yours alone. It is not to be shared because in the sharing the power of the lesson is diminished.

I know the tradition and, for whatever lesson is mine alone, I've lived to tell the story.

Thinking of Ramana saying, "I see God in the tree because I see the tree as a tree."

As far as I understand it, BKs theory is in line with Darwinian evolution and posits M@L as not having any design or telos. It is a blind instinct will that becomes self-aware in the evolutionary process with Individualisation emerging from the dissociated alters. But there is no design, aim, purpose.

My problem with this is how there could be then a creative process? It is hard to believe that a purely instinctive and blind will without any form of intelligence could master an evolutionary process with such a fantastic complexity, leading to such an incredible variety of lifeforms. The only alternative I can think of is to fall back to the purely naturalist perspective of material micro- and macroscopic processes driven by genetic and natural random selection principles doing the job. But that would be a rather disappointing outcome for a theory that was supposed to get rid of a physicalist account of phenomena and processes. Because then, one wonders, why should we posit a M@L in the first place?

I suspect that any current model we may have about an evolutionary process at some point will become so outmoded that it will be considered as quaint and naive as the notion of flat earth geocentrism now seems, and that what we think we currently know to be true will be laughable, most especially in view of the realization that there's no such time as umpteen billion years ago when it all began.

I think Pageau covered evolution (and plenty more) really well in this discussion...

Under idealism, what is evolving are ideas, no more no less ~ time being one of those ideas.

As far as I understand it, BKs theory is in line with Darwinian evolution and posits M@L as not having any design or telos. It is a blind instinct will that becomes self-aware in the evolutionary process with Individualisation emerging from the dissociated alters. But there is no design, aim, purpose.

My problem with this is how there could be then a creative process? It is hard to believe that a purely instinctive and blind will without any form of intelligence could master an evolutionary process with such a fantastic complexity, leading to such an incredible variety of lifeforms. The only alternative I can think of is to fall back to the purely naturalist perspective of material micro- and macroscopic processes driven by genetic and natural random selection principles doing the job. But that would be a rather disappointing outcome for a theory that was supposed to get rid of a physicalist account of phenomena and processes. Because then, one wonders, why should we posit a M@L in the first place?

In a recent interview , BK talks of MAL using a "push from behind" rather than a pull from a pre-planned future. So, driven by what it finds increasingly interesting (in the same way as the warmer colder game), MAL's instinctive push happens.