Re: Intuitive Idealism vs. Analytic Idealism (Part II): An alternative formulation of idealism
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2021 3:28 pm
Cleric K,
First, let me say that I totally affirm us probing the depths of our being to better understand ourselves and our place in the totality of reality. From a theistic perspective, I talk about this as the dimension of depth in everything.
After having read some of your essays and posts, what is unclear to me is what valuation you have for abstract thought or its function in the grand scheme of a spiritual journey. Perhaps you could help me with that. There seems to be a denigration of abstract thinking in your ideas but I've probably got that wrong.
Here's my take. I'm with philosopher Michael Polanyi that we have two modes of knowing. One is an explicit mode that is well structured. Here we can think of explicit cognitive systems of thought. However, there is also what he calls the 'tacit mode' where "we know more than we can say". This tacit mode could also be called an intuitive mode. Both are in operation all the time for us. Now, from experience, we find that both of these can be in error. They get tested constantly both with exposure to other explicit systems and daily life. If someone points out a logical fallacy or empirical problem in the explication that may reveal an error. Also, we may act on an intuition with negative real results and that reveals an error in that intuition. Or a change in explicit knowing may reveal an intuitive error. These two ways of knowing are in constant dialog, each informing the other. We live our lives within this constantly changing dialog. Explicit abstractions help us try to make sense of reality such that we can survive and hopefully thrive. Intuitions help us act quickly and orient ourselves in life without a lot of analysis. While categories are helpful, I don't think a sharp demarcation can be drawn between the explicit and tacit modes. They are tightly integrated.
When it comes to our spiritual or religious journey I also think both are relevant. Our explications in metaphysics or theology provide a structural framework within which we can try to understand things and orient our spiritual journey. Our spiritual intuitions can either affirm those explications or call them into question. They can also guide us on that journey without constantly analyzing things. Here again, there is a constant dialog and integration. Reading and studying religious or metaphysical ideas can inform our explicated systems and practices like prayer, meditation, and ritual can inform our intuitive spirituality.
I would say that the divine transcendent realm is supra-rational. It is not irrational but also beyond rationality. The rational element (which we try to explicate) has been called the Logos, immanent in this reality. Accordingly, abstract constructs may or may not be in consonance with that Logos. The transcendent realm beyond rationality we may experience as well. Meditators of all sorts offer reports of this and it is also found in many religious traditions.
I apologize if I've missed the following in your writings. So, all this is to ask you what you are practically proposing? What are we to think about our abstract formulations. Should they be abandoned? If not, how should we feel or think about them? Also, have you thought about a practical plan for attaining the goals you think are important for humanity? Is there a new discipline or practice you are advocating for? Is there a way to confirm it is the right path?
First, let me say that I totally affirm us probing the depths of our being to better understand ourselves and our place in the totality of reality. From a theistic perspective, I talk about this as the dimension of depth in everything.
After having read some of your essays and posts, what is unclear to me is what valuation you have for abstract thought or its function in the grand scheme of a spiritual journey. Perhaps you could help me with that. There seems to be a denigration of abstract thinking in your ideas but I've probably got that wrong.
Here's my take. I'm with philosopher Michael Polanyi that we have two modes of knowing. One is an explicit mode that is well structured. Here we can think of explicit cognitive systems of thought. However, there is also what he calls the 'tacit mode' where "we know more than we can say". This tacit mode could also be called an intuitive mode. Both are in operation all the time for us. Now, from experience, we find that both of these can be in error. They get tested constantly both with exposure to other explicit systems and daily life. If someone points out a logical fallacy or empirical problem in the explication that may reveal an error. Also, we may act on an intuition with negative real results and that reveals an error in that intuition. Or a change in explicit knowing may reveal an intuitive error. These two ways of knowing are in constant dialog, each informing the other. We live our lives within this constantly changing dialog. Explicit abstractions help us try to make sense of reality such that we can survive and hopefully thrive. Intuitions help us act quickly and orient ourselves in life without a lot of analysis. While categories are helpful, I don't think a sharp demarcation can be drawn between the explicit and tacit modes. They are tightly integrated.
When it comes to our spiritual or religious journey I also think both are relevant. Our explications in metaphysics or theology provide a structural framework within which we can try to understand things and orient our spiritual journey. Our spiritual intuitions can either affirm those explications or call them into question. They can also guide us on that journey without constantly analyzing things. Here again, there is a constant dialog and integration. Reading and studying religious or metaphysical ideas can inform our explicated systems and practices like prayer, meditation, and ritual can inform our intuitive spirituality.
I would say that the divine transcendent realm is supra-rational. It is not irrational but also beyond rationality. The rational element (which we try to explicate) has been called the Logos, immanent in this reality. Accordingly, abstract constructs may or may not be in consonance with that Logos. The transcendent realm beyond rationality we may experience as well. Meditators of all sorts offer reports of this and it is also found in many religious traditions.
I apologize if I've missed the following in your writings. So, all this is to ask you what you are practically proposing? What are we to think about our abstract formulations. Should they be abandoned? If not, how should we feel or think about them? Also, have you thought about a practical plan for attaining the goals you think are important for humanity? Is there a new discipline or practice you are advocating for? Is there a way to confirm it is the right path?