Federica wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:57 pm
It would be interesting to see the reaction if he received the first paragraph here as comment to his blog.
Well, the commenting attempt last time contained pretty much the same essence - how even though it is spoken about different cognitive spaces, man ultimately remains in his intellectual plane and only arranges symbols for everything else. Then he simply did not respond I'm doubtful that he'll engage now either. I've watched some length of his recent video with MS. There could be a greater chance someone like Matt could get him intrigued, although, even though MS has opened the door to spiritual science, I'm not sure how deeply he embraces the phenomenological approach. Maybe Max could be an interesting interlocutor but I'm not sure who might put them together and what would be the common topic.
Federica wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:57 pm
It would be interesting to see the reaction if he received the first paragraph here as comment to his blog.
Well, the commenting attempt last time contained pretty much the same essence - how even though it is spoken about different cognitive spaces, man ultimately remains in his intellectual plane and only arranges symbols for everything else. Then he simply did not respond I'm doubtful that he'll engage now either. I've watched some length of his recent video with MS. There could be a greater chance someone like Matt could get him intrigued, although, even though MS has opened the door to spiritual science, I'm not sure how deeply he embraces the phenomenological approach. Maybe Max could be an interesting interlocutor but I'm not sure who might put them together and what would be the common topic.
Admitting MS has embraced the phenomenological approach, I am doubtful he would do that. We can notice the subtly deferential stance he took in that discussion. Do you authorize the quote of your first paragraph here? I could say "a friend's thought". Unless Ashvin wants to comment?
We see the shadow of the Roman Empire in Roman Catholicism.
This is not Christianity; it is the shadow of the ancient Roman Empire into which Christianity had to be born. Rudolf Steiner
Federica wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 2:48 pm
Admitting MS has embraced the phenomenological approach, I am doubtful he would do that. We can notice the subtly deferential stance he took in that discussion. Do you authorize the quote of your first paragraph here? I could say "a friend's thought". Unless Ashvin wants to comment?
Oh, please, go ahead. There's no need to include "a friend's thought". Refine it further if you feel that will make it clearer.
Federica wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:57 pm
It would be interesting to see the reaction if he received the first paragraph here as comment to his blog.
Well, the commenting attempt last time contained pretty much the same essence - how even though it is spoken about different cognitive spaces, man ultimately remains in his intellectual plane and only arranges symbols for everything else. Then he simply did not respond I'm doubtful that he'll engage now either. I've watched some length of his recent video with MS. There could be a greater chance someone like Matt could get him intrigued, although, even though MS has opened the door to spiritual science, I'm not sure how deeply he embraces the phenomenological approach. Maybe Max could be an interesting interlocutor but I'm not sure who might put them together and what would be the common topic.
Admitting MS has embraced the phenomenological approach, I am doubtful he would do that. We can notice the subtly deferential stance he took in that discussion. Do you authorize the quote of your first paragraph here? I could say "a friend's thought". Unless Ashvin wants to comment?
I haven't had a chance to explore the article yet, but it sounds like a good idea for you to refine the quote a bit and share it. The refinement could simply be making it feel like it is directly addressing him and the article, and whatever other details you think it's helpful to include.
I wonder if it would be helpful to reference the recent IM conversation and how, when they were discussing the distinct modes of attention and problem-solving, they were using their concepts as artistic representations for their own first-person thinking process as it manifests in various circumstances. Couldn't it be that further insights will come from an extension of such investigation rather than arranging the concepts like puzzle pieces that click into some other 'explanation' for that process?
"They only can acquire the sacred power of self-intuition, who within themselves can interpret and understand the symbol... those only, who feel in their own spirits the same instinct, which impels the chrysalis of the horned fly to leave room in the involucrum for antennae yet to come."
AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 3:00 pm
I haven't had a chance to explore the article yet, but it sounds like a good idea for you to refine the quote a bit and share it. The refinement could simply be making it feel like it is directly addressing him and the article, and whatever other details you think it's helpful to include.
I wonder if it would be helpful to reference the recent IM conversation and how, when they were discussing the distinct modes of attention and problem-solving, they were using their concepts as artistic representations for their own first-person thinking process as it manifests in various circumstances. Couldn't it be that further insights will come from an extension of such investigation rather than arranging the concepts like puzzle pieces that click into some other 'explanation' for that process?
I haven't read the blog yet, or watched the entire IM conversation either. But I've posted it. Let's see
I have no idea why there is a picture of mine there
We see the shadow of the Roman Empire in Roman Catholicism.
This is not Christianity; it is the shadow of the ancient Roman Empire into which Christianity had to be born. Rudolf Steiner
Federica wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 4:11 pm
I haven't read the blog yet, or watched the entire IM conversation either. But I've posted it. Let's see
Great idea framing it as a question! If he's honest and understands the question, he would have to reply that he simply feels uncomfortable with this prospect because such direct investigation feels too 'slippery', constantly shape-shifting, and thus one needs to anchor himself in something consistent and reliable, which only the senses and their complementary world can presently provide.
I went ahead and posted a comment as well, as a sort of two-pronged stimulation (hopefully).
Hi Mike,
This is all interesting exploration of the question of 'how to explain the properties and capabilities of embodied minds?', but doesn't it make sense to begin the 'explanation' (or exploration that becomes synonymous with explanation) in our own cognitive process? We could analogize to the LIFO principle in computer programming - since the reflective human cognitive process was the last to arrive in World evolution, it should be the 'first out', i.e. the first to be turned inside-out and intuitively understood. We can't undress our socks before we first untie our shoes.
As another metaphor, we could say our real-time cognitive process, *by which* we try to answer the question above, is where the Plantonic space is most 'in-phase' with its embodied perceptual forms, i.e. our intimate stream of mental images, verbal thoughts, symbols, etc. The biological-physical forms are initially quite out-of-phase with their corresponding Platonic archetypes, as the latter are understood from our current reflective perspective. Thus, by investing our resources only into exploring the patterns of those out-of-phase forms, are we not putting the cart before the horse?
"They only can acquire the sacred power of self-intuition, who within themselves can interpret and understand the symbol... those only, who feel in their own spirits the same instinct, which impels the chrysalis of the horned fly to leave room in the involucrum for antennae yet to come."
AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 5:11 pm
I went ahead and posted a comment as well, as a sort of two-pronged stimulation (hopefully).
Hi Mike,
This is all interesting exploration of the question of 'how to explain the properties and capabilities of embodied minds?', but doesn't it make sense to begin the 'explanation' (or exploration that becomes synonymous with explanation) in our own cognitive process? We could analogize to the LIFO principle in computer programming - since the reflective human cognitive process was the last to arrive in World evolution, it should be the 'first out', i.e. the first to be turned inside-out and intuitively understood. We can't undress our socks before we first untie our shoes.
As another metaphor, we could say our real-time cognitive process, *by which* we try to answer the question above, is where the Plantonic space is most 'in-phase' with its embodied perceptual forms, i.e. our intimate stream of mental images, verbal thoughts, symbols, etc. The biological-physical forms are initially quite out-of-phase with their corresponding Platonic archetypes, as the latter are understood from our current reflective perspective. Thus, by investing our resources only into exploring the patterns of those out-of-phase forms, are we not putting the cart before the horse?
Nice, Ashvin But I don't see it online yet?
We see the shadow of the Roman Empire in Roman Catholicism.
This is not Christianity; it is the shadow of the ancient Roman Empire into which Christianity had to be born. Rudolf Steiner
Federica wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 4:11 pm
I haven't read the blog yet, or watched the entire IM conversation either. But I've posted it. Let's see
Great idea framing it as a question! If he's honest and understands the question, he would have to reply that he simply feels uncomfortable with this prospect because such direct investigation feels too 'slippery', constantly shape-shifting, and thus one needs to anchor himself in something consistent and reliable, which only the senses and their complementary world can presently provide.
That's in case the meaning is clear to him, which I am not sure it will be, because there is no methodology (from his perspective), no concrete process. It could sound like an immediate dead end, therefore meaningless. Despite the idea being expressed so well. But let's see.
We see the shadow of the Roman Empire in Roman Catholicism.
This is not Christianity; it is the shadow of the ancient Roman Empire into which Christianity had to be born. Rudolf Steiner
AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 5:11 pm
I went ahead and posted a comment as well, as a sort of two-pronged stimulation (hopefully).
Hi Mike,
This is all interesting exploration of the question of 'how to explain the properties and capabilities of embodied minds?', but doesn't it make sense to begin the 'explanation' (or exploration that becomes synonymous with explanation) in our own cognitive process? We could analogize to the LIFO principle in computer programming - since the reflective human cognitive process was the last to arrive in World evolution, it should be the 'first out', i.e. the first to be turned inside-out and intuitively understood. We can't undress our socks before we first untie our shoes.
As another metaphor, we could say our real-time cognitive process, *by which* we try to answer the question above, is where the Plantonic space is most 'in-phase' with its embodied perceptual forms, i.e. our intimate stream of mental images, verbal thoughts, symbols, etc. The biological-physical forms are initially quite out-of-phase with their corresponding Platonic archetypes, as the latter are understood from our current reflective perspective. Thus, by investing our resources only into exploring the patterns of those out-of-phase forms, are we not putting the cart before the horse?
Nice, Ashvin But I don't see it online yet?
I think he needs to approve it first.
"They only can acquire the sacred power of self-intuition, who within themselves can interpret and understand the symbol... those only, who feel in their own spirits the same instinct, which impels the chrysalis of the horned fly to leave room in the involucrum for antennae yet to come."
I'm doubtful that he'll engage now either. I've watched some length of his recent video with MS. There could be a greater chance someone like Matt could get him intrigued, although, even though MS has opened the door to spiritual science, I'm not sure how deeply he embraces the phenomenological approach. Maybe Max could be an interesting interlocutor but I'm not sure who might put them together and what would be the common topic.
