Philosophical Speculations

AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:22 pm Or that Light-darkness interacting to produce colors is also personal fantasy of Goethe.

So after all the progress of the quantum physics you still believe that the colors are produced by Light-darkness interactions?

AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:22 pm I think you may have SPDD - selective polar deficit disorder

I think the Divine has SPDD ... 'Self'-perpetuating Dream Disorder

How about this remedy ... When one inquires into what is it other than the Divine that in its alter ego-self mode is taking this work of liberation oh-so-seriously, then what is it other than the Divine that awakens from this 'self'-perpetuating dream, and perhaps then has a Divine laugh about it all, as if it seemed that the dream might never end, only to realize that indeed it does not end, but rather what ends is the curious notion that its alter ego-self mode was not a Divine Dream from the get go, and finally the Divine can relax and just be the Divine.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:37 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:22 pm Or that Light-darkness interacting to produce colors is also personal fantasy of Goethe.

So after all the progress of the quantum physics you still believe that the colors are produced by Light-darkness interactions?

Yes but you need to stop thinking as a materialist who only sees abstract quantities everywhere. The fundamental Reality is qualities. Qualities, Eugene, Qualities. Practice saying that over and over. When you go outside, don't look for abstractions of lines, shapes, electrons, quarks, and math equations - look for qualities of meaning. Observe the green trees and the red roses and take in the inner meaning which arises within your soul. Bring some color back into your life! Download this song below and have it playing in the background. Do that non-stop for a few days and maybe, just maybe, you will stop treating the world like a set of math equations and streaming code from the Matrix movie.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:49 pm Just as a side note, in my engineering work there is a process of design reviews where one of us presents his design and others take a role of critics: they try to find every possible way the design may break or not work or show a non-intended performance, and any unproven or untested assumptions. Noone ever sees it as personal, noone blames anyone their doubts might be biased or unsupported. The purpose of this process is to make the best effort to demonstrate that the design will work and deliver the performance and make sure there are no gaps left, and a thorough criticism is one of the ways it can be accomplished. If anyone takes the criticism personally or start personally attacking or blaming others for criticism, such behavior is considered unprofessional. Fortunately, this rarely happens among professional engineers.

Eugene,

As another side note, I think design processes can offer important insights for doing metaphysics or theology. Having worked as a design engineer (retired now) as well, I can absolutely relate to the process you talked about. Here's how I think design processes can be applicable to metaphysics and was a bedrock for how I approached the development of a theology without "holy writ". Without an unassailable revelatory resource, how would one go about developing a theology? I talk about this at length in the essay, "Developing a Systematic Theology "from Scratch" but here's where the design process comes in. It's about problem-solving and meeting a specification. In engineering design, the whole specification has to be met. Not just part of it. So, how do you do that? As the design process proceeds, every step or component constrains what can come after or what configuration the system can take. It limits the options for other parts of the design and can be catastrophic if care is not taken. As each step or component is considered, the implications for the whole specification must be determined. As an example, if a component requires power, the effect of that for the overall power spec must be considered. If consideration of the entire spec is not done, there can come a point where the dreaded "you just can't get there from here!" raises its ugly head. You have to backtrack and be more diligent.

I think this also applies to religious or spiritual metaphysics and theology but is often neglected. Too often there is a focus on a particular issue without giving due consideration to other issues.(the appeal of reductionism) In these arenas, there are many issues. Of particular importance are existential issues (meaning, purpose, free-will, value(morality), life, death, the problem of evil, devotional and personal issues like relating and prayer, and so on. In other words, the metaphysical "spec" includes all issues. For metaphysical systems that have religious or spiritual overtones, these existential issues will come up. When the focus is too narrow and that focused problem is supposedly solved without thinking about its implications for the entire spec, the die is cast for how those other issues can possibly be addressed. What I think often happens is they can't be addressed very well because of the constraints so we get odd contrivances, questionable brute facts, obfuscations, rampant speculations, semantic games, and equivocations.

So, for those who like to evaluate or think about metaphysical systems, I think, due diligence is in order. Consider the entire specification (how ever you choose to formulate it) when you evaluate one or are formulating one. Now, in evaluating a fledgling or incomplete system this does requires some work to puzzle through if there are potential problems but with a little knowledge and practice, it can be done. If this is done, it can quickly reveal perhaps insurmountable problems (can't get there from here) down the road and short circuit wasted time. I've made a list of what I call "deal breakers" that I use when evaluating a system and were also part of my specification. Someone's list will probably be different but, if thought about, it might facilitate the process.

Steve Petermann wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:02 pm So, for those who like to evaluate or think about metaphysical systems, I think, due diligence is in order. Consider the entire specification (how ever you choose to formulate it) when you evaluate one or are formulating one. Now, in evaluating a fledgling or incomplete system this does requires some work to puzzle through if there are potential problems but with a little knowledge and practice, it can be done. If this is done, it can quickly reveal perhaps insurmountable problems (can't get there from here) down the road and short circuit wasted time. I've made a list of what I call "deal breakers" that I use when evaluating a system and were also part of my specification. Someone's list will probably be different but, if thought about, it might facilitate the process.

I agree, Steve, and that's why, since we have similar engineering background, your methodological approach and the formulation that you arrived at resonated with me as well.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:27 pm

Steve Petermann wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:02 pm So, for those who like to evaluate or think about metaphysical systems, I think, due diligence is in order. Consider the entire specification (how ever you choose to formulate it) when you evaluate one or are formulating one. Now, in evaluating a fledgling or incomplete system this does requires some work to puzzle through if there are potential problems but with a little knowledge and practice, it can be done. If this is done, it can quickly reveal perhaps insurmountable problems (can't get there from here) down the road and short circuit wasted time. I've made a list of what I call "deal breakers" that I use when evaluating a system and were also part of my specification. Someone's list will probably be different but, if thought about, it might facilitate the process.

I agree, Steve, and that's why, since we have similar engineering background, your methodological approach and the formulation that you arrived at resonated with me as well.

Then why do you insist on isolating every part of the spiritual scientific approach we are suggesting, without ever considering it holistically, as Steve is suggesting? You slice and dice it up and make random arguments against each tiny fragment, moving from one to another whenever you run out of logical responses. It is the exact opposite of your engineering approach - when it comes to spiritual issues, instead of reflecting seriously on Steve's point that "every step or component constrains what can come after or what configuration the system can take", you say "why can't we just have a spiritual system with no constraints whatsoever, because it makes me feel good and it isn't 'tyrannical'?". That is literally your response to 99% of the arguments we make now. Your own musical analogy also suggested this to you - the point of allowing musicians degrees of freedom to explore different keys, times, notes, chords, etc. is not to forever remain in dissonance, but to converge on harmonious pitches and melodies. Basically when it comes to spiritual issues you invert all the logic that you use in normal life and work, which is the hallmark of the modern age.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:57 pm Yes but you need to stop thinking as a materialist who only sees abstract quantities everywhere. The fundamental Reality is qualities. Qualities, Eugene, Qualities. Practice saying that over and over. When you go outside, don't look for abstractions of lines, shapes, electrons, quarks, and math equations - look for qualities of meaning. Observe the green trees and the red roses and take in the inner meaning which arises within your soul. Bring some color back into your life! Download this song below and have it playing in the background. Do that non-stop for a few days and maybe, just maybe, you will stop treating the world like a set of math equations and streaming code from the Matrix movie.

You think, being a musician and meditator, I don't know that?

I'm saying that your (and Goethe's) ideas of Polarities (Darkness, Light, Eternity) as ontic realities actually are abstractions of your mind which you believe exist as realities.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:03 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:57 pm Yes but you need to stop thinking as a materialist who only sees abstract quantities everywhere. The fundamental Reality is qualities. Qualities, Eugene, Qualities. Practice saying that over and over. When you go outside, don't look for abstractions of lines, shapes, electrons, quarks, and math equations - look for qualities of meaning. Observe the green trees and the red roses and take in the inner meaning which arises within your soul. Bring some color back into your life! Download this song below and have it playing in the background. Do that non-stop for a few days and maybe, just maybe, you will stop treating the world like a set of math equations and streaming code from the Matrix movie.

You think, being a musician and meditator, I don't know that?

I'm saying that your (and Goethe's) ideas of Polarities (Darkness, Light, Eternity) as ontic realities actually are abstractions of your mind which you believe exist as realities.

Ok so let's be clear and specific, then. You are now rejecting the claim that ontic Reality is polar in its essence? Please state it clearly. Then I may confirm once or twice more, have multiple people screenshot, sign, and notarize it as witnesses, and then have those attestations laminated and placed in a safe deposit box, so that when you inevitably back away from this rejection and say that you "agree" with polar essence and have agreed with it all along, I can point out this time when you called them "abstractions of your mind".

And, like I said, you artificially divide your life and work vs. spiritual issues around Thinking, recognizing the qualities of meaning in the former and treating the latter like qualities have no meaning and it's all about QM and Schrodinger equations.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:44 pm Then why do you insist on isolating every part of the spiritual scientific approach we are suggesting, without ever considering it holistically, as Steve is suggesting? You slice and dice it up and make random arguments against each tiny fragment, moving from one to another whenever you run out of logical responses. It is the exact opposite of your engineering approach - when it comes to spiritual issues, instead of reflecting seriously on Steve's point that "every step or component constrains what can come after or what configuration the system can take", you say "why can't we just have a spiritual system with no constraints whatsoever, because it makes me feel good and it isn't 'tyrannical'?". That is literally your response to 99% of the arguments we make now. Your own musical analogy also suggested this to you - the point of allowing musicians degrees of freedom to explore different keys, times, notes, chords, etc. is not to forever remain in dissonance, but to converge on harmonious pitches and melodies. Basically when it comes to spiritual issues you invert all the logic that you use in normal life and work, which is the hallmark of the modern age.

The engineering design process does both —focus intently on the smallest parts or details but always considering its effects on the system-as-a-whole. Even small details can make or break a complex system. A few years back there was a very small script routine (javascript, I think) that had been in some online libraries that thousands of programmers had used for years. However, that script was linked to someone's personal library and it got either deleted or changed for some reason. That broke everything where it was used.

The question is, is a particular small part of a system essential for the integrity of the system-as-a-whole? If it is and is faulty, criticizing it is warranted.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:03 pm I'm saying that your (and Goethe's) ideas of Polarities (Darkness, Light, Eternity) as ontic realities actually are abstractions of your mind which you believe exist as realities.

Alfred North Whitehead called this the fallacy of misplaced concreteness when one mistakes an abstract belief, opinion, or concept about the way things are for a physical or "concrete" reality. Reification, in other words.

This is why I think metaphors are important. They are not to be taken as literal ontic realities but perhaps they do offer some sense of those realities even though inadequate and can still be actionable. Paul Tillich once said that everything in his theology was metaphoric except his phrase "Being-Itself".