Radar's Apologia Pro Vita Sua

[Thomas]

Suffice it to say I did not say we all experience the same actualities. Coming to grips with what is "really out there" is a matter of intersubjective verifiability.

All I was trying to say was, for this very reason, one can't say what cannot be experienced, all one can say is, I haven't.

I am focusing on the becomingness that is our perception without the unceessary step of postulating being.

Excuse the naive question, but if no being, then who, or what, is perceiving the becomingness?

Rather, I want help pulling up those tent stakes, sewing in some more sailcloth, and putting down a bigger tent. This is not meant to be a preaching, rather a group metsphysics (in the Aristotelian sense).

I'm all for that.

Beingness has been the driving notion in the West for over twenty five hundred years. But is it correct?

Well it's been revised.

Platonic being was a triune: Rest-Movement-Becoming (stasis:kinesis:genesis).
Christianity revised the triune: Becoming-Movement-Rest

The latter idea posits 'being' as an act of becoming (and coming-to-be and act of being), so any being, as it emerges or appears, is moving, simply by the very act of being, which is dynamic.

Do we need to discuss what it is to be? Act and esse in the language of the scholastics?

Can we clarify whether there is a 'self' that experiences, or are we saying there are experiences which give the impression of a 'self' (which is problematic), or am I missing something quite basic?

Is there an alternative that can be constructed which addresses the non-scientific nature of the dao and the non-logical nature of Zen and the "we are just all members of one community" of High Sanatana Dharma?

Are you asking for, or rather I'm saying to be acceptable, can the answer be 'a science of everything', a philosophy, a metaphysic, or a theology?

 

[radarmark]

Thomas and Paladin, I owe you detailed responses (it helps me to express myself). Will be spending the next hour or two doing just that. I find this so interesting I may just give up looking at any other threads.

 

[radarmark]

From Paladin’s post #15:

Okay so far, but I question the use of the word "actuality" considering the nature of how a human being perceives its reality. I don't necessarily disagree, but considering Kant's idea of not really knowing the thing in and of itself, thinking we are at any time accurately experiencing an objective reality seems unlikely.

I am neither arguing that we experience objective reality or that what we have are merely sense perceptions. Rather I am postulating the possibility that we experience something (I use “actualities”, Heraclitus used “pairs of contrary properties” or Logos, Locke used “particular thing”, Bergson used “intuited notions”, and Whitehead “actual entities”) which exists in reality but is not reality which is ultimately unknowable.


Kant’s problem was that he assumed an objective physical reality “things-in-themselves”.

Note: “no event has occurred that could have been more decisive for the fate of this science than the attack made upon it by David Hume” and goes on to say that “Hume proceeded primarily from a single but important concept of metaphysics, namely, that of the connection of cause and effect”.

I reject the assumption that scientistic materialism is sacrosanct. Cartesianism and Materialism are not the end all and be all of knowledge. How we know (Hume and Locke) is equally important with what is known.

Is that clear enough?

 

[radarmark]

From Thomas’ post #17:

I tend to agree with Paladin here ...

I think you can only speak for you. I'm not sure we can say that any two people experience the same thing precisely. I know what you mean by internal and external, but in the end, everything is internal — it's a construct in the mind fed by the senses.

If that is what I seemed to communicate, forgive me. No one “sees” the same as anyone else. Experiences (“actualities”) are all unique. I think what I did not do is make it clear that it is the “objective” or “physical” reality which I question, or at least make less “hard” (hence the differences between being, the objective and physical and Aristotelian thing, and becoming, the experience itself, the changing stuff, the Heraclitean thing).

I think that's over-stating the case. I think scientists (etc.,) see evidence for further 'real stuff' in the real stuff they look at, where the man in the street sees no evidence of anything beyond the immediate actuality he's looking at. Efi Arazi saw a 'real possibility' in a given actuality, whereas most other people just saw a photocopier ... ?

Yes, yes, yes! Before the actuality all there is is potentiality. The possibility of the actuality is actualized in the present (whatever time that is). I do not seek “real stuff” in the Cartesian-Newtonian sense (as most scientists do).

Surely Quantum Phenomena was not 'real' two hundred years ago? Does not science proceed by positing hypothetical 'real stuff' and then working towards proving it? Science has opened up vistas of that which was 'unreal' a few generations ago, technologies unlocking the microcosmic and the macrocosmic ... Then take that picture of planet earth, taken from Apollo whatever ... many commentators said it has 'changed our reality' about the way we perceive ourselves and the world.

100%! Quantum Phenomena was not real 200 years ago… the concept and therefore the experience or actuality could not happen. Yes, the scientific method operates under the misconception that we are “looking at reality” (the “physicalistic consensus”). So? If we take quantum mechanics as a starting point (even if one takes the usual “multi-verse” stance), that should no longer be the case. See any recent paper by Penrose or Susskind or Stapp (if needed I can provide references, but wait on that request until I finish today’s responses). Quantum changed our worldview, so did relativity (id only of time), so does Bell’s Theorem, so did the Apollo picture, so does the Higgs’ boson (“that G_dd_mned particle”).

Good ol' Eriugena, in the 9th century, in his "The Division of Nature" posited that nature is defined as universitas rerum, the 'totality of all things', and that the first division is into those things which are (ea quae sunt) and those which are not (ea quae non sunt). The key, and the breakthrough — a full thousand years ahead of its time — was that Eriugena posited the human subject is the perceiving object upon which all our conclusions are based.

Actually, one can interpret Heraclitus as pre-dating that!

So the first division is between those things that are perceptible and intelligible, and those things that transcend normal perception and intelligibility. Surely to say that there can be nothing that transcends the human senses is, I suggest, something of an over-statement?

No, the first division per Eriugena is actual or not actual. For instance, you and I can discuss Eriugena rationally, because he (for us) was actual, we can both read him. However, Heraclitus and Anaxiander could not have because ea quae non sunt.

ASIDE: Time (see Smolin’s latest book) is how I really got into all of this. I hate, am offended by Plato and Einstein in dismissing time as “illusion”. That kinda got me into both physics and philosophy. I did not mean to imply that nothing transcends “normal perception and intelligibility”. Far from it time and what is (actuality) and the ultimate cosmology and theology (all, you note topics of metaphysics) are all “beyond” thought, language and intellect.

The best we can do is grope towards it, try to “frame a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted” (A.N. Whitehead, page 3, I think, of “Process and Reality”).

Just a closing thought – the problem is, of course, we use science, we use empirical methodology, but as creatures we're way more than that, we seek not only to understand what things are, but what that means, and that goes way beyond the empirical data...

That is precisely what this thread is about (sorry for not expressing that). Not science, but not nonsense.

G!d Bless You, Friend!

 

[radarmark]

From Paladin's#19:

So then do I understand correctly that your concept of "becomingness" does not presuppose being? And if not, what is there that "becomes"?

You are assuming there needs to be something besides the actuality, the change we experience. I reject that… think Heraclitus not Anaximander.

A human being by virtue of its physiology never comes in direct contact with its environment but forms perceptions as a result of signals sent to various parts of the neural structures in the brain. Thus, eyes do not see nor ears hear. Every bit of what we think is actuality, is only a representation created by the brain.

Yep! I just question “the environment” as a set of physical things. It is the holism that is the Kosmos (everything thought of as physical or mental or spiritual or G!d).

I do agree that leaning on linear reasoning to apprehend reality is problematic, and fostering or cultivating a view similar to dependent co-arising is probably more accurate when considering functionality. This is still somewhat a scientific view as in the biopsychosocial approach to psychology.

“Dependent on co-rising” means having multiple inputs (information, physical, mental)? If so yes. It is all still scientific (Aristotle’s metaphysics are scientific in content, just not science because such “basic stuff” is probably beyond falsifiability or even truth.

 

[radarmark]

Thomas, I will get to #19 tomorrow (I hope).

 

[Thomas]

Good Lord, dear friend, don't labour this too much for me!

The errors in understanding are all mine, not yours. You'll have to forgive me (and Paladin, too), I do not have the acuity of philosophical discourse you both possess. But I'm still swimming! Hopefully I can continue to bat for the more obscure Fathers who had some very 'out there' ideas with regard to this discussion.

So I grok what you're both saying — I'm abuzz — but I've got to digest it to make a coherent reply.

 

[Paladin]

Yes, please proceed at your leisure Radar, no sense in another case of karoshi!
But I am intrigued and curious so expect more questions when I have a chance to go over your replies

 

[radarmark]

Thanks to you both, this is the kind of conversation I was hoping for!

 

[radarmark]

From Thomas’ post #21

All I was trying to say was, for this very reason, one can't say what cannot be experienced, all one can say is, I haven't.

Hmmm, would have it been possible for Newton to experience the Ricci Calculus or the Big Bang? These are XXth century phenomena. Was it possible for Elijah to experience Christ Jesus? The former is an unqualified no. The latter? If the D!vine exists beyond, outside of time and the D!vine spoke to Elijah and the D!vine is omniscient, then yes. If the answer is {yes, yes, no} instead of {yes, yes, yes} that changes things. G!d is no longer omniscient and H! interacts with the world (and, by extension, us) to create the future moment-by-moment (kind of like the “Creature from the Id” recreated itself microsecond by microsecond in Forbidden Planet). That metaphor fits in well with Kazantzakis, Rosenzweig and Whitehead—my personal big three influences in Theology—but it is a matter of faith, not knowledge or even logic. So I like your idea.

Excuse the naive question, but if no being, then who, or what, is perceiving the becomingness?

Perception is the reality (a process set in time, an experience, an actuality, a particular thing, an actual entity). Why postulate a being to perceive? Hume could be right. There is no I out there, no independently existing thing to perceive. Instead our notion of “self” is a remembered set of experiences. The becomingness is the being at-that-moment. The self could be the injection of “superjects” (a Process term meaning the teleological “final cause” that is the last manifestation of an actuality) into the beginning of the actuality, the becomingness. The parallel is there in the notion of time and change in the Copenhagen Interpretation. Part of this thread is to try to communicate this “sense” of “feeling” I have based on the idea.

Well it's been revised. Platonic being was a triune: Rest-Movement-Becoming (stasis:kinesis:genesis). Christianity revised the triune: Becoming-Movement-Rest. The latter idea posits 'being' as an act of becoming (and coming-to-be and act of being), so any being, as it emerges or appears, is moving, simply by the very act of being, which is dynamic. Do we need to discuss what it is to be? Act and esse in the language of the scholastics? Can we clarify whether there is a 'self' that experiences, or are we saying there are experiences which give the impression of a 'self' (which is problematic), or am I missing something quite basic?

Succinctly what I am trying to express. The “physicalist consensus” of “scientific materialistic monism” a la Descartes and Kant is what is in my cross-hairs. Yes, it is true that Plato and Thomas (the other one, not you) handles the issue. But I believe in most people’s minds it is Anaximander and Aristotle and Carnap and Einstein who won.

Most do not understand the subtleties of an ontology… obviously you do. You last sentence is (at this point) my focus.

Are you asking for, or rather I'm saying to be acceptable, can the answer be 'a science of everything', a philosophy, a metaphysic, or a theology?

I do not know… I am comfortable with metaphysic, first philosophy, speculative philosophy. Not really what (modern and, especially, postmodern, philosophy) is about. Not really what passes for Theology these days. But it is Theology in the Platonic or Aristotelian sense—looking at the nature of the D!vine. I see Sanatana Dharma as the key because within it one can be monotheistic or polytheistic or atheistic.

Now while it is possible (and I believe bloody likely) that each specific theology is true and each religion is a door to the Religion (whatever that is). That does not mean either that they are all one (the perennialist postulate) or only one is true (the fundamentalist view). That is my conundrum.

 

[Paladin]

Since you speak about the validity of Sanatana Dharma, would it be fair to say that your views are not altogether dissimilar to Advaita Vedanta?

 

[radarmark]

Not much. They key is that the Sanatana Dharma referrs to all aspects of "Hinduism". Adviata Vedanta is merely one (though very inclusive) part.

 

[Paladin]

Not much. They key is that the Sanatana Dharma referrs to all aspects of "Hinduism". Adviata Vedanta is merely one (though very inclusive) part.

Yes, I know, but it is the aspect of non-dualism and becoming that made me think specifically of Advaita. It seems that much of what you postulate is similar as far as the view of self is concerned. I recall lectures by Tony Parsons in which he argues that instead of "I am contemplating" it is more accurate to say that "contemplation is happening", thus removing the idea of a separate self, while maintaining the experience of consciousness/awareness.

Or am I missing your point altogether?

 

[radarmark]

Yes, I know, but it is the aspect of non-dualism and becoming that made me think specifically of Advaita. It seems that much of what you postulate is similar as far as the view of self is concerned. I recall lectures by Tony Parsons in which he argues that instead of "I am contemplating" it is more accurate to say that "contemplation is happening", thus removing the idea of a separate self, while maintaining the experience of consciousness/awareness.

Or am I missing your point altogether?

Precisely and exactly as to my metaphysic. I thought you were referring to my overall goal (what Thomas refers to as "'a science of everything', a philosophy, a metaphysic, or a theology?"

Sorry!

 

[Thomas]

Can I say then, that 'being' and 'becoming' are simultaneous? I don't view 'being' as a static entity, but as a dynamic continuum.

To refer somewhat unfairly to Parsons, to say 'contemplation is happening' doesn't really adequately answer the question. Contemplation doesn't happen in a void ... ?

 

[radarmark]

Correct! It is modernism and materialism that I question. Carnap and Einstein. Not Aristotle and Thomas (the first one).

 

[Paladin]

Can I say then, that 'being' and 'becoming' are simultaneous? I don't view 'being' as a static entity, but as a dynamic continuum.

To refer somewhat unfairly to Parsons, to say 'contemplation is happening' doesn't really adequately answer the question. Contemplation doesn't happen in a void ... ?

A valid point, however, remember when I said that we are inherently part of the landscape we survey? From that perspective there is still a certain sense of being, and being an integral part of what is happening. What is left behind is the sense that " I am that" transcending into something akin to "thou art". To me, this becomes operationalized during a shift from ordinary consciousness which includes a conventional sense of self to being part of the immensity, so to speak. Unless I'm mistaken this correlates with Wilber's pre/trans fallacy as well. Therefore, it is still contextually correct to say that "contemplation is happening". Or, so I would argue.

 

[radarmark]

See, I really do not percieve a "self". I like Hume's self as a-collection-of-remembered-sense-contents. Didtto with consciousness. Can I point to this self or this consciousness? No... "contemplation is happening" or "reflexion is happening" is really ass one can say. I will add my next entry this week!

 

[Aupmanyav]

To refer somewhat unfairly to Parsons, to say 'contemplation is happening' doesn't really adequately answer the question. Contemplation doesn't happen in a void ... ?

What is void and what is not? What is substance and what is not? This is a tricky question, and IMHO, science does not yet have the answer. Contemplation is happening where there are billions of neurons composed of billions of atoms (quarks or whatever), information is being fed, and actions are being taken, autonomously and knowingly, I would say, not in a void (if I knew what a void is).

From that perspective there is still a certain sense of being, and being an integral part of what is happening.

That is what Mahavira of the Jains said in 500 BC - Anekantavada (doctrine of non-exclusivity or multiple viewpoints ).

"Anekāntavāda is one of the most important and fundamental doctrines of Jainism. It refers to the principles of pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints, the notion that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth."

Self is true only from a particular view-point.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I see Sanatana Dharma as the key because within it one can be monotheistic or polytheistic or atheistic.

That is what makes it fun.