The whole (perhaps over-) long post makes sense to me, though I duck out of opinion about the areas of the history of philosophy which I either never studied in depth or don’t remember. It’s this quoted quote that I’d like to highlight. This feels like the core of something, and this leads in my mind to the desire to find common understanding around the matter of, what is our goal exactly? Maybe “we” don’t share a common goal — if you extend the “we” out to humanity, I am sure that the larger “we” doesn’t share a common conscious goal.
This is where I’m inclined to bring back my ideas around ontological commoning and my tentative methodology for that. Can we, perhaps, ask for the goal of each person here to be expressed as a story in which you really believe? That involves not trying to argue over which story is “right”; but instead, dispassionately examining the belief systems underneath the stories (which are themselves likely to differ) and thence to the ontologies in which the belief systems are expressed. I’d like to work with people on establishing just enough common ontology to constitute a “communicative commons”.
So far you are the only person on this forum who appears to have understood me properly. The post is long because I am expecting potential readers to not have any much (or any) knowledge of the historical things I am talking about, and without that it seems very difficult for people to believe that a new way forwards is even possible, let alone likely. Almost nobody seems to understand why the schism in Western philosophy happened, or why it is so important.
My book is addressed to a Western audience. I could not have written it any other way, because the problems it describes are largely the result of Western history. I also don’t have enough knowledge about other cultures. Additionally, since the global order is what is falling apart first, our goal has to be to sort our own house out first, and that means both in terms of politics and economics at the national level, and ideology in general at the level of the whole of Western society. At the moment there is no trace of a common conscious goal – that has been completely destroyed. It does exist outside the West (very obviously in the Islamic world, but also in China, to take just two examples).
This is where I’m inclined to bring back my ideas around ontological commoning and my tentative methodology for that. Can we, perhaps, ask for the goal of each person here to be expressed as a story in which you really believe? That involves not trying to argue over which story is “right”; but instead, dispassionately examining the belief systems underneath the stories (which are themselves likely to differ) and thence to the ontologies in which the belief systems are expressed. I’d like to work with people on establishing just enough common ontology to constitute a “communicative commons”.
It sounds like what you are trying to do is exactly what my book attempts to do. Another quote:
The transition from civilisation to ecocivilisation will require ecologists, economists, scientists, mystics and all sorts of other people to be able to understand each other considerably better than they do now. This can only be made possible by some sort of over-arching epistemic system or agreement that provides shared understanding of the appropriate relationships between ecology, physics, economics, politics, ethics, the mystical and anything else that can’t be left out. To misquote Chief Brody – we’re going to need a bigger language game.
Our methods are different, but the basic idea and purpose are exactly the same.
Thanks for this exchange, this really helps clarify for me what your - and Simon’s - view is on this. I think I understand this view quite well, it’s one I’ve considered over the years in a number of different ways. But it’s a view that I don’t currently share. And the reason is quite simple - as I said earlier, simply referring to ‘direct experience’ is not a theoretically viable epistemology.
In my view, the only theoretically satisfying epistemology is that of science. Creatively come up with a theory. Check the theory against both direct experience (yes it’s part of the process), and for consistency with other theories we already hold.
One way to see this is notice that if you try to spell out in what way direct experience is an alternative to scientific epistemology you are already doing science. You will say something like - there is an entity or process, called an experience, or free will, or whatever - and there is a different process or mechanism, like perception, by which I access that entity or process. Now this is a scientific hypothesis (part of cognitive science, in this case) which can itself be tested both against experience (does it actually feel that way?) and against other theories (is this consistent with what we know about the brain, for example).
So I dispute the premise that science has nothing to say about personal meaning. This is precisely where Vervaeke, UTOK, Dempsey and others come in - in clarifying how taking a scientific approach doesn’t at all mean neglecting dimensions of personal meaning and direct experience, in its full spiritual dimensions.
As I say, this to me, is the only satisfactory way I’ve come across of seeing our all our experiences fit together in a coherent theory. But I’m very open to other approaches, and happy to have the debate. I just don’t think deciding between these extremely difficult theoretical questions is crucial to defining paths to a Second Renaissance.
I do think there is something quite central that’s needed here about combining science and spirituality (for want of a better word). I think that’s what you (Geoff, Simon) and I have in common here. But there are different ways to do the combining, involving metaphysical differences, which while important, are not critical from a practical point of view. What is critical is defining the role of spirituality in processes of cultural renewal, and how these interact with existing, science-dominated, institutions and governance structures.
I don’t understand. I have direct experience of synchronicity, to the point where denying it would be a total absurdity. I know it is real, and I know other people know it is real. I also know how it works, and what it is for. I know all of that because of what I have experienced. That is a perfectly viable epistemology for me. It is no good for you. So to find a way forwards we need to take this as far as science and reason can take us, which is to establish why synchronicity is at least possible. Unlike the feeding of the 5000, or Young Earth Creationism, you have no justification whatsoever for telling me that my subjective knowledge of synchronicity (and other things) isn’t valid. But because you are a materialist – you have no choice but to tell me that synchronicity can’t exist. This isn’t because there’s anything wrong with my epistemology. It’s because there is something wrong with your metaphysics.
The only reasonable way forwards is to make clear what is possible, and come to an epistemological agreement to disagree. I have no problem with you being skeptical about synchronicity – the last thing I want is to demand people believe things based on other people’s experience. That’s why Principle 6 of the NED is:
6: We cannot expect people to believe things (any things) based solely onother people’ssubjective lived experiences. There will always be skeptics about any alleged praeternatural phenomena (possibly psychegenesis excepted)and their right to skepticism must be respected.
In my view, the only theoretically satisfying epistemology is that of science.
That is scientism, and it needs to be eradicated. You think this because you are a materialist and for no other reason.
Do you at least understand why I think scientism must be eradicated?
Creatively come up with a theory. Check the theory against both direct experience (yes it’s part of the process), and for consistency with other theories we already hold.
But praeternatural phenomena resist scientific investigation by definition. You are ruling something out because science can’t find it, even though science has no theoretical means of finding it. This cannot be part of the new paradigm. It is a major source of our ideological problems. It kills genuine spirituality stone dead.
One way to see this is notice that if you try to spell out in what way direct experience is an alternative to scientific epistemology you are already doing science.
No, that’s philosophy.
You will say something like - there is an entity or process, called an experience, or free will, or whatever - and there is a different process or mechanism, like perception, by which I access that entity or process. Now this is a scientific hypothesis (part of cognitive science, in this case) which can itself be tested both against experience (does it actually feel that way?) and against other theories (is this consistent with what we know about the brain, for example).
You cannot test synchronicity. It does not follow laws. If you try testing for it, then it won’t happen. That is absolutely par for this course. It is how this stuff works. This isn’t science. It’s magic. Real magic. Magic is real. Do you understand what I am saying? We live in a magical reality.
But I’m very open to other approaches
Really? I have tried pretty hard, and so far I’m not getting very far.
But there are different ways to do the combining, involving metaphysical differences, which while important, are not critical from a practical point of view.
They are absolutely critical and this discussion is proving it. You think what you are posting isn’t a problem. I think it is the biggest problem of them all.
What is critical is defining the role of spirituality in processes of cultural renewal
But how can you do any such thing when you’ve got no idea what real spirituality actually is?
The Occult is real, Jonah. I don’t just believe that. I know it. It is the most important thing in my life, by a huge margin. By comparison, nothing else matters.
You can know this too, but your path to this knowledge is blocked by a false belief in materialism. By choosing to believe magic isn’t real, it can’t manifest for you. You are sovereign over your own “channel” of reality. What you choose to believe dictates what is possible in your personal interface with reality within the limits of the praeternatural. Believing in the hypernatural doesn’t make it any more possible.
None of this makes sense to materialists. For them, the first step is necessarily to reach an understanding of why materialism cannot possibly be true. You have to know this. Any trace of doubt is a show-stopper.
So I dispute the premise that science has nothing to say about personal meaning. This is precisely where Vervaeke, UTOK, Dempsey and others come in - in clarifying how taking a scientific approach doesn’t at all mean neglecting dimensions of personal meaning and direct experience, in its full spiritual dimensions.
The problem isn’t science at all. I am a hardcore scientific realist. The problem is scientism, and we really should explore this now, because you are scientistic. I don’t mean that as an insult – it is just an assessment of the things you are posting in this thread. You are in no position to clarify the proper relationship between science and spirituality, because your belief system rules out the Real Thing based on a fundamental logical mistake.
If you actually believed it was possible that magic is real, don’t you think this might be a bit important to 2R? Literally, nothing is more important.
I was an evangelical materialist for 20 years. I know exactly how materialists think. Although I’ve not got much idea what you are thinking now, because when I was a materialist I certainly never ran into anybody who was capable of explaining to me what I am explaining to you right now.
EDIT: I should have said that the only reason you’re talking about whether science can provide meaning is because you do not understand that other things can provide meaning on a scale you can’t even imagine. I don’t need science to provide any meaning, and neither should anybody else.
What could someone who is scientistic do to know for themselves if you are right or wrong? Based on what you say, this is a logical mistake, so how can it be reasoned through correctly?
I was once a materialist myself (and Dawkins’ forum admin). Since I found out how wrong that is, I’ve spent a great deal of time trying to find the best way to explain to materialists (most of whom are also scientistic) how to escape from the mind trap.
I don’t know if this will help, but it might. It is a different way of explaining what the praeternatural is, how it works, what it can do, and what this discussion is really about, in all sorts of ways. Most of all it is about how we need to teach people how to think for themselves instead of following the flock.
Hmm. Thanks for bringing up the seagull book, as it gives me a chance to air an opinion that I have always had a visceral dislike of it, as it seems to me one of the peaks of individualist ideology. Yes, for sure, as with Jung, we need to individuate out of the traditionalist retro-collective mindset and culture, where everyone has their place (like in the third verse of this hymn).
Though I have a visceral dislike of the Seagull, I remain amused by Brian (Life of) whose message strikes me as similar.
But … isn’t this what “modernity” is meant to be all about anyway? You may say, and I would tend to agree, that many people haven’t opened up from Kegan’s 3rd to 4th order consciousness, and for them, Jonathan Livingston may be the right thing at the right time. And though it’s tempting to put “us” above “them”, I cringe at the presumptiveness, the hubris of it all. As Kegan is at pains to point out, living in 5th order consciousness is not better than 3rd order consciousness. It’s just different, and adapted to different circumstances.
If you take Kegan’s model as reasonable, that is. I’m open to the critique that it is based on “Western” culture and society, with its current disorientingly fast complexification. Other very different cultures may well have different orders of consciousness, stages, or whatever.
Having said that, I see “us” right here as people who have, by and large, grasped the challenges of complexity, and so we don’t need the Seagull or Brian to revise that. I see us as aligned with the ideas of transition from individualism to a different kind of collective being, one that does not erase differences between people but builds them into a rich, multi-faceted, multidimensional reality of multiple perspectives — but not descending into warring factions.
But, @JonahW , I interpret you as saying two contradictory things here. I completely agree that “taking a scientific approach doesn’t at all mean neglecting dimensions of personal meaning”, but would add that the dimensions of personal meaning do not (in any way) come from within the scientific method. But then I don’t understand your first sentence here. If I can add nuance to your first sentence, I would say that science, in its own terms, has nothing substantial to say about personal meaning. If you are still disputing this, let’s have an open debate, if you like, but aimed towards dialogue and mutual understanding.
I can understand how it doesn’t sit at all comfortably with Quakerism. Very much the other end of the scale in terms of spirituality.
The funniest film ever made, in my opinion.
Your post is really about the difference between individualistic sorts of spirituality and collective sorts. I think clearly we are going to need allow space for both. For me it has been entirely an individual journey, and it could not have been any other way, for there was no teacher to teach me and no group for me to be part of. I can fully understand how for other people it is an essentially collective process.
I think this is an area where it should be possible to agree to disagree, without this leading to any serious problems.
I don’t think we can aim for a final state of enlightened collective being. I don’t think humans are capable of that, at least not at the scale larger than a monastery, and monasteries are intentionally isolated from the rest of society for exactly these reasons.
My position is exactly the same as Simon’s. Scientific knowledge is knowledge about the structure of a mind-external reality, and it is restricted to the sort of knowledge which can be reduced to natural laws (or the laws of physics). It tells about what is true or not true of that structure. The whole purpose is to avoid and eliminate the subjective, which includes all value judgements. It provides no information about what is morally, aesthetically or spiritually valuable. Science is of immense practical value, but provides no meaning whatsoever.
What is most important in this discussion is that the only reason you are even attempting to justify the idea that science can provide meaning is that your epistemology, which is derived from illogical metaphysics, allows no scope for meaning coming from anywhere else. The praeternatural doesn’t fit in your materialistic worldview, so it can’t provide any meaning for you.
And yet that is exactly where all genuine meaning can be found.
Let’s have that open debate. You have a PhD not only in the Hard Problem of Consciousness, but in the scope for language-based solutions to it. There can’t be any other solutions to it, because it is clearly a conceptual problem. I have provided a detailed opening position – and I have no more than a lowly BA. If there is a problem with my position, you ought to be exceptionally well-equipped to identify it. And yet you have chosen not to do so.
You said before that consciousness is the biggest scientific challenge of our age. It is not. As things stand, there is no meaningful scientific definition of consciousness. In other words, it isn’t even a scientific challenge at all. It’s actually got nothing to do with materialistic science.
Which is exactly what Thomas Nagel’s book is about. The problem is…until you’ve accepted that materialism is incoherent, Nagel’s book seems rather pointless.
No. You’re missing my point entirely, What I am saying is that Occultism is not anti-realist. I am saying that it is entirely consistent with scientific realism (it does not contradict it) and that it is real and can be known subjectively.
If I was just saying the Occult is real then there wouldn’t be anything particularly notable about my position. What I am actually saying is that you can be a hardcore scientific realist and a magical realist at the same time. Most people assume this involves some sort of cognitive dissonance. I am saying that the opposite is true – that I arrived at this position as a result of diligently eliminating cognitive dissonance. The worldview I am describing isn’t self-contradictory – rather it is a grand synthesis. This is neither anti-realist nor postmodern. It’s something else.
Put it this way – given that postmodernism has such a chequered history, and has made so many enemies, what sense is there in calling my position “postmodern”? How is this helping 2R? Surely we should call it something else, to indicate we’ve learned the lessons of the failure of postmodernism and have moved on to better things?
In your framework anti-realism cannot exist. Maybe if I were to suggest taht mysticism or occultism are constructed by individuals and cultures, and that they have no objective existence outside of human interpretation, then this would move into anti-realism.
So we have to accept that your subjective experience is objective - otherwise we’re anti-realists.
In this case “X” is a mind-external reality. This is ontologically denied by subjective idealists, and epistemologically denied by postmodernists.
Maybe if I were to suggest taht mysticism or occultism are constructed by individuals and cultures, and that they have no objective existence outside of human interpretation, then this would move into anti-realism.
Yes, that would be anti-realism. My position is very carefully specified in the opening post. I’m not sure what you don’t understand about it? What isn’t clear?
So we have to accept that your subjective experience is objective - otherwise we’re anti-realists.
Absolutely not. I think it might help if you go back and re-read the opening post, because you’ve misunderstood my position in a fairly major way. This post suggests you’ve got no idea what I’m proposing.
I’m referring to this - just because you believe in it or say that it’s not only a belief but your personal knowledge - doesn’t make it objectively real. It might be all in your mind. Now, if I say so - according to your framework - I’m an anti-realist because objective reality is what you say it is.
But anyway, I don’t see any real value in this beyond entertainment. I’d say that some of your views are incoherent.