BothAndBlog Forum

The Mind-Created World
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/896287

This is why the argument in the OP says that an alternative to this view is a perspectival shift, a different way of seeing, which also turns out to be a different way of being. — Wayfarer

I don't have much to add to this long-running discussion of Mental vs Physical priority. So, I'll just post a few thoughts stimulated by the OP.

BTW, my personal "perspectival shift" resulted, not from heart-felt religious motives, or rational philosophical arguments, or "hard" scientific evidence, but from the mundane paradigm shift of 20th century quantum theory. It was not a sudden "voice of god" conviction, but a gradual dawning of realization of the essential role of Sentience & Reason in our worldviews. Not to create a physical world from scratch, but to create a metaphysical model of the world that we sense (feel) and make-sense of (comprehend).

Some seem to think that Idealism means that Reality is imaginary, or that Subjective views are solipsistic, hence suspect. Yet my BothAnd perspective is wide-angle enough to see some truth in all of the above. Materialism is our common-sense perception of reality, but Idealism extends our sixth-sense of Reason, to construct a metaphysical conception of what lies beyond our enhanced physical senses, in the near-infinite Cosmic ceiling above, and the infinitesimal Sub-atomic foundation of reality.

The following is not a numbered argument, but merely foot-notes to establish a trail of my personal understanding. Quotes are from the Mind-Created World OP :

1. "The second objection is against the notion that the mind, or ‘mind-stuff’, is literally a type of constituent out of which things are made,"
Note --- In my information-based worldview, Mind-stuff is not a material substance, but more like a causal force --- the power to transform --- in the sense of E=MC^2, where causal Energy is equated with massy Matter, by means of logical Mathematics. There are no aggregating atoms of Energy, only a continuous trend of change in both Space and Time.

2. "To think about the existence of a particular thing in polar terms — that it either exists or does not exist — is a simplistic view of what existence entails. This is why the criticism of idealism that ‘particular things must go in and out of existence depending on whether they’re perceived’ is mistaken."
Note --- Instead of a bi-polar view, my personal perspective is intended to be stereoscopic, wherein opposing views are merged & blended into a single model of Reality, inclusive of both Mind and Matter. The iffy existence of Ideal vs Real makes Being seem to be contingent on polar perspectives. That may sound like Limbo, neither saved nor unsaved, but undecided. Or like quantum Uncertainty, a state of subjective knowledge that is neither true nor false : indeterminacy.
But to me, it seems more like a Holistic state in which the parts are dissolved (like salt) into the oceanic system. Quantum Entanglement can be viewed as a Holistic state, in which the inter-twined component parts are unknowable (Uncertain) as separate entities. So, the "existence" --- that reality goes in and out of --- is also a state of knowledge (known/unknown), from the perspective of the observer. As postulated by Berkeley, only an omniscient observer would know all possible states of "existence" (being).

3. "Let me address an obvious objection. ‘Surely “the world” is what is there all along, what is there anyway, regardless of whether you perceive it or not!"
Note --- According to Plato & Aristotle, "what is there all along" is Eternity, not ever-changing Space-Time. The Eternal realm is self-existent, not dependent on observers, whether subjective or objective. But the Contingent world, as demonstrated in Quantum experiments, is somewhat dependent on the perspective of the observer. For example, Einstein's Theory of Relativity divided reality into Special (particular) and General (universal). Only an omniscient view from outside of the material world could encompass all states of Being, in & out of space-time. Apparently, Einstein was trying to simulate a universal divine perspective, to "know the mind of god", as Hawking put it.

4. "This in turn leads to the over-valuation of objectivity as the sole criterion for truth."
Note --- Science aspires to absolute Objectivity. But, in practice, only calculates the mean values of multiple subjective views. That computed average is supposed to cancel-out all extreme views, as well as personal emotional commitments, such as religious faith. Let's not deceive ourselves that physical Science actually achieves its noble aspiration of Absolute Objectivity, by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs. It is still groping to meld isolated observations (experiments) into a singular summary of Truth. When physical science expands into philosophical territory, by studying Psychology and Sociology, the shortcomings of its matter-based methods become apparent.

5. "By ‘creating reality’, I’m referring to the way the brain receives, organises and integrates cognitive data, along with memory and expectation, so as to generate the unified world–picture within which we situate and orient ourselves."
Note --- The individual human mind "creates" an imaginary model of reality. The scientific method merges multiple particular models into a collective consensus of verified Facts and acceptable Generalizations. Yet, even the consensual model continues to evolve over time, in evolutionary paradigm shifts. So, like chasing Infinity, we can only strive to come Closer to Truth. We don't create Truth, we learn it as best we can.

6. "By investing the objective domain with a mind-independent status, as if it exists independently of any mind, we absolutize it."
Note --- To "absolutize" is to generalize and universalize the various partial understandings of independent minds. The current generally-accepted scientific/philosophical model, a political consensus of many opinions, may be our best approximation to absolute Truth, at that point in time. So, a synergetic hypothesis of Reality may be as close to a "mind independent" worldview as possible. Yet, as philosophers, our job is to refine our received reality-model, to weed-out any remaining blind-spots, such as the various conventions & presumptions (-isms) that remain in circulation. Materialistic Scientism is one such metaphysical belief system, imagined as the final arbiter of physical Truth.

But I can assure you the experience of 'the unitive vision' is a real thing — Wayfarer

I don't doubt that the Cosmic Unity or Oceanic*1 experience seems real. But I remain skeptical of the philosophical/religious doctrines associated with that feeling. From a more materialistic perspective, the perceptual/conceptual distinction between Self & Other has been experimentally traced to the Prefrontal Cortex (PFC)*2 . . . . among other brain modules. Presumably, when the operations of that module are depressed by neurotoxins (e.g. alcohol), the person may begin to act "intoxicated". Which, in some cultures, has been identified as a sign of spiritual possession (inspiration). Perhaps, due to the "out of the mouths of babes" effect*2{note}.

Since I have never been intoxicated with chemical or heavenly "spirits", I have no experience with the associated "unitive vision". So, I have to take the word of others (e.g. enraptured mystics) for what it's like to become One with God. I also have no idea about how deep meditation could produce a similar physical effect. But it might be a self-fulfilling prophecy (non-self state), or a form of self-induced depression of PFC. Some Buddhist monks have claimed to be able to control various sub-conscious bodily function via deep meditation.

Therefore, while I take your word for the "reality" of the Unitary way of viewing/experiencing the Cosmic Self, for me it remains an instance of Chalmers' "what it's like" problem of consciousness/awareness.

PS___In the final chapter of Kastrup's Science Ideated, he distinguishes between traditional Reason, and "True Logic" as a means to discriminate "between reality and deception". I suppose that means my feeble philosophical attempts to make sense of the world, according to the conventional rules of reasoning, are in vain. He criticizes Western Reason for its lack of a role for the "divine". So, he concludes : "to serve the divine requires 'a deeply religious attitude' ". In my personal experience, that attitude was labeled "Faith". Unfortunately, my sojourn with Western religious Piety makes it seem to be a case of Self-Deception. Is an attitude of open-minded Creedence necessary to experience "the Unitive Vision"? Again, I apologize for slipping back into old dualistic habits of thought. It seems that, for me, Self is the sole reality, and Other is merely a plausible hypothesis.


*1. Oceanic Feeling :
"the phrase "oceanic feeling" to refer to "a sensation of 'eternity'", a feeling of "being one with the external world as a whole", inspired by the example of Ramakrishna, among other mystics." ___Wikipedia

*2. Which part of the brain is most associated with our self concept?
Neuroscientists have believed that three brain regions are critical for self-awareness: the insular cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the medial prefrontal cortex.
https://now.uiowa.edu/news/2012/08/root ... -awareness
Note --- The Prefrontal Cortex provides the so-called "Executive Function" of the body. This is supposed to be "Self/Soul", who is in control of all conscious bodily functions. When that function is disrupted by toxins, or even internal neurotransmitters, it may begin to malfunction. That's why a person intoxicated from alcohol, begins to act like a young irresponsible child, and may eventually lose its grip on some semi-conscious functions, such as bladder control.

Kastrup's analytical idealism suggests that the ground of existence is experiential, rather than material, and that the universe is ultimately a single, universal mind. — Wayfarer

That's a plausible hypothesis, and somewhat similar to my own emerging worldview, both of which are unprovable in any objective sense, and moot for any except philosophical purposes. My personal philosophical thesis is "grounded" mostly on modern scientific discoveries, instead of traditional/cultural religious doctrines. It concludes that the "ground" of physical existence is Causal, not Material, nor Experiential. As far as we can tell, 99.999% of the universe, until recently, lacked subjective Experience. Instead, most inter-communication involved exchanges of Energy, without personal meaning. Parallel to my own critique of Materialism, I can agree with Kastrup in his skeptical analysis of Panpsychism : it "implies universal consciousness, and fails to explain our own personal subjectivities". My own view is closer to Platonic Idealism, which postulated an eternal source of Abstract Forms with the Potential for both embodied Material things and Mental ideas. But he avoided anthro-morphing that unknown & unknowable abyss of Possibility, along with the myriad religious rules that arise from human interpretations of divine Will.

I too have toyed with the notion of a "Universal Mind". But, lacking direct revelation, I don't know if that Form Source is aware of anything in our world. What human science tells us is that Sentience eventually emerged, after eons of insentience. For all I know, the Source could be more like a mindless Multiverse with eternal Causal/Creative powers. Everything my biblical source-of-information told me about the Eternal Universal Deity of the Hebrews came from human philosopher/prophets, using their observation & imagination to make sense of the ever-changing material world with spooky invisible causal forces labeled "spirits". Today, we call those forces "energy", but its only scientific property is causation of material change. Unlike the biblical Holy Spirit, Energy is assumed to be random and insentient. And, except for a historical tendency toward complexity & consciousness, I have no evidence to prove otherwise.

I can understand Kastrup's analogy of "dissociated alters", but I find that abstract notion difficult to convert into an empirical "fact" of reality. Likewise, I am probably better informed than most westerners about eastern philosophy, but I'm not persuaded that the religions based on that grounding are any closer to ultimate Truth than the Judeo-Christian religions ; which are splitting like atoms into nit-picking sub-atomic interpretations of interpretations of what is and what must be. Therefore, I must remain agnostic about philosophical Universals (e.g. Divine Deities) rationalized from a few specific bits of information.

But I would venture that the influence of dogmatic religion in your earlier life has prejudiced you against these ideas, so that you tend to view them through those spectacles. — Wayfarer

Due to years of reflection on my own back-to-the-bible decentralized priestless written-scripture-based Protestant religion, I can admit to being post-judiced against some of its essential ideas, ironically based on faith in the Roman Catholic Bible, but not its pope & priests. In Science Ideated, I was going along with Kastrup's "cunning" arguments against competing philosophical & religious belief systems. But then, the last chapter, in defense of Analytical Idealism, began to sound a lot like a faith-based religion. Jesus warned his disciples about Spiritual Blindness, and admonished them to be "wise as serpents". Now, Kastrup describes how we may break-out of the western "illusion" by means of "cunning wisdom". He says : "true logic must come disguised as reason". This notion of Parmenidean True Logic is distinguished from the presumably False Logic of Aristotle, which defined the reasoning process for western Science. Years ago, I abandoned Faith Wisdom in favor of Evidential Reason. Now he wants me to go back, to take a leap of faith into eastern wisdom???

Having dismissed the scientific worldview as illusory, he quotes Kingsley : "to serve the divine, requires 'a deeply religious attitude, the sense that it's all for the sake of something far greater than ourselves". Strangely, that "something" else is just as mysterious as the invisible immaterial deity of the ancient Hebrews, who seldom spoke publicly to ordinary men, but always through a human mouthpiece. Yet, he quotes Kingsley as advocating "a kind of cunning wisdom that can be used to trick, enchant, or persuade". Sounds like Donald Trump to me. Then, Kastrup suggests a ploy "to use pure, strict, sharp reasoning to undermine reason itself". To replace Greek reason with Hindu devotion or Buddhist hyper-subjectivity? That's when alarm bells go-off in the once-burnt mind of someone prejudiced-by-personal-experience against Faith ; not against Divinity per se, but in skepticism toward the cunning spokesmen for an absentee deity. For now, I prefer to remain Agnostic, and to let the unknown Creator speak to me through the public evidence of the knowable Creation. :halo:

I don't know. The fact you think it's a religious argument says something. I've gotten hold of the ebook and will peruse it. — Wayfarer

Sorry, if I came on a bit strong in that previous post. All through Kastrup's book, I was nodding in agreement, since it sounded like rational philosophical arguments against non-idealist worldviews. But, in the last chapter, his arguments began to sound irrational and polemical. Kastrup himself introduced "cunning" religious arguments, intended to "undermine reason" and to "trick, enchant or persuade" unbelievers. That's the kind of argumentation that I identify with religious and political campaigns. However, I didn't have to characterize the chapter as a "religious argument", because Kastrup did it for me : "to serve the divine, requires 'a deeply religious attitude".

In that final chapter, Kastrup seems to be advocating, not just philosophical Idealism, but also religious mysticism. He was more specific about his ineffable experience of "the Other" in a previous book : The Idea of the World. As a child, my own religious experience was mostly toward the passionless rational end of the spectrum. So, I have always looked at mysticism as an outsider. I once attended a "holy roller" service with my parents, and experienced (objectively) individuals who would stand up, gesticulate, and speak in tongues (not human dialects, but angel language). That was about as close to mysticism as I came, during my impressionable years.

Years later, curiosity motivated me to deliberately investigate the "other side" of religion. I learned a lot from Evelyn Underhill's (1911) Mysticism : The Development of Humankind's Spiritual Consciousness. I suppose her background was Catholic theology, because she seemed highly educated and fluent in Latin. Like Kastrup, she was also skeptical of fake spiritualism : "Mysticism has been misunderstood . . . . has been claimed as an excuse for every kind of occultism, for dilute transcendentalism, religious or aesthetic sentimentality, and bad metaphysics." In her first chapter, she discusses various alternative worldviews. After dismissing Realism/Materialism, she says "the second great conception of being --- Idealism --- has arrived by a process of elimination at a tentative answer to this question." The question was "whence comes the persistent instinct which --- receiving no encouragement from sense experience --- apprehends and desires this unknown unity, this all-inclusive Absolute, as the only possible satisfaction of its thirst for truth."

Lacking a talent for ecstasy, I have attempted to quench my own thirst for truth by using Western philosophical methods. Which Kastrup is also very familiar with, but uses its own logic to "undermine" its rational conclusions. Throughout the years, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions have used rational arguments to justify their institutional power over the hearts & minds of men. So, they have attempted to suppress the mystical "instinct" of those who prefer to go directly to the source of all authority : the "absolute". Hence, esoteric religious trends have always been marginalized by the mainstream institutions. Yet, I have unintentionally minoritized myself, by straying from the Doctrinal mainstream, without reaching the opposite shore of Spiritualism.

Although ↪180 Proof accuses me of being a New Age mystic, my personal non-religious philosophical worldview is a sort of blend of Realism & Idealism, with no mystical aspects. I assume that there is a physical world out there sending signals to my senses. But I am aware that my internal model of that world is a figment of my own imagination and reason. Is it possible that The Absolute is also a figment?

Is it possible that The Absolute is also a figment? — Gnomon
Only when we talk about it. ‘The way that can be named is not the real way’. — Wayfarer

Although my personal philosophical worldview assumes, as an unprovable axiom, an original universal First Cause of some kind, I don't go so far as to label that unknown Source as "The Absolute". And I am not aware of any personal benefit from Worshiping, or attempting to "unite" with that cosmic principle. I guess that's because I am lacking the political & religious gene for submissive behavior in the presence of great power. For me, The Unknown is intellectually compelling (a mystery to be solved), but not emotionally attractive (a mystical force to be worshiped or appropriated).

I am in sympathy with highbrow & holistic Eastern philosophy in general, but not with its popular & emotional religious forms. I don't tremble in contemplation of the mighty Absolute's power to strike me down as an unbeliever. So, my dispassionate demeanor is more appropriate for Stoicism than for Mysticism. I am not cowed into quaking awe at the concept that I am an insignificant insect in the eyes of the all-seeing Almighty. So popular rule-based Religion, and less popular euphoria-based Spiritualism, do not appeal to me. Also, mystical & arcane Kabbalah-type "secret wisdom" is not the powerful lure for me that it is for some seekers. Is there any hope for me, as an aspirant of mundane Socratic wisdom? Do I need to be "transformed" in order to escape the modern/western hell-bound herd?

PS___Other than an antagonistic attitude toward human Reason, mystical religious practices seem to have little in common. Some use deep awareness meditation, some hallucinogenic drugs, and some physical Yoga or whirling dances to achieve union with the Divine. I am at a loss in all of those avenues.

...submissive behavior in the presence of great power.......I don't tremble in contemplation of the mighty Absolute's power to strike me down as an unbeliever......I am not cowed into quaking awe at the concept that I am an insignificant insect in the eyes of the all-seeing Almighty.... — Gnomon
What, in this passage, suggests something like that? — Wayfarer

I was not referring to "this passage" but to "the deeply religious attitude" in general. I don't think Kastrup is promoting any particular traditional religion in his books, but merely the philosophical worldview of Analytical Idealism. However, his last chapter uses quotes from Peter Kingsley to illustrate some of the concepts he's trying to convey in order to "break down" our rational defenses. Kingsley is described as a Sufi mystic, which emerged from within the rule-bound Islamic religious traditions. The primary belief of Sufism is that "unification with Allah" is the most important goal of an individual's life. That sounds like extremely "submissive" behavior to me, turning egoistic self-conscious rational humans into egoless mechanical robot/slaves. Is that an unfair assessment? Would I be wise to transform into a "whirling dervish"? Would I then "know the mind of God"?

Kastrup's final chapter is focused primarily on breaking down the rational defenses of the self-centered Western mind. And it uses some of the same mind-bending "tricks" that Roman Catholic theology employs to make counter-intuitive notions, like a unitary/triune deity, seem plausible to the mortal mind ; as-if viewed from a higher perspective. He deprecates Greek Logic & reasoning in favor of what he calls "true logic" --- what I might call "religious reasoning". But the path to that divine perspective seems to require --- like all "true" religions --- a leap of blind faith : "true logic must come disguised as reason ; it must entail embracing the illusion fully". He seems to be suggesting that we voluntarily blind our rational minds in order to allow a divine "illusion" to dispel a mundane mirage. As Kastrup puts it, with no sign of irony : "transcending reason through reason".

Kastrup says that "it's critical that we first bring down our defenses . . . . because the intellect is the bouncer of the heart". Yes, but the skeptical intellect is also the shield against BS. My early religious training also insisted on lowering our shields in order to allow a higher Truth to penetrate the hardened heart. Once our intellectual defenses are down, we are prepared to accept whatever irrational religious doctrine is poured into our open un-defended heads. And that is why, as I reached the "age of reason", I chose to keep my mind open, but "not so open that your brains fall out".

In the sub-chapter labeled Beyond Idealism, he describes the Western worldview as a "hoax". In place of that fake-reality, he describes the True Reality of oneness with God-Mind : "everything is one, whole, motionless". Ironically, Einstein posited a similar mathematical Singularity-universe in his eternal timeless placeless "Block Universe" thought experiment ; perhaps to illustrate the concept of Relativity by contrast to Absoluteness. As an as-if metaphor, he didn't expect us to take it as a physical Reality, but only as metaphysical Ideality --- something to think about, not to lay hands on. Kastrup goes on to assert that "it is true that reality is constructed out of belief". But that's all the more reason we should be very careful about what we believe.

He goes on to explain that, from the perspective of Idealism, "the only way for things to feel real is if consciousness tricks itself into believing that its own imagination is an external phenomenon. Consciousness's prime directive is to trick itself, for if it doesn't, nothing is left but a void". So, he seems to be saying that we must learn to distrust our own senses, our only physical contact with external reality, in order to get in touch with what Kant called the unknowable ding an sich. I suppose that's the essence of pure Idealism. Which may be why my own worldview is an impure amalgamation of pragmatic Realism and intellectual Idealism. Can I have my Ideality and eat the cake too?

None of which has much to do with blind faith, has it? — Wayfarer

The "blind faith" was snuck into the book only in the final chapter, after many chapters of "rational argumentation" against commonsense Materialism, and even Kingsley's version of Idealism. So, how am I to interpret "transcending reason through reason" except as a "rational" choice to close the eyes to "objective" Reality, and take a leap of faith into extrasensory subjective Ideality*1?

*1. Eyes of Faith, not Reason :
He has said "He who has eyes to see, let him see, and he who has ears to hear, let him hear." This whole concept of the Lord coming to make someone blind or giving sight to those who cannot see is hard to visualize (no pun intended).
https://www.dneoca.org/articles/eyestosee0794.html

Quote from Science Ideated : "The point here, however, isn’t that reality is constituted by personal, egoic beliefs; the foundational beliefs in question aren’t accessible through introspection; they underly not only a person, not only a species, not only all living beings, but everything. They aren’t our beliefs, but the beliefs that bring us into being in the first place". — Wayfarer

I'm aware that Kastrup's language could be "misinterpreted" by those who are alien to egoless Eastern maya-based*2 worldviews. But my own personal experience, with mostly Western religions, taught me to be on-guard against those who use Maya/illusion concepts to undermine confidence in my personal reasoning abilities. Christianity uses the image of deceiving Satan for the same effect : to make believers dependent on "seers" & "prophets" for their knowledge of paradoxical Truth. So, my problem is not prejudice against Kastrup's idiosyncratic Idealism, but of the necessity for making his esoteric ideas fit into my own personally experienced model of reality, that has outgrown some Western religious beliefs, by means of philosophical reasoning. Even as I try to keep an open mind to unfamilar ideas, I remain unable to access those hearsay "foundational beliefs . . . . underlying everything".

*2.What does Maya mean spiritually?
Maya originally denoted the magic power with which a god can make human beings believe in what turns out to be an illusion. By extension, it later came to mean the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/maya-Indian-philosophy

'egological'. . . . . Rather it pertains to the way the ego constitutes experience of the objective world into a coherent, subjective stream of consciousness related to the ego or self — Wayfarer

Yes. I am aware that my "ego's role" in construing the world is an obstacle to the Buddhist goal of "non self" (i.e. perfect objectivity or God's view of the world). I suppose, if "god" wanted us mortals to "become like God" (Genesis 3:5), then s/he wouldn't allow Satan/serpent/Maya to deceive us with the apple of Egoism. Does it make sense to sacrifice the Self (soul) in service to an anonymous/imaginary Cosmic Concept? To me --- in view of recorded human history of religious warfare*3 --- it seems like a choice between self-control and other-control. {image below}

*3. Divine Dharma & Karma Yoga :
To set the stage, the Bhagavad Gita begins with Arjuna and his family about to go to war with one another. Not wanting to shed his families' blood, Arjuna refuses to fight. Ironically, this is where the god Krishna steps in and tries to convince Arjuna it is his duty to kill his rebellious kinsmen.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-bh ... ation.html

it encourages us to go beyond the egological constitution of internal and external objects which `foolish, ordinary people’ habitually `seize’ upon in their everyday standpoint. — Wayfarer

"Everyday standpoint = common sense?? If so, I suppose I am one of those "foolish ordinary people" who put their trust in personal reasoning, in order to defend against exhortations to take some sacred ideas on ego-blinded faith*4. Most doctrinal religions encourage their "ordinary people" to submerge their egos into a faith community, a single-minded union of believers : "being in full accord and of one mind" (Philippians 2:2). I'm OK with unbiased-universal-perspective as a philosophical concept, but not OK with religious exhortation to extinguish the ego. I'm wary of becoming a remote-controlled robot, subject to centralized orders from high command {image below]. Do Islamic terrorists submerge their egos, and sacrifice their bodies, in order to serve their omnipresent-but-invisible Allah?

*4. Eye of Faith reveals unseeable Allah :
"Well, HE is invisible for those who do not believe in HIS existence."
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-A ... ings-Or-is

transcend the mentality which invests the objective domain with an inherent reality which it doesn't possess — Wayfarer

My hybrid matter/mind-based philosophical worldview accepts the subjectivity of its own "reality" model. But my BothAnd bridge-between-worldviews allows me to imagine that hypothetical divine objective perspective, even as --- in the absence of divine revelation --- I make-do with my innate subjective view of the outside world. I can accept the natural world of the senses as the "inherent reality", while labeling the metaphysical model of that world as an as-if ivory-tower artificial reality : i.e. Ideality. One "reality" has physical Properties (possessions), while the other has metaphysical Qualities (attributes). Like Infinity, we can aspire to perfect Objectivity, but our attempts, on an asymptotic curve, miss the ultimate goal

"egoless mechanical robot/slaves" would indeed be an unfair assessment. Would it be wise for you to engage with Sufism? Probably not, given your background. — Wayfarer

How would you fairly assess the ego-less faith of Islamic terrorists (as one example among many of faith-motivated extremists)? Would it be more appropriate for me to "engage" with a Christian Mysticism that is closer to my own background? The peaceful Quakers (or Islamic Sufis), for example. They "believe that all people are capable of directly experiencing the divine nature of the universe". But they don't seem to be violent or robotic to me. Perhaps because their individualized experiences of divinity are not easily translated into centralized directives. "Spirit led" is a nice theory, but dogmaless Ego interpretations tend to keep them quiescent, instead of aggressive, in practice. Their unorthodox religions were persecuted in the early years, but their institutional passivity eventually allowed them to co-exist with non-mystical Christians, who had more threatening fish to fry. Do these egoless exceptions to the ego-driven rule fit into your Mind-Created World picture? Would I be advised to join them in their direct access to Divine Mind?

The fact that you can only interpret any of this as 'religious dogma' seems to me, and pardon me for saying, a consequence of the views you bring to it. — Wayfarer

Again, you imply implacable prejudice against doctrinal religion due to its restraints on ego-serving Reason. It's true that my religious upbringing involved minimal mystical elements, but it also had no official creed, so each believer was expected to interpret difficulties in the received scriptures according to his own "reasoning". Like the Quakers, it had few doctrinal rules, apart from the admittedly ambiguous New Testament record of early Christian beliefs. Hence, we didn't have any creedal or papal justification for burning infidels at the stake.

In retrospect, it seemed almost like non-dogmatic Buddhism*5, due to its "rational, individualistic, and democratic “spirituality”. So, my individualistic interpretations ("views") of Christian traditions were tolerated, as long as I didn't make an issue of it. My label of "religious dogma" was intended only in the sense that most sects have a few basic rules (doctrines) that establish their position in the plethora of religious interpretations "views" of their belief community. I have no animus against practical rules (doctrines) for governing religious communities. I do, however, have a skeptical philosophical attitude toward unquestioning Blind Faith as a condition of membership.

*5. Buddhist Doctrine (dogma) :
Buddhists believe that the human life is one of suffering, and that meditation, spiritual and physical labor, and good behavior are the ways to achieve enlightenment, or nirvana.
https://education.nationalgeographic.or ... /buddhism/
Note --- Compare Zen Calvinism

EGOLESS CENTRALLY-CONTROLLED ROBOT ARMY OF GOD
45622-1532336916.jpg

Not to create a physical world from scratch, but to create a metaphysical model of the world that we sense (feel) and make-sense of (comprehend). ___Gnomon
Notice the duality you introduce between model and world — Wayfarer

The Gnomon quote is how I understand the phrase "a mind-created world". But the Wayfarer quote seems to imply that my individual ego-driven Soul/Self/Mind does create, not a separate simplistic subjective model-world, but the actual all-inclusive complex objective world of physical bodies and metaphysical minds, from the whole cloth of unlimited imagination. That would be a good trick for a god {image below}, but could a very limited mind like mine pull it off? The duality is a distinction between one man's imagination, and the one real world of space-time, or perhaps a Cosmic Mind's Maya illusion.

Kant's Transcendental Idealism*1 seems to imply an unbridgeable (dualistic) gulf between imperfect & incomplete (i.e. evolving) physical Reality, and a perfect & unchanging metaphysical Platonic Ideality. The human ego produces an imaginary (ideal) world model, limited in scope & detail by our inborn or learned assumptions and associations*2. At least, that's how I interpret his notion of a transcendent ideal world*1. Other than divine magic, does your concept of a Mind-Created World agree with Kant, or a more radical sense of "created"?

PS___The NETFLIX movie Freud's Last Session, provides a fictional encounter between Sigmund Freud, a famous atheist, and C.S. Lewis, a former atheist who converted to a personal (non-Catholic) faith in "Mere Christianity"*3. Their gentlemanly give & take discussion reminded me of our dialogues, even though I am not an angry Atheist, and you are not a non-denominational Christian.


*1. Kant's Mind-Created World :
Kant's transcendental conditions of knowledge portray the mind not as creating the physical world, but as necessarily structuring our knowledge of objects with a set of unconscious assumptions; yet our pre-conscious (pre-mental) encounter with an assumed spatio-temporal, causal nexus is entirely physical.
https://philarchive.org/archive/PALKPS-4
Note --- Are those "unconscious assumptions" the prejudices you see in my dualistic worldview?
The "causal nexus" may be another term for my own EnFormAction hypothesis.

*2. Kant’s Perspectival Solution to the Mind-Body Problem :
Kant’s Critical philosophy solves Descartes’ mind-body problem, replacing the dual-
ism of the “physical influx” theory he defended in his early career. Kant’s solution, like
all Critical theories, is “perspectival,” acknowledging deep truth in both opposing
extremes. Minds are not separate from bodies, but a manifestation of them, each
viewed from a different perspective. Kant’s transcendental conditions of knowledge
portray the mind not as creating the physical world, but as necessarily structuring our
knowledge of objects with a set of unconscious assumptions; yet our pre-conscious
(pre-mental) encounter with an assumed spatio-temporal, causal nexus is entirely
physical. Hence, today’s “eliminative materialism” and “folk psychology” are both
ways of considering this age-old issue, neither being an exclusive explanation. A
Kantian solution to this version of the mind-body problem is: eliminative materialism
is good science; but only folk psychologists can consistently be eliminative material-
ists. Indeed, the mind-body problem exemplifies a feature of all cultural situations:
dialogue between opposing perspectives is required for understanding as such
to arise.
https://philarchive.org/archive/PALKPS-4
Note --- The "perspectival" solution to opposing worldviews may be similar to my own BothAnd methodology.

*3. The Most Reluctant Convert :
His faith changed his direction from “self-scrutiny” to “self-forgetfulness.”
https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resour ... t-convert/
Note --- Could "self-forgetfulness" be a form of non-self egolessness?


Vishnu Dreaming Worlds into Existence
vishnu_dreaming_worlds.jpg

The first footnote in the Medium version of the essay refers to Kant, as does the first quotation from the Charles Pinter book Mind and the Cosmic Order, which I understand you're familiar with. I would hope overall not to stray too far out of the bounds set by Kant. — Wayfarer

I've never attempted to read Kant's "difficult" works, so I only know the Wikipedia version. But I have read Pinter's Mind and the Cosmic Order. Both of those explanations of the Mind/World relationship are easier for me to identify-with than the Hindu/Buddhist texts. In my blog book review*1, I found Pinter's western-oriented analysis of the Real vs Ideal question to be mostly compatible with my own.

For example, in order to make sense of the Buddha's "śūnyatā", I would have to picture its "emptiness" in terms of the void or nothingness (absence of matter) that presumably preceded the Big Bang of modern Western cosmology. In my own worldview, I imagine the logically necessary First Cause as existing eternally in an un-real im-material meta-physical state of Nothingness, that we westerners call "Potential". Perhaps, when my Ego is "extinguished" in death/nirvana, my self/soul will return to the void/sunya from whence it came. It's just speculation, but, for a Materialist, even that secularized de-personalized implication of matterless existence might be as unrealistic as any religious heaven.

The Nothing vs Something notion of Shunyata is itself a dualism. But then, the only way to eliminate Dualism in philosophy is to avoid rational analysis of whole systems into more digestible parts : e.g. Mūlamadhyamakakārikā vs 'Root Verses on the Middle Way'. For most of us, the first step toward understanding is to differentiate This-from-That, or Real-from-Ideal. Besides, without analytical Reason, we would have nothing to talk about, and this forum would have to communicate directly and wordlessly via mind-reading.


*1. Creative Mind and Cosmic Order :
The traditional opposing philosophical positions on the Mind vs Matter controversy are Idealism & Realism. But Pinter offers a sort of middle position that is similar in some ways to my own worldview of Enformationism.
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page10.html

That is how it is nearly always (mis)interpreted. Your interpreting it as 'nothing as opposed to something', or the 'cosmic void'. It's not that, but don't feel as though you're alone in seeing it that way, it is an almost universal misunderstanding. — Wayfarer

Apparently, the Buddha's "emptiness" is supposed to be taken metaphorically instead of literally. The Bhikkhu quote describes it as a "mode of perception", which I would interpret as an attitude of "open-mindedness". And which, as described in the link below, should be essential for the practice of philosophy. But religious Faith would seem to be the antithesis : to hold stubbornly to "one's favored beliefs". Long ago, I gave-up my childhood faith, and have not found any ready-made off the shelf belief system to replace it.

That's why, over many years, I have been reviewing a variety of alternative religious, scientific, & philosophical beliefs, as I gradually construct a customized bespoke physical/metaphysical worldview of my own. I try to keep an open mind*1, but retain the truth-filter of skepticism*2 to weed-out any true-believer BS. Since I have never experienced anything Mystical or Magical, I am not predisposed to accept paranormal or transcendental beliefs that require a prejudicial "eye of faith".

The C.S. Lewis quote in my post above noted that "His faith changed his direction from 'self-scrutiny' {introspection?} to 'self-forgetfulness' {dissociation?}". {my brackets} Hence, as an adult he was transformed from dour Irish Anglican upbringing, to death-dispirited Atheist, to liberal non-denominational Theist. Does that sound like a case of "emptiness" or "open-mindedness" or "no self" to you? Obviously, he created a new personal worldview, but did his mind create a new world, in the sense of the OP?


*1. Open-mindedness is the willingness to search actively for evidence against one's favored beliefs, plans, or goals, and to weigh such evidence fairly when it is available.
https://www.authentichappiness.sas.upen ... mindedness

*2. Skepticism is derived from the word skepsis, which means inquiry, examination, or investigation of a perception. More specifically, scientific skepticism refers to a method of systematic doubt used to objectively examine a premise, usually on the basis of empirical evidence, wherever possible. It is about cultivating critical habits of mind to weigh evidence. Scientific skepticism is a balance between being open to new ideas and being skeptical of claims that lack supporting evidence.
https://www.intelligentspeculation.com/ ... nquirynbsp

Emptiness, the most misunderstood word in Buddhism?
The first meaning of emptiness is called "emptiness of essence," which means that phenomena [that we experience] have no inherent nature by themselves." The second is called "emptiness in the context of Buddha Nature," which sees emptiness as endowed with qualities of awakened mind like wisdom, bliss, compassion,
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/emptines ... _b_2769189