Thank you for responding here. My posts are moderated at Tims Blog and do not always appear. First here is the Post I made regarding Your Claim which I think you refer to in your first sentence.
on September 30, 2019 at 5:06 am said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Ken Wilber is an interesting Philosopher and Psychologist I find his ideas interesting. Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of Morphic Resonance is very interesting as well, and one which I believe has much to recommend it.
Regarding Philosophy of Mind, it is a huge subject and my own interests tend towards the work of Wittgenstein and Linguistics. Ultimately I am though most persuaded by the Father of American Pragmatism CS Pierce.
Here is a link to my Essay, why are we here which I wrote in reaction to David Malones Documentary series of the same title,
In all matters epistemological and philosophical I demure ultimately to C S Pierce and this made up quote from ´We Pragmatists ´
CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE: ´´In order to reason well …. it is absolutely necessary to possess … such virtues as intellectual honesty and sincerity and a real love of truth (2.82). The cause [of the success of scientificinquirers] has been that the motive which has carried them to the laboratory and the field has been a craving to know how things really were … (1-34).[Genuine inquiry consists I in diligent inquiry into truth for truth’s sake(1.44), … in actually drawing the bow upon truth with intentness in the eye, with energy in the arm (1.235). [When] it is no longer the reasoning which determines what the conclusion shall be, but … the conclusion which determines what the reasoning shall be … this is sham reasoning…. The effect of this shamming is that men come to look upon reasoning as mainly decorative…´´. http://web.ncf.ca/ag659/308/Peirce-Rorty-Haack.pdfPierces seminal essay How to make our ideas clear is also a great starting off point for embracing such truth as we might be fortunate enough to encounter in our allotted time on this blue marble suspended in eternity.http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html
Davids Documentary is available on Curiosity stream. David and I are good friends and you may be familiar with some of his other Documentary Work for BBC Horizon ( Icon Earth) or Independently (Dangerous Knowledge) or of his Father Adrian Malone, Cosmos with Carl Sagan and The Age of Uncertainty with GK Galbraith.
Here is a link to My trilogy of Poems which informs my Novel Conquest fo dough which I have also made a web site for also linked.
Getting back to Wilber the Paper by the late great Bernard Lietaer Integral money
is hugely en-riching and AQAL analysis of monetary perspectives bears much fruit
Jain Many Sidedness and Maimonides souces of Contradiction are equally helpful templates for Making our ideas clear.
You had previously made this statement.
Steven B Kurtz
on September 29, 2019 at 3:29 pm said:
Wilber, despite being brilliant in some areas, has for decades assumed that non-physical/energetic things exist. He is far from alone, as theologians and some philosophers have done so for millennia. As appealing as those positions are to Homo superstitious (estimated 80+%), there is zero shareable evidence for such stuff. The attempted ‘proofs’ I’ve seen are either circular or tautological. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning.
Similar techniques have been used by those claiming disembodied mind and panpsychism. An Australian author, Reg Morrison, has written about mysticism as an evolved trait which has outgrown its usefulness now that we’ve become too successful. (overshoot) See:
And Tim had said this.
on September 29, 2019 at 4:17 pm said:
We do know of one non-physical, non-energetic thing that does exist – thought.
Moreover, the idea that mysticism (or anything beyond the tangible) has been rendered obsolete by advances in our knowledge seems to put a lot of faith in the concept of ‘advance’.
I’m not a subscriber to any established religion, but I certainly don’t dismiss the concept that there might be ‘something beyond us’. Perhaps the most rigorous philosophical investigation of this topic, carried out many years ago by a retired judge, concluded (a) that there probably is a driving intelligence behind the universe, but (b) that this is likely to bear no resemblance at all to the Deity postulated by religion. For one thing, this intelligence is likely to be subjective (akin to our subconscious minds), not objective (like our conscious minds). It might thus be likened to a “highest law of science”.
Followed by your statement here
Steven B Kurtz
on September 29, 2019 at 4:29 pm said:
Energy is physical. If anyone can evidence non-caloric thought, a Nobel likely awaits!
and then the Long response from me which I also added after Dons Comment here.
Don Stewart on September 30, 2019 at 3:44 am said:
Mind, God, the Universe, and Everything
on September 30, 2019 at 7:43 am said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
on September 30, 2019 at 5:06 am said:
That is the context of the Response you make above taking your points in turn.
1. I posted this on Roger’s blog (use his link). The reference to Lietaer is that Roger used his work on money as support for his position on non-physical reality.
You’ve not evidenced anything non-physical. Finding supportive writers is easy! 80+% of humans are superstitious or mystical to some degree. That and $3 will get you on the metro or bus!
The Leitaer paper on Integral money. referenced to Don
on September 29, 2019 at 12:24 pm said:
First Point the reasons for contradictions in esoteric writing Miamonides.
Notes for Contextual Search engine offering Integral Framework perspectives.
Guide for the Perplexed, Contradiction.
A sort of Guide for the perplexed.
News feeds in the corporate media have become esoteric these days and consulting Maimonides is not such a bad idea.
Anekāntavāda (Sanskrit: अनेकान्तवाद, “many-sidedness”) refers to the Jain doctrine about metaphysical truths that emerged in ancient India.
Affirmation: syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
Denial: syān-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
Joint but successive affirmation and denial: syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not,
Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syān-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable.
Contrasted with Wilbers Integral theory and Lietaers AQAl Diagram in the integral theory of money.
Prof. Lietaer was very well versed in Eastern Philosophy and his
The diagram here points to this
rogerglewis Uncategorized July 25, 2016, 3 Minutes
This was the context of Quoting Leitaer and not a rather juvenile appeal to Authority, and certainly not with respect to a binary materialism or Idealism meme. So far from an easy to find “supportive” writer I quoted Bernards work in a much more subtle sense and quite different to your apparent strawman as set out at point 1.
Bernard And I were also connected on Skype and I have quoted his work and employed his writing extensively and he was aware that I was a Disciple of sorts for his work. I have read pretty much everything Bernard has published and recommended his Blog to anyone.
Yin-Yang—the Taoist concept of relationship between polarities.
2. Lastly, neither you nor I can easily alter our views.
We are individuals and our lived contexts and viewpoints will be forever on different paths. Here we meet at a fork in the road Steven.
For myself, I take Osho’s essay on Ego the false center as my Sensai,
1. “I am also offended by the notion that one needs to be one or the other and that Materialism and Idealism are of necessity or custom mutually exclusive. I do not believe they are and there are more ways of being and acting than as through Matter or Thought in three dimensions of time and space.”
2. “Three modes of evolution have thus been brought before us: evolution by fortuitous variation, evolution by mechanical necessity, and evolution by creative love. We may term them tychastic evolution, or tychasm, anancastic evolution, or anancasm, and agapastic evolution, or agapasm. The doctrines which represent these as severally of principal importance we may term tychasticism, anancasticism,and agapasticism. On the other hand the mere propositions that absolute chance, mechanical necessity, and the law of love are severally operative in the cosmos may receive the names of tychism, anancism, and agapism.” — C. S. Peirce, 1893
And Finally Osho
So you have two centers. One center you come with, which is given by existence itself. That is the self. And the other center, which is created by the society, is the ego. It is a false thing – and it is a very great trick. Through the ego the society is controlling you. You have to behave in a certain way, because only then does the society appreciate you. You have to walk in a certain way; you have to laugh in a certain way; you have to follow certain manners, a morality, a code. Only then will the society appreciate you, and if it doesn’t, you ego will be shaken. And when the ego is shaken, you don’t know where you are, who you are.
The others have given you the idea.
That idea is the ego.