Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Psychology and classical philosophy (and quantum theory)

Expand Messages
  • vaeringjar
    ... Did he really? That is indeed curious to me personally, as I had arrived at that same thought indepenently on my own some time ago, without the benefit of
    Message 1 of 76 , Mar 13, 2009
      > Furthermore, there is the fact that fundamentally modern physics is
      > mathematical. Some years ago the physicist J. A. Wheeler proposed an
      > ontological maxim, "it from bit," which expresses the idea that since
      > physical phenomena are completely characterized (and exhausted) by
      > mathematical relationships, there is no reason to suppose a "stuff"
      > separate from these relationships (entia non sunt multiplicanda
      > praeter necessitatem). That is, reality is not only describable by
      > mathematical relationships, it *is* mathematical relationships. What


      Did he really? That is indeed curious to me personally, as I had arrived at that same thought indepenently on my own some time ago, without the benefit of a PhD in Physics, etc. Mirabile dictu. Maybe there was something in the air in Austin back then, those wonderful warm spring nights fragrant with all that mountain laurel all over campus, though I obviously was way below his pay grade there!

      If I put on my hopelessly Monist hat, though, I would modify that to say "apparent" relationships, as the true reality resides only in the One-All, but those relationships appear to us as the most basic "refractions" of the One, those lovely patterns we see daily that Parmenides described in the second half of his poem and we like to mistake for true reality, because we are in love with the artfulness of the great self-deception. And it's the power of that beautiful deception which compares to the seeming dullness of the one reality, which not only is relentlessly same but also annihilates all the exciting problems of philosophy - no more problem of generation and destruction, no more problem of knowledge, because knowledge becomes an irrelevant question. If there is only One, then there is no subject and object, no knower and known, no thinker and thought, since all is One. No time, no distance, no dimensionality, no mensurability, just an eternal One beyond time and distance and dimenionality and mensurability. Ethics becomes a relativistic game, and Hegel's god just another player on the phantom stage, thinking that he is thinking those great thoughts.

      Dennis Clark
    • Robert Wallace
      Dear Michael, It looks as though Peter Mutnik would have been well advised not to mention Babaji, who however as far as I know has done nothing (if indeed he
      Message 76 of 76 , Mar 13, 2009
        Dear Michael,

        It looks as though Peter Mutnik would have been well advised not to
        mention "Babaji," who however as far as I know has done nothing (if
        indeed he ever existed) to put himself in the same category as
        Rajneesh and Jim Jones. I don't know what Iamblichus may have done to
        encourage the cult of personality that apparently did grow up around
        him. I doubt whether Jakob Boehme or William Blake can be accused of
        encouraging anything like that.

        Obviously I share your suspicion of cults of personality in general.
        As far as "occultism" is concerned, much of it (as in Boehme) seems
        quite harmless--and _may_ contain insights worth taking seriously. As
        for irrationality--I follow Plato in seeking freedom through reason,
        but I also agree with him (Phaedrus) that _some_ forms of apparent
        "madness" are deeply beneficial and it is therefore rational not to
        exclude them from one's life. They are evidence, perhaps, of a deeper
        kind of reasoning or thought than the kind that we're conscious of
        engaging in, in normal waking life. I have had considerable experience
        of this sort of thing in my own recent life--dreams and a vision that
        conveyed insights to me that my conscious mind was later able to
        endorse, but wasn't able to generate on its own.

        So the boundary between the truly "irrational" (the madness that is
        _not_ "God-given") and the "rational" is not easy to draw, but needs
        to be explored with an open mind. I have little doubt that Peter
        Mutnik crossed it. But I doubt that his life would have been more
        successful if he had kept away from _all_ apparent "madness."

        Best, Bob


        On Mar 13, 2009, at 5:56 PM, Michael Chase wrote:

        >
        > On Mar 13, 2009, at 8:17 PM, Robert Wallace wrote:
        >
        > > Yes, indeed. What impresses me in Mutnik's writings is that many of
        > > them refrain from this sort of fantasy and hone in, in a quite
        > > disciplined way, on the classic texts and ideas of the founders of
        > > quantum physics. I hope you found some of those texts as well.
        > They, I
        > > assume, were the basis of his relationship with Henry Stapp. Mutnik
        > > reminds me of William Blake, whose contemporaries mostly dismissed
        > him
        > > as a harmless "fruitcake." Not to mention Jakob Boehme, the Hermetic
        > > writers, Jung's "channeling" experiences ... and my own dreams and
        > > visions. These all require patient interpretation.
        > >
        >
        > M.C. To be sure. But I do think there's a difference, and it has to do
        > with two points: rationality vs. irrationality, and the cult of
        > personality.
        > To begin with the latter: the visions of Blake and Bohme were, I take
        > it, personal: they were not at the head of any movement, nor did they
        > themselves devote themselves to any contemporary guru. That is, I
        > believe, a big difference them and the Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh, Babaji,
        > Jim Jones, etc., etc., who, while spouting mystical philosophy - which
        > may well contain some elements of truth - are nevertheless concerned
        > primariily to manipulate their believers for their own benefit, often
        > with calamitous results.
        >
        > As far as the conflict between rationality and irrationality is
        > concerned, I believe there's a fundamental distinction in
        > Neoplatonism, as the ancients recognized, between those, like Plotinus
        > and Porphyry, who thought philosophy was the highest good, and
        > therefore that personal salvation was possible through reason alone
        > and through the individual's rational, philosophical efforts, and
        > those, like Iamblichus, who believed that theurgy and the hieratic
        > virtues were higher than philosophy.
        >
        > I am wholeheartedly on the side of the former group, Plotinus and
        > Porphyry. The therugic/hieratic groups degenerates all too easily, it
        > seems to me, into irrationalism, occultism, and the cult of
        > personality: it is the domain of charlatans and hucksters, and it can
        > lead, all too easily, straight to Jonestown.
        >
        > I believe it's possible to be anti-positivist and anti-reductionist,
        > on the one hand - as I consider myself to be - but at the same time
        > virulently anti-occultist and irrationalist. I take it - perhaps
        > mistakenly - that this was the attitude of Plotinus and Porphyry, and
        > I seek to imitate them in this regard. As far as Iamblichus and his
        > followers are concerned, I'm afraid I can too easily conceive of him
        > as the head of a commune in Oregon, complete with a harem of pregnant
        > teenagers and a well-stocked bank account.
        >
        > But of course I could be wrong.
        >
        > Best, Mike.
        > n
        >
        > > Unfortunately, I'm
        > > not in a position to provide such an interpretation for the piece of
        > > Mutnik that you quote.
        > >
        > > Best, Bob
        > >
        > > On Mar 13, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Michael Chase wrote:
        > >
        > > >
        > > > On Mar 12, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Robert Wallace wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > Dear Curt and all,
        > > > >
        > > > > Having mentioned Henry Stapp's quasi-Whiteheadian _Mindful
        > > Universe_
        > > > > (2008), I should really, in justice, mention another Berkeley
        > > writer
        > > > > associated with Stapp whose program in physics and philosophy
        > > (until
        > > > > his death last year) had a lot in common with Neoplatonism:
        > Peter
        > > > > Mutnik. See
        > > > >
        > > > > http://www.geocities.com/saint7peter/index.html
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > > > Dear Bob,
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > I'm afraid that when I read such extracts from Mutnik as the
        > > > following:
        > > >
        > > > The Master Babaji, depicted there in an artist's idealized drawing
        > > > based on an actual appearance and in actual photographs, as
        > well, is
        > > > the Guru and Father of Jesus Christ. The Naga Raj signature is
        > > His. In
        > > > that form, He has been alive on earth, near Badrinath, since 203
        > > A.D.
        > > > He is more or less the same as Maitreya (*the* Christ and coming
        > > > Buddha), also depicted in an actual photograph, although that body
        > > was
        > > > not born of a woman but materialized by kriyashakti. Maitreya is
        > now
        > > > living in London, but appearing miraculously around the world.
        > Jesus
        > > > Christ has already returned to earth as Sananda in 1961. He was
        > > > responsible for the Rapture in the late 60's, when many had
        > genuine
        > > > spiritual experiences of the White Light of the Christ, which is
        > the
        > > > gateway to absolute or pure Consciousness, which is God.
        > > >
        > > > --- it gives me the willies. Where does one draw the line between
        > > > "daring, original thinker" and just plain "fruitcake"?
        > > >
        > > > Best, Mike
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > Robert Wallace
        > > website: www.robertmwallace.com (Philosophical Mysticism; The God of
        > > Freedom)
        > > email: bob@...
        > > phone: 414-617-3914
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >

        Robert Wallace
        website: www.robertmwallace.com (Philosophical Mysticism; The God of
        Freedom)
        email: bob@...
        phone: 414-617-3914









        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.