A totality that needs to be individuated

by Dr. J. Glenn Friesen

[17] Dooyeweerd’s reference to “serious misunderstanding” by some adherents would seem to include Roy Clouser. Clouser says that the modal structures of the aspects can be deduced from the individuality structures, by an ever-increasing abstraction of properties into “kinds of properties.” Clouser sees only a difference in intensity between pre-theoretical and theoretical concept formation; aspects are “kinds of properties.” In his book The Myth of Religious Neutrality, Clouser says (p. 54) that in theory we intensify the focus of our attention to such a degree that we isolate a property from something, and focus on the property itself; he calls this “high abstraction.”

In his article, “Dooyeweerd’s Metathetical Critique and its Application to Descartes and Heisenberg” Clouser says that naïve experience sees an entity-with-its-properties, as opposed to a theoretical analysis of the properties in themselves. But the Dooyeweerd Archives in Amsterdam contain a letter from Roy Clouser to Dooyeweerd dated June 21, 1972. It confirms that Dooyeweerd still objected to the idea of modes of experience being referred to as ‘property-kinds.’ This was after Clouser completed his dissertation, and despite extensive discussions between Clouser and Dooyeweerd the year before. This corresponds to what Dooyeweerd says in the New Critique: We cannot obtain true structural concepts of individuality by means of the procedure of gradual abstraction. Nor can we obtain theoretical insight into the modal structures of the law-spheres by gradual abstraction (NC II, 417).

[19] Dooyeweerd thus distinguishes between the aspects and functions. Reformational philosophy usually sees these terms as synonymous. But aspects belong to the dimension of modal aspects, and functions belong to the plastic dimension of structures of individuality. In an early article, Dooyeweerd says that aspects are “gezichtsvelden,” perspectives of our full supratemporal selfhood on the temporal world. . The “aspects” are abstracted from out of our subjective [as supratemporal subjects] activity of thought; in the epoché, we “refrain” from the continuity of cosmic time (II, 402; NC II, 468 ft.1). The abstraction of theoretical thought is not just from the continuity of cosmic time, but from the actual, full selfhood that thinks and expresses itself in all its functions (I, 6; NC I, 5). The “functions” relate to the objective reality (understood in terms of the subject-object relation).

[20] This whole idea of a gradual individuation into various individuality structures depends on Dooyeweerd’s starting point with a totality that needs to be individuated. He says in this article, “For without the foundation of modal structures with no individuality…”. The modal structures have no individuality, and provide the foundation for individuality structures. There is a difference between modal structures and individuality structures. Modal structures have no individuality, but they are prior to the individuality structures. Home Dooyeweerd

Dooyeweerd's Last Article (1975)

by Herman Dooyeweerd Philosophia Reformata (1975) 83-101
Newly translated and annotated by Dr. J. Glenn Friesen

In pre-Socratic philosophy, where the scientific forming of concepts had not yet become a theoretical problem, the general opinion was that “Like is only known by like."[7] We find this opinion in the Ionian nature philosophy up to Anaxagoras as well as in the metaphysical doctrine of being founded by Parmenides. In the former, which was already undermined by Anaxagoras’s opposition between nous as thinking spirit and the matter that was ruled by thought, this led to the view that we can know the “elements” from which, according to the ancient view, the cosmos has originated [p. 86] (water, earth, fire and light) only by means of these same elements, from which man himself has originated.

And in Parmenides’ metaphysical doctrine of being, the thought that “Like is known only by like” ledto the identification of theoretical thought and being. For Parmenides, unchanging being is only known by theoretical thought, because this thought is the same as being, and theoretical thought, by virtue of the logical basic principle of identity, is the same as that to which this thought is related, i.e. that which can only be thought.

But as soon as the Socratic insight was gained, that theoretical thought can only be obtained by means of a theoretical-logical concept, the identification of theoretical knowledge with what is known could no longer be maintained. Socrates always sharply set conceptual knowledge over against the sensory perception of that which can be perceived by the senses, to which both the Ionian philosophers of nature as well as the Sophists had reduced human knowledge. And, as Plato showed in his dialectical dialogue Parmenides, the logical identity of being can only be understood in its correlation to the logical diversity of being other.

And so we find that Plato, the greatest student of Socrates, also expressly rejects the thesis that “Like is known only by like” (Politeia 438e). Instead, he characterizes the theoretically knowable as the anticheimenon, that which is set over-against the theoretical-logical activity of thought. The theoretical Gegenstand-relation was therefore already known in classical Greek philosophy. Of course it was not understood within the framework of the modal aspects of the horizon of human experience, as it is understood in the transcendental critique of the Philosophy of the Law-Idea.

Theorising is a religious activity

The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories by Roy A. Clouser Clouser's book is a challenge to college students, December 23, 1998 Reviewer: Bruce Wearne (Melbourne, Australia) - See all my reviews Amazon.com Home

Roy Clouser's Myth is indeed a clear exposition of the philosophical orientation of Herman Dooyeweerd. But potential readers will not only find an interesting connection with his Dutch calvinist background. The book is an original argument in its own terms. It is not simply a re-statement of an established position "applied" to a new (North American) context. Clouser is concerned about common views of theory and theorising. He is also concerned with the theories which explain religious experience. To say that theoretical and scientific thinking implies religious world-views can get us into debate where all we end up with is dogma confronting dogma. Clouser painstakingly looks at the character of religious experience and theoretical thought. He shows by logical argument, and then by careful application in various scientific areas (mathematics, psychology, sociology among others) that theories are inherently religious. Those claiming to come clean with their religious presuppositions are not doing anything more than those who claim to be religiously neutral. Except they are facing up to the inner reality of their theorising as a religious activity. And this can make a whole world of difference to how scientific research and theoretical debate unfolds. Clouser makes a convincing case for reconsidering the entire scientific enterprise on these terms.

Best book available for an intro to Christian philosophy, February 16, 1998 Reviewer: Jon Andreas (001@earthlink.net) "myrddin_emrys" (Southern California) - See all my reviews

Although philosophers who happen to be Christians have been around for quite some time, their work has been largely accommodated to secular thought. The 20th C. Dutch philosopher H. Dooyeweerd originated a system of thought that proves to be the most well-rounded paradigm ever based on biblical principles. Although most of Dooyeweerd's writings are either inaccessible to the amateur philosopher or stuck in Dutch*, Clouser does an exceptional job of presenting Dooyeweerd's philosophy in a clear and understandable manner.

Augustine, St. Thomas, Aquinas, Scotus

Friday, July 21, 2006 Part I, Augustine: Ozment on Theories of Salvation in the Middle Ages

Interestingly, Ozment paints a picture of Augustine’s view that seems to resonate with classical and Greek views of reason being the key to an ordered life (e.g., think of the Platonic view of the tripartite soul). “In Paradise, man was a model of willed self-control. Augustine suggested that even sexual intercourse occurred without lust, the organs of reproduction activated by calm rational volition, not by uncontrollable passion. The classical ideal of man and the Christian view of his original perfection were here joined: habitual order reigned over prelapsarian man, who has reasoned control over his faculties. […] The Fall reversed everything; thereafter fallen man lost his self-control and become a ‘slave to lust.’ He now obeyed and enjoyed the world, his desires having become the rider and his will the horse, and God was to all intents and purposes forgotten” (The Age of Reason, p. 26)...

As Ozment emphasizes, for Augustine the great advantage of Christianity over Platonism centered on the healing power of the sacraments, which the Platonists did not know. “Christians did not contemplate truth at a distance, […], but grasped it directly by faith; nor did they look for strength to a deity who remained beyond this world, but found it in one who had become flesh and dwelt among men. The power to heal the will and restore man to self-control was tangibly present in the Incarnation of Christ and the sacraments of the Christian church. posted by Cynthia Nielsen at 8:14 AM

Saturday, July 22, 2006 Part II, Aquinas: Ozment on Theories of Salvation in the Middle Ages

Pulling from Aristotelian philosophy, Aquinas devised the following solution: grace is in the soul as an accidental, not a substantial form. According to Aristotelian philosophy, a substantial form is primary and speaks of that which makes a thing to be what it is. E.g., the substantial form of a human being is reason; hence, the definition, a human being is a rational animal. To be a human being entails rationality, as it is reason that differentiates humans from other animals. An accidental form, on the other hand, does not define what a thing is, though it accurately describes it. E.g., that a person is musical, though accurately describing an aspect of that individual, is nonessential to what that person is as a human being, viz., a rational animal.

How does all this relate to St. Thomas’ solution? Utilizing the example above, in order to become a musical person, I would need to acquire the habit of becoming musical through instruction, practice, etc. Yet, whether or not I do in fact become musical, I am still a human being because my becoming musical is nonessential (and hence accidental) to my being a human being. Similarly, grace exists in the human soul just as the habit of becoming musical exists in person (accidentally). posted by Cynthia Nielsen at 9:20 AM

Sunday, July 23, 2006 Part III, Scotus: Ozment on Theories of Salvation in the Middle Ages

Duns Scotus (ca. 1265-1308) was highly critical of St. Thomas’ position regarding the infused habit of grace. Scotus saw himself continuing the Augustinian tradition and in light of Augustine’s teaching on predestination, Scotus wanted to avoid any doctrine that seemed to suggest that God saved human beings because of something intrinsic within them. For Scotus, God’s freedom and omnipotence must not be compromised; consequently, Thomas’ idea of an accidental form of grace within the human soulsthat might obligate God to save those who, e.g., attempted to love him habitually, was unacceptable (The Age of Reason, p. 33). God’s will and God’s will alone was “primary in the definition of the Christian. What God decreed in man’s regard was far more important to his salvation than any quality of soul he might come to possess; people were saved only because God first willed it, never because they were intrinsically worthy of it” (Ibid., p. 33). posted by Cynthia Nielsen at 6:21 PM

St. Thomas, Scotus, Auriole, Ockham

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 Part IV, Auriole’s Reaction to Scotus: Ozment on Theories of Salvation in the Middle Ages

Peter Auriole, O.F.M. (ca. 1280-1322) was strongly opposed to Scotus’ view of salvation and his emphasis on the covenant. Auriole, though working from the basic Thomistic position of the importance of the created habit of grace, took St. Thomas’ position to its extreme, and argued that the reason for God’s acceptance of an individual lay “‘in re,’ in the very nature of the one accepted and saved” (The Age of Reason, p. 36). In contrast to Scotus’ axiom that created beings have nothing intrinsic in them to make God accept them, Auriole’s claim was, “Caritas est ratio acceptationis ex natura rei et de necessitate,” i.e., “Love is the cause of divine acceptance by its very nature and of necessity” (Ibid., p. 36).

According to Auriole, salvation is not a mere matter of covenants, but involves like attracting like (Ibid., pp. 36-37). Again, contra Scotus, for Auriole, whether from the point of view God’s ordained power (the execution of God’s will in time) or God’s absolute power (God’s will eternally considered), “acts of love intrinsically won divine acceptance” (Ibid., p. 37). As mentioned previously, Auriole’s view is considered an exaggerated and distorted take on Thomas’ position. Similarly, Ockham’s position was an extreme restatement of Scotus—a topic we shall engage in the next post. posted by Cynthia Nielsen at 7:06 AM

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 Part V, Ockham: Ozment on Theories of Salvation in the Middle Ages

In contrast with Auriole, for Ockham there is “no necessary relationship between salvation and grace-induced habits of love” (The Age of Reason, p. 37). This view is reflected in Ockham’s statement, “Quidquid Deus producit mediantibus causis secundis potest immediate sine illis producere et conservare,” i.e., “whatever God can produce by means of secondary causes, he can directly produce and preserve without them.” Just as God in his potentia absoluta was able to cause intuitive knowledge in the human mind of something that does not exist, he can also save people without infused habits of grace (Ibid., p. 37). Ockham is said to have gone overboard in his desire to stress the radical contingency of creation, as well as all things ecclesiastical—churches, sacraments etc. As Ozment points out, Ockham founded his teaching on two traditional sources.

• First, he appealed to Augustine’s view of the church on earth as permixta, that is made up of both believers and unbelievers. Here what counts is not present grace, but ultimately the gift of perseverance which is given to the elect only (see, City of God, bk. 1, ch. 35).
• Secondly, Ockham based his teaching on the distinction between the potentia absoluta Dei and the potentia ordinata Dei, the absolute and ordained power of God. posted by Cynthia Nielsen at 10:26 AM

Russell, Lockwood, Chalmers, Rosenberg

Anand Rangarajan Says: August 4th, 2006 at 12:21 pm I wrote up a short summary of Rosenberg’s Ph.D. thesis a long time ago. I’ve attached it here.

The thesis in a nutshell: In A Place for Consciousness: Probing the deep structure of the natural world, Gregg Rosenberg lays out a sophisticated dual aspect panpsychist theory of consciousness and causation. He skillfully avoids most of the problems faced by traditional panpsychist approaches including those of Russell, Lockwood and Chalmers. A Place for Consciousness begins by detailing the problem of accommodating consciousness within the natural order. After carefully motivating the point that a theory of consciousness requires an understanding of causation, the book segues into a thorough examination of causation. Humean and constructivist views of causation are examined and then demolished. Then the author introduces the key notion of receptivity which can be understood as “the power to be affected.”

Receptive properties can be visualized as a causal mesh connecting different individuals and are contrasted from effective properties. The latter are properties of individuals which are capable of affecting the states of other individuals. Receptive and effective properties of a system are shown to be a circular pattern of contrastive differences that need to be instantiated by a further pattern of contrastive differences that are extrinsic to the system. Unfortunately, physics does not have a deeper system of internal contrasts that carry its contrastive differences. The author closes the loop by showing that phenomenal properties can be pressed into service as an intrinsic pattern of differences capable of carrying the contrasts in physics. In this way, the carrier theory of causation gets underneath physics and provides a role for consciousness in the experiencing of intrinsic phenomenal properties.

An itemized summary follows. If there is interest, I’ll expand the overall summary.
1. A directed graph of receptive connections is needed before physics can get going. The directed graph specifies a mesh which binds individuals into a causal structure. This receptive structure is not supervenient on the physical.
2. Causation and maybe even spacetime can be placed within the framework of this directed graph.
3. Receptive properties are to be contrasted from effective properties. The latter are the usual sort studied by physics and specify the way in which individuals affect the states of other individuals. Receptive and effective properties are a circular pattern of contrastive differences.
4. Physics does not specify a deeper, more fundamental level of internal contrasts to carry its contrastive differences.
5. Phenomenal properties are exactly the sort of intrinsic properties capable of carrying the contrasts found in physics.

Research in Auroville

Home > Research
Research in AurovilleRenewable energyAppropriate building technology

Waste water recycling Auroville Centre forScientific Research (CSR)

Auroville Energy Products (AEP)AuroRE Projects and ServicesWater Service (AquaDyn) AuroAnnam R&D farmSocial Research CentreColours of NatureAwareness through the bodyAcademic researchpapers on Auroville Profiles

Wilber, Chalmers, Stoljar, Seth Lloyd

Anand Rangarajan Says: August 3rd, 2006 at 5:04 am Hi Mark, Thanks. The above was really helpful. Let’s leave aside the dual-aspect issue for the moment. You say “If you hold on doggedly to one of those points of view (physicalism) and deny the validity of the others (psychism) .” But that’s not what we (analytic philosophers, consciousness researchers) want to do. We want to redefine the physical to include psychism. That is, we want an expanded physical that accommodates different perspectives of that same physical. And the different perspectives shape and themselves are shaped in the new physical. The approach very simply then is to accommodate any new “fact” into the expanded physical. Why is this problematic?

Andy Smith Says: August 3rd, 2006 at 12:42 pm Anand: I just read the Stoljar article in the link you kindly provided. While it’s an interesting approach, I don’t see how postulating another kind of physical (o-physical) really helps solve the mind-body problem. He admits we may never be able to perceive or have direct evidence for this kind of physical world. And if it really is such that qualia can supervene on it, I would think we never would see it. His analogy of triangles and pie pieces, like all analogies that try to explain why we can’t understand qualia as somehow arising from the physical world, falls very short. I felt he was trying to close the gap between qualia and the physical with something between them, but at our present understanding, this is like a gap between finite and infinite, and we know there is nothing between them that is not either finite or infinite, which is to say, there is nothing between them.

I am much closer to Mark here, in believing that there is something profoundly different about qualia. I tend to lean towards the panpsychist view, or property dualism, but I’m very understanding of the criticism that it’s big list metaphysics. I was very interested in your mention of Seth Lloyd. I recently read his book Programming the Universe. One thing struck me in particular, so much so that I composed a letter to him, though I haven’t emailed it yet (still mulling it over). Near the end of the book, when he discusses making a quantum computer, he says “a simulation of the universe on a quantum computer is indistinguishable from the universe itself” (p.154) .

It seems to me that if this is true, and if such a quantum computer could really be built, it would solve the zombie problem. As used by philosophers of mind, a zombie is someone just like an ordinary person, but with no qualia. There is tremendous debate among philosophers over whether zombies are logically possible, because if they are, that implies that physicalism is false. That is, if two beings atom for atom identical exist, but one has qualia and the oher does not, it seems that qualia are not supervenient on the physical world.

Anand Rangarajan Says: August 3rd, 2006 at 12:45 pm Response to Mark: Perhaps the problem (with my proposal) is with the word physicalism. If the word were changed to naturalism, would you feel the same way? The reason why I’m asking this is that the new “physicalism” (in scare quotes now since the word may not survive) would have to be a postmodern physicalism that takes first (and second) person facts into account. In your thought experiment, you’re trying to predict a first person phenomenon - banananess - from the knowledge of only third person facts - neuronal structures and functions and bridging laws. I don’t see how this is going to work.

The new physicalism or naturalism would predict - based on the first person report of banananess - that a certain first person sensory stimulation perspective of a certain kind existed for a few moments while the banana was being eaten and fill out certain facts (unknown at this time) regarding a base set of banana eating possibilities (yumminess or yuckiness I think what’s happening in our dialog here is that I am not doing a good job of conveying just how different the new “physicalism” has to be from the old physicalism in order to accommodate prehensions, sensations, perceptions, emotions, thoughts, visualizations and PCEs not to mention cultural (second person) facts as well.

Response to Jim: I’ll keep this short. First, please, please see Gregg Rosenberg’s book “A Place for Consciousness” . It is one of the very best (and latest) books on panexperientalism. Rosenberg followed Chalmers in the sense of getting his Ph.D. from Indiana. Second, there’s a huge problem with causation. For a philosopher, causation amounts to “A caused B” in a causal network. Unfortunately, in physics, all we have at present are glorified correlations which change with the way the wave function evolves. So there’s a gap there. Wilber’s comments on causal closure are very vague, so let’s ignore them for the time being. Here’s my argument that causal closure is not a problem.

i) We have independent reasons for beginning with a new physicalism which generates particles, spacetime, experience etc. since we need this new physicalism to accommodate experience. (Stoljar’s argument)
ii) The new physicalism will have to have something like perspectives (Wilber’s argument) which operate on a physicalist base - a set of possibilities perhaps (Seth Lloyd’s argument) - and shape them.
iii) The interaction of perspectives with a base set of possibilities generates experience (my hypothesis).
iv) As a by-product, when perspectives operate on possibilities, you get actual causation and not merely correlations (argument adapted from decoherence).

All this is obviously on the wild side, but please note that we need the new physicalism to accommodate experience and when we use perspectives as one aspect of the physical operating on possibilities, we get causation for free.

Physics and Consciousness

08.01.2006 permalink Physics I've been reading (and just finished) ”Programming the Universe” by Seth Lloyd. The central claim in the book is that the Kosmos is either a quantum computer or is indistinguishable from it. The book also has a clear explanation of decoherence - the mechanism (or is it) by which the Kosmos isolates different possibilities. I got into quantum mechanics (QM) via reading David Bohm's work a looong time ago but never understood it. And I started getting tired (and irritated) by newage attempts to use QM to justify just about anything from precognition to consciousness. I recommend Bohm and Hiley's book ”The Undivided Universe” BTW to anyone who wants to come to grips with Bohm's interpretation of QM. In particular, I think Bohm's (and de Broglie's) work are very very useful in relating the Schrodinger equation to the classical (and earlier) Hamilton-Jacobi equation and Liouville's equation. No other interpretation of QM makes the contact to classical mechanics as clearly as Bohm's interpretation. (For a very recent and tremendously helpful pedagogical take on all this, check out Jeremy Butterfield's article ”On Hamilton-Jacobi theory…”)

And now back to Seth Lloyd. Besides Seth Lloyd's explication of the Kosmos as a quantum computer, his book also sows the seeds for a fourth road to quantum gravity. The previous three roads to quantum gravity (following Lee Smolin's taxonomy) are i) black hole thermodynamics, ii) loop quantum gravity and iii) string theory. While this fourth road is not traveled much by Seth Lloyd in his book, he does point to his paper on the topic. I think this work is tremendously exciting since it posits a more fundamental realm - the quantum computer - as responsible for generating particles, fields and spacetime.

The reason why I'm mentioning Seth Lloyd's work is that notions of the Kosmos as a simulation has interesting resonances with virtual worlds, the Matrix, maya etc. And since Seth Lloyd doesn't mention consciousness, his theory and other similar theories most likely cannot accommodate consciousness or experience. If we, following Spinoza and Wilber, assign quantum computing simulation as one aspect (and a fundamental bottom up aspect at that) of the Kosmos, perhaps there is another (top down?) aspect of the Kosmos that can help accommodate experience. Can an expanded version of decoherence fill this role? These are obvious questions. (I hope we don't see a gazillion papers on quantum computing + decoherence solving all mysteries like we did with QM + wave function collapse. I don't think I could take one more go around of that madness.) Access: Public Type: Blog Add Comment posted by Anand

07.26.2006 permalink Consciousness The person who has done the most (in my opinion) to resurrect the problem of consciousness and bring it back to the forefront of analytic philosophy is David Chalmers. Chalmers has achieved two very important and unrelated things.First, he overpowered Daniel Dennett in a knockdown, take no prisoners metaphorical battle. (This battle was also a generational conflict in that it pitted a boomer against a Gen-X). Two of the very best books on consciousness in the 90s were Daniel Dennett's _Consciousness Explained_ and David Chalmers' _The Conscious Mind_. Dennett's book is about the best you can do if you wanted to fit consciousness into the existing scientific framework. In retrospect, Dennett's deconstruction of the self - as a “center of narrative gravity” wherein the one and the many are simply two focal endpoints in perspective - is brilliant in the way it uses deconstruction as a tool to accommodate consciousness. In sharp contrast, Chalmers - after exhaustively searching for a way for scientific materialism to be true - comes to the conclusion that consciousness cannot be explained in the current scientific framework.

Second, Chalmers in the course of showing that consciousness cannot be accommodated in the present natural order, also comes to the conclusion that almost all varieties of emergence cannot be sustained either except for a radical emergentist view wherein consciousness 'pops out' at a certain level of complexity. (All other forms of emergence are shown to be fundamentally inadequate.) Radical emergence becomes rapidly unpalatable when you carefully examine it in this light. For a former emergentist such as myself, it took a very long time to finally accept that Chalmers was right and that one must look elsewhere for a fundamental theory. Access: Public Type: Blog Add Comment posted by Anand

The psychic being is our true being

Psychotherapy and Indian thought Dr. Alok Pandey
Editor's note: The Indian psyche has some special inherent features that act as checks to mental imbalance. This article discusses how they can be used in psychotherapeutic practice

Introduction: the two approaches If psychotherapy is the science and art of changing psychological patterns creating mental distress and disorder, then it must base itself on the most complete possible knowledge and understanding of what a human being is and can become. Much psychotherapy is, however, based on what a human being was, either in his remote past as a race or in his more recent infancy and childhood. Tracing the roots of our present problem in this way, it tries to put a corrective by setting things right there. The principle sounds good in its own right but there arise two fundamental difficulties.

The first is about defining the past itself. In other words, how far back does our past go? The second is about the future. In other words, is the goal of psychotherapy to return the client to his past (when he was healthy) or maximum present possibility or is it to utilise his crisis for an inner evolutionary journey towards a more meaningful future? That is to say, can it be used as a learning experience for growth and progress? It is here that we come across divergent world-views of man and his goal, his destiny and scope, views which give a different understanding of his past and future. Broadly these can be divided into two main categories, though risking oversimplification for the sake of easier comprehension.

The grand synthesis and more It is here that Sri Aurobindo steps in with His Yoga, stretching the line of experience through knowledge and power to the heights where they both reconcile. It is not an eclectic combination of different ways and paths. There is more, something much more, not to be found elsewhere. What it is and how it can help us in our knowledge and practice of medicine and psychiatry is what we turn to now. For our present purposes, we shall confine ourselves to the problem of psychological wellbeing and envision it against a background of ancient Indian thought, by summarizing the main issues involved.

Firstly man himself. Sri Aurobindo reaffirms that man is no mere aggregate of cells or chemical reactions. This is only his outer material frame. His true identity is his soul. Sri Aurobindo does not use the word 'soul' in a vague general sense. There is a universal Self of all but there is also an individual soul that has been projected from the One Self into the drama of our earthly life. This individual soul, called the psychic being, is an important key to our psychological wellbeing. The psychic being is our true being, the secret divinity in us. Its very essence is peace, harmony and joy; it has a natural affinity to the true, good and beautiful. However, it is persistently veiled in man by the surface nature and its movements. But even in the crudest human natures there exists some ray of light and hope, a little spark of undying truth.

The validity of psychism

Edward Berge Says: August 2nd, 2006 at 7:36 am Anand, There is an article at Integral Visioning called “TSK Inquiry in AQAL Space” by Bruce Alderman. He compares Wilber’s ideas to Tarthang Tulku’s. I haven’t read it yet in depth, just skimmed a few points quickly, so cannot provide a detailed comparison as yet. But it might answer some of your questions about more fundamental realities like time and space and how they might relate to the AQAL framework.

Andy Smith Says: August 2nd, 2006 at 8:48 am Marko: The (next) higher system would presumably be the earth and all its life. I see our relationship to this as much like the relationship of cells in the brain to the organism, except that the organism is more or less completed evolutionarily, whereas the earth in this sense is still very much evolving.

Anand, I would certainly say that Wilber is a panpsychist, or something very close to that. He believes that all forms of existence, or at least all individual holons, have an interior, which is something like a consciousness or experience or perspective. He does claim that everything is perspective. What do you mean by a “naturalistic base.” Just something out there that perspectives perceive? Sometimes Wilber sounds like that, sometimes he sounds more as though there are only perspectives.

Flirting with incurable view of emptiness

Anand Rangarajan Says: August 2nd, 2006 at 5:06 am Hi Mark, Thanks for that explanation of both interior/exterior and individual/collective. You say “These are not made up categories - they are forms of perceiving, knowing being and doing that all knowledge quests describe in some way.” [edited] I’ve wondered for a while if this - Wilber’s taxonomy - was not a dual-aspect (or perhaps quad-aspect) theory in disguise. From my (physicalist) perspective, these distinctions cannot be basic - they have to be naturalized. That is, there has to be something basic that entails these distinctions and you cannot begin with them.

I also find the notion of holons to be very problematic and if all holons have an interior, it sounds as though Wilber is a panpsychist or at least headed in that direction. Having said all this, recently Wilber seems to be becoming a pan-perspectivist. If so, can’t he ditch all this earlier stuff about holons, interior/exterior, individual/collective etc.? He could begin with perspectives and a naturalistic base (that generates familiar things like particles, fields and spacetime) and use it to entail everything else. Of course, I could be wrong about the way he uses the word perspective and consequently may have misunderstood him.

Anand Rangarajan Says: August 2nd, 2006 at 6:18 pm Edward: Thanks for the TSK link. I know someone who knows TSK inside out and will check with him. Oddly he’s pro Dennett and thinks that Dennett has solved the mind-body problem - weird - I know.

Andy: I don’t understand why Wilber should say that “everything is perspective” unless he means something else by perspective. But we don’t need to worry about the way he uses the word. There’s no reason why we can’t follow Stoljar and begin with the idea that a new physics is required to accommodate experience - and this stems from his ignorance hypothesis. We set up the new physics - a naturalistic “bottom up” base that generates the familiar world of particles, fields, spacetime etc. - and then add a top down aspect - namely perspectives.

The “interaction” of perspectives with the bottom up content generates experience. For example, I find it quite natural to believe that a perspective constrains a set of bottom up possibilities. If the perspective is 1st person, you’ll get experience in the interior of the perspectival boundary. You could even get quite cheeky and posit a null perspective that doesn’t constrain any possibility - resulting in an emptiness perspective - but that’s probably flirting with an incurable view of emptiness.

While the above is unbelievably speculative, it follows Stoljar and Seth Lloyd - the naturalistic base - and adds perspectives in a “top down” fashion. What do y’all think? I asked Chalmers if this made sense and while he thought it was wild, he didn’t think there was anything wrong with it. Could be a clean approach to the problem of accommodating experience.

The interior-exterior categories

mark Says: August 1st, 2006 at 11:02 pm Hi Anand, one way of viewing the interior-exterior and individual-collective are that they are fundamental ways of explaining reality. All scientists and philosophers have used forms of explanation that rely on these distinctions. These are not made up categories they are forms of percieving, knowling being and doing that all knowledge quests describe in some way.

The interior-exterior can be thought of in terms of the nominalism-realism distinction in onology, interpretivism-positivism in epistemology, voluntarism-determinism in discussions of human nature, ideographic-nomothetic in methodology, and subjective-objective in phenomenology. Anywhere where these or similar terms are used then the interior-exterior distinction is relevant.

The individual-collective dimension is berhaps the most important one in the social sciences. In many ways the array of disciplines that are taught in Universities are based on this distinction, e.g. the distinction between psychology and sociology, quantum theory and cosmology, biology and ecology, chemistry and materials engineering. Once again they are not categories that Wilber has pulled out of the air. In the human sciences the individual-collective dimension is also known as the micro-macro link (see Alexander, J. C., Bernard, G., Münch, R. & Smelser, N. J., 1987, ‘The Micro-Macro Link’, University of California Press, Los Angeles, also the work of Giddens and Luhman). The individual-collective dimension is crucial in organisation studies because organising is such an inherent quality of working together.

The dualism that these distinctions set up are not epiphenomenal. Every philosopher and scientists battles with how to deal with the problems they throw up. These dualisms are real and enduring and so the question that Wilber poses is - recognising these dualisms how do we create holisitic views of our world. Wilber’s suggested solutions to this issue are profound and novel. They may be inadequate in many ways but those who dismiss them will be the poorer for it.

There are other contenders of course for fundamental dimensions to reality - form-energy might be one, task-relationship might be another. Wilber has never denied the possibility for other dimensions but the ones he describes need to be included in any framework for explaning how we have made some sort of sense of it all for the past couple of millennia.

mark Says: August 2nd, 2006 at 7:17 pm Hi Anand, you could very easily read a dual-aspect or even a supervenience interpretation into Wilber’s interior-exterior proposition. It’s an extremely general delineation and you need to approach it as a way of aknowledging different knowledge quests rather than as a firm definition of theories of consciousness etc.

Wilber is proposing that reality can be considered in terms of the distinctions between such contrasts as nominalism-realism, interpretivism-positivism, voluntarism-determinism, ideographic-nomothetic, subjective-objective, physicalism and psychism. The history of philosophy (east and west) is recorded in many ways through the debate between such viewpoints, hence Wilber’s proposition is very reasonable.

He is attempting to make generalisations and abstractions so that a framework can be assempled that will accommodate (not assimilate) many different points of view into a meaningful system of thought. If you hold on dogedly to one of those points of view (physicalism) and deny the validity of the others (psychism) you will never understand what Wilber is on about.

"Indigo" and "Crystal" aura colours

Next step in our evolution Dr. Soumitra Basu April 2006

Sri Aurobindo International Institute for Integral Health and Research

What are indigo and crystal children and adults? How do you know if you, or someone you know, is an Indigo or Crystal Child or Adult? We will describe the main features and characteristics of these people. But we want to stress that the Indigo/Crystal phenomenon is the next step in our evolution as a human species. We are all, in some way, becoming more like the Indigo and Crystal people. They are here to show us the way, and so the information can be applied more generally to all of us as we make the transition to the next stage of our growth and evolution.

The Indigo Children have been incarnating on the Earth for the last 100 years. The early Indigos were pioneers and wayshowers. After World War II, a significant number were born, and these are the Indigo adults of today. However, in the 1970s a major wave of Indigos was born, and so we have a whole generation of Indigos who are now in their late twenties and early thirties who are about to take their place as leaders in the world. Indigos continued to be born up to about 2000, with increasing abilities and degrees of technological and creative sophistication.

The Crystal Children began to appear on the planet from about 2000, although some date them slightly earlier. These are extremely powerful children, whose main purpose is to take us to the next level in our evolution, and reveal to us our inner power and divinity. They function as a group consciousness rather than as individuals, and they live by the" Law of One" or Unity Consciousness. They are a powerful force for love and peace on the planet.

The Indigo and Crystal Adults are composed of two groups. Firstly, there are those who were born as Indigos and are now making the transition to Crystal. This means they undergo a spiritual and physical transformation that awakens their "Christ" or "Crystal" consciousness and links them with the Crystal children as part of the evolutionary wave of change. The second group is those who were born without these qualities, but have acquired or are in the process of acquiring them through their own hard work and the diligent following of a spiritual path. Yes, this means that all of us have the potential to be part of the emerging group of "human angels".

The following extract describes the difference between Indigo and Crystal Children. It is from Doreen Virtue's article Indigo and Crystal Children: The first thing most people notice about Crystal Children is their eyes, large, penetrating, and wise beyond their years. Their eyes lock on and hypnotize you, while you realize your soul is being laid bare for the child to see. Perhaps you've noticed this special new "breed" of children rapidly populating our planet. They are happy, delightful and forgiving. This generation of new lightworkers, roughly ages 0 through 7, are like no previous generation. Ideal in many ways, they are the pointers for where humanity is headed ... and its a good direction!

The older children (approximately age 7 through 25), called "indigo Children", share some characteristics with the Crystal Children. Both generations are highly sensitive and psychic, and have important life purposes. The main difference is their temperament. Indigos have a warrior spirit, because their collective purpose is to mash down old systems that no longer serve us. They are here to quash government, educational, and legal systems that lack integrity. To accomplish this end, they need tempers and fiery determination.

Those adults who resist change and who value conformity may misunderstand the Indigos. They are often mislabeled with psychiatric diagnoses of Attention Deficit with Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Sadly, when they are medicated, the Indigos often lose their beautiful sensitivity, spiritual gifts and warrior energy..........In contrast, the Crystal Children are blissful and even-tempered. Sure, they may have tantrums occasionally, but these children are largely forgiving and easy-going. The Crystals are the generation who benefit from the Indigos trailblazing. First, the Indigo Children lead with a machete, cutting down anything that lacks integrity. Then the Crystal Children follow the cleared path, into a safer and more secure world.

The terms "Indigo" and "Crystal" were given to these two generations because they most accurately describe their aura colours and energy patterns. Indigo children have a lot of indigo blue in their auras. This is the colour of the "third eye chakra", which is the energy center inside the head located between the two eyebrows. This chakra regulates clairvoyance, or the ability to see energy, visions, and spirits. Many of the Indigo children are clairvoyant

The Crystal Children have opalescent auras, with beautiful multi-colours in pastel hues. This generation also shows a fascination for crystals and rocks...Indigo Children can sense dishonesty, like a dog can sense fear. Indigos know when they're being lied to, patronized, or manipulated. And since their collective purpose is to usher us into a new world of integrity, the Indigos inner lie-detectors are integral. As mentioned before, this warrior spirit is threatening to some adults. And the Indigos are unable to conform to dysfunctional situations at home, work, or school. They don't have the ability to dissociate from their feelings and pretend like everything's okay ...unless they are medicated or sedated. Crystal Children's innate spiritual gifts are also misunderstood. Specifically, their telepathic abilities which lead them to talk later in life.

In the new world which the Indigos are ushering in, we will all be much more aware of our intuitive thoughts and feelings. We won't rely so much upon the spoken or written word. Communication will be faster, more direct, and more honest, because it will be mind to mind. Already, increasing numbers of us are getting in touch with our psychic abilities. Our interest in the paranormal is at an all-time high, accompanied by books, television shows, and movies on the topic.

So, it's not surprising that the generation following the Indigos are incredibly telepathic. Many of the Crystal Children have delayed speech patterns, and its not uncommon for them to wait until they're 3 or 4 years old to begin speaking. But parents tell me they have no trouble communicating with their silent children. Far from it! The parents engage in mind-to-mind communication with their Crystal Children. And the Crystals use a combination of telepathy, self-fashioned sign language, and sounds (including song) to get their point across. The trouble comes about when the Crystals are judged by medical and educational personnel as having "abnormal" speaking patterns. It's no coincidence that as the number of Crystals are born, that the number of diagnoses for autism is at a record high.

It's true that the Crystal Children are different from other generations. But why do we need to pathologize these differences? If the children are successfully communicating at home, and the parents are'nt reporting any problems... then why try to make a problem? The diagnostic criteria for autism is quite clear. It states that the autistic person lives in his or her own world, and is disconnected from other people. The autistic person doesn't talk because of an indifference to communicating with others.Crystal Children are quite the opposite. They are among the most connected, communicative, caring and cuddly of any generation. They are also quite philosophical and spiritually gifted. And they display an unprecedented level of kindness and sensitivity to this world. Crystal Children spontaneously hug and care for people in need. An autistic person wouldn't do that!

In my book "The Care and Feeding of Indigo Children", I wrote that ADHD should stand for Attention Dialed into a Higher Dimension. This would more accurately describe that generation. In the same vein, Crystal Children don't warrant a label of autism. They aren't autistic! They're AWE-tistic!

These children are worthy of awe, not labels of dysfunction. If anyone is dysfunctional, it's the systems that aren't accommodating the continuing evolution of the human species. If we shame the children with labels, or medicate them into submission, we will have undermined a heaven-sent gift. We will crush a civilization before its had time to take roots. Fortunately, there are many positive solutions and alternatives. And the same heaven that sent us the Crystal Children can assist those of us who are advocates for the children..

Metaphysical aspects of death

What is death? Dr. R.L. Bijlani Life is a phenomenon shrouded in mystery, and so is death. Editor's note: Written by an eminent physiologist, this article explores different aspects of death. Dr.R.L. Bijlani has been working on Yoga/physiology at the All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi for many years.

Decentralisation and dispersion of cells: The Mother described death as the“decentralisation and dispersion of the cells which make up the physical body (8).” To elaborate, She said, “Death is the decentralisation of the consciousness contained in the body’s cells (9).” The Supreme Consciousness expresses itself in the universe in diverse forms. Each form expresses the universal Consciousness to varying degrees. Although the level of expression differs, every atom has a consciousness, every cell has a consciousness, and every individual has a consciousness. During much of the lifetime of an individual, the consciousness of each cell is centred around the consciousness of the individual. But there comes a time when this centralisation becomes weak.

As the Mother says, “The central will of the physical being abdicates its will to hold all the cells together… It is this which inevitably precedes death (10).” In order to understand why and when the process of decentralisation begins, one may turn to what happens before decentralisation. The consciousness of the individual is not static during life. Its ultimate destiny is to meet its source, or to express the Supreme Consciousness or Universal Spirit completely. These steps are taken using the body as an instrument. As a result of these steps, there is a growth in the consciousness of the individual. But due to the limited plasticity of the body, further growth of consciousness is not possible while retaining the same body. The body which served as an instrument for the growth of consciousness now becomes a bar to further growth...

Life is a phenomenon shrouded in mystery, and so is death. Clinical death is now defined as the permanent and irreversible cessation of function of any one of the three interconnected vital systems, viz. nervous system, circulatory system and respiratory system. Even after the person as a whole is no longer alive, individual cells and tissues remain viable for variable periods of time, making their transplantation possible. Physiologically, death represents failure of the homeostatic mechanisms. Cell death by necrosis as well as apoptosis is a regular phenomenon, but the organism continues to be alive due to replacement of cells. However, a point is reached when replacement and physiological reserve are unable to compensate for deterioration due to aging. Impairment of function beyond a point in one or more vital organs results in death of the whole organism.

The Mother described death as the “decentralisation and dispersion of cells (21).”At the mental level, the replacement of the ‘will to live’ by a ‘wish to die’ is probably the beginning of decentralisation. Decentralisation is followed by ill-health, and finally death. On the purely material plane, the time of death is inexorably fixed. But on higher planes of consciousness, a different type of determinism prevails. That is why the will to live, or its absence, may have a role in determining the time of death. Psychoneuroimmunology provides some partial but plausible explanations for the phenomenon.Death is both a physiological and a spiritual necessity. As Sri Aurobindo says:

“Even if Science…were to discover the necessary conditions or means for an indefinite survival of the body, …the soul would find some way to abandon it and pass on to a new incarnation …its true inmost reason is the spiritual necessity for the evolution of a new being(22).”However, that does not mean death will always be there in its present form. The Mother reassures us that with the descent of a new level of consciousness on earth, death is now “the memory of a disastrous past (23).”

What is death?

Dr. R.L. Bijlani Editor's note: Written by an eminent physiologist, this article explores different aspects of death.

Death is both an event and a process. It is an event after which a collection of matter that was once alive becomes just a collection of matter. Nobody has seen what it is that escapes from the living body during this radical transformation. That is why the phenomenon called life is shrouded in mystery. It naturally follows that the event during which it escapes is equally mysterious. But the event called death is the culmination of a process from which it cannot be divorced, viz. the process of aging.

In a broad sense, aging is a continuous process which begins with conception and ends with death. But what is more relevant to death is the impairment of function seen in the latter part of life. In this restricted sense, aging is due to a decrease in the efficiency of homeostatic mechanisms. Hence the body is unable to mount an adequate response to challenges originating in the external or internal environment. This increases the vulnerability of the individual to a number of diseases, to one of which he finally succumbs during the event called death. Although progress towards the event of death may be a slow and insidious process, the event is precipitated when the functional capacity of at least one of the vital organs falls below a critical minimum. When that happens, the heart stops beating or the lungs stop breathing. In either case, the result is that no part of the body any longer has a continuous supply of oxygen. However, modern technology may create situations which are not so clear-cut. The lungs may be made to work like bellows by mechanical means in a person who is unlikely to be ever able to regain meaningful life. That is what has necessitated the concept of brain death. If all the features of brain death are present, it is no longer justified to continue artificial life-support. But since artificial life-support may maintain a large number of organs in a viable state long after brain death, these organs are still fit to be transplanted where they can continue to live in another body.

I. Physical aspects of death
Clinical death
Doctors know very little about death. The only course in which they learn the subject at some length is forensic medicine. This is so because it is commonly assumed that their job is to postpone death as much as possible. If inspite of their efforts a patient dies, it signifies their failure, and they are out of the picture except perhaps to answer, in some cases, unpleasant medicolegal questions such as the time of death or the cause of death. That is why, confronted with an incurable fatal disease, doctors are often unwilling to face the issue. They avoid talking about impending death to the patient or relatives. They are ill-equipped to talk to them in a manner that would make acceptance of the inevitable easier. Instead, they hide their distaste for death behind a cloak of intense activity. In the pre-ICU days, the parting service to the patient was cardiopulmonary resuscitation and intra-cardiac adrenaline. These days, the patient is transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) where tubes, flashes and beeps occupy the attention of doctors and nurses more than the patient to whom the equipment is connected. It is only recently that the importance of facing the issue of dying has been recognized, and some attention given to the best way of doing so (1). But this new trend is yet to get reflected in the medical curricula.

Pronouncing clinical death
Till about forty years ago, the boundary between life and death was clinically well defined. Death was defined as total stoppage of blood circulation and a consequent cessation of the animal and vital functions, such as respiration and pulsation (2). Doctors pronounced death when respiration and heartbeat had ceased, and when it seemed certain that these functions would not start and could not be started again (3). This could be presumed if heartbeat and breathing remained absent for at least ten minutes because the brain survives without oxygen for only about three minutes, and without a living brain, resumption of circulation and respiration is impossible. But now that respiration and circulation can be maintained artificially for long periods of time, brain death has become an important criterion of death. Now death is defined as the permanent and irreversible cessation of function of any one of the three interconnected vital systems, viz. nervous system, circulatory system and respiratory system (4). If any one of these systems fails, the other two also fail because the three systems are interlinked. The criteria of brain death are:

a. fixed, dilated pupils, unresponsive to light.b. absence of corneal reflex, vestibuleocular reflex and cough reflex.c. absence of cranial motor nerve responses to painful stimuli.d. inability to breathe when the mechanical assistance provided by the ventilator is temporarily withdrawn.e. coma and inability to breathe spontaneously continuously for at least six hours.f. EEG silence continuously for at least thirty minutes. EEG silence is defined as an absence of electrical potentials over 2 microvolts from symmetrically placed electrode pairs over 10cms apart and with an interelectrode resistance of between 100 and 10,000 ohms (5).

However, very few countries insist that an EEG be available for determining brain death: clinical criteria are considered adequate. Being an expensive facility, EEG cannot be done in every hospital. Brain death has to be certified by a team of doctors consisting of a neurologist, anaesthesiologist and an experienced doctor of the intensive care unit of the hospital. The patient should be examined by the team at least twice at an interval of 6-12 hours. Furthermore, none of the members of the team should have any interest in transplantation of an organ from the patient.

The criteria of brain death have become necessary because artificial life-support systems can today keep intact in several patients the two cardinal signs of life, heartbeat and breathing, for several months after all reasonable hope of resuscitation has disappeared. Technology can thus maintain a semblance of life when the person is not alive any more. Therefore additional criteria are needed to determine the point at which hope may be abandoned, and support systems switched off. On the other hand, strict guidelines for certifying brain death are also necessary because artificial life-support can keep several organs in the body fit for transplantation for several hours after the person as a whole is, for all practical purposes, dead.

15th of August

This 15th of August is a triply special day for all of us. It is Sri Aurobindo's birthday as well as the birthday of free India...On 15th August 2006, the 134th birth anniversary of Sri Aurobindo will be observed. On this occasion, the following two programmes will be organised at the Society's Beach Office, Pondicherry: 1. The Annual Conference of the Society from 12th to 14th August 2006.
2. A Study Camp on Sri Aurobindo's "Essays on the Gita" by Dr. Mangesh V.Nadkarni will be held at the Society's Beach Office hall, Pondicherry, from 17th to 26th August 2006. There will be two sessions daily: 9:00 to 10:00 am and 10:30 to 11:45 am...It is our happy privilege to work for a new India and a new world according to the vision of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. All are welcome to the above programmes. Sri Aurobindo Society Website

Nirodbaran Passes Away

Shri Nirodbaran, a long time disciple of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, passed away on 17 July 2006 at the age of 102. Born in the year 1903, he joined the Ashram in 1933 after returning from England as a qualified doctor. In the ashram, besides taking care of the Ashram dispensary, he also took to writing potery as a means of sadhana, under the guidance of Sri Aurobindo.

His correspondence with the Master for the first five years has been published as "Correspondence with Sri Aurobindo" which reveals not only his spiritual quest but also an altogether different aspect of Sri Aurobindo where he answers the disciple's questions with an unsurpassed humour and spiritual insight. He was also one of the personal attendants of Sri Aurobindo for twelve years, from 1938 to 1950. He was 103 when he left the body. Bur perhaps, most important, he was the scribe to whom Sri Aurobindo dictated his epic poem 'Savitri', in the later years. Sri Aurobindo Society Website

Consciousness is the fundamental reality

Edward Berge Says: July 31st, 2006 at 12:26 pm From “Mystical Consciousness is a Process Perspective” by Ernest L. Simmons, Whitehead on Consciousness

What Aurobindo had realized in the Nirvana experience was the cessation of the ego-consciousness in the all-pervading peace of the silent Brahman. The sudden disappearance of the ego is what gives the sense of the unreality of the external world, but for Aurobindo this experience lasted only a short while, being replaced by more integral experiences of an “immense Divine Reality” behind, above, and within everything that had at first appeared to be illusory (OH 102). Through these experiences the “That” was realized as pure, transcendent, unqualified Consciousness, such that Aurobindo could conclude that, “Consciousness is a fundamental thing, the fundamental thing in existence — it is the energy, the motion, the movement of consciousness that creates the universe and all that is in it — not only the macrocosm but the microcosm is nothing but consciousness arranging itself” (LY 236).

Consciousness is then the fundamental reality in the universe of which all existence is a manifestation yet which itself is beyond any final qualification. “Consciousness” for Whitehead has a more restricted use applying to the subjective form of particular types of intellectual feelings; thus something much broader in Whitehead’s conceptuality must be found. Is there anything in Whitehead’s system which would compare to this experience of the qualityless reality? The answer is yes. It is creativity experienced as universal subjectivity. The closest parallel to the experience of the silent Brahman as pure consciousness is the experience of creativity as the pure subjectivity of the universe. Consciousness is absolutely fundamental for Aurobindo, and creativity is for Whitehead, so it is the purpose of this subsection to compare the experience of these two fundamental realities.

New physics to accommodate experience

Anand Rangarajan Says: July 31st, 2006 at 11:08 am I’m not accusing Andy Smith of saying that “consciousness can’t be accommodated into the physical”. I’m merely pointing out that the word physical can be redefined to include experience. This is very different from Chalmers’ property dualism. In fact Stoljar repudiates Chalmers’ statement that “consciousness is not logically supervenient on the physical” by claiming ignorance of the physical in his book “Ignorance and Imagination.” Consciousness need not be a fundamental propery since it can now supervene - depend on - a nonexperiential physical property.

As for involutionary givens, what Wilber says in the beginning of footnote 26 to Excerpt A is “Put differently, are there any givens that seem to have existed prior to the Big Bang?” Since Stoljar claims ignorance of the true physical, he can claim that the Big Bang, particles, fields , spacetime and - yes, and - experience are generated by the true underlying physical nature of the Kosmos. We just don’t know what it is. For example, particles, fields and spacetime could be a quantum computing simulation and this is exactly the approach taken by Seth Lloyd in his book “Programming the Universe”.

Stoljar’s fundamental point is that by simulatenously appealing to an underlying physicalism and by appealing to present ignorance of that physical, we can move forward on the hard problem. So, there’s no need for an a priori idealism, materialism, panpsychism, dual aspect or property dualism. Now, generating a positive proposal on a redefined physical that can accommodate experience may be hard, but not as hard as the original hard problem. And, it does not have to be the “true” physical - whatever that means - but merely a physical that can accommodate experience.

Anand Rangarajan Says: July 31st, 2006 at 4:35 pm Speaking for myself here, since we don’t know what the contours of a new physics will be - i.e. a new physics that accommodates experience - we have to be speculative. One such speculation is that there is a top down irreducibly perspectival aspect to the Kosmos. That is, perhaps experience is supervenient - depends on - perspectives shaped by and shaping a quantum computing base. If this is the way a future physics will proceed, I do not see why it cannot incorporate postmodern insights (regarding enactment of a world, creation of different perspectives etc.) along the way. After all, it is hard to have experience without perspective.

Anand Rangarajan Says: August 1st, 2006 at 3:56 am For something as mysterious as consciousness, it makes sense to adopt IMP (integral methodological pluralism). However, to be a devil’s advocate for a moment, why 8 perspectives, why not 64 or just 2 for that matter? What makes these perspectives fundamentally different? Do some perspectives supervene on other perspectives? Given the importance of perspective to the problem of experience, we need a model of perspective - which would lead to a metaperspective.

Anand Rangarajan Says: August 1st, 2006 at 7:34 am I’m sorry but I find Wilber’s notions of quadrants and AQAL to be deeply problematic. While AQAL is tremendously helpful in a taxonomy sort of way (in categorizing methodologies), I’m stumped by Wilber’s notions of interior/exterior and individual/collective. Interior/exterior of what exactly? Doesn’t interior/exterior imply a boundary? What is the nature of that boundary? And individual/collective similarly implies notions of classification of subjects/objects into types. What’s the origin of that? Don’t get me wrong. I know WIlber is held in very high esteem here and I’ve certainly benefited a great deal (in terms of spiritual growth) from his books. I need a more fundamental theory of the origin of interior/exterior, individual/collective and of perspectives. And after discussing Wilber with Keith Sutherland (Journal of Consciousness Studies editor - ) and Dave Chalmers, I think (not sure) that they have a similar opinion.

Philosophy East and West

On Philosophical Synthesis Sri Aurobindo Selected by Indra Sen

Philosophy East and West, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Jan., 1963) , pp. 291-293

Consciousness and the language

Ignorance and Imagination: The Epistemic Origin of the Problem of Consciousness (Philosophy of Mind Series) by Daniel Stoljar Amazon.com Home

Ignorance and Imagination advances a novel way to resolve the central philosophical problem about the mind: how it is that consciousness or experience fits into a larger naturalistic picture of the world. The correct response to the problem, Stoljar argues, is not to posit a realm of experience distinct from the physical, nor to deny the reality of phenomenal experience, nor even to rethink our understanding of consciousness and the language we use to talk about it. Instead, we should view the problem itself as a consequence of our ignorance of the relevant physical facts. Stoljar shows that this change of orientation is well motivated historically, empirically, and philosophically, and that it has none of the side effects it is sometimes thought to have. The result is a philosophical perspective on the mind that has a number of far-reaching consequences: for consciousness studies, for our place in nature, and for the way we think about the relationship between philosophy and science.

The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Philosophy of Mind Series) by David J. Chalmers Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Mindreading (Philosophy of Mind Series) by Alvin I. Goldman Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science (Contemporary Debates in Philosophy) by Adele Abrahamsen Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (Contemporary Debates in Philosophy) by Matthias Steup

Consciousness & Causality

A Place for Consciousness: Probing the Deep Structure of the Natural World (Philosophy of Mind Series) by Gregg Rosenberg

THE book to read about consciousness and/or causation, April 28, 2005 Reviewer: John R. Gregg - See all my reviews Rosenberg spends the first part of his book arguing against the various flavors of reductive materialism and functionalism, and for a more or less Whiteheadian form of panpsychism. He goes on to make some claims about the kinds of properties we would expect of proto-consciousness at the lowest levels. He points out that panpsychism commonly has a distinctly ad hoc air about it, in that we have a high level phenomenon, consciousness, and we explain it by jamming in a new cog in the machine at the lowest possible levels of physics.

He counters this by claiming that there are independent reasons for positing a layer underneath physics, and we can make certain claims about what this layer would have to be like completely without reference to the question of consciousness (or proto-consciousness), and in the end the properties we demand of this sub-physics layer match up nicely with the properties we require of proto-consciousness. His layer underneath physics is causation. David Hume is the West's great philosopher of causation, and Rosenberg argues that Humean causation can not be the whole story, and that we should think about causation a bit more.

"Causation is a funny thing. We do not understand it." Rosenberg says that time and space are higher-level concepts than causation, and are derived from it. He quotes Brian Cantwell-Smith: "Distance is what there is no action at." And Rosenberg himself: "There is a causality condition on locality, not a locality condition on causality." He goes on to argue about the causal mesh, and the sorts of laws of physics which could be built out of different configurations of effective and receptive properties of objects, and what constitutes an object in the first place. Then he ties it all back to consciousness at the end.

If Rosenberg is right, he should get a Nobel prize. If he is wrong, his is still an Important Book, because it actually pounds a stake in the ground and lays out a theory, or at least a template of a future theory. No one else does this. Even in this fringey branch of philosophy, people are much too conservative, and Rosenberg has boldly gone where no one has gone before. But he has done so rigorously, level headedly, admitting where he is being speculative, but arguing why the circumstantial evidence supports his speculations. Amazon.com Home

The true nature of the physical

David Chalmers, Daniel Stoljar, Gregg Rosenberg

Anand Rangarajan Says: July 30th, 2006 at 7:23 pm Andy Smith said, “Nobody has even offered a coherent explanation of how our ordinary consciousness, which has a definite relationship to the brain, can be associated with the physical world.”

While this is somewhat true, recently analytic philosophers have started arguing that our ignorance regarding the true nature of the physical is responsible for the hard problem of consciousness. See Daniel Stoljar’s article entitled “Two Conceptions of the Physical” or his recent book “Ignorance and Imagination”

In particular, Stoljar’s “Two Conceptions…” article is required reading in most analytic philosophy departments. Taking into account Stoljar’s articles and David Chalmers’ earlier efforts in addressing the hard problem of consciousness, it is premature to assume that consciousness cannot be accommodated into the physical - for the simple reason that the physical itself is not well defined at present. Also for a dual aspect panpsychist approach to consciousness which clearly associates consciousness with the physical world, please see Gregg Rosenberg’s “A Place for Consciousness”