Kaagen!
Let's have lunch! Although I haven't attacked this from that set of knowledge, it resonates with me. Always wanted to dive into Stiener. Okay, thank you for sharing your POV and the library that influences it.
Language is inherently dualistic as you pointed out. The idea of projective geometry as well as Goetheanistic phenomenology is to develop an intuitive sense of the relationship between percepts and concepts. The language used to describe these techniques is of course loaded, but the idea is not to become stuck in the language, but only be guided by it to a direct perception of this relationship. This is were the genius of Goethe as an artist-scientist is useful since he showed us a way to use art to transcend the limitations of the object/subject scientific consciousness, but remain within waking consciousness.
Oh i agree with plenty of this, at some point the question produces an answer that lay in stillness, silence, and beyond language.
The difference between this method and the use of an entheogen is that it is more suited to the current state of human consciousness i.m.o.
To each his/her own rules about their own consciousness and what is allowable, profitable, usable, meaningful.
However widespread ignorance of the use of entheogens in the evolution of consciousness is certainly not useful and for me the work of Prof. Lewis-Williams I referred to in an earlier post goes a long way in putting this part of humanity into perspective.
I tend to find Terence Mckenna's ideas about language development coming from mushrooms to resonate with me. It makes sense, our intelligence has evolved because of entheogenic plants and vegetables.
Perhaps your experiences with entheogen's will help here. The point is intuitively regarded as solid and finite. The "self" is also experienced as point-like in everyday waking consciousness. However it is also experienced as infinite in depth. "Know thyself" is a lifelong task.
A point in a circle, everywhere is the center with the circumference nowhere to be found. It's not just the journey of the self, but the selves, all of us together. We need each other to know we exist. The dialogue between self/other is the actual blueprint. Once the self is known, it must be transcended into 'us'. This is a sticking point for many who seek out the knowledge of self. At some point, as you mentioned, we experience that all knowledge is false, and what becomes relevant to us is
understanding, which when blended with knowledge, becomes crystalized into
wisdom.
I'm sure you have experienced this, people who search out the self turn into very self centered people! ouch! what a bump in my head that understanding gave me about myself.
Under an entheogen the self can be experience as "spread out" over the environment and thus the "spiritual" experience of the relationship between ourselves and the world. In projective geometry the point can be composed of infinite lines or planes with infinite length/width which intercept at the same place and therefore have "infinite depth" which is experienced as infinite space.
I really enjoy this model 'geometric' you mention often. Are you familiar with Bucky Fuller? I use his model of a geodesic dome, from that basic model, I can arrive at my entire philosophy. I wonder if we are talking about the same thing here.
The real duality is the percept of a tree (photograph, imagined image or sensory perception) and the concept "tree". Abstracting from the cognitive process and calling the one real and the other not is metaphysics. I do not see the cognitive process as complete until the "percept" of a tree and the "concept" of a tree is joined to form complete knowledge of a tree.
I very much enjoy that! very harmonious with my understanding.
When discussing dualities, it's important to learn the lessons provided by Tao. It's yin, yang, and then both of them at once and indistinguishable, wu chi. It is all one thing but that too is also false, it is really no thing. lol, are we saying the same thing?
Talk of real or unreal trees is simply being superstitious about the cognitive process.
hmmm, how do you mean 'superstitious'?
This is the important difference between just a percept and concepts joined to a percept. The euclidean space revolves around percepts and point-like atoms and ignores the depth that concepts contribute to percepts to provide a complete knowledge of the world. Projective space however is all about the interplay between the point-wise atoms and point-wise depth.
everywhere the center with a circumference nowhere to be found
It is not so much that one is real and the other not, but that one is more complete whilst the other is only part of the story.
and both dissolve into mystery (wu chi)
The problem with the current epistemology is the starting points.
They make unjustified assumptions.
Idealism assumes the materialism it refutes by naively adopting a priori a brain.
Materialism assumes the idealism it claims is impossible by adopting a priori a thought.
Both are stuck within thinking, but refuse to recognize thinking as a part of the world process. In fact the start of the world process.
Like Heidegger's 'worlding of the world' yes?
The only way around this is to use thinking to reverse the cognitive process artificially to arrive at the starting point of cognition.
YES I DO THIS!
One uses thinking thus not to add on to a naive assumption but to remove from the cognitive process that which adds knowledge.
One arrives at "the given" which has no differentiation.
Begin in mystery, return to mystery.
Once arrived one realises that within "the given" their appears to be something which is not given, these are the concepts/ideas which we ourselves produce in the act of cognition.
Even the "I" is not postulated before cognition begins, but is discovered thereafter as part of the given.
The important point of this epistemology is that it does not naively ignore thinking and then just use it, but starts from thinking and thinks about thinking and in this way builds a basis for knowledge solely around the cognitive process. There is no need to assume an "I", a will, matter, mind etc etc. These concepts are all the result of the cognitive process and their a priori reality or not is irrelevant metaphysical speculation. What is important is our ability in forming the correct concept for each percept in order to communicate sensibly.
In my process, I do this with both thinking and
feeling. How does feeling work in your model? Feeling is real close to the mystery, so very necessary to integrate and use it to return to the source.
The call for evidence witnessed for instance in this forum amuses me sometimes as the request assumes a percept as evidence, but only understands it when clothed in a concept that makes sense. It is really the same form of superstition which demands visible ghosts and miracles to justify spiritual concepts.
After all we have no other choice, but just to start thinking. The special thing about thinking is that it alone is able to "perceive itself". This is also where any justification for free-will must ar
In my framework, free will becomes superseded by true will, which is disovered by a similar process you outline.
Very happy to have you here, thank you!
