The Groundwork For Idealism Part II

Explanations of Non-Dual Idealism

The Central Thesis

The central thesis of (my) Non-dual Idealism is this: that which alone is real is “Pure Mind,” everything else is but a mode of this one reality. Stated differently, only “Pure Mind” exists, everything else that exists, exists only insofar as it inheres on “Pure Mind,” and only appears to be, but is never truly, separate from “Pure Mind.”

In my articulation of Non-Dual Idealism, I specifically enumerate three “kinds”/”categories” of modes: 1. “Mind,” (i.e., our everyday, conventional egoic minds), 2. “Matter,” (i.e., the everyday, empirical, corporeal world/the material Universe in which perceived external reality happens), and 3. “Monad,” (i.e., the everyday, empirical, corporeal world/the material Universe in which perceived external reality happens when understood from an abstract philosophical perspective, wherein all Space and Time are considered identical).

My Ontological System

Diagram

Definitions

There are three main strategies I employ when trying to define the terms of my ontological system.

The first strategy is to define the ontological entities independently of each another. In this strategy, I define the ontological entities as the function of some operation. The main advantage of this strategy is that it helps to give a clear and succinct, if not technical and abstract, definition of each term.

The second strategy is to define the ontological entities in an inter-dependent manner. In this strategy, I define each ontological entity only in reference to some other ontological entity. The main advantage of this strategy is that it helps the reader develop a holistic understanding of how my ontological system works as an inter-dependent whole.

The third strategy is to define the ontological entities in reference to their explanatory role in a cosmogenic account of Reality. In other words, in this strategy, I define each ontological entity in reference to the metaphysical significance it has in explaining the origins of Space, Time, Causality, Individuation, etc. The main advantage of this strategy is that it helps give the reader a deeper understanding of the theoretical importance of my ontological system in actually being able to explain the world (i.e., it brings a sense of concreteness and purpose to my ontological system).

In all honesty, this is the simplest way I can carry across of all this information. I really advice that: 1. you read slowly, 2. you read each set of definitions in relation to each other corresponding set of definitions, 3. you re-read each set of definitions multiple times to appreciate what is being said, because a lot of information is being packaged here, 4. rest assured that all of this will become more understandable as you read my future posts, and 5. come back to read these definitions after you have read all my posts in this series–many of my definitions will only make sense in retrospect.

My Ontological System in Action: Accounting For Individual Minds

The biggest obstacle in arguing for Non-Dual Idealism is having to overcome to obvious hurdle: if only one thing truly exists, and this thing is the unindividuated “Pure Mind,” how can I account for my own individual existence? In other words, if there is truly no duality in Non-Dual Idealism, how can we reconcile the simultaneous claim that 1. “Pure Mind” alone exists, and 2. within Pure Mind there is such things as “Mind(s)”? Another way to phrase these two questions is as such: if only one unindividuated “Substance” truly exists (“Pure Mind”), how and/or why are there such things as “Modes,”?

The answer to all these questions is straightforward, albeit involved: “Pure Mind,” alone truly exists, insofar as “Mind,” is not-separate from “Pure Mind.” In other words, “Pure Mind” and “Mind,” are distinct-but-not-separate. That is to say, the difference between “Pure Mind” and “Mind,” is nominal, not ontological (it exists in name only).

Essentially, what I am trying to say is this: the idea that our individual existences (i.e., all of our individual, egoic minds) exist as somehow separate from “Pure Mind,” is nothing more than an illusion, albeit a strong one. Fundamentally, all of our individual egoic minds are always numerically identical to “Pure Mind.” That is, there is never a moment when “Pure Mind” is not “Mind” or vice versa.

In order to demonstrate my point I will need to borrow an ingenious analogy from philosopher Bernardo Kastrup (who I have recently discovered, much to my delight). [I had developed my entire ontological system prior to my encounter to his thought, but have found his metaphors useful in clarifying this particular aspect of my own thinking. Ultimately, it is incredibly reassuring to have come across someone who arrived at virtually the same conclusions as myself entirely independently of me]).

Anyways… In his book “Why Materialism is Baloney,” Bernardo Kastrup firstly uses a pretty standard analogy in order to highlight a key aspect of consciousness. He uses the analogy of two mutually-facing mirrors in order to metaphorically describe how our ordinary, everyday consciousness operates as a function of recursive self-awareness (i.e., the definition I already ascribe to “Mind,” in my ontological system). So far so simple. However, Bernardo Kastrup makes an additional comment–“any content of mind that falls within the field of self-reflectiveness of the ego becomes hugely amplified,” (p. 107, 2014). He then uses this seemingly innocuous, if highly conjectural, claim as launching pad for another interesting claim, and then seals the deal with an ingenious analogy.

He goes on to say, for instance: “Now if this is so, what happens to the experiences flowing the broader medium of mind that do not fall within the scope of the ego (i.e., the scope of self-reflective awareness)? They do not get amplified at all. Therefore, from the point-of-view of the ego, they become practically imperceptible!” (p. 108, 2014).

Then he finishes by invoking an ingenious analogy: “when you look up at a clear sky, at noon, you only see blue. You can’t see the stars that would be unmistakably there. Yet the stars are still there and their light is still reaching your eyes, just like it would at night.” You can’t see them because they become obfuscated by the much stronger glare of the sun refracting on the atmosphere,” (p. 108, 2014).

The implications of this are crystal-clear: “Pure Mind,” and “Mind,” are not separate (i.e., they are not-two). Ultimately, Mind is but the process of Pure Mind folding in on itself such that it becomes disassociated from the rest of the experiential ocean of Pure Mind. The contents of Pure Mind are still present in Mind, they are just obfuscated by the amplification of self-reflective awareness.

In order to understand what I mean, try to think of Pure Mind (awareness-itself) like a 3-D surface which sometimes bends into inward-looking folds. The space inside these inward-looking folds can only face itself. In other words, when awareness-itself/pure mind folds in on itself, it can only be aware of itself. As such, awareness-itself/pure mind becomes awareness-of-awareness itself/mind. Analogously to how the process of the 3-D surface folding in on itself is topographically isomorphic to the process of the space within the in-fold becoming spatially disassociated from the rest of the surface-at-large, the process of awareness-itself/pure mind folding in on itself is psychologically isomorphic to the experiential content within the in-fold becoming disassociated from the rest of the mind-at-large. Put simply, when pure awareness folds in on itself, it can only be purely aware of pure awareness itself; but what is pure awareness of pure awareness itself other than the very function of recursive self-awareness (i.e., Mind)?

Ultimately, the belief that “Mind” is utterly separate in its individuality from “Pure Mind” is but an illusion reinforced precisely by the amplifying forces of self-objectification, which obfuscates the experiential content of the mind-at-large–this is the process by which “Mind” is disassociated from “Pure Mind.”

This explanation also seems to be corroborated by empirical evidence. For instance, according to this explanatory model of the relationship between “Pure Mind” and “Mind,” we should expect that the lessening of self-objectification should correlate with increasingly higher instances of “Pure Mind”; and this is precisely what happens, for instance, during the process of sleep. When we sleep meta-cognitive self-reflective awareness declines and leads to the phenomenon of dreaming. The correlation between the decline in self-reflective awareness during sleep, and the phenomenon of dreaming, is no coincidence.

Now that I have, to my own satisfaction, accounted for the existence of individual minds by explaining the process by which they emerge, while simultaneously retaining my commitment to non-dualism, I will move on to the second biggest hurdle in arguing for my particular ontological system–the issue of accounting for “Matter” and “Monad.”

My Ontological System in Action: Implications of A Topographical Analogy

The immediate implication of the topographical analogy is that we can use it as a heuristic in accounting for the emergence of the modes of “Matter” and “Monad.”

Besides the definitions given above, “Matter” and “Monad” can be given the following supplemental (clarificatory) definitions:

• Matter and Monad are two divergent modes of awareness-itself (i.e., Matter and Monad are two divergent modes of Pure Mind).
• Matter and Monad are two divergent modes of awareness-of-awareness-itself (i.e., Matter and Monad are two divergent modes of Mind).

Both of these definitions are ultimately synonymous, since the Mind is nothing more than an infolding of, and thus is fundamentally indistinct from, Pure Mind. There is, however, an advantage to the second supplementary definition: the ability to associate Matter and Monad more immediately as modes of cognitive self-awareness (i.e., as personal modes of knowledge by which self-awareness is capable of self-awareness).

The key to understanding the distinction between Matter and Monad, in turn, is unlocked when we use the topographical analogy as a heuristic. For instance, we may define the difference between Matter and Monad as one of degree in the infolding of awareness, specifically defined in terms of the range of an infolding.

That is to say, whereas Matter is defined in terms of a wide range, ranging anywhere from the shallow end of a subtle infolding to the deep end of an extreme infolding, Monad is defined only in terms of narrow range, particularly in the deepest point in the most extreme possible infolding. Put another way, Matter is defined as a mode of experience with a wide enough range such that a great variety of organisms across the spectrum of consciousness (from insects to humans) can be said to have access to in the form of some perception of the external world. Monad, on the other hand, is defined as a mode of experience with such a narrow range that it is defined as the functional turning-point of all possible infoldings of consciousness, beyond which there exists no possible higher state of self-conscious clarity, and which is therefore accessible only to properly self-conscious entities (humans).

Put simply, the degree to which Matter and Monad is experienceable by a living organism would correspond proportionally to the extent of the depth of the infolding of Pure Mind (i.e., the degree to which Matter and Monad is experienceable by a living organism would correspond proportionally to the extent of self-objectification/self-awareness that exists in that individual organism).

Concordantly, we may surmise that other animals, which have lower self-awareness, experience Matter, but not to the same degree of clarity with which humans experience Matter. This seems to be an absurd implication, but what I am saying is rather simple. What I’m saying is that animals may experience and live within the material Universe in a very similar manner to how we do, but they do not have as clear a knowledge of the regularity of the laws of nature, or the agency we have in the world to manipulate said laws for our given purposes. The awareness animals have of Matter is confined to immediate experience, whereas humans have the capacity to think abstractly of Matter.

The most intelligent animals–crows, octopuses, dolphins, elephants–as far as I know, exhibit symptoms of, at the very minimum, rudimentary self-awareness (they are usually able to recognize themselves in a mirror). Correspondingly, these are the very animal species which are seen sometimes manipulating tools, or the environment for their own benefit, demonstrating a proportionally abstracter understanding of the Material world, including the laws thereof, as well their own agency in manipulating said rules.

In this vein, humans represent the zenith of self-awareness, and correspondingly can achieve the pinnacle of abstract knowledge in the form of attaining a notion/idea of Monad. The notion/idea of Monad represents an abstraction capable of forming only in the minds of organisms which are properly self-aware (i.e., humans). The notion/idea of a Monad basically is just the point at which knowledge of Matter, reaches such a state of self-reflective clarity that it is capable of extrapolating non-relativity from relativity. Pure and simple, the notion/idea of “Monad” is just the philosophical insight that all events, all concrete objects, all Spaces and all Times, are ultimately only comprehensible as one identical, entangled physical (i.e., Spatial-Temporal) unit. In other words, “Monad,” is the logical end-point of all physicalism. Monad represents the position of “substance monism” which is invariably physicalist, insofar as physicalism represents the extrapolation of unity from Space and Time, rather than serving as categorical suspension of them.

Let me put this another way: Monad serves one role in my ontology–it is the highest point of discursive self-awareness. In other words, “Pure Mind,” cannot know itself unless it is through self-reflective means, the epitome of which is discursive (i.e., linguistic analytic) knowledge. However, to know itself as such, invariably means transposing the forms of Space, Time, and Matter unto the fabric of existence, as if though they were intrinsic to things-in-themselves. The result is a distortion of how things truly are in-themselves.

Non-dualism vs. Monism

Addressing the Obvious Objection: wouldn’t the metaphysical position of non-dual idealism, count as a form of Pure Mind’s self-knowledge, and therefore disprove the notion that “Monad” (which supposedly represents monistic physicalism) is the highest point of discursive self-awareness? After all, if you, as an individual mind is capable of understanding that the true fabric of reality is beyond Space and Time, wouldn’t that mean that the Pure Mind is capable of knowing itself as Pure Mind?

Answer: long story short, the answer to both these questions is no.

• To answer the first question: non-dual idealism is not something that is discursively known. Discursive knowledge already presupposes the very subject-object duality which is supposedly suspended in non-dual idealism. True knowledge of non-dual idealism is found in non-dual experiences. Think back to dreaming, in a dream you don’t know that you are dreaming. In a dream, you not only experience your dream, you are the experience–you are the dream. The subject does not reflect upon itself as the experiencer, it merely experiences. It is only “after” we wake up, i.e. once we “re-enter” the world “where” Space and Time are intractable modes of cognition, and “where” words like “after,” “re-enter,” and “where,” become inescapable traps in our language, that we can recall and therefore “discursively know,” the experiential contents of our dreams. But of course, upon recollection, the dream no longer is what it was, it is now unavoidably filtered by dualistic trappings. The non-dual experience just is–it cannot be recalled, it cannot be interpreted (at least not without fundamentally distorting it). Therefore, what I call the “metaphysical position of non-dual idealism” is only really ever an approximation of the actual non-dual experience that lurks behind symbols of language. The “metaphysical position of non-dual idealism” as such cannot count as the highest point of discursive self-knowledge. This will be more clear in the next answer.
• To answer the second question: I have two ways to express my answer. First way: Pure Mind does not know itself, period. The Pure Mind that knows itself, is by definition no longer Pure Mind. Of course this is a half-truth, because all things are Pure Mind. Therefore I offer a second way: Pure Mind knows itself only as Mind. Pure Mind can only focus its awareness unto itself through the bounds of Reason, and Reason carries with it the metaphysical baggage of Space and Time that it erroneously transposes into things-in-themselves. In other words, I am not, as an individual Mind, capable of understanding that the true fabric of reality is beyond Space and Time. I only truly understand that the true fabric of reality is beyond Space and Time precisely when I am no longer capable of articulating my understanding. Only in the midst of a non-dual experience am I capable of true understanding.

Let me put this in the most simple way I possibly can: when we try to “understand” that Reality-in-itself is beyond Space and Time, our minds will inevitably try to imagine a void. But that void is no less a Spaceless-Timeless thing than the lamp on my desk is Spaceless and Timeless. Put simply, the best we can do with our limitations is to form an abstract notion of a Monad, where all Time and Space is identical, primarily as articulated by the recent scientific discourse which has concluded that the physical Universe is one entangled quantum system (i.e., a singular physical unit/Monad). This Monad invariably carries along with it, all the physicalist biases that are hard-wired into our perception of everyday Matter. Hence, this Monad represents a physicalist monism, inasmuch as all forms of Reason are physicalist in nature (i.e., conditioned by the Material world, which is a function of the conjunction of Space and Time/conditioned by Space-Time, the conjunction of which we call “Matter”). Even the use of Reason to articulate the position of non-dual idealism is only a linguistic metaphor. True non-dual idealism is the experience that lurks behind the symbols of language. That is why the highest point in philosophy is “Monad,” while the highest point in mysticism is “Non-dualism.”