singularity

Existential Rationalism: Handling Hume’s Fork - Eschauzier, Marcel (Highlight: 67; Note: 0)

◆ Existential Rationalism: Handling Hume’s Fork ▪ The desire to transcend conceals the truth.

◆ 1. The original story of existential rationalism ▪ Hume shatters our hope of having certainty about anything that exists in the world

▪ Alan Watts (1915-1973) very instructive. He explains the essence of Oriental philosophy with British articulateness so that my Occidental mind could get it.

▪ my search was the answer.

▪ epistemological (meaning knowledge-theory related ) aspect of satori, in broad strokes, is the insight that we cannot know reality at all because we are part of it. ▪ Satori implies abandoning the hope to discover reality.

▪ quantum computer is a concrete example: it is the perpetual motion machine of our time.

▪ any attempt to describe reality is futile.

▪ reality implies a separation from the conscious mind.

▪ assumption that there is objective knowledge beyond experience to be found.

▪ it is irrational to claim that we can know reality because no mind can wrap itself completely around something it is part of.

▪ We don’t look at reality but through it

▪ Reality must remain a mystery, albeit a familiar one.

▪ Western thought is inherently dualistic this way:

▪ Truth is essential in our lives, but it resides in our being, not beyond it.

▪ Dualism provides an alibi for philosophical timidity

▪ evidence-based science has brought us a long way: it should continue to be cherished

▪ it can only falsify and not provide positive guidance

We haven’t yet acknowledged we are part and parcel of a single world. ▪

What is missing in Western thought is a rational consideration of subjective consciousness ▪ widespread belief in the promise of quantum computers is startingly irrational

◆ 2. Rationalism, again

▪ Existential doubt calls for truthful existential answers. What could such an answer look like? An idea, a feeling, a belief, or even a person?

▪ The belief in an external world independent of the observing subject lies at the foundation of all natural science

▪ is it possible to obtain any objective knowledge at all?

▪ rational people must agree that it is equally irrational not to dare to challenge assumptions

▪ It is not heretical to have an open mind.

▪ belief in objective knowledge implies that we can know something about what exists independently of people

▪ existence precedes the distinction of truth by consciousness

▪ Viewing consciousness as not separate from the rest of the world has a long tradition in Eastern thinking

▪ perceived separation from reality is an illusion

▪ Looking for existential clarity outside of ourselves is more prevalent in the West and the Islamic world

▪ all knowledge humanity will ever be able to collect is knowledge of experience .

▪ People may look for ways to find agreement based on individual truths. If they are successful, they might speak of shared truth

▪ The dualistic way of thinking has been spectacularly successful

▪ Just because a notion is successful doesn’t mean it is true.

▪ Experiment, even when scientifically replicable, is still a form of perception.

▪ Western thinking has lost touch with human experience in almost schizophrenic self-denial

▪ Objective knowledge requires a conceptual, third-person view of the world, but nobody has ever met a “third person.”

▪ Western world has forgotten what being truly rational means

▪ Could it be that an update of the Western way of thinking is required?

▪ It helps to revitalize some principles of 18th-century rational thought

▪ rationalism and empiricism are rooted in phenomenal experience

▪ Contemporary Western thinking is under the spell of an existential illusion

▪ reality cannot be caught

▪ rationality’s premise doesn’t need to be a dualistic belief in higher truth

▪ Improved existential understanding allows, even demands , conceptual rigor to coexist with enlightenment

▪ scientific method leads to rational knowledge, not objective knowledge  ▪ reason can also help find a consensus where the scientific method doesn’t apply

▪ Existential rationalism isn’t the West’s first “subjective” philosophy, but it seeks to be a more comprehensive one  ▪ Hume’s challenge to rationalism is finally met  ▪ inevitable conclusion is that quantum computers will never actually compute

▪ Alchemy was a boon for chemistry, but it could not make gold out of lead.

▪ Humanity doesn’t play a zero-sum game

◆ 3. What is experience?

▪ Internal medicine recognizes that the sleeping mind is not the same as the unconscious mind

▪ One cannot be conscious of something and not experience it

▪ blindsight

▪ experience is always phenomenal. Experience is identical to the conscious mind, and it imagines the hypothetical experiences of concepts, for itself, as its sole product.

▪ There is no reality in the vibrations of air molecules that produce sound or the lack of water in the blood that causes thirst

◆ 4. What is knowledge?

▪ law of identity of indiscernibles clarifies that two entities with different names that share all properties are actually a single entity

▪ Since the conscious mind is an inseparable element of reality, it doesn’t reflect reality but what it is like to participate in reality

▪ Seeing is a real experience, but what it sees is not real

▪ Vision is but one of the countless aspects of the phenomenal experience. The closer I pay attention to the visual experience, the more I notice that I cannot see it separate from the rest of the phenomenal experience

▪ True, false, fictional, or transcendent: it doesn’t matter; concepts are products of the conscious mind, so abstractions of experience

▪ Ontic knowledge is not knowledge of reality but the knowledge that is the real experience of participating in reality.

▪ The key is understanding that concepts are imaginations of the conscious mind

▪ Present immediacy essentially defines the ontic knowledge of phenomenal experience. This condition has a consequence: all phenomenal experience must be private

▪ The subject who has the experience is no longer our first-person conscious mind, but an imagined “other person,” possibly a projection of our conscious mind in the past or future.