Eric Schiedler wrote:It is a type of insult [to the careful thought and dedication used to create a model of part of reality] to claim that it makes truthful claims about all of reality.
It's unavoidable for any
main principle like causality. The only way it would not apply to all of reality is to abandon any current notion of reality, including any notion of "having a notion". Which draws a blank really!
Clearly the whole of reality can not be conscious as consciousness requires an object of consciousness and there is nothing left over if all of reality is a "universal consciousness."
My understanding of that view is that
self-consciousnesses is often defined like that: when the object is the subject, like the reflective mirror informing the eye about the eye via indirect means. Like thoughts can reflect on some having passed. It prevents having "nothing left over" by simply not having any omniscient power: not having the ability to see all the self-aspects in all the possible relationships all of the time.
Therefore it would be illogical if the theory would indeed claim that reality could have perfect and full knowledge of itself all at the same moment. One could compare our own brain where consciousness is supposed to reside but it's not conscious of all brain processes or body functions. And yet the "human" is called conscious or the brain. I believe the linguistic term is
synecdoche.
From what I can tell, Kastrup doesn't ever get down to fundametal cause and effect or causaility or duality/non-duality. He seems to require his metaphisics to have an additional layer.
You're probably right. But any truth principle acts on all layers and levels in very much the same way. That's its fundamental nature, to not even allow for any core fundamental or origination; to interconnect all possible layers as such.