Immaterialism

Post Reply New Topic

I think this is where words start getting in the way also.

Two people lets say could be idealists. One could be very much of the eastern mindset that the world is maya, the other person could be taking the Kybalion type of approach where the material is just a variant of the divine made of the same stuff as the divine. It's a distinction that really looks the same aside from an attitude in the first case that matter needs to be escaped, in the later that competency with matter needs to be mastered. Both seem to even go toward the same goal - graduation from matter, just that they take very different attitudes in their approach.

I recall a remark by Einstein, a sort of marvel of 'rightness' that the laws of the universe ran with the laws of the mind. That the laws of the mind enabled us to discover the laws of the universe.

I recall a remark, attributed iirc to William James, though a cursory search turns nothing up, as to the connection between the method chosen to investigate a phenomenom, and what is discovered and said about it. That this assumption that the truth of a phenomenom just is whatever the particular investigative method turns up was troubling.

I share the suspicion of the latter remark.

I don't think there are singular, non-contradictory laws of life. I hold to pluralism, rather than an integrated monism. I think the 'real' is a shadow, an inference.

Im sorry.

Forgot that there English-language impaired folks in the audience.

Apparently you're not a native English speaker, and didnt know that the word "immaterial" can mean "irrelevent", or "not worth considering", especially in a legal context.

So by saying "the immaterial is just that" I am saying the very topic of thread is pointless. By definition if it's "immaterial" its not worth considering.


Any other remedial English lessons that you need?

We all have biases; if one is totally objective, one is not a human.

The key: is to REALLY try not to let your biases affect your judgement.

Okay, so you aren't guilty of circular reasoning, but you are guilty of equivocation. You use a single word to mean two different words, and then get them confused and conflated. You even admitted that the definition of one is somehow the definition of the other. Your reasoning is not sound. It's a pun, not an argument.

Did you have to resort to asinine insults? You left the realm of civilized debate. Get back on track. I forgive you.



Let's call it a "fully enlightened Buddha" and leave the possibility open.

Immaterialism can help seperate thought and feelings from action,

So, for instance someone does something bad to you and you dont seek revenge because you realise the feelings will pass and they are illusory.

Someone who is invested in their feelings would go out and do something vengeful.

Feelings and the delusions that they cause are the cause of suffering, second of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhist doctrine. (The others being "suffering exists", "there is an end to suffering", and "there is a path to end all suffering").

Then it's a simple matter of affixing on the Noble Eight-fold Path. Instead of going out and doing something vengeful, someone can make sure that they have the right understanding of the situation, and that they will bring about right action.

The Eight-fold Path is intertwined. It's quite logical once you get over the seeming arbitrariness of the path to enlightenment.

Context! I was once into lucid dreaming (when you are dreaming, you know that you are dreaming) I asked one of my dream characters, "are you real? or just a prop." The dream vanished, I woke up and I had no answer.
Anyway, what is the definition of "material world"? No physicist can define "material"!
Without a subject, all predicates are abstractions!