Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Circles versus Foundations

Circles versus Foundations
June 17, 2013, 07:30:44 PM
Traditional religious views often hold that mind and life are separate from matter. This creates a perceptual dichotomy of reality, and is used to the effect of psychologizing the universe.

As a result, further generations have found the concept of a personal universe not only disconcerting, but non-demonstrable. Reductionism became in vogue.

In as far as accepting an issue, then taking the opposing view, is an acceptable way to break free of mental barriers this has been profitable. But look at this:
-Biology states that minds are reducible to physical brains.
-Neurology frequently shows that mental processes are physical processes.
-Physical processes are governed by Physics.
-Fecund interpretations of supra-Newtonian physics takes the concept of mind as an integral part of the physical process.

Thus we are left with a circle, a system of dynamics where any center is a temporary frame defined only by the surrounding frames. The mind is simultaneously "nothing but" and a "core variable."

It is of high value to be able to follow a chain of reasoning, and to carry it further. But the first success isn't the only one possible, and will lead one in circles if taken to be the paragon of thought. Or to PhD research fellowships where you compete with the Chinese to see who can have the most monotonous life.

Phoenix

Re: Circles versus Foundations
June 19, 2013, 02:53:48 AM
I know this isn't the point of your thread, but on the topic of physical vs. metaphysical: Everything is physical, including metaphysical things. This should even be obvious. Even consciousness, from an Eastern spiritual perspective, is physical, it's just very subtle. To say that something can exist without any level of physicality, that's like saying something can exist without existing. At the essence of all things physicality doesn't necessarily need to imply locality, and arguably (though I would disagree) it doesn't necessarily need to imply temporality, either, but it is essential to any and all existence.

Re: Circles versus Foundations
June 19, 2013, 04:21:58 AM
I know this isn't the point of your thread, but on the topic of physical vs. metaphysical: Everything is physical, including metaphysical things. This should even be obvious. Even consciousness, from an Eastern spiritual perspective, is physical, it's just very subtle. To say that something can exist without any level of physicality, that's like saying something can exist without existing. At the essence of all things physicality doesn't necessarily need to imply locality, and arguably (though I would disagree) it doesn't necessarily need to imply temporality, either, but it is essential to any and all existence.

Isn't that the point of kabbalah and a ton of other spiritual systems? You start at our low level of vibration and then move towards more subtle levels.

Re: Circles versus Foundations
June 19, 2013, 04:27:57 AM
yes everything that exist is physical but beyond that (consciousness included) there's Mystery which has nothing to do with it. We can say it doesn't exist in a way.
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” -Krishnamurti

''I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior.''  -Hippolyte Taine

Re: Circles versus Foundations
June 23, 2013, 10:47:36 AM
It is of high value to be able to follow a chain of reasoning, and to carry it further. But the first success isn't the only one possible, and will lead one in circles if taken to be the paragon of thought. Or to PhD research fellowships where you compete with the Chinese to see who can have the most monotonous life.
Haha! Good one :)

To say that something can exist without any level of physicality, that's like saying something can exist without existing. At the essence of all things physicality doesn't necessarily need to imply locality, and arguably (though I would disagree) it doesn't necessarily need to imply temporality, either, but it is essential to any and all existence.
Doesn't that make 'physicality' itself into something not physical at all? If it is not limited by space and time? Does that mean that existence itself, taken as a whole, doesn't exist?