Philosophical Speculations

I'm not at all certain there's a meaningful difference between an ontology in which there is just no ground underlying the relationships that give being to beings and an ontology in which there is a ground underlying those relationships, but that ground has no qualities, properties, traits, and cann...

(I'm playing fast and loose with a lot of the vocabulary here: I'm not making a meaningful distinction between "mind" and "consciousness," nor between "the physical" and "matter." Roughly I'm using the former to mean "that which, in particular modes, perc...

If I take the argument you're running correctly, you might accidentally be making an argument for what Goff calls "the problem of intrinsic natures," which is ultimately the crux of the first part of Kant's first critique. In essence, measurement is always a judgment rendered between two p...

Thank you for those resources! I suspect I have a whole lot of learning ahead of me, and I appreciate you taking the time to at least help me get started. ^_^

Oh I see you shared videos, too. Thanks for that! I'll try to watch those after work.

To be honest... while I feel like I can follow the work of Kastrup (or others with similar perspectives like Freya Mathews or Philip Goff or Miri Albahari) pretty well, the discussion on intuitionism and formalism and the nature of language itself falls beyond the scope of my education so far, and I...

I am new here and, being new, unfamiliar with the apparently longstanding conflict being recapitulated in the past few pages, and I don't really feel qualified to comment on the contents of those posts. But if it's okay, I would like to suggest to the OP that Watts was being deliberately loose with ...