Seems to me, that it's around this time in the discussion, that someone shoud come about and kick the water pitcher...
Isan
Can we say Matter Actually Exists Under Idealism?
Re: Can we say Matter Actually Exists Under Idealism?
"I don't understand." /Unknown
Re: Can we say Matter Actually Exists Under Idealism?
Ah yes, the timeless tradition of all wise masters... when something is not understood, throw a fit, break it, and retreat into the mountains for the rest of your life
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
- Soul_of_Shu
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm
- Contact:
Re: Can we say Matter Actually Exists Under Idealism?
Would 'matter' then not be those phenomenal, representational forms that conform to the rule set of this corporeal construct, e.g. the gravitational rule, or whatever rules that determine that a hand can't pass through a brick wall. Although, due to certain experiences where 'matter' has defied such rules, I'm not quite sure of that either.AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 8:41 pmI think we should distinguish between "representation" and "matter" here. I am using the latter as a more specified form of representation. My intellectual thoughts about Reality are also representations, but they are not "matter". Also, we should recognize under idealism that all concepts-ideas are relational. What is "matter" today is defined by its current relation to what is "mind" (or any similar terms). That does not mean it's a purely "subjective" definition, rather it is an objective relational definition.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Re: Can we say Matter Actually Exists Under Idealism?
Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 6:59 amWould 'matter' then not be those phenomenal, representational forms that conform to the rule set of this corporeal construct, e.g. the gravitational rule, or whatever rules that determine that a hand can't pass through a brick wall. Although, due to certain experiences where 'matter' has defied such rules, I'm not quite sure of that either.AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 8:41 pmI think we should distinguish between "representation" and "matter" here. I am using the latter as a more specified form of representation. My intellectual thoughts about Reality are also representations, but they are not "matter". Also, we should recognize under idealism that all concepts-ideas are relational. What is "matter" today is defined by its current relation to what is "mind" (or any similar terms). That does not mean it's a purely "subjective" definition, rather it is an objective relational definition.
Exactly, we co-create the phenomenal representations. If one half of the creation is deadened thought, then we have increasingly meaningless representations. Under my view, this is already evident for most of us with the mineral world - even idealists will find it very difficult to believe a dust particle could be linked to any meaningful activity of living beings, or maybe they will call the "living being" responsible for the dust particle "MAL", which, as pure instinctive, non-reflective will, gives only slightly more meaning to the dust particle than "matter".
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"