Can we say Matter Actually Exists Under Idealism?

[AshvinP]

No, I was talking about the existence in a different sense - in the "actual"/"existential" sense. Materialists claim that matter not only exists as images in the sense-world, but it actually fully exists as reality apart from consciousness. And they actually hold this idea in their individual minds that " matter actually exists as reality apart from consciousness". Now, they indeed hold this idea and consciously experience it from their 1-st person perspective. Yet this fact that they hold this idea does not mean that matter actually exists as reality apart from consciousness.

This question requires us to stop thinking in the modern way of both materialists and idealists. Let me put it this way - under my formulation of idealism, what we perceive in the world is meaning. That is actual, existing meaning. Consciousness and Meaning are identical, in my view (which I know is not the only idealist view or even the dominant one, since Kant-Schopenhauer view would reject that). Also, I think we can all agree that, under any metaphysical formulation, what can be experienced-known is limited to our 1st-person perspective, in principle. So, from our 1st-person perspective, can we say there are aspects of the world we experience which are actually devoid of meaning, thereby validating the materialist assertion that "matter" devoid of consciousness (meaning) actually exists? No and, potentially, yes.

No, because even the most deadened 'thing' I perceive in the world, like a rock or a dust particle under a microscope, will carry some elementary meaning when I perceive it. Potentially yes, because I can imagine a future state in which the Spirit (meaning) is so withdrawn from the sense-world that I am basically catatonic, not perceiving anything including meaning. That could naturally follow from the progression that has been occurring for a few thousand years now. Again, this formulation will make no sense if we assume a 3rd-person perspective by which we can observe the Cosmos and say, since Consciousness-Spirit-Meaning is fundamental, it must be everywhere even when I am completely unable to perceive it. To say that is to skip over the entire point of distinguishing Spirit from matter in the first place, which is to express a relation between the two from my 1st-person perspective.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Certainly so-called 'matter', as materialism conceives of it, does not exist under idealism. Rather what exists are subjectified 'alters' of Mind, engaged a relational dynamic with objectified mind-conceived representations of an implicate order (to borrow from Bohm) of mind-conceived ideation, those representations having come to be referred to as 'material'. And insofar as that implicate order of ideation has intrinsic, elementary meaning, then such a dynamic must be meaningful. Not sure what to make though of the divination of reading tea leaves in the bottom of a cup as meaning someone's going to meet a tall dark stranger at a restaurant tonight, who will turn out to be their future spouse? Which I suppose leaves us with having to make a distinction between intrinsic meaning, and projected meaning.

[AshvinP]

Certainly so-called 'matter', as materialism conceives of it, does not exist under idealism. Rather what exists are subjectified 'alters' of Mind, engaged a relational dynamic with objectified mind-conceived representations of an implicate order (to borrow from Bohm) of mind-conceived ideation, those representations having come to be referred to as 'material'. And insofar as that implicate order of ideation has intrinsic, elementary meaning, then such a dynamic must be meaningful. Not sure what to make though of the divination of reading tea leaves in the bottom of a cup as meaning someone's going to meet a tall dark stranger at a restaurant tonight, who will turn out to be their future spouse? Which I suppose leaves us with having to make a distinction between intrinsic meaning, and projected meaning.

Right, and the key qualifier is "as materialism conceives of it". But if we want to leave out that qualifier and only address "as [specific] idealist formulations conceive of it", then I think it is valid to speak of "matter" as actually existing. For example, could we imagine a scenario where people's organic structures are increasingly replaced by mechanized AI-computer components, to the point where the conscious human species itself goes extinct? I think we can imagine that. It is the underlying fear expressed in many sci-fi movies involving "the Matrix", "terminators", the "Borg", etc. - they express a battle of humans against what humans may potentially become. We can certainly see how some people, especially young people, may have their lives so absorbed in mechanical devices they lose all sense of living meaning in Nature. Do I think it's likely the entire species succumbs to this? No, not at all. More likely is some portion of the human species succumbs to that and gets 'left behind' in spiritual evolution.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Right, and the key qualifier is "as materialism conceives of it". But if we want to leave out that qualifier and only address "as [specific] idealist formulations conceive of it", then I think it is valid to speak of "matter" as actually existing. For example, could we imagine a scenario where people's organic structures are increasingly replaced by mechanized AI-computer components, to the point where the conscious human species itself goes extinct? I think we can imagine that. It is the underlying fear expressed in many sci-fi movies involving "the Matrix", "terminators", the "Borg", etc. - they express a battle of humans against what humans may potentially become. We can certainly see how some people, especially young people, may have their lives so absorbed in mechanical devices they lose all sense of living meaning in Nature. Do I think it's likely the entire species succumbs to this? No, not at all. More likely is some portion of the human species succumbs to that and gets 'left behind' in spiritual evolution.

Lots of fascinating sci-fi possibilities for sure. But even if one's corporeal structure were to be replaced bit by bit by some synthetic-cyber facsimiles, so as to create an age-defying cyborg equivalent, the psyche associated with it, at some yet to be determined point, would still eventually lose its focus within the corporeal construct once it has served its integral function, and then carry on in some transcorporeal mode—indeed it might even be easier to move on if the fixated identification factor is weakened—gladly leaving behind a bunch of reusable spare parts.

[AshvinP]

Right, and the key qualifier is "as materialism conceives of it". But if we want to leave out that qualifier and only address "as [specific] idealist formulations conceive of it", then I think it is valid to speak of "matter" as actually existing. For example, could we imagine a scenario where people's organic structures are increasingly replaced by mechanized AI-computer components, to the point where the conscious human species itself goes extinct? I think we can imagine that. It is the underlying fear expressed in many sci-fi movies involving "the Matrix", "terminators", the "Borg", etc. - they express a battle of humans against what humans may potentially become. We can certainly see how some people, especially young people, may have their lives so absorbed in mechanical devices they lose all sense of living meaning in Nature. Do I think it's likely the entire species succumbs to this? No, not at all. More likely is some portion of the human species succumbs to that and gets 'left behind' in spiritual evolution.

Lots of fascinating sci-fi possibilities for sure. But even if one's corporeal structure were to be replaced bit by bit by some synthetic-cyber facsimiles, so as to create an age-defying cyborg equivalent, the psyche associated with it, at some yet to be determined point, would still eventually lose its focus within the corporeal construct once it has served its integral function, and then carry on in some transcorporeal mode—indeed it might even be easier to move on if the fixated identification factor is weakened—gladly leaving behind a bunch of reusable spare parts.

I am just saying that the major advantage of idealism, as opposed to all other ontologies, is that it has great practical significance for our lives. (not all formulations of idealism, but some). But that is only if we recognize what is "real" can only be the manifestation of meaning within our 1st-person perspective. That is why we should not dismiss "matter" as a relic of modern age materialism, because the concept still retains its most meaningful quality - its quality of being dead, lifeless concept-'things'. One can abandon materialism completely and still confront a world, via 1st person perspective, which only has such lifeless concepts, with no living Spirit in sight.

[Eugene I]

Right, of course, whether or not "matter" exist ontologically, "matter" still exists conceptually in the minds of the personalities who hold the materialistic beliefs and interpret the reality materialistically. And even if those individuals would ever abandon that belief, the idea of "matter" will still exists as a part of the infinite universe of all possible ideas (just as we discussed in the other thread).

[AshvinP]

Right, of course, whether or not "matter" exist ontologically, "matter" still exists conceptually in the minds of the personalities who hold the materialistic beliefs and interpret the reality materialistically. And even if those individuals would ever abandon that belief, the idea of "matter" will still exists as a part of the infinite universe of all possible ideas (just as we discussed in the other thread).

That's not really what I meant. We need to ask the following questions:

1) In our formulation of idealism, is Consciousness (ontic Ground) identical to Thinking-Meaning? If not, then no point going further.

2) What is the fundamental meaning of "matter" in our 1st-person experience of the world? Put another way, why do we distinguish it from mind-consciousness-spirit or anything similar in our experience?

3) If the entire worldview of metaphysical materialism disappeared tomorrow, would the concept "matter" still retain that meaning in #2?

If yes, then we could potentially say "matter" actually exists under idealism.

[Eugene I]

1) In our formulation of idealism, is Consciousness (ontic Ground) identical to Thinking-Meaning? If not, then no point going further.

We already discussed it many times. Yes, I agree but with the provision that we do not forget (explicitly or implicitly) about the "-Experiencing" formless aspect of it.

2) What is the fundamental meaning of "matter" in our 1st-person experience of the world? Put another way, why do we distinguish it from mind-consciousness-spirit or anything similar in our experience?

In idealism "matter" is a practicably useful conceptual/interpretational idea that helps us to interpret, orient and function in reality. Most of us efficiently use this abstraction in everyday life. In Hoffman's terms, it's a useful tool in the toolset of our "user interface" to the reality. As long as wee use it only as a conceptual interfacing tool then there is not much harm in it. However, in the materialistically-biased metaphysical worldviews this idea of "matter" carries a heavy baggage of additional beliefs, biases and values that become counter-productive in the human evolution.

3) If the entire worldview of metaphysical materialism disappeared tomorrow, would the concept "matter" still retain that meaning in #2?
If yes, then we could potentially say "matter" actually exists under idealism.

Yes, it would still retain the meaning of being a useful interfacing tool to reality, and in that sense matter (as an ideation) exists and is useful under idealism.

[Soul_of_Shu]

That's not really what I meant. We need to ask the following questions:

1) In our formulation of idealism, is Consciousness (ontic Ground) identical to Thinking-Meaning? If not, then no point going further.

2) What is the fundamental meaning of "matter" in our 1st-person experience of the world? Put another way, why do we distinguish it from mind-consciousness-spirit or anything similar in our experience?

3) If the entire worldview of metaphysical materialism disappeared tomorrow, would the concept "matter" still retain that meaning in #2?

If yes, then we could potentially say "matter" actually exists under idealism.

In this first person/subjective experience the meaning of objectified representative forms, as distinguished from one's awareness in deep dreamless sleep, is that they are integral to experiencing some relational dynamic, whatever their intrinsic ideational meaning may be. In which case the answer to #3 would be yes, I would still be experiencing that relational dynamic for all intents and purposes as real, and would still be disinclined to step in front of a bus, because it still involves the idea construction of pain, and I don't yet feel ready to move on from the integral purpose it is serving.

[AshvinP]

Yes, it would still retain the meaning of being a useful interfacing tool to reality, and in that sense matter (as an ideation) exists and is useful under idealism.

In this first person/subjective experience the meaning of objectified representative forms, as distinguished from one's awareness in deep dreamless sleep, is that they are integral to experiencing some relational dynamic, whatever their intrinsic ideational meaning may be. In which case the answer to #3 would be yes, I would still be experiencing that relational dynamic for all intents and purposes as real, and would still be disinclined to step in front of a bus, because it still involves the idea construction of pain, and I don't yet feel ready to move on from the integral purpose it is serving.

I 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.

Given those clarifications, I am saying humanity has arrived at a stage of metamorphic progression where "matter", as expressing a relation between material representations and mind-spirit, where the latter cannot be perceived in many representations of Nature, has come to exist. Perhaps we could express it as a fraction:

Matter = material representations / mind-sprit.

As the denominator grows smaller due to our own cognitive descent into rigid mechanical thinking, "matter" becomes more of an actually existing aspect of the Reality we experience.