Depth of experience

Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns.

Moderator: Soul_of_Shu

findingblanks
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Depth of experience

Post by findingblanks »

When we find those types of people who love going into nature as often as possible, the kind who study the geology and vegetation of each place they visit, who can tremble with reverence when they approach a roaring waterfall or press the souls of their feet to cool petrified lava flow, yet who are materialists; do we ever wish to compare such souls to some kind of generalized 'idealist' way of being?

I'm not sure. I do sometimes. I tend to do it more often when I hear somebody either say explicitly or implicitly that materialism is a primary cause of the horrible and rapacious disregard of the beauty that surrounds us.

But I also notice I tend to make this comparison even when somebody seems to think that a person being an idealist can make us guess that they have a stronger connection to the spirit of beauty that is alive when we commune with nature.

Listening to some people, you'd almost think that the folks living in the past who didn't even know there was a concept like 'matter' must have been beautific souls that treated all life with deep respect and fought to ensure that each individual right's were protect, along with the Earth's inherent 'right' to not be utterly disregarded.

Is it a paradox that materialists can easily live their daily lives with a propelling love for the Earth? I don't think so. Just as it isn't a paradox when we find people who believe everything is ultimately derived from God or Spirit who are selfish and greedy. But, yes, it is certainly an important contradiction if somebody says they feel and care deeply about, say, the Earth yet who do nothing to demonstrate or ritualize this commitment. Those people can have every ontology under the sun, as we all know too well.

But, more relevant to my question above, I'm not sure it matters that much to make the comparison in the first place.

I guess that kind of comparison -- especially if it is repetitive and somewhat compulsive -- might be the expression of some kind of dogma? Fear? Ultimately I think it is the result of a massive blend of interesting elements, but I notice that it comes about explicitly and implicitly when people begin discussing their preferred ontologies.
User avatar
Lou Gold
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:18 pm

Re: Depth of experience

Post by Lou Gold »

findingblanks wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 4:38 pm When we find those types of people who love going into nature as often as possible, the kind who study the geology and vegetation of each place they visit, who can tremble with reverence when they approach a roaring waterfall or press the souls of their feet to cool petrified lava flow, yet who are materialists; do we ever wish to compare such souls to some kind of generalized 'idealist' way of being?

I'm not sure. I do sometimes. I tend to do it more often when I hear somebody either say explicitly or implicitly that materialism is a primary cause of the horrible and rapacious disregard of the beauty that surrounds us.

But I also notice I tend to make this comparison even when somebody seems to think that a person being an idealist can make us guess that they have a stronger connection to the spirit of beauty that is alive when we commune with nature.

Listening to some people, you'd almost think that the folks living in the past who didn't even know there was a concept like 'matter' must have been beautific souls that treated all life with deep respect and fought to ensure that each individual right's were protect, along with the Earth's inherent 'right' to not be utterly disregarded.

Is it a paradox that materialists can easily live their daily lives with a propelling love for the Earth? I don't think so. Just as it isn't a paradox when we find people who believe everything is ultimately derived from God or Spirit who are selfish and greedy. But, yes, it is certainly an important contradiction if somebody says they feel and care deeply about, say, the Earth yet who do nothing to demonstrate or ritualize this commitment. Those people can have every ontology under the sun, as we all know too well.

But, more relevant to my question above, I'm not sure it matters that much to make the comparison in the first place.

I guess that kind of comparison -- especially if it is repetitive and somewhat compulsive -- might be the expression of some kind of dogma? Fear? Ultimately I think it is the result of a massive blend of interesting elements, but I notice that it comes about explicitly and implicitly when people begin discussing their preferred ontologies.
FB,

Stephen Talbert has an essay called Hold a Blossom to the Light that you might appreciate. I certainly do. It's more about quantitative vs. qualitative perspectives than metaphysics but I think it might be relevant.
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
findingblanks
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: Depth of experience

Post by findingblanks »

Ah, Stephen is a friend and great mentor of mine! Thanks, Lou :) I can't wait for his forthcoming book!!!!
findingblanks
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: Depth of experience

Post by findingblanks »

I often think about this when Bernardo compares the worst examples of a materialist with the best examples of an idealist. It seems like such an incoherent way to make a point, but he never receives any pushback when he does this so I think that might mean that this represents a very common way that people form conclusions...?
User avatar
Lou Gold
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:18 pm

Re: Depth of experience

Post by Lou Gold »

findingblanks wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:32 pm I often think about this when Bernardo compares the worst examples of a materialist with the best examples of an idealist. It seems like such an incoherent way to make a point, but he never receives any pushback when he does this so I think that might mean that this represents a very common way that people form conclusions...?
Well, I'm not a philosopher. Just a storyteller, which makes me like Talbert and, of course, Wade Davis. The story I see is some sort of a consciousness expansion from either/or toward both/and, which requires an acceptance of the mysteriousness along with a curiosity that makes us want to get close to it, to understand in the sense of standing under its ever unfolding spell.
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
findingblanks
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:36 am

Re: Depth of experience

Post by findingblanks »

Beautifully put, Lou.

Yeah, I can see why you'd gravitate to the story-teller aspects of Talbott more than his cut-throat either/or philosophical side. He certainly has both. He tends to be more carefully and gentle than Bernardo, however, when it comes to trying to understand the violence and ignorance that is running rampent in our world these days. But, as you say, he also can lean into wonderful narratives.
Post Reply