I'm A Materialist, Change My Mind

[Peter Jones]

Yeah - I'm done. I see no reason to invent new words like mumorphism. I'll stay clear of it till it finds it's way into the dictionary.

I couldn't disagree more, since as you are well aware of Lao Tzu's aphorism that true words seem paradoxical, this seems to almost necessitate paradox-embracing neologisms, and which at one time engendered the term 'emptifullness' to express a revelation within this psyche that no conventional terms seemed able to capture. But hey, perhaps I just have a more poetic disposition that way.

I don't want to argue about this. I see no reason to invent new words and ideas when we have the entire Wisdom literature at our disposal.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I don't want to argue about this. I see no reason to invent new words and ideas when we have the entire Wisdom literature at our disposal.

What's to argue about? At some point every linguistic term was a neologism, and given that language is continuously evolving as more of them are eventually invented, then what reason is there for thinking this should not continue to be the case? It is clearly what we as creative, metacognitive, imaginative alters do, and is what engenders in any given lexicon its unique sprachgefühl, thus not about to be precluded by dismissing it as redundant. So I remain open to it.

[Peter Jones]

What's to argue about? At some point every linguistic term was a neologism, and given that language is continuously evolving as more of them are eventually invented, then what reason is there for thinking this should not continue to be the case? It is clearly what we as creative, metacognitive, imaginative alters do, and is what engenders in any given lexicon its unique sprachgefühl, thus not about to be precluded by dismissing it as redundant. So I remain open to it.

I'm fine when there is a need for a new word. Otherwise we're just contributing to the unnecessary spaghtification of a perfectly adequate language.
.
If mumorphism represents a new idea then fair enough, but it would have to be a good idea, not a idiosyncratic personal theory that one or two people endorse. I see no need for new ideas., just new explanations.

[Soul_of_Shu]

If mumorphism represents a new idea then fair enough, but it would have to be a good idea, not a idiosyncratic personal theory that one or two people endorse. I see no need for new ideas., just new explanations.

I don't understand mumorphism as a new idea at all, as it is completely compatible with the idea in the Heart Sutra that formlessness is not other than form. Rather it's just a novel descriptor of the not-two nature of formlessness><form as the ontic prime, which may appeal to some sensibilities, while clearly not all. No doubt there were perfectly adequate terms for the fundamental nature of Brahman, before someone came up with the compound term satchitananda, which eventually came to be an accepted descriptor. So again, insofar as any descriptor can be wholly adequate, there can, and will, always be ones that come along, which in time may become common place. Not to say that will definitely be the case with mumorphism, but, with respect, if everyone just shuts one's mind within some insular status quo, we wouldn't have such evocative descriptors like satchitananda, or countless more.

[Peter Jones]

The term 'satchitananda' was coined by people who knew what they were talking about and it has a clear meaning and useful role. It is not a new theoretical idea but a description.

Clearly I do not interpret the Heart Sutra as do you. No problem. . .

What do you make of this?

It seems that Meister Eckhart pledges his soul and on a different view. He tells us form is nothing, and not just nothing but 'literally nothing'.

“Sometime I have said that there is a power in the soul that an alone be said to be free. Sometimes I have said that it is a refuge of the spirit and sometimes I have said that it is a light of the spirit. Sometimes I have said that it is a spark. But now I say that it is neither this nor that, and yet still it is a something which is as far above this or that as heaven is above earth. … It is free of all names and is devoid of all forms, quite empty and free as god is empty and free within himself. It is so entirely one and simple, as God is one and simple, that no one can see inside it in a particular manner…If you could see this with my heart, then you would understand what it is I am saying : for it is true, and the truth itself tells it…. What I have told you is true, as truth itself is my witness and I pledge my soul on it.”

Meister Eckhart – Sermon 13

[Soul_of_Shu]

The term 'satchitananda' was coined by people who knew what they were talking about and it has a clear meaning and useful role. It is not a new theoretical idea but a description.

So much for not wanting to argue about this I'll disregard the implied insult for what it is. In any case, yet another case of having to agree to disagree, and we've drifted too far away from the intention of this topic (that this section was created to avoid, mea culpa), which was about convincing a materialist, not bemusing them. Time to let it go.

[Peter Jones]

These discussions always end in this way. There was no implied insult since you did not make up the word. .There was a question and a straightforward criticism of the word and the idea.

As for materialists I'd suggest it's best not to confuse them further.

But as you don't wish to argue the point we'll have to leave it.

[AshvinP]

The term 'satchitananda' was coined by people who knew what they were talking about and it has a clear meaning and useful role. It is not a new theoretical idea but a description.

Clearly I do not interpret the Heart Sutra as do you. No problem. . .

What do you make of this?

It seems that Meister Eckhart pledges his soul and on a different view. He tells us form is nothing, and not just nothing but 'literally nothing'.

“Sometime I have said that there is a power in the soul that an alone be said to be free. Sometimes I have said that it is a refuge of the spirit and sometimes I have said that it is a light of the spirit. Sometimes I have said that it is a spark. But now I say that it is neither this nor that, and yet still it is a something which is as far above this or that as heaven is above earth. … It is free of all names and is devoid of all forms, quite empty and free as god is empty and free within himself. It is so entirely one and simple, as God is one and simple, that no one can see inside it in a particular manner…If you could see this with my heart, then you would understand what it is I am saying : for it is true, and the truth itself tells it…. What I have told you is true, as truth itself is my witness and I pledge my soul on it.”

Meister Eckhart – Sermon 13

I don't think that's a different view. Eckhart is referencing and stressing formlessness, i.e. "power", which is one pole of mumorphism.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Clearly I do not interpret the Heart Sutra as do you. No problem. . .

What do you make of this?

It seems that Meister Eckhart pledges his soul and on a different view. He tells us form is nothing, and not just nothing but 'literally nothing'.

“Sometime I have said that there is a power in the soul that can alone be said to be free. Sometimes I have said that it is a refuge of the spirit and sometimes I have said that it is a light of the spirit. Sometimes I have said that it is a spark. But now I say that it is neither this nor that, and yet still it is a something which is as far above this or that as heaven is above earth. … It is free of all names and is devoid of all forms, quite empty and free as god is empty and free within himself. It is so entirely one and simple, as God is one and simple, that no one can see inside it in a particular manner…If you could see this with my heart, then you would understand what it is I am saying : for it is true, and the truth itself tells it…. What I have told you is true, as truth itself is my witness and I pledge my soul on it.”

Meister Eckhart – Sermon 13

I don't think that's a different view. Eckhart is referencing and stressing formlessness, i.e. "power", which is one pole of mumorphism.

Once again, I feel we've drifted too far off the intended inquiry of the original topic, which this 'formal' section was created to avoid. So I will ask that should Peter wish to respond to Ashvin's comment, that it be carried over to the new topic provided here ... Formlessness><form as the uncaused, irreducible ontic fundamental ... Or alternatively, start a new topic pertaining to the Meister Eckhart quote.

So for now I'm locking this thread, which I can reopen upon request by PM, should Joseph or anyone else have anything to add that is directly pertinent to the original topic.