The Victorian investigators into mediumship were pretty successful. In modern times, Rupert Sheldrake has done good work, though few scientists follow him because he is dismissed as being full of woo. This is an unacceptable prejudice that would change if Idealism became culturally respectable.All of this can be investigated now with science and some people are trying to do it with little success.
Ah, but you're assuming that what is formless has to exist in the same way as forms. But these forms do not really exist. There is endless discussion of this in the literature.AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:51 pm That would imply formlessness can exist without form, for ex. our thinking activity can exist without thoughts. We know from experience that is not possible. Also if time is not "truly real" how can we even speak of an ontic "origin" and one "prior to" another?
Ben,Ben Iscatus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:58 pmThe Victorian investigators into mediumship were pretty successful. In modern times, Rupert Sheldrake has done good work, though few scientists follow him because he is dismissed as being full of woo. This is an unacceptable prejudice that would change if Idealism became culturally respectable.All of this can be investigated now with science and some people are trying to do it with little success.
The only way to make sense of the above mystical references in a formal philosophical way is for God to be a polarity of formlessness and form, two poles of Being-becoming which constitute each other as they work through and against each other. The Eastern view tends to prioritize the formlessness of Reality while the Western prioritizes its forms, and the Western mystical perspective seeks a healthy balance between the two. Neither pole is any less "real" than the other. And, if we reflect on idealist metaphysics, we also see that must be the case for idealism to remain consistent. Formless mental activity cannot be more "real" than thought-forms and vice versa.Peter Jones wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:21 pmAh, but you're assuming that what is formless has to exist in the same way as forms. But these forms do not really exist. There is endless discussion of this in the literature.AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:51 pm That would imply formlessness can exist without form, for ex. our thinking activity can exist without thoughts. We know from experience that is not possible. Also if time is not "truly real" how can we even speak of an ontic "origin" and one "prior to" another?
“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
"He is devoid of form;
‘Tis your own form which is reflected back to you."
Jalaluddin Rumi
“As the spider weaves its thread out of its own mouth, plays with it and then withdraws it again into itself, so the eternal unchangeable Lord, who is without form, without attributes, who is absolute knowledge and absolute bliss, evolves the whole universe out of Himself, plays with it for a while, and again withdraws it into Himself.”
Srimad Bhagavatum
Clearly thinking activity cannot exist without thoughts. Not sure what you mean by this point.
In metaphysics the word 'prior' should not imply temporality. The issue is ontological, the question of what is prior to what in the manifestation of forms. A world of forms cannot arise from a form. For the nondual view the Ultimate is prior to the categories of thought, or 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories' as de Cusa puts it, so beyond form. Thus Spencer Brown, explaining the origin of forms in his Laws of Forrm, , likens the Ultimate to a blank sheet of paper.
For a way into this idea consider Kant's formless 'thing in itself', which is defined as 'not a thing'. .
I don't understand how you reach this opinion. It makes no sense to me. But each to his own.AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 3:53 pm [
The only way to make sense of the above mystical references in a formal philosophical way is for God to be a polarity of formlessness and form, two poles of Being-becoming which constitute each other as they work through and against each other. The Eastern view tends to prioritize the formlessness of Reality while the Western prioritizes its forms, and the Western mystical perspective seeks a healthy balance between the two. Neither pole is any less "real" than the other. And, if we reflect on idealist metaphysics, we also see that must be the case for idealism to remain consistent. Formless mental activity cannot be more "real" than thought-forms and vice versa.
Through Scott's essay on Mumorphism and Tetralemmic Polarity.Peter Jones wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:40 pmI don't understand how you reach this opinion. It makes no sense to me. But each to his own.AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 3:53 pm [
The only way to make sense of the above mystical references in a formal philosophical way is for God to be a polarity of formlessness and form, two poles of Being-becoming which constitute each other as they work through and against each other. The Eastern view tends to prioritize the formlessness of Reality while the Western prioritizes its forms, and the Western mystical perspective seeks a healthy balance between the two. Neither pole is any less "real" than the other. And, if we reflect on idealist metaphysics, we also see that must be the case for idealism to remain consistent. Formless mental activity cannot be more "real" than thought-forms and vice versa.
Scott Roberts wrote:As a philosophy of mind, mumorphism is the claim that all mental activity is mumorphic. Take thinking. Thinking is not just thoughts (each of which has form), that is, the set of thoughts is just another thought. Rather it is what moves from one thought to another, unifying one concept with the next, which (if the thinking is original) changes the concepts. On the other hand, without the confining force of concepts, one would just have meaningless drivel. Thinking, then, in Coleridge's words, is a case of two forces of one power, which act against each other as they constitute the other.
All things have form, but are only actual through the force of formlessness. On the other hand, form is also a force, which restrains the force of formlessness. Thinking exemplifies this best in our experience.
[Mumorphism] is shorthand for:
"Formlessness is not other than form, form is not other than formlessness" (Heart Sutra)
and
"Awareness of objects is the Universe. Awareness of absence of objects is Nirvana. But to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the same." (Franklin Merrell-Wolff).
and
"Two forces of one power, expanding life and confining form" (Coleridge)
and
"The Infinite defines itself in the finite, the finite conceives itself in the Infinite. Each is necessary to the other's complete joy of being. The Infinite pauses always in the finite; the finite arrives always in the Infinite. This is the wheel that circles forever through Time and Eternity." (Sri Aurobindo)
I didn't see that before. I am happy to move it wherever you think is best. Peter's last comment kind of sounded like he was done with it, though, which is also fine.Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 2:53 pm You guys are clearly not inclined to move this conversation to a separate topic thread provided, but I suppose since it's still somehow related to 'convincing a materialist', however unlikely this tangential theme is likely to do so, you may carry on.
Peter Jones wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:49 am 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.