Philosophical Speculations

Seems to me, that it's around this time in the discussion, that someone shoud come about and kick the water pitcher...
Isan

Martin_ wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:13 pm Seems to me, that it's around this time in the discussion, that someone shoud come about and kick the water pitcher...
Isan

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

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.

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.

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 6:59 am

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.

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.

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".