Depth of experience
Posted: 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.
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.