Bernardo's Shared World Problem

[Jim Cross]

I think Jim has been getting into Anna Brown (so to speak), with the nothing to do, nowhere to go, no-one to be schtick.

She seems a little too much into the easy parts and misses the chopping wood part.

But I guess that part doesn't sell as well.

It fun listening to that stuff but its still more blah.

I actually think Bernardo ideas lead to this stuff - we only call it mind or mental to distinguish it from the idea of matter which has grabbed the culture. But if its all one thing then Mind or mental is redundant. It's just THIS happening. You could call it cornflakes instead of mind and it wouldn't matter.

We can agree on that.

What is "matter" anyway?

Even if go solely with physics, it's forces, matter, particles, waves, fields, frequencies, and so on. It is quite amorphous.

[Lou Gold]

As Ben Iscatus said recently, when you find a mythology that resonates its like appreciating a piece of art. You contemplate and tweak and it gives you space for reverence and meaning - thats why I suggested a sub forum for Bernardo where we can do that. I dont really go for the butting of heads in other parts of the forum, where people defend and impose wildly different worldviews.

Thanks for keeping your comments mostly tied around BK's view. Did you actually read BK's paper that is the subject of this post?

My own views are ever-changing and there were many years when I would have been attracted to BK's views. Views like his no longer resonate with me. Reducing the world to mind (or matter) doesn't in the end provide answers. There aren't any answers.

"Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water".

So, Jim, is this the excuse for not cooking the rice?