Wheels within wheels.

[Kinser79]

EtI Wrote:Those definitions are fine, but before you defined idealism as "Even a five year old understands that a rock is real not because he sees it, or because he imagines it is there but because it actually is there and exists outside of himself, and would exist had he existed or not." That is solipsism, the idea that reality depends on your OWN mind only. In general idealism does hold that objects depend on the mind "in some way."

I see that reading comprehension is not your strong suit.  Are you sure you went to university?

I said that a five year old understand that a rock is real not because he sees it.  Seeing a rock is a process of the mind once you get past the physics of why the eye sees what it sees.

I said a five year old understands that a rock is real not because he imagines it is there.  Imagination is a process of the mind.  Almost always when imagining people are using mental reflections of what exists or did exist at one point in time and manipulate it within their thoughts.

I said a five year old understands that a rock is real because it actually is there and exists outside of himself, and would exist had he not existed.  That is to say simply that the rock is a piece of matter and that it exists, and it exists independently of the existence of any other matter.

Furthermore, then if what you say is true then all idealism can be condensed into solipsism.  After all if Idealism is any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind, how can we be sure of any activity of any mind other than our own?

Ergo if we then agree that A is A, then A must equal solipsism.

EtI Wrote:Idealism is not ideas

Never said that Idealism were ideas.

EtI Wrote:Philosophical idealism (or as I prefer to call it, spiritualism) says that objects depend on the mind (consciousness, not just thinking).

Wrong again cupcake.

Spiritualism:  the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.

Since we've agreed that google can define philosophical terms, guess where that definition came from.

While one could say that objects depend on the mind to exist (the general definition of idealism) we've already determined that idealism and solipsism are the same.

So at most I'd say you have gone from A to A^2 (that's A squared btw since I know you have trouble reading mathematics as well as English) that really doesn't mean much.  If A=0 then A^2 = 0 not A + B.

EtI Wrote:As you can see, it about people looking within to find themselves, and seeking authenticity and autonomy. It is not specifically a time in which ideologies are created or propagated. That can happen anytime.

1.  Define "look within" without a clear definition we cannot agree that B is B.  Assuming that is even B to start with.  After all if solipsism is the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.  And all idealism can be condensed into solipsism then is looking within even necessary?  Otherwise this just sounds like unproductive navel gazing to me.

2.  Define what you mean by authenticity.  A violin can be an authentic violin and not be an authentic Stradivarius.  It could look like a Strad, even sound like a Strad but not actually be a Strad.

3.  Define what you mean by autonomy.  Are not all adults more or less autonomous anyway within the confines of the laws of their society.

4  This is the most important would not this search for authenticity and autonomy not naturally lead to the creation of ideologies. 

Remember I'm using ideology here to cover the gamut from religious doctrines to political theories to economic formulations.

EtI Wrote:Wrong. Religions, spiritual movements and cults spring up during Awakenings, and also revivals are a big part of them.

Remember you're proposing a precept here that religions/cults and such only develop during awakenings and never happen at any other time.

EtI Wrote:OK, you conceded something. Good. But no, religious or spiritual phenomena don't have to be Christian.

I conceded nothing.  Those churches were founded during the Awakening Period recognized by S&H for the GPS.  And yet:

The Nation of Islam was founded in 1930.  It is a real religion, also clearly not  a 2T.  In fact the opposite of a 2T a 4T!

Scientology was founded in 1954.  It is really a UFO cult, but it claims to be a religion.

As we see my contention that a religion can be founded at any time holds true.  We have one religion founded in a 4T, one founded in a 1T and I bet if I dug deep enough I could find one founded in a 3T.

All dates supplied by wikipedia.

EtI Wrote:Then you are picking and choosing parts of Awakenings that you yourself claim are valid or important

And you don't? 

While the Transcendentalists were running around doing god knows what on Walden Pond, do you know that the Evangelical Branch of the Baptist Church was founded during that same Awakening period.  Now tell me which was more influential in the world?  Evangelical Christianity which has even spread to the Catholic Church (its called Charismatic Catholics) or some guy who wrote a couple books that don't even get read in high school in America--let alone the rest of the West. 

And that isn't even to get started on Mormonism, the fastest growing Christian sect.

EtI Wrote:That's denial, as I said. That's not history, it's your own ideology. S&H disagreed, claiming it as the name of both a prophet generation and an Awakening/2T.

Both are probably derived from New England stock--as probably are you.  I don't feel like doing a genealogy on either tonight, though I could, my mother has access to the Mormon databases for some weird reason.  Probably for that project she's been working on since she got her shit together after divorcing her second husband.  Anyway they had to name the generation something--and Transcendentalist sounded better than Mormon or Evangelical because both names would be "problematic".  

The simple fact of the matter is while the Transcendentalists were important in one section of the country, their impact was not great outside of it.  Much less their impact on anywhere else.  To deny this is to deny the evidence of your own eyes Eric.

EtI Wrote:As the quote from Howe above states, yes, Awakenings are about individual autonomy and authenticity

And this individual authenticity and autonomy cannot be found at all within the framework of a collectivist ideology?  Are you sure about that?  Have you not said "We are all one" yourself on many times?  Assuming you mean by "We" a collective group of humans, specifically all of humanity that exists now, has existed and will exist and that you mean "one" to mean the same or well for that matter even the number itself would work too....isn't that collectivist.

Indeed nothing is more collectivist than the claim that every human is the same as every other human, that we act as one unit.  I mean it is completely retarded to be sure--but it is also collectivist, the most collectivist of all collectivisms.

EtI Wrote:Most people here understand that Awakenings are times when individual rights are asserted, as well as when individuals protest against society and conformity, and when they learn to find their own path in life and their inner spirituality

No.  That is what you understand an Awakening to mean.  I'll let others define what an awakening is for themselves if they define it differently than I have done....namely that it is the time period where major ideologies come to the fore in a society.

Bear in mind once again I'm using ideology to mean everything from religious/spiritual ideas/movements to political ideas/movements.

EtI Wrote:But even religion concerns the personal life and salvation of its believers.

Not quite.  If we are speaking of Christianity in particular I'd agree.  I've not studied (Non-NOI) Islam sufficiently to make a statement about it.  NOI Islam concerns itself primarily with the individual and his relationship with other black peoples, particularly his own national group--primarily Africans in America (for example I cannot be an NOI Muslim not because I'm gay [they don't like that particulary] but because my significant other is a white man {aka a devil}.  Allah is an after thought (which is understandable since the NOI is a black empowerment movement first and a religion second).

I could go further about how the NOI believes that white people were created from blacks by a scientist named Yakub...but I think you get my drift in that they don't care about "salvation" as according to them black men become saved by the act of rejecting the white devil and his white devilish ways.

The various forms of Paganism, particularly that of the Ancient type concerned itself with the social performance of ritual to appease the gods (themselves embodiment of the forces of nature).

Judaism concerns itself with the upholding of the covenant between 'Ashem (or YHWH or Jehovah if you prefer) and the Hebrew people.

Very few religions actually concern themselves with salvation, much less personal salvation.

EtI Wrote:That's according to Strauss and Howe and The Fourth Turning.

Close but again not quite.  And close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.  That is nothing less than your interpretation of the self same book.  I've not read it in several years but I know the material.

EtI Wrote:(about spirituality's material definition)That can't be done,

Then it isn't anything more than solipsism.  A is still equaling 0 Eric.  I'm not impressed.

I've already taken your quiz thing on your site years ago.  I'm a hard core materialist (as if that isn't a surprise).  I feel no need to revisit your website, which last I looked at it was in serious need of an update sometime around 1997.  

EtI Wrote:That is why I can't subscribe to your mega-saeculum, nor can anyone else who does not try to describe all of history without idealism.

You do realize that I knew you wouldn't subscribe to the Mega-Saeculum.  I know you think you're--well whatever-crap-you-believe-in's--gift to human thought, but I don't.  I classified you as an ignoramus years ago.  I don't debate you because to me it is like debating someone who rides the short bus.  It isn't that he's so great, it is that to defeat him is no victory.

Incidentally you know what you call history without idealism?  History.

As for the rest of your post...you can't agree at the beginning that the google definitions I used are okay and then at the end disagree.   Not how the game is played--not that I expected better.  I really do think in a chess match you'd play along until you realized I was beating you and then over turn the board and then declare victory.  Of course the only one fooled is yourself. 

Boiled down to its essence if idealism requires the mind to perceive it how does that mind know it even exists?  The answer likewise is as simple as it is profound, a mind's only evidence of its own existence is that it exists--that is to say:

"I think therefore I am" is to say "I am therefore I am" which is solipsism to the highest degree.

So we've determined that A=0 which means A^2 or A^infinity all equal 0.

And speaking of Zero.