Wheels within wheels.

[Eric the Green]

(03-14-2017, 12:18 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

EtI Wrote:The same way anything is investigated

Okay, with what instrument is this mind activity--lets call it consciousness (cause that's where this is going)--measured?  In what units is it measured.  

Use any measure that you like. Idealism/spiritualism only says that WHATEVER you measure is consciousness, since that is what exists.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Unless you apply methods of knowledge, it doesn't matter whether the object of your knowledge is held to be spiritual or material in nature.

An object that is material in nature exists outside of my body.  It exists if see it existing or if I've never seen it existing.  I'm sure that there is some xenoplanet out there that hasn't been discovered yet.  It exists but no one has seen it or detected it as of yet.  And that is no great leap of faith since astronomers are finding those every day.

If an object is "spiritual" as you've defined it, I can only know it within the activity of my own mind.  Since my own mind can only know of its own thought processes by virtue of knowing them--spiritual matters are reduced to solipsism.

A still equals 0.

Within your materialist philosophy, all that may work for you. In a spiritualist perspective, it does not work. In idealism, "my own mind" includes the entire universe and beyond; whatever exists. My individual mind is simply a focus point for that cosmic mind.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Others have investigated many things, and they tell their results to us, so we know them.

Really.  Do they have evidence beyond their mere say so?  I mean I could tell you the sky on earth is hunter orange with blue polka dots (which it never would be anyway since that specific color has never been demonstrated to exist in nature--which is why it was chosen for that application) but I'd be lying.  Do these people have measurements?  Photographs?  Video recordings?  Results of scientific experiments?

If not then how do we know that they are not lying or are not delusional.

Scientific measurements can tell us many things, and it cannot tell us many other things. There are 4 basic methods of knowing, in my perspective: science, religion/mysticism, the arts, and philosophy.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:So, we know other minds when we perceive them. Idealists just call those things "minds," and you call them "material."

No..fools call them minds.  Which is why you do it.  I call material things, material things.  The closest I've ever come to experiencing an other mind is the behaviors evident in my cat, my boyfriend and other people.  But for all I know, for certain, is that my own mind exists.

Idealism always leads back to solipsism.

A materialist on the other hand would say, "X, Y, and Z phenomena are associated with/correlated with consciousness therefore H is conscious".

At no time can a materialist know for certain that said mind/consciousness exists merely that phenomena of associated with consciousness does and therefore it is reasonable to assume that said object is conscious.

Your perverse solipsism is go great as to attribute consciousness to such things as rock, grass, dirt, and trees.  Objects that have demonstrated no phenomena associated with consciousness.  Indeed outside of more complex orders of animals it is difficult to go past "responding to external stimuli" which in no way itself is a associated with consciousness.

Yes, idealists hold that all objects are conscious, in differing degrees. Teilhard de Chardin is a great exponent of this view. You have your materialist perspective, which is valid in your opinion, but others have other perspectives. The point is that no analysis of history can be correct if it excludes perspective held by vast numbers and whole nations and eras. I do not do this, but you do.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Yeah, you did.

We going the Kindergarten route?  I know what I said and when I said it.  Just because you can't follow along doesn't mean I can't or that others can't.

Good luck with that

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Solipsism says only my own self exists. Idealism and spiritualism hold that spirit exists and it the only reality. Those are two different definitions. Whatever math you apply to them is irrelevant and incorrect. You can't apply math to it.

1.  Everything can be boiled down to mathematics.  See my signature, good song, you wouldn't like it though.  In fact the 5%ers have a whole theory of numerology which they claim to be the essence of all knowledge.  I've looked into it, it makes sense until they get into the kooky magic stuff though.

https://genius.com/Nation-of-gods-and-ea...-annotated

2.  You've just said in your previous post that idealism and spiritualism are one and the same.  Ergo since we can reduce idealism to solipsism it as a consequence takes spiritualism with it.

After all how does a mind know that it exists?  It knows it exists because it exists.  I think therefore I am, really means, I am therefore I am.  Or to put it bluntly the self can only ever using idealistic precepts know the self.

Yes, because the "self" is everything. Everything outside my body and my sense perception is also me. The personal self is only an aspect of reality; it does not exist separately.

I am less polarized along the mathematics/experiential or horizontal axis, as I call it. I don't entirely disagree with you that everything is mathematics. Of course, astrology is based on it too. But, however you look at it, mathematics by itself is not material, and those like you who say everything is really mathematics, are not necessarily materialists, even though some can be; and even though science uses it and depends on it. Plato for example would agree that everything is mathematics, following upon his predecessor Pythagoras. He was also definitely spiritualist. Mathematics is not a physical object.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:A mystical idealist like myself or Emerson cannot be isolated within the self, because we know that we are connected to everything. That by definition cannot be solipsist.

Emerson can get away with saying such an absurd thing because he was born, lived and died long before the advent of psychology.  You, however, are not so lucky.  To say you are connected to everything--I know you mean spiritually and consciously and not "I'm one part of a giant machine"--is not only arrogant but borders on the insane.

Indeed were you to not crouch it in semi-religious language you'd be committed.  If I actually thought you dangerous to others I'd seek to have you committed.  But so far as I can tell you confine yourself to fleecing people with astrology and being a run of the mill internet crank.  I guess that's better than mugging people--but not by much.

A non-mystical materialist such as myself cannot be isolated within the self because we know we are a small part in a much larger social whole.  That is to say we have evidence that others exist around us, and that we exist in a society composed of people, and concepts such as laws, and so forth.

But you remain an isolated object, in your view.

Many people today hold views like Emerson's. Welcome to the real world. Not everyone agrees with you. A big majority of people are spiritualists today. Many of those are traditionalists, but not all of them. Spiritualism is the default philosophy, or perennial philosophy.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Awakenings are not about the creation of ideologies.

And yet that is when ideologies are created.  If a political philosophy is an ideology, and a religion is an ideology, and a social concept is an ideology.  When are most of those created?  During an awakening. 

No, that is not when ideologies are created. Marxism, for example, dates from 1848 in what was likely a 3T or borderline 4T, but certainly not a 2T.

Awakenings are spiritual, not ideological. But if you exclude spiritualism as insane, obviously you can't admit this.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:I know scientology only became popular in 1966

Doesn't matter.  If the precept that you propose is that religions are only founded during awakenings then the founding of Scientology in 1956 and the Nation of Islam in 1930 demonstrate this to not be the case.  When it became popular is not of concern here.

No, founding dates don't necessarily matter. It's when they become much more popular than before, that counts the most.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:It's not a UFO cult; you obviously know nothing about it.

Obviously you've not read their books.  I have.  It is beyond crazy the shit that they believe.  And I for one am open to the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientolog..._practices

Not exhaustive or complete but it's a start.

I have studied it, you have not. Scientology has nothing to do with UFOs. It is a method of clearing past traumas and discovering that you are a spiritual being, and applying that to your life. And paying lots of money for it.

Your reading of that wikipedia page on Scientology, demonstrated how you distort everything with your own materialist point of view. It is not a UFO cult, just because it asserts that we have had other lives on other planets. That does not follow. Their belief, which they claim to demonstrate by helping people recall their life experiences, is about reincarnation-- not travels in spaceships. Why did that distinction elude you? Because it does not conform to your own materialist beliefs.

The page is a more positive treatment of Scientology than I would have expected. It is in many ways a quite-typical version of spiritualism. I see it also mentions how it attacks people it considers its enemies, however. That seems more traditional, like the Inquisition.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:The Nation of Islam is not a religion; it is Islam, founded in 622 AD.

The Nation of Islam is a religion.  It is also not Islam.  Were the NOI simply Islam it would be impossible for Malik Al Shabazz (also known as Malcolm X) to convert to Sunni Islam.  Sunni Islam is the form practiced in most Islamic countries by the way.

Baloney. NOI is Islam. Sunni Islam dates from the 660s CE.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:So what? I didn't exclude traditional kinds of Christianity from Awakenings. You excluded other kinds of spirituality from Awakenings. You exclude genuine spirituality from Awakenings.

Incorrect.  I've not excluded any form of spiritual ideology (traditional Christianity or otherwise) from the ideologies created during the awakening.  What I said was that Transcendentalism itself was not wide spread or important. 

Tell me who speaks of Thoreau or Emerson outside of a classroom these days?  Nobody.  Who goes to Mormon and Evangelical church services every Sunday?  Loads of people.

As we can see one is of lasting impact on the world, the other was a small and now long dead clique of backwoods philosophers most people who've never studied philosophy have ever heard about.

Your opinion; others quite disagree and consider it influential, including obviously Mr. Howe. YOu have been excluding non-Christian religion and spirituality from Awakenings here in these posts.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:We are all one is not a collective

Wrong again sunshine.  If "We" are all "one" then "we" must be a collective.  By using the term "we" you imply that you are speaking of a group of more than one person.  If that we is therefore "one", it must be a collective.

Much like the Borg.  They are all one consciousness too.

Wrong. "we are all One" means that we are One, not a mere collection of separate individuals.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Ideologies are the way people get hooked on false memes and dominate people.

Not quite true.  Some ideologies are false--like your spirit-whats-it--others are not false.  For example the ideology that science can be used to explain the natural world using reason and empirical evidence.

Some ideologies can be used to dominate people, for example Nazism, or Communism, or Christianity.  Other ideologies cannot be used in such a way, for example Libertarianism, or Non-violent resistance.  Don't get on my bad side Eric or I'm going to forgive you so hard your mother will feel it.

I'm already on your bad side in this, because as is quite clear, I consider Libertarianism to be the biggest fraud of our time that is used to enslave and control people. How do you think Reaganomics has dominated our politics for 40 years?

But if you now embrace non-violence (and perhaps you still don't), I consider that an improvement for you.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:No, Awakenings are times when idealism predominates and idealists come of age.

You are confusing idealism as a philosophical construct with the title idealist given to Prophet generations.  The Missionaries, even the most religious of them, focused on material progress.  The social gospel was all about maximizing the the material good for the maximum number of people.  According to you these people should in fact be materialists.

Are you then claiming that there was no awakening in the GSP?  Surely not, you are intentionally mis-interpreting the works of S&H to fit the narrative you want to have.

Obviously not, since my own current religious affiliation descends from the GSP Awakening.

Philosophical idealism apart from material progress is the major part of all Awakenings. Social idealism is also a part of Awakenings. That is all explained in the quote from Howe I gave you above.

Isn't it the GPS Awakening (Great Power Saeculum)? Or is GSP your own name for it?

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Only 4Ts are preoocupied with changing external institutions. That is what the "ideologies" you talk about are interested in.

Again, you misread S&H.  They clearly say that the ideas (I call them ideologies for the sake of simplicity) of the 2T are implemented in the 4T by changing the external institutions.  Therefore, it is only logical that if this is the case that the ideologies themselves are created/thought up/whatever in the 2T.

Did you even read their books?

I don't think YOU did. There is little or no reference to ideologies by S&H. But yes, ideals are conceived in 2Ts which are put into effect in 4Ts, as well as a new culture developed. But the effect on this 4T may not happen this time, because of your cynical generation that has rejected everything that was conceived in the 2T. As YOU have now done to an astonishing and exaggerated degree by supporting someone who totally opposes the ideals of the 2T, and is destroying every trace of it to the best of his ability. Shame, shame on you.

Quote:1  Salvation and faith are the dominate concerns of Christianity in general, not just revivals.  Or do you believe that the sinner's prayer only gets prayed on muggy nights in August in a tent?

2.  Other spiritualities do not concern themselves with salvation.  Either because they do not believe in sin, or because they believe salvation can only be achieved after passing through many lives or some other nonsense.

3.  The Nation of Islam is hardly irrelevant.  It is the main branch of Islam in the US practiced, furthermore you earlier in this post openly claimed that the Nation of Islam was Islam as a whole (I know that it isn't) and Islam is very important being the second largest religion after Christianity--and far more dangerous than Christianity.

4.  I focused on it specifically because it was the form of Islam I'm familiar with.  Yes, I am familiar with it because of my race.  I've studied the 5%ers in much more depth.  They are a split from the NOI and they are rather irrelevant.

You didn't read S&H. Salvation through faith rather than works is the major perspective of Christian revivals during 2Ts.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Saying that "I am" does not at all mean that "I alone am," as Descartes went on to prove. You didn't read that part, I assume.

You assume wrong.  I've read Descartes proof, but all that means is one can use formal logic to prove anything anyone wants.  Mostly because logic is a tool.

And I claim Descartes proved it well enough, and so did Berkeley. We disagree. So what?

Quote:

EtI Wrote:That I am connected to all, is not only true because consciousness requires objects in order to be conscious, it is scientific fact.

Okay, let us suppose that consciousness is a scientific fact.  With what instrument is consciousness detected?  In what unit is it measured?  By what experiment is it demonstrated?

Unless these questions can be answered there is no scientific evidence for consciousness.  There may be philosophical evidence through the observation of phenomena associated with consciousness but that is about it.  See my paragraph above.

I am not going to do a search for scientific evidence for "consciousness" right now. We have threads on that subject here already. But it seems to be the implication of modern physics, although materialist interpreters still try to avoid the implication. On the other hand, asking for consciousness, which is immeasurable since it is infinite, to be measured, is self-contradictory to begin with. If it can be measured, it probably can only be measured or proven indirectly. It's like asking for cats to be proven to be dogs.

From a spiritualist point of view, it doesn't matter. We know spiritually by experience that everything is one, and it's all spirit. So anything that is measured, is also spirit. And that every human being is connected to the environment, is physical fact.

Quote:Your asinine comments about objectively good music have been ignored of course.  I can't take your opinion on music seriously since you have a hard on for that-singer-who-shall-remain-nameless.  I mean if it was like Enrique Iglacias I could understand but TSWSRN I just don't get.

Why should I care about your opinion of that-singer-who-shall-remain-nameless? Your view of objectively-bad music speaks for itself.