Wheels within wheels.

[Eric the Green]

(03-13-2017, 10:11 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

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?

The same way anything is investigated. 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. You don't know it, until you know it in your mind. Others have investigated many things, and they tell their results to us, so we know them. So, we know other minds when we perceive them. Idealists just call those things "minds," and you call them "material."

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Idealism is not ideas

Never said that Idealism were ideas.

Yeah, you did.

Quote:

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.

Solipsism says only my own self exists. Idealism and spiritualism hold that spirit exists and is 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.

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.

I assume you're not really interested much in philosophical idealism, but you obviously don't know much about it. Berkeley is a leading idealist. He specifically excluded solipsism by bringing God into his picture of reality. God is a symbol of the cosmic universal consciousness, or infinite spirit. Whether you think the notion of God is valid or not, it must be admitted it is a key component of idealism. Ronald Knox explained Berkeley's point in a limerick poem:


There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."



About our limerick above, do you remember this question: If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? This poem, along with our bishop, contends that God always perceives the tree, and that therefore anything it does- even crashing to the ground- is being observed. Therefore yes, the tree is heard.

http://myopicpoets.blogspot.com/2009/07/...erick.html

In other words, other minds and other objects exist, if we stop perceiving them, because God perceives them.

Quote:

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.

Awakenings are not about the creation of ideologies. If you are discussing Awakenings, it's better to stick to S&H definitions. If those are not good enough for you, then forget claiming mega versions of them. It doesn't matter what S&H "sounds like" to you.

Quote:

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.

No, generalizations like S&H use do not imply "always" or "only" or "no other." It is about trends.

Quote:

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.

I know scientology only became popular in 1966. It's not a UFO cult; you obviously know nothing about it. The Nation of Islam is not a religion; it is Islam, founded in 622 AD.

Islam Origins, Islam History, Islam Beliefs - Patheos
http://www.patheos.com/Library/Islam
Islam is a monotheistic religious tradition that developed in the Middle East in the ... Islam, which literally means "surrender" or "submission," was founded on the ...
Origin‎: ‎Arabian peninsula Sacred Texts‎: ‎Qur'an
Formed‎: ‎622 CE Followers‎: ‎1,500,000,000

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Take it up with S&H.

Quote:

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.

No, not at all. "We are all one" is not a collective. A collective is a collection of individuals. Collect; get it? Individual vs. collective is a contrast or polarity recognized by all philosophers, sociologists, political scientists and probably every other poster here. You sure you want to deny it or call it irrelevant? You are really reaching, even for you.

Quote:

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.

And you are misuing the word. Ideologies are the way people get hooked on false memes and dominate people. They are beliefs we should all question, forced upon us by social authority and people with agendas. No, Awakenings are times when idealism predominates and idealists come of age. Ideologies are just ideas, and have nothing to do with idealism; especially the philosophical kind. Only 4Ts are preoocupied with changing external institutions. That is what the "ideologies" you talk about are interested in. Not everyone is a materialist like you. Not everyone is worldly like you. Some people are interested in culture and the spirit.

You constructed a saeculum based on attitudes and approaches that you personally consider valid, and exclude the rest, and then build a mega-saeculum cycle on top of it. A genuine cycle concerns includes approaches taken by most people in society, not just those that you consider valid.

Quote:[quote]

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.

Salvation and faith were dominant concerns in Christian revivals, which have been part of Awakenings. Other spirituality may not be, but they are concerned with unfolding spiritual consciousness, then. Or other forms of worship of a spiritual being(s) which informs their "inner" spiritual life. NOI is irrelevant, and I assume you focus on it because of your race.

OK, so what is "within" or "inner"?

Are you conscious? That is your within and inner life.

Materialist explanations of consciousness are not only unproven and unprovable, they are irrelevant.

snip irrelevant kinser rantings...

Quote: 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.

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.

That I am connected to all, is not only true because consciousness requires objects in order to be conscious, it is scientific fact. Or do you deny that you need air, food and water? Go ahead, deny it and see how far you get kinser. No, you are not a separate self, or a separate object.

I am glad you took the questionnaire earlier, and confirmed you are what I would have thought you were. If you care to give me your exact score, I can add a dot for you on my map of all known responses, and add to the numbers of materialists on the map. This may be published someday (the dots are anonymous).
http://philosopherswheel.com/questionnaire.htm