The Materialist Insult

reply to post by Bluesma


What do you imagine 'awareness' to be?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I don't feel like playing your games today.
The kind of reality you are trying to put into words is perverted in the process.

reply to post by Bluesma


Great words, and nicely put together.

This is the concern, about the instincts of reproduction, survival, draws to physical pleasure and repulsions to discomfort.... the spiritual person tends to assume the materialist is without tools to rein those in with.

This is the crux of the "matter", isn't it? It is an assumption that all morality is created by only the "spiritual". But we cannot find this being true anywhere.

Even spirituality is based on the material realm; without it, there would also be no spirituality, and no beings capable of spirituality. Everything that arises from spirituality essentially arises from the material—or whatever it is that gives reality its physicalness and appearance, its substance. Yet we condemn those who are life-affirming, "earthy", or materialist, because it conflicts with prevailing metaphysical doctrines.

In most cases, the prevailing doctrines win.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Boy You come up with some heavy stuff a lot.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

This is where everyone is wrong. This is what the idealist infers would happen to him when he imagines a world with out his precious ideals. He believes that without a soul, without an afterlife and without God, we are essentially worthless meat sacks; and that anyone who is a materialist must be implying such a cop out. This is simply untrue. To think that something is worthless enough to have it destroyed and stolen from is the result of another ideal— namely that we are worthless meat sacks. No one believes that except those who see themselves as worthless meat sacks, so they invent such ideas as souls, the afterlife and God, merely so they can stand the sight of themselves.

To destroy a real living thing to gain a brief state of comfort involves a denial of the physical, a denial of life, and a striving for an ideal.

The modern definition of materialism is wrong. It doesn't involve greed, violence, anarchy or nihilism in the slightest.

The reason I brought that up, is because the mystery of the nature of meaning and absolutes. It is a confusing a problematic situation. How can anything ever actually mean something, if there is no such thing as meaning, and if there is only such thing as meaning when you make it up or allow it to exist or perceive it, then anything can mean anything and everything can mean everything. Without absolute meaning, then we physically are exactly as we are, and the psychopathic murder eating his feces in the gutter is = to you and everything that can ever exist in the history of histories history. There is no difference between anything, no consequence, no matter, no meaning, it doesnt matter if I kill the person to feed myself because there are no absolute morals and noone to punish me (if I dont get caught, lets say I wont.). This is why it is interesting the way life turned out, to prod us into a path of least resistance into being good, for the benefit of ourselves and all. If life didnt need a partner to reproduce, perhaps there would be an eternal wild conflict, and cooperation would never have seen like a good idea... but then again even animals in the wild dont just going around eating every each other they find.

So you are under the impression (when I speak I am never asserting I know anything, I am only asking questions and thinking, so im not saying you being under this impression is bad, just seeing what we think) that whatever reality exists and can exist, can never have meaning, because meaning is meaningless, lol, how would absolute morals be instituted? Does the idea of this universe not being eternal play into affect on this viewpoint? The thought that because sometime, somewhere, something would have had to make a decision that this is the way things are and always should be? because absolutes or meaning, couldnt have been just there, they are meaningless without each and every circumstance they can apply too. (I am really lost in my thinking now, lol... its hard to explain what im trying to grasp at) what about math and geometry?

So the universe should be seen as just a massive blob of physical event, and we are detailed specks, and we have little choice (but lots of choice, compared to rocks and stars and plants and dogs) we can either live or die.( to be or not to be ), and nothing outside or inside the universe, really has a clue about the whole of the unvierse, its just a blob that is uncontrollably evolving, and there are probably unthinkable quantities of life forms all across it, all made from it, like you and me, along for the ride, completely clueless to these same questions im trying to ask, regarding meaning, and what this giant blob actually is, what its doing, why its doing it, how long its been doing, who has the answers?? Everything that exists =ignorance ... and thats the truth, though its meaningless.

I guess some of what I was just saying relates to the ideas of existentialism.

and yea I think idealism is realism... When you walk down your street or through your house, or through the internet looking at all the things that exist in the world. Every single thing man has created (that is not bad) is ideal. Homes, cars, phones, streets, plumbing, arts, technology, clothing, fire, restaurants, grocery stores, culture, comedy... Everything, man does is ideal. take that you realist. non idealism, would be living as monkeys for eternity. Idealism would be the monkeys striving to make their existence ideal.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Great words, and nicely put together.

This is the concern, about the instincts of reproduction, survival, draws to physical pleasure and repulsions to discomfort.... the spiritual person tends to assume the materialist is without tools to rein those in with.

This is the crux of the "matter", isn't it? It is an assumption that all morality is created by only the "spiritual". But we cannot find this being true anywhere.

Yes, this idealistic presumption made by many spiritual seekers is that the lower body is bad and the upper body is good. They tend to be sex-negative and even body-negative because desire is felt in the lower or vital center of the body-mind and is associated with so-called animal instincts.

In contrast, the upper body, the brain-mind, is associated with various spiritual ideals, and even allows for a kind of transcendence of the lower through various meditative techniques that have the aspirant ascend up the spinal line, through the brain core, and even perhaps above the normal confines of the body-mind.

One of the unfortunate aspects of such practices is the dissociation from the lower physical body, even shunning it as repulsive in the more extreme instances. This strategy can and has lead to innumerable misconceptions about the purity of the upper and the impurity of the lower - and all the judgmental righteousness that can be found in various religious and spiritual traditions where this imbalance occurs between the upper and lower aspects of the body-mind.

I find that if the body-mind is balanced between its lower and upper energies/centers, that one awakens in inherent morality, even love, because the inherent unity in which we all arise is obvious in such body-mind balance. There is a natural morality to the body-mind in its balance, and especially when its essential unity with its environment and others is recognized and lived.

But the secret is that the WHOLE body-mind must be engaged in responsible living and also the transcending of the ego-principle of separation - and this evokes the inherent morality found in our essential unity.

Neither the lower physical idealism of materialists nor the upper "mind" idealism of spiritualists will ultimately make one more moral than the other. Only a balanced whole-bodily heart-based unity with what is arising (both apparently inward and apparently outward), beyond all idealism, allows for one's true inherent morality/love to awaken.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Nice thread man

The matter of Materialism is relatable in regard to the true nature of the Skeptic that does not treat any belief as an absolute. Science, especially given, these lofty ideas involves inductive reasoning not deductive reasoning.

As such, its basis, is upon statistical analysis not actual tests upon populations. As you have admitted Materialism is a belief and to base oneself solely on any particular system of belief? In my opinion
is at best limiting, with respect to the exploration of this event we call life.

Any thoughts?

Here is where I believe the offending "materialist insult" might have first originated or even helped served to inspire the OP of this thread.

from the thread What is it like being dead for eternity?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Only those who fear death create and employ such fictions.

If you had any idea how weak that argument is, you wouldn't have made it.

Edit: Here's a paradigm shifting POV (from the atheist perspective) you might want to consider with regards to intelligent design and creative intentionality from a first/last cause or by a Creative Agency aka God.

Starts here, but continues for a few posts.

Superintelligent Design in Earth-Moon-Sun Configuration

 

And that's just for starters.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

Reductionistic materialist monism is a dead paradigm, but it's ignorance remains in the worldview of many, but it's so frustrating to see and so entrenched.

I offered more to support my argument. You offer nothing but what amounts to insults for those like me who can think outside the box.

You're is a trained ignorance, but in your assurance that you are right, it's willful blindness.

I don't think there's any way to enlighten inform, or illuminate your worldview to include other possibilities than that you are mere a thing in a universe of things devoid of intentionality or purpose. How sad.

But since i used the mainfest reality or the material world to illustrate my point, I don't see how it might be taken or construed as a "materalist insult" in that the context the word "materialist" was used, which was "reductionistic materialist monism" meaning the material to the exclusion of, the invisible, including the invisible infinite intelligence of the Creative Agency by which we've come to be here in the first place. (see Superintelligent Design in Earth-Moon-Sun Configuration, linked above, for more)

So the alternative argument which embraces the Spirit and the Creative Intent, does not in fact argue against or attempt to insult the materialist, but instead is only insulted by the notion that it's the only way to look at the world and it's causes and effect, from A-Z.

The kind of materialism that most are indoctrinated into actually removes us from our true place in the creation, and reduces us to mere "things" in a universe of things without purpose, meaning or significance.

So I was just expressing my feeling of being insulted by the materialist who precludes from the domain of possibility the Spiritual Reality and Life as it is, even an invisible one behind the apparent manifestation of creation, and even only which can be seen and evidenced as I've tried to show, by the Creation itself.


Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Here is where I believe the offending "materialist insult" might have first originated or even helped served to inspire the OP of this thread.

I do recall you equating materialism with ignorance, wilful blindness, in-the-box thinking, nihilism, and an idea that is "sad", but my OP is not a direct response to your post (at least no consciously), but a critique of the logic behind this disdain, which I find completely unsubstantiated and dishonest.

I've heard from here and from other discussions that a materialist worldview is dangerous, a form of brainwashing, and other claims—some made in your post. Why does one psychologically make these claims, when there is nothing that supports such assertions? As someone who subscribes to and appreciates physical reality and the apparent world, I found it necessary to at least show the view should not be synonymous with evil, merely because of its implications.

I appreciate you bringing in your previous quotes for examination, as they help elucidate my points. Let's look at main point of your argument:

You're is a trained ignorance, but in your assurance that you are right, it's willful blindness.

I don't think there's any way to enlighten inform, or illuminate your worldview to include other possibilities than that you are mere a thing in a universe of things devoid of intentionality or purpose. How sad.

Ideas such as Physicalism do not deny any possibilities, only that if these possibilites were to be discovered or visibly sensed long enough to believe they exist, they would then have to be physical. For instance, if God showed up tomorrow and we could see him, hear him, and know he was there, we would say he then existed in physical or apparent reality. No possibilites are eliminated here.

Now this has been true of everything we know and understand. It may be impossible to name one thing that we've discovered and understood to not be in some way physical or apparent. If thinking this chips away at thousands of years of metaphysics and shows them to be in error, I say bring it on. Progression begs us to do so.

We are stuck on a grain of sand floating in a giant ocean, to say that there are no possibilites would be more than short-sighted, even for a relatively simple principle such as physicalism.

Now as to the charge that a physicalist view implies that "you are mere a thing in a universe of things devoid of intentionality or purpose", I fear that this assumption is made only by those that have for too long believed the doctrines of Religion. They haven't had a chance to challenge themselves with the view and see what fruits can be discovered. Instead they fear it and shun it as dangerous, even nihilistic. We should know it is always the disappointment of religion that leads to nihilism.

Materialism implies that things are their own purpose. What could be more beautiful than that?

So the alternative argument which embraces the Spirit and the Creative Intent, does not in fact argue against or attempt to insult the materialist, but instead is only insulted by the notion that it's the only way to look at the world and it's causes and effect, from A-Z.

The kind of materialism that most are indoctrinated into actually removes us from our true place in the creation, and reduces us to mere "things" in a universe of things without purpose, meaning or significance.

What is it that indoctrinates us into "materialism"? Our senses? Our physicality? Ourselves? There is nothing except the fact of existing in physical reality that indoctrinates us into materialism.

I agree that a materialist may show what he thinks are glaring absurdities inherent in ideas that are imaginative, speculative, lore-ridden and theoretical in nature, but criticism is the force that sculpts the intellectual landscape. How much criticism can one idea bear before it tumbles from the mind as no longer usable? To the ideas we've held onto for millennia and perhaps believed too hard—a very, very, very, long time.

Why can we not rewrite and start again from a foundation that might prove useful?

Anyways, there is no way to be offended by the "Materialist" insult, when there is no substantial reason or anything that applies that a materialist view is dangerous, nihilistic, immoral and evil.

reply to post by rickymouse

Boy You come up with some heavy stuff a lot.

What are you really trying to say?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by rickymouse

 

Boy You come up with some heavy stuff a lot.

What are you really trying to say?

Deep subjects...Don't take my comment negatively, these things challenge a person to think. That is good.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Well constructed post and I can surely agree with your points in many respects, yet there is a bit of mystery that still hinders within the constructs of my brain. Yes materialism or just material in itself constructs our very existence, it is the basis of which we experience the physical environment with all senses intact and a fully functional brain.

Although there is still this clash of dualism within the human beings understanding, or well at least in my own regards to the value of a one dimensional ideal pertaining towards the accumulation of material experience without considering the mental realm that is the conduit and interpreter of these materials and the sensations they create.

Surely we can all to some extent be labeled as materialistic because that forms the reality that we quite literally feel. But in the end it is my mind that registers the items I hold dear to my heart, the taste of the food in my mouth, and the overwhelming feeling of love. Is it not relevant that both the material and the mental/spiritual are bound together in a contract of exchange between materials and the mind that perceives those materials.

I can only ask this question to validate my argument and I do so in the humblest way possible. Are thoughts that manifest within an organic material construction they by product of materialism itself or the very basis for materialism to exist.

One thing I picked up recently was the origin of the word "matter" and "meter", we get those from the sanskrit word "matra" (to measure) that word in turn comes from "maa" which means "not", "maa" is also the origin of "maya" (illusion in sanskrit, ya meaning "that", sort of)

I don't really have anything else to contribute at this moment. I don't feel inclined to engage in the conversation, interesting as it is. For the time being I'll watch it from the sidelines.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Ok I think I came across at least one of the cruxes of this problem.

If all that exists in this universe, reality, or any universe or the totality of reality is a physical mass. Then there really is no logical, rational, or acceptable, or easily understandable argument as to why and how this physical inanimate dumb mass is capable of doing the things it can do and does, and is formed and functioned in the relatively sophisticated manner it is. Imho.

My only gripe with materialism is it doesn't seem to take modern physics into account. Quantum mechanics tells us that without a conscious observer, there would be no reality. Reality doesn't collapse on a possibility until it is observed. With the body and the brain just being part of physical reality, they are subject to the same standards, thus it must be consciousness that initiates this participation in reality.

How can this knowledge possibly be reconciled with materialism?

reply to post by ImaFungi

Ok I think I came across at least one of the cruxes of this problem.

If all that exists in this universe, reality, or any universe or the totality of reality is a physical mass. Then there really is no logical, rational, or acceptable, or easily understandable argument as to why and how this physical inanimate dumb mass is capable of doing the things it can do and does, and is formed and functioned in the relatively sophisticated manner it is. Imho.

I can agree with this. The only logical reason in my eyes is that the physicalness of the universe does do these things, so therefore, it is itself the why and how, the cause, the answer. It is Spinoza's god—substance. The answer is displayed for all to see and enjoy.

reply to post by Damsel

Quantum mechanics tells us that without a conscious observer, there would be no reality.

Quantum mechanics doesn't say this. It is a theory put forth by a few physicists and biologists—most of it pure speculation. Luckily we do not exist on the quantum scale.

reply to post by FreeThinkerbychoice

Great points.

Surely we can all to some extent be labeled as materialistic because that forms the reality that we quite literally feel. But in the end it is my mind that registers the items I hold dear to my heart, the taste of the food in my mouth, and the overwhelming feeling of love. Is it not relevant that both the material and the mental/spiritual are bound together in a contract of exchange between materials and the mind that perceives those materials.

I can only ask this question to validate my argument and I do so in the humblest way possible. Are thoughts that manifest within an organic material construction they by product of materialism itself or the very basis for materialism to exist.

Great points, but it is safe to say that it is not only your mind that registers the item which you hold dear, which you have likely first sensed physically before even considering it. You physically interacted with it before you decided to love it. When you think about it, you think about the real physical thing and the idea you've formed of it. The taste of the food in your mouth would be impossible without the food and your mouth interacting physically. All ideas of love refer to actual things, and ideas regarding those things—not some spiritual essence or ideal called love.

Personally—and this will sound weird to most—I don't think "the mind" exists. Eliminating the idea of "the Mind" from thinking is difficult, but becomes a less confusing idea once it is seriously pondered. I also don't think the brain is the prime source of thinking, for the brain requires the rest of the body to subsist and to make sense of the world. The mind, the body, the brain are all one thing. Mind/body problem solved; consciousness solved; the soul/spirit solved—all by simply removing them from the equation. This is a sort of an eliminative materialism.

But yes, materialism—any metaphysical doctrine—is an idea, and interpretation, description, nothing else. It is an explanation, not the truth.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

And what do you think about intelligent design by a Creative Agency in favor of life, which by being a fundamental principal informing and creating the material, phenomenal, physical world, underpins it, and precedes and transcends it (is invisible)?

"I am the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega."

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Quantum mechanics doesn't say this. It is a theory put forth by a few physicists and biologists—most of it pure speculation. Luckily we do not exist on the quantum scale.

Sure it does. Reality doesn't exist except under observation. Matter is made of atoms and subatomic particles that are ruled by probability, not certainty. The probability only plays itself out when observed. That's quantum mechanics.