Quote:

Now what is the cause of this confusion, this misery? How did this misery come about, this suffering, not only inwardly but outwardly, this fear and expectation of war, thr third world war that is breaking out? What is the cause of it? Surely it indicates the collapse of all moral, spiritual values, and the glorification of all sensual values... What happens when we have no other values except the value of the things of the senses, the value of the products of the mind, of the hand or machine? The more significañce we give to the sensual value of things, the greater the confusion, is it not? ...So we life and function and have our being steeped in sensual values, which means that things, the things of the mind, the things of the hand and of the machine, have become important, and when things become important, belief becomes predominantly significant - which is exactly what is going on in the world, is it not?

J. Krishnamurti

---

Quote:

Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; and because some men err in reasoning, and fall into paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for demonstrations; and finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM), was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search.

---

Kurt said:

?

Are you sure you are posting in the right thread HTX? I don't have much clue what you're on about?

The topic of this thread is materialism.



Then again nobody knows what I am talking about either so....

As they say, all is fair in love and war.

---

Kurt said:

Quote:

Now what is the cause of this confusion, this misery? How did this misery come about, this suffering, not only inwardly but outwardly, this fear and expectation of war, thr third world war that is breaking out? What is the cause of it? Surely it indicates the collapse of all moral, spiritual values, and the glorification of all sensual values... What happens when we have no other values except the value of the things of the senses, the value of the products of the mind, of the hand or machine? The more significañce we give to the sensual value of things, the greater the confusion, is it not? ...So we life and function and have our being steeped in sensual values, which means that things, the things of the mind, the things of the hand and of the machine, have become important, and when things become important, belief becomes predominantly significant - which is exactly what is going on in the world, is it not?

J. Krishnamurti

---

This post is intended to open a general topic of "materialism" for discussion.

This could begin with a critique.

Maybe the first thing to say, as Krishnamurti here recognizes, is that materialism - whether it is philosophical or in broader culture - is not mainly consisting in a bearing to physical world, but the related human attitude of being stimulated by something. Such a distinction can certainly be made.

Materialism in this sense, may become the form pregnant with its general "content". To seek matter, is as ancient philosophy distinguishes, is to seek the "underlying thing" hypokeimenon. Yet the broaching of packaged goods, cling wrapped existents from the grocery store, data or information, may all be presented in certain removals from physical reality, in similar fashion of something to be broached.

How do we come to this materialism? There are two answers. One, is specifically philosophical, and something could be said of this. But there is also the tangible, face value answer, which at the same time should not be posed to bluntly. It was by following stimulation more and more, in its derivations, that materialism itself became removed from physical reality. This is the predominant materialism, in which regard idealism stands, not a too far a cry away.

---

hTx said:

Everything I posted was a rebellion against the 3rd circuit heady materalist, thats just a part of it, I know it goes much deeper.

---

Kurt said:

talk of circuits and analogies to hardware strike me as missing much in the biological and physical, not to mention the philosophical.

---

Quote:

William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting
an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge
turtle.
"But, my dear lady," Professor James asked, as politely as
possible, "what holds up the turtle?"
"Ah," she said, "that's easy. He is standing on the back of
another turtle."
"Oh, I see," said Professor James, still being polite. "But
would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second
turtle?"
"It's no use, Professor," said the old lady, realizing he was
trying to lead her into a logical trap. "It's turtles-turtles-turtles,
all the way!"
Don't be too quick to laugh at this little old lady. All human
minds work on fundamentally similar principles. Her universe
was a little bit weirder than most but it was built up on the same
mental principles as every other universe people have believed
in.

---

Indulging this kind of generalization, and relativism, to the point of exess which RAW does, is interesting, and no fallacy in itself, but it does not seem like the best philosophy to assume. I'd note he is plainly standing outside of a consensus basis, which he is also just as partial to to construct his notion of perspective, based on "the thinker and prover". Generally he treats epochal philosophical conjecture like a useful equipment or apparatus. Yet the possible tension and reconciliations between rationalism (thinker) and empiricist (prover) are much more complex than he suggests, and they are not basic to human experience.

At the end of the first chapter, like in the stacked turtle analogy, there is another allusion to how perspective generally works, in a pictorial representation (see below) where what one may look to can have an infinite depth.



Now it may be the case that things are in fact this way, but seeing as this tunnel is not referring to reality itself, by anything other than an opposition and doubt of "common sense", (one could certainly call it a Cartesian meditation in that way) this could only be called speculative.

Speculatus - "to observe", would be the seemingly innocuous suggestion, of what is present before, or coming from the thinker-prover. But as I read I wonder, why indulge this construct? Consider for instance, how it may be that neither "common sense" nor the opposed doubt of common sense have any basis. That doesn't just put one in a convenient place.

What RAW describes is not the nature of sense experience, or thinking, although it may seem that way. Due to the nature of a modern philosophical conjecture - which circumspects a reality from many points of view, RAW rightly conceives that you can create this synthesis (of thinker and prover) in your own head. But why? These are philosophical conjectures, not faculties or ocular apparatuses of the mind, which create perception. And that seeming ocular lens would be reified (culturally conditioned) consciousness.

RAW quotes the pragmatist William James. I do think genuine pragmatism lends itself to perspective, even if it doesn't determine it and this openness is important. You could say pragmatics are based on a collective philosophical/conjectural agreement, to make reference to "models". This frees up reference a bit. The way we may have formally talked about an objective world, at one point, is the way we talk about models now. We speak somewhat relatively.

But where does the general relativity of perspective that is opened up stand? Try to consider this logically. A pragmatic model has to reflect and correspond to reality, to be considered, but that generality is precisely what calling something a "model" avoids. So how does this affair play out? I am not the one to say how to think, beyond this, but I can say what is contradictory.

This generalization of either a model, or just as well, in a less explicit way, a generalization of our contemporary paradigm of philosophical perspective, as a cognitive or mental synthesis of thinker and prover, should not logically be made. Like in his turtle analogy, RAW is ungrounded. This can be considered a criticism, if not a specific fault.

The way I would put it, is that pragmatism is normative. We typically refer to being pragmatic, as a mode of realism. Of course we also refer to oragmatism in the adaptability which has been loosened up from the strictness and compulsoriness of realism that existed in the 19th and early 20th centuries (and still continues as a culture) at the same time. But it is essential that it remains grounded.

RAW is taking certain liberty (which he is indeed free to) to use this pragmatism, for speculation and eccentric beliefs. He is hyperinflating the phenomenal, while not doing any real phenomenology! In fact as I see, he alienates phenomenological conjecture in this way of thinking. He talks about the institutionalization of a conjecture of science and how it could be loosened up, and considers that by highlighting a prejudice and being aware of it, something is implied by that.

He is generally alright, but I think he is placing the wrong kind of speculation.

If he were a little more sincere, and perhaps a bit deeper, he would lean on these terms a little more, and de-construct this stacked ediface, he is himself indulgent of. That happens too after all. What are there terms thinker and prover? What do we mean by rationalism, or empiricism? Maybe things are not self evident.

A response could be posed in terms of this thread. Materialism should not need to turn on its head into speculations, even if this is possible, or possible to suggest. So what if we can? This is essentially Cartesianism, the conjectures of skepticism expressing an ideal, or vice vers. They are the same...inconsistently of course.

Kurt said:

Guys, just wanna let you know I'm sticking with Prometheus Rising,  even with the heavy trans-humanist vibe and all.

---