langten69 said:

Yes,  from our embodied perspectives, we are mere participants of our constraints

And so long as this is the perspective we hold, this assertion shall hold up indefinitely

---

Rahz said:

langten69 said:

Yes,  from our embodied perspectives, we are mere participants of our constraints

And so long as this is the perspective we hold, this assertion shall hold up indefinitely

---

Are you suggesting we can withhold gravity by changing perspective? If not, then our perspective may shape how the constraint is experienced or understood, but it doesn't seem to be what gives the constraint its force. You seem to be agreeing with the principle, then suggesting it isn't absolute.

I'm not close minded, but I would need some rational or evidential basis for thinking reality itself can vary with perspective rather than more simply our experience of it.

So I would distinguish beliefs about the constraint itself from beliefs about what is possible within the constraint. "Gravity isn't real" is a claim about the constraint. However "It's impossible to run a 4 minute mile" was a mantra that dissolved once someone did it.

These two categories aren't absolute, but again one needs something to measure claims against. We may be uncertain where the constraint lies without being uncertain that claims encounter constraints.

---

langten69 said:

sudly said:

If idealism was true, what insight could we garner from it?

What answers would it provide, or useful perspective would it be?

I guess im just asking what benefit it might have if we did somehow confirm it?

---

1) Insights garnered from idealism are described in almost (if not) all spiritual texts throughout the ages,  the most notable in my mind being the Kybalion. It states that "all is mind, the universe is mental". Newer proponents of this idea (such as Bob Proctor) have repackaged this idea with the phrase "If you change the way you look at something, the way it looks changes". This echoes the principle that "everything is the way it is, because you are the way you are" (as stated by Neville Goddard).

2)The answer that it provides is 'what is your current state of being'. Life is a mirror, If you are kind to others, others reflect kindness as filtered through their idea of kindness

See todays verse of the day:



3)You benefit from idealism, by taking note of your reality, and realizing that you are its foundation. If you wish to alter the projection of reality, you must alter the lens with which it is projected through (which is your concept of yourself)

---

Asante said:

Philosophical Idealism is the broad view that reality is fundamentally constituted by, dependent upon, or inseparable from mind, consciousness, ideas, or experience, rather than existing entirely as an independently existing material world. Different forms range from Berkeley’s view that things exist insofar as they are perceived, to Kant’s claim that our experienced world is structured by the mind, to German Idealism’s conception of reality as fundamentally intelligible or spiritual. In general, Idealism challenges the assumption that matter, independent of consciousness, is the ultimate foundation of reality.

Where do you stand?

---

sudly said:

That sounds more like what idealism is, its just, if all is mind, and the universe is mental, what does that clear up?

If the benefit is realising you are the foundation of reality, that sounds almost like absolving responsibility the same way believing in jesus does.

Without cliches, what does it say about my responsibility to myself that I wouldnt be able to acknowledge without idealism?

Other than supplanting an answer to the foundation of reality.. if the answer to the foundation of reality is something as simple as 'its all conscioisness' i dont know how to take that.

I don't know what insight to take from that view.

And what happens to the view of particles? They're already a fluctuation in a field in my view, even if that field is hard to define.

I pretty much just hear idealism saying that this field is a mental thing, and that particles are made of mentality?

If the idea is that the moon doesnt exist when im not looking at it, then it just comes off as a narcissistic view that im the centre of the universe.

Which might be fine for some, but isnt helpful to me, its more of a giving up, and having a simpler answer to a complex issue.

---

Rahz said:

An ungrounded belief may still satisfy a psychological need, but fulfillment of that need is different from evidence that the belief accurately describes reality.

---

sudly said:

That sounds more like what idealism is, its just, if all is mind, and the universe is mental, what does that clear up?

If the benefit is realising you are the foundation of reality, that sounds almost like absolving responsibility the same way believing in jesus does.
.

---

I would say that instead of absolving responsibility, it puts all responsibility upon your self

Think of the golden rule: do unto other as you would have done unto you (because they are you)

You are responsible of what you put out and therefore you are responsible of what you recieve

It is your responsibility to think of only that which you intend to experience

Rahz said:

"Reality has constraints" seems like an unavoidable proposition, but our descriptions of what those constraints are, are hypothetical and need consideration and testing.

---

sudly said:

That still leaves a substantive question for analytic idealism. What supports the step from acknowledging that we know the world through experience to claiming that reality is fundamentally mental? A relational account can concern interactions between physical systems without assigning consciousness a privileged role.

Asking what physicalism explains is fair, and the same question remains fair for idealism. Applying that standard to both would let us compare what each account clarifies, what it assumes and what remains unexplained.

---

langten69 said:

sudly said:

That sounds more like what idealism is, its just, if all is mind, and the universe is mental, what does that clear up?

If the benefit is realising you are the foundation of reality, that sounds almost like absolving responsibility the same way believing in jesus does.
.

---

I would say that instead of absolving responsibility, it puts all responsibility upon your self

Think of the golden rule: do unto other as you would have done unto you (because they are you)

You are responsible of what you put out and therefore you are responsible of what you recieve

It is your responsibility to think of only that which you intend to experience

---

Quote:

sudly said:

And i like the view in relation quantum mechanics, or RQM, that another physical system can fulfil the role of observer, without consciousness having any privileged status.

---

langten69 said:

Quote:

sudly said:

And i like the view in relation quantum mechanics, or RQM, that another physical system can fulfil the role of observer, without consciousness having any privileged status.

---

Can you elaborate on this idea?

---

Quote:

The properties of anything are how that thing manifests itself to something else. There are no things in themselves. There are only manifestations of something with respect to something else.

---