• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Which came first?

L2R said:
i was talking to both of you (and psyduck), and it's cool.

lost, to expect certainty is to approach the subject with an entirely unrealistic expectation. it's simply not going to happen, so probability is a valueable factor to consider when having such thoughts. as is preference, because at the end of the day, we function within these contexts we find ourselves in. in the aid of that functionality, it is preferable to steer away from insanity. and personally, having had a taste of that cake, i don't like it at all. even if ultimately it is true, it is unverifiable, so it is pointless to make your own life difficult.

IamMe, i must confess that my responses have been quickly done. I didn't go beyond a basic philosophical consideration. This is why i asked for clarity of definition before providing my thoughts. I wanted to avoid those annoying semantic problems, and it looks like i have failed in that regard. Sorry. I took the meaning of individual mind/brain/creator of perception to not include any semblance of collective unconsciousness/divine spark/creative force.

also, if i may request: please instead of dropping philo names and jargon, use laymen terms to explain the meaning of them and how those meanings apply. i have done a bit of phi in uni, but at the moment my head is swimming in ancient hst and political theory (not to mention industrial relations where i work), and i'm neither interested nor resourced with enough time right now to look stuff up to interpret both meaning and application here.
Click to expand...

Well, as far as I can tell, the only two jargony terms I employed were "Berkeleyian idealism" and "noumenal" - the former of which I followed up with what it basically is (to exist is to be perceived, there are many minds that perceive, things stay in existence because God, as an eternal mind, perceives them at all times). Noumena simply means "thing in itself," so noumenal reality is reality as it is in itself, divorced of perception.

At any rate, I think the first kind of idealism I mentioned (to exist is to be perceived) is somewhat circular and not very viable, I only mentioned it to point out that being an idealist doesn't necessitate being a solipsist (thinking that I am the only mind in reality).
 
Regarding the OP, neither came first, they both presuppose each other, and are necessary conditions of the other.

No object without a subject; no subject without an object.

We both "project" the world, and exist within it. Not just sight and the other 4 sense, but the whole tamale. Space, time, causality, all.

IamMe, I'm digging the Schope love, but at the risk of sounding pedantic, he was no idealist, in fact he was quite opposed to that. The terms that have come to be commonly used to identify philosophical schools of thought are often misleading, for Transcendental Idealism is not a type of Idealism at all.
 
Cheshire Kat said:
IamMe, I'm digging the Schope love, but at the risk of sounding pedantic, he was no idealist, in fact he was quite opposed to that. The terms that have come to be commonly used to identify philosophical schools of thought are often misleading, for Transcendental Idealism is not a type of Idealism at all.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have been more explicit, I'm quite aware that Schopenhauer wasn't an idealist, which is why I put the "or" between idealist and Schopenhauerian philosophy, but I realize that it looks like I'm equating them. I just thought he fit into the area of philosophy that posits us as preceding normal reality, albeit in a very different way than idealism, since Schopenhauer posits noumenal existence, and such a concept is fundamentally opposed to Berkeleyian idealism. :)
 
Lost Ego said:
Is the mind(or self or whatever you want to call it) an extension of the world or is the world an extension of the mind?
Click to expand...
They are one.

The self right here, is 'the world out there'. Does it not live in that world, interact with that world? If that world weren't there, the self would not exist. They're the same thing.

Thus, the only way to die as an ego is to lose everything that isn't the ego.

In other words, everything (in the psychic, mental sense).

The self goes with it.

What remains is reality.
 
Dedbeet said:
They are one.

The self right here, is 'the world out there'. Does it not live in that world, interact with that world? If that world weren't there, the self would not exist. They're the same thing.

Thus, the only way to die as an ego is to lose everything that isn't the ego.

In other words, everything (in the psychic, mental sense).

The self goes with it.

What remains is reality.
Click to expand...

so by this logic the mind will transcend this life as long as there is a world to inhabit it?
also, what is reality? are dreams reality? i think dreams and reality are two sides of the same coin, dreams have the same foundations as reality
 
The only solution that I've found marginally satisfactory, and this underpins my best guess as to how metaphysics are structured, is that both emerge as aspects of a singular process. Out of some flux of being, self-referential interactions emerge (with the informational properties of 'strange loops'), whereby perceiving and acting subjects and their objects of action and perception coevolve as emergent properties of how this flux conditions 'nodes' of interaction. With the coemergence of temporality, subject and object construct one another 'dialectically'. While such nodes can never exhaust the conditions of possibility that give rise to them, the course of these interactions alter varied aspects of this flux.

(name dropping: dewey, marx, heidegger, hoffstadter :P)

ebola
 
Which came first? I believe this world did. In my mind, from what I can put together and understand, the universe came first. We are a creation of the universe. Thus, we came after. However, the discussion of reality is another. We are everything we perceive, thus we are reality itself. Without you, reality does not exist. Without reality, you do not exist. While many realities exist within this one universe (You, me, him, her, that guy, this girl, etc etc) all we know is one reality, our own.

Granted, I don't study philosophy nor am I a very spiritual person. I just enjoy taking psychedelics and exploring the mind and the human consciousness. I only know a lot, because I realize how little I know.
 
panic in paradise said:
uh oh
;)

the sneeze or the nose ?
__________________
somePlaces are blessed..?
Click to expand...

I know it's rhetorical, but to answer that, I believe the nose. My logic for it, is simply the sneeze can not exist without the nose, so the nose had to have existed first. Since this is metaphorically, in turn, perhaps the universe is a creation of the mind. But when I say it like that, it seems to work both ways. We are a creation of the universe, while the universe is a creation of our mind, through perception. It's an even flow.

Ha, I'm sure I'm just getting off track here...but I love discussing this type of stuff, it's all paradoxes, all loops. It's really a beautiful thing. Mind boggling, and quite something to try and wrap you're head around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top