Materialism

[china]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]It is an age-old conflict between those who believe man is
matter and those who pursue the spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Thought is material and its activity is materialistic. Thought is measurable and so it is time. Thought is memory, experience and knowledge, and this memory, with its images and its shadows, is the self, the "me" and the "not me", the "we" and "they".
Materialism only gives strength and growth to the self.The self may and does identify itself with the State, with an ideology, with activities of the "non-me", religious or secular, but it is still the self. Its beliefs are self-created, as are its pleasures and fears. Thought by its very nature is fragmentary, and conflict and war are between the various fragments, the nationalities, the races and ideologies.[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]A materialistic humanity will destroy itself unless the self is wholly abandoned .The abandonment of the self is always of primary importance. And 'believe it or not ',only from this revolution a new society can be put together.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Your thought as usual.
[/FONT]

 

[Scott Free]

If you abandon the "self" what is it your really abandoning? How could the "spirit" know itself without a self with which to know itself? The material is a way for the spirit to know itself. Without the material the "spirit" couldn't know itself therefore the spirit depends on the material to exist. It needs the physical separation materialism offers to know itself. The reason is simple: There is no spirit but it is born out of the process of two material self interactions; the selves that observe each other i.e., our two brains. Cognition is a process not a thing such as is implied by the noun "spirit." The process of cognition is being aware of being aware. Simply being aware isn't enough for cognition. It is this awareness that people mistake for a "spirit." It is the little "observer" everyone feels like they have inside themselves. The observer does not "feel like" it is generated inside ourselves therefore people falsely assume it is coming from outside themselves.

 

[china]

Again ,why do you write in plural ,why do you think that you are in a position of knowing what others feel ,what they are aware of or what they falsely assume .The fact is ....you don't .Is it hard to "expose" yourself ?

 

[Scott Free]

Again ,why do you write in plural ,why do you think that you are in a position of knowing what others feel ,what they are aware of or what they falsely assume .The fact is ....you don't .Is it hard to "expose" yourself ?

That would be because I'm always right. :lol:

j/k

I don't know why I do that; it's just how I think. Why? Do you have a problem with it?

Obviously you have 4 brains.

What does that mean?

 

[china]

Quoting china Again ,why do you write in plural ,why do you think that you are in a position of knowing what others feel ,what they are aware of or what they falsely assume .The fact is ....you don't .Is it hard to "expose" yourself ?
​

That would be because I'm always right.

j/k

I don't know why I do that; it's just how I think. Why? Do you have a problem with it?

Quoting china Obviously you have 4 brains.
​

What does that mean? __________________
© 2008 Scott Free, all rights reser

What the heck- you are always right.

 

[Scott Free]

What the heck- you are always right.

I like to think so :lol: but I know I'm not :-?

My first post was my take on Sartre's existentialism. So if I'm right it is only because Sartre is right because I was using his ideas. I thought they fit well with the OP.

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Humans are not ants. We do not function as an colony. We are a society of individuals. You cannot expect people to ignore their senses. If I cut myself it is Me that feels it. and while my wife may "feel" sympathy for my pain and will offer to help, the pain is experienced as a senstation for only the individual not for society. If I am hungry or thirsty or tired It is only me that feels it and must act to satisfy myself. Society cannot possibly know my needs wants and desires.

 

[china]

Scott Free

My first post was my take on Sartre's existentialism. So if I'm right it is only because Sartre is right because I was using his ideas

Perhaps they are your ideas also ?

 

[Scott Free]

No, I'm afraid not. I know about the feeling like an observer, that is, we feel like we observe ourselves, from studies in cognition. I put that together with Sartre. The idea that the "observer" is what we think of as the soul is also not my idea.

Non of that post was my idea. I did put together three different ideas from three different sources if that counts as "my idea," I'm not sure.

 

[Praxius]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]It is an age-old conflict between those who believe man is
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]matter and those who pursue the spirit.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Thought is material and its activity is materialistic. Thought is measurable and so it is time. Thought is memory, experience and knowledge, and this memory, with its images and its shadows, is the self, the "me" and the "not me", the "we" and "they".
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Materialism only gives strength and growth to the self.The self may and does identify itself with the State, with an ideology, with activities of the "non-me", religious or secular, but it is still the self. Its beliefs are self-created, as are its pleasures and fears. Thought by its very nature is fragmentary, and conflict and war are between the various fragments, the nationalities, the races and ideologies.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]A materialistic humanity will destroy itself unless the self is wholly abandoned .The abandonment of the self is always of primary importance. And 'believe it or not ',only from this revolution a new society can be put together.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Your thought as usual.
[/FONT]

To me, what you are trying to suggest is for us to remove our individuality and the things that make us who were are..... if we do that, then we are nothing more then machines, and somehow..... if all of humanity was like this, we're supposed to develop, evolve, grow?

How exactly?

Who makes the decisions? How are we supposed to make the correct and logical decisions if we remove all of that from humanity?

To me, what you are proposing is an absolute, unquestioning society which follows what is given to them, regardless if it may better your life or not. No matter what.... in order to progress in life, in any fashion of the term, one has to make decisions, and even in a society you describe above, someone must make those decisions, and there has to be someone at the top.... the head of the snake if you will.

If nobody has individuality anymore, then nobody can make decisions and must rely on some form of command structure, or there is no direction and thus, there is no progression or development.

What you describe may create a new society, but I sure don't want to be a part of it.

Humans as they are built, are designed for individuality, preference, creation, learning and growing.

Heck, even when you look at other animals, cubs and pups are taught how to hunt and survive from the teachings of their parents, which was passed down to them.... everything in which we all know and understand, be that human or other animal, it has all been passed down through time and through evolution. (Added) To abandon all of that to me sounds foolish.

 

[Praxius]

Again ,why do you write in plural ,why do you think that you are in a position of knowing what others feel ,what they are aware of or what they falsely assume .The fact is ....you don't .Is it hard to "expose" yourself ?

He and I do it exactly as you do it..... what makes you think you know the absolute method of which our devolpment should follow compared to anybody else on this planet?

Why do you think you are in a position of knowing what others feel, what they are aware of or what they falsly assume, when you claim to follow the practice of abandoning everything you know and your own identity? In other words, if you don't know yourself, how do you expect to know others? When you don't know other's, then how can you know yourself? And on top of that, if you don't know yourself and don't know others, then how do you expect us to believe what you are telling us about how humans should progress as being the right solution?

We can't.... and therefore, by your own reasoning and explination, this entire topic has created it's own Irrelevancy.

At least as I understand it as it was explained.

 

[franc]

And what would the spirit be but more material?

 

[china]

Praxius

To me, what you are trying to suggest is for us to remove our individuality

What I'm suggesting is that your so called "individuality" is nothing else but an image that you have build about your self in which you strongly believe and are ready to deffend at all cost even though you are aware that your individuality is only an image.

and the things that make us who were are..

I don't think that you know who "we" are.

... if we do that, then we are nothing more then machines, and somehow.....

,,,,as if we weren't now

Why do you think you are in a position of knowing what others feel, what they are aware of or what they falsly assume,

I guess Praxius like the saying goes .."some of us have it .some of us don't".

when you claim to follow the practice of abandoning everything you know and your own identity?

I don't claim anything Praxius ;it's your EGO ,self image being attacked .