4 ms·

The way that non-dualists (those that see a single consciousness of which our own awareness is an aspect <-- not a great definition) approach this is from the b

The way that non-dualists (those that see a single consciousness of which our own awareness is an aspect <-- not a great definition) approach this is from the basis that consciousness is primary and the physical manifestations that exist around that flow from consciousness. So, from that perspective, physical rules that govern rocks are actually subordinate to consciousness. Non-dualism doesn't make any sense to the rational mind, non-dual realization usually arises in someone that has explored the realm of their own personal consciousness very deeply (meditation, contemplation, psychedelics, hypnosis, lucid dreaming, etc).

DennisP 8y ago
Oh I don't know, there have been some rather well-respected philosophers who made rational arguments for idealism.
joe_the_user 8y ago
I would claim a materialist perspective that views the mind and consciousness as arising out of material processes is also a non-dualistic (monist) perspective just as much as an "everything flows from consciousnes" (idealist monist) perspective. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/ Quote: "Because common sense tells us that there are physical bodies, and because there is intellectual pressure towards producing a unified view of the world, one could say that materialist monism is the ‘default option’."
- 09bjb 8y ago
  I think the non-dualists in the parent comment here would agree, saying something vaguely Alan Watts-y along the lines of "consciousness and matter are merely two sides of the same coin and imply each other mutually." Come to think of it, "does consciousness arise from matter, or does matter arise from consciousness" is a modern Koan par excellence. FWIW, the last time I grooved on that for a while while on a psychedelic, the answer I came up was...decidedly spiritual. Caveat lector ;)
  - davebryand 8y ago
    Same :)
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    OP:"Non-dualism doesn't make any sense to the rational mind" Well, someone seeing consciousness arising from matter (materialist monism/non-dual) isn't impelled to say anything like that. I mean, I'd view the forms of consciousness the OP describes (acid, meditation, hypnosis) as a being experiences where immediate language-generating mediation is suspended, "direct experience" but one shouldn't confuse those sort of sensations with an experience being beyond relation analysis. There are lots experiences where you can't think about what you're doing at the point you are doing it but you can certainly think before and after.
    - 09bjb 8y ago
      Agreed. I'd have to dive in more on what "relation analysis" is (you probably mean "relational analysis"?). I guess what I'm saying is that you're unlikely to get push-back from the monist crowd on the materialist front, and we're also unlikely to get "experience" (direct or otherwise) into our scientific crosshairs anytime soon. But we should certainly keep trying!
      - joe_the_user 8y ago
        I meant "rational analysis" - looking at a situation with the tools of logic, science and related approaches. It's past edit time on my original post, unfortunately.
09bjb 8y ago
From no perspective, consciousness is subordinate to the rocks that govern physical rules /(tongue-in-cheek non-dualist "nonsense")

DennisP 8y ago

Oh I don't know, there have been some rather well-respected philosophers who made rational arguments for idealism.

joe_the_user 8y ago

I would claim a materialist perspective that views the mind and consciousness as arising out of material processes is also a non-dualistic (monist) perspective just as much as an "everything flows from consciousnes" (idealist monist) perspective. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/ Quote: "Because common sense tells us that there are physical bodies, and because there is intellectual pressure towards producing a unified view of the world, one could say that materialist monism is the ‘default option’."

09bjb 8y ago
I think the non-dualists in the parent comment here would agree, saying something vaguely Alan Watts-y along the lines of "consciousness and matter are merely two sides of the same coin and imply each other mutually." Come to think of it, "does consciousness arise from matter, or does matter arise from consciousness" is a modern Koan par excellence. FWIW, the last time I grooved on that for a while while on a psychedelic, the answer I came up was...decidedly spiritual. Caveat lector ;)
- davebryand 8y ago
  Same :)
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  OP:"Non-dualism doesn't make any sense to the rational mind" Well, someone seeing consciousness arising from matter (materialist monism/non-dual) isn't impelled to say anything like that. I mean, I'd view the forms of consciousness the OP describes (acid, meditation, hypnosis) as a being experiences where immediate language-generating mediation is suspended, "direct experience" but one shouldn't confuse those sort of sensations with an experience being beyond relation analysis. There are lots experiences where you can't think about what you're doing at the point you are doing it but you can certainly think before and after.
  - 09bjb 8y ago
    Agreed. I'd have to dive in more on what "relation analysis" is (you probably mean "relational analysis"?). I guess what I'm saying is that you're unlikely to get push-back from the monist crowd on the materialist front, and we're also unlikely to get "experience" (direct or otherwise) into our scientific crosshairs anytime soon. But we should certainly keep trying!
    - joe_the_user 8y ago
      I meant "rational analysis" - looking at a situation with the tools of logic, science and related approaches. It's past edit time on my original post, unfortunately.

09bjb 8y ago

From no perspective, consciousness is subordinate to the rocks that govern physical rules /(tongue-in-cheek non-dualist "nonsense")