sujaykc-01

@LastThursday Awesome. All the best to you!

@LastThursday I think you will find the works of George Berkeley interesting. George Berkeley, an Irish philosopher, championed idealism, arguing that reality consists of minds and their ideas, famously stating "to be is to be perceived" (esse est percipi), meaning objects only exist when perceived. Here's a more detailed explanation of Berkeley's idealism: Mind-Dependent Reality: He argued that objects and qualities are merely ideas in the minds of perceivers, not material entities existing outside of perception. "Esse est percipi": Berkeley's core concept, "to be is to be perceived," emphasizes that the existence of something is contingent on its being perceived. Challenging Materialism: Berkeley's idealism challenged the prevailing materialistic views of his time, particularly those of philosophers like John Locke and David Hume. Key Works: Berkeley's most famous works, "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge" and "Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous," defended his immaterialist views Immaterialism: Berkeley's philosophy, often called immaterialism, posits that the physical world doesn't exist independently of minds or perceptions. His work, especially, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, helped me make a breakthrough concerning the understanding of immateriality and answered many of my sticking questions regarding it.

@LastThursday I read what you wrote and found it as if you saw the limitations of the material world and believe in Consciousness being the ultimate reality, but are still unsure how materialism and consciousness coincide together. As far as I know, Consciousness is a higher reality. It's not a derivative process. Sense perceptions, body, mind, and physical world as such don't exist on their own, but are the expressions of Consciousness itself. And it's far more real than anything else. Its reality is rich, fine, unifying, and more joyful than anything else. Its structure and coherence are far stronger than those of the material world. Consciousness, as such doesn't need physical structures to function. Its creativity is inherent. All the knowledge and its ruling principles are of first order. Something which I would like to pull out from online to express what I have to say: AI Overview: In his Timaeus, Plato posits that the universe is a product of a divine craftsman (Demiurge) who imposes order and beauty on a pre-existing chaos, imitating an eternal, unchanging model, and that the universe is a living, intelligent organism, much like an organism. Here's a more detailed explanation of Plato's view on the order of the universe: The Demiurge and Creation: Plato's cosmology, presented in the Timaeus, introduces the concept of a "Demiurge" or divine craftsman who shapes the universe from a pre-existing, chaotic state. Imitation of Forms: The Demiurge doesn't create from nothing, but rather imposes order and beauty on the pre-existing chaos, using the "Forms" as models for the sensible objects in the world. Teleological Explanation: The governing principle of Plato's account is teleological, meaning the universe, as a whole and in its parts, is arranged to produce a vast array of good effects. Organicism: Plato views the universe as a living, intelligent organism, much like an organism, where life is better than non-life and intelligent life is better than mere life. The World-Animal: Since the created gods imitate the creator, mortal animals are also copies of the world-animal. Mathematical Order: The Demiurge imposes mathematical order on the pre-existing chaos, leading to the creation of the ordered universe (kosmos). The Forms: Plato's theory of Forms posits that the physical world is a copy of a higher, more real world of eternal and unchanging Forms, and the Demiurge uses these Forms as models for creation. The Form of the Good: Plato's theory of Forms introduces a hierarchy of abstract entities, with the Form of the Good at the top, which is the ultimate source of existence and understanding. Platonic Solids: Plato linked the elements (earth, air, fire, and water) to certain geometric shapes, such as the cube for earth, the octahedron for air, the icosahedron for water, and the tetrahedron for fire. The Soul: Plato also discusses the creation of the body, as well as the causes of bodily and psychic diseases, and the soul, anatomy, perception, and transmigration of the soul.

George Berkeley's metaphysics, famously expressed as "esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived), posits that perceived objects are ideas and exist only as they are perceived, rejecting the existence of material substance independent of minds, and asserting that the true cause of phenomena is a spirit, often God. Here's a more detailed explanation: Immaterialism: Berkeley's core metaphysical claim is that material substance does not exist, and that the objects we perceive are merely collections of ideas or perceptions. Idealism: He argues that everything that exists either is a mind or depends on a mind for its existence. "Esse est percipi": This phrase, meaning "to be is to be perceived," encapsulates Berkeley's view that objects only exist when they are perceived by a mind. God as the Ultimate Perceiver: Berkeley believed that even when humans are not perceiving something, God is, thus ensuring the continued existence of the world. Critique of Materialism: Berkeley rejected the materialist view that objects exist independently of minds, arguing that such a view is untenable and leads to skepticism. God's role in perception: Berkeley's immaterialism implies that the persistence and regularity of the sensible objects that constitute the natural world is independent of all human perception, and that God is perceiving it all. Focus on the perceived world: Berkeley's metaphysics is primarily concerned with the nature of the perceived world, including the analysis of perceived objects, space, and the perceptual relationship itself. Influence on Science: Berkeley's philosophy of science focused on concepts like causation, laws of nature, explanation, and the cognitive status of theoretical entities. Images from George Berkeley’s A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, edited by Jonathan Dancy.

Theurgy was the embodied realization of this union, for in theurgy the “one of the soul” united with the hypercosmic gods just as the “helmsman” joined the disembodied soul to the supercelestial realm. Iamblichus said the soul was capable of this unification because there subsists in its very essence an innate knowledge of the Gods. Iamblichus admits that he uses the term gnosis inexactly, for the highest aspect of the soul could not possibly “know” the gods any more than the helmsman could “see” them. Defining this innate knowledge, Iamblichus says: [It] subsists in our very essence, is superior to all judgment and choice, and exists prior to reason and demonstration. From the beginning it is united to its proper cause and is established with the soul’s essential desire (ephesis) for the Good. But if one must speak the truth, contact with the divine is not knowledge. For knowledge is separated [from its object] by otherness. But, prior to the act of knowing another as being, itself, “other,” there exists a spontaneous [. . .] uniform conjunction suspended from the Gods. It is a contact, Iamblichus says, established by the gods, and the soul’s very existence depended on it, “for we are enveloped in it, even more, we are filled by it, and our existence itself we possess by “knowing” (eidenai) the Gods”. This essence-making knowledge, like the gaze of the helmsman, is not of one to another; it is a unifying contact. And since the “principles (archai) of reason and life” can never be grasped by the orders they establish, it is through the soul’s preconceptual contact with the gods that it sees and knows them.

Theurgy was the embodied realization of this union, for in theurgy the “one of the soul” united with the hypercosmic gods just as the “helmsman” joined the disembodied soul to the supercelestial realm. Iamblichus said the soul was capable of this unification because there subsists in its very essence an innate knowledge of the Gods. Iamblichus admits that he uses the term gnosis inexactly, for the highest aspect of the soul could not possibly “know” the gods any more than the helmsman could “see” them. Defining this innate knowledge, Iamblichus says: [It] subsists in our very essence, is superior to all judgment and choice, and exists prior to reason and demonstration. From the beginning it is united to its proper cause and is established with the soul’s essential desire (ephesis) for the Good. But if one must speak the truth, contact with the divine is not knowledge. For knowledge is separated [from its object] by otherness. But, prior to the act of knowing another as being, itself, “other,” there exists a spontaneous [. . .] uniform conjunction suspended from the Gods. It is a contact, Iamblichus says, established by the gods, and the soul’s very existence depended on it, “for we are enveloped in it, even more, we are filled by it, and our existence itself we possess by “knowing” (eidenai) the Gods”. This essence-making knowledge, like the gaze of the helmsman, is not of one to another; it is a unifying contact. And since the “principles (archai) of reason and life” can never be grasped by the orders they establish, it is through the soul’s preconceptual contact with the gods that it sees and knows them.

@Loveeee In "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge," George Berkeley argues that reality is fundamentally composed of ideas and spirits (minds/souls), rejecting the existence of material substance independent of perception, a core tenet of his subjective idealism. Here's a more detailed explanation: Subjective Idealism: Berkeley's philosophy, known as subjective idealism, posits that all that exists are ideas and the minds that perceive them. Rejection of Material Substance: He argues against the existence of material objects as independent entities, claiming that they are merely collections of ideas perceived by the mind. Focus on Perception: Berkeley emphasizes the importance of perception in shaping our understanding of reality, suggesting that what we perceive is what exists, at least for humans. God as the Ultimate Perceiver: He suggests that God is the ultimate perceiver, ensuring the continuous existence of the world through his constant perception. Influence of Empiricism: Berkeley, like other empiricists, believed that knowledge comes from experience, but he took it a step further by arguing that the objects of experience are themselves ideas. Critique of Locke: Berkeley's treatise largely seeks to refute the claims made by his contemporary John Locke about the nature of human perception, particularly Locke's concept of material substance.

Iamblichus: “This is the greatest proof: many are not burned even though fire is applied to them, for the fire does not touch them because of the divine inspiration. And many, though they are burned, do not respond because they are not living the life of a [mortal] creature. And some, while being pierced with spits, and others, while striking their backs with sharp blades, do not feel it. Still others, while stabbing their lower arms with daggers, are completely unaware of it. Their activities (energeiai) are in no way human—for the inaccessible things become accessible to those possessed by a God—and they throw themselves into fire, walk through fire, and pass through water just like the priestess at Castabalis. From these examples it is clear that those inspired by the Gods are not conscious of themselves; they live neither a human life nor an animal life according to sensation or impulse, but they have taken in exchange a more divine life from which they are inspired and perfectly possessed.” “All those who are offensive and who awkwardly leap after divine mysteries in a disordered way are not able to associate with the Gods due to the slackness of their energy or deficiency of their power. And on account of certain defilements they are excluded from the presence of pure spirits but are joined to evil spirits and are filled by them with the worst possession. They become wicked and unholy and, being glutted with undisciplined pleasures and filled with evil, they affect habits foreign to the gods.” Following the Neoplatonic principle that like can only be joined to like, the theurgist had to purify the future vehicle of the god in order to receive its power, for the presence of the god was always in proportion to the purity of its receptacle.

The quest for God is a longing to be beautiful and good as much as possible and to live in reality. The search for the proof of god is like looking for a needle in a desert—the existence is the proof, you are the proof. Unless one starts breaking away from the physical laws of God, one will believe that the proof of god can be found somewhere in some cause or the logical paradigm, whereas God includes all these and is more than that. I studied Western Philosophy for more than 10 years. Read a lot about Natural Science, Epistemology, Ontology, Metaphysics, and many other subjects for the sake of understanding God. Most of the writers and books I ended up reading were the off-shoots of Platonism. Even the so-called Philosophers are mostly Naturalists, who believe that the natural world and its laws are all that exists, rejecting supernatural or spiritual explanations. If one wants to start setting up their foot on what God is and wants to experience the certainty of God, he should start with the founders of Western Philosophy themselves, namely Platonists and Neoplatonists. One of the books I would recommend is: Platonism and Naturalism by Lloyd P. Gerson where “Lloyd P. Gerson ties platonism to five negations and one affirmation. Platonism denies nominalism, materialism, mechanism, skepticism, and relativism (18-19). Positively, it affirms the first principle of all, the Good or the One (19–20). It affirms the reality of intellectual objects like truth, justice, and God. Platonism then, for Gerson, zeroes in on the affirmation that the world goes beyond nature, and that there is stable truth that grounds our life. I suppose the average appraisal of Platonism might differ. Some may say that Platonism is a full system of thought (and religion) from a bygone era. Others might say it is a secular and therefore anti-religious position. If Gerson is right, such critiques make no sense. Platonism basically affirms that immaterial objects, something beyond rocks, atoms, and quarks exist: things like consciousness, the soul, love, truth, God, and more besides. Put in simple (and not particularly accurate) terms, Platonism is anti-post-modernism, a nebulous term that basically describes a post-truth era. Yes, post-modern theorists will roll their eyes at me. But I am here trying to make simple an idea that, as Gerson’s book shows, is complicated.” ( https://www.wyattgraham.com/p/platonism-and-naturalism-by-lloyd-p-gerson-a-review ) The other works you can read are by, “regarded as the founder of Neo-Platonism, Plotinus (AD 204-70), who was the last great philosopher of antiquity, producing works that proved in many ways a precursor to Renaissance thought. Plotinus was convinced of the existence of a state of supreme perfection and argued powerfully that it was necessary to guide the human soul towards this state. Here ‘in his book The Enneads’ he outlines his compelling belief in three increasingly perfect levels of existence - the Soul, the Intellect, and the One - and explains his conviction that humanity must strive to draw the soul towards spiritual transcendence. A fusion of Platonism, mystic passion and Aristotelian thought, The Enneads offers a highly original synthesis of early philosophical and religious beliefs, which powerfully influenced later Christian and Islamic theology.” ( https://www.londonreviewbookshop.co.uk/stock/the-enneads-plotinus )