Why idealism is a confused framework

[Scholar]

Idealism claims that reality is fundamentally mental, and while in a sense that it true, really, this framework or idea is just a reactionary position to physicalism or dualism.

A dualist might say the following:

"There is reality, and in that reality exist agents, like us, who have perceptions of reality. The perceptions of reality are fundamentally a different substance than the objective reality, which is material, as opposed to mental."

Now, the idealist will then say "No, this is not true, actually, reality is completely mental, the only substance that exists is consciousness, subjectivity!".

 

Here is the problem: To say reality is mental only makes sense in a dualistic framework. The truth is, existence is just existence. It's not imagination, it's not mental, it's just being, existence.

The concept of imagination and the mental is only relevant as so far as it describes a certain functionality within reality, but in terms of ontology, those terms are meaningless.

 

When we critique the dualist materialist, we simply have to point out a confusion they partake in, namely that they deny the existence of what they refer to as consciousness. When redness is in what you call "your awareness", really, that just means redness exists. It's there. That's all it means. Redness isn't being experienced by anyone at all, that entire framework is materialist framework. All there is, is the existence of different dimensions of existence. One of those dimensions is redness. When the dualist says that there is a fundamental different between the mental and the objective reality, they have to point to redness and say "This is not what existence is!", which is obviously absurd. Of course redness exists, it is pure reality, it could not possibly be anything else.

The dualist will try to point out and say "But clearly redness is not reality, because a person can be wrong about what they perceive, it's clearly subjective!". What is happening here is that the dualist already defines existence as whatever is outside of the dissociated existence (what they refer to us subjective experience), meaning the world or the universe. He makes the claim that reality is there, and then there are subjective agents which walk through reality and perceive it.

But this is obviously delusional. It has to be the case that what is referred to as the subjective experience, is actually itself part of the world and reality. The entire framework therefore is confused.

 

The correct framework looks more like this:

Reality is one unified thing (let's conceptualize it as the universe), and within that one unified thing or substance, there exist relationships between parts of this one substance. And the relationship between those parts of those substance then are what a dissociation, or individuated consciousness, or "subjective" experience, is. To say reality is subjective is just to say that different parts of reality relate differently to each other. That's all it is saying.

What you call your own personal mind simply IS a relationship within existence or reality. So, what a physicalist would conceptualize as brain activity, and what you would call individuated consciousness or dissociation, is always part of the greater whole. This obvious "being part of the greater whole" is always present, because reality obviously is reality. It's undeniable that existence is existence, unless there are specific relationships in existence which ARE the denial of that indisputable truth. That is it's own relationship within reality, and that is the relationship within existence which is dissolve upon taking psychedelics.

So, you have the overarching relationship of "parts" of reality that constitute what you call your individual mind, and within this relationship that are egoic relationships that identify certain things as self vs not-self. When this structure gets dissolved, there will be a realization within the overarching relationship of existence (the individual mind) that it actually IS reality itself, that everything simply is the self. And really, that is delusional too, it's all reactionary. There is no self, there literally is just reality. And everything in existence is reality. That's all there is to it.

It's not a mind, it's not imagination, it's not subjective, it just IS.

To say reality is a mind because it has the qualities of a mind just reveals that you have been confused about what reality is from the beginning! It's not that reality has the qualities of a mind, it's that what you call a mind has the qualities of reality, of existence, that these ARE the qualities of existence from the get go. Of course it has, what other qualities could it possibly have? What else would redness be, but existence itself?

 

 

So, this is where idealists like Bernard Kastrup partake in the materialist and dualistic delusions. They are so entrenched in this framework of "mind vs reality", that they cannot recognize that they partake in it when they define reality as mind. There are no minds! There is just different forms and relationships within existence, and they are all existence.

 

To say "My true self is God!" just is to recognize that "Existence is existence, and anything that exists is existence!". This entire idea that existence belongs to someone is the crux of the problem. What is referred to as the experiencer is just one form of existence, and it is a sense, nothing more. It is not fundamental. There is no experience, the very notion of experience, imagination and the mental is delusional.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

56 minutes ago, Scholar said:

It's not a mind, it's not imagination, it's not subjective, it just IS.

But it is a Mind. It is Imagination. That's what God is.

You need a more advanced notion of Mind. Mind as an absolute, not as relative. You are treating mind as a relative thing, which of course doesn't go deep enough.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But it is a Mind. It is Imagination. That's what God is.

You need a more advanced notion of Mind. Mind as an absolute, not as relative. You are treating mind as a relative thing, which of course doesn't go deep enough.

No, you need a more advanced notion of existence.

What would mind or imagination even mean, if not existence?

 

God is just existence, you wouldn't be calling it a mind if you didn't grow up in a materialistic, dualistic society. So you're just a reactionary in the way you use your terms.

 

What you actually mean when you say this is: "Reality actually has qualities that I previously attributed to the notion of minds, which was a notion I was indoctrinated into through materialist dualist culture."

Minds don't exist outside of the idea of them.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

26 minutes ago, Scholar said:

What would mind or imagination even mean, if not existence?

Of course it's identical to existence.

Quote

God is just existence

Yes, but not "just". What is existence? That's a very profound thing.

Quote

you wouldn't be calling it a mind if you didn't grow up in a materialistic, dualistic society.

I disagree.

Quote

So you're just a reactionary in the way you use your terms.

This makes no sense since idealists have existed for thousands of years, long before materialism was popular or dominant.

Most of the world's best scientists 300 years ago were idealists. You make it sound like idealism was invented post materialism.

Quote

What you actually mean when you say this is: "Reality actually has qualities that I previously attributed to the notion of minds, which was a notion I was indoctrinated into through materialist dualist culture."

Well, that's a significant realization. Don't discount it.

Quote

Minds don't exist outside of the idea of them.

Mind is Absolute.

I would just say that you have a limited notion of mind. Under your limited notion, your view makes sense. But I have a much deeper notion of mind.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Guest Bazooka Jesus]

@Leo Gura

"Mind" is just another name for that which has no name. You might as well call it "cheesecake".

[Scholar]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This makes no sense since idealists have existed for thousands of years, long before materialism was popular or dominant.

Most of the world's best scientists 300 years ago were idealists. You make it sound like idealism was invented post materialism.

I'm not talking about just contemporary materialism. I am talking about the very notion of perceptions in relationship to an external reality. This idea is actually part of default human cognition, even part of egoic structures.

Every idealists that talks about minds is basically reacting to that.

 

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, that's a significant realization. Don't discount it.

I'm not discounting it. I just think the way the framework works is just reactionary and it is unnecessarily confusing to materialists because it kind of engages in the same assumptions by using the same language.

 

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Mind is Absolute.

I would just say that you have a limited notion of mind. Under your limited notion, your view makes sense. But I have a much deeper notion of mind.

Existence is absolute.

You are not quite grasping what I am saying. I don't think "Oh reality is not like what you call a mind!". Redness is existence, but redness is not mind. It literally is just existance, and it exists in and of itself, without anyone perceiving it. What you call perceiving redness is just redness existing.

Really, we are referring to the same thing, and it is limitless either way. I just call it existence, because calling it mind implies outdated dualistic notions. There is no perceiver that is fundamental to existence, there is just existence. The perceiver as a sense of self is just a form of existence.

[Vibroverse]

A very important question to ask is what is language and what does it mean to be talking about something. 

 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Bazooka Jesus said:

@Leo Gura

"Mind" is just another name for that which has no name. You might as well call it "cheesecake".

No, Mind is the perfect name for it. You could also call it Consciousness. Has nothing to do with cheesecake.

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

 I just call it existence, because calling it mind implies outdated dualistic notions.

1) It doesn't imply that.

2) I could also say that you calling it existence implies a duality (non-existence).

Edited August 22, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Guest Bazooka Jesus]

3 hours ago, Bandman said:

I disagree with this, since the thing that is thinking right now is that which has no name. Meaning that reality/consciousness has the capacity of thought and intelligence. it means everything is thought up by reality and is not random/materialistic. So why would that not be a profound realisation?

"Thinking" is a human (i.e. relative) concept. Calling reality "mind" is nothing but a pointer => a relative notion that hints at something which cannot be put into words. It might seem like a helpful pointer to you, but don't mistake a relative concept for that which is absolute. Names can name no lasting name, as Lao Tsu said.

For one who shows such disregard for human spirituality, Leo sure puts a lot of stock in human words. Lmao

 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Bazooka Jesus

[UnlovingGod]

6 hours ago, Bazooka Jesus said:

"Thinking" is a human (i.e. relative) concept. Calling reality "mind" is nothing but a pointer => a relative notion that hints at something which cannot be put into words. It might seem like a helpful pointer to you, but don't mistake a relative concept for that which is absolute. Names can name no lasting name, as Lao Tsu said.

For one who shows such disregard for human spirituality, Leo sure puts a lot of stock in human words. Lmao

 

I mean, what do you want? Just stop writing on this forum? Stop watching videos of any kind? How did you come to the point, were you are right now. Probably through a jungle of words and concepts.

[MAHAVATAR_-_BABAJI]

If you guys did the manual labor then these topics would have some depth to them. Where discussions are derived from experience...

[Scholar]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

1) It doesn't imply that.

2) I could also say that you calling it existence implies a duality (non-existence).

Non-existence has to exist for it to exist, and therefore it would be part of existence. You cannot negate existence, because negation is a form of existence.

[Scholar]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

1) It doesn't imply that.

2) I could also say that you calling it existence implies a duality (non-existence).

Non-existence has to exist for it to exist, and therefore it would be part of existence. You cannot negate existence, because negation is a form of existence.

 

I am not saying that saying reality is mind necessitates duality. I am saying that the very concept of mind stems from duality, and without it, the concept is utterly meaningless.

 

When you say all of reality is mind, you are really just saying: "This here, what I have referred to as mind for my whole life, this is all reality is and could possibly be!". You call it mind because you have been delusional for your entire life and somehow made a distinction between actual reality and "your mind", which is nothing but a fantasy. Once that distinction collapses, the notion of mind ought to be thrown out the window as well. This here, it simply is reality, no mind, no perceiver.

The fact that reality is relative in terms of how it relates to itself is just a feature of reality, which previously you attributed to minds, which do not actually exist.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Scholar

[Oppositionless]

idealism is the logical consequence of epistemic solipsism. instead of just saying "my first person subjective experience in the present moment is all that exists" you say "first person subjective experience in the present moment is all that exists." that's idealism / absolute solipsism. you can go further and realize that absolute solipsism is equivalent to direct realism, which was the "metaphysics" (taken for granted fact) of our ancient ancestors.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Oppositionless

[Scholar]

5 hours ago, Oppositionless said:

idealism is the logical consequence of epistemic solipsism. instead of just saying "my first person subjective experience in the present moment is all that exists" you say "first person subjective experience in the present moment is all that exists." that's idealism / absolute solipsism. you can go further and realize that absolute solipsism is equivalent to direct realism, which was the "metaphysics" (taken for granted fact) of our ancient ancestors.

Right, it is not really meaningful to say "First person subjective experience is all that exists", because then, it wouldn't be subjective, nor first person, it would simply be all that exists.

[Leo Gura]

@Scholar Words are being used but you must take them as pointers to higher things, not literally.

When I say MIND, that's a pointer for something. And it is not what people normally mean by mind.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Scholar Words are being used but you must take them as pointers to higher things, not literally.

When I say MIND, that's a pointer for something. And it is not what people normally mean by mind.

I know, you could only possibly be pointing to one thing, which is reality. And then, it's just a question of what reality is, or what it's qualities are.

[Guest Bazooka Jesus]

1 hour ago, Bandman said:

I'm honestly trying to understand your metaphysical view on reality. What are your arguments against Idealism etc?

Sigh... I am not arguing against anything. I am just saying that whatever words and concepts you use for expressing absolute truth will always be utterly inadequate. So no word can be the "correct" word for that which can neither be labeled nor described. And like I wrote in another thread earlier today, all -isms like Idealism, Solipsism etc. are stories about reality, not reality itself.

The very act of naming/labeling something is an act of turning it into something relative, I.e. something which is finite and can only exist in contrast and opposition to something else. "Mind" can only exist in contrast to "not mind". The absolute however has no opposite since it contains EVERYTHING.

[eos_nyxia]

There is only so much you can do with -isms as a root framework of thinking, you know? I tend to think of it as a living relic of the 20th century/ "Western" modernistic thinking, though my time frame here might not be totally precise.