Assumed Foundations

[Guest guest]

All thoughts, all concepts are based on assumptions.

The assumptions may be far removed, or even hidden,

but they are there. The most logic, most tested piece

of reasoning is based on an act of faith. So it comes

down to this, from the scientist to the mystic, we all

pick the version of reality that suits our purpose, that

fits our nature, that catch our fancy.

 

For example, Greg, our resident philosopher, writes:

 

N1. Start with the acceptance of the non-phenomenality of consciousness.

N2. Add your acceptance of the no-independent-material stuff idea.

N3. And add your acceptance of the no-independent-NON-material stuff idea.

 

 

N1- is of course an assumption. There is no way to prove the

non-phenomenality of consciousness . It is an act of faith, which you would

adopt for any of

the three reasons mentioned above: it suits your purpose, nature, or fancy.

 

N2- Seems to me more solidly rooted in fact (according to Buddhist theory and

modern science) but this just come down again, to my personal inclination.

 

N3- Seems an obvious undiluted assumption. What can it possible mean to say

everything is nonmaterial? What is matter? Matter is mass. That which has weigh

and volume. That which occupies space, and takes effort to displace. The

ultimate substance of matter is as unknown to scientists, as to philosophers.

So

we could say that the main distinction is effort

and ditectability. Matter requires effort and its ditectable and verifiable.

The spiritual seems

not to required effort, maybe only faith.

 

To be brutally honest, what practical difference is there? Would gravity stop

working

because we believe all is consciousness? Would wisdom, and the unitive vision

desert the

mind because we believe consciousness is a by-product of matter? I think not.

It is

really only an aesthetic choice.

 

Pete