Interesting 180. I've never fully appreciated Spinoza's natura naturans but I am assuming (and forgive the crude summary) this monist view is an account of a kind of boundless, dynamic 'substance' from which all expressions of life/physicalism originate. I'm also assuming this notion does away with the age old debate 'why something rather than nothing'? The natura naturans being eternal. Is this a solution to the old theist argument from contingency?

:up: :up:

I personally wouldn't word it as "energy is material", but I'm not prepared to say that's explicitly wrong either. In any case, it's clear that a contemporary "materialist" world view includes energy. — flannel jesus

Might it be possible that our understanding of energy and matter is culturally biased and also lacks more recent information about quantum physics and the center of the universe?

The existence of dark energy is still in question and a materialist would have a hard time accepting an unknown energy but we can see, balance is essential, and it seems quite obvious to me, if the only energy that mattered was gravity then the whole universe would be sucked back together.

Astronomers theorize that the faster expansion rate is due to a mysterious, dark force that is pulling galaxies apart. One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing.

Dark Energy, Dark Matter | Science Mission Directorate — NASA

Both leaf and stone are spinning on the surface of a giant sphere at a thousand miles per hour. They don't fly off of the earth because its mass is so great that it pulls them towards it. The earth is spinning around a star. The solar system is spinning in a galaxy. The galaxy is expanding with the universe... Going the other way, there's a bunch of atomic and quantum movement too, so I'm told. — praxis

That sounds like a familiar explanation. What are the forces that cause the motion? What is gravity?
If nothing counterbalances gravity why doesn't the whole universe get sucked back together? Why is the universe expanding?

Yes. Absolutely. In my mind there is little reason to exclude the thinking, intuition and conclusions of others outright; especially if the work being done is about balance and hybridizing extremes. Being able to challenge myself with diverse sources of knowledge does indeed make living a wondrous thing. This is a hallmark of a good life, in my observations. — Bret Bernhoft

That is what Thomas Jefferson, and Cicero before him, meant when they spoke of the pursuit of happiness.

Before we focused education on the advancement of technology for military and Industrial purposes, we had education for conceptualizing, and being overly materialistic was deemed inferior. Learning a technology is for the working class, not the ruling class.

Concepts are not matter and yet they can be very powerful. Some concepts are very spiritual in nature and this can improve our health. Clearly, there is more to reality than matter.

Great question. Because that's not what the measurements indicate. Good science shows that these phenomena are part of the material world, but energetic in nature; immaterial.
What's really exciting about all of this, is that the immaterial aspects of this world are present, just waiting to be rediscovered. That is what entices me, as an individual. — Bret Bernhoft

Yes. Materialists, for doctrinal reasons, typically lump Energy into the same ontological category as Matter. Admittedly, Energy is essential to Physics & Chemistry --- and I mean that literally. The common definition of Energy is "ability", but I think "potential" is more accurate : Energy is the potential to cause change in matter. And Potential (not-yet-actual) is by definition, immaterial and unreal --- although its effects on matter are immanent. Energy is indeed a Phenomenon, in the sense of an interpretation of sensory impressions. But the thing being interpreted is itself a Noumenon.

is offended by the notion of anything transcendent of temporal reality, or Immaterial, in the sense of unreal (or not yet actual). He points to Spinoza as an authority on the immanence of all substance. Yet Baruch imagined God or Nature as eternal. And that was centuries before modern science discovered --- to the surprise of Einstein --- that the material universe had a beginning --- not in time, but of Time. Spinoza's active "Natura naturans" would be what we now call Energy, and passive "natura naturata" would be Matter*1. Hence, assuming the Big Bang theory is as close to an accurate description of a scientific creation act as possible, then Energy would necessarily "transcend" the existence of the material world*2. However, since immaterial Energy is an attribute of Spinoza's Nature/God, it is not super-natural. :smile:

*1. Spinoza on Substance :
There are, Spinoza insists, two sides of Nature. First, there is the active, productive aspect of the universe—God and his attributes, from which all else follows. This is what Spinoza, employing the same terms he used in the Short Treatise, calls Natura naturans, “naturing Nature”. Strictly speaking, this is identical with God. The other aspect of the universe is that which is produced and sustained by the active aspect, Natura naturata, “natured Nature”.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
Note --- You could interpret "the productive aspect of the universe" as Energy. And "that which is produced and sustained" as Matter. In that case, Energy is the eternal power of "God/Nature" to produce & sustain the temporal stuff of the universe ("things which are in God").

*2. What is natura naturans and natura naturata for spinoza? :
Before going any further, I wish here to explain, what we should understand by nature viewed as active (natura natarans), and nature viewed as passive (natura naturata). I say to explain, or rather call attention to it, for I think that, from what has been said, it is sufficiently clear, that by nature viewed as active we should understand that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself, or those attributes of substance, which express eternal and infinite essence, in other words (Prop. xiv., Coroll. i., and Prop. xvii., Coroll. ii.) God, in so far as he is considered as a free cause.
By nature viewed as passive I understand all that which follows from the necessity of the nature of God, or of any of the attributes of God, that is, all the modes of the attributes of God, in so far as they are considered as things which are in God, and which without God cannot exist or be conceived.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/10arl5f/what_is_natura_naturans_and_natura_naturata_for/
Note --- Nature in the modern, non-Spinozan, sense is a "mode" of God. Likewise, Matter is a "mode" of Energy, in the sense of E=MC^2.

The existence of dark energy is still in question and a materialist would have a hard time accepting an unknown energy but we can see, balance is essential, and it seems quite obvious to me, if the only energy that mattered was gravity then the whole universe would be sucked back together. — Athena

Why would a materialist have a hard time accepting an unknown energy? I'm quite certain that every materialist I know is completely comfortable with the idea that we haven't discovered all that's true about the universe.

I fear you've built up this very narrow idea of what materialists think, that isn't actually what materialists think.

I fear you've built up this very narrow idea of what materialists think, that isn't actually what materialists think. — flannel jesus

:up:

Doesn't seem to follow though, does it? That "spiritual dimension" sneaks into the picture. Is that "spiritual dimension" a part of Nature? If so, a Naturalist may accept it as a part of reality, like everything else, including energy. The question would then seem to be whether if it's part of the Universe it is corporeal. — Ciceronianus

Oh my, what a delicious field of exploration you have opened for us. Our mental state has a lot to do with our physical state. Being spiritual can literally extend our lives. Prays work because our thoughts can affect our physical being.

Religions shape cultures and that is not matter but is conceptual. Our concepts have power. That power can lead to us sacrificing human hearts to a god, or giving charity to people in need. It is as we make it. There is more to life than matter. :smile: Cicero said our failure to do well was a matter of ignorance because we would do right if we knew the right thing to do. That requires an education that is about good citizenship and good moral judgment and education for technology does not do that. I repeat there is more to life than matter.

:lol: Nice try.

So, my philosophical curiosity naturally wonders about the original Source of that all-important creative & animating power. I don't imagine the origin of the world as a biblical Genesis, but Plato/Aristotle's abstract notion of LOGOS & Prime Mover suits me for philosophical purposes. That gives me a point from which to reason about our temporary sojourn in a habitat suitable for matter-transcending living & thinking creatures. :smile: — Gnomon

Thank you so much! I think our discussions would be much improved the the notions of logos and prime mover. And from there, even the gods were subject to logos.

Stories of a god and angels having favorite people and violating the laws of nature and a Satan and demons are a problem and we might change the discussions we have by asking if this or that story is a valid explanation of reality, rather than the very old and stale arguments about the existence of a god who can be manipulated by our behaviors. Going to war, invading another country because a god wants us to fight the war is totally wrong and should never happen. Presidents manipulating citizens with words like "evil" and "power and glory" is wrong! Religion should not be used to support oil companies and maintain our economy.

A religion that is about a kingdom, is not good for democracy.

Why would a materialist have a hard time accepting an unknown energy? I'm quite certain that every materialist I know is completely comfortable with the idea that we haven't discovered all that's true about the universe.

I fear you've built up this very narrow idea of what materialists think, that isn't actually what materialists think. — flannel jesus

You do know we are talking about how we use this planet, right? Indigenous people held a spiritual relationship with the land, and our lives and the planet would be very different if we all had a spiritual relationship with our home in the universe. Many people lived with the idea that it was their duty to take care of the earth and our oldest civilizations used math to keep things in order. Kings were replaced when natural phenomena destroyed crops because that was seen as a failure to please the gods. :lol: The extreme weather events we have had and increasing water shortages could be understood as a failure to please the gods, or a failure to understand science. Either way, our failure to live in harmony with nature does seem to threaten us.

The prediction of end times predates Christianity because human populations kept increasing and the people could see in time there would be more people than the earth could support. Thinking a god causes this or a god can protect us from the destruction of our planet seems problematic to me. Thinking we can do whatever we want, seems problematic to me. The materialists have impressed me as being out of touch with reality.

Can we have an economy based on oil and not run into trouble? No.

Why would a materialist have a hard time accepting an unknown energy? — flannel jesus

I don't know, but do you want to discuss sacred math? Perhaps we can discover why a materialist has a hard time accepting an unknown energy.

You do know we are talking about how we use this planet, right? — Athena

I know that was one thing one person brought up in the conversation once. I didn't realize that was the central focus. Is it?

I don't know, but do you want to discuss sacred math? — Athena

Not particularly.

I know that was one thing one person brought up in the conversation once. I didn't realize that was the central focus. Is it?

"I don't know, but do you want to discuss sacred math?"
— Athena

Not particularly. — flannel jesus

You are right. We are not focused on how what we believe relates to how we behave and that is a problem because we are not developing self-awareness as we plunder the earth and kill plants and animals and each other.

The best way to discover the problem with being a materialist is to discuss sacred math because then we can see how what people believe about sacred things, limits what they can know.

The best way to discover the problem with being a materialist — Athena

Considering how drastically you've misunderstood materialism up to this point in the conversation, I think it would be more appropriate for you to show more curiosity about what materialism is, rather than claiming to know why materialism is a problem. If you don't know what a particular belief is, you don't generally stand a good chance of being able to prove why it's a problem.

I'm sure there are many fantastic arguments in the world against materialism, but I suspect they mostly come from people who know what materialists think.

Thank you so much! I think our discussions would be much improved the the notions of logos and prime mover. And from there, even the gods were subject to logos. — Athena

Unfortunately, Logos and Prime Mover might be rejected by Materialists*1 as unprovable Transcendent beings or forces. For me that's not a problem, because they are merely hypothetical philosophical conjectures (thought experiments) or Axioms*2, with no need for empirical proof, only logical consistency. And, since they have no "favorite people", they provide no reason for slavish religious worship. They also have no need to "violate" natural laws, since they are essentially the LawMakers. :smile:


*1. Materialism :
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Note --- My disagreement with classical mechanical Materialism (Newton) is that Quantum physics has undermined its basic assumption of Atomism. My disagreement with philosophical Materialism is that it ignores or trivializes the immaterial power that allows homo sapiens to post on forums like this. Their rejection of any Transcendent forces, forces them to postulate such unprovable conjectures as infinite Multiverses or Many Worlds, which are themselves transcendent of the only knowable Real world. I don't necessarily disagree with Materialism in its rejection of ancient Spiritualism (ghosts, angels, body-hopping souls, etc).

*2. Is materialism an axiom or a metaphysical belief? :
https://www.quora.com/Is-materialism-an-axiom-or-a-metaphysical-belief

Religions shape cultures and that is not matter but is conceptual. Our concepts have power. That power can lead to us sacrificing human hearts to a god, or giving charity to people in need. It is as we make it. — Athena

No, significantly it is what religious leaders make it. Religious followers can only follow.

Cicero said our failure to do well was a matter of ignorance because we would do right if we knew the right thing to do. That requires an education that is about good citizenship and good moral judgment and education for technology does not do that. I repeat there is more to life than matter. — Athena

The purpose of religion is to bind groups with a shared narrative, values, etc., not to teach ethics. In fact, religion limits moral development.

There is more to life than antiquated concepts and beliefs.

I'm sure there are many fantastic arguments in the world against materialism, but I suspect they mostly come from people who [don't] know what materialists think. — flannel jesus

:clap: :up:

In fact, religion limits [retards] moral development. — praxis

:100:

Energy is, believe it or not, considered part of the material world. Materialists believe in physics. Physics is all about how matter is moved around and changed by energy. So saying these things can't be accounted for in materialism, and then saying "that's because it requires energy to happen", seems to be a misunderstanding of materialism.

Of course materialists believe in energy! How else could matter move and change momentum!? — flannel jesus

Before we go any further, I think it is important for you to define how you understand "energy" and "materialism". There are obviously forms of energy that strict materialists don't embrace.

That is what Thomas Jefferson, and Cicero before him, meant when they spoke of the pursuit of happiness.

Before we focused education on the advancement of technology for military and Industrial purposes, we had education for conceptualizing, and being overly materialistic was deemed inferior. Learning a technology is for the working class, not the ruling class.

Concepts are not matter and yet they can be very powerful. Some concepts are very spiritual in nature and this can improve our health. Clearly, there is more to reality than matter. — Athena

Thomas Jefferson is a favorite American hero of mine. His time on the planet was a special period of human history. So it's interesting that you would mention his definition of pursuing happiness in relationship to the non-material.

In terms of a more robust historical type of education, I'm aware that medieval universities taught something known as the "quadrivium". Which was the effort to create well-rounded and balanced thinkers by focusing on arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music; cosmic languages. Today, as you point out, we are limited in our learning; at least when compared to the past.

So it is indeed the responsibility of the individual to seek out knowledge and wisdom, in order to find this sacred middle space.

There are obviously forms of energy that strict materialists don't embrace. — Bret Bernhoft

Such as? :chin:

Such as? :chin: — 180 Proof

Have you ever heard of a story titled, "The Celestine Prophecy"?

Most people regard the novel (and associated movie) as being metaphorical. But I think that James Redfield was onto something more important than an abstraction.

Here is a sample:



In other words, "Most strict materialists do not support the existence of Kundalini energy, or awakenings."

I would go so far as to say that the super majority of humanity does.

A good word for it is "Kundalini". — Bret Bernhoft

:sparkle: Oh....

I revised my comment, and made the larger point that the majority of humanity does support the existence of Kundalini energy. It is not "woo woo", not in the least. "It" is a philosophical powerhouse.

The amount, and quality of wisdom that can be sussed out from Hindu traditions is mind boggling. And is, in my opinion, more important and relevant to this conversation than one might think.

The amount of wisdom [insights] that can be sussed out from the Hindu traditions is mind boggling. — Bret Bernhoft

Yeah, I agree, especially (for me) the Cārvāka, Advaita Vedanta & (heretical) Theravāda traditions. :up:

I define energy how physicists define energy. I probably define materialism as mostly whatever this document says: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#:~:text=As%20the%20name%20suggests%2C%20materialists,Principles%20of%20Human%20Knowledge%2C%20par.

There are obviously forms of energy that strict materialists don't embrace. — Bret Bernhoft

Are those forms of energy something physicists know about and study?

Are those forms of energy something physicists know about and study? — flannel jesus

Yes, these energies are known of by science. In terms of whether physicists study them, that depends on the individual scientist.

Yes, these energies are known of by science. — Bret Bernhoft

Would you care to get more specific? Which energies do you believe are known by science but materialists all reject?

Which energies do you believe are known by science but materialists all reject? — flannel jesus

In a previous portion of this thread, the energy was referred to as "Kundalini" from ancient Hindu traditions. Which is most certainly known of by science. But would be rejected as "woo woo" by most materialists.