Looks interesting, still not going to read it.
Why? Because in order to create a discussion your post should be on the dialogical side.
I can't respond to this post.
Make you strongest argument and we can respond to that.
Later on you can start connecting other arguments with our responses.

I don't see direct relation between Atheist/Theist and materialist/non-materialist.
Of course superficially they seem directly depended on each other but they are not.

At this point not believing the image of god created by organized religions is a sign of a healthy unconditioned mind.
Being materialist or non-materialist seems to me beyond the point of traditional religion.
It starts at a deeper point in your inquiry into reality.

Myself, I never believed in a god and never have been a materialist so when I read your post I was surprised that there was an argument needed to be made for it.

Can you have consciousness without any content? — frank

Yes that's the goal of meditation and maybe some other rituals. Consciousness is not depended on contents for its existence but it needs contents for expression in the physical world.

Can you have content without consciousness? — frank

No. Contents need a cause.

If there's a relationship, what is it? — frank

Consciousness is the blackboard (emptiness/space) upon which contents are written.

Clarification: By consciousness I don't only mean awakening consciousness but whole levels of consciousness, known and unknown.

How would you describe the difference? — frank

Consciousness is not caused, contents are.
Consciousness is not dependent on time and space, contents are.
Contents are epiphenomena, they can be created and/or ended, Consciousness is not subject to this kind of change (although it could be subject to a subtler evolution).

There are many other differences that are implied by these.

There is an important distinction that needs to be made between consciousness and contents of consciousness.
Contents can adapt and do, but consciousness itself in uninfluencable (I know thats not even a word) so it doesn't adapt except for its contents.

P.s Maybe I didn't understand you challenge.

Ok

what grabbed you about the book, in a nutshell? — 0 thru 9

Hmm, I would say it clarified and solidified intuitions that I had but were not very clear to me. Basically he shows how these intuitions actually have brain correlates and he used neuroscience to prove intuitions that people had down the ages.

Even though Suzuki is talking about Christianity in particular, it equally applies to the whole of Western Civilization, which seems to have a credo: “We must beat the obstinate Earth into submission. Once we have mastered and conquered it, we will live like the kings we are! Of course, there are other strange peoples who are not going along with our plan. They are sitting on a gold/silver/coal/whatever mine and refuse to dig it up. Fools. We will take it to use as God and Nature intended.” — 0 thru 9

You know, there is a mainstream idea that Christianity formed western culture but I think that is looking it upside down.
To my eyes its the other way around. It was the western "conquer the world" attitude inherited by paganism, kings and emperors, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the conquering hero myth that simply used selected christian dogma to their benefit.
In the 1st and 2nd century Christianity had a totally different spirit, it was more like Sufism, until Constantine the Great and the created church used christian beliefs modified to their preferences to control the masses and seize power.
"The people seem to embrace Christianity, we might as well use it to our benefit."
We can see this in how other forms of Christianity like Gnosticism were persecuted.

If you only look at Jesus' words it feels actually more like the eastern spirit than western.
To me the west looked more Judaic than Christian.

Compared to the past this period of history is radically materialistic, and it is encouraged to everyone since childhood to be so.
Religion promised man to deliver happiness beyond materialism and not only failed but it exploited the people. So with 17th century enlightenment the west started shifting the balance to worshiping material goods and wealth and completely ignore religion.
What happened was just moving from one extreme to another as a form of reaction.
With this the whole civilization started to shift.
Individualistic virtues took the wheel of everyone's life, about money, relationships, career, health.

Basically the way this civilization views reality and life is completely fragmented, self-centered, one-dimensional and ultimately self-destructive.

P.s Iain McGilchrist makes a good case how we came to this point in his book Master and Emissary.

but the Bodhidharma clearly knows how to talk, and has not become innocent like the beasts, And likewise Lao Tzu and Chiang Tzu. — unenlightened

Enlightenment doesn't mean going back to animal but transcending it.

I think it is appropriate to say that the transcendence is a moving forward not a return, certainly not a return to a prelinguistic awareness. — unenlightened

Evolution to enlightenment is not a moving forward but a circle, yes you return but you are not the same.
The camel say yes the lion saysno and the child says the sacred Yes.

You have my attention. A couple of quotes would be helpful. — unenlightened

Well Tao Te Ching is basically about wu wei, no-knowing.
All the stories of Chuang Tzu deal with this state.
It is implied in many stories in Zen and Buddhism.
In the positive religions like Christianity and Sufism it is expressed in a positive manner as The Will of God, "I am no more, God is".

Matthew 18:3: "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Emperor Wu:
What is the first principle of the holy teaching?
Bodhidharma:
Emptiness, no holiness.
Wu:
The who stands before me?
Bodhidharma:
No knowing.

"In the time of the Yellow Emperor, humanity lived in a state of blissful ignorance, untouched by the burdens of ambition, greed, and power. They knew not of war or conflict, for their hearts were filled with love and understanding. It was an era of true enlightenment and unity, where the boundaries between individuals blurred and a collective consciousness emerged."

The whole point of true religion (not-organized) is bringing back the person to the Garden of Eden, the transcendence of dualism. Without the turn to the state of no-knowing there is no enlightenment.

There can be no return to the innocence of not knowing. — unenlightened

This may be the only part I disagree with your post.
I recognize everything you have said because it has been said through the ages from the people we call enlightened. And all those people spoke exactly of the return of the innocence of not knowing.
So if you deny this return then you deny their enlightenment and so the conclusions of your post.

:up: My pleasure :up:

That was really good. You just need to remove the O in Gjergj. Kastrioti was spot on.
Here's a Ytube short where the name is pronounced:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3AB1Z9QmThU

Another interesting fact: Skanderbeg in Spanish is said Jorge Castriota (Albanian: Gjergj Kastrioti) — javi2541997

Yes, Gjergj Kastrioti is his real name. Skenderbeg is the name given by the ottomans, Skender+Beu(sire)

What I do not understand is why it is underrated is the Western world. Some "philosophers" or "thinkers" consider their principles just to have fun in a "hippy mode" — javi2541997

If you ask me, its like the story of the fox and the "sour" grapes. Its hard to let go of western dualistic way of thinking and thats what zen requires. It wants to push beyond logic and arrive to what is. So they use the excuse of the "hippy mode" to discard it altogether.
So when one does so, I just challenge them to read Keiji Nishitani and then call zen hippy :lol:

I have always been interested in Japanese culture and I read books and some stuff on the topic. But, I am not going to lie, language is a barrier regarding to understand Japanese people. Yet, I think it is worthy to at least have a look, without the necessity of being an expert. — javi2541997

Yeah me too. Although I don't study it directly but through zen history and philosophy. The older the texts are the more I feel there is a gap between the original meaning and the translation I read.
That's why I find the Kyoto school philosophers and D. T. Suzuki very helpful on bridging that gap.

On the other hand, I am currently having a big interest in Greek culture and Balkan history. — javi2541997

In Albanian history you might find the story of Gjergj Kastriot Skënderbeu most impressive:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Qelvsi_5E&t=2s&ab_channel=KingsandGenerals

I think I am saying "interesting" a lot when I interact with you by the wa — javi2541997

Well its good to be interested especially when you discover new territory.

Some days ago I saw Comoros as an option in a list to "chose your country" and I realized how much of the world we don't really know. How many countries, people, languages and traditions we are not even aware that exist.
I thought: There are so many people who were born and died in these unfamiliar cultures that will not be part of history, so many ways of life, and we only focus on the mainstream worldview that is offered to us.
It seems like the Matthew Principle applies almost everywhere.

So yes it is interesting to travel on uncharted waters.

So, you pronounce each vowel or consonant in the words, right? — javi2541997

Yes.

Exactly. I have read somewhere that Gjika is a name or last name. When I searched Gjika yesterday in Google, it appeared different people from Albania. So, I guess that such a noun is related to persons and not objects. — javi2541997

Yes it could be a name of last name, probably in Kosovo.

Although I am not sure I entirely understood your post yet, let me try to adequately respond. — Bob Ross

My bad, I didn't really clarify my terminology. So let me try to adapt it to analytic idealism and then some.

Analytic Idealism would posit that our minds are alters of a universal mind, and space and time only emerge as a production of perceptive conscious beings. In terms of analytic idealism, the world around you that you are perceiving is fundamentally the unfolding in space and time (which are synthetic but arguably not a priori in the sense schopenhauer exactly meant it) of eternal platonic ideas. Although space and time do not behave necessarily as we would intuit from normal every day-to-day experience, they are also within the eternal ideas as we are, as evolved emergent perceptive and self-conscious beings, a part of those eternal ideas. — Bob Ross

So I'll use the word mind for localized and dissociated universal mind. And Formless Mind for the "part" of the Universal Mind which is not manifested in spacetime as a measurable form.
So we have the Universal Mind, the Formless Mind and then the localized mind.
Of course this distinction is only for usefulness of explaining and there is no spatial or temporal separation between the three.

Why do I say that our human localized mind obeys to the laws of spacetime?
Simply because the Formless Mind to manifest itself into spacetime it needs matter, in this case a brain and a body, it is "pulled down" to the world of form, which is an excitation of the Formless.
In a human being, the Formless is in a relationship with the form and thus it is subject to different laws, laws of spacetime. The Formless does not lose its nature but it becomes limited by the form.

Enter:

Are you saying that the mind can “switch” (so to speak) between two modes of existence or perceptive capabilities? — Bob Ross

In a sense, but lets clarify.
As I understand it, the human being is mostly subject to the laws of spacetime.
One is born in a body which is conditioned for millions of years of evolution.
One is conditioned by his/her specific genes and then conditioned by society.
That's why it is right to say that humans are social animals but I simply wouldn't end it there.
So far a human being is just a complicated machine.
For some reason humans are born with the potential to realize that Formless Mind which is the original source of his/her consciousness.
So as I see it humans have two options:
1. Live under the rule of the localized mind which obeys laws of spacetime like a machine
2. Realize the Formless Mind in oneself and become subject to new different laws.

If you are familiar with traditional metaphysics and religious texts this may sound familiar.
i.e the no-mind of zen, the anatman of Buddha, the divine double, the nous etc.
These traditions always have called for man to shift their attention from option 1 and live option 2.
Ultimately that is the point of meditation in "negative" religions, or surrender in "positive" religions.

In every metaphysical theory, I find there is the problem of accounting for the inevitable eternal somehow continually “converting” into something temporal—and I don’t know how to account for it adequately under any theory. — Bob Ross

Yes and there is a chance that it cannot be done, at least objectively.

The G is silent not the J in the word Gjika. — javi2541997

From an english POV yes but for us silent letters don't exist, we pronounce everything.
J itself is pronounced as Y in you, without the G it would be pronounced Yika.
Also fyi Gjika is not a word in Albanian.

Is this correct? How much the Greek phonology have influenced in Albanian pronunciation? — javi2541997

Very little. There is higher probability of Greek grammar influence than phonetics.
The only influence Greek phonetics might have had is in southern Albania. The dialect there is very different from the rest, especially north.
As a northerner myself when I listen to Greek it sounds very alien phonetically.

In Albanian it is written as "Gjika", but it is pronounced with just a G because Modern Greek γκ is used to write "g" as a stop. Like omitting the J. So, we have to pronounce it like saying "ghicas" — javi2541997

Gjika is pronounced more like Jika than Gika.
We pronouce G - Gëh as in Game.
And Gj as J in Jacket.

the speakers of unattested indigenous languages become literate by learning Greek. — javi2541997

Again, maybe the south. But I would bet that literacy was more influenced by Latin. Since after 3rd century A.D Albania became very much influenced by the roman Catholicism.

in option one she will get an apology. How has she lied in this case? As the curse says if he apologises he is released from it and the curse ends — Benj96

Here:

The only thing required to set the ball rolling is jeremiah and his family to have something bad happen to him/them. Which is guarenteed to occur. As everyone has bad days. — Benj96

Bad things will still happen to Jeremiah since she was bluffing.
And then Jeremiah will hold her responsible.

Hmmm... Whatever bad things would happen to Jeremiah they were going to happen whether the witch forgives him or not.
Lets say that Jeremiah picks option 1.
The bads things that were going to happen will still happen and he will think that the witch lied and seek vengance.
How will she get out of this?

Would make for a very sparsely populated philosophy forum, however. — Wayfarer

Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.
Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.
Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there, and shouting "I found it!"
Science is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat while using a flashlight.
Social Science is like being in a dark room suspecting from the beginning that there is a black cat somewhere, and emerging from the room with scratches on the forearm as vindication.

I don’t think our mind works materialistic: I think that the modernist era has produced a predominant metaphysical view in favor of materialism. Also, why would our mind working materialistically entail duality? Are you saying materialism entails irreductive materialism? — Bob Ross

By materialistic I don't mean the materialism worldview.
By materialistic I mean the mind obeys space-time.
The thinking mind works in time through space albeit at a subtler level than gross matter.
This functioning of the mind in space-time entails duality since non-duality is beyond spacetime.

If you have noticed, scientists, artists, religious people tend to report that in the moment of their greatest creativity the mind "stops functioning" and something else, a muse, a spirit, god, the universe etc. works through them.
Of course this is poetic and all but for me it suggest that consciousness (in humans) can work in two ways: 1. the duality of mind (spacetime) and 2. the non-duality of non-mind (spacetime-less).

Do you mean that metaphysical theories evolve? Or that they don’t give absolute truth? — Bob Ross

I mean that you simply cannot express it fully since systems of thought will always be limited.
And yes in different periods of human history it has to adapt and evolve to make sense.

I can assume that you could understand me if you listen me speaking! — javi2541997

Yeah, I may not know every word but I know what you mean.

Thank you for helping me to understand them and how to pronounce it. Another thing that I learned today! — javi2541997

My pleasure, I would ask for you to return the favor but 7 years of watching telenovelas when I was a kid already did that. :lol:

C: "cé"
Ç: "s" or the similar sound of a S.
Ë: É a vowel with big pronunciation.
Nj: I do not know how to pronounce it, the sound of these consonants are not in my mind when they are together!
Zh: Like "ch" — javi2541997

Not really.
They sound more like:
C: ts
Ç: ch as in cheap
Ë: idk how to explain this, maybe like the E in CERN
Nj: like Ny russian Nyet!
Zh: like the ending of mirage

It is interesting because I guess we should to analyse each language and then conclude which one is more complex to replicate. — javi2541997

Yeah who knows. My guess is some chinese dialect

It's unfortunately not true. E. g. the Czech Ř is notoriously difficult to pronounce. — Baden

I just listened it on youtube it was fairly easy to mimic. Maybe it would need some practice to use it in words. its was almost like saying rrzh in albanian.

But, is your language complex in other areas? Like gender endings, conjugation, vocabulary and its syntax, etc... I am Spanish. How difficult would learning Albanian be for me? — javi2541997

mmmm... Grammar and conjugation could be challenging since it is complex in an unfamiliar way.
Syntax I think its simpler, vocabulary its a lot of new unfamiliar words.

Would it be a struggle for a foreigner who is learning Albanian to replicate these sounds? — javi2541997

No I think its very easy in general, judging how many italians have learned albanian.
Unusual letters to pronounce might be: C Ç Ë Nj Zh, although it would depend on one's native language.


Im not sure if this is a fact but from our experience, it seems like we can imitate any sound and intonation of other languages with little effort.

For example pronouncing Japanese words its really easy, maybe because they, like us pronounce words in syllables i.e ku-ru-ma, ma-ki-na.
or russian, arabic, latin etc.

But, do you have any issue or struggle related to grammar or syntax? — javi2541997

No Its pretty flexible and simple although it may seem unusual to a foreigner.

It seems that spelling is not so important in Albanian, but what about the other uses in your vocabulary? — javi2541997

What do you mean?

As an Albanian we have zero pronunciation problems since how we write a word is 100% the same as you say it.
The question "how do you spell it" doesn't exist.

The people can, and always have, spoken fluent English, and produced correct pluralizations, without knowing any of these things. Then, are these "rules" part of no conscious knowledge? — javi2541997

People who can do that are people who have learned English from exposure mainly instead of rules of grammar.

Now, sometimes I do hear physicalists rightly point out that an analytical idealist is not actually providing an explanation to consciousness at all but, rather, simply positing it as fundamental without a detailed account of mind — Bob Ross

Kastrup attempts to answer this through 2 similar metaphors in Why Materialism is Baloney : The Whirlpool and The Membrane.

to me, it isn't that impressive for one's metaphysics to align with scientific knowledge but, rather, one should be holistically determining the best metaphysical theory based off of parsimony, explanatory power, internal coherence, external coherence, reliability, intellectual seemings, etc — Bob Ross

To do that, our whole language and logic should go through a transformation and even then it can not give an account of reality all the way.
So a metaphysical theory can never be wholly because of the nature of "theory".
The way our mind works is materialistic which means dualistic and it can only explain something within space-time meanwhile the fundamental reality must be beyond space-time /or spaceless-timeless.

It is not coincidence that in all traditional metaphysics you see the theme: The truth that is spoken is no longer the truth.

Men being no longer the bread winners, often assume the role of stay at home dad - raising the family.

Perhaps, men become the more pursued sex, rather than the pursuer. Women make the moves, ask men out on dates, do the proposing. Maybe men are more often objectified, their looks and demeanor becoming more important than their career prospects, finances or social status. Men are cat-called on the streets, harassed, groped inappropriately in the club, expected to be highly sexualised and submissive. The feminine becoming ever more dominant and brazen towards men. — Benj96

This is not Matriarchy. This is just Patriarchy ruled by females.
In the future you mention there is not much change of the world, you just put the women in place of men and the system remains more or less the same.

Matriarchy and Patriarchy are created out of feminine and masculine qualities, not gender (although obviously there is correlation there.)

an Brahman is Atma

If depth has an ultimate ceiling, then the ceiling must be above everything we know, beyond to observable universe, utterly transcendent. This, too, has been called “God.” — Art48

Reality ultimately must be as the symbol of the circle not the line. So the ceiling and the floor are the same.

A transcendent God, almost of necessity, must be a person. For such a God must have a desire to communicate with us; otherwise, how could we ever know such a God existed? If it utterly transcends everything we know, then we obviously have no reason to suspect it exists unless it provides some clues, in the form of miracles and scriptures. — Art48

This conclusion comes from the minds tendency to anthropomorphize anything that it doesn't understand.
Transcendence is not in space, - universe + God - but beyond space.

You can zoom in as far as you like on the micro-circuitry of your television set, but you'll never find a story there — Wayfarer

Beautiful.

My choice would be completely selfish.
My ethics would only kick in if the difference was really big, i.e save 1 million people or someone you love deeply.

When you use All there is nothing left to talk about because there can be nothing out of All.
Maybe think on the questioning again.

Right. Ever since we became selves, back on the African plains. — Wayfarer

Or in religious symbol, since we fell from Eden.