[atreestump]

@”kFoyauextlH” Not bad, but I recommend keeping the link between our own ideas and the basic concepts separate in the beginners area.

There was no rush to do this by the way.

[atreestump]

George Berkeley’s main argument is that we perceive ordinary objects and ideas therefore objects are ideas.

Cartesian and Lockean responses differentiate two types of perception in response to Berkeley – ordinary object are indirectly (mediately) perceived and ideas are directly (immediately) perceived and so ideas represent objects in the material world.

Berkeley rejects the resemblance explanation that is required for representationalism and declares that ‘ideas can only be like other ideas’. As the mind can only know its own ideas, it cannot compare a likeness to anything else and this puts representation in big trouble. This is Berkeleys’ likeness principle.

Dualists, representationalists and materialists could not satisfactorily answer the problem of how matter and ideas interact, how ideas can exist without matter causing them and that the existence of matter does not explain the occurance of ideas.

Berkeley completely undermined the substance dualists of his day and concluded esse est percipi – to be is to be perceived.

[atreestump]

I think a thread on George Berkeley is in order in the beginners zone. @”kFoyauextlH” or @”Philosophy” do you want to have a go at that?

[atreestump]

@”waechter418″ Why not have a crack at this thread? https://ontic-philosophy.com/Thread-Discussion-Weishaupt-and-Kant Not so much the second part of it, but the challenge from Weishaupt to Kant.

[atreestump]

Claustrophilia forces the viewer to get to know each character intimately.

[atreestump]

I mean, you could use the forum to practice for your classes, figure out some kind of structure to the classes. I didn’t mean your teaching skills are lacking in any way. I can see how that was lazy writing, but I have a cold etc…

[atreestump]

Reality is not a manifestation of consciousness and therefore a dream….Buddhist merely states that as things don’t have a self-nature (anatman), as all forms are inter-dependent, these forms are not fixed and are subject to change, it is only in this sense can we use the dream as a metaphor (not fixed and impermanent)

Dependent Origination can be seen in William Blake

‘To see a world in a grain of sand and Heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand and Eternity in an hour’

So often do we see Westernised versions of Eastern ideas that run all too quickly towards idealism.

As old Tich Nhat Hahn put it – there is a cloud floating in this piece of paper.

Although I interpret the Brahman dream as a kind of Spinozaesque panentheism, or modes of the same nature, this nature is necessarily expressed separately as a series of relations that are interdependent.

Looks like you could sharpen up your teaching skills for your classes here mate, your interpretation of the metaphorical dream reminds me of the Richard Harland take on Derrida.

[atreestump]

This could potentially be worth a look: https://academic.oup.com/fs/article-abstract/62/4/467/546187/Claustrophilia-The-Erotics-of-Enclosure-in?redirectedFrom=fulltext

[atreestump]

As the universe is responsible for the composure of the body, it is reasonable that it also composes what we experience as the mind. When I look at DNA, I see an antenna that receives a universal signal.

Could you elaborate on this?

[atreestump]

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/wolfi-landstreicher

[atreestump]

I am not against playfully imagining possible decivilized worlds. But for such imaginings to be truly playful and to have experimental potential, they cannot be models worked out from abstracted conceptions of either past or future societies. In fact, in my opinion, it is best to leave the concept of “society” itself behind, and rather think in terms of perpetually changing, interweaving relationships between unique, desiring individuals. That said, we can only play and experiment now, where our desire for the apparently “impossible” meets the reality that surrounds us. If civilization were to be dismantled in our lifetime, we would not confront a world of lush forests and plains and healthy deserts teeming with an abundance of wildlife. We would instead confront a world full of the detritus of civilization — abandoned buildings, tools, scrap, etc., etc.[2] Imaginations that are not chained either to realism or to a primitivist moral ideology could find many ways to use, explore and play with all of this — the possibilities are nearly infinite.

[atreestump]

I like the bit about Hollywood, movies can have a huge impact on what we think is real.

There do seem to be ‘death throes’ occurring, cluster bombs of contraction and condradiction – Accelerationism is a kind of surrender rather than a pathetic fatalism in a way.
[hr]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX-HfNIN-pc

[atreestump]

Been trying to respond to this for a few weeks. I guess my ideal world is one of creativity and destruction as a way of forming life, not just reactions, but positive projects.

[atreestump]

It’s been a year of great books but this truly is something else. I can’t put it down. Land gives excellent radical interpretations of Kant, Shopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Deleuze, Guattari and Freud, but in a way that lays them out in a simple form.

I’m currently on ‘Spirit and Teeth’.

So much to digest, but one part that stuck out was his reading of D&G – genius is the schizophrenic, the overman (overcoming without termination).

[atreestump]

@”Rubsy” did this arrive yet in paperback?

[Author]

Posts