Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
The direct realism of the Greeks can thus be characterized as having three aspects: 1. The Realist Aspect: The assumption that the material world exists and an account of how we can function successfully within it; 2. The Directness Aspect: The lack of any mind-body gap; 3. The Absoluteness Aspect: The view of the world as a unique, absolutely objective structure of which we can have absolutely correct, objective knowledge.
Embodied realism accepts 1 and 2 but denies that we have any access to 3.
... these views are “realist” by virtue of their acceptance of 1.
... there was a time of physical existence before the human mind but even then there was an interior along with an exterior, since they've never been split in the first place.
For example, recall this from Sara Ross in the "status of states" thread*:
"That might mean attention should go to specific states and analyze what’s happening in them. For example, how about the state of meditation, the ‘witnessing’ kind where the person watches their thoughts go by? It, too, is a formal operations activity, not “transcendent” at all unless someone wants to project “transcendence” on it (and we’d need to unpack what that word is supposed to mean). Let me explain. Back to Descartes. Formal operations is the first order of complexity (I am avoiding “stage” because until I would give the technical/theoretical meaning of it, best to use other terms) at which persons can reflect on their thought at all. Piaget called it “reflective abstraction.” Watching our thoughts go by in a certain form of meditation is not structurally different than realizing during the day that we are thinking to ourselves. Either way, we can observe our thoughts. We “dress” meditation with spiritual overtones, but forgive me for asking, why, pray tell, do we?"
*Note many of the threads at Gaia IPS like this one are being saved for transfer to somewhere somewhen.
Meditation is observation involving something beyond ... thoughts.
Thanks for wading in on this tricky subject.Meditation is observation involving something beyond ... thoughts.
I'm afraid I dont follow you. A "something beyond thoughts"? I'm a panpsychist (of a sort) so often have to suffer dismissive comnments about how I'm "going up in a baloon" with my crazy ideas, to paraphrase William James; but the idea that meditation involves something transcdent is a bit too much for me. Partly I agree with Sara's approach that we need to see "witnessinng" in a psychological light. Also, I worry that pushing meditation into a "something transcendent" leads to a dualistic split between the immanent world (mind/brain, body, society, etc.) and some sort of transcendent spirit/consciousnes -- even if they relate to and depend on each other, the distinction is still there (similar to my concerns about property dualism).
I found that interview, but its too big to post. Any recomendations as to where I could store it online and link to it? Or perhaps I can just email it to you.
... I cannot imagine doing away with the physical exterior. And I've tried to indicate that interior/exterior is a useful distinction only, not an inherent property dualism. I.e., experiential perspectives.