It's not an easy model to come at. For me personally, I am not a materialist. I have nothing invested, no puns intended, in defending a materialist model, Nevertheless your presentation is not quite coherent. Right from the start you deal with one facet of English as if it is an organized but incorrect model of reality and focus on four very abstract pronouns as if they rule the way we think. But materialism is built into language in a disorganized, complicated way and you're focusing there seems odd and misleading. Again, note, it's not that I think a) materialism is not built into the language. I think it is, though in a sloppy, sometimes contradictory, often metaphorical way. b) nor do I think that materialism is correct.
Right from the start of your argument I find it confused. And confused is much harder to respond to then something that is incorrect or false.Anything, everything, something, nothing. These four words consitute the base of the model of the construction of reality of the English language.
Those words are generally taken to be material things. Though dualists (in the usual philosophical sense, say with matter and spirit or matter and mind dualisms) use those words also and happily include non-physical things in their models. Even extreme idealists. Even substance monisms that are not PHYSICALISM/MATERIALISM monisms manage to use those words also. They do not necessarily entail physicalism, but since most modern Westerners at least tend to be materialists, sure they tend to refer to physical things.
But futher, more importantly, we as individuals do NOT get materialism through those found every abstract pronouns. Before kids are using those words much they are already steeped in their parents worldviews (and by the way, many of those world views are not materialst, they are often dualist, with a diminismment of the importance of the physical realm ((and yes, I understand that you see those people as confused in their way, but my point is that look at this, we are already all over the place right from the get go because your presentation is much less coherent and based in reality than you think it is. Your presentation, the way you go about challenging materialism. Not your conclusions, not your experiences, but your presentation and right from the beginning.)))
You presentation is a kind of straw man. Not that you are wrong about language, but what you take as the core model...I mean, seriously, those four words are not a model of materialism, nor as central parts of English, nor are they how one as an individual slides into materialsim from womb to adulthood.
So, it takes a tremendous amount of work to even tease out a beginning response to the first part of your argument, the first sentence. And again, not because I am scared or challenged by an antimaterialist arguement. My paradigm is not shaking. It's your presentation skewedness.
Even mentioning English is odd as if it was unique. Our languages do come very much out of the motor cortex and a lot of the metaphorical base is thus based on what are considered by physicalists to be physical motor processes. See the work of Lakoff and Johnson. Most languages. I can't be sure of indigenous languages and probably aboriginal Australians and other groups have a more diverse, probably dualist/monist combinations, with non-materialist aspects. But most modern languages and even most dead languages like, ancient Sumerian, probably will certainly look materialist, if you are a materialist. But that's because of the way language builds up. It need not be to those who speak the language.
It's not like some Shaivite living north of Mumbai needs to wrestle even for a second with those four pronouns to be able to view the world as actually Shiva and Parvati wrestling in the void or whatever. And dualist, monist, mixed, non-dual Shaivites can happily use those words at dinner, at the ashram with their gurus if they have one, while talking to someone beside them while squatting over a hole in the floor and not be lost or be lost or anything in between.
And then there's your personality here. Which is the context in which your skewed presentation is made.
If we don't 'get it' after watching your two videos, we don't want to get it. The ego AND rudeness of this lay psychic claim should embarrass you.
Or interactions like this....
roydop wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 4:34 am
Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 8:48 am
"roydop", you claim that, "Science itself has shown that there was a state prior to the arising of the physical Universe", so will you provide a link to where "science" has shown this?
Also, will you provide a link to where "science" has shown or proved that the physical Universe even actually arose?
If no, then why not?
I mean seriously. If you get it or you don't, then you didn't need to bring up the Science supporting your ideas in the first place.I'm done with trying to convince people of what is obvious. Either you get it or you don't.
If you don't want to see something it will not be seen, no matter how obvious.
You've told people to shut the fuck up.
You frame it all as people in a cult, defending their worldviews, while at the same time in the beginning of your video you seem to understand that this is NOT so easy. To shift one's worldview. In fact, I assumed you were another person when you first posted, not Roy Dopson, because 'he' seemed to understand, and 'you' did not.
You've come off petulant, pissed off, impatient, snarky, incredibly judgmental and responded, for example, to a perfectly reasonable question about the science you mentioned really quite rudely.
You don't really seem to have your feet on the ground. Which doesn't mean you're wrong, or that you aren't happy and blissful and experiencing profound shit.
Meditation cannot scrape away at the shadow and you seem clueless about many things that meditation cannot get at. So, your shadow is showing up here, getting in your face, and you just keep labelling it, snarling at it, blaming it, with little seeming ability to notice the hypocrisy in this or that it is what you haven't faced in yourself you are meeting.
And this is so obvious to most people and includes people who may never challenge their own materialism but are making perfectly acute observations about what you are doing.
