It's got nothing to do with logic, and it is not based on experience. An 'objective' realm and a 'subjective' realm are, experientially speaking, 100% identical. Any split between them is never the product of experience. The so called split is an experience in itself, entire and perfect. A so-clalled thought is identical to a so-called perception. It is the bewitchery of words alone that makes us think differently.
I disagree, a thought is a 'perception' without the source and its due to memory. I agree its not the experience its the happening, 'experience is how you deal with whats happened to you'. From your point of view a 'flying pig' is no different from a bus but there are no flying pigs, one lives in the objective(inter-subjective) world the other lives solely in your thoughts. Experience tells us this.
If you are referring to meditation you are woefully mistaken as to what meditation is. Meditation is deep and sustained concentration on the nature of experience, all experience. Do this, and the alternative nature of experience becomes apparent. A sensation is also not a sensation, it has these two aspects. Just a cup has a right hand side and a left hand side, so can something like an 'aroma' be a sensation and not a sensation.
Cups have no 'side', your experience is woeful and apparently dualistic.
If you want to reach the same insight philosophically, I would refer you to the conversations we have had on impermanence.
What insight? Not sure how impermanence bears upon this.
I'm not sure if this refers to you, but there is a character type who has switched from religious and spiritual interests in their youth to atheism, philosophy and rationalism in their adulthood. Unfortunately, for 99.9% of these people they have merely switched perspectives rather than gained any unifying insight. The believer who becomes an atheist has not changed intellectually at all as both are different interpretations of the same thing. The person of insight is able to embrace and harmonise both theism and atheism.
It doesn't, as I started an atheist and pretty much remain one but in the interests of epistemology I became an agnostic. That I was raised meditating was due to a Burmese mother, that I explored much of whatever 'spirituality' and religion was on hand was because I was an atheist looking for a convincing faith, still looking but have found some nice presuppositions that appear to work. That I came to philosophy and logic and was blown away by all this thought on the western doorstep was a bonus and I'm still unifying its insights into my life. The person who can embrace and harmonise both atheism and theism is just insightfully confused.
You unite body and mind into one word - bodymind - and then you go and separate them again when you say that body comes first!
Depends what you call 'mind' then, as self-consciousness appears to develop in the child and it involves understanding that there are others and the world is not its. Point out any minds without bodies?
That which comes first is neither body nor mind. When you can see this, you can truly see how body and mind are one and the same. Your argument is a habit I witnessed a lot as a psychologist. They feel they need to connect body and mind somehow. But they think that they have overcome the dualism by allowing that the two interact causally. This is not the solution. The solution to the seeming interaction of body and mind is to recognise that they don't interact because they are not separate. There is no greater illusion than the separation of body and mind, which is basically the separation of 'in here' from 'out there'.
I know this, its my point but you ignore that the mind or self or self-consciousness is self-identity in an external world, i.e. a recognition of the reality of the situation develops in the human, as does reasoning. Why? Because it goes along with the bodies development.
Its no good quoting psychology at me as one I think most of it bunkum and two because you yourself have repudiated it.
I have no need to have an actual separate physical substance called mind as I understand that I am a body with senses and a language in an external world. 'Mind' is the end of the process of the body's pre-processing of the external world into perceptions, i.e. the senses. Whereas I think you think it all 'mind'?
However flaky it might sound, these things aren't understood with the intellect. They can't be understood with that tool, and therefore they can't be talked about. The orientals have separated intelligence into two faculties: the divisive reasoning mind, and the unitive intuitive mind. It takes the latter to see directly what I am referring to - that thing I refuse to name.
What things aren't understood? For someone who says they dislike dualism you now apparently have two minds!? Personally I think it exactly your intellect that is confusing the issue.
Is Body, with a capital B, your term for the thing I refuse to name?
How could I know? Also, if you can name it why don't you, what point this refusal? Is this thing of yours the happening you get when you remove all the content from thought and ignore the senses? If so then not quite as I capitalise Body to express the ground of all thought and 'mind' or self. But I agree that its possible to have that happening and for me its a way of experiencing the structure between perceptions and thoughts(I accept I may be using perception oddly here). If you mean something outside of your head then no.
Technically I delivered my second son, the midwife didn't arrive at our house in time, so yes I have in a very real sense. But I also have experienced something else. And so separateness is, for me, one flavour of experience.
I think it the other way around, the feeling of oneness is a flavour of experience but its not the reality. you must be continually surprised others don't do as you wish, punches on the nose must
amazing as are big red buses. Try telling the bull elk you are one.
To me Darwin was a talented guy, but ignorant of things that are very real and which the wise understand. He had his specialty but he didn't see the big picture, and he wasn't much of a philosopher. Darwinism is not a logically credible theory, ultimately. It takes too many liberties. An organism is not logically separable from its environment so adaptation is an absurdity. He assumes that genetic mutation occurs randomly when randomness is a function of understanding, not a process that actually exists. Randomness is a judgement about events, as is purpose. Creationists assume purpose, Darwinists randomness. Both are misguided.
What!! Its that his theory does logically explain species that makes him one of the greatest philosopher scientists that has ever been! Adaptation is an absurdity is you understand it as you appear to do, i.e. something actually adapting to its environment rather than the environment just naturally selecting those whose mutations give an advantage in reproductive survival. Have you actually read Darwins book? He says nothing about 'genetic mutation' other than positing that there must be some kind of inheritance mechanism. The point of his theory is that time and incremental change and natural selection by an environment explains all the species we see, no need for a 'designer'. It was the discovery of the DNA and the genes that pretty much confirmed his theory.
Yes, and a spiritual technique can't be assumed to work. Perhaps I would say, "try it if you want but don't blame me if you're disappointed." Yes, that is at least honest.
Maybe but its this that leads me to look for better techniques than the 'spiritual' to assist Man in living well, thinking, thoughting and communicating clearly would be a nice start.
Yours as ever.