What is Panspiritism?

[Philosophy Now]

Steve Taylor introduces an alternative way of conceiving consciousness.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/What_is_Panspiritism

[Sabburi]

This article by Steve Taylor brings up yet another explanation for consciousness. While the idea of Panspiritism is interesting all that we talk about consciousness is not based on any evidence. This includes the great ideas like Brahman in Indian thought. We can only go by intuitive faith in accepting or rejecting the different ideas proposed.
I think if we approach the problem in collaboration with science we can at least firm up some steps in our thinking. The recent scientific interest in neuroplasticity is a case in point.There is a lot of literature on this aspect but the central idea can be grasped through a book written by Jeffrey M. Schwartz entitled 'The Mind and The Brain'. The central idea is that non-material mind can influence the brain circuits with focus and concentration.Philosophical debate on mind now has at least some facts to go by and the new debate will enrich both science and philosophy. The future may lie in understanding the neurological circuits in thinking and whether a given thought can be activated in another brain. This is by no means easy but only stated as a future possibility. The important contribution of philosophers will be in specifying what kind of scientific understanding will help in resolving major questions.
Sabburi

[Atla]

Panpsychism and panspiritism are a huge step in the right direction. However they still carry the fatal flaw of all Western "philosophy": dualistic thinking.

They are talking about fundamental consciousness and the material universe being inherent in each other. That's sort of correct, but they aren't "inherent" in each other because they aren't two things. "They" are one and the same. Consciousness IS matter/space. Matter/space IS consciousness.

[Impenitent]

panspiritism reminds me of the wok-king dead...

-Imp

[Belinda]

In addition, I believe the full attraction of panspiritism lies in the value it places on all phenomena. Whereas materialism denies the ultimate reality of mind, and idealism denies the ultimate reality of matter, panspiritism sees both as equally real and valuable. Whereas materialism sees the world as a machine, and idealism sees it as a mirage, panspiritism sees the world as a vibrant, interconnected whole.

© Dr Steve Taylor 2019

Dual aspect monism too "sees both as equally real and valuable". The version of pantheism that Romantic poets wrote about "sees the world as a vibrant, interconnected whole" where every flower enjoys the air it breathes(Wordsworth).

[attofishpi]

In addition, I believe the full attraction of panspiritism lies in the value it places on all phenomena. Whereas materialism denies the ultimate reality of mind, and idealism denies the ultimate reality of matter, panspiritism sees both as equally real and valuable. Whereas materialism sees the world as a machine, and idealism sees it as a mirage, panspiritism sees the world as a vibrant, interconnected whole.

Interesting point. Panentheism is the closest glove i've found that fits from my experiences..when I have some spare time I'll actually read the article!

[Belinda]

actually, Atttofishpi, I quoted the above from the article

[seeds]

In addition, I believe the full attraction of panspiritism lies in the value it places on all phenomena. Whereas materialism denies the ultimate reality of mind, and idealism denies the ultimate reality of matter, panspiritism sees both as equally real and valuable. Whereas materialism sees the world as a machine, and idealism sees it as a mirage, panspiritism sees the world as a vibrant, interconnected whole.

© Dr Steve Taylor 2019

Dual aspect monism too "sees both as equally real and valuable". The version of pantheism that Romantic poets wrote about "sees the world as a vibrant, interconnected whole" where every flower enjoys the air it breathes(Wordsworth).

In reference to the quote by Dr Steve Taylor, I don’t think that idealism denies the reality of matter; it simply suggests that matter is composed of mindstuff.

I think the problem lies in what the word “real” actually means.

Furthermore, panspiritism suffers the same deficiency as panpsychism in that their promoters ignore the same King Kong sized gorilla in the room as does materialism. And that is that none of them offer any logical explanation as to how the order of the universe came about (and as you already know, chance is a non-starter for me).

The point is that simply stating that the entire universe is imbued with a panspirited consciousness...

(of which I wholeheartedly agree with, although I prefer the term “the essence of life” as opposed to “consciousness”)

...does not explain what aspect of this universal consciousness took hold of the living fabric of reality and shaped it into suns and planets.
_______

[Belinda]

Seeds wrote:

In reference to the quote by Dr Steve Taylor, I don’t think that idealism denies the reality of matter; it simply suggests that matter is composed of mindstuff.

I think the problem lies in what the word “real” actually means.

For an idealist I think that matter is less real than mind and is a creation of the more real which is mind. For a neutral monist both matter and mind are real and are the only aspects that we can know of reality.

Furthermore, panspiritism suffers the same deficiency as panpsychism in that their promoters ignore the same King Kong sized gorilla in the room as does materialism. And that is that none of them offer any logical explanation as to how the order of the universe came about (and as you already know, chance is a non-starter for me).
[/quote]

If cosmic order is, then I may as well go all the way and say that God is. We can't know that order is we only trust that order is.

What are the attributes of life? Is the " essence of life" the defining attribute of life, or if not what is an essence of life, or an essence of anything?

[Logik]

If cosmic order is, then I may as well go all the way and say that God is. We can't know that order is we only trust that order is.

What are the attributes of life? Is the " essence of life" the defining attribute of life, or if not what is an essence of life, or an essence of anything?

While you are on the skeptic path. We can't know what knowledge is.

What are the attributes of knowledge?

[Belinda]

If cosmic order is, then I may as well go all the way and say that God is. We can't know that order is we only trust that order is.

What are the attributes of life? Is the " essence of life" the defining attribute of life, or if not what is an essence of life, or an essence of anything?

While you are on the skeptic path. We can't know what knowledge is.

What are the attributes of knowledge?

"The meaning of a word is its use"; applies to the word 'knowledge'. For practical purposes 'knowledge ' in the context of cosmic order /chaos is empirical knowledge built upon inductive logic. The use of deductive logic in the context of cosmic order/chaos is what Spinoza (and no doubt others)relied upon. I'm devoted to Spinoza however my devotion is founded upon faith not knowledge.

[Logik]

"The meaning of a word is its use"; applies to the word 'knowledge'

I agree 100%. Which is the missing bit in the puzzle.

I know how I use knowledge.
I don't know how you use knowledge.

[seeds]

In reference to the quote by Dr Steve Taylor, I don’t think that idealism denies the reality of matter; it simply suggests that matter is composed of mindstuff.

I think the problem lies in what the word “real” actually means.

For an idealist I think that matter is less real than mind and is a creation of the more real which is mind.

Yes, I can agree with that.

However, I was disagreeing with Dr Taylor’s statement that...

“...idealism denies the ultimate reality of matter...”

Because for an idealist such as myself, matter is the substance through-which mind expresses itself, and denying its reality makes no sense, for it is the stuff from which reality itself (suns, planets, bodies, brains, thoughts, dreams, etc.) is created.

As I have stated elsewhere, I believe that anything that exists on the opposite side of absolute nothingness is “real” in some context or another.

And that brings us back to what the word “real” actually means.

What does the word “real” mean to you, Belinda?

Furthermore, panspiritism suffers the same deficiency as panpsychism in that their promoters ignore the same King Kong sized gorilla in the room as does materialism. And that is that none of them offer any logical explanation as to how the order of the universe came about (and as you already know, chance is a non-starter for me).

If cosmic order is, then I may as well go all the way and say that God is. We can't know that order is we only trust that order is.

Of course we can “know” what order is. I mean we are witnessing it in the simple reality of the highly ordered arrangement of the electrons that form the structure of the letters and words appearing on this screen (never mind the unfathomable precision of the movements of the planets, or a zillion other aspects of reality).

Why in the world would you deny the profound evidence of order being presented to your senses at every turn?

What are the attributes of life? Is the "essence of life" the defining attribute of life, or if not what is an essence of life, or an essence of anything?

I was merely suggesting that the “essence of life” (or the “energy” of life) seems to be a better description of that which suffuses the fabric of reality, as opposed to Taylor’s use of the word consciousness. It may just be a simple matter of semantics but, to me, calling it “consciousness”...

(which is more of a reference to the “potential” that the essence/energy of life possesses)

...is a step too far and gives the wrong impression.
_______

[Belinda]

Seeds wrote:

Of course we can “know” what order is. I mean we are witnessing it in the simple reality of the highly ordered arrangement of the electrons that form the structure of the letters and words appearing on this screen (never mind the unfathomable precision of the movements of the planets, or a zillion other aspects of reality).

But an idealist would believe that electrons and suchlike are creations of mind. For an idealist mind is the most real and the creations of mind e.g. electrons are less real.

[seeds]

Seeds wrote:

Of course we can “know” what order is. I mean we are witnessing it in the simple reality of the highly ordered arrangement of the electrons that form the structure of the letters and words appearing on this screen (never mind the unfathomable precision of the movements of the planets, or a zillion other aspects of reality).

But an idealist would believe that electrons and suchlike are creations of mind. For an idealist mind is the most real and the creations of mind e.g. electrons are less real.

Didn’t I already agree with you on that point?

Again, I was contesting Taylor’s assertion that idealism denies the reality of matter when, in fact, pretty much everything that idealism (mind) refers to as being “real” (aside from mind itself) is made out of the stuff we call matter.

In which case, denying the reality of matter is nonsense.

Now of course you are in no way obliged to do so, but you did not answer my question:

What does the word “real” mean to you?
_______