Why you are a materialist in disguise (crypto-materialist)

[Carl-Richard]

I will define crypto-materialism as follows:

• Consciousness is fundamental (that is, Cosmic, Universal, Trans-personal consciousness is at the bottom of reality)
• Minds (i.e. personal, private mental states) do not interact non-locally or psychically (or their interactions are soelly bound by physical mechanisms)
• Subtle energetic phenomena (not easily measured by physical instruments, e.g. spirits, auras, spiritual energy) are not real: they are mental projections on the same level as thoughts and "hallucinations". They are private phenomena that cannot be co-verified by separate observers

The crypto-materialist adopts a mostly idealist ontological primitive, where consciousness makes up the formless foundation of reality (emptiness, awareness), while in the world of form (phenomena, events, objects, processes), they hold on to the epistemology of materialism. In the world of form, reality supposedly works as if reality is physical, local, Newtonian, mechanistic. Information doesn't travel in mental space, only rests within it.

The irony of course is that despite the ontological primitive being consciousness (and not atomic billiard balls or the quantum mechanical equivalent or whatever the cutting edge of physics postulates), somehow they believe the "products" of this primitive follow the laws of a non-consciousness or physicalist universe. The crypto-materialist has likely not yet opened their mind to all the possibilities that exist within a universe made of consciousness and has likely not actively sought out counterevidence to their existing view.

Maybe your dislike for "New Agers" is based on some unchecked assumptions 🤔

Edited 11 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

I think this video speaks directly to your obsession with trying to fit reality into a viewpoint or framework.

You keep assuming that believing in something is the only way to approach this work.

Edited 14 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

 

This video applies to your obsession of trying to fit reality into a viewpoint or framework.

You keep assuming that believing in something is the only way to go about it. 

No 😂 I just vocalize my thoughts and then I'm done.

[samijiben]

Whose obsession? Ahahahahah!

Mr..Carl-Vinson-Richard:

Who are you? Are you a crypto materialist? Or are you just some dude tryna get off?

Lemme know, I got exclusive door-to-door service!

[Carl-Richard]

11 minutes ago, samijiben said:

Whose obsession? Ahahahahah!

Mr..Carl-Vinson-Richard:

Who are you? Are you a crypto materialist? Or are you just some dude tryna get off?

Lemme know, I got exclusive door-to-door service!

Vinson 😂

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

No 😂 I just vocalize my thoughts and then I'm done.

As if one's thinking and speaking were inconsequential activities and didn't reflect one's stance.

I answered 'Yes'  Sorry, it was done as a joke.

Edited yesterday at 02:59 AM by UnbornTao

[Hojo]

No I believe auras, ghosts, spirits,angels, gurus and psychic aliens are real. 

Edited yesterday at 03:14 AM by Hojo

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Hojo said:

No I believe auras, ghosts, spirits,angels, gurus and psychic aliens are real. 

👍👍👍 Now deconstruct that shit.

 

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

As if one's thinking and speaking were inconsequential activities and didn't reflect one's stance.

I answered 'Yes'  Sorry, it was done as a joke.

I am obsessive but I never present belief as absolute and seldom anything as the only way.

[Hojo]

25 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

 

I am obsessive but I never present belief as absolute and seldom anything as the only way.

Why not you are God. You should be creative.

Edited yesterday at 04:29 AM by Hojo

[UnbornTao]

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I am obsessive but I never present belief as absolute and seldom anything as the only way.

You are like the therapist on the video.

The belief presents itself as true - it is experienced as real, or as the way reality is. The key is consciously recognizing it as belief.

Look into what a belief is.

Edited 15 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Sugarcoat]

I have had clairvoyance event on this forum

[Carl-Richard]

51 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

You are like the therapist on the video.

The belief presents itself as true - it is experienced as real, or as the way reality is. The key is consciously recognizing it as belief.

Look into what belief really is.

Belief.

Where did I say I present it as anything more than belief?

[UnbornTao]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Where did I say I present it as anything more than belief?

You didn't explicitly say it. I inferred it based on what and how you tend to post on these topics. Of course, the intuition could be wrong, but I'll take my chances.

The 'impossibility' assumption regarding personal knowledge of the absolute doesn't present itself as a belief. It operates in the background of one's questioning, as if. It's a rather common sentiment, consisting of holding the matter of absolute consciousness as "not really possible for me." Based on that, the only possibility we have left is to deal with various kinds of conceptual frameworks and beliefs.

Edited 7 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

You didn't. I used my psychic abilities - or feeling-sensitivity, if you will - to infer it based on what and how you tend to post on these topics. The intuition could, of course, be wrong.

Well, now I told you, so now you know.

 

11 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Thinking that a personal experience here is not possible doesn't present itself as a belief. It operates in the background of the investigation, as if. Watch, it's a common sentiment that I myself have had, and still occasionally have. It's a way of holding the matter of absolute consciousness as "not really possible for me; therefore, the only possibility available for me is to exchange one notion for another." Something like that.

I have no idea what you just said.

[zurew]

46 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Thinking that personally accessing the absolute is not possible doesn't present itself as a belief. It operates in the background of the investigation, as if. Watch, it's a common sentiment that I myself have had, and still occasionally have. It's a way of holding the matter of absolute consciousness as "it is not really possible for me; therefore, the only possibility available is to exchange one notion for another." Something like that.

"focus on becoming directly conscious of the answer and stop wasting time using other methods(like thinking) where the generated answer to a given question isn't guaranteed to be correct/right"

 

I still think that this become directly conscious of x talk is incoherent when it comes to relative matters. I also think that you downplay other ways to investigate reality and you categorize those as just "speculation". 

Edited 14 hours ago by zurew

[UnbornTao]

@Carl-Richard The gist of it, in my view: you assume, deep down in your experience, that it is not possible for you to become absolutely conscious, therefore your focus and concern is mostly restricted to exchanging one belief system for another. Hence why I shared the video. It's got to do with the way you tend to approach these topics, and what that "says" about where your mind goes. It's essentially trying to think your way to what's true.

For example, the fact that you posted this on the Consciousness subforum and not on the Intellectual one, may be hinting at this relationship.

3 hours ago, zurew said:

"focus on becoming directly conscious of the answer and stop wasting time using other methods(like thinking) where the generated answer to a given question isn't guaranteed to be correct/right"

Zen stick for you. You are hearing that as an invalidation of thinking or some such.

Answers are irrelevant.

It's an odd thing to say, but have you ever done some long or intensive contemplation? This 'impossibility' sentiment is common but not necessarily easily located. That's what I'm pointing to.

Quote

I still think that this become directly conscious of x talk is incoherent when it comes to relative matters. I also think that you downplay other ways to investigate reality and you categorize those as just "speculation". 

Yeah, direct consciousness applies to absolute matters. Since we're mostly dealing with existential subjects here, we can't really "get there from here," so to speak. We could think until our heads exploded - and that would be a good beginning of this investigation.

Use every tool available for the job, but be aware what each is for. And be clear as to what you're doing and why. You can't think your way to what's existentially or absolutely true, because a thought is just a thought - it's never the thing it refers to. Don't let the apparent simplicity of this fact prevent you from recognizing the principle underlying it. That said, there's real merit to activities like thinking, planning, feeling, intuiting, testing frameworks, applying attention, drawing on memory, observing without bias, experimenting, and so on - when it comes to relative matters.

Edited 11 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Eskilon]

@Carl-Richard It's rare to find a truly flexible mind, even on this forum. Even here, people say "that's bullshit" instead of "I don't know".

Edited 13 hours ago by Eskilon

[Inliytened1]

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I will define crypto-materialism as follows:

• Consciousness is fundamental (that is, Cosmic, Universal, Trans-personal consciousness is at the bottom of reality)
• Minds (i.e. personal, private mental states) do not interact non-locally or psychically (or their interactions are soelly bound by physical mechanisms)
• Subtle energetic phenomena (not easily measured by physical instruments, e.g. spirits, auras, spiritual energy) are not real: they are mental projections on the same level as thoughts and "hallucinations". They are private phenomena that cannot be co-verified by separate observers

The crypto-materialist adopts a mostly idealist ontological primitive, where consciousness makes up the formless foundation of reality (emptiness, awareness), while in the world of form (phenomena, events, objects, processes), they hold on to the epistemology of materialism. In the world of form, reality supposedly works as if reality is physical, local, Newtonian, mechanistic. Information doesn't travel in mental space, only rests within it.

The irony of course is that despite the ontological primitive being consciousness (and not atomic billiard balls or the quantum mechanical equivalent or whatever the cutting edge of physics postulates), somehow they believe the "products" of this primitive must follow the laws of a non-consciousness or physicalist universe. The crypto-materialist has likely not yet opened their mind to all the possibilities that exist within a universe made of consciousness and has likely not actively sought out counterevidence to their existing view.

Maybe your dislike for "New Agers" is based on some unchecked assumptions 🤔

I'm not sure i understand.  So I'm a crypto-materialist because I've realized that reality is a dream but I still enjoy observing the physical laws that exist within the dream?  

Sorry if my question sounds dumb I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from

 

[Sincerity]

I agree with the 3 points you listed in the definition of the „crypto-materialist”.

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The irony of course is that despite the ontological primitive being consciousness (and not atomic billiard balls or the quantum mechanical equivalent or whatever the cutting edge of physics postulates), somehow they believe the "products" of this primitive must follow the laws of a non-consciousness or physicalist universe. The crypto-materialist has likely not yet opened their mind to all the possibilities that exist within a universe made of consciousness and has likely not actively sought out counterevidence to their existing view.

However, I believe your above rebuttal of this „crypto-materialist” stance is flawed. The „mental/energetic reality” and the „physical reality” are completely intertwined, perhaps two sides of the same coin. An action in physical reality corresponds with a change in the energetic level. In order to affect someone (eg. communicate with them), an action of communication must be performed, while at the same time the change in energetic reality is taking place. In short, the physical is NOT ruling the mental, which is the „irony” you were suggesting. They are one.

In my view, making the effort to affect things mentally while doing nothing in physical reality is delusion. If you wanna change the world - take action, speak out. If you wanna communicate with someone, just fucking talk to them, or call them on the phone. That’s how it works. Consider this situation: You want to talk to someone. Now: what energy/motivation would push you to A) just pick up the phone and talk to them and then B) to try to make some kind of effort to communicate telepathically. These 2 don’t have the same energy behind them. One is natural and working in alignment with the dynamics of reality, mental and physical. The other is delusional, perhaps trying to force something that isn’t true, reject the physical, which is a block in the mental. At least that’s how I see it.

I can elaborate on my position in some ways if you’re interested - regarding the above, but also the other points.

Edited 13 hours ago by Sincerity

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

I agree with the 3 points you listed in the definition of the „crypto-materialist”.

However, I believe your above rebuttal of this „crypto-materialist” stance is flawed. The „mental/energetic reality” and the „physical reality” are completely intertwined, perhaps two sides of the same coin. An action in physical reality corresponds with a change in the energetic level. In order to affect someone (eg. communicate with them), an action of communication must be performed, while at the same time the change in energetic reality is taking place. In short, the physical is NOT ruling the mental, which is the „irony” you were suggesting. They are one.

In my view, making the effort to affect things mentally while doing nothing in physical reality is delusion. If you wanna change the world, SPEAK OUT. If you wanna communicate with someone, just fucking talk to them, or call them on the phone. That’s how it works. Consider this situation: You want to talk to someone. Now: what energy/motivation would push you to A) just pick up the phone and talk to them and then B) to try to make some kind of effort to communicate telepathically. These 2 don’t have the same energy behind them. One is natural and working in alignment with the dynamics of reality, mental and physical. The other is delusional, perhaps trying to force something that isn’t true, reject the physical, which is a block in the mental. At least that’s how I see it.

I can elaborate on my position in some ways if you’re interested - regarding the above, but also the other points.

Exactly

@Carl-Richard @Sincerity Let's say you became lucid in one of your dreams at night.   Would this mean you would automatically be able to break the physical laws of the dream? No! Of course not! The physical laws of the dream were put in place to keep the universe of the dream intact.  Now..can you transcend them in some mystical way?  Yes once you have become lucid all possibilities are on the table.  But it is not a free pass and doesn't automatically mean you  can override the physical laws.  This is because there are certain limits that have been put in place (the ego) to assist in the enjoyment of the dream.   These rules aren't easily bypassed.

Edited 13 hours ago by Inliytened1