>
> "Monism pays attention only to the unity and tries either to deny or to 
> slur over the opposites, present though they are. Neither of these two 
> points of view can satisfy us, for they do not do justice to the facts. 
> Dualism sees in spirit (I) and matter (World) two fundamentally different 
> entities, and cannot, therefore, understand how they can interact with one 
> another. How should spirit be aware of what goes on in matter, seeing that 
> the essential nature of matter is quite alien to spirit? Or how in these 
> circumstances should spirit act upon matter, so as to translate its 
> intentions into actions? The most ingenious and the most absurd hypotheses 
> have been propounded to answer these questions. Up to the present, however, 
> monism is not in a much better position. It has tried three different ways 
> of meeting the difficulty. Either it denies spirit and becomes materialism; 
> or it denies matter in order to seek its salvation in spiritualism (see 
> fn 
> 1<http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/English/RSP1964/GA004_c02.html#fn1>); 
> or it asserts that even in the simplest entities in the world, spirit and 
> matter are indissolubly bound together so that there is no need to marvel 
> at the appearance in man of these two modes of existence, seeing that they 
> are never found apart.
>
> Materialism can never offer a satisfactory explanation of the world. For 
> every attempt at an explanation must begin with the formation of *thoughts
> * about the phenomena of the world.  Materialism thus begins with the *
> thought* of matter or material processes. But, in doing so, it is already 
> confronted by two different sets of facts: the material world, and the 
> thoughts about it. The materialist seeks to make these latter intelligible 
> by regarding them as purely material processes. He believes that thinking 
> takes place in the brain, much in the same way that digestion takes place 
> in the animal organs. Just as he attributes mechanical and organic effects 
> to matter, so he credits matter in certain circumstances with the capacity 
> to think. He overlooks that, in doing so, he is merely shifting the problem 
> from one place to another. He ascribes the power of thinking to matter 
> instead of to himself. And thus he is back again at his starting point. How 
> does matter come to think about its own nature? Why is it not simply 
> satisfied with itself and content just to exist? The materialist has turned 
> his attention away from the definite subject, his own I, and has arrived at 
> an image of something quite vague and indefinite. Here the old riddle meets 
> him again. The materialistic conception cannot solve the problem; it can 
> only shift it from one place to another.
>
> What of the spiritualistic theory? The genuine *spiritualist* denies to 
> matter all independent existence and regards it merely as a product of 
> spirit. But when he tries to use this theory to solve the riddle of his own 
> human nature, he finds himself driven into a corner. Over against the “I” 
> or Ego, which can be ranged on the side of spirit, there stands directly 
> the world of the senses. No *spiritual* approach to it seems open. Only 
> with the help of material processes can it be perceived and experienced by 
> the “I”. Such material processes the “I” does not discover in itself so 
> long as it regards its own nature as exclusively spiritual. In what it 
> achieves spiritually by its own effort, the sense-perceptible world is 
> never to be found. It seems as if the “I” had to concede that the world 
> would be a closed book to it unless it could establish a non-spiritual 
> relation to the world. Similarly, when it comes to action, we have to 
> translate our purposes into realities with the help of material things and 
> forces. We are, therefore, referred back to the outer world. The most 
> extreme spiritualist — or rather, the thinker who through his absolute 
> idealism appears as extreme spiritualist — is Johann Gottlieb Fichte. He 
> attempts to derive the whole edifice of the world from the “I”. What he has 
> actually accomplished is a magnificent *thought-picture* of the world, 
> without any content of experience. As little as it is possible for the 
> materialist to argue the spirit away, just as little is it possible for the 
> spiritualist to argue away the outer world of matter.
>
> When man reflects upon the “I”, he perceives in the first instance the 
> work of this “I” in the conceptual elaboration of the world of ideas. Hence 
> a world-conception that inclines towards spiritualism may feel tempted, in 
> looking at man's own essential nature, to acknowledge nothing of spirit 
> except this world of ideas. In this way spiritualism becomes one-sided 
> idealism. Instead of going on to penetrate *through* the world of ideas 
> to the *spiritual* world, idealism identifies the spiritual world with 
> the world of ideas itself. As a result, it is compelled to remain fixed 
> with its world-outlook in the circle of activity of the Ego, as if 
> bewitched.
>
> A curious variant of idealism is to be found in the view which Friedrich 
> Albert Lange <http://wn.elib.com/Bio/Lange.html> has put forward in his 
> widely read *History of Materialism*. He holds that the materialists are 
> quite right in declaring all phenomena, including our thinking, to be the 
> product of purely material processes, but, conversely, matter and its 
> processes are for him themselves the product of our thinking.
>
>  The senses give us only the *effects* of things, not true copies, much 
> less the things themselves. But among these mere effects we must include 
> the senses themselves together with the brain and the molecular vibrations 
> which we assume to go on there.
>
> That is, our thinking is produced by the material processes, and these by 
> the thinking of our I. Lange's philosophy is thus nothing more than the 
> story, in philosophical terms, of the intrepid Baron Münchhausen, who holds 
> himself up in the air by his own pigtail.
>
> The third form of monism is the one which finds even in the simplest 
> entity (the atom) both matter and spirit already united. But nothing is 
> gained by this either, except that the question, which really originates in 
> our consciousness, is shifted to another place. How comes it that the 
> simple entity manifests itself in a two-fold manner, if it is an 
> indivisible unity?
>
> Against all these theories we must urge the fact that we meet with the 
> basic and primary opposition first in our own consciousness. It is we 
> ourselves who break away from the bosom of Nature and contrast ourselves as 
> “I” with the “World”. Goethe has given classic expression to this in his 
> essay *Nature*, although his manner may at first sight be considered 
> quite unscientific: “Living in the midst of her (Nature) we are strangers 
> to her. Ceaselessly she speaks to us, yet betrays none of her secrets.” But 
> Goethe knows the reverse side too: “Men are all in her and she in all.”
>
> However true it may be that we have estranged ourselves from Nature, it is 
> none the less true that we feel we are in her and belong to her. It can be 
> only her own working which pulsates also in us.
>
> We must find the way back to her again. A simple reflection can point this 
> way out to us. We have, it is true, torn ourselves away from Nature, but we 
> must none the less have taken something of her with us into our own being. 
> This element of Nature in us we must seek out, and then we shall find the 
> connection with her once more. Dualism fails to do this. It considers human 
> inwardness as a spiritual entity utterly alien to Nature, and then attempts 
> somehow to hitch it on to Nature. No wonder that it cannot find the 
> connecting link. We can find Nature outside us only if we have first 
> learned to know her *within* us. What is akin to her within us must be 
> our guide. This marks out our path of enquiry. We shall attempt no 
> speculations concerning the interaction of Nature and spirit. Rather shall 
> we probe into the depths of our own being, to find there those elements 
> which we saved in our flight from Nature."
>
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/English/RSP1964/GA004_c02.html

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 6:15:29 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dlBROdVjjI
>
> Same as mine, really, except I use the concept of 'sense' rather than 
> 'spirit'.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/atfJpMiXuaUJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to