Spirit first?.......or substance first?

[Thief]

Define spirit and substance. You probably mean spirit and matter. Since substance originally means the essence. From Latin sub-under and stare-to stand, meaning the basis of everything. And that is spirit. Spirit is the only substance. Both Spirit and matter are eternal, they are simultaneous. There is order in ranking, however. Matter is a potency, an eternal energy of the Spirit. Sometimes this potency is manifested, sometimes it is not. There is no beginning of the cycle of manifestation.

I give you an option....
dark energy...dark matter

which came first?

be mindful.....a certain Willfulness is to be recognized

too much in place....behaving in an orderly fashion

 

[George-ananda]

Why would a spirit, if it were to actually exist, necessarily be immaterial?

I do not recall saying 'necessarily' but describing what I believe to be the case from the experiences and teachings of those I feel have delved deepest into the nature of reality.

In Advaita (non-dual Hinduism), spirit (immaterial) incarnates the material. The material is a derivative of the immaterial; part of the long but temporary play/drama of spirit/God/Brahman. You can think of the material as props on the stage of this play.

Consciousness is fundamental and matter is a derivative of the fundamental.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not recall saying 'necessarily'

It's implied. If spirits may or may not be material, then they could be accommodated in the worldview of at least some materialists. Your comment suggested that no materialists would accept "spirit first", with the implication that this position is incompatible with materialism.

but describing what I believe to be the case from the experiences and teachings of those I feel have delved deepest into the nature of reality.

I think you try to paint what's really a question of standards of evidence as a question of worldview or closed-mindedness. If a materialist were convinced of the existence of a spirit, he would accept the existence of the spirit and call spirits "material". When a materialist looks at the same set of evidence that you do and remains unconvinced, this is because he has a higher standard of evidence than you do.

In Advaita (non-dual Hinduism), spirit (immaterial) incarnates the material.

Irrelevant, since we were talking about materialists, not about your beliefs.

 

[George-ananda]

It's implied. If spirits may or may not be material, then they could be accommodated in the worldview of at least some materialists. Your comment suggested that no materialists would accept "spirit first", with the implication that this position is incompatible with materialism.


I think you try to paint what's really a question of standards of evidence as a question of worldview or closed-mindedness. If a materialist were convinced of the existence of a spirit, he would accept the existence of the spirit and call spirits "material". When a materialist looks at the same set of evidence that you do and remains unconvinced, this is because he has a higher standard of evidence than you do.


Irrelevant, since we were talking about materialists, not about your beliefs.

We have had this discussion before. I understand 'materialism' as it is commonly defined. From Wikipedia:


Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental things and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.

Philosophies contradictory to materialism or physicalism include idealism, pluralism, dualism, and other forms of monism.


So in my understanding I see a clear difference between Advaita and Materialism.

Materialism: Material is fundamental and Consciousness is a deriviative of the fundamental

Advaita: Consciousness is fundamental and the material is a derivative of the fundamental.

Your comment suggested that no materialists would accept "spirit first",

I am just saying anyone who would accept 'spirit first' would by definition no longer be a materialist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have had this discussion before. I understand 'materialism' as it is commonly defined. From Wikipedia:


Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental things and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.

Philosophies contradictory to materialism or physicalism include idealism, pluralism, dualism, and other forms of monism.


So in my understanding I see a clear difference between Advaita and Materialism.

Materialism: Material is fundamental and Consciousness is a deriviative of the fundamental

Advaita: Consciousness is fundamental and the material is a derivative of the fundamental.

I am just saying anyone who would accept 'spirit first' would by definition no longer be a materialist.

So you really do think that people who disagree with you are inherently closed-minded.

 

[George-ananda]

So you really do think that people who disagree with you are inherently closed-minded.

Wow, Where did that comment come from?

 

[JustWondering]

Still waiting...

You're in for a long wait. I have yet to see anyone who believes in spirits/souls give any kind of understandable explanation for what they're talking about.

 

[JustWondering]

all the way back to the beginning
that is where we start

Why do you ASSUME there was a beginning? If you have no evidence let alone a solid explanation for what a spirit is why do you ASSUME such a thing even exists? Seems you are making a lot of ASSUMPTIONS.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

It depends in definition. For the sake of the poll, I chose "spirit first." Why? I believe that spiritual presence is energy. Without energy, we would have no substance (as we know it). Even things that seem still are moving in some way, being held together by forces of energy. So, by that logic, spirit is first.

 

[Willamena]

I vote "neither."

 

[Willamena]

expansion indicates a central starting point

The Mobius strip indicates otherwise.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

and you ask for evidence of me?

show me another universe in a telescope

the one universe (one word) that we do see......has a starting point

would you like to reiterate your choice?
Spirit first?
or substance?

To begin with (as apart from in the beginning), cosmology has a problem: When running backwards from today's observations, the laws of physics break down somewhat short of the proposed instant when the models suggest it should have been. Going forward from this proposed "big bang" instant, they cannot get the model to jibe with observations...in fact, the universe should have collapsed back in on itself. To cover this gap of many orders of magnitude, some have proposed that inflation occurred. Others, however suggest that the gap occurred appears because the currently visible universe did not actually start, but is the result of a "bounce." While the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model--which includes inflation--is the best model existing today, it only succeeds because of this rather arbitrary inclusion of inflation. The jury is still out.

Alternative theories are still possible because it has not been possible to conclusively measure the universe well enough, nor explain without being arbitrary about things like inflation.

Next, I do not believe in your dichotomy of substance OR spirit. I am a pluralist; your dichotomy makes no sense in pluralism. Others here appear to be monists: substance and spirit would be aspects of the same source. Your proposed categories also don't make sense for them.

You, apparently, are unable to think outside of your two artificial and arbitrary boxes. If you're really were interested in others' views about your pet subject, you would include at least one other alternative choice in your survey. And that doesn't even begin to get into the question of whether or not the universe is eternal or had a definite beginning--or some other arrangement of being.

Since you don't provide other alternatives, I suspect all you really want to hear is echoes and reinforcement of your version of dualism.

 

[Thief]

as

Why do you ASSUME there was a beginning? If you have no evidence let alone a solid explanation for what a spirit is why do you ASSUME such a thing even exists? Seems you are making a lot of ASSUMPTIONS.

assumption is a cognitive tool
very useful when properly applied

with reason you can find your way to a conclusion otherwise not obtainable

and of course....there will be no photo, fingerprint, equation or repeatable experiment
so.....all we CAN do is think about it
and answer the question at hand
for thought and reason
for belief

 

[Thief]

To begin with (as apart from in the beginning), cosmology has a problem: When running backwards from today's observations, the laws of physics break down somewhat short of the proposed instant when the models suggest it should have been. Going forward from this proposed "big bang" instant, they cannot get the model to jibe with observations...in fact, the universe should have collapsed back in on itself. To cover this gap of many orders of magnitude, some have proposed that inflation occurred. Others, however suggest that the gap occurred appears because the currently visible universe did not actually start, but is the result of a "bounce." While the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model--which includes inflation--is the best model existing today, it only succeeds because of this rather arbitrary inclusion of inflation. The jury is still out.

Alternative theories are still possible because it has not been possible to conclusively measure the universe well enough, nor explain without being arbitrary about things like inflation.

Next, I do not believe in your dichotomy of substance OR spirit. I am a pluralist; your dichotomy makes no sense in pluralism. Others here appear to be monists: substance and spirit would be aspects of the same source. Your proposed categories also don't make sense for them.

You, apparently, are unable to think outside of your two artificial and arbitrary boxes. If you're really were interested in others' views about your pet subject, you would include at least one other alternative choice in your survey. And that doesn't even begin to get into the question of whether or not the universe is eternal or had a definite beginning--or some other arrangement of being.

Since you don't provide other alternatives, I suspect all you really want to hear is echoes and reinforcement of your version of dualism.

of course the laws of physics break down
the universe needs to 'gel' as it takes form
the primal forces applied won't fit our numbers
no equations

you would need to focus on Spirit
the ability to say....I AM.....prior the possibility of evidence

 

[Thief]

The Mobius strip indicates otherwise.

that's not what we see when we look up

 

[JustWondering]

as

assumption is a cognitive tool
very useful when properly applied

with reason you can find your way to a conclusion otherwise not obtainable

and of course....there will be no photo, fingerprint, equation or repeatable experiment
so.....all we CAN do is think about it
and answer the question at hand
for thought and reason
for belief

Thought experiments are fine but you make an assumption in your argument that time has a beginning. We don't know that. You talk about spirits like it is something that is universally accepted to exist, yet have not given a clear explanation on what spirits are or why anyone should believe in their existence. Sorry but I do not share or wish to indulge in your mystical thinking.

So in answer to your poll I vote: none of the above.

 

[Thief]

Thought experiments are fine but you make an assumption in your argument that time has a beginning. We don't know that. You talk about spirits like it is something that is universally accepted to exist, yet have not given a clear explanation on what spirits are or why anyone should believe in their existence. Sorry but I do not share or wish to indulge in your mystical thinking.

So in answer to your poll I vote: none of the above.

first of all.....time is a cognitive device....
created by Man to serve Man
it is only a quotient on a chalkboard
not a force or a substance

time is a measure of movement

prior to the big bang.....no movement to measure

 

[Willamena]

that's not what we see when we look up

You are not looking in the right direction.

 

[JustWondering]

prior to the big bang.....no movement to measure

Simply an unsupported claim. No one knows what caused the big bang or what, if anything existed before it. May as well claim a unicorn fart kick started the big bang. It's just as believable as your claims, has the same amount of reason and evidence supporting it.

 

[arthra]

all the way back to the beginning
that is where we start

The Baha'i view is that the universe is without beginning and creation has been a continuous emanation from God... without beginning or end.

Bahá'u'lláh says, "The universe hath neither beginning nor ending." He has set aside the elaborate theories and exhaustive opinions of scientists and material philosophers by the simple statement, "There is no beginning, no ending."

(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 220)