felix dakat wrote:There is a difference between talking about the... and THE. This whole thread is dualism. Talking about transcendence isn't transcendence. That's the irony of language itself, and yet we all participate, don't we?
The only dualism I can see is if the transcendent is considered to be another kind of substance/essence. I don't think language and thing referred to constitutes a dualism, just two different things. IOW materialist recognize that words refer to things, but they consider all this material phenomena. A map of LA and LA are two different chunks of matter. And the materialist stays a monist.
yes, it was just an example. Other monists could stay monists. Certainly an idealist could.That clarifies the subject for me as long as you are using materialism to be illustrative rather than ultimate. The immaterialist can stay monist too, theoretically.
Or as I tend to argue it. Most scientists, but not all, refer to everything that is determined to exist as physical. So it really just means considered real by scientific consensus. anything found to be real will also be called physical, until this highly metaphysical word is finally dropped.The minimalist view would remain agnostic on that point. We don't know with certainty that what we call spirit is not a subtle physical phenomenon.
[/quote]Not sure if you saw my post here....Hopefully we can remain naturalistic in the sense of looking for minimalist explanations that don't rely on the supernatural without sacrificing what is valuable about our experiences of transcendence.
but I wrote in a sense around this issue.