Analytic Idealism

[pood]

pood seems to have become overly attached to this line of thought and it's architect, and invested much emotion into it.

Wrong,.

Kastrup has powerful credentials, without doubt, but that does not make his opinion law.

I never said that it did.

It's a possibility, and worthy of some serious consideration, to some degree, but only one of many often considered and rejected lines of thought, albeit many people always have found it attractive.

And?

I would suggest that pood should wait and see how much and how soon it catches on before he goes full bore into promoting it.

And what makes you think I should wait to see how much it “catches on” before I decide what to do with it?

Please carefully read and meditate upon Abaddon’s post.

 

[pood]

I should add again, for the hard of learning, that I am not going “full bore” on promoting this. I am not “promoting” it at all. I am offering it for discussion.

 

[lostone]

pood seems to have become overly attached to this line of thought and it's architect, and invested much emotion into it. Kastrup has powerful credentials, without doubt, but that does not make his opinion law. It's a possibility, and worthy of some serious consideration, to some degree, but only one of many often considered and rejected lines of thought, albeit many people always have found it attractive. I would suggest that pood should wait and see how much and how soon it catches on before he goes full bore into promoting it.

How do you tell the difference between discussing the topic of the thread out of enjoyment, and being "overly attached"?

What if he or anyone were attached, what the fuck is it to you?

Show anywhere where anyone has treated Kastrup's opinion as "law".

And if the topic is worthy of serious consideration, why just to "some degree"? Why shouldn't anyone who wants to pursue it do so however much they want to? Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what degree they should be interested?

And I wonder, who has rejected the line of thought? The Committee of Correct Ideas? The Board of Scientistic Retards?

"Full bore into promoting". Oh No! Someone is exploring ideas in a free thought board. That's SO wrong, he should stick with an established tradition of thought!

Is it going to be ok with you if we who want to discuss this discuss this?

Have you been part of this discussion? No one is trying to silence you, and the active parties in this discussion have taken a similar tone, as you might note, had you been an active participant recently.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

pood seems to have become overly attached to this line of thought and it's architect, and invested much emotion into it. Kastrup has powerful credentials, without doubt, but that does not make his opinion law. It's a possibility, and worthy of some serious consideration, to some degree, but only one of many often considered and rejected lines of thought, albeit many people always have found it attractive. I would suggest that pood should wait and see how much and how soon it catches on before he goes full bore into promoting it.

How do you tell the difference between discussing the topic of the thread out of enjoyment, and being "overly attached"?

What if he or anyone were attached, what the fuck is it to you?

Show anywhere where anyone has treated Kastrup's opinion as "law".

And if the topic is worthy of serious consideration, why just to "some degree"? Why shouldn't anyone who wants to pursue it do so however much they want to? Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what degree they should be interested?

And I wonder, who has rejected the line of thought? The Committee of Correct Ideas? The Board of Scientistic Retards?

"Full bore into promoting". Oh No! Someone is exploring ideas in a free thought board. That's SO wrong, he should stick with an established tradition of thought!

Is it going to be ok with you if we who want to discuss this discuss this?

Have you been part of this discussion?

I tried to but every time I offered a criticism it was dismissed as irrelevant.

 

[lostone]

pood seems to have become overly attached to this line of thought and it's architect, and invested much emotion into it. Kastrup has powerful credentials, without doubt, but that does not make his opinion law. It's a possibility, and worthy of some serious consideration, to some degree, but only one of many often considered and rejected lines of thought, albeit many people always have found it attractive. I would suggest that pood should wait and see how much and how soon it catches on before he goes full bore into promoting it.

How do you tell the difference between discussing the topic of the thread out of enjoyment, and being "overly attached"?

What if he or anyone were attached, what the fuck is it to you?

Show anywhere where anyone has treated Kastrup's opinion as "law".

And if the topic is worthy of serious consideration, why just to "some degree"? Why shouldn't anyone who wants to pursue it do so however much they want to? Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what degree they should be interested?

And I wonder, who has rejected the line of thought? The Committee of Correct Ideas? The Board of Scientistic Retards?

"Full bore into promoting". Oh No! Someone is exploring ideas in a free thought board. That's SO wrong, he should stick with an established tradition of thought!

Is it going to be ok with you if we who want to discuss this discuss this?

Have you been part of this discussion?

pood seems to have become overly attached to this line of thought and it's architect, and invested much emotion into it. Kastrup has powerful credentials, without doubt, but that does not make his opinion law. It's a possibility, and worthy of some serious consideration, to some degree, but only one of many often considered and rejected lines of thought, albeit many people always have found it attractive. I would suggest that pood should wait and see how much and how soon it catches on before he goes full bore into promoting it.

How do you tell the difference between discussing the topic of the thread out of enjoyment, and being "overly attached"?

What if he or anyone were attached, what the fuck is it to you?

Show anywhere where anyone has treated Kastrup's opinion as "law".

And if the topic is worthy of serious consideration, why just to "some degree"? Why shouldn't anyone who wants to pursue it do so however much they want to? Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what degree they should be interested?

And I wonder, who has rejected the line of thought? The Committee of Correct Ideas? The Board of Scientistic Retards?

"Full bore into promoting". Oh No! Someone is exploring ideas in a free thought board. That's SO wrong, he should stick with an established tradition of thought!

Is it going to be ok with you if we who want to discuss this discuss this?

Have you been part of this discussion?

I tried to but every time I offered a criticism it was dismissed as irrelevant.

A dismissal, Which is not, I am told, going full bore in promoting it and that i am also told, means that we are infringing on pood's right to free speech

 

[lostone]

pood seems to have become overly attached to this line of thought and it's architect, and invested much emotion into it. Kastrup has powerful credentials, without doubt, but that does not make his opinion law. It's a possibility, and worthy of some serious consideration, to some degree, but only one of many often considered and rejected lines of thought, albeit many people always have found it attractive. I would suggest that pood should wait and see how much and how soon it catches on before he goes full bore into promoting it.

How do you tell the difference between discussing the topic of the thread out of enjoyment, and being "overly attached"?

What if he or anyone were attached, what the fuck is it to you?

Show anywhere where anyone has treated Kastrup's opinion as "law".

And if the topic is worthy of serious consideration, why just to "some degree"? Why shouldn't anyone who wants to pursue it do so however much they want to? Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what degree they should be interested?

And I wonder, who has rejected the line of thought? The Committee of Correct Ideas? The Board of Scientistic Retards?

"Full bore into promoting". Oh No! Someone is exploring ideas in a free thought board. That's SO wrong, he should stick with an established tradition of thought!

Is it going to be ok with you if we who want to discuss this discuss this?

Have you been part of this discussion?

I tried to but every time I offered a criticism it was dismissed as irrelevant.

I think that there is some confusion as to who said what to who on this thread.

 

[lostone]

pood seems to have become overly attached to this line of thought and it's architect, and invested much emotion into it. Kastrup has powerful credentials, without doubt, but that does not make his opinion law. It's a possibility, and worthy of some serious consideration, to some degree, but only one of many often considered and rejected lines of thought, albeit many people always have found it attractive. I would suggest that pood should wait and see how much and how soon it catches on before he goes full bore into promoting it.

How do you tell the difference between discussing the topic of the thread out of enjoyment, and being "overly attached"?

What if he or anyone were attached, what the fuck is it to you?

Show anywhere where anyone has treated Kastrup's opinion as "law".

And if the topic is worthy of serious consideration, why just to "some degree"? Why shouldn't anyone who wants to pursue it do so however much they want to? Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what degree they should be interested?

And I wonder, who has rejected the line of thought? The Committee of Correct Ideas? The Board of Scientistic Retards?

"Full bore into promoting". Oh No! Someone is exploring ideas in a free thought board. That's SO wrong, he should stick with an established tradition of thought!

Is it going to be ok with you if we who want to discuss this discuss this?

Have you been part of this discussion?

I tried to but every time I offered a criticism it was dismissed as irrelevant.

To be fair to pood, this is an interesting idea, but not so compelling as to be beyond severe criticism, which seems to offend pood.

 

[pood]

Consciousness is fundamental

Like Kastrup, the author appeals to relational quantum mechanics, among other things, and does not refer to analytic idealism. But the conclusions are remarkably similar, and the writer invokes the very buddhistic idea that the self is an illusion and that there is no difference between the observer and the observed. The claim is that the universe is rooted in relational conscious experiences, nothing more.

 

[lostone]

Consciousness is fundamental

Like Kastrup, the author appeals to relational quantum mechanics, among other things, and does not refer to analytic idealism. But the conclusions are remarkably similar, and the writer invokes the very buddhistic idea that the self is an illusion and that there is no difference between the observer and the observed. The claim is that the universe is rooted in relational conscious experiences, nothing more.

I find much merit in Kastrup's ideas. Fully worthy of serious discussion. Which does not mean that I either can fully accept or endorse them, because, as usual, I have my doubts, which it sometimes take me a while to digest and mention. I lean to panpsychism, which seems to offend Kastrup. My methods of discussion tend to be confrontational, for which I can only apologize.