Mind and Reality

Is there a separation between Mind and Reality?

Please explain your reply.

Thanks.

There is already, essentially, a thread discussing this. "Solipsism".

But seeing as solipsism and what you're suggesting aren't necessarily linked, there're a number of ways you could try and tackle the problem.

I'd go for one influences the other, the mind is clearly part of reality, pretty much by definition. We've little in way of testing whether reality is just part of the mind, so I'd go onto say that this, when phrased literally, has essentially no meaning as a question.

in a practical manor, if your can think it you can create it.

in the realist perspective there is the matter of thought and matter. before materialization there is the idea. the idea of thought as the basis of materialization, thus being a part of reality, but this is suggesting that what we think and sense is real.

There is no separation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natasha77

Is there a separation between Mind and Reality?

Please explain your reply.

Thanks.

---

Well, obviously, there is a spatial separation between one's body and the physical objects which lie outside of one's direct volitional control. "Mind" as it stands here unqualifiedly--and thus I will assume it is to be taken in its range of "ordinary" usages; i.e. the burden of a focused definition is on whomever who might choose to reply:)--could be so extended as to entail the entirety of the phenomenal world (a la solipsism), although I do think that we have good reason for regonizing an external world wherein the properties described by the physical sciences are intrinsic and relatively mind-independent, at least on the level the personal mind.

It seems to me that many of the difficulties, which would even allow the occasion of a question such as yours, stem from the fact that some of those properties that we would desginate as "mental," occupy a sort of quasi-space beginning from our proprioceptive states and extending at least as far as our representational thinking--the meaningful sounds and images "inside of our head." Without wasting our time with semantic legerdemain--just assuming that you have left many of the details of your question open-ended--I would say that the answer to your question would lie in whether or not one woud choose to postulate a macrocosmic mental agency as a causal principle behind external world events. Please note, however, that the relationship between one's own individual consciousness and this macrocosmic mind would not involve that type of disparate distinction which manifests between physical objects, though we must avoid falling into that type of bare, and indistinguishable unity which Hegel characterized as "the night wherein all cows are black"; there would be distinction but perhaps much more appropriately qualified as conceptually distinguishable but implicating a sort of universal entailment--that man whose successors nominated as theiotatos, or "most divine," described such a mutual, eidetic possession of all things in each thing, by his own Greek neologism, allelouchia.

truth shall remain true, yet man shall see that truth differently.

That which is not understood is not necessarily a illness, but perhaps a way of reveling without giving the answer.

I really like your first post zero. Thats a good explanation.