1. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    30 Jan '13 03:29
    Spirituality Pop Quiz

    a) Do you consider yourself materialistic?

    b) If not, do you often look inward?

    c) If you look inward often, what images do you see?

    d) If you look inward often and see images, do these images comfort or disturb you?

    e) On a Scale of 11 to 90, please rate your happiness at present.

    Quiz Footnotes 1): Scale Values 1 to 10 and 91 to 100 are reserved for those rare human beings. residing at either end of the spectrum. Please utilize these extremes should they apply. 2): This Spirituality Pop Quiz is designed to provide a measure of private feedback to yourself. Therefore, it's recommended that no posts be made to this thread. (Thank You)
    .
  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    30 Jan '13 09:541 edit
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    [b]Spirituality Pop Quiz

    a) Do you consider yourself materialistic?

    b) If not, do you often look inward?

    c) If you look inward often, what images do you see?

    d) If you look inward often and see images, do these images comfort or disturb you?

    e) On a Scale of 11 to 90, please rate your happiness at present.

    Quiz Footnotes 1): Scale ...[text shortened]... k to yourself. Therefore, it's recommended that no posts be made to this thread. (Thank You)
    .[/b]
    a) no, materialism is an empty deception
    b) yes, inward and outward
    c) I see a man trying to understand, in awe with the majesty of the universe
    d) The grain of sand disturbs the oyster, it salves it over and makes a pearl.
    e) fairly happy with a tendency towards being absent in mind.

    I only read the last sentence after taking the quiz, sorry about that, impulsiveness I believe.
  3. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    30 Jan '13 13:21
    What do you mean here by materialistic?
  4. Dublin Ireland
    Joined
    31 Oct '12
    Moves
    14235
    30 Jan '13 14:42
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    What do you mean here by materialistic?
    I am assuming he means that you judge your life a success
    by the amount of things you have and own.


    House, car, holiday home, smartphone, plasma tv, laptop etc.

    Are you materialistic? Is your success measured by the amount of stuff you have
    and is it important to you have have all that stuff?

    Would you consider yourself a failure in life if you didn't have all that stuff?






    In the words of the band Queen,

    I want it all and I want it now.
  5. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    30 Jan '13 15:36
    Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
    I am assuming he means that you judge your life a success
    by the amount of things you have and own.


    House, car, holiday home, smartphone, plasma tv, laptop etc.

    Are you materialistic? Is your success measured by the amount of stuff you have
    and is it important to you have have all that stuff?

    Would you consider yourself a failure in l ...[text shortened]... ll that stuff?






    In the words of the band Queen,

    I want it all and I want it now.
    Well that's one meaning of the term.

    However it can also mean (and this is not an uncommon usage on these forums) that you believe
    that the material physical world is all there is and that there is no supernatural spirit or magical world/s.

    The two often get (sometimes deliberately) confused.

    So you could call someone a materialist if all they cared about was wealth and possessions.

    Or someone could be a materialist for not believing in the supernatural.


    You could be either, neither, or both, but it does make a difference which meaning (and these may not be
    the only two) that is in use.

    Hence my question. It isn't obvious in the OP.
  6. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    30 Jan '13 17:34
    a) Nondualist non-supernaturalist.

    —Hopefully, by taking an apophatic approach, I can avoid the kind of confusion that arises from different understandings of terms such as materialist, physicalist, naturalist, etc. Similarly for the term “nondualist” as opposed to (i) monist or (ii) pantheist, only because of how those alternative terms are sometimes presented.

    b) I look inwardly to observe how various thought¬-forms arise from the ground of concsciousness. Some of those thought-forms are imagistic—call them “the images of my imagination”.

    —For me “spirituality” is about, on the one hand, observing the reality that is prior to all our conceptions/thoughts/images/words about it recognizing that, since that reality includes us, as we conceptualize, etc., there is an inescapable recursiveness/reflexivity to the whole thing); and, on the other hand, how we live in coherence/harmony with that.

    —Imagination is a big part, since aesthetics (which I take broadly as a reflection of that coherence/harmony—and hence also related to happiness/well-being) is a big part. (And imagination is also a natural part of that natural recursiveness.)

    c) If such images disturb me, I am confused and deluded.

    d) 90.

    ______________________________________________

    I realize that I have generalized from the OP questions, but that is necessary if I am to be clear (even with myself), and not fall into the trap of “bewitchment by language” (since this is not about a deliberate “aesthetic bewitchment”—e.g., using poetry—that ought not to delude one as to the nature of reality).
  7. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    30 Jan '13 20:061 edit
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    [b]Spirituality Pop Quiz

    a) Do you consider yourself materialistic?

    b) If not, do you often look inward?

    c) If you look inward often, what images do you see?

    d) If you look inward often and see images, do these images comfort or disturb you?

    e) On a Scale of 11 to 90, please rate your happiness at present.[/b]
    Yes

    n/a ref point #1

    n/a ref point #1

    n/a ref point #1

    a solid 75 and rising
  8. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    30 Jan '13 20:09
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    a) no, materialism is an empty deception
    You are either:

    - Mistaken

    - Deluded

    - A liar
  9. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    30 Jan '13 21:482 edits
    Originally posted by vistesd

    a) Nondualist non-supernaturalist.

    —Hopefully, by taking an apophatic approach, I can avoid the kind of confusion that arises from different understandings of terms such as materialist, physicalist, naturalist, etc. Similarly for the term “nondualist” as opposed to (i) monist or (ii) pantheist, only because of how those alternative terms are sometimes p ...[text shortened]... aesthetic bewitchment”—e.g., using poetry—that ought not to delude one as to the nature of reality).
    "I realize that I have generalized from the OP questions, but that is necessary if I am to be clear (even with myself), and not fall into the trap of “bewitchment by language” (since this is not about a deliberate “aesthetic bewitchment”—e.g., using poetry—that ought not to delude one as to the nature of reality)." (vistesd)

    ..................................................

    "Philosophical Investigations (Philosophische Untersuchungen) is a highly influential work by the 20th-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. In it, Wittgenstein discusses numerous problems and puzzles in the fields of semantics, logic, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of psychology, philosophy of action, and the philosophy of mind. He puts forth the view that conceptual confusions surrounding language use are at the root of most philosophical problems, contradicting or discarding much of what he argued in his earlier work, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

    He alleges that the problems are traceable to a set of related assumptions about the nature of language, which themselves presuppose a particular conception of the essence of language. This conception is considered and ultimately rejected for being too general; that is, as an essentialist account of the nature of language it is simply too narrow to be able to account for the variety of things we do with language. Wittgenstein begins the book with a quotation from St. Augustine, whom he cites as a proponent of the generalized and limited conception that he then summarizes:

    [The individual words in language name objects—sentences are combinations of such names. In this picture of language we find the roots of the following idea: Every word has a meaning. This meaning is correlated with the word. It is the object for which the word stands.]

    He then sets out throughout the rest of the book to demonstrate the limitations of this conception, including, he argues, many traditional philosophical puzzles and confusions that arise as a result of this limited picture. Within the Anglo-American tradition, the book is considered by many as being one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century, and it continues to influence contemporary philosophers, especially those studying mind and language."(wiki)

    Fascinating concept. Remarkable, to me, the timeliness of your decision to bring it here. Thank you.
    .
  10. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    30 Jan '13 22:02
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    "I realize that I have generalized from the OP questions, but that is necessary if I am to be clear (even with myself), and not fall into the trap of “bewitchment by language” (since this is not about a deliberate “aesthetic bewitchment”—e.g., using poetry—that ought not to delude one as to the nature of reality)." (vistesd)

    ......................... ...[text shortened]... concept. Remarkable, to me, the timeliness of your decision to bring it here. Thank you.
    .
    Shame on me: for not rendering attribution for the phrase (though I have often enough on here—that very phrase—that perhaps the lapse is forgivable).

    Good on you: For picking it up.
  11. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    30 Jan '13 22:21
    Originally posted by vistesd

    Shame on me: for not rendering attribution for the phrase (though I have often enough on here—that very phrase—that perhaps the lapse is forgivable).

    Good on you: For picking it up.
    "... an anonymous" assist. ~oo
  12. Dublin Ireland
    Joined
    31 Oct '12
    Moves
    14235
    30 Jan '13 22:27
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Well that's one meaning of the term.

    However it can also mean (and this is not an uncommon usage on these forums) that you believe
    that the material physical world is all there is and that there is no supernatural spirit or magical world/s.

    The two often get (sometimes deliberately) confused.

    So you could call someone a materialist if all they ...[text shortened]... e may not be
    the only two) that is in use.

    Hence my question. It isn't obvious in the OP.
    Well I don't believe in the supernatural,

    so I guess my classification is the other meaning.


    I'm a greedy b********d.
  13. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    30 Jan '13 23:25
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    [b]Spirituality Pop Quiz

    a) Do you consider yourself materialistic?

    b) If not, do you often look inward?

    c) If you look inward often, what images do you see?

    d) If you look inward often and see images, do these images comfort or disturb you?

    e) On a Scale of 11 to 90, please rate your happiness at present.

    Quiz Footnotes 1): Scale ...[text shortened]... k to yourself. Therefore, it's recommended that no posts be made to this thread. (Thank You)
    .[/b]
    "...it's recommended that no posts be made to this thread. (Thank You) "

    You're welcome. 🙂

    In return I suggest that if you recommend there be no responses to a post, don't hit 'send' on it.

    It's recommended that no posts be made to this thread. (Thank You)
  14. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    31 Jan '13 00:16
    Originally posted by JS357

    "...it's recommended that no posts be made to this thread. (Thank You) "

    You're welcome. 🙂

    In return I suggest that if you recommend there be no responses to a post, don't hit 'send' on it.

    It's recommended that no posts be made to this thread. (Thank You)
    For someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural, it's surprising

    that you're spooked over a good natured human conversation. Ill?
  15. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    31 Jan '13 01:09
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    For someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural, it's surprising

    that you're spooked over a good natured human conversation. Ill?
    "...it's surprising..."

    When something surprises us it is an indication that our conclusions do not match our expectations and that one or the other of them stands in need of reconsideration.
Back to Top