Is spirit everything?

stormywolf2 said:People tend to view God through the lens of what they actually understand about Him. Naturally, the psychology behind those perceptions ends up driving how people act in the world.

Max Planck once suggested that matter doesn't really exist in any absolute sense—it's just a fabric woven from energies that an intelligent Spirit gives shape to.

Arthur Eddington put it similarly, noting that the very fabric of our world is essentially spiritual in nature.

Just throwing those out there as illustrations—I don't want to spend the whole day quoting textbooks.

crimsonjackal8 says:
stormywolf2, I’ve no clue if that second sentence is actually legit, but honestly? It’s the whole damn point of this thread if you ask me.

stormywolf2:
How right is she? Man, you’d know better than me—you’re the one with the psychology degree, whereas I'm just some guy over here. But honestly, it hits home. We’re always just drifting in whatever direction we can actually reach, whether that’s through how we think, how we feel, or just how we react to things. If a path isn't perceptually open to us, or if we can't reflexively grasp it, we're basically stuck. We can't act on what we can't even process. It's like trying to drive a car in total darkness without headlights; you aren't exactly going anywhere meaningful if you can't see the road.

crimsonjackal8:
Honestly, I feel like we’re chasing a total pseudo-problem here. Like, seriously. Everything is spirit, everything is matter—but what does that even actually mean in the real world? What are the actual implications of shouting stuff like that? We need to nail down what those claims actually signify before anyone can even start digging into the fallout of such a worldview. Let's get some clarity first, then maybe we can talk about the consequences.

stormywolf2:
Look, I feel like we’re trying to climb Everest in flip-flops here. This whole request is basically impossible because, let's be real, we can't even wrap our heads around what defines matter nor spirit. We're stuck. But if you want to get technical about how we actually perceive this mess we call life, everything boils down to space, time, and matter—plus this supposed "force" that probably handles all the causal heavy lifting. These aren't just random things we notice; they're the bedrock. They're the actual threads making up the fabric of reality itself. Honestly, there isn't any other way to relate to existence besides through these fundamental building blocks. That's all we've got to work with.
But look, when you dive into subatomic relationships, there’s this one specific point where everything just breaks. Any kind of sensory measurement—even if you're using high-tech gear—just completely fails. It's like the math hits a wall and gives up.
Look, once you dive into subatomic relationships, that whole idea of splitting things up into "object" versus "subject"? Yeah, forget about it. It just doesn't work anymore. You've got Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle throwing a massive wrench in the gears, setting this absolute hard limit on our measurements. We can't simultaneously pin down the spin and the location of subatomic particles—it's just impossible. At that level, matter loses all its clear-cut, defining characteristics. It becomes a mess. Then you move into energy states and forces, and it hits you: we honestly have no clue how Matter actually came to be. There are these quantum physicists out there trying to solve the puzzle using Higgs bosons—talking about "cosmic" versions popping out of Higgs fields within a quantum vacuum—but let's be real. It's all just speculation and high-concept fiction. Total guesswork.
So, look, according to the laws of thermodynamics, matter isn't some eternal thing. It’s all gonna end up as absolute nothingness eventually because we don't have infinite reserves to pull from. And if matter can't be eternal under the physical laws that run the entire universe, then there's only one logical conclusion: it has to come from something else entirely—something sitting outside the universe itself! Seriously, even the whole "Big Bang and inflation" theory basically screams that matter isn't eternal. It just doesn't add up any other way.

crimsonjackal8:
Honestly, I don't really have a take on this one. Every time I try to wrap my head around these deep, heavy-duty questions, the ground just starts slipping out from under me. Suddenly, I'm just flailing around in this sea of pure intuition and blurry vibes... and let me tell you, I am *not* a fan of that feeling. 🙄

stormywolf2:
That’s basically just the whole vibe of philosophical thinking right there. You gotta dive headfirst into the mess, tear the problem apart, and try to figure out what actually holds water—you know, separating what works logically from what fits under philosophy, psychology, or whatever other empirical science you can throw at it. Honestly? In a wild scavenger hunt like that, your gut feeling is pretty much the only thing you can actually trust.
Let’s get back to that whole mess regarding subatomic relationships. In those tiny little domains, the identity of things exists only in this hyper-idealized state—something we can only ever wrap our heads around by leaning into paradoxes just to describe what's actually going on.
Look, let’s talk about light. We’re talking photons here—those little things that act like particles one second and waves the next. Honestly? The whole "paradox" thing isn't even about the photons themselves. It’s actually just our own broken logic tripping over its own feet. In our way of thinking, there's zero connection between a wave and a particle that makes any sense to us. They're basically incompatible under our current rules of logic. So, we end up stuck using the word "paradox" just to bridge the gap. It's a total mess.
Classic logic just falls flat here. Honestly, even physics starts getting way too categorical—it basically turns into pure abstraction at that point. We’re totally lacking the conceptual and formal tools needed to actually measure or describe this stuff. It's a mess.
Look, Tim, let me just lay it out for you: all these scientific experiments people are obsessed with? They're basically just models. Purely modeling. They’re nothing more than crappy analogies that fail to actually capture reality. Think about it. Our so-called "real world" is basically just a fiction. Our entire logical framework—everything we think we can grasp—completely hits a wall the second the relationship between the subject and the object breaks down. Once you hit that point where concepts like space and time don't even mean anything anymore, then yeah, the laws of nature as we understand them go right out the window too. And once those laws stop working? Then reality, at least the version we perceive, just ceases to exist. If you're trying to be an objective thinker, you have to accept that we exist within the flow of time and space. But once you step outside that? Once those concepts become meaningless? Well, then standard logic becomes totally useless. It just doesn't work there. Period.
Look, this whole causal-mechanical way of looking at things just isn't the only way to see reality, and honestly? It needs to be tossed out the window. People still clinging to causality like it's the holy grail of understanding existence... they don't actually have the receipts. You can't even run empirical tests or get decent measurements down in the subatomic realm without the whole logical structure of "cause and effect" falling apart. Once you hit the quantum level, causality just stops working, and if that's true, then our entire grasp on reality goes right out the drain with it.
M.

crimsonjackal8 said:stormywolf2, I’m not sure how accurate that second sentence actually is. To me, it’s the crux of this entire thread.

It feels like a pseudo-problem. Everything is spirit, everything is matter—but what are the actual implications of such claims? What do they signify? One should probably clarify that first before attempting to analyze the consequences of such views.

As for myself, I have no stance on the matter. When I attempt to contemplate these profound questions, the ground starts to slip away. I find myself drifting into intuition and murky impressions... which I find quite unpleasant. 🙄

How capable is our mind, truly, of judging this?

Rachel Bishop said:Look, here’s the thing...
If we’re really getting down to brass tacks regarding this whole debate over matter versus spirit, there's one massive point we have to grasp...
That kind of split—that division—doesn't actually exist anywhere outside of our own heads.

There isn't "matter" and then "spirit," nor is it matter *or* spirit. What truly exists is

one single, undivided reality.

You could call it whatever you want, but you have to realize it is one, singular, and absolutely indivisible thing...
This whole topic ties back heavily to how we perceive and interpret things,
because that’s really where our entire worldview (this material vs. spiritual divide) rests—basically, on our tendency to split reality into spirit and/or matter.

Honestly, I totally get why you’re hesitant—your "non-stance" makes complete sense. That feeling of the ground slipping out from under you when you think about this stuff? Yeah, that feeling is incredibly real. But the truth is, that "solid ground" doesn't even exist in the first place. Until we learn how to stand on "nothingness," we feel like we need to cling to that stability just to survive. It’s okay... but eventually, there comes a moment where you just have to let go. It’s probably better to learn how to stand without any support while we still have the chance...

So, what are the actual implications of these ideas? What does it all mean?
It means an incredibly simple solution... and incredible freedom. That's what it means. 😉

ironbadger31 said:Under the aspect of Spinoza, if I recall correctly? 😉

Translating under the influence of Spinoza lately, I suppose.

Rachel Bishop said:Look, listen up...
The absolute core of this whole mess regarding matter versus spirit is this...
That split doesn't exist anywhere except inside our own heads.

There's no matter and spirit, there's no matter *or* spirit—there is just

one undivided reality.

You could call it whatever you want, but you gotta realize it is one single, indivisible thing.
This topic is tied heavily to how we perceive and interpret things,
because that’s basically what builds our entire worldview—this supposed split in reality between spirit and matter.

Your refusal to accept this is totally understandable, honestly. That feeling of losing your footing when you think about this stuff—that sense of having the ground ripped out from under you—is real. But the truth is, that "solid ground" was never even there. Until we learn how to stand on "nothing," we feel like we have to cling to it. Whatever. Eventually, you're gonna lose it anyway... might as well learn how to stand without a crutch sooner rather than later.

So, what does all this actually imply? What's the point?
It means an incredibly simple solution... and incredible freedom. That's what it means.😉

stormywolf2 said:You're back at it again, completely ignoring coverage! Not even the most dense pantheists think they’ve fully grasped the whole picture when dealing with concepts of Spirit and matter. But apparently, that doesn't bother you one bit, so you just keep polluting this digital space with your New Age nonsense.
It seems concepts like Immanence and Transcendence aren't exactly your specialty; frankly, it looks like you don't understand them within their proper context at all.

Spirit isn't nearly as material as you're trying to make it out to be, nor is matter as spiritual as you imagine.
"Deus sive natura" isn't an empirically provable thesis, so it shouldn't be misused in this context.

God transcends the human spirit, even if we maintain a "Thou and Thou" relationship with Him. Our anthropomorphisms aren't the standard, just as pantheism isn't.

You can't pin God down through pantheism, nor can you simplify and reduce Him to a common, conversational "You."
In New Zealand, we see an example of so-called "reciprocal immanence" in Ivanov's Gospel between the Father and the son. However, even through the Incarnation, this shouldn't be treated as a subject of simplified equality. Immanence and Transcendence are exclusively correlative magnitudes of God's battle, which we are incapable of either comprehending or describing. In short, it is a mystery.

Knowledge is therefore incomplete, because every person is aware of the fact that divine divinity lies beyond our senses and reason; God's battle is far beyond any "Thou" concept we could conceive.
M.

Rachel Bishop said:What?

I honestly don't know... maybe I've been spending a little too much time immersed in Spinoza lately...😉

stormywolf2 said:Don't even go there! Please, let's not drag some weird spiritism nonsense into "Philosophy." 😁
Just let Spinoza rest in peace. Seriously, the man earned it.

And honestly? Bringing Spinoza up to certain self-proclaimed "philosophers" is just casting pearls before swine.
It feels like some of these "thinkers" have never even heard the word monism, so they just keep trying to shove these sneaky little versions of dualism down our throats.
Aggy keeps trying to explain everything through the lens of Catholic theology, but look, it’s actually pretty simple:
If we start agreeing that "God is immanent and transcendent at the same time," we can basically prove whatever garbage we want. It’s like saying something is simultaneously black and white. It makes zero sense. 😉

stormywolf2 said:God transcends the human spirit, even if we exist in this "You and Thou" relationship with Him. Our little anthropomorphic ideas don't really hold water here—just like pantheism doesn't quite hit the mark either.

stormywolf2 said:In the US, we see an example of what you might call "reciprocal immanence" in the Gospel of Ivanov between the Father and the Son. But even through the Incarnation, we shouldn't fall into the trap of simplified equality. You see, Immanence and Transcendence are strictly correlative aspects of God's battlefield—something far beyond our ability to actually grasp or describe. It’s all just a mystery.

Our understanding will always be incomplete, because deep down, everyone knows that divine divinity exists far beyond the reach of our senses and logic. That divine battlefield is way beyond any "Thou" we could ever imagine.
M.

ironbadger31 said:It’s like you’re straight-up quoting Spinoza or something. If you're really out here claiming to be this hardcore Catholic all the time, you should probably be his biggest rival, right? Makes zero sense.
One minute you're playing the agnostic card, then suddenly you're all about that theist life, and before we know it, you've gone full Christian on us. Pick a lane!😕 Man, you seriously gotta pick a side with this whole philosophical thing. You spend all this time trashing New Age nonsense, but honestly? You’re more of an eclectic mess than any of those hippies!👎 👎

stormywolf2 said:Where do you get the nerve to claim the "philosophy subforum" is some kind of cleanup crew? 😎

stormywolf2 said:I'm just arguing from the perspective that makes sense to me right now—every angle has its own merit, after all.

Obelix said:Where on earth did I even write that?😕
Look, sure, your arguments carry weight, but only when they're coming from you🙄. Remember when I was laying out that whole thing about Spinozan monism and the immanence of God? You were basically shitting all over it, calling those ideas outdated and primitive relics that the modern world tossed in the trash ages ago.

So don't give me that bullshit—you're just talking in circles and contradicting yourself!👎 👎 👎 👎