Jump to content

David, with respect, your metaphysical ideas are incoherent


Apotheosis
 Share

Recommended Posts

I understand what he is trying to get at, and I even agree with much of it, but David Icke's take on certain Vedantic or Buddhist ideas on maia and samsara, when he mixes them with modern Western scientific language and materialism's theories of sensation, is rather philosophically naive and ends up being self-defeating. It doesn't stand up to sophisticated philosophical scrutiny. More still, although I believe he does not realise it, he is advocating something that is a form of mechanistic and reductive physicalism which is incompatible with his ideas of "you are consciousness" taken from the Indian concept of the atman. He claims that the phenomenological world we experience is really an epiphenomenon of "waveforms", physical objects, interpreted by the physical object (and itself a "waveform" if we want to get down to it) known as the "brain". This is mechanistic, and it is reductionist par excellence.

 

Sorry David, but if this "reality" is a deceptive "illusion", then, without special pleading, so are all the empirical data by which you have come to postulate the existence of the "brain", "waveforms", and the mechanisms whereby "reality" is supposedly constructed out of them. And with that goes any trust you can have in their "reality". These are all themselves concepts of the mind and their phenomenological content itself a object of consciousness. If you were consistent in your reasoning, you would abandon this form of reductionism you are peddling.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there is some conflating of concepts relating to the nature of the atman and this ‘illusion’ we experience.

 

This part especially needs to be understood clearly.

 

6 hours ago, Apotheosis said:

the existence of the "brain", "waveforms", and the mechanisms whereby "reality" is supposedly constructed out of them.

 

I hope you were able to get a better understanding from other sources?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2021 at 1:13 PM, Apotheosis said:

I understand what he is trying to get at, and I even agree with much of it, but David Icke's take on certain Vedantic or Buddhist ideas on maia and samsara, when he mixes them with modern Western scientific language and materialism's theories of sensation, is rather philosophically naive and ends up being self-defeating. It doesn't stand up to sophisticated philosophical scrutiny. More still, although I believe he does not realise it, he is advocating something that is a form of mechanistic and reductive physicalism which is incompatible with his ideas of "you are consciousness" taken from the Indian concept of the atman. He claims that the phenomenological world we experience is really an epiphenomenon of "waveforms", physical objects, interpreted by the physical object (and itself a "waveform" if we want to get down to it) known as the "brain". This is mechanistic, and it is reductionist par excellence.

 

Sorry David, but if this "reality" is a deceptive "illusion", then, without special pleading, so are all the empirical data by which you have come to postulate the existence of the "brain", "waveforms", and the mechanisms whereby "reality" is supposedly constructed out of them. And with that goes any trust you can have in their "reality". These are all themselves concepts of the mind and their phenomenological content itself a object of consciousness. If you were consistent in your reasoning, you would abandon this form of reductionism you are peddling.

 

 

 

 

Yeah.

In other words; there's not much "The Matrix" can teach us about "reality" except what "reality" is not.

He's operating in a way(and at a level) that will reach people and can help open their minds, it's up to them to go within and beyond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...