re "worldview"
Here’s what I meant by “worldview” (as explained by Rubert Sheldrake):
Of course what we call “material” has to have some sort of integral aspect, factor or basis by which it might be said to exist, appear real and solid to us a “material thing,” and I think that basic, integral factor could called “energy” (or even “spirit,” “mulaprakriti” or “primordial substance” as in Theosophy, the basic substance of the quantum multi-verse prior to it’s “realization,” sort of speak). I got the impression that Sheldrake was referring to “material” as an “integral factor” (much as I think Ken Wilbur might use the word “integral” in his “integral theory”).
Of course we need to be careful how we define “dogma” in reference to the likes of “materialism,” in that I think such definitions can lead to slippery slopes by way of reification, different kinds of materialism or, in other words, dogmas by another name, definition, metaphor, model.
© 2024 Created by Theosophy Network.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Theosophy.Net to add comments!
Join Theosophy.Net