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.

Views: 80


You need to be a member of Theosophy.Net to add comments!

Join Theosophy.Net

Comment by John on March 3, 2015 at 9:18pm

Blog and Forum posts are not limited - just status posts are limited to 140 chars.

Comment by Mauri on March 3, 2015 at 3:50pm

so I might not be limited to 140 characters, after all ...?


Search Theosophy.Net!


What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


Theosophy References

Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2024   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service