Materialism vs. mentalism as non-dual ‘unifying’ philosophy
Posted by robertpriddy on December 29, 2010
There are two opposed viewpoints about the origin and nature of being, the universe: in the first it arose from spirit or ’universal’ consciousness (e.g. as God), and is also called ‘creationism’. The other view describes a physical event (Big Bang) which was (presumably) self-generated and developed over an extremely vast time span, eventually leading to human evolution. The first of these is sometimes termed ‘mentalism’ as opposed to the second as ‘materialism’.
Mentalism is historically predominant, arising in speculation about agencies making everything happen, eventually one such (God). This is theory in the sense of ‘just theory’ – not proven or provable, nor does it set about systematically to examine its assumptions critically or consistently try to test and even disprove its own tenets or beliefs. It rather embroiders them further in speculative thought. On the other hand, scientific theory began with assumptions about physical events being due to natural causes, but it constantly questioned the validity of all assumptions and puts them to the test of experience, observation and experiment.
Materialism depends on hypotheses which are verified (increasingly so at a deeper levels and wider scopes) and essentially regard the origin of everything as energy (not only in its material form). It ensures that every statement it upholds is based on observation or experimentation. It eventually expanded so vastly that it has confirmed the assumption that the universe arose from a single material event (the Big Bang) and that all life on earth evolved from the simplest physical processes, right up to the rise of human beings (with consciousness or ‘spirit’).
Mentalist theories, including ‘creationism by intelligent design’ are bolstered by various theological and philosophical speculations that are invariably opposed to the outlook of the physical and other sciences. Mentalist theories do include some very sophisticated versions, and though all is based on beliefs and speculations, they have strong appeal to many intellects and so need to be examined. Such is Advaita (lit. ‘Non-divisiveness’) In one form or another it is historically behind most modern mysticism, certainly most Indian gurus and their Western counterparts. It rejects materialism in favour of universal awareness/bliss/being, arguing that the split between spirit (or soul/mind) and matter (or psyche/body) is an illusion of the phenomenal world, which is itself ultimately an illusion.
Of course, that is non-empirical, even though it appeals to personal experiences (mainly of an extra-sensory kind) and aims – through spiritual mystical practices – to raise individual awareness to the level of the undifferentiated universal unity.
The ideal of unity of knowledge: The unity striven for by science is that of validated theories which together form a consistent and non-conflicting account of everything. This may be referred to as the ‘unity of science’. Unlike mentalist theories, the sciences do not strive to uphold any unitary theory unless it is in accordance with all known facts.
I have gone deeply into non-dual theory both in the philosophy of science and in spirituality/religion – both in practice and theory in both respects. In post-graduate research into scientific research from the angle of sociology of knowledge I became aware of the complexities and problems of the process of scientific development towards establishing knowledge in competition and with evolving paradigms. In spirituality, where experience is a prerequisite and is understood as the result of willful good actions and inward reflection/meditation, I found after many decades, that the unity of transcendental experience is but an inward perception and does not actually require any belief in – or application of – the theologies or doctrines which promote it.
Eventually I emerged from the spell of mentalism in its many forms to become increasingly aware and convinced that this entire otherworldly project (as in all religions) is fruitless and largely without real basis. I do not deny that exceptional states of being can occur – I assert it from experience – but I no longer see these as necessarily connected to any form of spirituality or religion.
I have set out to explain some of the problems of speculative spirituality and religious mysticism through the last decade such as at Experiences and Ideas of Unity – with Social and Other Consequences
Mary E McLean said
science has itself defined how it shall determine what is valid to validate its own findings -what makes the use of hypothesis and empirical observations the way to know -except scientific insistence that it is..do you not see in your defense of materialism you are doing the same as what you condemn in mentalism- what science has proved today is disproved tomorrow -yet the experience of mystics remains the same after 1000′s of years ..why?? what method then should be considered most reliable- that which can assure you it will always disprove itself or that where you can not prove but be and relate–and the revelation of which remains consistent over the centuries.
Reply from Robert C. Priddy to the above comment:-
Your comment is plain wrong on a number of counts. The process of scientific discovery and methodology was developed through millennia and every successful explanation (i.e. that gave knowledge that could be effectively applied with predicted results) reinforced the need for empirical validation. It was very, very far from one single act ‘by science’ of deciding what is valid. I have studied the philosophical issue of materialism vs. mentalism all my adult life and am intensely aware of all the relevant conceptual elements and arguments pro and contra. It is most superficial to argue that is found valid by science is disproved tomorrow. Most scientific discoveries stand and those which have altered were corrected (by science) modified and refined, leading to yet more universal and indestructible knowledge. Science alone allows of the possibility of error, in fact embraces this as a means to refining and improving our knowledge further. In principle, religions never do this… unless forced by events (including scientific discoveries) to change their doctrines.
The experience of mystics is simply a belief you hold – but there is no universal ‘mystical knowledge’. The experience of mystics can never be shown to be uniform, any more than can the countless spiritual interpretations of the ‘meaning’ of life or whatever. Individual people are virtually all uniques in some way or another, their minds, their experiences – whether in meditation or in using mind-expanding methods of a hundred different kinds – are not uniform. They differ uniquely… so the unfounded claim that mystics’ experiences were the same for hundreds of years is unprovable and has a huge likelihood of being false. Their experiences are known only to them individually, being totally subjective and unknowable in any objective sense. The vast panorama of human knowledge discovered through science far outstrips anything mystics have ever contributed to human knowledge or welfare, it is ever-expanding at an increasing rate too!