(2023-12-22, 06:12 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: Apologies if I come as pedantic, I just want to make sure I grasp this ->
No need to apologise: my series was an attempt to be precise, so pedantry is welcome. If it needs revising in the light of our discussion, then I'll revise it.
(2023-12-22, 06:12 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: So under some Idealism you'd make the differentiation between something like my thought of a house which is a "private reality" (to borrow from Kastrup) and the energy of the mentally created "consensus reality"?
As it turns out, no: I refer to both as the same type of energy: "mental" energy.
What I do differentiate between is the thought of a house instantiated and active in your mind (and thus with a "tangible" energetic presence, albeit one of "mental" energy) versus the abstract idea of the house, not associated with any mind, and thus with no energetic presence in "tangible" reality.
(2023-12-22, 06:12 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: Admittedly one might say this is actually a point against Idealism, that it cannot adequately differentiate between mere thoughts and imagining versus actuality...not sure I'd agree but it does feel like a challenge to that metaphysics that has to be addressed...
I'm not sure I'd agree either, but the fact that the two are undifferentiated could be seen as a premise in my argument (from conflicting perspectives).