# Is mind a spiritual (non-material) entity?
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [October 9, 2006, 2:24pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590 "2006-10-09T14:24:23Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 4:08pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/21 "2006-10-10T16:08:20Z")
Sauwelios,
"The mind postulates the “I’; the body lives it.”–Nietzsche
---
### Author:  [@SilentSoliloquy](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/SilentSoliloquy)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 4:18pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/22 "2006-10-10T16:18:41Z")
The mind is in the body that experiences itself.
Darwin was a fluke but I’ll take realism. Idealism is the separation of perception from what is being percieved and is percieving. We can’t have that.
---
### Author:  [@tentative](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/tentative)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 4:29pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/23 "2006-10-10T16:29:16Z")
Jakob,
> [@](#):
>
> What’s more, as long as we can neither define matter nor mind, it is not even a real question.
But we do construct definitions. We have no choice. It is how our awareness make’s sense of the world. The trick is to remember that all is a construct. Constructs are useful, but they may not apprehend reality. (whatever that is)
---
### Author:  [@Sauwelios](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Sauwelios)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 4:32pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/24 "2006-10-10T16:32:41Z")
> [@Jakob](#):
>
> > [@Sauwelios](#):
> >
> > > [@Jakob](#):
> > >
> > > Existence is defined by experience, and experience requires an I.
> >
> > Not an I, but a Being.
>
> Which is aware of itself because it experiences. I call that an I. What’s the difference to you?
To repeat:
““I imagine” [“Ich stelle vor”], therefore there is a Being [ein Sein - not to be confused with “a being” as in “a human being”; that would be ein Wesen]: cogito, ergo est. - That I am this imagining Being, that imagining is an activity of the ego, is no longer certain: just as little is everything that I imagine. - The only Being that we know is the imagining Being.”
[Nietzsche, Nachlass.]
I believe I already cited the following passage of Heidegger for you once:
“Creation needs what is fixed, first, in order to overcome it, and second, in order to have something that has yet to be fixated, something that enables the creative to advance beyond itself and be transfigured.”
[Nietzsche’s Fundamental Metaphysical Position.]
Thus, imagination, in order to be aware, must predicate (this word is better than “postulate”) something fixed. This is the subject, which is then used to discern “objects” within the flow - to project “substance” into it. So your “I” is not the imagining Being, but its opposite: an illusory “being” as opposed to a real “becoming”.
---
### Author:  [@Sauwelios](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Sauwelios)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 4:45pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/25 "2006-10-10T16:45:29Z")
> [@Ierrellus](#):
>
> Sauwelios,
> "The mind postulates the “I’; the body lives it.”–Nietzsche
I believe that is either a bad citation of Zarathustra or a citation of a posthumously published note.
Zarathustra says:
““Ego,” sayest thou, and art proud of that word. But the greater thing - in which thou art unwilling to believe - is thy body with its big sagacity; it saith not “ego,” but doeth it.”
[Of the Despisers of the Body.]
But Zarathustra still believes in grammar.
---
### Author:  [@Jakob](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Jakob)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 4:55pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/26 "2006-10-10T16:55:10Z")
> [@Sauwelios](#):
>
> I believe I already cited the following passage of Heidegger for you once:
>
> “Creation needs what is fixed, first, in order to overcome it, and second, in order to have something that has yet to be fixated, something that enables the creative to advance beyond itself and be transfigured.”
> [Nietzsche’s Fundamental Metaphysical Position.]
Yes, _creation_ contains being _and_ becoming - it _imposes being on becoming._
> [@](#):
>
> Thus, imagination, in order to be aware, must predicate (this word is better than “postulate”) something fixed. This is the subject, which is then used to discern “objects” within the flow - to project “substance” into it. So your “I” is not the imagining Being, but its opposite: an illusory “being” as opposed to a real “becoming”.
That is what I allready said above; the I is an illusion to enable the experience of reality. If reality is dependent on illusion, what does that make of illusion?
“Formula of my happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal.” - Nietzsche
---
### Author:  [@SilentSoliloquy](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/SilentSoliloquy)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 5:02pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/27 "2006-10-10T17:02:08Z")
Illusion doesn’t occur without reality first being present to create it.
You are not an illusion, I repeat, not an illusion. You are real, but you create illusion to guide your interactment with reality.
---
### Author:  [@Jakob](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Jakob)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 5:12pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/28 "2006-10-10T17:12:18Z")
> [@SilentSoliloquy](#):
>
> Illusion doesn’t occur without reality first being present to create it.
>
> You are not an illusion, I repeat, not an illusion. You are real, but you create illusion to guide your interactment with reality.
If I were real allready, why would I need to _create_ something to interact with reality? Would I not allready interact with reality? Would I not allready _be_ reality?
Of course it’s pretty hard to create something if you’re not real, that much is true. But what I’m interested in here is that there are definitely, in my experience that is, different levels of reality. These levels differ so much that the lowest level can’t be compared with the higest. I can call them both real, but that would devluate the meaning of the word.
If I am going to call something ‘real’, it has to be worth the title.
Have you never felt a moment or day to be realer than the rest of your life? If so, wherein lies the difference?
For me, ‘real’ reality occurs when an illusion merges with a reality. Let me rephrase that; When my illusion merges with reality, _I_ am real.
---
### Author:  [@SilentSoliloquy](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/SilentSoliloquy)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 5:21pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/29 "2006-10-10T17:21:01Z")
I can’t tell you why we use illusion to interact with reality, but we do. Don’t we?
Reality works just fine without illusion or beliefs but people create them anyway. As far as I know, it makes them feel whole and complete. There is always a path one is searching for and a goal one is working torwards. These are illusions. They guide us and structure us.
I have never felt a day any more real than another. O.o If you have…I’m wondering exactly how that was. A day that had more meaning? Yes, for illusionary reasons, of course. That doesn’t mean it became more real. I simply have it stored in my memory as significant or important.
You can be real without illusion. You are not an illusion. You are real. You just illude.
---
### Author:  [@Sauwelios](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Sauwelios)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/30 "2006-10-10T17:22:01Z")
“Mystical explanations are considered profound. The truth is that they are not even superficial.”
[Nietzsche, Joyful Wisdom, aphorism 126.]
“Women are considered profound. Why? Because one never fathoms their depths. Women aren’t even shallow."
[Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, Maxims and Arrows, 27.]
“Supposing truth is a woman—what then?”
[Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Preface.]
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/31 "2006-10-10T17:27:50Z")
S.,
Kaufmann cited the quote I gave. You are mistaking the “I” for the ego. Nietzsche didn’t do that. He saw Kant as a bifurcater of knower and known.
---
### Author:  [@Doug.E.Barr](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Doug.E.Barr)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 5:31pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/32 "2006-10-10T17:31:23Z")
Chuck, to make sure you don’t misinterpret my comment I want to assure you I am not acting as an apologist for God. However, I would like to question whether the author exercised any “critical thought” before writing these paragraphs:
> [@](#):
>
> “Despite the vast number of religions, nearly everyone in the world believes in the same things: the existence of a soul, an afterlife, miracles, and the divine creation of the universe. Recently psychologists doing research on the minds of infants have discovered two related facts that may account for this phenomenon. One: human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena. And two: this predisposition is an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone awry. Which leads to the question Is God an Accident?â€
>
> “Enthusiasm is building among scientists for the view that religion emerged not to serve a purpose—not as an opiate or a social glue—but by accident. It is a by-product of biological adaptations gone awry.â€
I would like to know why eminent scientists who enthusiastically believe our whole freeking existence has been an accident would risk implying that some events were not accidental by pointing out one that is. I’m not a collector of quotes so I may have this one wrong but I think I read somewhere, probably in “Reader’s Digest”, that Einstein said something like “If one thing is a miracle then everything is a miracle.” Surely the converse is true that if one thing is an accident then everything is an accident including this and everything that has ever been written.
That is it for me today; no more accidental musing. I have to wash some windows I installed in my house on purpose, I think; but accidental God damn it, I’m not sure.
---
### Author:  [@SilentSoliloquy](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/SilentSoliloquy)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/33 "2006-10-10T17:34:12Z")
Saully, I’m a manly woman, a tomboy. Don’t bring up sexism unless you wanna start a fight, and I know you don’t. 😉
Ierrellus, I have an ego. I am connected with reality. I am reality. I create my ego. My ego is not real. Care to explain further?
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/34 "2006-10-10T17:40:29Z")
S.S.,
It’s only as real as you make it.
---
### Author:  [@Sauwelios](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Sauwelios)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/35 "2006-10-10T17:40:42Z")
> [@Ierrellus](#):
>
> S.,
> Kaufmann cited the quote I gave. You are mistaking the “I” for the ego. Nietzsche didn’t do that. He saw Kant as a bifurcater of knower and known.
Please put me right, then.
What is the “I”?
What is the ego?
---
### Author:  [@SilentSoliloquy](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/SilentSoliloquy)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/36 "2006-10-10T17:42:15Z")
> [@Ierrellus](#):
>
> S.S.,
> It’s only as real as you make it.
I don’t make reality. I make illusion. Reality makes me.
---
### Author:  [@Sauwelios](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Sauwelios)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 5:43pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/37 "2006-10-10T17:43:34Z")
> [@SilentSoliloquy](#):
>
> Saully, I’m a manly woman, a tomboy.
Of course you are.
---
### Author:  [@Ierrellus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ierrellus)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 5:45pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/38 "2006-10-10T17:45:13Z")
S.,
The I is any knower not abstracted from the known. The ego is a social concept.
S.S.,
Do your illusions nourish you?
---
### Author:  [@Sauwelios](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Sauwelios)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 5:47pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/39 "2006-10-10T17:47:26Z")
“The basic word for “I” in Japanese is watakushi, but it is not much used. Words that boys usually use are boku (polite) or ore (OH-ray), a rougher word, which can be rude depending on the situation. Girls usually use atashi (a feminine-sounding word) or the neutral watashi, but a tomboy might use boku like boys do.”
[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=I](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=I)
---
### Author:  [@SilentSoliloquy](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/SilentSoliloquy)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590/40 "2006-10-10T17:48:26Z")
> [@Ierrellus](#):
>
> S.S.,
> Do your illusions nourish you?
No, the ham sandwich does. Where’s this going?
The ego happens because of the I. You can’t separate them.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/is-mind-a-spiritual-non-material-entity/13590.md?page=3)