Why would you call the "scientific mindset" a material condition. That doesn't add up, unless you want to imply the philosophy of naturalism (or as some would call it: materialism) equals the matter itself. Then you'd have the appearence of 'matter' coindiding with the perception of something as matter to be inquired into.Leyla Shen wrote: mechanisation empirically and by definition requires at least some part of the scientific mindset in order to exist. It is the material (real) condition for the posited dehumanisation.
WIth mechanisation as psychological issue, as I posed it, "machine-like" responses are meant. What else could I have meant? Alien implants?
It's true, I made nothing but a reasonable assumption that consciousness would be primal in relation to the practices (methodology really) of science and technology.Only if one posits consciousness as a kind of first cause, or primary material condition from which the material itself springs rather than the other way round.
The problem with any notion of emptiness is that as far as its reality goes, it doesn't exist. So when talking about what's real or not, it wouldn't help and nihilism would be the likely response. This is why I raise the specter of "actual reality" or "the real", as response to the fact we're still experiencing and responding with ethics, reason, discovery and all types of discerning behavior. This still needs a reality principle, which can still be gained or lost when dealing with life or consciousness. To talk in Lacan's terms: this principle would rule the imaginary, the symbolic as well as the 'real'. Funny how this mirrors Spinoza's types of knowledge: opinion, reason and intuition.Actual reality is necessarily inclusive of all these things, including cognitive human limitations, by definition. I am convinced, here, you are positing a noumenal reality rather than something in accord with the notion of emptiness. In this case, you might as well subscribe to the school of absolute nihilism and not do anything at all! But you can't help yourself, can you?
Einstein said "a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness". My point however was that it's so easy to imagine considering oneself to be not separated from some "rest", but all the while that's exactly what we are and how we perceive. Hence, the optical delusion would be a property of consciousness, and not a fault in its lens. I would go one step further can claim it was Einstein who stepped into the fallacy by implying, as an idealist, there existed some pure consciousness out there, a liberated state where one would be "freed" of separation and still exist as human consciousness. It sounds to me like unconsciousness or death, the poor man's solution to everything!He said "delusion" not illusion. (Reminds me here of Lacan's Mirror Stage.) It is deluded to consider oneself, one's thoughts and feelings, as separated from the rest, unless you're an idealist who believes in an immortal soul (some noumenal reality) separated from some material (phenomenal) reality.It's not an illusion, the experience of separation is this very consciousness. But with a bit of greater effort this too can be realized, hence: self-realization.