I remember a funny little thing told me once by a cabalist, "What is Mind, never Matter. What is Matter, never Mind". It was an attempt at a minor outline to Dualism. Sadly the fellow was very delusional, and cooked himself one afternoon while trying build his own sweat house, heard through the grape vine of course.
Thinking about this, does make me wonder if he discovered the problem with Dualism sometime during the accident..;p).
@James - likely, somewhere between (-) the two electrical charges (+) --
"Not only have I wasted my time, but I also perceive having wasted that time, and you are also able to perceive that time wasted - that is 3 times as much waste as actually occurred! Our very perceptions of things multiply the existence of those things!"
Is that intended to be a refutation? How is that even supposed to work? Perceiving it doesn't make it exist more than it already does. Us perceiving the time does not multiply it. But it still exists.
"This guy reminds me of Glenn Beck." Has nothing to do with anything at all.
Oh, I was beginning to take it personal....LOL
So, if I understand you correctly, your position is this:
The effects of pure concepts exist in the material. The concepts themselves in a pure form do not exist anywhere.
A conscious mind evolves. Now the concept in it's pure form exists in the mind of the consciousness, through it's perception of the effects of said concept on the world. If consciousness then dies, the pure form now no longer exists anywhere, but it's effect would still act in the material world.
How could something have an effect but not exist in a pure form. Matter presumably exists in a pure form somewhere, perhaps physics will discover it. But thought cannot have a pure form? Why?
I have no idea what your definition of "pure" is, which leaves pure concepts, and pure form without definition.
So the problem is semantics?
For matter, the pure form would be the kind of particles we are currently searching for. A particle which could comprise all matter, by itself or with another indivisible particle.
If you want to call the fact that you don't get what people are trying to tell you, "semantics," by all means, call it that, or whatever else you like.
RE: "Matter presumably exists in a pure form somewhere, perhaps physics will discover it."
I think they already have - they call it energy.
So you understand what the definition of pure is. How can we apply this to a thought or idea?
Good night, Anon --