On Fri, 24 Mar 1995, Dancing Hummingbird /aka Joy Williams wrote:
> I am very curious how the people who are calling themselves
> "materialists" came to the conclusion that people who are more
> spiritually inclined should be called "idealists."
I would say that it goes back to the long-standing mind/body split in our
intellectual traditions. Actually, spirit doesn't really "fit" this
dichotomous perspective, but to many it seems more in line with the realm
of ideas and the mind than with the material world.
I personally think
> that this is a very strange terminology, and while I am an idealist, I
> think that that term is still not an accurate one to describe me or those
> like me. I am a deist, or more precisely a "sheist" ;-), as my mother
> says. Being an idealist as well as being an optimist are both parts of
> my nature, but I think that there are many who are aetheists/agnostics
> who could be regarded as idealists or optimists while still be
> materialists as well.
Certainly, there are materialists who are "idealistic" in the sense that
they hold high ideals, lofty goals, and a "noble" vision of the future.
There are also materialists who are optimistic -- isn't capitalism (and
classical Marxism) based on the rather optimistic assumption that the
material resources upon which "development" rests are limitless? But,
materialists would not, I think, consider themselves "idealists" in the
sense that they grant great power to "ideas".....
> That term is too narrow for what I believe in and too narrow to accurately
> describe my perspective. For one thing it is an attempt to classify me
> into a box by others who don't necessarily know me or understand what it
> is I really believe in, or what I am. And those who share this
> terminology will then classify me into the same box due to this shared
> terminology, and continue to innaccurately understand me.
Not an uncommon experience. I have a Marxist prof who constantly
classifies all of my work on cognition and the power of ideas/meaning
creation to motivate people in conflict settings as a reversion to an
idealism which denies the power of the "material" world and institutional
relations. He is quite wrong to put me in that box, but it makes him
feel more comfortable because then he "knows" where I am coming from and
he has "set responses" which he feels are adequate to "deal with" me.
Needless to say, I am stubborn as hell and do not let him get away with
that. But, it is a constant battle and the fireworks around the
department are a constant source of amusement for others.
The hard part for me, has been finding a way to lay claim to what *I* am
-- and not accept what he calls me -- but to do it in a manner which
keeps his mind open so that we can honestly dialogue. It was hard for
me, too, not to just dismiss *him* as some guy who can't let go of his
1960's radical student/young prof days. So, the tendency towards
dismissal -- at least in my case -- cuts both ways.
Jayne
