Secular Intolerance

[seeds]

Humans are part of nature. What humans are doing is what nature is doing. Nature tends to be underestimated. The Earth has produced humanity with perhaps more interesting things yet to come. Humans are just the most articulate expression of the Earth so far. Sixty million years ago it was the dinosaurs. Three hundred million years ago it was trilobites. Two billion years ago it was prokaryotes. Before that it was simply rock.

Yes, and before that there was (and still is) an informationally-based, “mind-like” substance (the quantum underpinning of reality) that is capable of being shaped into absolutely anything “imaginable.”

Could be. Your thought process here recalls Democritus's atomism, with everything made of smaller things (which is fine). However, guessing attributes of the finest grain of reality, though, is a much more fraught activity and not something that Democritus, a highly disciplined thinker for his day, did not do.

I’m not that concerned with the smallness or graininess (i.e., the infinitesimal “pixelation”) of reality, other than the fact that it seems to be related to why the phenomenal features of the universe appear to us in such “high resolution.”

I was merely suggesting that the malleability of the fundamental substance from which reality is formed seems to resemble the malleability of the substance that forms our thoughts and dreams (hence its “mind-like” quality).

People look within and see something godlike within their subjective existence and sometimes figure that "they have the answer". Trouble is, many have been sure they "had the answer" [to whatever problem] and been wrong. To me it's all an unknown.

In that case, should we all just give up seeking the truth, Greta?

Surely that big beautiful creative mind of yours realizes that just because humans in the past have indeed been wrong in their presumed answers to the big questions, does not mean that real answers do not exist, right?

Furthermore, even if the “truth” was presented to humans, it is highly questionable whether the majority of humans are even conscious enough to comprehend it.

Clearly, dogs and cats, or even chimpanzees are not conscious enough to understand certain (if any) aspects of the human level of existence, so why presume that humans are not in a similar situation when it comes to the higher truths of reality?

(Obviously, Nick's cave reference comes to mind in that last statement.)

Furthermore, it is a substance that appears to have been “impregnated,” not only with an inherent teleological impetus to bring us into existence as the culminating apex to the successive entities you mentioned (from rock to prokaryotes to trilobites to dinosaurs to humans), but also with every possible ingredient and means to complete the task.

Seems a lot to ask of “nature,” which is basically just an anthropomorphic rendering of the word “chance” dressed up in a mother's apron.

The biosphere is growing, maturing and developing more or less like any of its denizens; it has its ups and downs but usually it's growing and evolving. Growth and development itself is not chance. Barring mishap, life is probably inevitable in suitable conditions, with abiogenesis shaped by the physical laws. However, the direction and success (ie. not dying) of any biology relies a great deal on chance.

Earlier you stated that prior to prokaryotes there was “simply rock.”

We have discussed this before in that what you refer to as being “simply rock” was in fact a vast system of prerequisite ingredients and ordered processes that had to be in place before prokaryotes could even begin to come into existence.

And the point is that it is the belief that the manifestation of that complex foundational order was somehow achieved via the blind influences of gravity and thermodynamics is the chance issue to which I was referring, not the trivial chance circumstances that arise within the context of an already thriving biosphere.

We seem to be revisiting that “...just give me one profound miracle...” idiom, wherein everything else after that is easy to explain.
_______

[davidm]

Humans are part of nature. What humans are doing is what nature is doing. Nature tends to be underestimated. The Earth has produced humanity with perhaps more interesting things yet to come. Humans are just the most articulate expression of the Earth so far. Sixty million years ago it was the dinosaurs. Three hundred million years ago it was trilobites. Two billion years ago it was prokaryotes. Before that it was simply rock.

Yes, and before that there was (and still is) an informationally-based, “mind-like” substance (the quantum underpinning of reality) that is capable of being shaped into absolutely anything “imaginable.”

From whence did this infinitely malleable substance come?

Furthermore, it is a substance that appears to have been “impregnated,” not only with an inherent teleological impetus to bring us into existence as the culminating apex to the successive entities you mentioned (from rock to prokaryotes to trilobites to dinosaurs to humans), but also with every possible ingredient and means to complete the task.

Seems a lot to ask of “nature,” which is basically just an anthropomorphic rendering of the word “chance” dressed up in a mother's apron.

It does seem a lot to ask of nature, which is why what you wrote above isn't true.

I fully acknowledge and accept the fact that everything I say could be total nonsense.

Nevertheless, I still must ask you what is it that “isn’t true” in regards to the suggestions I offered?
_______

You have not demonstrated that there is any "teleological impetus" in nature, merely asserted this as if it were a fact. To say that humans are the "culminating apex" of this process has no evidential support whatever, and flies in the face of fundamental tenets of evolutionary biology, which fully rejects the scala naturae.

[Greta]

Yes. Conscience existence as opposed to reactive animal existence receives a quality of energy from above and gives to below. Conscious existence refers to a quality of a moment uniting above and below which is absent from reactive existence taking place below.

As described above, there's a lot of things regular people do that are positively and peculiarly human.

Anything beyond that would pertain to degrees of focus and attention, with an interest in trying to better understanding the nature of reality.
[/quote]

You are referring to one level of reality and I'm referring to uniting above and below: levels of reality.[/quote]
Not at all.

On a personal level, interest in the nature of reality is not a exercise conducted with science's "objective blinders". The subjective is also part of reality as well as domains of existence in which humanity is a part of larger emerging systems rather than an entire entity unto itself.

[Arising_uk]

What is the meaning of life for you. ...

I don't think there is a 'meaning of life' per se as I think this idea of 'life' as a thing is a reification of the fact that there are living things. If we were to talk about the bulk of the mammalian species then I'd say the meaning of life is to stay alive long enough to reproduce and raise one's young.

Is it just to avoid death as long as possible and be as comfortable as possible while contributing to society?

Well these certainly seem worthwhile pursuits but for myself it's to have fun whilst doing as much good as I can.

I'm not being critical because it does seem to be the meaning of life for much of secularism. Are you different? What is the meaning of life for you?

I really don't bother with such thoughts but must admit that when seeing my first born I did think, "Ah! So that's the point".

[Nick_A]

Greta

On a personal level, interest in the nature of reality is not a exercise conducted with science's "objective blinders". The subjective is also part of reality as well as domains of existence in which humanity is a part of larger emerging systems rather than an entire entity unto itself.

If you are not locked into what science can verify through the senses as the limitations of truth, why are you so hostile towards the mindset that strives to be open to the inner psychological direction or third direction of thought which leads to conscious understanding both universal and human meaning and purpose in other words: awakening? A person who is not tied to the limitations of the senses cannot be part of the movement seeking to destroy eros in the young even at the risk of inflicting the life long suffering of metaphysical repression on the innocent.

For some reason those like you and F4 are dead against the call of the self. There is something unnatural about the negativity you both generate in denying this third direction of thought in favor of sustaining ultimate self importance and the supremacy of secularism’s one level of reality

“To think about God is to the human soul what breathing is to the human body.
I say to think about God, not necessarily to believe in God–that may or may not come later.
I say: to think about God.” ~Jacob Needleman in What Is God? p. 3 mm

More and more, as I see it now, this heartless way of thinking about God and ultimate reality dominates the mind of the contemporary world. For God or against God, “belief” or “atheism,” it makes no difference unless the inner yearning— or whatever we wish to call the cause and source of the “second breathing” — is there. And it can so easily be there, just as it can so easily be covered over and ignored, perhaps for the rest of one’s life. God or not God, “belief” or “science” — it also makes no real difference for my personal life unless the call of the Self and its need to “breathe” is heard and, ultimately, respected. Not only can thought about ultimate reality make no difference to the world or to my personal life unless we hear and respect the call of the Self, but such empty thought can bring down our personal and collective world, even our Earth itself. When thought races ahead of Being, a civilization is racing toward destruction.

Jacob Needleman: What Is God?

If the call of self is attracted to a quality of reality beyond what science can measure, a person can either respect it or deny it either intellectually or emotionally. If they deny it intellectually because they have never experienced it, it is just healthy doubt. If they deny it emotionally as a matter of ego they will spread the poison of blind emotional doubt into society. That is secular intolerance.

[Nick_A]

Arising

Well these certainly seem worthwhile pursuits but for myself it's to have fun whilst doing as much good as I can.

So for you life has purely subjective meaning. It provides the potential to have fun and do some good. Nothing wrong with that.

Do you respect those who feel that life and especially human life has an objective meaning and purpose or are they just blind dreamers who get in the way of a good time and sometimes make us think about things which annoy us so should just be ridiculed as the fools they are?

[Dubious]

Dubious wrote: If the universe in its beginning was without intent or purpose then there is no MEANING which follows its existence regardless of what it may mean to its miscellaneous occupants.

If the universe just appears by accident and disappears by entropy and this process can be measured in linear time I would agree that it is hard to find objective meaning and purpose for the universe much less for Man as as part of this accidental process. However what if we call the big bang is just part of the cycle of one breath of Brahma? From Wiki
According to Hindu cosmology, there is no absolute start to time, as it is considered infinite and cyclic.[1] Similarly, the space and universe has neither start nor end, rather it is cyclical. The current universe is just the start of a present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes.[2]

Why “by accident”? It’s more logical to conclude the universe was the result of a process both before and after it’s creation which has nothing to do with any “intent or purpose” as we normally define it. It's extreme hubris to think that in not giving it a personal context it must default to an accident!

This is something which forever escapes both theists and mystics, namely that the universe is thoroughly in-cognizant of any beliefs we have or hold. It surrenders only to facts and even these, at best, only amount to our most successful science metaphors.

We cannot make ourselves “immanent” in the universe without knowing how to create one therefore whatever we say about it remains a theory. Still our best way to understand is to remain immune to any constructions of intent or purpose. Why impose our own mysticism on that which is already mystical enough?

Though I regard “Oriental Wisdom” as pure garbage in most cases, an interesting point is the one you make on Hindu cosmology. I think of it as being one of the most sublime conceptions especially since it's so ancient and one of the most daunting concerning human importance.

What it speaks of is Eternal Recurrence the ultimate and absolute negation of ALL meaning. Nothing could be more profound due to its sheer simplicity! Think of what this idea devolves to! Each such incarnation becomes nothing more than a mere statistic between what preceded and what follows. Eternity, infinity are the ultimate Black Holes which voids any definition of meaning except for what is temporary and localized within any instance in its endless cycle.

There is no beginning or end to a circle.

What means a circle beyond the fact that it’s round? Whatever symbolism we apply doesn’t change the fact that it’s only a circle.

Suppose what we call the big bang is just part of one breath of Brahma we become aware of as it passes from the intelligible realm into the visible? Then it can include objective meaning and purpose.

“Breath of Brahma”! An exceptional human metaphor in a universe that doesn’t acknowledge or understand metaphors.

That specific phrase reminds me of another “Breath of Brahma” story originating in the Upanishads. It flat-lines the whole, if not those parts within each cycle, into complete insignificance.

The stage, though eternal, means nothing. It’s the temporary players upon it which give it meaning.

http://hindumythologyforgennext.blogspo ... -ants.html

As related by Joseph Campbell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4K18E1er2s

[Greta]

Greta

On a personal level, interest in the nature of reality is not a exercise conducted with science's "objective blinders". The subjective is also part of reality as well as domains of existence in which humanity is a part of larger emerging systems rather than an entire entity unto itself.

If you are not locked into what science can verify through the senses as the limitations of truth, why are you so hostile towards the mindset that strives to be open to the inner psychological direction or third direction of thought which leads to conscious understanding both universal and human meaning and purpose in other words: awakening?

I was just annoyed at your accusations, moral pissing contests and claims that you have special realisation that others lack and, ultimately, with your refusal to give even a toss about the other forum's rules. Just a little bit of a toss would have been enough. I like to see some humility and circumspection in people's observations regarding their more special subjective experiences.

Whatever, I am very interested in subjective existence. However, I think people, including you, are too quick to extrapolate their subjective findings to make claims about objective reality. There is some very interesting stuff going on "in there" but I am leery about assumptions made without thinking that one may be wrong or taking an impotent angle of perspective.

person who is not tied to the limitations of the senses cannot be part of the movement seeking to destroy eros in the young even at the risk of inflicting the life long suffering of metaphysical repression on the innocent.

That makes no sense to me. "Destroying eros in the young" would seem to be more the domain of religious clergy than society at large, which largely cares less about our eros than our productivity.

For some reason those like you and F4 are dead against the call of the self.

Nick the Accuser = the reason for hostility.

The mud you throw is almost always wrongly directed because you do not seem to understand the difference between self-disciplined commentary and narrow-minded commentary. It's just silly, Nick. People are trying to point out things that they observe about existence, but they often keep the subjective stuff to themselves. Then you assume they have no subjective self because you are thinking of them as a child might - unaware of the undercurrents, taking everything at face value.

Why do people tend to keep their most interesting subjective stuff to themselves?

1. because it is personal

2. because, as with dreams, peak experiences and the like can sound barmy

3. because (unlike you) most of us are aware that everyone else is probably going to have their own versions of these special moments of consciousness in their lives. So, in conversation, they focus more on more the global aspect of knowledge - the things that everyone can relate to, rather than their own personal spiritual blips.

Besides, there is little need for advocacy for the subjective domain given that religions still dominate and inculcate the world, with atheists still denied high office in many parts of the globe. There is still more need for voices supporting objective learning than for instinctive revelation IMO.

[Harbal]

spirit killing within education

If you ask most teachers I think you'll find it's the kids who do the spirit killing these days, the little bastards can get away with anything they want and the schools are almost powerless to do anything about it. They should bring back corporal punishment, six of the best for mentioning Jesus inside the school gates.

[Nick_A]

Dubious, I appreciate your thoughtful response

Why “by accident”? It’s more logical to conclude the universe was the result of a process both before and after it’s creation which has nothing to do with any “intent or purpose” as we normally define it. It's extreme hubris to think that in not giving it a personal context it must default to an accident!

You’ve lost me here. Are you suggesting that the universe is a process created by a process? If so, what is this process?

This is something which forever escapes both theists and mystics, namely that the universe is thoroughly in-cognizant of any beliefs we have or hold. It surrenders only to facts and even these, at best, only amount to our most successful science metaphors.

I agree. As I understand it, the process of universal existence is governed by universal laws and consciousness which can use these laws. We experience the results of the process of universal existence by law, conscious intent, or by accident which is the result of universal laws interacting without the conscious intent of a result.

The lawful universe is a machine. A car is a machine for us. A car serves its maker and the lawful universe serves the need of its source. Mechanics repair a car while the demiurge tinker with the universe.

Values for us are emotional devolved interpretations of what Plato called “forms.” Universal objective justice is an expression of universal law while human conceptions of justice are a combination of knowledge we were born with and the many ways they were interpreted over time for pragmatic purposes.

The Good didn’t create the universe. The ONE outside of time and space is the source of creation. The Source IS. Creation OCCURS and is the result of the demiurge and its associates at different levels of reality. Plato called this god the Demiurge (“craftsman”) because the deity used knowledge of the Forms to craft the world of living beings from raw matter. ..

From this perspective the universe doesn’t serve us. Evolved man serves the universe consciously as a demiurge. Man on earth in the fallen state residing in Plato’s cave serves the universe as an animal. Either way we serve the great machine.

We cannot make ourselves “immanent” in the universe without knowing how to create one therefore whatever we say about it remains a theory. Still our best way to understand is to remain immune to any constructions of intent or purpose. Why impose our own mysticism on that which is already mystical enough?

Are you familiar with the idea that “Man is a microcosm”? This means that Man is a mini universe and constructed just as the great cosmos. If true efforts to consciously impartially “know thyself” without including the preconceptions you refer to can reveal the truth behind theory.

What it speaks of is Eternal Recurrence the ultimate and absolute negation of ALL meaning. Nothing could be more profound due to its sheer simplicity! Think of what this idea devolves to! Each such incarnation becomes nothing more than a mere statistic between what preceded and what follows. Eternity, infinity are the ultimate Black Holes which voids any definition of meaning except for what is temporary and localized within any instance in its endless cycle.

You are assuming that value is measured by results. This is how we are normally conditioned to believe. As I understand it, universal meaning and purpose takes place during the process of existence rather than the result.

Did you see the movie Groundhog day? In it our hero experienced eternal recurrence until he became able to consciously witness a day rather than egoistically reacting to it. Objective meaning and purpose was experienced through conscious witnessing. As long as our hero kept blindly reacting as an expression of “results” everything remained the same. Can Man escape the wheel of samsara through conscious awakening for the few making the efforts to do so? I hope so. If not the Ways are useless.

What means a circle beyond the fact that it’s round? Whatever symbolism we apply doesn’t change the fact that it’s only a circle.

True, but if you see it as a moving process going round and round, it has no beginning or end.

“Breath of Brahma”! An exceptional human metaphor in a universe that doesn’t acknowledge or understand metaphors.

But suppose the metaphor allows us to receive the inner impression beyond what our senses can experience. We cannot envision a Source, pure conscious potential, which can devolve into its elemental forces and create existence taking place within it as the body of God within the limitless source.

I’ll have to watch and ponder the Campbell video and get back to you

[Nick_A]

Dubious

The stage, though eternal, means nothing. It’s the temporary players upon it which give it meaning.

Agreed. That is why a person in Plato's cave who for some reason experiences conscious life outside the cave is compelled to go back into the cave rather than celebrate their imagined self importance. Building castles celebrating how great you are just means eventually becoming something lower represented by the ants in the Indra tale. This is why all genuine masters reject so many. They know they are just ego seekers and will eventually do far more harm to themselves than good. Of course the charlatens gobble them up for the cash or sex.

I remember reading of a great spiritual teacher who was approached in fear by a new student. The teacher asked why she was afraid. She admitted that she was intimidated. He was so great and she was such a nothing. He looked at her for a while and said and I paraphrase: Yes, in comparison to me you are sh-t but I in comparison to certain others am also sh-t, so you see we are the same. She walked away but shortly returned with a big smile and said thank you, now I understand

[Nick_A]

Greta

I was just annoyed at your accusations, moral pissing contests and claims that you have special realisation that others lack and, ultimately, with your refusal to give even a toss about the other forum's rules. Just a little bit of a toss would have been enough. I like to see some humility and circumspection in people's observations regarding their more special subjective experiences.

Your secular intolerance is so great that you consider Plato’s cave analogy as an accurate representation of the human condition to be an accusation.

I am not a moral person. I believe in ethics and objective conscience to define values. I have not broken any forum rules simply because I’m not an emotional nasty person. My goal in a philosophy forum isn’t to please you but to share on mutual understandings of the human condition suggesting that secularism or life in the cave prevents conscious human awakening and evolution. This is repulsive to you and F4 so cannot be tolerated. Why try and please you when your ideas are radically opposed to the cosmological difference between life in the cave and conscious life outside of it?

Nick_A wrote:For some reason those like you and F4 are dead against the call of the self.
Nick the Accuser = the reason for hostility.

The mud you throw is almost always wrongly directed because you do not seem to understand the difference between self-disciplined commentary and narrow-minded commentary. It's just silly, Nick. People are trying to point out things that they observe about existence, but they often keep the subjective stuff to themselves. Then you assume they have no subjective self because you are thinking of them as a child might - unaware of the undercurrents, taking everything at face value.

The call of the self is the call of the inner man inside the outer man or our personality. This isn’t an accusation but pure philosophy. You just don’t recognize the distinction between the inner and outer man.

You define pro-secular commentary as self-disciplined commentary and whatever supports the pro-universalist mentality which exposes the limitations of secularism narrow-minded commentary. This is cult logic. You are describing psychology, the sharing of experience which is helpful. Philosophy or the love of wisdom is about transcending complaints and opinions in favor of the dialectic helping us to remember (anamnesis) what has been forgotten yet offers the inner path to freedom from the confining effects of reactive cave life into conscious freedom and the awareness of our conscious place between above and below. You want a philosophy forum without philosophy since it is too insulting to secularism. Why would anyone who still appreciates philosophy as the love of wisdom and its ability to awaken a person to the reality of their being be attracted to something that has as its greatest claim to fame the ability to inflict metaphysical repression on the young? That is neither psychology or philosophy. It is just ugly.

[Greta]

Your secular intolerance is so great that you consider Plato’s cave analogy as an accurate representation of the human condition to be an accusation.

Wrong. I like Plato's shadows in the cave analogy and have never complained about it, or about Plato generally. I am open to dualism, but I don't believe in it, or anything much.

My goal in a philosophy forum isn’t to please you but to share on mutual understandings of the human condition suggesting that secularism or life in the cave prevents conscious human awakening and evolution.

If you are saying that the machinery of society appears to need many meanly educated drones, then I'd agree. If you are saying that drones are all that society at large needs, then I'd say you are not looking at the big picture.

The call of the self is the call of the inner man inside the outer man or our personality. This isn’t an accusation but pure philosophy. You just don’t recognize the distinction between the inner and outer man.

I suspect that my comprehension of the inner and outer human is plenty more than your biased attribution to me. I also suspect that your own comprehension is plenty less than you imagine.

You define pro-secular commentary as self-disciplined commentary and whatever supports the pro-universalist mentality which exposes the limitations of secularism narrow-minded commentary. This is cult logic. You are describing psychology, the sharing of experience which is helpful. Philosophy or the love of wisdom is about transcending complaints and opinions in favor of the dialectic helping us to remember (anamnesis) what has been forgotten yet offers the inner path to freedom from the confining effects of reactive cave life into conscious freedom and the awareness of our conscious place between above and below. You want a philosophy forum without philosophy since it is too insulting to secularism. Why would anyone who still appreciates philosophy as the love of wisdom and its ability to awaken a person to the reality of their being be attracted to something that has as its greatest claim to fame the ability to inflict metaphysical repression on the young? That is neither psychology or philosophy. It is just ugly.

Again, you seem unable to see the difference between observations verified by many and your own subjective observations. Your attitude displays a weak and blinkered grasp of philosophic history, especially the growing need in ancient civilisations to verify people's varied subjective claims.

So, when someone chooses not to speak about their subjective stuff (as anyone could), you seem to assume that they don't have any subjective existence like David Chalmer's "philosophical zombies". It's a naive view that underestimates the nature of human consciousness.

I am perfectly happy exchanging views with theists and, aside from you, can have a relaxed sharing and comparing of ideas. As it is, you STILL think that it's your ideas that bother others when the problem is simply your aggressive personality. Stop being aggressive and carrying on as though you are The Great King Poop speaking down to his unworthy subjects and you'll find people being a whole lot more receptive to you.

[fooloso4]

Greta:

Again, you seem unable to see the difference between observations verified by many and your own subjective observations. Your attitude displays a weak and blinkered grasp of philosophic history, especially the growing need in ancient civilisations to verify people's varied subjective claims.

Indeed, mistaking one’s own limited views for the truth is a fatal flaw if one hopes to engage in philosophical discussion. The problem is compounded when one then accuses others of rejecting philosophy because they reject these misguided views, and is compounded yet further when one’s view of philosophical history is distorted by an attempt to make what little is known of it conform to one’s views rather than learn from it.

The Socratic philosophers, most notably Plato and Aristotle, had to perform a balancing act between an acknowledgement of the fundamental aporetic nature of philosophical inquiry and defending against the opening this leaves for theological claims that are antithetical to inquiry into the nature of things as can be understood by reason. Plato’s strategy was to create his own`mythology including a mythology of knowledge, while providing sufficient clues for the attentive reader that it is a mythology and cannot stand up to the scrutiny of reason. Aristotle eschewed mythology and provides a picture of the world that is completely intelligible and thus not subject to mystification, while again the attentive reader is shown that behind the appearance of intelligibility there is aporia.

There is an important difference between the desire to know and the desire to have answers. The latter can be an insurmountable obstacle to the former. The truth is that for those who desire answers any answer is better than no answer, and once an answer is latched on to it is protected at all costs as if protecting the truth itself.

[Lacewing]

There is an important difference between the desire to know and the desire to have answers. The latter can be an insurmountable obstacle to the former. The truth is that for those who desire answers any answer is better than no answer, and once an answer is latched on to it is protected at all costs as if protecting the truth itself.

Yes... when one's identity is completely tied to an answer, that answer can represent life itself... in that one's identity will cease to exist without that answer. Survival becomes more important than truth. Living a lie becomes preferable to death of the lie. And no amount of absurdity is too great to commit to.