The One

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The One

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Nick_A wrote:Atheism can mean many things. An atheist may not believe in one personal god or many gods or any gods yet may believe in the great Beast which is the God of society. So it is a hard question to do justice to.
You're using the word "believe" with two different meanings. An atheist's disbelief is about the real existence of something there's no evidence of, but what you call "belief in the great beast" is just the simple commitment to face the world as it shows and live life with sound judgement. Both things, atheism and a reasonable approach to life, seem to go together.
Nick_A wrote:Both deductive and inductive reason are used within the one level of reality of secularism. However, in order to understand the connection between a conscious Source of creation outside of time and space and creation itself, the body of God, a person must be open to the use of deductive reason that can visualize levels of reality like the Russian dolls where one exists within the other.
But what "conscious Source of creation outside of time and space"? The more we use deductive reasoning, the more we are compelled to disbelieve that such an entity could ever exist. If such an entity dwelled "outside of time and space", there couldn't even be a moment of creation. For something to be a source, would require a movement from a previous state to another, but that would be impossible for an entity that by definition would be static and lacking any dimensional properties, like a body would. And if "creation" is the body of god, then it wouldn't be created, right?
Nick_A wrote:Before considering the structure of the universe as levels of reality, can you admit the potential for two levels of reality referred to by Plato in the divided line analogy? If not, then the structure of the universe based on levels of reality will be nonsense for you.
We could approach this either epistemologically or ontologically. From an ontological point of view, two levels of reality would actually account for dualism, which is nonsense. From an epistemological point of view, we could divide reality (the one and only there can be) in many levels, according to the depth of our knowledge of the world. But of course, that would be just a conceptual classification in our minds, not a real and objective separation of things in the world.
Nick_A wrote:Plato spoke of the intelligible world beyond the visible world the secularist claims as the totality of reality. But as soon as a person opens to the reality of the intelligible world as a higher level of reality, then the question of its source appears which Plato called the Good and Plotinus called the One.
The problem is that a person "opening to the reality" actually means here closing his/her mind to the reality reachable by sense and reason, and embracing blindly a set of ideas about things supposedly happening in other unreachable domains, just because some people told them so, even though these folks have no way of demonstrating it. All they can say is: "well, remember the cave, if reality were what we say it is, you wouldn't distinguish it from the shadows and you wouldn't believe us". The same argument could be told against these enlightened mystics: "yet, there could be another level beyond your reality that you can't see". The game would never end.
Nick_A wrote:If this were true, the Ways would be useless. A person may walk up to a piano and be unable to play it. This doesn’t mean they cannot develop the ability to play the piano. A person beginning with the sincere efforts to “know thyself” can become capable of experiencing higher consciousness. The world may frown upon it but those with the need and courage can develop themselves inwardly on the path to becoming conscious individuals.
This contravenes your own argument that "the beneficial effects of grace on the human psyche" are required for true knowledge. In that case, the key element for the supposed transcendental connection was to come from outside, from the external agent (the divine). But as we progress in our inquiries, such element of "grace" keeps being absent and you resort to the same thing that you said we should not trust: the human condition. What else could be a person's "sincere efforts" or the courage to develop abilities and achieve things? That looks pretty mundane to me.
Nick_A wrote:It is the same with a human being. The roots or the lower parts of the collective human essence requires a healthy society and a metaxu that emphasizes human quality. At the same time the higher parts of the human essence requires the nourishment of grace just like the plant needs the sunlight. When we remain closed the quality of human being is diminished just as the plant is killed or diminished without sunlight. A healthy metaxu and the conscious opening to receive the nourishment of grace assures normal healthy human beings. The human condition as it is prevents what should be normal.
That may be a beautiful fable, but it will be even better if we exclude any supernatural, disembodied, spiritual entity dwelling in an immaterial realm. Allegories apart, some civilizations worshiped the sun and it would have made more sense, wouldn't it?
Nick_A wrote:You are referring to man made interpretations and idolatry. The One is not a person.
You referred to it as "a conscious Source of creation outside of time and space" which also has a body ("creation itself, the body of God"). That sounds like a person.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The One

Post by uwot »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:08 pmSince you are living in a secular dominated society, it is understandable that you are unaware of deductive reason in relation to philosophy.
Well Nick_A, what you have done is find and develop a metaphysics that makes sense to you. I respect anyone who can achieve that. The problem you have is a common one; having painstakingly created a narrative, metaphysicians are often bewildered as to why everyone else fails to accept it. For all I know, your beliefs are true, but it is the nature of metaphysical models that any one of them might be true. Where you really fall down, is in invoking an imaginary version of the universe to explain why people don't accept your beliefs; "a secular dominated society" which is 'intolerant' of your ideas. As I said, in this secular dominated society, you can live by whatever ideals please you, but your insistence that others follow you will continue to be frustrated; especially if you carry on implying that others are at fault for having our their own equally plausible and arduously established metaphysics.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The One

Post by Nick_A »

CL
You're using the word "believe" with two different meanings. An atheist's disbelief is about the real existence of something there's no evidence of, but what you call "belief in the great beast" is just the simple commitment to face the world as it shows and live life with sound judgement. Both things, atheism and a reasonable approach to life, seem to go together.
The Great Beast doesn’t have an objective existence. It is a man made creation that takes the place of conscious reason. Simone Weil wrote: “The Great Beast is introduced in Book VI of The Republic. It represents the prejudices and passions of the masses. To please the Great Beast you call what it delights in Good, and what it dislikes Evil. In America this is called politics.”

You may believe in this creation as the guiding light but others like me don’t.
But what "conscious Source of creation outside of time and space"? The more we use deductive reasoning, the more we are compelled to disbelieve that such an entity could ever exist. If such an entity dwelled "outside of time and space", there couldn't even be a moment of creation. For something to be a source, would require a movement from a previous state to another, but that would be impossible for an entity that by definition would be static and lacking any dimensional properties, like a body would. And if "creation" is the body of god, then it wouldn't be created, right?
If you read the OP it is obvious that the One is not an entity. You came to that conclusion through inductive reason. I’ve found it easier to comprehend the One as NOW. As creatures of creation, NOW doesn’t exist for us. It is beyond existence. Existence is a process occurring within NOW which doesn’t exist but rather IS.
We could approach this either epistemologically or ontologically. From an ontological point of view, two levels of reality would actually account for dualism, which is nonsense. From an epistemological point of view, we could divide reality (the one and only there can be) in many levels, according to the depth of our knowledge of the world. But of course, that would be just a conceptual classification in our minds, not a real and objective separation of things in the world.
Plato’s divided line isn’t restricted to the world which is representative of one level of reality. Levels of reality are complimentary within a universal structure rather than a worldly structure.
The problem is that a person "opening to the reality" actually means here closing his/her mind to the reality reachable by sense and reason, and embracing blindly a set of ideas about things supposedly happening in other unreachable domains, just because some people told them so, even though these folks have no way of demonstrating it. All they can say is: "well, remember the cave, if reality were what we say it is, you wouldn't distinguish it from the shadows and you wouldn't believe us". The same argument could be told against these enlightened mystics: "yet, there could be another level beyond your reality that you can't see". The game would never end.
This is just a standard secular myth sadly often supported by intolerance and hostility. The senses supply facts. The mind and emotions can additionally open to the experience of objective meaning. The closed mind of secular indoctrination denies the potential for the experience of objective meaning which doesn’t exist for secularism inventing its own reality. There is no rational way a person can logically deny the beneficial relationship of facts and objective meaning if it exists which creates a conscious human perspective.
This contravenes your own argument that "the beneficial effects of grace on the human psyche" are required for true knowledge. In that case, the key element for the supposed transcendental connection was to come from outside, from the external agent (the divine). But as we progress in our inquiries, such element of "grace" keeps being absent and you resort to the same thing that you said we should not trust: the human condition. What else could be a person's "sincere efforts" or the courage to develop abilities and achieve things? That looks pretty mundane to me.
Attributes of the external element are within the universe including Man’s being. If this were not so we would be just an animal with no conscious future. As we progress in our inquiries we are just consumed with more imagination which excludes the help of grace. Sometimes a person comes to a point that only a paradox or a contradiction exists which associative thought cannot resolve. Then a person can move into a higher form of reason the ancients knew as conscious contemplation which invites the energy of grace.
That may be a beautiful fable, but it will be even better if we exclude any supernatural, disembodied, spiritual entity dwelling in an immaterial realm. Allegories apart, some civilizations worshiped the sun and it would have made more sense, wouldn't it?
To them yes but for those who have opened to levels of reality, then it is insufficient. The sun is just the point of transition into a higher conscious source of spiritual light beyond the limits of our senses
You referred to it as "a conscious Source of creation outside of time and space" which also has a body ("creation itself, the body of God"). That sounds like a person.
Man is said to be in the image of God. Man is also said to be a mini universe. We have a mind which we don’t understand, a body which we do, and an emotional function which potentially connects them which we also do not understand. The One is the mind beyond our comprehension. The universe is the body which is the domain of science to explore, and the non corrupt emotions have the potential to develop and connect them
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The One

Post by Nick_A »

uwot wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:19 am
Nick_A wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:08 pmSince you are living in a secular dominated society, it is understandable that you are unaware of deductive reason in relation to philosophy.
Well Nick_A, what you have done is find and develop a metaphysics that makes sense to you. I respect anyone who can achieve that. The problem you have is a common one; having painstakingly created a narrative, metaphysicians are often bewildered as to why everyone else fails to accept it. For all I know, your beliefs are true, but it is the nature of metaphysical models that any one of them might be true. Where you really fall down, is in invoking an imaginary version of the universe to explain why people don't accept your beliefs; "a secular dominated society" which is 'intolerant' of your ideas. As I said, in this secular dominated society, you can live by whatever ideals please you, but your insistence that others follow you will continue to be frustrated; especially if you carry on implying that others are at fault for having our their own equally plausible and arduously established metaphysics.
Secular politics and values rely on blind belief but I believe in the potential for conscious human awakening that all the great masters spoke of. This is an intolerable insult for secularism that believes there is nothing to awaken to. The world is against the concept of consciously awakening so why try and fight it. The Beast is to powerful I prefer to talk to and be in the presence of those I learn from. Belief has nothing to do with it. All that is important is personal experience. Indoctrinated beliefs are the realm of secularism and the main source of psychological nourishment for the Great Beast..
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The One

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Nick_A wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:48 pm CL
You're using the word "believe" with two different meanings. An atheist's disbelief is about the real existence of something there's no evidence of, but what you call "belief in the great beast" is just the simple commitment to face the world as it shows and live life with sound judgement. Both things, atheism and a reasonable approach to life, seem to go together.
The Great Beast doesn’t have an objective existence. It is a man made creation that takes the place of conscious reason. Simone Weil wrote: “The Great Beast is introduced in Book VI of The Republic. It represents the prejudices and passions of the masses. To please the Great Beast you call what it delights in Good, and what it dislikes Evil. In America this is called politics.”

You may believe in this creation as the guiding light but others like me don’t.
But what "conscious Source of creation outside of time and space"? The more we use deductive reasoning, the more we are compelled to disbelieve that such an entity could ever exist. If such an entity dwelled "outside of time and space", there couldn't even be a moment of creation. For something to be a source, would require a movement from a previous state to another, but that would be impossible for an entity that by definition would be static and lacking any dimensional properties, like a body would. And if "creation" is the body of god, then it wouldn't be created, right?
If you read the OP it is obvious that the One is not an entity. You came to that conclusion through inductive reason. I’ve found it easier to comprehend the One as NOW. As creatures of creation, NOW doesn’t exist for us. It is beyond existence. Existence is a process occurring within NOW which doesn’t exist but rather IS.
We could approach this either epistemologically or ontologically. From an ontological point of view, two levels of reality would actually account for dualism, which is nonsense. From an epistemological point of view, we could divide reality (the one and only there can be) in many levels, according to the depth of our knowledge of the world. But of course, that would be just a conceptual classification in our minds, not a real and objective separation of things in the world.
Plato’s divided line isn’t restricted to the world which is representative of one level of reality. Levels of reality are complimentary within a universal structure rather than a worldly structure.
The problem is that a person "opening to the reality" actually means here closing his/her mind to the reality reachable by sense and reason, and embracing blindly a set of ideas about things supposedly happening in other unreachable domains, just because some people told them so, even though these folks have no way of demonstrating it. All they can say is: "well, remember the cave, if reality were what we say it is, you wouldn't distinguish it from the shadows and you wouldn't believe us". The same argument could be told against these enlightened mystics: "yet, there could be another level beyond your reality that you can't see". The game would never end.
This is just a standard secular myth sadly often supported by intolerance and hostility. The senses supply facts. The mind and emotions can additionally open to the experience of objective meaning. The closed mind of secular indoctrination denies the potential for the experience of objective meaning which doesn’t exist for secularism inventing its own reality. There is no rational way a person can logically deny the beneficial relationship of facts and objective meaning if it exists which creates a conscious human perspective.
This contravenes your own argument that "the beneficial effects of grace on the human psyche" are required for true knowledge. In that case, the key element for the supposed transcendental connection was to come from outside, from the external agent (the divine). But as we progress in our inquiries, such element of "grace" keeps being absent and you resort to the same thing that you said we should not trust: the human condition. What else could be a person's "sincere efforts" or the courage to develop abilities and achieve things? That looks pretty mundane to me.
Attributes of the external element are within the universe including Man’s being. If this were not so we would be just an animal with no conscious future. As we progress in our inquiries we are just consumed with more imagination which excludes the help of grace. Sometimes a person comes to a point that only a paradox or a contradiction exists which associative thought cannot resolve. Then a person can move into a higher form of reason the ancients knew as conscious contemplation which invites the energy of grace.
That may be a beautiful fable, but it will be even better if we exclude any supernatural, disembodied, spiritual entity dwelling in an immaterial realm. Allegories apart, some civilizations worshiped the sun and it would have made more sense, wouldn't it?
To them yes but for those who have opened to levels of reality, then it is insufficient. The sun is just the point of transition into a higher conscious source of spiritual light beyond the limits of our senses
You referred to it as "a conscious Source of creation outside of time and space" which also has a body ("creation itself, the body of God"). That sounds like a person.
Man is said to be in the image of God. Man is also said to be a mini universe. We have a mind which we don’t understand, a body which we do, and an emotional function which potentially connects them which we also do not understand. The One is the mind beyond our comprehension. The universe is the body which is the domain of science to explore, and the non corrupt emotions have the potential to develop and connect them
I remember when still living in my parents' home, a book came to my hands: The Science of Self Realization, by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of Hare Krishna. After a short while I became bored to so much nonsense, so I quit reading. His doctrines bear resemblance to the doctrines you profess here and there was the same talk about the failed attempts of fulfillment by a secular, skeptical, materialist society and also about the supposed intellectual and moral superiority of spiritualism. But then you look at what happened to this Hare Krishna movement and become acquainted, once more, with the mundane drives behind these "spiritual awakenings". The Beatles had told us.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/mur ... ?oid=24810
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/na ... a/main.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/contr ... 111025.htm

By the way, I found Prabhupada's book online. You may want to read it:

http://www.krishnapath.org/free-ebooks- ... alization/
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The One

Post by Nick_A »

Conde Lucanor
I remember when still living in my parents' home, a book came to my hands: The Science of Self Realization, by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of Hare Krishna. After a short while I became bored to so much nonsense, so I quit reading. His doctrines bear resemblance to the doctrines you profess here and there was the same talk about the failed attempts of fulfillment by a secular, skeptical, materialist society and also about the supposed intellectual and moral superiority of spiritualism. But then you look at what happened to this Hare Krishna movement and become acquainted, once more, with the mundane drives behind these "spiritual awakenings". The Beatles had told us.
A good rule of thumb is that the more popular a spiritual movement becomes, the more it is either fantasy or was taken over by charlatans. Fantasy is flattering. The truth of the human condition is not.

As I’ve said I feel bad for the young. Many have a sincere need for meaning but are bombarded with all sorts nonsense from both secularism and secularized religious teachings. Their need is so much tht they turn to nonsense like “A course in Miracles” and “Scientology.” Do you have any idea the money these people rake in from people with the need for meaning? As soon as they are exposed to something their ego finds attractive, the wallet comes out and they become a servant of the teaching. The idea of awakening to reality must be repulsive for secularism and attractive to con artists who are quick to take advantage of the needy through the perversion of great ideas.

What is an intelligent person to do with a need to feel and experience objective meaning and purpose which obviously doesn’t exist in the world? Yet they sense that ideas introduced by those like Plato and Plotinus which resonate so deeply in their being didn’t arise from those like Nancy Pelosi. Who can they turn to? Secularism doesn’t care. It only wants to create atoms of the Great Beast from successful efforts at spirit killing. Not all that lovely.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The One

Post by uwot »

Nick_A wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:02 pmSecular politics and values rely on blind belief...
Belief in what?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The One

Post by Nick_A »

uwot wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:47 am
Nick_A wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:02 pmSecular politics and values rely on blind belief...
Belief in what?
Belief in the Great Beast - Secular idolatry. I posted the following in a thread on the collective and Individualism . It will clarify what I mean. The dominance of inductive reason and its love for fragmentation indicates the human quality necessary for impartial contemplation is no longer a societal value.

viewtopic.php?f=23&p=317467#p317467
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The One

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:11 pm
uwot wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:47 am
Nick_A wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:02 pmSecular politics and values rely on blind belief...
Belief in what?
Belief in the Great Beast - Secular idolatry. I posted the following in a thread on the collective and Individualism . It will clarify what I mean. The dominance of inductive reason and its love for fragmentation indicates the human quality necessary for impartial contemplation is no longer a societal value.

viewtopic.php?f=23&p=317467#p317467
Belief in the Great Beast :lol: :lol: :lol:

Do you mean that same Great Beast aka The System whose controls most people resent to some extent? Atheists don't believe in The System, they are simply as captive to it as theists or any other -ist you care to pigeonhole.

"Impartial contemplation" would seem the very hallmark of secularism as contrasted against the strict and often asinine dogmas of theism. "Impartial contemplation" is at the heart of the scientific method, shaking off ancient myths no longer appropriate to this modern world. Sadly, the life lessons of those myths have largely been covered over by literal interpretations of things that were always meant to be understood metaphorically.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: The One

Post by HexHammer »

Nick_A wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:55 am Secular philosophy is based on inductive bottom up reason. It combines facts to create conclusions. If enough facts are combined it is believed it will either prove or disprove God

Transcendent philosophy is top down and proceeds by deductive reason. It begins with a God concept that is wholeness. The universe is created by fragmentation of wholeness into lower levels of reality producing fragmented facts. Transcendent philosophy needs a conception of the Source which can be built upon. Plotinus provides such a concept.
[..]yadda yadda ..bla bla!! <insert completely clueless nonsense and babble!!!>[..]
I'm sorry but what you say is pure nonsense and babble, clueless like someone who has been sheltered as a kid!

The Prophecy of the Popes are a strong indication of God exist!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

If everything goes according to prophecy in the bible, then the city of 7 hills will be bombed, and totally annihilated!
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The One

Post by Nick_A »

Greta
Belief in the Great Beast

Do you mean that same Great Beast aka The System whose controls most people resent to some extent? Atheists don't believe in The System, they are simply as captive to it as theists or any other -ist you care to pigeonhole.
Captivity or slavery it is all the same. People act in accordance with what they believe. We live with conflicting beliefs which produce hypocrisy. For a while one belief is dominant and then another becomes dominant and then another. Albert Camus wrote the Myth of Sisyphus. Poor Sisyphus was obligated to push a boulder up a hill and when close to the top, the boulder must fall back. The cycle repeats over and over That sounds like secularism and why the cycles of life repeat. Only a few have the need and purpose to see the cycle for what it is and not remain captive of it.
“The collective is the object of all idolatry, this is is which chains us to the earth. In the case of avarice, gold is of the social order. In the case of ambition: power is of the social order. Science and art are full of the social element also. And love? Love is more or less an exception: that is why we can go to God through love, not through avarice or ambition.” Simone Weil
Greta, you don’t know what the Great Beast represents and how secularism in its many forms can only be an expression of the Great Beast. You don’t understand and view your lack of understanding as superiority producing secular intolerance. This mentality is corrupting education leading to metaphysical repression in the young. Soon they will be unable to even grasp Plotinus concept of the One. Their minds will have been closed by fear and secular indoctrination. Only the psychologically strong will be able to resist and open to the conscious experience of objective human meaning and purpose so necessary in the World.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The One

Post by Nick_A »

“Light itself is invisible until it bounces off something and hits our eyes.” What is invisible light and white light in particular which includes all the vibratory frequencies that we experienced as colors?

This is easy for the person who only accepts what the senses experience as real. The bounce is the beginning of light.
“Colors are light's suffering and joy” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Since a source of light beyond the visible is denied, there is nothing to do other than argue colors. Colors are like attitudes. Differences in attitudes produce both suffering and joy.
Consider the One as white light and Its emanations experienced as colors. Invisible white light is Plato’s intelligible world while visible white light is the visible world below the divided line. Can you create a structure of our universe which can be contemplated by deductive reason beginning with the One? A secularist cannot since their psyche is limited to interpretations of the World. The universalist can since they appreciate the World as a part of a larger conscious perspective which is again a part of an even larger perspective and finally to the source of invisible light.
Post Reply