Knowledge and Opinions

[Satyr]

Idea:

A aggregate of neurons, a neural network, established via interactions with a phenomenon, attempting to mirror the phenomenon by simplifying/generalizing it in accordance to the sensual data received, processed and formed into abstractions - an abstraction being a mental model stored in code, in other words in neural networks, which are then stimulated into cognition by a neural pulse flowing through them in a linear fashion.

The idea can become an ideal if it is given a positive, twist, in antithesis to the real which is indifferent to all conceptions and/or interpretations of it.

Ideas are not ideal, unless the mind is dominated by fear seeking a "correction" to the perceived real and when said mind takes it's own interpretations as existing outside its own mind.

The reason consciousness is fluid, ongoing, is because it requires to constantly update its own abstractions in relation to an ever-changing, fluid, reality.
One way to interpret fluidity by using static mental models is with the concept of movement or change...change being a juxtaposition of mental abstractions exhibiting differences.

[Nick_A]

thundril

Where do these ideas exist? What are they made of? What is their relationship to anything else that exists? Are there some ideas 'out there' that are ideas about things that don't exist yet, but will exist at some point in the future?

Ideas are the functions of objective knowledge or the interactions of universal laws. We devolve them into opinions.

The egoism of the Western mind has a great difficulty contemplating a quality of conscious expression greater than its opinions. Yet in the East it is just common sense and is known as the dharma

http://suite101.com/article/the-differe ... ma-a161203

The dharma is the law that governs the universe and that affects everything in collective and individual levels in order to lead every living being to perfection. It can be understood as the path rather than the final achievement itself, as the word "dharma" means “law” or "righteousness." It’s the law through which everything — from cells to galaxies — evolves.

The laws consciously produce ideas. Below the level of creation Plato called "sun," manifestations of ideas are able to be sensed by us. The potential for organic life as a whole exists as an idea corresponding to universal laws at the level of sun and manifests according to nature's needs on the earth

[Thundril]

thundril

Where do these ideas exist? What are they made of? What is their relationship to anything else that exists? Are there some ideas 'out there' that are ideas about things that don't exist yet, but will exist at some point in the future?

Ideas are the functions of objective knowledge or the interactions of universal laws. We devolve them into opinions.

The egoism of the Western mind has a great difficulty contemplating a quality of conscious expression greater than its opinions. Yet in the East it is just common sense and is known as the dharma

http://suite101.com/article/the-differe ... ma-a161203

The dharma is the law that governs the universe and that affects everything in collective and individual levels in order to lead every living being to perfection. It can be understood as the path rather than the final achievement itself, as the word "dharma" means “law” or "righteousness." It’s the law through which everything — from cells to galaxies — evolves.

The laws consciously produce ideas. Below the level of creation Plato called "sun," manifestations of ideas are able to be sensed by us. The potential for organic life as a whole exists as an idea corresponding to universal laws at the level of sun and manifests according to nature's needs on the earth

Thanks for taking the time to explain this aspect of your faith, Nick_A. I hadn't realised the completeness of your idealism.
How do you keep the solipsism away?

[Nick_A]

thundril

Where do these ideas exist? What are they made of? What is their relationship to anything else that exists? Are there some ideas 'out there' that are ideas about things that don't exist yet, but will exist at some point in the future?

Ideas are the functions of objective knowledge or the interactions of universal laws. We devolve them into opinions.

The egoism of the Western mind has a great difficulty contemplating a quality of conscious expression greater than its opinions. Yet in the East it is just common sense and is known as the dharma

http://suite101.com/article/the-differe ... ma-a161203

The dharma is the law that governs the universe and that affects everything in collective and individual levels in order to lead every living being to perfection. It can be understood as the path rather than the final achievement itself, as the word "dharma" means “law” or "righteousness." It’s the law through which everything — from cells to galaxies — evolves.

The laws consciously produce ideas. Below the level of creation Plato called "sun," manifestations of ideas are able to be sensed by us. The potential for organic life as a whole exists as an idea corresponding to universal laws at the level of sun and manifests according to nature's needs on the earth

Thanks for taking the time to explain this aspect of your faith, Nick_A. I hadn't realised the completeness of your idealism.
How do you keep the solipsism away?

I haden't really thought of that. If my mind were to invent all this, why invent a universe functioning on such a grand scale and the earth less than a speck within it.

Everyone I've read that I've respected has made me feel my relative unimportance in comparison to the conscious potential for a human being. This humility denies solopsism at least for me.

The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a million is awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one in a hundred millions to a poetic or divine life. To be awake is to be alive. I have never yet met a man who was quite awake. How could I have looked him in the face? - Thoreau, Walden

This excerpt has the sense of truth about it. If it is, there has to be more than me and an invitation to awaken to reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

thundril

Where do these ideas exist? What are they made of? What is their relationship to anything else that exists? Are there some ideas 'out there' that are ideas about things that don't exist yet, but will exist at some point in the future?

Ideas are the functions of objective knowledge or the interactions of universal laws. We devolve them into opinions.

The egoism of the Western mind has a great difficulty contemplating a quality of conscious expression greater than its opinions. Yet in the East it is just common sense and is known as the dharma

http://suite101.com/article/the-differe ... ma-a161203

The dharma is the law that governs the universe and that affects everything in collective and individual levels in order to lead every living being to perfection. It can be understood as the path rather than the final achievement itself, as the word "dharma" means “law” or "righteousness." It’s the law through which everything — from cells to galaxies — evolves.

I am quite familiar with Eastern philosophies. Dharma is just a general term to converge and put closure to whatever is difficult to explain and to avoid infinite regression. It is not meant to taken as something certain or absolute.

The laws consciously produce ideas. Below the level of creation Plato called "sun," manifestations of ideas are able to be sensed by us. The potential for organic life as a whole exists as an idea corresponding to universal laws at the level of sun and manifests according to nature's needs on the earth

This is what Kant called transcendental illusions, i.e. going too far beyond experience.

From sensible experience you infer dharma laws which are illusions reified.
From these reified illusions, you revert back to sensible ideas.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Of course they are. The essential goal of Christianity is re-birth. "Dust to dust" is classic impermanence. Granted, Christendom or man made Christianity, has other goals but the goal of Christianity is re-birth or a person to become themselves.

No self refers to the outer shell which Christianity agrees must be seen (experienced) for what it is.

The concept of 're-birth' is kindergarten stuff in Buddhism.
There is no concept of non-self or no-self, i.e. no inherent existence of anything (self, soul, god, objects, etc.) in the Bible.

[Nick_A]

Of course they are. The essential goal of Christianity is re-birth. "Dust to dust" is classic impermanence. Granted, Christendom or man made Christianity, has other goals but the goal of Christianity is re-birth or a person to become themselves.

No self refers to the outer shell which Christianity agrees must be seen (experienced) for what it is.

The concept of 're-birth' is kindergarten stuff in Buddhism.
There is no concept of non-self or no-self, i.e. no inherent existence of anything (self, soul, god, objects, etc.) in the Bible.

The concept of re-birth is different in the popular understandings of Christianity and Buddhism. It is far more profound then you give it credit for.

I am quite familiar with Eastern philosophies. Dharma is just a general term to converge and put closure to whatever is difficult to explain and to avoid infinite regression. It is not meant to taken as something certain or absolute.

It isn't difficult to explain butjust requires an open mind and the willingness to endure impartial contemplation. I believe the Hindus for example would understand the dharma better than you. For example:

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resourc ... la-12.html

What Is Signified by Universal Dharma?
SLOKA 57

Universal law, known in the Vedas as rita, is cosmic order, God's rule at work throughout the physical province. It is the infinite intelligence or consciousness in nature, the sustaining cosmic design and organizing force. Aum.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Of course they are. The essential goal of Christianity is re-birth. "Dust to dust" is classic impermanence. Granted, Christendom or man made Christianity, has other goals but the goal of Christianity is re-birth or a person to become themselves.

No self refers to the outer shell which Christianity agrees must be seen (experienced) for what it is.

The concept of 're-birth' is kindergarten stuff in Buddhism.
There is no concept of non-self or no-self, i.e. no inherent existence of anything (self, soul, god, objects, etc.) in the Bible.

The concept of re-birth is different in the popular understandings of Christianity and Buddhism. It is far more profound then you give it credit for.

I am quite familiar with Eastern philosophies. Dharma is just a general term to converge and put closure to whatever is difficult to explain and to avoid infinite regression. It is not meant to [be] taken as something certain or absolute.

It isn't difficult to explain but just requires an open mind and the willingness to endure impartial contemplation. I believe the Hindus for example would understand the dharma better than you. For example:

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resourc ... la-12.html

What Is Signified by Universal Dharma?
SLOKA 57

Universal law, known in the Vedas as rita, is cosmic order,God's rule at work throughout the physical province. It is the infinite intelligence or consciousness in nature, the sustaining cosmic design and organizing force. Aum.

Hinduism, especially the Vedanta is of higher spiritual refinements. I have lots of respect for such refined spirituality. However there are more levels of refinements from the Vedanta. e.g. from the higher forms of Buddhism.

Any Vedanta that is based on the idea of 'God' is limited. There are no convincing proofs for the existence of God. To Kant, God is a necessary illusion and a 'white lie', though he did not discourage anyone from believing in such 'lies'.

Btw, are you aware there are Vedantists who are atheists. Their thoughts are more rational than the theistic vedantist, but still, there are higher refinements from their Vedantic principles.

If one has a more 'open mind', one will understand there is no necessity to lean on 'God' as a psychological crutch. But of course one must have the mental state to let go, otherwise, it is better to cling onto God. (hopefully not from the fundamentalist level)

[Nick_A]

Veritas

This is why I like distinguishing knowledge from opinions. Everything you describe is related to interpretations of sense experiences. If soul knowledge exists, it must be different from what you describe. I appreciate soul knowledge or A priori knowledge as knowledge of NOW or the vertical line of being which intersects the linear time horizontal line we experience as reality connecting above and below. All animal life reacts in accordance with this horizontal line. Only Man is sensitive to the vertical line.

I believe man has also a part of his being unique on the earth as a priori knolwedge that makes him sensitive to his connection to higher consciousness. This has nothing to do with secular interpretations of personal gods but rather just a conscious connection that invites Man's conscious evolution. From this perspective a person doesn't lean on a God for self justification but just opens to the quality of NOW not weighed down through preconceptions or what Buddhism calls attachments.

This cannot be proven or disproven by science. It can only be verified through the conscious efforts to "Know thyself." This is no longer appealing in the age of technology and I think humanity will suffer from the gradual loss of conscious awareness and the descent into secularism where Man finds "meaning through the idolatry of what Platoo called the Beast and simone Weil called the "Great Beast" which is society itself

The loss of the drive to experience "knowledge" as Plato described it will lead to rejecting the help of higher consciousness necessary to actualize Man's altruistic goals

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil

I believe she is right. As we are, we will continue following nature's cycles as explained in Ecclesiastes 3 including that of war and peace. The trouble is that technology will make the wars worse.

I really don't know if humanity as a whole will begin to see the light and begin to acquire a more consciously vertical human perspective. I hope so but have my doubts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas

This is why I like distinguishing knowledge from opinions. Everything you describe is related to interpretations of sense experiences. If soul knowledge exists, it must be different from what you describe. I appreciate soul knowledge or A priori knowledge as knowledge of NOW or the vertical line of being which intersects the linear time horizontal line we experience as reality connecting above and below. All animal life reacts in accordance with this horizontal line. Only Man is sensitive to the vertical line.

I believe man has also a part of his being unique on the earth as a priori knolwedge that makes him sensitive to his connection to higher consciousness. This has nothing to do with secular interpretations of personal gods but rather just a conscious connection that invites Man's conscious evolution. From this perspective a person doesn't lean on a God for self justification but just opens to the quality of NOW not weighed down through preconceptions or what Buddhism calls attachments.

This cannot be proven or disproven by science. It can only be verified through the conscious efforts to "Know thyself." This is no longer appealing in the age of technology and I think humanity will suffer from the gradual loss of conscious awareness and the descent into secularism where Man finds "meaning through the idolatry of what Platoo called the Beast and simone Weil called the "Great Beast" which is society itself

The loss of the drive to experience "knowledge" as Plato described it will lead to rejecting the help of higher consciousness necessary to actualize Man's altruistic goals

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil

I believe she is right. As we are, we will continue following nature's cycles as explained in Ecclesiastes 3 including that of war and peace. The trouble is that technology will make the wars worse.

I really don't know if humanity as a whole will begin to see the light and begin to acquire a more consciously vertical human perspective. I hope so but have my doubts.

You may not agree, but 'soul' knowledge is more of an opinion than being justified as knowledge.

Opinion:
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinions?s=t

The 'soul' that survives physical death, is an illusion based on speculation by one's pure reason. This is a natural tendency of the majority of human being. The 'soul' only has currency because there is majority consensus, not because there is any factual truth to it.

Kant explained in great details of how the concept of an illusionary soul came upon human consciousness in his paralogism of the soul based on the abuse of a priori knowledge.
Kant did not go further, from what I had gathered, the desire for certainty and closure on the concept of the 'soul' is driven by primal emotions and seduction of pure reasons.
Why primal, in the extreme (not you btw), if anyone were to question of the belief of the soul of some extremist Muslims, they could be killed instantly or threatened with violence. The principles of grasping for the 'soul' is the same, the difference is only in the degrees and reactions.

Instead of vertical or horizontal line of being, higher human consciousness and cognitions should be represented by greater activation of parallel and interacting neural circuits. This meant making a greater % of the brain (the relevant neurons) active and effective. This can be achieve by various techniques (commonly meditation). It can happened by chance and even brain damage or dangerous drugs, but there are side-effects to these approaches. Btw, have you seen the Jill Bolte Taylor video in Youtube or TED.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU

[Nick_A]

Veritas

You may not agree, but 'soul' knowledge is more of an opinion than being justified as knowledge.

The whole point is that since we are closed to it and as Socrates said "I know nothing," soul knowledge is a hypothesis that can only be verified through the effort to consciously "know thyself" to have the conscious experience of oneself. Knowledge is a hypothesis I believe we can verify if we become less attached to "opinions" and become capable of experiencing life with conscious attention

The 'soul' that survives physical death, is an illusion based on speculation by one's pure reason. This is a natural tendency of the majority of human being. The 'soul' only has currency because there is majority consensus, not because there is any factual truth to it.

Again, we don't know. Suppose Meister Eckhart is right. The only way to verify it is to allow the seed of the soul to mature.

“The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it will thrive and grow up to God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God.” Meister Eckhart

The one thing we do know is that if it exists, the enchanting influence of technology starves and aborts the seed of the soul in many cases.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas

You may not agree, but 'soul' knowledge is more of an opinion than being justified as knowledge.

The whole point is that since we are closed to it and as Socrates said "I know nothing," soul knowledge is a hypothesis that can only be verified through the effort to consciously "know thyself" to have the conscious experience of oneself. Knowledge is a hypothesis I believe we can verify if we become less attached to "opinions" and become capable of experiencing life with conscious attention

The 'soul' that survives physical death, is an illusion based on speculation by one's pure reason. This is a natural tendency of the majority of human being. The 'soul' only has currency because there is majority consensus, not because there is any factual truth to it.

Again, we don't know. Suppose Meister Eckhart is right. The only way to verify it is to allow the seed of the soul to mature.

“The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it will thrive and grow up to God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God.” Meister Eckhart

The one thing we do know is that if it exists, the enchanting influence of technology starves and aborts the seed of the soul in many cases.

I assume, 'soul' to you meant, a soul or entity that survives physical death.
If the property of your 'soul' vanishes upon physical death, I have no issue with that.

The self emerges out of a conglomerate of activities within reality. Self-consciousness is another layer of emergence that emerge from that same conglomerate with the self and within reality. As such when the heart stop beating and the brain is dead, there is no more self or 'soul'.

According to Hume, the self is just a bundle of activities.

For Kant, a unity of apperception of that bundle gives the impression of something, i.e. the "I" or "ego". The human body, dead or alive is obviously an object. However, pure reason falsely reify that bundle of activity as an object which is supposedly eternal, i.e. the soul, the seed that survives physical death. This reification is based on primal emotions.

OK, I know you do not agree with the above. However, I wonder your disagreement is decided upon thoroughly understanding what Hume, Kant, the Buddha and others meant when they say, there is no soul that survives physical death and that soul is merely an illusion.

[Nick_A]

Veritas

You may not agree, but 'soul' knowledge is more of an opinion than being justified as knowledge.

The whole point is that since we are closed to it and as Socrates said "I know nothing," soul knowledge is a hypothesis that can only be verified through the effort to consciously "know thyself" to have the conscious experience of oneself. Knowledge is a hypothesis I believe we can verify if we become less attached to "opinions" and become capable of experiencing life with conscious attention

The 'soul' that survives physical death, is an illusion based on speculation by one's pure reason. This is a natural tendency of the majority of human being. The 'soul' only has currency because there is majority consensus, not because there is any factual truth to it.

Again, we don't know. Suppose Meister Eckhart is right. The only way to verify it is to allow the seed of the soul to mature.

“The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it will thrive and grow up to God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God.” Meister Eckhart

The one thing we do know is that if it exists, the enchanting influence of technology starves and aborts the seed of the soul in many cases.

I assume, 'soul' to you meant, a soul or entity that survives physical death.
If the property of your 'soul' vanishes upon physical death, I have no issue with that.

The self emerges out of a conglomerate of activities within reality. Self-consciousness is another layer of emergence that emerge from that same conglomerate with the self and within reality. As such when the heart stop beating and the brain is dead, there is no more self or 'soul'.

According to Hume, the self is just a bundle of activities.

For Kant, a unity of apperception of that bundle gives the impression of something, i.e. the "I" or "ego". The human body, dead or alive is obviously an object. However, pure reason falsely reify that bundle of activity as an object which is supposedly eternal, i.e. the soul, the seed that survives physical death. This reification is based on primal emotions.

OK, I know you do not agree with the above. However, I wonder your disagreement is decided upon thoroughly understanding what Hume, Kant, the Buddha and others meant when they say, there is no soul that survives physical death and that soul is merely an illusion.

First of all the Buddha didn't like to speak of god or a Soul since he knew very well it would be misuncerstood and cause more trouble than it was worth so just emphasised the human condition.

This form of Buddhism and atheism asserts no soul. Christendom asserts a fully developed soul. The idea of the seed of the soul resonates with me. This seed is a small part of ourselves but with great potential. Jacob Needleman offers Father Sylvan's description:

The principal power of the soul, which defines its real nature, is a gathered attention that is directed simultaneously toward the spirit and the body. This is attention of the heart, and this is the principal mediating, harmonizing power of the soul. The mediating attention of the heart is spontaneously activated in the state of profound self-questioning. God can only speak to the soul, Father Sylvan writes, and only when the soul exists. But the soul of man only exists for a moment, as long as it takes for the question to appear and disappear.

An acorn is a seed. It can mature into an oak. Most seeds are either eaten or cannot find root so just die and feed the earth. A small minority can become an Oak. I believe it is the same with Man. A small minority are capable of more than following the cycle of dust to dust to become the soul's potential.

[Veritas Aequitas]

First of all the Buddha didn't like to speak of god or a Soul since he knew very well it would be misunderstood and cause more trouble than it was worth so just emphasised the human condition.

The concept of the soul was well established in Hinduism before and during Buddha's time. If he had agreed to it, he would have reconfirmed it somewhere in the various sutras. The core principles of Buddhism, anicca, anatta leave no room for the soul. Most of the expositions of the sutras point to no soul, no three lives (past, present or future) and no literal rebirths.

This form of Buddhism and atheism asserts no soul. Christendom asserts a fully developed soul. The idea of the seed of the soul resonates with me. This seed is a small part of ourselves but with great potential. Jacob Needleman offers Father Sylvan's description:

The principal power of the soul, which defines its real nature, is a gathered attention that is directed simultaneously toward the spirit and the body. This is attention of the heart, and this is the principal mediating, harmonizing power of the soul. The mediating attention of the heart is spontaneously activated in the state of profound self-questioning. God can only speak to the soul, Father Sylvan writes, and only when the soul exists. But the soul of man only exists for a moment, as long as it takes for the question to appear and disappear.

An acorn is a seed. It can mature into an oak. Most seeds are either eaten or cannot find root so just die and feed the earth. A small minority can become an Oak. I believe it is the same with Man. A small minority are capable of more than following the cycle of dust to dust to become the soul's potential.

The oak is the father (parent) and the acorns are the sons.
The sons are never a perfect duplicate of the father other than inheriting some qualities of the father and mother.
Even if cloning humans is possible, the cloned person and emerged self would be different from the original due to different nurturing and environmental factors.

[Nick_A]

"Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance." ~ Plato

It is amazing to me that some people can sense the scale of knowledge so easiliy and to them it is second nature. Yet there are others who may actually be a majority who insist on defending opinions with their last breath while remaining closed to this scale of knowledge.

I guess it is just the result of collective attributes of human nature. We are all different.