Perspective

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:18 am

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:52 am
V A
What is ultimate truth is the truth that all truths ultimately is co-dependent with the human condition.
There are no standalone truths, like there is a God that exists independently by itself and for most theists, God created the Universe which is a very problematic proposition.
We begin with different premises. You write that God doesn’t exist and I write that God IS. Isness is the eternal unchanging. All that serves the process of existence takes place within Isness.
I had proven God is an impossibility to be real. As such the question of God is a non-starter.
You have not provided any proofs to justify God exists.

Note "is" or "existence" is never a predicate.
The proper presentation is Z[subject] is Y[predicate].
"is" is merely a copula, i.e. a connector.
That is your problem.
You pick merely on one article as the full representation of the subject.
I suggest you focus more on altered states of consciousness in relation to spirituality, religion, mysticism, hallucinogens in the spiritual context and other related areas.
Again, you don’t seem to accept the difference between a direct conscious experience and an experience of an altered state of consciousness which is largely imagination. Regardless if you refer to spirituality, religion, mysticism, hallucinogens, or whatever, these experiences differ in objective quality. Any article failing to recognize this distinction will lack meaning.
Yet again you did not bother to research on what is an altered states of consciousness, in relation to spirituality.
Your 'direct conscious experience' is nothing special. If I eat an apple, I have a direct conscious experience of its taste, solidness, smell, etc.
In a spiritual altered state of consciousness, the mystics with mysticism claimed to have a direct union with God which is different from the waking conscious state.
The attributes and means by which Christian mysticism is studied and practiced are varied. They range from ecstatic visions of the soul's mystical union with God to simple prayerful contemplation of Holy Scripture (i.e., Lectio Divina).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism
Simone's experiences of direct conscious attention via prayers are kindergarten stuff within mysticism.

Do you understand what she is describing and why absolute attention is prayer. Is any child taught this?

Simone Weil was not interested in escapism but rather in acquiring the understanding and conscious perspective only a few possess in order to become human. She didn’t want to teach; she wanted to learn. I learn from the quality of her search and experiences. She wrote:
………….. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth……………………
The problem with you in this discussion is, unaware of your position you keep insisting your approach is 'superior' to others and kept inventing straw man to put others down.
Anyone with a sincere interest in the objective meaning and purpose of our universe and Man’s place within it must begin with a foundation for contemplation. If you deny universal purpose and an objective purpose for Man, then we have a basic disagreement. It is no put down to admit it.

Without humanity in general acquiring a realistic perspective uniting the living wholeness of creation with the fragmentation of its parts, our species will become consumed by technology and Man’s collective conscious evolution will be prevented by imgintion.

Admitting the struggle between our higher and lower natures and the resulting inner slavery to imagination is too insulting for secularism to tolerate. That is why Jesus and Socrates had to die. Their awareness of reality could not be tolerated. I side with the minority who strive to keep the great ideas alive in the world regardless of the secular growls they inspire for the sake of awakening to a human perspective.
What Simone wrote about is kindergarten stuff within Christian Mysticism.

Note
Path Of The Christian Mystic
Elizabeth Clare Prophet explores the world of the Christian mystics—those who seek a direct experience of the presence of God. They yearn to know God, to see God, and to be one with God now!
http://www.mysticalpaths.org/Christianity.html

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:02 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:18 am
I had proven God is an impossibility to be real.
No, you haven't. There is no way to prove or disprove a transcendental God.

Your conception of what can be potentially 'real' is rather limited.

Nick_A
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:45 am

V A
I had proven God is an impossibility to be real. As such the question of God is a non-starter.
You have not provided any proofs to justify God exists.
Quite true. You exist while God IS. That is why you cannot be God. You are limited to the possible.
“It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures.” — Simone Weil
Note "is" or "existence" is never a predicate.
The proper presentation is Z[subject] is Y[predicate].
"is" is merely a copula, i.e. a connector.
You simply don’t understand the meaning here
Exodus 3:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
God IS. I AM THAT I AM.

I am doesn’t exist for you. A qualifier is necessary like I am a woman, a man or whatever. The point is you are closed to the meaning of I Am as a stand alone and the Isness of God.
Simone's experiences of direct conscious attention via prayers are kindergarten stuff within mysticism.
It seems that way to you because you don’t know why she wrote that the highest form of conscious attention is prayer

Simone didn’t want to be a mystic. She wanted to become a human being with a conscious human perspective which would give her the ability to receive from above and give to below. Yes, I know, the very concept must be denied and scorned by secularism claiming it to be elitist. As much as the idea is hated, those who serve as an awakening influence within society will be the one means for society to avoid mutual self destruction.

Deny all you want and limit yourself to a cave perspective. I support the efforts of all those willing to sacrifice their self justifying imaginations for their need to become consciously human.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:18 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:45 am
V A
I had proven God is an impossibility to be real. As such the question of God is a non-starter.
You have not provided any proofs to justify God exists.
Quite true. You exist while God IS. That is why you cannot be God. You are limited to the possible.
If you are agree God is an impossibility to be real, then how can you contradict yourself to claim God IS real.
  • Note if a schizo insists the Gnome is real because it spoke and had a discussion with him, you would definitely ask for proofs and from a normal person's [like you and me] perspective, it would be impossible that Gnome to exists as real.

    The schizo would counter "Gnome IS" real and your experience is limited. How could you prove the schizo is wrong? If you insist both of you go to his garden to verify, the schizo will give all sorts of excuses and insist the Gnome will not turn real to talk because you are there or if a video camera is present.
Your case of claiming God IS real is the same as the schizo in giving all sorts of excuses instead to showing real proofs to verify God is real.

“It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures.” — Simone Weil
Note "is" or "existence" is never a predicate.
The proper presentation is Z[subject] is Y[predicate].
"is" is merely a copula, i.e. a connector.
You simply don’t understand the meaning here
Exodus 3:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
God IS. I AM THAT I AM.

I am doesn’t exist for you. A qualifier is necessary like I am a woman, a man or whatever. The point is you are closed to the meaning of I Am as a stand alone and the Isness of God.
Simone's experiences of direct conscious attention via prayers are kindergarten stuff within mysticism.
It seems that way to you because you don’t know why she wrote that the highest form of conscious attention is prayer

Simone didn’t want to be a mystic. She wanted to become a human being with a conscious human perspective which would give her the ability to receive from above and give to below. Yes, I know, the very concept must be denied and scorned by secularism claiming it to be elitist. As much as the idea is hated, those who serve as an awakening influence within society will be the one means for society to avoid mutual self destruction.

Deny all you want and limit yourself to a cave perspective. I support the efforts of all those willing to sacrifice their self justifying imaginations for their need to become consciously human.
Note I am very familiar with "I AM" as with Descartes "I Think therefore I AM" which has been debunked by wiser philosophers.
The "I" that thinks is the empirical 'I".
The "I" that is "AM" is a transcendental "I" which is an illusion and an impossibility.
It is normally claimed by theists and others the "I" that is "AM" is the independent soul of the person that can survive physical death and can qualify to go to heaven with eternal life.

The claim of such an independent soul has also been debunked by wiser philosophers and spiritualists.

All these claims of "I AM" and independent soul are delusional and driven by desperate existential psychology within the human self.

Cave perspective??
What you don't realize is, it is natural and essential that all humans are driven into various cave perspective to facilitate survival. Note for example the "two normal face illusion" which is essential for survival at a certain levels. It is quite easy to explain this 'cave' illusion.

However within the self there are many levels of psychology and each level has its cave illusion. At the more subtle levels it is not easy for one to decipher the necessary illusions the brain/mind has deceived the person, not easy with the more subtle caves.

Plato could explain the cave perspective or illusion at the basic empirical level, but Plato himself did not realize he was caught with a more refined and complex cave at the transcendental level of the IDEA [philosophical], universals and forms.
This is the same cave perspective you are caught in which I am trying to explain to you but I don't expect you will understand, thus will be trapped therein forever.

Kant understood this when he stated;
Kant in CPR wrote:They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error;
  • but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397
Unfortunately you are mocked and tormented by such transcendental illusions.

Don't brag too much about 'cave-X perspective' when you are living inside cave-Y within cave-X.

Nick_A
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:50 pm

V A
If you are agree God is an impossibility to be real, then how can you contradict yourself to claim God IS real.
Reality refers to creation. Reality as a process takes place within Isnesss.

If you are open to how Plotinus explains the ONE, you will know what I mean by God IS.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/#SH2a
a. The One
The 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This 'power,' then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual 'vision' of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the 'source' of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility -- or active making-possible -- of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the 'generative power' of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor (VI.9.); for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents -- that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this 'stanchion,' is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the 'stanchion,' the framework of the cosmos, is erected (VI.9.). This 'stanchion' or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.
As soon as a person thinks that God is real, discursive thought includes the unreal. Isness is beyond the limitations of discursive thought.
Note I am very familiar with "I AM" as with Descartes "I Think therefore I AM" which has been debunked by wiser philosophers.
The "I" that thinks is the empirical 'I".
The "I" that is "AM" is a transcendental "I" which is an illusion and an impossibility.
It is normally claimed by theists and others the "I" that is "AM" is the independent soul of the person that can survive physical death and can qualify to go to heaven with eternal life.

The claim of such an independent soul has also been debunked by wiser philosophers and spiritualists.

All these claims of "I AM" and independent soul are delusional and driven by desperate existential psychology within the human self.
IMO there are a lot of misunderstandings about the meaning of I AM. It really means inner unity. God as I AM is the elemental inner unity of one and three; the source and creation.

Man does not have inner unity. Man is a plurality. We do not exist as one but as many. The human potential is for a person to become one. Then they are in the image of God. I am doesn’t exist for us as fallen man however it is the conscious potential for a person to acquire inner unity and reflect a human perspective.
Cave perspective??
What you don't realize is, it is natural and essential that all humans are driven into various cave perspective to facilitate survival. Note for example the "two normal face illusion" which is essential for survival at a certain levels. It is quite easy to explain this 'cave' illusion.

However within the self there are many levels of psychology and each level has its cave illusion. At the more subtle levels it is not easy for one to decipher the necessary illusions the brain/mind has deceived the person, not easy with the more subtle caves.
This is obvious for anyone aware of Plato’s chariot analogy. We are dual natured. The collective human soul or essence has a higher part represented by the white horse and a corrupted lower part represented by the dark horse. Why deny it? Why not witness it? Why not allow the charioteer to consciously connect them so the dark horse can be healed and the charioteer can function as intended? But when we insist on denial nothing changes. Only the BS becomes more sophisticated.
Unfortunately you are mocked and tormented by such transcendental illusions
What makes you think I am mocked and tormented by transcendental illusions? . I may have been at one time in my life but once it was made clear to me why everything is as it is, I experienced gratitude.
Don't brag too much about 'cave-X perspective' when you are living inside cave-Y within cave-X.
Recognizing the human condition for what it is and my place within it isn’t bragging it is just the willingness to open my eyes and ears in order to get an indication of what it means to be human.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:34 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:50 pm
Don't brag too much about 'cave-X perspective' when you are living inside cave-Y within cave-X.
Recognizing the human condition for what it is and my place within it isn’t bragging it is just the willingness to open my eyes and ears in order to get an indication of what it means to be human.
What I can conclude is you are like the one who claimed the gnome in his garden is real because he had a conversation with that gnome. What is needed is for him to bring proofs to justify the gnome is real.
It is the same for you, bring proofs and justify how your "IS" is real.

Btw, what is your definition for what is "real" within your perspective.
Then provide proofs and justify how your "IS" is real.

Nick_A
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:23 am

V A
What I can conclude is you are like the one who claimed the gnome in his garden is real because he had a conversation with that gnome. What is needed is for him to bring proofs to justify the gnome is real.
It is the same for you, bring proofs and justify how your "IS" is real.
“Knowledge has three degrees – opinion, science, illumination. The means or instrument of the first is sense; of the second, dialectic; of the third, intuition.”
— Plotinus


A person can offer scientific proofs but the experience of intuition or illumination is personal. Some sense that intuition is a reality and strive to experience it. Most demand dialectic proof and shout the atheist's war cry: "prove it." If you want the experience of higher knowledge beyond the limitations of the dialectic you have to submit and become open to receive it
Btw, what is your definition for what is "real" within your perspective.
Then provide proofs and justify how your "IS" is real.
Reality serves the process of existence without interpretations. For example, material vibrations are real and would remain real even if Man became extinct.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:22 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:23 am
V A
What I can conclude is you are like the one who claimed the gnome in his garden is real because he had a conversation with that gnome. What is needed is for him to bring proofs to justify the gnome is real.
It is the same for you, bring proofs and justify how your "IS" is real.
“Knowledge has three degrees – opinion, science, illumination. The means or instrument of the first is sense; of the second, dialectic; of the third, intuition.”
— Plotinus
I don't agree with the above.

The Kantian's knowledge as a continuum is more realistic, i.e.
  • 1. Opinion = extremely 99% subjective
    2. Beliefs = 51% subjective, 49% objective
    3. Knowledge = 1% beliefs, 99% Objective
Intuition is technically an 'opinion' which when tested could be 100% false or 100% true.
A person can offer scientific proofs but the experience of intuition or illumination is personal. Some sense that intuition is a reality and strive to experience it. Most demand dialectic proof and shout the atheist's war cry: "prove it." If you want the experience of higher knowledge beyond the limitations of the dialectic you have to submit and become open to receive it
Intuition in your case is merely some kind of opinion, hunch and the likes. What is intuited by different people varies in veracity. Intuition is subject to a hit and miss situation.
What is intuited need to be verified to be objective as justified true beliefs.

Newton and Einstein had their intuitions regarding their proposed theories in some initial stages, but they have to prove their claims and has it tested, verified and confirmed by others to be justified true beliefs, i.e. knowledge.

You can make all sorts of claims, but if you do not prove it, then such claims could be due to some kind of madness, like what mad people like schizos are claiming.

At the least if you cannot prove it at present with evidence, then at least you should prove that it is at least possible to be real in the empirical-rational sense.
Btw, what is your definition for what is "real" within your perspective.
Then provide proofs and justify how your "IS" is real.
Reality serves the process of existence without interpretations. For example, material vibrations are real and would remain real even if Man became extinct.
That is what madmen would claim. Mad people have been claiming all sorts of things without justifications.
Yes, material vibrations are real but they can be proven with empirical-rational justifications via the Scientific Framework and Method.

However if man become extinct there are no more real material vibrations because there is no more humans to contribute to its emergence and no Scientific Framework and Method to process it as knowledge of the real. Note the "if no man in forest to hear, does sound exists" contention.

If you insist in claiming thing can exists without proofs nor justification of its possibility, then, I concur you [even normal via common sense] are suffering from some kind of madness, i.e. delusional relatively to a higher standard of wisdom.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Logik » Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:56 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:22 am
  • 1. Opinion = extremely 99% subjective
    2. Beliefs = 51% subjective, 49% objective
    3. Knowledge = 1% beliefs, 99% Objective
Wisdom - 100% subjective.

Decision theory.

Nick_A
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:46 am

V A
“Knowledge has three degrees – opinion, science, illumination. The means or instrument of the first is sense; of the second, dialectic; of the third, intuition.”
— Plotinus

I don't agree with the above.

The Kantian's knowledge as a continuum is more realistic, i.e.
• 1. Opinion = extremely 99% subjective
2. Beliefs = 51% subjective, 49% objective
3. Knowledge = 1% beliefs, 99% Objective
This raises the question of how you define knowledge. Does conscious knowledge of the functioning of universal laws exist independently of Man? Would the Milky Way galaxy cease to exist if our species and our knowledge of it were no more?

Knowledge for me is relative in quality and begins with the conscious awareness of the forms and the workings of universal laws. As we are, a human perspective is the result of opinions.
If you insist in claiming thing can exists without proofs nor justification of its possibility, then, I concur you [even normal via common sense] are suffering from some kind of madness, i.e. delusional relatively to a higher standard of wisdom.
Yes I believe that Plato’s Divided Line analogy is a reality. I cannot prove it though it makes logical sense. You seem to want to deny anything unproven by the senses. You remain closed to reality beyond the limits of our senses. Your denial prevents your potential for acquiring an open mind with the ability to say “I don’t know” and open yourself to an intuitive experience.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:59 am

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:46 am
V A
“Knowledge has three degrees – opinion, science, illumination. The means or instrument of the first is sense; of the second, dialectic; of the third, intuition.”
— Plotinus

I don't agree with the above.

The Kantian's knowledge as a continuum is more realistic, i.e.
• 1. Opinion = extremely 99% subjective
2. Beliefs = 51% subjective, 49% objective
3. Knowledge = 1% beliefs, 99% Objective
This raises the question of how you define knowledge. Does conscious knowledge of the functioning of universal laws exist independently of Man? Would the Milky Way galaxy cease to exist if our species and our knowledge of it were no more?

Knowledge for me is relative in quality and begins with the conscious awareness of the forms and the workings of universal laws. As we are, a human perspective is the result of opinions.
I have already defined what is 'knowledge' in principle, i.e.
Knowledge = 1% beliefs, 99% Objective

Objective is Justified True Beliefs.
Thus Knowledge = 99% Justified True Beliefs.

'Conscious knowledge of the functioning of universal laws' are True Beliefs justified by man, therefore they are not independent of man. As I had argued in another thread, they are emergent with man, i.e. emerges simultaneously with man.
It is not a question of existence*, but if humans are extinct there will be no emergence of what-is-the Milky Way, the Star, Sun, moon and everything else.
* 'existence' is too loose, vague and contentious.
If you insist in claiming thing can exists without proofs nor justification of its possibility, then, I concur you [even normal via common sense] are suffering from some kind of madness, i.e. delusional relatively to a higher standard of wisdom.
Yes I believe that Plato’s Divided Line analogy is a reality. I cannot prove it though it makes logical sense. You seem to want to deny anything unproven by the senses. You remain closed to reality beyond the limits of our senses. Your denial prevents your potential for acquiring an open mind with the ability to say “I don’t know” and open yourself to an intuitive experience.
Not strictly senses.
I deny anything to be real if it is not proven via the empirical-rational-philosophical methods.

What is logical is merely possible within the human-defined system of logic with its laws. 1 + 1 = 2 is mathematically and logically true but it is not real at all. It is only associated with reality when the equation is transposed to real object proven to be real via empirical-rational-philosophical methods, e.g. 1 apple + a apple = 2 apples.

The brain/mind can have thoughts of anything but for any thoughts to be real or possible to be real, they must be proven and justified to be true via the empirical-rational-philosophical methods, i.e. sound empirical testing plus aggressive critical thinking methods encompassed with philosophical supervision.

For example;
You can think of the idea of a square-circle, but this cannot be real.
You can have thoughts of you flying to Mars by yourself like Superman. This is obviously not real nor possible to be real.
You have thought of a God on whatever basis, and many have thoughts of a God who created the Universe, heaven, hell, etc.
But all the above cannot be real unless they are proven and justified via empirical-rational-philosophical methods.
You just cannot insist God can be real based on a hunch, which is a subjective opinion at best.

What I had proposed is the idea of God whilst illusory is very effective to deal with the terrible and painful Angst within one's psyche. It works for the majority, i.e. just belief in God and viola! one is saved [comforted] immediately.
This is the psychological aspect of believing in God that you are in denial or being ignorant.

Unfortunately for the spiritual immature, they are shut out from the opportunity to explore the psychological of theism because they don't have the intellectual and spiritual maturity to deal with it.

For those who explore from the perspective of the psychological of theism they will be able to free themselves from terrible fears, the bondage and chains of theism which had led many to kill others in the name of God or kill themselves as suicide-bombers.

Walker
Posts: 6715
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Walker » Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:11 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:59 am
For those who explore from the perspective of the psychological of theism they will be able to free themselves from terrible fears, the bondage and chains of theism which had led many to kill others in the name of God or kill themselves as suicide-bombers.
I wouldn’t call it that.

It’s more the power of brainwashing, i.e., conditioning, weaponized by the Koreans more than half a century ago and now widely used in various dilutions throughout the literate world.

Religion is the vehicle in your examples, and a particular vehicle of death is more accommodating than a vehicle of life for brainwashing, because of the fear factor used for conditioning. However, neither vehicle is a requirement for conditioning and brainwashing, which is likely what's going on with suicide bombers. Particularly the young ones.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:17 am

Walker wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:11 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:59 am
For those who explore from the perspective of the psychological of theism they will be able to free themselves from terrible fears, the bondage and chains of theism which had led many to kill others in the name of God or kill themselves as suicide-bombers.
I wouldn’t call it that.

It’s more the power of brainwashing, i.e., conditioning, weaponized by the Koreans more than half a century ago and now widely used in various dilutions throughout the literate world.

Religion is the vehicle in your examples, and a particular vehicle of death is more accommodating than a vehicle of life for brainwashing, because of the fear factor used for conditioning. However, neither vehicle is a requirement for conditioning and brainwashing, which is likely what's going on with suicide bombers. Particularly the young ones.
In a way it is brainwashing which is happening in every aspects of human life, political, social, culture, economics, music, and in this particular case it is religion.
Therefore if one were to explore more in depth into religion in relation to one's brain/mind and psychology, then one will be able to understand the whole mechanics of it including the brainwashing and the subtle fear factors.

Walker
Posts: 6715
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Walker » Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:17 am
Walker wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:11 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:59 am
For those who explore from the perspective of the psychological of theism they will be able to free themselves from terrible fears, the bondage and chains of theism which had led many to kill others in the name of God or kill themselves as suicide-bombers.
I wouldn’t call it that.

It’s more the power of brainwashing, i.e., conditioning, weaponized by the Koreans more than half a century ago and now widely used in various dilutions throughout the literate world.

Religion is the vehicle in your examples, and a particular vehicle of death is more accommodating than a vehicle of life for brainwashing, because of the fear factor used for conditioning. However, neither vehicle is a requirement for conditioning and brainwashing, which is likely what's going on with suicide bombers. Particularly the young ones.
In a way it is brainwashing which is happening in every aspects of human life, political, social, culture, economics, music, and in this particular case it is religion.
Therefore if one were to explore more in depth into religion in relation to one's brain/mind and psychology, then one will be able to understand the whole mechanics of it including the brainwashing and the subtle fear factors.
Because brainwashing is not dependent upon a religious context, then examining brainwashing in a religious context will not reveal the universal essence of brainwashing that you have observed can apply to all life situations. Such an examination can easily obscure the psychological basis of brainwashing with the particular rituals and observances of a religion.

On the other hand, the emphasis of the religion is revealed when the inspiration for the religion has names for favorite killing swords, and when the philosophy of any means necessary replaces the natural human tendency of love and forgiveness as the moral guideline for achieving objectives.

You may ask, is love and forgiveness a natural human tendency, in the face of so much killing and murder in the world? Love and forgiveness is the tendency of an evolved mind, in the sense that evolution is not just change, but change in relation to the absolute measure.

The error in reasoning is to equate anything religious with killing and murder, when killing and murder are actually death-cult interpretations of any religion or aspect of life, albeit more prominent in some religions or aspects of life.

The essence of brainwashing is to make the subject emotionally dependent through manipulation of trust. Mind manipulators fitting the young and dumb into suicide vests via mental manipulation is a corruption and betrayal of the principle of trust, and because the betrayal of trust is used to destroy lives before their natural time is up, to further the ends of a death-based cult, then this intent and action can objectively be called evil.

Objective evil is identified in relation to life, because life and not ideology is the objective measure of all things even though all form is transitory, for the life of anyone or any thing* is the existence as that thing. For any thing, only the life of that thing is the absolute basis to determine the meaning and understanding of phenomena.

* Even a forum thread

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:23 am

Walker wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:17 am
Walker wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:11 pm

I wouldn’t call it that.

It’s more the power of brainwashing, i.e., conditioning, weaponized by the Koreans more than half a century ago and now widely used in various dilutions throughout the literate world.

Religion is the vehicle in your examples, and a particular vehicle of death is more accommodating than a vehicle of life for brainwashing, because of the fear factor used for conditioning. However, neither vehicle is a requirement for conditioning and brainwashing, which is likely what's going on with suicide bombers. Particularly the young ones.
In a way it is brainwashing which is happening in every aspects of human life, political, social, culture, economics, music, and in this particular case it is religion.
Therefore if one were to explore more in depth into religion in relation to one's brain/mind and psychology, then one will be able to understand the whole mechanics of it including the brainwashing and the subtle fear factors.
Because brainwashing is not dependent upon a religious context, then examining brainwashing in a religious context will not reveal the universal essence of brainwashing that you have observed can apply to all life situations. Such an examination can easily obscure the psychological basis of brainwashing with the particular rituals and observances of a religion.
Btw, I did not state ALL religions has elements of brainwashing.
Note the Kalama Sutta in Buddhism;
The Kālāma Sutta is also used for advocating prudence by the use of sound logical reasoning arguments for inquiries in the practice that relates to the discipline of seeking truth, wisdom and knowledge whether it is religious or not.
-wiki
However in the Abrahamic Religions, the elements of brainwashing is inherent in the religion [within its holy texts] itself once the person is initiated into its belief system.
Note the 'zombie parasites' analogy where believers becomes zombie-liked and are compelled to comply with the commands of their God's words in the holy text under the grip of a life or death, heaven or hell choice.
Fortunately the Christians are commanded to love their enemies but it is not the case with the ideology of Islam where non-believers are to be killed upon the slightest inkling of threat to the religion.

This is why I advocated one should explore religions and religiosity from the psychological perspective to uncover any inherent brainwashing elements within any religion.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests