"Free will was given to man by god."

[Lacewing]

Nick, you and I very rarely find an agreeable meeting place in these discussions. I've always thought we might be able to bridge that... but it's insightful to see how challenging and seemingly impossible it is at times. I think this dynamic between us demonstrates why there are such divisions in the larger world. People see such completely different truths and visions. And when someone claims to be affiliated with an over-arching/bigger truth that trumps all others, that is sure to be problematic -- and SO MANY humans do it, it's laughable.

How about so many others who see different truths, and they have the need, will, and courage to strive to put the pieces together to experience wholeness? Are they wrong?

Imagine all the pieces of jigsw puzzle laid out on table. There is only one way they can be put together to create the whole they are a part of. Yet there are many attempts to put them together which we learn don't work. There is only one way they fit together.

I get it, Nick. But we're talking about a dynamic moving Universe... not some kind of static puzzle picture. You express that you think there's a single correct state of completion/truth. I express that I think that's assigning limited human notions to an idea that's so much more vast in expansion and qualities than we can imagine.

Whatever you believe, I truly wish you the best.

[Lacewing]

The whole problem with discussing feelings is that they are not simple and most people have no idea what they are or why we have them.

I can certainly understand that feelings can be brought on by all kinds of things. Thanks for your response and the links you provided.

I have practiced (throughout my life) having the ability to not allow feelings to control/direct/own me. All options/potentials seem available and accessible for every situation. Any moment/place/scenario can feel like Heaven or Hell, or anywhere in-between. So if we're in an interaction and suddenly feel rage... how quick might it be to feel love instead, without even thinking about it, simply because we know that option is immediately available too?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what is actually going on. That's what it feels like to me, though. And it's very helpful, so I'm not likely to believe it if someone tells me it's not possible.

[Lacewing]

whatever example you gave me I'd show how the individual may have been caused to act by causal chains, causal circumstances, and natural laws. The only way someone can be more free than other animals is to use reason.

"Self mastery of feelings" is a top rate example of the uses of reason.

Okay, so perhaps reason has brought me to the point where I can choose different feelings because I have decided/determined that many options/potentials seem available and accessible for every situation. It's like anything you do that becomes automatic after you discover it -- you don't even have to think about it...you just do it...you just shift. Why would feelings be any different?

[Nick_A]

Nick, you and I very rarely find an agreeable meeting place in these discussions. I've always thought we might be able to bridge that... but it's insightful to see how challenging and seemingly impossible it is at times. I think this dynamic between us demonstrates why there are such divisions in the larger world. People see such completely different truths and visions. And when someone claims to be affiliated with an over-arching/bigger truth that trumps all others, that is sure to be problematic -- and SO MANY humans do it, it's laughable.

How about so many others who see different truths, and they have the need, will, and courage to strive to put the pieces together to experience wholeness? Are they wrong?

Imagine all the pieces of jigsw puzzle laid out on table. There is only one way they can be put together to create the whole they are a part of. Yet there are many attempts to put them together which we learn don't work. There is only one way they fit together.

I get it, Nick. But we're talking about a dynamic moving Universe... not some kind of static puzzle picture. You express that you think there's a single correct state of completion/truth. I express that I think that's assigning limited human notions to an idea that's so much more vast in expansion and qualities than we can imagine.

Whatever you believe, I truly wish you the best.

I am at a disadvantage since objective truth must be denied by secularism and denial is often not so pretty in modern secularism. The reason is that the transcendent unity of religions initiates from a higher level of reality and beyond the limitations of earthly secularism. This higher level must be rejected since to accept it denies secularism. Naturally as we have seen it is intolerable for secularism and the belief in the dominance of opinions as the ultimate form of conscious understanding.

For example Frithjof Schuon’s book "The Transcendent Unity of Religions" offers a vertical description of levels of consciousness connecting the exoteric, esoteric, and transcendent levels of reality

https://integralscience.wordpress.com/1 ... religions/

The outer expressions of the great traditions initiating with a conscious source take place at the exoteric level and governed by horizontal expressions of duality. Those who sense that there is more to religion than just conflicting exoteric expressions look for an esoteric source to higher understanding with the goal of experiencing the transcendent unity of religions which secularism must deny. Where exoteric reason is duality based taking place along the horizontal level of reality, the transcendent level connects levels of reality at the vertical quality of a moment
There can only be one transcendent level of reality but also a virtual infinity of outer devolved expressions along the exoteric level. I know why this must be hated but am also relived to know that such understanding is still alive and being pursued in the world regardless of the secular growls.

[Lacewing]

This higher level must be rejected since to accept it denies secularism.

Can you see how theists must reject anything outside of theism because accepting it would deny theism?

I do not deny objective truth because it denies secularism -- I simply don't find it compelling. It doesn't make sense, based on all that I have thoughtfully observed first-hand on my journey throughout theism and beyond.

If you or any of the theists on this site had something truly compelling to present, I would be happy to hear it! But you resort to dishonesty and projections, and it's just a lot of personal fantasy and avoidance when you are asked questions or when you are challenged to explore your baseless accusations or fanciful claims. That's the reason you're not worth taking seriously. It's NOT that you're speaking such a TRUTH that people can't handle it!

[Nick_A]

This higher level must be rejected since to accept it denies secularism.

Can you see how theists must reject anything outside of theism because accepting it would deny theism?

I do not deny objective truth because it denies secularism -- I simply don't find it compelling. It doesn't make sense, based on all that I have thoughtfully observed first-hand on my journey throughout theism and beyond.

If you or any of the theists on this site had something truly compelling to present, I would be happy to hear it! But you resort to dishonesty and projections, and it's just a lot of personal fantasy and avoidance when you are asked questions or when you are challenged to explore your baseless accusations or fanciful claims. That's the reason you're not worth taking seriously. It's NOT that you're speaking such a TRUTH that people can't handle it!

Can you see how theists must reject anything outside of theism because accepting it would deny theism?

Yes. Theism would have to reject atheism. Secularism must reject a conscious source for human values. Why is this surprising?

I do not deny objective truth because it denies secularism -- I simply don't find it compelling. It doesn't make sense, based on all that I have thoughtfully observed first-hand on my journey throughout theism and beyond.

Nothing wrong here. You just haven’t questioned a distinction between objective and subjective truth

If you or any of the theists on this site had something truly compelling to present, I would be happy to hear it! But you resort to dishonesty and projections, and it's just a lot of personal fantasy and avoidance when you are asked questions or when you are challenged to explore your baseless accusations or fanciful claims. That's the reason you're not worth taking seriously. It's NOT that you're speaking such a TRUTH that people can't handle it!

A good example of secular intolerance. You assert that if I or any theist had something meaningful to express, you would condescend to hear it. Instead you wrote that I resort to dishonesty and projections when I quote others. Of course this must include those like Frithjof Schuon since I referred to the Transcendent Unity of Religions. Instead you accuse me of baseless accusations or fanciful claims which must include Frithjof Schuon as the source of the claim used here. Is there any other reason for your accusations and why you resort to obvious negativity when speculating on a greater reality beyond the domain of the earth which the human condition has made humanity largely closed to?

[Lacewing]

…

Nick, with the distortion and dishonesty in your responses (as is often your style), I don't know how you can honestly think of yourself as a man of truth. Truth is not so sloppy. You can't even represent the truth here in discussions on this forum, yet you CLAIM to speak of an even GREATER objective truth?! Not hard to conclude that your style of distortion and dishonesty fuels that as well.

[Belinda]

Lacewing wrote:

Okay, so perhaps reason has brought me to the point where I can choose different feelings because I have decided/determined that many options/potentials seem available and accessible for every situation. It's like anything you do that becomes automatic after you discover it -- you don't even have to think about it...you just do it...you just shift. Why would feelings be any different?

Feelings aren't different from other conscious decisions except many people believe feelings can't be changed by reasoning.

Psychoanalysis, and cognitive therapies, are examples of how feelings might be changed by reasoning. These therapies start with the subject admitting to feelings no matter if they are uncomfortable or immoral. Unlike riding a bike or climbing the stairs I like to be consciously aware of what my feelings are. In this way feelings are different from muscle memories or learning by rote. Feelings and knowledge of one's own and others' feelings are important for learning and for wiser decisions and so feelings should be consciously cared for. Reason, not religious authority, frees the individual to make the most of learning opportunities regarding feelings or anything else.

Other animals have feelings but as far as is known they don't conceptualise their feelings as they don't use symbolic language.

Lacewing wrote in a reply to RCSaunders:

So if we're in an interaction and suddenly feel rage... how quick might it be to feel love instead, without even thinking about it, simply because we know that option is immediately available too?

If by 'love' you mean the most all-embracing, wisest, unsentimental love, then that can't go wrong. Love is tops. Reason is a subsection of that sort of love. That sort of love is not an easy option and often it's not a lot of fun. Reason is a good guide to it. I suppose saints have a lot of practice in that sort of love. I doubt if that sort of love is immediately available to anyone, not even saints. Sometimes that is why people would be praying, to get the faith to aim for that sort of love.

[Nick_A]

…

Nick, with the distortion and dishonesty in your responses (as is often your style), I don't know how you can honestly think of yourself as a man of truth. Truth is not so sloppy. You can't even represent the truth here in discussions on this forum, yet you CLAIM to speak of an even GREATER objective truth?! Not hard to conclude that your style of distortion and dishonesty fuels that as well.

I do thank you for such precise description of secular intolerance. Whatever logically questions the supremacy of the belief that the world offers the ultimate in conscious understanding must by definition be dishonest and distorted. One of the reasons Socrates had to be killed was that he corrupted the youth of Athens by encouraging them to reason out of the box. This is intolerable and too insulting to allow to stand. Imagine, a level of reality beyond the senses in which human meaning and purpose resides. Preposterous. Only the all knowing Great Beast can be Allowed to ponder reality. Anything else is distorted and dishonest.

[Lacewing]

Imagine, a level of reality beyond the senses in which human meaning and purpose resides.

SURE...but not the way YOU describe it as some kind of single objective reality.

This is intolerable and too insulting to allow to stand.

No, none of that. You give yourself and your claims way too much credit. Ideas simply aren't accepted or compelling when they're delivered with or amidst dishonesty and distortion. It appears that your strategy for avoiding any accountability for that is to blame everyone else and scream "secular intolerance!" Maybe you can turn a blind eye and be convinced by yourself -- but other people are going to be more discerning.

[Lacewing]

…

Belinda, thanks for your response. I agree with what you've described well.

I don't know how else to explain what I experience and do -- when, for example, I experience someone being rude or crazy, and I choose feelings of peace and love over rage or hate. I don't even have to think about it. It just seems like an instant choice I can make. It feels better to me. That's what I've been trying to speak of.

[Nick_A]

Imagine, a level of reality beyond the senses in which human meaning and purpose resides.

SURE...but not the way YOU describe it as some kind of single objective reality.

This is intolerable and too insulting to allow to stand.

No, none of that. You give yourself and your claims way too much credit. Ideas simply aren't accepted or compelling when they're delivered with or amidst dishonesty and distortion. It appears that your strategy for avoiding any accountability for that is to blame everyone else and scream "secular intolerance!" Maybe you can turn a blind eye and be convinced by yourself -- but other people are going to be more discerning.

It is what it is. We learned that in the Secular Intolerance thread. We learned that deeper discussion on the depth of the esoteric ideas within Plato's Cave allegory are too insulting and controversial to discuss. I was surprised to learn how ingrained this animosity is but it cannot be doubted.

When you emotionally ridicule objective reality you are ridiculing Plato's explanation of the world of forms as the source of visible phenomenon; not me.

Secular intolerance is due to the conditioned tendency to remain closed to the third dimension of thought. I admire those past and present who have been open to experience it rather than defending horizontal dualism in the nastiest ways..

[Lacewing]

We learned that deeper discussion on the depth of the esoteric ideas within Plato's Cave allegory are too insulting and controversial to discuss.

Who is "we"? Maybe you are mistaken about "what was learned" by others.

When you emotionally ridicule objective reality you are ridiculing Plato's explanation of the world of forms as the source of visible phenomenon; not me.

Is it ridicule to not agree with an idea?

Is it ridicule to point out when someone is being dishonest and distorting things?

Plato's explanation/ideas are not the only example of some truths. Neither are Simone's. Nor anyone else you might choose to quote. Truths are everywhere, in many forms. Zeroing in on certain ideas that resonate for you, and claiming them to be some ultimate reality of truth that only a minority of people are courageous enough to pursue, is a self-serving story you like telling over and over.

Doesn't it seem outrageously foolish, however, to think that any inherently limited human ideas/understandings could represent some grand ultimate truth OF ALL, FOR ALL? Yet, how many have thought such a thing? How giant and needy must such fears and egos be to claim to know that in spite of all else? That's WHY it requires dishonesty and distortion. Very easy to see!

Secular intolerance is due to the conditioned tendency to remain closed to the third dimension of thought.

The same could be said of theist intolerance... just change "third dimension" to dimensions! Right?

I admire those past and present who have been open to experience it rather than defending horizontal dualism in the nastiest ways..

Don't you think your dishonesty and distortions are nasty???

[Belinda]

…

Belinda, thanks for your response. I agree with what you've described well.

I don't know how else to explain what I experience and do -- when, for example, I experience someone being rude or crazy, and I choose feelings of peace and love over rage or hate. I don't even have to think about it. It just seems like an instant choice I can make. It feels better to me. That's what I've been trying to speak of.

I can hardly believe you would feel "peace and love" if you chanced upon someone raping your child! You may object that's an extreme example which it is. However events such as that are possible the newspapers include many unpleasant events to which calm feelings would be emotionally too flat .I say "too flat" and I mean anger is appropriate to some situations. When such an event appears it may be a sudden emergency and there is not time to ruminate and reason. Because of this we have the arts , film plays, novels, and theatre which are vicarious ways to rehearse appropriate emotional responses.

Religion is like the arts in this respect. However to base one's affective responses on ancient texts from faraway cultures is possibly as stupid as going berserk. Religious myths, like modern theatre, need to be subjected to reason and knowledge of facts before they may be useful fables or allegories.


Affective responses to situations are often, perhaps mostly, culturally engendered. The Viking Berserkers are pictured biting the tops of their shields because they can't contain their angry rage and fighting readiness.I guess, Lacewing, your calmness in the face of insult is caused by nurturing of that response plus a calm temperament.

[henry quirk]

I guess, Lacewing, your calmness in the face of insult is caused by nurturing of that response plus a calm temperament.