In the Beginning...

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by ..nameless.. »

Nikolai wrote:Hi nameless, Well I think you've done a very good job.

Thank you, Nikolai.
More from the Tao Te Ching, ch. 9:

Care about people's approval
and you will be their prisoner,
Do your work, then step back.
The only path to serenity.
Amen, brother!
Again, thank you.

"Do what you know to be right, say what you know to be true, and leave with faith and patience the consequences to god!" - F.W. Robertson
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Nikolai »

Hi arising,
Arising_uk wrote:That there are senses and inter-subjectivity is pretty much the experience and its a logical conclusion from the experience we have.
No.

It's got nothing to do with logic, and it is not based on experience. An 'objective' realm and a 'subjective' realm are, experientially speaking, 100% identical. Any split between them is never the product of experience. The so called split is an experience in itself, entire and perfect. A so-clalled thought is identical to a so-called perception. It is the bewitchery of words alone that makes us think differently.
Arising_uk wrote:That you practice ignoring ones senses and others pretty much guarantees that you would think it all an illusion and that only you exist in reality.
If you are referring to meditation you are woefully mistaken as to what meditation is. Meditation is deep and sustained concentration on the nature of experience, all experience. Do this, and the alternative nature of experience becomes apparent. A sensation is also not a sensation, it has these two aspects. Just a cup has a right hand side and a left hand side, so can something like an 'aroma' be a sensation and not a sensation.

If you want to reach the same insight philosophically, I would refer you to the conversations we have had on impermanence.
Arising_uk wrote:I started from where you are now and then in latter life found philosophy and logic.
I'm not sure if this refers to you, but there is a character type who has switched from religious and spiritual interests in their youth to atheism, philosophy and rationalism in their adulthood. Unfortunately, for 99.9% of these people they have merely switched perspectives rather than gained any unifying insight. The believer who becomes an atheist has not changed intellectually at all as both are different interpretations of the same thing. The person of insight is able to embrace and harmonise both theism and atheism.
Arising_uk wrote:Which is why I call it bodymind as its not dualism nor idealism. But you ignore human developmental if you think that body does not come before 'mind'.
You unite body and mind into one word - bodymind - and then you go and separate them again when you say that body comes first!

That which comes first is neither body nor mind. When you can see this, you can truly see how body and mind are one and the same. Your argument is a habit I witnessed a lot as a psychologist. They feel they need to connect body and mind somehow. But they think that they have overcome the dualism by allowing that the two interact causally. This is not the solution. The solution to the seeming interaction of body and mind is to recognise that they don't interact because they are not separate. There is no greater illusion than the separation of body and mind, which is basically the separation of 'in here' from 'out there'.
Arising_uk wrote:Given you say there is no 'self' nor 'mind' nor 'true' nor 'false', I pretty much doubt you can make any meaning at all.
However flaky it might sound, these things aren't understood with the intellect. They can't be understood with that tool, and therefore they can't be talked about. The orientals have separated intelligence into two faculties: the divisive reasoning mind, and the unitive intuitive mind. It takes the latter to see directly what I am referring to - that thing I refuse to name.
Arising_uk wrote:Only if I needed like you and Berkeley to have a greater consciousness to allow me to reconnect back to the world. The Body is the ground for your idealism.
Is Body, with a capital B, your term for the thing I refuse to name?
Arising_uk wrote:Have you watched birth? Become a parent? As if you have then I'm amazed you do not understand that we are separate beings by definition.
Technically I delivered my second son, the midwife didn't arrive at our house in time, so yes I have in a very real sense. But I also have experienced something else. And so separateness is, for me, one flavour of experience.
Arising_uk wrote:Do I think we have to have Others and Language to define Self and 'Mind', of course but to leap to 'God' or a greater 'consciousness' appears to fundamentally ignore what we are. its like Darwin was never born.
To me Darwin was a talented guy, but ignorant of things that are very real and which the wise understand. He had his specialty but he didn't see the big picture, and he wasn't much of a philosopher. Darwinism is not a logically credible theory, ultimately. It takes too many liberties. An organism is not logically separable from its environment so adaptation is an absurdity. He assumes that genetic mutation occurs randomly when randomness is a function of understanding, not a process that actually exists. Randomness is a judgement about events, as is purpose. Creationists assume purpose, Darwinists randomness. Both are misguided.
Arising_uk wrote:I think it only dishonest if what you offer does not work the way you say it will.
Yes, and a spiritual technique can't be assumed to work. Perhaps I would say, "try it if you want but don't blame me if you're disappointed." Yes, that is at least honest.

Best, Nikolai
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Arising_uk »

Nikolai wrote:No.

It's got nothing to do with logic, and it is not based on experience. An 'objective' realm and a 'subjective' realm are, experientially speaking, 100% identical. Any split between them is never the product of experience. The so called split is an experience in itself, entire and perfect. A so-clalled thought is identical to a so-called perception. It is the bewitchery of words alone that makes us think differently.
I disagree, a thought is a 'perception' without the source and its due to memory. I agree its not the experience its the happening, 'experience is how you deal with whats happened to you'. From your point of view a 'flying pig' is no different from a bus but there are no flying pigs, one lives in the objective(inter-subjective) world the other lives solely in your thoughts. Experience tells us this.
If you are referring to meditation you are woefully mistaken as to what meditation is. Meditation is deep and sustained concentration on the nature of experience, all experience. Do this, and the alternative nature of experience becomes apparent. A sensation is also not a sensation, it has these two aspects. Just a cup has a right hand side and a left hand side, so can something like an 'aroma' be a sensation and not a sensation.
Cups have no 'side', your experience is woeful and apparently dualistic.
If you want to reach the same insight philosophically, I would refer you to the conversations we have had on impermanence.
What insight? Not sure how impermanence bears upon this.
I'm not sure if this refers to you, but there is a character type who has switched from religious and spiritual interests in their youth to atheism, philosophy and rationalism in their adulthood. Unfortunately, for 99.9% of these people they have merely switched perspectives rather than gained any unifying insight. The believer who becomes an atheist has not changed intellectually at all as both are different interpretations of the same thing. The person of insight is able to embrace and harmonise both theism and atheism.
It doesn't, as I started an atheist and pretty much remain one but in the interests of epistemology I became an agnostic. That I was raised meditating was due to a Burmese mother, that I explored much of whatever 'spirituality' and religion was on hand was because I was an atheist looking for a convincing faith, still looking but have found some nice presuppositions that appear to work. That I came to philosophy and logic and was blown away by all this thought on the western doorstep was a bonus and I'm still unifying its insights into my life. The person who can embrace and harmonise both atheism and theism is just insightfully confused.
You unite body and mind into one word - bodymind - and then you go and separate them again when you say that body comes first!
Depends what you call 'mind' then, as self-consciousness appears to develop in the child and it involves understanding that there are others and the world is not its. Point out any minds without bodies?
That which comes first is neither body nor mind. When you can see this, you can truly see how body and mind are one and the same. Your argument is a habit I witnessed a lot as a psychologist. They feel they need to connect body and mind somehow. But they think that they have overcome the dualism by allowing that the two interact causally. This is not the solution. The solution to the seeming interaction of body and mind is to recognise that they don't interact because they are not separate. There is no greater illusion than the separation of body and mind, which is basically the separation of 'in here' from 'out there'.
I know this, its my point but you ignore that the mind or self or self-consciousness is self-identity in an external world, i.e. a recognition of the reality of the situation develops in the human, as does reasoning. Why? Because it goes along with the bodies development.

Its no good quoting psychology at me as one I think most of it bunkum and two because you yourself have repudiated it.

I have no need to have an actual separate physical substance called mind as I understand that I am a body with senses and a language in an external world. 'Mind' is the end of the process of the body's pre-processing of the external world into perceptions, i.e. the senses. Whereas I think you think it all 'mind'?
However flaky it might sound, these things aren't understood with the intellect. They can't be understood with that tool, and therefore they can't be talked about. The orientals have separated intelligence into two faculties: the divisive reasoning mind, and the unitive intuitive mind. It takes the latter to see directly what I am referring to - that thing I refuse to name.
What things aren't understood? For someone who says they dislike dualism you now apparently have two minds!? Personally I think it exactly your intellect that is confusing the issue.
Is Body, with a capital B, your term for the thing I refuse to name?
How could I know? Also, if you can name it why don't you, what point this refusal? Is this thing of yours the happening you get when you remove all the content from thought and ignore the senses? If so then not quite as I capitalise Body to express the ground of all thought and 'mind' or self. But I agree that its possible to have that happening and for me its a way of experiencing the structure between perceptions and thoughts(I accept I may be using perception oddly here). If you mean something outside of your head then no.
Technically I delivered my second son, the midwife didn't arrive at our house in time, so yes I have in a very real sense. But I also have experienced something else. And so separateness is, for me, one flavour of experience.
I think it the other way around, the feeling of oneness is a flavour of experience but its not the reality. you must be continually surprised others don't do as you wish, punches on the nose must
amazing as are big red buses. Try telling the bull elk you are one.
To me Darwin was a talented guy, but ignorant of things that are very real and which the wise understand. He had his specialty but he didn't see the big picture, and he wasn't much of a philosopher. Darwinism is not a logically credible theory, ultimately. It takes too many liberties. An organism is not logically separable from its environment so adaptation is an absurdity. He assumes that genetic mutation occurs randomly when randomness is a function of understanding, not a process that actually exists. Randomness is a judgement about events, as is purpose. Creationists assume purpose, Darwinists randomness. Both are misguided.
What!! Its that his theory does logically explain species that makes him one of the greatest philosopher scientists that has ever been! Adaptation is an absurdity is you understand it as you appear to do, i.e. something actually adapting to its environment rather than the environment just naturally selecting those whose mutations give an advantage in reproductive survival. Have you actually read Darwins book? He says nothing about 'genetic mutation' other than positing that there must be some kind of inheritance mechanism. The point of his theory is that time and incremental change and natural selection by an environment explains all the species we see, no need for a 'designer'. It was the discovery of the DNA and the genes that pretty much confirmed his theory.
Yes, and a spiritual technique can't be assumed to work. Perhaps I would say, "try it if you want but don't blame me if you're disappointed." Yes, that is at least honest.
Maybe but its this that leads me to look for better techniques than the 'spiritual' to assist Man in living well, thinking, thoughting and communicating clearly would be a nice start.

Yours as ever.
..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by ..nameless.. »

"The understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"

I am hearing a perfect example of The First Law of Soul Dynamics; "For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
The coin is both Heads and Tails.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by chaz wyman »

..nameless.. wrote:"The understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"

I am hearing a perfect example of The First Law of Soul Dynamics; "For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
The coin is both Heads and Tails.
That is not what it means at all.

It means that those willing to see another point of view is made more able to see a bigger picture.

And equal and opposite perspective seems to mean nothing. Another POV can't be equal as it would be the same, it cannot be opposite as it would be a complete negation of your own POV.

People tend to see what they want to see.
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Nikolai »

Hi Arising,
Arising_uk wrote:I disagree, a thought is a 'perception' without the source and its due to memory.
Yes, and so do 99.9% of people. You don't need to tell me about what you think thought is. I know what the common sense view is. And I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that there is another equally valid way of understanding thought.

In a very real sense, all impressions are fleeting. In terms of the raw experience a thought and a perception are indistinguishable. If you can't see this then you aren't looking hard enough. If you concentrate it will become very obvious.
Arising_uk wrote:From your point of view a 'flying pig' is no different from a bus but there are no flying pigs, one lives in the objective(inter-subjective) world the other lives solely in your thoughts. Experience tells us this.
When the flying pig is as real as a bus we call it a dream or a hallucination. But to the person who really sees reality, dreaming and wakefulness are indistinguishable. Spiritual enlightenment is often likened to waking from a dream. This is a figurative way of saying that the real is no longer quite so real and the unreal not quite so unreal. The outer and and inner have become one, as Jesus said, and by that he meant the inner subjective realm and the outer objective realms have become indistinguishable.

Great artists are already enlightened in this way. In one specific way they are like saints. They have seen the flying pig so vividly that it seem real to us when they show us it.
Arising_uk wrote:Cups have no 'side', your experience is woeful and apparently dualistic.
Sorry, laziness from me. But the cup, or better, mug, is a favourite example of mine. It can be on the right hand side to us, we would really and actually use our right hand to grasp it, and yet to our opposite neighbour it is on the left hand side.

Only a fool would argue that the mug is 'intrinsically' right-handed. The wise can see that it is not intrinsically right or left handed, even though these are serviceable conceptualisations. If the blind man asks which hand he should use there is a right and wrong answer. And yet, we know, that that correct answer does not mean anything intrinsic about the mug.

Now I say, all things are like mugs. Nothing is intrinsically anything. The moment we think that anything is a unilateral fact we have fallen into the same error as the fool did with the mug.
Arising_uk wrote:I have no need to have an actual separate physical substance called mind as I understand that I am a body with senses and a language in an external world. 'Mind' is the end of the process of the body's pre-processing of the external world into perceptions, i.e. the senses. Whereas I think you think it all 'mind'?
No, and I've said repeatedly I don't. Clearly you aren't able of understanding how I have extended the word mind. I tell you what I'll call it Body instead - it makes no difference to me!
Arising_uk wrote: Adaptation is an absurdity is you understand it as you appear to do, i.e. something actually adapting to its environment rather than the environment just naturally selecting those whose mutations give an advantage in reproductive survival.
I meant more that the organism is indistinguishable from its environment so how can something adapt to itself. Darwin lived in a time when vitalism was taken for granted, it was the superstition of their times. But the living and the non-living are the same, separable only as a matter of arbitrary judgement.

Best, Nikolai
Nikolai
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Finland

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by Nikolai »

Hi nameless,
..nameless.. wrote:"The understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"

I am hearing a perfect example of The First Law of Soul Dynamics; "For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
The coin is both Heads and Tails.
The thing I find most painful about writing on this website is that everything I write is no more true than what I am writing against. Its like I have to pretend to hold opinions that I don't in fact hold. I have to adopt views, not because I hold them, but because it is important for other people to see that these views exist. For me they aren't important at all, but unless others see them they will continue to blunder about with their own one-sided opinions.

My own opinions on these matters are like an emptiness. The truth is an emptiness, it can't be talked about but is a way of seeing. Seeing the truth is so anti-climatic. To see the truth is to see that there is no truth. Disappointing, but undeniable.
..nameless..
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:39 am

Re: In the Beginning...

Post by ..nameless.. »

Nikolai wrote:The thing I find most painful about writing on this website is that everything I write is no more true than what I am writing against. Its like I have to pretend to hold opinions that I don't in fact hold. I have to adopt views, not because I hold them, but because it is important for other people to see that these views exist. For me they aren't important at all, but unless others see them they will continue to blunder about with their own one-sided opinions.
Understood.
Rather than writing 'against', I think that the new communication is more along the lines of;
'Yes, that's true! It's also True that...!'
No need to be 'against' anything.
Perhaps 'against' like contrast?
My own opinions on these matters are like an emptiness. The truth is an emptiness, it can't be talked about but is a way of seeing.

If all is True, if everything perceived is a feature of Truth, than everything 'talked about' is Truth and all said is True! A 'Way of Seeing' perceives this.
Seeing the truth is so anti-climatic.
Yet Truth is all we can ever See (perceive)!
To see the truth is to see that there is no truth. Disappointing, but undeniable.
"Undeniable?"
Remember the First Law of Soul Dynamics! *__-
Perspective...

"There are trivial truths and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true! - Neils Bohr
Post Reply