IS and OUGHT

[Immanuel Can]

I know lots of people on a few forums, and I know people outside of forums, so why should I think that you have the "right" answer any more than any of them?

My answer will be "right" only if it conforms to the truth, of course. But you can often tell when you're hearing truth, and when you're not. Truthful answers have a way of sounding coherent and integrated in ways that falsehoods often lack. So it's not hard to narrow the field to a few options, and work from there.

In God's case, we will last much shorter without Him. And He will be the reason we're alive, for a lot longer. Everything we are -- all our potentialities, joys, hopes, achievements, and even the very breath we take each moment, are gifts from Him. This universe itself owes its order and coherence to Him, and to His provision. We enter this world far more indebted to Him than to our own parents; and it's all the worse when we, as children can, imagine we owe nothing and can rebel with impunity and without consequences against those who made our very life possible...and even He who sustains it now.

What about all the people who's lives are miserable?

They, too, have everything they have from God. We are all in His debt, whether we want to realize it or not.

I've met people who live in very low conditions who are happy, and people who are extraordinarily wealthy who are not. But it is a valuable life, not merely a happy one, that is the true goal of our existence. Earthly life is not the be-all and end-all, despite the secularists' dreams to that effect; eternity is the goal and summation of our existence. So we are wise not to judge on mere partial data.

This life is, by all reckonings, very short. Eternity is very, very long...so long, that the day will come when this life is nothing but a flash in time, a brief memory in an immense field of other happenings. That fact speaks to the imprudence of judging too much on the now.

Shakespeare wrote, "How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child." (King Lear). How much sharper and more venomous it is for a person created as a child of God to give no love or honour or gratitude to his Creator. Such children inevitably come to grief...and when they do, they certainly deserve it, as we all can see.

I don't think my kids are ungrateful.

I didn't suggest they were. I'm sorry if you took that implication.

I meant that we, as creations of God, would be very ungrateful not to acknowledge our Parentage and our debt for all He's done for us.

What sort of a parent would I be if I expected them to be constantly expressing their gratitude?

That would depend on how good you were. The more you had been good to them, the more you might suppose they'd want to be with you.

But I should understand first what gives you (or your chosen point-of-view, in this case) the sense of pointlessness, if I can ask that.

I must admit that, just lately, I don't see much point in anything. I'm going through a can't-be-bothered patch; it happens from time to time. I will, eventually, become interesting in something, and pursue it for a while, and for as long as it lasts there will seem to be some point in it. I think the concept of their being a point to things is a purely human one. It's another one of those subjective things that seem objective.

That's one way of deciding, of course. Things can BE pointless, or can just FEEL pointless. And those are not the same, of course.

But I get what you're talking about. As one gets older, it's more and more easy to ask the old question, "What's it all about, Alfie?" as the old movie does. With more in the category of "done" and less and less in the category of "left to do," it can seem as if life is running down to a rather pointless and unpleasant ending. And, if this life is all we get, that's exactly what's happening. So that's just realism.

But if life is pointless, what's the point of knowing it is? It's not heroic, or admirable, or consoling to trail off in pointless pessimism, is it? So we're all then just doomed to watch life run down to nothing.

I recently watched my father die. He was in a room with one small closet and a drawer with a few basic medical things and one or two possessions in it. Nothing more. His mobility was gone, his sight and hearing were nearly gone, but his mind was clear. His whole earthly life was summed up in that one little drawer, you might say. And when he passed, even that little drawer no longer meant a thing.

That's the future for ll of us, if this life is pointless.

But what if it's not?

[Harbal]

Meditation is a process of subtracting every thought. Because thought is required to describe anything, existence without thought is indescribable, although as a cause the effects can be described.

Meditation is something I never took seriously. Mystical nonsense is probably how I would have described it. Since then I have become aware that some people who I have respect for practice it, and talk about its benefits. So now I accept there must be something to it, but I still don't know what is meant to be achieved by meditation.

[Walker]

Meditation is a process of subtracting every thought. Because thought is required to describe anything, existence without thought is indescribable, although as a cause the effects can be described.

Meditation is something I never took seriously. Mystical nonsense is probably how I would have described it. Since then I have become aware that some people who I have respect for practice it, and talk about its benefits. So now I accept there must be something to it, but I still don't know what is meant to be achieved by meditation.

Thanks Harbal.

Based on that, I can probably tell you anything you need to know about the topic, beginning with, the ultimate purpose of meditation is the cessation of thought. The purpose of the effects of meditation, which is subsequent thought, is to live.

Not to be confused with contemplation, the purpose of which is thought, and the purpose for the effects of contemplation, is also to live.

[Walker]

I recently watched my father die.

That's profound. I can relate.

As you well know, Christian contemplation enhances the quality of life, although I don't presume to assert that's the purpose.

[Harbal]

My answer will be "right" only if it conforms to the truth, of course. But you can often tell when you're hearing truth, and when you're not. Truthful answers have a way of sounding coherent and integrated in ways that falsehoods often lack. So it's not hard to narrow the field to a few options, and work from there.

Well God, religion, and the Bible are not the truth to me, so I obviously don't get any sense of truth when I hear them spoken of. I don't really get a sense of coherence either, but that is probably because your frame of reference is mainly unknown to me.

Earthly life is not the be-all and end-all, despite the secularists' dreams to that effect;

Why do you call it a secularist's dream? We see living creatures, and we see them when they are dead, and there is a definite feel of the end about it. It looks very final, so unless you are shown convincing evidence that it isn't final, I consider it reasonable to assume that it is. That end is not an ambition for many "secularists", I wouldn't have thought. It's just an acknowledgement of reality based on observation.

What more could there be? What can I expect to become of me after that? My body is a very significant part of what I consider to be me, so I am bound to feel considerably diminished without it. My brain was in that body, and my brain was what held all my memories, and my personality. My brain was what enabled me to have conscious thoughts. So, if there is anything left after that, in what sense is it me?

I didn't suggest they were. I'm sorry if you took that implication.

No, I didn't take that implication. I was just setting up my scenario; just trying to give you your money's worth.

I meant that we, as creations of God, would be very ungrateful not to acknowledge our Parentage and our debt for all He's done for us.

Well apart from creating me, which I don't believe, as you know, I don't know what else he is supposed to have done for me.

[Harbal]

Based on that, I can probably tell you anything you need to know about the topic, beginning with, the ultimate purpose of meditation is the cessation of thought. The purpose of the effects of meditation, which is subsequent thought, is to live.

Yes, I know meditation is about emptying your mind of thought, which seems like an impossible task to me, but I understand that it is possible. Why emptying your mind of thought is beneficial is what I don't know.

[Immanuel Can]

I recently watched my father die.

That's profound. I can relate.
As you well know, Christian contemplation enhances the quality of life, although I don't presume to assert that's the purpose.

No, it's a benefit, but not the main purpose. You're right.

[Walker]

Based on that, I can probably tell you anything you need to know about the topic, beginning with, the ultimate purpose of meditation is the cessation of thought. The purpose of the effects of meditation, which is subsequent thought, is to live.

Yes, I know meditation is about emptying your mind of thought, which seems like an impossible task to me, but I understand that it is possible. Why emptying your mind of thought is beneficial is what I don't know.

The answer that you need to know is: you have not declared a loud and serious intent to practice meditation, which is fine. You don’t need it, and you know that you don’t need it. The familiar road is good enough for you because it is known, it is comfortable. The familiar road is the ebb and flow, the seasons in the garden.

Abiding in what is, as is your expressed attitude (or view, or manner of being), is in fact something learned from meditation, but obviously not solely from meditation.

However, be that as it may, you don’t need what you request because the truth of that knowledge is self-protected from the superficial, outside-looking-in by tourists.

[Immanuel Can]

My answer will be "right" only if it conforms to the truth, of course. But you can often tell when you're hearing truth, and when you're not. Truthful answers have a way of sounding coherent and integrated in ways that falsehoods often lack. So it's not hard to narrow the field to a few options, and work from there.

Well God, religion, and the Bible are not the truth to me, so I obviously don't get any sense of truth when I hear them spoken of. I don't really get a sense of coherence either, but that is probably because your frame of reference is mainly unknown to me.

That's possible.

Earthly life is not the be-all and end-all, despite the secularists' dreams to that effect;

Why do you call it a secularist's dream? We see living creatures, and we see them when they are dead, and there is a definite feel of the end about it. It looks very final, so unless you are shown convincing evidence that it isn't final, I consider it reasonable to assume that it is. That end is not an ambition for many "secularists", I wouldn't have thought. It's just an acknowledgement of reality based on observation.

I didn't mean to suggest secularists dream of death. I meant that since they believe that there's no possibility of anything beyond death, they are, by definition, going to have to believe also that this life is the most important thing there is...and is ALL there is.

What more could there be? What can I expect to become of me after that?

Well, the "more" is what God says there is: an eternal state. But as to what becomes of us after that, that is the very question you and I are settling by our own choice today.

My body is a very significant part of what I consider to be me, so I am bound to feel considerably diminished without it.

People have bodies in the eternal state, actually.

My brain was in that body, and my brain was what held all my memories, and my personality. My brain was what enabled me to have conscious thoughts. So, if there is anything left after that, in what sense is it me?

Well, Materialism says that all there is to Harbal is a body (including that big lump of meat between our ears, the brain). But this has always been a very implausible answer, even from a purely secular viewpoint.

For example, Atheist Thomas Nagel, in his book "Mind and Cosmos," argues that the Materialist argument that things like "consciousness," "identity," "volition," "selfhood," "mind" and "rationality" are reducible to "matter" is so utterly unsatisfactory that we are more or less forced to reject it as wrong. Being an Atheist, he hopes some further "naturalistic" explanation can be found to substitute. But he admits that no such explanation exists right now.

He's not the only one. The mind-brain problem is one of the most serious problems with Materialism. It simply does not seem that any explanation that rules out metaphysical answers before it begins is going to be able to tell us what any of the aforelisted properties are...even though we use them every day.

In fact, the body is not ever "all of me." I could show you a picture of an eight year old child, or of a fifty year old man, and in both cases say to you, "That's me." And I would not be lying. But in what sense is that true, if body is all there is?

I didn't suggest they were. I'm sorry if you took that implication.

No, I didn't take that implication. I was just setting up my scenario; just trying to give you your money's worth.

Yep, you do.

I meant that we, as creations of God, would be very ungrateful not to acknowledge our Parentage and our debt for all He's done for us.

Well apart from creating me, which I don't believe, as you know, I don't know what else he is supposed to have done for me.

Do you breathe oxygen? Do you feel the sunshine on your face? Do you know the joy of athletic competition or artistic creation or the pleasures of educating yourself? Have you ever had a good laugh? Do you recognize the beauty in a landscape? Do you still like the taste of pub food, or enjoy the sound of music? Is there anyone worth loving in your life?

Any and all of these things...

[Belinda]

I know lots of people on a few forums, and I know people outside of forums, so why should I think that you have the "right" answer any more than any of them?

My answer will be "right" only if it conforms to the truth, of course. But you can often tell when you're hearing truth, and when you're not. Truthful answers have a way of sounding coherent and integrated in ways that falsehoods often lack. So it's not hard to narrow the field to a few options, and work from there.

In God's case, we will last much shorter without Him. And He will be the reason we're alive, for a lot longer. Everything we are -- all our potentialities, joys, hopes, achievements, and even the very breath we take each moment, are gifts from Him. This universe itself owes its order and coherence to Him, and to His provision. We enter this world far more indebted to Him than to our own parents; and it's all the worse when we, as children can, imagine we owe nothing and can rebel with impunity and without consequences against those who made our very life possible...and even He who sustains it now.

What about all the people who's lives are miserable?

They, too, have everything they have from God. We are all in His debt, whether we want to realize it or not.

I've met people who live in very low conditions who are happy, and people who are extraordinarily wealthy who are not. But it is a valuable life, not merely a happy one, that is the true goal of our existence. Earthly life is not the be-all and end-all, despite the secularists' dreams to that effect; eternity is the goal and summation of our existence. So we are wise not to judge on mere partial data.

This life is, by all reckonings, very short. Eternity is very, very long...so long, that the day will come when this life is nothing but a flash in time, a brief memory in an immense field of other happenings. That fact speaks to the imprudence of judging too much on the now.

Shakespeare wrote, "How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child." (King Lear). How much sharper and more venomous it is for a person created as a child of God to give no love or honour or gratitude to his Creator. Such children inevitably come to grief...and when they do, they certainly deserve it, as we all can see.

I don't think my kids are ungrateful.

I didn't suggest they were. I'm sorry if you took that implication.

I meant that we, as creations of God, would be very ungrateful not to acknowledge our Parentage and our debt for all He's done for us.

What sort of a parent would I be if I expected them to be constantly expressing their gratitude?

That would depend on how good you were. The more you had been good to them, the more you might suppose they'd want to be with you.

But I should understand first what gives you (or your chosen point-of-view, in this case) the sense of pointlessness, if I can ask that.

I must admit that, just lately, I don't see much point in anything. I'm going through a can't-be-bothered patch; it happens from time to time. I will, eventually, become interesting in something, and pursue it for a while, and for as long as it lasts there will seem to be some point in it. I think the concept of their being a point to things is a purely human one. It's another one of those subjective things that seem objective.

That's one way of deciding, of course. Things can BE pointless, or can just FEEL pointless. And those are not the same, of course.

But I get what you're talking about. As one gets older, it's more and more easy to ask the old question, "What's it all about, Alfie?" as the old movie does. With more in the category of "done" and less and less in the category of "left to do," it can seem as if life is running down to a rather pointless and unpleasant ending. And, if this life is all we get, that's exactly what's happening. So that's just realism.

But if life is pointless, what's the point of knowing it is? It's not heroic, or admirable, or consoling to trail off in pointless pessimism, is it? So we're all then just doomed to watch life run down to nothing.

I recently watched my father die. He was in a room with one small closet and a drawer with a few basic medical things and one or two possessions in it. Nothing more. His mobility was gone, his sight and hearing were nearly gone, but his mind was clear. His whole earthly life was summed up in that one little drawer, you might say. And when he passed, even that little drawer no longer meant a thing.

That's the future for ll of us, if this life is pointless.

But what if it's not?

All that has happened necessarily happened and could not have been otherwise than it was. The future is not actual until it happens. Your father's life was not pointless because nothing is pointless. A man is more than a piece of rock and even a piece of rock necessarily happened. We must live as prisoners of time but a man's experience is timeless.

[Immanuel Can]

All that has happened necessarily happened and could not have been otherwise than it was.

Fatalism. How dull.

Your father's life was not pointless because nothing is pointless.

No, it wasn't. He was a great man.

Still is, in fact; and now better than ever.

A man is more than a piece of rock...

I understand why I think that is true; what I don't understand is how you think it can be true.

[Harbal]

Well, the "more" is what God says there is: an eternal state. But as to what becomes of us after that, that is the very question you and I are settling by our own choice today.

Actually, it's what you say God says there is. The difference isn't subtle. I can conceive of eternal states that don't involve God. In some of them what we do today is relevent, in others, it isn't.

People have bodies in the eternal state, actually.

Is that just what God says, or do you actually understand how it could be the case?

Well, Materialism says that all there is to Harbal is a body (including that big lump of meat between our ears, the brain). But this has always been a very implausible answer, even from a purely secular viewpoint.

I don't know what "Materialism" says, or what its opponents say, so I am not at risk of my thoughts on the matter being straight jacketed by what either say.

For example, Atheist Thomas Nagel, in his book "Mind and Cosmos," argues that the Materialist argument that things like "consciousness," "identity," "volition," "selfhood," "mind" and "rationality" are reducible to "matter" is so utterly unsatisfactory that we are more or less forced to reject it as wrong. Being an Atheist, he hopes some further "naturalistic" explanation can be found to substitute. But he admits that no such explanation exists right now.

He's not the only one. The mind-brain problem is one of the most serious problems with Materialism. It simply does not seem that any explanation that rules out metaphysical answers before it begins is going to be able to tell us what any of the aforelisted properties are...even though we use them every day.

The mind and the brain may or may not be seperate entities, it doesn't matter. The mind cannot exist without the brain, that is all that is relevant. Trauma to the brain can cause unconsciousness, and damage to the brain can cause memory loss, and changes in personality. The implications of a complete absence of the brain as far as the mind is concerned need not be spelled out, I'm sure.

In fact, the body is not ever "all of me." I could show you a picture of an eight year old child, or of a fifty year old man, and in both cases say to you, "That's me." And I would not be lying. But in what sense is that true, if body is all there is?

The fact remains that mind and body are inextricably linked.

Do you breathe oxygen? Do you feel the sunshine on your face? Do you know the joy of athletic competition or artistic creation or the pleasures of educating yourself? Have you ever had a good laugh? Do you recognize the beauty in a landscape? Do you still like the taste of pub food, or enjoy the sound of music? Is there anyone worth loving in your life?

Any and all of these things...

I have heard it said that rats laugh, but I don't know if they get any pleasure from learning, or to what extent they appreciate the beauty in a landscape. I feel confident in saying that they very much like pub food, and a quick inspection of the waste bins behind any pub that serves it will probably bear me out on that. Music; who knows? I believe they are as dependent on oxygen as we are, and I don't think they would make much of a go of things without the sun. So, anyway, what happens to the soul of a secular rat?

[Belinda]

Meditation is a process of subtracting every thought. Because thought is required to describe anything, existence without thought is indescribable, although as a cause the effects can be described.

Meditation is something I never took seriously. Mystical nonsense is probably how I would have described it. Since then I have become aware that some people who I have respect for practice it, and talk about its benefits. So now I accept there must be something to it, but I still don't know what is meant to be achieved by meditation.

Thanks Harbal.



Based on that, I can probably tell you anything you need to know about the topic, beginning with, the ultimate purpose of meditation is the cessation of thought. The purpose of the effects of meditation, which is subsequent thought, is to live.

Not to be confused with contemplation, the purpose of which is thought, and the purpose for the effects of contemplation, is also to live.

I dont agree, Walker. Unless you are in deep sleep you are constantly thinking. Waking awareness implies thinking. The aim of Meditation is calming obtrusive thoughts so that afterwards you can focus better.

[Immanuel Can]

I can conceive of eternal states that don't involve God.

Really? Well, tell me about that.

People have bodies in the eternal state, actually.

Is that just what God says, or do you actually understand how it could be the case?

I just go with Scripture on that one.

For example, Atheist Thomas Nagel, in his book "Mind and Cosmos," argues that the Materialist argument that things like "consciousness," "identity," "volition," "selfhood," "mind" and "rationality" are reducible to "matter" is so utterly unsatisfactory that we are more or less forced to reject it as wrong. Being an Atheist, he hopes some further "naturalistic" explanation can be found to substitute. But he admits that no such explanation exists right now.

He's not the only one. The mind-brain problem is one of the most serious problems with Materialism. It simply does not seem that any explanation that rules out metaphysical answers before it begins is going to be able to tell us what any of the aforelisted properties are...even though we use them every day.

The mind and the brain may or may not be seperate entities, it doesn't matter.

Oh, but it does. If the two are distinct, then free will is rational. If they were identical, it would not be. And that's just one of many such consequences.

The mind cannot exist without the brain,

We don't know that. One thing for sure: the body can exist without the mind. So where does the mind go?

In fact, the body is not ever "all of me." I could show you a picture of an eight year old child, or of a fifty year old man, and in both cases say to you, "That's me." And I would not be lying. But in what sense is that true, if body is all there is?

The fact remains that mind and body are inextricably linked.

Yes, but not identical. As the old saying goes, "Correspondence is not causality." The fact that two things occur together doesn't tell us if the one is causing the other, the other is causing the one, or a third thing is causing both.

So, anyway, what happens to the soul of a secular rat?

Are you particularly concerned for them?

[Dubious]

When you empty your mind that's when you know you know nothing; with a little extra effort, you may not even know that much!