Reality?

[Satori]

TheFiveSolas:
Satori,
How about the following:
Resolved: Satori's worldview cannot rationally account for reason, common sense, the laws of logic, the concept of self/person (i.e., that which unifies the individual atoms that make up an individual), prescriptive ethics, or human freedom of will/choice, and therefore should be discarded.

Interesting conclusion, inaccurate as it is.

Unlike you, I don't make the claim to have all the "answers" ("answer" is itself an interpretation), what I have are *opinions* backed by logic and evidence which I don't claim to be "absolute truths", and unlike you, I don't resort the "god did it" cop-out (which, as I'm sure you realize, explains absolutely nothing and just raises more questions and confusions than it answers). You may as just as well say "it's magic".

You should be aware that the "god did it" bandwagon is one that has lead humanity to extreme heights of ignorance and confusion in the past, and is uninsightful and dangerous.

I do have answers however, and there they are:

reason: an aspect of mind, a function of the physical brain of all creatures who have brains (the means of perception).

common sense: the combined learning, insights, and experiences of the individual that act as a conceptualized template of our world (notice I said template, a map, not "reality").

the laws of logic: subjective interpretations (a map) of our reality, that which results from reason.

the concept of self/person: Oh boy, you hit the nail on the head with this... it's an interpretation of one's mind (just like the concept of the colour blue for example, or the concepts of love/hate), an individual identity we harbour in order that we may conclude that we are absolutely separated and distinct from the rest of the universe (which is of course not so, we are in fact an inseparable part of the universe we inhabit, including our fleshy brains which gives us our sense of identity through its structure). Also, the concept of self is required for our biological survival and propagaion. For example, if a deer harboured no sense of self/division, how would it know to run away when being chased by another animal? It's necessary for animals to surivive (just as is sight and a sense of smell), without which, none of us would exist. The sense of self is an interpretation, a perception, and it is no more "real" than the colour blue or the mental maps we mistake for the territory it represents.

I'm going to go very deeply into this now, and this will likely seem very peculiar to you, but please read carefully what I'm about to say and note the raw logic and evidence I give to suppor the viewpoint:

The sense of self goes right to the very foundation of the divided theist world view. Personally, I don't regard my ego as being so sharply divided from the rest of the universe, but rather a part of it, an expression of it, and considering that such identity exists only in and as a function of the physical brain, and considering that the brain is made from the very same fabric as is the rest of the universe, I conclude that my thoughts and identify are also part of the universe, and I see no reason to draw the lines of absolute distinction as you have done, any more than I see a reason to regard the colour blue as anything more than an interpretation of a particular wavelength of light (think about that, it's highly relavant to the way we mistake the map for the territory).

I'm going to go into a bit of philosophical history now so that you know better where I'm coming from:

The deep-rooted sense of personal division from external reality you and most people harbour wasn't always fashionable. Early Greek philsophers didn't feel that sense of isolation that you do, they regarded themselves as completely one with the universe, not as isolated egos. Eygyptians also saw themselves as part of the world, not segregated from it. They even attributed certain emotions and thoughts to certain parts of the body (ie. they thought the physical heart was the center of emotion, and this idea has persisted to this day, ie. "my heart is broken, my heart aches, I'm a soft-hearted person").

Descartes' (I assume you know who he was) famous statement "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I exist) has led westerners to equate their identity with their mind only instead of their whole organism. This mindset is referred to as the Cartesian division (the one you have), individuals being aware of themselves as isolated egos existing "inside" their heads, instead of being an inseparable part of their whole being. This is of course, ridiculous, and I will show why. The mind is a function of the physical brain, and this is evidenced by the fact that if we interfere with our physical brains in any manner (drugs, surgery, meditation, etc.) that our perceptions, the seat of "self" changes accordingly. Our minds are the result of the function of our brain, the 2 *cannot* be separated. In the Cartesian division the mind is therefore completely separated from the body/brain and is given the futile task of controlling it. This created a very apparent conflict between conscious will and our base instincts (ie. sex, violence, etc.). This is what is commonly referred to as "the human condition" in philosophy, the sense of being perpetually isolated from and completely at odds/conflict with our environment (of which we are, by all accounts, an integral and inseparable part). This leads invariably to endless personal and interpersonal conflicts, metaphysical frustration, profound confusion, and deep-set desires for self-preservation because we conclude that our "selves" are the little thoughts roaming in our heads instead of seeing that it is a part of the universe, a true expression of this reality.

This fragmented and divided world view is further extended to our world and society, we divide everything into neat little sections according to our *interpretation*. This is actually not so, and we have a great many reasons for concluding this. The most weighted of which is the prevailing world view coming from quantum physics, that different and seemingly divided aspects of reality are in fact only manifestations of a single unified reality which lies at the absolute foundation of all things in the universe, including ourselves. This has futher alienated us from nature, from which we are derived and live in a symbiotic relationship with, and from each other, even though we are all just very very slightly different biological expressions of the same dna sequences and we are all derived from the same underlying reality/biology.

The Cartesian division and the mechanistic/newtonian world view that sits "outside" of us is an interpretation and nothing more. It's no more "real" than is the smell of a rose, or the sound of a violin, they are simply interpretations. If we could see right to the very fabric of reality (the domain of religion/philosophy), which is what quantum physics endevours to do, instead of seeing this largely illusory surface reality of segregated/mechanistic parts, we would see a reality that is very much all composed of the same underly parts (proton, electrons, etc.) and that our sense of division is only *interpretative*. For example, hydrogen and lead appear very different on the surface, when in fact, they are composed of the exact same constituent particles. At it's base, reality appears to be uniform and unified, not disjointed, as is the theistic take on reality. In fact, much of what we see is illusory. I keep mentioning the concept of colour because it simply doesn't exist independent of mind, it's an interpretation and nothing more. Colours aren't "real", yet we go about our daily lives without even questioning their validity, just as we go about presuming that our emotion and morality are real, but they are just aspects of mind and do NOT exist independent of mind. Our senses lie to us, the map is NOT the territory, and we should not mistake it as such (but that's what the theist mindset actually does, is presumes all thoughts and interpretations are absolutely real, when in fact, they are only and completely interpretative. This Cartesian division, this mistake of the senses, is where we derive the notion that we are segregate egos living inside our heads.

By the way, the purpose of meditation is to overcome the limitations of the Cartesian division, to feel completely unified with reality, most people don't know that and even fewer understand it. Most people don't realize this either: drugs like LSD are known to completely obliterate the sense of self, the division, and people feel completely one with nature, reality, and god when they take this drug (which I don't suggest anyone do, I'm just stating this to show how truly subjective and fragile our sense of self really is, and how absolutely connected it is to the functioning of our physical brain).

To summarize:

1. At it's foundation, reality is not segregated and disjointed, it's all an expression of the same underlying energy, and this has been extensively shown. It's now accepted pretty much as a fact of physics that even subatomic particles are not separate from the vacuum they inhabit, the such and non-such (matter/space) of physicality are themselves a dualistic expression of a single underlying energy, and it's pointless to draw a strong division between them because they cannot exist independent of one another.
2. The physical brain is just as much an expression of this reality, as as is a rock, star, or a plant and is subject to the exact same physical laws.
3. Our sense of a divided ego (sense of self) stems directly from the functioning of the physical brain and is necessary for our biological survival, it's an interpretation like that of colour/sound, and does not and simply cannot exist apart from the brain's physicality. This is shown by the fact that if we mess with our physical brain we immediately alter our perceptions and concepts of self, showing how truly connected these concepts are to the brain's function. Therefore, self is a function of mind and that's all it is, and it cannot be divided from the physical mind in ANY regard, which is what I feel you are doing when you presume that it is something separate.

I'll simply ask: does the colour blue exist independent of the brain? Obviously, it does not, so why do you think your self of self does too? Your sense of self is rooted in a lack of understanding of the things I've discussed here, a lack of understanding of metaphysics. Your self is just as much an inseparable part of this reality as is the sun or spacetime.

I realize I've said a lot here, but I've tried to be as brief and concise as possible. I realize this must seem really bizarre to you as a person who is deeply seated in the illusory notion of the Cartesian division, and I don't expect it all to sink in right away, or ever for that matter. You simply asked me a question and I answered it, and backed it with real examples of why this is so.

To everyone: I don't expect any of you to fully understand these concepts, but at the very least, I hope I've sparked some flashes of insight into your deepest nature (self, this reality) and the workings of your mind so that you are inspired to think/study this further.


"prescriptive ethics, or human freedom of will/choice": also, aspects of mind, and not separate from mind or reality.

Since you would be defending against the above criticism of your worldview you would need to go first.

I hope you are satisified with my responses. If not, I will gladly elaborate on any concept which you disagree with or have problems comprehending. Just ask.

The physical and the spiritual aren't divided, they are interpretations of a single unified/underlying reality.

Satori

[Satori]

Please note something with regard to the preceeding post:

Unlike theists, I do not assert anything I said above to be in any way an absolute truth, only a subjective truth, an opinion which I deem valid and logical. I tried my hardest not to presume anything, only make correlations between different aspects of reality because I really don't see any good reason to draw such divisions. Nor do I see any good reasons to presume that humanity is the purpose for the universe existing, considering how old and vast it is, considering how small we are in relation to this grander scale, and considering that we just one species in literal BILLIONS that have come and gone since this planet first sprung life.

I expect mateur responses. So far, I've notice a great many of the lesser intelligent theists here like to give cop-out meta-conversational analysis and completely disregard ANYTHING I have said. If that's your intent dear reader, save your breath, as I will only point out your unwillingness/inability to respond.

Please, only your best and brightest, and only people who have something relavant to add/contend.

Satori

[Ishmael]

02-19-2003 @ 01:02 PM
Satori:
Interesting conclusion, inaccurate as it is.
Unlike you, I don't make the claim to have all the "answers" ("answer" is itself an interpretation), what I have are *opinions* backed by logic and evidence which I don't claim to be "absolute truths", and unlike you, I don't resort the "god did it" cop-out (which, as I'm sure you realize, explains absolutely nothing and just raises more questions and confusions than it answers). You may as just as well say "it's magic".


He made no claim that he had all the answers. His proposition that you were to refute was:


TheFiveSolas:
Satori,
How about the following:
Resolved: Satori's worldview cannot rationally account for reason, common sense, the laws of logic, the concept of self/person (i.e., that which unifies the individual atoms that make up an individual), prescriptive ethics, or human freedom of will/choice, and therefore should be discarded.


You should be aware that the "god did it" bandwagon is one that has lead humanity to extreme heights of ignorance and confusion in the past, and is uninsightful [SIC]and dangerous.


Once again you pretend because you write it down it's true. Give some evidence to back up this wide sweeping drivel or keep your opinions to yourself. You have not even begun to address the issue at hand which you yourself placed in the top of this thread.


I do have answers however, and there they are:


We know you have answers, they are just completely absent of any real thought or proof.


reason: an aspect of mind, a function of the physical brain of all creatures who have brains (the means of perception).


No. Reason is:
The intellectual ability to apprehend the truth cognitively, either immediately in intuition, or by means of a process of inference.
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/r.htm

That reason is connected to the physical brain is irrelevant and does nothing to answer to the proposition stated above.


common sense: the combined learning, insights, and experiences of the individual that act as a conceptualized template of our world (notice I said template, a map, not "reality").


E. Cobham Brewer 1810–1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898.
Common Sense
does not mean that good sense which is common, or commonly needed in the ordinary affairs of life, but the sense which is common to all the five, or the point where the five senses meet, supposed to be the seat of the soul, where it judges what is presented by the senses, and decides the mode of action.

Maybe you are trying to speak of sensus communis though you are muddled and obviously ignorant as usual. This expression is used in philosophy to specifically mean knowledge we gain only from the senses and cannot technically be used for “insights” given that the word implies the use of reason, which is by definition not an expression of sensus communis.

Or perhaps you mean to define "common sense" along the lines of Voltaire. Once again you prove yourself to be either a fool or a rank novice in philosophy... A point demonstrated again here:
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volcommo.htm


the laws of logic: subjective interpretations (a map) of our reality, that which results from reason.


No moron. The Laws of Logic are specific laws of thought first developed by Aristotle:
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_lawsoflogic.htm


the concept of self/person: Oh boy, you hit the nail on the head with this... it's an interpretation of one's mind ,


NO. The concept of a Human Person is specifically understood in philosophy and generally accepted to mean: “An individual capable of moral agency. Although the details of their theories of human nature differ widely, Descartes, Locke, Kant, and Strawson all accepted a functional description of the person that includes both mental and physical features: the attribution of responsibility to a moral agent requires both the ability to choose and an ability to act on that choice.”
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/p2.htm

You have still not addressed the topic, instead you redefined a few well-established Philosophical terms… or perhaps you were just unaware that 5Solas was using specific, technical language????


I'm going to go very deeply into this now, and this will likely seem very peculiar to you, but please read carefully what I'm about to say and note the raw logic and evidence I give to suppor [SIC] the viewpoint:


I agree… you are going deep into something… and it’s very peculiar….


<snip>
I'm going to go into a bit of philosophical history now so that you know better where I'm coming from:

The deep-rooted sense of personal division from external reality you and most people harbour [SIC] wasn't always fashionable. Early Greek philosophers didn't feel that sense of isolation that you do, they regarded themselves as completely one with the universe, not as isolated egos. Eygyptians [SIC] also saw themselves as part of the world, not segregated from it. They even attributed certain emotions and thoughts to certain parts of the body (ie. they thought the physical heart was the center of emotion, and this idea has persisted to this day, ie. &quot;my heart is broken, my heart aches, I'm a soft-hearted person&quot;).

Which “early Greek philosophers”? Aristotle, Plato… so many more… but just something from Plato to back this drivel up might make you seem a little less like a foolish, know-it-all, child. Oh… I guess these philosophers were pre-written history philosophers…
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/heisenb5.htm



Descartes' (I assume you know who he was) famous statement &quot;Cogito ergo sum&quot; (I think, therefore I exist) has led westerners to equate their identity with their mind only instead of their whole organism. This mindset is referred to as the Cartesian division (the one you have), individuals being aware of themselves as isolated egos existing &quot;inside&quot; their heads, instead of being an inseparable part of their whole being. This is of course, ridiculous, and I will show why.


Oooo… Latin…
You are going to show us how ridiculous Descartes is??? Cogito Ergo Sum has nothing to do with a separation between the physical brain and a sense of being an individual. This separation and eventual dualism of Descartes was upon philosophical elaboration of the concept. But Descarte was saying in Cognito Ergo Sum , “I KNOW I exist because I can think.” This is all he was arguing and it is well established in Philosophy.

Cartesian Metaphysics Revivitus under the Science of Physics
Werner Heisenberg and others are of the persuasion to think that “being” can somehow be conceived of by “common sense” and that the mind is a part of that common sense (and common sense defined properly, not in the way you have defined it above). They argue that since we “know” that all matter is made up of atoms then we are all the same substance and our sense of self is illusory in that it is a function of the physical mind.

How does this philosophical position help you answer 5Solas proposition? These people aren’t even the original Cartesian Philosophers…
So far you have proven to me that you know absolutely nothing about “your thing” philosophy. So I will dispense with going through the rest of your defense against 5Solas' original proposition, namely:


TheFiveSolas:
Satori,
How about the following:
Resolved: Satori's worldview cannot rationally account for reason, common sense, the laws of logic, the concept of self/person (i.e., that which unifies the individual atoms that make up an individual), prescriptive ethics, or human freedom of will/choice, and therefore should be discarded.

You didn’t even manage to define the terms correctly in starting your supposed answer…

Well… one more thrashing on Cartesian division, shall we?


The Cartesian division and the mechanistic/newtonian world view that sits &quot;outside&quot; of us is an interpretation and nothing more. It's no more &quot;real&quot; than is the smell of a rose, or the sound of a violin, they are simply interpretations. If we could see right to the very fabric of reality (the domain of religion/philosophy), which is what quantum physics endevours [SIC] to do, instead of seeing this largely illusory surface reality of segregated/mechanistic parts, we would see a reality that is very much all composed of the same underly [SIC] parts (proton, electrons, etc.) and that our sense of division is only *interpretative*. <snip example to save space>


Satori shows a mediocre knowledge of Cartesian Metaphysics and plays it off as absolute philosophical truth. Nice try Profundus.

Cartesianism
School of seventeenth-century thinkers who pursued the philosophical aims of Descartes. Prominent examples include Cordemoy, Geulincx, Malebranche, Pascal, Régis, and Rohault. The Cartesians tried to develop a comprehensive science of nature and to resolve the problems about mind-body interaction raised by Descartes's dualism.
Recommended Reading: Richard A. Watson, The Breakdown of Cartesian Metaphysics (Hackett, 1998) and Causation in Early Modern Philosophy: Cartesianism, Occasionalism, and Preestablished Harmony, ed. by Steven Nadler (Penn. State, 1993)
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/c.htm#cart

<snip summary>


I realize I've said a lot here, but I've tried to be as brief and concise as possible. I realize this must seem really bizarre to you as a person who is deeply seated in the illusory notion of the Cartesian division, and I don't expect it all to sink in right away, or ever for that matter. You simply asked me a question and I answered it, and backed it with real examples of why this is so.


Actually, you said poorly, what many others have said well, and really don’t understand most of what you have mentioned in your post… pathetic, really.


To everyone: I don't expect any of you to fully understand these concepts, but at the very least, I hope I've sparked some flashes of insight into your deepest nature (self, this reality) and the workings of your mind so that you are inspired to think/study this further.


A pompous, arrogant fool to the end.


I hope you are satisified [SIC] with my responses. If not, I will gladly elaborate on any concept which you disagree with or have problems comprehending. Just ask.


I am not, it’s a horrible attempt to look intelligent AND…
This entire thread did not even come close to answering 5Solas proposition that you placed in the first post.

[Ryokan]

Don't blame Satori, this is what modern american zen is all about. Much of what he argues here is proposed in :read: zen and the art of motorcycle matienence. History is rewritten, and eastern "philosphy" is reworked so that it can be couched in the western philosphical traditions. This is because most of these "philosophies" are intricately tied to the culture of their origin, do not exclude the practicer from following other religions or philosphies, (for example Confucianism often tempers Taoism, Zen, Pure Land Buddhism, and Shinto coexist and have overlaps in practice, and in Korea most people are Christian but have not left behind these ways of thought. ) They aren't really religions, but western followers need them to be. Furthermore most Eastern paths of liberation don't like the idea of logic, reason, or truth, period. In fact, using those ideas at all would be anathema to them.

[Ryokan]

In addition, Satori, reliable sources tell me that is not what LSD does.

[Pilgrim]

How someone could miss the pure fact that the "color Blue" does exist outside of our minds is beyond me. What does not exist outside of our minds is the language we use to describe the phenomina. Regardless of how we percieve an "essant" as Hiedegger called it, the "essant" is still there.

If everything is conected and of the same "fabric" (something you have not proven or reasonably demonstrated) thus having a common ontology and metaphysic, and if reality is merely perception then why argue with us? Your best course of action would be to change your perception of us.

[Satori]

02-21-2003 @ 07:47 PM
Ryokan:

In addition, Satori, reliable sources tell me that is not what LSD does.

Then your sources are incomplete or wrong. Nearly everyone I know who has dabbled in this drug, including myself, has noticed that their distinct sense of self diminishes. The same is true of mushrooms as well, perhaps even more so. However, one must be so inclined to such an experience in the first place, one must have a small basis for such mystical/selfless tendencies which are exaggerated by these drugs.

Satori

[Satori]

02-21-2003 @ 08:37 PM
Pilgrim:

How someone could miss the pure fact that the &quot;color Blue&quot; does exist outside of our minds is beyond me.

How someone could miss the subjective truth that notions such as morality/reason cannot exist outside of our minds is beyond me.

It is also beyond me how some people cannot realize that "truth" is also an interpretation, but that is the theistic stance nonetheless.

What does not exist outside of our minds is the language we use to describe the phenomina.

Everything you experience is an interpretation. You cannot directly experience this universe or anything in it, you can only see the reflection it gives when it bounces of your brain. I think that's entirely obvious, and completely provable as well of course.

Regardless of how we percieve an &quot;essant&quot; as Hiedegger called it, the &quot;essant&quot; is still there.

This is, at best, only partially relavant. I wasn't talking about what is out there, I was talking about our interpretations of what's out there, and our interepretations are ALL we have. As much as we'd love to presume otherwise, our mental maps are representations of the territory and nothing more. Even the supposed accuracy of these mental maps is itself interpretive. The inherently subjective nature of our perceptions cannot be overcome. This is why the theistic mentality which ascribes a sense of absoluteness to a given metaphysical theory is so very misguided and is so easily dismantled.

If everything is conected and of the same &quot;fabric&quot; (something you have not proven or reasonably demonstrated)

On the contrary, it has been sufficiently "proven" and resonable demonstrated, so much so in fact that in quantum physics it's now something which is pretty much a given. Even big-bang cosmology points to this.

thus having a common ontology and metaphysic,

And it certainly appears that way.

and if reality is merely perception then why argue with us?

Good question, I'll tell you why, in no uncertain terms, no pussy-footing around: I feel personally and ethically obligated to help others overcome such religious/intellectual limitations. I feel that the Cartesian division (the feeling of disconnected isolation which is inherent to the human condition) is the major source of fear and confusion in our world, and also the seat of egocentricism which leads to greed and unfulfillment. I feel that religions such as Christianity are intellectually damaging and limiting and that everyone at the very least deserves the opportunity to be liberated from the sort of psychological mind-tinkering indicative of religious doctrine. I think you all deserve far better than you have been given.

Your best course of action would be to change your perception of us.

Nope, my best course of action is to get you to realize the inherently subjective nature of your perceptions in hopes that you will have the insight and courage to transcend the prison-like dogma which has been imposed on you and prevents you from being truly free to think and interpret this universe in a way that is both logically and ethically sound. Most of all, I want you to be free, and free of fear, free of thinking the point of your existance is to swallow someone else's unintelligent/baseless rhetoric as "fact" without any solid reasons for doing so.

Some of you here probably think I'm here to torture you, that I get my kicks by dismantling feeble religious ideologies. While it is very fun for me to have these sorts of discussions that is not my primary motivation. What motivates me is compassion and my desire to do the right thing. I think you deserve more than you have been given, and I'm just trying to right a terrible wrong. I find the way that religion tinkers with people's minds and sensibilities, the way it plays off your ignorance, deepest hopes, and most awful fears is simply repugnant and that you ALL deserve better than that. That's why I'm here.

Satori

[Pilgrim]

That's baloney. You admit it is all about our perception. The only perception you can hope to change with your understanding of reality, is your own. Because how can you evere be sure that you are not completely mis-percieving us in the first place.

[Satori]

02-21-2003 @ 07:44 PM
Ryokan:

Don't blame Satori, this is what modern american zen is all about.

I didn't feel any sense of "blame", and I must admit that I don't know what you interpret american zen to be.

Much of what he argues here is proposed in :read: zen and the art of motorcycle matienence.

I've never read it, but I have no doubt that it contains a great many insights which reveal lots about the human condition and means of perception.

History is rewritten,

History is also written by the victors.

and eastern &quot;philosphy&quot; is reworked so that it can be couched in the western philosphical traditions.

It's merely re-interpreted and stripped of what little mythology it contains so that it makes sense to westen people who have highly rational and empirical minds (and who are wary of being mislead and brainwashed by baseless rhetoric, as is the western path).

This is because most of these &quot;philosophies&quot; are intricately tied to the culture of their origin, do not exclude the practicer from following other religions or philosphies, (for example Confucianism often tempers Taoism, Zen, Pure Land Buddhism, and Shinto coexist and have overlaps in practice, and in Korea most people are Christian but have not left behind these ways of thought. )

Indeed, Buddhism does not exclude other philosophies, but instead places them in the same context, that is, that they are interpretations, mental maps, ways of perceiving/expressing/understanding and nothing more.

They aren't really religions, but western followers need them to be.

Nope, they are religions to eastern people, they just aren't religions in the context of the western viewpoint because there is no diety threatening, making demands, punishing/rewarding them. To the western mind "religion" is tied up in the idea of being a supplicant to god(s). In the east, "religion" is best described to a western person as "spirituality/mysticism". One doesn't need to hold any outlandish beliefs in order to be spiritual, but that is how westerners see it. I hope you see what I'm saying. It's very much a matter of context and perception, just like everything we experience ultimately is.

Furthermore most Eastern paths of liberation don't like the idea of logic, reason, or truth, period. In fact, using those ideas at all would be anathema to them.

I feel this is a gross simplification. They don't dislike logic, reason, or truth, in fact, such things are discussed in great detail and are pivotal to the mystical traditions and philosophies. What you are referring to is that eastern philosophies generally don't see logic, reason, or truth as being "absolute", something external/tangible, but instead weighted in perception, just a mental map.

If would like any further discussion or clarification of anything I've said here, by all means, please ask.

Satori

[Satori]

Today @ 05:00 PM
Pilgrim:

That's baloney.

Your theory that it's baloney is also a perception and nothing more. Are you mistaking your mental map for the territory?

You admit it is all about our perception.

I don't "admit" it, I state it openly, nice try however, hehe.

The only perception you can hope to change with your understanding of reality, is your own.

Based on my experience I know this is not the case.

Because how can you evere be sure that you are not completely mis-percieving us in the first place.

I cannot, and I cannot know anything to a certainty, and neither can you my friend. That is the very core of what I'm saying.

However, I feel I am not mis-perceiving you because I have a lot of experience in getting into christian people's heads and flushing out their presumptions and miscalculations, and also because I was once a christian myself so I know what it feels like to feel obligated to swallow some mindless and intellectually insulting rhetoric in a quest for the preservation of one's "immortal soul".

Satori

[Satori]

02-21-2003 @ 06:51 PM
Calvinist:
He made no claim that he had all the answers. His proposition that you were to refute was:

My eluding to him thinking he has all the answers was a reference to the old and tired "god did it" cop-out which I felt he was giving by the tone of his post. I don't know how the universe came into being, but unlike most of you here, I refrain from making presumptions about it, especially ones which are rooted in ancient political dogma and egocentric fear/desire.


TheFiveSolas:
Satori,
How about the following:
Resolved: Satori's worldview cannot rationally account for reason, common sense, the laws of logic, the concept of self/person (i.e., that which unifies the individual atoms that make up an individual), prescriptive ethics, or human freedom of will/choice, and therefore should be discarded.

Yes, that is what I was replying to. I think we all knew that.

Satori said: "You should be aware that the "god did it" bandwagon is one that has lead humanity to extreme heights of ignorance and confusion in the past, and is uninsightful and dangerous."

Once again you pretend because you write it down it's true.

Are you really that ignorant of human history? I find that extremely hard to believe.

Give some evidence to back up this wide sweeping drivel or keep your opinions to yourself. You have not even begun to address the issue at hand which you yourself placed in the top of this thread.

Oh dear. You actually want evidence that religion is confusing and dangerous? Ok, here you go: 911. Do you think those brainwashed Taliban fools would've suicide bombed themselves in the absense of the mythology which made it a favourable alternative to living?

We know you have answers, they are just completely absent of any real thought or proof.

There are some things which I feel are so obvious and in the realm of common knowledge that I don't feel they need to be substantiated "real thought" or "proof", however, ask for it and you will recieve it, just as you have here. If 911 isn't "proof" enough for you then I can give many many more examples, including ones involving christainity (but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming you already know about such things and you aren't just pretending to be ignorant for the sake of conversation).

I've noticed that seems to be your style cal, instead of refuting what I say you prefer to suggest it's unsubstantiated. That's a great tactic but one you will find unsuccessful because, unlike you and your christian buddies, I actually put a lot of effort into avoiding saying things which cannot be easily substantiated with empirical reasoning.

Satori said: "reason: an aspect of mind, a function of the physical brain of all creatures who have brains (the means of perception)."

No.

No? Are you saying that reason is NOT an aspect of mind, NOT a function of the physical brain, NOT a means of perception? Interesting theory you got there, it's a shame it's too ridiculous to take seriously.

Reason is:
The intellectual ability to apprehend the truth cognitively, either immediately in intuition, or by means of a process of inference.


Reason is also a function of the physical brain. You have attempted to rebuttal what I said, but you have not done so in the slightest. I suggest you take another stab at it.

That reason is connected to the physical brain is irrelevant and does nothing to answer to the proposition stated above.

Completely untrue. The idea that reason IS a function of the physical brain is entirely relevant to this discussion. I got the impression that Five was attempting to suggest that our physicality does not account for "reason". It does, and this is easily shown by the seeming fact that reason is a function of the physical brain, of course, just as nuclear reactions in stars are the function of compressed hydrogen.

Satori said: "common sense: the combined learning, insights, and experiences of the individual that act as a conceptualized template of our world (notice I said template, a map, not "reality")."

Yes.

E. Cobham Brewer 1810–1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898.
Common Sense
does not mean that good sense which is common, or commonly needed in the ordinary affairs of life, but the sense which is common to all the five, or the point where the five senses meet, supposed to be the seat of the soul, where it judges what is presented by the senses, and decides the mode of action.

I fail to see how this quotation contradicts what I said, and I also fail to see how it is completely correct and how my off the cuff definition is somehow incorrect.

Maybe you are trying to speak of sensus communis though you are muddled and obviously ignorant as usual.

No, I meant exactly what I said. Common sense is not that hard to define. It's purely a matter of the intellect, how we differentiate between what is good for us and this world and what is not. Quite frankly, I find discussion what common sense IS to be rather innane since we all already know what it is. Where we differ in opinion is where we think common sense originates. I think it is and aspect of mind, a way of thinking, and you think it... I don't know.. comes from "god" or something silly and unsubstantiated like that?

This expression is used in philosophy to specifically mean knowledge we gain only from the senses and cannot technically be used for “insights” given that the word implies the use of reason, which is by definition not an expression of sensus communis.

Zzzzz. I see you are burying yourself in these semantics and holding them up as if they are absolute truths which we must adhere to. I find that entirely typical, and sad. If you had a point with this I don't see what it is exactly. Let's see, you started out by disagreeing with my postulate: "common sense: the combined learning, insights, and experiences of the individual that act as a conceptualized template of our world" and then you went off on a tangent which doesn't support your disagreement in the slightest. I suggest you take another stab at it, not that I feel it's necessary, common sense is not that hard to define or understand.

Or perhaps you mean to define &quot;common sense&quot; along the lines of Voltaire.

Nope. I just don't get hung up on and concentrate on such pointless semantics. Common sense is an aspect and expression of mind, the result of learning from our experiences and applying them to the world. That's entirely obvious. It's why you don't stick your finger in a light socket or drink bleach.

Once again you prove yourself to be either a fool or a rank novice in philosophy...

Neither in fact, and you have failed to show this with your semantic tirade of what exactly "common sense" is defined to be. You also desparately cling to your absolutist notions in this quest, neglecting the subjective/interpretive element in all of this, and in doing so you have completely missed the whole point of what I was saying in the post to which you are replying to. I'm not surprised in the slightest by your massive oversight (the map is NOT the territory, your interpretations with regard to the definitions of words are NOT absolute, no matter how much you may wish they were).

A point demonstrated again here:
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volcommo.htm

I read that link and I failed to extrapolate what you have failed to state. I think it's extremely amusing and revealing that this link you posted makes references to "soul" however. Really "deep" stuff, hehehe ;)

Satori said: "the laws of logic: subjective interpretations (a map) of our reality, that which results from reason."

No moron.

No moron? Did your mommy ever tell you that name-calling is ultimately self-defeating? hehhe

The Laws of Logic are specific laws of thought first developed by Aristotle:
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_lawsoflogic.htm]

Again, clinging to your absolutist notions by presuming that your particular definition of something is the only true and correct one (missing the whole point of what I was saying yet again). I find that simply too ridiculous to take seriously. You seem to keep forgetting that I don't subscribe to your brand of philosophy which is weighted in notions of absolutes and egocentricism (cartesian division).

Logic tells me that if I drop my cup on the floor, it will break. This is a clear example of what I said earlier: "the laws of logic: subjective interpretations (a map) of our reality, that which results from reason." Are you presuming that the "laws" of logic AREN'T a mental map of the external world which results from reason? After all, that is what you were attempting to rebuttal. I suggest you take another crack at it.

.... continued...

[Satori]

... Cal continued...


Satori said: "the concept of self/person: Oh boy, you hit the nail on the head with this... it's an interpretation of one's mind"

NO.

No? Oh boy. So you are saying that the sense of self is NOT an interpretation of one's mind, NOT part of the mental map which we use to define ourselves and the universe? That would be funny if it were not so sad. Let's explore this a little more..

The concept of a Human Person is specifically understood in philosophy and generally accepted to mean: “An individual capable of moral agency.

An individual capable of moral agency? So an individual that is incapable of moral agency, such as an immoral serial killer on PCP, has no sense of self? Ridiculous to the extreme. Btw, how does this show that the sense of self isn't an aspect/interpretation of mind? It doesn't. The sense of self is a function of the brain, just as is love, hate, pain, fear, desire, etc.

The sense of self we habour is necessary for our biological evolution, without which no intelligent animals would exist at all. We interpret ourselves as being distinct from the world because if we did not we would have no means of survival/propogation. It's simply a part of our design. Just like pain and fear, the sense of a personal identity is a necessary component in our survival, just as it is in ALL intelligent animals.

Just like the concept of sound or colour, the concept of a personal identity also cannot exist independent of mind, and it is also a creation of mind, an interpretation, a way of viewing things in a way that makes sense to us, and that's all it is. Just like the colour blue, the sense of self isn't literally "real", it's a representation born of the function of the brain. How do we know this? If we mess with our minds we can alter our sense of self, even diminish it to the point where, for brief instances, it's no longer apparent. That show's how "real" this sense of ego truly is.

Although the details of their theories of human nature differ widely, Descartes, Locke, Kant, and Strawson all accepted a functional description of the person that includes both mental and physical features: the attribution of responsibility to a moral agent requires both the ability to choose and an ability to act on that choice.”

"the attribution of responsibility to a moral agent requires both the ability to choose and an ability to act on that choice.”? Oh boy, and here I was thinking we were discussing the root of ego, and you go off on a tangent about morality and responsibility. No wonder this discussion is proving difficult for you to stay on topic.

All those authors you mentioned were absolutely captivated by the Cartesian division and I don't subscribe to their ideas in the slightest. Particularly Descartes, the one with which I am most familiar, who I regard as a confused and extremely self-deluded (constantly mistaking his mental maps for the territory it represents, just as you do, as do nearly all people for that matter so you are far from alone in your egocentric world view, it is held by most people). It will not come as a surprise to you that I find the vast majority of philosophy out there to be simply innane and deluded, an intellectual workout for the egocentric and confused.

You have still not addressed the topic, instead you redefined a few well-established Philosophical terms… or perhaps you were just unaware that 5Solas was using specific, technical language????

I have addressed the topic at its very core.

Technical language? Redefined a few terms? Please. He asked me some questions and I answered them, providing a detailed basis where I deemed most necessary for comprehension. I think that's entirely evident. So far you have done nothing to rebuttal anything I've said, preferring instead to skew and point to other philosophers who disagree with my world view, as if that does anything to support your own religious position in the slightest. If you want to have this discussion with me I suggest you REPLY to what I say, actually rebuttal it, don't just beat around the bush with irrelevant semantics of the religiously accepted definitions for concepts because that does nothing to further your own lofty/speculataive religious claims.

Which “early Greek philosophers”? Aristotle, Plato… so many more… but just something from Plato to back this drivel up might make you seem a little less like a foolish, know-it-all, child. Oh… I guess these philosophers were pre-written history philosophers…

You are claiming to be so versed in these matters and now you are asking me to educate you? Surely you are joking.

I'm unsure if you said that just to have something to whine about or if you actually want me to educate you in these matters. Please clarify and you will get your response.

You are going to show us how ridiculous Descartes is???

No, I don't think I need to do that. His presumptuous nature does that quite nicely I think.

Cogito Ergo Sum has nothing to do with a separation between the physical brain and a sense of being an individual. This separation and eventual dualism of Descartes was upon philosophical elaboration of the concept. But Descarte was saying in Cognito Ergo Sum , “I KNOW I exist because I can think.” This is all he was arguing and it is well established in Philosophy.

I think you need to re-read what you were attempting to rebuttal and take another crack at it. Descartes and his nonsense lead westerners in that dualistic mindset which I find so very absurd and limited.

Cartesian Metaphysics Revivitus under the Science of PhysicsWerner Heisenberg and others are of the persuasion to think that “being” can somehow be conceived of by “common sense” and that the mind is a part of that common sense (and common sense defined properly, not in the way you have defined it above). They argue that since we “know” that all matter is made up of atoms then we are all the same substance and our sense of self is illusory in that it is a function of the physical mind.

Yep. And do you feel you can actually rebuttal this position? If so, why are you so seemingly reluctant to try, preferring instead to dance around with definitions and semantics instead of addressing the point directly? I invite you to do just that.

How does this philosophical position help you answer 5Solas proposition?

He asked about my concept of the sense of self and I answered it, I feel it's an interpretation, a way of viewing reality, but it isn't literally "real", it's only thought. Aren't you paying attention? Or are you merely trying to skew in hopes that someone will think you actually addressed what I was saying?

These people aren’t even the original Cartesian Philosophers…

Irrelevant.

So far you have proven to me that you know absolutely nothing about “your thing” philosophy.

You'll simply have to do better than this I'm afraid, you'll have to attempt to actually *address* something I've said and argue against the concepts therein, which you have not yet done, preferring instead to dance around with your semantics while completely avoiding addressing the concepts I spoke about. Could this be because you are unable to address the concepts directly and dancing with semantics is the only thing you can do? Certainly seems that way to me, and if I am wrong about that then I invite you to demonstrate it.

Perhaps you can start out by telling me how the Cartesian division, which you seem to harbour, is so very "real" and absolutely valid. Perhaps you can tell me how/why mind is NOT just a function of the physical brain. Good luck with that, you'll need it. Perhaps you can tell me how the "laws of logic" are not in fact subjective interpretations (a part of the map) of our reality. Perhaps you can actually refute ANYTHING I've said? Anything? Anything at all? We shall see...

You didn’t even manage to define the terms correctly in starting your supposed answer…

Hehhe, bound by your subjectivity again I see. You actually think such philosophical concepts have a "correct" definition, do you? I see this as a complete indication of how little you understand about my point of view and the philosophy that I enjoy - if you are not only clinging to the absoluteness of your own view point, but the supposedly absolute definition of concepts (which are just thoughts after all, and are no more absolute than the "colour" of the sky). You sound every bit as intellectually absolutist and stuck in the Cartesian mindset as I figured you were.


continued...

[Satori]

... Cal continued...


Well… one more thrashing on Cartesian division, shall we?

Pointing out the typing errors that I made and avoiding directly addressing the concepts really helps your position a great deal Cal. Keep it up and you'll have me completely stumped! haha

Just pointing out how silly the division is, does that pain you in some way since it is the mindset to which you subscribe ? What would make you feel better? How about if I told you that the little voice in your head, your sense of self, your ego, is absolutely real, enternal, and distinct from both your physical brain and the rest of the universe? Would that make you feel better? Would that help you better swallow the idiotic/absurd/repugnant Christian dogma which you likely cling to out of an instinctual need for self-preservation and protection from the sadistic wrath of your beloved creator?

Satori shows a mediocre knowledge of Cartesian Metaphysics and plays it off as absolute philosophical truth.

Then it's a good thing that that wasn't my intent, my intent was only to show how the division is not logically sound, of course. Nice try however, sad and desparate as it was.

Nice try Profundus.

That's right, childish name-calling, which seems to be your way of getting out of tight spots, really gives a lot of weight to your viewpoint which you are so reluctant to even provide! Brilliant! heheh

Cartesianism
School of seventeenth-century thinkers who pursued the philosophical aims of Descartes. Prominent examples include Cordemoy, Geulincx, Malebranche, Pascal, Régis, and Rohault. The Cartesians tried to develop a comprehensive science of nature and to resolve the problems about mind-body interaction raised by Descartes's dualism.
Recommended Reading: Richard A. Watson, The Breakdown of Cartesian Metaphysics (Hackett, 1998) and Causation in Early Modern Philosophy: Cartesianism, Occasionalism, and Preestablished Harmony, ed. by Steven Nadler (Penn. State, 1993)
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/c.htm#cart

&lt;snip summary&gt;

And your point is... ? Oh right, you don't have a point, all you want to do is pretend to show how stupid I am because I am a threat to your beloved Cartesian-styled Christian philosophy.

Actually, you said poorly, what many others have said well, and really don’t understand most of what you have mentioned in your post… pathetic, really.

I completely understand what I said, dispite your lofty hopes to the contrary.

A pompous, arrogant fool to the end.

That's reveals both your maturity and intelligence. If you are so smart and I am so misguided, as you'd love us to believe, why do you feel so threatened by me that you feel the need to resort to childish name calling when we are supposedly having a serious discussion? Do you honestly expect me to take you seriously when you do this, and when you can't even find the courage to actually rebuttal *anything* I've said?

Satori said: "I hope you are satisified with my responses. If not, I will gladly elaborate on any concept which you disagree with or have problems comprehending. Just ask."

I am not,

Then why didn't you take my advice and ask me to elaborate on any concept which you disagree with or which you had problem comprehending? Oh right, you aren't interested in *discussing* this, all you seemingly want to do dance around with pointless semantics and tell me I'm being stupid. How sad, though, not at all surprising. I guess that's the best that you can do so I should be satisfied with your efforts, but I'm not, I expected more, and I'm hoping the next time you reply you actually saying something which rebuttals the concepts which I have kindly provided for you.

it’s a horrible attempt to look intelligent

An attempt to look intelligent? Is that the best you could come up with? Do you not have a single thing to say to counter any of the points I have made? Not one? Come on man, you just need to think a little more deeply.

AND…
This entire thread did not even come close to answering 5Solas proposition that you placed in the first post.

It DID answer them. Perhaps you'd like to try to show otherwise? Perhaps you have something to say in rebuttal to anything I've said? Perhaps you now see that dancing around with semantics instead of addressing the points directly only backfires on you and reveals your inability to counter my viewpoint?

I suggest you show the following:

reason: NOT an aspect of mind, NOT a function of the physical brain of all creatures who have brains (the means of perception).

common sense: NOT the combined learning, insights, and experiences of the individual that act as a conceptualized template of our world (notice I said template, a map, not "reality").

the laws of logic: NOT subjective interpretations (NOT a map) of our reality, that which results from reason.

the concept of self/person: NOT an interpretation of one's mind (just like the concept of the colour blue for example, or the concepts of love/hate), NOT an individual identity we harbour in order that we may conclude that we are absolutely separated and distinct from the rest of the universe (for the sake of our biological survival/propogation).

After all, these concepts are what you were attempting to rebuttal, but you did not do that in the slightest, so I'm asking you to do it now. While you are at it, you should show how everything you say points to the existence of a creator god, since that is the whole point of this discussion, in case that fact has also eluded your detection dear Cal.

I'll be eagerly awaiting.. take your time :)

Satori

[Ishmael]

Satori is back and as nonsensical as before. I won't be able to respond to every jot of your verbase rants as I am occupied with loftier matters these days.

However, rest assured, Satori, that I will be reading your posts daily for the next three weeks for personal entertainment between appointments.

[Pilgrim]

Moderators note...

Pleaser refrain from stringing posts together to avoid the character count limit.

I refer you to the Tweb Rules (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/decorum/) abd specifically rule #6.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Peace,
Pilgrim

[Satori]

Today @ 09:30 PM
Calvinist:

Satori is back and as nonsensical as before.

Then it's a shame that you can't show why. hehe

I won't be able to respond to every jot of your verbase rants as I am occupied with loftier matters these days.

Even if you had the time I sincerely doubt you would be able to respond to my posts seeing as you have shown yourself unable to do so thus far (unless you call dancing around with semantics and name-calling "responding", and I think you do, sad as that is).

However, rest assured, Satori, that I will be reading your posts daily for the next three weeks for personal entertainment between appointments.

Excellent, you may learn something, namely that our perceptions about reality are subjective/interpretive in nature, and with any luck, when you return and have the time, maybe you'll actually be able to formulate a REAL rebuttal of ANYTHING I've said here or anywhere else. In fact, if you fail to do so and instead continue in the childish and self-defeating manner in which you have demonstrated here and in other threads, then I'll be right there to point out your inability to actually respond. No need to thank me, just doing my civic duty by unmasking those who: pretend to say a lot by saying absolutely nothing, and who actually think that such means in some way supports their own view point, which of course, it clearly does not and cannot. In the meantime, I suggest you say 10 Hail Mary's and beg your god for forgiveness for the horrible sin of being completely unable to defend your position :)

When you return I'll be here waiting for you, and if I'm not you can find me on the UM site (I guess I won't be holding my breath for you to take my debate challenge on there either).

Satori

[Satori]

Today @ 09:40 PM
Pilgrim:

Moderators note...

Pleaser refrain from stringing posts together to avoid the character count limit.

I refer you to the Tweb Rules (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/decorum/) abd specifically rule #6.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Peace,
Pilgrim


What? Are you saying that we are limited to 12000 character in each response? Surely you must be joking. I mean, I knew this place was retentive but that's just going to far. I think you guys need to relax a bit and realize that *discussion* is more important that your imposition of these rules. What gives?

Satori

[$cirisme]

Are you saying that we are limited to 12000 character in each response?

Yes. This is a point verses counterpoint debate forum.

Surely you must be joking.

No.

[Ishmael]

Dear Satori:

When I do return I will be happy to debate you some more, right now it would be unwise of me to distract myself with serious thinking and dialogue which is not devoted to my unit.

Sincerely,

CH B

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 11:56 AM
Satori:
Good question, I'll tell you why, in no uncertain terms, no pussy-footing around: I feel personally and ethically obligated to help others overcome such religious/intellectual limitations. I feel that the Cartesian division (the feeling of disconnected isolation which is inherent to the human condition) is the major source of fear and confusion in our world, and also the seat of egocentricism which leads to greed and unfulfillment. I feel that religions such as Christianity are intellectually damaging and limiting and that everyone at the very least deserves the opportunity to be liberated from the sort of psychological mind-tinkering indicative of religious doctrine. I think you all deserve far better than you have been given.

Excellent point! :cheers: I also wanted to compliment you on bringing up the Cartesian perspective. I've read about it in Dennett's book, Consciousness Explained as the Cartesian Theater and how it is a very common mistake to imagine the brain operating as a collection place for your senses and then "rebroadcasting" those collected data points onto some kind of "internal consciousness" where another aspect of the brain takes over for analysis of the data.

The truth is much more complex than that and is demonstrated in a number of neurological processes that demonstrate that the brain constructs its version of reality in pieces in various parts of the brain. Various tests can demonstrate how certain constructs can lag behind other constructs making for some very odd perceptual paradoxes.

The concept of an internal Cartesian Theater with an audience member in your head is just as incorrect as the idea that most people only use X percentage of their brains!

Satori, I've also long felt that the concept of an after life stems from the brain being unable to resolve the perceived paradox of a world continuing on without it. Given that the self-aware human being has never observed a world in which it wasn't present (not only present but the complete focal point!) it would seem very difficult to overcome the sensation that eternal existence would be the most basic and first conclusion reached.

I find it really incredible how clear things become when you start to realize the limitations of a brain wired for survival when the lucky ones lived to be twenty years old and success was measured by how quickly the brain could get you to mate successfully. Short-sightedness, us vs. them mentalities, watching pop culture appeal to the most basic animal needs, etc... When you look at the common reactions to something as horrible as 9/11 it's not really all that different from reactions an ignorant caveman may have had in the face of an exploding volcano.

[Satori]

How you expect people to have serious discussion if you limit them to 12000 characters including the quotes from the other person?

I cannot subscribe to such limitations. Some ideas need a lot more discussion than that.

I think you guys really need to RE-LAX and go with the flow.

Satori

[Pilgrim]

Really? You're the first person to have a problem with it. Strange since you claim to be so at peace with the universe.

[$cirisme]

I cannot subscribe to such limitations.

You'll need to if you wish to participate here. :smile:

Some ideas need a lot more discussion than that.

Rules have been created with a direct purpose. If you have a problem with any of them, please see Boom or Dee Dee.

Really? You're the first person to have a problem with it. Strange since you claim to be so at peace with the univers.

LOL! :lol:

Now that that's over, let's get the conversation back on track. :thumb:

[Pilgrim]

Sorry, I was trying to edit and hit quote by mistake. It'll never happen again.

[$cirisme]

Hehehehe... no problem, I was just giving you a hard time. :wink:

[Satori]

Today @ 09:49 PM
TenDimensions:
Excellent point! :cheers: I also wanted to compliment you on bringing up the Cartesian perspective. I've read about it in Dennett's book, Consciousness Explained as the Cartesian Theater and how it is a very common mistake to imagine the brain operating as a collection place for your senses and then &quot;rebroadcasting&quot; those collected data points onto some kind of &quot;internal consciousness&quot; where another aspect of the brain takes over for analysis of the data.

Cool, I'm intrigued.

The truth is much more complex than that and is demonstrated in a number of neurological processes that demonstrate that the brain constructs its version of reality in pieces in various parts of the brain. Various tests can demonstrate how certain constructs can lag behind other constructs making for some very odd perceptual paradoxes.

I've read a bit about this, though not in the same level of detail that you have, so I appreciate your insights and any further detail you can provide. For me the Cartesian division represents the notion of a sense of self which is divided from the rest of the universe, completely cut off and isolated from the reality which, by all accounts and reason, spawned it. I'm actually quite tired of the old religious argument that the reality of this universe cannot account for the manifestation of consciousness, ego, emotions, etc. Who is to say with any certainty that it cannot account for it?, and why must they invent metaphysical gods to account for them, gods who just somehow possess these features which they instill in us, features which the universe itself supposedly cannot spawn? I find the whole thing simply absurd and silly. To me, superstition isn't the answer to life's most perplexing questions, and saying "god did it" is just a lame cop-out, a grave mistake, and one that is neither supported by the evidence or rationality.

The concept of an internal Cartesian Theater with an audience member in your head is just as incorrect as the idea that most people only use X percentage of their brains!

Well, I understand what you mean, but I wouldn't say it's "incorrect" as I don't subscribe to any sort of absolute ideas, I would say that it's a better fit to the data and perhaps more logically sound to intelligent people who aren't brainwashed with by some religious doctrine and metaphysically obligated to uphold it.

Satori, I've also long felt that the concept of an after life stems from the brain being unable to resolve the perceived paradox of a world continuing on without it.

I have as well, and add to this the fact that the desire for life is so stong, and the instinctual fear of death is so apparent in us, and what you have is a really good reason to invent mythologies which regard humans as immortal with eternal souls that will live on in some supposed blissful paradise forever after death. Wishful thinking such as this clouds our perceptions and negates our rationality. Christianity wasn't the first religion to play upon such hopeful ideas, it merely borrowed from the religions which preceeded it, and it certainly wasn't the last, it's just one of the many that have come in human history.

Given that the self-aware human being has never observed a world in which it wasn't present (not only present but the complete focal point!) it would seem very difficult to overcome the sensation that eternal existence would be the most basic and first conclusion reached.

Yes. And it's certainly no suprise that simple-minded religious "I'm going to live forever" philosophies are held by most people who are lower on the intellectual totem pole. That is not to say that you have to be unintelligent to hold such an egocentric and easily grasped viewpoint, but it certainly helps a great deal (ignorance and mythological delusion walk hand in hand, as history has demonstrated time and time again and is still demonstrating). I think that's the reason why religious people are generally not regarded as intellectuals, though a very small percentage in fact are, and I've known quite a few in my day (and not all are still religious, they overcame it and realized they deserved far better than they were given, something I am greatful for). I have found that for many, fear/wishful thinking are the primary motivations for holding on to such a viewpoint, and that is rooted in the illusory sense of a distinct self. However, when a person comes to identify their sense of self with the self of the universe (sprituality/mysticism), the sense of the personal identity fades and so does all the fear and selfishness (which religions exploit) that comes with it. The Cartesian division is at the absolute ROOT of al of this, which is why I took the time to discuss it, I felt it was extremely important.

I find it really incredible how clear things become when you start to realize the limitations of a brain wired for survival when the lucky ones lived to be twenty years old and success was measured by how quickly the brain could get you to mate successfully.

Indeed, it's all about the context in which things are perceived. If we look from the context of how things appear to us, by all accounts, that we humans are biological animals who are simply trying to make our way in the world just like other animals, then it's easy to see why we think/behave the way we do, and why some of us feel the need to invent or adhere to mythogies which put humanity as the reason for the universe's existence (the height of egocentricism in my book) and the preservation of their supposed "immortal soul" from the wrath of their vengeful gods as one of their primary objectives. Gee, talk about being wrapped up in and blinded by one's own egocentric desires. But I see this as a natural state of mind for some people, though not the best (though perhaps the only one most are capable of comprehending since it's very simplistic, personal, and primitive), which is why I try my best to get them to see through that archaic nonsense for the superstitious and politically-weighted rhetoric that it is. I love them all dearly and I think they deserve better than they've been given, they deserve to live their lives free from such mind-tinkering and being driven by fictional fears/selfish desires. They deserve the opportunity to see and be what they truly are: a part of this universe, an expression of this reality, in all it's beauty and wonderment.

I never understood what is so horrible about simply being a human animal, a mortal. I realize what I am and I love being who I am, an integral part of this universe and nothing more. Sure, I would love to live forever, though it would probably get boring so maybe not, but forunately I'm simply too insightful to adopt such a mentality because reason and evidence do not point to such an outlandish conclusion (but then, reason and evidence aren't that important to religions, it's all about faith and devotion, which is why religions favour the unintelligent and ignorant. When it comes to being religious, being intelligent is not a good thing, it just makes it more difficult to "have faith" in such baseless and whacky theories. I guess "god" doesn't like smart people too much so god gave them the desire to reject such mythology on the basis that it is an insult to their intelligence, hehe).

I think being content with who you really are and what have is the key to happiness. No mythology necessary in my view, no fear, no selfish desires for paradise, no appeasing the gods who are even more egocentric and morally deficient than ourselves, no external purpose/point or law imposed on us, just being who we are: a part of this world, of this ecology, this universe. It's a beautiful thing, and I truly don't see what so horrible about it that people would rather delude themselves with outlandish theories than accept reality as it present itself.

Short-sightedness, us vs. them mentalities, watching pop culture appeal to the most basic animal needs, etc...

Yep.

When you look at the common reactions to something as horrible as 9/11 it's not really all that different from reactions an ignorant caveman may have had in the face of an exploding volcano.

Yes. Many deluded religious fools thought 911 was divinely inspired in some way, an act of Satan or "punishment" or whatever (oh boy that's sad). Ridiculous. Just like Cartesian-styled religions, 911 can be attributed to the self-concerned Cartesian division indicative of the human condition, and as long as we continue to place our egos at the center of the universe problems which result from hate and greed will not decline, they'll only get bigger as our continued intellectual evolution spawns better weapons of mass destruction and our instinctual desire to propogate ourselves will result in us over-populating the planet (killing ourselves and a lot of animal and plant life in the process).

To me, the only solution comes in the realization that we exist IN this universe as a part of it, and that we are all in this together, no us vs. them, no good vs. evil, no man vs. nature. Harmony is the key, and that starts with realizing that we are all a part of a single underlying reality and the Cartesian type of high personal self-regard is NOT the most important thing in the world and should not act as our chief motivation because that leads to selfishness (and fear, rampant desire). I think the only way for us to all live together as one and with our ecology is to realize that we are all in this together, this world and everything in it is a unified whole, not a series of disjointed mechanisms, and if we don't save ourselves no one else will. Peace, respect,

Satori

PS: I didn't go into as much detail as I would've liked, seeing as the administration here feels deeply obligated to limit any reply to any post to 12000 characters, so if I said anything which requires further discussion then by all means, please ask (that goes for anyone). I don't want to leave any stone unturned.

[Satori]

Today @ 09:59 PM
Pilgrim:

Really? You're the first person to have a problem with it.

Considering the conversation and the general mindset of this site, I'm not suprised by this.

Strange since you claim to be so at peace with the universe.

So you think that being at peace with the universe (as I am) means we should simply smile at petty limitations (like the 12000 char limit) and injustices? I'll keep that in mind when Bush bombs Iraq.

Satori

[Ryokan]

Everyone doesn't have time to read massive exposition, Satori. Fortunately, I am familiar with what your saying, and I say this, in your philosophical fframe work, what is love?

[TenDimensions]

Satori:
I've read a bit about this, though not in the same level of detail that you have, so I appreciate your insights and any further detail you can provide.

It sounds like you'd be interested in the previously mentioned book as well as any books written by Steven Pinker. One book that is sitting on my shelf right now is How the Mind Works by him. I haven't gotten to it yet because I'm reading another book on international politics given the current political climate.

For me the Cartesian division represents the notion of a sense of self which is divided from the rest of the universe, completely cut off and isolated from the reality which, by all accounts and reason, spawned it.

Before your posting of the deer running away I hadn't thought of that as a good example. Of course any brain attempting to keep the organism alive would need to distinguish itself from its surroundings.

In Consciousness Explained a very good discussion goes into the evolutionary purposes of the evolved nervous system and its subsequent collection of connections in a centralized location, the brain. Basically the simplest nervous system is meant to let the organism react to its surroundings. As the nervous system got more complex predictions about its environment provided a massive survival edge. Knowing which way your food is going to turn next while your chasing it, knowing if that predator is about to spring for you, etc...

I have a little personal theory that this predicative quality, this wired ability to see patterns, is exactly what people see patterns where there are none and why people so easily believe the possibility of being able to predict the future. Our brains are wired for predictions in order to survive and extending that predisposition into the impossible is only natural if you don't actually confront the scientific evidence.

Well, I understand what you mean, but I wouldn't say it's &quot;incorrect&quot; as I don't subscribe to any sort of absolute ideas, I would say that it's a better fit to the data and perhaps more logically sound to intelligent people who aren't brainwashed with by some religious doctrine and metaphysically obligated to uphold it.

Good point - a truthful scientist really never can make absolute statements. I stand corrected. :wink:

Yes. And it's certainly no suprise that simple-minded religious &quot;I'm going to live forever&quot; philosophies are held by most people who are lower on the intellectual totem pole. That is not to say that you have to be unintelligent to hold such an egocentric and easily grasped viewpoint, but it certainly helps a great deal (ignorance and mythological delusion walk hand in hand, as history has demonstrated time and time again and is still demonstrating).

I suspect you're going to make a lot of intelligent believers very upset with that statement above. Like all things in life, I think religion is very complicated and does not easily fit into a black and white pattern of ignorants vs. intellectual superiors. There are plenty of ignorant people. Some of them choose to believe and other choose not to believe for no other reason than they want to rebel against their parents. Of course, I've argued with more than one believer who felt this pretty much explained all atheists, but like I said, there are ignorant people in both camps. :smile:

I do happen to agree though that education plays a great role - in at least core Fundamentalist beliefs as opposed to just belonging to a religion. When Scientific American published their "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" and Creationists all over the country went ballistic, it contained an intriguing chart that every Creationist so far has defended only by pointing out it had nothing to do with the article. :huh:

The chart clearly demonstrated that the percentage of adults who recognized the core principals of Creationism as "truth" declined dramatically with the level of education they received. It ranged from high school only to Ph.D. I have yet to see a satisfactory rebuttal from any Creationist on that point.

However, when a person comes to identify their sense of self with the self of the universe (sprituality/mysticism), the sense of the personal identity fades and so does all the fear and selfishness (which religions exploit) that comes with it. The Cartesian division is at the absolute ROOT of al of this, which is why I took the time to discuss it, I felt it was extremely important.

I always have recognized my own theological evolution from seeing God as a personified entity, to seeing the logical paradox that arises from the existence of a thinking, omniscient, and omnipotent God, to an Eastern philosophy, to outright atheism. Your statement though has made me think that perhaps that could be developed into a clear "exit strategy" for those trapped in the concept of a higher authority with conscious command over the "Plan of Life".

Incidentally, I'm interested to hear any believer explain to me how any conscious being who knows the future so completely as God could ever make a decision to do anything. Believers can wiggle out of the free will issue by saying that just because God knows what you're going to do doesn't mean it's still not your choice - but I can't see how that logic applies to God himself!

I love them all dearly and I think they deserve better than they've been given, they deserve to live their lives free from such mind-tinkering and being driven by fictional fears/selfish desires.

I doubt any believer would believe that you "love them all" since obviously they think they have the corner market in being able to love thy neighbor through unselfish motives. After all, without faith in God and a fear of punishment why in the world would you love strangers?

They deserve the opportunity to see and be what they truly are: a part of this universe, an expression of this reality, in all it's beauty and wonderment.

Unweaving the Rainbow is another great book by Richard Dawkins. People seem to have this notion that thoroughly explaining a mystery somehow takes away from its beauty and wonderment. Obviously this isn't the case and Dawkins presents those arguments in this book.

I realize what I am and I love being who I am, an integral part of this universe and nothing more. Sure, I would love to live forever, though it would probably get boring so maybe not

I always was amazed at how the core of the Christian religion depended on man being Fallen and somehow we were all sinners. Humility and understanding our faults is one thing, but artificially constraining the entire human race from trying to achieve more than we ever dreamed seems self-defeating to me. Somehow, though, Christians don't see that line of thinking as mental shackles and it befuddles me.

I think being content with who you really are and what have is the key to happiness.

Amen! With all of its faults and warts! I would only add to it that since only you are capable of bringing meaning to your life some of the most noble "meanings" you could have would be to learn from every experience who have and to try and touch another person's life.

I think the only way for us to all live together as one and with our ecology is to realize that we are all in this together, this world and everything in it is a unified whole, not a series of disjointed mechanisms, and if we don't save ourselves no one else will.

Agreed! One of the final dividing points in the human race continues to be the same basic faults that have been hounding us since the Stone Age - fear of the unknown, us vs. them mentality that leads people to be mistrustful of anyone who looks different, and cultural differences that usually amount to religious differences.

[Satori]

Today @ 02:51 PM
Ryokan:

Everyone doesn't have time to read massive exposition, Satori.

Irrelevant. Some people do have the time, and the interest, and it applies only to those people.

Fortunately, I am familiar with what your saying, and I say this, in your philosophical fframe work, what is love?


What is love? Are you serious? I have a hard time believing anyone could ask such a question in a serious manner. I know where this is going, and it's one of those super-lame pro-theistic arguments which I (quite frankly) find beneath me, however, since you were kind enough to ask, I'll answer, and we'll see if you can find a basis for disagreement with my response:

Love is what you THINK it is, love is what you deem it to be. Love is a concept, a creation of mind, and it cannot exist independent of mind.

What is hate? What is fear? What is sorrow? The same definition can be applied to these words as well.

best wishes,

Satori

[Pilgrim]

Yesterday @ 06:19 PM
Satori:



Considering the conversation and the general mindset of this site, I'm not suprised by this.



So you think that being at peace with the universe (as I am) means we should simply smile at petty limitations (like the 12000 char limit) and injustices? I'll keep that in mind when Bush bombs Iraq.

Satori

Well if you consider bombs in Iraq as a "petty limitation" then I think we have something else to talk about.

But basically yes, if you were t peace with the universe than the things of the universe would not hold much problem for you.

Of course I see things differently and the reason is this, I am not at peace with the universe because the universe is not at peace with itself. What I AM at peace with is the creator of that Universe. Put those two things together and you get a person of faith who very much does not smile at those things which you call "petty." (Well actually the character limitation is a pretty stupid thing for one to get upset at, especially for one who claims to be so much at peace with all things and in tune with the bigger picture.) What you get is someone involved in social causes and the causes of the Gospel for logical and understandable reasons.

You can not say the same thing with out admitting that you are really not at peace with the universe. And to do that would be to admit that your framework is not working the way you think it should..

[Satori]

Rock on! I didn't think I would meet someone like you on this site, but I'm glad that I did.

Today @ 03:01 PM
TenDimensions:
It sounds like you'd be interested in the previously mentioned book as well as any books written by Steven Pinker. One book that is sitting on my shelf right now is How the Mind Works by him. I haven't gotten to it yet because I'm reading another book on international politics given the current political climate.

You are correct, I would be very interested in that. This Pinker guy sounds amazing.. (writing down).

Before your posting of the deer running away I hadn't thought of that as a good example. Of course any brain attempting to keep the organism alive would need to distinguish itself from its surroundings.

Yes, I felt I was just stating the obvious. The sense of self is simply a necessary component for survival, just as is fear and pain, without which none of us would exist.

In Consciousness Explained a very good discussion goes into the evolutionary purposes of the evolved nervous system and its subsequent collection of connections in a centralized location, the brain. Basically the simplest nervous system is meant to let the organism react to its surroundings. As the nervous system got more complex predictions about its environment provided a massive survival edge. Knowing which way your food is going to turn next while your chasing it, knowing if that predator is about to spring for you, etc...

Excellent, I've often thought about this but not quite in that manner, very interesting.

I have a little personal theory that this predicative quality, this wired ability to see patterns, is exactly what people see patterns where there are none and why people so easily believe the possibility of being able to predict the future. Our brains are wired for predictions in order to survive and extending that predisposition into the impossible is only natural if you don't actually confront the scientific evidence.

Oddly, I've always thought the same thing. Given the complexiety of our brains and our tendency to live out our lives steeped in various delusions, nothing seems that surprising me to, not even religion.

I suspect you're going to make a lot of intelligent believers very upset with that statement above.

Excellent, that was my intention. I find that people generally give their best performance when they feel they must defend their own intelligence. I don't actually think they are ALL unintelligent, but it certainly helps if one's desire is to be religious. The more you know and the more intelligent you are the harder it is for you to be mislead with such mindless and intellectually insulting dogma.

Like all things in life, I think religion is very complicated and does not easily fit into a black and white pattern of ignorants vs. intellectual superiors.

Of course not, I agree completely, I was just speaking in a very general sense. Based on my experiences, past and present, I have found that most people who reject religious dogmas do so on the basis that they feel it's simply too low-level and intellectually insulting to be taken seriously. Even 12 year olds are able to discern that there's something fishy going on, and as such they are unable to force themselves to swallow the dogma. Because of this I strongly suspect that the majority of christians here and elsewhere, the intelligent ones at least, realize the whole thing is extremely suspicious but they either negate or repress these thoughts in favour of faith in the doctrine (probably out of wishful thinking and fear of the consequences of making the "wrong" choice). That's why I consider fear-based egocentric religions to be intellectual traps from which escape is nearly impossible, and I deem that ethically unjustifiable.

There are plenty of ignorant people. Some of them choose to believe and other choose not to believe for no other reason than they want to rebel against their parents.

From my experiences, the ones who are deluded from birth who eventually step out of the mind-trap in their early teens do so not only as a form of rebellion, but also because they feel in their hearts that it simply isn't right, and they feel it's an insult to their intelligence. I heard that more times than I can count. I'm sure many do so purely out of rebellion, but I have found that those types usually find themselves groveling for forgiveness by the time they reach their late teens.

Of course, I've argued with more than one believer who felt this pretty much explained all atheists, but like I said, there are ignorant people in both camps. :smile:

Indeed there are! However, if religiousity and blind faith in archaic dogma are the objectives (and they are), I have found that a slightly higher degree of intelligence and introspection (and courage too perhaps) makes it much more difficult for people to be faithful. This is why I feel (and see) that religion tends to favour those of lower intelligence. Of course, really intelligent people get wrapped up in it too, there are many more deciding factors involved than just intelligence, some people are just more likely to following the leader, some have greater fears, some have a religion pushed on them so stongly in their formative years that it becomes a part of how they view themselves and the universe and they cannot think outside the box.

I do happen to agree though that education plays a great role - in at least core Fundamentalist beliefs as opposed to just belonging to a religion. When Scientific American published their &quot;15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense&quot; and Creationists all over the country went ballistic, it contained an intriguing chart that every Creationist so far has defended only by pointing out it had nothing to do with the article. :huh:

Interesting. I guess we can't blame them for going nuts, after all, for them, there is a great deal at steak and the last thing they need in their quest to "believe" is to have their faith struggles made harder by cold reason. I feel particularly sorry for the creationists because for them the struggle to maintain faith is far more difficult since they have far more to defend their stance against. It can't be an easy way to go through life, and I feel for them.

The chart clearly demonstrated that the percentage of adults who recognized the core principals of Creationism as &quot;truth&quot; declined dramatically with the level of education they received. It ranged from high school only to Ph.D. I have yet to see a satisfactory rebuttal from any Creationist on that point.

Rest assured, if there were a rebuttal it would be just as self-deluded and inherently dishonest as the rest of that creationist nonsense. Wow, sometimes I have trouble believing that people actually buy into that stuff, but I have to admit, the people who spew such nonsense can be very convincing if your BS detector is not working properly or if you are inclined/obligated to buy into it for other reasons (such as morbid fear of not buying into it). How sad. But anyway, trying to reason with most creationists is futile because for them reason is devalued, it's all about faith and the protection of their egos from the wrath of their beloved "god", sad as that is, reason is merely another obstacle to be overcome. I've read lots of creationist propoganda in recent months, and I am quite disturbed by the lengths they'll go to to attempt make the physical evidence mesh with the doctrine. It would be funny if it were not so sad. :(

I always have recognized my own theological evolution from seeing God as a personified entity, to seeing the logical paradox that arises from the existence of a thinking, omniscient, and omnipotent God, to an Eastern philosophy, to outright atheism.

I'm atheistic myself, but I don't use that label on myself because it would imply that I have an absolute opinion on the matter, and I do not. What I am sure of is that the concept of god portrayed in modern religion leaves much to be desired. I prefer to label myself agnostic and non-theist, I have no stongly held opinion, and in a way I don't think it's all the important to the state of humanity.

Your statement though has made me think that perhaps that could be developed into a clear &quot;exit strategy&quot; for those trapped in the concept of a higher authority with conscious command over the &quot;Plan of Life&quot;.

Intriguing.

Incidentally, I'm interested to hear any believer explain to me how any conscious being who knows the future so completely as God could ever make a decision to do anything. Believers can wiggle out of the free will issue by saying that just because God knows what you're going to do doesn't mean it's still not your choice - but I can't see how that logic applies to God himself!

The whole thing is riddled with self-contradiction and I find it extremely disheartening.

I doubt any believer would believe that you &quot;love them all&quot; since obviously they think they have the corner market in being able to love thy neighbor through unselfish motives. After all, without faith in God and a fear of punishment why in the world would you love strangers?

Indeed. A better question would be, why would I NOT love them? What prevents me from loving them? For me, it boils down to self identity. I identify myself with this world and everything/everyone in it, and I am consciously *choosing* to love everyone because I feel it's in the best interests of myself and everyone else to hold this mindset, I have spent a lot of time and effort cultivating love/compassion purely for that reason, and now it has become a part of me so much that I can't really remember not feeling this way.

Unweaving the Rainbow is another great book by Richard Dawkins. People seem to have this notion that thoroughly explaining a mystery somehow takes away from its beauty and wonderment. Obviously this isn't the case and Dawkins presents those arguments in this book.

I agree.


I always was amazed at how the core of the Christian religion depended on man being Fallen and somehow we were all sinners. Humility and understanding our faults is one thing, but artificially constraining the entire human race from trying to achieve more than we ever dreamed seems self-defeating to me. Somehow, though, Christians don't see that line of thinking as mental shackles and it befuddles me.

Me too. We can do better than we have thus far, and I feel that starts with recognizing that beneath the surface we are all the same. Fear destroys, and chrisitianity is based in fear, and guilt, it's sad. :(

Agreed! One of the final dividing points in the human race continues to be the same basic faults that have been hounding us since the Stone Age - fear of the unknown, us vs. them mentality that leads people to be mistrustful of anyone who looks different, and cultural differences that usually amount to religious differences.

To me, religion, race, and political alliances are things which divide us, make us fearful and mistrustful of one another, and therefore the root of a great many social problems we face. That's why I feel the solution, unattainable for most people as it is, is to dispell that sense of a personal ego and realize that we are one with everything and everyone in the universe. ONLY then can unconditional love, compassion, and forgiveness fill our hearts and minds. It's a shame that "god" doesn't agree. I guess it has its own agenda which doesn't jive with such a high degree of morality/ethics.

Sat

[Satori]

Today @ 05:04 PM
Pilgrim:
Well if you consider bombs in Iraq as a &quot;petty limitation&quot; then I think we have something else to talk about.

Nice try at misinterpreting what I was saying, but that's not going to fly I'm afraid. I feel the 12000 char limit is a petty injustice, just as I feel someone cutting in line at the grocery store is a petty injustice. Because I am at peace with myself and the universe you are saying that I should just smile at such injustices? I think otherwise. Of course, I accept this retentive rule in this communist-like board with all these rules and restrictions on everything, but I don't have to be happy about it, and I don't have to pretend I'm ok with it, accepting of things which I cannot change as I am.

But basically yes, if you were t peace with the universe than the things of the universe would not hold much problem for you.

You obviously failed to grasp what I said, so I will elaborate. I'm ok with the limit, I accept it, it does not make me any less at peace with myself or anyone, I just feel it's an incredible stupid restriction imposed for no solid reasons. This is, by FAR, the most retentive site I've ever come across, and I think you guys would do yourselves some good to loosen up a bit with the imposition of the rules. This char limit and the "rule" of not allowing a single post to span multiple posts means that we are limited in what we can say. I would think the pursuit of conversation would mean more to YOU than a few thousand extra characters, but apparently it does not, and I find that more than a little sad.

Of course I see things differently and the reason is this, I am not at peace with the universe because the universe is not at peace with itself.

Then that is something for to you endeavour to achieve, that is, if you see the value in it and you are so inclined, of course.

What I AM at peace with is the creator of that Universe.

Which creator would that be exactly? There are so many to choose from, so I'll assume you are at peace with whatever creator is fashionable in the society in which you were born and raised. Just a hunch. And of course, there's also the little problem with the fact that you don't even know with any degree of certainty (though you probably auto-convince yourself otherwise I'm sure) that such a creator even exists, and assuming it does (and that's a HUGE assumption), you have no idea what it thinks or what role it plays in your life (though again, I'm sure you probably convinced yourself otherwise, just as people from many different cultures have been doing throughout the majority of human history, so you far from alone in that).

Put those two things together and you get a person of faith who very much does not smile at those things which you call &quot;petty.&quot;

I'm glad you are ok with the char limit. In fact, I suspect you usually don't reach the limit and then have to cut what you are saying short to appease the board dictators. But suppose the char limit was 100 letters. How would you feel then? I feel that your inability to see how petty and limiting the char limit is stems from your inability to put yourself in my shoes. I have a lot to say and sometimes, very often actually, 12000 chars just isn't enough. It's a shame that you cannot understand that. I'm sure for you 12000 chars is plenty, for me, it's an eye-blink, espeically when you consider the quotations from the other respondent. I don't expect you to agree that the limit is petty and conversationally limiting, but I would at least expect you to understand how it is to ME. Different strokes for different folks, not everyone views everything in the same way, and nor should they, our personal subjectivity and experience plays a huge role in this which you are completely disregarding. I thought that at the very least you would understand where I was coming from and see that I make a very valid point, but you have proven unable to do that, instead you choose to remain transfixed in your own point of view that the limit is not a petty limitation for others. I'm not surprised.

(Well actually the character limitation is a pretty stupid thing for one to get upset at,

Is it really? And this is an "absolute truth" I suppose, just like the doctrine you hold dear? Interesting. I see you leave no room for flexibility in matters of personal opinion. You seem to think your opinions on such things are absolutely valid and all other opinion which disagree with your own are somehow "wrong". I think this is part of the problem.

especially for one who claims to be so much at peace with all things and in tune with the bigger picture.)

So it's your stance that someone at peace with the universe should not fume over petty limitations and injustices like the char limit? I find that simply too innane to take seriously, sorry.

What you get is someone involved in social causes and the causes of the Gospel for logical and understandable reasons.

I am involved in social causes (and I think the pervasive, condemning, guilt-tripping nature of fear-mongering religions is one such cause, which is why I'm here).

The "causes of the Gospel"? Oh dear, no comment necessary on that one, it speaks for itself.

You can not say the same thing with out admitting that you are really not at peace with the universe.

I am at peace with the universe, but this does not mean that I should stand by and let petty injustices go uncritiqued.

Also, I would not say the same thing because I think the "causes of the Gospel" are simply well beneath my intelligence and sense of morality, and I think humanity can do much much better than that barbaric and ethically deficient nonsense. I know I have done much better, so I don't see why others cannot as well. Unconditional love, compassion, and forgiveness are not as difficult to cultivate as you probably suspect, it's a very attainable goal, but since you believe your god is incapable of such I can understand why you would assume that you are incapable of it as well, being a lowly fallen human and all. But you aren't incapable of it, and I'm sure of that, though I don't expect to convince you of that any time soon. Besides, surpassing your beloved god in terms of ethics would probably make it even more jealous and angry, and thus more vengeful and cruel, so I guess you are best to not take any chances and stick with placing strict conditions on your capacity to love and forgive others, it's the safest bet from your point of view I'm sure.

And to do that would be to admit that your framework is not working the way you think it should.

My framework does not "work" the way I think it should, *I* work the way I think I should, the framework is just a template for me, a guide, I do not adhere to it blindly and faithfully. I am in control of the framework, I direct it, it doesn't control me or dictate what is right/wrong. According to *me*, this char limit is petty, and I'm sorry that you are so stuck in your own point of view that you cannot see the validity of someone else's who holds a different opinion. I see this as a symptom of your character, an inability to put yourself in someone else's shoes, which also leads you to be say things like "What you get is someone involved in......the causes of the Gospel for logical and understandable reasons."

Best wishes,

Satori

[Pilgrim]

My framework does not "work" the way I think it should, *I* work the way I think I should, the framework is just a template for me, a guide, I do not adhere to it blindly and faithfully.

Well if such a self indulgent framework does it for you then more power to you.

[Satori]

Today @ 06:24 PM
Pilgrim:
Well if such a self indulgent framework does it for you then more power to you.

Self indulgent? That's quite interesting considering my framework is one which is *selfless* at it's core, one that endeavours to move away from the strict confines of an isolated ego instead of toward it.

I think "self indulgence" is a far better description for the christian framework since this framework is absolutely egocentric to the core and it's motivations are geared by the protection/preservation of the presumed "immortal soul" (which is actually just one's little isolated ego).

I'm growing tired of this now, it's leading nowhere, so I'll let this drop now if you will so that we can both move on to better things. Deal? I'll even give you the last word... go for it dude ;)

best wishes,

Satori

[Pilgrim]

You've got it just the opposite. You're always talking about you're peace, and how you percieve things. Your framework is completely subjective and so must be self indulgent, it is unavoidable. Your whole framework is about self and the perception the self has.

The Christian framework, at its best, is other centered. The main

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 01:01 AM
Woman:
I applaud your attempt to state concisely (yeah, the post is lengthy, but the &quot;Meaning of Life&quot; stubbornly refuses to be squeezed into one book, one collection of pithy sayings, etc.) how you feel about the Big Questions. That you allow yourself to post them here, knowing you will be misunderstood and vilified, is rather heroic.

Frankly I was shocked at the intensity of some people's anger.


Huh? Like what? Satori routinely publishes self-contradiction. I admire the restraint of the respondents. What written bits do you think were indicative of "anger"? One example will suffice (so make it a good one?).


You obviously push buttons that activate strong judgements.


Satori seems to me both arrogant and self-contradictory, which is not an ideal combination, imo. I'd be happy to share examples if you'll humor me with the instance of anger requested above.


It's not as though you were standing on a street corner handing out pamphlets and trying to convince passers-by of your philosophy. But then, I am often taken aback by some of the hateful reactions of the followers of Christ who was all about love.


It is, however, as though Satori came here claiming to look for good debate opponents, whence he proceeded to simply make all sorts of grand and largely self-stultifying pronouncements, while giving oblique (and haughty!) responses to those who answered him.

[Ishmael]

It is, however, as though Satori came here claiming to look for good debate opponents, whence he proceeded to simply make all sorts of grand and largely self-stultifying pronouncements, while giving oblique (and haughty!) responses to those who answered him.

So true. A summary statement of how we all feel about Satori.
ALSO...
This is my pick of the day!

[Ryokan]

well, satori, I am not a theist, so I am not sure what you are talking about, but you say you love everyone and everything at one point? But love is completely abitrary? SO then, why is it more diserable than say, hate?

[Ryokan]

also, if you are "peace" with the universe, what is peace? another abitrary judgement? or the universe? how about asking were these conceptions come from, if there is no conciever?